Introduction
The discussion over the amount of continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments always continues. The study of theological systems can be intimidating because the amount of material to be understood is large and the number of proposed solutions seems endless. Today two main theological systems stand as benchmarks in the continuity/ discontinuity debate: dispensationalism and covenant theology. Somewhat recently, some in the dispensational camp have taken some liberties creating what is now known as progressive dispensationalism. Progressives seem to have found a middle ground between traditional dispensationalism and covenantalism. But, there is another theological system that has been offered which also finds a middle ground between dispensationalism and covanentalism. This system is known as promise theology, or Epangelicalism. The main proponent and researcher for promise theology is Walter Kaiser. This paper will provide a summary of Walter Kaiser’s promise theology, as well as outline similarities and dissimilarities with progressive dispensationalism.
Walter Kaiser’s Promise Theology
Promise Theology first came on the scene with Willis Beecher, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. While he spoke of the system, the system never really saw a wide audience. Walter Kaiser’s made use of Beecher’s work, and then Kaiser began to contribute much more to the subject. Essentially, promise theology understands God’s promise-plan to be the organizing theme throughout Scripture. Kaiser traces the theme through the Scriptures in many of his books.
The Promise Theme in the Old Testament
Prolegomena to the Promise: Prepatriarchal Era. This era includes Genesis 1-11. In this progress of revelation, there are four particular key elements of promise that are highlighted by Scripture. The first element is that of blessing. In Genesis 1.22, after God created the birds and the fish, God promised them a blessing. He said, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Again, in Genesis 1.28, God promised a similar blessing to the man and woman. He said, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” The second element of promise is the seed. Although God had promised to care for and multiply His people, yet there were three events that were obstacles to the fulfillment of His promises. These three events were the Fall (chapter 3), the Flood (chapters 6-8), and the Tower of Babel (chapter 11). In spite of the obstacles, God still renewed and explicated His promises to His people. In Genesis 3.15, God promised that the woman’s seed, a male descendant, would crush the head of the serpent, but that seed would have his heel bruised by the serpent. The third element is the race. The second obstacle, the Flood, provide the opportunity for more blessing. After the flood, God promise as was stated in Genesis 3.15 was amplified in Genesis 9.25-27 as it was given to Shem. From the word of promise, it is made clear that the seed would come from the Semites. God promised Shem that He would dwell in the tents of Shem. The fourth element is the gospel. After the people sinned against God at the Tower of Babel, God gave another word of promise to Abraham in Genesis 12.1-3. It had already been made clear that a male descendent who dwelt in the tents of Shem would come. Now, with this amplifation of the promise, God indicated that the blessing of this promise would be enjoyed by every nation of the earth.[1]
Provisions in the Promise: Patriarchal Era. The promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12.1-3 included the elements of an heir, an inheritance, and a heritage. God promised Abraham that He would make him a great nation, bless him, and make him famous. The result of the fulfillment of these promises would be that he and his nation would be a blessing to all the nations of the world. God reaffirmed His promise to Abraham, and then gave it to his descendents, Isaac and Jacob through out the book of Genesis. God spoke much about the “seed.” The promised seed as spoken to Abraham referred to his son Isaac, as well as to the Messiah. When Isaac was born, Abraham received a blessing of the promise. This blessing was a “partial fulfillment” of the promise made to him. It would not be until the Heir, the promise, that there would be complete fulfillment. The same partial fulfillment would be seen by Isaac and Jacob and others to follow in the line. In the Abrahamic promise, God also spoke of an inheritance. Not only was a promise given concerning spiritual blessings, but material blessings as well. The land of Canaan was also promised to Abraham. The boundaries of that land are clearly marked out in Genesis 15.18. The third element in the Abrahamic promise is an heritage of the gospel. As mentioned before, it was promised that through Abraham all the nations of the earth would be blessed.[2][3]
People of the Promise: Mosaic Era. During this period, three elements stand out: God’s divine presence, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood. In Genesis 15.7, it says, “I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans.” This is representative of other cases where God, with His giving of a promise, stated His presence with the benefactors of His promise. In Genesis 28.21, the last part of the promise was “to be a God to you.” In the Mosaic period that phrase became a regular part of the promise formula. In Exodus 6.7, the promise was give that “I will be a God to you and to your descendants after you, you shall be my people.” As God had promised to be with the patriarchs and to take them into the promised land of Canaan, God promised to be with His people having been in Egyptian bondage and to take them into the land of Canaan (Exodus 3.16-17). At other times in the Mosaic period God expressed His presence among the people using such concepts as the “name,” “face,” “glory,” and “angel” of the Lord. The people saw the beginning of Yahweh’s fulfilling promise that He would be with His people and He would be their God. The second element in the Mosaic period is a holy nation. Not only were the people His, but He was theirs as well. Exodus 19.6 indicates that they were to be a “kingdom of priests,” a “holy nation,” and a “treasured possession.” With these privileges also came the responsibility to be holy and God is holy. They were to be separated unto God and separate from evil (Leviticus 20.26; 22.31-33). Kaiser points to two main areas of application addressed by the law: moral and ritual holiness.[4] The third element in the Mosaic period is a royal priesthood. While the people were given the privilege of ministering on behalf of themselves and of all the nations, they did not accept the offer because of fear (Exodus 19.16ff; 21.18ff). Instead, Moses and Aaron represented the people before God. God’s purpose was not thwarted though, but merely delayed (1 Peter 2.9; Revelation 1.6; 5.10). The priesthood was representative of the people, and so the grace of God was mediated to His people through the Law. The same law that demanded obedience also provide a way for forgiveness, freedom from guilt, and restoration.[5]
Place of the Promise: Premonarchical Era. Included in this period are Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges. In Deuteronomy, the inheritance of the land is mentioned numerously. Associated wit the promise of the land is the promise of rest. Deuteronomy 12 consentrates on this rest. Verse 9 says, “You have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which the Lord your God gives you.” Kaiser says this rest included “geographical, material, spatial reference to Canaan” as well as “spiritual associations.”[6] The spiritual aspect of the rest included peace for their soul and heart[7] as well as the “blessing bringing presence” of the Lord (Exodus 33.34).[8]
The book of Joshua, specifically Joshua 21.44-45, says that Israel had received an “earnest” of the promised rest. At first glance it would appear as though it was the very rest that had been promised, but this is not the case. It could not be the complete rest that was promised because the Canaanites were never completely driven out, nor were the boundaries of the land were not the same as those given to the patriarches.[9]
The book of Judges explains how the people of Israel failed to enter into the promised rest. God raised up judges to deliver the people (Judges 2.16), but Yahweh was the real Judge (11.27). So, in the book of Judges, God proved to be faithful in spite of the unfaithfulness of His people.
