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.  

God is Only as Good as His Word

Centuries passed before the time of the birth of Jesus Christ in the small hamlet of Bethlehem Judah around the Year 5-7 B.C.[1]  Bethlehem was the place where David was born (1 Sam. 17:12), and also was the place where the Messiah would be born (Mic. 5:2).  Yahweh had pinpointed Bethlehem so no other birthplace would be right for Jesus Christ.  Not Jerusalem, not Rome, but tiny Bethlehem.  God means what He says.  And He would be born precisely at the time Yahweh had chosen (Gal. 4:4). 

          But what about the angel’s proclamation?  Didn’t he say,

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.  And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk. 1:32-33)?

          What happened?  After Jesus was born, He lived in obscurity until bursting onto the scene around the year A.D. 26,[2] heralded by the imposing figure of John the Baptist (Jn. 1:19-34).  He uttered words of wisdom which no one had heard the like of before (Jn. 7:46), and performed incredible miracles beyond what even Elijah and Elisha managed (e.g., Matt. 12:15; 14:13-21; Mk. 1:21-29, 40-42; 2:10-12; 3:1-5, 11; Jn. 5:2-9; 9:1-7; 11:38-44). 

          But He was rejected (Mk. 8:31; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:4) and they crucified this “King” who would supposedly reign forever (Mk. 15:25).  He rose from the dead (Rom. 14:9) and ascended back into heaven (Lk. 24:50-51; Acts 1:11), where He has been at the right hand of the throne of God ever since (Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1), where He is interceding for the saints, not reigning over them (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 8:1).  Although it is true that the spiritual powers have been made subject to Him (1 Pet. 3:22), there is yet no sign of the prophesied reign of shalom that was expected on the back of so many OT promises (e.g., Psa. 2:6-8; 110:2; Mic. 4:7; 5:2; Isa. 1:27; 2:4; 9:6-7; 11:1-10; 32:16; 42:1, 4; Jer. 23:5; 33:14-16; Dan. 2:44-45; 7:13-14; Zech. 2:10-12; 14:9). 

          The difference between what the covenant promises of the OT emphasized (and what was repeated by the angel Gabriel at Jesus’ birth – Lk. 1:26-33), and what has happened since has caused many Christians to look for different interpretations to the prophecies so as to confirm their fulfillment in “unexpected” ways.

          Well, if God is the kind of communicator who swears oaths to do specific things and then does them in unexpected ways then He is the kind of communicator it is very hard to put faith in.  Such a God did not do what He said He would do.  We don’t put faith in someone who has repeatedly shown that they don’t mean what they say.  We want them to be as good as their word.  I realize that here those who believe the “unexpected fulfillment” hypothesis makes God “better” than His word, but that is special pleading masquerading as piety.[3]   Holding to this view logically entails us remaining noncommittal in the face of God’s sworn testimony.  We dare not believe what God says because we believe God’s words might not mean what they appear to mean.  Hence, faith dies amid this uncertainty.

          To fill in the void left by not believing that God’s covenant words can be taken literally, many claim that Christ is to be seen in every text of Scripture.  The way they see Him, however, is via typology – an interpretive practice that too often acts as a ruse.  Not that some typological correspondences aren’t real, but many times they are read into the text rather than being suggested by it. 

---

[1] This dating is approximate but is very plausible.  See e.g., Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, 6-8.

[2] See, e.g., Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1977, 30-31.

[3] In my opinion the same thing is true of supersessionism.  See e.g., Miguel G. Echevarria and Benjamin P. Laird, 40 Questions About the Apostle Paul, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2023,302-305.

The Church is a New Testament Institution

I’m doing the boring chore of name and Scripture indices at the moment. Here’s an excerpt from the forthcoming book.

