God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says about Alcohol by Kenneth Gentry

Written by one who doesn’t drink due to health concerns, God Gave Wine takes a non-biased approach to the issue.  What does the Bible really say about alcoholic drink?  Contrary to the popular opinion of many American evangelical Christians, the Bible does not expressly forbid the drinking of alcoholic drinks, such as wine or “strong drink”.  Rather, it forbids in no uncertain terms, the abuse of alcohol.

Drunkenness is never viewed as a disease, instead it is incumbent on men not to become drunk with wine.  Drunkenness is a sin worthy of eternal damnation.  It is expressly forbidden and counseled against.  Yet the moderate enjoyment of wine is not only allowed, but encouraged.

Kenneth Gentry deals with each relevant passage exegetically and fairly.  He traces the Biblical meanings of the words employed for “wine” and other alcoholic drinks.  He reveals the circular reasoning behind the two wine theory, that the Bible has two kinds of wine in view (alcoholic, and non-alcoholic) even as it employs only one term.  The same wine the Bible warns can lead to drunkenness, is the wine the Bible praises as a gift from God for man’s enjoyment.

As Christians, we should all care most about what God says on any given issue.  Arguments from wisdom and expediency are important, but the express teaching of God’s Word is final.  Gentry explores the many arguments from principle that Christians use to avoid completely anything alcoholic.  He finds these arguments wanting, after a verse by verse study of Romans 14.

If you care about the truth, and if you care about Scripture, you should pick up this book and read it.  The traditions of godly men of old are important, but God’s Word is more so.  Historically, the avoidance of all alcoholic drink is relatively new, and today is primarily restricted to American Christians.  When you see what Scripture has to say, Itself, on this topic, you will at least have more leniency in your views concerning this important issue.

As one who was converted (through a study of Scripture) to the moderate use of God-given wine, I can testify that many Christians drink with joy to the glory of God.  Drinking does not make one more apt to sin, nor does it reveal that one has worldly desires.  No matter how you conclude on this topic, it would be to your credit to interact with and at least consider what Kenneth Gentry says in this helpful, carefully written, concise book on wine.

Anyone interested in studying this issue out further, can peruse my previous articles on the subject listed here.

Update: For any wishing to order the book, currently Amazon doesn’t have it, and it’s used prices are really high. You can order it here from American Vision, for $12.95, or from Oakdown Books, the publisher, for $13.  You can also get it for 12.99 from CBD or as part of a set of 2 books on the topic, click here for details.

America — A Pagan Nation?

In the conclusion to my series on understanding the land promise made to Israel, I made the claim that America is just another secular, pagan nation. I’m not too surprised that someone objected to my claim. The idea that America is a Christian nation is a very common idea, but it is still misguided.

Yes, some godly people were involved in the founding of America. Most of our founders at least acknowledged God. But when they founded the nation, they founded a run-of-the-mill, secular nation. God made no promise in His Word about the founding of our nation. Our nation granted freedom of religion to non-Christian religions. The laws of our nation are secular laws, they do not come out of the pages of Deuteronomy.

But wait, some would say, didn’t our laws derive from Biblical principles? That may be, but they were still secular laws for a secular people. Excommunication from the church is never dished out by the secular state, here.

We may truly be thankful for the Christian, godly influence in the founding of our society. That may have given us advantages and blessings. But it does not constitute our country as uniquely created by God. We have no claims for God’s special favor. Like every other nation of men, we are accountable to obey God’s laws. And God ultimately is responsible for the authority our leaders have (Rom. 13).

Since America is just another secular nation, it should not surprise us when our country follows the whims and desires of fallen man. Christians in the era of pre-Christian Rome had a far worse society to deal with than we have. Roman senators openly kept mistresses and/or homosexual boys, Christianity was directly persecuted, and Bibles were illegal. Yet one will not find the Christians of that era complaining about how bad things were and how hard it was to be a Christian.

Today, however, Christians complain about how bad things are, and they long for the good old days, when America was truly a Christian place. However, America never was a Christian place. Morality apart from Christ is as heinous to God as immorality apart from Christ. A day where everyone saves face and looks good, while still being rebellious to God in their hearts, is not an age I want to return to. And I am at a loss to see how preventing homosexual marriage, and laws of this nature, do anything to “reclaim America for Christ”. The law is powerless to save.

