Posted on 09/06/2002 8:50:44 PM PDT by drstevej
DISPENSATIONALISM AND THE NEW COVENANT
Stephen M. Johnson
Old Testament Biblical Theology -- Dr. O. Palmer Robertson
Westminster Theological Seminary, 1979
Jeremiah 31:31-34 speaks of a future new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," which gives glorious promises. This text is quoted in Romans 11 and both the 8th and 10th chapters of Hebrews. Furthermore, of the thirty three uses of the term diatheke in the New Testament, as many as fifteen are references to a new covenant.[1] Paul calls himself a minister of the new covenant. The wine, or cup of the Lord's Supper is called the blood of the new covenant. Although this is an important biblical theme, as the above suggests. Dispersationalists are not in agreement in their treatment of the idea. It is our purpose to trace the genesis and implications of the various dispensational understandings of the new covenant concept and the purpose of God for ethnic Israel and the Church (or Churches) of the New Testament.
Before proceeding some things should be noted concerning the distinctives of dispensationalism and the groups we shall consider. Charles Ryrie lists three essentials, sine qua non, of dispensationslism:[2] 1) a distinction between Israel and the Church; 2) a consistent literal hermeneutic; and 3) an ultimately doxological rather than soteriological view of Scripture.[3] In addition, most dispensationalists affirm the "mystery" nature of the church age – the church and its corresponding age was not foreshadowed in the Old Testament, but was revealed in the New Testament especially (or exclusively) through the Apostle Paul. [4]
In discussing the dispensational views of the new covenant we distinguish three groups. First, we will discuss the views of two "earlier dispensationalists" – John Nelson Darby and C. I. Scofield. Second, we will treat the "moderate dispensationalists" – Lewis Sperry Chafer, John F . Walvoord, and Charles C. Ryrie. Third, we will examine two "ultra dispensationalists" [5] E. W. Bullinger and Charles F. Baker. While these groupings do not reflect all who might display the dispensational banner they are representative of the spectrum of thought on the new covenant. A further refining of the picture is beyond the scope of this paper.
The Early Dispensationalists
J. N. Darby (1800-1882), the prolific Plymouth Brethren writer, does not treat our issue at great length, but his few comments do indicate his position. The new covenant of Jeremiah 31, according to Darby, stands in contrast to the old covenant of Moses although both were contracted with ethnic Israel. The full provisions of this new covenant are to be fulfilled in the millennium. [6] The author of Hebrews cites Jeremiah in the 8th chapter only to demonstrate to his Jewish readers that the fact of a second covenant promise shows the first covenant to be both faulty and temporary, thus enjoining them not to rest in the first covenant but rather to look to the Mediator of the new covenant. [7] The church, according to Darby, as a result of her relation to the Mediator of the new covenant, presently enjoys its spiritual, its heavenly blessings and privileges even though it is not formally under the covenant. He says,
these blessings are now the portion of the children of God; and the whole of our portion now is not in the formal accomplishment of the new covenant with Israel and Judah, but entirely in the heavenlies with Christ, according to the pattern of the then tabernacle with this only added that the veil is rent from the top to bottom.
