Renewing Dispensational Theology: A Suggested Path, Part 1

Image

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

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

This being said, here are some thoughts on five sectors of truth where Dispensational Theology (DT) might be renewed.

1. Self-Understanding: What Are We About?

In many ways, defining oneself by “dispensations” is more restricting than defining oneself under the theological covenants of Covenant Theology (CT). The dispensations of Dispensationalism are in reality blinders which severely attenuate the exciting potential of plain reading of the Bible. They are non-essentials which have been borne aloft for so long that no one has bothered to look up to see how abject they actually are. What do the concepts “innocence,” “conscience,” “government,” “promise,” “law,” “church” (or “grace”), and “kingdom” have in common as theological ideas (other than their obvious adoption by dispensationalists)?

Why, for example, would “government” be a more emphasized stewardship than “conscience” after Noah? Wasn’t Israel’s theocracy far more of a government than anything found in Genesis 9? The time of Abraham is often called the Dispensation of Promise. But are not promises made to Adam and Eve and to Noah before Abraham? Moreover, as John Sailhamer has stated, “the OT itself does not have a word or expression for the NT idea of ‘promise’ ” (The Meaning of the Pentateuch, 421). Sailhamer is referring to the promise-fulfillment motif, but this is certainly relevant to the “Dispensation of Promise” which assumes such a motif. If Sailhamer has a point, it would seem wise to replace the imprecise term “promise” with “covenant.” But once we do that we will be required to drop the theme of “dispensation” too, so as to give the Abrahamic covenant the developmental scope it clearly must have.

System

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

For the record, here is my working definition of DT:

An approach to biblical theology which attempts to find its raison d’etre in the Scriptures themselves, and which constructs its systematic presentation of theology around a primary focus on the biblical covenants.

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

2. Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

This hermeneutic takes us a surprisingly long way when applied to all of Scripture.

3. Biblical Theology

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

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

  1. Creation involves both a teleology and an eschatology (thus a study of the end times involves a study of the beginning times).
  2. The Fall introduces the noetic effects of sin which resets our default from dependence to independence. Genesis 3:15 covers the major work of Christ in a fallen world.
  3. The Noahic Covenant provides a predictable framework for history until the consummation, and further stresses the nature of divine covenants as reinforcements of language—since all interpreters take this covenant “literally.”
  4. The Abrahamic Covenant sets out a blessed future for at least two lines of humanity: those from Isaac and Jacob who inherit “the land of Canaan” and “the Nations.” It also picks up on the promised seed idea from Eden.
  5. The Davidic Covenant promises a great King who will pull the strands of the Noahic and Abrahamic Covenants together.
  6. The New Covenant brings all the other everlasting covenants into itself in the Person of Christ, through whose redemptive death and new life the covenants must pass in order to find their specific fulfillments.
  7. The Church as a “new man” created after the resurrection of Christ also enters into specific blessings of the Abrahamic and New Covenants. In fact, in a real sense, it enters them before those with whom they were originally promised.
  8. The Second Coming, which is given more emphasis in the Bible than the First Coming, brings the earth’s Owner and the second Adam back as King to judge, restore and beautify it. Just as all the covenants run through Christ, so Christ is Maker, Owner, Redeemer, Restorer, and Ruler as the physical world as a physical Being in the world. The two comings of Christ are in reality one work separated by time, as is evident from the Messianic prophecies in the OT and the Lord’s Supper in the NT. This fact also shows us that the teleology/eschatology motif inaugurated at Creation and instilled in the biblical covenants is yet unfolding.
  9. Because this world is cursed, even Christ cannot remove the ravages of God’s curse on the ground without constantly exercising His miraculous restraint on it. This explains the need for a new heavens and new earth wherein there is no more curse. This completes the original “Creation Project.” The whole Bible program is radically (but not artificially) Christological.

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

(Continued in Part 2.)

Discussion

Larry,

I feel that you are seeing things through dispensationalist lenses and so are not really seeing what I’m saying.

Really, it is not okay to call the dispensations anything you like. If that can be done then they are even more problematic than I say they are; for they are contentless and more ill-defined. No dispensationalist I am aware of would be happy with your position on the laissez-faire naming of the dispensations. Previously you wrote,

The dispensations are named according to the progress of revelation at that point as it related to the way that God was governing and working in the world.