We as Christians need to realize that we will always be in a world that hates us and in an environment that makes it hard for us to live for Christ. Always, until Jesus comes, that is.

And while I’m all for efforts to impact our culture for Christ, focusing on politics and political reforms often diverts us from the cause of the Gospel. It also blurs the distinction of Christianity in the eyes of the world. Rather than being known as those who prize the Gospel and love Christ, we are viewed as those who aim to foist our morality on the general public through whatever means possible.

Christianity is not a political party, nor a social club. American Christians, can’t ignore their global brothers and sisters. God is for America just as much as He is for Pakistan, North Korea, and every other nation where members of Christ’s body live. I’m not against being patriotic, but we must not pretend God is. We are citizens of a heavenly country, and just “passing through” this world, whatever earthly country we may dwell in.

Changing Things Up Around Here

Just a quick note to say I’m back.  I’ve changed the look of my blog, and I’m working on some other changes and improvements.  Let me know what you think of the new look.  I’m still working on some pages and trying to make everything here easier to find for new visitors.  Happy Friday, all.

Understanding the Land Promise: Conclusion

Continuing from part 7….

At last, this series is coming to a close. We’ve explored an understanding of the land promise informed by NT Scripture itself. All believers are Abraham’s heirs, and they inherit the promise that he would be heir of the world (Rom. 4:13-16). Gentile believers can expect to “live long in the land” (Eph. 6:3), even as the meek “inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). Just like in Ps. 37, it is only the righteous who inherit the earth and dwell in it forever, not anyone who claims the name of Christ. While Israel did possess the land for a time, and all of God’s promises were proven true (Josh. 21:43-45, 1 Kings 8:56) and fulfilled, the actual experience of Israel in the land fell short of the prophetic expectation. Ultimately the spiritual seed of Abraham will inherit a new heaven and a new earth, and all the believing children of Abraham from all time, will enjoy the eternal kingdom of the new earth in resurrected bodies. The new earth will center on the heavenly Jerusalem, where God’s presence will dwell eternally with His people. The church was God’s temple on earth, and in the eternal state there will be no temple, as we enjoy God’s presence forever. Indeed, even now, we share in the worship of the heavenly company of the redeemed who are in the heavenly Jerusalem, of which old Jerusalem was just a picture.

How this Understanding Matters

At this point, I’d like to emphasize why this matters. Many readers have probably skipped over these posts as irrelevant. “This is just a theological squabble over semantics”, they might say. I contend this understanding, which invariably leads to a reordering of or even a wholesale rejection of dispensationalism, has profound implications. I’d like to discuss four broad categories directly influenced by this understanding of the land.

How You Read the Bible, and the Unity of God’s People

When you really grasp this idea of how the NT Church experiences the land blessing now, and even more so later, you comprehend what Eph. 2, Gal. 3, 1 Pet. 2 and Rom. 4 overwhelmingly proclaim — that the Church in the NT and believing Israel in the OT are together to be understood as God’s people. Sure there are some important differences, but we are unified as one people of God. When reading the NT we constantly are reminded that just like the saints of old had to trust in God by faith, so we do today. They looked forward to Christ’s day and we look back, but we all prize Christ.

This in turn revolutionizes how you read the Bible. You no longer read certain sections as if they don’t apply to you at all. instead you see everything through the lens of faith. You understand how the Israelites’ plight in Judges parallels our plight in our fight for faith today. You also start to see how the NT ties in to the OT in profound ways.

As an example, consider baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is not a totally distinct, new thing in our age. Moses and the Israelites were in a sense baptized in the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10), and the word baptism is used of ritualistic washings in the OT (see the use of the Greek words relating to baptism in Hebrews). Of course the New Testament makes clear that baptism symbolizes cleansing from sin (Acts 22:16), and OT Israel had many ordinances and ceremonies which symbolized the same thing with water. This should help us see that baptism, while definitely illustrating our solidarity with Christ in his death and burial, still most basically symbolizes that Christ has washed us from our sins. Without this full fledged understanding of Scripture’s unity, numerous baptism services totally ignore the most fundamental and basic meaning of the symbol of water baptism.

