SPIRITUALITY OR PERFECTIONISM?

(Part 8 of "Dispensationalism, Israel, and Scripture")

As I have been arguing in this series on "Dispensationalism, Israel, and Scripture," the question of Israel is of key hermeneutic and theological significance for understanding Scripture — and for sorting through eschatological systems. Israel certainly stands as THE most prominent issue separating progressive dispensationalists from other evangelical systems — such as my reformed and covenantal postmillennialism. Thus, I have engaged a rather lengthy response to one of the finer progressive dispensational articles I have found on the subject: Bruce A. Ware's important chapter in Blaising and Bock's Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church (hereinafter: DIC).

In order both to refresh continuing readers with my concern and to acquaint first time readers to my presentation, I will quickly establish the issue in question and summarize my previous argument. This should map out the field of debate. So let me begin where all good maps begin:

YOU ARE HERE

Ware is arguing for progressive dispensationalism on the basis of the new covenant. He sees in the new covenant promises for both the church and for Israel (see especially Jer. 31:31ff). The church receives spiritual blessings in a preliminary and partial fulfillment of the new covenant. However, from the same new covenant, Israel has final and complete geo-political promises awaiting her time of glory still yet in the future (i.e., in the millennium). It is vitally important for Ware to have a distinct, geo-political hope for Israel in order for his dispensationalism to work. Let us recall Ware's position by citing his own words:

"The preliminary nature of the new covenant's fulfillment can be seen in two ways. First, only the spiritual aspects of new-covenant promise, are now inaugurated in this age; the territorial and political aspects, though part of God's new-covenant promise, await future fulfillment. The fulfillment of God's new covenant thus should not now be viewed as an all-or-nothing affair. Rather, it is best seen as partially realized now (spiritual aspects of forgiveness and the indwelling Spirit for all covenant participants) and later to be realized in its completeness (when all Israel is saved and restored to its land)" (DIC 94).

My first two rejoinders in November were:

(1) The dispensational hermeneutic is faulty, missing the geo-political fulfillment of the new covenant in Christ. The Messiah not only fulfills the sacrificial system typology and the Temple idea, but also the geo-political promises, as well. (See: September, 1997, issue of Dispensationalism in Transition.)

(2) The New Testament teaches that the new covenant is already fully established. References to the new covenant show it was fully established in the first century. (See: November, 1997 issue of Dispensationalism in Transition.)

My December newsletter continued with a third response, wherein I made two charges against progressive dispensationalism:

(1) Ware's position necessitates circular reasoning. That is, in order to argue for a two-stage new covenant fulfillment, Ware must argue a two-stage prophetic fulfillment of Christ's mission. But to do so requires the PRESUPPOSITION of a two-stage fulfillment. Old Testament prophecy does not allow a two-stage kingdom fulfillment but rather a first century kingdom establishment.

(2) A better principle of interpretation is the gradualistic development of the kingdom and, consequently, of the new covenant, rather than two punctuated stages. This follows the pattern of Scripture (e.g., Matt. 13:31-33).

 

WARE'S SECOND ARGUMENT

In this month's newsletter I will address Ware's second major argument for his progressive dispensational understanding of the new covenant. He practices what he preaches: Not only does he hold there will be a two-stage fulfillment of the new covenant, but he offers a two-stage proof of it!

On page 95 of his article Ware writes:

"Second, an understanding of the new covenant's present preliminary fulfillment is necessitated by the fact of ongoing sin and disobedience in the lives of new-covenant participants. As has been shown above, the new covenant is distinguishable from the old covenant, in part, by its pledge to bring about consistent and unfaltering covenant faithfulness in the lives of its participants. Without this feature, the new covenant's superiority over the old would be greatly jeopardized if not lost altogether. But such obedience to the law clearly is God's promise and pledge and will be accomplished in its fullness."

He continues on pages 95 and 96: "Now, however, we live in an age of preliminary or inaugurated new-covenant reality in which forgiveness of sin has been secured and the Spirit's indwelling presence enables covenant faithfulness. The fullness of covenant fidelity, however, awaits the end of a process of growth in holiness, rather than occurring with its fullness at the present time. The obedience that is envisioned and promised in new-covenant texts such as Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:22-32 will certainly occur in the fullest sense that those passages require. But that fulfillment in its entirety occurs, not immediately when sins are forgiven in Christ, nor immediately when the Spirit comes with his indwelling presence and power, but rather at the completion of a process by which that forgiveness and that Spirit empowerment enable progressive growth toward the goal of complete covenant faithfulness. The goal will surely be achieved in the end. At the present, however, the struggle with the world, the flesh, and the devil goes on, but it does so with the resources of new-covenant provision to enable holiness and obedience not possible prior to the coming of Christ and the sending of the Spirit. New-covenant faithfulness is expected in the New Testament precisely because we participate by faith in Christ's defeat of sin (Rom. 6) and have now his enabling Spirit (Rom. 8:3-4). But such new-covenant faithfulness will occur fully only when Christ comes again and brings to completion the new covenant, which is now inaugurated in a preliminary way."

