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. 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

Israel and the Church – Some Basics

This is from an older post from 2010. I’m too busy right now to write anything new 😦

What is the basic Dispensational interpretation of Israel and the Church? Here is a quick answer:

Once again I want to state that I think “Dispensationalist” is a lousy and inaccurate name for this type of theology.  Firstly because dispensations are largely theologically mute.  Secondly, because the real crux of the matter are the Biblical Covenants!

I hope this response will be of help in clarifying my understanding of this issue.  We shall begin with Paul’s use of “Israel” and “Jacob” in Romans 9-11 and go from there.  This is not meant to be comprehensive, but it is quite detailed and should suit its purpose.

Paul’s Understanding of Jacob/Israel

Paul, as a Benjamite Jew (Rom. 11:1), who still looked upon Israel as the twelve Tribes (Acts 26:7), though in unbelief (Rom. 10:1-3; 11:20), and who believed that to Israelites were given “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises” (Rom. 9:4), still believed that these blessings would be fulfilled to Israel.  But when?  The answer comes back, after “the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25).

Paul then quotes from the important passage in Isaiah 59:20-21.  This is important because that passage (starting about v.16) refers most definitely to the New Covenant (even though that term is not used till Jeremiah’s time).  We know this because the transgressions of “Jacob” which have been spoken of in the first half of the chapter, are to be redeemed (v.20), and the Spirit is to be given them (v.21).  And this is amplified by the Apostle in Rom. 11:27 when he speaks of God’s covenant “with them when I take away their sins.”  Who is the “them” of verse 27?  Clearly it is “Jacob” viz. Israel (cf. v. 26).

(I would ask the reader to consider whether it is even necessary, thus far, not to take Jacob/Israel as literal Israelites, Paul’s “brethren according to the flesh” ((Rom. 9:3-4), who are yet in unbelief (Rom. 10:3)?).

Who then is the “Jacob” of Romans 11?  Indeed, I might ask inquire as to the identity of “Jacob” in the rest of the NT.  Twenty-four times the term “Jacob” is used in the NT.  Three uses are of particular eschatological importance (Lk. 1:33; 13:28; Rom. 11:26).  None of these twenty-four references can be interpreted to refer to the Church.  Nor is there any need that they be so interpreted as they make good sense as a synonym for Israel.  Even many Reformed writers agree that “Jacob” in Romans 11:26 is Israel (e.g. Mark Seifrid in Commentary of the NT Use of the OT, eds. G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, 675).

By tracing the way the Apostle refers to Israel in Romans 9-11 it is also easy to see that when he states, “they are not all Israel that are of Israel” (Rom 9:6), he is speaking about unbelieving as against believing Israelites (he is most certainly not saying that most of Israel are, in fact, Gentiles!).  Israel as a people group has stumbled through unbelief (Rom. 9:31-33; 10:1-3, 21; 11:7-11, 20), but it is clear as day that there is always a Remnant within Israel that God reserves for Himself (11:1-5, 7, 28-32).  In the eschaton God will indeed save “all Israel” (11:26), once they have been whittled down to those who will believe (cf. Zech. 12:9-14; 13:8-14:11; Matt. 23:39).

It might be asked why only part of the covenanted promises within the Abrahamic Covenant belong to the church.  After all, we are Abraham’s seed too (e.g. Gal. 3:29).  The questions are fine, but they harbor a hidden assumption (that being that since we are Abraham’s seed in Christ ALL the covenanted promises given to the Israelites are now ours).  In other words, the questions are not merely exegetical in nature.  How do I know?

Well, think of what Israel has been promised:

God’s Promises to Israel

1. Earthly Land – (Gen. 12:7, 15:7-21; 28:13; Deut. 30:1-9; Isa. 62:1-5; 63:15-17; Jer. 3:18; Joel 2:21-24; Zeph. 3:15-20; Zech. 14:8-21)

2. Peace and Prosperity – (Isa. 2:1-5; 11:1-10; 26:1-4, 12; 30:15-26; 32:15-17; 35:1-10; 55:1-14; Mic. 4:1-7; Ezek. 36:33-36; Hos. 2:14-23; Joel 3:16-21; Amos 9:11-15)

3. Israel to be the Head Nation and Jerusalem the Top City – (Deut. 26:19; 28:13; Joel 3:17; Jer. 23:5-8; Isa. 62:1-5;  Zech. 8:20-23; 14:16-21)

4. A King on David’s Throne (Psa. 89:1-4, 28-37; Isa. 9:6-7; Jer. 3:14-18; Jer. 23:5; 30:8-9; 33:14-26; Ezek. 37:15-28; Zech. 12:6-9; 13:1)

5. Perpetual Priesthood – (Num. 25:11-11-13; Psa. 106:30-31; Jer. 33:20-22; Ezek. 37:25-28; 40-48; Zech. 8:12-13; 14:16-21; Mal. 3:3-4)

It needs to be said in passing that these selected references must be read in their OT contexts if their meaning is to be ascertained.