The Lord’s Supper, likewise connects with the Passover. It was first instituted at an observance of Passover. Indeed, Passover’s true meaning was transformed (or revealed) by the Lord’s Supper. We now have Christ offering his body as the final and ultimate sacrifice. Just as Passover was to be a family and corporate event, which remembered the sorrow of the sacrifice but majored on the joy of being rescued from death, so the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance and should include both sorrow and an emphasis on joy. I am probably going off on a bit of tangent here, but consider how this impacts the understanding of substitutionary atonement. Jesus declared his blood would be offered to establish the new covenant. Hebrews declares blood-shedding is required for a covenant to be in effect. The blood shed at the original Passover, was shed only for a specific group of people, and it was placed over their door posts to mark off God’s people. Similarly, Jesus blood is shed for his people, with whom He establishes his new covenant.

These are just a few examples of how this understanding transforms your reading of and appreciation for the Bible.

How You Think About Modern Israel, Political Activism & Patriotism

Now for this topic, many a dispensationalist will say understanding the land promise as I do will make me anti-Semitic. Well, I’m part German, so I guess they must be right! Just kidding. In no way does this make one anti-Semitic or encourage that.

Now I must admit some Christians historically who have understood how the Church (made up of believing Jew and Gentile alike) ultimately fulfills the land promise and other Abrahamic promises, have been anti-Semitic. But it does not need to follow that the idea makes one anti-Semitic. The NT is emphatic that the only hope for anyone, Jew or Gentile, comes through Christ. And if all Israel will one day be saved, that event will only occur through Christ and all living Jews repenting and embracing Him. And then they will be grafted back into the single tree they were taken out of the very tree in which the believing Gentiles have been grafted in permanently.

The New Testament doesn’t show any Christians as being second-class. There are no racial or class distinctions. Gentile believers are fellow heirs and partakers of the covenant promises — yea even members of the commonwealth of Israel, according to Eph. 2. Gal. 3 declares believers are Abraham’s descendants. So even if there is a millennium prior to the creation of the new world, and that millennium concerns Israel, believing Gentiles will have to be included per the clear teaching of the New Testament.

Now as to modern day Israel, this understanding gives us no reason to prefer the Jewish claim for the land over the Palestinian one. The Church, is not to be allied with a single political party or view, as God’s kingdom advances through the Gospel and not the sword. Israel today almost completely rejects Christ, sadly. Those Jews who are believers are members of the Church, and as such their ultimate inheritance is the new world and heaven, not a physical geographical area in Palestine.

I have seen that those Christians most connected with a dispensationalist understanding of the land promise, are often the most involved in political pursuits and the most apt to “defend” Israel and pledge support for it. Thankfully, many dispensationalists understand we should not have as our main goal the reformation of society through political action (see a wonderful series on this point by Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs, for instance). But one’s understanding of the land promise directly touches on how likely they will lose the importance of the fact that we are just passing through this world like Abraham, and are looking for an eternal city. Politics in a free society, provides an avenue for kingdom work and a place to be salt and light, but we are not to legislate Christianity or moralism, instead we are to proclaim the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

This understanding also shapes our patriotism. While we are thankful for America, we know God’s people are of every nationality and race. We are reminded our country is pagan, as is the whole world. Nations have always been composed of pagan people. Christianity is not a nation but a spiritual kingdom, and we are called to be lights in a dark place. God wants people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Burma, Chile, Venezuela, Israel, and America equally to repent and embrace His kingdom. And God does his work in all those nations according to His sovereign purposes to accomplish His glorious plan.

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 7

Continuing from part 6….

I hope this post concludes my arguments, responses, and all other considerations of the matter – warning: this is a lengthy post!    I plan to follow up with a concluding post which explains the ramifications for holding my position.

Conditionality of the Land (follow up)

Before I begin, let me share a passage which I should have listed under my “Conditionality of the Land” point.

Then the word of the LORD came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18:5-10)

On top of the clear verses in Deuteronomy which teach the land is conditional, this passage teaches that in all God’s promises, conditionality is assumed. God reserves the right to pull out of an agreement based on the obedience or lack thereof of his people. This matches how covenants of that day work. The sovereign promises blessings conditioned on the loyalty/obedience of the subject. Of course, as mentioned last time, with salvation, God has accomplished the obedience Himself, through Jesus’ perfect life and death on our behalf. God will work in us through His Spirit to make us continue believing and being loyal to God. If we don’t continue that evidences we are not truly His children.

The Necessity of Faith

We’ve just been talking about how important faith is. And with the land and the promises of it, faith is still prominent. This passage from Hebrews teaches us much about how God’s promises and faith interact:

And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. (Heb. 6:11-12, emphasis added)

Abraham and everyone else for whom God gave glorious promises, inherit them only by means of faith. The same goes for Israel and the land. This is made explicit in Ps. 37, where it doesn’t talk in general terms re: all Israel, but gets specific regarding which individuals will actually inherit the land:

For the evildoers shall be cut off, but those who wait for the LORD shall inherit the land. In just a little while, the wicked will be no more… But the meek shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace. For those blessed by the LORD shall inherit the land, but those cursed by him shall be cut off. Turn away from evil and do good; so shall you dwell forever [in the land]. (Ps. 37:9-11, 22, 27)

Notice the wicked are going to be cut off from the land, but the faithful will inherit the land. There is no sure possession of the land for Israel if they do not remain faithful to God.

Incomplete Fulfillment

Earlier, I’ve made much of Joshua’s and Solomon’s statements that all of the promises concerning the land were fulfilled. God’s part of the bargain was complete. They viewed Israel’s occupation of the land as a fulfillment of that promise. Yet they didn’t dwell there forever. And they didn’t control all the land to the fullest extent possible. Does this mean the fulfillment is actually in the future? Yes and no.

God’s promises included a forever provision. They would have the land forever. But they didn’t. They had it and lost it. As God made His covenantal arrangements with Israel more fully known in Deuteronomy, he allowed for expulsion from the land as a covenantal curse if Israel did not obey their God. This does not negate the fact that Scripture sees Joshua’s conquest and Solomon’s reign as fulfillments of the Abrahamic promises: “not one good word from the Lord” failed.

Yet, the fulfillment was incomplete. They had a taste of long life and peace in the land, but didn’t experience everything God seemed to promise. In Abraham’s case, he never owned the land but lived like a pilgrim in it. Hebrews informs us that this caused Abraham, with the other patriarchs, to confess they were looking for a heavenly land (see Heb. 11). So Israel’s uneasy time in the land should have pointed them beyond it as well. Israel ultimately broke covenant with God and were driven out, but He did not desert them. God promised to return them to their land. And he did. But even this return (the return from the exile), fell short of the prophetic expectations of a glorious return. The Old Testament closed with promises seemingly unfulfilled. The glory of Israel had faded. Of course the story goes on, and God established the new covenant through Jesus death on the cross and gave spiritual Israel and all the saved Gentiles an inheritance unfathomable in its richness.

A New Song for the Nations

My pastor, John Piper, made some interesting comments on the concept of a “new song” in this week’s sermon. He made an important observation of how Ps. 96, which is a missions psalm, is also very much concerned with singing. I was encouraged as he shared how the global church is having a revival of singing to the Lord, in our day.

My fundamentalist ears noticed he used “new song” in its most natural way of referring to a new-in-time song commemorating a new work the Lord has done on our behalf. But that’s beside the point. I’d encourage you to listen to the last 5-10 minutes or so of the sermon here (if not the whole thing). And I’m going to copy the relevant portion of the condensed print version of the sermon below.

…you can’t summon the nations to sing if you are not singing. So let me suggest why in this global missionary context the psalm would stress singing new songs. Notice that these new songs are “to the Lord.” Not just about the Lord. Verse 1: “Sing to the Lord a new song.” It’s not wrong to sing about the Lord. The Psalms do it all the time. But when new songs are being written and composed and sung “to the Lord,” something is happening in the church. It’s a sign of unusual life and vibrancy. People are not just living off the spiritual capital of previous generations, but they are dealing vibrantly with the living God and their songs are being sung to him. He is real. He is personal. He is known. He is precious. He is present. Worship is more intense and more personal and more engaging.

