Genesis 1–11 And The Worldview Of The Bible

By Elliott E. Johnson

A biblical theology would naturally be the product of reading the Bible broadly, book by book. This would enable the student to recognize the progress of revelation from beginning to end. But is there any guide in the text of the Bible that would show an intended direction of the development of thought? Modern books include a title and a table of contents that summarizes the author’s intended scope and pattern of thought arrangement. Does the Bible propose any such direction?

The proposal of this paper is that Genesis 1–11, as a prologue, is intended to be a presentation of the biblical worldview. As a worldview, it introduces the condition of the world within which history unfolds. Then each historical book advances the story until it reaches a fulfillment in the revelation of Jesus Christ. The worldview of Genesis 1–11 introduces the world as a good creation with unresolved issues of evil that God permitted, as creatures had rebelled. Then the canon of Scripture reveals God’s intended resolution of mankind’s conflict with sin and evil. The direction of resolution is introduced in the worldview in two roles for the human race.

Few would disagree that Genesis 1–11 provides a prologue to the book of Genesis. The literary style distinguishes it from the style of Genesis 12–50. But in my proposal, the content provides a plan in which God addresses evil. Rather than removing evil from human responsibility, God provides a plan that not only has a determined outcome but also invites mankind to freely participate in the responsibility assigned against evil. In the resolution of this mystery, the glory of God is revealed. And within this plan are seven predetermined truths.

The philosophical background of covenant and dispensational theological reasoning rests ultimately on Plato or Aristotle. The theological interpretations sought a foundation for knowing on different grounds. Plato had sought a heavenly ideal to find what can be known. What Plato sought in heaven, Augustine found in the New Testament revelation. It was the ideal realization of the OT introductory revelation. So, interpretation of OT expectation was retrospective, allegorizing texts in the Old Testament based on terms of the ideal fulfillment, the covenant of grace. This covenant was not mentioned directly in the OT context but recognized in the new covenant.

Aristotle sought the foundation of knowledge in terms of a basic framework based on the first laws of reasoning present in what can be known: “All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowledge” (Posterior Analytics 1.1). Aquinas found this foundation of knowledge in terms of causae veritatis (causes of truth).

If my proposal of the role of Genesis 1–11 as a worldview is correct, then it will provide principles to be found in revelation. These principles will guide our understanding of the progress of revelation that unfolds in the dispensations that follow. The promises of God and the obedience of man to the laws of the government will resolve the problem of evil.

What Are The Principles In Genesis 1–11?

The State Of Human Existence Is Framed Within The Following Eight Truths:

1. God is the Creator and universal Ruler of the creation.

2. God permits the existence of evil within the good creation.

3. Adam was given responsibility to mediate God’s rule but lost that position of mediating rule to Satan when he obeyed Satan’s word (Gen 3:6, 7). As a result, the human race fell and would be ruled by Satan. Satan’s usurping of Adam’s role is acknowledged in the NT: “the prince of the power of the air, who rules over the sons of disobedience” (Eph 2:2).

4. After the invasion of evil, God pronounced judgment on Satan, in which hope for the judgment was to be worked out in the seed promised to the woman (Gen 3:15). This promise began to be fulfilled immediately in a line of descendants which was introduced as an elect line, beginning with Seth, and followed by one in each generation (5:1–32; 11:10–32).

5. Based on this promise, by faith Adam named his wife Eve, mother of the living, even though they had died when they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In response God provided a skin covering for each one (3:20, 21). Now both could approach God by sacrifice, even though they would be cast out of the garden. So, Abel followed the sacrifice but Cain did not. Thus, God is Savior of those who believe in God and the promise of Eve’s seed.

6. The human race, male and female, was now fallen and depraved due to Adam’s sin, living with a sentence of death. As a result, sin progressed climaxing in the distortion of the race, which threatened the promise of the seed to Eve. Then God judged the race except for Noah and his family who were saved from the worldwide flood. Noah was appointed to occupy the cleansed earth. But rather than ruling, he was given the Noahic covenant.

7. Human government was delegated to the collective humanity in the Noahic covenant, responsible to protect human life. A death penalty was instituted to enable the nation to enforce the nation’s law (Gen 9:1–9). Government law opposed evil in the population, as a means of avoiding another worldwide flood.

8. God’s glory will be revealed in his rule through promise, involving Jesus Christ who rose from the dead in order to overcome and defeat evil in righteousness. Believing mankind will be delivered from judgment following this pattern. Following his first advent, believers will be enabled to overcome evil as Christ had in resurrection. Evil will be defeated in Christ’s second advent.

Thus, there are three issues that will be resolved in the progress of revelation:

1. The judgment of the enemy of God, Satan, through the seed of the woman,
2. The reconciliation of the world to himself, through the sacrifice of seed of the woman,
3. The re-establishment of God’s mediated kingdom on earth, judging all nations through the revelation of the seed of the woman.

These issues will be realized in history.

Genesis 1–11 Does Not Adequately Represent Three Dispensations

1. The first three dispensations are defined by characteristics of a dispensation rather than by an economy in God’s outworking of his purposes.[1] This interpretation involves a change in the criteria of definition from Scofield to Ryrie’s own definition.

2. Ryrie questioned whether Conscience and Government are distinct dispensations. What were the distinguishing features to justify the two? I agree that the institution of government is new in holding mankind responsible for opposing evil by law, but it is not new in God’s governance. When God sent the worldwide flood, was God not governing evil in the population?

3. Scripture provides direct evidence for four dispensations (administrations):

• Ephesians 1:10: the administration of the days of fulfillment—to bring everything together in Christ (kingdom).
• John 1:17, “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (law and grace).
• Genesis 18:18–19, “Abraham is to become a great and powerful nation, and all the nations of earth will be blessed through him. I have chosen Abraham so that he will command his children and his house after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just. This is how He will fulfill to Abraham what he promised him” (promise).

These Scriptures identify four dispensations: promise, law, grace, and kingdom.

What Is The Worldview?

The Adam Phase

Adam was created with the responsibility to populate the earth and to mediate God’s rule on earth (Gen 1:28). This realm of rule included the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The threat not to eat was to be enforced by the penalty of death: “in the day you eat from it, you shall surely die” (2:17). God’s intent was that Adam would rule by the knowledge of good and trust God to deal with evil.

When Adam ate from the tree, he lost the position of rule to Satan, whose words, Adam now had begun to obey. To obey Satan was to disobey God. So, if Satan was now ruling, mankind was now ruled by Satan in disobedience.

In God’s pronouncement of judgment on the fallen world, he began with a judgment of the evil one, Satan. God spoke without any questioning of the serpent, which implied that the serpent was already guilty. Further evil was to co-exist in conflict with God’s promised line:

Stage one: the woman in conflict with Satan 

Stage two: the descendants of the woman; with the descendants of Satan, 

Stage three: the seed of the woman; with Satan. (3:15)

These stages are the pronouncement of judgment on Satan. This appears in the third stage, a promise of the seed of the woman is introduced, which invites mankind to believe. That seed will strike the head of Satan. However, this is only after Satan strikes the heel of the seed. So, the first response to evil featured the promised seed of the woman. God does not disregard man; instead, he promises one to defeat evil from the human race. While the seed is human, he will defeat Satan by the promise from God and in that sense is uniquely enabled by God.

When Adam named his wife, he believed the promise that the woman would be the mother of the living, even though God had threatened death on the day they ate. Adam believed God would deal with the threat of death, while Eve would mother offspring. In response to faith, God provided skin coverings so fallen mankind could still approach him through sacrifice. Abel offered such a sacrifice that God introduced, while Cain did not. After Abel was murdered, God provided Seth, and this chosen one is the first in a line. So, an elect line began with Seth followed by Enosh who began to call on the name of the Lord (4:25–26).

The fallen population followed the sin of Cain as reflected in the pattern of sin that succeeded Cain’s murdering Abel but pleading for God’s protection.

Lamech killed two lads but celebrated it with his wives. Sons of God impregnated daughters of man to begin to pollute the human race with Nephilim.

This development represents an intensification of evil in the world. God’s judgment responded to the intensifying presence of sin with a worldwide flood in which the whole population was judged, except for Noah and his family. As a result, God’s response alone addressed evil using the promised descendant of Eve, Noah, who was righteous to be delivered and to deliver his family.

The Noah Stage

Noah in the line of the elect ones, was linked to the preflood world. Having been delivered in the ark from that judged world, so that after the flood, he stepped into a new world with a changed climate and growing season (8:22). He was also linked to Adam by an altar, by which Noah approached God through sacrifice with thanksgiving (8:20).

Like Adam. Noah was appointed to populate the earth (Gen 9:1). But unlike Adam, he wasn’t appointed to rule. That rulership had been lost to Satan. Rather Noah was given a covenant for the worldwide population. There were these conditions in the covenant:

• Animals are now fearful of mankind,
• Animal life was given to man to eat, but without the blood,
• Promise of no more worldwide floods, evidenced by a rainbow,
• Human government, encompassing responsibility for humanity, will address the evil which Cain introduced.
• A Law code protecting human life was instituted and enforced by the death penalty of the guilty one. That penalty would be applied to animals or mankind and administered by man. (Gen 9:1–17).

So, in the second response to evil, God included the responsibility for all of humanity, as included under human government prescribed in the Noahic covenant. It was by man that the guilty party was to be slain. God required the life of the guilty party, but mankind was to execute it.

The outworking of the covenant rested in the descendants of Noah. Although it was occasioned by Noah’s own sin, which remained unresolved, yet Noah designated the order to follow in God’s plan. The next generation was worked out in his sons: Shem is the elect, Japheth is blessed, and Ham is cursed in his offspring Canaan.

At this time the whole earth spoke the same language and vocabulary. Collectively they were building a tower to confront God. But God descended to confuse their language and thereby separate the peoples into nations, each with their own self-interests and law. This world of nations under the Noahic covenant was fashioned to replace Adam’s responsibility on earth, not to rule over evil, but to govern the emergence of taking human life.