Well, that puts clear parameters on what the dispensations are about and what they can be called.

Your answer to the question of what you think covenants are is rather weak. Covenants are God Himself entering into an oath-bond to do something. He binds His character to the outplaying and fulfillment of the oaths, and we can count on them. Therefore, nothing can circumvent these fulfillments. The covenants are like sign-posts telling us what God will do. As such they are prescriptive (not merely descriptive like dispensations). Being prescriptive they guide formulations. Being reinforcements of Divine speech means that they amplify the ‘God’s words/actions’ motif in Gen. 1-9 while providing verbal continuity in the idea of revelation. I don’t need a covenant in Gen. 1-8 to tie those chapters in with what comes next. there are strong verbal and structural clues in the text. (e.g. Sailhamer and what I have said about God’s speech/action).

You err in saying the covenants are made just with Israel. You use this to brush aside an important point about why covenants can be tracked. These include more than those made with Israel. E.g. The Abrahamic covenant has provisions for the nation that would become Israel, but, as you say in one place, it also was made with the Nations. I keep having to repeat myself on the New covenant re. Israel. Dispensationalists tend to be myopic on the New Covenant. As I said in the combox of my previous post:

On your last point I would say that, with respect, you are not employing consistent hermeneutics when reading Lk. 22:14-20 or 1 Cor. 11:23-26. Christ’s blood is the “blood of the New Covenant” you have been saved with (which is why you are not under the Law). He mediates the New Covenant now. Not with Israel for sure, since those OT prophecies have yet to be fulfilled; but with the Church. You say, “believers who are a part of the dispensation of the churches are only ministers of, not partakers of this covenant yet.” This alludes to 2 Cor. 3:6 which refers to Paul and Timothy as ministers. Contextually the message they are ministering as “ministers of the new covenant” is the Gospel (2:12; 4:3-4). The old saw about us not being participators in the New Covenant comes from Dispensationalists not taking their own affirmations seriously enough. Why would Jeremiah speak of the Church? He wouldn’t. He didn’t know what it was! He prophesied about Israel. So even though Jesus and Paul could refer us to Jeremiah, we do not look to Jeremiah to find out whether we are in the New Covenant. we look to Jesus and Paul, and their testimony is unambiguous.

Please also see this article: http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/does-diatheke-mean-last-will-and-testament-in-hebrews-916-17/

What I have said about the Abrahamic and New covenants here shows how I can be consistent regarding them while putting Israel under the Mosaic covenant. This also answers your query on language and its use.

You think the covenant in Isa. 49:6 is not the NC? Okay, but what is it? It is certainly salvific and restorative, just like Jer. 31.

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

There is more, but this should be enough for now.

Appreciate the challenge.

Dr. Paul Henebury

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

[Ron Bean]

Are Old Testament saints in Christ? - Do you mean ‘in the Church’ - No

Are Old Testament saints part of the Body of Christ? - No, the Church is a post-resurrection reality

What was the Gospel that was preached to Abraham? Galatians 3:8 - It is in the verse. It is not that Jesus would die on a Roman Cross.

Are dispensationalists still holding to Scofield’s different Gospels? - I guess some do but most don’t.

Thanks

Dr. Paul Henebury

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

Are Old Testament saints in Christ?

Yes, if you mean union with Christ.

Are Old Testament saints part of the Body of Christ?

No. The body of Christ is marked out by Spirit baptism, something that started at Pentecost.

What was the Gospel that was preached to Abraham? Galatians 3:8

“That all the nations of the earth would be blessed through him.” (It’s right there in the verse.) The bigger question is did Abraham know that meant his son would be the Messiah who would die for sinners? Or is that something made clear only later in the progress of revelation?

Are dispensationalists still holding to Scofield’s different Gospels?

Some probably are. Remember that “gospel” means good news, and there is more than one good news. So the idea of different gospels isn’t odd. It’s very defensible based on the text of Scripture. The relations between them need to be worked out, however. There are also still some dispensationalists who believe in multiple ways of salvation.

Paul, let me finally reply here. As you said elsewhere, this can get lengthy and none of us have the time for that. But I wrote this some time ago intending to post it and never did.

