The Changing Face of Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism has never been completely monolithic and has been somewhat amorphous

This is true, and even with the NC. There are various views on the church’s participation in the NC and there is a new book out on it. However, all believe (I think) that the NC is at least for future Israel. And there are severe exegetical problems with the assertion that the church participates in it now.

“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.”

― Isaac Newton

Old Isaac would have had a tough time with dispensationalism.

Old Isaac would have had a tough time with dispensationalism.

Perhaps so, but Old Isaac was likely wrong, and we know that because of his own scientific work which is, in many cases, anything but simple.

But I think part of the genius of dispensationalism is in its simplicity. It requires less explanation than the alternatives. It derives more easily from the text of Scripture and the resultant theology of Scripture. For me, the positions of non-dispensationalism are far more confusing and complex.

[Larry]

Dispensationalism has never been completely monolithic and has been somewhat amorphous

This is true, and even with the NC. There are various views on the church’s participation in the NC and there is a new book out on it. However, all believe (I think) that the NC is at least for future Israel. And there are severe exegetical problems with the assertion that the church participates in it now.

How do you handle 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. What does Paul say we are remembering in v.25?

How do you handle 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. What does Paul say we are remembering in v.25?

Paul says we are remembering the Lord (v. 25) and we are proclaiming his death (v. 26). I guess I am not sure what the issue is here. Paul is quoting the words of Christ from the Last Supper. But there is nothing in that passage that indicates the institution, ratification, or inauguration of the NC in any way that I can see since nothing in the NC actually has come to pass yet. Here again, is where I would point us to the words of the NC as the authoritative source on what the NC is and who its parties are.

We can’t just overlook those words, can we? (I know you agree with me on that.) But if we actually use those words, there is nothing that leads us to include anyone other than Israel the nation in the NC. To include the church in the NC, you actually have to go beyond the words and develop a theological argument that, IMO, actually contradicts the whole point of the NC. The existence of the church is a sort of judgment on Israel the nation, and the NC will be the end of that judgment and the restoration of Israel the nation.

I think the position that makes the most sense is that the church participates in the blessings of the NC in terms of forgiveness (cf. Hebrews 8), but not the NC itself. That’s why the blood was poured out “for many,” not just for the Jews.

DT tap-dancing on the New Covenant has always been embarrassing. One can chart the different ways DTs have tried to account for it over the years; (1) no participation, (2) two NCs, (3) partial participation in the soteriological aspects, etc., etc. It’s embarrassing. Rod Decker’s position on the NC, which he laid out in an exposition in this book, has always made the most sense to me. Before I stumbled across Decker’s work, I’d preached through Hebrews and came to conclusion, quite independent from the guardrails of a preconceived system I felt honor-bound to defend, that the church fully participated in the NC.

Larry, I understand you’re a passionate dispensationalist. I get that. I appreciate some aspects of it, and I believe in Ryrie’s sine qua non of the system. I just can’t get worked up about a slippery-slope argument about the boogey-man of progressive dispensationalism (i.e. this article).

[Larry]

How do you handle 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. What does Paul say we are remembering in v.25?

Paul says we are remembering the Lord (v. 25) and we are proclaiming his death (v. 26). I guess I am not sure what the issue is here. Paul is quoting the words of Christ from the Last Supper. But there is nothing in that passage that indicates the institution, ratification, or inauguration of the NC in any way that I can see since nothing in the NC actually has come to pass yet. Here again, is where I would point us to the words of the NC as the authoritative source on what the NC is and who its parties are.

We can’t just overlook those words, can we? (I know you agree with me on that.) But if we actually use those words, there is nothing that leads us to include anyone other than Israel the nation in the NC. To include the church in the NC, you actually have to go beyond the words and develop a theological argument that, IMO, actually contradicts the whole point of the NC. The existence of the church is a sort of judgment on Israel the nation, and the NC will be the end of that judgment and the restoration of Israel the nation.

I think the position that makes the most sense is that the church participates in the blessings of the NC in terms of forgiveness (cf. Hebrews 8), but not the NC itself. That’s why the blood was poured out “for many,” not just for the Jews.

