sound of grace, issue 184, february 2012

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


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


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


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.


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


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


5/20


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


6/20



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



7/20


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


8/20

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.


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.


10/20


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


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.



12/20


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:


13/20



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


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


15/20


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

sound of grace, issue 184, february 2012

Documents