View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
1/20
This way Paul could show his equality with God the Fa-
ther; yet he refrains from calling Jesus YHWH, which is
reserved for the Father. Notice how thoroughly Trinitarian
these passages are:
2:1 - Therefore if you have any encouragement from being
united with Christ[God the Son]
2:1 - If any comfort from his love [God the Son]
2:1 - If any common sharing in the Spirit[Holy Spirit]
2:6 Who [God the Son], being in very nature God[God
the Father]
2:9 Therefore God[God the Father] exalted him [God
the Son]
2:11 And every tongue
In most discussions of biblical prophecy, attention quickly turns to Revela-tion 20:1-9. The obvious reason for this turn is that this passage is the only place
in all of Scripture that mentions a thousand year reign of Christ. Both the Old
and the New Testament Scriptures include references to an eternalkingdom, but
only Revelation 20:1-9 mentions a thousand year kingdom. One way of reading
this passage, that is employed by premillennialists, views the thousand years,
along with the rest of the passage, as literal, natural language. On this reading,
one thousand years must mean one thousand calendar years of three-hundred
and sixty-five twenty-four hour days. Other ways of reading conceive of the thousand years in a spiritualized sense. Both
ways of reading, however, pose interpretive difficulties. The primary goal of this article is to explore the difficulties
posed by a pre-millennial reading of Revelation 20:1-9. Some of those difficulties have a serious nature. The second-
ary goal is to remind readers that ones hermeneutic determines ones prophetic view. Thus, prophetic views reflect a
commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The variations between views arise from different rules forinterpreting those inspired Scriptures. I want to be as emphatic as I possibly can that
It is good fo r the heart to be stre ngthened by grace Hebrews 13:9
New Covenant Theology and
Prophecy Part 3
Another Look at Revelation 20:1-9
John G. Reisinger
G RS O U N D O F
A EC
Last time we looked at Pauls exhortation in Philippians
2:1-5 and the example of Jesus in 2:6-8. Now we turn to
the exaltation of Jesus in Philippians 2:9-11:
Exaltation (vv. 9-11)In the midst of suffering, Paul reminds them who they
are and whose they are. This is a word of comfort. He tells
us that it is Jesus who is the worlds true Lord. He explains
the significance of his name: it isgiven to him by the Fa-
ther; it is in fact the name above every name, meaning the
divine name YHWH; it means that Jesus can and will be
given the devotion due God alone.1
The title Lord in the LXX (Greek OT) was YHWH.
1 Michael Gorman,Reading Paul(Eugene, OR: Cascade,
2008), 103.
Cruciform Love: Philippians 2:1-11, Part II
A. Blake White
ReisingerContinued on page 2
WhiteContinued on page 7
In This Issue
New Covenant Theology andProphecyPart 3
John G. Reisinger1
Cruciform Love:Philippians 2:1-11, Part II
A. Blake White1
Picture-Fulfillment NCT:A Positive Theological
Development? Part 1
Zachary S. Maxcey
3
New Covenant Theology: Is ThereStill a Role for the Imperatives?Part 2
Dr. J. David Gilliland
5
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
2/20
Page 2 February 2012 Issue 184Sound of Grace is a publication of SovereignGrace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound ofGrace are deductible under section 170 of theCode.
Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year.The subscription price is shown below. This isa paper unashamedly committed to the truthof Gods sovereign grace and New CovenantTheology. We invite all who love these sametruths to pray for us and help us financially.
We do not take any paid advertising.
The use of an article by a particular person isnot an endorsement of all that person believes,but it merely means that we thought that aparticular article was worthy of printing.
Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger,John Thorhauer, Bob VanWingerden andJacob Moseley.
Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385; e-mail: [email protected].
General Manager: Jacob Moseley:[email protected]
Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Soundof Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick,MD 21703-6938 Phone 301-473-8781 Visitthe bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com
Address all editorial material and questionsto: John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16,Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.
Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are takenfrom the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONALVERSION Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 byInternational Bible Society. Used by Permis-sion. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken
from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permis-sion. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are fromThe Holy Bible, English Standard Version,copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, adivision of Good News Publishers. Used bypermission. All rights reserved.
ContributionsOrders
Discover, MasterCard or VISA
If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribu-
tion to Sound of Grace, please mail a checkto: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,Frederick, MD 21703-6938.
Please check the mailing label to find theexpiration of your subscription. Please sendpayment if you want your subscription to con-tinue$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you wouldprefer to have a pdf file emailed, that is avail-able for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are unableto subscribe at this time, please call or drop anote in the mail and we will be glad to continuesending Sound of Grace free of charge.
ReisingerContinued from page 1
ReisingerContinued on page 4
this discussion is an in-house dis-
agreement. All parties in this discus-
sion, whether premil, amil, or postmil,
adhere to the doctrine of inspiration.
How, then, do we read Revelation
20:1-9?
And I saw an angel coming down
out of heaven, having the key to the
Abyss and holding in his hand a great
chain. He seized the dragon, thatancient serpent, who is the devil, or
Satan, and bound him for a thousand
years. He threw him into the Abyss,
and locked and sealed it over him tokeep him from deceiving the nations
anymore until the thousand years
were ended. After that time, he must
be set free for a short time.
I saw thrones on which wereseated those who had been given
authority to judge. And I saw the
souls of those who had been beheaded
because of their testimony for Jesusand because of the word of God. They
had not worshipped the beast or his
image and had not received his markon their foreheads or their hands.
They came to life and reigned with
Christ for a thousand years. (The rest
of the dead did not come to life untilthe thousand years were ended.) This
is thefirst resurrection. Blessed andholy are those who have part in the
first resurrection. The second deathhas no power over them, but they will
be priests of God and of Christ and
will reign with him for a thousand
years.
When the thousand years are over,Satan will be released from his prison
and will go out to deceive the nations
in the four corners of the earthGog
and Magogto gather them forbattle. In number they are like the
sand on the seashore. They marchedacross the breadth of the earth and
surrounded the camp of Gods people,the city he loves. Butfire came down
from heaven and devoured them.
(NIV)
One significant point about the
millennium in this passage concerns
the binding of Satan: he seized
Satan, and bound him for a thousand
years (verse 2).
The stated purpose of this thou-
sand year imprisonment is to prevent
Satan from deceiving the nations:
and sealed it over him to keep himfrom deceiving the nations anymore
until the thousand years were ended
(verse 3).
When the thousand year period
has ended, Satan will be loosed for
a season and once more will deceive
the nations: After that he must be
set free for a short time. from his
prison, and will go out to deceive the
nations (vv. 3, 7, 8).
According to this passage, Satanexperiences certain conditions during
certain times. Table 1 (below) will
help us visualize those conditions and
their corresponding timeframes.
Here, John follows a device used
by other authors of Scripturethey
employ categories to divide history.
Peter divides it in relationship to judg-
ment (2 Peter 3:5-7, 13). He writes of
the world that WAS(before the judg-
ment of waterthe flood), the world
that NOW IS(after the judgment ofwater and before the judgment of
firethe conflagration), and the world
TO COME(after the judgment offire).
Paul, in Romans, divides history ac-
cording to the law. There was a time
before the law was given (Romans
5:13); a time after the law was given
(Roman 5:20); and a time ofnot
under the law, (Romans 6:14). John,
in Revelation 20:1-9, divides time ac-
cording to the activity of Satan. There
was a time when Satan was free todeceive the nations. At some given
point in time, he is bound so he can-
not deceive the nations. And there is a
time when he is released and is again
Table 1
First Time Frame Second Time Frame Third Time Frame
Satan Not Bound Satan Bound Satan Freed
Satan Deceives Nations Satan Cannot Deceive Nations Satan Deceives Nations
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
3/20
Issue 184 February 2012 Page 3
MaxceyContinued on page 10
PICTURE-FULFILLMENT NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY:
A POSITIVE THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT? Part I
Zachary S. Maxcey1
1 Zachary S. Maxcey is a Master of Divinity student at Providence Theological Seminary in Colorado Springs, CO (www.ptsco.org). This paper was written for a special studies course in New Covenant Theology (ST 410), fall semester 2011, taught by Dr. J.David Gilliland and Dr. Gary D. Long.
Introduction
Within the theological system
known as New Covenant Theology
(NCT), a recent development has oc-
curred, namely, the emergence of a
new understanding: Picture-Fulfill-
ment New Covenant Theology. This
particular NCT strain is vigorously
promoted by the Earth Stove Society1and the Christ My Covenant2 website,
and is becoming increasingly wide-
spread in the NCT community. Like
other forms of NCT, it strongly em-
phasizes Christocentric hermeneutics,
a redemptive historical approach to
Scripture, and New Testament (NT)
interpretation of the Old Testament
(OT). However, its more distinctive
1 For information, see http://earthstove-
society.com/.2 For information, see http://christmy-
covenant.com/.
doctrinal features have become a
cause for concern among proponents
of Classic NCT.3 Three distinctives
of Picture-Fulfillment NCT will be
analyzed in this paper: Christ is the
New Covenant, the Spirit is the law
written on a believers heart, and the
Law of Christ is also Christ Himself
rather than a system of New Covenant
(NC) law. The purpose of this paper
is tofairly4 and biblically critique the
above distinctives in order to ascertain
whether or not the Picture-Fulfill-
3 This author defines Classic New Cov-
enant Theology as that branch of NCT
taught and promoted by John Reisinger,
Gary D. Long, Tom Wells, A. Blake
White, and the faculty of Providence
Theological Seminary.
