Disingenuousness and “Expansion” Language

Previous installment

This reposts an essay from ten years or so ago.

A Plea For Plain-Speaking

I am considering this matter of plain speaking in theological discourse, and have noted my dislike of those views which put something in a such way that it is easy to mistake the intentions.  We are used to being given the run-around by the Cults – for they deal in duplicity – but evangelical brothers and sisters can do this sort of thing too.  I only wish to issue a plea for plain-speaking.

Any “liberal” scholar will attest to the fact that the Four Gospels report that Jesus performed many miracles.  They admit this because the texts of the Gospels SAY SO.  Then they proceed to undermine the reliability of these reports so as to disbelieve what they know the Evangelists say.  There are assumptions that get in the way: the laws of nature (so-called); Hume’s and Kant’s critiques; ideas about the overlay of myths, etc.  And while we strongly repudiate the fallacies which inhere in these liberal assumptions, at least they tell us what the text is saying!  There is little prevarication about the wording of the text.  At least we can agree on that!

Sad to say, it is not always so easy when one is dealing with supercessionists.  Although they are not all guilty of it, many of them – in both Reformed and Non-Reformed camps – are hard to deal with when it comes to admitting what many prophetic and salvation texts say.

But my “gripe” here is with what I really see as disingenuousness in modern “replacement” theology [how they dislike that term.  But I do not use it pejoratively].

“Expansion” or Something Else?

As I pinpointed towards the end of my last post, those who nowadays like to talk so smoothly about the “expansion” of Israel’s promises in the OT exemplify what I am on about.  Consider this:

In my view, these land promises [in the OT] will yet be fulfilled, only more so. That is, the land has been expanded to the whole earth, and Israel has been expanded from merely the ethnic descendants (while not excluding an ethnic remnant, even as is so today) to include spiritual descendants as well. (Although I do think Romans 11 makes it clear that a time will come when the Gentiles largely reject the gospel, only for it to return to many of those who self-identify as Jews.)

This snippet came as a response to a question about what Genesis 15:8-21  and Jeremiah 33:14-26 say.  Please read the above quotation carefully and compare it with the two OT passages.  What this person asserts has the result of the specific land promised to a specific ethnic group being transformed into a non-specific land (the whole earth) given to a homogenous multi-ethnic “spiritual Israel.”  And this is quite a restrained example.  At least this individual believes (or says he believes, one would have to press him further on this) that the “land” is literal land on this earth.  Now this would be what one could call an “expansion,” but only as long as the party being promised is the party receiving the promise!

That, of course, is always where the problem lies.  And that is precisely why this “expansion” language, if it were true, would have misled many of God’s people.  God would be promising literal land to the ethnic descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (even going so far as to designate Israel as “Jacob”  – Isa. 27:6; 43:1, 22; Psa. 135:4), when, in reality, He would know that He wasn’t making the promises with those whom He was speaking to but to the Church.  (We shall see in the next post that this has serious ramifications for the Doctrine of God!).

But most will go further than this and say that the “land” is not any physical geographical location at all.  It is heaven.  Very often Hebrews 11:10, 14-16; 12:22 are trotted out to “prove” this.  Of course, Abraham himself was told directly that he would not inherit the land himself, but his descendents would.  The reference in 12:22 is a contrast with Mt. Sinai, not with the Promised Land.  That fact should alert us to possible wrong applications.  It is a difficult passage, but it should not be interpreted as saying that we all finally spend eternity in Heaven.  As commonplace as that belief is, it is not supported in the Bible (cf. e.g., Rev. 21:2-3, 10, 24).

There are some, like Hoekema, who teach that these promises will be realized upon the new earth.  But they only get there by turning ethnic Israel into the Church (or the other way round, which is the same thing), and rejecting plain-sense interpretations of OT covenants in context.

False Analogies

A common approach is to use analogies.  So Robert Strimple, for example, spins a yarn about a father who promises his son some “wheels” and when the time comes around the father presents the young man with a Ferrari!  (See Strimple’s essay on “Amillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, edited by Darrell L. Bock, 99-100).

But this is not an altogether reputable move; for in the story the father (apart from lacking common sense!) promises, not a bicycle or moped, but “wheels.”  The son’s expectations might very well have been much lower than a Ferrari.  But he did get what was promised, not something else (like a yacht  – no wheels!).  That could rightly be termed an “expansion.”  Furthermore, the one to whom the promise was made was the one who received the prize.

So what Strimple’s example ends up doing is actually reinforcing the importance of keeping one’s promise to the one to whom it is made!  If he had been more forthcoming, Strimple would have had another young man receiving a yacht or a home, or something without wheels, while the son would have gotten Nada!

Thus, the true analogy shows up the deceptiveness, not just of the father in the story, but, alas, the one who used a false analogy!  This is not “expansion.”  This is wholesale alteration.

Expansion normally involves making one state of affairs extend to become an enlarged version of the same thing.  Thus, a business expands, not by changing into another business, but by growing in its production and market share, and/or moving into other areas of output.   It is still the same business, but it has grown (it may eventually morph out of its original aims into something else, but this is admitted to be a “change” or “transformation” into something new).

Similarly, when Persia or Greece or Rome expanded their empires, they did not cease to be what they were and become something else.  But their empires and influence and power grew.

In Scripture itself one recognizes the same pattern.  The “rock cut out without hands” in Daniel 2 expands to cover the whole earth.  It is the same rock.  It is the same Person (Christ in His reign).

Two Psalms

“My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of my lips” – Psalm 89:34

In context this unalterable word refers to the Davidic covenant.  Here is an even clearer statement:

“O seed of Abraham His servant, You children of Jacob, His chosen ones!  He is the LORD [YHWH] our God… He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, and confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant, saying, ‘To you I will give the land of Canaan as the allotment of your inheritance…’” – Psalm 105:6-11.

