Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Mark Snoeberger, “Traditional Dispensationalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

Mark Snoeberger contributed a spirited and competent defense of the traditional dispensational position.

I agree with Snoeberger on a number of points:

1. I agree with Snoeberger’s dispensing with the term “literal hermeneutics” since “literal” has multiple senses, and these are often conflated by both critics and adherents alike. The term “originalist” is a good substitution.

2. I agree that “clearly stated promises, specific referents thereof, or words with plainly established meanings cannot change with the passing of time” (154-55).

3. I agree that God will fulfill his promises to Abraham and his redeemed physical seed as promised (156).

4. I agree that the term Israel refers to Jacob as an individual, to the Israelite/Jewish ethnicity, to the civil nation of Israel, and to believing Israelites. I agree that Galatians 6:16 does not identify the church as the Israel of God (though I do not adopt the same interpretation of that verse as Snoeberger) (157).

5. I agree that in some cases (such as in the series of Davidic kings between David and Christ) there is a kind of “generic/serial fulfillment” (161-62). However, I would see this occurring in conjunction with typology rather than in opposition to it.

6. I agree with Snoeberger’s rejection of an overarching covenant of grace (163-64).

7. I agree that the Noahic covenant is “a unilateral, universal, promissory covenant” (168).

8. I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is “a unilateral, promissory grant ” (169).

9. I agree that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by Christ and is now no longer in force (170-71).

10. I agree that nations will still exist in the eternal state under the ultimate reign of God (178-79).

I disagree with Snoeberger on a number of points:

1. Snoeberger roots his defense of dispensationalism in a defense of the spirituality of the church (150, 165-66), however there are multiple versions of this doctrine, and some were used to shield the church from addressing moral issues that it ought to have condemned, such as slavery. Those using the concept should specify which version they are using and defend their view against the concern that the doctrine prevents the church from addressing current moral issues. I’m also puzzled by Snoeberger’s embrace of two kingdom theology given that he holds to a postponement view of the kingdom (164). Two kingdoms theology and traditional dispensationalism are incompatible.  I’m befuddled by the appeal to concepts developed by covenant theologians (spirituality of the church, two kingdoms theology) as key distinctives of dispensationalism.

2. The fundamental error of traditional dispensationalists is the failure to “base their insistence on originalist hermeneutics upon a discursive study of Scripture’s own use of itself” (154). This error is replete in traditional dispensational writers. They often begin by laying out their hermeneutic as if it is axiomatic and then insist that all passages conform to this hermeneutic without having first demonstrated the validity of their hermeneutic. Here Snoeberger explicitly affirms this approach. This approach violates the sufficiency of Scripture, since Scripture’s own self-interpretation should be the foundation for any biblical hermeneutic.

3. I disagree that progressive revelation is only about “details of ‘time and circumstance'” or revealing implications, analogies, or illustrations (154-55). Types cannot be reduced to “figures of speech” (157), and while typology involves analogy, it cannot be reduced to mere analogy (160). These seem to be expedients to save the system.

4. I do not agree that “implication” is better than typology with regard to the use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2, in the case of the use of Amos 9 in Acts 15, or in the use of Joel 2 in Acts 2 (161). I think Psalm 16 is likely a direct messianic prophecy. Regarding Acts 15, the inclusion of the Gentiles as Gentiles within the people of God is only possible due to a redemptive-historical shift, and that shift is the arrival of the Davidic king. Amos 9 has not been entirely fulfilled, but it has begun to be fulfilled—which is what James recognized. Snoeberger is also wrong to say that none of Joel 2’s prophecies were fulfilled at Pentecost. The Spirit was poured out. The strained interpretations of these texts demonstrate the implausibility of the traditional dispensational system.

6. While I think it is possible that NT writers at times borrow language from the OT scriptures simply because that is the language in which the NT writers were immersed, when I dig into a passage quoted by the NT, I’m usually impressed with how contextual the NT use of the Old is (162-63).

7. I would make clearer that apart from union with Christ, the Seed of Abraham, none of the physical seed of Abraham will ultimately enjoy the promise. Furthermore, the church is not called the seed of Abraham merely by analogy (156). Rather, Gentiles are the seed of Abraham by virtue of being in the Seed of Abraham (Gal 3). Furthermore, they are no longer strangers to the covenant of promise (Eph 2). The promises are extended to them as well in a way appropriate to them. This is even anticipated and hinted at in Genesis. To reduce this to analogy is to fail to adopt an originalist interpretation of Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2.

8. I don’t agree that the benefits promised in the Abrahamic, Davidic, or new covenants are directly given to Israel alone (168) (except insofar as all benefits, to Jew and Gentile, come through union with Christ) or that Galatians 3:15 or Romans 11:29 prevents Gentiles from being partakers of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant (156). The Abrahamic covenant itself speaks of the future inclusion of Gentiles. The Old Testament also predicted that Gentiles would benefit from the Davidic covenant as the Messiah ruled over all nations. New Testament revelation explains how this inclusion takes place and what it entails. While the new covenant was promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, it was not actually cut until the cross. Ephesians 2 indicates that Christ through the cross brought Gentiles, who were strangers to the covenants of promise, into the condition of no longer being strangers and aliens. Now they are fellow citizens of Christ’s kingdom with Jewish believers—and thus beneficiaries of the covenant promises.

9. I disagree with the statement that that a focus on redemptive history ignores the unredeemed (163-64). The unredeemed are included in the Noahic covenant, and redemptive history also includes judgment.

10. I disagree that covenant theology is necessarily or uniformly “narrow,” “giving scant treatment to human civil structures, political and legal structures, advances in art, science, agriculture, etc.” (163-64). This is not true of the Dutch Reformed reformational theologians, for instance.

11. I disagree that a holistic approach needs to be pitted against a crucicentric approach (164-65). It is due to his cross work that Jesus says all authority has been given to him, and it is due to his cross-work that the Father has given him a name above every name. This would be more evident to TDs if they recognized that Jesus is currently reigning as the Davidic king over every aspect of creation as the result of his cross work.

12. I disagree that covenant theology is anthropocentric, and I disagree with Snoeberger’s seeming disconnect between eschatology and soteriology (163-64). Redemptive history is all about the restoration of God’s rule through his human vice regents. Thus, redemption and the rule of God are linked inseparably.

13. I disagree with Snoeberger’s denial of a covenant of works (166). (1) The term covenant need not be used for a covenant to be present. The elements of a covenant need to be. This is so for the covenant of works and in an analogical way for the covenant of redemption; it is not so for a unified covenant of grace. (2) Even if God’s activities are broader than redemption, this does not preclude a covenant of redemption. (3) Though the covenant of works does not hang on Hosea 6:7, I think that passage does support it. The question is not whether there are alternate interpretations, but which is the best.

14. I’d argue that the Noahic covenant is part of God’s redemptive plan and that even though church and state are two institutions, they are not two kingdoms. This would be more evident to Snoeberger if he recognized covenantal role of Gen. 1:28 and the way that all the subsequent covenants are restoring that mediatorial rule (166).

15. I disagree with Snoeberger’s denial that the authority given to Christ after his resurrection is Davidic, and I disagree with his assertion that Christ reigns right now only from his Father’s throne over all creation rather than from the Davidic throne (171-). Snoeberger has missed the fact that the kingdom theme is rooted in Genesis 1:28 and the role of ruling creation under God which was entrusted to mankind. The restoration of this rule was promised through the covenants to the seed of Abraham, the seed of Judah, the seed of David. When Christ received all authority after his ascension, this must pertain to has Davidic, human kingship since he never lacked (and never needed to be granted) divine sovereignty.

