Rethinking the Israel of God by Hans LaRondelle 2

Koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Department of Liberal Arts Education

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

When I undertake this comparative criticism of LaRondelle’s orientation, I try to take off my shoes for this great experienced scholar. He knew Christ in the fullest sense of the word and my writing cannot dent his relationship and status with Christ and in Christ. The following thoughts are for the sake of us staying behind after his sudden death. The purpose is to set the stage for a stable consistent exegesis of the Bible without bringing development into the picture, a frame that was also outlined by Eichrodt and thus a very slight  Eichrodtian influence on Adventist scholars.

You can be sure when Christ walked with Adam and Eve and even after the Fall, His meeting with them, that He has explained the plan of salvation with the typology of the sanctuary, its relation to the Law of God, Atonement in all its phases, the Messianic role, the outline of eschatology in its fullest detail. There is possibly one point that Christ would have withheld from Adam and Eve and that is the timing of these events; meaning, the exact date these events will occur. The reason is that no-one would be inspired if they know that there is still 6000 years to the turn of events towards a recreation of the Paradise. They all had in the pre-Flood situation a full picture of eschatology in all its forms. As centuries passed, there was a continuous understanding with the faithful like Abel, Adam, Henoch and Noah about these matters, but closer to 2523 BCE, the year of the Flood, people degraded to maximum proportions. Not a development, but a deterioration took place. Knowledge of the Words of God decrease and they began to mock eschatology. When Noah mentioned that Methusalah’s name “when he dies it comes” is relevant, the people mocked and laughed. They used uniformatism as an excuse for their mockery.

It appears as if a Book of Adam and a Book of Noah served Moses well in his writing of the book of Genesis (5:1 and 6:9). The Holy Spirit thought it well to allow Moses only to cite minutely from both these books and there is a reason: post-Flood conditions were majorly different than pre-Flood conditions. The climate and human gene make-up of pre-Flood periods allowed them to live almost a millennium, like Adam.

The interesting thing is about LaRondelle in his book of The Israel of God in Prophecy 1983, is that he also mention the early presence of eschatology already in the Garden of Eden (See for example his comment: “From the start, Israel’s faith in Yahweh as sovereign of history contained a fundamental hope for the future [Genesis 3:15; 12:2-3]”). LaRondelle put it properly in similar thought than this reviewer, “This hope was concentrated, not on national exaltation and material prosperity as such, but on the coming presence of God in glory among Israel (Isaiah 40:5) and on His final intervention to restore paradise lost for His people and for the whole earth (Isaiah 2; 9; 11; 52; Psalms 2; 46; 48; 72)” (LaRondelle 1983: 35). In this setting LaRondelle acknowledge the principle of consistent eschatology in both Testaments. Isaiah is not speaking of national restoration in any of its periods in history, he is talking about Paradise restoration. LaRondelle is supportingly correct.

The universalism principle was upheld for LaRondelle when he said that in Israel’s communal worship they sang to God as Savior of Hope of the world and not just geo-ethnic Israel (citing Psalm 65:5; Deuteronomy 7:9-10; Isaiah 2:1-4, see LaRondelle 1983: 35). Supportingly correct.

In the chapter of Typological Interpretation (chapter 4 pages 35-59) LaRondelle wants to outline the meaning of typological interpretation as distinguished from grammatical-historical interpretation and allegorical interpretation. “Grammatical-historical exegesis focuses exclusively on one period of time as the context of Scripture” (LaRondelle 1983: 35). In order to explain this situation, he said “the meaning of single events can often be fully understood only in the light of their consequences in later history” (ibid). It is here that LaRondelle hooks the type to the event. Something happen or a person existed in the Old Testament but as a kind of prefiguring of the Messiah or the role of the Messiah.

We must remember that Herman Ridderbos and other scholars of the Reformed tradition, as examples, have maintained the preteristic meaning of the event or person in a grammatical-historical context but then with typology pulled the person to be an embodiment of future Messianic acts. The link between preterism and the coming Messiah is made by typology.

Grammatical-historical exegesis and Grammatical-HISTORICAL exegesis.

