Kategorie: Topics

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 5

Focus: Was the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 fulfilled at Pentecost? If so, that’s another covenant given to Israel fulfilled in the Church, and so we have no reason to look for a national end times revival in Israel.

In the last two posts I’ve been making a simple observation: arguments defending a literal millennium that depend on the unconditionality of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are poor.  The reasons are twofold: (1) each of those covenants also have clear conditional elements, and (2) Both covenants may be viewed as fulfilled, though this second item is subject to debate. But that’s the point: the premillennial view cannot be defended as self-evident. Possible, yes; self-evident, no.

I’ll be hitting on the land fulfillment issue in subsequent posts, thus returning to the Abraham covenant. But before that, we need to look at one more important covenant that is typically viewed as unconditional and ultimately future, but which is subject to the same two elements above: it has conditions and it can be viewed as fulfilled.

The covenant I speak of is the New Covenant.  Here is the prophecy from Jeremiah 31:

31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Let’s note the elements of importance:

1. The covenant is made with “the house of Israel” (v. 33).

2. The law of God is written on the heart of the believer/faithful person (v. 33)

3. “All” will know the Lord – How should “all” be taken? Premillers and pretribbers want to see this as millennial language, but in that case, “all” cannot mean “all” as in “every person in the kingdom” since Rev 20 tells us there are evil people in the millennium (the people who rebel with Satan after the millennium). Therefore “all” is really a subset. Amillers who would take this as already fulfilled in the Church would say this subset = believers (i.e., everyone who has the law written on their heart will know the Lord).  The “all” in this view = the true Israel of Paul — any and every believer.

4. The covenant with the house of Israel is made “after those days” (v.33). “Those days” refers to the time of exile, as any outline of Jeremiah 30-31 will make evident (meaning the question is “how long after the exile is the rest of this fulfilled?”). Here’s one (you can check your own Bible or study Bible too):

• a. Return from captivity (Jer. 30:13)
• b. The time of Jacobs trouble (30:4-7) – note that this section is assumed to be future by premillers and pretribbers, but verses 4-7 could easily be viewed as a “flashback” to what the Lord had said earlier about Israel and Judah, prior to the promise of return. Again, a future interpretation is not at all self evident.
• c. Freedom from bondage to oppressors (30:8-11)
• d. Israel’s wounds healed (30:12-17)
• e. Rebuilt Jerusalem and her ruler (30:18-22)
• f. Judgment, then blessing (30:23-24)
• The new covenant (31:1-40)
• a. God’s mercy for Ephraim (31:1-6) – Since the northern kingdom of Israel (“Ephraim”) no longer existed in Jeremiah’s day, any fulfillment view would be future to Jeremiah’s time. While the premill / pretrib view assumes this refers to a future regathering of Israel, it could also refer to the presence of Ephraimite tribes returning back to the land (there are such tribal affiliations mentioned after the returns of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the tribes are numbered at 12 after the return – see Ezra 6:17; 8:35; Luke 2:36 [Asher]; Neh 10:28ff. [Levi]). Nevertheless, the fact that this passage (see v. 4) talks about the rebuilding of Israel and Paul equates the true Israel with any believer, Jew or Gentile, may make the whole subject moot.
• b. The restoration of Israel in joy (31:7-14)
• c. Israel’s amentable present (31:15-22)
• d. Judah’s bright future (31:23-26)
• e. National increase in the future (31:27-30)
• f. God’s new covenant (31:31-34)
• g. The perpetuity of Israel (31:35-40)

Now for some discussion. The conditionality aspect with the new covenant is the law of God mentioned in Jer. 31:33. The law refers back to the Law of Moses. Thus the New Covenant relationship presumes obedience to the law. And yet the history of God’s people shows that they cannot keep it. God must do something that makes that possible. He puts the law “in” their heart. In effect, the New Covenant is God’s way not of removing conditions to be his people, but of meeting the conditions for obedience he set long ago for the true children of Abraham (see my earlier post on the Abrahamic covenant) and any descendant of David who would sit on the throne (recall that they would be removed if they were ungodly, despite the Davidic covenant). God meets the demands of his own covenantal requirements through a remnant that he himself calls and instills his law.

So when is the New Covenant fulfilled? The New Testament uses the phrase “new covenant” several times:

Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

1 Cor 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

2 Cor 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Heb 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Clearly, the New Testament sees the New Covenant as fulfilled in the work of Jesus on the cross and through the Church — not in a future millennium. This is not to say that the idea of a millennial kingdom rises or falls on the notion that the New Covenant fulfillment must be yet future. It is to say that argument is lame.  There is only one way to get around a New Covenant fulfillment through the Church — one must argue that the new covenant in these New Testament passages isn’t the New Covenant of the Old Testament — but refers to a “new new covenant.”  Sound crazy? Then don’t read the Ryrie Study Bible or Ryrie’s famous book, Dispensationalism Today, since that’s exactly what he does to get around this problem (some would say to get around the New Testament).  As much as Ryrie deserves respect, what he does with the New Covenant is pure sophistry.