King of the Promise: Davidic Era. God had promised in the past that kings would be in the promised line (Genesis 17.6; 35.11; 36.31). Gideon was requested by the people to be their king, but he declined. He told them that Yahweh would rule over them (Judges 8.22). God eventually chose Saul to reign. Saul started out well, but in the end failed as a leader. God then chose David to lead His people.
In 2 Samuel 7 (and 1 Chronicles 17) the Davidic Covenant is given. The promise given to David was reminiscent of the promise given to Abraham and then renewed at the Exodus. Similar words of significance include “offspring,” “place,” “rest,” “a great name,” and “son.” Also, a key thought is common to both: “I will be your God and you shall be my people.” Other peculiarities the promises have in common are the use of Adonai Yahweh strange Hebrew grammar.[10]
More was added to the promise. David was promised a never-ending dynasty. The kings would rule on the throne of a never-ending kingdom. This promise made to David was unconditional, but the participation of the benefits of the promise for any given king in David’s line were conditioned upon the person’s obedience.[11]
Life in the Promise: Sapiential Era (or the Wisdom Period). Kaiser says that the link between the Davidic era and the age of wisdom is the emphasis on “a proper response to the sovereignty of God in one’s total life.”[12] The fear of the Lord was the response of one that was humbly responding to the Lord. Kaiser shows that the fear of the Lord characterized those living in the promise such as Joseph (Genesis 42.18) and Job (Job 1.1,8,9; 2.3). The fear of the Lord began in the early days of the promise and then it became a more and more common phrase in the progress of revelation. In Deuteronomy is seems to be a “focal point.”[13] Kaiser sees a second theme in the Wisdom literature: the fear of the Lord and life, where life is the “enjoyment of the fruits of a relationship derived from faith – a relationship that led to the happy result of really living in the temporal process.”[14] The third element in the wisdom era is the fear of the Lord and the unity of knowledge. In Ecclesiastes, it is taught that man cannot find knowledge until he first possesses the fear of the Lord. There is vanity in all things without the fear of the Lord, but when one does fear the Lord, then every part of life is recognized as a gift from God. The fourth element is the fear of the Lord and wisdom. The fear of the Lord is a prerequisite to wisdom (Proverbs 1.7). Wisdom is an attribute of God just as holiness is. Kaiser says the God’s holiness is the “yardstick” for the Mosaic Law, and God’s wisdom is the “yardstick for the Wisdom writings.[15] True wisdom cannot be possessed by a man unless he first enters into a personal relationship with the God who “owns” wisdom.[16]
Day of the Promise: Ninth Century. Although Israel had seen so many positive things happening among them (David ruled honorably and the Solomonic Temple was built), yet her apostasy from God demanded a rebuke from God. God, in His grace, sent prophets to them to rebuke them, to give prophecy concerning the breaking up of the kingdom as they knew it, and then to remind them of God’s promise to them of salvation. The ninth century prophets were Obadiah and Joel. Their prophecies centered on the Day of the Lord. The day of the Lord would be a day of judgment and of salvation. The salvation would come only to those that responded to with genuine repentance to the devastating events that would take place. In that day, Yahweh will judge all the nations, He will establish His reign on earth, He will be recognized by Israel as her God, and Israel will know that she is belongs to Yahweh. Kaiser explains that the day of the Lord was seen as a single item. The near and the far aspects of the day were stated “generically and corporately.” The near aspects were “token reminders” for what God would ultimately carry out in that day.[17]
Servant of the Promise: Eighth Century. The eighth century saw the ministry of the prophets, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Jonah, and Isaiah. These prophets warned of judgment that would come immediately if there were no repentance before God. Isaiah dealt much with the “Servant of the Lord.” At times he used the singular form, and at other times the plural. Often the singular was used generically or collectively to refer to every Israelite.[18] The singular “Servant” also is an individual that would have a ministry to the nation of Israel. He is the King promised to David as well as the seed promised to Eve and to Abraham. Other promises given by these prophets included the restoration of David’s fallen booth (Amos 9.11-15), the exaltation of the house of the God of Jacob among the nations in the near future (Micah 4.1-5), the turning of Israel back to the Lord (Hosea 3.4-5), and the return of Israel to her land with the blessing of population growth (Hosea 1.10-11).[19]
Renewal of the Promise: Seventh Century. The seventh century saw the prophets, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Nahum, and Jeremiah. The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31.31-34) is the central teaching of this time period. The new covenant promised four features that were included in previous promises. These four things are inwardness[20], fellowship[21], personal relationship[22], and forgiveness[23]. Kaiser says that the new covenant is better understood as a renewed covenant because it makes the same promise as in previous revelation. But, as in many other instances when the promise is given, the promise stated hear does include new items. These new items include a universal knowledge of God, universal peace among the nations, universal material prosperity, a sanctuary lasting forever in the midst of Israel, and a universal possession of the Spirit. Those days are described in Zephaniah and Habakkuk.[24]
Kingdom of the Promise: Exilic Prophets. Daniel and Ezekiel wrote after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC. The people of Israel received much timely hope from these two prophets concerning the coming kingdom. Daniel spoke of the seed of Satan (Genesis 3.15) and his attempt to destroy God’s reign as the “one who causes desolation” (Daniel 9.27). The Ancient of Days will come from the clouds of heaven, destroy the kingdoms of this earth, and then set up His indestructible and eternal kingdom. Ezekiel spoke of the “good shepherd” and God’s servant David” (Ezekiel 34.11-31) who will establish His “covenant of peace.” Israel will be united as one nation, and will dwell securely in the promised land (Ezekiel 20.5-6). Yahweh will dwell among them and all nations will know that He is the only true God (Ezekiel 37.28).
