Discontinuity to Continuity E-Book

Benjamin L. Merkle

• Herausgeber: Lexham Press
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 422

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

What is the best framework for reading the Bible?The question of how to relate the Old and New Testaments is as old as the Bible itself. While most Protestants are unified on the foundations, there are major disagreements on particular issues. Who should be baptized? Is the Christian obligated to obey the Law of Moses? Does the church supplant Israel? Who are the proper recipients of God's promises to Israel?In Discontinuity to Continuity, Benjamin Merkle brings light to the debates between dispensational and covenantal theological systems. Merkle identifies how Christians have attempted to relate the Testaments, placing viewpoints along a spectrum of discontinuity to continuity. Each system's concerns are sympathetically summarized and critically evaluated.Through his careful exposition of these frameworks, Merkle helps the reader understand the key issues in the debate. Providing more light than heat, Merkle's book will help all readers better appreciate other perspectives and articulate their own.

Leseprobe

Benjamin L. Merkle

DISCONTINUITY

TO

CONTINUITY

A Survey of Dispensational & Convenatal Theologies

From Discontinuity to Continuity: A Survey of Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies.

Copyright 2020 Benjamin L. Merkle

Lexham Press, 1313 Commercial St., Bellingham, WA 98225

LexhamPress.com

You may use brief quotations from this resource in presentations, articles, and books. For all other uses, please write Lexham Press for permission. E-mail us at [email protected].

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked CSB are from the Christian Standard Bible, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NIV 84 are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NLT are from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible. Public domain.

Print ISBN

Digital ISBN: 9781683593881

Lexham Editorial: Thom Blair, Elliot Ritzema

Cover Design: Kristen Cork

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PRELUDE

FOUR (INTENDED) RESULTS OF READING THIS BOOK

CHAPTER 1

AN INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF DISCONTINUITY AND CONTINUITY—11

CHAPTER 2

CLASSIC DISPENSATIONALISM

CHAPTER 3

REVISED DISPENSATIONALISM

CHAPTER 4

PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM

CHAPTER 5

PROGRESSIVE COVENANTALISM

CHAPTER 6

COVENANT THEOLOGY

CHAPTER 7

CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM

CONCLUSION

SUMMARY OF THE SIX THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SCRIPTURE INDEXES

ABBREVIATION

BDAG

Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago, 2000.

BSAC

Bibliotheca Sacra

CTR

Creswell Theological Review

EBC

Expositor’s Bible Commentary

JETS

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

TRINJ

Trinity Journal

MSJ

The Master’s Seminary Journal

WTJ

Westminster Theological Journal

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a great privilege and joy to be able to write books that are for both the church and the academy. This undertaking is never done in isolation. Even if I had written this book while on a personal retreat in a cabin in the mountains, I would have had as conversation partners all the saints whose works are referenced in this book. They all have taught and challenged me along the way, and I am grateful for those who have diligently studied Scripture and have sought to present a biblical and coherent theological and hermeneutical system.

Although I have my preference of theological system, I have tried to silence my own opinion. Instead, this book is descriptive in nature. My goal is mainly to inform rather than persuade. It is often only when we are adequately informed that the viability of our own position is challenged. The reality is that no one has a perfect system, and so we need to humbly learn from others. Not only is life a journey, but our understanding of how the Bible fits together is also a journey. I am thankful that God is patient with us along this journey.

I am also grateful for all my students over the years who have taken my Advanced Hermeneutics course (also known as Ninja Hermeneutics). The idea for this book came directly from teaching that course and sensing the need for students to be able to analyze and assess views other than their own. They have helped modify the structure and questions that are central to this book. Special thanks to Michael Guyer, who helped me draft the introductory chapter, and Alysha Clark, who double-checked every reference in the footnotes and proofread the manuscript. I am incredibly grateful for the six scholars who offered valuable feedback for those chapters that represent (or nearly represent) their views. In particular, I’m appreciative of Tommy Ice (classic dispensationalism), Michael Vlach (revised dispensationalism), Craig Blaising (progressive dispensationalism), Steve Wellum (progressive covenantalism), Richard Lints (covenant theology), and Kenneth Gentry (Christian reconstructionism). The feedback I received from them has helped fine-tune the explanations of their views. Any deficiencies are my own and do not reflect their input.

Finally, I am grateful for the word of God, which reveals Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises to his people. All the promises of God are “yes” and “amen” in him (2 Cor 1:20).

PRELUDE

FOUR (INTENDED) RESULTS OF READING THIS BOOK

Before you delve into the heart of this book, allow me to share four practical ways in which I believe every person reading this book should seek to benefit from it. Although they may not be your main purposes in picking up this book, I think it would be helpful for every reader to seriously consider them.

KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE

Sometimes we don’t know how much we don’t know about a topic until we begin to learn how much there is to know. As you read this book, you may not be confident in precisely how you would answer some of the questions that are addressed. Or, perhaps you will realize that your view is a smorgasbord of various systems with no noticeable consistency. Many of us have places in our theological “system” where the right hand does not know what the left is doing—in other words, we are guilty of affirming an inconsistent theological system. I am not necessarily referring to those places where we acknowledge that we don’t have a suitable answer for our beliefs but places where our theological positions are incompatible, so that if our right hand did know what our left hand was doing, our right hand would vehemently object.