16. I disagree that the New Covenant is only for Israel and that it is a bilateral covenant. I also disagree with Snoeberger’s claim that the church has no covenant relationship with God (174-75, 177).

17. I disagree that circumcision has ceased at present because the church is a parenthetical administration (180–181).

Darrell Bock, “Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

Bock contributed a well-argued essay for progressive dispensationalism.

I disagree with Bock on a number of points:

1. I disagree with Bock’s denial of a creation covenant; I think he creates a false dichotomy between legal and relational connections to God. I disagree with his denial of a covenant of works with Adam (and with his exegesis of Hos. 6:7). Bock misreads Genesis 1-2 and thus misses the covenantal elements in these chapters (134, 223, 226). Being fruitful and subduing the earth (Bock wrongly reduces this to managing the garden) are the blessings promised, not the command. What Bock calls a warning was the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When disobedience occurred, the blessing was cursed. These chapters include two parties, promised blessings, threatened curses, and stipulated obedience. These are the elements of a works covenant. 

2. I disagree with Bock’s marginalization of the Noahic covenant. Bock would have done better to have adopted Progressive Covenantalism’s vision of covenant development from creation covenant to new covenant in which the Noahic covenant plays an enteral part of the plan of redemption (135).

3. I agree with Wellum against Bock that “the covenants are successive” (228-29). I don’t think that continuing covenant curses or promises negate the successive nature of the covenants. While the curses of the Adamic covenant continue, that covenant as a means of salvation is defunct. The Noahic covenant does run concurrently with the other covenants. The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by Christ’s life and death and is no longer in force. The promises of the Abrahamic covenant still continue (as do those of the Davidic covenant), but the sign of circumcision is no longer valid, and the covenant promises of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants have been taken up by the new covenant, which is the only covenant that believers are party to today.

4. If Bock is indeed saying that regeneration (and not simply the giving of the Spirit) only occurs under the new covenant, then I disagree with him (142). Old Testament saints also needed to be regenerated.

5. I think that Bock concedes too much on Galatians 6:16 (144–145). The best position is that the Israel of God refers to elect Israelites to whom God will show mercy (in distinction from the already redeemed Jew and Gentile who walk by Paul’s rule).

I agree with Bock on a number of points:

1. I agree with Bock that redemption involves not only individuals but also the variety of creational structures that exist in God’s world. I agree with Bock that the continued existence of nations in the new creation is important for the comprehensive redemption of all creational structures that Scripture promises and that sound theology requires (116, 122, 137).

2. I agree that the Abraham, Davidic, and new covenants are the “covenants of promise” and that the Gentiles are connected to these covenants in Christ (Eph. 2). (The Noahic covenant is also a promise covenant, but Gentiles have always been included in that covenant.) I agree that the Mosaic covenant is a law covenant distinct from the promise covenants and temporary in its duration (127, 134, 141).

3. I agree with Bock that fulfillment of the covenant promises in Christ and equality of the redeemed nations in receiving covenant blessings does not cancel out specific promises made to the nation of Israel. I agree that Israel typology is fulfilled in the church and that Jew and Gentile become one new man in Christ; I further agree that these truths do not cancel or redirect specific promises made to redeemed national Israel (115, 129).

4. I agree that “church is a different kind of entity from nations or ethnicities,” meaning that the one people of God does not cancel out the diversity of nationalities or ethnicities (231).

5. I agree with Bock that the specific promises made to Abraham and his physical seed are expanded, as the promises themselves indicated, to include the Gentiles without cancelling the specific promises to Abraham’s physical seed. Thus, I agree that redeemed Jews and Gentiles are one new man, the church; I agree that both Jew and Gentile will be heirs of the new creation; I agree that within this new creation the redeemed Jewish nations and redeemed Gentile nations will coexist in distinct lands in shalom. In other words, there will be a unified people of God that exist in a diversity of creational structures (including nations) for eternity (118, 122; 129-31, 131, 132-33, 138, 224-25, 229, 232).

6. I agree with Bock that promises are of such a nature that they need to be fulfilled as promised to those to whom they were promised while also agreeing that the promises can be expanded to include redeemed Gentiles (123, 124).

7. I agree with Bock that the OT priority of traditional dispensationalism leads to “strained readings of some NT texts,” and I agree that the reign of Christ as Davidic king commenced at the conclusion of the first advent (119-20, 135-36, 233-37).

8. I agree with Bock that though Progressive Covenantalism intends to maintain the original meaning of OT texts and sees the NT as simply providing the proper understanding of those texts, Progressive Covenantalists at times fail to provide for convincing readings of the details of OT texts and fail to account for the continued teaching of Jesus and the apostles regarding future national Israel (cf. Isa. 2:1-4; 19:23-25; Jer 31:31-35; Acts 1:6-7; Acts 3:18-21; 26:6-7) (120-22, 142-43, 144, 232).

9. I agree with Bock and Progressive Covenantalists that types often “develop along the textual, epochal, and canonical horizons of the biblical covenants.” I agree with Bock and Progressive Covenantalists that “typology always has an eschatological aspect that is described as an escalation of the earlier pattern” and that “the escalation may involve an annulment or fulfillment of an earlier type in Christ’s first advent, the church or in the eschaton still to come” (recognizing that this wording is Bock’s and that Wellum may want to drop the qualifiers “often” and “may” and that Wellum emphasizes escalation in Christ at the first advent). I agree with Bock’s concern that the Israel typology not “cancel out” Israel’s reception of the promises made to her (124-26, 227–228). However, I would nuance the claim here and note that it is not Israel per se or the land per se that is a type. Israel under the Mosaic covenant and the land after Joshua’s conquest and during Solomon’s reign are the types. In the nature of the case, these have passed away. But neither the nation Israel nor has the promised land passed away in fact or redemptive historical significance.

10. I agree that in the land typology, the land of Israel in the new creation is a part of the whole rather than something eliminated by the new earth being the antitype of the land typology (231).

11. I agree that Wellum’s definition of typology may be too constrained and formulaic and thus may not account for the diversity of typology found in Scripture (228).

12. I agree with Bock that Horton’s “claim of NT priority” in practice results nullifying certain promises of God and emptying certain texts (like the opening chapters of Hosea) of their profound promises of restoration to unfaithful Israel (222, 232-33). I agree with Bock, against Horton, that the land promise continued after the conquest by Joshua since the prophets continue to speak to the restoration of Israel to the land (225).

Stephen Wellum, “Progressive Covenantalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

Stephen Wellum’s essay is perhaps the best written in the book. Wellum’s essay is well-organized and generally clear in its argumentation. On many points I have long held the positions Wellum is arguing for, on some points I have learned from him, and on other points I think he needs to make some refinements, which is to be expected in a relatively new theological system.

 I agree with Wellum on a number of points.

1. I agree that the divine origin of Scripture results in “an overall unity and coherence,” and that this coherence includes an unfolding plan of God through a series of covenants (77) rather than making the individual covenants administrations of a covenant of grace (204-5).

2. I agree that since God used humans to write his Word, grammatical historical exegesis within the context of the entire canon is the proper way to read Scripture. (77).

