The Continuity of Theological Concepts: A New Covenant Reading of Old Covenant Texts
While studying and teaching Zechariah 9-14 near Beirut, Lebanon I was challenged to think about the meaning and relevance of those chapters to Lebanese believers who often suffer because of the animosity between Lebanon and the very nation and people who are mentioned in those chapters. Does an alleged promised restoration of Israel and Jerusalem bring comfort or chagrin to believers in Lebanon? After all, are not Arabic speaking believers and Jewish believers in the Middle East the true people of God? Are they not the ones who should expect to share in the triumph of God? Does present day Israel have a “favored nation” status that trumps the “holy nation” of the church (1 Pet 2:9-10)?
Furthermore, does not a similar conundrum exist for those of us who live in North America? Do these texts have anything relevant to say to a largely Gentile church? Do we simply rejoice because ethnic Israel is to be restored or do we rejoice because the triumph which the old covenant nation expected is the triumph that belongs to all of those who are children of God through faith in Jesus Christ? Admittedly, the question of relevancy should not be determinative in the understanding of biblical texts but it does raise questions that might not be raised otherwise.
Additionally, not only does the difficulty of finding relevance in Zechariah 9-14 to Lebanese and North American believers pose a challenge, but so does a careful reading of the New Testament. Reading the Old and New Testaments separately, one might conclude that two distinct and contrasting Bibles exist (Old Testament and New Testament) written to two distinct peoples (Jews and Christians) with only shared lessons of moral application or common interest in the promised Messiah. Otherwise, one might conclude that God has distinct purposes for Jews and Gentiles. While interpreting texts in isolation from the larger corpus of Scripture makes this conclusion textually possible, a canonical reading of the Bible questions whether it is theologically justifiable and whether it adequately represents the biblical-theological message of the Bible which centers in the restoration of God’s original purposes as presented in Genesis 1-2, distorted in Genesis 3-11, given new hope in Genesis 12, and consummated in the coming of the Messiah.
Admittedly, a “pre- New Testament” reading of Zechariah 9-14 and the Old Testament on its own may lead one to conclude that ethnic Israelites are the people of God, earthly Jerusalem is the city He has chosen, He is present in the Jewish temple, the enemies of Israel will be defeated and Gentiles will make their way to Jerusalem, the Messiah will come humbly on a donkey and in glory with a display of power, etc.
However, Christians cannot read the Old Testament on its own because it is not on its own. It is part of the Christian Bible which includes both Old and New Testament. The Old Testament is a book of introduction, preparation, and expectation; the New Testament is a book of conclusion, denouement, and fulfillment. The OT informs the NT by giving background, promises, and a developing story line. The NT finalizes the story line and sees promise come to fulfillment.
The OT helps us understand the NT by introducing theological concepts which are continued in the NT, such as God, creation, sin, redemption, kingdom, people of God, temple, holy city, enemies, exile and restoration, etc. The NT expands on these concepts often giving them new clarity in light of the full and final revelation that comes with the advent of Jesus Christ.
Though there is continuity of theological concepts, there is discontinuity in the contextualization of these concepts. I suggest that in both the Old and New Testaments God addresses His people in language and terms that they generally understood, yet retaining a bit of mystery, because the ultimate reality, which God brings in the triumph of the Messiah, defies the ability of human language to fully convey.
If in the future believing Jews of the old covenant see the New Jerusalem coming out of heaven and witness the triumph of God over all evil and enemies, would they say, “I’m disappointed that it did not turn out ‘literally’ as portrayed in the language of the OT.” No, they would likely say, “This fulfillment not only satisfies all which God promised but goes far beyond what could be expected. Thank you, Lord.”