First of all, we must dismiss this view, held by many pious men throughout history, that the Church is in the OT.  The New covenant was not made in the OT,  and I have shown the Church to be a New covenant institution.  The NT records the making of the New covenant in Jesus’ blood (Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25).  This is why Jesus spoke of the Church as future in Matt. 16:18 (Jn.7:39).  The Christian Church is the Body of Christ and is inescapably joined to the resurrection of Christ (Eph. 2:4-6; Col. 2:12; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 14:9).  Thus, it was quite literally impossible for the Church to exist prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus.  The Apostle Paul writes,

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. – Romans 7:4

The Great Commission could not be given until “all power” was given to the Risen Christ (Matt. 28:18f.).  The preaching in the book of Acts relies on the resurrection (Acts 2:14, 24; 4:2; 10:40; 13:22-23; 15:6-11; 17:18, etc.).  Paul’s admonitions to holiness in Romans 6 are predicated on our vital connection to the resurrection.  Moreover, the Church is built upon Christ (1 Cor. 3:11. Cf. Rom. 10:9), and “the apostles and [NT] prophets” (Eph. 2:20).  If the Church is a New covenant community (as it is in 2 Cor. 3), it stands to reason that it could not be in existence before the New covenant was made.

All this means that those saved before the inauguration of the Church, both among the Nations and in ancient Israel, are separate from the Church.  Israel was (cf. Hos. 2:2; Jer. 3:8) and shall be (Hos. 2:19) married to Yahweh – whom we equate in most instances with God the Father.  The Church shall be married to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25, 32; Rev. 19:6-9).  We cannot entertain a theology that has these OT saints in some suspended animation until Jesus has died and risen, and then joined surreptitiously to the NT Body of Christ.  Though we insist that their salvation was firmly grounded in the foreseen merits of the Cross, that is not the same thing as declaring them all within the sphere of the Church.  There is no necessity forced upon us by Scripture to include the saints of all the ages within the Church.

By Intention the Church is Mainly Gentile

Another thing which is often overlooked but which ought to be thought about, is the frank truth that the Church, although it has its seeds in Jewish soil (Acts 1-7), is intentionally predominantly Gentile in constitution.  The Apostolic teaching is that the Church’s design is to bring the Gentiles into relationship with God.  This can be viewed along at least two related lines:

• The Jews rejected Christ and are judicially blinded to this very day (Rom. 11:8-10, 25, 28).
• We are awaiting “the fullness of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:25).  Once this period has concluded God will once again turn to Israel – the natural branches (one of the worst exegetical foul-ups is to equate the Olive Tree with its branches!).

Although any Jew who today repents and receives Jesus as Savior is incorporated into the Church (Eph. 2:12-16)[1], Paul teaches that God will yet deal again with the nation of Israel, “the natural branches.”

What the Church Is

The Church is, at its core, a called together population of redeemed peoples, Jew and Gentile, but mostly Gentile, permanently indwelt by the Spirit, and betrothed to the Risen Christ.  Because this conception is unknown within the pages of the Old Testament, the Church as “the Body of Christ” is called “the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.” (Col 1:26).  It is not, contrary to some, that the concept of the Church was known by OT saints but not realized until the New Testament era.  That blatantly contradicts Paul’s statement in Colossians 1.  Rather, the idea of the Church was  “hidden in God” (Eph. 3:9); it was a secret (musterion) that no one but God knew about until God disclosed it.[2]

Everyone understands that the OT is filled with promises of salvation for the Gentile nations.  It is the presence of these promises which smooth out the transition between the Testaments and explain the “lack of surprise” at the Church’s existence in the Apostolic writings.  But this turning to the Gentiles because of the neglect of Messiah by Israel was no more foreseeable from an OT perspective than a huge time gap between the first and second advents was foreseeable.

The NT Church is a covenant entity.  As we have seen, in Galatians 3 Paul explicitly relates the Church to the Abrahamic covenant.  In Galatians 3:16 the apostle writes:

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He
does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to
your Seed,” who is Christ.

It is essential to carefully note the particular part of the Abrahamic covenant which the Apostle assigns to the Church.  Both in Galatians 3:8 and in Romans 4:16-17 Paul assiduously picks out the promise of Genesis 12:3 and 22:18.  He is not like those unconcerned exegetes who carelessly ascribe all the covenant promises contained within the Abrahamic covenant to the Church.

