Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism, Part 5

Republished with permission from Dr. Reluctant. In this series, Dr. Henebury responds to a collection of criticisms of dispensationalism entitled “95 Theses against Dispensationalism” written by a group called “The Nicene Council.” Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Thesis 24

Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.

Response: It is not advisable to refer to dispensational interpretation as “literalism”—so-called or otherwise, since this leads to misunderstandings and misrepresentations (see below). It is far better to treat the Bible the same way one would treat any other book. It seems preposterous to us to scout around for an alternative hermeneutics just because the Bible is the Word of God. In fact, it is precisely because the Bible is the Word of God to man that one would expect it not to require some esoteric interpretation unless very good reasons could be given for doing so.

Although some evangelicals would disagree, we think there is great wisdom contained in these words of Peters:

If God has really intended to make known His will to man, it follows that to secure knowledge on our part, He must convey His truth to us in accordance with the well-known rules of language. He must adapt Himself to our mode of communicating thought and ideas. If His words were given to be understood, it follows that He must have employed language to convey the sense intended, agreeably to the laws grammatically expressed, controlling all language; and that, instead of seeking a sense which the words in themselves do not contain, we are primarily to obtain the sense that the words obviously embrace, making due allowance for the existence of figures of speech when indicated by the context, scope or construction of the passage. (George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1.47)

That many Jews in the time of Jesus expected Him to fulfill the Word by setting up His literal (not spiritual) messianic kingdom at His first advent was due in part to their not realizing that He must first suffer and become “sin for us” (Isa. 53) before He would come as king (e.g. Matt. 26:64, 27:11 with Dan. 7:13-14) They did not see that there would be a time-gap between the first and second advents (see Mic. 5:2, Isa. 61:1-2, Lk. 1:31-33).

Unless they are heretics, all Christians believe in a time gap between the advents. And they do this, not by employing some allegorizing hermeneutic (which would be suspicious as an apologetic), but rather, by believing what the Bible says. Christ will come again (Lk. 18:8, Jn. 14:1-3, Acts 1:11, Rev. 22:20).

Finally, how strange it was that those who were closest to Him, who heard more of His teaching than anyone else, should ask Him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Apparently not only did they expect a literal earthly kingdom in line with OT predictions, but they also appeared not to think the Church was the “New Israel”! And Jesus said nothing to alter their expectation!

Thesis 25

Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first century Jews, such “literalism” led those Jews to misunderstand Christ’s basic teaching by believing that he would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must actually eat his flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).

Response: Since no dispensationalist has ever made these same mistakes in interpretation, this objection is pointless. This is what happens when one goes fishing for red herrings rather than paying attention to how the (older) hermeneutics manuals (Terry, Ramm) define grammatical-historical hermeneutics. In this case, “literal” interpretation is morphed into “literalistic” interpretation. All objectors to dispensational interpretation get a couple of pages worth of material from this mischaracterization.

Thesis 26

Despite the dispensationalists’ interpretive methodology arguing that we must interpret the Old Testament on its own merit without reference to the New Testament, so that we must “interpret ‘the New Testament in the light of the Old’” (Alan Johnson), the unified, organic nature of Scripture and its typological, unfolding character require that we consult the New Testament as the divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament, noting that all the prophecies are “yea and amen in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20); that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10); and, in fact, that many Old Testament passages were written “for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11) and were a “mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past” (Col. 1:26; Rev 10:7).

Response: First, Alan Johnson is not a dispensationalist. But since Scripture is a unified and organic whole, certainly we must, in some sense, “interpret the New Testament in light of the Old.” Every Bible interpreter must do that. What responsible Bible student would deny it? Where would our biblical worldview be if we did not allow Genesis 1-4 to guide us as New Testament believers?

The question is, “To what extent can the New Testament be used to interpret the Old?” The passages cited do not answer this question for us. Second Corinthians 1:20 speaks to the Divine provenance of the Gospel preached by Paul and his companions. The verse does not say “prophecies” but “promises.” In context the promises are those of the Gospel. However, because Christ is the Fulcrum of the outworking of God’s decrees it would not be amiss to relate every promise to Him. But this hardly gives Christians license to give the OT promises a complete makeover so that they look nothing like the original statements. Likewise 1 Corinthians 10:11 tells us that the OT stories “were written for our instruction.” The context is Divine recompense upon evil works (v.6). To enlist the passage to teach the legitimacy of an ill-advised mixture of allegorical/typological/literal interpretation of the OT is to be guilty of “textual kidnapping.”

The Colossians passage will be dealt with in due time. It proves nothing as it stands in the sentence. It has simply been spliced and connected to a strand from the 1 Corinthians passage without regard for its original usage. We are unclear as to what function Rev. 10:7 is supposed to play in establishing this thesis.

