Posts
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
PREPARING FOR PROGRESSIVES
(Part 3: "Dispensationalism, Israel, and Scripture")
by Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
INTRODUCTION
In this third installment of a series on "Dispensationalism, Israel, and Scripture" I will give attention to the progressive dispensational view of Israel especially in light of the foundational new covenant. In the preceding two issues I focused more on problems in dispensationalism regarding Israel and on the revised dispensationalist viewpoint of Ryrie and Walvoord.
As I have indicated on a number of occasions, progressive dispensationalists have undertaken a wholesale overhaul of dispensationalism. The effects of relentless covenantal critiques from as far back as David Brown ("Christ’s Second Come: Will It Be Premillennial?," 1891) in the nineteenth century, through O. T. Allis ("Prophecy and the Church," 1945) in the mid-twentieth century to the present have had their effect. Much within progressive dispensationalism is acceptable to reformed and covenantal theologians. But problems remain.
In this issue I will provide a summary of the progressive dispensational understanding of the new covenant, which covenant has generated so much confusion -- and absurdity -- in older versions of dispensationalism. I will use as my reference point an excellent chapter by Bruce A. Ware inedited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (1992, hereinafter: DIC). Ware’s chapter is (cleverly) titled: "The New Covenant and the People(s) of God." The parenthetical "s" alerts the reader to the fundamental issue. Ware is professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Ware is aware (no pun intended) both of the large role the new covenant plays in evangelical theology -- and of the difficulties that arise in the interpretation of the new covenant: "Evangelical biblical scholars and theologians uniformly affirm that the new covenant constitutes a high point in God’s redemptive and restorative program" (DIC, p. 68).
Of special interest to our study, he notes (in part) that "despite this recognition, however, several questions remain. For example, what is the nature of this new covenant?... How will this new covenant be implemented? With whom is the new covenant made? Do Israel and the church both participate in thenew covenant?" (DIC, p. 68).
These are but a few of the questions that I lift from his fuller discussion. They are crucial in the ongoing dialogue and debate between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalist evangelical and reformed theologians. He has put his finger on the very pulse of the problem -- and done an admirable job of defending dispensationalism.
(As an aside, I am impressed with the quality and character of the writings of progressive dispensationalists. I seriously doubt if one of the progressive dispensational theologians will ever publish a book like Ryrie’s apocalyptic writings:(1976) and (1982). Of course, academic credibility comes at a cost. I also doubt if progressive dispensationalists will ever be worth the millions of Ryrie either!)
Ware’s important chapter has as its purpose "to devote particular attention to the new covenant as it relates to Israel and the church, and to do so by focusing most directly on (1) the nature of the new covenant, as given to Israel, and (2) its fulfillment or realization in relation both to Israel and the church." This is so that "we can think responsibly about the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church as both entities relate within the one people of God" (DIC, pp. 68-69).
Continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments and the people(s) of God is a fundamental dividing point between reformed and dispensational theologians. For an excellent debate over issues revolving around this question, see: John S. Feinberg, ed.,(Crossway, 1988). This was one of the first books generated from the public appearance of progressive dispensationalism.
Ware’s purpose should immediately give rise to concern among the classic and revised dispensationalists: As I noted last month, how could this prophecy, which is literally directed to "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," have ANY realization in the church at all? Remember Ryrie’s "incontrovertible evidence" for TWO new covenants? Remember his vigorous, death-defying argument: "If the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel’s promises, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone. If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many premillennialists [perhaps even by Ryrie now, according to Ware!], but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is ‘a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.’ However, since the New Testament will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?" (BPF, p. 118). He goes so far as to charge "that the one covenant, two aspects interpretation absolutely contradicts the entire premillennial system" (BPF, p. 108).
Also, I ask regarding the new covenant: How can dispensationalism tolerate the notion of "one people of God" in history? Yet this is the direction of the New Kids on the Block, the progressive dispensationalists.
Let us consider Ware’s exegesis, much of which I find quite helpful. This portion of my newsletter will basically function as a book review of those portions of his article directly relevant to the dispensational debate. It is very important, however, to have some of Ware’s observations before us if we are to accurately expose the deficiencies in the progressive dispensational position and show where they go astray.
THE OLD TESTAMENT REGARDING THE NEW COVENANT
The heart of the new covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (a passage I had to memorize when enrolled in Dr. Dennis Wisdom’s course on "Premillennialism" at Tennessee Temple College back in 1972). Jeremiah 31-34 reads as follows:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
Ware shows that though Jeremiah 31 is the key passage of the Old Testament regarding the new covenant, and the only passage specifically calling it the "new covenant," it is not the only mention of this gracious covenant. Other passages referring to the new covenant -- or some effect resulting from it -- include: Isaiah 24:5; 49:8; 55:3; 54:10; 59:21; 61:8; Jeremiah 32:39-40; 50:5; Ezekiel 11:19; 16:60; 18:31; 34:25; 36:26; 37:26; Hosea 2:18-20.
According to Ware, the national implications of this "new" covenant cannot be far from Jeremiah’s mind. The division in Israel (Judah and Israel) which lead ultimately to both their exiles from the land are key historical-contextual matters, as is the reference to the prior covenant with Moses (v. 32). "The breach within Israel began as the people increasingly distanced themselves from their covenant God.... As is clear from Israel’s history, it was their sinfulness of heart producing a breach of covenant with their God that led, in due time, to the breach in their national union. But if the breach of national union results from a breach of covenant, then the remedy becomes clear. In order for God once again to unite his people, they must exhibit covenant faithfulness and so keep from the sin that resulted in their division" (Ware, DIC, p. 71).
Ware notes on this basis "serious questions" are raised about the application of this covenant from this context to the Church of the New Testament: "Jeremiah 31:31-34 is extended to Israel and Judah, not to any other nation or group. Other new-covenant passages, inside and outside of Jeremiah, also direct this new covenant to the people of Israel in a similar manner" (DIC, p. 72). This would seem to pose trouble for the non-dispensationalist who would find fulfillment of the new covenant in the Church, and to the standard dispensationalist view of an "application" of the new covenant to the Church. (But, of course, the problems do not end there: this would seem to cause trouble for Jesus, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews who apply the new covenant beyond the borders of Israel!)
