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
You are right. I certainly am not saying God equivocates. My issue is with a theological and hermeneutical methodology which throws up the specter of a God who, knowing in advance everything He is going to do (Acts 15:18), can use such unambiguous covenant language as that found in, e.g., Jeremiah 33:14-26, and mean something quite other than what the words actually say.
I have asked John for his definition and an example of equivocation, but here is mine:
An equivocation is “An informal fallacy in which two or more meanings of the same word [e.g. “Israel”, “land” “Jerusalem”, “Temple”, “kingdom”] or phrase have been confused. If used with one of its meanings in one of the propositions of the argument [e.g. “Temple” in Ezekiel, or “Jerusalem” in Zechariah 14] , but with a different meaning in another proposition of the argument, a word is said to have been used equivocally” - Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction To Logic, (11th edition, 2002), 630.
In his article John wrote,
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, …, the enemies of Israel will be defeated and Gentiles will make their way to Jerusalem…(condensed for space)
It definitely seems to have led the disciples to conclude all that. Moreover, the teaching of the Risen Jesus “about things pertaining to the kingdom” (Acts 1:3) did not disabuse them of this opinion (Acts 1:6). Now either their confusion over the meaning of “kingdom” and “Israel” was caused by their not paying attention when Jesus was correcting their OT perspective with the lenses of a (yet unwritten) NT view, or their confusion is not theirs but belongs to some of their interpreters; in other words, there was no confusion of meaning between Acts 1:3 and Acts 1:6 at all! Jesus and the disciples meant the same things. John and those good brethren supporting his position must take the former view. Aaron, Ted, Jeff (if I may presume a little) and yours truly take the latter.
Look at his statement from #13:
I agree with you Bob on the use of cosmos as an expansion or ultimate fulifllment of the land promise. I would say that Israel’s possession of land always anticipated the New Creation as did earthly Jerusalem anticipate the heavenly.(Emphasis mine)
Who anticipated this “ultimate fulfillment”? Not the disciples after being taught by the Risen Christ (Acts 1:3, 6). The only answer is that God anticipated it. If this were true (and Ted, Aaron and I say it is not) then God’s words in, say Jeremiah 31:31-37; 33:14-26 and Zechariah 12-14 (which is one piece) are without doubt equivocal. The referents are “changed”, the promises “transferred”, the subject – object construction is “different.”
Again, #103 John replied to Ted:
Well, at least we agree on two things: 1) NT writers give new meaning to OT texts; 2) Matthew and the Holy Spirit did not use the grammatical historical method.I sidestep whether Ted and John really do agree here because I simply wish to point out the same phenomena I have been speaking of in regard to John’s method. If NT writers give “new meaning” to OT passages an equivocation has occurred IF the specific propositions of NT fulfillments operate at the level of God’s original intent (and not just at the level of application and illustration). Further, if the way this is arrived at is via a new set of hermeneutics diverging from the Grammatical Hermeneutics underlying the disciple’s question of Acts 1:6 (and OT expectations, e.g. Lk. 1:31-33), then the Holy Spirit was equivocating when the original promises were made in regard to national Israel, its land, and its kingdom.
Please do not misunderstand me here. I am only saying that this problem is a consequence of what I believe is an incorrect method; not that God equivocates or indeed that my brothers who espouse this approach intend to predicate this of God. But this approach, which pits a certain theologically driven understanding of the NT against the plain wording of the OT, produces “fulfillments” of OT covenant promises (many of them unilateral) through an unwarranted hermeneutical veto which the NT enjoys over the OT. This elicits what I have called a “discontinuous continuity” wherein OT concepts are freighted with “new meanings” through new hermeneutics.
The “holy city” of the Old Testament was physical, geographical Jerusalem; in the New Testament the holy city is the New JerusalemApart from the fact that in Matt. 4:5; 27:53 and Rev. 11:2 the “holy city” is not New Jerusalem, we can see the implication is that in fulfillment of OT promises the NT supposedly changes the expectations from a “physical, geographical” city to a different “city” with a similar name. Thus, OT propositions referring to Jerusalem are applied by the Holy Spirit to now refer to New Jerusalem. That is an equivocal use of the OT term (since in this view eschatological OT Jerusalem is not the same as eschatological NT Jerusalem).
I will address John’s reply concerning the nature of God later. I do hope no one is taking any of this personally. I wish to debate this issue because it is important and I am learning in the process, but I don’t want to upset good brothers with who I happen to disagree.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Does God mean what He says where and when He says it? If there are places in the prophetic Scriptures where His words point to one thing (e.g. a literal temple complex in Ezek. 40ff. or future restoration of Israel in the strict terms of Jer. 33:14-26, etc., etc.), but take on a different meaning at “fulfillment” then God was equivocating when He spoke the original words. If so, then this affects the doctrine of God itself. If it is in God’s nature to equivocate the question comes up, “How can God be trusted when He promises to save those who trust in His Son?”In response John wrote the following (with my comments supplied):
I will let the Apostle Paul answer that question. He is better suited to do so as a Jew who knew the promises of God and who believed that in Christ he had all that God had promised.I respectfully submit you give the apostle an errand he never intended to undertake for you. I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Jer. 33 or the question you were asked.
John
Romans 11:1-6 Paul’s experience of salvation in Christ is evidence to him that God has not failed in his promise to Israelites.Paul is incorporated into the Church, but your inference that from this he thinks all the promises God made to Israel (e.g. Jer. 33:14-26, which you have conveniently passed over) are fulfilled (I take you to mean this) is unsupported by Rom. 11:1-6, and is contradicted by reading the rest of the chapter, especially vv. 25-29. In verses 25-26 Paul cites new covenant passages in Isa. 59:20 and 27:9 pertaining to national Israel (whom he is talking about in Rom. 11 and contrasting with saved Gentiles). “Has God cast away His people? Certainly not!” (11:1a)? “The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (11:29). This lines up with the expectations of Jeremiah 31 & 33 taken in its plain sense.
2 Cor 1:18-22 Paul is confident that all of God’s promises are “yes’ in Jesus Christ and he is experiencing them through the gift of the Spirit and incorporaiton into the body of Christ.OT saints are not “in Christ” (unless you can find the Body of Christ before the Cross) so this promise misses the point of the question you were put to. In fact, if all the promises of God in Christ are “yes” and “amen”, surely all the promises of God to Israel (whether “in Christ” or not) are “yes” and “amen” too. And this is exactly the point of Jer. 33:14-26!
Eph 2:18-22 Paul has a temple through union with Christ that brings about what ancient Judaism failed to do - union of Jews and the nations.Notice that the “holy temple in the Lord” in v.21 is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and [NT] prophets…(v.20). It does not include Jeremiah or the elect Remnant of whom he spoke. In 2 Thess. 2:4 the Man of Sin enters “the temple of God and sits” in it. As the NT Church is a spiritual temple “in the Lord” this cannot be the same temple. The one in Eph. 2 is spiritual and the Man of sin could not possibly “sit” in it, while the temple in 2 Thess. 2 is physical where sitting is in every way a possibility. You seem to think that the Body of Christ is the only temple in the NT and that it constitutes the fulfillment of OT temple prophecies like Ezekiel 40-48, Jeremiah 33:14-26 and Malachi 3:1-6. You make this passage do far more work than it can bear.
Eph 1:11-14 Though he never speaks of restoration to the land, he rejoices in the inheritance he has in Christ.Why would an apostle writing to the church have cause to mention the land promises to Israel? Why would the omission of the land promises surprise you? Again, you are conflating the church’s inheritance with the unconditional land promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob and their elect physical descendants (Gen. 15; 28:13; 35:10-12; Ezek. 36:22-38).
Rom 4:13-17 Paul rejoices that through faith he and all believers are heirs of the cosmos that Abraham was promised.You should note carefully which parts of the Abrahamic covenant Paul uses and which parts he says nothing about. This is because he is showing how we are all spiritual seed of Abraham through faith. He is not teaching anywhere in this chapter that Jer. 33 or Ezek. 40ff. or any covenant promise to national Israel is revoked or transferred.
Gal 4:21-31 Paul rejects the present earthly Jerusalem and rejoices in the Jerusalem above and recognizes all believers as children of promise, like Isaac.This passage contains an allegory. You are reading your eschatology into it. Verse 21 states that the matter under discussion is the relation of the believer to the law. The passage concerns the “liberty” (5:1) into which the Gospel calls us as contrasted to the bondage of the law, signified by circumcision (cf. 3:2; 5:1-5; 6:12-15). It says nothing about the fulfillment of OT promises to Israel.
Thus, I think you have, in effect, dodged the question you were asked by ignoring the passages you were confronted with, and have put Pauline passages to the task of dealing with a topic they were never meant to address.
Your enrollment of the NT to “answer for you” does not alleviate your difficulty. In fact, it only demonstrates that you reinterpret the OT promises of God with your assumptions about what the NT teaches. That, of course, is one of the things we are debating. The other is what acceptance of this method means for the doctrine of God and His promises to us. After all, if the OT promises can be “expanded” or, more accurately, “changed” and “transferred” to others, how do we know God won’t transmute the Gospel promises we have believed hereafter?
One more thing. Several times Hebrews 11:8-10 has to brush away the OT expectations concerning the restoration of national Israel to their land. But Gen. 15:13-16 make it very clear that Abraham himself did not expect the covenant promises to be fulfilled in his lifetime. Why would he not look for a heavenly city then?
Your brother,
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Featured Resource
Discussion