|
“Dispensationalism, Israel And The Church”
also published as
THEY HAVE
TAKEN AWAY MY CHURCH...!
UNCLOISTERED NEO-DISPENSATIONALISM
Miles
J. Stanford
NEO-EVANGELICALISM
is a compromise toward Liberalism. Its progenitors were Dr. Carl F. H.
Henry, Dr. Edward J. Carnell, and Dr. Harold John Ockenga. It was spawned
in the barren milieu of Fuller Seminary.
NEO-DISPENSATIONALISM
is a compromise toward Covenantism. Its progenitors are Dr. Craig A.
Blaising, Dr. Darrell L. Bock, and in absentia, Dr. Robert L. Saucy. It
was spawned in the Chaferless milieu of Dallas Theological Seminary.
What can Neo-Dispensationalism do
to you? It can bring you down to earth with a thud, and relentlessly grind
and ground you. It can make you a partaker of Israel’s
comparatively paltry New Covenant, and thereby subject you to the laws of its
Sermon on the Mount, and Millennial Kingdom. It can reduce you to a hybrid—part
Christian and part reconstructed kingdom Jew.
You, a totally new creation in the
ascended and glorified Lord Jesus Christ. You, one spirit with Him who is
your very Christian life. You, having died to the law and to the world,
and already blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in
Christ, co-heir with Him. You, raised and seated in Christ, at the Father’s
right hand.
If you should settle for anything
less, anything earthly, horizontal (kingdom), then you are already a
neo-dispensationalist. May it never be! "If (since) ye, then,
be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ (and you)
sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not
on things on the earth, for ye died, and your life is hidden with
Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye
also appear with Him in glory" (Col. 3:1–4). Appear with Him to
reign with Him, as His beloved Bride, over Israel’s Millennial and eternal
Kingdom.
The book we are about to briefly
scan is the introduction to so-called progressive dispensationalism, i.e.,
Neo-Dispensationalism (my term). The manuscript was considered by the
Dallas administration and faculty, and deemed to be within the bounds of the
school’s Doctrinal Statement, and acceptable for publication. The tone
of the book is ironic, but the content is "arsenictic."
Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church - The Search For Definition
-- Dr. Craig A. Blaising and Dr.
Darrell L. Bock, editors. Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, 402
pages. Dr. Blaising is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, and Dr.
Bock is Assistant Professor of NT Literature and Exegesis—both at Dallas
Theological Seminary.
Foreword,
pp. 10-12. Dr. Stanley N.
Gundry, ex-dispensationalist, Vice
President of Academic Books, Zondervan Publishing House. Dr.
Gundry closes his Foreword as follows:
"I am pleased that as the
publisher of this title, I can present a book to dispensationalists that will
stimulate their search for an even better understanding of God’s Word, and
that I present to non-dispensationalists a book that will show them a side of contemporary
[emphasis mine] dispensationalist thinking that perhaps they were not aware
even existed.
"And who knows? If
non-dispensationalists would be as willing to be open to new understanding of
biblical truth and to refinements of their own theological heritage as the
forward-looking dispensationalist writers in this book, perhaps the two camps
will eventually discover that they have far more in common than they ever
believed possible" (p. 12).
Introduction,
pp. 13-34. Dr. Craig A.
Braising, progressive
dispensationalist:
"The study of biblical
theology—especially with regard to the role of history in divine revelation
and contextualized studies of NT views on the fulfillment of OT prophecy—has
led dispensationalists to reexamine biblically the distinction between
Israel and the church [emphasis mine].
"This does not lead in
turn to a simple identification of Israel and the church, a position that
dispensationalism has traditionally rejected. But it has led many
dispensationalists to abandon the transcendental distinction of
heavenly versus earthly peoples in favor of a historical distinction in
the progressive revelation of the divine purpose.
"The unity of divine
revelation, of the various dispensations, is found in the goal of history, the
kingdom of God. And since this kingdom is centered in the person and
work of Jesus Christ, the dispensational unity of Scripture and of history is
Christological as much as it is eschatological.
