Biblical Covenantalism, Volume 1

By Douglas W. Kennard and Paul Wegner

VOLUME ONE: Biblical Covenantalism in Torah: Judaism, Covenant Nomism, and Atonement

VOLUME TWO: Biblical Covenantalism in Prophets, Psalms, Early Judaism, and Gospels: Judaism, Covenant Nomism, and Kingdom Hope

VOLUME THREE: Biblical Covenantalism in New Testament Epistles: Engagement of the New Perspective and New Covenant Atonement


Biblical covenantalism is the backbone of the Old Testament and the root of salvation and ethics. This book offers a nuanced exploration of biblical theology with an emphasis on how biblical covenants set a complex trajectory for Israel's covenant relationships, salvation, ethics, and eschatology. Suzerainty treaty form positions the Mosaic covenant in a Deuteronomistic framework that elects Israel and rewards them with blessings based upon obedience to the stipulations of the covenant within which God has embraced them. Such a framework fits within covenant nomism (law), especially considering the majority of the stipulations' similarity to ancient Near Eastern law codes.

This perspective deepens awareness of biblical trajectory in interaction with early Jewish and Christian sources. Jewish metaphors inform Old Testament, rabbinic, and Messianic atonement. This view positions itself between the New Perspective and traditional Reformation views as well as Covenant theology and Dispensationalism, even as it distances itself from American Covenantalism, Theonomy, Natural law, and the prayer of Jabez. The biblical and second temple Jewish material provides a nuanced new perspective of Judaism. From this same covenantal root, the Biblical covenants ground an eschatological hope for the nation of Israel.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Nov 1, 2021
• ISBN: 9781666726749

Douglas W. Kennard

Douglas W. Kennard is professor of Christian Scriptures at Houston Graduate School of Theology. He is author of Petrine Studies (2022), A Biblical Theology of the Book of Isaiah (2020), A Biblical Theology of Hebrews (2018), The Gospel (2017), Epistemology and Logic in the New Testament (2016), Biblical Covenantalism—three volumes (2015), A Critical Realist’s Theological Method (2013), Messiah Jesus: Christology in His Day and Ours (2008), The Relationship Between Epistemology, Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology and Contextualization (1999), The Classical Christian God (2002), and, with Marv Pate, Deliverance Now and Not Yet (2003, 2005).

Book preview

1

Introduction

This book is about Biblical Covenantalism. Let me define these terms. Biblical because this book is a selected study of Biblical theology, that is, the Biblical text analyzed in its context will define the terms and agenda for how to approach covenantal material in the Bible and in Christianity.¹ An alternative view would propose theological covenants constructed by theologians, often composites of several biblical covenants.² Kennard joins others, such as Jeffrey Niehaus who view that such a theological covenantalism is neither biblical, nor helpful. Niehaus concludes his discussion as follows.

[theologically constructed covenants are] foreign to what covenants were in the ancient Near East, and also foreign to what they are in the Bible. Moreover, they only add confusion to any attempt to understand how the biblical covenants work, because they import an alien construct into the discussion and use it as a hermeneutical key.³

The term covenant entails a binding oath or a treaty genre that is familiar in the ancient Near East, increasing confidence for the promise being from a king or God.⁴ Mendenhall defines covenant as a solemn promise made binding by an oath, which may be either a verbal formula or a symbolic action.⁵ These symbolic actions include practices such as ceremonial meals or sacrifices. Whenever a covenant is involved, there is an official arrangement and a greater guarantee from the ones who bind themselves to underscore that the arrangement will be carried out. Of course, a party’s faithfulness or lack thereof is still dependent upon the character of the participants. The fact that God uses these genres to guarantee His promises and His Kingdom, increase a believer’s confidence that we should count on His guaranteed Word. Covenantalism means that I will focus on the system or strategy that these Biblical Covenants set out and wrestle with the relationship that these Jewish Covenants have for both Jews and Christians.

Varieties of Covenantalism

It is necessary to briefly differentiate Biblical Covenantalism from some of the theologically constructed alternatives, namely: Covenant Theology, Natural Law, Dispensationalism, American coventalism, Theonomy, Covenantal Judaism, Covenantal Nomism, and traditional models of the Law. This section will engage these options thus clearing away some of these structures so that the book can present a positive Biblical Covenantalism that diminishes traditional distractions.