Ware (DIC, p. 72) makes an important observation, though, that "one new-covenant text" that suggests extension "beyond Israel to the nations" is Isaiah 55:3-5, which reads:
"Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you-- The sure mercies of David. Indeed I have given him as a witness to the people, a leader and commander for the people. Surely you shall call a nation you do not know, And nations who do not know you shall run to you, Because of the LORD your God, And the Holy One of Israel; For He has glorified you."
He concludes from this verse, then, that "the new covenant made with Israel includes a host of Gentile participants, not directly addressed as God’s covenant partners" (DIC, p. 73). This, of course, comports well with our experience of the new covenant in the New Testament! But it sure causes some complications for classic and revised dispensationalists who do not so easily apply Israel’s promises to the Church. Especially since the new covenant is "literally" directed to Israel and Judah.
(As an aside: a refreshing aspect of Ware’s exposition of Jeremiah 31 is his treatment of the law of God. Though certainly not endorsing the theonomic ethic, Ware comments: "Notice that neither in Jeremiah 31 nor in Ezekiel 36 do we find a denunciation of the law as somehow defective, requiring a new law to replace the old. Instead we find, amazingly, that the same law is carried over or maintained. The problem with the old covenant, then, is not the law; the problem, rather, is with the nature of those persons who are called to covenant faithfulness but instead transgress the law" [DIC, p. 76]. If this statement were cited without bibliographic reference, one might think it was uttered by Greg L. Bahnsen, author of, rather than a dispensationalist. But this probably doesn’t matter that much: Progressive dispensationalists are as vigorously skewered by revised dispensationalists as is Bahnsen: see Ryrie’s [1995] and Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master, eds., [1994]. For my full review of Willis and Master see: [September, 1996].)
Having visited the house of covenant theology, Ware returns to his dispensational roots when he begins speaking of the ultimate fulfillment of the new covenant: "It seems clear that the promised new age, in which the new covenant would finally be realized, would come only when God’s king would liberate Israel from its oppressors and when God’s Spirit would inhabit the whole company of the people of God.... [God’s favor then] would also be accompanied by the promised physical, national, and geographic blessings" (DIC, p. 84). This, of course, is the key to a dispensational premillennial conception of the new covenant -- whether for classic, revised, or progressive dispensationalism.
Over the next several pages of his argument, Ware shows how the New Testament demands an application of the new covenant upon the Church (pp. 84-91). Then in his final section, "The New Covenant and Its Relation to the People of God," he raises the question toward which his chapter has been moving: "Should the New Testament application of the new covenant lead us to see an identity of Israel and the church? ... Or is there a way of conceiving of the one new covenant in relation both to Israel and the church that, on the one hand, distinguishes them from one another while, on the other hand, unites them as one people of God?" (DIC, p. 91).
After an excellent citation from dispensationalist Homer Kent exploding Ryrie’s two new covenants construct, Ware asks: "Having rejected the view of the two new covenants, are we then left solely with the option of understanding Israel and the church as so strictly identified undernew covenant as to compose undifferentiated people of God? This conclusion is premature" (DIC, p. 92). This is where progressive dispensationalists part company with revised dispensationalists and reformed covenantalists. This is where the battle lies!
THE PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF THE NEW COVENANT
Ware defends the progressive dispensational argument for a future millennial exaltation of Israel on the basis of two principles:
First, "What do we make of the territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise that clearly states that God will restore Israel to its land in prosperity and productivity and unite it again as one nation (Israel and Judah) whose center of rulership is Jerusalem?" (DIC, p. 93) In other words, the land aspect of the new covenant suggests a literal earthly-political fulfillment in a millennium.
Second, "is the ‘already-not yet’ eschatological framework correct in which promises of God are understood to be realized first in preliminary (inaugurated) and then in final (future) stages?" (DIC, p. 93) This allows progressive dispensationalism to take the middle road between revised dispensationalism (iron-clad, sealed-for-your protection dispensations) and covenantalism, with its one-people, developmental maturation framework.
I will deal with the second matter (already/not yet) in a later issue of our newsletter. But first we will need to begin responding to the very important question of the land promise to geo-political Israel. As Ware (and others) notes, this is where the debate lies. We must recognize the "problem" and then resolve it within a biblical-covenantal framework.
THE LAND PROMISE
Regarding the first question Ware makes two observations:
(1) He is dispensationally insistent that "there can be no question that the prophets meant to communicate the promise of a national return of Israel to its land," which requires a "literal rendering" of God’s promise to Israel (DIC, p. 93).
(2) The New Testament "does not permit a spiritual absorption of the literal promises to Israel by the church" (ibid.).
What are we to make of the territorial reality of the land promise found in the new covenant? Especially in light of the verses following Jeremiah’s new covenant revelation? Jeremiah 31, including not only the famous verses 31-34 but also the dispensationally significant conclusion in verses 35-40, reads:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- [32] not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. [33] But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. [34] No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. [35] Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar The LORD of hosts is His name): [36] If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever. [37] Thus says the LORD: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD. [38] Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. [39] The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. [40] And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."
The progressive dispensational argument seems to be quite persuasive. And on the surface it is. But like Gary North once observed about surface appearances: A duck appears to glide peacefully upon the surface of the water, but below the surface there is a lot of fancy footwork going on. In our next newsletter we will begin a covenantal response to the geo-political aspects of the new covenant promise. Sorry! You will have to tune in next month!
ABBREVIATIONS:
DIC: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
by Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
INTRODUCTION
In this third installment of a series on "Dispensationalism, Israel, and Scripture" I will give attention to the progressive dispensational view of Israel especially in light of the foundational new covenant. In the preceding two issues I focused more on problems in dispensationalism regarding Israel and on the revised dispensationalist viewpoint of Ryrie and Walvoord.
As I have indicated on a number of occasions, progressive dispensationalists have undertaken a wholesale overhaul of dispensationalism. The effects of relentless covenantal critiques from as far back as David Brown ("Christ’s Second Come: Will It Be Premillennial?," 1891) in the nineteenth century, through O. T. Allis ("Prophecy and the Church," 1945) in the mid-twentieth century to the present have had their effect. Much within progressive dispensationalism is acceptable to reformed and covenantal theologians. But problems remain.