"This present book of
biblical studies finds its identity precisely at this point: the
hermeneutical reexamination of the relationship between Israel and the church,
which in turn contributes to the process of self-definition currently underway
in dispensationalism [emphasis his]" (pp. 33,34).
Chapter
1, pp. 37-67. "THE REIGN OF THE LORD CHRIST"
Dr. Darrell L. Bock,
progressive dispensationalist:
"The descriptions invisible
and visible do not characterize the kingdom as ineffective or secret
now, versus powerful later. Rather, the terms are intended
Christologically to describe the nature of Jesus’ rule. In the current
period, he is not visible, though he sits in heaven and reigns from the right
hand of God through the work of the Spirit in his disciples. In the
future period, he will reign visibly on earth. The kingdom is present in
both periods.
"The kingdom is a
powerful manifestation of God’s activity in the world, but the King’s
visibility differs between the two periods. The kingdom community in the
present era is the church, where transformation should be manifest. This
present form of the kingdom of God is the church existing among other kingdoms
of earth.
"In this present
community, people are to get a glimpse, a "sneak preview," of what
is to come, as Jesus’ rule is evident in the lives of believers. In
the future that rule will be manifested through the visibly present Jesus, who
will reign with full justice and righteousness in a kingdom over all. In
the era to come, the kingdom will swallow up the other kingdoms and complete
the promises made to Israel" (pp. 46,47).
"Being seated on David’s
throne is linked to being seated at God’s right hand [emphasis
his]. In other words, Jesus’ resurrection-ascension to God’s right
hand is put forward by Peter as a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, just as
the allusion to Joel fulfills the new covenant.
"The throne on which
Jesus is said to sit is the one promised to David’s descendant through the
Davidic promise of 2 Samuel, which was initially passed on through
Solomon. Jesus sits there as David’s promised Son on David’s
promised throne. This fits OT imagery as well. The idea of sitting
describes the idea of rule, as the parallelism of Jeremiah 22:30 shows.
As the Davidic heir, Jesus sits in and rules from heaven" (pp. 49, 50).
"The heavenly seating of
Jesus is presented as an initial yet certain fulfillment of the Davidic
promise and is a presupposition to the right to bestow the Spirit in
accordance with the new covenant promise. Salvation of the ‘last days’
(v. 39) are present" (p. 52).
"Jesus rules from heaven,
not earth, and thus the kingdom is invisible only in the sense that the rule
does not originate visibly from earth. And yet this invisible kingdom,
lacking a visible king, is a "sneak preview" kingdom in that this
new community is to show God’s active power in the transformation of sinners
from sin to righteousness.
"The transformation
previews what the consummate rule of righteousness and justice for all in the
coming phase of the kingdom will be like. Thus there is continuity with
the future kingdom in the present kingdom, though there is a distinction in
the visibility of the King in the two phases of the reign and in the fact that
the current kingdom lacks political, nationalistic elements" (p. 53).
It will be noted throughout this
book that Neo-Dispensationalism is kingdom-oriented, and would fasten "The
Kingdom" upon everything and everyone. As far as Dr. Bock’s
heavenly Davidic throne is concerned; he should have heeded Dr. Chafer:
"David was not promised a
heavenly spiritual throne, and the one who contends that David’s throne is
now a heavenly rule is by so much obligated to name the time and circumstances
when and where so great a change has been introduced" (Systematic
Theology IV: 324).
Chapter
2, pp. 68-97. — "The New Covenant And The People(s) Of
God" Dr. Bruce A. Ware,
progressive dispensationalist. Dr. Ware is Professor of Biblical and
Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:
"Between the two extremes
of a strict distinction between Israel and the church (two new covenants and
hence two distinct peoples of God) 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.
"One of these elements of
theologically rich commonality is their co-participation in the one new
covenant, and the basis upon which they are united as one people of God.
And yet, their distinct identifies should be maintained insofar as we can
legitimately distinguish clearly different manners by which that one covenant
is fulfilled" (pp. 92,93).