One last question — and this is the meaty one:  If one can argue so neatly, with plenty of New Testament evidence (see the last two posts plus the above new covenant references) that all three covenants — Abrahamic, Davidic, and New — are fulfilled through Jesus’s work on the cross and his Church, what need is there for anything else?  (or: Why be so resistant to fulfillment in the Church?  Or: What are you losing?)

I can’t answer this question for you.  I just bring it up to focus again on why I’m doing this series. Everyone brings their bias to eschatology. There are NO self-evident views. Anyone who says otherwise … well, you already know what I think about that from earlier posts.  The only way to escape the bias trap (and not really completely escape) is to junk the systems. That’s what I decided to do a long time ago. Granted, I have to make presuppositional decisions like everyone else. But I can say that I have far fewer problems (in part because I don’t go into defense mode when talking about eschatology — I don’t need to). When we get through all this I’ll tell you where I’m at, but we have a loooong way to go.

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 4

Focus: Was the Davidic covenant “sinned away” by the apostasy of Israel that resulted in the exile? The writer of Psalm 89 certainly wondered. If it was, there may be no point in a literal millennial reign of Jesus in the future. His reign would be spiritual, fulfilled beginning at the resurrection and Pentecost through the Church.

In the last post, we talked about how certain views of end times are tied to certain views of the biblical covenants with Abraham and David, as well as the New Covenant. Many Christians want to argue for a literal millennium on the basis of the irrevocable nature of the Abrahamic covenant — the notion that the covenant can never be undone since it was unconditional. The Land promises must therefore come to Israel, and that means a literal millennium is still in the future with respect to biblical prophecy. We saw, however, that the Abrahamic covenant did indeed have conditions, and that it was fulfilled only to Abraham’s “true” children — those who, like Abraham, believe. We saw that the Church fits that nicely per Galatians 3. But we ended with these questions:  Since it is those who believe that inherit the promises, what Paul says in Galatians 3 makes perfect sense but is that the end of the story?  Is the kingdom the Church? On what grounds would we look to a national kingdom in Israel in the future?

In this post we’ll look at the covenant with David.

A kingdom naturally needs a king.  The Israelite king had to be an Israelite (a son of Abraham). That goes without saying. But when David finally reached the throne, God issued a covenant with him as well that added to the criteria for kingship. That covenant is recorded in 2 Samuel 7 (and it is repeated with basically the same language in Psalm 89):

4 But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, 5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus says the Lord: Would you build me a house to dwell in? 6 I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent for my dwelling. 7 In all places where I have moved with all the people of Israel, did I speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, Why have you not built me a house of cedar? 8 Now, therefore, thus you shall say to my servant David, Thus says the Lord of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people Israel. 9 And I have been with you wherever you went and have cut off all your enemies from before you. And I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. 10 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, 11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever. 17 In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.

This covenant is unilateral (initiated only by God) and is unconditional in its language. 2 Samuel 7:21 has David responding: “Because of your promise, and according to your own heart, you have brought about all this greatness, to make your servant know it.” There are no conditions placed on David. It can be divided into promises David would see in his lifetime (vv. 8-11a) and promises to be fulfilled after his death (11b-16). The key idea in this covenant is that David’s dynasty is established as the sole legitimate dynasty for kingship in Jerusalem. God guarantees that no one would reign as king in Jerusalem except a descendant of David. David’s throne is therefore eternal.

But is that it? We saw Abraham’s covenant was BOTH unconditional and conditional. It was unconditional in that God guaranteed its fulfillment regardless of human behavior. It was conditional in that only those who believed and obeyed (“obedience of faith”) would reap any benefit from it.  And it was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus – the perfectly obedient son of Abraham through whom all nations would be blessed (Gen 12:3).

David’s covenant is the same — it’s actually both unconditional and conditional. Note the conditional language in 2 Samuel 7:12-15

12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.

The referent is SOLOMON, who succeeded David. Even if Solomon goes astray (which he did), God promised that he would still be loyal to David’s line.

The conditional idea of loyalty to Yahweh to gain the benefit of the unconditional covenant is evidenced in Psalm 132:11-12 –

The Lord swore to David a sure oath
from which he will not turn back:
One of the sons of your body
I will set on your throne.
If your sons keep my covenant
and my testimonies that I shall teach them,
their sons also forever
shall sit on your throne.

It’s clear – the king was supposed to be righteous, and if he wasn’t, they could expect their immediate line to be cut off. They’d be replaced.