I have four objections to his presentation here. These objections are serious enough to either demand a re-statement and clarification of his position or to cause a forsaking and abandonment of it. Of course, I prefer the latter.

My four objections may be categorized as follows: (1) The perfectionist fallacy. (2) New covenant denigration. (3) Semantic confusion. (4) Redemptive history distortion.

THE PERFECTIONIST FALLACY

First, the perfectionist fallacy. When we carefully analyze Ware's two paragraphs, we discover an illegitimate (and probably unintended) perfectionist standard.

Notice how Ware proves a future, complete fulfillment of the present, preliminary new covenant: He looks at the present spiritual circumstances in the church and comments: "an understanding of the new covenant's present preliminary fulfillment is necessitated by the fact of ongoing sin and disobedience in the lives of new-covenant participants." He then explains that, according to his view, we must expect a "consistent and unfaltering covenant faithfulness in the lives of its participants." Unfortunately though, "at the present the struggle with the world, the flesh, and the devil goes on."

Clearly Ware presents a perfectionist standard of holiness. The way he knows the new covenant is only partial is because of "ongoing sin and disobedience," the lack of an "unfaltering covenant faithfulness," and the continuance of "the struggle" with "the flesh." This is pure, unadulterated perfectionism. Unless Ware is ready for Finney-type perfectionism, his argument is founded on false assumptions.

What is more, this perfectionist standard necessitates a new Bible for the millennial age. In the dispensational millennium the Bible becomes God's Word emeritus. I say this in that our present Bible, on this view, must be speaking only to present, Church Age spirituality when it speaks to believers' thus: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us" (1 John 1:8-10). The Scripture everywhere assumes the sin problem.

Ware may respond that the new covenant fullness in the millennium entails raptured, glorified saints returned to earth. This would then allow for perfection. However, the purpose of the millennium is to bring in the fullness of the new covenant — and involves also, on dispensational assumptions, non-glorified Jews entering into the millennial kingdom through the tribulation. If they are left without this perfectionist standard, then the new covenant is not even then fulfilled.

If Ware suggests that the Jews will be perfected at their glorification at the end of the millennium, then he does not find new covenant fulfillment in the millennium but in the eternal state. And if this fulfillment is delayed to the eternal state, what is the necessity of the millennium?

NEW COVENANT DENIGRATION

Second, new covenant denigration. Ware's framework inadvertently (I hope) diminishes the present new covenant glory.

Following his perfectionist assertions (in the first paragraph cited above) Ware comments: "As has been shown above, the new covenant is distinguishable from the old covenant, in part, by its pledge to bring about consistent and unfaltering covenant faithfulness in the lives of its participants. Without this feature, the new covenant's superiority over the old would be greatly jeopardized if not lost altogether."

Notice carefully: Ware's theological framework so vigorously demands a perfectionist, millennial new covenant that he fears the new covenant's superiority over the old "would be greatly jeopardized if not lost altogether." This means that presently, in the preliminary new covenant age in which the Church exists, the new covenant is IN FACT virtually "lost altogether" because it is not perfectionist in glory and is therefore, on his view, NOT "distinguishable from the old covenant."

This means that for almost 2000 years, the new covenant celebrated in the Lord's Supper by born again Christians is indistinguishable from the old covenant because of our "ongoing sin," lack of "unfaltering faithfulness," and struggle against "the flesh."

Paul's view of the present reality new covenant is far removed from Ware's — despite Paul's deep concern over sin in the church (as evident in 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and in the Pastoral Epistles). Note that Paul is PRESENTLY a "servant of the new covenant" because "we HAVE this ministry" (2 Cor. 3:6). Consequently, he is engaging the new covenant "ministry of the Spirit" (3:8) which he declares PRESENTLY is "more glorious" (3:8), indeed, "much more glorious" (3:9), having a "surpassing" glory (3:10).

SEMANTIC CONFUSION

Third, semantic confusion. Ware's presentation is difficult to understand because of the way he uses key terms. And key terms ought to be clear and precise.