"Israel and the church
are in fact one people of God, who together share in the forgiveness of sins
through Christ and partake of his indwelling Spirit with its power for
covenant faithfulness, while there are nonetheless distinguishable covenant
participants comprising what is one unified people.
"As the title of this
chapter suggests, they are in fact the united ‘people(s) of God,’ one by
faith in Christ and common partaking of the Spirit, and yet distinct insofar
as God will yet restore Israel as a nation to its land. One new
covenant, under which differing covenant participants join together, through
Christ and the Spirit, as a common people of God—this, then, is the grace of
the marvelous provision of God" (pp. 96, 97).
When Israel’s New Covenant is
usurped, all becomes of the earth, earthy. Neo-Dispensationalism would
bring the Bridegroom’s unique-in-the-universe-Bride down to the commonality of
the earthly kingdom. Come up hither!
Chapter
3,
pp. 98-126. — "The New Man Of Ephesians Two"
Dr. Carl B. Hock, Jr.,
progressive dispensationalist. Dr. Hock is Professor of NT, at Grand
Rapids Baptist Seminary:
"Ephesians is critical
for a theology of the relationship between Israel and the church. Markus
Barth has stated that ‘not in all the Pauline epistles (not to speak of all
the books of the NT) is the relationship of the church and Israel in Christ
described as intensely and strikingly as in Ephesians’" (p. 98).
"The whole argument in
Ephesians 2 is that Jewish privileges have been extended to Gentiles through
Christ. The Messiah, citizenship, covenants, promise, hope, and
knowledge of the true God belonged to ‘us’ and not to ‘you.’
They are now available to ‘you’ only because the Messiah sent for ‘us’
has made them available to ‘you.’ Any exegesis that negates this
movement from ‘us’ to ‘you’ destroys Paul’s theology of Jewish
advantage" (p. 101).
"The key to Paul’s
theology is not Gentile incorporation into Israel but a new sharing with
Israel in Israel’s prior covenant and promise" (p. 108).
"The Gentiles are brought
now to Israel in Christ to share with Israel in its covenants, promise, hope,
and God. They do not ‘become Israel,’ they share with
Israel" (p. 113).
Here is the very heart of
Neo-Dispensational error!
Wrongly-divided Word! Not knowing who they are in Christ, and where
they are in Christ, and what they have in Christ, they would seek to make
something of Israel, and have us come down to it as the source of blessing.
They would have us, with them,
stoop to purloin from Israel’s earthly New Covenant—sins forgiven, the
indwelling Spirit with the kingdom law written upon the heart, subservient to
the King, under theocratic kingdom rule, etc. But that is not Christianity!
In the Millennial Kingdom the reinstated nation of Israel will be the center of
leadership and blessing—for the Gentile nations of that kingdom!
But now, in this dispensation of
Grace, the individual Israelite and Gentile must come down to the common level
of sin, via the Word supplied by the Jew, and by simple faith in the Son of God
become a member of the heavenly Body of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Church.
"What then, are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)? No, in no way;
for we have before proved both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under
sin" (Rom. 2:10).
The Israelite in Christ, as well as
the Gentile in Christ, is a totally new heavenly creation, and needs nothing
from the nation Israel—whether it be now, in her Millennial Kingdom, or in
eternity. Nothing.
Chapter
4, pp. 127-155. — "The Church As The Mystery Of God"
Dr. Robert L. Saucy,
progressive dispensationalist, is professor of Systematic Theology, at Talbot
School of Theology, Biola University:
"The revelation of the
equal participation of Israel and the Gentiles in God’s salvation through
union with Christ is a realization of OT prophecy" (p. 150).
Note that he says
"Israel," the nation, instead of the individual
Israelite. The nation Israel will never be in union with Christ.
Hers will be a "kingdom" salvation, totally different from the Church’s
heavenly "life" salvation.
"Our examination of the
mystery in Ephesians 3 leads us to a mediating position between traditional
dispensational and non-dispensational views. The unity of Jews and
Gentiles in Christ is taking place in the church in partial fulfillment of OT
promises. Messianic days have dawned, albeit in a way not clearly
anticipated in the prophecies.