But according to our supercessionist friends this “covenant” is fulfilled by Christ and those “in Christ.”  Therefore, the “land of Canaan” which God took an oath to give to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, will not be given to them “forever.”  In fact, they have no claim to the land even now!  God’s oath, according to supercessionists, does not mean what it says.

“Ah, but it means more!” comes the reply.  Not to literal Israel it doesn’t.  And if it meant more why didn’t God say that?  Why would He use language calculated to mislead His people?   Some of the brethren evidence a strange resistance to words like “change” or “alteration” when it comes to God’s promises.  The question is, “Why?”  And what does this mean in the way one thinks about God?

That will be the burden of the next post...

Disingenuousness and the Problem of the Obvious

I’m going to repost a group of articles I wrote years ago about the God of Supersessionism. I have been having fun lately on ‘X’ with people who want to correct me on my view of the covenants with the usual fodder of ‘the NT reinterprets the OT.’ One of these individuals informed me the “the Covenant” in Genesis 1-3 was plainly in view. When I asked him (repeatedly) to show me this “covenant” he implied I needed to receive the Spirit! Another gentleman who claimed the NT is required to understand the OT was challenged with the five covenants God mentions in Jer. 33. His response was to close the conversation down. Finally, a lady who thought to straighten me out asserted that “the only everlasting covenant is the new covenant.” To which I cited Psalm 105:8-11. Quite undaunted by what the Bible says, this woman rode roughshod right over the passage as if it wasn’t there.

What experiences like these tell me is that supersessionist hermeneutics basically destroys the verbal testimony of the OT. None of the above antagonists, and there are many like them, had any trouble with completely ignoring OT passages which contradicted them in favor of their chosen NT “interpretations” (you know, the usual ones). The bottom line is, this approach to the OT leaves these people with less than half a Bible, and they are perfectly happy with it. The OT is just a repository of illustrations for their interpretations of the NT. And God, well, He becomes One whose words cannot be trusted as they are written. He becomes disingenuous. Read on…

1. One of the things I tell my students at TELOS Institute is that “God means what He says, and so should we!”  I mean that we should never give in to the temptation to paper over problems in our theology, still less to pretend certain “problem texts” aren’t there and then talk as if they weren’t there!  We must go to work on the texts, not shut them out by spinning theological yarns.  We don’t want to be disingenuous with the Bible or parts of the Bible.

All the Bible is equally the Word of God.  No passage or Book or Testament has automatic veto over another.  Scripture is not an obfuscation but a revelation.  It is not written in an esoteric code that only the privileged few can decipher.  It possesses the quality of clarity, even when sometimes a lot more than a cursory reading is needed to procure the message.

2. It is an odd phenomenon that in our world someone can claim all sorts of things which sound quite plausible, but which, as a matter of fact, only preserve their appearance of plausibility by passing over very blunt facts which would soon have them plugging the leeks in their outlook, were it not for the fact that they can imagine these rude truths away.

Thus, a person who says there is no such thing as truth ignores the plain “truth” that they have just contradicted their own truth claim.  In similar fashion, a person who rejects the correspondence view of truth for the coherence theory conveniently ignores the fact that the correspondence view can be held very coherently – and so should be accepted as the grounds for any coherence theory.  This curious circumstance can be caught in the phrase, “If I don’t like it, it isn’t true!”  The imagination then is soon in full swing to provide the preferred interpretation of the world.

Like I say, we encounter this attitude everywhere.  An evolutionist says that life has meaning without God, even though it’s all a huge cosmic accident; a devotee of Krishna begs for money from others he claims aren’t really “there”; the philosophy student looks with disdain upon those peons who believe in moral absolutes, and then protests against the evils of female exploitation; the Muslim who asserts against all the evidence that the Jews and Christians changed the Bible; the liberal spokesman who claims Islam is a religion of peace; the neo-Gnostic who tries vainly to date the Gospel of Thomas to the mid First Century.

The one prerequisite?  One must first have a dislike for the “Obvious.”  This animus can then be set to work to re-paint the landscape in more acceptable colors with more palatable features.

It is quite fascinating, the human capacity for ignoring the obvious.  It is the old “elephant in the room” syndrome.  And the smarter you are the more easy it is to ignore what you wish wasn’t there.

3. Unsurprisingly, this same phenomenon is conspicuous in the realm of Christian theology.  The Bible teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ and consists of those “in Christ” (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 1:22-23; cf. Rom. 5:12f.), yet there are Christians who say that the unregenerate can also be in the Body of Christ, the Church.  Or, some believe the days of Genesis 1 are millions of years long even though a normal reading of the text, plus Exod. 20:11, plus a look at the standard Hebrew lexicon (Koehler-Baumgartner); plus the fact that this old-earth view still doesn’t match the claims of secular scientists, all militate against it.

One of the clearest examples of this phenomenon of overlooking the obvious is the way supercessionists (those who hold that in some real sense the Church inherits Israel’s promises) fail to tackle those OT texts which stand like so many enormous sauropods threatening to flatten every furnishing in their interpretative house.

How often does one hear it nowadays: “the promises of God to Israel in the OT have not been done away with, rather they have been expanded into something far better.”  When, therefore, they are presented with one of these promises – say Jeremiah 33:14ff. – and asked to re-interpret what God is really saying, the resultant explanation too often is a retreat into imagination.  “Imagine such and such…” we are told.  “Yes, but what about what the actual passage SAYS,” we protest.  But try as we might, we can never get them to expound these OT passages.  Why not you ask?  Because these passages have been conveniently allowed to slip into the hermeneutical netherworld, where they can be dictated to and never permitted to speak on their own account, for fear they will stampede someone’s cherished beliefs.