In this issue I will provide a summary of the progressive dispensational understanding of the new covenant, which covenant has generated so much confusion -- and absurdity -- in older versions of dispensationalism. I will use as my reference point an excellent chapter by Bruce A. Ware in
Ware is aware (no pun intended) both of the large role the new covenant plays in evangelical theology -- and of the difficulties that arise in the interpretation of the new covenant: "Evangelical biblical scholars and theologians uniformly affirm that the new covenant constitutes a high point in God’s redemptive and restorative program" (DIC, p. 68).
Of special interest to our study, he notes (in part) that "despite this recognition, however, several questions remain. For example, what is the nature of this new covenant?... How will this new covenant be implemented? With whom is the new covenant made? Do Israel and the church both participate in the
These are but a few of the questions that I lift from his fuller discussion. They are crucial in the ongoing dialogue and debate between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalist evangelical and reformed theologians. He has put his finger on the very pulse of the problem -- and done an admirable job of defending dispensationalism.
(As an aside, I am impressed with the quality and character of the writings of progressive dispensationalists. I seriously doubt if one of the progressive dispensational theologians will ever publish a book like Ryrie’s apocalyptic writings:
Ware’s important chapter has as its purpose "to devote particular attention to the new covenant as it relates to Israel and the church, and to do so by focusing most directly on (1) the nature of the new covenant, as given to Israel, and (2) its fulfillment or realization in relation both to Israel and the church." This is so that "we can think responsibly about the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church as both entities relate within the one people of God" (DIC, pp. 68-69).
Continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments and the people(s) of God is a fundamental dividing point between reformed and dispensational theologians. For an excellent debate over issues revolving around this question, see: John S. Feinberg, ed.,
Ware’s purpose should immediately give rise to concern among the classic and revised dispensationalists: As I noted last month, how could this prophecy, which is literally directed to "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," have ANY realization in the church at all? Remember Ryrie’s "incontrovertible evidence" for TWO new covenants? Remember his vigorous, death-defying argument: "If the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel’s promises, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone. If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many premillennialists [perhaps even by Ryrie now, according to Ware!], but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is ‘a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.’ However, since the New Testament will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?" (BPF, p. 118). He goes so far as to charge "that the one covenant, two aspects interpretation absolutely contradicts the entire premillennial system" (BPF, p. 108).
Also, I ask regarding the new covenant: How can dispensationalism tolerate the notion of "one people of God" in history? Yet this is the direction of the New Kids on the Block, the progressive dispensationalists.
Let us consider Ware’s exegesis, much of which I find quite helpful. This portion of my newsletter will basically function as a book review of those portions of his article directly relevant to the dispensational debate. It is very important, however, to have some of Ware’s observations before us if we are to accurately expose the deficiencies in the progressive dispensational position and show where they go astray.
THE OLD TESTAMENT REGARDING THE NEW COVENANT
The heart of the new covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (a passage I had to memorize when enrolled in Dr. Dennis Wisdom’s course on "Premillennialism" at Tennessee Temple College back in 1972). Jeremiah 31-34 reads as follows:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
Ware shows that though Jeremiah 31 is the key passage of the Old Testament regarding the new covenant, and the only passage specifically calling it the "new covenant," it is not the only mention of this gracious covenant. Other passages referring to the new covenant -- or some effect resulting from it -- include: Isaiah 24:5; 49:8; 55:3; 54:10; 59:21; 61:8; Jeremiah 32:39-40; 50:5; Ezekiel 11:19; 16:60; 18:31; 34:25; 36:26; 37:26; Hosea 2:18-20.
According to Ware, the national implications of this "new" covenant cannot be far from Jeremiah’s mind. The division in Israel (Judah and Israel) which lead ultimately to both their exiles from the land are key historical-contextual matters, as is the reference to the prior covenant with Moses (v. 32). "The breach within Israel began as the people increasingly distanced themselves from their covenant God.... As is clear from Israel’s history, it was their sinfulness of heart producing a breach of covenant with their God that led, in due time, to the breach in their national union. But if the breach of national union results from a breach of covenant, then the remedy becomes clear. In order for God once again to unite his people, they must exhibit covenant faithfulness and so keep from the sin that resulted in their division" (Ware, DIC, p. 71).
Ware notes on this basis "serious questions" are raised about the application of this covenant from this context to the Church of the New Testament: "Jeremiah 31:31-34 is extended to Israel and Judah, not to any other nation or group. Other new-covenant passages, inside and outside of Jeremiah, also direct this new covenant to the people of Israel in a similar manner" (DIC, p. 72). This would seem to pose trouble for the non-dispensationalist who would find fulfillment of the new covenant in the Church, and to the standard dispensationalist view of an "application" of the new covenant to the Church. (But, of course, the problems do not end there: this would seem to cause trouble for Jesus, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews who apply the new covenant beyond the borders of Israel!)
Ware (DIC, p. 72) makes an important observation, though, that "one new-covenant text" that suggests extension "beyond Israel to the nations" is Isaiah 55:3-5, which reads:
"Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you-- The sure mercies of David. Indeed I have given him as a witness to the people, a leader and commander for the people. Surely you shall call a nation you do not know, And nations who do not know you shall run to you, Because of the LORD your God, And the Holy One of Israel; For He has glorified you."
He concludes from this verse, then, that "the new covenant made with Israel includes a host of Gentile participants, not directly addressed as God’s covenant partners" (DIC, p. 73). This, of course, comports well with our experience of the new covenant in the New Testament! But it sure causes some complications for classic and revised dispensationalists who do not so easily apply Israel’s promises to the Church. Especially since the new covenant is "literally" directed to Israel and Judah.