The New Covenant

These things will come to pass because God’s covenants with Israel are unconditional as to their eventual fulfillment (e.g. Gen. 15; 1 Chron. 17:11-14; Isa. 43:25; 46:13; 48:9-11; Ezek. 36:22-23), because God prizes Israel (Isa. 43:1; 49:16, 26).  It is true that there are conditions within the covenants (e.g. Gen. 17:9-14; Lev.26), but these conditions will finally be fulfilled by God Himself, “the Portion of Jacob” (Jer. 10:16), via the New Covenant (see Deut. 4:30-31; Isa. 27:9; 32:15-17; 44:1-6, 21-23; 45:17, 25; 46:13; 54:8-10, 1762:11-12; Jer. 31:31-37; Ezek. 36:22-28).

This New Covenant is absolutely essential to Israel’s election and destiny.  In just the same way as Christians are included within this New Covenant in Christ so as to gain the promise of Gen. 12:3, so Israel must be redeemed through this covenant so as to enter into the promises above.  The New Covenant takes care of all the conditional elements within the unconditional covenants!

This is crucial to understand.  God accomplishes the fulfillment of all His work through the Blood of Jesus Christ and His glorious Resurrection!  The New Covenant places the second Adam front and center of all redemptive covenantal consummation (cf. Zech. 6:12-13)!

What Kind of Fulfillment?

But now we come to the crucial question.  So far we have shown from both the prophets and the Apostle Paul that there is every encouragement to take God at His word.  God has made human language to communicate to man and for man to communicate to Him.   God made a covenant with Noah and it is plain to all to see that He meant exactly what He said.  This assures us that God is not equivocating when covenant language is employed (the very idea of equivocation in God when making a covenant – saying one thing while meaning something else – ought to be unthinkable for a believer).  The fact of the matter is, once the New Covenant is fulfilled upon Israel there is nothing to bar that future regenerated people from claiming God’s Covenant promises in the most literal terms.   Unless the Church is to be given the land described in Gen 15, and to be participants in the above promises I don’t see how a literal fulfillment of these promises to the Church is possible.  In which case one would have to go back and re-interpret these and many other passages to make them “fit” some other scheme.

When one considers what was said above about Israel meaning literal Israelites (and never meaning Gentiles.  Cf. how Paul keeps the two apart in Rom. 11), and when one notices NT references which support these OT texts (see e.g., Lk. 1:30-33, 46-55; Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:3-7), one begins to get more than a little suspicious that something other than the text of Scripture is dictating the theology of those who want to insist that Israel = the Church.  This suspicion becomes overpowering once it is fully appreciated that there is no need to alter or expand these covenant promises beyond the nation of Israel.  The Covenant promises to Israel in the OT are in no way incongruent with any statement in the NT.

Then the burden of proof upon the non-literalist (if I may use that rather clumsy term) becomes very great.  So great, in fact, that for those who call themselves Dispensationalists (not “Progressives”!), all attempts at explanation via the to me contrived “Already/Not Yet Hermeneutics” or older “Covenant of Grace” look like evasions of the obvious!

It has never been better stated: “When the plain sense makes sense, then seek no other sense.”

This position will not make you academically respectable today.  It is certainly not cool!  But there is every reason to think it is Biblical.

The Enigmatic Book of Hebrews (Pt. 2)

Part One

A Premillennial Reading of Hebrews (1)

          The present writer has already stated his general agreement with what is now called Revised Dispensationalism – the Dispensationalism of Charles Ryrie and J. Dwight Pentecost.  I go further and say that I find the work of Larry Pettegrew  and Michael Vlach always to be excellent, even where we disagree.  That we disagree is mainly down to me.[1]  I prioritize the divine biblical covenants above the “dispensations.”  I have grave doubts about the viability of the “dispensations” to account for themselves and to hold up a biblical theology. That said, I find the Dispensational approach to Hebrews to be the best overall approach I have read.  Therefore, I want to flesh out a reading of the book from a basically Dispensational point of view.[2]    

          The first chapter expounds the greatness of the Son.  He is not referred to as “Jesus” until Hebrews 2:9, and the title “Christ” is not introduced until Hebrews 3:1.  I believe this is because of a strategy of allowing the gradual realization of who the Son is to dawn on the reader.  Not in the sense of revealing that the Son is Jesus who is the Christ, but, somewhat reminiscent of Mark’s Gospel, bringing one truth into association with another truth as the picture is filled out.  This is aided by the collection of OT passages (Psa. 2:7; 2 Sam. 2:14; Psa. 97:7 (and Deut. 32:43 LXX); Psa. 104:4; 45:6-7; 102:25-27; capping it off with the Davidic reference in Psalm 110:1. 

          Hebrews 2:1-4 issues the first of the warnings in the book.  If we are not careful to realize the voice of the Lord and the teaching of His apostles (Heb. 2:3 – “those who heard Him”), and begin to “drift” (Heb. 2:1), how shall we escape? (Heb. 2:3).[3] 

          The great work of our salvation was done so that the Church is brought into union with the Savior (Heb. 2:10-11).  Since saved Gentiles[4] are the spiritual “seed of Abraham” (Heb. 2:16 cf. Gal. 3:29), we receive aid from Him who has assumed a High Priestly role for us (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:14-16).  We have been brought by Jesus into His house, the Church, and are not under the Mosaic code (Heb. 3:1-6). 

