ALREADY AND NOT YET

(Part 6 of "Dispensationalism, Israel, and Scripture")

I return once again to my presentation and analysis of the progressive dispensationalist argument based on the new covenant and the people of God. I have been highlighting the argument on the basis of Dr. Bruce A. Ware's chapter published in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition [Zondervan, 1992]. This is an able and scholarly defense of this new form of dispensationalism.

In our preceding few newsletters I note that Ware, a leading progressive dispensational theologian, argues against covenantalism on two foundational bases. Let me remind the reader of this double-argument. It is important for distinguishing progressive dispensationalism from classic (e.g., Chafer) and from revised dispensationalism (e.g., Ryrie), as well as from all forms of covenantalism (e.g., reformed theology).

In his defense of progressive dispensationalism, Ware asks FIRST: "What do we make of the territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise that clearly states that God will restore Israel to its land in prosperity and productivity and unite it again as one nation (Israel and Judah) whose center of rulership is Jerusalem?" (DIC, 93) In other words, the land aspect of the new covenant suggests a literal earthly-political fulfillment in a millennium.

Our preceding three studies (August-October, 1997) respond to this theological assertion by means of a biblical-theological analysis of the Land/city/Israel promise(s) of the Old Testament, the geo-political focus of the covenantal prophecies. We saw that the New Testament presents Christ as the personal, ultimate fulfillment of these promises. I encourage the new reader to access and review our previous studies.

A NEW DEPARTURE

But now I will begin considering Ware's SECOND argument, which he also presents as a question: "Is the 'already-not yet' eschatological framework correct in which promises of God are understood to be realized first in preliminary (inaugurated) and then in final (future) stages?" (DIC, 93) This approach allows the progressive dispensationalist to take the middle road between revised dispensationalism (iron-clad, sealed-for-your-protection, no-turning-back-except-in-the-millennium dispensations) and covenantalism (with its one-people-of-God, developmental maturation of redemptive history).

Having presented his argument from the new covenant about the geo-political nature of the promises, Ware asks and answers an important question that is problematic for progressive dispensationalism:

"But if this is so, how can the church — a multiethnic and multinational spiritual organism, not given any such promise of national identity or land possession — participate in this same new covenant given to Israel? The answer here requires an application of the other theological consideration mentioned above, namely the 'already-not yet' eschatological framework" (DIC, 94).

He continues: "It seems clear, from our previous discussion, that biblical teaching best supports (1) the view that the New Testament envisions the same new covenant as spoken of in Jeremiah 31 as applied to the Church, and (2) the view that God will one day fulfill his promise of the national restoration of Israel as part of the new covenant promise as not applicable to the church. How can these be reconciled? They are reconciled when we permit the fulfillment of such eschatological promises to take both a preliminary and partial ('already') fulfillment as well as a later full and complete ('not yet') realization. And such in fact seems to be the case in regard to the new covenant." [DIC, 93]

A WARNING AND A HISTORY LESSON

I regret having to do this, but at this point the Surgeon General of the United States requires me to publish this notice:

"Warning: If you are an old-timey dispensationalist or were born in the Southern United States between the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible and the publication of The Late, Great Planet Earth, this view could be hazardous to your mental and physical health. It causes high-blood pressure and severe consternation among dinosaur dispensationalists. It breaks down the compartmental view of history, departs from the (alleged) strictly literal interpretation of Scripture, and disappoints Charles Ryrie — all which problems are deemed virtually heretical by revised dispensationalists."

Having reduced my legal liability, let me now return to my study.

The problem which Ware considers is important. If progressive dispensationalism is to provide more internal coherence it will have to resolve the tension he admits. This is the very tension that eventually tore apart the earlier, more conventional forms of dispensationalism. Let me remind the reader of an earlier presentation in our series so that we might analyze the problem within an historically informed framework.