3. I agree that “the NT’s interpretation of the OT is definitive, since later texts bring greater clarity and understanding” and I further agree that “later texts do not contravene the meaning of the earlier texts” (77-78).

4. I agree with the affirmation of progressive revelation, and I agree with the centrality of Christ in the fulfillment of that revelation (78).

5. I agree with the three horizons of interpretation that Wellum lays out: textual, epochal, and canonical (79).

6. I agree that “God’s one eternal plan is unveiled through a plurality of covenants,” that covenant theology flattens this diversity of covenants by making them administrations of the covenant of grace (81).

7. I agree that the creational covenant is foundational to God’s covenant plan, that the Noahic covenant is a commitment to God’s original intentions of creation and looks ahead to the new creation. I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is “the means by which God will fulfill his promises for humanity, especially in light of Genesis 3:15″ and that it unfolds first through Israel and then the promises are expanded to include all the redeemed and the whole world. I agree that the Mosaic covenant was “temporary in God’s plan, and thus when Christ comes, it is fulfilled as an entire covenant package, and Christians are no longer under it as a covenant (Gal 3:15–4:7).” I agree that the Davidic covenant draws together all the previous covenants and indicates that they will be fulfilled by a Davidic king. And I agree that the new covenant is new because is made with individual believers and that every member of the new covenant is regenerate (91-98).

8. I agree that Jesus as “David’s greater Son, who inaugurates God’s kingdom” is “now seated as the Davidic king” fulfilling all the covenants and “leading history to its consummation at his return.” I agree that Jesus is “the true Israel,” “Abraham’s true seed,” “the last Adam, “the promised Messiah who receives the Spirit in full measure … and who pours out the Spirit on his people.” In other words, I agree that Jesus is the one who fulfills the preceding covenants (99-100).

9. I agree that “in Christ and the church, all of God’s promises are now being fulfilled” (109). (Redeemed Israel is now part of the church.)

10. I agree that “there is only one elect people of God throughout time who are saved by grace through faith in God’s promises grounded in Christ alone,” that the church is God’s new covenant people, that the church is “God’s new temple,” that the church is “God’s new creation/humanity that remains forever, comprising believing Jews and Gentiles, who equally and fully receive all of God’s promises in Christ” (106-8).

11. I agree that covenant theology “does not sufficiently account for the relationship of Christ—the head of the new covenant—to his people,” and I agree that “now that Christ has come, one is either in the new covenant or not, and to be in the new covenant entails that one now knows God, is forgiven of his sins, and is circumcised in heart” (104-5).

12. I agree with Wellum that Horton wrongly identifies the field with the church rather than the world in his interpretation of the wheat and the tares. I further agree that with Wellum that Tom Schreiner’s approach to the warning passages in Hebrews is superior to Horton’s. Thus I agree with Wellum that the new covenant is not a mixed covenant containing regenerate and unregenerate people (209).

13. I agree with Wellum (contra Snoeberger) that the Noahic covenant is part of God’s plan of redemption (211).

14. I agree with Wellum (contra Snoeberger) that the church has been brought into the covenant promises made with Israel (211-12).

15. I agree with Wellum that it is a weakness of many dispensationalists to begin the “covenantal storyline” with the Abrahamic covenant rather than with the creation covenant (213).

I largely agree with Wellum on a number of points, but I also think these points need further refinement.

1. I agree that typology is rooted in history and text. I agree that types are intended by God and  are thus a kind of prophecy. I agree that types may not be discerned without the later unfolding of revelation. I agree that types are discerned through repetition that creates a pattern. I agree that types often reach their fulfillment first in Christ and then in his people (83). But I don’t think that this is always the case. For instance, the conquest of Canaan is part of a series of day of the Lord judgments that begin in Genesis 3:8 and reoccur in history (including in AD 70, shortly after the earthly ministry of Jesus) and reached final fulfillment in the Parousia of Christ. Christ is clearly involved in that he is bringing about the judgment, but the type is more focused on the judgment that unbelievers will receive.

2. I agree that Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David all prefigure Christ. However, I don’t think it is wise to identify them as “Adams” (83-84). Adam and Christ are unique heads of humanity. As covenant head of the creation covenant, all who are in Adam fell when he fell. As covenant head of the new covenant, all who are in Christ died and rose with Christ. But Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David do not play the same role in the covenants made with them. It is for this reason that Adam is termed “the first man” and Jesus “the second man” (1 Cor. 15:47).

3. I agree that there is a son of God typology that runs from Adam through Israel to Christ and from him into the church. I agree that Jews and Gentiles in the church are (in Christ) Abraham’s seed (84). But I disagree that this means that Israel as God’s firstborn son “takes on Adam’s role” since Israel is not a federal head for all mankind.

4. I agree that Christ can be called the true Israel in the sense that he, as the Davidic king, is the representative Israelite. I further agree that in Christ, the seed of Abraham, Gentile Christians can be identified as the seed of Abraham. I disagree with the claim that Galatians 6:16 identifies the church as the Israel of God (84). This position contradicts the main thrust of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and thus cannot be correct (the Judaizers were the ones who held that Gentiles needed to become Israelites and Paul argued that Jews and Gentiles distinctly were one in Christ). Grammatically the best translation is “May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy [also] to the Israel of God!” (CSB, alt.), and contextually and intertextually, the best understanding is that “all those who follow this standard” are Jews and Gentiles in Christ and that the “Israel of God” refers to elect Jews who will come to salvation due to God’s mercy. See further argumentation here.

5. I agree that Israel has a typological function in relation to the church (84), but Wellum’s typology is too abstract in that it doesn’t properly take time into account. It is not Israel per se that is a type of the church; it is Israel under the Mosaic covenant that is the type of the church. This distinction is necessary since Jews with Gentiles are part of the one new man that makes up the church. Thus, the new covenant promise is not applied to the church because the church is now identified as “the house of Israel/Judah” (84) but because promises originally given to Israel in the covenants of promise have now been extended to Gentiles as well as Jews since Christ has formed Jew and Gentile together into one new man (Eph. 2:11-16).

6. I agree that types often move in a lesser to greater pattern and that escalation typically occurs with Christ at his first coming (84), but I’m not sure that these features are universal. For instance, Mitchell notes with regard to marriage typology, “However, the NT fulfillment of the OT nuptial theme may be more preliminary and provisional than the NT fulfillment of many other OT themes because of the eschatological shift: the OT pictures God’s people as his wedded wife, while the NT portrays the church as the betrothed bride, awaiting the future consummation” (The Song of Songs, CC, 71). Similarly, while AD 70 was a day of the Lord connected with Christ’s first coming, the real escalation of the day of the Lord typology occurs with the second coming.

7. I agree that typology often “develops through covenantal progression” (85). However, I’m not sure this is always the case. The day of the Lord comes to mind as a counter example.

8. I agree that “the new covenant is the fulfillment and telos of the biblical covenants,” and I agree, with one caveat, with the statement, “Yet now that Christ has come, Christians are no longer under the previous covenants as covenants (other than the creation and Noahic until the consummation)” (86-87). The one correction that I’d make is that we are no longer under the creation covenant. Adam broke the creation covenant. It is for this reason that several of its provisions are restated as part of the Noahic covenant, adjusted to the context of the Fall.

