Biblical Spirituality #3; Promises to Abraham of Canaan Land are for the New Heaven and New Earth.

Allegorical or Literal Interpretation?

With regards to allegorical interpretation, there are clearly some passages in the Bible, such as John 15:1-8 and Isaiah 5:1-7, which are obviously meant to be understood that way. So it cannot be outright written off as never being a legitimate method of interpretation, though there are definitely inappropriate uses of spiritualization and allegory when the text itself does not call for it.[45]

However, to ignore clues within the text and genre of literature that give indication of a non-literal reading would actually not be to truly interpret the text ‘literally’ but rather in a ‘literalistic’ fashion.



For example, according to classical dispensationalists, promises like Genesis 17:7-8 were an unconditional covenant made with Israel which cannot be abrogated.

7 "And I Will establish My Covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an Everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8 "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I Will be their God."

However, this promise of land in Canaan made to Abraham was reinterpreted by Isaiah to mean a New Heavens and Earth, not just the land of Canaan (Isa 65:17-224; cf. 66:22).

New Heavens and Earth:

17 "For, behold, I Create New Heavens and a New Earth:
and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

18 "But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I Create: for, behold, I Create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

19 "And I Will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in My people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

20 "There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

21 "And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.

22 "They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of My people, and Mine Elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

23 "They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the Blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.

24 "And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I Will Answer; and while they are yet speaking, I Will Hear.

25 "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My Holy mMountain, saith the LORD."

22 "For as the New Heavens and the New Earth,
which I Will Make, shall remain before Me, saith the LORD,
so shall your seed and your name remain."

Furthermore, in Romans 4:13, Paul saw the fulfilment of the promise as being received through Righteousness that comes by Faith.

13 "For the Promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the Righteousness of Faith."

If NT authors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, reinterpreted the promise of land in terms of New Heavens and Earth, this raises great difficulty for Premil interpreters and would mean that Amil may be no less literal in its hermeneutic than the NT authors.[46]

Everyone has presuppositions which colour how they read Scriptures... We must first identify the presuppositions held before we come to the biblical text.[47]

Historically, Christian theologians wrestled with the biblical text itself, comparing Scripture with Scripture.[48]

The interpretive tradition in church history has always insisted that it is best to allow the NT to interpret the OT and provide the controlling vantage point for understanding the OT and its prophecies.

Another factor in interpretation is the analogia fidei (analogy of faith).

“This refers to the importance of interpreting an unclear biblical text in light of clear passages that speak to the same subject rather than taking the literal sense in isolation from the rest of Scripture.” [49]

If we allow for the OT to be interpreted in light of NT revelation, we see that much of the Promises God made to Israel in the OT were Fulfilled in Christ (see for example Romans 9:6-8 and 11:7).[50]

The dispensational assertion that the future millennium will see a reinstatement of the temple system and sacrifice represents a U-turn in redemptive history and a regression from the reality of Christ back to what were mere types and shadows.

This seems to be in direct opposition to the main thrust of the argument from the author of the book of Hebrews who dissuaded his audience from returning to those types and shadows.

So, dispensational and some Historic Premil arguments that these Prophecies to Israel will yet be fulfilled vanish in Jesus, who has Fulfilled them and makes the necessity of a future physical earthly millennial reign obsolete.[51]

• [45] Plate, What Does the Future Hold, 79.
• [46] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 85—87.
• [47] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 47.
• [48] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 28.
• [49] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 50—51.
• [50] For a better discussion of the historic Protestant Hermeneutic and literal verses literalistic interpretation, please see Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 50—54.
• [51] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 85. For a more in depth look at Christ and the fulfillment of OT prophecy as well as an argument against a return to types and shadows see pages 83—94. Hoekema also has an excellent critique of Dispensational Premillennialism in Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 194—222.