As I read Zechariah 9-14 and similar texts in light of the New Testament I look for theological concepts that are continuous between the testaments and interpret them in light of the fuller and final revelation of the New Testament. For instance, the theological theme of “people of God” is represented primarily by Israel in the Old Testament. Yet, we understand in the New Testament that the true “seed” of Abraham were those who had the faith of Abraham, regardless of ethnicity (Rom 2; Gal 3; 1 Pet 2). The “holy city” of the Old Testament was physical, geographical Jerusalem; in the New Testament the holy city is the New Jerusalem (Heb 12:18-24, Rev 21, 22). Furthermore, the New Testament even suggests that Abraham knew that the physical reality of “land and city” anticipated something more than earthly geography (Heb 11:10, 16; Rom 4:13). The theme of “temple as the place of God’s presence” in the Old Testament was primarily confined to the tabernacle and temple of ancient Israel; in the New Testament, Jesus is ultimately the temple (John 2:19—destroy this temple), believers and the church are the temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19), and there is no need of a temple in the new order because God’s presence pervades everything (Rev 21:3, 22).
There are other shared themes such as the ultimate triumph of God, the defeat of enemies, the removal of sin, the transformation of nature, the restoration of the cosmos, the establishment of worship and holiness. In Zechariah 9-14 all of these concepts are portrayed in old covenant language at times exceeding the limits of that language, anticipating the inauguration of the greater realities of the New Covenant and ultimately the consummation.
Old Testament saints had a “two-age” view of history—the age in which they lived and the age to come. The age to come anticipated the advent of the Messiah and the Day of the Lord in which God’s people would be delivered and His enemies would be judged. The age to come was depicted in terms that related to the age in which they lived though the seed of old covenant concepts blossoms into the unforeseen beauty of new covenant realities.
The New Testament declares that “the age to come” was inaugurated at the first advent of Christ (Lk 1:67-80; Acts 2:29-36), that we live in the age that was anticipated (1 Cor 10:11—“on whom the end of the ages has come”), but, though the age has already come, it is not yet consummated, so we anticipate the consummation at His Second Advent (2 Thess 1:5-10).
Consequently, New Covenant believers live between two worlds: having entered the kingdom (Col 1:13) but waiting for the consummate kingdom (Rev 11:15); having become part of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17), yet waiting for the consummate new creation (Rev 21); being seated in the heavens with Christ (Eph 2:6), yet living as strangers on earth (1 Pet 2:11); having witnessed the triumph of Christ over sin, Satan, and death (Col 1:13-15), yet awaiting the consummate world of righteousness (2 Pet 3:13); having tasted in the Spirit the inheritance to come (Eph 1:13-14), yet awaiting consummate glory (1 Pet 5:1).
jpdsr51 Bio
Dr. John P. Davis is currently Lead Pastor of a church plant in Philadelphia, PA. Grace Church of Philly is a gospel-centered city church seeking to reach people of all nations. John received the BA in Bible (Greek minor) at Bob Jones University, MDiv from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, the ThM in OT from Westminster Theological Seminary, and the DMin from Biblical Theological Seminary. His ThM thesis was on A Critical Evaluation of the Use of the Abrahamic Covt. in Dispensationalism. His DMin project/dissertation was on Common Factors in the Practice of Ongoing Personal Evangelism. John has pastored two other churches in PA and two in NY. Three were church-plants.
- 81 views
[Aaron Blumer]There is indeed a similarity between the interpretative processes leading to pre-millennialism generally and dispensationalism specifically, but that is true only of contemporary pre-millennialism. The “chiliasm” that occurred in certain segments of the early church bears little resemblance to modern pre-mill in form or function. Modern pre-millennialists, of whatever variety, all embrace some idea that the Abrahamic covenant demands certain things to occur regarding Israel in the future. Or, they believe that a certain level of literalness in reading Revelation demands it. The early church chiliasts clearly and repeatedly insist that the Church is the true inheritor of the promises of Abraham, and none of them appeal to grammatical-historical hermeneutics to prove their position. Some of the chiliasts held to the 6-day/6000-year model of history, in which the world ends after 6000 years, issuing in the seventh “millennium.” I put “millennium” in quotation marks because several of the chiliasts seem to have regarded the seventh day of history as eternal, and most held to a single general resurrection at the return of Christ, with no future judgment at the end of the millennium (since they don’t mention the millennium ending). Here’s a decent blog post that makes most of these points, but you can find them fairly easily in the primary source writings: http://christianityinhistory.blogspot.com/2007/11/amillennialism-of-ire……but the answer isn’t a thorough-going naturalism.I don’t think anybody is offering a thorough-going naturalism anymore—not as a biblical hermeneutic.
