An
Open Letter to Dr. Rodney J. Decker
Miles
J. Stanford
Reprint
of The Church's Relationship to the NEW COVENANT*, Rodney J.
Decker. Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (October-December 1995): 431-56
*
- This is article two in a two-part series.
Letter dated 18
May 1992
Friday
13
October 1995
Dr.
Rodney J. Decker
Calvary
Theological Seminary
15800
Calvary Road
Kansas
City, Missouri 64174
Dear
Dr. Decker:
You
are to be commended for your fine work of delineating the several dispensational
slants extant, concerning the Church's relationship to Israel's New Covenant.
I
admire your scholarly writing to the extent that I hesitate to engage you in a
theological issue. But in a matter
as vital as
the New Covenant, personal qualms
are quenched.
My
purpose in writing this open letter to you is to set the record straight
concerning my teaching (and that of the late Dr. Wm.
R. Newell) with regard to the complete and unequivocal separation between
the Body of Christ and Israel's New Covenant.
In
the second and final installment of your Paper titled "The Church's
Relationship to the New Covenant" (Bibliotheca Sacra
October-December 1995), p. 436, you quote from my Paper, "The Great
Trespass," (p. 8), as follows, in part:
What
of this benefit of the Blood of the Eternal Covenant will Israel ever know?
Nothing!
Your
conclusion concerning this statement is expressed in the final paragraph on the
same page:
Stanford's
position also raises serious questions regarding the salvation of Israel.
If they receive no blessing from the blood of the eternal covenant, how
will they be saved?
This
point does not invalidate the possibility of two covenants, but it does
suggest that the implications and contrasts Stanford seeks to find in such a
scenario are overdrawn and hazardous.
Being
in my 80s, I am the one who should be short on memory; but certainly not one as
youthful as yourself. And I don't
believe that you are an "absent-minded professor"!
However,
I do think that you inadvertently missed including the paragraphs preceding, and
directly related to, my statement. The
missing lines are:
Israel's
New Covenant is based upon the shed Blood of the
Cross. "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember
their sin no more" (Jer.
31:34).
The
Blood of the Eternal Covenant (Heb.
13:20) is infinitely
more beneficial to the Church
than to Israel.
"Now
in Christ Jesus we who once were far off are made nigh by the Blood of
Christ." "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into
the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh" (Eph.
2:13; Heb. 10:19,20).
Thus
my question, "What of this benefit of the Blood of the Eternal
Covenant will Israel ever know? Nothing!"
Hence
the context of my statement in question made it quite clear that Israel's
kingdom salvation will be based upon the Blood of the Cross, as is everyone else's.
In
the matter of memory, you may recall that I wrote you concerning this same
Covenant issue in May of 1992 (New Covenant Neurosis); and I consider your answer to be included in your present Bib Sac article.
The
occasion of my letter was your statement that:
The
New Covenant [Israel's] related to the Church is a major improvement over the
two distinct new covenants.
Their
[Progressive Dispensationalists'] treatment of the New Covenant [as being
related to the Church] I think is legitimate.
I don't see a problem with that; the NT very specifically refers to the
New Covenant as related to the Church (taped message on "Contemporary
Dispensationalism" Workshop #2).
On
page 2 of my letter, in reference to the Blood, I wrote:
The
Blood -- The first step is the
mis-step. Just because the shed
Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ has provided redemption for both the Church and
New Covenant Israel
(Heb. 13:20), it has been taken
for granted that this has meant common ground for them.
Nothing could be further from the rightly-divided truth!
At
least that aspect of my stand re the complete separation between Israel and the
Church, I do not consider to be "overdrawn and hazardous." It is
made clear in all of my writing that the nation of Israel will enter into its
earthly kingdom salvation via the Blood of the Cross.
Enclosed
is my chart (to be published shortly), completed some months after I wrote to
you in 1992, setting forth graphically that salvation for both Israel and the
Church, while totally different--the one being earthly, and the other
heavenly--is based upon the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant of Hebrews
13:20,21.
