We have been seeking to see how the New Testament Scriptures interpret Old Testament kingdom prophecies. Does the New Testament interpret the Old Testament as “literal,” meaning using “natural” language, or does the New Testament spiritualize the Old Testament kingdom promises? We have been testing one of the basic hermeneutical principles of Dispensational theology called the “literal, grammatical, historical,” method of interpretation. In this method, every word is understood in its literal or natural meaning. The word “man” means a real man, and the word “lion” means a real four legged lion, house means house, etc. NCT will agree we should use this method when interpreting books like Romans and the gospel of John but not when interpreting symbolic books like the Song of Solomon or the book of Revelation. All agree that the context will force a symbolic interpretation of some texts. In a previous chapter we demonstrated this with the following texts from Psalm 22 and Isaiah 11.

Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion…For dogs have compassed me … Psalm 22:12, 13 &16. 

No one would insist that four legged bulls, four legged dogs and four legged roaring lions were gathered around the cross. The text is describing, in symbolic language, two legged men who were acting like mad bulls, furious lions and barking dogs. All interpreters, including the most die -hard Dispensationalists, will agree that such an interpretation of Psalm 22 is “obvious” and clearly demonstrated by the context. The language in these texts cannot be taken in a “literal, grammatical, historical” sense. They must be understood symbolically. The problem arises when there are texts where it is just as “obvious,” at least to me, that should be taken symbolically but the Dispensationalist says, “No, no, we must take the Bible literally. We must be consistent with the ‘literal, grammatical, historical’ hermeneutic.” An example of this is a text like Isaiah 11:6, 7. In this text we are told that the word lion must be taken literally instead of symbolically as in Psalm 22.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young 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 straw like the ox. Isa.11:6, 7.

The vital question is what rule of hermeneutics says “roaring lion” in Psalm 22 is symbolic; it means a man is acting like a wild animal, but the same word in Isaiah 11 must be taken literally and means a four legged animal acting totally contrary to his nature. What makes it “obvious” that Psalm 22 is to be understood symbolically but Isaiah 11 is to be understood literally, meaning in “natural” language?

Again, all agree that the context in Isaiah 11 is talking about the “kingdom” Christ would establish. The question is whether it is describing the present spiritual kingdom that he established at his first coming or the so-called future earthly “millennial” kingdom taught by Dispsationalism. Is Isaiah 11 describing a present spiritual kingdom or is it describing a literal physical millennial kingdom in the future at the second coming as the Dispensationalist insists.

I agree that Isaiah 11 does not clearly resolve the problem since the context does not absolutely prove that the lions and lambs must be four legged or two legged. Let’s look at two Old Testament kingdom prophesies that are interpreted for us with New Testament apostolic authority and see how New Covenant apostles interpreted Old Testament prophecies concerning the kingdom. The first passage is Jeremiah 31:31-34.

31  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.  Jeremiah 31:31-34.

This prophecy is predicting a new covenant replacing the old covenant made at Sinai. The prophecy is very clear that the new covenant will be made with the “house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” It is said to be made with the children of the Israelites who were redeemed out of Egypt as recorded in the book of Exodus. The essence of the promised covenant literally guarantees the full salvation of the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. Any honest literal interpretation of these words, taken by themselves, demands a new covenant being made with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah whereby every member of the house of Israel and the house of Judah would be regenerated and justified. If the “literal, historical and grammatical” hermeneutic is correct, then the Dispensationalist is correct in his understanding of the animals in Isaiah 11. The new covenant, as promised in Jeremiah 31, beyond question guarantees the future salvation of Israel. The “literal, grammatical and historical” hermeneutic demands this understanding. The problem is that such an idea cannot be made to agree with the New Testament. The New Testament is quite clear that the new covenant promised in Jeremiah has nothing to do with a future conversion of Israel. The new covenant is already fulfilled. According to both Jesus and the apostles, the promised new covenant in Jeremiah 31 is made with the church, not with Israel. The New Testament “spiritualizes” the “house of Israel” in Jeremiah 31 to mean the church. Notice that our Lord’s understanding of the prophecy of the new covenant states it is made with the church, not with Israel. 

23  For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24  And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament [NIV, covenant] in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.  1 Cor. 11:23-26.

The new covenant established by our Lord has nothing to do with either Israel’s future conversion or their restoration to the Holy Land. It has to do with his atoning sacrifice on the cross for the elect or the church. Neither Israel nor the land is mentioned in this passage. It is clear that our Lord spiritualized Jeremiah 31 and applied the promise of the new covenant to the church for which he shed his blood. Some Dispensationalists, seeking to explain the obvious problem with their understanding of the new covenant, have said there are two new covenants, one for Israel, which is still future, and another one for Gentiles which is present. It is impossible to get any such idea into the texts. Just as Jeremiah 31:31-34 would need a “literal” physical kingdom to fulfill it if the “literal, historical, grammatical” hermeneutic was correct, so our Lord’s words when instituting the Lord’s Supper demands the new covenant must be spiritualized to apply to the church and the kingdom of grace. You cannot demand a “literal” fulfillment of the promise in Jeremiah 31 and then “spiritualize” the New Testament interpretation of the same text. 

