Review: New Creation Eschatology and the Land, by Steven L. James

Amazon Affiliate Link

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.

Discussion

Who’d you have for Greek? I might know him. :-)

Andrew Hudson. He was a PhD classmate with Rod Decker at Central. He’s left Maranatha Seminary, and is now pastoring a church in Wisconsin.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Dispensationalists believe non-dispensationalists refuse to accept the clear and obvious meaning of certain OT texts. Non-dispensationalists believe that dispensationalists refuse to accept the clear and obvious meaning of certain NT texts.

For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone could deny that the New Covenant was ratified by the shedding of Christ’s blood! To me, it looks like exegetical gymnastics to produce a justification to deny the obvious.

G. N. Barkman

[TylerR]

Andrew Hudson. He was a PhD classmate with Rod Decker at Central. He’s left Maranatha Seminary, and is now pastoring a church in Wisconsin.

Yep. I know him. He’s about 30 mins away, and we get together monthly for prayer with a group of area pastors.

GN wrote:

For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone could deny that the New Covenant was ratified by the shedding of Christ’s blood! To me, it looks like exegetical gymnastics to produce a justification to deny the obvious.

Amen to that!

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[G. N. Barkman]

Dispensationalists believe non-dispensationalists refuse to accept the clear and obvious meaning of certain OT texts. Non-dispensationalists believe that dispensationalists refuse to accept the clear and obvious meaning of certain NT texts.

For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone could deny that the New Covenant was ratified by the shedding of Christ’s blood! To me, it looks like exegetical gymnastics to produce a justification to deny the obvious.

Well, if it’s settled, then I guess there’s no need for any discussion. Moving on.

Well, that’s surprising progress! :)

G. N. Barkman

Dispensationalists believe non-dispensationalists refuse to accept the clear and obvious meaning of certain OT texts. Non-dispensationalists believe that dispensationalists refuse to accept the clear and obvious meaning of certain NT texts.

For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone could deny that the New Covenant was ratified by the shedding of Christ’s blood! To me, it looks like exegetical gymnastics to produce a justification to deny the obvious.

I completely agree with the second para. One of the reasons I am a reluctant dispensationalist (actually Biblical Covenantalist) is over their positions on the NC. With respect to Paul V, I have read Beacham, and I find that he completely misses the point. I believe the problem has a lot to do with trying to structure the Bible with dispensations - which the Bible doesn’t.

However, again with respect, Greg’s (thanks!) first paragraph is nonsense. Non-dispies DO refuse to accept the plain meaning of very many OT texts. But dispies DO NOT, as a rule, refuse to accept the plain meaning of the NT.

In fact, I would challenge my non-dispy friends to prove Greg’s assertion. To me it is just plain false. Yes, they get the NC wrong because they fixate on Jer. 31 and fail to remember their own position that the church is not in the OT. But generally they DO take both Testaments at face value (they are inductive), whereas non-dispies turn much of both Testaments into symbols, types and shadows (they are predominantly deductive).

Dr. Paul Henebury

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

Paul H, with all due respect, it seems to me that your agreement with my second paragraph demonstrates agreement with the first. My first paragraph was a general statement, my second a specific illustration of the first. As far as inductive/deductive, I have been strongly inductive all my life. It was my inductive study of the NT that led me to move away from life-long dispensationalism. It didn’t alter my approach to become predominantly deductive. I was forced by inductive studies to re-visit my former interpretation of certain OT passages to keep them from conflicting with my enlarged understanding of the NT. IOW, my inductive studies forced me to be willing to revisit the OT and consider deductive ways to harmonize some of the OT with the NT because that’s what I realized inspired NT authors were apparently doing.

But isn’t that what DT’s often do with the NT? Inductively, it’s hard to miss the inauguration of the New Covenant upon the shedding of Christ’s blood. But that creates problems for DT in regard to the OT. Solution? Deductively re-interpret problematic sections of the NT so that they harmonize with OT inductive interpretation. As I said earlier, somethings’ got to give.