This responsibility to govern established nations each with a pattern of law in the history that followed (Gen 10). When God established Israel as a nation, the centerpiece was the law code in a more complete form (Exod 20–24). However, early dispensationalists overlooked what Paul said about the giving of the law:

Why then was the law given? It was added alongside of promise, for the sake of transgressions until the Seed to whom the Promise was given, would come…. Is the law contrary to God’s promises? Absolutely not! For if the law had been granted with the ability to give life, then righteousness would certainly be on the basis of law. But Scripture imprisoned everything under sin’s power, so that the promise might be given on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ to those who believe. (Gal 3:19–22)

The initial promise of the seed was in completed form the promise of Christ.

The Conclusion

The Noahic stage addressed evil in nations, but in spite of law, sin overcame the nations in evil. This narrative was completed in Daniel. Israel had just been deported into the Gentile world. Israel had been overcome by evil, even though the law code in Israel combined with the provision of sacrifice, revealed that human obedience alone would be insufficient. Rather that inability of fallen mankind will need the promised One to deal with evil efficaciously. This revelation was clarified at Jesus Christ’s first advent when “Jesus who was chosen before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times for you” died for mankind. What evil posed as a contradiction, God could control in a plan that included man with a responsible and free choice. God resolved the contradiction as the mystery unfolded. Jesus was chosen before the incarnation to have a role of death in redemption, a role which Jesus prayed could be removed. Yet he freely accepted the role, since he chose what was not decided by his will but God’s will that would be accomplished (Luke 22:36–46). The mystery was resolved as the contradiction had been removed. The resurrection realized Jesus will. “So that your faith and hope are in God” (1 Pet 1:20–21).

The Revelation of Jesus Christ completed the narrative as God defeated evil and the evil one through Jesus Christ. The resurrected One in God’s plan returned to complete the story. This conquest will be followed by the millennial kingdom of heaven come to earth in the Son of Man and God’s creation plan having been fulfilled despite evil having been permitted.

Thus Genesis 1–11 introduces a worldview consisting of the essential truths that frame the human existence that would follow. While the essential truths are introduced in the unresolved problem of evil, the development of God’s purposes to overcome evil awaited history and the progress of revelation. Ryrie identified the one purpose of God to be the mediated rule of man, finally realized through the kingdom of God come to earth. But Genesis 3:15 also implies another purpose of deliverance from evil, as Satan strikes the promised One, yet this struck One is the agent of deliverance for fallen mankind. By his death, the sin of mankind will be redeemed. So, the promised One must be delivered. Daniel envisions the first advent of Messiah when he was cut off (Dan 9:25–26) and the second advent of the Stone, not cut out with hands (2:34–35, 44), or the Son of Man (7:13–14; 26–27), or Messiah the Prince (9:25–27), who will ultimately reign.

While the whole human race is responsible for evil, only the promised descendant of the woman will fulfill that responsibility. However, those who receive his redemptive provision will join him to rule for one thousand years (Dan 7:27; Rev 20:4–7).

Notes

1. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 33–35.

Expository Preaching and Christo-Promise

By Elliott E. Johnson

[Elliott E. Johnson is Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas. He earned his ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Johnson is the founder of the Asian Theological Seminary and has taught extensively overseas. Dr. Johnson joined the Dallas Theological Seminary as a faculty member in 1972 and as a pastor of a Dallas-area church the same year. He has written numerous articles and a number of books as author such as Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Zondervan, 1990) and A Dispensational Biblical Theology (Bold Grace Ministries, 2017); and co-author of Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism (Kregel, 1999). Dr. Johnson is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society.]

Introduction

A preacher committed to expository preaching while also convicted to preach Christ may expect to find problems in preaching Old Testament (OT) texts. With a grammatical-historical hermeneutic guiding the exposition, the problem emerges when the presence of Christ in the text is difficult to substantiate. Charles Ryrie vigorously defended one Gospel present in all Scripture, yet concluded that the object of faith in salvation in every age is God.[1] While that is true, is not Christ also necessary to be included as the object of faith in the Gospel (Gal 3:8, 9)?

Yet the apparent absence of the mention of Christ in the OT is not the clear testimony of the New Testament (NT):

• Revelation 19:10: “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit (or concern) of prophecy.”
• Luke 24:27: “beginning in Moses and all the prophets He (Jesus) expounded to them in all the Scripture things concerning himself” (HCSB).
• 2 Corinthians 1:20: “For everyone of God’s promises is ‘yes’ in Him. Therefore, the ‘Amen’ is also spoken through him by us for God’s glory” (NIV).

Thus prophecy, OT Scripture, and promise, find a central and essential place for Jesus Christ according to the NT.

Willis Beecher recognized the compatibility of the revelation between the testaments when he wrote: “God gave a promise to Abraham, and through him to mankind; a promise eternally fulfilled, and fulfilled in the history of Israel; chiefly fulfilled in Jesus Christ, he being that which is principle in the history of Israel.”[2]

Dispensational theology also has recognized the centrality of the promise to Abraham (Genesis 12–22). The dispensation of promise introduces promise, which extends throughout the history of the OT until it is fulfilled in the two advents of Jesus Christ in the NT. The addition of law does not revoke the Abrahamic covenant, nor does it cancel the promise (Gal 3:17).

It is the intent of this essay to demonstrate that a grammatical interpretation of various OT mentions of promise includes the presence of Christ. It is included as the promise is expressed as progressively unfolding in history. The presence of Christ is the result of the author’s intent as the promise is expressed in the text and is capable of being understood at that time in history; whether or not we have indication in the text that characters did understand. This thesis is then the basis of expository preaching.

The essay will demonstrate this thesis by developing four ideas:

1. the definition of promise, the definition of Christo-Promise in the Bible,
2. NT texts that interpret OT passages expressing Chris to-Promise, and
3. an expository study of Genesis 15:1–6, giving expression to Christo-Promise.

Promise: A Hermeneutical Consideration

While grammatical-historical are principles guiding an expository treatment of a text, they aren’t sufficient to define verbal meaning. E. D.

Hirsch, in Validity in Interpretation, proposed a definition: verbal meaning is “a willed-type, which the author expressed (historical) by linguistic symbols (grammatical) and which can be understood by another through symbols (communication).”[3] The focus in communication of verbal meaning does not rest on words alone, separately considered, but on a pattern of words considered together as a type of meaning. This pattern can appear in sentences, or in a paragraph, or in complete compositions. In literature, the distinctive pattern is understood as genre.

In biblical types of meaning, promise, and law are related types of God’s communication with Israel. While they are related, they are also distinct types of meaning. A promise is an author’s commitment to act in the future on behalf of the stated recipient.[4] A promise is fulfilled when the commitment is fully kept with the stated recipient. On the other hand, a law expresses an author’s demand, calling the recipient to commit to act in obedience to the stated obligations. Both are commissive statements, but by distinction, the author or the recipient makes the commitment. We will wait to examine how they are related in biblical revelation.

The definition of promise consists of three traits[5] of the type of promise:

1. the author’s commitment to act,
2. the recipient with whom the author desires to keep his commitment, and
3. an assurance[6] that the commitment will be kept as stated.

Christo-Promise: A Biblical Theological Consideration

Creation

In creation, God spoke in fiat statements and the creation came into existence. None of the intervening acts of creation were included between what God said and what appeared in creation. When God spoke concerning Adam, God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule … all the earth … So God created man … He created them male and female. God blessed them and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth…’ (Gen 1:26–28). So in God’s stated resolve to create man, he assigned him the role to partner with God and to mediate his rule over creation. Further, God blessed them with the capacity to reproduce and populate the earth; their life would be mankind’s life.

Fall

In Adam’s disobedience to God’s word (Gen 2:17 and 3:6), he accepted the serpent’s word. As a result, Adam found himself ruled by the serpent as the serpent assumed the role of the “ruler of this world” (John 11:31). No longer did Adam mediate God’s rule, and the curse of death passed through Adam to the human race.

History

From all appearances, God faced an impossible dilemma: would he incorporate fallen mankind to partner with him to restore his original creation plan? Or would God act independent of his creation to restore the creation?

In God’s pronouncement of the judgment on the serpent, God incorporated Eve and selected offspring to partner with him (3:15). While judgment of the enemy is a necessary beginning to address the problem of evil, but it will not provide for restoration. So there is a selected line of offspring in the genealogies of Genesis 5:1–42 and 11:10–32 that link the choice of Abram to Adam and Eve. As a descendant of Eve, he is called to partner with the LORD (Gen 12:1a-c), and to receive promises of blessings (Gen 12:1d-3a), and a promise to partner with the LORD in mediating blessings to all the nations (Gen 12:3b). The scope of the promises indicates that God’s plan would necessarily extend to include Abram’s descendants (Gen 12:7, etc.).

The definition of God’s Christo-Promise would also include three traits in this type of promise:

1. In particular, God commits himself to bless all the nations—the future tense of this promised commitment has the force of a prophetic future.
2. The partner chosen to mediate these blessings is Abram. He accepted the role when he began to keep the commands and left the Ur of Chaldees (Heb 11:12) by faith.
3. The assurance that God would keep his promise contained both a certainty and a question bringing uncertainty. The certainty rested in God who made the commitment. He is God who created the heavens and the earth by his word. No obstacle had appeared in creation to indicate that his word would not be effectual in completing his will. That was certain. But in history, his word is challenged by the serpent’s word. Further, God included human partners who had fallen under the serpent’s rule. Thus the question to be addressed was: would Abram be willing to believe God’s word and be able to obey? That question is answered for Abraham in God’s test of his love for God (Gen 22:1–18). His willingness to sacrifice Isaac, in spite of his love for him, was answered with God’s enhanced promise: “because you have done this thing, and not withheld your only son, I will indeed bless you … all nations of the earth will be blessed by your offspring because you have obeyed my command” (22:16, 18). God’s word included Abraham as a causal link in God’s promised commitment.