Triumph of the Promise: Postexilic Prophets. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi and the historical books including Ezra, Nehemiah, the Chronicles, and Esther speak of the glorious establishment of the kingdom. Haggai assured the people that God would be present with them now, as they rebuilt the temple, just as He will be with them in His time of triumph in the future (Haggai 2.5). In the future, God will cause the nations to give up their wealth in order to be used to build Yahweh’s sanctuary in Jerusalem (Haggai 2.7-9, 21-22), and He will dwell in the midst of the people as He had promised (Haggai 1.8; Zecharaiah 1.16; 2.10-11). According to Zechariah, the Branch will be the “priest on his throne” (Zechariah 6.12-13), and His reign will be “from sea to sea and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth” (Zechariah 9.10). God will overthrow the nations, the battle of the day of the Lord will end, and all survivors will worship and praise God (Zechariah 13-14).[25]
The Promise Theme in the New Testament
Kaiser has concentrated most of his efforts in the OT. He is certain that the promise-plan of God continues throughout the NT, but he has not yet developed a thorough outline for the NT.[26]
The Perfect Law and the Promise: James. James exegetes every verse in Levitucs 19.12-18 except for verse 14.[27]
The Kingdom of God and the Promise: The Gospels. Both Jesus and John the Baptist came preaching, “the kingdom of God is at hand.”[28]
The Ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Apostles of the Promise: Acts.[29] The promise of the Holy Spirit was spoken of in such passages as Acts 1.4; 2.33; and 2.38-39.[30]
The Church and the Promise: Paul’s writings.[31] Paul taught the Romans that Christ had become a servant to the Jews in order to “confirm the promises given to the fathers” (Romans 15.8-9), and so that the Gentiles would glorify God (Romans 15.9-12).[32]
The Suffering of Believers and the Promise: Petrine writings.
The Gospel of the Kingdom and the Promise: Johannine writings.
Similarities between Promise Theology and Progressive Dispensationalism
One People of God
Kaiser’s Promise Theology is more like covenant theology when it sees one people of God including Israel and the Church. TD sees two peoples of God with two programs of God.
Kaiser goes to Exodus for a theology of the people of God. To lay the groundwork he considers the promises in Genesis. In Genesis 1.28, God gave the promise, “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” The same promise was given again in Genesis 35.11. Then when we get to Exodus, we see a fulfillment. In Exodus 1.7, Moses says that the sons of Israel had multiplied and increased, and they became mighty in the land. So, the seed that was once seen as a family is not a people, or a nation.[33] Throughout the book of Exodus, we will see the theology of the people of God developed. In Exodus, 2.24, Moses says that God heard the cries from Israel and He remember the covenant with Abraham. Kaiser points out that God had previously appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but now He will be seen as Yahweh (Exodus 6.3).[34] He will care for them by leading them into the land that He promised to their fathers (Exodus 6.8).
In Exodus, 4.22, God calls Israel “My son, My firstborn son.” The word “son” is singular, but it is collective in the sense that it refers to all of Israel. Kaiser says that this title of son referred not to citizenship, membership, etc., but to a familial relationship. Israel was God’s people. God had “formed, saved, and guarded” them as their Father.[35]
“Firstborn” is also a title given to Israel. This title mean “first in preeminence.”[36] The one with this title was to receive special rights and favor. Firstborn is also a singular word used to describe Israel collectively. It is used in a similar way to the word “seed.” Kaiser says, “Seed’ is a collective term which first appeared in Genesis 3:15 as a representative person for both the whole group identified with him and the ultimate or final representative person who was to come.
In the New Testament (NT), Jesus is called both “my son” (Matthew 2.15) and “firstborn” (Colossians 1.15). These titles had become technical terms. The technical term, firstborn, is also used to refer to all believers in Hebrews 12.23. Kaiser says that the continuity in the use of these terms is not coincidental, but intentionally points to a “unified people of God.”[37]
Israel had also become a “nation” according to Exodus 19.6. At other times they are referred to as “my people” such as 3.7, and the well known phrase repeated by Moses to Pharaoh, “Let my people go” (5.1; 7.14; 8.1; 9.1; 10.3). By this time, Israel had gained enough in number and unity to be called a people, and they had gained enough intimacy with God to by called His people.[38] As the story continues, miraculous works were done so that Pharaoh would also see “I am the Lord” (Exodus 8.22). God was not being unfair in His treatment of the Israel. Pharaoh and the Egyptians tried to fight against God, but God always extended the offer for them to repent and know Him (Exodus 14.4).[39] Israel, on the other hand, “feared the Lord and believed in the Lord and His servant Moses (Exodus 14.31).