I appreciate Jeff’s post. I think the whole Enlightenment thing is a smoke screen.
The distinction between premillennialism and dispensationalism doesn’t amount to much of an argument either. Though it’s true that a fully developed dispensational system that has premil as a feature comes later, much in theology has followed that pattern of development. Bits and pieces of disp. ideas are scattered all through church history. Premil. is legit. viewed as one of those pieces because the interpretational processes involved in getting to premil. have much in common w/the process that builds the rest of disp. thought.
I keep saying though that a better focus (than the antiquity question) is on the texts involved and letting them speak.
The most significant recent investigation of early church millennialism is http://www.amazon.com/Regnum-Caelorum-Patterns-Millennial-Christianity/…] Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity by Charles Hill. Hill breaks new ground, not by simply counting up references to “millennium” in the writings, but showing how the millennium functioned for its advocates. Basically, general and individual eschatology were connected in the early church. Chiliasts of the Irenaeus-Tertullian type believed that the soul did not proceed immediately to God upon death. Rather, it sank down into Hades until the return of Christ. This was because it would be a demotion of sorts to step down from the heavenly beatific vision to earth, even a millennial earth. The soul must proceed gradually to the beatific vision. Several times they refer to their opponents as those who believe that souls ascend directly to heaven. A subterranean intermediate state featured in some strands of Jewish theology at the time, and the Church chiliasts relied on documents that profess that eschatology. The point is that the decline of chiliasm was not related to big, bad allegorizers or “replacement theologians,” but to the unpersuasive nature of the individual eschatology that it promoted.
I also think there’s a bit of truth to the Dispensationalism-Enlightenment connection (or Dispensationalism-inductivism), but I agree that it’s overblown and often used unfairly as a guilt by association argument.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
The “holy city” of the Old Testament was physical, geographical Jerusalem; in the New Testament the holy city is the New Jerusalem….Furthermore, the New Testament even suggests that Abraham knew that the physical reality of “land and city” anticipated something more than earthly geography … The theme of “temple as the place of God’s presence” …was primarily confined to the tabernacle and temple of ancient Israel; in the New Testament, Jesus is ultimately the temple (John 2:19—destroy this temple), believers and the church are the temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19), and there is no need of a temple in the new order because God’s presence pervades everything (Rev 21:3, 22)… (#9): The NT concept of people of God is changed from national and ethnic to include both Jew and Gentile without national identity… The Davidic throne that Jesus sits on is in heaven. His kingdom grows mysteriously throughout the world. The temple is Jesus, the church, etc. We have arrived at a heavenly Jerusalem; Abraham looked for an eternal city; he inherited the cosmos. All of these NT transformations of OT concepts tells us that something is different.My emphases.