The question is answered for that generation; but the question remains open to the future. While Abraham was a causal link to future generations, his obedience did not fulfill God’s promise. Thus, the certainty of God’s promise necessarily implies that there will be an ultimate descendent through whom the promise will be fulfilled. Thus the name, Christo-Promise, is chosen from our NT perspective. At the time of its composition by Moses, the promised one is defined as “the descendent through whom all the nations would be blessed.”

However, the relationship between promise and law is also introduced. The promise of God assured what in the commitment would be fulfilled. The law of God was added to identify the descendant who would be willing and able to obey and thus the one chosen by God to use as the partner (Gal 3:23–24).

The blessing that God promised was progressively unfolded in the life of Abraham’s descendants. This may be illustrated in Joshua 10:1–8 as the promise of the land (Gen 12:7) was initially being fulfilled.

1. The LORD promised Joshua: “I have handed them (the five kings) over to you. Not one of them will be able to stand against you (10:8). Then “the LORD fought for Israel” and he caused “the sun to stand still” (10:12–14). “There was no day like it before or after … because the LORD fought for Israel” (10:14).
2. Yet “the LORD listened to the voice of man” (10:14). Joshua and his men fought as partners in the battle. They pursued the enemies and executed the five kings (10:16–27). This dual causation is consistent with what G. B. Caird described: “In the Bible, predestination is never confused with determinism, God’s appointments have absolute performative force, but this causal power never dispenses with human response.”[7]
3. The assurance of the promised conquest appeared to Joshua when “the commander of the LORD’s army” (Joshua 5:14, 15) met Joshua before any of the battles began. This brief encounter with the armed man suggested that he was none other than the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ.[8] This was God’s assurance plan to Joshua that the promise would be accomplished.

An NT Consideration of Jesus Christ as Present in OT Promise Texts

The investigation we want to pursue is based on an exposition of OT texts but read from the perspective of the completed revelation. However, the investigation wants to avoid unwarranted reading in NT meaning into OT texts. Such warrant involves grammatical and historical features found in the OT texts.

Two passages anticipate a Coming One following the creation and the fall of Adam from his role as partner and mediator.

First, the creation was formed to be largely self-sustained. Plants were seed-bearing so as to reproduce for the next season. Likewise, birds, fish, animals, and Adam and Eve were promised with the blessing to reproduce offspring in kind (Gen 1:26–28). However, when they transgressed, the offspring received a fallen life of sin, destined to die. Paul drew the following implications based on God’s promises in creation: “Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression. He is a type of the Coming One” (cf. Rom 5:14 CSB).

Second, the word of creation has also directed man to rule over creation on behalf of God (Gen 1:26–28). Following Adam’s fall, Adam was ruled by the serpent and lost the mediated rule entrusted to him. As already indicated, God promised to Eve and entrusted to the chosen ones of her offspring a position of conflict with the serpent which would ultimately be resolved by one offspring (he, him) with the serpent (Gen 3:15c).

Paul identified that ultimate offspring with Jesus Christ. “When the time came for completion, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal 4:4). It seems unnecessary to identify the offspring as “born of a woman,” since every offspring is born of a woman. So Paul’s point is to allude to Genesis 3:15c. He was born to be struck in conflict with the serpent, “to redeem those under the law so that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5).

In the fallen world that followed, in time God’s word of promise addressed a chosen partner, and was the principle means by which God would restore the creation and bring it to fulfillment according to the creation design. That plan of restoration began with the word of promise addressed to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3. This initial passage will be considered when we exposit Genesis 15:1–6. However, the promise to Abraham as originally spoken continued until Abraham’s faith is tested in Genesis 22:1–18, which Hebrews 11:19 comments on. F. F. Bruce interprets the verse in Hebrews: “And in fact, so far as Abraham’s resolution is concerned, Isaac was as good as dead, and it was practically from the dead that he received him back when his hand was arrested in mid-air and the heavenly voice forbade him to proceed further. He received him back from the dead, says our author, ‘in a figure’ meaning, probably, in a manner that prefigured the resurrection of Christ.”[9]

On the promise to David that the LORD would build his house (2 Sam 7:11b-16), the promise of a hope of an eternal house was referred to by David in Psalm 16:10. While there is debate about the interpretation, Peter interprets the verse as talking about a soon resurrection, before the body would see decay (Acts 2:31). David had died; he had not been resurrected yet, since his grave remained to that day. The promise in Psalm 16:10b referred ultimately to Jesus and his resurrection, since the apostles were witnesses of the fact (2:32). While David spoke of Messiah, in the progress of revelation, Peter preached Jesus, whom God intended to refer to, his anointed heir. Through the resurrection of Jesus, David’s house would be established forever, as promised.

In addition to promise, God added law. It was not to replace promise but to direct Israel to One coming who would partner with God in promise. This Coming One would enable God to keep his commitment to bless all nations through his partner. The Coming One would also resolve the intention of the law. Caird focused on the issue: “Many performatives depend for their effectiveness (but not for their validity) on a response. An order does not produce the intended results unless it is obeyed; otherwise it will only have the unintended, though possibly foreseen, effect of rendering its recipient disobedient” (Rom 5:20).[10] In revealing the law to Israel, God had the right to hold her accountable under law and it was valid for God to judge Israel for her transgressions. Yet the Mosaic Law would only be effective in the intended purpose (Exod 19:5, 6), if some partner were willing and able to obey fully. So the law was effectively realized as Jesus shared that intended promise: “Don’t assume that I’ve come to destroy the law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17 HCSB). The law was never expected to be fulfilled through a fallen people. Rather, the law was expected to be a schoolmaster to reveal Israel’s Messiah (Gal 3:24). Thus, Jesus Christ did not replace Israel, but represented Israel in her partnership with God. So Israel was the covenant partner (Rom 9:4–5), a partnership which was intended to be fulfilled through a coming Offspring.

Exposition of Genesis 15:1–6

Genesis 12:1–3 introduces the call of Abram to become God’s partner in the initial promise of restoration. Abram’s response and journeys from Ur are traced and reach an initial climax in Genesis 15:1–6.

The set of promises (12:1d-3) are introduced by three commands: “Go out from your land, your relatives, and your father’s house” (12:1a-c). At first appearance, it might seem like the realization of the promises that follow are contingent upon obedience to these commands. However, there are two reasons why fulfillment of the promises is not contingent on obedience.

First, the scope of what God committed to do in the promises far exceeds what obedience would accomplish. So obedience is related to receiving what God promised but only God who made the commitment could bring about all that was promised.

Second, he left his land and many in his extended family by faith (Heb 11:8–9); but brought his father, Terah, and his relative, Lot. So at best, it can be said that he obeyed some of what God had commanded. Stephen described what God did: “God had him move to the land you now live in” (Acts 7:4b, HCSB). Included in “God had him move” was the taking of Terah in death and the orchestrating of Lot to be separated from Abram.

At issue in Abram’s obedience is his acceptance of partnership with God. So after Abram left the Ur of Chaldees, he began a journey in developing faith as God effectually drew him through experiences that he faced by faith in the journey.

Following Abram’s bringing blessing on Lot and the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah by delivering them from Chedorlaomer and his allies, the Lord addressed Abram with promise. “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield and your reward will be very great” (Gen 15:1). Abram immediately focused on reward since he and Sarah still had no descendants after some twenty-five years. While he believed God to deliver his nephew, he wavered in unbelief that they would ever have an heir. In fact, he had a plan worked out in his own mind that Eliezer of Damascus, a chosen servant in his household, would be his heir. And yet that hope was not as satisfying as having a son who would be his heir (15:2–3). Thus he raised a question about the promise of reward.

Then “the word of the Lord came to him: ‘This one will not be your heir; instead, one who comes from your own body will be your heir’” (15:4). The word took Abram from confidence in his plan to place the focus of his faith on what God explicitly promised, developed from what had formerly been implied. And Abram believed God in spite of his advanced age and the deadness of Sarah’s body. He believed in the Lord to resurrect from the dead. This offspring would be the one through whom the promise of blessing all nations would be fulfilled. That’s what God had promised. Moses then summarized the conclusion: “Abram believed God and he credited (the faith) to him as righteousness” (15:6). Paul commented on this passage twice. In Romans 4:3–5, he uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith. In Galatians 3:8, he quotes the promise in Genesis 12:3b as the Gospel. In both cases, the promise includes an implied reference to Christ, which is the object of faith, since that is what God promised. Thus, this is a Christo-Promise, a promise of “the offspring through whom all nations would be blessed.”

Conclusion

The title Christo-Promise seeks to represent the intention-directed revelation of the OT. Promise, having the force of a prophetic-future, speaks to God’s intent to restore and bless the fallen creation. That restoration includes both the restoration of mankind’s relationship to God and the restoration of mankind’s mediating role of rule in God’s will in the creation. It is God’s stated commitment in promise that certifies the believer’s hope.

Christo speaks to the ultimate One through whom fulfillment of the promise would appear, since God has entrusted the outworking of his plan to chosen ones from the human race. That partnership had been introduced in creation and then was continued after the fall. But this raised a question: how could chosen men that were also fallen adequately partner with God? A restoration that is certain because it is based on God’s promise, would necessarily imply a Coming One from God who is identified as human and divine—Christo.[11] His partnership with God would not replace those called from the human race, Israel, but would represent them that they might realize the role to which they were called.

With this understanding of OT revelation, expository preaching guided by a historical-grammatical hermeneutic ought to be pursued. In this pursuit, many texts will naturally speak of historical figures, who anticipate what only Christ will accomplish. And the anticipation is fashioned by a context of promise or of promissory covenants.

Further, Christo-Promise necessarily includes Christ in the one Gospel. So the Gospel message is one, calling for faith in God who made the promise and in Christ who assured that it would be realized. In the progress of revelation, what is known of Christ is always true but is more fully understood as more is revealed.