Listen carefully to how he argues for a future millennial-phase new covenant: "The fullness of covenant fidelity, however, awaits the end of a process of growth in holiness, rather than occurring with its fullness at the present time." Notice the phrase "process of growth." Indeed, the fulfillment comes "at the completion of a process" which "enables progressive growth toward the goal of complete covenant faithfulness."

Ware anticipates a catastrophically-imposed millennium so that we can experience a "process of growth in holiness." How do we attain this "process of growth"? What does he mean by "process"? What does he mean by "growth"? I ask what he means by these simple terms because HIS new covenant in the millennium finds its fulfillment NOT by means of a "process" nor as a result of "growth"! Let me explain.

Ware's new covenant fulfillment must come in either the Church's experience in the millennium, or in Israel's experience there (or in both). But neither is introduced to the millennium fulfillment by a "process of growth."

The Church has been on the earth now for 2000 years without attaining the necessary "unfaltering faithfulness" necessary to the fullness of the new covenant. Even now Ware can "prove" the new covenant fullness lies ahead of us because of our continuing struggle against sin. And I doubt that Ware would say the Church as such has progressed beyond the first century's faithfulness. In fact, all dispensational analyses of history require a downward trend which collapses into a Great Tribulation A trend AGAINST growth. The Church's glory in the millennium is an INSTANT sanctification by means of glorification.

But neither will Israel's future condition be the result of "growth." According to all conservative evangelicals, Israel has long resisted the gospel of Christ. As Stephen preached to the Jews long ago, so may we still declare today: "You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you" (Acts 7:51). Indeed, Paul's analysis still holds: "Just as it is written: God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day" (Rom.11:8).

Israel's conversion, according to the dispensational schema, comes catastrophically in a compacted three and one-half year (or perhaps seven year) time-frame at the end of this age. And after 2000 years (so far!) of resistance. This is not "growth."

Both the Church and Israel experience a discontinuity in the context of the millennium new covenant fulfillment. So, I really do not know what Ware means by "growth." In fact, I don't think his use of the phrase "process of growth" can have any meaning!

REDEMPTIVE HISTORY DISTORTION

Four, redemptive history distortion. Covenant theology has always charged dispensationalism with redemptive history retrogression. And despite the major system improvements made by progressive dispensationalists, redemptive history distortions remain. This is because of dispensationalism's reverting to a period of Jewish exaltation and its arguing for a re-instituted temple and sacrificial period.

By proposing a future earthly-millennial era after the present age, dispensationalism runs counter to Scripture. Properly understood the New Testament idea of the "last days" is focused on the most important episode of history: the life of Jesus Christ lived out in fulfillment of divine prophecy and of redemptive history. Christ is the focal point of all Scripture. He is anticipated in the Old Testament revelation and realized in the New: "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me" (John 5:39). As such He stands as history's dividing line — hence the historical appropriateness and theological significance of dividing history between B.C. and A.D.

There are many prophetic references looking forward to the "Messianic age of consummation" introduced by Christ. This era is frequently deemed "the last days" or "the latter days" (Gen. 49:1, 10; Num. 24:14; Deut. 4:30; 31:29; Isa. 2:2; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Dan. 2:28; Hos. 3:4; Mic. 4:1). As Albert Barnes notes:

"The expression then properly denoted the future times in general; but, as the coming of the Messiah was to the eye of a Jew the most important event in the coming ages, the great, glorious, and crowning scene in all that vast futurity, the phrase came to be regarded as properly expressive of that. . . . It was a phrase in contrast with the days of the patriarchs, the kings, the prophets, etc. The last days, or the closing period of the world, were the days of the Messiah" (BE 381). Ridderbos observes that his coming was "nothing less than the beginning of the great eschaton of history" (C., 36).

When Christ came "the fullness of times" was realized (Gal. 4:4). Hence, the preparatory preaching at the beginning of His ministry: "[T]he time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15; Matt. 4:17) Prior to this, the Old Testament era was typological and anticipatory. The Old Testament era served as the "former days" (Mal. 3:4; cp. Jer. 46:26; Lam. 1:7; Amos 9:11; Mic. 7:14, 20) that gave way to the "last days," the time period initiated by Christ's coming: "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things" (Heb. 1:1-2).

Thus, we find frequent references to the presence of the last days during the New Testament time. The last days are initiated by the appearance of the Son (Heb. 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:20) to effect redemption (Heb. 9:26) and by His pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 2:16, 17, 24; cf. Isa. 32:15; Zech. 12:10). The "ends of the ages" comes during the apostolic era (1 Cor. 10:11). These will run until "the last day," when the resurrection/judgment occurs to end history (John 6:39; 11:24; 12:48).