Look what happened in Israel’s history after Solomon. The kingdom split in two. David’s line (2 tribes; Judah) outlived the rebel kingdom of the north (10 tribes; Israel), but it was indeed destroyed in 586 BC. There has been no king (Davidic or otherwise) that has occupied the throne of Jerusalem since . . . depending on how you look at things.

What gives with the demise of the kingdom then? Davidic kingship needs a closer look. The covenant with David actually created a “Father-son” relationship between God and the king. This is indicated in Psalm 2:7-8, Psalm 89. God says of the king, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” But what about evil, disloyal sons? What about Israelite kings who disobeyed the Abrahamic covenant and Yahweh’s righteous demands? They are cast aside, but (like the Abrahamic covenant) their rejection does not annul the covenant itself — it just means they forfeit kingship and Yahweh’s blessing. Passages like 1 Kings 6:12-13; 1 Kings 9:4-7 tell us that disloyal sons/kings lose Yahweh’s blessing, even if they are from David’s line. Waltke says it this way:

“YHWH granted both Abraham and David an eternal progeny and fief. Loyal sons . . . would fully enjoy the fief; disloyal sons would lose YHWH’s protection and, if they persisted in their wrongdoing, the possession of the fief itself. The fief, however, would never be confiscated–a promise that opens up the hope that YHWH would raise up a loyal son.”¹

The point of all this can be summarized in two questions:

1. Since God allowed the nation of Judah and David’s line to be destroyed and displaced, what of the Davidic covenant? Is it over?

The question is usually answered “no” by Christians, regardless of their end time kingdom views. There is consensus that “God would raise up a loyal son” — Jesus — to fulfill the covenant. That brings us to the second, more weighty, question:

2. Is it possible that the Davidic covenant was already fulfilled in Jesus, the son of David and messiah?

If this is the case, the covenant is fully honored by God and fulfilled, and there would be no reason to expect a literal reign of Jesus on earth.  But why?  Many reading this will say, “How can the covenant be fulfilled when Jesus hasn’t come back and occupied the throne? The very question assumes that a literal land and kingdom are required by the ABRAHAMIC covenant — which we saw in the last couple of posts, is NOT a self-evident interpretation of the biblical text.  It may well be that the kingdom = the Church.  But if that is the case, is Jesus king now?

Isn’t the question interesting? Does anyone really want to deny that Jesus is king NOW?

Is Jesus on the throne now? According to Hebrews 8:1 and 12:2 he is. He is “seated at the right hand of God.” But that isn’t enough for many Christians. They want the literal reign. Fine. That isn’t a sin. My goal here is only to show that the idea that the Davidic kingship has already been fulfilled can be made with clarity and coherence via the biblical text. The amillennialist can easily argue that both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants were fulfilled in Jesus, period. Those who want a literal kingship in the future can say “Jesus is king in heaven now and he will be later on earth” — but recognize that such a view depends on one’s view of the Abrahamic covenant’s land promises!  Without that you don’t need this. Since we cannot know absolutely which way it goes, let’s quit talking like there’s only one “biblical” view of eschatology. I hope you can see why I try not to roll my eyes when I hear that sort of thing. And we have a long way to go yet!

1. Bruce K. Waltke, The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditional Covenants, in Israels Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. Avraham Gileadi, Baker: 1988, pp. 131-132. ↩︎

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 3

Focus: Did the covenants that God made with Abraham and David, and the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), come with conditions for fulfillment? Are these covenants conditional or unconditional? The question is critical for knowing if the covenants (tied to the land promise) are still in effect or not (and so fulfilled by the Church).

To this point, we’ve talked about a single dispute that divides biblical scholars and students on eschatology: whether or Israel and the Church are to be kept distinct when interpretating prophecy. The question matters since any position that wants a literal millennial reign of Christ in the future must (to be coherent) argue that the land promises given to Abraham and his descendants are still in effect — and so literal fulfillment is expected. If the Church has replaced Israel as the people of God, and if the land promises are now fulfilled via the Great Commission to overspread the earth with God’s people (i.e., the Church is the kingdom), then no literal millennium would be expected.

Or so it goes.

To be more precise, the ground we’ve covered thus far has effectively raised related questions, both on my part and the part of commenters. And there are some questions that stem from the “Israel and/or the Church: Yes or No?” problem that I haven’t thrown out there yet. For example:

1. While Galatians 3 explicitly says that the Church (Christians) have inherited the promises given to Abraham, does Paul restrict those promises to those that promise a seed (descendants – literal and/or spiritual) but exclude the land?  In other words, since there is no mention of the land in Galatians 3, might that part of the promises still be out there for national Israel?

2. While it makes sense that the Great Commission would translate to fulfilling the land element — the oversweeping of the nations via evangelism to reclaim those lost nations — what we we to think of the fact that there is no verse that makes that explicit connection?