What might be called my main thesis is that Christ will perform all this restorative and promissory work by the New covenant, which in Him (Isa. 49:8) provides the requisite cleansing unto righteousness that obligates God to fulfill His covenants.  This Christ-centered approach is what I call “Biblical Covenantalism.”

---

[1] Contra N. T. Wright (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1443-1449), these verses in Ephesians 2 are not to be understood as asserting that in Christ Jews are no longer Jews and Gentiles no longer Gentiles, only that Jew and Gentile are one in the Church.  Hence, Jewish Christians are not bound to divest themselves of their OT covenantal traditions as long as those “markers” are not pushed on Gentile believers (which would be Galatianism). 

[2] See Jeremy M. Thomas, “The ‘Mystery’ of Progressive Dispensationalism,” CTJ 09:28 (Dec 2005), 297ff.

Biblical Covenantalism in Five Sentences

It may be help if I jot down what I believe to be the essence of my approach. 

1. Covenants must be understood primarily by the oaths which bind those who make them.
2. The covenants of God bind Him to His oaths, which means that if they are unilaterally sworn, they must come to pass precisely in accordance with the words that were used.
3. Since God only made covenants about major aspects of His Creation Project nothing else in the Scriptures can circumscribe, resignify, or contradict the fixed oaths which He made.
4. Covenants are primarily hermeneutical in nature, which means a close study of them will yield a better understanding of the whole Story of the Bible and the future.
5. The Noahic, Abrahamic, Priestly, and Davidic covenants are unconditional as to their promises, and they are to be implemented on the basis of Jesus Christ’s mission as the New covenant “Lamb of God” who acts as “a covenant to the people” to ensure the full realization of God’s purposes.

I hasten to add that there is quite a bit more to it, but I would be satisfied if anyone studying my work were to characterize it under those five points. Everything else that I espouse is a direct result of these foundational tenets.  

It’s Getting Closer!

The Words of the Covenant: A Biblical Theology, Volume Two – New Testament Continuation is nearly ready to send to the printer. Just some final editing and the indices left. I would appreciate prayer to get it done before the holidays.

The Jewish Flavor of the Apocalypse

From the upcoming book ‘The Words of the Covenant: Volume Two, New Testament Continuation’

I think that one of the very first things we need to note about the book of Revelation is its decidedly Jewish tone.  The book speaks of David, the throne, Jerusalem, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the twelve tribes of Israel, the two witnesses, the ark of the testimony, the commandments of Moses, and among things.  References to Israel and hints at its promises abound.  If Revelation is a book for the Church about the Church, why this Jewish flavor?[1]  Even the language of the book, though Greek, is salted with Hebraisms.  Bullinger notes that “though the language is Greek, the idiom is Hebrew.”^[2]  Fanning observes that “John wrote a Semitized form of Greek”^[3]  And everyone knows that Revelation alludes to more of the OT than any other NT book. 

Some cogent explanation of this phenomenon has to be forthcoming.  It is not enough to say that this way of writing just helped John make his connections to the Hebrew Bible.  Without bringing up the covenantal links that exist  throughout Revelation (see below), just a look at the contents of the book will underscore its decidedly Jewish appearance:

1. The “synagogue of Satan” is mentioned Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.  Many commentators believe that this ungodly group were composed of Jews (hence “synagogue”) and that their claim to be true Jews was false because they rejected/subverted Christ’s truth.  In my opinion these people call themselves Jews but are not descended from the twelve tribes.

2. The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David (Rev. 5:5).  This recalls Genesis 49:8-10 and Jacob’s great messianic prophecy.

3. The 144,000 Jewish male virgins (Rev. 7:3-8; 14:1-5).  Try as they might to turn these men (whom Bauckham and others believe to be an army in Rev. 7) into men and women of spiritual purity, the facts stand against it.  These are men and they are from the twelve tribes of Israel. 