It is, then, the annexed circumstances of the covenant with which we have to do, not the formal blessings which in terms have taken the place of the old, though some of them may, in a sense, be accomplished in us. Thus the heavenly and distinct character of the dispensation is most plainly brought out, and we find our place is to be identified with the Mediator, as gone within the veil, not in the blessings which result to Israel in consequence of His title and power to bless in grace therefrom resulting. [8]
Thus Darby's treatment, while not specifically addressing all of the New Testament passages and problems, provides a rationale for a future, literal Jewish fulfillment of the one new covenant as well as a present, spiritual accrual of benefit for the Church via the Mediator, even though they are not subjects of the covenant. C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), chief editor of the Scofield Reference Bible, treats the new covenant in a fashion somewhat different than Darby. Scofield and those holding a similar position (C. F. Lincoln, and F. W. Grant for example ), [9] like Darby see only one new covenant in Scripture. Scofield's view differs, however, in that he affirms that this covenant has a two fold applications 1) to Israel in the future (i.e. it "secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel."); [10] and 2) to the Church in the present (i.e. it "secures the eternal blessedness... of all who believe.") [11] The distinction between Darby and Scofield in this regard is a fine one, nevertheless, it is an important one for later developments, as we shall see. Suffice it to say at this point that Darby speaks of the Church's relation to the Mediator of the new covenant, Scofield and his followers who treat a wider range of New Testament passages are not hesitant to speak of the Church as having the new covenant itself ministered to them. [12]
The Moderate Dispensationalists
The earliest published treatment of the new covenant by Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) in Major Bible Themes, 1926 reflects the view of Scofield. Chafer states,
The New Covenant guarantees what God proposes to do for men on the ground of the blood of His Son. This may be seen in two aspects (a) that He will save, preserve and present in Heaven conformed to His Son, all who have believed on Christ...(b) The future salvation of Israel is promised under the unconditional New Covenant (Isa. 27:9; Ezek. 37:23; Ro. 11:26, 27). [13]
A decade later in Dispensationalism Chafer begins to reflect a dual covenant structure. He says,
No human conditions can be forced into this great declaration of Jehovah's concern for what He will yet do for Israel, nor can it be demonstrated that such promises have ever been fulfilled for Israel, nor that they even remotely apply to the Church.
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 Chy ch far exceeds the restricted provisions for Israel. [14]
With the publication of his eight volume Systematic Theology, 1948 the two new covenant structure is clearly set forth. For example, Chafer after speaking of the eighth covenant with Israel – that of Jeremiah 31 – states,
There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is styled like the proceeding 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, whereas the new covenant with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two new covenants – one for Israel and one for the Church – are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God's purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israel's covenant is new only because it replaces the Mosaic, but the Church's covenant is new because it introduces that which is God's mysterious and unrelated purpose. [15]
This two covenant view is followed and expanded by Walvoord and Ryrie. It is Interesting historically to note one key factor in the shift toward a two covenant view – the publication of O.T. Allis' Prophecy and the Church, 1945. Allis in two brief paragraphs argues that Scofield's two fold application, of the one covenant is inconsistent with the "mystery" nature of the Church; he finds Darby's view more consistant. He says,
This (Darby's view) is consistent Dispensationalism. If the Church is a mystery unknown to the prophets, the new covenant foretold by Jeremiah cannot concern the Church. It must concern Israel. [16]
The importance of this criticism by Allis for the development of a two covenant view is freely admitted by both Walvoord and Ryrie. Walvoord's article in Biblioteca Sacra (1946) states,
Dr. Allis has, however, done premillennialism a service in demanding consistency on interpretation of this passage (Hebrews 8). Either the Church fulfills the new covenant with Israel or it does not. While the writer has great respect for the Biblical scholarship of Dr. C. I. Scofield he is inclined to agree with Dr. Allis that Scofield is not clear on this point in his Scofield Reference Bible.
It is more consistent with the whole premillennial position to hold that the new covenant realized today by the church is different than the new covenant with the house of Israel than to hold that it fulfills it in part. The issue, after all, is whether the church inherits Israel's promises.[17]
Walvoord and Ryrie accepting the two covenant structure of Chafer proceed to analyze the New Testament passages. They arrive at identical conclusions. [18] The gospel references along with Paul's reference to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:25) speak of the Church's new covenant. It is this new covenant that Paul ministers (2 Cor. 316). Paul's reference in Romans 11:27, a citation of Jeremiah's prophecy, is to the Jewish new covenant, which is yet to be fulfilled.[19]
The book of Hebrews, especially chapters 8 and 10 receive more detailed treatment. Walvoord and Ryrie see the epistle as addressed to Jewish people showing the "better" aspects of Christianity, which includes a "better covenant" – the new covenant with the Church. [20] Yet, both admit that Hebrews 8 and 10 make mention of Jeremiah 31 – the new covenant with Israel. This does not present any confusion or difficulty for them. Hebrews 8 cites the Jeremiah passage to show that the old covenant is not eternal. The emphasis of the citation is directed to the word "new" and not on its contents, that is, the contents of the new covenant with Israel.