I appreciate these frank assertions. For those of us attempting to understand the two Testaments as of equal interpretive priority it can be disconcerting to read those who differ but who avoid using the verbs “changed”, “replaced” etc. If something is not the same as it was it is changed or replaced. Thus, any continuity will be at the price of a direct fulfillment of what was spoken and anticipated by OT saints. This is as much conceded by John when he states,
Old Testament saints had a “two-age” view of history—the age in which they lived and the age to come. The age to come anticipated the advent of the Messiah and the Day of the Lord in which God’s people would be delivered and His enemies would be judged. The age to come was depicted in terms that related to the age in which they lived though the seed of old covenant concepts blossoms into the unforeseen beauty of new covenant realities.So, what is being recommended is a continuity which is actually discontinuous. Why then are we given a title bespeaking continuity of theological concepts? The answer is the New Testament (e.g. the 27 books) “expands” and “transforms” the wording of the prophet(s) and gives them a turn necessitated by the coming of Christ. As well, the way NT writers apply OT concepts: “people of God” “temple” (“land” presumably), etc, to objects not envisaged from the OT perspective. Also there are other matters like “apocalyptic language”, the “transfer of some of these concepts to the church”, and a theologically driven hermeneutics which gives the NT, specially interpreted, priority over the OT text so as to arrive at new and “unforeseen” (non-literal?) theological concepts, regardless of the plain sense of the original contexts or other corroborative OT texts. In tandem with this is a canonical method wherein the analogy of faith can run riot as an agent of the interpreter, even before the text, in its context, has been heard:
My approach begins recognizing that the text is a small story in the grand story line of what God accomplishes for us in Christ. OT texts are part of the story and not a separate story. To me, the NT is clear that the first coming of Christ inaugurates the fulfillment of OT expectation.Such a method continuously teeters on the brink of Eisegesis with its in-built temptation to conforming texts to ones theological predilections. That this latter assumption is operative is clear from John’s response to Aaron’s attempts to get him to interact with the plain sense of the Zechariah passage. In John’s response to Aaron, he simply gives a list of difficulties (real or imagined) that he has with literal fulfillment. But where did these perceived difficulties arise? That is the question. Which passages of Scripture led him to go “beyond [the] literal” (does that equate to non-literal/spiritual?) to bring about the morphing of OT texts into something other than what they speak about?
This same thing surfaces in the article itself:
As I read Zechariah 9-14 and similar texts in light of the New Testament I look for theological concepts that are continuous between the testaments and interpret them in light of the fuller and final revelation of the New Testament.Here “continuous” takes on a meaning akin to “what I consider congruous with the NT.” Again, what this paragraph shows is a procedure wherein theology is wrought from one Testament (NT) and imposed over the other. I believe this move undermines the integrity of the OT and impeaches the clarity of the OT and its status as Word of God. The NT here is more authoritative than the Old. This situation pertains only because the John’s positions requires an exaltation of the words of the NT over those of the Old. And regarding the progress of revelation, there seems scarcely much of it worth noting if the OT texts are mutated in this fashion. But I hope I might cling on to the belief that the Bible can be understood without the need for theological expansions or transformations.
Another problem with the title of the article is that the “New Covenant” is employed in the second half as a synonym for the New Testament, while the same thing is done with the “Old Covenant” being used as a stand-in for the Old Testament. This certainly aids the person who wants to stress the sort of “discontinuous continuity” evidenced in the above quotation (and inevitable in every non-literal interpretation of prophetic texts), but it seems inadvisable, because; a. The Old Covenant referred to in 2 Cor. 3 and Heb. 8 is clearly the Mosaic Covenant (MC) and not the entire OT Canon. The Old Covenant, that is, the MC, has been replaced with the New Covenant, but this does not affect the Abrahamic Covenant (AC), as is made clear by Paul in Gal.3:15-17. Earlier the Apostle cites the part of the AC which pertains to us (Gal. 3:8) without ever hinting that the rest of the Covenant has been transformed somehow; and, b. Likewise, the “New Covenant” in either Testament is the universal and unilateral means whereby the other Biblical Covenants are realized and fulfilled. It is not the same as the NT Canon. For example, Christ’s words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:20) would have been incomprehensible to the disciples if such were the case.
I have tried to pinpoint my basic disagreements without with John without responding to everything. Thank you John. I hope you will not feel “got at.” That is not my intention.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
So the real and perennial question is, “is it scripturally defensible?” That is where iron sharpens iron.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Thanks for your comments. I’d like to make a few clarifications.