A New Song in Our Day

That is what the psalm calls for, and that is what has been happening during my entire adult life. Around the world there is a new song and a new vibrancy and a new personal engagement in singing to the Lord. And the really astonishing thing in our time is the way this awakening of singing to the Lord with new songs has such a strong global and missionary flavor. To my knowledge singing has never been more at the forefront of missions as it is today.

God is doing something wonderful in the fulfillment of Psalm 96. It is far bigger than any one church, or any one ethnic group, or any one region of the world. The global church is singing—singing to the Lord, singing new songs, and singing about God’s Lordship over the nations.

And I would simply say: Don’t miss what God is doing. Be a part of it. Get the nations on your heart. Think rightly about God’s global purposes. Feel deeply about his marvelous works. Sing with all your heart to the Lord. And be a part of summoning the nations to join you.

The Center of Our Singing

And may the center of our singing be the same as the center of the new song we will sing in the age to come, namely, the song of the Lamb who was slain.

And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Revelation 5:9–10)

Amen! May the Lord grant a renewed growth to His world-wide church. May more and more nations and people groups be added to the number of those singing praise to the Lamb!

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 6

As is frequently the case, when publishing a series of posts on my blog, I encounter a lot of comments and counterpoints. This can sidetrack me and lead toward my leaving a series unfinished. Of course there are other reasons for my nack for leaving series unfinished…. I do want to interact with some of the comments under my little excursus post, but for now, I feel we need to continue from part 5, and make my position fully clear. I do not claim perfection and I am open to being convinced otherwise, but for now I’d like to finish out my explanation of my current understanding of the land promise.

As you’ll remember from part 5, I am taking time to answer some objections, and by so doing, to rephrase my position and make it clear. So to review, I’m claiming that Joshua and 1 Kings, with Nehemiah, indicate that the OT understood the Jews to have possessed all the land God promised them at one time. None of God’s promises had failed all came to pass concerning the land, they said. We also showed that the recipients of the land promise specifically were the descendants of Abraham. Yet we should note that the New Testament indicates the Gentiles have been grafted in and are to be viewed as the descendants of Abraham. And very specifically Rom. 4 claims the very promise that Abraham would inherit the land is given to all of his children, Jew and Gentile. This understanding again jives with Eph. 6:1-3 where Gentile Christians are promised long life in the land of promise (cf. Exodus 20).

Obviously these concepts seem at first to fall short. How can Gentile Christians be inheriting the land promised to Israel? How can the land promises have already been fulfilled when there are specific “millennial” promises indicating a future reunification of Israel and possession of the land? We started to explore this by touching on the nature of land. It is integral to the relationship between a god and his people. Namaan brought earth back to his home in Syria because he wanted to serve Jehovah. He falsely thought Jehovah was bound to a local geography. Deuteronomy ties life in the land specifically to the commands and regulations Israel must obey. Abraham himself significantly only built altars within the borders of his promised land. So the idea of land is connected with fellowship and relationship, and as we’ve indicated before, with rest or confidence in God.

We begin to see a full-orbed picture of the land as we look at the idea of conditionality, and as we look at the land in perspective.

The Conditionality of the Land

As has been noted in some of the comments, Israel failed to keep covenant with God.  This resulted in their expulsion from the land, and is why the totality of the land has not yet been attained by Israel.  This then, makes it obvious the land promise was conditional.

Deuteronomy is the most important book for regulating the Jewish state, and it made much of the land.  Obedience was to result in blessing in the land, and disobedience was to incur judgment on the land, and ultimately expulsion from it.  As we look closely at the Biblical record in the first 6 books of the Bible, it is clear that while the land was promised and given as a gift to Abraham and his descendants, it nevertheless required them to believe, follow Jehovah, and obey His word in order both to possess the land, and to keep it.