"Rather than one grand
age of fulfillment under the messianic reign, the prophetic fulfillment has
been divided into two ages related to the two comings of Christ. In this
first step of fulfillment, the spiritual messianic salvation is already
present in the gospel. This gospel is broadly spoken of as the mystery,
or the mystery of Christ, or the mystery of the gospel. The specific
spiritual unity of all peoples entailed in this gospel is the content of the
mystery of Ephesians 3" (p. 151).
"We have seen that the
mystery of the church is vitally related to the OT promises of spiritual
salvation in the messianic era. It is part and parcel of the one great
mystery of Christ--namely, God’s eschatological salvation through His
Son" (p. 153).
Dr. Saucy is here seeking to
obliterate vital distinctions, and thereby make "all peoples" of God
one—and that via Israel’s messianic kingdom salvation. But this has
nothing to do with the heavenly Church. Please come in, Paul!
Chapter
5, pp. 156-187. — "The Israelite Imagery Of 1 Peter
2" Dr. W. Edward Glenny.
Dr. Glenny, progressive dispensationalist, is Professor of NT, at Central
Baptist Seminary:
"Old Testament Israel was
a pattern of the church’s relationship with God as his chosen people.
Therefore, Peter uses various aspects of the salvation, spiritual life, and
service of Israel in its relationship with Yahweh to teach his recipients the
greater salvation, spiritual life, and service they enjoy in Christ.
"In his use of the three people
of God citations in 1 Peter 2:9, 10, the apostle is teaching that there
are aspects of the nation of Israel’s experience as the people of God that
are also true of the NT church. These elements of continuity include
election, redemption, holy standards, priestly ministry, and honor of the
people of God. This continuity is the basis for the application of the
title people of God to the church in 1 Peter 2:9, 10" (p. 186).
The Church is never going to know
her unique, heavenly position and Christ-like characteristics short of Paul and
his Church Epistles.
Chapter
6, pp. 188-229. — "The Future Of Ethnic Israel In Romans
11" Dr. J. Lanier Burns.
Dr. Burns, progressive dispensationalist, is Professor of Systematic
Theology, at Dallas Theological Seminary:
"The end of this survey
shows that dispensational theologians have constantly distinguished Israel and
the church, while dispensationalism has undergone remarkable developments over
time in terms of a common destiny [emphasis mine] in the city of God, a
shared new covenant, and, most recently, a recognition by many scholars of a
present form of messianic kingdom that removes the parenthetical idea.
The dispensational position as a whole must now precisely redefine the
distinctiveness and interrelationships of the church within the progressive
historical phases of God’s kingdom" (p. 225).
"With a more profound
reading [of Romans 11], one could expect a renewed appreciation of the root of
Israel for all believers and a measure of rapprochement for the many groups
that love their Messiah with their hearts, souls, and minds" (p. 226).
"It is best to say that
Israel did not become the church. Jews and Gentiles were uniquely joined as
believers in a new entity that did not abolish distinctive identities
and purposes."
"A renewed appreciation of the
roots of Israel for all believers" indeed! My "roots," as a
member of the Body of Christ, are in their heavenly Source, the ascended and
glorified Vine.
As for "distinctives and
purposes" not being abolished, Paul says that "there is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for
ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
Chapter
7, pp. 230-247. -- "Christ, The End of the Law in Romans
10:4" Dr. David K. Lowery. Dr. Lowery,
progressive dispensationalist, is Professor of NT Studies, at Dallas Theological
Seminary.
Dr. Lowery's well-written essay
requires no comment.
Chapter
8, pp. 248-263. -- "Christ, The Fulfillment of the Law in
the Sermon on the Mount" -- Dr. John A. Martin. Dr.
Martin is President of Central College.
We
question the inclusion of Dr. Martin in this book.
Chapter
9, pp. 264-292. -- "The New Jerusalem in Revelation
21:1-22:5 -- Consummation of a Biblical Continuum" -- Dr. David L.