4. But let’s have a real-time sampling of the kind of “interpretation through imagination.”  This is from an article called “Not Replacement…Expansion,” by a Reformed writer called Fred Klett:

Did God fail to deliver what He promised to the Jewish people? Consider this example: What if you expected me to give you a hamburger and then I gave you filet mignon? What if you were told you would inherit an apple tree, but instead you inherited a whole glorious orchard? What if you thought I promised you $10, but then I delivered a million? What if I promised a child a typewriter when he turned 18 and when the time came I gave him the latest computer. Would I be a liar? No! When someone gives IMMEASURABLY MORE than that expected, the gift giver is no liar. God has given an even greater gift through Jesus, superior to what many think was promised!

Sadly, even many believers today do not fully understand how much greater the New Covenant redemption is that Jesus brought to Israel and the world. Why dine on hamburger when you can have filet mignon? Why settle for a single tree, when you can have the whole orchard? Why stress the $10 when there is $1,000,000 available? Why use an old Underwood manual typewriter when you can have the latest personal computer and laser printer? The Messiah and His Eternal Kingdom are the great blessings promised to Israel.

I see.  And the covenanted oaths to the ethnic nation of Israel in Jeremiah 33?  The great prophecy of Zechariah 12-14?  Ezekiel’s vision in Ezek. 36-37 and 40-48?  Malachi’s prediction in Mal. 3:1-6?  Not to mention Isaiah and the other prophecies.  “Well, just imagine…”  Tell you what, let’s leave the imagination out of it for a while.  Let’s read these texts and expound them!  Let’s allow them to speak as the Word of God!

Next installment

Review of ‘Elisabeth’ by Ken Yates

When a father writes a book about a beloved and departed daughter there is a good chance that it could turn into a rather sentimental panegyric; a balm for the families wounds, but not a right representation of the subject. This wonderful book does not fall into that trap; avoiding it scrupulously by several reminders from the author that he does not want the reader to leave with that impression, and also because the book is really about Jesus Christ.

Elisabeth is a book which succeeds in its purpose of being a spiritual uplift for believers by wedding excerpts from the life of Yates’s daughter to the blessings reserved for faithful saints in glory. Elisabeth Yates suffered from cerebral palsy. Pain, along with unfulfilled dreams like walking, dressing, and motherhood were her attendants through life. But she was a joy-filled, hopeful believer on Jesus, and she brought others into that sphere of joy that she often inhabited.

Using therefore, Elisabeth as an example, Ken Yates has written a book about rewards! He reminds us of the many times rewards are mentioned in the NT and of how they reflect the kindness and mercy of our God. And he does this not in a preachy or an exhortative way, but by way of encouragement. Elisabeth did not put herself first. She was a warm light who drew you to her Lord. She had so many disadvantages and she longed to be with Jesus and to be released from her pain, but her father writes of her as one from whom he learned saintliness.

This attachment of the NT teaching about future rewards to snippets of biography work really well together. Yates manages to steer a course between saccharine remembrances and formalized theologizing, and the result is a highly beneficial devotional work from which the reader will emerge refreshed, informed, and encouraged.

Throughout the centuries of Christian history there have been very many saints who have had to endure great difficulty while being hidden from view. They are represented by the widow who dropped two mites into the coffer in Luke 21:2-3, whom Jesus saw and whom He singled out as the most generous donor. It is comforting to know that the Lord sees us (Gen. 16:13a), and He sees behind the exterior and into the trials of heart and soul which beset us – arranging themselves around us oftentimes with great disparity. That Jesus sees and will reward the Elisabeth’s of this world, and that He wants to reward us ought to promote godliness and selflessness in our own lives, and I am glad that Ken Yates wrote a book that made me reflect upon these things and encouraged me with this portrait of Jesus as the One who said, “many who are first will be last, and the last first.” (Mk. 10:31).

I have not included page numbers in this review for the very good reason that I passed this book on to my daughter. I have also given a copy to our Women’s Bible Study leader at the Church. Unsurprisingly then, I want to recommend this little book to you.

Review of ‘Dispensationalism Revisited,’ edited by Bauder & Compton (Pt. 3)

Part Two

The next essay in the book is by Ryan Martin and is about Israel and the Church and the issue of supersessionism with a concentration upon Romans 9 – 11. I want to say at the outset that Martin does not really deal with supersessionism very fully in this piece, so those wanting a clear refutation of that teaching may be disappointed. However, he does present a patient and reasonable exposition of the section with useful exegetical notes. He begins with a helpful review of Romans 1 -8 (198-201) which sets up the rationale for the following three chapters in Romans.

As he covers the first thirteen verses of Romans 9 he fails in my opinion to shine a light on the corporate aspects of election which Paul has in mind (e.g., Rom. 9:3-5, 6, 7-8, 10, and 13). This is a common mistake since the Apostle is often construed as teaching about individual salvation. But this is not what he tells us in the passage (Rom. 9:3-4, 27, 31-33. cf. 10:1, 21; 11:1-2, 5, 7, and the “they/you” contrast in 11:11-25. Also, notice – as Martin does – that Pharaoh is used as an exemplar of “hardening” which is then applied to Israel corporately in 11:25 as “blindness,” 211). Hence, Martin’s exegesis of Romans 9:15-29 gets bogged down in the salvation of individuals and not elect Israel (204). He does, however, deal skillfully with Romans 9:24, saying “it makes little sense for Paul, at this stage of his argument, to introduce the idea of God now calls Gentiles ‘my people'” (205).

When he reaches Romans 11 Martin pinpoints the logic of Paul’s concern. If the Church is fulfilling the promises to Israel spiritually then why doesn’t he just say so? (210). When he expounds 11:16-26 the deliberate contrast between Israel and the Gentiles (not Church – 232) is emphasized well (e,g., 216 quoting Lanier Burns, whom the author relies on a lot). The remaining part of the essay which focusses especially on Romans 11:25-27 is very good. In it the author builds a case for “all Israel” being first Jews turning en masse to Christ (226), and then identifying them as elect [national] Israel as separate from the Church (232). He also exegetes Romans 11:26b-27 as a New covenant passage. The chapter is a little long but has much to commend it.