Genesis 12 perhaps most clearly reveals this,

Understanding the Land Promise: Excursus

Before continuing with a couple points related more directly to the land promise, and then going on to finish this series, I thought it would be good to address an important side issue. In the comments of part 5, it was again stated that I am wrong for going backward from the New Testament to the Old Testament. It was asserted that doing this is reading the NT back into the OT and is wrong hermeneutics. Proper exegesis takes the OT on its own basis and ignores later revelation. Such an approach, Will Dudding claimed, flows from a proper understanding of progressive revelation. At least that is what I understood him as saying in this comment.

Progressive Revelation

Progressive revelation is actually a good concept to explain at this point. And I hope to show how it bolsters my hermeneutical approach rather than invalidating it. So let’s start with revelation.

Revelation

As believers in inerrancy, and the “Sola Scriptura” of the Reformation, we uphold the Bible as the sole source of specific revelation to mankind. God has revealed what was unknowable and hidden from man, by declaring his mind to us in the words which make up the inspired Scriptures. Revelation is a gift to us, and it is not something which changes. God knows all, and He has always known what He would reveal to us. All along, God has had His plan for human history complete and settled. And He has known what He would reveal to us in the Bible. So from this perspective, revelation is similar to God opening a shut window to give us a glimpse, just the specific and intended glimpse He wants us to have, of what God has planned and will do for us.

Progressive

“Progressive” refers to the progression of revelation. As we look at Scripture, we can easily tell that God revealed more truth to David than he did to Moses, who had more truth than Abraham. And of course, we on this side of Christ have the complete revelation and thus have more access to truth than David, or even the apostles had (as the canon was completed after most of them had died). At each stage of human history, God advanced His story of redemption a little more. He revealed a little more truth until all was revealed through the advent of Christ (Heb. 1:1) and the subsequent NT writings (John 16:13-14; 14:25-26).

To go back to our analogy, as the Word of God was being written and compiled, the window of Heaven was being raised a little bit higher, and higher, until now it is fully open and we can know all of what God wills us to know. This is just an analogy, but there are explicit places in the New Testament where this idea is explained.

Scriptural Examples

The New Testament mentions that Old Testament passages were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4; Rom. 4:23; 1 Cor. 9:9-10), and OT events happened as lessons for us (1 Cor. 10:6, 11). Even more explicitly, Old Testament institutions were shadows of things to come (Heb. 8:5; 10:1; Col. 2:16-17). In Christ, the shadow is done away and the substance remains (Col. 2:17). In fact, the Old Testament scriptures testify of Christ and point to Him (John 5:39; Luke 24:27). And many Old Testament events are explained in NT gospel terms (Gal. 3:8).

What does this mean for our study? I take it to mean that all along, God knew the complete revelation of what He would do through Christ. And God as the Divine Author of all of Scripture, deliberately foreshadowed things as he orchestrated events and revealed Scriptures all of which would point to Christ and would have a more full meaning for believers in Christ, than they would for the immediate recipients of the OT Scriptures. Yet even for those Jewish believers in God, the very Scriptures they received would point them beyond their current day and work in them a faith in a coming redeemer.

Conclusion

So with respect to progressive revelation, I hold that God deliberately revealed truth in this way so as to hint at and foreshadow the more full revelation which God would ultimately provide. Just because Abraham and others only saw through a partially open window, does not mean God did not have the full picture in mind as He wrote. When God gave promises to Abraham concerning his descendants, God knew full well that the descendants he had in mind were spiritual faithful children, Jew and Gentile (Heb. 2:15; Gal. 3:29). Abraham knew there was more to the land promise than just the plot of land, for he was looking for a heavenly city (Heb. 11:10, 13-16) even as we believers in Christ do (Heb. 13:14). Abraham had great faith in God, even faith that God could raise Isaac from the dead (Rom. 4:14-22; Heb. 11:19), and he even believed the gospel as revealed to him through the promises (Gal. 3:8).

In short, because of progressive revelation, we have no warrant to ignore the full and intended meanings revealed in the New Testament, as we go back to exegete what Old Testament passages mean. Those passages were written with us in mind and for our learning and instruction.