Turner. Dr. Turner, progressive dispensationalist, is Professor of
NT and Systematic Theology at Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary.
Dr. Turner's comprehensive essay
requires no comment.
Chapter
10, pp. 293-328. —
"The Scope And Center Of Old And NT Theology And Hope" Dr. Kenneth L. Barker.
Dr. Barker, progressive dispensationalist, is Executive Director, NIV Foundation
Center, International Bible Society:
"The only proper role the
law can play for unregenerate people is to reveal the darkness of their sin
against the backdrop of the radiant light of God’s holiness, and point
them to the Saviour.
"But for the person of
faith it is the gracious revelation of God’s righteousness and it is to be
followed as the grateful and joyful expression of faith (cf. Ps. 1, 19, and
119). There are, however, certain obvious exceptions such as the purely
ceremonial laws" (p. 296).
"If the OT moral law is no
longer in force, how can ‘all Scripture’ be ‘useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’ (2 Tim. 3:16)? One of
the legitimate continuities, then, between the Old and New Testaments is God’s
moral law expressed throughout Scripture. It is more in keeping with
the totality of biblical teaching to insist that the ethical and spiritual
commands of the OT, the numerous imperatives of the NT, and Christ (or the
law of Christ, or the royal law of love) are all part of the believer’s
rule of life" (p. 297).
"Leslie Flynn's words
are likewise apropos: 'To preach justification by law is legalistic, voiding
the Gospel. To preach the non-validity of the law for today is
antinomian, voiding the law. To preach obedience to the law for the
Christian, who has been justified apart from the law, is evangelical,
voiding neither grace nor law. Though the believer is not under the
law's condemning power, he is under its commanding power' (p. 299).
"T. C. Comisky is
certainly correct when, after providing an exegesis of Micah 6:8, he writes:
'The standards of this verse are for those who are members of the covenantal
community and delineate the areas of ethical response that God wants to see
in those who share the covenant obligations.'
"The standards have not
been abrogated for Christians, for the NT affirms their continued
validity. We are still called to the exercise of true religion, to
kindness, and to humility (1 Cor. 13:4; 2 Cor. 6:6; Col. 3:12; James 1:27; 1
Pet. 1:2; 5:5). Christians are in a covenant relationship with God in
which the law (torah) has been placed within their hearts (Jer. 32.33; cf.
Heb. 10:10-17), not abrogated."
"I take this position
because I sincerely believe it to be the biblical view (p. 300).
"As I perceive the grand
sweep of what God is doing, the old sharp distinction between Israel and the
church begins to become somewhat blurred. In my understanding of Romans 11
and other passages, both entities are involved in the present and future
forms of God’s kingdom as well as in the eternal state.
"Strictly speaking, it
is incorrect to call Israel God's earthly people and the church God's
heavenly people, since in the eternal state we will all be together, sharing
in the blessings of the New Jerusalem and the new earth" (pp. 303,
304).
One wonders how Dr. Barker
qualified for this book, except for the fact that he contributes to the Covenant
aspect of it. One yearns for a bit of grace, in the midst of all these
"Kingdom" essays—essays which assay to relate the Church to Israel,
and put all under Kingdom law.
Response
#1, pp. 331-346. —
"A Response" Dr. William A.
VanGemeren. Dr. VanGemeren, ex-dispensationalist, now Covenant theologian, is Professor of
OT at Reformed Theological Seminary.
It is interesting to note that the
term "rebuttal" is not used. Actually, there is very little that these
Covenant theologians could rebut—most receive their avid response!
Dr. William A. VanGemeren writes:
"Darrell Bock ("Reign of
Christ") focuses on the theology of the kingdom from the vantage point of
Luke’s presentation of Jesus ‘as the fulfillment of promises and covenants
made to Israel.’ He agrees with covenant theology that the eschatological
kingdom was inaugurated in the ministry of Jesus and is evidenced in his rule
over the church. [Did you know that?!] Gentiles share with Jews in the spiritual benefits of Jesus’
kingdom (forgiveness, Spirit, new covenant). This view of the kingdom stands in
clear contrast to the older dispensational thesis that the offer of the kingdom
was withdrawn" (p. 334).