W. Edward Glenny then contributes a chapter on the premillennial understanding of Revelation 20 as opposed especially to amillennialism. Those familiar with Glenny’s work know that this will be a good essay, and Glenny doesn’t disappoint. It is not that he really says anything new, but rather in the way he calmly argues his points that makes it as good as it is. I’m not going to run through the details as they are too well known. All that needs to be said is that this is a great exposition and a persuasive presentation of the vast superiority of the premillennial understanding of Revelation 20.

Concluding the essays is Jonathan Pratt’s discussion of the pretrib rapture. What is needed when writing on this subject is a. information, b. balance, and c. no overreach. I though Pratt did a good job on the first count, and a fair job on the other two. He chooses three texts in which he believes exegetical arguments are strong: John 14:1-3; 2 Thess. 2:6-7; and Rev. 12:5 (250-259).

He did well with these passages, but when all is said and done none of them furnish a lot of exegetical grist for the pretribulationist’s mill. A valid alternative exegetical conclusion for John 14:1-3 is that Christ prepares a place for the disciples, as well as for those who come after them. There is no necessary pretribulational link in this scenario. In 2 Thess. 2 the removal of the Restrainer (the Holy Spirit) who is “taken out of the way” (2 Thess. 2:7) “could refer to the removal of the Holy Spirit through the removal of the church in the rapture.” (255-256). Well, it could, but if it is a reference to the rapture it is extremely veiled. Thirdly, the position that the mention of the “man child” in Rev. 12:5 refers to the Church as well as Christ via “a double referent” (257) looks obtuse and unconvincing. I have encountered this before in the work of Michael Svigel (whom Pratt leans on), and while I respect Svigel I can’t keep out of my mind that his arguments in this case sound very like the type of arguments Covenant theologians employ to arrive at their conclusions. A lot of weight is put on the assertion that John is alluding to Isaiah 66:7 here. But he isn’t! Isaiah 66:7 is a metaphor relating to the re-birth of Israel’s kingdom in the next verse. Of course, someone like G. K. Beale (257 n. 40) is going to argue for such an allusion because he spiritualizes any verse he wishes, but what is a Dispensationalist doing following suit? And to what end? Many fellow Dispensationalists are rightly far from won over by such strained exegesis!

Pratt then offers several theological arguments for pretribulationism, and here he does better. He ought to have led with these in my opinion. One little annoyance with the essay was Pratt’s insistence that PreWrath is basically warmed over midtribulationism (249 n. 3). I trow not!

As stated previously, the book ends with a very nice set of tributes to Dr Hauser. As well as an index, what this book lacks is a chapter on refining or improving Dispensationalism. Some of the chapters are excellent (Beacham, Bauder, Glenny), some are good (Barrick, Compton, Pettegrew, Martin), and some are lacking. Since many pages are taken up with the first two categories I recommend Dispensationalism Revisited to all readers.

Review of ‘Dispensationalism Revisited,’ edited by Bauder & Compton (Pt. 2)

Part One

After Beacham’s excellent offering we get one by Kevin Bauder. Bauder is one of the best representatives of Dispensationalism, and any contribution by him will be eminently worthwhile. He writes on Israel and the Church and his chapter is welcome because of the way Bauder tackles the subject. First he addresses the question of just what is meant by “a people of God” (72-79). This is perhaps a little long-winded but at the same time the delineation is most useful in view of the fact that God says that He will have all nations worship Him (78-79).

From there attention is turned to Israel’s meditorial role (81-82) through whom the other nations will become peoples of God (83), with Israel entering into her promised blessings. Then the Church as Christ’s body through purely spiritual union with Christ (84). The author then illustrates this from John 10:16 (85-86). The olive tree metaphor of Romans 11 is briefly treated, and I appreciated the clear way Bauder distinguishes the root of the tree from its branches (92), something that is too often missed. The best part of the essay in my opinion is Bauder’s treatment of inward versus outward circumcision (95-99). He pulls many threads together in his discussion which the Bible student will appreciate. The whole piece is sure-footed and well-written.

Next comes William Barrick on the covenants of the Bible. Barrick identifies six divine covenants made with Israel: Abrahamic, Mosaic, Deuteronomic, Priestly, Davidic, and New (103). These are briefly surveyed (106-110). The New covenant is given more attention than the others, and I was pleased to read it being described as the covenant that delivers forgiveness of sins (108).

Barrick then deals with the dispensations (110-115). He believes there are eight of them (112), including Eternity but excluding (for whatever reason) the Tribulation! Though the survey is adequate, I was not convinced that the changes in diet reveal dispensational change (110-111). Neither was I impressed with the attempt to track the relationship of the dispensations with the covenants. But he rightly stresses that dispensational progress does not effect salvation by grace through faith (111), and he is correct to say that “Dispensationalism is not a hermeneutic” (116). I disagree that the biblical covenants do not furnish a hermeneutic. I argue that due to their deliberate wording and prescriptive nature they are important hermeneutical signposts.

Bruce Compton’s look at the Kingdom of God/Heaven is valuable. He believes the expression always refers to the future Kingdom (136). He does not dodge potential problems for this interpretation, dealing with the “at hand” and “within” passages well in a few pages. Then (127-132) he turns to the Parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13. Compton’s reasoning is good, but unfortunately he neglects the crucial phrase “the kingdom of heaven is like” which only appears in Matthew. He does not demonstrate how good and evil can exist side by side in a process (e.g., wheat and tares; leavening; sorting) which ends with the righteous only entering the future Kingdom (Matt. 13:41-43). While I do not think Christ is reigning now from Heaven I think Dispensationalists must carefully engage the meaning of Jesus’ when He says “the kingdom of heaven is like.”

After this comes the last written work of Larry Pettegrew who passed on to his reward earlier this year. It is an article about the way the Church Fathers viewed Israel and is very informative. His chapter reaffirms the fact that up until the middle of the third century many held to premillennial or chiliast eschatology. However, Pettegrew believes that the reason they were not pretribulational was because they accepted the teaching that Israel had forsaken God or had been forsaken by Him. Hence, they had no reason for a removal of the Church before the second advent. I feel this essay should have been placed either up front or at the back of the book. It doesn’t fit where it is and disturbs the flow of the book up until that point.