[Paul Henebury] Although this post is well written and challenging I find it insubstantial for various reasons. Much of the argumentation does not appear to come from unequivocal NT texts themselves but from assumptions about those texts, and the whole of the NT Scriptures themselves, together with assumptions about the nature of the relation of the two Testaments. For instance, if I might use the title as an example; “The Continuity of Theological Concepts: A New Covenant Reading of Old Covenant Concepts” is misleading. It needs to be understood that the “continuity” being asserted is, in the first place, a discontinuity.I would still say “continuity of theological concepts’ because there is continuity of the concepts (temple, land, people, etc) but discontinuity in the expression of those concepts.
[Paul Henebury] Such a method continuously teeters on the brink of Eisegesis with its in-built temptation to conforming texts to ones theological predilections.I believe I have stated clearly my conscious theological presuppositions in regard to interpreting Scripture within the context of the whole story of the Bible. If you tried to understand the OT apart from the NT you would not know who created the world, that Abraham was looking for an eternal city which God built. that he inherited the cosmos, the coming(s) of the Messiah, the heavenly Jerusalem, in what way Messiah sits on the throne of David, etc.
[Paul Henebury] Here “continuous” takes on a meaning akin to “what I consider congruous with the NT.” Again, what this paragraph shows is a procedure wherein theology is wrought from one Testament (NT) and imposed over the other. I believe this move undermines the integrity of the OT and impeaches the clarity of the OT and its status as Word of God.I assume this final sentence is serious though I had to chuckle. It is because of the NT that we accept the OT as the Word of God and it is because of the NT that the OT becomes clear. So yes, there is a priority of the NT for without it we do not have the Redeemer King and would either be Gentiles who were excluded or proselytes who would be worshipping in a Jewish temple. The integrity of the OT is undermined by reading it without the final and full revelation of the NT. Otherwise we read as those who searched the Scriptures without seeing Christ and are in need of Christ to open our eyes to understand the Scriptures. Whether consciouslly or unconsciously, every Christian to some degree reads the OT through Christian lenses. I am interested in what the human author intended in the OT texts but I am equally interested in what the Divine author intended and some of that I can’t know apart from the NT.
[Paul Henebury] Another problem with the title of the article is that the “New Covenant” is employed in the second half as a synonym for the New Testament, while the same thing is done with the “Old Covenant” being used as a stand-in for the Old Testament.I agree with you somewhat here, though there is semantic overlap between NC/NT and OC/OT.
[Paul Henebury] The Old Covenant, that is, the MC, has been replaced with the New Covenant, but this does not affect the Abrahamic Covenant (AC), as is made clear by Paul in Gal.3:15-17. Earlier the Apostle cites the part of the AC which pertains to us (Gal. 3:8) without ever hinting that the rest of the Covenant has been transformed somehow;Galatians 3 makes it clear that Christ is the quintessential seed of Abraham, the only covenantally faithful Jew and therefore the inheritor of the promise to Abraham. All of those (Jew and Gentile) who are in union with Christ by faith share that inheritance.
[Paul Henebury] Likewise, the “New Covenant” in either Testament is the universal and unilateral means whereby the other Biblical Covenants are realized and fulfilled. It is not the same as the NT Canon. For example, Christ’s words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:20) would have been incomprehensible to the disciples if such were the case.How do correlate the above statement with “The Old Covenant, that is, the MC, has been replaced with the New Covenant, but this does not affect the Abrahamic Covenant,” if the New Covenant. as you say, is the means by which the other covenants (I assume you include the Abrahamic) are realized and fulfilled? Does not Jesus establsih the NC with the apostles, the church (New Israel ??)? Or are you saying he means, “This is the new covenant in my blood, not all of the new covenant, only the soteriological portion of it.”