Ryrie summarizes,
Indeed it would follow that the better covenant of Hebrews is that which the Lord Jesus established with the Church, that is, the new covenant with the Church. This means that the writer of the Epistle has referred to both new covenants, and by his reference to the new covenant with Israel. in the quotation from Jeremiah 31 he shows that It has not been annulled. It is important to notice that nowhere does the writer say the new covenant with Israel is fulfilled. Indeed that is the reason for the lack of appeal to the content of the covenant.[21]
The Hebrews 10 passage is treated similarly. Ryrie states,
The argument here is that the sacrifice of Christ supersedes the sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant, and the appeal to the new covenant with Israel is to show that the Old Testament Scriptures promised that sins would be remembered no more. The passage does not state that the new covenant with Israel is identical with the new covenant with the church or that it is fulfilled by the Church. [22]
In summary, the moderate dispensational view initiated by Chafer and reinforced by Walvoord and Ryrie presents two distinct new covenants, both based on the blood of the same Mediator. While this position is that of the first two presidents of Dallas Theological Seminary (Chafer 1924-1952 and Walvoord 1952-present) as well as the current chairman of Dallas' systematic theology department (Ryrie) it is not an official position of the school, whose confession of faith makes no mention of the new covenant.
The "Ultra" Dispensationalists
"Ultra" dispensationalism posits two economies existing between Acts 2 and the consummation of the present age – the Jewish Church, or the "Bride of Christ," and a subsequent Christian Church, or the "Body of Christ," which was established upon Paul's revelation of the "mystery" of the church. The two most prevalent beginning points for the "Body of Christ" are Acts 13 and Acts 28. Each view has its own understanding of the biblical testimony concerning the new covenant.
Acts 28 dispensationalism, presented by E. W. Bullinger and others sees the new covenant of Jeremiah being administered during the period of the book of Acts. Later it was suspended until the return of Christ. The Body of Christ has no relation to the new covenant and consequently this group does not consider the Lord's Supper to be a scriptural ordinance in the present dispensation. [23] Charles Baker is representative of those dispensationalists who hold a mid-Acts view of the initiation of the Body of Christ. Like the Acts 28 dispensationalists, the Body of Christ is seen as an unprophesied mystery which is begun after the new covenant had been initiated (at Pentecost) and suspended. The practical difference of Baker's view, for this paper, lies in his acceptance of the Lord's Supper as a ordinance of the Body of Christ. Consequently, Baker must explain the connection between the Body of Christ and the covenant of Jeremiah (since he rejects a two covenant view). He explains,
The Apostle Paul wrote letters to members of the Body of Christ during the latter half of the book of Acts in which he indicated that a spiritual transition was taking place from the old to the new order in which some practices were passing away (1 Corinthians 13). He also. indicated that as a part of the special revelation given him for the Body of Christ was the observance of the Lord's Supper (I Corinthians 11:23) and the fact that in this dispensation God was making the Gentiles to partake of Israel's spiritual things (Romans 15:27). Thus it appears in sovereign grace God bestowed upon the Gentiles who had no covenant ties with God (Ephesians 2:12), all of the spiritual blessings in redemption which he had covenanted with Israel and which Israel had rejected. This was done not in fulfillment of a covenant promise, but in sovereign grace, and hence, although God has always been gracious, it is called the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:2).
The point here is that when Christ shed His blood it was the blood of the New Covenant. It is by that blood and that blood alone of the New Covenant that any sinner in any dispensation is reconciled to God, Only Israel comes under the actual terms of that covenant, which includes material, physical and spiritual blessings. But God, who is sovereign, has the right, if He so wills, to do with His own as He sees fit (Matthew 20:15), and He has seen fit to bestow all of the merits of that precious blood of the New Covenant upon undeserving and uncovenanted Gentiles in this dispensation of the grace of God. [24]
Conclusion
The spectrum of dispensational teaching on the new covenant(s) is indeed diverse. Yet amid this diversity of treatment there are common emphases on: 1) a literal fulfillment to ethnic Israel of Jeremiah 31; 2) the distinctive characteristic of the present Church in contrast to ethnic Israel; and 3) the "mystery" nature of the present Church. Of these elements, the last two have contributed to the development of the various views. The two covenant view feels that it consistently maintains the second element (the distinction between Israel and the Church) in contrast to the Scofield position. Similarly, the "ultra" dispensationalists feel they most consistently maintain the "mystery" element of the Church as the revelation by Paul.