          Then the author quotes Psalm 95:7-11 as the basis for a second warning that will culminate in a more expansive caution in Hebrews 4:1-11.[5]  Hebrews 3:7-19 act then as a spur to Christians to stay faithful to Christ.

          Hebrews 5 returns to the status of Christ as our High Priest and begins to develop it (Heb. 5:1-10), although more in preparation for the detailed complex of ideas associated with this theme later (Heb. 6:19-10:25).  Christ is called by God to be our High Priest, but He is the High Priest from another order; the order of the non-Israelite king Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5-6).  But Jesus suffered, and His sufferings made Him “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Heb. 5:7-9), and this suffering is linked by the author with His call to be High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:10).  As he will go on to say, the power of this new priesthood resides in two things: the permanence of the High Priest (Heb. 7:23-24), and His institution of a “better covenant” (Heb. 7:22).

The ”better covenant” is of course, the New covenant (Heb. 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24).  Jesus our High Priest offered up Himself (Heb. 7:27b), and His resurrection, more taken for granted than actually stated by the author (e.g., Heb. 9:11-12, 24-28),[6] provides the grounds for both His continuing office (Heb. 7:24).

If we go back a little to chapter 6 we come across a very stern parenesis or warning in Hebrews 6:4-8.  This of course is paralleled by the equally stern passage in Hebrews 10:26-31, but I shall come to that passage presently. 

The warning in Hebrews 6 is interpreted in various ways of course.  Kent gives a summary of the views:

1. Saved persons who are subsequently lost.[7]

2. Professed believers who have never really been saved.[8]  

3. Saved persons who backslide (but who nevertheless stay saved).[9]

4. A hypothetical case to illustrate the folly of apostasy.[10]

          To be honest, and in light of the author’s precision in Hebrews, I do not find any of these explanations entirely satisfactory.  This feeling only intensifies when all the warning passages of Hebrews are brought together and read over.  Here Attridge, though liberal, cuts to the chase:

In the preceding verses [i.e., vv. 4-5] the description of the initial experience of conversion and life in the eschatological community had been elaborate, solemn, and somewhat ponderous.  The next participle appears with dramatic abruptness.  For those who have enjoyed the experience of Christian renewal and have “fallen away” … the outlook is dire.[11]

And Stuhlmacher comments,

Hebrews considers it unpardonable when anyone rejects the forgiveness of sins effected for him or her once for all by Christ.  Inasmuch as this refers to final salvation, people do indeed lose their salvation by falling away from their baptismal confession.[12]

          Unless one is coming to Hebrews with a dyed-in-the-wool Pauline dogmatism it must be admitted that one often comes away from the warning passages, especially Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29, with a certain feeling that the text has been conformed to one’s theology rather than listened to on its own terms.  It ought to be noted also that for the writer of Hebrews salvation is yet ahead of them, especially if the reference to “rest” is equated with it (esp. Heb. 4:1-11).[13] 

          Hebrews 7 takes us back to Melchizedek and gives us some tantalizing information about him.  He was contemporary with Abraham (ca. 1850 B.C.) and was both king and priest of Salem (Heb. 7:1-2), the city that would become Jerusalem.  This stirs the interest as the OT had designated Messiah as both king and high priest, and in no clearer passage than Psalm 110:1 and 4.  Hebrews 3:4 says he was “made like the Son of God.”  “In what way?” we might ask.  Certainly in that Jesus as the Son has already been introduced as both king and high priest in the book (see Heb. 1:8; 2:17).  The author then shows that the order of Melchizedek is actually superior to the order of Levi (Heb. 7:17).  The Levitical priesthood, together with the office of high priest, was connected with the old covenant; the covenant made at Sinai and its reiteration in Deuteronomy.[14]  Thus, we are introduced to the topic of covenant. 

for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.  And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The LORD has sworn And will not relent, `You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’”), by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. – Hebrews 7:19-22. 

          Christ has become the High Priest of “a better” covenant through the Melchizedekian order.  This is quite something to say, for the Mosaic covenant established Israel as God’s covenant people (Exod. 24:7-8; Josh. 3:14-17).  Any move away from that covenant would constitute a grave threat to the identity of Israel as a nation.  That is, unless Israel’s covenant moorings were secured in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants by another greater way of righteousness and another superior intercessor.  This is the very argument the writer of Hebrews is going to pursue.  It begins with the oath of God (Psa. 110:1) to Messiah Jesus with which He “becomes a surety (engyos)” for this superior covenant.

          After the establishing oath the second thing that is mentioned is Christ’s eternal life; He “He continues forever,” which statement takes the resurrection for granted[15], and so now “has an unchangeable priesthood.” (Heb. 7:24).[16] 

---

[1] My reasons are set out in the first two chapters of Volume One.    

[2] There is no one Dispensational understanding of the warnings of Hebrews, so I will do a bit of picking and choosing.  Like Vlach I also believe that some of the work by Progressive Dispensationalists is of real value, even if I cannot embrace that approach. 

[3] We should understand that this warning was led up to by the buildup in Hebrews 1 and its exaltation of the Son.        