Thank you for your interaction. I know that both you and I are attempting to make sense of how the OT and NT fit together? Blessings, JOHN
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
I may have been misunderstanding you. You had said “Am I, a new covenant believer, in the house of David? Am I an inhabitant of Jerusalem? (I wish)…” Are you questioning that you are a “new covenant believer”? Or are you questioning that you, being a new covenant believer, are additionally of “the house of David” and an “inhabitant of Jerusalem”? I thought you were questioning that you are a new covenant believer period in your statement. I’m sorry if I misunderstood.
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.
Psalm 37:10 (quoted by Christ)
But the humble will inherit the land (or earth) and will enjoy abundant prosperity
The righteous was always going to inherit the earth. The wicked was always going to be punished and removed from the earth. Yet at the same time, the OT also gives specific dimensions to Israel’s territory in the NC (Jer 31:31-40). The Rom 4 passage in no way contradicts anything about Israel being given a certain territory. Adjust your thinking to scripture, not the other way around.
Hebrews 11:8-10
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed and went out to a place he was going to receive as an inheritance; he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he stayed as a foreigner in the land of promise, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, co-heirs of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
Where in this passage does it say anything that contradicts living on the new earth in the land? I checked with several versions and couldn’t find anything.
This text verifies that what Abraham lived in and experienced was not the ultimate fulfillment of the promises. Well, I think everyone agrees with that. You need to stop referring to this text as proof of your position. It does not mean what you think it does.
Again, if you want to help people, you must show them the truth of Scripture and let the Holy Spirit work in their hearts and minds. It isn’t your task to find relevance by practicing a bait and switch hermeneutic.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Romans 4:13 13 ¶ For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world (cosmos did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
Hebrews 11:16 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
Hebrews 12:22 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] John, the Jerusalem from above is going to come down to the earth. So my whole contention remains.And where does the Bible say that?
By the way, the discussion was not about whether there is ‘land’ inheritance for the people of God. The discussion was on the continuity of theological concepts and how the OT seeds of those concepts blossom in the NT. The New Heaven and Earth more than adequately fuliflll the promise to Abraham and his seed — who is Christ (and all of those in Christ).
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[Bob Hayton] Ted,I’m a NC believer, co-opting in on the promises made to the house of Judah and the house of Israel before they, as a covenant people, get them. Thanks, Jesus.
I may have been misunderstanding you. You had said “Am I, a new covenant believer, in the house of David? Am I an inhabitant of Jerusalem? (I wish)…” Are you questioning that you are a “new covenant believer”? Or are you questioning that you, being a new covenant believer, are additionally of “the house of David” and an “inhabitant of Jerusalem”? I thought you were questioning that you are a new covenant believer period in your statement. I’m sorry if I misunderstood.
Bob
But no, I’m not a member of the house of David. I’m just a goy. Nor am I an inhabitant of Jerusalem.
Therefore, Zech. 12:10 does not refer to me.
[jpdsr51]I think that you have misunderstood me John, or perhaps I was not clear. I was responding to Bob’s contention that dispensational interpretation arose primarily from Enlightenment thinking. In brief, I responded that it would be quite hard to prove that dispensational writers were readers of the Enlightenment philosophs. Instead their interpretation was mostly influenced by premillennialists before them. I cited Mede to show that premillennialism was well developed ahead of the Enlightenment. It does not surprise me that Mede predicted the date of Christ’s return. The number of predictors of the exact date of the return of Christ, who were also Bible believers is embarrassingly large. Johann Albrecht Bengel, to whose exegesis and textual critical methods we all are indebted, was also one of those. So, my point was not to defend premillennialsm, but to assert that premillennialism, which preceded the Enlightenment in the English language, was the main basis for Dispenastional interpretation, not the Enlightenment.[Jeff Brown] Dispensationalists based their views on prophecy upon already existing views of a literal 1000 year millennium, the return of Israel to the land, and the conversion of national Israel. Increase Mather preached all those things. Joseph Mede (d.1638) is called “the father of English Premillialism.”Meade also projected that the end of the world would come by 1716, but that has nothing to with a defense or denial of dispensationalism. It sounds more like you are defending Premillennialism rather than dispensationalism which unquestionably is a later devleopment. Todd Magnum offers an interesting survey of the institutional and ecclesiastical politics involved in the rift between dispensational and covenant theology (http://ntresources.com/documents/DSG2010_Mangum_DispCovRift.pdf) — and by the way, there is a third way.