We have to capitalize Historical to distinguish between minimalist view and maximalist view. Adventists accepts the grammatical-historical exegesis when the context clearly calls for it. In prophecy it is a problem to use this method. LaRondelle put it very well “it must be asked, however, whether the meaning of an Old Testament event or prophecy can be determined fully by the original historical situation” (ibid). The answer is, unless clear historical data is supplied in the pericope it is not mandatory to force a historical context, putative even, on the prophetic text. To frame history over a prophetic passage and force it to align with thoughts of that frame was done by many preteristic scholars and can be clearly seen in the commentary of S. R. Driver on Isaiah. Postitively, now and then he admits that a pericope cannot make sense in the historical frame of that time. Prophetic interpretation prefers the grammatical-HISTORICAL exegesis since it focuses on history between eternity past and eternity to come.

LaRondelle uses C. T. Fritsch 1947 definition of typology “a type is an institution, historical event, or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected to Christianity” (LaRondelle 1983: 36). LaRondelle comments on Fritsch by saying “this theological definition draws a clear line of demarcation between typology and allegory in that biblical types are not fictitious, but real and meaningful in Israel’s salvation history e.g. the sanctuary, the exodus, Abraham, and others” (LaRondelle 1983: 37). “An Old Testament institution, event, or person only becomes a clear and understandable type in the light of Christ and His covenant people as the antitype. This conclusion exposes the dispensational compartimentalizing of Israel and the Church as forced literalism” (ibid).

The developmental remains can be seen in his words “The New Testament is a living continuation and completion of the Hebrew Scriptures” (ibid). There is nothing wrong with this sentence of LaRondelle except that he does make Jesus transform Old Testament passages [as if its original application is cancelled and hijacked by Christ] and applied to Himself. If that is what completion in the sentence means, then one has to reconsider.

The case of Psalm 37

“Clearly, Christ applies Psalm 37 in a new surprising way: (1) This “land” will be larger than David thought; the fulfillment will include the entire earth in its recreated beauty (see Isaiah 11:6-9; Revelation 21-22). (2) The renewed earth will be the inheritance of all the meek from all nations who accept Christ as Lord and Savior” (LaRondelle 1983: 138).

In LaRondelle’s thinking we have here the principle of 0.5 in the Old Testament is made by Christ 0.5 + Isaiah 11’s 0.5 plus other texts’ 0.5 + some more Old Testament texts’ 0.5 = New Testament holistic earth or 2. LaRondelle interpreted that David in Psalm 37 understood only 0.5 and meant only 0.5 but Christ took these words of David and transformed them into an application of plusses that equals eventually the holistic world view of 2.

Psalm 37 close literal reading

One should not apply grammatical-historical exegesis to Psalm 37 since it is filled with eschatology from A to Z. It demands that we apply grammatical-HISTORICAL exegesis and this is why. Three times explicitly David outlines the final good of the righteous regarding the inheritance of land (v. 9b; 22a; 29a). There is also an indirect reference to land in verse 18. A maximalist view of history is necessary here since this kind of history is the one that exists between eternity past and eternity to come. David has the eschaton in mind since the wicked will be no more (verse 10). This is an absolute phrase that does not fit in present history between the two eternities. Only when evil is eradicated in the Hell the wicked will be no more. The term used in Psalm 37 is not land (ges) but earth (eretz).

Let’s wrap it up: Christ did not use Psalm in a surprising way that David did not understood. David understood it the same way as Christ, 2 for the Old Testament matching 2 for the New Testament. The maximalist view of David matches the maximalist view of Isaiah and Christ. It is possible that LaRondelle relied on the classnotes of his teacher Herman Ridderbos here for this conclusion. Says LaRondelle “Christ is definitely not spiritualizing away Israel’s territorial promise when He includes His universal Church. On the contrary, He widened the scope of the territory until it extended to the whole world” (LaRondelle 1983: 138). Actually, David also understood it to be the whole earth (eretz as opposed to ges) since the wicked will be cut off and be no more. Thus, Christ did not maximize the minimalist view of David. David never had a minimalist view in the first place. Christ did not transform the Old Testament into something deviating from what He and the Holy Spirit designed in the first instance with David. He brought out what He put in previously with David. It is the same with Paul’s exegesis of the Old Testament.  

It is this little orientation difference that makes me take off my shoes in the presence of our great teacher of Andrews University and beg for a different orientation that does not allow for a development of doctrine between the Testaments in an Eichrodtian way but a bringing out of what is embedded there already.