But the cat is being let out of the bag by this thesis. The Nicene Council require the OT to be exposed to the acid of their “typological” hermeneutic whenever it suits. This makes the OT a wax nose that can be made to look any way the objectors wish it to look. Responsible dispensationalists refuse to operate this way. We affirm the integrity of both Testaments as equally worthy of the same grammatical-historical hermeneutical consideration. We affirm that to use the NT – especially an artificial set of theological covenants not found in the NT – as a lens through which to re-interpret the OT is not at all to use it “as a divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament” but to demean the OT so as to make room for the deductions of systems such as Covenant theology.

Of course, the NT provides much more light on many precious truths. But both Testaments can be interpreted together satisfactorily without the adoption of such a fabricated prioritization of one Testament above the other.

Discussion

Do many dispensationalists believe that Israel was rash to accept the covenant that God offered to them at Sinai? Or is that just a fringe view held by a few that has no real effect or influence on the dispensational system?

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com

I have heard one or two state their belief that Israel was rash in accepting the Sinaitic Covenant, but I don’t see it as representing anything else but a rather odd point of view. For one thing, if God Almighty was thundering at me from close proximity I think I’d agree to anything. The adverb “rashly” is inappropriate under the circumstances. The very nature of God requires of the creature full obedience. Hence, to refuse the covenant would be to refuse God Himself.

The view has nothing going for it biblically and is wholly separate from Dispensationalism as a system. What the Law Covenant did was to set Israel apart from the nations. It was their covenant which the prophets called them back to repeatedly. Israel was to be different; a kingdom of priests and a light to the nations. This required them to be distinct, and, moreover, will require it in the future (e.g. Isa. 62:1-2; Zech. 8:20-23; 14:16-21; Rom. 11:25-29).

Hope this helps.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

I have seen this in quite a few of these “dispensationalism versus covenant theology” charts such as the one below. However, I am wondering if it is “dispensationalism as explained by non-dispensationalists.”

http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/compare.html

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/covenant%20theology%20&…

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com

I’d add to what Paul said that I think there is ample reason to believe every covenant God has made/offered has been gracious in character, including the Mosaic/Sinai covenant, law-focused though it was. And it’s never “rash” to gratefully welcome grace.

JobK… on the links there: they do all appear to be pretty biased in the anti-disp. direction. Some more than others. Even http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm this one which appears more fair than the others, makes the generalization that dispensationalists are “almost never 5 point Calvinist.” I think this used to be closer to the truth than it is today. I know quite a few five pointers who are dispies.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Upon further inspection, all those charts seem to have a very similar common origin. Looks like various separate people found the same work and appropriated it for their websites. And since the originator of the chart A) is unknown and B) did not provide sources or footnotes (i.e. did he come to these conclusions by reading Ryrie or Scofield) we have no way of knowing how widespread these beliefs are, or how influential they were in developing the dispensational system.

Now as far as whether Israel was “rash to accept the covenant”, the truth is that they had no choice in the matter to accept or deny. God imposed the covenant on them, exercising His prerogative, right and authority to do so as the sovereign Creator. The Biblical narrative makes this explicit and obvious as God tells them through Moses: “I am your God and this is what you will do.” If the theologians who developed the dispensational system had the view that Israel somehow had any sort of choice or say in the matter, then that is a serious problem because they were operating from a very erroneous set of presuppositions.

Now the idea that Israel had a choice to accept or reject being God’s covenant nation was an idea that Jewish rabbis developed at some point. The story goes that God offered the covenant to all the nations of the world and they rejected it. Israel was simply the last nation, and they accepted God’s offer only because He was holding a mountain over their heads threatening to crush and kill them if they didn’t! This teaching or belief of theirs has its purposes within Jewry, but I find the presupposition between this idea - that God either could not or would not act in this matter without at least the appearance of human decision or consent - to be simply amazing. It reminds me of the similarly jaw-dropping Roman Catholic teaching that Mary had the ability to decide to choose or reject whether to bear Jesus Christ, and that God chose Mary for this role only because He knew in advance that she would accept.

Now many anti-dispensationalists allege that dispensationalism was developed by Christians who became too familiar and comfortable with the Talmud and other Jewish traditional writings, and developed a Christian theology that centers on (or at least elevates) Israel and Judaism. I would have to learn more about the development of dispensatonalism to see if those charges are true.

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com

When I read Exodus, it looks to me like they had a choice. Of course, rejecting the covenant would have had consequences and they probably felt (probably accurately) that they would be destroyed.

Still, it’s a covenant and they do “ratify” it. A second generation does so again in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

No argument with any of that, really. I don’t think the fact that God offers the covenants on His own terms is in dispute. But always He extends a relationship opportunity that must then be accepted or rejected.