By studying various theological systems, we are able to test the consistency of our own. Maybe we affirm a particular position but aren’t sure why we do so. Hopefully, this study will cause you to think deeply about what you believe and why you believe it. And if you find some glaring inconsistencies, you can humbly search God’s word for answers. In the end, we want to know what we believe—not only to know the word of God better, but to know the God of the word better. We want to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15) so that we won’t be ashamed or bring shame to Christ. We know that “we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (Jas 3:1), and therefore should make serious effort to “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1).

APPRECIATE THE VIEWS OF OTHERS

When we don’t understand others’ theological systems, it is easy to dismiss their views or, worse, demonize them. It is far too easy to attach some impure motives to those who disagree with us and question their spirituality. For example, if someone disagrees with your view of baptism, it is easy to think that they (1) don’t know the Bible well, (2) have hidden sin in their life that keeps them from knowing the truth, or (3) have been deceived by some false teaching. From our perspective, their view makes no sense and seems utterly ridiculous.

But once we understand someone’s theological framework and hermeneutical commitments, and not just their interpretation of a particular text, their view begins to at least make sense. It might be true that their view seems unlikely according to our theological perspective, but once we put on their theological spectacles, their view begins to seem possible and even plausible. Now, this does not mean that truth is relative or that all options are equally viable. But it does mean that there is probably a good reason why a view has been affirmed and held by many faithful Christians throughout the history of the church. By learning the systems of others, we are able to understand and even value that which we don’t necessarily affirm.

RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM IS NOT PERFECT

I sometimes tell my students that they should not agree with all my doctrinal beliefs since I am certain that I am wrong in some areas. The only problem is that I don’t know where I am wrong. And if I did know where I was wrong, I would change my beliefs. But since I think that I am right, I am stuck where I am. Yes, my system is not perfect, but it’s where am until I am convinced otherwise.

I fear, however, that some people really think that their theological system is nearly perfect. Oh, they would probably admit they are wrong somewhere, but they assume that they are probably hovering in the upper 90s on the accuracy scale. Of course, regarding some of the basic doctrines, Christians have a high percentage of consistency. But if we honestly consider all the minor or more peripheral doctrines and all the various passages that have debated interpretations, suddenly our percentage of accuracy is greatly diminished. For example, I’m fairly convinced that my view of the millennium is correct. But I also realize that (1) it is not a central doctrine, (2) it only occurs explicitly in one passage in the Bible (Rev 20:1–10), and (3) solid theologians whom I respect hold to differing views. It is perfectly fine for me to think that my view is correct (and I do believe I’m correct). But I also believe there is a good possibility that I might be mistaken. This is a difficult (but sometimes necessary) place to be and requires both conviction and humility.

STRIVE TO BE A PERSON OF THE BOOK

Finally, we must all be continual students of Scripture. But it is not just a matter of seeking to master the content and doctrine of the Bible. We don’t want to be guilty of knowing about God without knowing God. The fact that we don’t have all the answers and will never have all the answers should always keep us close to the source of truth—God’s revealed word. We must strive not only to know God but, more importantly, “be known by God” (Gal 4:9). Like Paul, we must be willing to admit that we have not already arrived but continue to press on (Phil 3:12). We should strive to work hard for the kingdom, excelling in all that we do. But at the end of the day, we must confess that “it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1 Cor 15:10).

God’s word is our source of truth. But his word is also our source of life (Phil 2:16; 1 John 1:1). As Christians, we need to meditate on God’s word day and night (Ps 1:2–3), not only to formulate our doctrine but also to grow in the likeness of Jesus Christ. Jesus not only demonstrated knowledge of and trust in God’s word but he demonstrated humility. In fact, he was the word of God made flesh (John 1:14). So, a person of the book is not merely someone who knows the Bible well but someone who has the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16); that is, someone who is humble and willing to consider others better than self (Phil 2:3–5). May God continue to work in us to conform us to the image of his Son through his word and the power of the Holy Spirit.

CHAPTER 1

AN INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF DISCONTINUITY AND CONTINUITY

Theological systems are constructed in an attempt to understand the overall message of the Bible. Ideally, they result from a faithful interpretation of the Bible. Once formed, however, they also influence how we interpret the Bible. This makes understanding theological systems a hermeneutical endeavor. Such theological systems are often discussed in light of two broad positions: dispensationalism and covenant theology. Nevertheless, presenting the options as a mere dichotomy is an oversimplification. John Feinberg rightly notes, “Evangelical positions can be placed on a continuum running from belief in the absolute continuity of Scripture to belief in the absolute discontinuity of Scripture.”1 On the side of discontinuity is dispensationalism and on the side of continuity is covenant theology. Feinberg also notes, “While there are varieties of both kinds, it is unlikely that any actual systems are exactly at either end of the continuum.”2 To understand these theological systems, we must identify the various positions on this continuum and explore the hermeneutical framework of each.