Exodus 12.3 highlights the certainty of the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. He had indeed become a great nation.
Israel is also called God’s “treasured possession” in Exodus 19.5. Israel became God’s property. Israel’s value came from God’s love.[40]
Exodus 19.3-6 speaks of another title for Israel. God says that Israel “will become for Me kingly priests and a holy nation.” God had chosen Israel to mediate His grace to all the other nations of the earth, just as was promised to Abraham (“all the families of the earth will be blessed”). The nation as whole, as well as the individuals of the nation, were to be “priest-kings,” but they declined (Exodus 19.16-25; 20.18-21). God’s purpose was not thwarted. The priesthood of all believers is mentioned again in 1 Peter 2.9; Revelation 1.6; and 5.10. God did, though, use the nation of Israel to minister to all the nations of the world.[41] Kaiser concludes, “the promise remained permanent but the participation in the blessings depended on the individual’s spiritual condition.”[42]
Israel was also called a “holy nation” (Exodus 19.6). God intended for Israel to be set apart unto Himself. In Exodus 19.5, there is an “if” clause. If the people would obey Him…then, they would be a holy nation. Kaiser says Israel’s disobedience could “qualify, hamper, or negate Israel’s experience of sanctification and ministry to others.”[43] But, regardless of Israel’s response to God, she would continue to be heirs of the promise.
The nation of Israel rejected the priesthood, so the promise was delayed. It is not until 1 Peter and Revelation that we see again God’s promise to make a priesthood of all believers.
Kaiser spends much time demonstrating that the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promise-plan of God is clearly prophesied in the OT. In his book, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New, he dedicates a chapter to Peter’s use of Amos 9 in Acts. The inclusion of the Gentiles introduces another question regarding Paul’s use of “mystery” in Ephesians. Paul speaks of the inclusion of the Gentiles as a mystery. In what sense is it a mystery if it was clearly prophesied in the OT? Kaiser answers that Paul used mystery comparatively. He says that the content of the mystery is “better known now than it had ever been revealed in the past.”[44] Kaiser uses Romans 1.1-2 to say that the “gospel of God” is the same as that which was “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures.”
Robert Saucy, a progressive, has written on this topic. In his book, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, he argues similarly to Kaiser concerning the oneness of the people of God. Saucy speaks of Israel in the OT as a community of people with a special relationship to God. He references Deuteronomy 26.5 to say that Israel had become a “nation” just as was promised to the patriarchs in the book of Genesis. He says that their status as a “nation” was “ratified” when Israel was freed from bondage in Egypt and then having entered into a covenant with Yahweh at Sinai.[45] That covenant at Sinai made Israel a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”
Saucy carefully defines “mystery” and works through Paul’s use of it in Ephesians. He says the content of the mystery in Ephesians 3.6 is outlined in three phrases. The Gentiles are now “heirs together” (they receive an inheritance along with Israel),[46] “members together” (joint involvement), and “sharers together.”[47] Saucy says there are two reasons why these this message can be qualified as a mystery. He says there are “additional dimensions” and “new truth concerning the nature of the fulfillment.” This is evident from the fact that the prophecies in the OT never “pictured” the salvation of the Gentiles coming before the time when the Messiah would reign over a restored Israel.[48] The second reason why this is a mystery is because the salvation of God had never been realized, or actualized. It certainly had been prophesied, but it had not come to fruition as it has now.[49]
Both Kaiser and Saucy agree that there are not two peoples of God, but one. While Israel was called the “people of God” in the OT, all believers are called the “people of God” in the NT (1 Peter). This is not to say, though, that the Church is Israel, or that Israel is the Church. It is to say that the Church is the people of God and Israel is the people of God. As Kaiser has stated it, there is one people of God “with a number of discernable aspects within that one people (such as Israel and the church).”[50] So, the verse, 2 Chronicles 7.14, which says, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves…” does not apply only to Israel, but to all of God’s people. This agreement allows both theological systems much continuity between the testaments.[51] [52]
The Already/ Not Yet Scheme
Promise Theology allows for inaugurated eschatology with its partial/ climactic fulfillment scheme. Kaiser says that there is a difference between the “word of promise” and the “climactic fulfillment of a promise. Kaiser demonstrates the difference using Hebrews 11.33, 39. The writer of Hebrews speaks of those that “obtained promises,” in verse 33, but yet “did not receive what was promised,” in verse 39. This view of partial and climactic fulfillment allows Kaiser to see a partial fulfillment of promises related to the kingdom in the church with the anticipation of the climactic fulfillment in the millennial kingdom.[53]
Progressives agree on this issue. Craig Blaising, in the book, Progressive Dispensationalism, explains that the church is “a present form of the eschatological kingdom.” He calls the present form of the kingdom a “down payment” and a “partial fulfillment.”[54]
Dissimilarities between Promise Theology and Progressive Dispensationalism
The Theological Center of the Scriptures
The ruling feature of Promise Theology is the assertion that the center of the Scriptures is the doctrine of the promise. Kaiser says that the single promise of God is the “center” and “focal point” of Scripture.[55] It is the one theme to which all of the writers of Scripture conscientiously contributed as the progress of revelation continued.[56] The NT writers sum up the OT teaching with the promise. Paul did this in Acts 26.6-7 when he was on trial before King Agrippa. Paul says, “And now it is because of the promise God made to our fathers that I am on trial today.” The writer of Hebrews claims that the promise made to Abraham is the hope that we have in Jesus as the Messiah (Hebrews 6.13-20), and Paul says that we are “heirs together with Israel” (Ephesians 3.6). Kaiser says, “all the revelation concerning the past, present, and coming kingdom of God and its Messianic King Jesus form one continuously unfolding doctrine encapsulated in the promise.”[57] Kaiser quotes Willis Beecher to articulate the promise:
God gave a promise to Abraham, and through him to mankind; a promise eternally fulfilled and fulfilling in the history of Israel; and chiefly fulfilled in Jesus Christ, he being that which is principal in the history of Israel.[58]
The NT calls it the “promise” although there is a variety of words that are used in the OT to capture the same idea. Those terms include “blessing,” “oath,” “rest, and ”word.” The things promised include the land, the blessing, the multiplication of God’s people, rest, the Davidic throne, and all good things. Kaiser also speaks of formulae that were used in the giving of the promises. A couple of these formulae include “I will be your God, and you will be my people,” and “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”[59] Most of the significant contributions that were made to the promise-plan of God were by the OT writers in the giving of the covenants.[60] Abraham and David were the two significant men in the giving of the promise, and key passages used in giving the promise were Genesis 3.15; 9.25-27; 12.1-3 and 2 Samuel 7.11-16.[61]
Kenneth L. Barker, author of the chapter, “The Scope and Center of Old and New Testament Theology and Hope,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, says that the kingdom of God is the central theme of the Scriptures. He devotes 8 pages in the book to tracing the theme throughout the canon. He says that the kingdom of God is the only theme proposed by scholars that is broad enough, limited enough (“God” as a theme is too limited), and God-centered enough to be called the central theme.[62] Robert Saucy agrees with Barker. Saucy says, “there is general agreement among biblical scholars that the overriding theme of all Scripture is the kingdom of God, by which is meant the dynamic rule of God.
The difference between progressives and epangelicals here is clear. Kaiser does offer a response to those that question the promise theme and assert that the kingdom is more prominent. He references Beecher who says that the kingdom is proclaimed on the basis of the promise. Although the NT writers may appear at times to be preaching the kingdom, when they look to the OT to substantiate their teaching, they “make the promise more prominent than the kingdom itself.”[63]
The function of the OT Law and its relation to the NT believer
Every theological system must address the relationship of the Mosaic Law to Israel and then to the NT Christian. These two issues have been the cause for much disagreement between Dispensationalists and Covenantalists. Kaiser does much work to incorporate the Mosaic Law into Promise Theology.
The Mosaic Law and Israel. The relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the other covenants (or to the promise) must be understood before other questions concerning the law are considered. Are all of the covenants conditional or unconditional? Kaiser says that the promises to Abraham and to David are unconditional. Regardless of the obedience of the people, God’s promise will be fulfilled. There are at times some statements in Scripture that would make it sound as though the promise was conditioned on the obedience of a particular person. While the promise that God has made will be fulfilled, yet an individual’s participation in the benefits of that promise can be lost if he does not have faith.[64]
Those who participate in the benefits of the promise, live by faith. Those that live by faith desire to please God and live the way that God would have them to live. These people would, naturally, wonder about how it is that they are supposed to live. So, God graciously shows them how they should live their lives in the promise by giving them the law. When the believers obeyed the Mosaic Law, they were “expressing the reality of the their faith.”[65] The Mosaic Law is part of the same promise that was given to Abraham. Neither one of these covenants (promises) were conditional, except for the individual and his participation in the benefits of the promise.[66]
The Mosaic Law and the Church. Kaiser says that the Mosaic Law is applicable for the NT Christian. All men that benefit from the promise have faith. And, all those with faith will demonstrate it by their good works, or their law-abiding. Kaiser claims that the Torah is still to be obeyed today. He will reference Romans 3.31 where Paul asks the question, “Do we then nullify the Law by this faith?” Paul’s answer is “Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” Also, Matthew 5.17-20 speaks of the permanence of the Law. In this passage Jesus says that the Law will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away.[67]
In Romans 10, Paul quotes Leviticus 18.5 to show the Jews that their “homemade righteousness,” which they thought came by the law, was not pleasing to God. He explained to them that the law never was the “end.” Christ is the “end.” The law was never given to make a man righteous, in the OT or the NT. It was given to those that were already righteous to show them how to live a life that is pleasing to God. In the Leviticus passage, the whole passage is directed toward those that were believers.[68] The Jews misunderstood the purpose of the law, so they sought righteousness by works (Romans 9.32).
The Weightier Matters of the Law. Kaiser explains that the moral law of God is eternal because it is based on the character of God which never changes. The civil and the ceremonial parts of the law are based on the moral law. They are applications and illustrations of that moral law. Both in the OT and in the NT, men are reminded by God to consider the more important part of the law – the moral law of God. Micah 6.6-8 spoke of the priority of justice, mercy, and walking humbly with God. First Samuel 15.22 taught that an obedient heart was more important than rituals. And the Lord taught in Matthew 23.23 that believers need to distinguish between the weightier and the lighter parts of the law. So, the moral law of God is for the NT Christian, according to Kaiser. The division of the law, which sees the civil and ceremonial aspects as reflective of the moral law, is taught by Scripture and must be maintained.[69]
David Lowery writes on the subject of the law as a progressive in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. He says that the OT law was concerned with “doing” while the gospel in the NT is concerned with “believing.” Paul teaches in Romans 10 that the “role and place of the law has been superseded by Christ and the gospel.”[70] The Jews needed to look to Christ for their righteousness rather than to the law. Lowery says that Christ put an end to the law. The law has been abrogated.