3. Since Paul is clear in Romans 9-11 that

(a) “Israel” refers to “natural Israelites (Jews); and

(b) “Israel” also refers to “spiritual Israelites” (believers); and

(c) “all Israel is not Israel” (that within national Israel there is a spiritual Israel, composed of Jew and Gentile); and

(d) there is this thing called the Church (Jew and Gentile)

… then can we really neatly separate OR merge these groups with respect to prophecy? Some would say yes; others, no.  And THAT is the problem. You can make a coherent case in any regard. All we can really say is that, for sure, with respect to the New Testament, Paul (and other writers) do not restrict “Israel” to only ethnic Israelites — the term now means much more.

The question really comes down to this: Would Paul (or other NT authors) say that national Israel had no eschatological future apart from being members in the new, spiritual Israel, the Church? Are the destinies of the Church and national Israel tied together en toto, or can they be tied together “mostly” and yet there still be an eschatological future involving national Israel?

Again, there’s no way we can know for sure. So everyone gets to be humble (or ought to). This is just one reason (of a whole list I’m working on here) I just cringe when I get an email from someone utterly captivated by their eschatological position to the exclusion of any other (and they probably don’t even know there are others). I find myself praying and hoping that person’s faith isn’t really built on the latest lame prophecy novel or TV prophecy preacher.

All of the above takes us into today’s topic: Did the covenants that God made with Abraham and David, and the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), come with conditions for fulfillment? Are these covenants conditional or unconditional?

Seasoned prophecy nerds know this question is important since, if these covenants came with conditions, there may have been a chance that they were dissolved or nullified due to Israel not meeting the conditions. The picture looks bleak, too. Since Israel (all 12 tribes) were exiled, it would be easy to argue that the promises were voided to national Israel and handed over to the Church as recipients of fulfillment. The kind of perfect obedience required by the covenants would be fulfilled in and by Jesus. He is the ultimate son of Abraham, the king in David’s line, and it was he who sent the Spirit after his resurrection to inhabit the hearts of believers according to the New Covenant. Looks pretty tidy. But that would mean that the Church has displaced national Israel in its entirety. Israel (frankly) was no longer useful. The Servant of Isaiah — and chapter 53 is the only place in Isaiah where Servant is a singular person — is actually the representative of the corporate Servant in Isaiah — Israel (the rest of the occurrences of “Servant” in Isaiah refer to the nation of Israel – look it up). Hence Jesus is everything and all the covenants find fulfillment in Him.  And His body is the Church. Again, a very tidy picture — one that would make Left Behinders pretty sullen, since there is no need then for a literal kingdom, and without that, the whole rapture idea doesn’t even make it to the table.

I hope you see (again) how tenuous the whole framework is for this undeniably common view of end times. It is far from being self evident. But the other views can’t claim absolute certainty, either.  We’ll get to them.  For now, let’s talk about the conditional (C) vs. unconditional (UC) problem.

The short answer to my question is “yes” – the covenants are BOTH C and UC. Those who believe in a rapture have been taught they are unconditional. Wrong. So let’s start there.¹

The Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 15)

For sure there are UC elements in this covenant. God initiates the covenant and its promises. The first six verses deal with the promise of descendants (Gen 15:1-7). Gen 15:7-16 deals with promises of the Land. Then God alone passes through the ritually slain and prepared animals sealing the covenant (Gen 15:17-21). The fulfillment of the covenant’s promises therefore depend on Yahweh alone. Case closed, right? Wrong.

While the fulfillment of the promises depend on Yahweh’s ability, it is an entirely different question as to WHO will be on the receiving end of the promises Yahweh fulfills. That’s where the conditional elements come in to play. Put succinctly, receving the promises depends on a spiritual relationship with Yahweh — obedience to his revelation.

In Gen 12:1-3, the first passage concerning the covenant with Abraham, we see Abraham obeying what he is told (“and he [Abraham] went”; Gen 12:4). After the covenant ceremony of Genesis 15, God reiterates the covenant in Genesis 17:2. But Gen 17:1 lays down a clear condition. Here are the two verses together:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, I’m God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.

Notice that the language of v. 2 is clearly drawn from the covenant of Gen 12 and 15. But this time there is a clear condition. God goes on in Gen 17 to repeat all the elements of the original covenant. Then he demands that Abraham and all in his household be circumcised. Here’s the point: Only Abraham’s circumcised descendants — those who obey — are eligible to receive the promises Yahweh will give. Refusal to obey meant you weren’t going to be part of the promises. God would make sure the promises got fulfilled, but the person who refused to obey wouldn’t be on the receiving end. We see more of this conditionality in Genesis 18. The dual elements are crystal clear:

¹⁷ The Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, ¹⁸ seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? ¹⁹ For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.

