Review: New Creation Eschatology and the Land, by Steven L. James
This book provides an informative introduction and critique of the recent trend among scholars to stress earth-centeredness of the eschatological passages of Scripture rather than heaven-focused scenarios. The trend is most noticeable among amillennialists, especially since the publication in 1979 of Anthony Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future. That book called upon believers (especially Hoekema’s fellow amillennialists) not to spiritualize the OT passages that speak of a coming era of peace and righteousness on the earth. This planet, in its restored state, is the venue for the enactment of God’s eschatological promises.
The author, who serves as a Professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX, examines the works of several prominent teachers of the “New Creation” eschatology; namely, N. T. Wright, J. Richard Middleton, Russell Moore, Douglas Moo, and Howard Snyder. Not all of these writers were directly influenced by Hoekema’s work. He notes that although they correctly stress the earth’s central role in our future, he argues (again correctly) that they ignore the specificity of the land promises to Israel and thus contain a major contradiction. The contradiction is this: how can the OT promises of restoration and renewal be taken literally and every mention of Israel or Jerusalem be treated as metaphorical? It is a very good question.
In the first chapter James gives a survey of these men’s approaches. He notes that the arguments of these men are grounded in OT passages such as Isaiah 2, 11, 52; 60, 65-66; Micah 4; etc. These passages stress both the reign of justice and peace on the earth. James says that all his chosen scholars emphasize “the coming of God’s kingdom, bodily resurrection, and the reconciliation of all things.” (26).
The second chapter demonstrates that New Creation authors all believe that there is continuity between this present earth and the next. They all emphasize God’s “mode of materiality.” As he says,
The idea of transformation of the present materiality is important to new creationists. Because matter is not understood as inherently sinful, it does not have to be utterly disposed of… New creationists affirm that, instead of being annihilated, the present creation will be renewed or transformed. (31)
Several pages are dedicated to showing how New creationists tackle such dissolution passages such as 2 Peter 3:8-9 (32-36). The arguments which James records were not very convincing.
Chapter three discusses “Land Theology” as it has been presented by the likes of W. D. Davies, Walter Brueggemann, Christopher Wright, Gary Burge, and others. These influential works all contain supercessionist theology, and have been relied upon by many in the New Creation movement. The basic outlook is that the land of Israel is treated as a metaphor (77-94).
Having documented the views of New creationists, in the fourth chapter the author begins to highlight the inherent contradiction of asserting earth continuity on the basis of OT texts, while at the same time treating territorial promises to Israel as metaphors, when those promises occur in the very same passages! James states the sane conclusion:
The language in the prophets in no way suggests that the particular territory of Israel or Jerusalem somehow envelops the territory of the rest of the world. More importantly, the idea that a particular territory of the earth somehow transforms into the entire earth makes no sense in a new creation conception that envisions the restoration of the present earth. (117)
Chapter five is where the author shows that there is no need to create metaphors of the land of Israel, and that, in fact, the notion of territorial particularity and nationhood is a clear biblical teaching of both Testaments. Here he notes the work of dispensational authors Craig Blaising and Michael Vlach (131-132), who are more consistent in their attention to scriptural details. He also mentions amillennial writer Vern Poythress, who appears to accept the reality of nationhood in the new heavens and new earth (132-134).
In his conclusion the author points to a few areas of fruitful exploration, such as the study of “place,” and ends with a plea for further work in this area.
In my opinion New Creation Eschatology and the Land is a very worthwhile monograph, filled with good exposition, logical thinking, and solid argumentation. He is fair-minded and irenic throughout. I hope many students of theology will take the time to give the book a close reading.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 68 views
Greg, Have you read the book referenced above, Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant? If not, I would recommend it. I don’t find the proposition astounding at all. I think if we read the NC seriously, no one would ever apply it en toto to the church in this present age. I think that can only be done by a radical discontinuity between the testaments.
That book, mentioned above, is essential. It lays bare the struggle dispensationalists have always had with the NC. I believe the church is a full and complete participant in the NC, which is the view Rod Decker (I believe) ably demonstrated in that book.
I feel your pain about being astonished about the typical dispensational approach to the NC.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
that the problems most dispensationalists have with the New Covenant is driven by their inability to perceive what NT writers say about the church’s fulfillment of many of the OT promises. When your presuppositions forbid you to take these NT statements at face value, you are forced to propose elaborate alternatives that seem astonishing to those who simply read the NT for what it says.