9. I agree that “Scripture begins with the declaration that God, as Creator and triune Lord, is the king of the universe (Gen 1–2; Ps 103:19; Dan 4:34–35; Acts 17:24–25),” that “sin is essentially rebellion against the king,” and that God’s kingdom is restored through the covenants (88). However, Wellum leaves out the important fact that the kingdom theme in Genesis 1 is rooted not only in the Lord’s role as king of the universe but also in the role humans have as vice-regents under God. Redemption involves not merely subduing the rebellion of humans against God, the King but also involves the restoration of humans to the role of obedient vice regents over all creation.

10. I agree with Wellum that a creation covenant exists in Genesis 1-2 despite the absence of the word, that Hosea 6:7 refers back to the creation covenant, that all the covenantal elements are present in Genesis 1-2, and that Romans 5:12-21 requires a creation covenant since Adam is there portrayed as a covenant head” (89-90). However, I do not think that the use of qum in Genesis 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17 “implies a pre-existing covenant.” While the language of cutting a covenant only refers to the initial establishment of a covenant, qum in connection with covenants is used in various ways, including the initial establishment of covenants. In any event the Noahic covenant cannot be the continuation of the creation covenant because the creation covenant is a works covenant and the Noahic covenant is a grace covenant. The two covenants are a different nature and thus the one cannot be the continuation of the other (see disagreement 1 below).

11. I agree that the creational covenant is foundational with subsequent covenants. I further agree that the temple and priest typology has roots in Eden (90). However, I do not think that Eden was a temple or that Adam was a priest in Eden. There is no need for a temple when God is present or a priest when access to God is unmediated.

12. Wellum objects to certain dispensationalists who claim that the spiritual blessings of the new covenant are being fulfilled already while the physical blessings remain to be fulfilled in the future is attractive on one level. Who would not want to affirm that “all new covenant realities are now here in Christ and applied to the church in principle” (104). I agree that in Christ’s resurrection we see an initial realization of the new creation and that Christians themselves are identified in Scripture as new creations. And yet, Christians are new creations in their inner man and are still awaiting the resurrection body. The renovation of the earth is something creation still groans for. I think that dispensationalists do affirm what Wellum wants affirmed: that in Christ’s resurrection and in regenerated Christians the new creation is inaugurated; I’m sure Wellum himself believes that the resurrection of the body and the renovation of creation awaits the Parousia.

13. With Wellum, I “agree that the Scripture’s central plot is ‘not the nation of Israel, but the seed of Abraham together with his spiritual family from Israel and all nations,'” and, with Wellum, I “deny that the church is a parentheses in God’s plan.” With Wellum, I “deny that the NT changes the meaning of the OT.” I further agree that “in Christ, God’s revelation is now complete; we now know what the OT was predicting” (202). However, I favor a complementary hermeneutic because I think a complementary hermeneutic best allows for the text in both testaments to be understood according to authorial intent of both the human authors and the divine Author.

14. Contrary to Wellum’s understanding, not all progressive dispensationalists believe in a restoration of the sacrificial system (and it was not clear to me from Bock’s article that he believed in it). Most or all do believe that Antichrist will set himself up in a future temple, but that does not impact the development of the temple in the storyline of Scripture. I agree with Wellum’s development of the sacrifice and temple themes in Scripture.

I disagree with Wellum on a few points:

1. Wellum distinguishes between “creation realities such as male-female that do continue forever” and “nation-states that are more tied to the fall and Babel but now reversed at Pentecost and in the church” (219).

1.a. This is a significant error on Wellum’s part that colors his whole analysis. In fact, nations are creational realities just as the male-female distinction is a creational reality. For an understanding of creation as encompassing structures such as marriage, government, nations, and more, see Wolters, Creation Regained.

1.b. Nation-states are not tied to the fall and Babel in contrast to creation realities such as male-female distinctions. Nations are part of the created order. Psalm 86:9 and Acts 17:26 identify nations as created by God. Christopher J. H. Wright observes, “The nations of humanity preoccupy the biblical narrative from beginning to end. . . . The obvious reason for this is that the Bible is, of course, preoccupied with the relationship between God and humanity, and humanity exists in nations” (The Mission of God, 454). Daniel Strange argues the structure of Genesis 10-11 supports the claim that the diversity of nations is part of the creation order: by placing the Babel event after the Table of Nations, Genesis avoids the idea that the division into nations is itself a curse and confirms that the “scattering” was not merely a judgment but an enforced fulfillment of God’s command to fill the earth (Their Rock Is Not Like Our Rock, 124).

1.c. As part of the created order, nations will exist for all eternity (Rev. 21:24-26).

1.d. Nationhood is not reversed at Pentecost or done away with by the church. Rather, Pentecost revealed that the church is a multiethnic body.

1.e. Since nationhood is a significant theological theme within the storyline of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, Progressive Covenantalism will remain a defective system until it incorporates this theme into its system.

2. I disagree with Wellum’s claim that covenants cannot be categorized as unconditional/unilateral or conditional/bilateral. Wellum argues that all covenants are unilateral in that God always keeps his promises and that all covenants are bilateral in that God demands obedience from his covenant partners. Thus, God provides Christ as “an obedient covenant partner” so that the promises can be fulfilled (85-86; 207).

2.a. I agree that all the covenants are initiated by God and are in that sense gracious. I further agree that all the covenants have expectations for obedience.

2.b. The terms conditional and unconditional relate not to the selection of the covenant partner or to the presence of stipulations. Rather, conditional and unconditional identify whether the fulfillment of the covenant depends upon the promises of God alone or upon the obedience to the covenant stipulations.

2.c. There are obligations in the Noahic covenant: to live out the creation blessing, to exercise capital punishment when necessary. But humans have regularly violated these obligations since the time of Noah. Nonetheless, God has not sent worldwide floods because the fulfillment of the covenant depends not on obedience to the obligations but to God’s unilateral promise.

2.d. By contrast, the nation of Israel came under the curses of the Mosaic covenant because that covenant promised blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Wellum has made all the covenants conditional covenants and then claims that Christ will fulfill the conditions. But this reading does not survive a close study of the covenants themselves.

2.e. Wellum points out that Genesis 15 indicates “God’s unilateral commitment to keep his own promises” but that Genesis 17:9-14; 22:16-18 present “bilateral emphasis of the covenant” (207). But Genesis 15 is the cutting of a unilateral covenant. Genesis 17 presents us with expectations which are the means for bringing the covenant to fruition, and Genesis 22 is a test of Abraham’s faith. These covenant expectations cannot change a unilateral covenant into a bilateral covenant. This is fundamental to Paul’s argument in Romans 4:9-12.

2.f. I agree with Horton against Wellum that Galatians 4:21-26 “distinguish covenants of promise (e.g., Abrahamic) from covenants of law (e.g., Sinai).” Wellum objects, “it is questionable whether Paul is using this distinction as the means to distinguish all the covenants” (208). But this objection is beside the point. Though Paul does not have all covenants in view, he does clearly communicate that the Abrahamic covenant is unilateral in nature and the Mosaic covenant bilateral. 

3. I disagree that Genesis 3:15 is part of the creation covenant (90-91). The creation covenant was broken by Adam’s Fall, and Genesis 3:16-19 recounts the cursing of the blessings of the creation covenant. Genesis 3:15 is a judgment on the serpent that involves a promise of redemption. It is not itself a covenant or part of a covenant. The following covenants are the means for fulfilling this promise.