4 This paper is intended to be an honest
and fair critique of Picture-FulfillmentNCT, not a personal attack upon its
advocates.
ment view is a positive development
in our understanding of NCT.
Is Christ the New Covenant?
One of the key distinctives of
Picture-Fulfillment NCT is the claim
that the Lord Jesus Christ incarnates
or enfleshes the New Covenant. For
example, Chad Bresson writes, Gods
promise of the New Covenant was
that the Messiah would be Himself
the embodiment of an everlasting cov-
enant with His people. This promise,
typified in the covenants, is fulfilled
in Christ (Is. 42:6-9; 43:19; 45:21-25;
46:9-13).5 Elsewhere he states, As
5 Chad R. Bresson, What is New Cov-
enant Theology? (a list of NCT tenets
prepared originally for the Christ My
Covenant website but later posted to the
Earth Stove Society website) accessed
Correction: by John G. Reisinger
I would like to correct a misconception concerning the position ofSound of Grace with regard to the new strain of
NCT which has been labeled Picture-Fulfillment New Covenant Theology. This article by Zachary Maxcey repre-
sents our view. It is with sorrow that I criticize this new view since it is being promoted by men who unashamedly
stood shoulder to shoulder with us in so many things including classical NCT. Ostensibly, their goal in this view is
to magnify the person and work of Christ. Most of this new views leaders are personal friends for whom I have the
deepest love. If I was not convinced Picture-Fulfillment New Covenant Theology was both wrong and dangerous, I
would not publicly disavow it. A future issue ofSound of Grace will have an article showing my disagreements.
Steve Fuchs has written a short description of the various strains of NCT. Visit http://www.disciplemaking.net/com-
ponent/content/article/44-articles/2447-the-various-branches-of-new-covenant-theology?directory=75. He correctly
labels me, Gary Long, Fred Zaspel, and Tom Wells as holding the classical NCT view. He then introduces the new
view of Picture-Fulfillment NCT this way:
This branch grew out of the genesis of Zens, Reisingers, Longs and Wells, Classical NCT and is spreading within the
larger community primarily via theSound of Grace (emphasis mine).
Sound of Grace does not endorse this new view and has not knowingly helped to promote it. Despite their sincere
intentions, we believe the advocates of this new view are opening a can of worms. If we have written or spoken any-
thing that seems to indicate otherwise, please be advised we were either not clear in what we said or we were misun-
derstood. We will clearly state our view in the next issue ofSound of Grace.
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
4/20
Page 4 February 2012 Issue 184
ship me. (Matt. 4:8-9, NIV).
Satan offered Christ the very thing
he came to secure. With that offer
came the temptation to secure the
goal by a different meanswithout
going to the cross. Satan could deliver
his goodsall the kingdoms of the
world and their splendorapart fromthe pain and shame of the cross. The
world was Satans to give. It was un-
der his control. True, he stole it, but it
was still under his control. By wrest-
ing the kingdom from Satan, Christ
destroyed his armor and disempow-
ered him. Satans armor is ignorance
and unbelief. He has blinded the
minds of them that believe not. He
has deceived them.
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to
them that are lost: In whom the god ofthis world hath blinded the minds of
them which believe not, lest the lightof the glorious gospel of Christ, who
is the image of God, should shine unto
them. For we preach not ourselves,but Christ Jesus the Lord; and our-
selves your servants for Jesus sake.
For God, who commanded the light
to shine out of darkness, hath shinedin our hearts, to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor. 4:4-6,
KJV)
If Christ had accepted Satans offer
of a peaceful exchange of leader-
ship, Satan would have retained his
power and his armor, and remained
unbound and unrestrained. He would
have been free to mount guerilla raids
on Christs kingdom, to take captive
citizens of that kingdom, to threaten
the stability and security of that king-
dom, and to keep Christ from building
his kingdom according to his plan.
The gospelthe good newsis thatChrist has defeated and bound Satan,
thus freeing his people from Satans
power. Of course, if Christ would
have taken Satans offer, Satan would
have said, Well done thou good and
faithful servant, here is what I want
you to do next.
Paul and the authors of the Gospels
view this second timeframe as the
ReisingerContinued from page 2
free to deceive the nations.
It is imperative that we identify
exactly when Johns distinct eras
occur in history. When does each
timeframe begin and when does each
one end? All parties in this discussion
agree that the first timeframe (Satanis free) begins at Genesis 3:7 with the
entrance of sin into Gods creation
and Satans victory over Adam. At
that time, Satan became the god of
this world, holding this world cap-
tive to his power. He was free and
unrestrained in deceiving the nations.
Upon the entrance of sin, God imme-
diately promises that One will come
who will defeat Satan and destroy his
power.1 We all read this promise to
refer to Christ who will bruise Sa-tans head (destroy his power) at the
expense of bruising his own heel,
that is, dying (Gen. 3:15). This prom-
ise was the hope of Gods people prior
to the first coming of Christ. There
is little disagreement that Genesis
3:15 refers to the cross as the means
of bruising Satans head, but there is
great disagreement over the relation-
ship between that bruising and the
binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1-9).
Johns first timeframe ends with
the binding of Satan for the purpose
of protecting the nations from his de-
ceit. This binding ushers in the second
timeframe. This second timeframe,
during which Satan is continually
bound, must be Johns thousand year
reign (he mentions it six times in Rev.
20-1-9, all within the context of this
second timeframe). All of this seems
quite clear. What is not as clear, per-
haps, is the historical setting of this
second timeframe. Many passages
of Scripture indicate that this second
timeframe (the time when Satan is
bound) begins with the first coming of
Christ.
Consider Colossians 2:15:And
having spoiled principalities and pow-
ers, he made a shew of them openly,
triumphing over them in it. It would
1 Bunyan describes this in his book, The
Holy War.
seem that Paul viewed the cross as
the time when Satan was conquered
and defeated. Matthew, too, seems
to think that Jesus bound Satan and
spoiled his house.
Then was brought unto him one
possessed with a devil, blind, and
dumb: and he healed him, insomuchthat the blind and dumb both spakeand saw. And all the people were
amazed, and said, Is not this the son
of David? But when the Pharisees
heard it, they said, This fellow dothnot cast out devils, but by Beelzebub
the prince of the devils. And Jesus
knew their thoughts, and said unto
them, Every kingdom divided againstitself is brought to desolation; and
every city or house divided against
itself shall not stand: And if Satan
cast out Satan, he is divided againsthimself; how shall then his kingdom
stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out
devils, by whom do your children castthem out? Therefore they shall be
your judges. But if I cast out devils by
the Spirit of God, then the kingdom
of God is come unto you. Or else howcan one enter into a strong mans
house, and spoil his goods, except he
first bind the strong man? And then he
will spoil his house.(Matt. 12:22-29,KJV)
If Matthews binding is the sameas Johns binding, then the second
timeframe began with the work of
Christ during his first advent. Mark
also uses this theme:
When a strong man armed keepethhis palace, his goods are in peace:
But when a stronger than he shall
come upon him, and overcome him,
he taketh from him all his armourwherein he trusted, and divideth his
spoils. (Mark 11:21-22, KJV)
The strong man is Satan and thestronger man is Christ. By offering
Christ a different path to his (Satans)
goods, Satan tried to avoid being
bound. He offered Christ all the king-
doms the world if he would bow down
and worship him.
Again, the devil took him to a very
high mountain and showed him allthe kingdoms of the world and their
splendor. All this I will give you, he
said, if you will bow down and wor- ReisingerContinued on page 6
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
5/20
Issue 184 February 2012 Page 5
environment. This indicative/impera-
tive or Spirit/Word dynamic explains
why Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians
4:9-11, Now about brotherly love we
do not need to write to you, for you
yourselves have been taught by God
to love each otherYet we urge you,
brothers, to do so more and more.
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet
life, to mind your own business and
to work with your hands, just as wetold you. He begins with the reality
of the work of God in the heart of the
believerfor you yourselves have
been taught by Godbut he doesnt
stop there. Although he says that we
do not need to write you, note well
that he continues to write, instruct,
and urge them to follow biblical
principles of ethical conduct. Clearly,
what Paul is communicating here is
that the work of God in the heart of
the believer does not supplant the roleof the written word in the realm of
ethics.