G. N. Barkman
I find myself in essential agreement with GNB on many points. He must be a first-class scholar -:) Like him, I once held to fairly traditional dispensational views on Israel and the Church. I was schooled in dispensational theology and read Scripture with that hermeneutic. In seminary there were some professors teaching two New Covenants, one for the Church, one for Israel, even millennial memorial sacrifices. Over the years with further study I’m much more “oneness” in my views - one people of God, one New Covenant, one second coming. I do not consider myself supercessionist nor hold to replacement theology. I see an expansion of the OT promises to Israel. They will all be fulfilled, perhaps not in the way the original readers understood them, but even greater, more expansive fulfillment to the glory of the God. Believing Israelites receive not only the land of Palestine but the world along with co-inheritors as part of the Church. In my mind, there is a biblical simplicity that cannot be dispelled by dispensational charts or books. Dispensational theology accords Israel less than what God has revealed through the New Testament. God’s designs are no longer limited to an ethnic group to inherit earthly territory but extended to all with no difference as one people, one humanity, one family by faith in Christ. There’s no going back. The old covenant is obsolete and it’s people now on the same level ground of any other people. I don’t think we convince anyone of the soundness of our views on this site. I hope we remain open to correction. Jesus is coming again and will reign forever. On that view we can all agree (and hopefully all get along before our future correction).
[G. N. Barkman]that the problems most dispensationalists have with the New Covenant is driven by their inability to perceive what NT writers say about the church’s fulfillment of many of the OT promises. When your presuppositions forbid you to take these NT statements at face value, you are forced to propose elaborate alternatives that seem astonishing to those who simply read the NT for what it says.
So we should take NT writers at face value (as you understand them), but not the OT writers? I mean, Jeremiah 31 is pretty clear that the NC is cut with the houses of Israel and Jacob, but it has to be the church, right?
My position, FWIW, is that we should take all Scripture at face value, to use your terminology. NT writers do not ever reinterpret OT texts apart from their intended use. That many interpreters think so is evidence of a need for more careful study of both, imo.
Paul, now you are getting close to the real issue. Dispensationalism takes OT texts at face value, and is thereby forced to be creative with NT texts. (Such as those that declare that Jeremiah 31 applies to the church in the New Covenant. Hebrews chapters eight and ten.) Non dispensationalists take the NT texts at face value, and are thereby forced to re-interpret many OT texts. (Dispensationalism does the same thing with the NT that they accuse others of doing with the OT.)
My conclusion, after wrestling back and forth with this conundrum for years, is to allow the NT to guide my interpretation of the OT. After all, OT interpretation is human, which is fallible. NT interpretation of the OT is inspired, which is infallible. Either way you go, something’s got to give. I’ve chosen to let the inspired writers of the NT tell me how to understand the OT.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Paul, now you are getting close to the real issue. Dispensationalism takes OT texts at face value, and is thereby forced to be creative with NT texts. (Such as those that declare that Jeremiah 31 applies to the church in the New Covenant. Hebrews chapters eight and ten.) Non dispensationalists take the NT texts at face value, and are thereby forced to re-interpret many OT texts. (Dispensationalism does the same thing with the NT that they accuse others of doing with the OT.)
My conclusion, after wrestling back and forth with this conundrum for years, is to allow the NT to guide my interpretation of the OT. After all, OT interpretation is human, which is fallible. NT interpretation of the OT is inspired, which is infallible. Either way you go, something’s got to give. I’ve chosen to let the inspired writers of the NT tell me how to understand the OT.
How do you know you’re properly understanding the NT writers? Isn’t that just fallible human interpretation?
And I disagree that I read the NT noncontextually in order to “fit” a normal interpretation of the OT. I apply the same hermeneutic to every passage I study, regardless of the Testament. If you think Hebrews 8 & 10 say that Jeremiah 31 is talking about the church, then you need to read Heb more closely. ;-)
Scripture alone is infallible. Interpretation is always fallible and subject to correction. So how do we reconcile our fallible interpretation of OT prophecy with the surprising manner in which most NT authors interpret it? We can read the NT in a straightforward manner, and adjust our previous interpretation of the OT to conform to the NT, or we can stick with our straightforward reading of the OT, and adjust the NT to conform. I choose to do the former, you choose the latter. I understand the dilemma you face. I struggled with it for years. I won’t fault you for your chosen method, and would expect you to do the same for me. But what I will do, is point out the misrepresentation of thinking you are not “fiddling” with a straightforward reading of the NT in the same manner you object to others “fiddling” with the OT. (I have read Hebrews very, very closely, and am convinced that Hebrews 8 and 10 are indeed talking about the church. I am unwilling to adjust my straightforward reading of those texts to make the square peg of Jeremiah 31 fit into the round hole of Hebrews.)