Moving along the continuum from discontinuity to continuity, this book will address six different theological systems. Three of these positions will be related to dispensationalism and three will be related to covenant theology. Recent developments within dispensationalism have highlighted three different positions on the side of discontinuity: classic dispensationalism, revised dispensationalism, and progressive dispensationalism.3 On the side of continuity, the traditional position has been covenant theology. However, two other positions also stress continuity. First, the recently coined “progressive covenantalism” position is meant to be a middle position between dispensationalism and covenant theology.4 Second, Christian reconstruction represents the extreme position on the side of continuity. Chart 1.1 provides a visual of these positions placed on this continuum.

Taxonomy of Theological Systems

This spectrum of theological systems helps advance the discussion beyond the dichotomy of dispensationalism and covenant theology. Oftentimes, when people discuss or debate specific texts, they speak past each other because they are approaching the texts from different starting points. But knowing various theological systems allows a person to understand the foundational issues when discussing a text and also to evaluate the consistency of his or her own position. As a result, this book will not only help readers better understand their own views, it will also enable them to understand and appreciate the views of others. In the end, understanding these theological systems will be beneficial for interpreting the Bible. In order to explain and assess these systems, this book will examine the hermeneutical framework of each system by answering four key questions.

FOUR KEY QUESTIONS

Each position poses different answers to four hermeneutical questions. These questions are hermeneutical in nature because each of these theological systems seeks to interpret the Bible as a whole. The discussion of each position will start with the most general question and proceed to more specific questions. While these questions will be addressed separately, they are in many ways interrelated. Furthermore, the answers to the earlier questions will impact how the latter questions are answered. First, we will seek to identify the basic hermeneutic for each position. Second, we will look at how each position understands the relationship between the covenants. Third, we will address each position’s stance on the relationship between Israel and the church. Fourth, we will consider each position’s understanding of the kingdom of God. Below I will briefly explore each question in order to provide a guide to the discussion that will unfold in the following chapters.

1. WHAT IS THE BASIC HERMENEUTIC?

Literal or Symbolic?

The first and broadest question relates to the basic approach to Scripture employed by each system. The divide between dispensationalists and covenantalists has typically been construed as an issue of a literal versus non-literal, or spiritual, interpretation. Vern Poythress suggests that nearly all the problems between these two systems relate to the question of a literal interpretation.5 John Feinberg, however, argues, “Both sides claim to interpret literally, and yet they derive different theological systems. This suggests that the difference is not literalism v. non-literalism, but different understandings of what constitutes literal hermeneutics.”6 Traditionally, dispensationalists have viewed a literal interpretation as the historical-grammatical interpretation. In other words, a literal interpretation aims to understand the author’s intended meaning by interpreting the text in light of its historical and literary context. In fact, dispensationalists have traditionally set themselves apart by noting their consistent use of a literal interpretation.7

Covenantalists, however, also often claim to interpret the Bible literally. By this they mean that they interpret the Bible non-allegorically and in accordance with the intended meaning of the author (which allows for figurative or symbolic language). In addition, covenantalists also employ the Reformation principle of the analogy of faith, namely, “Scripture interprets Scripture.” This is not opposed to the historical-grammatical interpretation, but rather emphasizes the importance of the whole-Bible context for interpretation. Thus, the parts of Scripture must be understood in light of the whole and the whole in light of the parts. This dynamic opens up the possibility of a non-literal or spiritual interpretation, especially in regard to Old Testament prophetic texts.

If both types of systems affirm a historical-grammatical interpretation, what accounts for the differences between them? The answer, in part, is the priority given to either the Old Testament or New Testament. Herbert Bateman explains, “Testament priority is a presuppositional preference of one testament over the other that determines a person’s literal historical-grammatical hermeneutical starting point.”8 Feinberg concurs with this assessment when he states that one of the foundational issues of the debate is “the relation of the progress of revelation to the priority of one Testament over the other.”9

While dispensationalists and covenantalists agree that the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament, the latter tend to emphasize that the New Testament has priority for understanding the Old Testament, and the former start with the Old Testament and move to the New Testament but caution against reinterpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.10 This becomes the distinguishing issue as it relates to a literal or symbolic interpretation of various Old Testament passages, especially prophecies of the restoration of Israel. Since covenantalists tend to emphasize the priority of the New Testament, they allow later revelation to shape their understanding of the Old Testament. While covenantalists may employ the same basic hermeneutic as dispensationalists (historical-grammatical interpretation), they understand a particular passage in light of the more complete revelation of Jesus Christ contained within the New Testament. Thus, the New Testament clarifies the proper understanding of the Old Testament, and the Old Testament must be understood in relation to its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Dispensationalists agree with this view of the New Testament as the completion of the Old Testament. They disagree, however, with the conclusions drawn from it. Dispensationalists believe one’s basic hermeneutic must remain anchored in the Old Testament and that the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament does not do away with the promises or meaning of the Old Testament texts in their contexts.

Systems on both sides of the spectrum try to determine the relationship between the Testaments. If the New Testament has a certain priority over the Old Testament, what happens to the meaning of an Old Testament text when used by a New Testament author? Is a historical-grammatical interpretation sufficient for understanding the New Testament use of the Old Testament? Furthermore, if Jesus is the fulfillment of all the covenant promises, do the New Testament authors see a future fulfillment for national Israel? Jonathan Lunde argues that the central question regarding the New Testament use of the Old Testament is, “When NT authors appeal to OT texts in order to support or validate their arguments, the relationship between their meanings and that which was originally intended by their OT forbears is the central question.”11 In order to distinguish between the various systems, I will address (1) the proper role of typology and (2) Old Testament restoration prophecies to Israel.