4. I agree with Wellum’s overall hermeneutical approach (see points 1-5 under agreement above). However, despite his professed intention to not change the meaning of the OT, I think there are reasons that Bock and Snoeberger argue that Wellum is changing the meaning of the OT.

4.a. I’ll use the land promise as an illustration of how I think Wellum’s hermeneutic works: In Genesis 15, 17, and 22 God makes promises to Abraham’s seed. Wellum understands that seed as not being fully defined in the OT, and he understands the NT to define the seed of Abraham as Christ and the church in Christ. Thus, when Wellum reads Genesis 15, 17, and 22 he reads Abraham’s seed as referring to Christ and the church in him. Wellum does not think he is changing the meaning of the Genesis 15, 17, and 22 in doing this any more than reading the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 as Christ changes the meaning of that OT text.

4.b. But the seed of Abraham is not undefined in the way that the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 was. Genesis 22, for instance, distinguishes between the physical seed of Abraham (plural), the seed of Abraham (singular), and the Gentiles (whom Paul will later identify with the seed of Abraham in Christ). All three seeds of Abraham sit adjacent to one another in passages like Genesis 22, and it does change the meaning of the OT texts in a way that the NT does not require to read the seed of Abraham language in the OT as referring only to Christ and the church.

4.c. Thus, despite his intent to the contrary, Wellum does at times change the meaning of OT passages.

5. I disagree with the claim that the church is “the true, eschatological Israel who receives all of the promises, including the inheritance of the land fulfilled in the new creation (103).

5.a. I affirm that the church is the antitype (through Christ) of Old Testament Israel. I deny that this means that the church is eschatological Israel because the NT continues to speak of redeemed ethnic Israel as a part of the church in both Ephesians 2 and Romans 11.

5.b. I affirm that all the covenant promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are expanded to encompass the entire church. (I agree with Wellum that the Mosaic covenant was a temporary covenant that is no longer in force; in addition, Ephesians 2 specifies the covenants of promise as the ones that the church is brought into.) I deny that the expansion of the covenant promises to the entire church means that specific promises to redeemed ethnic Israel are not fulfilled in the specificity with which they were given (e.g., land promises with specific boundaries).

5.c. Wellum objects that granting Israel the specific land promised to it gives Israel promises “distinct” from Gentiles in the church. This objection misunderstands the nature of land promises; it abstracts the land promises so that they only speak of the entire new creation. But in the nature of the case the land Israel receives will be distinct from the land other ethnic groups receive just as the land that Michael, Stephen, Darrell, and Mark receive in the new creation will be distinct from one another. A certain kind of distinctness is necessary if the land promise is not to become a mere abstraction. On the other hand, what Israel receives is not distinct from what Gentiles in the new creation receive: land in the new creation.

5.d. While I agree with the concern to uphold the unity of the people of God, I’m not sure that “nations receiving slightly different … privileges” is necessarily a problem since I think it is possible that individuals will receive slightly different privileges in eternity (e.g., the parable of the servant who received ten cities). At the very least it seems difficult to avoid the fact that Christ is an Israelite and that he rules over the world as a Davidic king. I wouldn’t want to minimize Jesus’s ethnicity any more than I would want to minimize his humanity.

6. I disagree with Wellum’s reading of Acts 1:6, in which he says that the kingdom is being restored to Israel (understood as the church) through the spread of the gospel and the growth of the church. Wellum is here concerned that all the promises of God be expanded to include Jew and Gentile in the church (108). But Wellum is here reading the promises too narrowly. Jew and Gentile in the church alike receive the land promise. But only Israel can receive the land promise as a restoration. A restoration of the kingdom does not make sense for Gentiles since in the OT era they were strangers to God’s kingdom. The better way to understand the disciples’ question is to recognize that the OT connected the giving of the Spirit with restoration to the land and the reestablishment of the Davidic monarch (cf. Eze 36-37). So their question is based in the text of the OT. Jesus’s answer does not give the timing but instead points out what must happen before the kingdom is restored to Israel. Romans 11:25 (“I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”).

7. I disagree with the idea that the restoration of Israel to the land is only a dispensational idea (110). This view was held by many Puritans, by Jonathan Edwards, and by David Brown of “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown” fame. I fear that the eschatological restoration of Israel to the land is often rejected today in reaction to dispensationalism without the realization that this has been a historic position on non-dispensationalists as well.

Michael Horton, “Covenant Theology” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

I have read all of Michael Horton’s significant writings on covenant theology, and, other than 1689 Reformed Baptist covenant theology, Horton’s version of covenant theology is my preferred version. That said, this essay was not Horton’s best contribution. It was too tradition-focused and more attuned to intra-covenant theology debates when this book called for more Scripture-based argumentation designed to persuade those holding alternative positions. Further, the structure of the essay led to some repetition. A more persuasive essay would have sought to make a clear exegetical case for the three covenants of covenant theology.

I agree with Horton on a number of points.

1. I agree with his claim of a pretemporal covenant of redemption that is worked out in the historical, biblical covenants (41, 52).

2. I agree that the biblical covenants can be classified as law covenants and promise or grace covenants (40). I further agree that that this distinction is not denying that all the post-Fall covenants are established by God’s grace (44). I further agree that both law and grace covenants are contributing to God’s gracious plan of redemption (52). I would add that this distinction is also not denying the existence of promises in law or works covenants or the existence of commands in promise covenants (57). Finally, I agree that the difference between a law/works covenant and a promise covenant whether the “basis” for the realization of the covenant’s blessings is unilateral on God’s part or requires obedience on the human participant’s part (57).

3. I agree that the creation covenant is a covenant of works (43, 46).

4. I agree that the Sinai covenant is a works covenant, but I think its promises pertain not only to temporal blessings (Horton’s view) but also to eternal life (53-54, 68).

5. I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is a promise covenant and that God has unilaterally promised to uphold its provisions (55). The requirements of the Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled as the fruit of faith and not as conditions for the promises being fulfilled (57).

6. I agree that the new covenant is a grace covenant distinct in type from the Sinai covenant, which is a law covenant (58).

7. I agree with his critique of the traditional dispensational tendency to operate with such a rigid hermeneutic that they engage in question-begging exegesis of the NT, I agree with his critique of the traditional dispensationalist interpretation of Acts 15, and I agree with his critique that the resort to analogy and implication fails to interpret the NT use of the OT accurately (184, 185). (One might say that traditionalist dispensationalists fail to interpret the NT literally.) On the other hand, Horton does not seem to appreciate that Amos 9 also has elements that were not fulfilled in the first century.

8. I agree, against those traditional dispensationalists who deny the church membership in the new covenant, that Ephesians 2 teaches that the Gentiles now partake of the covenants of promise since Christ created one new man through his blood (188).

9. I agree, against Bock, that there is a covenant of creation. Horton rightly points out that Bock misunderstands what elements need to be present for there to be a covenant (189).

10. I agree, against Wellum, that the creation covenant is a works covenant. Horton is correct to note that “the question is not whether covenants contain both promises and obligations” but whether the covenant is a “do this and live kind of covenant” or a covenant in which God unilaterally promises certain benefits. I further agree with Horton that the protoevangelium and the Noahic covenant are not continuations of the creation covenant (196-97).