Lowery also discusses 2 Corinthians 3 which compares the ministries of the Old and New Covenants. He says that the Mosaic law in its day was glorious, but when Christ came, the focus changed and the ministry of the New Covenant is seen to be more glorious.[71]
Kaiser and Lowery disagree on role of the law in the life of the NT believer. Kaiser says the moral law of God is eternal because it is based on the eternal character of God. Lowery says the law has ended because Christ is the focus rather than the law. Kaiser and Lowery disagree on the relationship between the law and the gospel. Kaiser says the law is a guide to promote holiness in one that has received the gospel. Obedience to the law is living by faith. Lowery says that the person that obeyed the law would live.[72] But since Christ has come, men are to believe in the gospel rather than do the works of the law.
Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics is probably the main issue that divides epangelicals from progressives. Kaiser is very careful to articulate the hermeneutics of epangelicalism. He regards the principle of the truth-intention of the author as key feature of promise theology.[73]
The Understanding of the prophets. Kaiser calls 1 Peter 1.10-12 a crux interpretum. There were certainly things that the prophets did not understand as they wrote under inspiration, but what were those things? How one understands this passage determines how one will answer that question. The phrase, “eivj ti,na h' poi/on kairo.n“ in verse 11 means. Many translate it “what person or time.” Kaiser says it is better translated “what or what manner of time.” The issue concerns the function of ti,na. Should ti,na be left alone, or should it modify kairo.n along with poi/on? If ti,na stands alone then it would be rendered, “in reference to whom.” Kaiser cites A. T. Robertson, Blass, DeBrunner, and Funk to support the view that ti,na modifies kairo.n with the resulting translation, “what time.” The first part of the phrase, then, would refer to a fixed period of time, while the second part would refer to “the general character or circumstances of these times.”[74] This would mean that the prophets were seeking the answer to only one question (concerning the time or seasons) rather than two (concerning the person and the time). If Peter wanted to show that the prophets were asking two questions he would have done so with the phrase, “eivj ti,na kai poi/on kairo.n.“[75] Kaiser goes to the OT prophets to show that their prophecies inspired only questions concerning the time, but not the person. Daniel 12.4-13 speaks of Daniel’s response to the prophecy. He asked questions only about the time. Also, in Luke 24.25-27, Jesus rebukes the men on the road to Emmaus because they did not understand the person and work of Christ from the OT prophets. Jesus certainly implied that the person and the work could have and should have been understood from the OT.[76]
According to 1 Peter 1.1-12, the OT prophets knew at least five things. They knew the Messiah, sufferings of the Messiah (v.11), the glories of the Messiah including His reign (v.11), the order of these two (v.11),[77] and that they were serving not only the people of their own day, but also the people in NT times (v.12). But, the prophets did not know the time or the circumstances of the fulfillments of their prophecies.[78] Kaiser concludes that it is proper for interpreters of Scripture to understand the single truth-intention of the human author.[79]
Kaiser speaks of meaning as referents in his chapter on “The Meaning of Meaning in An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics. He says “Meaning as the referent tells what is being spoken about, but meaning as sense tells what is being said about the referent.”[80] Kaiser explains that the God’s intended referents in a given prophecy was never limited to what the human author “saw or meant.”[81] At first glance this sounds as though Kaiser is says that there is a dichotomy between the intention of the divine author and that of the human author. He explains though that the human author had an “adequate understanding of what was intended…even if he lacked a grasp of the details” that would be revealed later as revelation progressed.[82] The details unknown to the human author concerned the subject of which they wrote, rather than the meaning of which they wrote. Kaiser says that the Scripture writers had an adequate rather than a comprehensive understanding of the subject of which they wrote.[83]
Generic Promise and Corporate Solidarity. Kaiser highlights the distinction between prediction and promise. He says that most interpreters consider the word of a prophet to be a prediction. A prediction focuses attention on the word spoken before the event as well as the event that happens at the end. Kaiser says this does not account for what truly is intended by the prophets. Kaisers says that the message of the prophets should be understood as a promise. A promise focuses the attention of the reader on the word spoken before the event, the fulfilling event, as well as the means by which the end event came. It has in view a series of words, results, partial fulfillments, and a climactic fulfillment.[84]
Kaiser rejects the idea of “double fulfillment” or “double meaning.” The terms are often used in order to explain a phenomenon in the Scriptures where a prophecy is said to be fulfilled in more than one way. Kaiser suggests a different way of understanding these phenomena, that of generic promise. It is generic in the sense that the words of the promise speak of the whole of the event at the same time as they speak of each one of the events that are used to usher in the final event. In the words of the promise, the parts are seen as a whole. All of the parts constitute only one idea. This is collective or corporate solidarity. Kaiser gives three things that will identify a generic promise to the interpreter. The first indicator is the presence of collective singular nouns such as “Branch,” “Holy One,” “Seed,” “Antichrist,” and “Day of the Lord.” Each of these terms speaks of people or events that act as partial fulfillments (or, down payments, previews, guarantees) and as the climactic fulfillment concurrently. A second indicator is the use of plural and singular pronouns and Hebrew suffixes changing frequently. This is seen in Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the servant who refers to both Israel and the Messiah who serves Israel. A third indicator is found by using the analogy of antecedent theology. Antecedent theology is found in words used in Scripture after having achieved a technical status, direct quotations from earlier words from God, allusions to earlier words from God, allusions or direct references to particular events that have had or will have special significance, or a reference to the contents of the promises or covenants that God used to reveal His singular promise-plan. With an understanding of generic promise it is possible for the interpreter to comprehend how the prophet was able to see a plurality of referents while still speaking of a singular event. It is as if the prophet were viewing four mountain peaks (partial fulfillments with one climactic fulfillment) without seeing the distance between them.[85]