The new covenant, though historically a foundational covenant for dispensationalism, has been an embarrassing problem for dispensationalists. (Remarkably many of the passages deemed "foundational," "crucial," and so forth to dispensationalism are sources of pain to the system; see my studies on Daniel's Seventy Weeks and the Man of Sin, mentioned at the conclusion to this newsletter). Any theological system that depends heavily upon questionable assumptions and passages generating vigorous internal debate by its adherents is in serious trouble. Dispensationalism is in trouble. The covenantal Christian is tempted with the same question before Titus as he surrounded Jerusalem in A.D. 70: Should he attack and destroy Jerusalem with his own weapons? Or should he sit back and watch it destroy itself through internecine warfare? Dispensationalism is destroying itself, but why just stand by and watch!

Ryrie's Basis of the Premillennial Faith (BPF, 1953) provides an excellent historical study of the dispensational confusion over the new covenant. His summary of the three dispensational views of the new covenant are as follows:

(1) The Jews Only View. This is "the view that the new covenant directly concerns Israel and has no relationship to the Church" (BPF, 107). This was the earliest dispensational view, held by John Nelson Darby. But though Darby's name is still revered by dispensationalists, his teaching on this foundational covenant is seldom accepted by premillennialists today — despite its consistency with the dispensational hermeneutic of literalism.

(2) The One Covenant/Two Aspects View. Ryrie summarizes this position: "The one new covenant has two aspects, one which applies to Israel, and one which applies to the church" (BPF, 107). This is the view held by Walvoord: "This can best be explained as one New Covenant of grace made possible by the death of Christ, whether applied to Israel or the church as in the New Testament" (PKH, 140). Although Pentecost was ambiguous while earning his doctorate at Dallas Seminary, later he settled on this view (TKC, 175).

(3) The Two New Covenants View. This is Ryrie's view. (Ware claims Ryrie has abandoned it [DIC, 91, fn40]. If that is true, the following presentation will be all the more remarkable in that Ryrie would be condemning himself for fidelity to one of the key system principles of dispensationalism! (I told you the system was in trouble: Not only are there internal struggles between separate adherents, but also debate between earlier and later views of a single theologian! This malady is known as doctrinal schizophrenia.) Ryrie notes that this view actually "distinguishes the new covenant with Israel from the new covenant with the Church. This view finds two new covenants in which the promises to Israel and the promises to the Church are more sharply distinguished even though both new covenants are based on the one sacrifice of Christ" (BPF, 107).

Ryrie states vigorously that: "If the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel's promises, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone. If the Church is fulfilling Israel's promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many premillennialists [perhaps even by Ryrie now, according to Ware!], but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is 'a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.' However, since the New Testament will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?" (BPF, 118). He goes so far as to charge "that the one covenant, two aspects interpretation absolutely contradicts the entire premillennial system" (BPF, 108).

So, historically the new covenant created difficulties AMONG dispensationalists, and therefore FOR dispensationalism. But now the progressive dispensationalists offer a FOURTH alternative! Admittedly it is much superior to the strange views adopted by earlier dispensationalists. But though more scholarly and plausible, it too fails of its purpose.

Having stated his means of hoped-for escape from this systemic dialectical tension, Ware elaborates for us:

"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).

Here we discover that the present church age is experiencing a "partially realized" new covenant which is "preliminary in nature." Again, this certainly beats the shenanigans out of early forms of dispensationalism, but it is still lacking. I will deal with his "first" point in this newsletter, then with his second point in the next.

Ware argues that the new covenant need not be viewed as "an all-or-nothing affair." Let me note some of the problems I have with this interpretive maneuver. I will provide two rejoinders in this month's newsletter, then finish up my response to his first point next month.

FIRST REJOINDER

First and as mentioned above, in my previous three issues of Dispensationalism in Transition I showed the meaning of the land promises: they are fulfilled in Christ. They do not require a reinstitution of a geo-political kingdom in Israel. The dispensational tension is created unnecessarily and is relieved when viewed from the New Testament. The Christian exegete needs to keep his Christian glasses on, he needs to view the ful- fillment of the new covenant in terms of the New Testament revelation.