To sumamrize all this, Yahweh unilaterally committed himself to do certain things He promised to Abraham. But these promsies only extend to Abraham’s spiritual descendants — those who, like him, would follow Yahweh. At first this was basically operating only within Israel, Abraham’s physical seed. Eventually, it expanded to Gentiles. But the premise was the same: the “obedience of faith” as the apostles liked to call it was necessary to receive the promises. The Abrahamic covenant was both conditional and unconditional.

And so now the questions: Did national Israel corporately forfeit the promises? Since it is those who believe that inherit the promises, what Paul says in Galatians 3 makes perfect sense — but is that the end of the story?  Is the kingdom the Church? On what grounds would we look to a national kingdom in Israel in the future?  If it is, it isn’t because the covenant was unconditionally given to THE NATION of Israel. Both testaments agree that those who were given the promises were those who BELIEVE.

It’s about the obedience of faith, not nationality. At least that much is clear. So we can stop now with defending a literal millennium on the basis of convenant unconditionality. For that idea you need a different argument. That one is DOA.

Next up, the Davidic Covenant.

1. Readers who would want a more technical discussion of this issue are referred to Bruce K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. Avraham Gileadi, Baker: 1988, pp. 123-140. ↩︎

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 2

Focus: The need for Israel and the Church to be distinct is in part created by the assumption that the land promised to the patriarchs was never inherited and so must still be fulfilled. But there are certain indications in Scripture that might suggest the land promises actually were fulfilled — what if that turns out to be the case?

In the first installment of this series, I talked about how certain systems of eschatology need the New Testament to distinguish between the Church and national Israel for certain elements of their eschatological system to work. Let me unpack that a bit again here by way of review.

Certain systems of eschatology (standard premillennialism, any view of a rapture) need Israel and the Church distinguished. For the premillennialist, national Israel must be distinct from the church so that the promise of a literal land (and so, literal millennial kingdom on earth) is still “out there” – a prophecy yet unfulfilled. It needs to be yet unfulfilled or there is no point to waiting for a literal millennium.  If Israel got the land promised to them in the era of the OT, then one cannot use the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 15:1-6) as the basis for saying “there’s a literal kingdom in the Land still coming.” All rapture positions except the post-trib version need a distinction between Israel and the Church because they see the Church removed from the earth in Revelation 4 — and then it is argued that all the bad stuff in Revelation, the tribulation period, corresponds to “the time of Jacob’s trouble” in the OT – specific curses yet remaining on ISRAEL (not the Church). Then the Jewish Messiah returns to save ISRAEL and usher in the literal millennial kingdom. (Post-tribbers have the Church enduring the trouble with Israel, but still distinguish the Church and Israel because of its need to have a literal millennial kingdom). Daniel’s 70 weeks which are prophesied with respect to Jerusalem and Israel are thought to make this distinction clear. Since these “weeks” (actually periods of seven years) are dtermined upon Israel, and since a 70th week is presumed to still be yet future, there must be a prophetic role for national Israel. The missing 70th week is thought to be the seven year tribulation period noted above (but there is no actual verse in the Bible that makes that equation – we’ll get to that in future posts).

So, the need for a distinction is apparent. The need is fed (and argued) by certain assumptions: Israel never got the land promise fulfilled to it, so it’s still out there. And the land promises need to be fulfilled else God failed. Daniel’s prophecy forces a distinction between Israel and the Church. Several clear NT passages mar the neatness of all this. I focused a bit on Galatians 3, which explicitly has the Church as the inheritor of the promises to Abraham, thus replacing national Israel as the recipient of those promises. Paul’s statment that Christians (including non-Jews) are inheritors of the promises of Abraham ths raises the spectre that national Israel is displaced by the Church. It is usually objected “well, when did the Church get the promised land?” That’s actually easy to answer by proponents of an Israel=Church equation. They argue:

(1) the paramters of the kingdom of Solomon match the parameters of the land promises given to Abraham, so Israel did receive that promise;

(2) the land was promised not only as a place for the people of God to live, but a place for the presence of Yahweh to reside with his people (in a tabernacle and then the temple). The NT is clear that this place is now the whole world. How? The Spirit of Christ (who is Yahweh) descended at Pentecost (Acts 2) and now indwells every believer (Eph 2:22; 2 Tim 1:4; James 4:5; Romans 8:9-11).  Each believer is the temple of Yahweh now (temple of the Holy Spirit) as is the entire Body of Christ (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). That means wherever Christians are Yahweh is.  And Christians have overspread the earth. This was the point of the great commission – to reclaim the nations for Yahweh. The Promised Land is now the whole earth, not just a plot the size of New Jersey. And the people of God inhabit that land. The Church has inherited the promises given to Abraham. God’s plan was fulfilled.

And if the above is all true, on what basis should we anticipate a literal earthly millennium? Isn’t the kingdom of the whole earth good enough?

Now, there are ways to still argue or justify a literal millennium, but my point isn’t to argue for that. It’s only to show that that position is far from being self-evident.