Notes

1. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (rev. ed.; Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 134.
2. Willis J. Beecher, Prophets and Promise (reprint ed., 1905; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 178.
3. E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 49 (clarification added).
4. G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980), 7–36.
5. Hirsch, when a “person has learned the characteristics of the type, he can ‘generate’ those characteristics…” These characteristics are traits of the type meaning: “An implication belongs to a meaning as a trait belongs to a type … there is only one way the interpreters can know the characteristics of the type; he must learn them,” 66.
6. “Promise n. a declaration assuring what one will promise - tr. To pledge or offer assurance one will or will not do something, vow.” The American Heritage Dictionary (2nd ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1985), 991.
7. Caird, Language and Imagery of the Bible, 24.
8. Joshua bowed down before Him with his face to the ground to worship Him. He then spoke as the One who appeared in the burning bush: “Put off your shoe from your foot for the place where you are standing is holy” (5:15).
9. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 312.
10. Caird, Language and Imagery of the Bible, 20.
11. The NT reveals that the expectation of an ultimate realization of the partnership is not between two persons, one divine and the other human. Rather, the partnership is realized with One Person with two natures, one fully divine and the other fully human; that is Jesus Christ.

Dispensational Features In The Gospel Of Matthew

By Elliott E. Johnson [1]

All of the Gospel accounts are compatible with a dispensational biblical theology. At the same time, each account has a distinctive emphasis. If the relationship between Israel and the church distinguishes between expressions of dispensationalism,[2] then Matthew and Luke reflect that distinction.

Matthew features a stated distinction between the two. Jesus’ historic ministry was addressed to the house of Israel (10:6, 15:24). The church is introduced after that generation of Israel had rejected Jesus as the Son of David (12:23–42) and the disciples had confessed that the Son of Man is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (16:16). Although Israel reached into the past as the genealogy had indicated (1:1–17), the church would be built in the future. It would be built on the truth Peter confessed on behalf of the disciples. It was the truth revealed to the disciples about who Jesus is (16:17, 18). After Jesus’ resurrection, he commanded the disciples to make disciples in the church based on the truths taught in the Gospel account addressed to them (28:16–20).

Luke features a continuity reflected in the remnant of believers in the Gospel account and Acts. Jesus was born in the midst of a believing remnant (1, 2). In Galilee a remnant of disciples were chosen (5:1–6:16), and this remnant then joined Jesus in the journey to Jerusalem (9:51). They shared in the journey as Jesus traveled to seek and to save the lost (15:1–32; 19:10). The remnant of believers who had come to Jerusalem became the remnant from with whom the church was born (Acts 1:1–2:46). “Those who believed were added to them” (Acts 2:47; 4:4; 23–37, etc.). Acts recorded the journey from Jerusalem where the church was founded (8:3) to Antioch, to Asia Minor, and to Europe. At Antioch the gospel began to be spoken to Hellenists (11:20), who, when they believed, were added to the Lord (11:24) and were called Christians (11:26). From that sending church, the Gospel spread into the Gentile world through Paul and the remnant of missionaries. So while Matthew features the distinction between Israel and the church, Luke-Acts features the continuity between Israel and the church.

πληροω is the key term in Matthew’s interpretation of the first advent of Jesus Christ. From the perspective of exposition, it features the completion of what God began in Israel’s history under Moses and the prophets. From the perspective of biblical theology, it featured the fulfillment of the dispensation of law.

As the texts are read from the perspective of speech-act understanding of language, God made commitments to Israel that remained unrealized in the closing of the Old Testament. In addition, Israel made commitments to God’s demands under law, which remained unmet. Further, during the times of the Gentiles, Israel’s experience under Gentile rule, introduced when the people of God went into captivity, remained to be resolved.

Matthew, in formula quotations, editorially commented on ten references to the Old Testament.[3] Although there are OT parallels, Matthew’s formula is a development of the early Christian use of πληροω to indicate OT texts as fulfilled in the story of Jesus. As Davies and Allison note, “Neither the Dead Sea Scrolls nor rabbinic writings offer true parallels.”[4] When the synoptic Gospels are compared, eight quotations “are not cited in the New Testament outside his Gospel.”[5]

In addition, Matthew quotes Jesus’ use of πληροω (5:17). According to Heinrich Greeven, “The goal of Jesus’ mission is fulfillment. . . . Jesus does not merely affirm that he will maintain them (the Law and the prophets) but fulfill them. As he sees it, his task is to actualize the will of God made known in the Old Testament. . . .”[6]

Thus, Matthew’s argument that distinguishes Israel from the church is clarified. Israel’s exodus and particular promises concerning Messiah are identified by fulfillment of the Old Testament’s unrealized expectation. On the other hand, the church is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Rather, its identification is forged from Peter’s testimony of who Jesus is. This truth is the foundation upon which the church will be built. So both Israel and the church share in the benefits of Jesus’ first advent ministry. For Israel, Jesus fulfilled the unfinished revelation concerning Israel found in the Old Testament. For the church, believers received the blessings of Jesus’ finished work in his first advent work.

Formula Quotations In Matthew

The first eight quotations (1:22, 23; 2:15; 2:17, 18; 2:23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35) explain events that were intended to fulfill what the Old Testament had prophesied about Israel or anticipated concerning Messiah. The eight quotations may be divided into two groups: the first four refer to aspects of Israel’s past to demonstrate that Jesus recapitulated Israel’s past that had been left open since the people had gone into captivity. The second four initiate first-advent ministries prophesied about Israel’s service to represent the people as the Servant. This happens as God’s purpose for his people began to be fulfilled.

Recapitulation Of Israel’s Past As God’s Son

Born A Davidic King (1:22, 23)

The fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 anticipates the theme developed in Isaiah 9:6–7 and 11:1–9. The son born is related to David, yet not fathered by David.

Ahaz was a descendent of David through Solomon (1:6, 9), yet was judged because of unbelief (Isa 7:12). That judgement meant that he would not father the descendent in the line of David. Yet the virgin would conceive and bear a son according to the LORD’s promise (7:14), which theme was completed in Isaiah 9:6, 7 and 11:1–9, a fulfillment of a divine-human King.

This prophesied expectation was quoted to explain Mary and Joseph’s experience. Mary became pregnant as a virgin through the Holy Spirit, which Joseph discovered through a dream (1:20, 21). Joseph then legally adopted the baby as the son of David when he named him Jesus (1:25).

At the same time, his birth through the virgin Mary identified him as human, an offspring of a woman. In his generation, he was called to do battle with the serpent as Eve’s seed (Gen 3:15) as he was led into the wilderness (4:2). The forty days he spent in the wilderness reminds the readers of Israel’s forty years in the wilderness after they had sinned (Num 14:1–38). By contrast, Jesus did conflict with Satan who tempted him as the Son of God, but he refused to sin (3:17–4:17). Thus, in the recapitulation of a birth in David’s incomplete line, a new hope was introduced according to the Davidic covenant.

Exodus From Egypt (2:15)

Hosea 11:1 spoke of Israel called out of Egypt as God’s son. This statement in Hosea is not a prophetic promise, but a historic reference to the time when Israel first received God’s promises (Exod 3:16, 17). It was a promise that Israel as God’s son had initially realized in the exodus, but by the time of Hosea, what Israel realized had been lost. They were about to return to Gentile captivity in Assyria (Hos 7:11, 8:9, 9:5). However, Hosea also prophesied that theologically they would “return to Egypt” (Hos 8:13) “because they transgressed My Covenant” (8:1). So, Hosea 11:1 makes a statement of God’s purpose for Israel my son.

Jesus’ flight to Egypt positioned him where the people of Israel had begun their history. The original exodus was a type of which Jesus’ exodus from Egypt as God’s son would be an anti-type in the fulfillment of God’s purpose for Israel. This recapitulation anticipated a final fulfillment in the representative Son, of what the LORD had promised (Exod 6:2–4). So the house of Israel could have hope in spite of the times of the Gentiles.

Sorrow Of Suffering Under The Times Of The Gentiles (2:17–18)

While Jesus escaped Herod’s fury, the infants in the region of Bethlehem were massacred. Jeremiah 31:15 spoke of Rachel’s weeping for her children, when they had been invaded by Babylon. Although a remnant had returned to Jerusalem from captivity under Cyrus, yet Gentile persecution continued under Rome. It was in this sense that sorrow would be fulfilled. And that pain under Rome would be the setting for Jesus’ ministry and crucifixion. The recapitulation represents the continuation of Israel’s fate under Gentile rule.

An Insignificant Place In Return To The Land Of Israel (2:23)

The basic recapitulation was to focus on Jesus’ return to the land of Israel as Israel had first entered the land under Joshua. The particular location of Nazareth focuses on Jesus who did not return to the center of power in Jerusalem but to Nazareth. This insignificant location fulfilled the prophetic expectation that as the Servant, “A shoot (nezer) shall grow forth out of (Jesse’s) roots” (Isa 11:1). Proverbially, nothing of significance had arisen from that environment. Nathanael would ask: “What good thing can come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:44).

In Jesus’ recapitulation of events as the son of God, Jesus fulfilled purposes left open and unrealized in Israel’s sinful history. Thus, Jesus was positioned to accomplish God’s original plan. At this stage, a question may be raised; did Jesus intend to replace Israel or to represent Israel? The answer will be found in passages from Isaiah which Matthew quotes as fulfilled in decisions in Jesus’ ministry.

Representing Israel In The Kingdom

The Great Light In The Midst Of Darkness (4:14–16)

The fulfillment of Isaiah 9:1–2 continues the theme introduced in Isaiah 7:14; “a child will be born for us.... the government will be on His shoulders” (9:6). The immediate focus is on the light shining in the darkness of the “Galilee of the Gentiles.” This may seem strange as Jesus had been sent to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24), yet he withdrew to the darkness after John had been arrested by Rome (4:12). Zebulun and Naphtali, the two northeastern tribes of the land west of the Jordan, had been the first to be devastated and depopulated by Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kgs 15:29).

The darkness and great gloom of that region set the backdrop for Jesus’ appearance as a “great light.” He left Nazareth behind and went to live in Capernaum by the sea “along the sea road, beyond the Jordan” (4:15). So even though Jesus’ location was remote, it was strategically located near the road from the north to the south where the message could travel throughout the land.