"Covenant theologians will
appreciate the change in dispensational teaching regarding the church. According
to Carl Hock ("The New Man"), the church is an important stage in the
unfolding of God’s plan as Gentiles are incorporated in the new humanity.
He
defines ‘the new man’ (Eph. 2) as a participant in Israel’s heritage,
which includes the covenants, the promises, and the revelation of God"
(2:12; cf. Rom. 3:2 [divine oracles], 9:4,5 [divine glory, covenants, law,
worship, patriarchs] (p.
340).
"Robert L. Saucy's essay
(The Church as the Mystery of God) develops a similar argument along
two lines: continuity and discontinuity. He keeps the Gentiles distinct
from the Jews. One the one hand, he defends the thesis that Gentiles
share in the 'full messianic salvation that is realized in the crucified and
risen Christ and made effective to both [Gentile and Jews] through the
apostolic proclamation if the gospel.'
"On the other hand, the
Jews have not lost their identity. They remain distinct, even as member
of the church. They are heirs of other aspects of the unfolding of God's
mystery, namely, 'A future work with Israel.' After all, he argues, the
church age is 'the beginning of a messianic salvation'" (p. 340).
It is sad to watch these brilliant
"dispensational" scholars in their abject failure to rightly divide
the Word of truth. Here Dr. Saucy is quoted as seeking to relate the Church,
whose "salvation" is heavenly—in Christ as her Head and Life—with
Israel’s kingdom "salvation," outside of Christ--under His
earthly law-reign as King. Two entirely different dispensations, salvations, and
peoples!
Response
#2, pp. 347-359. —
"A Response" Dr. Bruce K. Waltke.
Dr. Waltke, ex-dispensationalist, now covenant theologian, is Professor of OT, at
Regent University (Canada).
Dr. Waltke was at one time on the
faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, until he was "veered" in the
direction of Covenant Theology by his fellow-faculty member and mentor, Dr. S.
Lewis Johnson. He was subsequently relieved of his Dallas tenure, as was
Dr. Johnson.
As a slight aside: I'm just
wondering if Neo-dispensationalism isn't far enough over into the Covenant camp
for Dr. Waltke to conveniently step back in this direction. He did say in
this Reponse: "If revised Dispensationalism produced one passage in the
entire NT that clearly presents the resettlement of the nation Israel in the
land, I would join them" (p. 357).
"Although not monolithic, as
these chapters show, reconstructed dispensationalism essentially believes that
Christ inaugurated the fulfillment of Israel’s covenants and promises and that
the church actualized them. It denies that the church is a parenthesis with God’s
program for Israel" (p. 347).
"From David Turner’s
("The New Jerusalem") distinguished study of Revelation 21–22 he
draws the conclusion that the description of the heavenly Jerusalem in the new
heaven and the new earth ‘clearly portray(s) the essential
trans-dispensational
continuity of Israel and the church as the one people of God.’ That
position is closer to Covenant theology than Dispensationalism [emphasis
mine]" (p. 348).
"On the basis of circumspect
exegesis of Ephesians 3:1–14 and Romans 16:25, 26, Robert Saucy ("The
Church as the Mystery of God") interprets mystery as ‘the
actualization or realization through Christ of that which the prophets foretold
and longingly anticipated,’ dismissing the traditional dispensational
understanding of mystery as the revelation of truth not previously found
in the OT.
"This remarkable development
within dispensationalism also breaks down other distinctions between what
historic dispensationalism designated as the earthly people of God versus the
heavenly people of God. According to the new view, Christ inaugurated the new
covenant at his first advent, and both Israel and the church share in it
(p. 349).
"I salute the editors and
contributors for their openness, honesty, scholarship and ironic tone. This new
perestroika within dispensationalism augurs well for the future of
dispensational schools, especially Dallas Theological Seminary, with which most
of them (as well as myself) are related as former students and/or faculty
members.