It is obvious that our Lord did not follow a “literal, historical, grammatical” interpretation of the old covenant promise of a new covenant. The choice is not “spiritualize” versus “total literal.” Everyone does both. The question is who or what establishes the reason that lion must be symbolized in Psalm 22 and taken literally in Isaiah 11. The Dispensationalist, in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:23-26; Heb. 8 and 10), takes Jeremiah literally and spiritualizes the New Testament interpretation of it. The non-Dispensationalist does the opposite. He takes the New Testament interpretation of Jeremiah as a literal spiritual interpretation of Jeremiah 31. We will admit without question that if Jeremiah 31 was the only Scripture text to speak of a new covenant, we would agree that the new covenant is made with the nation of Israel and has not yet been fulfilled. However, both our Lord and his apostles (1 Cor. 11:23-26; Heb. 8 and 10) make it abundantly clear that the new covenant is made with the church and the kingdom promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 is already fulfilled. This is one of the many examples of how NCT is radically different in its insistence that the New Testament must interpret the Old Testament. 

Look at how the writer of the book of Hebrews understood the promise of the new covenant given in Jeremiah 31. After quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 10:16-18, the writer applies the truths of the new covenant blessing of access into God’s presence. He is talking about the new covenant blessing of entering into the most holy place with assurance because we are robed in the righteousness of Christ. Christ is the true high priest over God’s true redeemed house. The priest he is talking about is Christ and the house of God over which this priest reigns is the church. Read the words carefully and see if the writer of Hebrews “literalizes” the Jeremiah passage or “spiritualizes” it. See if he is talking about something future or something in the present, talking about the church for which Christ died or something in the future pertaining to Israel and the land. Does the writer to the Hebrews literalize or spiritualize Jeremiah 31:31-34?

15  Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18  Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19  Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20  By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21  And having an high priest over the house of God;

22  Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.  Hebrews 10:15-22. 

The second kingdom prophecy we want to look at is Joel 2:28-32.

28  And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

29  And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

30  And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

31  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.

32  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

The kingdom promise made in Joel 2:28-32 is a passage that will test your consistency in your hermeneutics. How much of this prophecy should we take “literally” and how much should we “spiritualize”? How much of the prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost and how much awaits a future fulfillment? The first question that must be asked is simple and, if we really believe the Old Testament must be interpreted with the New Testament, is clearly answered in Acts in Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost. Peter tells us how to understand Joel 2:28-32.

12  And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13  Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

14  But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15  For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16  But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18  And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19  And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.  Acts 2:12-21.

When the crowd heard many different tongues being spoken, some accused the speakers of being drunk. They asked, “What does this mean?” Peter assured them the men speaking were not drunk. He told them the things they were seeing were evidence that Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled. The kingdom  God had promised had come. The events of Pentecost proved it. Peter declared, “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” Peter definitely saw the events of Pentecost as fulfilling the prophecy of Joel. The kingdom Joel foretold was coming had come. Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. Dispensationalism, in order to be consistent, must take Joel’s words “literally” but cannot take Peter’s words literally. This is obviously a real problem. One way out of their dilemma is to deny that Pentecost is a real fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Instead of taking Peter “literally,” they make Peter’s words to mean the events of Pentecost are only a type, a fore-shadowing of a future event. Peter is not saying Joel’s prophecy is “literally” fulfilled, he is only saying it is kind of a foretaste, or type, of the real thing. An example of this view is found in the comments in John MacArthur’s Study Bible in his introduction to the book of Joel.

A second issue confronting the interpreter is Peter’s quotation from Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21. Some have viewed the phenomena of Acts 2 and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as the fulfillment of the Joel passage, while others have reserved its fulfillment to the final Day of the Lord only⎯but clearly Joel is referring to the terrible Day of the Lord. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is not a fulfillment, but a preview and sample of the Spirit’s power and work, to be released fully and finally in the Messiah’s kingdom after the Day of the Lord” (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1268).

I will leave it to the reader to decide whether the words “this is that” really means Pentecost is the fulfillment of Joel’s kingdom prophecy or if those words are only “a preview and sample” of that kingdom. Do we take Joel literally, and be consistent with the “literal” hermeneutic of Dispensationalism and symbolize Peter’s interpretation of Joel, or do we symbolize Joel and take Peter’s “this is that” literally? It seems strange to me that militant defenders of a literal interpretation of Joel’s Old Testament kingdom prophecy are forced to spiritualize a New Testament writer’s interpretation of that same Old Testament prophecy. 

I doubt my book will persuade any Dispensationalist to change their view. I do hope some people who act like Dispensationalists are the only people who really believe in verbal (in their minds meaning “literal”) inspiration will realize that is not true. Non-Dispensationalists, including A-mils, are just as deeply committed to the full verbal inspiration of the Scriptures as the Pre-mils. Likewise, I hope others will see that our Dispensational brethren are just as committed heart and soul to Scripture as their sole rule of life and theology as we non-Dispensationalists are. Regardless, it seems obvious to me that Peter’s words, “this is that,” really means “this is that.” Peter is declaring the kingdom promised in Joel has been fulfilled. The New Testament is clearly spiritualizing an Old Testament kingdom promise. The promised new covenant has been established.  

One last word. I want to emphasize again my deep conviction that the New Testament Scriptures must interpret the Old Testament Scriptures. We must use Hebrews and I Corinthians to interpret the book of Joel. We do not form a “literal” interpretation of Joel 2:28-32, and other kingdom passages in the Old Testament, and force that understanding into the New Testament. We must make Joel fit into Hebrews; we do not fit Hebrews into Joel. We must let the New Testament interpret the Old Testament. When we use this new covenant principle of interpretation we will discover that “this is that” means the writer is clearly spiritualizing an Old Testament kingdom prophecy.