(As an aside: a refreshing aspect of Ware’s exposition of Jeremiah 31 is his treatment of the law of God. Though certainly not endorsing the theonomic ethic, Ware comments: "Notice that neither in Jeremiah 31 nor in Ezekiel 36 do we find a denunciation of the law as somehow defective, requiring a new law to replace the old. Instead we find, amazingly, that the same law is carried over or maintained. The problem with the old covenant, then, is not the law; the problem, rather, is with the nature of those persons who are called to covenant faithfulness but instead transgress the law" [DIC, p. 76]. If this statement were cited without bibliographic reference, one might think it was uttered by Greg L. Bahnsen, author of
Having visited the house of covenant theology, Ware returns to his dispensational roots when he begins speaking of the ultimate fulfillment of the new covenant: "It seems clear that the promised new age, in which the new covenant would finally be realized, would come only when God’s king would liberate Israel from its oppressors and when God’s Spirit would inhabit the whole company of the people of God.... [God’s favor then] would also be accompanied by the promised physical, national, and geographic blessings" (DIC, p. 84). This, of course, is the key to a dispensational premillennial conception of the new covenant -- whether for classic, revised, or progressive dispensationalism.
Over the next several pages of his argument, Ware shows how the New Testament demands an application of the new covenant upon the Church (pp. 84-91). Then in his final section, "The New Covenant and Its Relation to the People of God," he raises the question toward which his chapter has been moving: "Should the New Testament application of the new covenant lead us to see an identity of Israel and the church? ... Or is there a way of conceiving of the one new covenant in relation both to Israel and the church that, on the one hand, distinguishes them from one another while, on the other hand, unites them as one people of God?" (DIC, p. 91).
After an excellent citation from dispensationalist Homer Kent exploding Ryrie’s two new covenants construct, Ware asks: "Having rejected the view of the two new covenants, are we then left solely with the option of understanding Israel and the church as so strictly identified under
THE PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF THE NEW COVENANT
Ware defends the progressive dispensational argument for a future millennial exaltation of Israel on the basis of two principles:
First, "What do we make of the territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise that clearly states that God will restore Israel to its land in prosperity and productivity and unite it again as one nation (Israel and Judah) whose center of rulership is Jerusalem?" (DIC, p. 93) In other words, the land aspect of the new covenant suggests a literal earthly-political fulfillment in a millennium.
Second, "is the ‘already-not yet’ eschatological framework correct in which promises of God are understood to be realized first in preliminary (inaugurated) and then in final (future) stages?" (DIC, p. 93) This allows progressive dispensationalism to take the middle road between revised dispensationalism (iron-clad, sealed-for-your protection dispensations) and covenantalism, with its one-people, developmental maturation framework.
I will deal with the second matter (already/not yet) in a later issue of our newsletter. But first we will need to begin responding to the very important question of the land promise to geo-political Israel. As Ware (and others) notes, this is where the debate lies. We must recognize the "problem" and then resolve it within a biblical-covenantal framework.
THE LAND PROMISE
Regarding the first question Ware makes two observations:
(1) He is dispensationally insistent that "there can be no question that the prophets meant to communicate the promise of a national return of Israel to its land," which requires a "literal rendering" of God’s promise to Israel (DIC, p. 93).
(2) The New Testament "does not permit a spiritual absorption of the literal promises to Israel by the church" (ibid.).
What are we to make of the territorial reality of the land promise found in the new covenant? Especially in light of the verses following Jeremiah’s new covenant revelation? Jeremiah 31, including not only the famous verses 31-34 but also the dispensationally significant conclusion in verses 35-40, reads:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- [32] not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. [33] But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. [34] No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. [35] Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar The LORD of hosts is His name): [36] If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever. [37] Thus says the LORD: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD. [38] Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. [39] The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. [40] And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."
The progressive dispensational argument seems to be quite persuasive. And on the surface it is. But like Gary North once observed about surface appearances: A duck appears to glide peacefully upon the surface of the water, but below the surface there is a lot of fancy footwork going on. In our next newsletter we will begin a covenantal response to the geo-political aspects of the new covenant promise. Sorry! You will have to tune in next month!
ABBREVIATIONS:
DIC: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Israel and Scripture - Part Two
NEW COVENANTAL CONFUSION
(Part 2 of "Dispensationalism, Israel and Scripture")
Having introduced our series in the previous post, I will now begin analyzing the role of Israel in dispensationalism. Few issues rival this one as a leading theme for critiquing dispensationalism in all of its varieties. Let’s get to work!
Though Israel is "the key to prophecy" in all varieties of dispensationalism, it is also the key to some embarrassing errors among older dispensational schools. As Frank Gaebelein admits in the Foreword to Ryrie’s 1965 watershed work (which Foreword is reprinted in Ryrie’s revised update ): "Dispensationalism has at times been the victim of its adherents who have pressed unwisely certain of its features" (D, p. 7). What he did not confess, though, was that these errors often revolved around Israel and were only spit-shined among newer dispensationalists. Eventually, these errors necessitated the revision of dispensationalism.
The necessity of revision, however, did not end with the publication of Ryrie’s and the correctives of the early 1960s. Eventually internal pressures created by continuing external critiques gave rise in the 1980s to the latest version of dispensationalism, the more palatable "progressive dispensationalism."
Unfortunately, the key to dispensationalism (Israel) very early broke off in the lock to the dispensational house. Much locksmithing down-time has resulted from the problem for dispensationalists. Israel, the definitional distinctive of dispensationalism, has been as sticky a problem for dispensational popularizes as for their favorite henchmen, the political leaders of Israel dealing with the West Bank in the modern state of Israel. I illustrated this in the February, 1997, edition of this newsletter. The major developments within dispensationalism revolve around the role of Israel (as Bock argues in PD, pp. 23ff). Allow me to employ about a dozen sentences to refresh your memory regarding these system-restructuring overhauls associated with Israel.
Classic dispensationalism (e.g., C. I. Scofield, L. S. Chafer) maintained a metaphysical distinction between Israel and the Church. It held that Israel and the Church would be forever distinguished in eternity, with Israel inhabiting the new earth and the Church heaven. Thus, an eternal separation will prevail between Israel and the Church in this system.
Revised dispensationalism (e.g., C. C. Ryrie, J. F. Walvoord, J. D. Pentecost) jettisoned the eternal metaphysical distinction, allowing only a temporal earthly distinction rooted in a difference between two redemptive-historical purposes, rather than in two different plans stretching out to eternity. Revised dispensationalists held two forms of one redeemed humanity existing in and confined to history. The Church exists presently to the glory of God in its own, distinct dispensation, with its own principles and purposes differing from those of Israel. Israel’s ultimate historical purpose will be realized in the future, literal, earthly millennium. After the millennium, though, the eternal order will realize the union of the two people in one redeemed mass forever.