Chapter 7 (although annoyingly the chapters aren’t numbered) is by Andrew Hudson on the use of the OT in the NT in Acts and its transitional character. Although there were some good things in the chapter, especially in its second half, I think the essay tries to do too much and doesn’t end up doing anything with any real success. The middle section where Hudson runs through the argument of Acts is pretty basic and clogs up the essay (175-179). I did like the overview of interpretations for Peter’s use of Joel 2 in Acts 2 (185-188). Like I said, the latter half of the piece is better than the first.

Review of ‘Dispensationalism Revisited,’ edited by Bauder & Compton (Pt. 1)

A review of Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement, edited by Kevin T. Bauder & R. Bruce Compton, Plymouth, MN, Central Seminary Press, 2023, 294 pages, paperback.

This book was written to commemorate the life and teaching of Charles A. Hauser, Jr, a man who did not have a high profile ministry but who had a big impact through his faithful service to the Lord, and the tributes at the back of the book are not to be missed.

Dispensationalism Revisited is slanted toward traditional dispensationalism, although some contributors are sympathetic towards progressive dispensationalism (13). The editors say they wanted the book to be readable (15), but that academics would also read it. They explain that the first three chapters are “the heart of the book” (15); chapter 1 on the Sine Qua Nons; chapter 2 on hermeneutics; and chapter 3 on Israel and the Church. These chapters comprise the first hundred pages of the book.

The first chapter is written by Douglas Brown on Dispensationalism’s sine qua nons, and in particular the glory of God, which was famously propounded by Charles Ryrie in the mid 1960’s. The essay puts forth seven premises to prove the importance of the doxological purpose within Dispensationalism. Although there is nothing earth-shaking about any of the premises, Brown unpacks then adequately. He notes “If God called creation to seek something other other than his own glory, he would be calling people to idolatry.” (23). The piece does not persuade me that the glory of God is a sine qua non of Dispensationalism. That is to say, it does not prove that God’s glory is an essential component or outcome of the system. In fact, only premises four, six, and seven are weighty enough when tied to Dispensationalism to have any force for the argument.

But here it might be argued that I am confusing that which dispensationalists have traditionally highlighted with what the system when stepped back from is seen to produce. To this I will concede that although dispensationalists have not very often lent prominence to God’s glory in their setting out of the system, Dispensationalism itself could be understood as a picture of how God glorifies Himself in the history of our fallen world. But this would be saying something different from pointing to the literal hermeneutic or the Israel-Church distinction. Those are intrinsic ingredients in the system. The glory of God is different. It is a feature of any theological system which takes Scripture seriously (cf. 31), some more than others. And in this sense Covenant Theology takes the laurels owing to its redemptive hermeneutic and theological telos.

Brown believes “God has chosen to reveal himself progressively in each dispensation.” (26). He provides a brief synopsis of this (26-27), but these are more singular instances than dispensational markers. Even the coming of Christ does not institute a new dispensation according to Dispensationalism. This is the kind of thing I mean when I assert that dispensations are shaky pillars upon which to rest a theological system. In truth, although it may invite brickbats to come my way I don’t think the arguments for the doxological purpose being a sine qua non are that convincing.

The second chapter is by Roy Beacham and is on the interpretation of the Prophets. Before I gush over this essay I should state that it just barely meets the standard of readability that the editors promised. It is rather stiffly academic and the word choices (hermeneutical rubrics, delimitations, preunderstanding, biblically perspicuous, apogee) do stretch the brief a little. For instance, what “common reader” would easily digest the following: “It seems apparent that the only impetus to forward such a drastic and non-self-evident bifurcation of this otherwise unified prophecy would find cause in theological preunderstandings and ensuing hermeneutical complexities that are forced upon the text from without.” (48)? So Beacham doesn’t get any plaudits on that score.

However, as a study in biblical hermeneutics Beacham’s article is one of the best pieces I have read on the topic. He writes that “Historic dispensationalism…believes that all the predictive prophecies of Scripture were meant by God to be understood, fulfilled, and thus interpreted literally and only literally, exactly as foretold” (35). Beacham proposes five reasons for this: the purpose, ground, nature, function, and test of predictive prophecy (37). Providing examples from the Book of Isaiah (reproduced for the reader to follow) he shows that God intended prophecy to validate Him as the only true God, but this only checks out if “everything that God foretells actually comes to pass precisely as foretold” (40). (This is the ‘God’s speech/God’s actions’ correspondence I have referred to elsewhere – cf. also 50).

By the ground of predictive prophecy the writer has in mind the connection between what God says will come to pass and His essential holy and faithful character (42). He sums it up in a tidy maxim: “Exactly what he says is precisely what he does because of who he is” (43). That is worth committing to memory. Beacham takes his time on this point and I find him very persuasive. He concludes, “Deviant fulfillment, would, in fact, disprove his singularity and discount his perfections” (51 his emphasis).

Moving on to the nature of prophecy Beacham insists it was univocal (51), while its unitary nature does not posit a disconnect between divine and human authorship; in fact, it is the divine element in prophecy that ought to be given the precedence (54-55). Deuteronomy 18:15-22 is used to drive this point home. Divine propositions do not alter their meaning with the passage of time (56). This text also helps to define the function of predictive prophecy (60). He states,

“If the original hearers were responsible to understand and to believe God’s forecasts and to live in constant and obedient faith in the words of those forecasts, then God’s forecasts needed no intricate, sophisticated hermeneutical overlay” (61). Any attempts to commend a shadow-to-substance meaning “leaves OT saints in revelatory limbo” (62 n. 58).