I grew up in a series of Presbyterian churches that were loyal to the Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Westminster Confession sets out in chapter 7 of the confession: God’s Covenant with man as a voluntary condescension on God’s part, to establish relationship with His creatures, we humans.⁶ Westminster was a little different from the Covenant Theology framework in which I was catechized. We had a supralapsarian⁷ version of the first covenant made by God with Christ in eternity wherein the elect of all time could be wonderfully designated by God for salvation grounded in Ephesians 1:1:3–6, 11–12. In such a sovereign deterministic framework the second covenant (or the first according to Westminster) is with Adam, who fails and plunges humanity into sin: The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.⁸ I noticed later that neither of these first theological covenants was ever called a covenant (berit/בְּרִ֣ית, διαθήκην) in the Biblical text, which made me wonder if the concept of covenant that Covenant Theology was using was not in fact a human construct to describe an arrangement of God’s relation with humans. It seemed to me that they were using biblical words in a theological way not instanced in the Bible. For example, nowhere was the arrangement God made with Adam ever called a covenant in the Genesis descriptions around Adam.

Broadening the data field, some claim an Adamic covenant, based on Jer 33:20 statement covenant with the day and the covenant with the night. However, this claim does not contextually fit as a covenant with Adam for it actually is poetic language to underscore the certainty of the Davidic Covenant which is being discussed in the subsequent context.⁹ If there is any covenant allusion other than the Davidic Covenant in this poetic Jeremiah language then it is better to identify it with either priestly underpinning (Jer 33:22) or the Noahic Covenant which includes similar remarks to emphasize the continual everlasting day and night on the earth as promising no more global floods (Gen 8:21–22). However, in the context I think that the poetry of Jer 33:20 could simply be a vivid reassurance of God’s commitment to David. Either way, God’s prior everlasting commitments ground His latter everlasting promises.

Additionally, Hos 6:7 is claimed to corroborate an Adamic Covenant of Works because it states that, "like Adam [k’dm/כְּאָדָ֖ם] Israel transgressed a covenant [brt/בְרִ֑ית]."¹⁰ Notice first that there is no article before covenant so no specific covenant is identified. Some resolve the issue by altering the כְּ of "like Adam in the text to בְ thus to read in the land (בְאָדָ֖ם) Israel transgressed a covenant."¹¹ Thus rebellion is seen as occurring both in the wilderness (Hos 2:3) and subsequently also unfortunately in the land by Israel. However, the same conclusion can be obtained without altering the text with the following meaning.¹² Israel sinned paradigmatically as did Adam, though Israel did so by violating the Mosaic Covenant. The book of Hosea develops that Israel’s sin occurred broadly in the wilderness and in the land. Such broad rebellion by Israel fits the theme of the book of Hosea without developing any specific allusion to a construct of an Adamic covenant.

Perhaps some might conjecture an Adamic covenant from ben Siraḥ 17.11–12 in which God created humanity and gave them an everlasting covenant. However, this everlasting covenant is the life giving Law and thus is better identified with the Mosaic Covenant than an allusion to a covenant with Adam.

Furthermore, broad parallels such as Adam and Christ do not require each to be associated with a biblical covenant for the literary parallel to work meaningfully in their context (such as Rom 5:12–21).¹³ Parallel allusions can be very meaningful without each being identified with a covenant, such as in the comparisons between Melchizedek and Christ, or the antichrist and Christ. So, these Romans 5 parallels do not argue for an Adamic covenant; such a theological construct would need to be supported by the details of the biblical text. Likewise, the word "establish" (qm/קִמֹ, στήσω) used with covenant in Gen 6:18 and 9:11 does not mean an extending of a prior covenant arrangement (as in Gen 17:7, 19; 26:3; Exod 6:4; Lev 26:9) implying that there must be an Adamic covenant continuing in the Noahic Covenant. Rather, these words (qm/קִמֹ, στήσω) also indicate establishing something for the first time (as in Exod 26:30) and establishing something for this one time (as in Deut 27:2; Josh 4:9, 20). In fact, the choice of using the hiphil preterite in Genesis 6:18 and 9:11 indicates that the Noahic Covenant will in the future be established with Noah without raising an issue about any past covenantal continuity. Any sense of continuing a covenant from before needs to be developed in the context where the characters appear (as is accomplished contextually in Gen 17:7, 19; 26:3; Exod 6:4; Lev 26:9). Therefore, because there is no clear biblical statement that there is a pre-existing covenant (such as an Adamic covenant) before the Noahic it is better to see Gen 6:18 and 9:11 as establishing the Noahic Covenant for the first time, as Gen 9 contextually develops.

