Everlasting Promises

In the Old Testament everlasting promises were made to Abraham and this is what Dispensationalism has used to confuse some people. God promised that there would not fail a king upon David’s throne forever and this has been fulfilled in Christ.

We know that this “forever” is fulfilled in Christ’s reign on the throne of David. We know that Jesus is the seed of David in whom this promise is fulfilled. So this everlasting or eternal promise has been fulfilled in Christ and God’s word to David has not fallen to the ground.

Similarly, when God promised the land to Israel “forever” in Psalm 105, this also is fulfilled in Christ. This is what the book of Hebrews sets out to explain. Why should we say that the promise to David was fulfilled in Christ, but the promise of the land is not fulfilled in Christ? We agree that the promise of the land was an everlasting covenant, just as the promise to David of a king was everlasting.

Everlasting describes a covenant begun in Israel by figure and type and fulfilled in Christ (Ezek 37:26). For example, Abraham’s descendants were to keep the everlasting covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:13). This was given before the law, but we know it was a shadow fulfilled and ceased in Christ (Gal 6:15).

Everlasting is also used of the Aaronic priesthood, a covenant to “all generations”, a phrase similar to that used in Psalm 105 regarding the land. The Aaronic/Levitical priesthood is fulfilled and ceased in Christ (Ex 40:15). The Day of Atonement was an everlasting statute and the book of Hebrews says it is fulfilled and the ceremony is ceased in Christ (Lev 16:34).

If we say everlasting can only be fulfilled in Palestine, then how does Israel being out of the land for the last 2,000 years work? If we are literalists we have a problem here. Also, if we say that everlasting for the land refers to Palestine, then it must also refer to Aaron, to the Day of Atonement and to the whole Law of Moses. This is the quagmire of Dispensationalism.

Psalm 105 says that God fulfilled His promise bringing Israel out of Egypt into the land, “That they might observe His statutes and keep His laws.” (vs. 45).

Deuteronomy states that Israel’s occupancy of the land depended on this obedience. The promise concerning Palestine was conditional and was put aside (Heb 8:13).

Psalm 105 is a depiction of the types of Christ. Moses and Joseph are spoken of. 1st Corinthians 10 shows Moses was a type of Christ. The Psalm, therefore, has a shadow meaning, which is fulfilled in Christ, God’s true Israel. In Him His promises are yes and amen. The oath to Abraham is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is what the Psalms in general depict. This was Stephen’s whole point to Israel in Acts 7.

The lament of John Gerstner locates Dispensationalist thought well: “This certainly does make it hard on the Jews! When they might have had a glorious piece of real estate on the Mediterranean, all they end up with under this interpretation is Christ.” (in Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth). “All they get is Christ!” Is this how Dispensationalism views Christ?

Concerning a future return of Israel to Palestine, Stephen Sizer claims “Nowhere, however, is a third re-gathering to the land explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Each passage quoted by Scofield or (Hal) Lindsey refers either to the first or second re-gathering to the land (from Egypt and Babylon), or, as in Amos 9, to Pentecost.” (in Christian Zionism). This statement would be difficult to refute using biblical hermeneutics.

Sizer concludes on the theology of Christian Zionism, that in it: the promises of blessings are isolated from their covenantal context; the interpretation of scripture by Jesus and the apostles is ignored and; the sacralising of Zionism ultimately subordinates the cross.