[4] Some writers would say that Hebrews is aimed mainly at Jewish Christians, who would thereby be motivated by the examples of their ancestors.  See, e.g., Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1972, 68.  

[5] Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in BKCNT, 785.

[6] Though see Hebrews 13:20.

[7] He notes that Arminians generally take this view, naming Lenski.  Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews, 111.

[8] He cites Gleason Archer (Ibid, 112), although this has been the popular position of men like John Owen, William Gouge, and A. W. Pink.  See also N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World, 719.  

[9] Ibid, 112, giving Ryrie as an example.   

[10] Ibid, 113.  This is Kent’s choice (Ibid, 113-114).  The approach advocated by Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday in The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance Assurance, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2001, basically rehashes this view. 

[11] Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 170-171.  He identifies the sin involved as “extreme apostasy” (the continued denial of Christ).  

[12] Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 540. 

[13] E.g., G. K. Beale. A New Testament Biblical Theology, 784-787.

[14] As I showed in the first volume, the connection of the Levites to the Mosaic covenant will be transcended because of the Priestly covenant through Levi (Num 25), and the representation of two layers of priests in Ezekiel’s temple; Zadokites who trace their lineage to Phinehas, and “Levites” who are non-Zadokites who nonetheless serve in a lesser capacity in the temple service.  See The Words of the Covenant, Volume One, 167-168, 295, 351.  However, the office of Levitical high priest is not renewed in Ezekiel 40-48.  It seems that Christ will fill the high Priestly function by dint of His own greater sacrifice.    

[15] For the importance of the fact of the resurrection to the theology of Hebrews see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 457-461.

[16] The word of the oath concerns the risen Jesus (Heb. 7:28). 

Shameless Plug: My Book is Out!

Roll up, roll up, look this way to see a new and amazing sight! Well, not quite. The truth is more in the region of “Oh, Henebury’s book that he’s been promising since Gutenberg is actually out now.”

I got my advance copies in the mail a couple of weeks ago. It was a strange feeling looking down at the thing I had spent over five years writing and nearly twelve years studying. I asked a friend who has himself published many books about this weird feeling and whether he ever felt that way. “Every time!” he replied.

Anyway, The Words of the Covenant: A Biblical Theology, Volume one is released today. It is a Biblical Theology of the Old Testament (Volume two will deal with the New) centered on the expectations that God raises by His oaths and promises. It is available from many outlets including Amazon and Barnes and Noble. It is published through Xulon. I managed to get Dr. Michael Vlach, now at the Shepherd’s Theological Seminary; Dr. Kevin Zuber of The Master’s Seminary; Dan Phillips who used to be a regular part of the Pyromaniacs blog, and Fred Butler of Hip and Thigh to write nice blurbs for the book. Since they have each taken an interest in what I’ve been doing I knew they could write something meaningful.

Answers to Some Questions I have Been Asked:

1. What led to “Biblical Covenantalism?” – I completed my doctoral dissertation on Method and Function in Dispensational Theology in 2006. Around the same time I found myself in the unenviable situation of being let go from an institution I had sweated blood for during many long and sometimes highly stressful hours. Finding myself with a lot of time on my hands and with several unanswered questions about Dispensational methodology I plunged anew into the study of the Bible. One main question bothered me throughout. It was a simple question that I could not find any scholar even asking. The question was “Why does God make covenants?” Pondering a biblical response to that question led me to see the importance and vitality of the six covenants of God.
2. What is “Biblical Covenantalism”? – At the most basic level it is the answer to the question “Why does God make covenants?” and finally seeing how God’s covenants provide a dual eschatological/teleological pathway for God’s Creation Project. It became apparent that the Person of the Promised Redeemer, King-Messiah could not be separated from those covenants. Indeed, He was pivotal to everything God is doing in Creation. As I state in the book: “

“I mean by it that the covenant oaths found plainly within the pages of our Bibles, and more particularly the covenants of God (i.e. associated with Noah, Abraham, Moses, Phinehas, and David, and mediated by Christ in the New covenant) compose together the main argument of Scripture. They pick up and carry forward creation’s teleology and eschatology. Every teaching of Scripture is subordinated to the divine covenants. Therefore, interpreting and following the iteration of the covenants is what Biblical Covenantalism is all about.”

3. Am I trying to find another middle path between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology? In his commendation Fred Butler asks this question. The answer is a very definite “No!” I believe Dispensational Theology (DT) is built upon different presuppositions than Covenant Theology (CT), and, for that matter, Progressive Covenantalism (PC). CT and PC are both mainly erected upon prior assumptions that are inimical to DT. Both are highly inferential systems, especially with regard to eschatology and the covenants of God. I believe Dispensationalism has got a lot of things right due to its hermeneutics. This includes the eternal importance of the nation of Israel, the Millennium, and the Rapture of the Church. My issue with DT is its method (which has hardly ever been thought through). As I see it DT is wrong in emphasizing Divine stewardships and defining itself through them and superimposing them on the covenants. I also think it is in error about DT only needing to focus upon eschatology and ecclesiology (and sometimes soteriology). Therefore Biblical Covenantalism (BC) as I see it is a corrective to DT in terms of its method and its vision. But, I hasten to add that I never started with Dispensationalism and then tried to tweak it. I believe I got BC from Scripture and can back it up from Scripture; hence the book!