A basic problem I have with dispensationalists — the reverse of the problem dispensationalists have with me! — is that their system insists on interpreting Old Testament prophecies from an Old Testament perspective, instead of the clearer, Christo-centric, New Testament perspective. As Poythress notes, though the Church is not a "straight-line" continuation of Israel, it nevertheless fulfills Israel through Christ (UD, 126). All God's promises are "yea and amen" in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). Since we are all the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:29) through Christ, we receive the fullness of blessing through Him (Rom. 8:17; Eph. 1:23; Col. 2:10).

SECOND REJOINDER

Second, the New Testament clearly presents the new covenant as already fully established. It provides no hints of only a partial or preliminary fulfillment. The partial-and-preliminary argument is based on a faulty, superficial reading of the geo-political aspects of the new covenant, as noted in the preceding point and explained in previous articles.

Revised dispensationalist J. D. Pentecost is quite correct when he writes of the establishment of the Lord's Supper: "In its historical setting, the disciples who heard the Lord refer to the new covenant . . . would certainly have understood Him to be referring to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31" (TTC, 186). What could be more obvious? The Lord did not partially establish the new covenant; rather he fully establishes it with clear and direct reference to its key passage, Jeremiah 31.

The sudden appearance of the "new covenant" in the New Testament record, without qualification or explanation, demands it refer to the well-known new covenant of Jeremiah (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). The apostle to the Gentiles even promotes the new covenant as an important aspect of his ministry (2 Cor. 3:6). He does not say he is a minister of a "second new covenant" or "another new covenant," as per classic and revised dispensationalism. Nor does he suggest a "partial" covenant, as per progressive dispensationalism. He speaks unreservedly of the new covenant, of which he was a minister.

Hebrews 8, on everyone's view, cites Jeremiah's new covenant in a context speaking to New Testament Christians. Nothing in his presentation suggests a "preliminary" mani- festation of the covenant; indeed, everything in his whole letter to the apostatizing Christian Jews demands the full and firm establishment of the new covenant. He teaches that Christianity is the full, final, end-time reality (Heb. 1:1-2, 9:26). Were there a future, qualitatively advanced phase of the new covenant, surely he would have mentioned it. Instead he writes as if there is only a two-fold division in history:

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: 'Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:6-13).

The old covenant is vanishing away as he writes (in the first century prior to A.D. 70) because the "fullness of time" (Gal. 4:4) had come. This is the time of the new covenant — not just the time of a preliminary, partial manifestation of the new covenant:

"For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. (For they could not endure what was commanded: And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow. And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, 'I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.') But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, 'Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.' Now this, 'Yet once more,' indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear" (Heb. 8:18-28).

This final shaking of the old covenant order (which was "ready to vanish away," Heb. 8:13) will destroy the "things that are made" (the implements of ritualism, see implication of Heb. 9:11, 24). This is so that the final order may be firmly and fully established: Christianity after the destruction of the old order in AD 70.

In the next two months newsletters I will continue responding to Ware's article. I am confident we will see the deficiencies within dispensationalism, even in its strongest form.

ABBREVIATION KEY TO BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

BPF: Charles C. Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith
(Neptune,NJ: Loizeaux Bros., 1953)

DIC: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds.,
Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).

PKH: John F. Walvoord, Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (Wheaton,
Ill.: Victor, 1992).

TTC: J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1958).

UD: Vern Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1987).

SPECIAL NOTES

Educational Materials

Make checks payable to and order from: Kenneth Gentry, 46 Main St., Conestee, SC 29636. Prices include shipping costs. For a complete catalog, send $1.00.

"The Man of Lawlessness: A Postmillennial Preterist Interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2." $4.00

"Daniel's Seventy Weeks: A Study of Daniel 9:24-27." $4.00

"Demystifying Revelation." A four part, single-cassette video interview of Kenneth Gentry by Gary DeMar and Ralph Barker of American Vision. The interview covers key points of the postmillennial, preterist interpretation of Revelation over against dispensationalism. Excellent four part study for Sunday school or small group Bible study. $24.95.

"In the Space of Six Days." Scholarly presentation of biblical evidence for creation in six twenty-four hour days. Last tape is a question and answer session. Three tapes: $15.00.

END