Really, it is not okay to call the dispensations anything you like. If that can be done then they are even more problematic than I say they are; for they are contentless and more ill-defined. No dispensationalist I am aware of would be happy with your position on the laissez-faire naming of the dispensations.
I am not aware of any dispensationalist who claims that the number or names of the dispensations are essential to dispenstionalism. Are you? I have never heard of such a thing (which may be my limitations). My point is that a label is just a label. The content is what is at issue. That’s what the discussion should be about. If you call the dispensation of promise the dispensation of covenant, or the AC, or whatever, I am fine with that. DT doesn’t rise or fall on whether you like the name promise or think it should be something else.

Covenants are God Himself entering into an oath-bond to do something.
Yes, it’s a promise. And he keeps all the promises he makes. He is faithful; he cannot deny himself. I think, in terms of theology, the difference between and apromise and covenant is largely a distinction without a difference. Covenants are typically more formal. I would say a covenant is a subset of promise. God can no more break a promise than he can a covenant.

You err in saying the covenants are made just with Israel.
So use the text itself and show me who they are made with. The Abrahamic covenant was made with Abraham (Gen 12:1) and his descendants (Gen 15:18-21). The Mosaic covenant was made with the nation of Israel (Exodus 19:1-8; Jer 31:31-34). The Davidic covenant was made with the house of David (2 Sam 7:7-14). The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Jacob, whom God led by the hand out of Egypt, who broke the covenant that God made with them (Jer 31:31-33). If you can use the text to show that someone else is included as a party to the covenant, I will be glad to consider it. But you have to use the text of Scripture.

I think you are taking people who participate in the blessings of a covenant and making them parties to the covenant. Perhaps an analogy might help: If I enter a contract to buy a house, my children can participate in the blessings of that contract. But they are not party to the contract. And should I default on the contract, my children are not legally liable for it. Obviously, all analogies break down, but I think it shows the difference between participating in blessings or reaping benefits and being a party to the covenant. Again, the text has to drive us.

The Abrahamic covenant has provisions for the nation that would become Israel, but, as you say in one place, it also was made with the Nations.
Where did I say that? I believe what I said is that they are recipients of it, meaning the blessings component of it. It wasn’t made with the nations. Again, if you think it was, then show us that from the text of the covenant.

Dispensationalists tend to be myopic on the New Covenant. As I said in the combox of my previous post:
I think it is more characterized by exegetical rather than myopic. Again, if you can use the text to show your point, I will entertain it. But right now, I don’t feel like I have much to work with, and the combox of the previous post was part of the problem, which is why I addressed that at some length.

Why would Jeremiah speak of the Church? He wouldn’t. He didn’t know what it was! He prophesied about Israel.
Haven’t you contradicted yourself here? You say, “the words of God convey His intentions and therefore cannot be spiritualized, typologized so that they come out teaching things which could never be devined from their original settings.” (I actually disagree with that on the typology part, but I am using what you said here.) Then here you admit that the church cannot be “devined from [its] original setting” because Jeremiah “wouldn’t” speak of it and “didn’t know what it was. He prophesied about Israel.” That is significant, isn’t it? If God’s intentions have to be divined from the original setting, and the original setting cannot speak of the church because it was unknown, then it seems the NC can’t be with the church.

So even though Jesus and Paul could refer us to Jeremiah, we do not look to Jeremiah to find out whether we are in the New Covenant. we look to Jesus and Paul, and their testimony is unambiguous.
Again, what do you mean by “in”? Not to parse it too fine, but the church certainly participates in the blessings of it. That’s the point of forgiveness cited in Hebrews. But I think it is significant that Hebrews (in fact every place in the NT) only cites part of the NC. I think that is because it doesn’t intend to make the church a party to it. It does intend to show that the church participates in the blessings of it.

What I have said about the Abrahamic and New covenants here shows how I can be consistent regarding them while putting Israel under the Mosaic covenant.
I am not convinced, as you might suspect.

You think the covenant in Isa. 49:6 is not the NC? Okay, but what is it? It is certainly salvific and restorative, just like Jer. 31.
Why does it have to be the NC? You are imposing a structure on it. It is a promise of God to save Israel and the nations.