The Proper Role of Typology

Typology is a key factor in determining the differences between various systems on the spectrum of discontinuity to continuity. Mark Karlberg argues, “Resolution of lingering differences of interpretation among evangelicals depends, to a large extent, on a proper assessment of the nature and function of OT typology.”12 Poythress even suggests that further discussion of this topic may have the ability to bring dispensationalists and covenantalists closer together.13

For the most part, dispensationalists tend to dismiss or minimize the role of typology in biblical hermeneutics. The problem they see with typology is the possibility of changing or doing away with the meaning of the type in its Old Testament context after its fulfillment in the New Testament antitype. Such an approach would compromise the priority of the Old Testament and would violate the emphasis on using a consistently literal or historical-grammatical hermeneutic.14 For some, this means denying any role of typology in their interpretation, while for others it means a very controlled understanding of typology limited to the ways in which the New Testament authors identify Old Testament types.15 Behind this position also lies the conviction that Israel is not a type of the church and that the church does not fulfill or experience the covenant blessings promised to Israel in the Old Testament. For example, many classic and revised dispensationalists see the new covenant blessings that the church enjoys as resulting from a separate covenant than the new covenant made with Israel in Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Ezekiel 36:24–28.

Some dispensationalists and the majority of covenantalists, however, see a greater role for typology in understanding how the New Testament uses the Old Testament. David Baker defines typology as “the study of types and the historical and theological correspondences between them.”16 He further defines a type as “a biblical event, person, or institution which serves as an example or pattern for other events, persons, or institutions.”17 Baker sees two principles as undergirding typology: (1) it is historical, and (2) it implies a real correspondence. Edward Glenny identifies four criteria necessary to establish such typological-prophetic connections between the Old Testament and New Testament: (1) the type must be linked to an historical fact (persons, actions, events, institutions); (2) the link to the antitype must be identifiable within Scripture; (3) a pattern must exist between the type and antitype; and (4) there must be an escalation or progression from the type to the antitype.18

Progressive dispensationalists view typology as an aspect of a historical-literary interpretation since it “refers to patterns of resemblance between persons and events in earlier history to persons and events in later history.”19 Darrell Bock argues for a complementary hermeneutic, which means that previous revelation can have an added or expanded meaning if it is complementary to the original meaning. The New Testament meaning can develop or complement the meaning of the Old Testament, but not in a way that would deny what the Old Testament author originally meant.20 In other words, the New Testament antitype does not contradict the meaning of the Old Testament type in its context, but develops or expands it in light of progressive revelation. Consequently, this hermeneutic includes both a “historical-exegetical” reading and a “theological-canonical” reading of any given text. The former is concerned with understanding the original author’s message to his immediate audience in their particular historical context. The latter is concerned with understanding a text in light of later revelation.

While progressive dispensationalists allow for a partial fulfillment of some Old Testament covenant promises within Christ and the church, they do not believe such connections exhaust or completely fulfill those Old Testament covenant promises. Feinberg argues, “If the NT antitype cancels the meaning of the OT type, the NT must tell us so. NT reinterpretations of OT passages are neither explicit nor implicit cancellations of the meaning of the OT. Likewise, NT antitypes neither explicitly nor implicitly cancel the meaning of OT types. Thinking they do misunderstands typology.”21

Covenantalists allow later revelation to provide greater clarity to earlier revelation. This opens the possibility for a developed or expanded meaning beyond what the original author would have perceived. Progressive covenantalists Gentry and Wellum therefore advocate reading Scripture in light of three contexts: textual (immediate context), epochal (preceding context), and canonical (entire canon).22 Covenantalists also understand the Old Testament types as shadows that divinely point forward to typological realities culminating in Jesus Christ and the new covenant.23 Thus, Old Testament types give way to the New Testament antitype. The different understandings of typology across these systems can perhaps best be seen in how they interpret Old Testament restoration prophecies to Israel.

Old Testament Restoration Prophecies to Israel

A key issue impacted by one’s understanding of typology is how each system interprets the Old Testament restoration prophecies to Israel. Perhaps the most well-known, or at least, most discussed, Old Testament restoration prophecy text is Amos 9:11–15 and its subsequent usage in Acts 15:14–18. Saucy notes, “James’ citation of the prophecy of Amos to support the Gentiles in the church (Ac 15:13–18) is another crucial text in discussion between traditional Dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists.”24 In Amos 9:11–15 God promises a future restoration of the people of Israel in very concrete and geographical terms (e.g., land, walls, crops, defeat of enemies, etc.). In Acts 15:14–18 the Jerusalem church was faced with the question of how to incorporate believing gentiles into the church. The apostle James sees the salvation of the gentiles and their incorporation into the people of God as agreeing with or fulfilling what was promised in Amos 9:11–12.

