Dispensationalism and the New Covenant

[rgrove]

Soulfyre said:

Actually, it would only be some "ultra-dispensationalists" that would assert that we are not, in fact, in the New Covenant now. Just as a suggestion, you might want to read something like Continuity and Discontinuity, edited by Feinberg. It is far too easy, sometimes, to develop a skewed view of "dispensationalism" by drawing your information primarily from its critics. During the nearly four years I spent at Dallas (and I had a class under Walvoord), I never was taught that we are not now in the New Covenant, nor was this a belief of Lewis Sperry Chafer. But your essential question is a good one, to which I want to give some thought before typing a response.

God bless and keep you, brother,

Matthew (soulfyre)

I disagree that this is a misunderstanding. Lewis Sperry Chafer taught "There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a "New Covenant". It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, wheras the New Covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application" (Systematic Theology, Vol 4, p 235). This is teaching is specifically designed to get around the passages in Hebrews that assign Jer 31:30-33 to this age which is impossible in the traditional dispensational system. Otherwise you would be saying that an OT prophecy that specifically identifies Israel would apply to the church. He goes on to say "When a parallel is drawn between the New Covenant now in force for the church (Matt 26:28) and the New Covenant yet to be made for Israel (Jer 31:31-34), it is found that all that is promised Israel is now vouchsafed to the church and that the range of blessing for the church far exceeds the restricted provisions for Israel. (a) Jehovah's law will be written on the heart of the Jew, but God by His indwelling Spirit is now working in the believer to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil 2:13; cf. Rom 8:4). (b) Jehovah will be Israel's God and they will be His people, but the Christian is now in Christ and his life is now "hid with Christ in God" (Col 3:3). (c) All Israel shall know the Lord, but the Christian is in the most vital usion and communion with God as Father. (d) Israel's iniquities will be forgiven and her sins remembered no more, but for the on in Christ judicial forgiveness is secured to the extent that there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1), and they have been forgiven all trespasses (Col 2:13)." (Systematic Theology, vol 5, p 325).

Is Lewis Sperry Chafer a hyperdispensationalist? He teaches, consistently with the dispensationlist system, that Israel and the Church have nothing to do with one another in prophecy. Therefore this passage from Jeremiah cannot be a prophecy about the church age because the prophets had no idea the church age was coming. It was an "intercollation" in Chaffer's words, or a "parenthesis" in other people's words.

The words of the "New Scofield Reference Bible" on Jer 31:31-34 say "Although certain features of this covenant have been fulfilled for believers in the church age ... the covenant remains to be realized for Israel according to the explicit statement of v 31".

Walvoord says "Another point of view is taken by Lewis Sperry Chafer who believes the new covenant in the Old Testament will be fulfilled only in the millennium, but finds also another new covenant revealed in the New Testament which has reference to the church in the present age" (The Millenial Kingdom, p 210). Also in another book where he's responding to Gundry's historic premill position "The point is that the church is not Israel and does not precisely fulfill the application of the New Covenant to Israel as outlined in Jeremiah 31. The details mentioned in Jeremiah simply are not being fulfilled today, but will be fulfilled in the future millenial kingdom" (The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation, p 66).

Ryrie has flip-flopped in his views on how to handle the contradiction that Hebrews provides to the strict Israel/Church separation, but has said when commenting on 2 Cor 3:6-11 "The reference to "new covenant" is without the definite article. The text does not say we are ministers of "the new covenant" but of "a nwe covenant". The definite article is also absent in Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24. This may not be significant at all, or it may indicate that Paul is focusing on a new covenant made with the church, which, of course, is base on the death of Christ as is also the future new covenant made with Israel. If so, there are two new covenants; perhaps even more if one understands a covenant related to each dispensational change in the outworking of God's plan and purpose. In this view the two new covenants are distinct and not merged into one, which has already been inaugurated (as the progressives teach)." (Dispensationalism, p 174)

I don't think I have misunderstood the problem here. There is a major difficulty with classical dispensationalism's Israel/Church dichotomy and it comes to a head in the book of Hebrews. This is the primary issue that the new "Progressive Dispensationalism" is grappling with. That's why they are so much closer to the historic view of the church than their classical dispensationalist brethren. But what that also means is that they have dropped the strict separation in prophecy where NO prophecy for Israel is fulfilled in the church. They will give partial fulfillment, some blessings, etc, but the church fulfills no OT prophecy because it was not predicted to even exist.