4. The temple of God in “the holy city” upon earth (Rev. 11:1-2).  Outside of the temple we are told is given to the Gentiles.  Hence, a clear ethnic distinction is made.

5. The two witnesses who perform miracles associated with Moses and Elijah (Rev. 11:3—12).  The OT tenor of these witnesses cannot be missed.

6. Earthly Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8), which is where Christ was crucified.

7. The woman clothed with the sun (Rev. 12:1-6).  Despite valiant attempts to get around the obvious, the allusion to Israel is patent.  Genesis 37:9-10 and Joseph’s second dream concerning his family is recorded: Joseph being the twelfth star.

8. Believers are said to “sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” (Rev. 15:3).  The song of Moses (Exod. 15:1-19) rejoices in the deliverance of Israel through the miracle of the Red Sea.

9. Gentiles are only mentioned once in the book, in Revelation 11:2.

10. The male child in Revelation. 12:5 is obviously Jesus (Psa. 2; Rev. 19:15).  Who gives birth to Christ?  Israel.

11. It is telling that the Jewishness of Revelation starts to become clear only     after the seven churches (which represent the whole Church) are dealt with and the attention turns to what is going to happen.  The Church and Israel are not spoken of in the same breath until Revelation 21.  Hence, even though the seven churches of Asia Minor are prominent in the first three chapters, once the large central section launches the mood is far more Jewish.

12. Finally, as Bullinger observes, “All the imagery – the Temple, the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, the Altar, the Incense, the heads of the twenty-four courses of Priests (the pattern of which David’s was a copy, 1 Chron. xxviii. 19…), all this belongs peculiarly to Israel.”[4]  Even New Jerusalem is shaped like the Holy of Holies.

---

[1] Written at the close of the first century it comes too late to be explained by the predominance of Jewish converts to Christianity.

[2] E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, or “The Day of the Lord,” London, Samuel Bagster, 1972, 4-6.

[3] Buist M. Fanning, Revelation, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ZECNT, 2020,53.

[4] E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, 5-6.

Covenantal Allusions in the Apocalypse

From the forthcoming book The Words of the Covenant, Volume Two, New Testament Continuation

As he begins his prophecy, John says that he is a fellow brother in the “tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:9).  I think it is important to notice the word “kingdom” and ask whether it speaks of a kingdom that was present already in the first century A.D. or whether it refers to the future messianic Kingdom.  It will not come as a surprise to learn that the answer depends upon the eschatological position adopted.  As Christ is “He who has the key of David” (Rev. 3:7), “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (Rev. 5:5), and “the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star” (Rev. 22:16) I believe we are directed to an eschatological-covenantal fulfillment.  

If, as I suspect, “the Lord’s Day” is the Day of the Lord^[1], then that term has eschatological covenant connections.  The Day of the Lord in its eschatological manifestation is the prelude to the New Covenant Kingdom.  It is the necessary preparation for the Kingdom to come. 

But even if “the Lord’s Day” refers, as many scholars insist, to Sunday, then the covenant connection would concern the New covenant still, since the day of Christ’s resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost were on a Sunday, and those events are inextricably connected to the New covenant.  So, either way we have covenantal concerns as early as Revelation 1:10.      

One writer has said it well: “A bedrock of the Apocalypse is that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah.”^[2]  Jesus has a golden sash across His chest (Rev. 1:13), a symbol of royalty, and hence of His Davidic ancestry and privilege.  His standing in the midst of the lampstands alludes to His (New covenant) priestly role.^[3]  This combination of Davidic and Melchizedekian elements is best understood as signifying Christ’s present qualifications to be the great Priest-King of the next aeon.  Jesus is the priest now as He mediates the New covenant to the Church (Heb. 12:24 cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).  He will mediate the New covenant to Israel as a nation later (Jer. 31:31-34; Zech. 12:10).  In either case, Christ must mediate between God and the sinner before they will accept His reign over them as their King.  Therefore, we ought never to assume Christ is reigning in His kingdom because He is functioning as High Priest.  The covenants will come to fruition exactly as stipulated.[4]   

But not only is Jesus dressed in royal regalia, He is said to hold “the key of David” (Rev. 3:7), and to be “the Root and the Offspring of David” (Rev. 22:16).  Revelation 3:21 informs us that Jesus has a throne that is/will be His, and it is distinguished from the throne of His Father (cf. Matt. 19:28; 25:31).  Even the most basic knowledge of the covenants will inform the reader that Christ’s throne is the Davidic throne upon earth (Lk. 1:32-33). 