The message, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven had come near” (4:17), was demonstrated through miraculous tokens of heaven’s reign over evil. Thus the light showed heaven’s presence in the Davidic King (2 Sam 7:16). Disciples were called to follow (4:18–22) and numerous miracles were recorded (4:23–25). The brightness drew crowds from the whole region of Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond Jordan (4:25). So Jesus, fulfilling the shining Light, laid claim to represent Israel expressing God’s reign in token form.

Servant Assumes Man’s Weakness (8:17)

Embedded in a list of miracles (8:1–9:33), Matthew takes note of the prophesied compassion of the Servant (Isa 53:4). This editorial interpretation followed the record of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law and her neighbors at Capernaum (8:14–16); “the Servant takes the sickness that belongs to us and lifts them upon himself.”[7] These tokens of the reign of heaven meditated through Jesus fulfilled, in each instance the prophetic promise of compassion.

Servant Brings Justice (12:17–21

As the conclusion of Jesus’ broad-based Galilean ministry, the Pharisees began to plot to destroy him. Rather than confronting the rejection, Jesus withdrew and called his followers to do the same. That strategy was followed, so that Isaiah 42:1–4 might be fulfilled. Two striking issues emerge from what is promised.

First, Messiah is the Servant:

The word servant is empathic, for it expresses the central theme. Isaiah had already identified Israel as God’s servant (41:8). Why then is there a special introduction at this point of Isaiah 42? It would seem that the word is here used in a different sense from 41:8, and is not merely an identification of Israel. In particular if the prophecy is addressed to the nation, it would be unlikely that Israel is the servant... the Targum equates the servant with Messiah.[8]

The Servant of Yahweh might seem to replace the nation-servant, except that the servant’s mission is addressed to and shared by the nation-servant. Thus the relationship is not replacement but representation. And based in the Servant’s representation of Israel, the nation-servant will fulfill its role.

Second, the Servant-Messiah will proclaim and establish justice. It will be established in an unobtrusive and quiet manner among the nations of the whole earth. As Matthew develops this theme of justice, it refers immediately to Jesus’ withdrawal from those who plotted against him (Matt 12:16–16). As he neared Jerusalem, it meant that he would submit to their plot and die (Matt 16:21). Yet he would not be overcome by the opposition but he would “be raised on the third day” (16:21). Peter objected to Jesus’ submission (16:22), only to be confronted by Jesus as speaking on Satan’s behalf. Peter was focused on the concerns of man, not of God (16:23). In God’s concern as Jesus was on the cross, the Servant-Messiah established the foundation of justice.

Separation Of Those He Represents (13:25)

The division introduced by the Pharisees in their rejection of Jesus’ claim (Matt 12:14) is completed by Jesus as he spoke to the crowds in parables. Speaking in parables was prophesied by the word in Psalm 78:2. Parables can obscure the teaching unless one recognizes the point of comparison in the analogy (Matt 13:11). Thus Jesus’ disciples came to Jesus to find out the point of comparison (13:10–17). To them and to them alone, Jesus revealed the secrets of the kingdom of heaven (13:11). The secret was that a stage of kingdom ministry would precede the establishment of the mediatoral kingdom as it had been revealed to David (2 Sam 7:16). This stage of kingdom ministry had not been revealed from the foundation of the world. This period was portrayed as seed sown on earth (13:18–23) in which both wheat and tares would take root on earth (13:24–33 and 36–43). Finally, Jesus laid claim to represent the remnant of Israel in the wheat sown.

Division Among The People Of Israel

Unambiguous Claim To Be King (21:4–5)

The division among the people became public as Jesus entered Jerusalem (21:1–3). The entry followed in detail Zechariah 9:9 as fulfillment of his prophesied triumphant arrival. The prophecy identified Jesus’ generation of Zion that would see the entrance. The entrance would be marked by a donkey, on a foal of a beast of burden. His ancestor David also rode a mule (1 Kgs 1:38). It would speak of his gentleness as the ruler who had already been introduced (12:15; 14:13; 15:21).

In support of Jesus’ humble claim, “crowds who went ahead of Him and those who followed kept shouting ‘Hosanna’...” (Ps 118:25, 26).

When the chief priests and scribes heard this, they were indignant at the children shouting in the temple complex. Jesus reminded them of Psalm 8:2 which spoke of the children and nursing infants praising God.

The Nation’s Lack Of Value For The King (27:9–10)

The value of Jesus for the chief priests was 30 pieces of silver first given to Judas to betray him. When the money was returned by a remorseful Judas, the blood money was scooped up by the chief priests to buy the potter’s field. Judas had discarded the money before he committed suicide. This fulfilled what Jeremiah and Zechariah had promised (Jer 32:6–9 and Zech 11:12, 13). It became a measure of Jesus’ value among “all the people.” They would cry out later at Messiah’s crucifixion, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt 27:25).

Jesus Represents The People Under The Law

As the ten citations have been exposited, in this perspective, the purposes of God for Messiah’s first advent have been introduced. In recapitulation, Jesus was set up as God’s son to enter the inheritance of the land and the Davidic promise. In a position of representation, Jesus chose the role to serve Israel-servant as Isaiah had prophesied about the Servant of the Lord. In this perspective, another question remained: What remained to fulfill to dispensation of Law? Matthew’s answer was expressed in Jesus’ use of πληροω:

First, Matthew interpreted Jesus’ first advent in the framework of ten editorial comments. Davies and Allison note, “The historical characters do not speak them. These solemn formal citations of the Old Testament are introduced… to indicate Old Testament texts fulfilled in the story of Jesus.”[9]

Second, Matthew alone quotes Jesus as he introduced the second feature. “Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17).

The “Law or the Prophets” provides a different emphasis than the “Mosaic covenant.” Jeremiah had already concluded that “the covenant I made with the ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt—a covenant they broke…” (Jer 31:31, 32). The broken Mosaic Covenant did not need to be fulfilled but the Law included in the covenant must be fulfilled. The Law and the Prophets give expression to God’s demands placed upon the people. The covenant incorporates these demands expressing a formal partnership between Israel and God. Since the old partnership was broken, a new partnership (covenant) would be ratified (Jer 31:33, 34). But Israel’s responsibility assumed when they accepted the Mosaic Covenant (Exod 19:7, 8; 24:3, 7), had never been met. Thus Jesus assumes this collective responsibility as their Representative under Law. All that the Lord commanded he did.

This position that Jesus claimed is further supported by Jesus’ final comments in Matthew 5:20. If the people’s righteousness was to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, would this be accomplished on their own? The answer implied that that would be impossible. This impossibility further implied that there would be a righteousness made available by Jesus, the nation’s representative. While Matthew does not develop this implication, the Old Testament had borne witness to a righteousness by faith (Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4). Such a faith-based righteousness is neither earned as the Pharisees sought, nor deserved as the law implied. It is given by grace as Jesus’ death on the cross would provide.

Fulfillment Of The Law Met While Revelation Of Law Continues (5:17–19)

Fulfillment of the law does not mean termination of the law. Rather it means complete satisfaction or obedience of the obligation God demanded, which the people agreed to do (Exod 19:7, 8). What God demanded is known in Jesus’ exposition of the full and originally intended meaning (5:21–48). Further, it is known in what Jesus taught in addition to what he did in obedience (28:20). Both will be considered.

Jesus’ assurance that the words of the law would not pass away until all were accomplished, seems to be in tension with Jesus’ promise to fulfill the law. The tension can be minimized by following the clarification suggested by Douglas Moo: the meaning depends on (1) the two untils (until heaven and earth pass away, and until all is accomplished, 5:18), (2) the meaning of the law, and (3) all things are accomplished.[10] Here is a proposed contextual interpretation of each:

1. Every detail demanded by the law is valid until the fallen world passes away,
2. The law remains valid until the new covenant, which incorporates the law, is accomplished
3. The all things that are accomplished include Jesus’ death and resurrection[11]

Thus, the law includes the whole Mosaic law found in the Old Testament under which Jesus and his immediate historic hearers were responsible to live. In Jesus’ final word to his disciples (28:20), the law consisted in “what Jesus commanded the disciples” as reflected in the book. This may be what Paul later refers to as the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2), since Jesus spoke of the obligations of the commands except for the law of the Sabbath.

Jesus’ Interpretation Of The Law (5:21–48)

There is an antithesis in all the six expositions, which introduces a comparison. In each comparison “what they had heard” is in distinction to “what Jesus has to say.” That exposition focused on God’s intended meaning, fleshing out attitudes that are implied in the actions addressed in the law.

• Murder begins with anger in the heart, so reach a settlement quickly with your adversary;
• Adultery arises from lust, so whatever provides a gateway to lust must be decisively rejected;
• Divorce is permitted due to hardness of hearts for limited reasons, but with consequences that follow sin, which occasioned divorce, remain to be addressed (19:1–12);
• An oath doesn’t assure truth, only truth-telling does;
• Retribution for evil ought to be replaced by not resisting personal loss or challenge;
• Love of one’s neighbor ought to include an enemy neighbor as the Father treats an evil world with expressions of love.

Jesus’ Obedience To The Law

In Moo’s overview, Jesus:

attends the major feasts in Jerusalem, pays the half-shekel temple tax (Matt 17:24–27), wears the prescribed tassel on his robe (Matt 9:20; cf. Num 15:38–41) and, whatever may be said about his disciples’ behavior (Matt 12:1–8) or his teaching never clearly violates the Sabbath (Matt 12:9–14). It is only in the case of Jesus’ contacts with unclean people in his healing ministry (e.g. touching a leper, Matt 8:3) that could be considered a violation of the Law of Moses. Even in this case, however, the unusual nature of Jesus’ healing activities makes it difficult to identify a clear cut violation of the Law…”

“What we have then, is a Jesus who does not go out of his way to break the traditions of his day but at the same time makes clear that he considers himself free to ignore them if need demands.”[12]

Purposes Of The Law

While neither Jesus nor Matthew discusses the purpose of the law, Paul’s later reflection will be used. First, the demands of the law were introduced to be obeyed. Jesus stated intent was to fulfill what was meant to be obeyed. “The commandment was meant for life” (Rom 7:10), implying that life would be experienced by obedience (Lev 18:15). “Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom 10:4). So Jesus earned the right to life by obedience but surrendered that life to give eternal life to all who believe in him.