Next up: the covenants. One of the defenses of distinguishing Israel and the Church is, as we’ve already seen, the Abrahamic covenant. Those who keep Israel and the Church separate argue their position on the basis that Israel never got the land. Why is that important? Because, it is argued, the covenant with Abraham giving Israel the Land was unconditional — it was promised no matter what. God also made a covenant with David, that his dynastic line would never end (or, that one would ever sit on the throne of Israel who was not David’s descendant). That covenant was also uncondtional. Hence, it is argued, Israel MUST still get the land, and a descendant of David MUST sit on the literal throne in a literal kingdom in that literal land for these promises to be fulfilled. It is argued that the land and the throne promises remain unfulfilled — so we look to the future for all that.

The land part of this, as we have seen, is undermined by Galatians 3. It would also be undermined (potentially) of the covenant was conditional. Many theologians argue the covenant came with obedience conditions, conditions that were broken by Israel’s apostasy. Hence the promises are null and void (actually, they got passed on to the church in this view through the New Covenant of Jer 31). It is also argued that Jesus has already fulfilled the “Davidic dynasty rule” promise of the Davidic covenant.  No need for that in the future in a literal sense. So who’s right? Are the covenants conditional? Is the throne of David already occupied by the messiah?

In other words, is there more than one way to look at all this, so that no prophetic system is self evident (i.e., has the claim to being “biblical”)? Well, you know I’m going to answer yes to that, but why?

Stay tuned.

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 1

Focus: Are Israel and the Church distinct from each other, or does the Church replace Israel in God’s program for the ages? How would we know? Why is it that Galatians 3 has the Church inheriting the promises given to Abraham? Why are believers called the temple of God in 1 Cor 3 and 6 if the temple is supposed to be rebuilt? If Israel and the Church are distinct, it would seem that Israel might still have a national future, apart from the church. Keeping Israel and the Church distinct is key to any view of a rapture (because the Church is taken, not Israel).

Naked Bible enthusiasts (and despisers) may recall that, long ago, I posted a list of presuppositions that are brought to the Bible that ultimately dictate one’s position on eschatology (“end times”). I posted this because all too many Christians assume that their view is self-evident from the Bible (i.e., that it’s so clearly taught as to make them wonder how anyone else could see end times any other way).  I’d say the position most guilty of this is the pre-tribulational rapture view (the view presented in the Left Behind novel series).

My goal in the posts that follow is to elaborate on my original list and unpack the items a bit.  My goal isn’t to deny or endorse any position. I don’t like or hate any of them. There are things I like about all of them. I can already hear those married to one view: “how can he say that?!  That’s not possible!  Yeah, it is. And it’s the best perspective. (I’m sure that’ll tick someone off). I’ll explain my own thinking at the end of the series.  For now . . . drum roll, please . . . let’s dive in.

Presuppositional Issue #1 – Are Israel and the Church distinct from each other, or does the Church replace Israel in God’s program for the ages? If they are distinct, it would seem that Israel might still have a national future, apart from the church. Keeping Israel and the Church distinct is key to any view of a rapture (because the Church is taken, not Israel).

Let’s unpack this.

“God’s people” in the first installment of the Bible (the Old Testament) was Israel (and a few Gentile converts here and there, who had to join the nation as Israelites — followers of Yahweh).  God made a series of covenants with Israel to create and certify that bond. These covenants all had certain promises. As Israel came out of Egypt and entered the Promised Land, the nation inherited certain of these promises — or was it ALL of them? (that’s item #2 for next time). Here’s a list of the promises:

Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 15:6-7)

1. They would become a nation whose population would be like the sand of the sea and the stars of heaven.
2. They would prosper and be a blessing to all who blessed them (or a curse to those who cursed them).
3. They would inherit a land promised to them (“from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt” – more on that in other installments).

Sinai (“Mosaic”) Covenant (Exod. 20-24)

God’s covenant with the nation at Sinai was given in Exodus 20-24. Its focus is the Mosaic Law. God labeled Israel a „peculiar treasure“, a „kingdom of priests“, and a „holy nation“, and gave them the stipulations (laws) that would guarantee the continuance of fellowship between them and their God (continuation of the Abrahamic covenant). The covenant was ratified by a covenant sacrifice and the sprinkling of blood (Ex. 24:4-8). Various Sinai covenant renewals are recorded in the Old Testament. The most important were those on the plains of Moab (Dt. 29), at Shechem in the days of Joshua (Josh. 24), when Jehoiada was able to restore the Davidic line of kings under Joash (2 K. 11), the days of Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29:10), and in the days under the rule of Josiah (2 K. 23:3).

Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7)

God promised David that his descendants should have an everlasting dynastic rule over the Promised Land and be known as his sons (2 Sam 7:12-17; Psalm 89; Isa. 55).