Traditional (classic and revised) dispensationalists believe that Acts 15:16–17 confirms the Old Testament restoration prophecy to the people of Israel. The New Scofield Study Bible states, “James declares that Amos 9:12 shows that, at the return of Christ, there will not only be believing Jews … but also believing Gentiles ‘who are called by my name.’ ”25 The logic here is that since there will be gentiles alongside believing Jews when Christ returns, the church should not make gentile believers become Jewish proselytes by circumcision. In other words, James’ reference to Amos 9:11–12 in Acts 15:16–17 is confirming the future reality of the inclusion of the gentiles during the millennial kingdom but does not specifically address the present situation, other than by affirming that God is now calling out a gentile people to himself. Since Amos 9:11–12 is given to national Israel, it cannot find its fulfillment in the church. Furthermore, the use of a historical-grammatical hermeneutic emphasizes allowing both the Old Testament and New Testament context to maintain their own meaning without later revelation changing or cancelling out earlier revelation.

Progressive dispensationalists believe that Acts 15:16–17 introduces an already-not yet fulfillment of the Old Testament restoration prophecy. Kenneth Barker states, “What happened in Acts 15 constitutes a stage in the progressive fulfillment of the entire prophecy in Amos 9 (cf. Acts 15:12–15). It is an instance of direct fulfillment, but not the final and complete fulfillment, as the following verses in Amos (9:13–15) plainly indicate.”26 Progressive dispensationalism affirms that Amos 9:11–12 has been partially fulfilled through the inclusion of the gentiles into the church. Nevertheless, this does not negate its future, fuller fulfillment for national Israel in the millennial kingdom. Like traditional dispensationalists, progressive dispensationalists hold to a clear distinction between Israel and the church. Since Amos records specific promises to national Israel, progressive dispensationalists do not see any reason to dismiss these promises for national Israel.27 Yet, their complementary hermeneutic allows for a partial fulfillment of Amos 9:11–12 regarding the inclusion of the gentiles into the church because of the inaugurated reign of Jesus (cf. Acts 2:29–36). Bock maintains that this type of hermeneutic “argues that we should continue to read the Old Testament as still telling us something about Israel in God’s plan, while being sensitive to how the New Testament complements that hope by expressing fulfillment today in Christ.”28

Covenantalists argue that Acts 15:16–17 should be taken as the fulfillment of Amos 9:11–12. Lehrer argues, “The restoration of national Israel in Amos 9 is interpreted by God in Acts 15 to refer to the gathering of God’s elect, both Jews and Gentiles, to be saved and brought together into the church.”29 Covenantalists argue that the throne of David has been restored in the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension to the right hand of the Father (cf. Ps 110:1; Acts 2:29–36) and that the kingdom of God has now been inaugurated in Jesus Christ. On this basis, covenantalists see the restoration promise to Israel in Amos 9:11–12 as being fulfilled in Jesus Christ through the inclusion of both Jews and gentiles into the church. While there is variety among covenantalists in how they arrive at this conclusion, the most influential reasons they do so are (1) their hermeneutic gives priority to the New Testament, (2) the nature of the prophetic genre, and (3) their understanding of the fulfillment of Israel’s covenant promises in Christ and the church.

2. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COVENANTS?

The second question essential to each theological system’s hermeneutical framework is the relationship between the covenants. Traditionally, dispensationalists have focused more on distinct dispensations within Scripture.30 While these dispensations encompass many of the biblical covenants (i.e., Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New), the dispensations have served to provide a more holistic picture of how the Bible fits together. On the other hand, covenant theology emphasizes three theological covenants, which are derived from the biblical covenants. There is a covenant of works/creation and a covenant of grace, which both flow out of the eternal covenant of redemption. Covenant theology understands all the biblical covenants as different expressions of the one covenant of grace.31 Newer positions like progressive dispensationalism and progressive covenantalism have put greater emphasis on the biblical covenants themselves.

Conditional or Unconditional?

A major issue regarding the relationship between the covenants is whether certain covenants are conditional or unconditional. The biblical covenants include: the Noahic covenant (Gen 6–9), Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12; 15; 17), Mosaic covenant (Exod 19:3b–8, 20–24), Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7; Ps. 89), and the new covenant (Jer 31–34; Ezek 33:29–39:29). Both dispensationalists and covenantalists have argued that most of the biblical covenants are unconditional, whereas the Mosaic covenant is conditional. When and how these covenants are fulfilled depends on whether a covenant is conditional or unconditional. Feinberg states, “I think the ultimate difference on the covenants between dispensational and non-dispensation systems is not just conditionality v. unconditionality, but which aspect(s) of the covenant promises one emphasizes.”32 Dispensationalists have tended to emphasize the land promises of the Old Testament, and covenantalists have tended to emphasize the genealogical aspects of the Old Testament (i.e., promises regarding children).

Furthermore, there is a growing movement that argues for an understanding of all the biblical covenants as both conditional and unconditional. Gentry and Wellum argue that the unconditional aspect of the covenants reveals the covenant-making and covenant-keeping nature of God. The conditional aspect of the covenants reveals the necessity of an obedient covenant partner. Wellum states, “In fact, it is precisely due to this blend that there is a deliberate tension within the covenants—a tension that is heightened as the Bible’s storyline unfolds through the progression of the covenants and is only resolved in Christ.”33 So, the question becomes how each theological system understands the biblical covenants in light of Jesus Christ. Although dispensationalists tend to argue that the covenants point to their fulfillment in Jesus Christ, they maintain that many aspects of the covenant have not been fulfilled in Christ and await a future fulfillment among the people of Israel. Covenantalists tend to argue that the covenants are fulfilled in Christ and the blessings promised to Israel in the Old Testament are now extended to the church.