The last days of Old Testament prophecy anticipated the establishment of Mount Zion/Jerusalem as the enduring spiritual and cultural influence through the era (Isa. 2:2; 24:23; 37:32; Joel 2:32; Oba. 1:17, 21; Mic. 4:7). This came in the first century with the establishment of the New Covenant phase of the Church, the focal point of the kingdom of Christ (cf. Joel 2 with Acts 2:16ff; Heb. 12:18-27).

Because the last days have been with us since the first century coming of Christ, NO DAYS WILL FOLLOW. Consequently, there can be no millennium that will introduce another grand redemptive era in man's history. With the coming of Christ, earth history reached "epochal finality" (PE, 28). The idea of the appearance of Christ as the "Last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45) is indicative that there is no different historical age to follow. The finality has come, though it has undergone continuous development since its arrival in the ministry of Christ.

In the biblical schema, there is simply no room for a millennium. At the end of the present time — the "last days" — will come the last DAY.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC KEY

BE: Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, 1 vol.
edition (Grand Rapids: Kregal, [n.d.] 1962).

C.: Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian & Reformed, 1962).

PE: Geerhardus Vos, Pauline Eschatology (Phillipsburg, N.J.:
Presbyterian & Reformed, [1930] 1991)

ANNOUNCEMENT AND SPECIAL OFFER

Zondervan has announced publication dates for two debate books in which I am involved. Below I provide the interested reader with Zondervan's academic sales catalog announcement. I am providing a pre-publication offer for either book between now and March 1, 1998. If you send a $14.00 check to me now, upon publication I will autograph and send you a copy of either book, postpaid. You may purchase both books for $26.00. Order from me at: 1749 Kingston Road, Placentia, CA 92870.

FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, C. Marvin Pate, ed. Contributors: Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Sam Hamstra, Jr., C. Marvin Pate, and Robert L. Thomas. Projected publication date: April 1998. $14.95.

According to the old adage, there are as many views of the book of Revelation as there are commentaries. But among the many interpretations available, most authors take one of several directions. Among these the most common ones today are the preterist view, the idealist view, the progressive dispensationalist view, and the classical dispensationalist view.

Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. presents the preterist view, arguing that almost all of Revelation was fulfilled in the Jewish war of A.D. 67-70, when God destroyed the temple and replaced the Jews as his covenant people with the church, where all nations worship in harmony.

Sam Hamstra Jr. presents the idealist view, maintaining that Revelation sets forth timeless truths concerning the battle between good and evil, which continues throughout the church age until the return of Jesus.

Marvin Pate presents the progressive dispensationalist view, showing how the already/not yet scheme of New Testament eschatology demands that we see a present reign of Christ as well as a partial fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of the Gentiles' coming to salvation at the end of history. But God also has a wonderful future for Israel, which will occur during a millennial reign of Christ.

Finally, Robert Thomas presents the classical dispensationalist view, asserting that most of Revelation is future-oriented, describing what will happen during the Great Tribulation after the church has been removed from this earth through the Rapture.

In presenting their views, each author interacts with the Others, pointing out areas of agreement and disagreement. Insofar as one's hermeneutical approach to the book of Revelation in large measure determines his or her interpretive conclusions, most of the interaction takes place on the level of principles of interpretation rather than on exegesis of specific passages.

Four Views on the Book of Revelation is part of the Counterpoints Series.

THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND, Darrell L. Bock, ed. Contributors: Craig Blaising, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Robert Strimple and Richard Gaffin. Projected publication date: June 1998. $14.95.

As we approach the end of another millennium, interest in the Millennium and the end of history is beginning to increase. But this does not mean that evangelical Christians have reached any consensus on Revelation 20 and its relationship to the present and the future. This book, using the familiar Counterpoints format, explores three main views of the Millennium.

Darrell Bock begins the book with in introductory, essay, summarizing the main issues of difference among evangelical Christians. Craig Blaising then discusses the premillennialist view. Robert Strimple argues for an amillennial view, and Kenneth Gentry Jr. presents a postmillennial position. In each article, the author surveys the basic variations within his tradition, such as dispensationalist and nondispensitionalist premillennialism and theonomist and nontheononoist postmillennialism. Each writer then presents an exegetical/theological defense of his own approach, discussing not only the Millennium as such, but its relationship to other eschatological events, such as the return(s) of Christ, the final battle against Satan and his hosts, and the judgment Day.

Each author is also given an opportunity to critique the articles of the others, pointing out areas of agreement and disagreemen. Richard Gaffin writes the responses for the amillennial approach. This format allows for a lively, healthy dialogue of the issue, enabling the reader to form his or her own opinion.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond is part of the Counterpoints Series.

END