And that opportunity is always a gracious act that the human beings involved are foolish to refuse.

Exodus 19:7–8 (NKJV) — 7 So Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the LORD commanded him. 8 Then all the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” So Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

Deuteronomy 29:9–13 (NKJV) — 9 Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do. 10 “All of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel, 11 your little ones and your wives—also the stranger who is in your camp, from the one who cuts your wood to the one who draws your water— 12 that you may enter into covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath, which the LORD your God makes with you today, 13 that He may establish you today as a people for Himself, and that He may be God to you, just as He has spoken to you, and just as He has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

The idea of covenants does not come from covenant theologians. The idea comes from the Bible. The guys you’re quoting there don’t deny the existence of covenants but rather emphasize the distinctions between the biblical covenants and some features of other types of covenants.

“Covenants” is a perfectly good word for them. We really don’t need another. “Testament” is really just another word for covenant.

In the end, it makes little difference what we call them. What they are is quite clear. But using terms that are generally understood is usually a good rule if we want to avoid confusing people.

Dispensationalists also affirm the reality of covenants. For example, Ryrie, p.190 Dispensationalism:
… the covenants of with Abraham, Israel, David, and others are so clearly and specifically revealed. Abraham had no doubt that a covenant was being made when God Himself passed between the pieces of the sacrifice (Gen. 15:17-21).
In the context he is arguing against the Covenant Theology idea of a “Covenant of Grace” on the grounds that it is not clearly revealed like the other covenants are.

Also, I’m pretty sure that Moulton is a Covenant Theologian (he is certainly no dispensationalist) and prefers “promissory dispositions” because CT likes to see the covenants as aspects of the one Covenant of Grace.

So you have the relationship between “covenants” and Covenant Theology almost exactly backwards.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

As with so many things, context is the key.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Regardless of the vocab. choice of the NT writers, the OT is crystal clear about what these were. They were covenants. Not covenants in which both sides negotiate the terms, no. But a covenant is simply a promise.

On diatheke
[BAGD Lexicon]

2. As a transl. of בְּרִית in LXX δ. loses the sense of ‘will, testament’ insofar as a δ. decreed by God cannot require the death of the testator to make it operative. Nevertheless, another essential characteristic of a testament is retained, namely that it is the declaration of one person’s will, not the result of an agreement betw. two parties, like a compact or a contract. This is without doubt one of the main reasons why the LXX rendered בְּרִית by δ. In the ‘covenants’ of God, it was God alone who set the conditions; hence covenant (s. Murray, New [Oxford] Engl. Dict. s.v.‘covenant’ sb. 7) can be used to trans. δ. only when this is kept in mind.
[Louw, J. P., and Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 2: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains]

διαθήκη, ης f

a making of a covenant: 34.43

b covenant: 34.44

c testament: 57.124
[Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains]

1347 διαθήκη (diathēkē), ης (ēs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ DBLHebr 1382; Str 1242; TDNT 2.106—1. LN 34.43 making of a covenant, promise in a solemn agreement (Mk 14:24; Lk 1:72; 22:20; Ac 3:25; 7:8; Ro 11:27; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6; Gal 4:24; Eph 2:12; Heb 7:22; 12:24; 13:20); 2. LN 34.44 covenant, the content of an agreement between two parties (Gal 3:15); 3. LN 57.124 testament, making of a will (Heb 9:16, 17+)
It appears to me that the claim that no one in the NT world would have understood the term to mean “covenant” is unjustified especially given the fact that the NT occurrences usually refer to OT texts where the covenant idea is quite clear.

I think the BAGD entry makes a very solid point that God’s covenants are such that He alone sets the terms. However, the recipients enter into the agreement in most cases (the covenant we all Noahic would be an example of one where no agreement seems to have been involved. God just promises. In the case of David, there is no formal entering into the covenant by David, but conditions are clearly included and so David’s response and commitment to keep the conditions clearly represents his entering into the covenant God offered. The Sinai cov’t is the most clearly mutual in my view. Again, the terms are presented unilaterally and non-negotiably by God, but the people clearly accept them.)

But once again, we could call them nergopharps if we wanted to. They remain what the contexts clearly indicate they were, regardless.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

You have a pact as soon as one party promises something and another promises something back. This clearly occurred at Sinai and again later at the plains of Moab. The BAGD entry on diatheke doesn’t rule that out if you look at the whole thing. But if it did, it would be wrong.

I don’t think the meaning of diatheke really has a whole lot to do with the progressive dispensationalism controversy. Whether we call it a “new covenant” or a “new diatheke” we still have to figure out if there are two of them or just one. And we are still talking about promises.

Personally, I have no difficulty at all with calling a one way promise a covenant… especially since in almost every case there is the option of entering into it or rejecting it (and suffering the consequences).