Again, when John despairs because there is no one in heaven or earth who is found worthy to break the seals in Revelation 5, he is answered,

But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.” – Revelation 5:5.

          The Lamb, who is the crucified and risen Jesus, is the only one in God’s whole realm who qualifies to open the seals.^[5]  This is doubtless because He represented heaven on the earth and wrought salvation for God’s image-bearer, man (Jn. 17:1-26; Heb. 1:2-3), while securing the eventual “glorious liberty” (Rom. 8:21) of the earth itself.  Furthermore, Christ’s selfless humiliation in His own world on behalf of His enemies is not approached by any other deed in heaven and earth.  And since the judgments sealed inside the scroll are earth-judgments, the sole person who has wrought reconciliation between God and creation is the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29; Heb. 9:26).   

I have made an argument in this book that as the Lamb of God Jesus institutes the New covenant.^[6]  I therefore believe, on the basis of its proliferation in Revelation, that the covenant language in Revelation 21:3 (“God Himself will be with them and be their God”) and 21:7 (“I will be his God and he shall be My son”) relates to the New covenant.    

          As for the throne of David, if Satan has a throne upon the earth (Rev. 2:13) surely Jesus will have one?  Indeed, He will:

Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” – Revelation 11:15.

          The text is declaring that God the Father will rule this world and the one to come through His Son Jesus Christ.^[7]  The Son’s throne will be in Jerusalem according to the Old Testament (Jer. 3:17; Mic. 4:7-8; Ezek. 43:7).

          Backtracking a bit, the presence of a sealed remnant of Israel in Revelation 7 connects us to the Abrahamic covenant, as does the “woman” in Revelation 12:1f.  Then in Revelation 11:19 the ark of the covenant is seen, and it is impossible to miss an allusion to the old covenant.  This is significant, because in Revelation 12:17 we read about those “who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”   It is of course the ark of the Mosaic covenant that was made on earth, and which pertains to the earth.^[8]

          God is only as good as His covenants.  The book of Revelation describes the coming tribulation and the defeat of Antichrist.  Then Christ the coming Ruler sets up His Kingdom rule “with a rod of iron” but in mercy and peace in exact correspondence to the Abrahamic, Priestly, and Davidic covenants.  Yes, we must not forget the promise to Phinehas (Num. 25:10-13; Psa. 106:28-31).  Ezekiel’s temple will be built in Israel in the coming Millennium (Ezek. 40 – 48; cf. Isa. 2:2-3; Ezek. 37:26-28; Zech. 6:12-13).  To quote from a psalm written in an era in which the promises seemed to be failing.  God is clear:

          My covenant I will not break,

Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. – Psalm 89:34. 

---

[1] Although I will not press the point, seeing as the term “the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10) may not refer to the Day of the Lord.   

[2] Joshua W. Jipp, The Messianic Theology of the New Testament, 286.

[3] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 208.

[4] It has always surprised me how this basic truth is missed by scholars.  As one example, in the fine work by James M. Hamilton, Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment, 550, he declares “When God makes covenants with his people, he promises that he will be true to his just and merciful character.”  But Hamilton’s book fails to heed the oaths of those covenants or use them to guide the direction of his interpretations.

[5] If the seven-sealed scroll cannot be opened, then the seven trumpets cannot be blown, nor the seven bowls be poured out. 

[6] Israel is not under the New covenant until the second coming.  It is conjecture on my part, but God wants His people to acknowledge the original covenant and the Messiah to whom it points (Deut. 18).