Progressive dispensationalists have moved in a more covenantal direction, while maintaining their premillennial orientation and emended dispensational distinctives. They are "progressive" in that they view each successive dispensation as building upon and developing the principles of the preceding one. This progresses the one plan of God for his one redeemed people, rather than distinguishing two separate plans and peoples. This allows that the one divine purpose for redeemed humanity will ultimately be realized in the earthly, literal millennium. The millennial phase of the redemptive historical plan of God is necessary to bring to fulfillment the Old Testament prophecies for Israel.
NEW COVENANT FOCUS
Perhaps there is no better means of illustrating and critiquing dispensationalism than by analyzing the biblical revelation of the new covenant. Revised dispensationalists affirm its centrality. Ryrie states that "the new covenant is one of the major covenants of Scripture" (BPF, p. 107). Walvoord holds that "it is one of the great prophecies in the Old Testament" and is the "strongest prophecy in the Old Testament for the continuance of Israel" (PKH, p. 140). Pentecost lists this covenant as one of "the four great determinative covenants" (TC, p. 116).
Progressive dispensationalist Bruce A. Ware observes: "Evangelical biblical scholars and theologians uniformly affirm that the new covenant constitutes a high point in God’s redemptive and restorative program" (DIC, p. 68) and "Regarding the territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise, it seems incorrect to disregard these or to say they are fulfilled in some spiritual manner in the church. There can be no question that the prophets meant to communicate the promise of a national return of Israel to its land" (DIC, p. 93). "We must conclude that God will yet fulfill the new covenant with the nation of Israel, precisely in the manner prophesied by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel" (DIC, p. 94).
Elsewhere and more recently Pentecost notes the importance of the new covenant for Israel’s distinctive future: "This New Covenant, then -- which is an unconditional, eternal covenant based on the shedding of blood -- guarantees the preservation of Israel as a nation and her ultimate restoration to the land originally given by God to Abraham and Abraham’s descendants.... As a result of this covenant, the blessings Israel never found through the Law will at last be experienced" (TKC, p. 171).
Walvoord brings the new covenant into the present-day apocalyptic context: "This remarkable prophecy, given by Jeremiah almost 2,500 years ago, has seen modern fulfillment in the recapture of Jerusalem.... This prophecy is one of the signs that the coming of the Lord may be near" (PKH, p. 141).
Though the new covenant is a cornerstone for dispensationalism, Ryrie, oddly enough, laments dispensational confusion with reference to Israel and the new covenant: "Premillennialists have not always dealt with questions about the new covenant uniformly. Some have taught that the church has no relation to the new covenant, only Israel does. Others see two new covenants, one with Israel and another with the church. Others acknowledge that the church receives some of the blessings (or similar blessings) promised in the Old Testament revelation of the new covenant but not all of them. Progressives make these similar blessings evidence that the new covenant has been inaugurated. All premillennialists agree that there will be a future fulfillment of the covenant for Israel at the second coming of Christ" (D, p. 172).
In light of all of this, we see here in one biblical theme -- the new covenant -- both a pre-eminent proof of dispensationalism AND a source of dispensational stumbling, failure, and hem-hawing. Thus, the new covenant of Scripture will be an excellent theme on which to focus for exposure of past and present errors within the system loved by untold millions of American Christians -- and profit-conscious dispensationalist publishers.
In the remainder of this newsletter I will lay out the shifting sands approach of classic and revised dispensationalism on the question of the new covenant. Then in the next newsletter I will focus on the progressive dispensational argument. Being aware of these differing approaches to the new covenant -- a foundational proof for dispensationalism -- is a crucial first step in analyzing, critiquing, and dismissing dispensationalism as a viable theological option.
JEREMIAH’S NEW COVENANT
The basic new covenant revelation is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Its contextual setting is crucial to the debate, as well. Jeremiah 31:31-40 reads:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (the LORD of hosts is His name): If those ordinances depart from before Me, says the LORD, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever. Thus says the LORD: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD. Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever. Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."
Here we note that the prophecy expressly associates the new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Revised dispensationalists created the (strained and unattainable) notion of literalism in an attempt to sustain their system. We can see why this passage has had such a strong impact on dispensationalists. Jeremiah 31 also speaks of phenomena that seem to suggest a regathering of Israel into the promised land. Surely this is the passage upon which dispensationalism should be able to make its stand (much like General Custer). Yet dispensationalists have even struggled over how to understand this foundational passage!
DISPENSATIONAL NEW COVENANT STRUGGLES
Of this "determinative" covenant, the new covenant, Ryrie lists three pre-millennial views that have been generated by dispensationalists. Many of the following quotations are from Ryrie’s published in 1953. This contains more detail of Ryrie’s view on this "determinative" covenant than does his 1995 work (D, pp. 173-174). Therefore, it provides an excellent historical specimen of the dispensational confusion over the matter. Ryrie’s summation of the three dispensational views of the new covenant are as follows:
(1) The Jews Only View. This is "the view that the new covenant directly concerns Israel and has no relationship to the Church" (BPF, p. 107). This was the earliest dispensational view, held by John Nelson Darby (for documentation see: TC, 121-122). But though Darby’s name is still revered by dispensationalists, his teaching on this foundational covenant is not usually accepted by premillenarians today -- despite its consistency with the dispensational hermeneutic of literalism (IP, p. 54). Unfortunately, this untenable position flies directly in the very face of New Testament evidence to the contrary. Jesus, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews expressly associates the "new covenant" with the Church in Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8; 9:15; 12:24. Numerous other allusions to the new covenant appear elsewhere in the New Testament, as I will note in later issues.
(2) The One Covenant/Two Aspects View. Ryrie summarizes this position: "The one new covenant has two aspects, one which applies to Israel, and one which applies to the church" (BPF, 107). This is the view held by Walvoord: "This can best be explained as one New Covenant of grace made possible by the death of Christ, whether applied to Israel or the church as in the New Testament" (PKH, 140). Although Pentecost was ambiguous while earning his doctorate at Dallas Seminary’s, later (after securing tenure?) he settled on this view (TKC, p. 175).