Deuteronomy 26:17–18 (NKJV) — 17 Today you have proclaimed the LORD to be your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His commandments, and His judgments, and that you will obey His voice. 18 Also today the LORD has proclaimed you to be His special people, just as He promised you, that you should keep all His commandments


I’m sorry, but you’ll never convince that this is not a covenant.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Thanks Jack. That was quite helpful.

I finished “The Kingdom of Christ” by Russell Moore a few weeks ago. Its all about the rapprochement of dispie and cov’t theologies, and the promise that holds for social and spiritual benefits. Interesting read. But i didn’t come across the battle on diatheke, nor when I read Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church by Blaising and Bock, et. al.

So thanks for pointing out the issue.

So, from your perspective, if you hold that a diatheke is a promissory disposition (epangellia, I guess?), how does that help you define exactly what the New Covenant is for the church today? IOW, what light does it shed that we have missed perhaps before?

Thanks Jack. The last sentence helped me a lot to frame the argument.

How would you understand Hebrews 8:6, “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.”

Is Jesus right now not mediating a better covenant? Is he now mediating an antitype?

Also, where does God’s election of the redeemed come into play (Eph. 1:4-7)? Is that specific redemption to foreknown people, or a general will of redemption, toward all people?

Thanks.

This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to join in a little if I may?

If I am reading things right there are several threads going:

1. When God made a “covenant” - be it unilateral (e.g. Noahic) or bilateral (Mosaic), there was of necessity a human response to the revelation. Granted this is self-evident, the real issue is whether the human response is of any import. If the covenant is unilateral the answer is “No.” For example, God will never bring another global flood upon the world regardless of any ones response to that promise. In the case of a bilateral covenant however, the response of those to whom the covenant is addressed obligates that party to the terms of the agreement.

In both cases the terms are drawn up by the Superior Party (the Suzerain if you like). This, by the way, may be the reason the LXX and the NT uses the more one-sided term “diatheke” instead of “syntheke.” In the unilateral treaties in the OT it is the Suzerain (God), who obligates Himself, while no obligation to bring about the fulfillment of the terms of the covenant come upon the second party (e.g. Israel). And even though the unconditional covenants may have subsidiary conditions appended to them, these conditions in no way absolve God from His obligation to bring the wording of His covenant to pass.

2. As Aaron rightly says it is the context which decides the use of a word in Scripture. The various contexts in which the OT covenants were “cut” do not allow for much ambiguity. Always the divine initiative is to the fore, and always a trajectory, in line with God’s overall purpose, is announced and usually set in motion. As most of God’s covenants are unilateral in character (Noahic, Abrahamic, Land, Priestly, Davidic, New), Divine obligation becomes a sort of “test” of God’s own Self-revealed nature (e.g. His veracity, omnipotence, immutability, righteousness). These things must be kept in mind when coming to the NT.

3. Although Jack is correct that “diatheke” carries the usual meaning “disposition” (in the sense of legal settlement), or “testament” - a meaning the writer of Hebrews exploits in Heb. 9:15-17 - we must allow the central quotation from Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8:8f., (together with Christ’s allusion to it at the Last Supper) to be decisive. As D. Hillers rightly says, “The point worth noting is that the death of Jesus has suggested the meaning he [the writer of Hebrews] attaches to diatheke, “covenant,” and not the reverse.” - Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, (1994), 182.

4. Regarding the New Covenant the Jeremiah passage must guide our translation of the NT’s “diatheke,” especially as we cannot ask the inspired authors why they employed that particular word. Geerhardus Vos’s study, though dated, demonstrates well that, as he says, “The idea of a testamentary disposition is present in only two passages.” - “Covenant” Or “Testament”? in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (1980), 411.

In those contexts where God’s “one-sided disposition” is stressed, Vos is content to translate “covenant” in line with the Hebrew “berith” (Ibid.). He leaves upon a third, smaller category of texts which he regards as inadequately translated as “covenant.” However, it should be noted that once the two forms of ANE covenants in the Bible are considered, Vos’s unease is considerably ameliorated.

5. Personally speaking, I don’t see why dispensationalists have pulled their hair out over the New Covenant. To me at least, the language of Luke 22:20, made as it was with those who were to become “foundations” of the church (Eph. 2:20), and repeated imperturbably by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:25; when taken with the argument in Hebrews, decisively shows that Jesus, “the Mediator of the New Covenant”, made the New covenant with the Church! If one is expecting to find that in Jeremiah or Ezekiel then one is not a dispensationalist. Those prophets did not envisage “the Body of Christ” so they did not write about the relationship of the New covenant to the Church.

Does this necessitate two separate new covenants? No indeed! It means only that the same new covenant was given to the Church as shall be given to Israel. From my simplistic perspective I just don’t see a real problem there :-)

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.