Finally the test of predictive prophecy just correlates the accuracy of the human prophet’s words with their fulfillment (64-65). It is a “test by outcome” (66). The essay ends with Beacham summarizing his points and pressing their cumulative weight:

“It seems doubtful that God intended sophisticated literary theories, complex hermeneutical schemes, and/or classical theological preconditions to supersede both his clear instructions for this genre and its undeniable outworking in antiquity.” (69).

Throughout the essay the author interacts in footnotes with non-literal interpreters to shore up his arguments. I do not agree with Beacham’s position on the New covenant not being for the Church (49), but I do think he has hit the nail squarely on the head in all other respects. This is an excellent piece of writing and deserves to be expanded into a small book in its own right.

Is Dispensationalism Dying? (Pt. 2)

PART ONE

Continuing my personal assessment of the state of Dispensationalism, here are four more factors:

6. Lack of grounded, holistic Dispensationalist Systematics

I referred to this above but it bears a little more investigation. Dispensational Systematic Theologies don’t exactly grow on trees. And this is unusual amid the general popularity of Systematic Theology in evangelical circles. Here are the major Dispensational works that I am aware of:

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1947) – a large work with some excellent chapters. However, the heavy-lifting is left for other non-dispensational writers.

Henry Thiessen (1979 rev) – a once popular concise theology which relied quite a lot on A. Strong.

Emery Bancroft (1977) – a concise survey.

Charles C. Ryrie (1986, 1999) – a very fine introductory theology, but, as its title says, “Basic.”

Norman Geisler (2005) – a large set which was slightly abridged into a one-volume edition. Philosophy definitely vies with theology in this one.

Roland McCune (2009) – Another solid work but not very explorative nor original.

John MacArthur & Richard Mayhue, editors (2017) – a solid systematics with various contributors. Basically Reformed theology with Dispensational eschatology.

Michael Svigel & Nathan Holsteen, editors (2014) – a basic multi-author work competently done.

I might throw in the big book by Lewis and Demarest here, although only Lewis was dispensational. There are others, but these are the main ones. None of these works in my opinion are up to the standard of Erickson, Frame, Letham, Culver, Grudem, Oden, Reymond, Beeke & Smalley, Kelly, and Horton, let alone the older works of Berkhof, Hodge, Shedd, Dabney, Bavinck, etc.

The fact of the matter is that Dispensationalists have tended to avoid “deep” theology and have also not written their theologies from within the purported sine qua nons of the system. Additionally, they would need to do lots more work in OT and NT Biblical Theology, something they have tended to avoid (with a very few exceptions). This would require them, I believe, to build up each corpora of a systematics from their hermeneutical premises, not simply copy what Reformed writers (especially) have said in all but eschatological matters. If that seems too strongly worded I admit it is intentional, for I want Dispensationalists to stop this trend. It diverts serious theologians away from Dispensational Systematic Theology, even within the movement! This is the conclusion I arrived at over ten years ago when it dawned on me that the vaunted dispensations (esp. “Conscience,” “Government,” and “Promise,” but all have problems) are not arrived at via the grammatical-historical hermeneutic – certainly not without ignoring the primacy given to God’s covenants. But then the road ahead begins to appear more and more biblical-covenantal and less dispensational.

7. Lack of Dispensational Worldview

If one thinks about it for a moment it should be clear that a rounded Systematic Theology is basically a Worldview. Therefore, a fully developed systematics from a fully worked out “Dispensational” prolegomenon. Because dispensationalists borrow much of their theology from Reformed works they also borrow their worldview from the same sources. Hence Dispensationalism looks impoverished as a teleological outlook.

8. Lack of prescriptive theological thinking

When one realizes all this the impulse is to look at the system to try to find where these important areas can be developed. It then starts to become apparent (well, for me it did anyway) that the system cannot produce these emphases because it is so restricted as a system. Dispensations are merely (and sometimes tamely) descriptive. One thing they are not is prescriptive.

For example, by way of contrast, the “covenants” of Covenant Theology, even though they are not exegetically impressive, are teleological. they prescribe a way forward, and that way forward develops into a Systematic Theology and Worldview. Although I will not enter into the details here, the redemptive-historical reading of the Bible of Covenant and New Covenant Theology results in a certain outcome – a deductive program.

Now I am not recommending deductive theology (and Reformed theology is heavily deductive). While deduction is an important tool in the theologian’s belt it ought never to be the first tool he reaches for. Inductive exegesis ought to limit the deductive options available to us. For instance, we cannot claim that because the OT must be understood through the NT that the OT covenants and promises to Israel were types and shadows of the “fulfillment” in the New Israel, the Church. I am recommending the divine covenants as prescriptive replacements for the descriptive dispensations. God’s covenants, when traced through the Bible, set down a path forward: a path which is both teleological and eschatological (in the expansive sense of movement towards as final scenario). Such an approach divides the system from eschatology (in the restrictive End Times sense of say, Dispensational PreTribulationism). It is worldview building.

9. Lack of discernment about who should represent Dispensationalism

Finally, although we cannot prevent people with odd, errant, or highly conjectural opinions from holding to our basic eschatological ideas, we must be more discerning about who we want to be our spokemen. Popularizers have their place, but they tend to be shallow and the theological diet they produce will not satisfy those who want to dig deeper. In Reformed theology the popularizers (think R. C. Sproul, Michael Horton, John Piper, Tim Keller) are also serious scholars who have a great deal of scholarly work behind them. They carry therefore a level of authority and credibility that many Dispensational popularizers cannot duplicate.

Just here I want to make it clear that just because a person has a doctorate does not mean they are well-rounded thinkers or that they are well read. It is relatively easy to impress someone if you know a little more than they do. Every educator is aware of the dogmatic student who has read a few theological works that have stretched them and have jumped on the bandwagon of such and such a well known teacher. They know they know more than most, but they have no idea how little they know relatively speaking. They lack balance. Well, we need representatives who have balance, and who are thus enabled to improve the system by their unique contributions (exemplars of this sort of person would be Michael Vlach and Charles Clough).