Salvation for Old Testament Saints

Two issues closely tied to the relationship between the biblical covenants are the nature of salvation in the Old Testament and the role of Old Testament law in the life of the new covenant believer. First, the issue of salvation in the Old Testament revolves around whether God has saved people differently at different times in biblical history. Most dispensationalists and covenantalists would affirm that salvation is always by grace through faith. However, not all have held this position. Some critics point out that dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation, “that during the era of law, obedience to it was a condition of salvation, whereas during the age of grace, salvation comes simply through faith in Christ.”34 For example, the Scofield Study Bible states that in the dispensation of grace, “The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation.”35 Not surprisingly, the New Scofield Study Bible clarifies and even removes the confusing content in this note.36 Instead, the object of faith becomes the decisive point. Covenantalists agree that salvation is by grace through faith across the Old Testament and New Testament. However, some covenantalists would emphasize the necessity of a consciousness of faith in the promised or anticipated Messiah on behalf of Old Testament saints.

Applying the Law Today

Second, the relationship of the law to the new covenant believer is intricately connected to the discussion of the biblical covenants. There are two primary ways for understanding how the law has been fulfilled and is thus determinative for the new covenant believer’s relationship to the law. Either parts of the law have been fulfilled or the entirety of the law has been fulfilled. Traditionally, covenantalists view the law as comprising moral, civil, and ceremonial aspects. They argue that the civic and ceremonial aspects of the law have been fulfilled typologically in Christ while the moral aspect of the law remains intact for new covenant believers. Thus, new covenant believers are bound to the moral aspect of the law as were the Old Testament saints. Dispensationalists and some covenantalists, however, argue that the law should be understood as a unity. D. A. Carson argues, “Although this tripartite distinction is old, its use as a basis for explaining the relationship between the Testaments is not demonstrably derived from the New Testament and probably does not antedate Aquinas.”37 In such systems, the law has been completely fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus Christ (cf. Jer 31:31–34; Matt 5:17–20). New covenant believers are now “in Christ” and are no longer “under the law” (Gal. 5:18) but are bound to the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Still, there are other covenantalists (such as Christian reconstructionists) who believe that both the moral and civil law are binding on new covenant believers today.

3. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH?

Replacement, Fulfillment, or Distinct?

The relationship between Israel and the church is perhaps one of the most defining differences between dispensational and covenantal theologies. First, dispensational systems have traditionally emphasized discontinuity between Israel and the church. Thus, there is a distinction between Israel and the church with each having specific roles in God’s redemptive plan. In classic dispensationalism, this distinction is in large part due to a dualistic understanding of God’s redemptive purposes—one relating to earth concerning an earthly people (Israel) and another related to heaven concerning a heavenly people (the church). Because the church is a part of the heavenly people, God’s purposes for the church will be fulfilled separately from his purposes for his earthly people (Israel). Thus, the church does not replace Israel but is something entirely separate and distinct from Israel.

Revised dispensationalism maintains this rigid distinction between Israel and the church. Charles Ryrie considers this distinction the sine qua non (i.e., the absolutely indispensable part) of dispensationalism.38 He argues that the church is distinct in its character, in that it is made up of Jews and gentiles after the cross of Christ; distinct in its timing, in that it begins at Pentecost and is completed with the rapture; and distinct from Israel, in that Israel continues with her own promises and the church remains a separate work of God in this age.39

Progressive dispensationalism sees both discontinuity and continuity between Israel and the church. Bruce Ware explains, “Between the two extremes of a strict distinction between Israel and the church … and a strict identity of Israel and the church … there is a middle position that would suggest that Israel and the church share theologically rich and important elements of commonality while at the same time maintaining distinct identities.”40 A distinct future for national Israel during the millennium is maintained by progressive dispensationalists. Israel and the church, however, are viewed as the one people of God with the church presently experiencing the inaugurated blessings of the eschatological salvation that both Israel and the church will enjoy in the future.

Second, most non-dispensational systems have traditionally emphasized continuity between Israel and the church. Similar to progressive dispensationalism, progressive covenantalism argues for aspects of both continuity and discontinuity. Regarding discontinuity, Wellum points out, “The church is new both redemptive-historical sense precisely because she is the community of the new covenant and thus different from Israel in her nature and structure.”41 Regarding continuity, the church is seen as the eschatological Israel by virtue of its union in Christ. Thus, White argues, “It is not that Israel equals the church, as Covenant Theology teaches, but that Jesus is the climax and fulfillment of Israel and the church is the end-time Israel because it is united to Jesus Christ, her covenant head.”42 In covenant theology, the overwhelming emphasis is on continuity between Israel and the church. This continuity is based upon an understanding of the covenant of grace that sees one people of God across the Old and New Testaments. In this view, the church is not the replacement of Israel, but its fruition, based on God’s covenant of grace which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.43 Christian reconstructionism also sees continuity between Israel and the church. David Chilton argues, “From the beginning, God has always had His one covenant people. The New Testament church is simply the continuation of the true ‘Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16), after the false Israel had been cut off.”44 Many charge covenant theologians and Christian reconstructionists as holding “replacement theology.”45 However, representatives of both systems typically deny this charge.

