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

[amazon 0875521967 thumbnail]

Over the past few years I have fallen in love with the Pentateuch. I now see it as some of the richest theology in all of Scripture. So when I saw this book from P & R Publishing, its title and evocative cover had me hooked in no time flat. Waiting for the Land: The Story Line of the Pentateuch by Arie C. Leder did not disappoint. Instead old insights were crystallized and new gems were discovered as I paged through this wonderful book.

My copy of this book is so dog-eared and underlined that for a long time I’ve hesitated to write this review. I know I won’t be able to say everything I want to about this book, or share every insight that I gained through reading it. I almost want to read the book again right now, as I prepare to finish this review!

What Leder does in this book is to look at the Pentateuch as a whole, and to find the big picture behind it. He analyzes each part and applies the insights of a variety of scholars, yet maintains an evangelical approach throughout. He unpacks the power of narrative and then provides detailed analyses of the structure of each of the Pentateuch’s five books. He argues that the Pentateuch is the ultimate cliff-hanger. The final editors of the Pentateuch know the ultimate ending (as recorded in Joshua), yet they deny the reader the benefit of seeing the end. Like Moses, we are left on a hill overlooking the promised land. And this is an intentional part of the book. Israel is “waiting for the land”, and this waiting continues down to today. Leder argues, and I agree, that this waiting shaped Israel’s experience of the land itself, and shapes how the church views its own wilderness pilgrimage.

The narrative structure of the Pentateuch

The narrative problem of the Pentateuch, as expressed by Arie Leder, is that Israel refused Divine Instruction and was thus exiled. Therefore, the message of the Pentateuch as we find it in its canonical form, speaks directly to the Jewish people post-exile. The structure of the Pentateuch is one gigantic chiasm. Genesis stands opposed to Deuteronomy, each dealing with the separation of Israel from the nations, blessing, seeing the land (but not permanently dwelling in it) and promises concerning descendants and the land. Exodus and Numbers both detail Israel’s desert journeys, describe apostasy and plagues, have a role for magicians (Pharaoh’s magicians and Balaam), and discuss the first-born and Levites’ dedication to God. Then Leviticus is the crux, dealing with sacrifices, cleanliness and holiness. The center of Leviticus is the Day of Atonement, and since all of the Pentateuch is about how to live life in God’s presence in the land of promise, it is interesting to note how central a redemptive sacrifice is to it all.

Central to the Pentateuch is the role of fellowship with God, and building projects. God builds the world to be the place of fellowship, but this is marred by sin. Then mankind rebels and builds a tower for their own fellowship apart from God’s presence. Ironically the Israelites are forced to build the towers of Egypt, but end up voluntarily building a tabernacle for the LORD. This tabernacle allows God to dwell in Israel, albeit with barriers to separate His holiness from their sin. God is the one who undoes what man had done: God initiates this building project, and ultimately no temple will be needed as God will finally dwell with his people (of all ethnicities) in the new Jerusalem, where the Lamb is the temple.

Divine presence and the promised land

Leder argues that the Divine presence is the defining characteristic of the promised land, and that all too often this is forgotten in discussions of the nature of the promised land. The church is to be viewed as God’s desert people today, as Hebrews 3 and 4 intimate. Leder explains:

Israel’s desert transition from Egypt to Sinai defines how believers at all stages of sanctification wait for the land: not in triumphal transformation of the desert, but in the regular testing of a rebellious heart and the experience of God’s surprising provision of daily sustenance. (p. 198-199)

Israel foreshadows the body of Christ as the temple of God, in which each member is a living, priestly stone (1 Peter 2:5, 9; cf. Ex. 19:5). (p. 201)

The desert is not only an historico-geographical reality but also a theological reality, one that teaches Israel not to think of herself as a landed people, for no earthly soil can produce the fruit of righteousness. (p. 203)

Ultimately,

…Jesus completes the desert journey for his people. With his ascension he brings them into the intimate presence of God (Heb. 10:19), from where he pours out the Holy Spirit to indwell the body of Christ, the church, God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19) on earth. Thus indwelt, the church of Jesus Christ awaits a promised future: not land to cultivate, but rest from her work just as God rested from his (Heb. 4:6-11), a full rest in God’s presence for all who have been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 21). (p. 204)

Separated from earthly cultures and ethnicities, and in transition to the heavenly city, God’s people will suffer a constant uprooting from the soils of their past and will be eager for enduring instruction in righteous cultivation of the fruit that produces holy distraction from the world and its interests. (p. 205)

I could go on offering quote after quote, but you’ll have to get the book and read it for yourself.

Replacement theology?

Some may take issue with supposed “replacement theology” here. But such is not the case. He sees the church as the ultimate fulfillment of believing Israel, not a replacement of it. Furthermore, the argument is directly tied to and springs from the text itself. Since the Pentateuch itself was concerned with the presence of God more so than mere land, the New Testament’s claims about God’s presence and the church are rightly seen as an outgrowth of this native OT concern. Even if you disagree with some of Leder’s theology, studying this book will prove immensely rewarding as time and again he focuses us on the power of the text.