In Closing

Of course, none of these nine concerns exists in a vacuum. Their overlapping nature is readily seen. All of them are interconnected. Movement in these areas will inevitably shake up the structural presuppositions of the system. I think that will be a good thing. I realize that will elicit some push-back, but I hope it will not look like circling the wagons (I fear it will). But someone has to be a little controversial!

I have a bias towards the biblical covenants. I am not sold on dispensations. I wish dispensations would be kicked to the sidelines and God’s covenants would become the backbone of the system. But “Dispensationalism” is a wonderful and accurate approach to studying the Bible. It gets so much right. But unless Dispensationalism moves in these directions I believe it will become weaker and weaker.

Is Dispensationalism Dying? (Pt. 1)

Daniel Hummel has written a book that has got a attention recently. The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle over the End Times Shaped a Nation has made a splash because it is an irenic study of the movement. Hummel has written an essay at the Gospel Coalition called “4 Snapshots of Dispensationalism Today.” He makes four points in his essay:

1. Pop-dispensational media remains popular among evangelicals.

2. Scholarly dispensationalism has declined in recent decades.

3. The effect of these two trends on evangelicalism has been mixed.

4. Pop-dispensationalism isn’t as relevant to national politics as it once was.

I believe Hummel is right on all points. He is correct in his overall assessment of the state of Dispensationalism. There are many factors involved, some of which I have highlighted previously (e.g., here, here and here). For many years I have referred to myself as a “reluctant dispensationalist.” In fact, I much prefer to be called a “biblical covenantalist.” Hummel’s thesis ought to be read. My purpose below is to give a personal diagnosis of where I think the issues Hummel identifies lie. He describes the symptoms. I try to locate the “disease”

Here then, are the major ailments:

1. Lack of Solid Methodology.

When I was writing my dissertation on theological prolegomena I noted that Dispensationalists have not put forward a thoroughly worked out methodology. Here is where Ryrie’s sine qua non should be discussed (I personally believe the divine covenants are a sine qua non). Also, questions such as whether the dispensations are exegetically justified, or whether they are given theological prominence by the inspired writers, or what does it mean (if it does mean anything) to say that Dispensationalism is a hermeneutic? Again, is Dispensationalism a full-orbed Systematic Theology and Worldview or is it a more humble and elementary “system?”

2. Lack of Self-Criticism.

Dispensationalists have been good at writing in defense of their views, but they have too often not taken pains to explore weak areas in their position. This of course is because of Point 1 above.

3. Lack of Scholarly Books and Publishing Opportunities for Young Scholars.

Think of any Bible book other than Daniel, Ephesians, and Revelation. Then ask yourself what are the best scholarly commentaries on the other biblical books. Where do Dispensational works come in? (I will grant Darrell Bock’s work on Luke and Acts). What about Bible dictionaries? Systematic Theologies? Biblical Theologies? How about a Theology of Paul? And where are the opportunities for young scholars to get their work published within Dispensational avenues? Covenant and New Covenant Theology seem to do far better in this area than Dispensational Theology.

4. Lack of Consensus on the New Covenant

I have complained quite a bit about this in the past. In the forthcoming book The Words of the Covenant: NT Continuation I go into this quite a lot. The blunt truth is, the teaching of many Dispensationalists who deny that the Church is a full party to the New covenant looks strange to many students of Scripture.

5. Lack of Christ-centered Theology

This is a big one in my opinion. Reformed Covenant Theology is very Christological in its orientation. Of course, their redemptive-historical hermeneutic and their way of interpreting the OT through the NT distorts their understanding, but they do focus the attention of the reader on Christ. Added to this their view that Christ is reigning now increases the Christological optics. Dispensationalism on the other hand, is not as Christologically centered. I think this in part is because it structures itself by dispensations, and dispensations do not point to Christ; covenants do!

I think that confining Dispensationalism to ecclesiology and eschatology exacerbates the problem because it encourages one to think in those terms rather than in more overarching holistic terms. But more on that next time.

PART TWO

Real Christocentricity

          When I say Christ is the central Figure of Scripture what I mean is that He is the central Protagonist of God’s Creation Project.  Here is an example of the Christ’s eminence in the Bible:   

God created all things through Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:9, Jn. 1:3), and all things created through Him were also created for Him (Col. 1:16).  At this present hour the whole creation is upheld through Him (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3).  He is the Lord of all (Acts 10:36) and is therefore the only one who has the wisdom and the power to overcome Satan (Matt. 4:1-11), which one day He will to the uttermost (Gen. 3:15).   

          That first inkling of His coming (“He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel” – Gen. 3:15b) reveals Him as the one who will dislodge the Interloper and knock him off his pedestal, reclaiming the creation for God – for Himself.  He would come from Israel, from the tribe of Judah, and would reign over the Kingdom (Gen. 49:8-10).  He would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2) even though He was “from everlasting.”  This “encroachment” of the Creator into the Devil’s realm came about because God is not about to give up on something He has made and gifted to His Son and let the Deceiver get away with it.  Sin and Death and Satan are no match for God.  All three will be triumphed over through Christ (Jn. 1:29; Rom. 5:21; Heb. 9:26; Jn. 8:52; Rom. 6:9; 1 Cor. 15:21-26; Heb. 2:9; Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 3:8). 

          Jesus is the Messiah or Christ (Psa. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8-9; Matt. 26:63-64; Lk. 3:22; 1 Jn. 5:6), the King of Israel (Zech 9:9; Matt. 2:1-6; Lk. 1:29-33), who will also rule over the entire world (Psa. 2:8; Isa. 11:1-10; Rev. 11:15; Zech 14:9).  

Perhaps the greatest of all ironies is that “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.” (Jn. 1:10), since “He made Himself of no reputation” (Phil. 2:7).  He is the stone that the builders rejected (Psa. 118:22; Matt. 21:42) who is the stone that will smash all of the kingdoms of man and set up God’s Kingdom upon earth (Dan. 2:45).