ROMANS 11:26 ANDGALATIANS 6:16

To help further understand how each system views the relationship between Israel and the church, we will seek to show how each system handles some of the key texts relating to this issue, especially Romans 11:26 (“And in this way all Israel will be saved”) and Galatians 6:16 (“And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God”).

4. WHAT IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD?

The Old Testament anticipates the coming of the kingdom of God. Jesus’ message centered on the kingdom. The kingdom is central to apostolic teaching (Acts 19:8; 28:23, 31), and Revelation climactically concludes the Scriptures’ teaching on the kingdom. Saucy states, “All this leads to the conclusion that the kingdom of God is one of the grand themes, if not the theme, of Scripture.”46 We will specifically look at how each system understands both the (1) inauguration and (2) consummation of the kingdom of God.

Dispensationalists tend to emphasize a future realization of the kingdom of God. First, both classic and revised dispensationalists envision the kingdom of God as entirely future. Jesus did not usher in the kingdom during his earthly ministry. He offered it to Israel, but when they rejected it, the offer was rescinded and the kingdom never came.47 Some classic dispensationalists hold to a distinction between the “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven.” C. I. Scofield argued that the kingdom of God is universal, entered into only by new birth, and chiefly inward and spiritual. The kingdom of heaven, however, is “Messianic, mediatorial, and Davidic, and has for its object the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth (Matt 3:2; 1 Cor 15:24, 25).”48 Elsewhere, Scofield explains that the kingdom of heaven “signifies the Messianic earth[ly] rule of Jesus Christ, the Son of David.”49 It is primarily concerned with the fulfillment of Davidic promises (2 Sam 7:7–10) to national Israel through the Messiah. Thus, the “kingdom of heaven” began to appear in the ministry of Jesus, but upon being rejected by Israel it was postponed until the Millennium. In the end, the kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven merge together in the eternal state. Ryrie, however, notes that the distinction that some make between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God is relatively insignificant and not determinative of a dispensational view of the kingdom of God.50

Second, progressive dispensationalism sees the kingdom of God as primarily future but allows for some realization of the kingdom in the present.51 It proposes a unified picture of the kingdom of God rather than separate kingdoms. This differs from classic and revised dispensationalism, which tends to see two separate kingdoms operating in conjunction with one another and ultimately merging together. Progressive dispensationalists understand God’s universal rule over all creation as united and overlapping with his rule over Israel within the one eschatological kingdom of God. The relationship between God’s rule over all creation and over Israel is developed throughout the progressive unfolding of Scripture. Special attention is given to the Davidic covenant and the reigns of David and Solomon, which serve as types of the coming eschatological kingdom.52 The kingdom is inaugurated in this present age through the coming of Christ, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the church’s enjoyment of the spiritual blessings of God’s rule in Christ.53 While progressive dispensationalism allows for this type of present fulfillment, the kingdom of God is still primarily future and will be finally realized through the millennial reign of Christ on the earth and then the eternal state.54

Third, almost all non-dispensational systems hold to an already-not yet understanding of the kingdom of God.55 George Ladd has provided perhaps the most notable definition of the kingdom:

Our central thesis is that the Kingdom of God is the redemptive reign of God dynamically active to establish his rule among human beings, and that this Kingdom, which will appear as an apocalyptic act at the end of the age, has already come into human history in the person and mission of Jesus to overcome evil, to deliver people from its power, and to bring them into the blessings of God’s reign. The Kingdom of God involves two great moments: fulfillment within history [already], and consummation at the end of history [not yet].56

Progressive covenantalism emphasizes the progressive unfolding of the biblical covenants and their fulfillment in Jesus Christ as central to defining the kingdom as a present reality and a future hope.57 Covenantal theology views the already-not yet nature of the kingdom through its unifying theme of the covenant of grace. Christian reconstructionism views the kingdom of God as arriving in the ministry of Jesus and as being brought to completion through the church in this present age and culminating with the return of Christ.58 While there is still a future realization of the kingdom for Christian reconstructionists, the major emphasis is put on its present reality. DeMar argues, “The Reconstructionist views the kingdom as a present reality that manifests itself as sinners embrace the gospel and live out their new lives in conformity to the Bible. There is no kingdom to bring in, since we are living in the kingdom.”59 Covenant obedience and the saving work of the Holy Spirit through the church in the world will characterize the present realization of the kingdom of God.

CONCLUSION

Trying to bring clarity to the difference between dispensational and non-dispensational (covenantal) systems is not new. Many others have done so in the past and most have helped advance the discussion.60 Poythress rightly notes, “In the dispute between dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, both sides cannot be right. It might be that one position is right and the other wrong. Or it might be that one position is mostly right but still has something to learn from the opposing position. So, it is important to seriously listen to more than one point of view to ensure that some significant truths have not been overlooked.”61 This book seeks to have this conversation in an even more complete way by acknowledging the full scope of theological systems on a spectrum from discontinuity to continuity.