I devoured this book and I expect you will too. It’s written in an accessible and clear way, with many helpful charts and diagrams. You will be blown away by the connections Leder finds throughout the Pentateuch, so you’ll want to take notes. Perhaps after reading this book, you too will fall in love with the Pentateuch anew.

Author Info: Arie C. Leder is Martin J. Wyngaarden Senior Professor of Old Testament Studies at Calvin Theological Seminary.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Bob Hayton Bio

Bob Hayton has a BA in Pastoral Theology with a Greek emphasis and a MA in Bible from Fairhaven Baptist College and Seminary in Chesterton, IN. He is a happily married father of seven who resides in St. Paul, MN. Since 2005, he has been blogging theology at FundamentallyReformed.com, where he has also published over 190 book reviews. He can also be found occasionally at KJVOnlyDebate.com.

Discussion

Bob,

How much weight does Leder put on source, form, and redaction criticism? Do you think that the Pentateuch was written by Moses (with the exception of the last few verses, and maybe a few late edits)? Or compiled by exilic/post-exilic editors? You state that he maintains an “evangelical approach throughout.” How can a late Pentateuch be considered an “evangelical approach?”

By the way, fundamentalists and the more conservative (but non fundamental) evangelicals (think Westminster) fought that battle a hundred years ago (O.T. Allis - “The Five Books of Moses”). Many evangelicals within Old Testament studies, in order to be considered “relevant” in the scholarly world have gone back to the higher critical positions (Dillard, Longman, Enns, et. al).

Being a Pentateuch guy, I’ll get to this book eventually.

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.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Thank you for this review. Putting the book on my CBD Wishlist.

Mathew Sims

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.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[CAWatson] Bob,

How much weight does Leder put on source, form, and redaction criticism? Do you think that the Pentateuch was written by Moses (with the exception of the last few verses, and maybe a few late edits)? Or compiled by exilic/post-exilic editors? You state that he maintains an “evangelical approach throughout.” How can a late Pentateuch be considered an “evangelical approach?”…
Chris,

He would except the last few verses and a few late edits, I believe. He seemed similar to John Sailhamer on that, whom I’ve also read. Sailhamer argues for an inspired redaction applying the Pentateuch for the exilic time but that it is still almost entirely Mosaic.

Do we know when the Canon was shaped together as we have it today? It is clear there is a shape to the Hebrew canon and the time period when that was done was most likely post-exilic, in the time of Ezra and company. And furthermore, God in His wisdom knew the shape the canon would arrive at and intended the Pentateuch to speak not only to Moses’ contemporaries but to later generations, on down to today.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Charlie,

I haven’t read that one but I’m familiar to a degree with Alexander. I’ll have to look out for that one too. Thanks for the recommendation.

Bob

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[Aaron Blumer] 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.
Aaron,

As a rule I take issue with the term “replacement theology”, it is not a label that almost anyone self-identifies with (as opposed to dispensationalism and covenant theology). It is a pejorative term almost as it frames the debate in only one way. G.K. Beale uses an analogy in his book on the Temple and the Church’s Mission (which I’m working through now, almost finished actually). He says imagine that a father told his young son in, say, the year 1900 that when he grew up he was going to give him his very own horse and buggy. When the son finally is a man of his own, the father goes and purchases a Model T automobile and gives it to his son in fulfillment of his promise. Now the son isn’t going to complain and say, but I thought you were going to give me a horse and buggy. Everything intended in the promise is fulfilled, it is just superseded by advancement in techonology and life and all. In a similar way, God’s fellowship and presence with His people in the Church and ultimately in the recreated earth is not less than the promises in Ezekiel about the Temple or about the restoration to a plot of land. It is far more. (And ultimately, in my view, the new earth qualifies as whatever plot of land you want it to be and Christ rules from a throne in that land which is the earth, redeemed… So that fulfills any millennial type promise, in my understanding.)

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Also, one more thing. Chris, I will say he does make use of some narrative theology and other theologies I may not agree with wholesale. He definitely doesn’t do redaction criticism of the J,D,E,P mold. But his use of these other theologians is tempered and careful, and mainly he’s drawing ideas and avenues for reading the Pentateuch from them, not adjusting the theology of the Pentateuch or its date from them. Most evangelical OT scholars, allow for a late editor’s hand in parts of the Pentateuch to bring it to its final form, but still hold to a Mosaic authorship. At least that’s what I get from reading Sailhamer, Leder and interacting with Jason DeRouchie, the OT prof for The Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minneapolis.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

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.

Bob,

I read a good portion of Beale’s Temple and the Church’s Mission as part of some other studies and really benefited from it. I see from your later comment that you’re reading it too. I don’t think I read the portion with the horse-and-buggy analogy, but it’s a good one, as is Charlie’s butterfly analogy.

Coming into covenant theology from a dispensationalist background, I’ve realized, “What do they mean, replacement theology?” I still have plenty of room to believe in present and future salvation for the physical descendents of Abraham….just, under the New Covenant, not the Old.