4. What is the Place of Jesus Christ in Biblical Covenantalism? In line with what I said above, I was not happy with the method of DT. One problem with DT as I see it is the place it gives to Jesus Christ. The genius of Covenant Theology is its focus on Christology. Now what they do with Christ in finding Him in OT texts via types and shadows and by interpreting the OT on the basis of the NT (or rather their understanding of it), cuts right across what God has declared in His covenants and must therefore by in error. But DT’s emphasis is too often upon the Israel-church distinction (which is real) and the End Times (e.g. the Rapture, the Mark, and the Kingdom) and not upon the centrality of Christ in the whole Creation Project. In BC Jesus is the reason Creation exists and is preserved. He is also the One who redeems Creation and restores and will reign over Creation to the glory of God. He combines the promises of the covenants in Himself as the embodiment of the New covenant. It’s really all about Him.

5. (A Question I wish I had been asked) – Do You see Yourself as an Outsider? When I first saw clearly that DT had issues which were not being addressed I asked myself, “Do you want to put yourself beyond the pale by chasing this down?” My response was to forge ahead regardless, trusting the Lord to help me and to correct me as I went. So yes I know I am somewhat at the periphery and may stay there. I do harbor faint hopes that my work will be seen as a help and not a challenge and that more dialogue would be opened up as a result of people thinking through The Words of the Covenant.

Volume Two, “The Words of the Covenant: New Testament Continuation” is being written as we speak.

Renewing Dispensational Theology – Revised (Pt. 2)

Part One

This completes the thoughts offered previously.

4. Systematic Theology

Coming now to Systematic Theology the first thing that must be said is that the pretended stand for a partial system must be summarily dropped. Dispensational Theology cannot be switched out for the term Dispensational Premillennialism. In point of fact, I make bold to say that the notion of Dispensational Premillennialism is a bit of an odd bird without a full-orbed system to back it up. Most Dispensationalists have been blithely content to append their eschatology on to the end of another system – most often the Reformed position. But this is a dubious, and, let us admit it, halfsighted maneuver.

When DT is tagged onto an already developed system of theology it can only present itself as a correction to certain aspects of that system of theology. In so doing it tangles with the methodological presuppositions of that theology. But because it allies itself so often to say, Reformed theology, it must act deferentially towards Reformed formulations in areas other than ecclesiology and eschatology. For if it failed to acknowledge Reformed theology’s right to assert itself in these other areas – the doctrine of God, the doctrine of man and sin, the doctrine of salvation, for example – it could not think of itself as Reformed. This is because in claiming its right to question Reformed assumptions in any theological corpora, save in regard to the Last Things (and perhaps the Church), Dispensational theology would be asserting its right to formulate ALL its own doctrines independently of other theologies – just as Reformed Covenant Theology does! It would grow to dislike its assumed role as a beneficial parasite, cleaning up areas of another theological system, and would wish to be “Dispensational” in every area! Ergo, even if its formulations of all the theological corpora were closely aligned with Reformed theology here and there, they would be Dispensational formulations! This is precisely what I am pleading for!

Every knowledgeable person knows that Systematic Theology ought to be an outgrowth of Biblical Theology. The fact that most Dispensationalists are content to tack their views on to an already existing whole system doesn’t speak well for their Biblical Theology. For if Dispensational Biblical Theology cannot produce the impetus to formulate a distinctive and whole Systematic Theology of its own, perhaps the trouble goes deeper? I believe it does, and that reformulating Dispensational Theology from a Biblical Covenantalist viewpoint gives you all the main points of traditional Dispensational Eschatology and Ecclesiology, but it also gives you enough material from which to formulate clear and distinctive versions of Prolegomena, Theology Proper, Bibliology, Anthropology, Christology, and Pneumatology as well.

As I have said elsewhere, I do not think that tracking the “dispensations” produces enough usable doctrine to work up a solid systematics or worldview. If one is going to follow the standard definitions of Dispensationalism as a “system of theology” there will be slim pickings when it comes to forging a Dispensational Systematic Theology.

The irony should not be lost on us. Dispensationalists are forceful in their claims for “a Dispensational hermeneutic”, but they fail to understand what they mean by it, and even if they do, they often fail to give it the theological sponsorship it deserves. The main problem here is one of methodology – a study of which is dearly wanting in Dispensational circles. Let me give an example: if a certain universally applied hermeneutic is necessary to have Dispensational eschatology, then one cannot cease applying it in all other areas. Our of a consistently applied reading of the Bible a full Systematic Theology will inevitable come!

5. Method

In the last part of my series Christ at the Center I tried to sum up the strong Christological emphasis of Biblical Covenantalism with some of the solid by-product from which robust doctrines in Systematic Theology could be constructed. Although I have recorded over two hundred lectures in Systematic Theology along conventional lines, I think if I were to try to write a volume I would use the triad God, Man and the World. Why? Because that triad is what we are confronted with as creatures in God’s image every day of our lives.

Beginning with the title “God Has Spoken” and introducing epistemological and ontological concerns, which in turn require ethical responses, I would ask questions about the knowability of God and (following Calvin) the knowability of ourselves in Creation. This introduces the doctrine of Revelation. Here I would want to press the joint reliance of the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture for the job ahead. That would open the door to hermeneutical questions.

Even so, dealing with Christ I would take up the same rubric: God, Man and the World. In this way I would attempt to discuss the pre-existence of Christ along with the incarnation and cross and resurrection. I would want to ‘lace’ the whole Systematics with Eschatological (and teleological) concerns, being careful to converge these themes in the section called “Eschatology” at the end of the work. This way one would hopefully see the inevitability of the convergence rather than now turning to “The Last Things.” The covenants of Scripture, dealing as they do with the same triad of God, Man and the World, could help accomplish this.

6. Worldview

Contrary to some views, Systematic Theology sets out the Bible’s teaching on reality (viz. God, Man and the World). It does not go cap-in-hand to worldly science and unbelieving philosophy because it knows that the Biblical Worldview is the only workable worldview.

Renewing Dispensational Theology – Revised (Pt. 1)

I thought this article could use a second airing.  I have taken the liberty to revise bits here and there. 

For one reason or another traditional Dispensationalism has been abandoned by all but a relatively few Bible students.  The wild success of the Left Behind novels is no sound indicator to the contrary.  Two much better indicators which point decisively the other way are the degree of serious attention given to this point of view in most Biblical and Systematic theologies, which is nugatory; and the stunning lack of scholarly works in these areas by Dispensationalists themselves.  As to the latter, I believe I could count on one hand the publications of traditional Dispensationalists of the past generation which even attempt to rival the surfeit of such work from covenant theologians. I say it as a friend; Dispensationalism may be likened to an old car pulled to the side of the road with serious transmission problems.  And it has been there for a good long while looking like it needs hauling away.

I feel no need to prove this, as any perusal of the volumes of Biblical and Systematic Theology which have been rolling off the shelves for the past 25 years will show that their authors don’t consider Dispensationalism to be much more than a smudge on the edges of the theological map.

This being said, here are some thoughts on five areas where Dispensational Theology (DT) might be improved and renewed.

1. Self-Understanding: What Are We About?

In many ways, defining oneself by ‘dispensations’ is more restricting than defining oneself by the theological covenants of Covenant Theology (CT).  The dispensations of Dispensationalism are in reality blinders which severely attenuate the exciting potential of a plain reading of the Bible.  Hard as it may be to hear it, they are non-essentials, which have been borne aloft for so long that no one has bothered to ask if they actually power the hermeneutics or the system.  It is assumed that the names of the dispensations characterize the various epochs, but what do the concepts “innocence”, “conscience”, “government”, “promise”, “law”, “church” (or “grace”), and “kingdom” have in common (other than their obvious adoption by dispensationalists)?

Why, for example, would “government” be a stewardship given more emphasis than “conscience” after Noah?  Has anyone given it much thought? Wasn’t Israel’s theocracy far more of a government than anything found in Genesis 9?  The time of Abraham is often called the Dispensation of Promise.  But are not promises made to Adam and Eve and to Noah before Abraham?  Moreover, as John Sailhamer has stated,

‘the OT itself does not have a word or expression for the NT idea of ‘promise.’ – The Meaning of the Pentateuch, 421.

I realize that Sailhamer is referring to the promise-fulfillment motif, but this is certainly relevant to the ‘Dispensation of Promise’ which assumes such a motif.  If Sailhamer has a point it would seem wise to replace the imprecise term “promise” with “covenant.”  But once we do that we will be required to drop the theme of “dispensation” too, so as to give the Abrahamic covenant the developmental scope it clearly must have.  I do understand that ‘promise’ is used as a marker in the progress of revelation, but it really is an imprecise label to stick on the main idea in Genesis 12-22, which is not promise but covenant!  I may add here that although one can have a promise without a covenant, the reverse is not true, but the covenant is the thing. The artificiality involved in wrongly defining a dispensation as “promise” is a big problem, since it obscures what the text is actually saying.

In addition to this change of emphasis from what seems nebulous and inexact to what is plainly revealed and stressed in the biblical text there needs to be a rethink about what dispensationalists mean when they refer to their theology as a “system.”  It needs to be made clear that if dispensationalists continue to accept a limited definition of DT as essentially relevant to only two or three areas of theology, or, (which is much the same thing), if they are content to assimilate DT within the narrow band of “dispensational premillennialism,” then they have admitted tacitly that DT is not and cannot be a complete “system.”  Restricting, as many dispensationalists tend to do, DT to ecclesiology and eschatology, militates strongly against those definitions of DT which describe it as “a system of theology.”  Patently, any viewpoint which only chips in when either the Church or the Last Things is being discussed does not qualify – neither does it deserve to be identified – as a system of theology.  And this for a very good reason: only whole theologies can be systematized!

For the record, here is my working definition of DT: “An approach to biblical theology which attempts to find its raison d’etre in the Scriptures themselves, and which constructs its systematic presentation of theology around a primary focus on the biblical covenants.”

You will see that I have booted out the dispensations and thrown the spotlight upon the covenants in the Bible.  That may disturb some people, but I believe the profit of this move is immense.

2. Hermeneutics

Dispensationalism has often been associated with grammatico-historical interpretation.  Quite apart from whether many older dispensationalists actually contented themselves with approach, the fact is that the very term “grammatico-historical” no longer enjoys a static meaning.  So it becomes necessary to spell out what kind of hermeneutics is envisioned by that terminology.

In its most basic sense language conveys thought into words.  God is the Author of language and when He speaks in the early chapters of the Bible there is a correlation between His thought, the words selected to convey His thought, and the product brought into existence by His word.  This flow from God’s word to God’s action is so obvious in the Bible that it scarcely needs proof.  Let the reader study the Bible Story with this in mind and he will see it everywhere.  Thus we have an important hermeneutical marker from inside the Bible.

As we have seen God also makes covenants.  We may easily locate Divine covenants, for instance, in Genesis 9, 15-22, Exodus 19-24; Numbers 25; Deuteronomy 29-30; 1 Chronicles 17; Psalms 89; 105; 106; Jeremiah 31, 33, Luke 22 and many other places.  God does not need to bind Himself by an oath, so why does He do it?  One reason, I want to suggest, is because of our propensity judge God’s word by our own capacity for belief.  Like Eve sizing up the forbidden tree, we want to come to our own conclusions independently.  It is our default position, and the covenants set up the boundaries within which our interpretations ought to operate.  The biblical covenants might well be seen as ‘a reinforcement of Divine speech.’  If this be the case then God’s covenants serve to boldly underline the God’s word/ God’s action motif we saw earlier.

Hermeneutically speaking then, we have two powerful interpretive ideas coming at us from the pages of the Bible itself.  And this is given further emphasis in such places as 2 Kings 1 and John 21 where goes out of His way to explain that He means what He says. This hermeneutics take us a surprisingly long way when applied to all of Scripture.

On a separate note, I wonder how familiar many Dispensationalists are with the method of Covenant Theology?  We can’t just slap ‘dispensational hermeneutic’ onto the CT formulations with which we agree and claim to do them justice.  Just what is a ‘dispensational hermeneutic’ anyway?  G-H hermeneutics?  What is that nowadays, and have dispensationalists always employed it?  Mike Stallard’s dissertation on the Hermeneutics of A. C. Gaebelein for instance, says no.  

3. Biblical Theology

If there is one thing that most biblical theologies fail to take seriously it is the doctrines of the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture.  These concepts are inseparable.  If Scripture isn’t clear (except, of course, to those highly skilled practitioners in the genres of ANE and typology), then for sure it isn’t sufficient.  When one adds to this the miraculous coincidences wherein each type and genre corroborates the particular theological bent of the writer it all begins to look a little suspicious and question-begging.  Understandably, dispensationalists prefer to stake out their hermeneutical tents on firmer ground.  But the myopia induced by paying too much attention to dispensations prevents them from setting out a sound alternative Biblical Theology.  Once the covenants are seen for what they are and the dispensations are allowed to merge into the background the program opens up invitingly before them. 

 Using something like the revised definition of DT given above, it is possible to trace out what I like to call “the Creation Project” using the two hermeneutical guidelines previously discussed.  When this is done we begin to see something like the following:

a. Creation involves both a teleology and an eschatology (thus a study of the End Times involves a study of the Beginning Times)

b. The Fall introduces the noetic effects of sin which resets our default from dependence to independence.  Genesis 3:15 covers the major work of Christ in a fallen world.

c. The Noahic Covenant provides a predictable framework for history till the consummation, and further stresses the nature of Divine covenants as reinforcements of language – since all interpreters take this covenant ‘literally.’

d. The Abrahamic Covenant sets out a blessed future for at least two lines of humanity: those from Isaac and Jacob who inherit “the land of Canaan” and “the Nations.”  It also picks up on the Promised Seed idea from Eden.

e. The Davidic Covenant promises a great King who will pull the strands of the Noahic and Abrahamic Covenants together.

f. The New Covenant brings all the other everlasting covenants into itself in the Person of Christ, through whose redemptive death and new life the covenants must pass in order to find their specific fulfillments.

g. The Church as a “new man” created after the resurrection of Christ also enters into specific blessings of the Abrahamic and New Covenants.  In fact, in a real sense, it enters them before those with whom they were originally promised. 

h. The Second Coming, which is given more emphasis in the Bible than the First Coming, brings the earth’s Owner and the second Adam back as King to judge, restore and beautify it.  Just as all the covenants run through Christ, so Christ is Maker, Owner, Redeemer, Restorer, and Ruler as the physical world as a physical Being in the world.  The two comings of Christ are in reality one work separated by time, as is evident from the Messianic prophecies in the OT and the Lord’s Supper in the NT.  This fact also shows us that the teleology/eschatology motif inaugurated at Creation and instilled in the biblical covenants is yet unfolding.  

i. Because this world is cursed even Christ cannot remove the ravages of God’s curse on the ground without constantly exercising His miraculous restraint on it.  This explains the need for a New Heavens and New Earth wherein there is no more curse.  This completes the original “Creation Project.”  The whole Bible program is radically (but not artificially) Christological.            