Furthermore, and contrary to
much of the teaching that wants to pit
relationship against word and obedi-
ence, the inspiration and application
of the written word is no less a work
of God and the Spirit than the expres-
sion of his indwelling presence. In the
OT, relationship with God and obedi-
ence to his word were distinguishedbut inseparable. The psalmist wrote in
Psalm 119:14, You O LORD are my
hiding place and my shield; I hope in
your word. And certainly in the NT
one has to look no further than Jesus
relationship with his Father, where
even within the highest expression
of love and communion, Jesus could
say, As it is written, man shall not
the imperatives). The word(s) trans-
lated walkare virtually always used in
reference to our conduct or ethics.
But rather than the concept of
cooperationGod has done his
part so now we do our partfor that
typically connotes a co-meritorious
arrangement, the appropriate term
for the relationship between the two
phrases in this verse is coordination,
a term well suited to convey the ideaof walking or keeping in step with
the Spirit. God is always working, and
man is always workingboth aspects
dependent on the ministry of the Holy
Spirit. Perhaps the relationship is
best encapsulated by Paul in Philip-
pians 2:12-13, As you have always
obeyedwork out your salvation with
fear and trembling, for it is God that
works in you both to will and to do of
his good pleasure.What then does it mean to walk in
the Spirit? Perhaps John Reisinger, in
his Studies in Galatians1, put it most
succinctly, Walking in the Spirit is
nothing less than walking in obedi-
ence to the revealed will of God in
Scripture. The reality of the in-
dwelling Spirit does not preclude the
instrumentality of the written Word
of God, any more than the sovereign
work of the Holy Spirit in regenera-
tion precludes the instrumentality of
the preached wordfor faith comes
by hearing and hearing by the word
of God. Ethics cannot be reduced to
the activity of the indwelling Spirit
no matter how vitalany more than
ethical conduct in the OT could be re-
duced to the experience of the temple
1 John G. Reisinger, Studies in Galatians
(Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media,
2010), 409. GillilandContinued on page 15
NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY:
Is There Still a Role for the Imperatives?
Part 2 of 2
Dr. J. David Gilliland(Presented at the Providence Theo-
logical Seminary Doctrinal Confer-
ence, 2011)
Part 1 defined the relationship
between the imperatives and the Old
Testament believers walk with God,
a relationship believed by this author
to be the same in both the Old and
New Testaments. The Mosaic code
and the culture of law was taken as a
whole but had both an ontological anda teleological aspectthe sanctify-
ing effect of the temple environment
as well as the expression of the will
of God in the realm of ethics. The law
provided for and communicated who
they were as well as what they
should do; it provided the structure
for both being holy and doing
righteousness. In the New Covenant,
the temple experience the realm of
the indicatives is now defi
ned by theindwelling Spirit of God. Part 2 will
begin by addressing the realm of eth-
ics and the relationship of the Spirit to
the Word of God.
THE REALM OF ETHICS IN
THE OLD AND NEW COVENANT
David and the OC saints had their
faith maintained and strengthened by
the temple experience, an experience
reflected in their obedient conduct
or ethics. Like the OT saints, obedi-ence from the heart is the natural and
expected response to the state or realm
of Gods presence. This understand-
ing helps to explain Pauls statement
in Galatians 5:25, If we live by the
Spirit(the ontological aspect and in-
dwelling presence of Godthe realm
of the indicatives), let us walk by the
Spirit(the teleological aspect and the
revealed will of Godthe realm of
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
6/20
Page 6 February 2012 Issue 184
ReisingerContinued on page 8
thereabouts would mark the end of the
second timeframe. That would place
everything after AD 1033 in the third
timeframe, which would mean that the
first resurrection is over (those who
came to life and reigned with Christ,
v. 4); Christs millennial reign is over;
and the second resurrection is over
(the rest of the dead who come to life
at the end of the thousand years, v. 5).
All that is left is the final battle and
the conflagration described in Revela-
tion 20:7-10.
The scenario sketched above
shows what happens if we accept
the biblical evidence that indicates
that Satan was bound and spoiled by
Christs cross workand we retain a
literal interpretation of a thousand
years. In this view, Christs millennial
reign included such historical events
as the writing of the texts that be-
came the New Testament, the Jewish
War with Rome and the subsequent
destruction of the Jerusalem Temple,various persecutions and martyrdoms,
and the legitimization of Christianity
in the Roman Empire. It also encom-
passed the great ecumenical councils
with their development of orthodoxy,
the brief and unsuccessful attempt
of Julian to return Rome to a pagan
state, and the eventual edict of Theo-
dosius making Christianity the official
state religion of Rome. This historical
era also saw the establishment of Is-
lam and the rise of Rome as the powercenter of the church. Christs reign
ended, according to a literal view of
the thousand years, just prior to the
Crusades, which began in 1095.
While it might be possible to spin
all the historical events that occurred
between AD 30-ish and AD 1030-ish
as reflecting the victorious thousand
year reign of Christ, other events
included in Johns vision of the second
period during which God spoils Satan
by fulfilling the Messiah-promises
recorded in the Old Testament. The
gospel age, with its preaching to every
tribe and tongue, with its light and
liberty that dispels the ignorance and
darkness that reigned since Adams
fall, names and identifies Johns
second timeframe. This view accords
with amillennialism. Premillennial-
ism, however, does not identify the
second timeframe with the gospel
age, but with the second coming. This
raises the question of where Christs
life, death, resurrection, and ascen-
sion fit on the chart (Table 1), as well
as how to regard the binding that will
occur at the Second Coming.
Table 1 (repeated)First Time Frame Second Time Frame Third Time Frame
Satan Not Bound Satan Bound Satan Freed
Satan Deceives Nations Satan Cannot Deceive Nations Satan Deceives Nations
Premillennialism teaches that
the thousand year binding of Satan
takes place at the second coming
of Christ. In this view, the second
coming marks the beginning of the
second timeframe, thus placing the
first coming, the cross, and the gospel
age in the first timeframe, which the
text marks as characterized by Satan
remaining free to deceive the nations.
This seems difficult to reconcile with
the biblical passages cited above that
indicate that the first coming, the
cross, and the gospel age are all evi-
dence that Satan has been bound and
his power spoiled. Premillennialism
recognizes that the text of Revelation
20:1-9 requires a binding of Satan that
ushers in the second timeframe, but
their system necessitates that the crosswas not the fulfillment of Genesis
3:15. Premillennialisms commit-
ment to a literal thousand year reign
prevents them from placing the first
coming, the cross, and the gospel
age at the beginning of the second
timeframe. If they were to do that,
the year AD 33 or thereabouts would
mark the beginning of the second
timeframe and the year AD 1033 or
timeframe did not occur. So far as we
know, martyrs did not return to life
and rule as priests until 1030. Nor did
a great resurrection of the non-mar-
tyred dead occur after 1030. Further-
more, some of the significant events
within the premillennial description
of the millennium failed to occur. The
temple described in Ezekiel was not
built, nor were sacrifices re-estab-
lished. Large numbers of Jews have
not converted to Christianity. The
curse remains on nature, contrary to
premillennial expectations. It would
seem that there is no way to view
Christs first advent, the cross, and the
gospel age as fitting into the second
timeframe while at the same time
retaining a literal reading of Revela-
tion 20:1-9.
One way out of this difficulty is to
keep a literal hermeneutic (maintain a
literal thousand years) and deny that
Satan is currently bound according to
Johns view of binding. This herme-
neutic move drives a wedge between
Johns use ofbindingand that of the
other authors of the New Testament
texts. Texts (apart from Revelation)
that utilize the binding theme assert
some kind of victory of Christ, but not
the victory promised by Genesis 3:15.Those who accept this hermeneu-
tic have to be prepared to biblically
answer others who ask what Christ
accomplished in his redemptive work
on the cross. What kind of binding
and spoiling are Matthew, Mark, and
Paul discussing?
Ones hermeneutic drives ones
understanding of the relationship
between the cross and Gods promise
in Genesis 3:15. Did Christ, in his life,
death, resurrection, and ascension,fulfill Genesis 3:15, or is that prom-
ise awaiting a future fulfillmenta
future binding and spoiling of Satan?
The hermeneutic determines whether
you believe that Christ conquered sin,
death and Satan by his redemptive
cross work.
Premillennial readings of Revela-
tion 20:1-9 pose other difficulties
ReisingerContinued from page 4
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
7/20
Issue 184 February 2012 Page 7
WhiteContinued on page 19
acknowledge that Jesus Christ[God
the Son] is Lord to the glory of God
the Father[God the Father]
Here Paul quotes one of the most
powerful passages in Scripture claim-
ing that YHWH alone is God. God is
saying that Israels opponents will be
put to shame. Isaiah 45:20-24 says,
Gather together and come; as-
semble, you fugitives from the nations.Ignorant are those who carry about
idols of wood,who pray to gods thatcannot save.Declare what is to be,
present itlet them take counseltogether.Who foretold this long ago,who declared it from the distant past?Was it not I, the LORD?And there isno God apart from me,a righteousGod and a Savior; there is none but
me. Turn to me and be saved,allyou ends of the earth;for I am God,and there is no other.By myself I have
sworn,my mouth has uttered in allintegritya word that will not be re-voked:Before me every knee will bow;by me every tongue will swear.Theywill say of me, In the LORD alonearedeliverance and strength.All whohave raged against himwill come tohim and be put to shame.