I studied through the narrative of Exodus and (tentatively) concluded that its central question is “How can a holy God live with an unholy people?” Israel presents itself as a greater obstacle to God’s plan than pharaoh did. The narrative’s climax is the golden calf incident, after which God actually threatens not to go with His people, a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” situation, because if He does go with them, He’ll consume them. Of course, after Moses’ intercession and God’s declaration of His just and merciful character, they proceed to build the tabernacle, and the book concludes with the cloud of glory descending.

Anyway, now I really want to read this book. Thanks for the review.

Grace and peace,

Mike

Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA

He sees the church as the ultimate fulfillment of believing Israel, not a replacement of it.
Bob, I am curious about this. It seems a semantical game in a way. It seems to me that if the church is not ethnic Israel (to whom are the promises, Rom 9), then it replaces ethnic Israel, even if it includes Jews. You are right that hardly anyone self-identifies as “replacement theology,” which doesn’t seem to be helpful, IMO, since we are dealing with what the reality of the belief is, not what the label is.
If the starting assumption is that the church is not Israel, then some sort of replacement follows.
Charlie, not following this either. For dispensationalism, that the “church is not Israel” is not an assumption but rather a conclusion based on prior facts (such as hermeneutics, exegesis, etc). But that aside, how does this mean that some sort of replacement follows? The replacement idea is generally that the church has now taken ethnic Israel’s place in God’s place; the church as “replaced” ethnic Israel as the recipient of the promises and all that they entail. So how does “some sort of replacement” follow from the church not being Israel.

Mike, Glad I whetted your appetite, I’m sure you’ll enjoy that book. It’s not very long and is fairly easy reading, although technical in the comments. Nothing like Beale’s book as far as how technical and difficult it can be to read through.

For Larry and others,

More on “Replacement” Theology

Most people would agree that the Church is part of the new covenant, it enjoys blessings stemming from the new covenant, even though the new covenant was made with “the house of Israel and Judah”. But passages like 2 Cor. 3 & 4 where Paul in his gospel ministry is a “minister of the new covenant”, and Heb. 8 where the “New Covenant” is applied to the believing church make us realize the new covenant includes more than just Israel/Judah strictly defined.

Now some would still hold a future mass conversion of Israel from Romans 11. Many who are not dispensationalists still hold to that. In other words there is perhaps still some promised future for ethnic Israel (of course only for Israelites who embrace the Messiah). For my part, I could allow this in the new earth time. But the Gentiles are included too. So it’s not really that Israel is replaced but that the Gentiles are included.

Of course, there have been many threads about this whole debate and this is just one part of it. But Craig’s bringing up 1 Peter is important here. I’ll just say a bit more and then try to just leave this lie for now (as I don’t have much time to devote to this debate at present).

Follow this progression with me.

Ex. 19:5-6 (ESV) “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

1 Pet. 2:9 (ESV) “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

(they were likely Gentiles per 1 Pet. 1:14,18 and 4:3-4)

Rev. 1:6 (ESV) “and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

Rev. 5:9b-10 (ESV) “…for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

Just like Israel was called to be a royal priests — kings and priests for God, so too we are God’s “treasured possession” and God makes us a kingdom and priests to God.

And if you want it to get clearer than that, trace out the phrases found in Rev. 21:3 and where they appear previously in Scripture. Rev. 21:3 (ESV) “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.”

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

For what it’s worth, here are a few scholars who are not as diffident about the Church replacing Israel:
“The community of believers has in all respects replaced carnal, national Israel. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New.” – H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol.4, 667.
“The church, then as the people of the New Covenant, has taken the place of Israel…” - H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 354-55
“It will be concluded that the kingdom promises are comprehensively fulfilled in the church, not in the restored national Israel.” - B. Waltke, in Continuity and Discontinuity (ed. John S. Feinberg), 263
“The evidence is clear: Israel today is not in covenant with God.” - Louis A DeCaro, Israel today: Fulfillment of Prophecy?,220.
If God is not in covenant with Israel today, who is He in covenant with? A. A different entity, the Church.

Ross House released a book by Charles Provan called The Church is Israel Now: The Transfer of Conditional Privilege This book was recommended by the Met Tab in London. It was recommended at the Seminary I attended, where replacement terminology was thought to be perfectly biblical.

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!

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Thanks Bob. I am well familiar with all that. My question is on the semantic value of saying “it’s not replacement, it’s fulfillment.” I don’t see how that distinction carries. To the point of the reality (not the terms) I don’t think the passages you list make your point conclusively; there are alternative explanations that do justice to the whole Bible, including the promises made to Israel as Israel. The church certainly participates in the blessings of the New Covenant, but I think it is more than significant that Hebrews 8 only quotes half of the New Covenant. I think the reason is because that half (forgiveness) is the only part that applies to the church. The rest of the NC is still for Israel.

But like you, I don’t have a lot of time to engage this, and it’s a bit off topic. I was simply wondering about the distinction.