That, I submit, is a lot more promising than talking about the dispensations and restricting it to the Church and Israel.  I call it, for want of a better term, ‘Biblical Covenantalism.’

Part Two

The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism? – Ryrie and Feinberg (Revised)

I made a bit of a hash of the initial post on this because I was in a rush.  Here is an extended and revised version (which is what I should have posted).  It questions the third essential of Ryrie’s proposed sine qua non.

The picture of history that is constructed comes from the base of consistently applied principles of grammatico-historical (G-H) hermeneutics.[i]  The Bible is to read as one would read any other book.  The presupposition here is not that the Bible is like any other book.  Rather, when it is read like one would read another book it becomes apparent that it is unique.  But only plain sense, literal interpretation yields the self-attestation of Scripture with its corollary of ultimate authority.

It is the consistency with which G-H interpretation is employed that makes one a dispensationalist.[ii]  This has been admitted even by those who have opposed it.[iii]  Consistent application of the principles of G-H interpretation, then, is the foremost trait of a dispensational theology.  Ryrie, in his delineation of the essential aspects of the system, actually places this characteristic second behind a fundamental distinction between Israel and the Church.[iv]  This subject bears further investigation.

Ryrie, Feinberg, and the Sine Qua Non  

On pages 38-41 of Ryrie’s important book on Dispensationalism, the author provides what he believes are the three indispensable marks of a dispensationalist.  The first of these essential beliefs is a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church.  Ryrie states: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive.  The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and the one who does will.”^[v]

The other two components of Ryrie’s sine qua non are, as we have seen, a consistent use of normal, plain, or literal interpretation when studying the Scriptures, and, more controversially, a doxological (rather than a christological or soteriological) goal of God in human history.^[vi]

However, it should be pointed out that not all dispensationalists completely agree with Ryrie.[vii]  One notable scholar who demurs is John Feinberg of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  Feinberg believes Ryrie’s three essentials need nuancing.^[viii]  He also thinks there are six things which, if properly defined, distinguish a consistent dispensationalist.[ix]  They are:

• Multiple senses of terms like “Jew,” “seed of Abraham”
• Hermeneutics
• Covenant promises to Israel
• A distinctive future for ethnic Israel
• The Church as a distinctive organism
• A distinct philosophy of history.
•   Interestingly, and which pertains more to the present discussion, Feinberg breaks down the traditionally cast distinction between the Church and Israel into the following:

Multiple Senses of the Term “Seed of Abraham.”

1. First, he defines what he calls the ethnic or national sense, which relates to physical Israel.
2. Next is the political sense, which calls to mind the geo-political entity that was Israel. As a political state there were citizens who were not physical Hebrews.
3. Then there is the spiritual sense. Under this identification are those who are the Seed of Abraham because they share like faith in God.  A person could be described this whether Jew or Gentile (Paul even uses this designation to distinguish saved from unsaved Jews in Romans 9:6ff.
4. Feinberg refers to the typological sense, wherein Old Testament Israel may function as a type of the Church (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:1-6).^[x] 

With these more refined senses of what it means to be one of Abraham’s seed, Feinberg writes,

“What is distinctive of dispensational thinking is recognition of all senses of these terms as operative in both Testaments coupled with a demand that no sense (spiritual especially) is more important than any other, and that no sense cancels out the meaning and implications of the other senses.”^[xi]

This is a helpful development in view of the oft-cited passages routinely produced by covenant theologians to prove that the Church is now Israel (e.g. Rom. 2:28; 9:6-7;11,16-25; Eph. 2:11-18; Phil. 3:3, etc.).

Ryrie’s Third Sine Qua Non Revisited

In contrast to covenant theology, which, because of its slavish adherence to the “covenant of grace”, must view all things soteriologically, dispensationalists believe the over-arching plan of God is the promotion of His glory through multifaceted means.  As Ryrie puts it, “…covenant theology makes the all-encompassing means of manifesting the glory of God the plan of redemption.”[xii]  Elsewhere he declares that, “The Bible itself clearly teaches that salvation, important and wonderful as it is, is not an end in itself but is rather a means to the end of glorifying God.”[xiii]

In another place Ryrie comments:

Scripture is not human-centered, as though salvation were the principal point, but God-centered, because His glory is at the center.  The glory of God is the primary principle that unifies all the dispensations, the program of salvation being just one of the means by which God glorifies Himself.  Each successive revelation of God’s plan for the ages, as well as His dealings with the elect, nonelect, angels, and nations all manifest His glory.[xiv]

Nevertheless, we think Ryrie has overreached himself on this third point.  While the first two are certainly essentials if one is to be a normative dispensationalist, the third is not.  Stallard, for example, has shown that, “the doxological center for the Bible in Ryrie is replaced by a redemptive center in Gaebelein’s statements about the purpose of revelation.”[xv]

It is very clear that one can be a dispensationalist and not believe that the glory of God demonstrated in a multifaceted scheme is a critical belief of the system, just as one can be a covenant theologian and believe that it is – albeit the other matters definitely play second fiddle to salvation.[xvi]    In fact, I would argue that most dispensationalists are unsure just what the third strand of Ryrie’s sine qua non means!