Larry,

The Apostle bluntly tells us that the cup represents the blood of the new covenant which was made for us. What would be the point of drinking it if the NC isn’t made with us? Further, Paul preached the NC (2 Cor. 3:6). Are the disciples in the church (Eph. 2:20)?

You state, “To include the church in the NC, you actually have to go beyond the words and develop a theological argument that, IMO, actually contradicts the whole point of the NC.”

But you are using a theological argument! And what is “the whole point of the NC”?

DT tap-dancing on the New Covenant has always been embarrassing. One can chart the different ways DTs have tried to account for it over the years; (1) no participation, (2) two NCs, (3) partial participation in the soteriological aspects, etc., etc. It’s embarrassing.

Why is that embarrassing?

… that the church fully participated in the NC.

So let’s explore:

1. The NC text identifies the parties, and the church isn’t one of them. On what NC textual basis do you add them?
2. The NC is made with the same people with whom the OC was made. Are you asserting that the church was under the OC?
3. The NC specifics that the city of Jerusalem will be rebuilt again and inhabited by Israel as part of the NC. How does that apply to the church?
4. The NC specifies that Israel will be restored to the land after having been scattered in judgment. How does that apply to the church?
5. The NC specifies a material prosperity in the land. How does that apply to the church?

There are others as well, but let’s press on to this: These are parts of the NC. If they are not here (and I think we all agree they are not), then how is the NC in force?

I am not a passionate dispensationalist as much as I am interested in the accurate interpretation of the Word. And that’s where I think the issue is. We know nothing about the NC except what Scripture says (and you agree with me on that). Yet it seems to me that people are willing to omit parts of the NC in order to shoehorn the church into it, and that is what I struggle with. On what basis do we simply declare that certain parts of the NC don’t matter or don’t apply?

The Apostle bluntly tells us that the cup represents the blood of the new covenant which was made for us.

Actually, the Apostle doesn’t tell us that. He is quoting Christ. As I think you would agree, quoting an earlier text does not necessarily imply a direct fulfillment of it or a direct application of it. There are a number of different ways to use texts. In this case, I think Paul is establishing the command to observe communion by showing that the Lord himself ordained it. Hence, it is an ordinance of the church.

What would be the point of drinking it if the NC isn’t made with us?

Based on the text, the point of drinking it is to remember his death and to proclaim it until he comes.

Further, Paul preached the NC (2 Cor. 3:6). Are the disciples in the church (Eph. 2:20)?

I take 2 Cor 3:6 to be a reference to a sort of ministry—a new covenant type of ministry marked by the work of the Spirit in a way that the OC does not have. It can’t be the NC per se because of what the NC is based on the words. Your position, IMO, would require us to deny what the NC language of the OT specifies. I will say that if there is a passage that could persuade me the “other way” on this, it would probably be this one. But I am not (yet) persuaded that this is what Paul is talking about. I don’t see Paul referring to the NC specifically here as the church being part of it.

As to your second question, I am not sure what that refers to. My apologies.

You state, “To include the church in the NC, you actually have to go beyond the words and develop a theological argument that, IMO, actually contradicts the whole point of the NC.”

But you are using a theological argument! And what is “the whole point of the NC”?

I think I am using a textual/exegetical argument, aren’t I? I am saying we need to go to the actual words God inspired to describe the NC and see what they say and what they mean. The “whole point of the NC” is the restoration of those who were under the OC and who were evicted from the land and God’s blessing by disobedience (cf. Jer 31:31-40). The NC promise their restoration. That can’t be the church because the church was never under the OC and was never evicted from the land for their disobedience.

It’s embarrassing because Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and the writer of Hebrews seem to apply the New Covenant to the church. For a responsible discussion of the data from Hebrews, see Decker’s contribution to the book I linked to, above. The NT data indicates that the NC is here. The OT data indicates the NC will also be applied to Israel, with several consequent blessings. So, how shall we harmonize?

Briefly, I believe the things you mentioned for Israel (e.g. rebuilding, national prosperity, land, etc.) are the results of the NC, not the NC itself.

Some dispensationalists are puzzled that students who grew up in DT are now abandoning it, some for Covenant Theology, others for Progressive Dispensationalism. I suspect that one reason is what we are seeing on this thread. Rejecting the normal reading of Scripture in several passages, DT’s fail to acknowledge that Christ ratified the New Covenant with His blood, ushering out the Old Covenant (Mosaic), and ushering in the New. Tyler is right, the explanations of DT are embarrassing.

However, I sympathize with Larry because he understands what some miss. The OT predictions of a New Covenant are made to the house of Israel and Judah. (Jeremiah 31:31) If the New Covenant is now in effect, who are the houses of Israel and Judah? The most obvious answer, “the church,” invalidates so much DT teaching that it is unthinkable. Hence the need for strained explanations.

It’s embarrassing because Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and the writer of Hebrews seem to apply the New Covenant to the church.

That’s actually the question: Do they? The answer to many seems to be no. And, to me, the exegesis seems to indicate no. I have read Decker and heard him. It was not convincing to me. In a recent “Three Views” book on this topic, Decker, Elliiot Johnson, and Roy Beacham interact. Beacham does an excellent job critiquing Decker’s view. In the end, Beacham argues (convincingly IMO) that Decker’s view does not properly account for ANE covenant. Decker affirms that no promise of the NC in Jer 31 and other OT passages is fulfilled in the church. As Beacham points out, what is left? There are no other promises. So if none of the promises of the NC in the OT are not fulfilled in the church, then what’s the point?

In other words, the idea that the church participates directly in the NC doesn’t deal enough with the OT text.

I don’t suppose we will solve that here, but I am not the least embarrassed by the fact that people differ on how to interpret the NC (or many other passages). I think such interaction is healthy, not embarrassing.

The NT data indicates that the NC is here. The OT data indicates the NC will also be applied to Israel, with several consequent blessings. So, how shall we harmonize?

Again, the first statement is the point of discussion. I don’t think the NT says that at all. So harmonization is not necessary. You seem to end up in the place of two new covenants, though I don’t think you would affirm that. I don’t see how you avoid it though for this reason: The NC is specific on its parties and its components. You want the NC to be in effect without the parties and without the components. How is that not another NC?

To draw a distinction between the results of the NC and the NC itself is to slice it pretty thin, IMO.

Rejecting the normal reading of Scripture in several passages, DT’s fail to acknowledge that Christ ratified the New Covenant with His blood, ushering out the Old Covenant (Mosaic), and ushering in the New.

But is that the normal reading? And if the NC was ushered in, why is Israel still scattered among the nations rejecting her Messiah? Why does she not have renewed material blessings? Why have not the curses been removed? (Those are not rhetorical questions. I would actually like to know how you would answer them.)

The normal of these things would seem to indicate that when the NC is here, these things are here. You want to say that the NC is here without these things. What then is the NC?

If the New Covenant is now in effect, who are the houses of Israel and Judah? The most obvious answer, “the church,” invalidates so much DT teaching that it is unthinkable. Hence the need for strained explanations.

Isn’t the strain in showing how the house of Israel and house of Judah with whom was the Mosaic covenant made, who were led out of the land of Egypt by the hand of God, who broke the Mosaic covenant is actually a multi-national, multi-racial group of people who were never under the Mosaic covenant in order to break it and who were never led out of the land of Egypt? How do those two clearly different groups become the same?

In fact, the very language of “House of Israel and house of Judah” relies on something very specific that is only true of one group of people: the divided kingdoms of Israel.

If those words in Jer 31 actually mean something entirely different, what do the other words mean?

Can you not see why so many of us struggle to see how the church can be the “house of Israel and the house of Judah”?

There is no “normal reading of that text” that takes all those descriptors and sees them as the church. That is a very abnormal reading of the text.

Tyler is right, the explanations of DT are embarrassing.

Have you read these explanations such as the Three Views book? If you did, you might disagree, but I can’t imagine you would find them embarrassing. It is a wealth of exegesis and interpretation that is very solid.

Frankly, to call them embarrassing smacks of a cheap shot to avoid making an argument. Make the argument based on exegesis. That we can talk about. “Embarrassing” is a category that has no meaning in this discussion.

Tyler, Give us a quick evaluation of Beacham’s, Elliot’s, and Compton’s views and why they are “embarrassing.”: Where did their exegesis miss the mark? What did they fail to interact with sufficiently for you?