The New Covenant 

Several passages in the prophets, but most explicitly in Jeremiah, speak of a new covenant in the messianic age (Isa. 42:6; Isa 49:6-8; Isa 55:3; Isa 59:21; Isa 61:8; Jer. 31:31, 33; Jer 32:40; Jer 50:5; Ezek 16:60, 62; Ezek 34:25; Ezek 37:26).

These passages assume a nation in exile due to its sins — its violations of the Sinai covenant. This covenant argues that, though the Sinai covenant was broken, the promise of God would not fail. There would be a remnant through whom God would honor His promises. He would make a new covenant. His law would be written on hearts of flesh. In that day the throne of David would be occupied by one of David’s line (this assume a situation when that was not the case – such as in exile) and the people would enjoy an everlasting covenant of peace in which the nations would also share (Isa. 42:6; Isa 49:6; Isa 55:3-5; cf. Zech 2:11;Zech 8:20-23; 14:16; etc.). In those days worship would be purified (Ezk. 40-48), true theocratic government would be established, and peace would be universal.

Got all that?  Good. Now here’s the question: Is the nation of Israel (the national ethnic entity) still the focus of these covenant promises (before and after the final New Covenant) or is the Church their focus now?

Arguments can be made for both sides — depending on presuppositions. We’ll be getting into the details in items # 2 and 3, so let’s preview those items. The two sides of this #1 issue depend on whether one believes the promises of the Abrahamic, Sinai, and Davidic covenant were CONDITIONAL. That is, were there conditions behind receiving the promises (“Israel must do/be X”) or were the promises made without any conditions (“no matter what Israel does in the way of sin, God would still give them the promises”)? If there were conditions, it is obvious that Israel failed (they went into exile at God’s hand). If there were no conditions is that what the New Covenant is about?  Is the New Covenant the answer?

These questions are important for #1 because they create a construct by which to parse this first issue’s question: Are Israel and the Church distinct from each other, or does the Church replace Israel in God’s program for the ages?

Jesus very clearly came to establish the New Covenant (“this is the new covenant in my blood” – see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:13; Heb 12:24). And the Spirit came upon the disciples and their converts after the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2; see the book of Acts thereafter). The church was “circumcision neutral” — it was not only Jews, but also Gentiles, that also was a New Covenant element. But if the Church — and not Israel as a nation — was the focus of the New Covenant, then what purpose is there for national Israel (except to embrace Jesus and become absorbed into the Church)? It also means that the Davidic ruler is Jesus, and the Promised Land is bigger than Israel — it’s the whole world — hence the Great Commission. Let’s ask it this way: Is there any part of the New Covenant *not* answerable by the Church?  One might say the “all nations” part — but that is precisely the point of the Great Commission – given to the fledgling CHURCH, not Israel (Matt. 28:18-20).

At this point the common objection is the Land — that the Church isn’t a theocratic kingdom. But it is – it’s head is Christ and its land is the whole earth (back to the Great Commission). Why would we insist that the Land promises must be fulfilled in a tiny portion of the earth (Israel) rather than the whole earth?  The answer given would be “well, the Abrahamic covenant guaranteed the Promised Land, and have specific dimensions, and Israel never got all that land … and so they either get *that* land as a national entity, or else God’s promises failed. That, too, is a presupposition. It presupposes that God’s plan doesn’t *succeed* through the New Covenant and the global, Gentile-inclusive Church. It also presumes that Israel never got the land according to the dimensions of Gen 15 (see later on that). But if the covenants were conditional, then Israel sinned the land promises away (they failed; God did not), and this objection about a literal kingdom within the parameters of Genesis 15 may be completley moot.

One more note on the difference and sameness of Israel and the Church, Galatians 3 (read the whole chapter) is crystal clear that Christians — the Church – “inherited” the promises given to Abraham. Should we exclude the land from land?  If “the Promised land” has been replaced by “the whole earth,” then the answer is yes — and that is the primary argument for saying that we have no reason to look for a literal kingdom in *Israel* (a millennium) in the future.

So, are Israel and the Church distinct? Yes, one is not the equation of the other. But does the Church replace Israel as the people of God? In one sense, this is clearly the case since the Church inherits the promises given to Israel through Christ (Galatians 3). But what about the land? If the land promise is still out there, waiting to be fulfilled, then Israel as a national entity is still distinct in terms of kingdom prophecy. If the land promise was sinned away and is now replaced by the whole earth, then the nation of Israel itself has no special role in biblical prophecy — it’s all about the Church.

And believe it or not, if it’s all about the church, there is no seven year tribulation or rapture, since the former is entirely built on the 70 weeks prophecy given to Jerusalem and Israel, and the latter is in turn built on the literal tribulation.

Stay tuned.

By Christian

If you’ve never heard of eschatology and have no idea what the nnark is, let alone what the hunting of the snark is supposed to be: don’t worry, there’s nothing wrong with you. You should be more worried when you’re on this hunt. We’ll explain why in a moment.

First of all, this beautiful foreign word from the Greek: Eschatology

Eschatology (/ˌɛskəˈtɒlədʒi/ ⓘ; from Ancient Greek ἔσχατος (éskhatos) ‚last‘ and -logy) concerns expectations of the end of present age, human history, or the world itself.

Wikipedia

Okay. So this might have been on your mind before. „When are the end times coming?“ „When is Armageddon coming?“ „When can we expect the return of Christ?“ „When will the end come?“ And so on. If I were to list all the formulations, the time for this part of the series would already be over.

And to be clear: when it comes to something as important for your own life as the end of the world, it’s understandable that you want to know more about it.

The only question is: How much can we know about it? Is there anything about it in the Bible? Well, probably nothing as obvious as a date, otherwise it would be clear to everyone. But perhaps we only need to understand and combine the coded terms in the Bible book of Daniel, the New Testament and especially the Book of Revelation to unravel this mystery? There are even said to be signs that we only need to decipher. And many claim to be able to do this! When translating the book „The Gentile Times Reconsidered“, I was shocked, to say the least, by the long list of predicted dates of the end times: From the Reformation to today alone, he lists dozens of predictions and years.

And that brings us to this strange hunting of the snark. This story by Lewis Carrol is hardly known outside the English-speaking world (Wikipedia). But you do know Alice in Wonderland, don’t you? It’s also by him. The story The Hunting of the Snark (An Agony in Eight Fits) was published in 1876:

What does this ballad have to do with eschatology? Well, our preoccupation with the subject of eschatology must never develop into such an adventure:

The poem is a ballad about a strange hunting expedition that sets out with care, hope and a completely blank sea map to catch a mysterious creature called a snark. What exactly they want to do with the snark is left open, but some of its characteristics are listed.

The crew is led by the bellman with his bell.

One of the characters (The Baker) had received the warning on the day the hunting party’s ship set sail that some snarks are boojums, and anyone unlucky enough to meet a boojum will immediately disappear „gently and suddenly“. The baker has exactly this bad luck at the end of the ballad, because the snark he finally found was a boojum.

Die Jagd auf den Snark (Wikipedia)

Do you see the parallels? I’ll adapt the description to the topic:

Finding the one correct biblical eschatology is a strange endeavour, which some undertake with meticulous care and great hopes, but only with a vague description in very few biblical texts. What they should then do with this eschatology is an open question.

The seekers are motivated by charismatic leaders or teachings.

If you are unlucky, you can disappear „gently and suddenly“ during this search.

The hunt for the only true eschatology (Christian)

Now I’m not saying that we don’t find anything about eschatology in the Bible. But an obsessive search to understand the Bible’s statements on the ‚end times‘ and the further course of history precisely and ‚correctly‘, or even to predict a date, has proved to be like searching for the Snark. There are endless interpretations, speculations and you can spend a lot of time on them. And some have disappeared from reality, so to speak.

Unfortunately, what is often overlooked is the decisive role played by one’s own assumptions and interpretations.

The biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser has dealt with precisely this topic in a blog series on eschatology, which I would like to reproduce here (and translated into German in the channel ‚Beröer Suche‘).

He uses some terms relating to eschatology that you may not be familiar with. The following explanations and diagrams are taken from Wikipedia.

First of all, we will often hear the term millennium. The word is derived from the Latin word for 1000 and refers to a period of 1000 years. Millenarianism (or chiliasm, derived from the Greek word) is the belief that refers to a 1000 year (literal or symbolic) reign of Jesus Christ, which is found in Revelation 20:1-10.

Essentially, there are these main directions of millennialism:

After the first coming of Christ around 2000 years ago, the following would happen according to the most important main currents:

Premillenarianism

The Latin syllable pre means ‚before‘. The idea is that we read in the Bible that there will be a ‚great tribulation‘, followed by Jesus‘ second coming. This is followed by the millennium and then the final judgement.

Dispensationalism

The more modern dispensationalism envisages a previous second coming of Christ for the Church. This can be accompanied by a ‚rapture‘ in which the believers are taken from the earth.

Postmillenarianism

The Latin syllable post means „after“. In this belief system, Jesus only comes a second time after the millennium and then carries out the final judgement.

Amillennialism

The prefix ‚a‘ here means as much as never „not“ or „none“. In other words, no millennium. The number 1000 is understood symbolically and the whole time between the first and second coming of Christ is regarded as the millennium.

In addition to these views, there are an almost incalculable number of others that differ in certain details.

But why are there such different views, even though the text of the Old and New Testaments is the same? Dr Heiser explains this in his blog, which we will start with in the next part.