Darrell Bock has written for the Progessive point of view on the topic of hermeneutics. Bock does not see look for the single truth-intention of the author. He seeks to acknowledge the intent of the human author, but then continue to look for the divine intent, which may exceed that of the human author. He says that it would have been impossible for the prophet to have understood everything about his own prophecy that the NT writers seemed to have understood about his (the OT prophet’s) prophecy. He says that there must be a “clear and definable connection between” the human and divine intention.[86]
Bock says that meaning is determined primarily by the sense. While the sense of a passage does not change, the referent can and often does. The interpreter can know when the referent changes when he examines the passage in its literary context, which, for Bock, is the whole canon and sees a Scripture writer assume a different referent. When a new referent[87] is introduced in the progress of revelation it does not cancel out the original referent.[88]
Concerning the progress of revelation, Bock says that a prophecy cannot be recognized as a prophecy until it is fulfilled. He says that a reader may think that a prophecy is being given, but with the progress of revelation, he later finds out that he misunderstood the meaning of what was written.[89] So, the interpreter should notice what the original author understood of what he was writing and also the details that God revealed through the progress of revelation.[90]
In summary, it has been shown that Kaiser and Bock disagree on the understanding that the writers of Scripture had as they wrote. Another difference is seen in their use of Scripture to interpret Scripture. Kaiser will use only preceding Scripture to interpret any given passage. Bock will use the entire canon (preceding and coming after) to arrive at a complete meaning of the passage. They disagree on the goal of the interpreter to understand authorial intent. Kaiser says there is a single truth-intention of the author, and Bock says that a divine intention may accompany (but not contradict or abandon) a human intention. These disagreements constitute the largest difference between Promise Theology and Progressive Dispensationalism.
Conclusion
Walter Kaiser’s contribution to OT theology and to the continuity/ discontinuity discussion has been helpful. Although many would not agree with all of his conclusions, yet by his voluminous writings with diligent exegesis and synthesis, he presents to today’s theologians a great challenge to rightly divide this Word of truth.
There seem to be many similarities between progressive dispensationalism and promise theology. Yet, at least a few significant differences between the two systems forces us to call them different systems. The study continues.
Bibliography
Bock, Darrell L. “Part 1: Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New.” Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July 1985), 209-224.
Bock, Darrell L. “Part 2: Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New.” Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October 1985), 306-320.
Bahnsen, Greg L., Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G. Strickland, and Willem A. VanGemeren. Five Views on Law and Gospel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.
Bateman, Herbert W., IV, gen. ed. Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr.and Moises Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.
_____. Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.
_____. The Christian and the “Old” Testament. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998.
_____. “The Eschatologicial Hermeneutics of “Epangelicalism”: Promise Theology.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 13:2 (Spring 1970), 19-28.
_____. “God’s Promise Plan and His Gracious Law.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33:3 (September 1990), 289-302.
_____. “Leviticus 18:5 and Paul: Do This and You Shall Live (Eternally?).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 14:1 (Winter 1971), 19-28. 19-28.
_____. “The Old Promise And The New Covenant: Jeremiah 33:31-34.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 15:1 (Winter 1972), 11-23.
_____. “The Promised Land: A Biblical-Historical View.” Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October 1981), 302-311.
_____. Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.
_____. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
_____. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Corporation, 1983.
_____. Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987.
_____. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.
Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg, eds. Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.
Feinberg, John S., ed. Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988.
Poythress, Vern S. Understanding Dispensationalists, 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1994.
Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.
_____. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.
Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
[1] Walter C. Kaiser, “The Theology of the Old Testament” Expositor’s Bible Commentary , ed. F. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 291-292.
[2] Kaiser note that the heritage of the gospel is always in the climactic position in Kaiser, “Theology of the OT” EBC, 293.
[3] Kaiser, “Theology of the OT”, EBC, 292-294.
[4] A further description of Kaiser view of the Mosaic Law is discussed later in this paper.
[5] Ibid., 294-296.
[6] Ibid., 297.
[7] Deuteronomy 28.65 speaks of how Israel’s disobedience denied them the rest for their soul and heart.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] The strange Hebrew grammar is contained in the phrase, “who are like your people, like Israel, one nation in the earth whom Yahweh have gone [sic] to redeem…” as Kaiser quotes it. Ibid., 298.
[11] Ibid., 299.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Kaiser lists these cases: Deuteronomy 4.10; 5.26; 6.2, 13, 24,; 8.6; 10.12, 20; 13.4; 14.23; 17.19; 28.58; 31.12-13.
[14] Ibid., 300.
[15] Kaiser says, “as the Mosaic law presumed and built upon the partiarchal promise, so Solomonic wisdom likewise presupposed both Abrahamic-Davidic promise and Mosaic law” in Walter C. Kaiser, Toward and Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978),46.
[16] Kaiser, “Theology of the OT” EBC, 301.
[17] Ibid, 302.