"The present age of the church is an intercalation into the revealed calendar or program of God as that program was forseen by the prophets of old." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol 4, p 41)

I submit, therefore, I have not misunderstood any hyperdispensationalist teaching for orthodox dispensationalist teaching. Standard teaching is that we are not in the New Covenant promised to Israel because we are not Israel. We are an unexpected, unprophesied "intercalation" into the prophetic map that is a part of a new covenant, but not the new covenant addressed in Jer 31. Therefore the fact that this verse is the foundation stone of the book of Hebrews and is woven into the fabric of the books argumentation is a problem for dispensationalists and they must, because of their system, find a way to make sure that this prophecy does not find direct fulfillment in this age as a "straightforward, literal reading" of Hebrews seems to indicate (to use dispensationalist hermeneutical terminology).

In Christ,
Ron

[rgrove]

While I was at home at lunch I reviewed some of my "Progressive Dispensationalism" works. In particular "Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church" which is a compilation of essays on the topic by some very well known theologians. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock were the editors and wrote esssays as well. Very good book to get on the topic. I was particularly interested in Bruce Ware's chapter entitled "The New Covenant and the People(s) of God". There has been a large shift in the academic community, as has been previously noted in other threads, called Progressive Dispensationalism. I haven't seen it take root in the rural churches of Arkansas as I would like (where my mother-in-law gets her theology) but I feel it's a big step towards the traditional views, especially that of historic premillenialism.

To support my earlier contention here is a quote by Bruce ware from the essay I mentioned

"First, readers are perhaps aware of an earlier dispensational view, advocated, for example, by Chafer and at one time by Walvoord and Ryrie. "

This would be the views I posted above. The views were advocated by them at least into the 1990's, but perhaps they have changed their minds as a result of the more traditional views being proposed by the progressive dispensationalists. I don't know. Obviously I'll take Ware's word for a change of opinion by these men. I expect someone like him probably interacts with them periodically. He also puts some convincing quotes in a foonote of his on page 90 by Ryrie from a work I don't have called "Covenant, New, 392". Ware continues:

"According to this view, in order to maintain the distinction between Israel and the church as separate peoples of God, the new covenant promised to Israel was distinct from the new covenant enacted with the church. Although this vew was defended vigorously by its proponents, it has been uniformly abandoned by dispensationalists (including Walvoord and Ryrie), who recognized, as Blaising acknowledges, that such a two new covenants view "is really a defenseless position.""

There are a few things to note. We see that the heart of the difference between "old" and "new" dispensationalism are their different views regarding Israel and the Church. This expresses itself in many ways, but I'm focusing my attention on the New Covenant right now. We see that this is a traditional, commonly held dispensationalist view. Which is why I originally made the statements I did. It's not one that was second rate, or extreme. It was "vigorously" defended by probably the two most noted experts in the field (which is why Ware specifically mentions them). I still run into it in forums such as this and they quote Ryrie, Chafer, Walvoord, et al in support of their position still at this time. You still find it on websites as well if they address the issue directly. Many just ignore that there is any controversy regarding the New Covenant because they write off traditional views completely as "liberal" and "spiritualizing" and any other derogatory term a Christian can come up with without being accused of being excessively unchristian in their criticism. I would take exception to the idea that this view has been "uniformly abandoned". Perhaps in seminaries it has been, but that doesn't mean that literally thousands of old time dispensationalist preachers out there have bought into the new views being espoused by progressive dispensationalists. In fact, many don't want to recognize these new views as dispensational because they've been arguing against covenant theologians for decades. People don't just abandon long held beliefs. And many pastors do not keep up on current theological journals. I also doubt traditional dispensationalists consider their views to be "a defenseless position". Of course I believe it is, but I'm speaking about a sea of traditional dispensationalists who aren't particularly happy with recent changes.