More recently Jeffrey Niehaus and Meredith Kline have argued that the Genesis creation account has the components of suzerainty (or Great King) treaty and thus they claim the presence of an Adamic covenant.¹⁴ This form of ancient Near Eastern treaty will be discussed later in this chapter. The treaty components that they identify with the creation account include: 1) God and Adam being introduced with a historical narrative, 2) private communication taking place between players, 3) stipulations, and 4) consequences of curse/blessing. However, these details do not require there to be a covenant in the Genesis creation text, so I would be suspicious of imposing such a form critical idea upon a text that neither claims to be a covenant, nor shows the full formal criteria. Additionally, Jeffrey Niehaus imposes a suzerainty treaty historical prologue on the creation text (Gen 1:2–29) that goes beyond the start of his stipulations (Gen 1:28),¹⁵ which is truly unique since no other suzerainty treaty overlaps these two features.¹⁶ Likewise, if a formal analysis is the primary reason to consider Gen 1–3 to be a suzerainty treaty, one should wonder where the other identifying features of suzerainty treaty are in this creation text, such as: 1) treaty validation by an oath, meal or sacrifice, 2) designated witnesses as witnesses to hold the parties accountable, and 3) storage and reading instructions of the document. Essential and regular features of suzerainty treaty are missing from Gen 1–3. I conclude that Neuhaus and Kline have superficially imposed suzerainty treaty elements upon the Gen 1–3 creation text. Additionally, Niehaus admits that his seeing formal suzerainty treaty elements lie outside the pericope, 1:1–2:3,¹⁷ since he views stipulation in Gen 2:16–17a and curse in Gen 2:17b. Wouldn’t the structural division between the creation accounts, such as 1) the use of toledot/תוֹלְד֧וֹת in Gen 2:4 (which is used as a hinge between units throughout Genesis), and 2) the theological use of Elohim in Gen 1:1–2:3 in contrast to the use of Yahweh in the second literary unit, argue against appeals to transpose the Gen 1–2:17 text into a unified covenant?

Furthermore, by comparing Gen 1–3 with actual Hittite and Egyptian suzerainty treaties it is apparent that the creation text is far more of a narrative genre with a cosmology focus than an international suzerainty treaty with its political, military, and legal issues (such as returning runaway slaves and being available to defend the borders).¹⁸ Such a cosmological narrative genre of Gen 1–3 is more closely related to ancient Near Eastern cosmological texts (such as, Eridu Genesis, Atrḥasis, Enuma Elish, and The Gilgimesh Epic) because all of these cosmology genre not only have structural similarities such as narrative, private communication, stipulations, and consequences without their being viewed as suzerainty treaties, but they also have theological discussions about a creation process in the context, including elements of: chaos, separation of water from dry land, cosmological purposes, the purposes and blessings of humanity, the establishment of sacred time, and accounts of preservation in the midst of flood.¹⁹ These cosmological features are all deeply identified with the genre of cosmology and virtually absent from non-biblical suzerainty treaty accounts. So for reasons of form, it is best to view Gen 1–3 as cosmological narrative, rather than Adamic covenant or covenants or suzerainty treaty or natural law in a derivative form from them.²⁰

It should also be noticed that while the tree of life was available to Adam, there was no promise of life in Gen 1–3 to Adam and his posterity as Westminster claimed; instead, in Genesis God threatened Adam with death if he ate from a particular tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17). Of course, Adam fell into sin and thus the continued blessing was altered with futility and curse. God provides some benefit, such as better clothes but there is no mention of animals being sacrificed for purposes of atonement. Instead, God responds to human sin by plunging humanity into futility and exclusion from Himself and His garden.

The Westminster Confession of Faith articulates in two statements a Covenant of Grace providing salvation by Christ and applying it through the Holy Spirit.²¹

VII.

3

. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace: whereby he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

4

. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

The Westminster Longer Catechism explains that this covenant of grace was administered in both the Old Testament with the future Messianic hope, and since the New Testament with those ordinances instituted by Christ.

A

34

: The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the Passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

A

35

: Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.²²

As a young Christian I resonated with the wonderfully abundant and unified salvation plan in Christ that Covenant Theology provided but I noticed that covenant terminology was not often utilized with regard to Christ’s salvation for us except when there were earlier covenants such as the New or Abrahamic Covenants which were somehow being applied to the Christian in Christ. Again this left me with the distinct impression that Covenant Theology was ignoring Biblical Covenantalism present in the Bible and replacing it with a meaningful human construct.

Meredith Kline and W. J. Dumbrell tried to connect these Biblical and theological covenants by combining the Noahic through the New Covenant into a theological construct of the Covenant of Grace because, there is a fundamental unity among all the individual covenants²³ after the Fall. I recognize with Kline and Dumbrell that there is a telescoping unity of the Abrahamic, Mosaic and New covenants, but the Noahic and the Davidic covenants have distinctive features that do not easily fit this unity without arbitrarily diminishing important aspects. For example, the Noahic Covenant is a whole world covenant for humans and animals; it is not really an election covenant for Israel, such as the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New covenants.²⁴