(3) The Two New Covenants View. This is Ryrie’s view. (Ware claims Ryrie has abandoned it, DIC, p. 91, n. 40. If that is true, the following presentation will be all the more remarkable in that Ryrie would be condemning himself for fidelity to the system principles of dispensationalism!) Ryrie notes that this view actually "distinguishes the new covenant with Israel from the new covenant with the Church. This view finds two new covenants in which the promises to Israel and the promises to the Church are more sharply distinguished even though both new covenants are based on the one sacrifice of Christ" (BPF, p. 107).
Ryrie states vigorously that: "If the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel’s promises, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone. If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many premillennialists [perhaps even by Ryrie now, according to Ware!], but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is ‘a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.’ However, since the New Testament will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?" (BPF, p. 118). He goes so far as to charge "that the one covenant, two aspects interpretation absolutely contradicts the entire premillennial system" (BPF, p. 108).
Strangely, this view was a "corrective" to the earlier view of a Jews-only new covenant. As I will show in a later newsletter, this position necessitates all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics. Ryrie continues this bizarre (though logically necessitated) view in his 1995 work, where he tentatively holds that the lack of the definite article with "new covenant" in 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24 "may indicate that Paul is focusing on a new covenant made with the church" (D, pp. 173-174).
Since the two new covenants view is so vigorously argued by Ryrie and, therefore, shows so clearly how absurd old-line dispensationalism is, it might be helpful for our purposes of expose’ to provide a little more detail to the argument from Ryrie. This will also serve to illustrate the marked difference between Ryrie’s revised dispensationalism, and the current progressive dispensationalism. And if Ryrie has indeed abandoned this position, this will show the internal contradictions within the system (when we note how vigorously Ryrie argued as a dispensational systematician for this view).
The New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31ff, says Ryrie, is necessarily limited to the Jews on the basis of "three incontrovertible reasons." Notice this argument is "incontrovertible." Ryrie’s argument goes as follows:
(1) The argument from specific reference (BPF, p. 108). Verses 31 and 33 clearly specify God’s making the new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." And in the revised dispensational hermeneutic "Israel means Israel" (BPF, p. 125). This is like "seed of Abraham" means "seed of Abraham." (Oops! I forgot about the spiritual seed of Abraham in Gal. 3.) This is just like "bread" means "bread." (Oops! I forgot about the "bread of life" in John 6.)
(2) The argument from legal contrast. This is "also seen by the fact of its very name which is contrasted with the Mosaic covenant" in Jeremiah 31:32 (BPF, p. 108). A "new" covenant contrasted with a former covenant made when Israel departed Egypt necessitates a sole relationship to the people specifically under the previous covenant.
(3) The argument from historic effect (BPF, p. 109). "In its establishment, the perpetuity of the nation Israel and her restoration to the land is vitally linked with it (Jer 31:35-40)" (BPF, p. 109). The context clearly assumes an historical regathering to the Land (or at least, so dispensationalists think!).
Despite Ryrie’s literalistic argument from specific reference, we should note that the New Covenant is specifically applied through the Lord’s Supper to the Church in Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25. Apparently literalism was not the method of Jesus and Paul! Note the following:
(1) Pentecost is quite correct, when he writes of the establishment of the Lord’s Supper: "In its historical setting, the disciples who heard the Lord refer to the new covenant. . . would certainly have understood Him to be referring to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31" (TKC, p. 172).
(2) In fact, the sudden appearance of the "new covenant" in the New Testament record, without qualification or explanation, demands that it refer to the well known new covenant of Jeremiah. See: Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25.
(3) Hebrews 8, on everyone’s view, cites Jeremiah’s new covenant in a context speaking to New Testament Christians. In addition, this new covenant sacrament is specifically for the "Church" in the "Church Age" (1 Cor. 11:23ff). Yet Ryrie argues that "the writer of the Epistle has referred to both new covenants" (BPF, p. 121). This is pure desperation. Walvoord is driven to admit of the crucial Hebrews 8 reference: "it is, in fact, the only passage which provides any difficulty to the premillennial view" (MK, p. 215). And: "There are problems that remain in the premillennial understanding of this passage" (IP, p. 54).
(4) The Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, even promotes the New Covenant as an important aspect of his ministry (2 Cor 3:6). He does not say he is a minister of a second new Covenant" or "another new covenant." Paul writes that God "also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6).
Ryrie’s bravely defends the indefensible, reminding me of the preacher who promised that if you come to church Sunday, he would "unscrew the inscrutable." Reviewing dispensationalism’s history like this, we can see how important the new covenant issue is to the debate.
THINGS TO COME
In my next issue, I will begin presenting and analyzing the role of the new covenant in progressive dispensationalism. Though far superior to its predecessors, progressive dispensationalism falls short of the biblical reality, as well. And the presentation and analysis ought to be helpful to our growth in understanding the theology of Scripture.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS:
BPF: Charles C. Ryrie, (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux, 1953), 107.
D: Charles C. Ryrie, (2d. ed.: Chicago: Moody, 1995).
DIC: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
IP: John F. Walvoord,, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962).
MK: John F. Walvoord, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974).
PD: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, (Wheaton, Ill.: Bridgepoint, 1993).
PKH: John F. Walvoord, (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1990).
TC: J. Dwight Pentecost, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958).
TKC: J. Dwight Pentecost, (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1990).
(Part 2 of "Dispensationalism, Israel and Scripture")
Having introduced our series in the previous post, I will now begin analyzing the role of Israel in dispensationalism. Few issues rival this one as a leading theme for critiquing dispensationalism in all of its varieties. Let’s get to work!