[7] Christ’s followers will have a hand in the rule of the coming Kingdom.  Rev. 2:27 cites (with a little alteration) Psalm 2:9.  See also Rev. 12:5; 19:15. 

[8] See also Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 15:3. 

Table of Contents for Volume 2

I still have quite a lot to do to finish The Words of the Covenant, Volume 2: New Testament Continuation, but it’s getting there. When complete I estimate the book will be close to 600 large pages long. I have increased the font size for easier reading. I’m confident enough to post this not-quite-finalized Table of Contents to give potential readers an idea of what to expect:

The Words of the Covenant, Volume 2: New Testament Continuation

Table of Contents (Provisional)

Preface

Introduction

PART ONE: FIRST THINGS FIRST

1. Some Methodological Issues

2. Orientation – God’s Covenants in the Old Testament

PART TWO THE COMING OF THE COVENANT MESSIAH

3. The Unparalleled Significance of the Son of God

PART THREE: THE COVENANTS IN THE EARLY CHAPTERS OF THE GOSPELS

4. The Annunciation Passages in Matthew and Luke

5. Covenant and Kingdom in John the Baptist

6. The Beginning of the Ministry of Jesus the Christ

PART FOUR: COVENANT IN THE REST OF LUKE AND MATTHEW

7. Covenant and Kingdom in Luke

8. Covenant and Kingdom in Matthew

PART FIVE: COVENANT IN MARK AND JOHN

9. Covenant and Kingdom in Mark

10. Covenant Themes in John

11. The Covenantal Backdrop of the Gospels

PART SIX: ACTS AND THE EPISTLES OF PAUL

12. Covenant and Kingdom in Acts

13. Paul: Apostle of the New Covenant (1)

14. Paul: Apostle of the New Covenant (2)

15. Paul: Apostle of the New Covenant (3)

PART SEVEN: HEBREWS AND THE GENERAL EPISTLES

16. The Enigmatic Book of Hebrews

17. The Rest of the General Epistles

PART EIGHT: COVENANT ECHOES IN REVELATION

18. Converging Themes in the Apocalypse

19. The People(s) of God

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Contrasting Dispensationalism and Biblical Covenantalism

Appendix B: Hebrews – An Outrageous Proposal

Appendix C: The Terms of the New Covenant and Its Parties

Appendix D: Supersessionism and God’s Covenants

Appendix E: Trying to Get the Rapture Right

Appendix F: Salvation in the Tribulation

Appendix G: Review of The Future Restoration of Israel

Bibliography (Annotated?)

Name Index

Scripture Index

Biblical Covenantalism and Second Peter

Biblical Covenantalism and First Peter  

          Turning now to 2 Peter, I will assume that the author is the apostle who wrote 1 Peter.  As with the first chapter of 1 Peter, 2 Peter 1 is a wonderful summary of Christian discipleship goals.  This letter is shorter than 1 Peter and the themes are different; they deal with false teachers and the dissolution of the present order in terms of judgment.  This makes it much closer in content to Jude, which either influenced it or was influenced by it.^[1]  At least that is the way it is often viewed.

Testimony to the Transfiguration       

          As chapter 1 closes Peter inserts a memory he had of the Transfiguration of Jesus on the mount, to which he was an eyewitness (Mk. 9:2f.). 

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.  For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”  And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. – 2 Peter 1:16-18.

Peter directly relates the event to “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:16).  By this I think Gundry is right when he says Peter is “using the transfiguration as a preview that guarantees the second coming.”^[2]  That is a good way to put it.^[3]  Just as the miracles of Jesus previewed His transformative presence when He comes as the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6), even so His great transfiguration, in which “as He prayed, the appearance of His face was altered, and His robe became white and glistening” (Lk. 9:29) preannounces His coming in glory (Matt. 25:31).  He will come to bring in the long-awaited Kingdom (Matt. 6:10; Rev. 12:10).  And this interpretation is supported in the immediate context:

for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. – 2 Peter 1:11.