If Aaron decides to post an article I sent yesterday, perhaps my reasoning will become more clear.

G. N. Barkman

Greg,

I hope Aaron posts your piece soon. But in my last I agreed with you that many (not all) dispies have issues with the NC. However, I indicated that it is an exception to the rule and therefore cannot be used to prove your general assertion. You can’t just cite the NC and assert “But isn’t that what DT’s OFTEN do with the Nt?” You need to bring forward more proof to establish your point. I have provided many instances where non-DT’s reject the plain-sense of Scripture in both Testaments.

Further, no inductive study of either Testament leads to the assertion that the Church is the New Israel, and that Israel as a nation no longer has national promises in line with God’s covenants. If you arrive at such a conclusion (and you have already stated that the Church = “the Israel of God” in this thread), it is because you have deduced it. The Bible nowhere plainly declares your position. You speak of “a New Testament hermeneutic” as if your interpretation of the NT is it. But there are serious matters that need addressing. E.g., Gal. 6:16 is far from a clear text for asserting the Church is the Israel of God, and many non-dispy scholars reject that as a valid interpretation. At the very best it is a disputed text.

Dr. Paul Henebury

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

Yes, Galatians 6:16 is unquestionably a disputed text. Not surprisingly, DT’s understand “Israel of God” as a reference to national Israel. Non-DT’s understand it as a reference to the Church as the Israel of God. Do “inductive/deductive” approaches color this debate? (I’ve never considered this text necessary to establish the church as spiritual Israel. There are other passages that indicate it more clearly, in my opinion. Not enough time to cite them now. I’m up against a deadline. But I also know that no matter what passage I present, it will be rejected by those with a Dispensational perspective. It will become an exercise in assertions and denials without resolution. I don’t think I’m up to that kind of tug of war just now. Maybe another day. :) )

G. N. Barkman

Gal. 6:16 was not my main point. My main concern had to do with your erroneous assertion that DT’s adopt the same approach to the NT as non-DT’s do with the OT. I can quote your actual words again, but I don’t think it will make a difference. My issue is that we don’t just make assertions without proof.

Furthermore, very many non-DT’s don’t believe that Gal. 6:16 refers to the Church.

Dr. Paul Henebury

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

[G. N. Barkman]

So when the Apostle Paul taught the church at Corinth how to observe the Lord’s Table with instructions he received from Christ, and quoted Christ as saying, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, this do as often as you drink it in remembrance of me,” he wasn’t including the church in the New Covenant? That’s an astonishing proposition.

I think I missed this comment earlier. Not sure how you could assume that Jesus is saying anything about the church in that sentence other than instructing believers to drink the cup. He doesn’t say, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, drink it as full participants in the covenant,” or anything like that. Unless you presuppose that the church participates directly in the NC, I’m not sure that verse makes a strong argument either way.

We don’t seem to making much progress in this discussion, although I think there is merit in airing different points of view. But let’s try another approach.

Take the doctrine of the Trinity. Does Scripture clearly state anywhere that God exists eternally in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet is one God? Does that mean the doctrine is not true? Paul V, you seem unwilling to allow any Biblical evidence unless it states the proposition in the exact words that satisfy you. Anything less is considered inadmissible, regardless of how a truth may be stated in words different from the ones you desire. At that rate, I’m surprised that you have many doctrines that you believe assuredly.

For Paul H, is the doctrine of the Trinity derived inductively or deductively? My answer would have to be deductively. Does that mean it is untrue? To require inductive evidence for every Bible teaching is to ignore the way God wrote the Bible and the way we come to understand what He has written. Biblical truth is sometimes derived inductively, and sometimes deductively, and often a combination of both.

G. N. Barkman

Does Scripture clearly state anywhere that God exists eternally in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet is one God?

Isn’t this stated clearly? Which part of it isn’t clear?