Though Israel is "the key to prophecy" in all varieties of dispensationalism, it is also the key to some embarrassing errors among older dispensational schools. As Frank Gaebelein admits in the Foreword to Ryrie’s 1965 watershed work
The necessity of revision, however, did not end with the publication of Ryrie’s
Unfortunately, the key to dispensationalism (Israel) very early broke off in the lock to the dispensational house. Much locksmithing down-time has resulted from the problem for dispensationalists. Israel, the definitional distinctive of dispensationalism, has been as sticky a problem for dispensational popularizes as for their favorite henchmen, the political leaders of Israel dealing with the West Bank in the modern state of Israel. I illustrated this in the February, 1997, edition of this newsletter. The major developments within dispensationalism revolve around the role of Israel (as Bock argues in PD, pp. 23ff). Allow me to employ about a dozen sentences to refresh your memory regarding these system-restructuring overhauls associated with Israel.
Classic dispensationalism (e.g., C. I. Scofield, L. S. Chafer) maintained a metaphysical distinction between Israel and the Church. It held that Israel and the Church would be forever distinguished in eternity, with Israel inhabiting the new earth and the Church heaven. Thus, an eternal separation will prevail between Israel and the Church in this system.
Revised dispensationalism (e.g., C. C. Ryrie, J. F. Walvoord, J. D. Pentecost) jettisoned the eternal metaphysical distinction, allowing only a temporal earthly distinction rooted in a difference between two redemptive-historical purposes, rather than in two different plans stretching out to eternity. Revised dispensationalists held two forms of one redeemed humanity existing in and confined to history. The Church exists presently to the glory of God in its own, distinct dispensation, with its own principles and purposes differing from those of Israel. Israel’s ultimate historical purpose will be realized in the future, literal, earthly millennium. After the millennium, though, the eternal order will realize the union of the two people in one redeemed mass forever.
Progressive dispensationalists have moved in a more covenantal direction, while maintaining their premillennial orientation and emended dispensational distinctives. They are "progressive" in that they view each successive dispensation as building upon and developing the principles of the preceding one. This progresses the one plan of God for his one redeemed people, rather than distinguishing two separate plans and peoples. This allows that the one divine purpose for redeemed humanity will ultimately be realized in the earthly, literal millennium. The millennial phase of the redemptive historical plan of God is necessary to bring to fulfillment the Old Testament prophecies for Israel.
NEW COVENANT FOCUS
Perhaps there is no better means of illustrating and critiquing dispensationalism than by analyzing the biblical revelation of the new covenant. Revised dispensationalists affirm its centrality. Ryrie states that "the new covenant is one of the major covenants of Scripture" (BPF, p. 107). Walvoord holds that "it is one of the great prophecies in the Old Testament" and is the "strongest prophecy in the Old Testament for the continuance of Israel" (PKH, p. 140). Pentecost lists this covenant as one of "the four great determinative covenants" (TC, p. 116).
Progressive dispensationalist Bruce A. Ware observes: "Evangelical biblical scholars and theologians uniformly affirm that the new covenant constitutes a high point in God’s redemptive and restorative program" (DIC, p. 68) and "Regarding the territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise, it seems incorrect to disregard these or to say they are fulfilled in some spiritual manner in the church. There can be no question that the prophets meant to communicate the promise of a national return of Israel to its land" (DIC, p. 93). "We must conclude that God will yet fulfill the new covenant with the nation of Israel, precisely in the manner prophesied by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel" (DIC, p. 94).
Elsewhere and more recently Pentecost notes the importance of the new covenant for Israel’s distinctive future: "This New Covenant, then -- which is an unconditional, eternal covenant based on the shedding of blood -- guarantees the preservation of Israel as a nation and her ultimate restoration to the land originally given by God to Abraham and Abraham’s descendants.... As a result of this covenant, the blessings Israel never found through the Law will at last be experienced" (TKC, p. 171).
Walvoord brings the new covenant into the present-day apocalyptic context: "This remarkable prophecy, given by Jeremiah almost 2,500 years ago, has seen modern fulfillment in the recapture of Jerusalem.... This prophecy is one of the signs that the coming of the Lord may be near" (PKH, p. 141).
Though the new covenant is a cornerstone for dispensationalism, Ryrie, oddly enough, laments dispensational confusion with reference to Israel and the new covenant: "Premillennialists have not always dealt with questions about the new covenant uniformly. Some have taught that the church has no relation to the new covenant, only Israel does. Others see two new covenants, one with Israel and another with the church. Others acknowledge that the church receives some of the blessings (or similar blessings) promised in the Old Testament revelation of the new covenant but not all of them. Progressives make these similar blessings evidence that the new covenant has been inaugurated. All premillennialists agree that there will be a future fulfillment of the covenant for Israel at the second coming of Christ" (D, p. 172).
In light of all of this, we see here in one biblical theme -- the new covenant -- both a pre-eminent proof of dispensationalism AND a source of dispensational stumbling, failure, and hem-hawing. Thus, the new covenant of Scripture will be an excellent theme on which to focus for exposure of past and present errors within the system loved by untold millions of American Christians -- and profit-conscious dispensationalist publishers.
In the remainder of this newsletter I will lay out the shifting sands approach of classic and revised dispensationalism on the question of the new covenant. Then in the next newsletter I will focus on the progressive dispensational argument. Being aware of these differing approaches to the new covenant -- a foundational proof for dispensationalism -- is a crucial first step in analyzing, critiquing, and dismissing dispensationalism as a viable theological option.
JEREMIAH’S NEW COVENANT
The basic new covenant revelation is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Its contextual setting is crucial to the debate, as well. Jeremiah 31:31-40 reads:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (the LORD of hosts is His name): If those ordinances depart from before Me, says the LORD, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever. Thus says the LORD: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD. Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever. Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."
Here we note that the prophecy expressly associates the new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Revised dispensationalists created the (strained and unattainable) notion of literalism in an attempt to sustain their system. We can see why this passage has had such a strong impact on dispensationalists. Jeremiah 31 also speaks of phenomena that seem to suggest a regathering of Israel into the promised land. Surely this is the passage upon which dispensationalism should be able to make its stand (much like General Custer). Yet dispensationalists have even struggled over how to understand this foundational passage!