11. I agree with Horton, against Wellum, that there are only two Adams: Adam and Christ (197).

I also disagree with Horton on a number of points:

1. I disagree that the post-fall biblical covenants are administrations of an over-arching covenant of grace. The fact that Sinai was made post-Fall, serves to advance God’s plan of redemption, and contains promises of a new covenant and coming redemption (45) does not make it a covenant of grace. A covenant may be graciously given, as the Sinai covenant was, but if its principle is “do this and live,” it is not a covenant of grace even though it furthers the plan of redemption. The designations works covenant or grace covenant refer to whether or not the fulfillment of the promises rest entirely on God’s oath or whether they rest on human performance. In Sinai, they rest on human performance—even as the Sinai covenant points Israel ahead to the new covenant as their only hope for salvation both through the imagery of the sacrificial system and through the explicit teaching of Deuteronomy 30.

2. I disagree that the land promises were fulfilled with the conquest of Canaan (60, 190-91). This is to not read carefully the promises themselves as stated in Genesis, the book of Joshua’s acknowledgment of more land to be conquered, the prophets’ predictions of restoration to the land on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, and Jesus’s statement that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob need to be resurrected so they can experience the promised covenant blessings.

3. I disagree that that the Abrahamic covenant is still in force and that circumcision, transposed to baptism, is thus required of all covenant children (61).

4. I disagree that the new covenant is a mixed covenant, including those who are internally part of the covenant and those who are externally part of the covenant (64). This is the very point of contrast between the old and new covenants that Jeremiah identifies as distinguishing them.  I further disagree that the church ought to include both wheat and tares until the eschaton (65). The field is the world, not the church. I further disagree that the warning passages in Hebrews demonstrate a mixed covenant (198-99). Hebrews 6 is certainly speaking of professing Christians who denied the faith. But this does not demonstrate that the apostates were members of the covenant of grace. Saying so proves too much. If Horton’s view is correct, a covenant child who rejected the faith could never be restored to repentance again.

5. Horton sometimes speaks as though an inaugurated fulfillment in the first century is the complete fulfillment of prophecies. Horton also seems to think that the establishment of an earthly kingdom requires the revival of the Sinai covenant (68-69). But this is not the case. The prophecies of new covenant include the earthly, political reign of the Messiah and the return of Israel to the land.

6. Horton seems to think that sacrifices, temple, and the national of Israel are all types that have been fulfilled in Christ (69).  Horton is confusing two distinct things here. The temple and the sacrifices (as Hebrews plainly indicates) are types that are superseded by Christ. But Israel is not a type as such. Israel in the time of the Old Covenant is a type of the church just as David, as king, was a type of Christ. But David will be resurrected and will live in eternity, and Israel will be resurrected (Eze. 37) and be restored as a nation in all eternity.

7. I disagree that Charles Hill demonstrated amillennialism to be the dominant eschatological position in the early church (189). (See further here.)

Logos 10 Review

by

Logos 10 released this week. Here are a few highlights.

Speed

One of the perennial complaints about the Logos desktop app has been slow speeds. Speed improvements were a focus for this edition of Logos. Faithlife has provided the following information about speed:

  • Native support for Apple Silicon gives a good performance increase across the board (~10% – 40%?) for everyone with an M1 processor
  • .NET 6 support gives everyone using Windows a good performance increase across the board, which varies according to the feature (~10% – 40%?).
  • Faster indexing (~15%) for everyone on desktop, and about 10% less disk space for the index.
  • Improved server performance improves the speed of most online functions, which is especially beneficial to the mobile and web apps.

I can say that I’ve noticed the speed improvements on my Surface Pro. I have several different Layouts that I switch between for different tasks. Logos 10 switches between these layouts much more quickly than previous versions. It is harder for me to judge startup times. There still is a logo splash screen followed by a “Preparing Your Library” and “Synchronize” spinner. I’m pretty sure this sequence is moving faster, but it’s not quite so noticeable as the speed with which Logos 10 switches between layouts. On the other hand, search results display much more quickly in Logos 10 than in previous versions.

New UI

The most visible change in Logos 10 is the movement of the toolbar from the top of the program window to the left edge.

The settings allow the toolbar to be moved back to the top, but I’ve come to appreciate the side location. Computer screens typically have greater width than height, so this lefthand placement of the toolbar gives more space to the content on the screen. In addition, I use Logos on a Surface Pro tablet, and the new UI puts the toolbar buttons in closer proximity to my thumb when holding the tablet.

In the screenshot above, I have the toolbar collapsed, but, as screenshots below will show, the toolbar can be expanded to show labels for the different tools. I’ve found that I typically work with the toolbar collapsed, but the multiple modalities is nice.

Search Print Library

This is the most significant feature for me. During college and seminary, I built a decently large print library and used BibleWorks as my primary Bible software. I didn’t shift to the Logos platform until I was working on my dissertation. This means that I still have a large print library, and even though I now have some duplicates between my digital and print books, I still have plenty of books in print that I don’t have in Logos. Further, in terms of budget, I’m inclined to purchase Logos books that I don’t already own in print. Nevertheless, there are some advantages that Logos books have over print books: they are more portable, and they are searchable. (There are advantages that print books have over digital, but we’ll leave that aside for the moment.)

To get the benefits of portability, you still have to buy digital editions, but the advantages of searchability now come to those who do the Logos 10 Full Feature Upgrade or to those who buy a Gold base package or above.

In the screenshot below, the results are displayed for a search of <Filioque> in the “All” modality of the search pane:

Notice the result from “Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia,” two places below the “Factbook” panel. Note on the far right of that result an icon displaying three books. That icon indicates that Augustine through the Ages is in my print library. To be honest, I may not have thought to look in that encyclopedia while researching the filioque.

In the next screenshot, the results are displayed for a search of <Filioque> in the “Books” modality of the search pane. Notice that in the “All’ modality the print and Logos resources are intermixed in the search results. In the “Books” modality Logos books and Print books receive their own separate listings.

In this screenshot most of the results are from systematic theologies in my print library. I probably would have thought to consult these in a study of the filioque, but these search results provide me with page numbers. This saves time flipping through indices from multiple books. As I’ve begun adding print books to my Logos library, I’ve added some books that I have both in print and in Logos book format. (Like No One Like Him in the search results above.) I’ve decided to remove print books that I already own in Logos format to restrict the search results of printed books to those I only have in print.

Adding and removing books from the print library is easy. In the desktop app, go the Library. There is an “Add to Library” tab. Once in the add to library modality is selected, search for a book or series. Off to the left are two options: purchase a Logos edition of the book (shopping cart icon), add a book from your print library to your Logos library (three books with a plus sign icon). Logos books that you have already purchased are indicated with an unlocked padlock icon. Print books that you have already added to your library are indicated by three books without the plus sign. If you’d like to remove a book from your print library, just select the three books icon and you’ll have an option to remove the book.

The mobile app provides another, even quicker, way to add books from your print library to your Logos library. It includes a “Print Library ISBN Scanner.” Opening the scanner will turn on your phone’s camera. Hold the camera over the ISBN barcode of a print book, and Logos will add it automatically to your library. If it isn’t quite sure what book to add, it will suggest a range of options from which to select. This process works very well.

Personally, I find the ability to search my print library worth the upgrade. Of course, not every book in my print library is in the Logos catalogue, but enough are to make this a most useful feature.