Usually when these covenants are all unified into a theological covenant, the purpose for Israel is diminished under a supercessionism²⁵ that replaces Israel with a focus on the Church. In such a configuration the Church becomes the elect of all ages.²⁶ Furthermore, to let something as broad as grace be the unifying principle of these covenants truncates many of the specific promises and nearly all the obligations of each specific covenant. Hasn’t God a purpose in the Biblical covenants for Israel in the context in which He revealed and utilized them? Additionally, Heb 8:13 points out that there is some disunity and obsolescence of the Mosaic Covenant when Jewish believers join in the New Covenant with their Messiah. Likewise, the distinctive features of each covenant rarely indicated a messianic realization or typology without conjecturing it from the New Testament and again diminishing what the Old Testament biblical text actually said. Wouldn’t understanding the richness of these biblical covenants in the earlier Jewish context provide valuable insight for understanding Israel’s relationship with God, unpacking some of this covenantal uniqueness, and undergirding Israel’s future? That is, I think that these Covenant theology approaches are especially focused on the Church’s application for today, in that it should be noticed that they did not mine the ancient Near Eastern context with sufficient depth to get it right for Israel, and that left the supercessionists askew for the Church as well. Aren’t we in danger of missing what the Bible said by co-opting the term covenant for something else of a human construction, even if this construction was trying to reconfigure biblical material?

Reformed Theology in general sees that the Mosaic Law has three distinct roles: 1) the Law shows the sinner’s sins as an extension of the Covenant of works,²⁷ thus 2) the Law helps to motivate concerning the need for atonement,²⁸ and 3) the Law provides divine guidance for the Christian’s spiritual development.²⁹ In this model there is recognition of Spirit-cultivated righteousness as a virtue in life to reflect our justification in Christ (Rom 5:1, 15–21; 8:1–17). The notion that the Bible has Christian value resonated, but I wondered if we Christians too quickly moved to application; so often what was affirmed by evangelicals from the Law had little to do with the specifics commanded or promised to Israel.

Furthermore, the threefold division of the Law into moral, civil and ceremonial law beginning with Aquinas³⁰ seemed arbitrary. This traditional three fold division is not developed in the biblical text or ancient Near Eastern treaty form. The Reformed tradition joins with these other traditions in seeing the ceremonial Law as having ceased in Christ’s incarnational coming.³¹

In the traditional Reformed perspective, the Ten Commandments are binding as the moral Law, including Sabbath-keeping, being changed from the Jewish pattern (Friday sundown until Saturday sundown) to Sunday in celebration of Christ’s resurrection day.³² This change of Sabbath seems arbitrary, with no biblical text providing a rationale for explaining such a change. Furthermore, where in the biblical Law text does the Law identify itself as being divided into moral law with continuing spiritual value, while other parts such as the ceremonial law are to be allegorized to Christ or Christian ordinances³³?

Occasionally, the Reformed and Catholic traditions see all aspects of the moral law as natural law.³⁴ Natural law began with stoicism³⁵ but emerged into Christendom through Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Augustine as they resist the Jewishness of the Bible as well as Jewish Christians contemporary to them. Likewise, the Roman Catholic tradition especially embraces natural law, following Aquinas’ Aristotelian moral causality.

Natural law theory proposes that the content of its laws is set by nature and thus validly binding everywhere on everyone. This book will not take up the broader question of the validity of natural law with its rights orientation but rather with the issue of the relationship to biblical covenants and biblical law as an important concern. Notice that if the biblical law is instead within an ancient Near Eastern covenant genre, then the issue is privileges in relationship instead of rights. In such an ancient Near Eastern covenant framework relationship supersedes rights. That is, in a covenant relationship, the vassal³⁶ cannot insist on his rights. The interests of the Great King were of primary and ultimate concern.³⁷ This would mean that any that has a covenantal relationship should be humble and appreciative in the wake of the generosity of the one who bestows the covenant relationship. The covenant is guaranteed completely by the character of the covenant provider and one’s compliance within the generous framework which the covenant initiates.

The Decalogue was identified with natural law by Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine in order to diminish the Jewishness of biblical law and apologetically show that the Decalogue and Logos Christ’s New Law fulfilled the eternal natural law.³⁸ For example, Justin argues that eternal righteous acts are in keeping with nature. Additionally, Irenaeus has a prolonged discussion that excludes Sabbath from natural law as part of the temporary ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, even though he views the Decalogue as loosely identical to natural law.³⁹ However, Irenaeus does not explain his inconsistency in maintaining the Decalogue as natural law while one of the Decalogue commands (Sabbath) is excluded from natural law. Furthermore, Tertullian sees all natural law virtues as summed up in Christ and thus also in the eternal Logos, prior to the Law as the basis for identifying Noah as righteous. So Tertullian sees Mosaic Law as a Jewish modification of natural law. Additionally, Augustine claims that the Spirit empowers the Christian to live the natural law, which is loosely identified with the Decalogue.