So for those familiar with the He-
brew Scriptures, this would be a grand
statement! Paul applies this passage
about the exclusivity of YHWH to Je-
sus. But for those whose background
was more Roman than Hebrew, they
would hear another message. Clai-
borne and Haw write, So many of the
words we just throw around in Chris-
tian circles today were loaded with
political meaning for Jesus and hiscontemporaries. Many were words Je-
sus swiped from the imperial lexicon
and spun on their heads in beautiful
political satire.2
For example, gospel (euange-
2 Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw,Jesus
for President(Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2008), 66. I am dependent on this book
for the following paragraph. See also
Gorman, Cruciformity, 353.
lion) meant an imperial pronounce-
ment that an heir to the empires
throne had been born or that a distant
battle had been won. When an im-
portant battle was won, they would
send out messengers to announce this
gospel. Caesar Augustus (27 BC
AD 14) articulated his gospel in thefollowing inscription found in Myra:
Divine Augustus Caesar, son of god,
imperator of land and sea, the bene-
factor and savior of the whole world,
has brought you peace. Or consider
this inscription from 9 BC:
The providence which has ordered
the whole of our life, showing con-
cern and zeal, has ordained the most
perfect consummation for human life
by giving to it Augustus, byfilling
him with virtue for doing the workof a benefactor among men, and by
sending in him, as it were, a savior
for us and those who come after us,
to make war to cease, to create order
everywhere. [S]ince the Caesar
[Augustus] through his appearance
has exceeded the hopes of all former
good messages [euangelia], surpass-
ing not only the benefactors who came
before him, but also leaving no hope
that anyone in the future would sur-
pass him, and since for the world the
birthday of the god was the beginning
of his good messages [euangelia].3
Son of god was a popular title
for kings and emperors. Alexander
the Great took that title as well as
king of kings. Augustus declared that
Julius Caesar (his adopted father)
had become a god after his murder.
Most subsequent emperors similarly
divinized their predecessors. The new
emperor would then claim the title
son of god.4 Savior was used ofCaesar Augustus when he healed the
chaos of Rome and brought it into a
new golden age.
Lord was used of rulers, but
particularly of the supreme ruler. The
3 Priene inscription quoted in Michael
Gorman,Reading Paul, 43-44.
4 N.T. Wright,Paul(Minneapolis: For-
tress, 2009), 64.
pledge of allegiance in the Roman
Empire was Caesar ho kurios Cae-
sar is lord. What was the fundamental
confession of the early church?Jesus
is Lord. The first Christians were
showing where their true allegiance
was. The church was also making a
statement about who truly rules theworld. If Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not
(hence, persecution). Acts 17:7-8
reads, They are all defying Caesars
decrees, saying that there is another
king, one called Jesus. When they
heard this, the crowd and the city of-
ficials were thrown into turmoil.
So Rome had a savior, a gospel,
and a lord; Paul wants the Philippians
to know that those causing suffer-
ing say that Caesar is lord, but theyand their lord will join with all others
to declare that the true Lord is none
other than the Jesus whom the Ro-
mans crucified.
Philippi was a Roman colony. As
such, if trouble came, they could call
on the emperor from the mother city
to come rescue them. As savior and
lord, he had the power to impose his
will on the whole known world.5 In
Philippians 3:20, Paul writes, Butour citizenship is in heaven. And we
eagerly await a Savior from there, the
Lord Jesus Christ. Their citizenship,
their commonwealth (politeuma, from
polis), is not in Rome but in heaven.
They are a colony within a colony: a
colony of heaven within the colony of
Rome.6
We are to be a contrast society.
G.B. Caird writes, Each local church
is a colony of heaven, its mem-
bers enjoying full citizenship of the
heavenly city. but charged with the
responsibility of bringing the world
to acknowledge the sovereignty of
Christ.7 Our city charter is the story
5 Ibid., 72.
6 Gorman, Cruciformity, 358.
7 G.B. Caird,Pauls Letters from Prison
in the Revised Standard Version,NCB
WhiteContinued from page 1
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
8/20
Page 8 February 2012 Issue 184ReisingerContinued from page 6 When we start thinking about
rules for interpreting Scripture, the
first question is this: Do we use the
same method of interpretation when
studying the Song of Solomon as
we do when interpreting the book
of Acts? Are books like Ezekiel and
Revelation, which everyone agrees are
full of symbolic language, to be inter-
preted in the same way as Romans? Is
it the case of a one-size-fits-all inter-
pretive strategy, or does poetry need
a different hermeneutic2 than history
does? Do we approach Revelation
with a literal hermeneutic that takes
every word in its natural meaning
unless the context forces us to take
it symbolically, or do we reverse our
interpretative method and take every-
thing symbolically unless the context
forces us to take it literally? If we
adopt the first method, we will likely
fit into a dispensationalist camp. If we
use the second method, we likely will
not fit into dispensationalism.
No one argues that we should take
every word and statement in Scrip-
ture literally. Everyone spiritualizes
and symbolizes some passages. Thus,
the question is not, do we spiritual-
ize some things in the Bible? The
question for our purposes is how do Iknow when to take something liter-
ally and when to take it symbolically?
Context often indicates which herme-
neutic move to use. We all agree that
Genesis 3:15 describes Christs defeat
of Satan, and none of us believes that
Jesus literally bruised Satans heel.
The text depicts the cross in symbolic
imagery. It uses metaphoric language.
So far as Iknow,no one involved in
this discussion believes that Jesus
wants us to pluck out an offendingeye and cut off an offending hand. We
would all agree that Jesus is speaking
metaphorically for effect.
David, in Psalm 22, uses meta-
phor. When he writes, But I am a
wormv.6;Many bulls have com-
passed mev.12; as a roaring lion
v.13,Dogs have compassed mev.16;
2 The word hermeneutic means rules of
interpretation.
I cannot predict the future for
either Israel or the church, but I do
know one thing for sure. The great-
est display of the wisdom, power, and
grace of God the world will ever see is
the cross and the salvation and trans-
formation of rebels into the image of
Christ. Nothing will ever eclipse the
church as a manifestation of Gods
grace and power. No upcoming sec-
ond half will upstage the church.
I once heard a famous preacher, I
think it was Vernon Magee, say, If
William Pettingill held a conference
in our church on the Marks of the
Beast, the auditorium would be full
every night. If Harry Ironsides held
a conference in our church on The
Person and Work of Christ, there
would be more empty seats than oc-cupied seats. The preacher then made
this observation: Something is amiss
when Gods people are more inter-
ested in knowing about the Beast than
they are in knowing about Christ.
This kind of thinking does not
grow out of a vacuum. Hermeneutics
promote ideas. One of the serious con-
sequences of a premillennial prophetic
view is its inadvertent diminution of
the cross, the resurrection, and the
ascension. What are the correct ruleswe should follow in interpreting the
Bible so we are Christ-centered, not
Israel-centered, in our conclusions?
Are there special rules we should use
for understanding the Bible or do we
use the same rules for interpreting the
Word of God that we use when read-
ing the newspaper? Do we interpret
all of the books in the Bible the same
way? The Bible is not one book with
sixty-six chapters; it is one book that
contains sixty-six individual, self-contained books. Some of those sixty-
six books are poetic texts, some are
historical texts, some are apocalyptic
texts, filled with symbols, and some
are a mix of more than one literary
genre. Regardless of their respective
genres, all sixty-six books are in some
way related to the redemptive work of
Jesus Christ our Lord. The sixty-six
books constitute only one Bible.
as well. One of these difficulties is
that of equating the camp of Gods
people, the city he loves (v. 9), with
the physical nation of Israel. In this
view, ethnic Israel is the focal point of
Gods activity during the millennium.
When I hear some people talk about
the millennium as the time when God
manifests his great power by dealing
once more with Israel, I think about
a football game. The first half (Gods
first dealings with Israel) is over
and everyone is eagerly awaiting the
second half (the resumption of Gods
dealing with Israel). But first, we have
to get through halftime (Gods dealing
with the church). Halftime is marked
by a marching band, the performance
of some famous singers, and goodness
knows what else. Few people, how-
ever, are paying much attention to the
halftime show. Many folks have gone
to get food or to use the restroom. The
mood is anticipatory. The conversa-
tion is about what is going to happen
in the second halfwhen the interest-
ing and important action occurs. Until
then, not much of real consequence is
happening. Halftime is merely killing
time.
So it is when some people describethe millennium. Israel is the real
chosen people of God. They are analo-
gous to a train, removed from the
main track and temporarily set aside.
Meanwhile, God has put the church
on the main track. At the second com-
ing, God will take the church off the
track altogether (he raptures it, taking
it out of the world), and he will put
Israel back on the main trackhe will
resume his program for Israel. The
second half of redemptive history willbegin, and God will finally fulfill his
promises for Israel. Those days will
display Gods great glory and power.
We live in a time of great expectation
for the second half, when the really
amazing manifestations of Gods
power will take place. Gods primary
interest is Israel; the church is only a
parenthesis until he resumes his deal-
ings with Israel.
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
9/20
Issue 184 February 2012 Page 9Save me from the lions mouth, the
wildoxs horn v.21, we know that
we are not to take the words, bulls,
worm, dogs, lion, and ox literally, but
symbolically. Psalm 22 pictures our
Lord on the cross. Wild animals did
not surround our Lord when he was
on the cross. He was in the presence
of people who acted like dogs, lions,
wild oxen, and raging bulls. When the
psalmist writes, but I am a worm and
not a man, he did not mean that Jesus
changed species, morphing from hu-
man into worm.
Isaiah also uses animal imagery
(Isa. 11), but for different effect. He
mentions lions and other animals who
act in a mannercontrary to their na-
ture. The young lion is having straw
for lunch and then taking a nap with afatling.
The wolf also shall dwell with the
lamb, and the leopard shall lie down
with the kid; and the calf and theyoung lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall
feed; their young ones shall lie down
together: and the lion shall eat strawlike the ox. (Isa. 11:6, 7, KJV)
Dispensational hermeneutics allow
forlion in Psalm 22 as metaphor: it
means ungodly men acting like roar-
ing lions. However, a dispensational
reading oflion in Isaiah 11 takes the
word literally: it means a real four-
legged lion. In Psalm 22, lion refers to
a man acting like a lion, but in Isaiah
11, the same word refers to a lion
acting like something else. Dispen-
sationalists may be correct in their
conclusion, but what interpretive rules
guide them? Both passages allow a
poetic reading, so why would we take
the word lion literally in one passage
(Isaiah 11), and symbolically in an-
other (Psalm 22)? Contextually, both
passages refer to the time of Messiah.
Both passages have something to say
about the nature of Messiahs king-
dom. Psalm 22 indicates the violent
means by which Messiah wins the
kingdom and the equally violent na-
ture of those outside the kingdom. Isa-
iah 11 describes the peaceful nature of
the citizens of the kingdom after it has
been established. What indicates that
we ought to interpret lion in Isaiah
11 as a four-legged animal instead of
as a symbolic picture of a two-legged
man? Why can we not consider Isaiah
to be referring to someone like Saul
of Tarsus, whose nature was trans-
formed from that of a roaring lion
into a gentle lamb by the power of the
gospel? Your theology may not allow
you to believe it, but Saul of Tarsus,
transformed by the gospel and eating
with Christs lambs, instead ofeating
them or persecuting them unto death,
fits Isaiah 11 quite nicely, just as the
symbolic language of beastly behavior
fits Psalm 22.
Let me add that I have no problembelieving that the scenario described
by Isaiah 11 could take place in a
literal sense during a millennial reign
of Christ if God so willed it. God
can easily change the nature and the
digestive system of a lion. However,
I do not find any New Testament evi-
dence that Jesus shed his blood so that
a lion can eat straw. Our Lord died to
change the nature of human beings,
not the nature of animals.
It is neither my intention nor myhope to convert anyone to my pro-
phetic view. It is my intention, how-
ever, to raise awareness about the link
between hermeneutics and prophetic
views. Hermeneutics drives theology.
All theologies, including NCT, derive
from an interpretation of the promise/
fulfillment motif and its significance
for the nature of the kingdom of
Christ. It is also my intention to refute
the notion that rejection of the herme-
neutics of both dispensationalism andCovenant theology equates with rejec-
tion of the inspiration and authority of
Scripture. It is my hope that all parties
in this discussion will acknowledge
that the people who read lion symboli-
cally in Isaiah 11 love Gods Word
just as much as do those who read it
literally, and vice versa. It is also my
hope that we will clearly understand
why we read as we do.
In our next article, we will look
at the first rule of hermeneutics held
by most Christians and unanimously
among dispensationalists. Andy
Wood, in his extremely informa-
tive article, Literal, Grammatical,
Historical Methodology3uses this
definition:
Post-reformation biblical inter-
pretation employs what is called theliteral, grammatical, historical method
of interpretation. Let us break this
phrase down into its component parts.
The dictionary defines literalinter-pretation as that type of interpretation
that is based on the actual words in
their ordinary meaning...not going
beyond the facts. Two concepts seemto be in view. First, according to Ram
literal interpretation encompasses the
idea of assigning to every word thesame meaning it would have in itsnormal usage, whether employed in
speaking, writing, or thinking.4
Wood then refers to this method
of hermeneutics as Coopers Golden
Rule of Interpretation and states that
it incorporates such an understand-
ing of literalism:
When the plain sense of Scripture
makes common sense, seek no other
sense; therefore, take every word at its
primary, ordinary, usual, literal mean-ing unless the facts of the immediate
context, studied in light of related pas-
sages and axiomatic and fundamental
truths, indicate clearly otherwise.5
We will apply this principle
to Revelation 20:1-9 to determine
whether to apply a literal or symbolic
approach to the term one-thousand
years and other words in the text. m
3 I do not agree with this writers posi-
tion but he is both thorough and fair in his
presentation.
4 http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/
documents/articles/25/25.pdf
5 Ibid.
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
10/20
Page 10 February 2012 Issue 184
the fulfillment of the Old Testament
promises of a New Covenant, Jesus
Christ personifies, embodies, and
incarnates the New Covenant. Thus,
He Himself is the New Covenant
(Isaiah 42:6; 49:8; Luke 22:20).6
Additionally, Bresson asserts, TheNew Covenant is not like the covenant
made with the people through Moses.
Embodied and personified in Christ,
the New Covenant brought into exis-
tence through the life and cross work
of Christ is made with his redeemed
people through grace. Gods people do
not enter the New Covenant by works,
but by grace through faith; it is radi-
cally internal, not external; everlast-
ing, not temporary.7
Advocates of Picture-Fulfillment
NCT are emphatic in stressing that
it is essential for the New Covenant
believer to understand the Christ is
the Covenant principle if they are to
experience a dynamic Spirit-filled life.
Regarding the necessity of this doc-
trine, Bresson states:
Because Christ has become a
Covenant for His people and the
Spirit has descended to indwell
Christs people as the law written on
the heart, there is an altogether new
dynamic inherent to the question of
New Covenant ethics. No longer do
imperatives find their impetus from
without as was true of the Mosaic
Code (exemplified in the Tablets of
Stone), but from within. The nature
of the command itself is no longer
external, but internal. Obedience
03 September 2011; available from http://
earthstovesociety.com/?p=197; Internet,Tenet 17.
6 Chad R. Bresson, The Exceeding
Righteousness of the New Covenant
(a message prepared for the Christ My
Covenant website in June 2009) accessed
7 October 2011; available from http://
christourcovenant.blogspot.com/2009/06/
exceeding-righteousness-of-new-cove-
nant.html; Internet, Paragraph 1 of The
New Covenant subsection.
7 Bresson, What is New Covenant The-
ology? Tenet 22.
isnt acquiescence to an external
demand, but the manifestation of an
inward reality.8
In another place, he notes, Christ
is the Law of the New Covenant,
incarnating the new standard of judg-
ment as to what has had its day in
the law and what has abiding validity(Col. 2:17). The Holy Spirit is the in-
dwelling Law of Christ, causing New
Covenant members to obey Christ the
Law in conformity to His image.9
However, one must ask not only if the
Bible truly teaches that Christ incar-
nates the New Covenant, but also if
such an understanding is truly neces-
sary for the Spirit-filled life of the
New Covenant.
The Hebrew of Isaiah 42:6 and49:8
Contrary to the teaching of Picture-
Fulfillment NCT, Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8
do not support the assertion that Christ
incarnates the New Covenant, and this
can be demonstrated both grammati-
cally and contextually.10 The phrase
8 Chad R. Bresson, The Incarnation
of the Abstract: New Covenant Theol-
ogy and the Enfleshment of the Law (a
message prepared for 2011 New Covenant
Theology Think Tank, Rushville, NY)
accessed 7 October 2011; available from
http://www.earthstovesociety.com/es-
smedia2011/bresson%20-%20The%20In-
carnation%20of%20the%20Abstract%20
-%20NCT%20Think%20Tank%202011.
pdf; Internet, 2-3.
9 Bresson, What is New Covenant The-
ology? Tenet 43.
10 Advocates of Picture-Fulf illment
NCT also cite Luke 22:20 as a proof
text for their assertion that Christ is theincarnation of the New Covenant. Luke
22:20 declares: And in the same wayHe
tookthe cup after they had eaten, saying,
This cup which is poured out for you
is the new covenant in My blood. The
natural reading of this verse indicates that
the cup of the Lords Table is the New
Covenant, that is, the sign of the New
Covenant. Luke appears to use a synec-
doche in this verse to indicate that the cup
of the Lords Table is the covenantal sign
of the New Covenant, just as the Sabbath
in question is the same in both verses:
librt m( ). Isaiah 42:6declares, I am the LORD; I have
called you in righteousness; I will
take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the
people (librt m), asa light for the
nations.11 Isaiah 49:8 similarly states,Thus says the LORD: In a time of
favor I have answered you; in a day
of salvation I have helped you; I will
keep you and give you as a covenant
to the people (librt m), to establish
the land, to apportion the desolate
heritages. Grammatically speaking,
the Hebrew text is quite clear that
the prefixed preposition l( ) in both
instances oflibrt mis functioning
in a comparative manner.12 For ex-ample, a similar construction is used
in Isaiah 42:6 immediately following
librt m: as a light to the nations
(ler gm -). Contextually speaking, it is also quite clear that
librt m and ler gm in Isaiah
42:6 are parallel phrases. Regarding
was the sign of the Old Covenant. Also,
the phrase in my blood indicates not
the nature of the New Covenant but its
purchase/inauguration price. See DavidW. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, Luke,
in Commentary on the New Testament
Use of the Old Testament, ed. Gregory
K. Beale and Donald A. Carson (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007),
382. Here, these authors write: Luke
(and Paul) relates touto [i.e. this] to the
cup that is, together with its contents, the
symbol of the new covenant, which the
blood of Jesus inaugurated. As a result,
proponents of Picture-Fulfillment NCT
cannot justifiably use Luke 22:20 to un-
dergird their assertion that Christ Himself
is the New Covenant without distorting
its remarkably clear meaning.
11 All of this authors Bible citations are
from the ESV unless otherwise stated.
12 Ronald J. Williams, Williams Hebrew
Syntax (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1967; reprint 1976, 2007, 2008,
2010), 109. See also Bruce K. Waltke and
M. OConner,An Introduction to Bibli-
cal Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 206.
MaxceyContinued from page 3
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
11/20
Issue 184 February 2012 Page 11this point, Edward J. Young states,
Parallel to the expression covenant
of the people is the phrase light of the
Gentiles.Not merely does the servant
bring light or lead into light, but he
is himself the light. Light is a figura-
tive designation of salvation (49:6).13
In other words, librt m and lergm both function as figurative refer-
ences to Christs redemptive work.
Now, unless advocates of Picture-
Fulfillment NCT, for the sake of gram-
matical and literary consistency, are
willing to say that ler gm teaches
that the Lord Jesus Christ is composed
of literal photons of light, it seems ob-
vious that librt m, like ler gm,
is functioning as a simile. The phrase
ler gm teaches that Christ willmetaphorically function as a light to
the nations in that He will not only ex-
pose their darkness (i.e., their sin) but
also cast it out.14 Similarly, with regard
to librt am, Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8
both indicate that in fulfillment of the
Abrahamic Covenant15 the Lord Jesus
will function like a covenant, binding
His chosen people to God. Moreover,
Christ is the Lord and Mediator (cf.
Heb. 8:6) of the New Covenant, not
the covenant itself. Young aptly notes:
That the servant is identified with
the covenant of course involves the
idea of his being the one through
13 Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah,
Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1972), 121.
14 Consider other metaphorical uses of
light in the Scriptures. For example, Je-
sus calls both Himself and His followers
the light of the world (John 8:12; Matt.
5:14-16). Furthermore, the Apostle Paultakes Isaiah 49:6, another instance where
the phrase ler gm occurs, and applies
it to himself and Barnabas. Obviously,
these passages are using light metaphor-
ically, not ontologically.
15 The contexts of Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8
indicate that the Messiahs fulf illment of
the Abrahamic Covenant is primarily in
view. However, seeing as how the Abra-
hamic Covenant is ultimately fulfilled in
the New Covenant (NC), the NC is likely
in view as well.
whom the covenant is mediated.To
say that the servant is the covenant
is to say that all the blessings of the
covenant are embodied in, have
their root and origin in, and are
dispersed by Him. At the same timeHe is himself at the center of all bless-
ings, and to receive them is to receive
Him, for without Him there can be noblessings.16[emphasis mine]
It is readily conceded that the state-
ment, Christ is the New Covenant is
biblical, provided that it is understood
metaphorically, not ontologically.17
16 Young,Isaiah, 120-21. See also C.F.
Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on
the Old Testament, Volume VII: Isaiah
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publish-
ing Company, 1973), 179-80. Keil and
Delitzsch understand Isaiah 42:6 meta-phorically to indicate the Messiahs role
as the mediator and medium of the
covenant.
17 Although some Classic NCT theolo-
gians state that Christ is the New Cov-
enant, they, unlike advocates of Picture-
Fulfillment NCT, invest this statement
with a metaphorical meaning. As a
result, it is inappropriate for proponents
of Picture-Fulfillment NCT to appeal to
such Classic NCT sources for support.
Consider the following statements by cer-
tain advocates of Classic NCT. See Fred
G. Zaspel, The New Covenant and New
Covenant Theology (Frederick, MD: New
Covenant Media, 2011), 3. Zaspel writes:
It [the New Covenant] is held out as
Israels hope in an array of Old Testament
passages once under the name new
covenant (Jer. 31:34), seven times as
an everlasting covenant (Jer. 32-33 [cf.
32:40]; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60; 37:26; Isa. 24:5;
55:3; 61:8; cf. Hos. 2:14-23), three times as
the covenant of peace (Isa. 54:10; Ezek.
34:25; 37:26), sometimes with the nospecific covenant name attached at all
(Ezek. 36:22ff), and once the Servant of
the Lord is said himself to be the cove-
nant (Isa. 49:8). See also John Reisinger,
The Marks of a New Covenant Minis-
try: A Study in 2 Corinthians 3 Part
4, Sound of Grace 166 (April 2010): 4.
Concerning the phrase the Lord is the
Spirit in 2 Cor. 3:17, Reisinger states:
But what does Paul mean by writing that
the Lord is the spirit? I suggest that we
read Paul here this way: Christ not only
However, this is precisely the issue
with Picture-Fulfillment NCT teach-
ing: its advocates understand Christ to
be the New Covenant ontologically,
not metaphorically. Consider a meta-
phorical understanding of Isaiah 42:6
and 49:8 in light of other metaphori-
cal Messianic titles of the Lord JesusChrist in both the OT and NT: the
Branch (Is. 4:2; Jer. 23:5, 33:15; Zech
3:8, 6:12); the Root of Jesse (Is. 11:1,
10); the Lamb of God (John 1:29,
36; Rev. 5-7, 12-15, 17, 19, 21-22);
a Horn of salvation (Luke 1:69); the
Bread of Life (John 6:33-35, 48, 51);
the True Vine (John 15:1, 4-5); a Light
to the Gentiles (Luke 2:32); the Light
of the world (John 8:12, 9:5); the Lion
of Judah (Rev 5:5); and the Root of
David (Rev. 5:5). Some may argue
that this is wholly an issue of seman-
tics, but as this paper continues to un-
fold, the reader will soon discover this
is not the case.
Is the Holy Spirit the Law of
Christ?
A second distinctive of Picture-
Fulfillment NCT is the claim that
the Spirit is the law written on a
believers heart. Bresson writes, TheHoly Spirit is the indwelling Law of
Christ, causing New Covenant mem-
bers to obey Christ the Law in con-
is the mediator and the surety (guarantee)
of a better covenant (Heb. 7:22), he isthe
covenant(Isa. 42:6). The Greek word
for spirit used here ispneuma, which
translates variously as breath, vital spirit/
life, or rational spirit/mind. Jesus Christ
is thesine qua non of the New Covenant;
that without which there would be no
New Covenant. He is as essential to theNew Covenant as breath is to life. He is
the ruling principle and the essence of the
New Covenanthe is the covenant itself.
Christ is the sacrificial lamb; he is the
Great High Priest; he is the altar; he is the
surety and mediator of the new and better
covenant; and he is actually the covenant
itself. Surely Reisinger understands this
statement metaphorically, not ontologi-
cally.
MaxceyContinued on page 12
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
12/20
Page 12 February 2012 Issue 184
MaxceyContinued from page 11
formity to His image.18 Elsewhere,
he states, For the New Covenant
church, the law of God is no longer
an external standard that demands
compliance with the will of God. The
Law of Christ as the indwelling Spirit
is now an internal person who causesand inclines us to obey God from the
heart.19 In Incarnation of the Ab-
stract, Bresson again notes:
Because Christ has become a
Covenant for His people and the
Spirit has descended to indwell
Christs people as the law written on
the heart, there is an altogether new
dynamic inherent to the question of
New Covenant ethics. No longer do
imperatives find their impetus from
without as was true of the MosaicCode (exemplified in the Tablets of
Stone), but from within. The nature
of the command itself is no longer
external, but internal. Obedience
isnt acquiescence to an external
demand, but the manifestation of an
inward reality.20
Advocates of Picture-Fulfillment
NCT base their assertion that the
Spirit is the law written upon a be-
18 Bresson, What is New Covenant
Theology? Tenet 43. See also Tenet 47 of
the same message. See also the comments
of Steve Fuchs in the Christ Our Cove-
nant blog entitled The Various Branches
of New Covenant Theology (available
at http://christourcovenant.blogspot.
com/2009/02/all-proponents-of-nct-
believe-christ.html). In the introductory
description of Picture-Fulfillment NCT,
Fuchs writes, Christs Spirit indwelling
Gods people is what is written on their
hearts. He isnt there to etch any words onthe heart or mind, HE himself IS whats
etched - He is both the standard of righ-
teousness and the cause of righteousness
within them. He is the perfect anti-type
of codified law.The Law of Christ is the
Spirit of Christ written on your heart. He
is both the Standard of Gods righteous-
ness and the Cause of righteousness in
your nature.
19 Ibid., Tenet 49.
20 Bresson, The Incarnation of the
Abstract, 2-3.
lievers heart not only upon theirsys-
tematization21of Jeremiah 31:31-34
and Ezekiel 36:24-28 but also their
interpretation of 2 Corinthians 2:14-
4:6. Bresson writes: A proper bibli-
cal theology of the Isaiah, Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel New Covenant passages
shows the law written on the heart isone and the same as the Spirit placed
within. This is Pauls interpretation
of the Old Testaments New Covenant
passages in 2 Corinthians 3.
Does 2 Corinthians 3:6 Identify
the Spirit as a New Law?
Contrary to the teaching of Picture-
Fulfillment NCT, 2 Corinthians 3:6
does not allow for the assertion that
the Spirit is the law written upon a
believers heart. 2 Corinthians 3:5-6declares, Not that we are sufficient in
ourselves to claim anything as coming
from us, but our sufficiency is from
God, 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.
With the final statement of 2 Corin-
thians 3:6, For the letter kills, but
the Spirit gives life, the apostle is
notcontrasting the letter (i.e., theMosaic Law) and the Spirit as two
types of law. In other words, Paul
is not pitting the letter as a law
containing objective written/external
commandments against the Spirit,
a new law containing no objec-
tive written/external commandments.
Rather, he is contrasting two distinct
eras of redemptive history, the Old
Covenant age (characterized by the
Mosaic Law) and the New Covenant
age (characterized by the Spirit). Re-garding the Spirit-letter contrast in
2 Corinthians 3:6, Thomas Schreiner
states that the Spirits work repre-
sents the coming of the new era in
21 Although prominent promoters of
Picture-Fulfillment NCT may insist oth-
erwise, their interpretation of Jeremiah
31:31-34 with Ezekiel 36:24-28 reflects a
systematic, not biblical, approach to these
two texts.
Christ.22
In defense of his apostolic minis-
try, Paul contrasts the two redemptive-
historical eras via their respective
covenants throughout 2 Corinthians
2:14-4:6 in order to demonstrate the
New Covenants superiority over the
Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was
a ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7) and
condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9), and its
defining dynamic was the Law of Mo-
ses, which, although a blessing for the
regenerate23 Israelite (e.g., Ps. 19:7;
40:8; 119:72; 97; 174), inexorably
resulted in death for the unregener-
ate24 Israelite (2 Cor. 3:6). However,
22 Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Ques-
tions about Christians and Biblical Law
(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,2010), 144. See also A. Blake White, The
Newness of the New Covenant(Freder-
ick: New Covenant Media, 2008), 36.
Regarding 2 Corinthians 3:6, White
states, Second Corinthians 3:4-4:18 is an
important text on the relation of the old
and new covenants in Paul. He expounds
the superiority of the ministry of the new
covenant over the old. He writes that God
made us competent to be ministers of a
new covenant, not of the letter but of the
Spirit. For the letter (gramma) kills, but
the Spirit (pneuma) give life (3:6, cf. Rom
2:29, 7:6). The context makes clear that
Paul uses letter to refer to the Mosaic
Law (3:3), which has an inseparable
connection to the Mosaic Covenant in
2 Corinthians 3. Thegramma/pneuma
contrast should be understood in terms
of salvation history. [emphasis mine]
23 The regeneration of the OT rem-
nant of Israel by the Holy Spirit is the
fulfillment of the spiritual promises of
the Abrahamic Covenant, not the Old
Covenant.24 The OC community of Israel was
largely unregenerate. For example,
Jeremiah 9:26b proclaims that all the
house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart
(cf. Is. 1:9; Heb. 3:16-4:6). See also John
G. Reisinger,Abrahams Four Seeds
(Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media,
1998), 77. Reisinger states that Israel was
indeed aspecialnation.but the nation
by and large was unregenerate. See also
John G. Reisinger, Tablets of Stone & the
History of Redemption (Frederick, MD:
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
13/20
Issue 184 February 2012 Page 13
MaxceyContinued on page 14
the Mosaic Law resulted in death for
unregenerate Israelites not because it
contained objective written/external
commandments (as Picture-Fulfill-
ment NCT advocates assert) but be-
cause the Old Covenant did notguar-
antee to its members the internal work
of the Spirit (i.e., regeneration).25
Thisinternal working of the Spirit was only
experienced by a small remnant of the
OC community to whom God freely
and sovereignly chose to extend it in
order to fulfill the spiritual promises
made to Abraham. In contrast to the
Old Covenant, the New Covenant is
a ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:8)
and righteousness (2 Cor. 3:9), and
New Covenant Media, 2004), 44. On page
44, Reisinger writes, It is true that Godshowed special favor to the Jews in their
redemption from Egypt, but that was a
physicalredemption. Most of those Israel-
ites were still hard-hearted sinners who
needed to be convinced of their lost estate
(Heb.. 3:16-19).
25 Picture-Fulf illment NCT proponents
insist that the Old Covenants codified
system of written/external command-
ments (i.e., the Mosaic Law) is precisely
what made that covenant a ministry of
death (2 Cor. 3:7) and condemnation
(2 Cor. 3:9). However, such a conclusion
misses the mark. The Apostle Paul de-
clares the Law and its commandments to
be holy and righteous and good (Rom.
7:12), spiritual (Rom. 7:14), and not
contrary to the promises of God (Gal.
3:21). The Mosaic Code resulted in death,
cursing, and condemnation for unregen-
erate Israel, not because it contained
written/external commandments, but
because the OC community, apart from
the internal (i.e., regenerative) working
of the Holy Spirit, was utterly incapableof keeping the Law. In other words, the
problem with the Old Covenant was
neither the covenant itself nor its com-
mandments; rather, the problem was the
fallen, unregenerate state of the covenant
community. See A. Blake White, The
Newness of the New Covenant(Frederick:
New Covenant Media, 2008), 17. White
rightly declares, Indeed, Israel was un-
able to serve the Lord (Josh. 24:19), lack-
ing the heart inclined to keep the Torah
(Deut. 30:6; 31:16).
its defining dynamic is the Spirit, who
inexorably produces life (2 Cor.
3:6) in all members of the New Cov-
enant. Paul Williamson argues that the
most radical distinctive of the new
covenant is that it would affect the
entire covenant community unlike its
predecessor:Internalization of the law was not
a radically new concept (Deut. 11:18;
cf. 30:14), nor was the associated idea
of circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10;
cf. 30:6). But such had certainly not
been the collective experience of the
covenant community [under the OC].
Rather, such had been the distinguish-
ing mark of individuals in the commu-
nity who constituted Israels righteous
remnant. The majority as Jeremiah
himself had underlined (cf. Jer. 17:1) had hearts engraved with sin and
were thus spiritually uncircumcised
(cf. Jer. 9:26; 16:10-13). However, the
law would be internalized by everyone
who belonged to the covenant commu-
nity of the future [T]he entire com-
munity will reflect such knowledge of
Yahweh.That such knowledge issu-
ing in obedience will be reflected in
the entire covenant community (they
will all know me, from the least of
them to the greatest TNIV) is clearly
one of the most distinctive features ofthe new covenant.26
Elsewhere, he writes, Pauls ar-
gument, therefore, is not that the let-
ter associated with the old covenant
is bad or inherently flawed. Rather,
it is that it is vastly inferior to the
life-giving Spirit associated with the
new covenant.27 To insist that Pauls
redemptive-historical contrast teaches
that the Spirit is a new law and
that all written/external command-ments produce death is to stretch the
text of 2 Corinthians 3 far beyond the
apostles intent. It neither logically nor
exegetically follows that Paul aims to
teach either of these assertions.