I
was interested, and somewhat heartened, to note the evolution of Dr. Walvoord's
stand as to the separation between the Church and Israel's New Covenant.
You
mention in your Bib Sac article that:
Both
Walvoord and Ryrie have since abandoned that position [Chafer's two-covenant
theory], and today teach that the church participates in some aspects of the
one New Covenant (p. 433).
In
attempting to substantiate your conclusion you quote Walvoord from his Bib
Sac article of 1980, titled, "Does the Church Fulfill Israel's
Program?:
Such
a New Covenant has already been brought in by the death and resurrection of
Christ.... Both Israel and the church derive their salvation and spiritual
blessings from the same covenant, that is, the covenant of grace made possible
by the death of Christ (p. 137).
In
a footnote you refer to Walvoord's article "The New Covenant" (pages
186-200), in the book entitled Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of
Hands: Biblical and Leadership Studies in Honor of Donald K. Campbell - ed.
C.H. Dyer and R.B. Zuck (Grand Rapids, Baker Book, 1994).
In this material Walvoord takes a definite stand against the Church's
participation in Israel's New Covenant blessings:
So
here [Heb. 8:13] as well as in other references in Hebrews to the new covenant
(10:16,29; 12:24; 13:20), there is no evidence that the church is ever
regarded as fulfilling the many details of the new covenant in the OT relating
to Israel (p. 199).
Walvoord
also has a chapter titled "The New Covenant" in his book, Major
Bible Prophecies (Zondervan, 1991, 430 pages), pp.
176-191.
In
this chapter also he insists that there is no relationship between
Israel's New Covenant and the Church:
The
provisions of the [Israel's] new covenant are so detailed that it should be
apparent to any careful observer that this covenant has never been fulfilled in
the past and is not being fulfilled in the present.
It therefore becomes a major cornerstone of a belief in a millennial
kingdom to follow the second coming of Christ.
It
should be obvious that there is no literal fulfillment of this [New Covenant]
prophecy at the present time, for it includes too many elements that are not
true in the world today.
At
the present time Israel has not been re-gathered, the nation Israel has not been
restored to the kingdom, David has not been resurrected to be king over them,
not everyone knows the Lord, and the people of Israel are not clearly identified
as the people of God. The time of
Israel's trouble which precedes these events has not yet taken place (p. 184).
Following,
on page 189, Walvoord gives his current solution to the long-standing New
Covenant problem:
For
years I struggled with the problem of how to relate the new covenant in the NT
to the new covenant for Israel. Finally
I arrived at a relatively simple solution.
Because the new covenant for Israel as well as the new covenant for the
church both stem from the death of Christ, His death on the Cross is the single
event that becomes the determinative of grace.
This
one covenant of grace, however, has a wide application.
This grace extends to Israel and to the church and to any others who may
partake of the grace of God.
Accordingly,
the concept of one covenant of grace with many applications serves to provide an
intelligent understanding of the various provisions of the covenant in both the
Old and New Testaments, and preserves the distinction that should be observed
between God's purpose and plan for Israel and God's purpose and plan for the
church.
From
what I can discern, Walvoord now sees one overall covenant of grace, based upon
the Blood of the Cross. He states
that
Israel's New Covenant is within,
and based upon, that covenant of grace, which is also the Church's New Covenant.
Hence, although Israel and the Church are distinct from each other, both
are based upon the Blood of Christ.
Now
if Walvoord had just identified that overall grace-covenant as the Everlasting
Covenant of Hebrews 13:20, he would have been in agreement with ol' Miles.
As it is, he is; but doesn't yet realize it!
What
about Rodney?
Resting
in Him,
Miles
cc:
Dr. W.E. Bathke
Dr.
John F. Walvoord
Dr.
Donald K. Campbell
Dr.
Charles Swindoll
Dr.
J. D. Pentecost
Dr.
C. C. Ryrie
Dr.
C.H. Dyer
Others.
|