But, did you really mean that Meade predicted the end of the world would come by 1716? I know that ccel gives this in their introduction to his work, “The Key to the Apoclypse” Medee wrote quite explicitly that the Book of Revelation teaches a literal 1000 year of Christ. As Mede did not die until 1638, any prediction of the end of the world, according to his premillennial system would have to have been 2638 or later. But you have read this and I have not. It certainly would be a quite inconsistent statement for him, and I wonder where ccel gets its information?
Here is what Mede says about the 1000 year reign of Christ:
The seventh Trumpet, with the whole space of 1000 years
thereto appertaining, signifying the great Day of Judgmentent, circumscribed
within two resurrections, beginning at the Judgment
of Antichrist, as the morning of that day, and continuing during
the space of 1000 years granted to new)Jerusalem, (the. Spouse
of Christ) upon this Earth, till the universal resurrection and
judgment of all the dead, when the Wicked shall be cast into
Hell to be tormented for ever, and the Saints translatedinto
Heaven, to live with Christ for ever
Jeff Brown
[Bob Hayton] I should clarify and say Johnson’s book doesn’t single out dispensationalists as being singularly influenced by rationalist thought. He is saying Bible interpreters in general believe applying scientific-sounding principles to Holy Writ will uniformly result in the single correct interpretation to be found. And while obviously modernist theology resulted from this, we all are affected by the air that Western society breathed for so many years. It is no wonder in such a system that spirtual interpretations fell on hard times. Yes there was a medieval allegorism run wild, but the answer isn’t a thorough-going naturalism.Bob, I have not read Johnson’s book, so I will minimize what I say in response. I am not sure I can believe that dispensationalists and liberals have ever used a similar hermeneutic with any consistency. Or that the blessed alternative to these unhappy methods is spiritual interpretation. The father of Liberal Theology (later called modernist theology), Friedrich Schleiermacher, had a hermeneutic that was dominated by Enlightenment and Romantic philosophy. If you read his The Christian Faith you will find that he explcitly states that a literal devil, literal angels, a literal history of Abraham, a literal reunion of believers with Christ at His return, etc. are intolerable ideas. The rationalist theologians prior to Schleiermacher were likewise guided by a rejection of any literal interpretation of the miraculous, etc. Thus his interpretations of what diabolos meant in the Bible are nearly as numerous as there are varieties of ketchup. Read it from Schleiermacher to Process Theology, the one consistent rule of Critical Theology’s interpretation of Scripture is “no miracles!” Dispensationalists are in a different ball park.
Jeff Brown
[Jeff Brown] I think that you have misunderstood me John, or perhaps I was not clear.I may have misunderstood you Bob. I was saying that evidence of premillennialism in history is not a historical support for dispensationalism as a system of interpretation, since there are other expressions of premillennialism such as historic premillennialism. But I’m not telling you anying new.
As for the apparent contradiction in Mede, I cannot verify either way. Perhaps, the statement about the end of the world refers to the coming of Christ.
Anyway, thanks for your input. Blessings.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
How can one be a New Covenant believer and NOT an inhabitent of Jerusalem?
“which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.” (Galatians 4:24-26)
Blessings,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,A great verse with significant implications for the how the NT informs and transforms our understanding of the OT. Blessings, JOHN
How can one be a New Covenant believer and NOT an inhabitent of Jerusalem?
“which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.” (Galatians 4:24-26)
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
Featured Resource
Discussion