In the final analysis the critical issue is not simple consistency of a theological "package” but rather fidelity to the biblical texts. Therefore, dispensationalists should welcome and furthermore initiate more extensive exegesis of the key texts. Dispensational commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, are just too few and far between to suit this writer.
Notes:
[1] See Table 1 for an overview of the use of diatheke by the New Testament writers [not included in this document].
[2] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 43-47.
[3] This third sine qua non probably would be better deleted since it really is a critique of Covenant Theology rather than a distinctive.
[4] Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1252; L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:75-77, 251, 385-86; Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 134f, 200; Charles Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p. 51, 500f.
[5] This is a pejorative term (after all, who wants to be an ultra anything?). Lacking a better term, I use it with the same apology noted by Ryrie, Op. Cit., 192.
[6] J.N. Darby, Synopsis of Bible Books, p. 286.
[7] Ibid., p. 284-85. Collected Writings, 3:49.
[8] Collected Writings, 3:53, cf. Synopsis, p. 286.
[9] F.W. Grant, The Numerical Bible, 7:48,; C.F. Lincoln, “Covenants,” p. 202-03. Co-editors of the Scofield Reference Bible include W.J. Erdman, A.T. Pierson, and A.C. Gabelein.
[10] Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1296.
[11] Ibid., p. 1297.
[12] See Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 123.
[13] Major Bible Themes, p. 109, 111. He also states, “What may be proposed for Israel or the nations may be of interest to the believer, but it does not directly apply to him.” This seems to imply that the Christian does indirectly benefit from the new covenant of Jeremiah 31, which he describes in this quote.
[14] Chafer, Dispensationalism., p. 86-87.
[15] Chafer, Systematic Theology, 7:98-99.
[16] O.T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 155.
[17] John Walvoord, “The New Covenant with Israel” Biblioteca Sacra,(1946), p. 25; see also Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 118.
[18] A comparison of Walvoord’s treatment (Bib Sac, 1946) with Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 105-24 shows the same arguments and frequently the same words. Evidently Ryrie used Walvoord’s 1946 article for his Th.D. dissertation, 1949 (later published in 1953 as Basis of the Premillennial Faith) though no reference is cited.
[19] Walvoord criticizes amillennialists in general and Allis along with Wyngaarden in particular for not treating this passage, one which Walvoord feels overturns the amillennialist’s contention that there is one new covenant which is now in force for the Church. See Walvood, The Millennial Kidgdom (1959), 215.
[20] Ryrie suggests that “new” in this case either be seen as a comparison to the “so-called Adamic covenant” or an expression of quality. See Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 121. He prefers the later explanation.
[21] Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 121.
[22] Ibid., p. 121-22.
[23] Here I rely on the presentation of Charles Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p., 102 due to lack of primary sources.
[24] Ibid., p. 103. Note the similarity of Baker and Darby with the difference being Darby’s emphasis on the Mediator of the covenant and Baker’s emphasis on the blood of the covenant.
I post this as background for understanding the development of dispensational views of the New Covenant.
This is a pejorative term (after all, who wants to be an ultra anything?).
I am quite happy that my new pistol is a Springfield Ultra Compact. Nothing perjorative there!
At the same time, it would bother me not one bit to be considered an Ultra Christian.
Thanks for posting the article you wrote 23 years ago based upon how you "saw it" then. I perceive that you had misgivings about the various dispensationalist views back then because there were just too few commentaries on the "Epistle to the Hebrews" to suit you.
Am I right -- did you have the misgivings that I detect for the reason you stated -- and if so, do you still have them?
I agree with you about what the critical issue is.
I'm going to post a separate thread on Amillennialism by William Kilgore. (I don't agree with his view on Rom.11 or on his annihilistic view on hell, but I agree with just about everything else he writes on the subject we've been discussing).
Here are excerpts of Kilgore's comments:
What does Scripture teach?
The first point to be recognized and acknowledged is that whenever Scripture speaks of "the Kingdom of God," "the Kingdom of Heaven," or "the Kingdom of Christ," it is the same Kingdom.
These are not different "kingdoms," but synonyms for the same reality (despite claims made by some dispensationalists).