Second, “the law was our (Israel’s) guardian (schoolmaster) until Christ…. But since faith has come, we (Jewish believers) are no longer under a guardian (Gal 3:24, 25). So the righteous demands of the law were intended to identify the Righteous One, Jesus Christ. So Jesus challenged his generation, “who among you can convict me of sin?” (John 8:46).

Third, “it is clear that no one is justified before God by law because ‘the righteous by faith will live’ (Hab 2:4). But the law is not based on faith; instead ‘the one who does these things will live by them’ (Lev 18:5). Christ has redeemed believers from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for them because it is written ‘Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed’” (Deuteronomy 21:23) (Gal 3:11–13). Thus, the law was intended to condemn the fallen race that believers may be redeemed through the death of the Representative of Israel as God promised to Abraham, “through you all nations will be blessed” (Gen 12:3b).

Conclusion

The two governing revelations in the dispensation of law are featured in Matthew in promise and law. The law was added to promise not yet fulfilled. Matthew focuses on the climax of the dispensation by highlighting the fulfillment of the two revelations.

Mathew himself as editor uses ten fulfillment-formulas to show the relationship between the OT promise and events and teaching in Jesus’ ministry. The first four portray Jesus as recapitulating Israel’s early history from election to entrance into the land. This positioned Jesus as Israel’s representative to bring the kingdom of heaven to earth among the people. The next four citations identify Jesus as representative of Israel the servant, as Servant-King. The last two instances at the conclusion of the account contrast His divine role as King with the value the religious leaders place upon his life in his crucifixion.

On the other hand, Jesus himself claimed to be the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. That means that he would fully obey all of the commands, yet he died under the curse of the law as executed by the nation’s leaders. So the goal of the law was reached but the law continued to be relevant until the fallen creation is replaced by a new earth and a new heaven.

So Israel was left with an expectation for the future because Jesus fulfilled the revelation from the Old Testament as Israel’s representative son of God, Israel’s heir. In the meantime, the church, unknown in the Old Testament, would be built by Christ, resting on the truth of who Jesus is and what he did. Finally, Israel’s expected hope would be realized in Messiah’s second advent as the Servant-King will reign in the kingdom of heaven come to earth.

Notes

1. Elliott E. Johnson, ThD, is the Senior Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas at the Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Elliott can be reached at ejohnson@dts.edu.
2. This distinction is more sharply expressed in the comparison between a dispensational and covenant theology.
3. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., Matthew 19–28, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 3:573–77.
4. Ibid., 574.
5. Ibid., 576.
6. Heinrich Greeven, “πληροω,” TDNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 6:294.
7. Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 3:345.
8. Ibid., 108.
9. Davies and Allison, Matthew 19–28, 574.
10. Douglas Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View,” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, ed. Wayne Strickland et al. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 319–76.
11. While Matthew does not consider that believers in the church which would come (16:18, 19) are not “under law,” Paul does. Paul teaches that these believers are “under grace.” That means that they live under the good gifts included in Christ’s death and resurrection. Believers are united through Spirit baptism in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection so that they might walk in a new way of life (Romans 6:2–4). In that union with Christ, the “old man” has been crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6). As a result, “you were put to death in relation to the law through the crucified body of Messiah, so that you may belong to another—to Him who was raised from the dead—that we may bear fruit to God” (Romans 7:4).
12. Moo, “Law of Christ,” 451, 452.

What I Mean by Historical-Grammatical Interpretation and How That Differs from Spiritual Interpretation

By Elliott E. Johnson

The subject of our dialogue focuses our attention on a fundamental difference between dispensational hermeneutics and other expressions of evangelical hermeneutics. While this is a fundamental difference, yet the difference is not at the level of principles. It is fundamental because it determines one’s view of the structure of progressive revelation and consequently influences the interpretation of many passages and the role and value of Old Testament revelation for today and for the future. Yet the differences are not basically in principle. All agree on the necessity of grammatical interpretation and historical interpretation and most agree on the legitimacy of literal interpretation and interpretation by the analogy of faith. It is rather a difference in the appropriate application of these principles. My view of appropriate use of these principles begins with and is ultimately controlled by what I think is entailed in the fact that “the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

This presupposition in my view of hermeneutics entails that each book of the Bible expresses a unified message and the collection of books forms a unified canon of Scripture. That unity expresses itself in the coherence of the composition of each book consistent with the norms of the appropriate literary genre. In addition, that unity expresses itself in the compatibility of truth expressed in the progressive revelation of the whole canon. So while there are changes in the meaning in the progressive unfolding of the revelation of Old Testament truths, those changes do not include alterations of the original sense or contradictions with the first expression of the truth. An original expression of a historical truth may have a limited time of application (as with the truths about animal sacrifices) and thus be replaced by a subsequent historical truth resting on the completed work of Christ. But such a replacement of an original truth does not alter, contradict, nor deny the original expression of truth. It merely reflects that God’s dealing with man may change as the fulfillment of God’s purposes progressively unfold.

This fundamental difference in the use of the principles became clarified in the ongoing debate between John F. Walvoord and George Eldon Ladd. The debate focused on the interpretation of Old Testament prophetic passages in their own context. In the terms of our discussion, a historical-grammatical interpretation of Old Testament is sufficient to discover God’s introductory or initial word on a prophetic subject. Walvoord called for this consistent, contextual handling of an Old Testament text which he called literal.[1]

Ladd objected to this approach. He concluded: “The ‘literal hermeneutic’ does not work…Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament to find their deeper meaning.”[2] Such an application of the “analogy of faith” would result in his approach that “the Old Testament is reinterpreted in light of the Christ event.”[3] This approach then received a wide acceptance among other evangelical interpreters with different conclusions concerning a future millennium. Anthony A. Hoekema in an amillennial perspective writes: “I agree with him (Ladd) that the Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.”[4] In addition, Lorain Boettner who holds a postmillennial view of progressive revelation writes: “I am favorably impressed with Ladd’s discussion of the manner in which Old Testament prophecy is interpreted and applied by the New Testament.”[5] This application of the analogy of faith results in a “spiritual reinterpretation” of various Old Testament prophecies but apparently without uniform control as evidenced by the difference in the conclusions held by the interpreters just quoted.

These two differences—a consistent, contextual interpretation of an Old Testament text and an interpretation of Old Testament texts based on the analogy of faith—will form the crux of what I mean by historical-grammatical interpretation and how that differs from spiritual interpretation.

The Historical-Grammatical Interpretation

First, a historical-grammatical interpretation is a consistent, contextual understanding based upon the text seen in the immediate context.[6] This reading of a text in its immediate context is a natural reading of an Old and New Testament passage and is sufficient because the Old Testament text alone introduces what is necessary at that time in history and faithfully anticipates what will follow in the progress of revelation.

Such a contextual reading and understanding considers two controlling issues—the reading is limited to the grammatical senses of the text and is expressed within the historical occasion and sitz im leben of the text. Neither issue, however, mandates the sense or reference of the text. Grammatical forms and syntactical constructions merely signify a range of viable meanings from the language stock. Its contextual usage controls whether the meaning intended is narrow or general, a specified or ambiguous use of the grammatical construction. In addition to the textual development of the context, the historical features fashion the context in which the constructions are interpreted.

Historical context includes both the expectations of the occasion in which the book is written and the subject matter about which the book speaks. However, if the understanding is based upon the text, the historical context neither dictates the meaning of a text nor does it determine meanings unexpressed in the text but rather fills in the exegete’s knowledge of shared historical meanings expressed in the text. In order to test the adequacy of historical-grammatical interpretation, two Old Testament passages will be examined as illustrations in the application of the principle:

Gen 3:1–5	Is the “serpent” Satan?
Gen 12:7	Is the “seed” Christ?
Gen 3:1–5	The Old Testament is adequate to introduce the enemy of God in the serpent.

While the text of Genesis introduces the serpent as an animal which walked upright and was more subtle than any animal (Gen 3:1, 14), the world of Moses knew the serpent as an animal shrouded in mystery. Nahum M. Sarna speaks of its mystical role in ancient life. “With its venomous bite, it can inflict sudden and unexpected death. It shows no limbs, yet it is gracefully and silently agile. Its glassy eyes—lidless, unblinking, strangely lustrous—have a fixed and penetrating stare. Its longevity and the regular, recurrent sloughing of its skin impart an aura of youthfulness, vitality, and rejuvenation. Small wonder that the snake simultaneously aroused fascination and revulsion, awe and dread. Throughout the ancient world, it was endowed with divine or semidivine qualities; it was venerated as an emblem of health, fertility, immortality, occult wisdom, and chaotic evil; and it was often worshiped. The serpent played a significant role in the mythology, the religious symbolism, and the cults of the ancient Near East.”[7] So he proceeds to conclude that the Genesis narrative demythologizes the cultural concepts so that the text presents the serpent as simply as one of “the creatures that the Lord God has made.” In other words, the historical cultural environment does not inform the text.