Search Improvements

Logos has also simplified search syntax. For instance, <Lemma = lbs/el/λόγος> ANDEQUALS word is now lemma:λόγος EQUALS word.

Logos 10 brings over Search Templates from Logos 9 (accessible through the hamburger menu) and basic search helps in a blank search window. If you look up to the upper right of the search pane, options for matching case and form are now more visible.

I also noticed that when searching under the “All” modality, a pane with Factbook results is included. In addition, if the search term is a Bible term a pane with the first few results from the user’s default Bible is present (and a link in this pane will launch a full search of the term under the “Bible” modality.

Factbook Improvements

Factbook was one of the banner new features in Logos 9. I now often begin a search in Factbook if I’m just looking for basic information quickly. I know it will surface that information from my library, and if I need to dig dipper, it can serve as a launching point for that too.

I’ve tended to turn off the factbook underlining in other resources, though. However, soon after starting to use Logos 10, I noticed that I was getting some helpful information via factbook in some of my resources. For instance, here I’m getting basic information about the meaning of a Hebrew word in Keil and Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Old Testament.

I understand that what information Factbook will surface in other resources depends on the base package.

  • Starter includes People tags.
  • Bronze adds theological terms and Greek words
  • Silver adds Hebrew and Aramaic words

I also understand that the church history datasets for Factbook have been expanded.

Machine Translation

For those with a Gold package or above on desktop (or Starter and above on the web app), there is now a machine translation feature available. For instance, say that you’re reading some John Owen and you come across some Latin. Highlight the Latin phrase and select the translate option from the context menu. A translation into English will appear in a sidebar.

My understanding is that this feature is not limited to just phrases but can be used on books in other languages. However, Faithlife says there are generous monthly fair-use limits. In addition, Faithlife says that due to ongoing costs, access to this feature might be limited to a particular period (e.g. two years).

Mobile App

The mobile apps have also received some enhancements. The app on my Android phone now pulls up a nice toolpane when text is selected. It gives recent highlight options as well as commands for copying, sharing, note taking, searching, and more. If a Bible word is selected a pane with identifying the Hebrew or Greek word is displayed. This pane is an access point into a preferred lexicon or into a search of the Word Study feature.

I use a Surface Pro as my desktop, laptop, and tablet. I therefore use the Logos desktop app as my tablet app. However, I do keep my eye on the iPad to see if I could replicate on the iPad the functionality that I have on my Surface. For a long time the answer has been a clear, “no.” But with Apple adding mouse and monitor support the gap is narrowing. Logos desktop is also more powerful than the Logos iPad app. But that gap is also narrowing. While I’ve not had any hands-on experience with the Logos iPad app, it looks like that app has made significant improvements in this release.

Verdict

In my view the most significant new feature of Logos 10 is the ability to search my print library. It has also made substantial improvements in speed, search, and the expansion of the Factbook. If you are interested in upgrading, here is a link by which you can do so.  Faithlife is currently offering 15% off for new customers and 30% off for upgraders. Those who upgrade via the link can gain five free additional books from a pre-selected list.

Oliver O’Donovan Regarding the Folly Often Present in Political Opinionating

by

Here is the “simple” of the Proverbs, who “believes everything” (14:15), and here is the “scoffer,” who “does not like to be reproved” (15:12), the suggestible and the counter-suggestible, one echoing the current views and the other reacting against them, both wholly creatures of them, forming no judgment and offering no dialogical resistance. Opinion gains no coherence, and so has no prospect of growth. It is neither accumulative nor critical but reactive, a series of discontinued beginnings. …

The dialectic itself follows predictable currents. The phenomenon is familiar enough in politics: we assert things we know nothing about simply because those who deny them are those we habitually contradict. We speak of “moral attitudes” as “on the left” or “on the right.” We cannot recall too often that these polarized postures are no more than habitual responses to the noise of discourse going on around us. … Led by the Pied Pipers of the media we plunge into the caverns of imagination, framing our views on how the world may be put to rights and never giving thought to the fact that the world we are shown is a carefully constructed representation which demands interrogation. …

When from time to time we become aware that certain points of view have become fashionable, we should sense danger. We should know that complexities will be elided, so that even truths, when only partially grasped, will yield cruel and unjust implications. We should know that love of truth is corrupted (as Trollope’s John Bold found) when focused on a narrow campaign. And we double our guard against the need of politics (not only democratic politics, but that, too) to rally the active forces of mass judgment around narrowly conceived agenda. … It is the fate of the politician to concentrate on programs of action that can ignite and unite passions. But the quantitative massing of judgments is inhospitable to exploration, and so betrays the truths it purports to champion. The best such politics can aim for is that someone with good judgment should mitigate the common passions; the problem of mass democracy is that simply arousing them becomes so all-consuming and competitive a business that no one with good judgment has much success at it. To take the commonest of experiences: a circular mailing arrives, telling of some shocking event or state of affairs, and a lobbying postcard is enclosed with a one-line message we are to send to our Member of Parliament or the Prime Minister. We are not told to inquire further into the situation; we are not told to refrain from judgment until we are in a position to make up our minds on the rival accounts that are given of it. We are encouraged, in fact, to model our behavior on what we most disapprove of in professional politicians, bending our ear to the latest lobbyist. To do otherwise, we are warned, is to be complacent. Ignorant passion is thus taken to be the special line of political amateurs, and we are encouraged to indulge it, leaving it to our cunning but indolent masters to work out what is to be done with it. They, meanwhile, declare their great respect for our ill-informed agitations.

Oliver O’Donovan, Finding and Seeking. Ethics as Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 2:86-88.

Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom—1. Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology in Covenant Theology

by

This book is designed to be an accessible introduction the covenant theology that stands in the heritage of seventeenth-century Baptist covenant theologians. Renihan introduces the book by laying four foundations for Baptist covenant theology. First, he claims that covenant theology covers all of Scripture and yet must avoid “facile reductions or generalizations” (13). Instead, it “must be built on supporting premises, and the supporting premises must be studied as completely and thoroughly as possible” (13).

Second, Renihan distinguishes between creation and covenant and between natural law and positive law. God is not naturally obligated to give man any reward for obedience. That arrangement is not natural but covenantal. Likewise, covenants go beyond natural law, which is “the universal moral law of God” (15) and introduces positive law, “indifferent things prescribed or proscribed for a particular period, place, and people” (15). Thus, an interpreter cannot infer from the presence of a particular feature in one covenant that such features must be present in all covenants. Different covenants can have different positive laws.

Third, Renihan distinguishes between two ways of thinking about law and gospel. Law and gospel can be thought of as “two opposite paths of righteousness” (20). They can also be thought of as “two historical time periods, the Old and New Testaments” (20). It is important to note that law and gospel in the first sense are present in both these periods. This accounts for covenant continuity. But the historical sense should prevent covenant theologians from identifying “the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants with the new covenant, or covenant of grace” (22).

Fourth, the Pauline concept of mystery indicates that there was partial revelation that awaited fuller explication in the New Testament. Thus, “a covenant theology’s treatment of the Old Testament must preserve the presence of Christ as a mystery. And one’s covenantal system must not so flatten out the progress of redemptive history that it effectively, even if unintentionally, unveils the mystery before its actual unveiling” (24).