The OT or Tanakh is a book about Israel (Exodus – 2 Chronicles) and its main figure is the coming Messiah (e.g., Deut. 18:15-19; Psa. 2:8-10; 22:1-31; 110:1-4; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-10; 42:1-7; 49:3-13; 52:11-53:12; Jer. 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Dan. 7:13-14; 9:26; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9-10; 12:10; 13:7; Mal. 3:1; 4:1-2).  A reading of these prophecies at face value should persuade anyone that Israel’s hope is intertwined with the completed fulfillment of them in the first and second comings of Jesus Christ. 

The NT is a book about Israel (e.g., The Synoptics, Hebrews, Revelation) and about the Church (e.g., John, Acts, Epistles of Paul, Hebrews), though often their fortunes are connected (e.g., Romans, Hebrews, James, Epistles of Peter, Revelation).  This is not to say, for example, that the Synoptics are not for the Church, only that they mostly record Jesus’s mission to Israel prior to the inception of the Church in Acts 2.  Thus, the “gospel” preached in the Synoptics did not include Christ’s death and resurrection like it would after His ascension (1 Cor. 15:1-4).  In the Church the love of God is found in Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29), and through Him access to by the Spirit to the Father (Eph. 2:18).  The Church is not a geo-political entity like Israel, therefore it cannot be the recipient of geo-political promises made to Israel.  Differences must be observed even more than similarities.  

A Review of ‘Giants: Sons of the Gods’ by Douglas Van Dorn

A review of Douglas Van Dorn, Giants: Sons of the Gods, revised & expanded, Dacono, CO, Waters of Creation Publishing, 2023, v + 385 pages, pbk.

This review is certainly a departure from what I normally decide to write about (though see this). Yes, it is a book about the giants of the Bible and the ancient (and not so ancient) world. The author is a sober-minded pastor of a Reformed Baptist church in Colorado. Van Dorn is an amillennial covenant theologian (236-237).

I decided to read this book because I have a long-standing interest in the subject and I am a strong believer in the fact that the Bible is a lot weirder than modern scholarship has presented it.

The book is dedicated to Michael Heiser who sadly passed away last year. My opinion of Heiser is that he was a good man who brought foreword some important truths about the supernatural realm in the teaching of Scripture. I do not endorse all of his ideas. I don’t agree with his “Divine Council” views, nor do I buy into his view that saved humans basically replace those who left their first estate, etc. However, his work on Hermon is both fascinating and worthy of exploration, and his attempts to reveal the extent of the supernatural world is overall a real service to the Faith.

Van Dorn’s book begins with him considering and rightly rejecting the “Sethite” understanding of Genesis 6. His rebuttal of that inadequate point of view is fair, patient, and decisive. His Introduction is well worth studying.

The author begins with an examination of “Pre-Flood Giants” and is most compelling. Van Dorn takes Genesis 3:15 as referring to actual descendants both of Eve and of Satan (44-47). Satan’s physical seed would be the giants (nephilim, gibborim). These are memorialized in the legends of the demi-gods of the ancient world (e.g., Hercules, Gilgamesh, Orion). From here he goes to 1 Enoch, which he fully acknowledges is not inspired but believes contains some truth (48-51, Appendix 1), and was resorted to by Jude and 2 Peter (52, Appendix 2).

Van Dorn is a humble and sober researcher who believes the giants may have reached up to 12 feet tall (e.g. Og of Bashan, 125-126). He puts Goliath’s height at the upper end of 9 1/2 ft (154-157). His argumentation looks sound and I have no problem believing these proportions. In fact, owing to the report of the spies in Numbers 13:33 that they “were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight” I have think Van Dorn’s estimates are quite conservative.

Many writers in this area are guilty of placing far too much weight on extra-biblical works like the books of “Enoch” and “Jasher,” of circuitous and hyper-conjectural Bible interpretation, and of whacky theories about the pre-Adamic earth. Van Dorn always (or nearly always) let’s the reader know when he is speculating and he never pushes the boat out too far. He is a responsible writer who brings forth some highly suggestive and thoughtful studies in ancient words, biblical data, legend, and archaeology to build a plausible picture of the matters he discusses.

I particularly liked chapters 3 through 9 where the author does a good job of showing how the giants (nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, etc.) are constantly not far from view – much more prevalent than I had realized, and I thought I had tracked them quite well. Van Dorn pulls in not only stories from Genesis 14, Exodus 17, Numbers 13, and Deuteronomy 3, but he introduces data from the ancient world, including the Americas. He even is brave enough to mention the chimeras so commonly seen on stone reliefs and in ancient stories. All this makes for a consuming and diverting (if not slightly disturbing) read. For instance, I really enjoyed his discussion of Bashan and Hermon and his “discovery” of a snake mound close to the Gilgal-Refaim circle in the Golan Heights which points to Mt. Hermon (126-134). I don’t know what to make of them, but I’m glad Van Dorn is trying to make sense of then instead of doing the usual “nothing-to-see-here” maneuver of so many scholars.

Once we move into the NT things start to get less persuasive; at least to me. But even here there is intriguing information (esp. ch. 17). The Appendices are generally helpful, particularly 4, 5, and 6. I did not know that the ancient Christian writers are almost unanimous in their agreement of the existence of the giants and in their belief that the spirits of the nephilim are the demons of today.

The book is well furnished with endnotes (yes, I know!), making it a very handy resource on this often overlooked topic. While I do not invest as much trust in the use of the book of Enoch by Jude as Van Dorn does, and I think that here and there he goes too far, I gladly endorse the main ideas of Giants: Sons of the Gods, and respect the way the author has gone about his task in a mature and edifying fashion.

One final thing; Van Dorn’s son did the artwork for the book, and while it is a pretty good picture in its own way, it gives a wrong impression of the seriousness of the book’s contents. A smaller giant would have been more befitting the book’s thesis.