G. N. Barkman
I have to agree with Brother Barkman that Dispensationalists have not done themselves any favors in their erratic dealings with the New covenant. In my view this is because they have not observed their own rule regarding progressive revelation. It’s a fact that Jeremiah refers the New covenant to Israel. It’s also a fact that Paul says the Church declares itself a party to the NC every time it observes the Lord’s Table. To deny this is to ignore what Paul says and to depart from the stated hermeneutic.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[G. N. Barkman]Scripture alone is infallible. Interpretation is always fallible and subject to correction. So how do we reconcile our fallible interpretation of OT prophecy with the surprising manner in which most NT authors interpret it? We can read the NT in a straightforward manner, and adjust our previous interpretation of the OT to conform to the NT, or we can stick with our straightforward reading of the OT, and adjust the NT to conform. I choose to do the former, you choose the latter. I understand the dilemma you face. I struggled with it for years. I won’t fault you for your chosen method, and would expect you to do the same for me. But what I will do, is point out the misrepresentation of thinking you are not “fiddling” with a straightforward reading of the NT in the same manner you object to others “fiddling” with the OT. (I have read Hebrews very, very closely, and am convinced that Hebrews 8 and 10 are indeed talking about the church. I am unwilling to adjust my straightforward reading of those texts to make the square peg of Jeremiah 31 fit into the round hole of Hebrews.)
I’m not trying to insult your study of Hebrews, as you’ve had many more years than I to wrestle with it. My argument throughout this thread has been that those NT readings that many think are surprising are not, imo, that surprising after all. Rather than being a closed conversation, there is ongoing study bringing light to the text. That’s all.
But…Bro. Barkman is not making a proper comparison when saying that he lets the NT (re)interpret the OT, since dispensationalists can’t agree on what to do with the New covenant. In practice Barkman (I’m not sure of his first name) probably does not hold to the plain sense of the Olivet Discourse, or 2 Thess. 2 or the Book of Revelation. In addition to that, passages like Isa. 2, 11, 32, 62; Jer. 33; Ezek. 36-48; Hos 2; Zeph. 3; Zech. 8, 12-14 get the same spiritualizing treatment.
We’re not playing the same game.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
NT prophetic passages are not interpreted in the same manner as non-prophetic passages. (Using prophetic in the sense of future events.) But I don’t see this as being inconsistent with my NT based hermeneutic. All prophetic passages, both OT and NT are handled differently. Just as we don’t really know what OT prophecy means apart from NT interpretation, so we have difficulty with details of NT prophecy. We will not know those details until the second coming. The first coming revealed many details of OT prophecy. The second coming will reveal details of NT prophecy. That doesn’t mean we can know nothing. But it does mean that we are cautious and tentative in our understanding until additional light is given. (Just as we should be cautious and tentative in our interpretation of OT prophecies, yielding to NT inspired interpretation.)
And Paul H., my name is Greg. At one time there were at least four Greg’s posting fairly regularly, so G.N. seemed a better designation. (Just like I am now responding to two Paul’s.)
G. N. Barkman
It’s been a very long time I’ve read any old-school dispensational interpretations about two New Covenants. I know Chafer held that view, and I’ll dust off his systematic soon and re-read it. But, I appreciate the honestly that led him to propose that viewpoint. The NT passages, in the Lord’s Supper and Heb 8, are quite clear. Add to it, Peter’s application of Exodus 19 to the church in 1 Pet 2:9f is very interesting. It supports the idea that there are two, parallel peoples of God. Thus, I see why you could get “two NCs out of it.” I don’t support the view, but I get why some people believe it.
What seems to be more common today is the church as a “soteriological participant” in the NC. I think that stops far short of the evidence.
Regarding Christ Himself as the NC, I’ve read Bro. Henebury advocate it here but haven’t spend time thinking about it, yet. I suppose I’ll wait for his book! Off the cuff, I’m not sure how the God-man can be the literal covenant promise. What He does can be the promise, but Christ Himself?
I haven’t examined the texts Paul cites, so I’m writing extemporaneously. It’s a very intriguing idea, to be sure. If Paul could point me to an article or lecture where he fleshes it out, I’ll read or listen.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler,
I think you are right when you say
What seems to be more common today is the church as a “soteriological participant” in the NC. I think that stops far short of the evidence.
Beacham argues that the church enjoys New Covenant-like blessings, but that they are not participating even soteriologically in the NC which has yet to be ratified. I’m not sure if I agree with him, but his view upholds the inviolability of the divine covenants. Those who argue for some sort of redefinition or renegotiation of the NC to include the church are treating the covenant idea too lightly, imo.
It certainly is easier to go the reformed route and just replace Israel with the church. Then you don’t have to wrestle with these issues at all.
My NT Greek professor didn’t believe the church was a participant in the NC. It brings me back to some fun discussions in exegesis class! He placed great emphasis on Heb 8:13; that the OC was READY to pass away but quite done so, yet. Thus, the NC wasn’t yet in effect.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion