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.

Discussion

[Bob Hayton] I believe that following the lead of the NT apostles and Jesus, in how they used OT Scripture and saw that it culminated in Jesus Christ and the gospel of grace, is how best to interpret Scripture. Scripture doesn’t leave us without a hermeneutic. A redemptive-historical hermeneutic aims to follow the teaching of the Bible about itself and to understand how Christ truly sums up all things in His own ministry. He fulfills the Law.
Thanks for your interaction.

I just don’t think I can presume to have found the apostle’s hermeneutic, and to be following their lead. If there is such a thing as an apostolic hermeneutic, That means Gal. 4:26, which speaks of a heavenly Jerusalem, is really what Zechariah was referring to when he wrote “Jerusalem” in Zech. 12:10. Now we just got the apostle’s lexicon entry on Jerusalem.

A.L Entry # 3564

“When you read Jerusalem in the OT, the apostles were thinking “heavenly Jerusalem.”

Pretty cool, huh?

But in so doing, we just “lost” the unique message of Zech. 12:10. And that’s a loss I just can’t take.

The biggest problem with the apostolic hermeneutic position is that it proposes that I can go back and re-read new-found meanings into OT passages, all the while presuming this is what the apostles did. But is that assumption correct? I don’t agree.

I believe the Holy Spirit gave them new applications and even new meanings for OT texts (I think I might lose the fellowship of Aaron here).

But you see, they could do that. They were apostles with special promises and ministries that I don’t have (John 16:13-15). So I’m fine to see Zech. 12:10 as referring to the house of David and inhabitants of Jerusalem, but have there be another use of that text expanded to “all the tribes of the earth” (Rev. 1:7).

To summarize: When you are saddled with the idea of an “apostolic hermeneutic,” you are compelled to arbitrarily expand “the house of David and Jerusalem inhabitants” to “all the tribes of the earth.” Thus Zech 12:10 has lost its unique meaning, and has been eclipsed by Rev. 1:7.

I believe the Holy Spirit gave them new applications and even new meanings for OT texts (I think I might lose the fellowship of Aaron here).
Yes, I’m reluctant to call them new meanings. I’m OK with “additional meaning” or “expanded meaning” in some cases though.

But I’m with Ted on being inclined to see “apostolic hermeneutic” as opening a door for lots of arbitrary re-meaning of OT texts. If “Jerusalem” in Zech.12 is not the Isrealite city, why is it the Israelite city in other passages?

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.

This whole discussion of the land promise is a perfect example of a literal vs. literalistic interpretation of Scripture and more specifically the promises as tied to prophecy. I see Scripture as a whole teaching that there is one true people of God - the true/spiritual Israel. It is this Israel that will ultimately inherit the land promise. I think there is too much weight given to nationalistic fulfillments of the promises. Isnt that the very understanding that the Jews had that Jesus corrected? If all the promises have to be fulfilled nationalistically then isnt that a step back from the coming of Christ and not a step forward in line with the coming of Christ? In the end the people of God will inherit not just the promised land but the whole world. Again, Jesus expands their understanding of this promise. Too much weight is given to the functional differences between Israel and the church. They comprise the one redeemed people of God throughout all time. God’s people functioned differently before and after Christ came. The church dosent replace Israel, rather it expands Israel on a much greater level.

The problem with how many Dispensationalists see the fulfillment of the land promise is that it is inconsistent with the way they will see other promises (New Cov. promises specifically) fulfilled. If the “church” can receive the Spirit even thought he promise was not initially given to them then why cant they be included in the land promise? I think the problem is that if they were to concede to that then it would totally change how they view the relationship between Israel and the church and thus the people of God. An expansion of the fulfillment of the land promise needs to be made in light of how the other promises have already been fulfilled in Christ and will be in the future.

CPHurst,

Good insight on the Church receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit initially made to Israel. Is it possible that this promise was always intended for the “Israel of God,” ie. The Church?

Cordially,

Greg

G. N. Barkman

Thanks, Ted. Perhaps we are making progress toward reconciliation?

G. N. Barkman

Ted,

I believe multiple meanings is a problem for you not a help. If the inspired NT author says an OT text means something, then it always meant that in the sense the NT author is teaching.

I think many have a problem with an apostle’s hermeneutic idea because they have a problem with what they think that hermeneutic is rather than how it’s used in the redemptive historical hermeneutical approach. With “Jerusalem”, I wouldn’t say in every passage in the OT, it is referring to heavenly Jerusalem. But I need to see how and why the NT author can find “every tribe” in the text in Zecheriah.

When the Bible records hermeneutics (interpretation) being done by later authors on earlier, canonical Scripture, shouldn’t we assume that this is important? How else is Scripture to give us a hermeneutic if it isn’t through modeling how to use and interact with previous Scriptures? Could it be the real problem is such a use of previous Scripture is not done in a dispensationalist way? A dispensationalist reading of the OT doesn’t jive with the NT author’s use of that text, and so the problem is primarily one with the theological system not with the NT use of the Old?

I don’t want to downplay a difficult problem for everyone, but seeing how the New uses the Old is very instructive. Just as Jesus modeled how to interpret one parable and said if you don’t get this, you won’t know how to interpret all the parables, even so the NT use of OT paradigms, images, and stories should shape our theological understanding of the divinely intended meaning which was there all along in those texts.

I would recommend Dennis W. Johnson’s Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures for a careful defense and illustration of how to use the redemptive historical hermeneutic. (You can read my review http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2009/04/17/him-we-proclaim-preachi… here ). He points out how much all of hermeneutics today has been negatively influenced by the enlightenment’s scientific rationalism. My thought of much of the original dispensationalism was a scientific figuring out of the pattern which was hidden in Scripture. Once figured out, it was systematized and diagrammed (to death, LOL). It’s as if scientific minds needed to just figure it all out anew. This method downplayed the noetic affects of the fall, and essentially can boil down to affirming that unsaved people can understand Scripture they just can’t appreciate it (in spite of 1 Cor. 2:14’s word to the contrary).

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.

[Bob Hayton] I believe multiple meanings is a problem for you not a help. If the inspired NT author says an OT text means something, then it always meant that in the sense the NT author is teaching.
I don’t want to downplay a difficult problem for everyone, but seeing how the New uses the Old is very instructive
Bob,

My post was all about the uncritical presuppositions required for your position, not multiple meanings. When that is understood, I think you’ll better see who is captive to the enlightenment’s rationalism.

Romans 9-11 is the perfect defense that God keeps his word and will fulfill it in spite of Israel’s rebellion.

Question for you gentile christians: if God can’t keep all those promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel regarding the small matter of a tiny piece of real estate, how can he keep you eternally secure?

It seems as though Paul decided to answer that very thing after teaching on eternal security in Rom 8.

The retort that they have bigger and better promises doesn’t work. God isn’t into bait and switch.

The quest for relevance has marred interpretation from almost the beginning. Origen was embarrassed of the OT scripture so he used allegory to smooth over those pesky passages that he didn’t like. Sadly such a hermeneutic welcomed what became the catholic church and the dark ages. I don’t need a decoder ring to understand the OT.

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] Romans 9-11 is the perfect defense that God keeps his word and will fulfill it in spite of Israel’s rebellion.

Question for you gentile christians: if God can’t keep all those promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel regarding the small matter of a tiny piece of real estate, how can he keep you eternally secure?
I fail to see how what Rom 9-11 says about the present or future conversion of Jews has anything to do with ‘a tiny piece of real estate.’ As mentioned earlier Rom 4 states clearly that Abraham inherited the cosmos and Heb 11 makes clear that he was looking for more thna a tiny piece of real estate.

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

The idea that dispensationalism bases itself on Enlightenment thinking is presented by George Marsden in Fundamentalism and American culture “thus the millenniarian’s view of Scripture was, in effect, modeled after the Newtonian view of the physical universe.” (p.57) I doubt it. Marsden also says in the same context, and for the same reasons, that “Inerrancy arose out of the same scientific view of the Bible.” If you question dispensational interpretation on this basis, you need to question the doctrine of inerrancy also. Marsden ties them both together. Now, it is quite true that Isaac Newton was a believer in the literal fulfillment of OT prophecy, which caused him to conclude by 1700 (very pre-dispensational) that the nation of Israel would return to the land before Jesus returned to earth and would be the exalted nation in the Kingdom age. But Newton never based this view on his Celestial Mechanics (his papers on the subject, by the way, are now preserved in Israel).

To say that dispensational interpretation is based on the views of the Voltaire, Rosseau, Hume, Diderot, et.al. and the mechanics of Newton’s Principia, and on this basis found the hidden meanings of Scripture is a real, real stretch! Most early dispensational writers in the US followed the ideas of the Hodges and Warfield on the matter of defending Scripture. Did they actually read the Enlightment philosophers? I have my doubts. Did they read Newton’s Principia? Check out the math in that volume. The Hodges and Warfield based their views on “Common Sense Realism.” Common Sense Realism was not necessarily an Enlightenment philosophy, but rather a counter-punch at it on its own terms. Common Sense Realism lost the day, by the way. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy was more convincing. Western civilization has been having problems with defining reality, morality, and Scripture ever since.

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.” He taught a literal 1000 year kingdom on earth, with judgments both before and after the 1000 years (pretty close to Darby, it seems). Dispensational interpretation had far more to do with Mede’s view of things than anything the Enlightenment philosophs ever wrote.

Before any of these, you can read what Clement (AD 95), Barnabas (AD 100?), and Justin Martyr (AD 150) say about the Kingdom. For all of them it is literal, and only future. You will find no mention of a present Kingdom in their writings (I think I am correct). Premillinnialism goes way, way back, and this is the real basis of dispensationalism.

Added to all of this, there have been plenty of dispensational schemes of the Heilsgeschichte by various writers, stretching all the way back to St. Bonaventure.

So if one wants to disagree with dispensational interpretation, that is fine. But trying to prove that the basis of dispensational interpretation is Enlightenment thinking is a lost cause, I am rather sure. I doubt seriously if rigorous historical study would ever bear out that thesis. — Unless you mean, of course, the way that we all use Enlightenment thinking. None of us is unaffected.

By the way, if you want an historical explanation for the rise of the interpretation that the church is the new Israel, read Israel and the Church, by Ronald Diprose: who makes an examination of Greek, Latin, and Italian documents of the Church fathers.

Jeff Brown

[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.

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

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.

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.

[jpdsr51] 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.
Thanks for the link, I look forward to checking it out.

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.

…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.

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.