[18] Kaiser points out that the plural forms referring to Israel are used after chapter 53. The collective singular form referring to Israel is seen in 41.8-9; 42.19; 43.9; 44.1-2, 21; 45.4; 48.20, and 49.3. See Ibid., 302.
[19] Ibid., 302-303.
[20] Deuteronomy 6.6-7 spoke of commandments being on their hearts.
[21] Genesis 17.17 and Exodus 6.7 speak of God’s promise to be their God and for them to be His people.
[22] Exodus 29.45-46 contains God’s promise that “they shall know that I am the Lord their God…that I dwell among them.”
[23] Exodus 34.6-7 spoke of the Lord who is “forgiving iniquity and transgressions and sin.”
[24] Kaiser, Toward OT Theology, 234.
[25] Kaiser, “The Theology of the OT” EBC, 303-305.
[26] Walter C. Kaiser, The Christian and “Old” Testament (Pasedena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998), 275.
[27] Ibid., 274-5. See also Walter C. Kaiser, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 221-224.
[28] Kaiser, Christian, 275.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 91.
[31] Kaiser, Christian, 275.
[32] Kaiser, Rediscovering, 90.
[33] Kaiser, Toward OT Theology, 100.
[34] Ibid., 101.
[35] Ibid., 102.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid., 103.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid., 103-4.
[40] Ibid., 105.
[41] Ibid, 109.
[42] Ibid., 110.
[43] Ibid., 111.
[44] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispesastionalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992),373.
[45] Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Zonderan Publishing House, 1993), 192.
[46] Saucy says that “Paul intended the most comprehensive meaning of the inheritance” including salvation, glory, redemption, the kingdom, etc. Ibid., 156.
[47] Ibid, 155-157.
[48] Ibid., 164.
[49] Saucy says his understanding differs from traditionals when he says that “the church is involved in the fulfillment of the messianic promises of the Old Testament” although it is “in a way not clearly seen in the Old Testament.” Ibid., 165.
[50] Blaising, Dispensationalism, Israel, 367.
[51] Ibid, 369.
[52] In Kaiser’s response to Saucy’s chapter on “The Church as the Mystery of God,” he claims that he and Saucy have “a large amount of agreement” on the issue. Kaiser is disappointed when Saucy says that Ephesians 3.5 is contrastive rather than comparative. Kaiser says the Saucy seems to be inconsistent with himself. The difference that Kaiser sees between himself and Saucy seems to be trivial. When Saucy says, “it was not known previously as is now revealed” (147), the amount that he says was “not known previously” would probably be about the same as what Kaiser would say was “unknown.” Kaiser has not addressed the issue thoroughly, so his ideas of what was “unknown” cannot be known. Ibid., 373.
[53] Kaiser, Toward OT Theology, 264 and Blaising, Dispensationalism, Israel, 370.
[54] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, reprint (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 258.
[55] Kaiser, Rediscovering, 84.
[56] Ibid., 93.
[57] Ibid., 89.
[58] Ibid., 88.
[59] Ibid., 94.
[60] Ibid., 85.
[61] Kaiser, Toward OT Theology, 35.
[62] Blaising, Dispensation, Israel, 305-306.
[63] Kaiser quoting Beecher, in Kaiser, Rediscovering, 88.
[64] The person having no good works (indicating that he has no faith) would also forfeit his right to participate in the benefits of the promise. Kaiser, Christian, 73.
[65] Kaiser, Christian, 74. Kaiser says that the apparent dilemma between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic Covenants is similar to the one between the books of Romans (man is justified by faith) and James (man is justified by works).
[66] Walter C. Kaiser, “Leviticus 18:5 and Paul: Do This and You Shall Live (Eternally?)” JETS 14:1 (Winter, 1971), 23.
[67] Kaiser, Christian, 75-76.
[68] The passage begins and ends with the phrase, “I am the Lord your God.” See Kaiser, “Leviticus 18.5,” 24.
[69] Greg L. Bahnsen, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G. Strickland, and Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 194-198.
[70] Blaising, Dispensationalism, Israel, 238.
[71] Ibid., 238-9.
[72] Lowery says this is a hypothetical offer of salvation. Lowery admits though, that no one would ever be able to obey the law completely and thereby receive salvation. Ibid., 239.
[73] Walter C. Kaiser, “The Eschatological Hermeneutics of ‘Epangelicalism’: Promise Theology,” JETS 13:2 (Spring 1970), 92-93.
[74] Ibid., 94-95.
[75] Walter C. Kaiser, Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 139.
[76] Kaiser, “Hermeneutics,” 95.
[77] “the glory that should follow.”
[78] Kaiser, Back Toward the Future, 24.
[79] Kaiser, “Hermeneutics,” 95.
[80] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 35.
[81] Ibid., 41.
[82] Ibid.
[83] Kaiser, Uses of the OT, 21.
[84] Ibid., 61-62.
[85] Ibid., 69-71.
[86] Darrell L. Bock, “Part 2: Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New,” Bsac 142:567 (July 1985), 308.
[87] Bock might perhaps say that the referent “expands” rather than changes. He asks whether or not a “heavenly” referent for Psalms 2 and 110 as seen in the NT cancels out the “earthly” referent, which was the original referent. This question indicates that he views two different referents. See Ibid., 309. At other times Bock speaks of the “development of meaning,” “fresh associations,” and “additional connections” which would indicate that the meaning changes, but not necessarily the referent. It was noted above that he views the meaning as being primarily in the sense of the passage. See Herbert W. Bateman, IV, general ed., Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 90.
[88] Bock, “Part 2: Evangelicals,” 309.
[89] Ibid., 311-312.
[90] Ibid., 316.