On a different trajectory, Eusebius dismisses the Mosaic Law as an unfortunate departure from the universal religion of the patriarchs which grounds the antiquity of Christianity to which all ethnicities belong.⁴⁰ Eusebius recognizes that the Mosaic Law places the O.T. into strictures for the election of Israel, which he considers weakens the cause for Christianity because it ties Christianity to a demon-weakened Israel from the context of Egypt.

The theological and ethical cause for natural law was substantially clarified in Christendom by Thomas Aquinas’ affirmation of natural law. However, there is no place where Aquinas identified natural law with biblical Law as had Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Augustine, even though Aquinas embraces both natural law and biblical Law as binding, and that natural law is an expression of God’s general revelation light.⁴¹ Normally, The Summa Theologica (I, second part, question 94, article 2) is claimed to identify natural law with biblical Law⁴² but instead, in his article, Aquinas discusses natural law as coming through nature without reference to the written Mosaic Law. Thus, to make such an identification of natural law with the written Mosaic Law would go counter to Aquinas’ argument and the consideration of natural law specialists,⁴³ for natural law is accessible without special revelation. In fact, in the context, Aquinas sees that natural law is clearly not identical to biblical Law because Aquinas considers that natural law is corrected by and added to by biblical Law.⁴⁴ Furthermore, Aquinas only mentions Rom 2:14 with regard to natural law as an objection⁴⁵ and identifies that Rom 1 vices were not being considered to be sins in some cultures, which identifies that many biblical sins are not natural law grounded for cultures to refuse them.⁴⁶ Additionally, on the basis of Rom 8:14, Aquinas makes the case that biblical Law of grace is more efficacious than natural law because only those led by the Spirit submit to biblical Law, whereas, many more submit to natural law.⁴⁷ Therefore, Mosaic Law and natural law are not to be identified in Aquinas, even though he claims they both govern humanity.

How can one defend that there is a natural law for Sabbath keeping, which is part of the Ten Commandments? Aquinas does not attempt to defend the Ten Commandments through natural law arguments. In contrast, the medieval Jewish interpreter Uriel de Costa defended natural law, as Irenaeus had done, by highlighting that there are many things in biblical Law that are not supported by natural law: sacrifices, multigenerational curse, and Sabbath.⁴⁸ Additionally, many adherents of the Reformed tradition have moderated their thorough Reformed view to no longer practice Sabbath-keeping as Irenaeus and Uriel de Costa had, thereby cutting this Decalogue command from natural law. Doesn’t this moderated Reformed approach indicate some practical inconsistency in not complying with part of the Decalogue? Furthermore, wouldn’t such a perspective motivate recognition that natural law is not identical to Biblical Law?

Finally, aren’t natural law advocates likely to simply choose their world view preferences and intuitions as Immanuel Kant claims people will operate in his Critique of Practical Reason and the Critique of Judgment?⁴⁹ Kant sees such a traditional ethic as deficient communal bias and calls all to a transcendental absolute of what can be universalized with positive benefits. Additionally, to continue to utilize natural law would likely mean that the advocate would need to defend that what is should govern what ought to be, contrary to David Hume’s claims that such a shift depends upon personal inference or preference rather than any observed data.⁵⁰ Furthermore, to defend that what is governs what ought to be is a rather difficult defense to accomplish unless one intuitionally recognizes this connection as so. However, unless a defense for this intuition is provided, the advocate for natural law is merely assuming or existentially choosing this commitment to natural law. If one tries to recover is implies ought by appealing to biblical creation or eschatological trajectory then one has removed the discussion from natural law to that of a biblical revelational ethic.⁵¹

Such a variety of inferences about Covenant Theology inclined me to consider Dispensationalism. At college in 1972, I first read Charles Ryrie’s clear statement of Dispensationalism. He pointed out that the term dispensation was reflective of the Biblical term οἰκονομίας,⁵² but I noticed that rarely was the term used in the Bible itself as Dispensationalism used it of God’s purposeful economy with a distinct group of humans. Were we left to replace one human construct for another; Dispensationalism for Westminster?

Ryrie called attention to the sine qua non or essence that defined Dispensationalism as:⁵³

1

) A Dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct.

2

) Uses a Literal Hermeneutic.

3

) Affirms that everything heads toward the glory of God.

I wondered if this essence of Dispensationalism was very helpful in clarifying these different approaches. I thought that such a definition was not helpful in clearly defining Dispensationalism. I attended a conservative Bible church in Ithaca when I was a student at Cornell University. This church maintained a literal or normal hermeneutic and from that framework recognized a premillennial postribulationalism that maintained that Israel was distinct from the Church, and that everything heads ultimately toward the glory of God. Our church provided new members with a Scofield Reference Bibles because they wanted us to have the helps that a good reference Bible can provide. However, our church intentionally expressed its doctrinal statement as a three covenant version of Covenant Theology. If the sine qua non for Dispensationalism did not identify Dispensationalism exclusively and if Covenant Theology could embrace them, then defining Dispensationalism by this sine qua non was not very helpful. Was being a Dispensationalist merely owning the name Dispensationalist, while maintaining this distinctive, when many others maintained the same distinctive and eschewed the name, and thus were not Dispensationalists?

