I didn't indicate my position in the paper because that was not my purpose. Of the views presented in the paper my own are closer to Darby's one new covenant view. My comment on the lack of commentaries on Hebrews was a factual statement.
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 had told a friend via freep mail I'd send him a copy of the article and then decided to post it and get it to him that way plus provide some background to fellow freepers interested in eschatology.
It is my own opinion that there is far too much rancor over this issue. Having done a ThM at Dallas and a PhD at Westminster I have gained an appreciation for both covenant theologians and dispensationalists.
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.
"It is my own opinion that there is far too much rancor over this issue." 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.