Yet does the text treat the serpent as a mere animal? Bruce Waltke comments: “No sensitive reader can construe the story as an aetiology explaining the antagonism between humans and snakes, as the professor [Frank M. Cross]…insisted was the ‘plain sense’ of the passage.”[8]

Waltke’s introduction of the issue of plain interpretation raises the question of whether the text in context is adequate to demonstrate that the serpent was more than an animal? And there is sufficient textual basis since the serpent speaks. The decisive evidence is not that the animal simply speaks, for animals before the fall may well have had a greater capacity for verbal communication. The evidence is featured in what the serpent said. For the serpent did not speak from an animal’s position under man, nor an animal’s dissatisfaction with any features of creation within an animal’s experience. The serpent did not speak as an animal. Rather the serpent spoke as God’s enemy. He questioned God’s word. He denied God’s word. He raised doubt about whether God had man’s best interests in view. He proposed a strategy of rebellion by which man could establish himself as equal to God. And as such, the narrative of Genesis introduced the enemy of God in his essential character and strategy. So Waltke summarizes, “The serpent, a diabolical personality, more intelligent than human, filled with a spirit of unbelief, and venomously opposed to God and man, obviously originating outside of the creation described in Genesis 1–2 .”[9] Thus the text of Genesis, in the grammatical and historical sense establishes the presence of the enemy of God speaking in the words of the serpent. In addition, the original hearers (readers) had to imagine the world of the original creation in which to understand the serpent. As such the text is sufficient to introduce the enemy of God in a true schematic outline of what would be revealed later.

Gen 12:1–3 and 7 The Old Testament is sufficient to anticipate the descendant of Abraham who was yet to come and who will accomplish what God had promised.

The first mention of Abraham’s seed appears in Gen 12:7 where God promised: “To your seed I will give this land.” The identity of the seed in this first promise was not clear at this point to Abraham nor to the reader as he reads. This is due to the collective sense of the term “seed.” If God were referring to Abraham’s immediate offspring, He would mean Isaac. Or if He were referring to Abraham’s offspring in general, He would mean his many descendants. Or it is also possible that God had some other descendant in mind. This lack of clarity has left confusion when the text is compared to Paul’s comments in Gal 3:16: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed.” The Scripture does not say “and to seeds” meaning many people, but “and to your seed” meaning one person, who is Christ. While it remains unspecified whether Paul was alluding to Gen 12:7, the fact that 12:7 includes the first mention of “seed” allows us to conclude that Paul would have had this passage in mind at least. But then the question becomes, does Gen 12:7 mean Christ or at least anticipate Christ?

Contextual Interpretation of “Seed” in Genesis 12-22

The anticipation of a posterity for Abraham first emerged as God revealed His role and plan for Abram in history. The story begins with the divine call of Abram in which God made promises addressed to Abram. The final promise was staggering in scope and in significance for the history of mankind: “And all the families of the earth shall be blessed through you (or shall bless themselves by you.”[10] The voice of the verb (whether middle or passive) specifies Abram’s role to be mediator of blessing for the whole world. These promises imply three distinct stages of blessing: blessing on Abram, then on those who have direct interaction with him, and finally on the entire human race through him. Due to the scope of this promised blessing, one would reasonably anticipate that the role of mediation would entail other generations following Abram to accomplish the scope of blessing as stated.

This anticipation is then introduced as the blessing of land where Abram stood would be given “to your seed” (12:17). As already noted, the term “seed” includes some ambiguity in reference. As a collective noun, it is capable of referring to one descendant or many descendants.

Abram’s understanding of what God intended would be further clarified as the revelation progressed in the unfolding events that follow. Abram shares with the reader the same uncertainty about what God was exactly saying. Knowing this, God clarified the sense further.

After Abram had sacrificed his claim to the land to Lot, God repeated the promises to give the land but now clarified that it would be given to both Abram and to his seed (13:15). In addition, He promised for the first time that the seed would be made innumerable (13:16). In 15:1–5, God further specified that his heir would be a physical descendant and his descendants would become innumerable. Finally, in reference to this seed (15:18) God formed a covenant with Abram to grant what He promised to the seed. Nahum Sarna aptly describes it: “God contracts a solemn covenant with the patriarch, who becomes the passive beneficiary of His unilateral obligation, unconditionally assumed. It would seem that the form of this covenant is modeled after the royal land-grant treaty common in the ancient Near East.”[11]

When we reflect upon what God meant by “seed,” we must first distinguish the different contexts in which the seed is promised. Then the sense of “seed” can be recognized in the context of each distinct promise. There are four distinct promises to Abram:

1. I will give you a seed,
2. I will multiply the number of your seed,
3. I will give the land to your seed and
4. I will bless all peoples through your seed.

One element is common to each promise which was specified in Gen 15:3, 4: the seed is a physical descendant from Abram. That is the basic sense to which may be added additional senses in various contexts. In that regard, there is a spiritual sense associated with each promise; in the first context it is a divinely called and provided seed, in the second a divinely multiplied seed, in the third the seed is a recipient of a divine gift and in the fourth the seed is an agent of divine blessing. In the first two, the seed is the divine gift and in the last two, the seed responds to God in some responsible way—both to receive what God gives and to mediate that to others. In addition, when the last two are compared, the promise of land is one instance of blessing while the mediation of blessing involves broader blessings.

The reader may well ask as Abraham certainly asked after Isaac was born, Is Isaac this seed? I think it is clear that in the sense of the first promise, Isaac is the God-provided (“in Isaac your seed shall be called,” 21:12) physical descendant (“I—Abraham—have borne a son in his old age,” 21:17) in distinction to Ishmael. It is also clear that he is the first in the line of physical posterity. But he is not the seed to whom the land was given nor was he a willing mediator of blessing to Jacob. Moses takes pains to deliberately tell the story of Rebekah’s pregnancy in which God’s choice of Jacob, the younger, was made (Gen 25:19–34) and as a consequence Isaac’s responsibility to bless according to God’s choice (Gen 27:1–46). Isaac accomplished his responsibility ironically but did not meet it through his willing obedience. In these contexts, Isaac was clearly not the spiritual seed in the sense of meeting his responsibility.

So Isaac was Abraham’s seed in a physical and in a God-given sense as were Jacob and his twelve sons. The text of Genesis also indicates that they are spiritually responsive in a limited but genuine sense. So the question whether Isaac or Jacob or Judah was Abraham’s seed, we must answer with a qualified yes. To the extent that the answer is no, as illustrated in Isaac’s case, to that extent an anticipation remained that, what God had promised, would come to pass in His provision.

The Analogy of Faith Interpretation

A spiritual interpretation is based upon a use of the analogy of faith. The interpretation of an Old Testament passage is only reached on the basis of a subsequent canonical context so that the original text features only the spiritual meanings or ideals. I will attempt to prove that this spiritual interpretation is neither a necessary nor a valid use of the analogy of faith in the interpretation of an Old Testament passage. Rather, the analogy of faith properly used enriches the reader’s original understanding of the Old Testament passage from the perspective of fulfillment or more complete revelation in the New Testament.

A historical-grammatical interpretation is an interpretation of an Old Testament passage in the immediate context. The controversy between Walvoord and Ladd raised the question whether additional interpretation was needed. Ladd followed by Hoekema and Boettner affirmed that it was absolutely necessary. Waltke expresses the principle well, “the spiritual sense is to interpret the covenantal promises in the light of salvation history”[12] in which “the historical eggshells”[13] are removed from the meanings of the Old Testament passage interpreted in context.

Such a spiritual interpretation of an Old Testament passage is not reached as an independent conclusion in hermeneutics. Rather its warrant is derived from the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament. Waltke argues, “the classical rule sacra scripture sui ipsius interpres (the Bible interprets itself)—more specifically, the New interprets the Old—should be accepted by all Christian theologians. Is it not self-evident that the author of Scripture is the final exponent of his own thoughts?”[14] He further supports the validity of his argument with the conclusions of S. Lewis Johnson, “The use of the Old Testament in the New is the key to the solution of the problem of hermeneutics. Unfortunately that has been overlooked, but surely, if the apostles are reliable teachers of biblical doctrine, then they are reliable instructors in the science of hermeneutics.”[15]

The question that thus emerges is whether a spiritual interpretation is warranted by the use of the analogy of faith? Walter Kaiser would reject the approach as invalid. “In no case must…later teaching be used exegetically (or in any other way) to unpack the meaning or to enhance the usability of the individual text which is the object of study.”[16] Kaiser’s objection needs to be heard as a warning to challenge this use of the analogy of faith as normative. Yet at the same time, the unity of canonical revelation admits the compatibility in meaning between a New Testament interpretation of an Old Testament passage. Following such an interpretation certainly is a valid use of the analogy of faith. The more specific question is whether the spiritual interpretation is the valid New Testament interpretation.

Ladd calls for a “reinterpretation” in light of the Christ event.[17] Such a reinterpretation would certainly imply an alteration of the original meaning. Waltke objects to this: “The prophetic interpretation of these old texts is not a reinterpretation of them away from original, authorial meaning; rather it is a more precise interpretation of them in light of the historical realities.”[18] Yet as Waltke argues for a canonical interpretation of the Psalms, which win their full significance in Jesus Christ who fulfills these Psalms, he concludes, “Those elements in each psalm presenting the king as anything less than ideal, such as his confession of sins, are the historical eggshells”[19] which must be peeled off in a more precise interpretation. But is such a peeling away of a historical husk valid in the interpretation of an Old Testament passage? Is it not a version of reinterpretation of the original text?

Anthony Hoekema is more forthright when he affirms that Amillennialists “believe that though many Old Testament prophecies are indeed to be interpreted literally, many others are to be interpreted in a nonliteral way.”[20] He then approves of Martin J. Wyngaarden[21] who shows how the New Testament spiritualizes many Old Testament concepts: Zion, Jerusalem, the seed of Abraham, Israel, the temple, sacrifices and so on. So the eggshells of geographical, national and historical aspects of the hope of a seed of Abraham or of Jerusalem must be peeled away. But is such a subtraction from a contextual historical-grammatical interpretation valid?

Someone may well respond that it is valid because it is necessarily entailed in the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament. I would like to argue that such a spiritual interpretation is not necessary because the meaning understood in the New Testament corresponds to the meaning expressed in the Old Testament.[22] It is not a meaning reduced to an egg with the shell peeled away but a corresponding flower in the New Testament of an earlier expressed bud in the Old Testament or a building in the process of completion in the New Testament of a foundation laid earlier. The New Testament interpretation is the comprehension of the completed meaning intended as introduced but left undeveloped in the Old Testament. As such, the final shape of the flower or building may not be fully anticipated in the bud or the foundation, but the essentials of content and form are revealed in the introduction. This thesis will be demonstrated in the New Testament’s use of the serpent in Gen 3:15 and the seed of Abraham in Gen 12:1–3 and 7.