Focusing more closely, Robert Saucy proposed that the primary tenet of dispensationalist is the prophetic hope and final restoration of Israel.⁵⁴ Such an Israel-informed premillennialism is often associated with Dispensationalism but it is more telling of the perspective of fundamentalism, which overlaps significantly with Dispensationalism.⁵⁵ That is, there were fundamentalists who advocated a future millennial reign of Christ that restores Israel as a fulfillment of O.T. prophecy, who eschew Dispensationalism. A prime example is Allan MacRae who as a Covenantal Theologian left the faculty of Westminster Seminary over his commitment to premillennialism in order to found Faith Theological Seminary (later renamed Biblical Theological Seminary to distance the school from co-founder Carl McIntire). MacRae’s commitment to premillennialism was apparent not only in his separation from Westminster Seminary but also in his exposition of the O.T.⁵⁶ So once again, Covenant Theology can advocate the primary tenet of dispensationalism. Was being a Dispensationalist merely owning the name Dispensationalist, while maintaining this tenet, when many others maintained the same tenet and eschewed the name, and thus were not Dispensationalists?

Furthermore, Dispensationalists claimed to be literal or normal in their essential hermeneutic,⁵⁷ which I thought would render inappropriate any allegorical interpreting of the biblical text as they do selectively, especially with regard to Levitical sacrifices.⁵⁸ Quite possibly, the Levitical sacrifices have a meaningful role in their genre of Mosaic Covenant that the prophets, second Temple Judaism, Mishnah, Talmud, and the New Testament extrapolate further. This would mean that each extrapolation enriches the idea rather than allegorizes its meaning away into something else. Such allegorization would then be rather similar to demythologization. Should Dispensationalists call themselves by this descriptive if they violate their own sine qua non, or are these sine qua non not very helpful differentiators as these interpreters continue to call themselves Dispensationalists?

Most Dispensationalism that I knew present seven economies often initiated by biblical covenants that were declared to have failed and were thus rendered obsolete and no longer applicable so the next economy could begin.⁵⁹ For example, this Dispensational framework joined Tertullian’s perspective⁶⁰ in seeing that the Law is temporary for Israel before the cross and only has continued benefit for us in the twenty first century in its role of showing how we all fall short of its righteous standards, so that we will then depend upon Christ’s forgiveness for our sins. In this model, to be righteous is something only God can graciously provide as a gift, since righteousness is defined by comparison with God and Christ, so we all fall short. In such a salvation model, Christ’s righteousness is legally given to our account, so that in Christ we are wonderfully justified.

Extending the Dispensationalist’s view that previous economies have failed, some forms of Dispensationalism surprisingly are uncomfortable with some of Jesus’ teaching because it is pre-cross from within the economy of Law, and thus viewed as no longer applicable to Christians. These extreme forms of Dispensationalism are shocking for people who try to live in Christ’s narrow way. However, thankfully many Dispensationalists don’t believe this way. These extreme versions of Dispensationalism lose essentially half the New Testament and all of Jesus’ life and teachings to the Law economy thus rendering half the New Testament largely irrelevant to the Church. In such a framework Jesus is reduced to an atoning death and resurrection simply to provide a salvation ticket. That is, in the Dispensationalist economy of Grace, many forms of Dispensationalism would then mean that the Law does not have an edification purpose for the Church, except to show sin, or maybe to allegorically point to types of Christ or the Spirit.⁶¹ Again, I thought such allegorical interpretation was not what Dispensationalists meant by normal interpretation.

Furthermore, such a view of the impotence of previous economies’ covenants seemed arbitrary, since regularly the biblical covenants made claims that they were everlasting in nature (Gen 9:11–16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod 31:13–17; 2 Sam 7:13, 16; Jer 31:35–37; 33:17–18). Additionally, believers living in later economies continued to allow these earlier covenants to be affecting moral decisions as they interacted with them several economies later (for example, Gen 9:9–17; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25).