          The words of the Father which Peter heard on the mount recall Psalm 2:7, which in context depicts the King in His Kingdom (Psa. 2:6-9), which buttresses the eschatological interpretation of the Transfiguration and of 2 Peter 1:16-18.  

Scoffers in the Last Days

          2 Peter 3 turns the attention to “the last days” (2 Pet. 3:3), and “the promise of his coming” (2 Pet. 3:4).  He bases what he will go on to say on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles (2 Pet. 3:2).  Citing the scoffers who point out that essentially nothing has changed and there is no reason to believe Christ will return to cause change (2 Pet. 3:4), Peter then indulges in a little cosmology.  I do not wish to get into that cosmology here, although I do believe that when everything is seen for what it is the views of Peter in 2 Peter 3:5 (not to mention Moses in Genesis 1) will be shown to be accurate.  God will have the last laugh. 

          The destruction of the original earth in the worldwide Flood is used as a contrast to the coming judgement of the earth in fire. This produces the triad of 1. This world before the Flood (Eden to the Ark), 2. This world from the Flood to the second coming, and 3. This world from the second coming to the dissolution.^[4] 

          But is it a dissolution?  Not everyone agrees.  McClain notices that the word “new” (kainos) can mean new in character as well as new in substance.^[5]  But the problem does not lie with the word kainos, but in the description of the destruction of the heaven and earth which Peter supplies:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.  Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? – 2 Peter 3:10-12.      

Notice that the obliteration of the present creation is termed by Peter “the Day of the Lord” (2 Pet. 3:10).  He employs several verbs to describe the sort of destruction involved.  It is true that none of these verbs (“pass away,” “melt,” “burned up^[6],” “dissolved”) requires an utter dissolution or annihilation of the present creation.  But when we look at what is being dissolved, we find it is the “elements,” the “stoicheion” that are being referred to.  The “stoicheion” are the basic constituents of reality, not just the structures and topography of the land.  Hiebert writes, “The physical structure of the present world will disintegrate, not necessarily be annihilated.”^[7]  I can go with that. 

Here we must bring in three passages from elsewhere in the NT, Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 20:11 and 21:1:

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

          In the Gospel passage Jesus has just been describing the End Times, and He finishes off by comparing the destruction of the present order of things, both heaven and earth, with the endurance of His words.  One may claim that this is mere hyperbole, but I am not so sure.  There is little reason to state the destruction of the present creation in this way unless He is revealing a fact.  And notice the whole creation is in view, not just the earth. 

          It is the same with the two Revelation passages.  Both heaven and earth are affected, and the verb pheugo (“fled away”) in Revelation 20:11 calls to mind the image of something vanishing out of sight.

          Whether the present heavens and earth are to be renovated or replaced is neither here nor there in the scheme of things, but when a theological perspective is added in the shape of Revelation 22:3: “there shall be no more curse,” I am inclined to state the total annihilation view.  It seems to me that the curse on the ground that God pronounced in Genesis 3:17 goes deeper than what a renovation will produce.^[8]         

---

[1] Peter H. Davids, A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude, 203-208.

[2] Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament, 958.  See also D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary, Greenville, SC, Unusual Publications, 1989, 71-72.

[3] Not everyone is so adamant about the second coming connection.  Matthew S. Harmon, The God Who Judges and Saves: A Theology of 2 Peter and Jude, Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2023, doesn’t even mention it.

[4] Ibid, 965.  Peter H. Davids, A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude, 240.

[5] Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 510. 

[6] Vlach and others note that this word means “to lay bare” or “expose” and he is right (Michael J. Vlach. He Will Reign Forever, 512-513).  But I do not think all this tips the balance in favor of a renovated earth rather than a completely replaced one when the other verbs and passages are brought alongside.  Whichever way it turns out, I shall be more than satisfied with the results!  

[7] Also D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary, 160.

[8] Job 15:15 also states that, “the heavens are not pure in His sight.”