"In the best traditions of
that institute, they are committed to accurate exegesis of the Holy Bible, not
confessions or doctrinal statements, and are willing to revise them if necessary
in the light of their research. Older dispensationalists in that institution,
who had no firm pedagogical heritage from historic Christian doctrine, were
convinced that accurate exegesis would bear out their system.
"These younger
dispensationalists, having come under the impact of realized eschatology,
especially in renowned universities, know that careful exegesis must lead at the
least to this restructuring of the historic model. Without that openness,
honesty, and careful exegesis, dispensational schools would betray their
commitment to inspired Scriptures rightly interpreted above uninspired
confessions and would fail to attract bright, young minds and to raise up
theologians to lead them.
"I should like to take this
opportunity to thank the editors for inviting me to participate in their ‘ongoing
work of interpreting the Scriptures.’ Significantly, these younger
dispensationalists cite older dispensationalists mostly to distance themselves
from them (p. 350).
"What strikes one dramatically
in reading these chapters is the overwhelmingly convincing evidence in the NT
for the ‘already’ fulfillment of Israel’s covenants and promises in Christ
and his church" (p. 355).
That would overwhelm and delight
any Covenant theologian!
Response
#3, pp. 360-376. —
"An Epangelical Response" Dr. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
Dr. Kaiser, non-dispensational, pro-Covenant, is Academic Dean at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School.
Dr. Kaiser explains "Epangelical":
"I have recently proposed ‘promise theology,’ or ‘epangelicalism’
(from the Greek root epengel-, meaning ‘promise’)."
"An enormous amount of
water has gone under the bridge in more than a quarter of a century since
Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today was published in 1965 by
Moody Press. In fact, somewhere in the decade of the 1960s, one of the most
significant developments in dispensationalism took place.
"It happened so quietly,
but so swiftly, that it is difficult to document, even to this day. This is
what changed the course of dispensationalism: the view that there were two
new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church, was decisively dropped
[Dr. Walvoord, and Dr. Ryrie]. The implications of such a move are enormous,
as the events that followed duly testified.
"The New Covenant was made
with ‘the house of Israel and the house of Judah,’ yet the church was
obviously enjoying the benefits of this same covenant. They drank the ‘blood
of the covenant’ in the Lord’s Supper, and they had ‘ministers of the
new covenant.’
"But when Israel and the
church were viewed as sharing one and the same - covenant, the possibilities
for major rapprochement between Covenant theology and dispensationalism
became immediately obvious.
"Moreover, that one factor
ended the major roadblock in a key hermeneutical rule that dispensationalism
had repeatedly stressed in the past: keep Israel’s mail separate from the
mail that was written for the church.
"Thus, 2 Chronicles 7:14
("If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble
themselves… "), for example, did not need to be restricted, as had
been taught, solely to Israel but could now be addressed to the whole
church. On the same basis, the Sermon on the Mount was released from its
future kingdom setting for use by the whole body of Christ now" (p.
369).
"Traditionally, many
dispensationalists have taught that the Sermon on the Mount was not
applicable to the church today, but this view again reflected the fact that
the relationship between law and grace was still seriously in need of
theological development. But on this point another real advance can be seen
in these chapters.
"Instead of regarding
Jesus’ teaching on the Sermon as an interim ethic, a new predominant view
is emerging that proclaims the Sermon on the Mount to be the ethic for
Christians today. This new revelation of Jesus, it is rightly argued, taught
the same truths as the OT taught; in fact, it gave them the same poignancy
that the OT prophets gave to the law. Only when we misunderstand the meaning
and purpose of the law can we misjudge the meaning and purpose of the
Sermon" (p. 370).
"Surely there is progress
in this classical standoff when Robert Saucy acknowledges that the ‘gospel
of God’ for which Paul was set apart was ‘promised beforehand through
his prophets in the Holy Scriptures’ (Rom. 1:1, 2) and is certainly the
same message that Paul later called ‘the mystery of the gospel’ in
Ephesians 6:19. What a wonderful breakthrough! [emphasis mine].