Ryrie cites Chafer to define Israel as an earthly people and [with] earthly objectives and the Church as a heavenly people and [with] heavenly objectives.⁶² Such a definition is not very helpful, since Christians clearly have an earthly presence as well, and once the idea of resurrection developed among Pharisaic and sectarian Judaism, Israel also had a heavenly expression as well.⁶³ Isn’t the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the God of the living as was argued by Rabbi Simai, Rabbi Yohanan and Jesus Christ (Matt 22:31–32)⁶⁴? This sounds like a heavenly resurrection objective shared by Pharisaism, Christ and the Church. Furthermore, the term ἐκκλησίᾳ (normally translated church in the N.T.) is utilized about one hundred times in LXX to describe Israel’s self-identity.⁶⁵ There is a concentration of this use of ἐκκλησίᾳ as a direct activity within the gathered assembly of Israel (LXX: Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 31:30; 1 Chr 28:8; Acts 7:38) but there also are instances in which the continuing entity of Israel is referred to as the assembly (LXX: Deut 23:2–4, 9; 1 Chr 28:8). The majority of instances are from post-captivity books with about 40 percent coming from Chronicles. Perhaps a better definition for Israel would be a national, ethnic, and religious lineage of Abraham. This new definition of Israel indicates that the Christian Church is not identical to Israel because there remains an ethnic and national presence of Jews, even today not to be identified as the Christian Church. It also indicates that Israel’s religious lineage may be fruitful in informing more than Israel, since both Christianity and Islam draw from this deep Abrahamic well without becoming Jews or replacing Israel.

Often in the N.T., Israel is described as a nation in Abraham’s lineage broadly rejecting Christ and persecuting the Church (Acts 8:1, 3), showing both continuity with the Church and a parting of the ways. However, within Abraham’s religious lineage there is the possibility of Israel considering God and the heavenlies in ways that extend into the Church. Many times biblical prophets and second Temple Judaisms position themselves within heavenly minded and heavenly-participating merkabah (divine throne/chariot) mysticism.⁶⁶ Such merkabah mysticism is viewed as an ecstatic ascent to heaven by the righteous as participating in the age to come, which has already dawned in heaven, but not yet descended to earth (Isa 6; Ezek 1:15–26; Rom 6:3–14; Eph 1:1–2:7).⁶⁷ In this view, the Jewish and Christian worshipper encounters the glory of God by being raised into His presence (Isa 6; Ezek 1:15–26; Eph 1:3, 6, 12, 14, 18, 20–22).⁶⁸ Both Pauline and second Temple sources appreciate that this form of mysticism occurs within the community of believers rather than for an individual mystic. Such a view employs the notion of corporate personality, where a representative figure does a deed and others align themselves in the benefits made available by mystically being identified within the representative, especially in Adam, in Abraham, in Moses or in Christ (Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8; John 9:28; Rom 4:1–16; 5:14–21; Gal 3:6–18).⁶⁹

From this recognition of continuity from Judaism to Paul, the Christian Church should be defined as the local and universal assembly of believers in Christ, participating in the religious lineage of Abraham. This definition celebrates the continuity with Israel (lineage of Abraham) while distinguishing it meaningfully from the continuing expression of Israel (for the Church believes in Christ while few Israelites believe Jesus is the Christ). Those ethnic Jews who believe Jesus is the Christ may be both in Israel and Christianity simultaneously. However, most Christians would not be part of Israel even though they share some of the heritage of the religious lineage of Abraham. The shared heritage of Israel and the Church is part of what this book is about.

Some Dispensationalists identify that the Church does not begin until Spirit baptism of believers in Acts 2:4–18.⁷⁰ First, the word ἐκκλησίᾳ (assembly) repeatedly translates qhl/ קְהַ֥ל throughout the O.T. and second Temple literature to identify Israel as an assembly (Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:2–4, 9; 31:30).⁷¹ This meaning of ἐκκλησίᾳ referencing Israel is preserved even into the N.T. as well (Acts 7:38; Heb 2:12 quoting Ps 22:22). So, unless the context identifies which ἐκκλησίᾳ is intended, the term actually draws the nation of Israel into further overlap with the Christian Church since both are described by the same term. However, contrary to some Dispensationalists, the context identifies ἐκκλησίᾳ as the Christian disciples even in the gospel of Matthew before the Pentecost bestowal of the Spirit of God (Matt 16:18; 18:17). For example, when Jesus taught His disciples about church discipline, utilizing ἐκκλησίᾳ (church) in Matt 18:17, it looks as if this church discipline recovery unto Kingdom is already applicable for the disciples in the context. Peter responded to Jesus’ church discipline discussion with a question about forgiveness that shows he understands that this recovery instruction is already binding and in effect, which then implies that the Church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) is already present before the cross as Jesus’ discipleship band (Matt 18:3–21–35). Church discipline is only relevant if the Church already exists. That is, even before Pentecost, Jesus is already growing His Church as the band of followers around Himself (Matt 16:18 similar to Kingdom in Matt 13:31–33).