If you can get the book, I highly recommend it. Quite frankly, it could almost pass for a historic premillenialist essay. But please don't miss the fact that the changes they are making are actually very deep, and systemic in nature. They are advocating a far more traditional view of Israel and the church. Only a keen eye can notice where they make distinctions that an historic premill would not. Vern Prythress' book "Understanding Dispensationalism" (an excellent book for covenentalists to read that dispels the idea that there is a "simple" way to refute dispensationalism and shows how the system fits together very well when you properly understand things from inside the system) calls this tendency among dispensationalists "multiplication of distinctions". I'm sure the charge could be lobbed the other way in some manner to be fair, but I still think it's pretty accurate.

Again, I submit that according to the traditional view I did not misrepresent traditional dispensational teachings regarding the new covenant NOT being fulfilled in this prophetically unexpected "intercalation" (the church age) in the prophetic time table.

[Soulfyre]

Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I studied at Dallas Theological Seminary in the late '60s and early '70s. Even at that time, there had begun to be a divergence between the dispensationalism of Ryrie and that of Walvoord. I have not kept up with them. A friend of mine in the ministry quipped one time that Walvoord was one of the primary reasons he moved away from dispensationalism and a "pre-trib" rapture. I remember at the time that I thought some of his positions were not as well thought out as those of Ryrie. Even at that time, thought, I was beginning to lean toward "historic premillennialism".

BTW, I don't know HOW I overlooked Ware's article in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church. I am wrangling to get Continuity and Discontinuity soon, as well.

God bless you,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[rgrove]

Soulfyre said:

Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I studied at Dallas Theological Seminary in the late '60s and early '70s. Even at that time, there had begun to be a divergence between the dispensationalism of Ryrie and that of Walvoord. I have not kept up with them. A friend of mine in the ministry quipped one time that Walvoord was one of the primary reasons he moved away from dispensationalism and a "pre-trib" rapture.

Interesting. I know there are differences, but I have much more of Walvoord's material than Ryrie's. This is primarily because when I was first looking into things there was a comment by Tim LaHaye someplace where he called Walvoord the "Dean of Dispensationalism" or something like that. My research showed me he was obviously someone very important that's for sure so I began getting his books. When I realized Ryrie's importance in the field I got his book "Basic Theology". It's a nice, short systematic. That's my most frequent exposure to him. I have a lot of quotes from him rounded up, but I haven't systematically collected enough to know the differences between him and Walvoord. I am interested in what they might be, though. The book I just reviewed indicated that Ryrie seemed to be showing signs of going a different direction in Hebrews as early as 1959 if I remember right, but that public writings continued to show him staying the two covenant course, but not in like manner to Walvoord. He provided just enough quotes to show Ryrie had moved somewhat back and forth over time. My dealings with dispensationalism are virtually always of the classical variety so far. I don't know why. Just seems to be that way. But I do see the changes in the academic environments and figure it will be filtered out with new preachers in due time.

I remember at the time that I thought some of his positions were not as well thought out as those of Ryrie. Even at that time, thought, I was beginning to lean toward "historic premillennialism".

What was the starting point for this? Was there a particular thing that was sticking in your mind that you couldn't let go? Or was it a book by Ladd or Gundry or someone? Historical considerations? Or perhaps it's related to the Israel/Church dichotomy we're discussing here?

BTW, I don't know HOW I overlooked Ware's article in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church. I am wrangling to get Continuity and Discontinuity soon, as well.

Well, I'll have to get Continuity and Discontinuity and you can read Ware's article and we'll call that one researched. I've been a fan of Bruce Ware since he took on Open Theism public earlier than most. He's got a new book out I see called "God's Greater Glory" if memory serves. I found this essay to be like his books. Very well layed out and clearly and concisely worded. He's a very compelling writer from what I've been exposed to.