DISPENSATIONAL NEW COVENANT STRUGGLES
Of this "determinative" covenant, the new covenant, Ryrie lists three pre-millennial views that have been generated by dispensationalists. Many of the following quotations are from Ryrie’s
(1) The Jews Only View. This is "the view that the new covenant directly concerns Israel and has no relationship to the Church" (BPF, p. 107). This was the earliest dispensational view, held by John Nelson Darby (for documentation see: TC, 121-122). But though Darby’s name is still revered by dispensationalists, his teaching on this foundational covenant is not usually accepted by premillenarians today -- despite its consistency with the dispensational hermeneutic of literalism (IP, p. 54). Unfortunately, this untenable position flies directly in the very face of New Testament evidence to the contrary. Jesus, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews expressly associates the "new covenant" with the Church in Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8; 9:15; 12:24. Numerous other allusions to the new covenant appear elsewhere in the New Testament, as I will note in later issues.
(2) The One Covenant/Two Aspects View. Ryrie summarizes this position: "The one new covenant has two aspects, one which applies to Israel, and one which applies to the church" (BPF, 107). This is the view held by Walvoord: "This can best be explained as one New Covenant of grace made possible by the death of Christ, whether applied to Israel or the church as in the New Testament" (PKH, 140). Although Pentecost was ambiguous while earning his doctorate at Dallas Seminary’s, later (after securing tenure?) he settled on this view (TKC, p. 175).
(3) The Two New Covenants View. This is Ryrie’s view. (Ware claims Ryrie has abandoned it, DIC, p. 91, n. 40. If that is true, the following presentation will be all the more remarkable in that Ryrie would be condemning himself for fidelity to the system principles of dispensationalism!) Ryrie notes that this view actually "distinguishes the new covenant with Israel from the new covenant with the Church. This view finds two new covenants in which the promises to Israel and the promises to the Church are more sharply distinguished even though both new covenants are based on the one sacrifice of Christ" (BPF, p. 107).
Ryrie states vigorously that: "If the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel’s promises, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone. If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many premillennialists [perhaps even by Ryrie now, according to Ware!], but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is ‘a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.’ However, since the New Testament will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?" (BPF, p. 118). He goes so far as to charge "that the one covenant, two aspects interpretation absolutely contradicts the entire premillennial system" (BPF, p. 108).
Strangely, this view was a "corrective" to the earlier view of a Jews-only new covenant. As I will show in a later newsletter, this position necessitates all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics. Ryrie continues this bizarre (though logically necessitated) view in his 1995 work, where he tentatively holds that the lack of the definite article with "new covenant" in 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24 "may indicate that Paul is focusing on a new covenant made with the church" (D, pp. 173-174).
Since the two new covenants view is so vigorously argued by Ryrie and, therefore, shows so clearly how absurd old-line dispensationalism is, it might be helpful for our purposes of expose’ to provide a little more detail to the argument from Ryrie. This will also serve to illustrate the marked difference between Ryrie’s revised dispensationalism, and the current progressive dispensationalism. And if Ryrie has indeed abandoned this position, this will show the internal contradictions within the system (when we note how vigorously Ryrie argued as a dispensational systematician for this view).
The New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31ff, says Ryrie, is necessarily limited to the Jews on the basis of "three incontrovertible reasons." Notice this argument is "incontrovertible." Ryrie’s argument goes as follows:
(1) The argument from specific reference (BPF, p. 108). Verses 31 and 33 clearly specify God’s making the new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." And in the revised dispensational hermeneutic "Israel means Israel" (BPF, p. 125). This is like "seed of Abraham" means "seed of Abraham." (Oops! I forgot about the spiritual seed of Abraham in Gal. 3.) This is just like "bread" means "bread." (Oops! I forgot about the "bread of life" in John 6.)
(2) The argument from legal contrast. This is "also seen by the fact of its very name which is contrasted with the Mosaic covenant" in Jeremiah 31:32 (BPF, p. 108). A "new" covenant contrasted with a former covenant made when Israel departed Egypt necessitates a sole relationship to the people specifically under the previous covenant.
(3) The argument from historic effect (BPF, p. 109). "In its establishment, the perpetuity of the nation Israel and her restoration to the land is vitally linked with it (Jer 31:35-40)" (BPF, p. 109). The context clearly assumes an historical regathering to the Land (or at least, so dispensationalists think!).
Despite Ryrie’s literalistic argument from specific reference, we should note that the New Covenant is specifically applied through the Lord’s Supper to the Church in Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25. Apparently literalism was not the method of Jesus and Paul! Note the following:
(1) Pentecost is quite correct, when he writes of the establishment of the Lord’s Supper: "In its historical setting, the disciples who heard the Lord refer to the new covenant. . . would certainly have understood Him to be referring to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31" (TKC, p. 172).
(2) In fact, the sudden appearance of the "new covenant" in the New Testament record, without qualification or explanation, demands that it refer to the well known new covenant of Jeremiah. See: Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25.
(3) Hebrews 8, on everyone’s view, cites Jeremiah’s new covenant in a context speaking to New Testament Christians. In addition, this new covenant sacrament is specifically for the "Church" in the "Church Age" (1 Cor. 11:23ff). Yet Ryrie argues that "the writer of the Epistle has referred to both new covenants" (BPF, p. 121). This is pure desperation. Walvoord is driven to admit of the crucial Hebrews 8 reference: "it is, in fact, the only passage which provides any difficulty to the premillennial view" (MK, p. 215). And: "There are problems that remain in the premillennial understanding of this passage" (IP, p. 54).
(4) The Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, even promotes the New Covenant as an important aspect of his ministry (2 Cor 3:6). He does not say he is a minister of a second new Covenant" or "another new covenant." Paul writes that God "also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6).
Ryrie’s bravely defends the indefensible, reminding me of the preacher who promised that if you come to church Sunday, he would "unscrew the inscrutable." Reviewing dispensationalism’s history like this, we can see how important the new covenant issue is to the debate.
THINGS TO COME
In my next issue, I will begin presenting and analyzing the role of the new covenant in progressive dispensationalism. Though far superior to its predecessors, progressive dispensationalism falls short of the biblical reality, as well. And the presentation and analysis ought to be helpful to our growth in understanding the theology of Scripture.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS:
BPF: Charles C. Ryrie,
D: Charles C. Ryrie,
DIC: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
IP: John F. Walvoord,
MK: John F. Walvoord,
PD: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock,
PKH: John F. Walvoord,
TC: J. Dwight Pentecost,
TKC: J. Dwight Pentecost,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