A comparison of the synoptic Gospels reveals quite clearly that whether referred to as "of heaven" or as "of God," one Kingdom is in view (e.g., Mt. 4:17/Mark 1:14-15; Mt. 5:3/Luke 6:20).
Further, it is this same Kingdom that is given to the Messiah in Daniel 7:13-14 (cf. Mt. 12:28; cp. Luke 22:16 with 22:30) -- "the kingdom of Christ" (Eph. 5:5).
Daniel interprets Nebucchadnezzar's dream of the great statue in Daniel 2. The statue represents his own kingdom and some that would follow. Then, in verse 44, we read:
"And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." (NKJV)
That this description does not square with the dispensationalists' "kingdom" should be obvious.
The kingdom spoken of by Daniel is set up before the Second Coming of Christ ("in the days of these kings") - that is, during His first coming!
Furthermore, this kingdom will plainly last far longer than a mere 1,000 years. So what gives?
Psalm 110:1-2 is the foundational passage for the New Testament picture of the Kingdom.
The Messiah sits at God's right hand - this was fulfilled in Christ's resurrection, exaltation, and ascension (Acts 2:29-36).
This is to be "until I (the Father) make Thine enemies Thy footstool" - this is Christ's present reign (1 Cor. 15:24-28).
Note that Christ's reign is parallel with His priesthood - i.e., He reigns as Priest (Ps. 110:4); this is further proof for a present reign of Christ (cf. Heb. 7-9).
Note especially Psalm 110:2 -- Christ's reign is described as being "in the midst of (His) enemies." This is true because Christ's Kingdom is a spiritual reality.
The New Testament expressly teaches that this Kingdom is not a natural Kingdom, but a spiritual one.
Please read the following key passages: Luke 17:20-21; John 3:3,5-7; 18:36; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; 15:50; Col. 1:13; 1 Thes. 2:12; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 12:28; 2 Peter 1:11.
In summary these passages teach that the Kingdom:
1. does not come "with observation" (lit., 'with outward show').
2. is "within" believers.
3. cannot be entered, nor even seen, apart from spiritual rebirth.
4. is not of this world.
5. has nothing to do with substances like "food and drink," but rather is manifested in the changed character of individual Christians.
6. is not simply a message, but a demonstration of spiritual power.
7. is an incorruptible Kingdom that cannot be inherited by corruption - our mere "flesh and blood."
8. is the present reality where we are "translated" when we are delivered from the powers of darkness.
9. is where God has "called" us in saving us.
10. is not earthly, but "heavenly."
11. "cannot be moved" - i.e., is of a spiritual nature.
12. is "everlasting" even in its final manifestation.
In my estimation, then, the Scriptures are quite clear as to the precise nature of the Kingdom.
Survey the popular prophecy teachings of our day. All manner of make-shift explanations are put forth to offset this clear fact.
But the fact remains: the Kingdom of God and of His Christ is a present spiritual reality that is being extended in this age.
This is the Kingdom that is the focus of the faith of Abraham -- Heb. 11:8-10.
I agree. This, as well as all biblical subjects, should ideally be discussed objectively.
You also wrote: "I have chosen not to enter into the midst of the debate over eschatology on these threads but rather have mostly posted info to clarify issues historically. I will defer your specific questions to others. They are valid questions, but not ones I want to address in this forum. Hope you understand."
Of course.
Getting back to the historical focus that you want to maintain, have you noticed if dispensationalists have taken your suggestion and "welcomed and further initiated more extensive exegesis of the key texts" since you wrote your article in 1979?
It hasn't seemed so to me. Just the opposite seems to be the case. But I could be wrong.
In the final analysis the critical issue is not simple consistency of a theological "package” but rather fidelity to the biblical texts. Therefore, dispensationalists should welcome and furthermore initiate more extensive exegesis of the key texts. Dispensational commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, are just too few and far between to suit this writer.Well put, drstevej. Any system is only as useful as it faithfully summarizes and encapsulates the whole teaching of the Scriptures. I'd love to see table 1....
You say God deals with us thru "dispensations". I say nonsense, He deals with us through Grace.
A grade of anything less than an 'F' would not be consistent with 'Total Depravity' and if it was better than that, obviously God was totally respopnible and you should have been dismissed from the school for copying God's work. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.