By identifying the various theological systems and subjecting each of them to the same key questions, the reader will be able to more fully see what distinguishes these systems from one another. While the issues of Israel and the church and the kingdom of God often stand at the front of the discussion between the various systems, it is often the more nuanced issues regarding hermeneutics, understanding the biblical covenants, and the New Testament use of the Old Testament that provide the greater clarity between what distinguishes these systems. Since no position can be exhausted by any one author, this book will seek to interact with three key representatives of each system while recognizing there may be others who hold different views within each system. Classic dispensationalism will be represented by John N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, and Lewis S. Chafer. Revised dispensationalism will be represented by Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and Dwight Pentecost. Progressive dispensationalism will be represented by Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, and Robert Saucy. Progressive covenantalism will be represented by Peter Gentry, Stephen Wellum, and key representatives of new covenant theology. Covenant theology will be represented by Michael Horton, O. Palmer Robertson, and Meredith Kline. Finally, Christian reconstructionism will be represented by R. J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North.

CHAPTER 2

CLASSIC DISPENSATIONALISM

Taxonomy of Theological Systems

As explained in the introduction and illustrated in chart 2.1, classic dispensationalism represents the position of extreme discontinuity between the covenants and thus between Israel and the church.1 After offering a brief history of the rise of classic dispensationalism, I will seek to answer our four key questions primarily through the voices of (1) John N. Darby, (2) C. I. Scofield, and (3) Lewis S. Chafer.

John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) is considered to be the father of modern dispensationalism.2 Darby, a trained lawyer and Anglican priest, became disappointed at the lack of spiritual fervor in the church. He eventually came to believe that the established church was so corrupt that no true believer should remain.3 But finding no comfort in other denominations, Darby sought something simpler and joined a group of individuals for Bible study and communion.4 By 1840, this small meeting had grown to eight hundred people.5 This was the birth of the separatist movement later known as the Plymouth Brethren. The appellation “Plymouth Brethren” was due to Darby’s objection to denominational names. He preferred instead to use the New Testament term “brethren.”6

Darby first published his dispensational views in a paper titled, “Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations.”7 A “futurist,” Darby rejected the “historicist” approach in vogue in Britain in the early nineteenth century.8 Darby added two novel elements to futurist theology. First, he saw a “gap” between the 69th and 70th week in Daniel 9:25–27.9 This gap represented the church age. Second, he suggested that a “rapture” would end the church age,10 thus inaugurating the 70th week, where the wrath of God will be poured out upon the unjust.11

In 1845, Darby returned from Switzerland to Plymouth, Britain. Controversy arose between Darby and B. W. Newton, another leader in the early Brethren. The first evidence of the controversy between Darby and Newton concerned the status of the church during the tribulation. Darby asserted that the church would be raptured prior to the tribulation. Additionally, Darby disagreed with Newton’s view that the Old Testament saints were merely part of the church.12 Bass comments, “Here is tangible evidence that the dichotomy between Israel and the church was forming in the thought of Darby, growing out of a rigidly applied principle of interpretation.”13 The conflict between Darby and Newton would snowball, ultimately resulting in Newton being forced out of Plymouth and the Brethren movement.14 In the coming years, Darby and his followers would gain an attentive audience, particularly among American Presbyterians and Baptists.15

Several other individuals helped launch dispensationalism into a robust theological system. The first was Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843–1921). C. I. Scofield preached his first sermon in Dallas in 1882—the year Darby died.16 In 1888, he published a booklet titled Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, which has sold over a million copies and is still in print today. The pinnacle of Scofield’s work and “the most important publication of this classic form of Dispensationalism was the Scofield Reference Bible, an edition of the King James Bible published in successive editions … in 1909 and 1917.”17 The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible expanded the reach of dispensationalism. Scofield’s contribution is so significant that “the label ‘dispensationalism’ was apparently used first in the 1920s to distinguish Scofield’s dispensational theology from other approaches.”18 Indeed, while Darby’s work gave rise to much of systematic dispensationalism, Scofield’s work was the catalyst for American dispensationalism.19

The second influential American that helped launch dispensationalism was Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952). Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS)—a school committed to the principles of dispensationalism. In addition to founding DTS, which would produce many notable dispensationalists throughout the twentieth century, two of Chafer’s works have been particularly influential. The first was a sixty-page journal article for Bibliotheca Sacra, the journal of DTS of which Chafer served as the editor. This article presented a rigorous argument for classic dispensationalism. Second was Chafer’s eight-volume systematic theology, “which became the standard theology of the ‘Scofieldian’ period of dispensationalism.”20

1. WHAT IS THE BASIC HERMENEUTIC?

Is a Literal or Symbolic Hermeneutic Employed?

A foundational presupposition of dispensationalism is a consistent literal hermeneutic. For example, Chafer states that a “proper interpretation assumes that each word has its normal literal meaning unless there are good reasons for regarding it as a figure of speech.”21 But in addition to a literal hermeneutic, classic dispensationalism applied typology as a secondary theological observation. For Darby, the key was to apply a literal hermeneutic to texts related to Israel, whereas texts related to gentiles or the church could also have a secondary typological or symbolic meaning. Darby states, “First, in prophecy,