Now of course much more could be said on this point, and I would encourage you to start with studying how the NT authors used the OT scriptures.  I believe they used the OT in a legitimate fashion, intended to illustrate to us how we are to use it.  Scripture is more than just a literal meaning couched in words.  It has a spiritual meaning, discerned only by the work of the Holy Spirit.  Just as Human authors use many literary devices and allusions to foreshadow events which are to happen later in their book, even so God can do and has done this with His book, the Bible.  I’d encourage you to read this article by my friend Nathan Pitchford on the importance of reading and studying the Bible together as one unified revelation from God.

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 5 (Answering Objections)

–continuing from part 4.

I thought that the fifth post would be the last, but Will Dudding brought up some objections in the comments of the last post. This has caused me to dig a little deeper, and in the end has only increased my confidence in this understanding of the land promise. So before drawing out the implications of this view of the land promise (and then concluding our series), I need to pause and answer some objections. Answering these objections will also serve to recap this series and help us gain an even better appreciation for how the land promise applies to us.

Answering Objections

Will’s comments focused on several questions relating to the specific promises made to Abraham. He focused on two places in Genesis where the land promise is specified, but I’d like to quote all the places the land promise to Abraham is mentioned:

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country… to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation….” “To your offspring I will give this land”. (Gen. 12:1-2a; 7)

“Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth…. Arise, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.” (Gen. 13:14b-17)

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites”. (Gen. 15:18-21)

“I have made you the father of a multitude of nations…. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. (Gen. 17:5b-8]

“I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed…” (Gen. 22:17-18]

From reading these promises, it is easy to see why Will sees problems with my view. He sees unconditional promises made to Abraham, concerning a specific plot of land to be given to Abraham’s offspring to possess forever. He fears I am saying God has cast off Israel and replaced her with the Church, and that I am ignoring these “forever” promises, and turning them into a spiritual pseudo promise so I can say they are fulfilled. It’s as simple as this: Abraham’s descendants haven’t possessed this land, so the fulfillment must still be expected in the future.

To respond to these objections is a large task, because so many fundamental assumptions are wrapped up in them. Nevertheless, I will give this a try.

The Possession of the Promised Land

I am claiming that Joshua 21:43-45 declares that God fulfilled his promise to give the land to Israel. Nehemiah and Solomon also declare God did not drop the ball on any of his promises. In studying this further, I realize I neglected an important passage in 1 Kings.

Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea. They ate and drank and were happy. Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life. (1 Kings 4:20-21)

The inspired author of 1 Kings certainly means to grab our attention here. He is proclaiming the promises concerning Abraham’s seed being as numerous as the sand of the sea, have been fulfilled. He is also pointing us to the exact dimensions of the land promised in Gen. 15, as being now inhabited and ruled over by Solomon. Of course, later in 1 Kings 8:56, Solomon will actually declare that all the promises have been fulfilled. So in one sense clearly, God declares through inspired authors of Scripture, that the Israelites did indeed possess the land. Hold with me here, as we go on to address some other objections.

The Inheritors of the Promised Land

Now the promises above stipulate that Abraham’s descendants will inherit the land. But we observed previously (in part 1) that the New Testament states that the very promise that Abraham would inherit the world, was given to all the spiritual descendants of Abraham (see Rom. 4:11-16). To expand on this, let’s note a few important passages below:

For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (Rom. 9:6b-8]

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. (Gal. 3:7)

Can Fundamentalists fellowship with Mark Dever?

I’ve been distracted from my current series by some blog discussions regarding Mark Dever and fundamentalism. (I plan to bring my next post in the Land series tomorrow, Lord willing).

Mark Dever recently interviewed Mark Minnick, who teaches at BJU and pastors in Greenville. I haven’t listened to the interview yet, but I did read some various fundamentalist reactions to it. What piqued my interest was Dever’s recent post entitled: “Mark Dever Doesn’t Practice Separation?“

Mark’s post displays some consternation over charges by fundamentalists that he does not practice separation. He details many ways in which he and his church do separate. Dever’s explanation of separation describes my basic position: that separation does not have to look like the standard fundamentalist fare, in order to still be biblical separation.

You may want to read Dever’s post and then go on to read the comments. There are some thoughtful posts and discussions happening there which are helpful to anyone thinking through the issue of ecclesiastical separation and/or secondary separation.