Genesis 3:1–5 and Revelation 12:9 The New Testament interpretation merely fills in what is left unexpressed in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament introduces an evil one who tempts Eve and Adam with a strategy of rebellion against God. He is introduced in position as the first enemy and in strategy as a rebel against God’s will.

In the progress of revelation, this introductory foundation does not change. Rather the creature is an angel who is alluded to in his prior history under the figure of a dragon. His names are given to be satan and devil as well as Lucifer. The revelation which is added does not change the identity of the enemy introduced but answers questions of early existence and creaturely character.

Gen 12:1–3 and 7 and Gal 3:16 The New Testament interpretation unfolds the intended meaning of the Old Testament promise although that meaning may not be fully evident when the promise was first expressed.

In reading the Old Testament promise, we recognized four distinct promises concerning the seed as it was originally stated in different contexts. I would like simply to trace one of the promises as it unfolds in the Old Testament revelation. The focus in Gal 3:16 and again in 3:19 is upon the giving of the promises to Abraham and to his seed. That focus corresponds in particular to the promise as stated:

I will give the land to the seed.

We noted in context that neither Isaac nor his immediate posterity were the ones to whom the promise of land was given. In fact, God announced that Abraham’s descendants would remain in another land, as exiles 400 years (15:13). Yet the land was still given “to your seed” as God said “I give this land from the river Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates” (15:18, 19). Thus the question emerges: To what generation or to what individual was the land given?

As a context for the pursuit of an answer, one additional revelation is given to Abraham. After he had in obedience offered Isaac, the angel of YHWH said, “I swear by myself…that because you have done this…I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies and through your seed all nations on earth will be blessed because you have obeyed me” (22:15–18). For the first time, Abraham is identified as the effectual mediator through whom aspects of the promise are repeated. In other words, blessings will be received by Abraham’s descendants even if the promise may not be received by those descendants. The one aspect of particular interest to us in our search is the gift of possession of the cities of their enemies. The cities will be possessed because of Abraham even if the gift of the land as a whole were not received.

As Moses addressed the people poised on the shores of the Jordan river, he made two relevant comments. First, the good land had been given to Israel’s forefathers—Abraham and the patriarchs (Deut 1:35). Second, he quoted YHWH’s word that He would give the land to the new generation and they would take possession of it (Deut 1:39). Then YHWH spoke to Joshua after Moses’ death. He promised, “I will give you every place where you set your foot as I promised Moses” (Josh 1:3). God will give Joshua and his generation whatever portion of the land he walks into. Clearly this contingency of walking into the land is not sufficient to earn the land or even to merit the promise. Rather God chose obedience as the avenue of receiving the gift of the land. It is the explicit identification of the necessary responsibility of the seed to be blessed with the gift of the land. The seed to whom the land is given would be the one who receives what is given.

As we read the record of Joshua’s journey into the land, the period of conquest is concluded by summaries: “So Joshua took this entire land” (Josh 11:16) and “the land had rest from war” (Josh 11:23). Yet as an introduction to the occupation of the land, the text summarizes “when Joshua was old…there are still very large areas of the land to be taken over” (Josh 13:1 and Judg 2:1–3). So while the conquest was complete, the occupation left much land to yet be received. While they had been given the land, they had only “taken possession of the cities of their enemies.” As God had promised to Abraham the gift of taking the cities (Gen 22:15–18), so the promise had been fulfilled (Josh 21:43–45). So like Isaac, Joshua and his generation did not receive the promise of the land but only what God had promised because of Abraham. So Joshua and his generation were Abraham’s seed but not his seed to whom the land as a whole was entered and received. The anticipation of the complete reception of the gift of the land awaited the next generation as recorded in Judges (1).

The history of the nation in the land repeated the experiences of their forefathers. They were natural descendants with a limited though real spiritual claim on God’s blessing gained because of Abraham. Even David, who prospered more than any seed of Abraham to gain a political control of all the land (2 Samuel 8–10), faltered in obedience before God and after Bathsheba his kingdom festered from within and finally was reduced from without.

So in the context of this Old Testament record of Abraham’s descendants, Paul identified “Abraham’s seed to whom the promises were given.” Only one descendant of Abraham met the responsibility of obedience necessary to receive all that God had promised. And so Paul identified that only One descendant of Abraham was intended in the promise, “I will give the land to the seed.”

When the two other promises of seed in Genesis are combined with this promise, the intended sense of the seed in Genesis becomes:

1. a physical descendant of Abram,
2. divinely provided,
3. bearing the God-given responsibility to receive what God gave so that He could mediate God’s blessing.

Paul’s understanding of this meaning is enriched and completed in the knowledge of each component but without altering any of the three original components:

1. a distant physical descendant of Abraham named Jesus (Matt 1:1, 2),
2. divinely provided in the virgin conception and birth from Mary (Matt 1:18–25),
3. fully bearing the obligation and responsibility of the law ultimately expressed in His death on the cross (Matt 16:21–23), after which He received the gift of the Father which He mediated on Pentecost (Acts 2:33, Phil 2:5–11).

The use of the analogy of faith, concerning Abraham’s seed introduced in the three promises of Genesis, shows a correspondence in the three essential components of meaning in the interpretation of the New Testament. The corresponding relationship resembles the bud and the flower rather than the egg with the eggshell peeled off. Isaac or Joshua and his generation were partial fulfillments of the promise of a seed and Jesus Christ was the complete fulfillment.

One final promise remains to be considered which was not considered by Paul in Gal 3:16, 19:

“I will multiply your seed.”

Has the sense of seed been altered in the New Testament from the sense understood in the Old Testament context? This promise is found in two texts:

“I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth” (13:16) and

“Look at the heavens and count the stars…so shall your offspring be…”(15:5).

The context of the promise would lead to the expectation that the offspring would be a physical posterity as well as a God-provided posterity. For God had just promised: “a son coming from your own body will be your heir” (15:4).

In Rom 4:18–21, Paul refers to this promise in Gen 15:5. It is part of Paul’s interpretation of Abraham’s faith in God in the birth of Isaac. Isaac’s birth is the first offspring in the promise of a great posterity.

On the other hand, in the preceding context of Rom 4:9–17, Paul does not refer to Gen 15:5 when he concluded that Abraham is the father of all believers. Rather Paul related the relationship of both Jews and Gentiles to Abraham with the general interpretation of his new name, Abraham—”I have made you a father of many nations” found in Gen 17:5. Paul’s argument is as follows: Abraham believed God before he was circumcised and as such received God’s life as all others who believe without circumcision receive God’s life. In addition, Abraham received the “sign of righteousness” in circumcision which he passed on to his physical offspring. All of these who believe based on this “sign of righteousness” from God also share his life from God. So “He is the father of us all” (Rom 4:16) both of those who believe as uncircumcised and those who believe with the sign of circumcision. That compares to what God said when he named him Abraham (Gen 17:5).

Thus Paul acknowledges two senses in which Abraham is father. He is father of all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile based on his name. He is also father of all natural and spiritual offspring based on the promise of a “multiplied seed.” These two senses preserve the sense of seed in the promise as always including a physical relationship.

Conclusion

Thus in Gal 3:16, Paul is not understanding the promise of a seed as a semantic consideration. Unlike a midrashic commentary, which might comment on a collective noun and see it have a singular sense in view some contemporary fact, he has pursued a historic investigation. The distinction between “seeds” and “seed” is a historical distinction evident in the progressive revelation in the Old Testament. As such, Paul does interpret the Old Testament in light of the Christ event but this is not a reinterpretation. That is, it is not a textually altered spiritual sense nor a historically unrelated spiritual ideal. It is a historic sense understood within the grammatical range of a collective term. And this historic sense can be understood at each progressive stage, as God continued to work out what He promised until the climax was reached in Christ.

There is a continuity of meanings so that the Christ event fills in with clarity the divinely intended sense. While this is the meaning of “seed” in Gen 12:7, that meaning is not completely evident in the original context. Enough is known to anticipate what God would do but not enough is evident to specify what God did in particular until God acted in Christ. This pattern of interpretation is the basis for my anticipation that the gift of the land will be received by Christ in the history of our earth rather than in a new earth. Then and only then will the promise of Gen 12:7 be completely fulfilled.

Notes

1. John F. Walvoord, “The Theological Context of Premillennialism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 108:431 (1951), and The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1959).
2. George Eldon Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” The Meaning of the Millennium, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1977) 23.
3. Ibid., 21 (emphasis mine).
4. Ibid., Hoekema, 55 (emphasis mine).
5. Ibid., Boettner, 47.
6. It is understood that the immediate context includes conventions of the literary genre. The conventions influence both the expectations of one who reads a text and the exegesis of a text conforming to the literary clues expressed in the text.
7. Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 24.
8. Bruce K. Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway) 266.
9. Ibid., Waltke, 267.
10. The niphal form of b-r-k is found only in Gen 12:3, 18:18, 28:14; the respective contexts do not show how it differs from the hithpael form in Gen 22:18, 16:4, so it may well be reflexive.
11. Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 114.
12. Ibid., Waltke, 263.
13. Bruce K. Waltke, “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms,” Tradition and the Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg (Chicago: Moody, 1981) 16.
14. Waltke, “Kingdom Promises,” 264.
15. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., The Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980) 23.
16. Walter Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 140.
17. Ladd, 21.
18. Waltke, “A Canonical Process,” 15.
19. Ibid., 16.
20. Hoekema, 172.
21. Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1934).
22. The degree of correspondence varies dependent upon the kind of Old Testament expression and the stage that the statement appears in the progress of revelation. Two helpful attempts have been made to classify the degree of correspondence of Old Testament prophecy but more work is needed. G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), and Franz Delitsch, Psalms, Vol. I. A discussion of such a classification is beyond the scope of this paper.