"Saucy sets the problem up
most wonderfully [emphasis mine] when he next asks, ‘If the mystery
of Christ and that of the divine plan of salvation has already been the
subject of OT prophecy, then in what sense can it be said to have been
hidden and only now revealed by the NT apostles and prophets?’"
The plan of Israel’s kingdom
salvation was revealed by the OT prophets, but not that of the Church.
The Word is to be rightly divided, not wrongly merged.
"I am pleased at the large
amount of agreement I find between Robert Saucy and myself in the content of
the mystery. He clearly affirms that the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the
church is a partial fulfillment of the OT promises. This represents a terrific
amount of progress [emphasis mine]. Yes, there may be functional
distinctions between Israel and the Gentile believers in the future, but
that does not impair their spiritual equality (p. 373).
"One of the pleasant
surprises [emphasis mine] that has emerged from contemporary defenses of
dispensationalism, as illustrated in this book, is that few, if any
dispensationalists, feel compelled to raise the topic once dear to this
system: the postponed kingdom theory" (p. 364).
"A theology of the law is
desperately needed. If nothing else convinces us, then note how many tens of
thousands have been pressing into seminars [à la Gothard] in almost every major city in the
land to find out how we should resolve basic youth conflicts by using
principles from the law as repeated in the book of Proverbs! The church is
hungry for teaching in this neglected area" (p. 375).
Conclusion, pp. 377-394. —
"DISPENSATIONALISM, ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH: ASSESSMENT AND DIALOGUE"
Dr. Craig A. Blaising and Dr.
Darrell L. Bock:
"The authors of this book
have conducted extensive reinvestigation of the relationship between Israel
and the church in NT theology. Although other aspects of their relationship
and other biblical texts could yet be examined, enough has surfaced in these
studies to indicate a revision in the dispensational view.
"There are important
distinctions between Israel and the church in biblical theology, but there are
also real theological connections that link them together in ways not
expressed previously in dispensational thought. What is striking is the extent
of these unseen connections demonstrated throughout the essays of this
book" (p. 377).
"The present phenomena
[emphasis mine] of dispensationalists biblically revising what they think
about Israel and the church in order to reflect more accurately their
relationship in Scripture is precisely a crisis between the Scripture
principle and the dispensational principle with the supposed sine qua non*.
Such a crisis is not external but internal—that is, within the principle of
tradition, within what had been thought to be the definition of
Dispensationalism.
* "The essence of
Dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the
Church." Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, p.
47, Moody Press, 1965).
"When these things are
considered along the line of historical understanding of the dispensational
tradition, it is evident that what is now taking place is the emergence of a
new phase in the history of American dispensationalism. The complexity of the
situation is such that a new biblical understanding of Israel and the church,
a change in the method of defining dispensationalism, and the emergence of a
new Dispensationalism are all interrelated features of the same
phenomena" (p. 378).
"Ephesians 2 is clear that
the barrier between Jew and Gentile is removed for all time. This is one of
the trans-dispensational features of Christ’s work. Millennial saints will be
Christians, and their identity in Christ will transcend their racial
distinctions, just as it should be in the current era of the church. Nonetheless, just as one can see that the church today is basically Gentile,
the community of the future will see the renewal of Jewish inclusion.
"No longer is either
tradition [Covenantism and Dispensationalism] locked exclusively into a
dualism that keeps heaven and earth apart. Groups in both camps are taking a
fresh look at these matters and seem to be traveling along similar lines"
(p. 387).
The "similar lines" that
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are locked onto are horizontal-Israel’s
New Covenant, Synoptics, Sermon, and Kingdom—all Law-oriented.
But Grace and Truth came by
Jesus Christ—from heaven, to Paul, for the Church.
"If [since] ye, then, be risen
with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the
right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the
earth. For ye have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col.
3:1–3).
We have not added a new dimension to
Dispensationalism. Rather, we have sought to reestablish that which has been
neglected. Welcome back, Paul! |