26 Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an
Oath: Covenant in Gods Unfolding Pur-
pose (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 2007), 154-56.
27 Ibid., 193.
Is the Spirit the Law Written
Upon the Heart?
Although both Jeremiah 31:31-34
and Ezekiel 36:24-28 are important
texts which detail the promises and
stipulations of the New Covenant, to
equate my Spirit of Ezekiel 36:27
with my law of Jeremiah 31:33 re-sults in both an exegetical and logical
fallacy. It neither logically nor ex-
egetically follows here that these two
particular NC promises (i.e., Ezek.
36:27; Jer. 31:33) should be equated
with one another.28 By equatingthese
two passages, advocates of Picture-
Fulfillment NCT have unnecessarily
blurred or obscured the important
distinctions in these texts. The most
natural way to reconcile Ezekiel 36:27
with Jeremiah 31:33 is to recognize
that these two passages address two
distinct ministries of the Holy Spirit.
Whereas Jeremiah 31:33 speaks of
regeneration by the Holy Spirit in
terms of the internalization of Gods
law (I will put my law within them,
and I will write it on their hearts),29
28 Although the similar phraseology in
I will put my Spirit within you (Ezek.
36:27) and I will put my law within
them (Jer. 31:33) indicates that these twopassages are related, such similarity does
notdemand that they be directly equated
with one another.
29 See Peter OBrien, The Letter to the
Hebrews,Pillar New Testament Commen-
tary, ed. Donald A. Carson (Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 298-9. Begin-
ning on page 298, OBrien writes: in
the new covenant there is a fundamental
difference from the old: theLord himself
would write his law on the hearts of his
people. The internalization of the law,
that is, obedience from the heart, which
was expected under the old covenant,
will now be accomplished by God. Fur-
ther, this writing is not in the hearts of
scattered individuals but of the people
as a whole; it is not simply internal but
also universal. The prophets words
imply the peoples receiving of a new
heart, and this was / is expressly prom-
ised in the parallel prophecy of Ezekiel
I will give them an undivided heart and
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
14/20
Page 14 February 2012 Issue 184MaxceyContinued from page 13
Ezekiel 36:27 speaks first of the Holy
Spirit indwelling believers form-
ing the body of Christ at Pentecost30
(I will put my Spirit within you)
and second of regeneration in terms
identical to Jeremiah 31:33 (I will
cause you to walk in my statutes andbe careful to obey my rules).Ezekiel
36:27 declares that the Spirit of God
would not only indwell NC believ-
ers but also cause them to obey
Gods commandments (cf. Phil. 2:13;
Rom. 8:13-14; 1 Pet. 1:2). What are
these commandments, if not the Law
of Christ in the New Covenant? The
Scriptures also declare that the Holy
Spirit teaches believers all things
(John 14:26a), brings to believers
remembrance Christs teaching (John14:26b), testifies of Christ (John
15:26), and guides believers in all the
truth (John 16:13). These things, this
teaching, this testimony, and this truth
all center upon the Lord Jesus Christ,
His Word, and His Law (i.e., the Law
of Christ). The Spirit is not the law
written upon a believers heart, but as
part of His New Covenant ministry,
He Himself performs divine heart-
replacement surgery, whereby a NCbeliever is the recipient of a new heart
which causes him to willingly obey
God and keep His inscripturatedcom-
mandments (i.e., the Law of Christ).
put a new spirit in them; I will remove
from them their heart of stone and give
them a heart of flesh. Then they will fol-
low my decrees and be careful to keep my
laws (Ezekiel 11:19-20; also 36:26-27)
[emphasis mine].
30 The body of Christ, which is theChurch (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18, 24) was
first formed as a redemptive-historical
entity when the Holy Spirit was poured
out upon believers at Pentecost in Acts 2
with its apostolic extensions in Acts 8, 10,
19. Recall Jesus promise to His disciples
of the future indwelling of the Holy Spirit
in John 14:17: even the Spirit of truth,
whom the world cannot receive, because
it neither sees him nor knows him. You
know him, for he dwells with you and
will be in you.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Beale, Gregory K. and Donald A. Carson.
Commentary on the New Testament
Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch. Commentaryon the Old Testament. Volume VII:
Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Company, 1973.
Long, Gary D.Biblical Law and Ethics:
Absolute and Covenantal: An Exegeti-
cal and Theological Study of Matthew
5:17-20. New York: Rochester, 1981.
OBrien, Peter T. The Letter to the He-
brews. Pillar New Testament Com-
mentary. Edited by Donald A. Carson
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.
Reisinger, John G.Abrahams Four Seeds.
Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media,
1998.
_______________. Tablets of Stone &
the History of Redemption. Frederick,
MD: New Covenant Media, 2004.
Schreiner, Thomas R. 40 Questions about
Christians and Biblical Law. Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
2010.
Waltke, Bruce K. and M. OConner.An
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syn-tax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1990.
White, A. Blake. The Law of Christ: A
Theological Proposal. Frederick, MD:
New Covenant Media, 2010.
_____________. The Newness of the New
Covenant. Frederick, MD: New Cov-
enant Media, 2008.
Williams, Ronald J. WilliamsHebrew
Syntax. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1967; reprint 1976, 2007, 2008,2010.
Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath:
Covenant in Gods Unfolding Purpose.
Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press,
2007.
Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. Vol.
3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972.
Zaspel, Fred G. The New Covenant and
New Covenant Theology. Frederick,
MD: New Covenant Media, 2011.
Articles
Bresson, Chad R. The Exceeding Righ-
teousness of the New Covenant. A
message prepared for the Christ My
Covenant website in June 2009. Ac-
cessed 7 October 2011. Available from
http://christourcovenant.blogspot.
com/2009/06/exceeding-righteous-ness-of-new-covenant.html; Internet.
______________. The Incarnation of the
Abstract: New Covenant Theology and
the Enfleshment of the Law. A mes-
sage prepared for 2011 New Covenant
Theology Think Tank, Rushville, NY.
Accessed 7 October 2011. Available
from http://www.earthstovesociety.
com/essmedia2011/bresson%20-%20
The%20Incarnation%20of%20the%20
Abstract%20-%20NCT%20Think%20
Tank%202011.pdf; Internet.
______________. What is New Cov-
enant Theology? A list of NCT tenets
prepared originally for the Christ My
Covenant website but later posted
to the Earth Stove Society website.
Accessed 03 September 2011. Avail-
able from http://earthstovesociety.
com/?p=197; Internet.
Fuchs, Steve. The Various Branches of
New Covenant Theology. A Christ
Our Covenant blog. Accessed 7 Octo-
ber 2011. Available from http://chris-tourcovenant.blogspot.com/2009/02/
all-proponents-of-nct-believe-christ.
html; Internet.
Heiser, Michael. An Unexpected Word.
Chapter 3 from an unpublished book.
Accessed 7 October 2011. Available
from hp://www.thedivinecouncil.
com/Introducon%20to%20the%20
Divine%20Council%20MTIT.pdf; In-
ternet.
Loubser, Gysbert M. H. The Ethic of
the Free: A Walk According to theSpirit! A Perspective from Galatians.
Verbum et Ecclesia JRG 27:2 (2006):
614-640.
Reisinger, John. The Marks of a New
Covenant Ministry: A Study in 2 Cor-
inthians 3 Part 4. Sound of Grace
166 (April 2010): 1, 2, 4, 14-17. m
8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 184, February 2012
15/20
Issue 184 February 2012 Page 15
GillilandCont. on page 16
GillilandContinued from page 5
live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceeds from the mouth of God
(Matt. 4:4). The life of Christ can be
characterized by submission to the
will of his Father: I come (in the vol-
ume of the book it is written of me) to
do thy will, O God (Heb. 10:7).Andin fact, Jesus had such a high view of
Scripture that he could attribute to it
the same power and authority that he
did when he was referring to himself.
Jesus said, If you abide in my word,
you are truly my disciples, and you
will know the truth, andthe truth will
set you free (John 8:31, 32). And yet
a few verses later, he could say, So if
the Son sets you free, you will be free
indeed (v. 36).
The apostle Paul, as we have seen,
did not have difficulty integrating the
ontological aspect with the ethical
realm. For example, in Romans 15:15-
16, he wrote, because of the grace
given me by God to be a minister of
Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the
priestly service of the gospel of God,
so that the offering of the Gentiles
may be acceptable, sanctified by the
Holy Spirit. This is more of Pauls
temple talk, referring to the factthat their holy or righteous status is
confirmed through the acceptance and
indwelling presence of the Spirit. The
phrase the offering of the Gentiles
refers not to something the Gentiles
offer, but that they are in a sense
Pauls offering. I like the reading
suggested by the editors of the ESV:
the of