We can’t just slap ‘dispensational hermeneutic’ on their formulations with which we agree and claim to do them justice.
I agree with this. I think the “dispensational hermeneutic” is what everyone uses every day in life. It’s the way that we live. And I think the LGH hermeneutics is a bit like Paul these days, … all things to all men. And that is a problem. I can’t answer for others.

But use your example of the NC. You take the grammatical and historical meaning of the text and include things in it (the church) that you admit Jeremiah had no way of knowing. But you are content to inject meaning in a text when you admit that it’s not there and violates your own standard of hermeneutics.

In the end, I am not convinced the problems you identify are that great of a problem, and I am not convinced that your solutions are viable.

Thanks for the exchange here.

Hi Larry,

I’m going to respond briefly to your points:

1. Your first para after the intro again dodges the issue of nomenclature and leaves the door open to non-specificity. Although we might dub the “dispensation” which started with Abraham the Abrahamic dispensation, we cannot call it the dispensation of promise without begging the questions I have already asked; namely, why promise? Why stress the dispensation (which the Bible doesn’t) but not the covenant (which it does). If we stress the covenant we cannot stress the dispensation because covenants cannot be bounded in the same way dispensations are. We cannot talk of ‘dispensation of covenant’ without identifying which covenant and why it is dispensational effectively nullifying both ideas.

2. Covenants are more than promises and promises are not necessarily covenantal. Proof of this is found in Gen. 17. Covenants are not subsets of promises, a promise can be within a covenant (and usually is), but covenants establish relationships, which promises do not of themselves do. Again, God’s dealings with Ishmael and Isaac in Gen. 17 brings this out.

Moreover, Noah was not a Israelite. Neither was Abraham (he is called ‘a wandering Aramean’). Gen. 22:18 is a covenant oath which Paul explicitly applies to the Church in Gal. 3:16. It is reductionistic to claim all the covenants were given to Israel.

3. I’m afraid you bypassed what I said about the new covenant references in the NT. Lk. 22:20 says that Christ’s new covenant blood was “shed for you” (the disciples). New covenant blood! The disciples are the foundations of the Church (Eph. 2:20). Paul applies Jesus’ words directly to the Church in 1 Cor. 11:25. He calls himself a minister of the new covenant in 2 Cor. 3:6 which is a clear reference to the Gospel message we believed. It is sealed with Christ’s covenant blood and mediated by Him. The article I referred you to seeks to show that the “testator” in Heb. 9:16-17 is, in fact, Christ. But the word diatheke has not been translated correctly (or uniformly) in those verses. The word ought to be translated “covenant” as it is in every other part of Hebrews, including the immediate context. Jesus is the one who makes the covenant in Himself, and His blood was shed for us (cf. Eph. 5:25). You need to deal with these passages.

4. Again, Jeremiah predicts a new covenant made with Israel, but this does not obviate the same covenant being made with the Church. Isn’t Lk. 22 and 1 Cor. 11 as clear as Jer. 33?

5. You misunderstand what I said about the church and Jeremiah 31. You seem to think I’m reading it into Jeremiah when I am not. I’m reading Lk. 22 and 1 Cor. 11. It is additional revelation which does not contradict or divert Jer. 31. You want me to go to that chapter and the OT to prove what I say isn’t there. but you ignore the chapters where I say it is there.

6. On Isa. 49:8 you ask

Why does it have to be the NC? You are imposing a structure on it. It is a promise of God to save Israel and the nations.

But you duck the question I asked you. Does the passage prove that Christ will be made a covenant? I say it does, along with many commentators. Okay, since Christ is the ‘Lamb’ of the new covenant and the Mediator of the new covenant, and His blood is the blood of the new covenant, I make bold to identify the salvific covenant in Isa. 49:8 as Christ the new covenant. The new covenant is the one with which Christ is intimately related. You may choose not to make the connection, which is fine by me. But then you will be left with a hole to fill. What covenant is Isaiah on about?

Anyway, I am grateful for the discussion. But I believe you are seeing things through lenses which prevent you from exploring what the biblical text (e.g. in Isa. 49, 1 Cor. 11; 2 Cor. 3) is actually saying.

God bless you and yours.

Paul H

Dr. Paul Henebury

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