Likewise, some Dispensationalists do not permit the Kingdom as an economy to begin until Jesus’ second coming and seating on the Davidic throne in millennium. However, Jesus sketches out His narrow way with beatitudes which identify that these poor in spirit and persecuted followers of Jesus are already in Kingdom (based on Matt 5:3, 10 present tenses in contrast to the context of future tenses of Matt 5:4–9). Likewise, Jesus tells Kingdom parables that identify that the current situation of the Son of Man’s Kingdom is that of a growing, and permeating band of disciples in the world along with sons of the evil one, so that eventually angels will gather these non-elect out of the world (the Son of Man’s present Kingdom) to allow the righteous to shine forth continuing in the Father’s Kingdom (Matt 13:31–35, 38, 41). With the Son of Man’s Kingdom already being the world, Kingdom has already begun. Such a presence of Kingdom was evident in that Jesus was declared King at His birth (Matt 2:2).⁷² God has already declared Jesus to be the Davidic King and provided Him with the Davidic and Divine throne and other accouterments to reign, which reign will be especially realized when Jesus’ enemies will be utterly defeated (Heb 1: 4–5; 8–13).⁷³ Furthermore, Jesus functions as Davidic King in the bestowal of the Spirit of God upon the disciples (Acts 2:30, 33–35).

Some Dispensationalists have allowed Biblical Covenants to inform political strategy. An American commitment to support Israel is regularly included and partly motivated to allow America to be blessed in reciprocation to our blessing Israel (Gen 12:3). Such an approach gives Israel great latitude in their behavior toward the Palestinians and Arab states. This view recognizes that Biblical covenants are binding several economies later, contrary to many dispesationalist’s claims. To the extent that Dispensationalists maintain contradictions [such as: 1) when a new economy comes into being, previous covenants no longer are applicable and 2) a previous economy’s covenant is binding several economies later], Dispensationalism shows its hermeneutic to be at times arbitrarily driven by a theological agenda. Instead ethically, Israel should love her neighbors, the Palestinians, and behave righteously toward them, and likewise, Palestinians should follow the same ethic as well toward Israel (Lev 19:15–18; Num 15:26, 29). We Christians should try to do good to all humanity, especially the household of faith (Gal 6:10). This means that we Christians should especially look out for and protect our Christian brethren within this conflict, most notably the Palestinian Christians.

Often, what is not recognized in this context is that the biblical covenants are in tension with each other; the blessing of God’s election in the Abrahamic Covenant may very well be in tension to the Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenants which at present leave much of Israel under divine curse. For example, if Jews are not faithfully obeying the Mosaic Covenant then they immerse themselves in Deuteronomic Covenant curse (Deut 27:15–26; 28:15–29:28). If Jesus is the Messiah, then a rejection of this Messiah happens to the peril of both people and nation on the basis of the Davidic and New Covenants (Ps 2; Matt 26:64–65; Acts 3:19–26; Rom 11:17, 20; Heb 10:29–31). A fuller awareness of the whole covenant program should be engaged rather than a selective reading of only a part. Since Israel is both blessed and cursed of God, a nuanced political sensitivity should develop an ethic of respect among both Palestinians and Israelis living in the land. Likewise, since Christianity should be especially concerned for doing good for the household of faith (Gal 6:10), we should not forget that most of the Christians living in the land of Israel are Palestinians.

There is common ground among Progressive Dispensationalism, Progressive Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology and some Biblical Theology as all wish to see more unity than traditional Dispensationalism tends to claim and more diversity than traditional Covenant Theology maintains.⁷⁴ There is a tendency for scholars in this mixed traditional ground to try to reflect biblical thought forms into their organizing theology and nuance their concepts a bit closer to the biblical text’s variety. For example, some of the blessings that Israel has promised and covenanted by God are shared by the Church.⁷⁵ This is especially apparent around the concept of the Kingdom and the Davidic throne. It seems that Jesus was born King of the Jews (Matt 2:2–8), that Jesus’ Kingdom is present already (Matt 5:3, 10; 13:24, 38, 41) with a greater form of Kingdom for which we pray and are reassured will come (Matt 6:10; Heb 1:5–13). In this Kingdom, Jesus is already seated and effective on His Davidic Kingly throne, as is evident by His pouring forth the Spirit (Acts 2:30–36; Heb 1:5, 8). Therefore, a focus on the divine revelation of biblical covenants is preferred over these human constructs of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

Another popular covenantal view is that of American covenantalism or Christian nationalism, which claims that America has Christian roots in which God covenanted with the settlers to found the nation. Jerry Falwell has called us to come back to the faith of our fathers, to the Bible of our fathers, and to the biblical principles that our fathers use as a premise for this nation’s establishment.⁷⁶ In his 1988 presidential bid, Pat Robertson said that the Ten Commandments are the bedrock of America, and that God inspired our Founding Fathers to say that all men are created equal.⁷⁷ Richard Kyle recognizes:

Basic to the Christian country is the notion that America was a chosen nation-the New Israel, a city on a hill. This special relationship was sealed by a covenant with God, which is implied in the quasi sacred documents of American history-namely, the Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Lincoln’ Gettysburg Address.⁷⁸

Kyle views that