Review of Michael J. Glodo, “Dispensationalism,” in Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives

by

Michael Glodo contributed a chapter on dispensationalism to Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives. The editors should have asked a dispensationalist to write the first part of the chapter, in which dispensationalism is described, and asked Glodo to respond. Glodo did not demonstrate an accurate understanding dispensationalism and was therefore not in a good place to critique it.

He opens the chapter with this list of “dispensationalist distinctives”:

  • “the claim that there are two peoples of God, Israel and the church.” This is not the view of Progressive dispensationalists.
  • the church and Israel have “their own distinctive programs for salvation.” He clarifies in a footnote that dispensationalists reject the accusation that Israel was justified through the law, so it is not clear what is being asserted here.
  • “the separation of earthly and spiritual promises in the Old Testament.” In reality, dispensationalists object to the separation of the earthly and spiritual promises.
  • “the removal (rapture) of the church out of the world prior to a literal one-thousand-year earthly reign of Jesus Christ,” The majority of dispensationalists hold instead that rapture occurs prior to the final Day of the Lord judgments; resurrected and transformed saints are present during the millennium.
  • “the reconstitution of national Israel in the land of Palestine during that millennial period.” True; however, this view has also been held by a number of covenant theologians, including various Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, and David Brown.
  • “the temple will be rebuilt and its worship will resume until the consummation of the ages.” Not all dispensationalists hold to the resumption of the sacrificial system.

Glodo then charges dispensationalists with a “literalism” that “almost presupposes an innate lack of self-awareness, which characterized modernist interpretation in general.” This is at best a dated charge. It fails to interact with significant hermeneutical discussion that both traditional and progressive dispensationalists have undertaken. For instance, Buist Fanning’s recent commentary on Revelation in Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series does not fairly come under this critique.

Glodo then turns to survey the history of dispensationalism, tracing its history from Darby, Inglis and Scofield through Chafer, Walvoord, and Pentecost to Ryrie and Progressive Dispensationalism. In the midst of this survey Glodo links dispensationalism with Christian Zionism. However, while he observes that Christian Zionism is “fundamentally inconsistent” with dispensational theology, he fails to acknowledge that this is recognized by both traditional and progressive dispensationalists. Not all dispensationalists are Christian Zionists.

Glodo’s discussion of Progressive Dispensationalism is also poorly done.

  • He observes that Progressive dispensationalism holds to “one people of God” and a unified, progressing plan of God. But instead of further summarizing the Progressive Dispensationalist position, he pivots to a statement of Ryrie that objects to identifying Progressive Dispensationalism with dispensationalism.
  • He includes a lengthy quote from Blaising that makes clear that Progressive Dispensationalism recognizes literary aspects of texts in its interpretation (thus refuting his charge of unself-aware literalism). But he dismisses Blaising by objecting that Progressive Dispensationalists are nonetheless too literal in their interpretation of Apocalyptic literature (again, a look at Fanning should put the lie to this assertion).
  • He misreads Bock’s belief that the Antichrist will rebuild the temple as an affirmation of the reinstitution of the sacrificial system in the Milennium. The actions of the Antichrist are not the same actions as those of the Christ!
  • He quotes an anonymous scholar, whom he identifies as a progressive dispensationalist, as saying that if God has the temple rebuilt, he’ll provide new revelation regarding how to worship in it. To this Glodo asserts, “While emphasis on new revelation is normally more muted in dispensationalism, especially in light of heretical traditions such as Islam and Mormonism, which rest on later ‘revelation,’ it should nonetheless be a matter on which dispensationalism should be pressed” (538). This is a cheap shot. Aside from the fact that the quotation is not sourced, this scholar is not speaking of continuing revelation at present. He is speaking about revelation that might be given after the return of Christ to earth. Surely Covenant Theologians do not believe God will be silent and will reveal nothing beyond what is currently revealed after Christ returns.

Glodo’s analysis section is no better. He begins by acknowledging that dispensationalism has been developing in recent decades, but he chooses to focus his critique of the classic dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield. Sadly, this is par for the course among covenant theologians. Aside from brief comments in multiple views books, I have never read or heard covenant theologian engage substantively with Progressive Dispensationalism. Instead, I note the two tendencies: (1) engagement with popularizers instead of scholars; (2) engagement with Darby and Scofield rather than the most recent dispensational scholarship. Glodo cites no dispensationalist scholarship more recent than the 1990s.

I have personally learned much from covenant theologians, and I think they would learn much from Progressive Dispensationalists—if they would be willing to listen.

Thinking about Dobbs, Trump, and Not Being Conformed to the World

by

Last Friday the Supreme Court over-ruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This is something that Christians have longed prayed for, worked for, and voted for. Though this decision opens the opportunity for states to prohibit the killing of the unborn, there remains much to continue to pray for, work for, and vote for.

In relation to this last item—the Christian’s vote—there is an emphasis among a number of Christian commentators that is morally troubling. Douglas Wilson is representative:

And this means that every last Christian, David French and Kevin Williamson included, ought to look for some way to express their gratitude for Donald J. Trump. This would not have happened without him. Because he kept his campaign promise to appoint a particular brand of justice to the Supreme Court, and because God then gave him the opportunity to appoint three of them, this decision was made possible. Elections have consequences, and the election of Trump in 2016 had this consequence. I want to make a particular point of expressing my gratitude to Trump because when he, God’s intended instrument for accomplishing this marvelous thing, announced his candidacy, I did not recognize in him anything good. I expended quite a bit of energy opposing him, and during the primaries I had a good deal of fun at his expense. In the general election of 2016, I did not vote for him. He had made a promise to appoint the kind of judges I would like, and I was way too sophisticated to believe something like that.

Wilson’s primary point is not about our prayers of thankfulness, however. (Note that he does not counsel thankfulness for George W. Bush, who appointed Samuel Alito, the author of the Dobbs opinion, or George H. W. Bush, who appointed Clarence Thomas). He moves instead into Christian political strategy:

But these heartland evangelicals ignored the voices of their more fastidious brethren, and went into a back room at Trump Tower to cut a deal with the Donald. They said that they would support him—whether an Access Hollywood tape turned up or not—if he would just give them solid judges in return. Deal? Deal. In return for this remarkable deal, one that actually went through and actually worked, they got patted on the head by more urbane set of gospel-centered and/or red-letter Christians, and were relegated to the ranks of rubes and cornpones. But these slick and sophisticated Christians display a remarkable lack of self-awareness. They are still unable to perceive who the shrewd ones were. It is as though simple Simon went off to the fair, got taken to the cleaners for the third year in a row, and then went home to call his older brother names for being such a chump.

Wilson’s comments are theologically troubling. He seems to assume that since God providentially used the judicial appointments that former President Trump made, support for President Trump was justified. But this simply does not follow. God can and does use morally compromised people to achieve his will. He can also justly judge those same people for their wrongdoing. Support for a particular candidate has to be based on moral considerations and not simply on the achievement of morally significant political goals.

Wilson’s comments are morally troubling because he has no biblically grounded moral case for his change of position regarding the former President. What changed between Wilson’s initial moral objections and his current objections to “slick and sophisticated” “gospel-centered” “fastidious” Christians who never came around to supporting former President Trump? He liked the outcome of Trump’s presidency. There is a name for this ethic: utilitarianism. It is unbiblical.

A biblical ethic deals not just with ends but with acts, ends, and agents (to use the terminology adopted by Ken Magnuson). Or, in Wayne Grudem’s words, it deals with actual behavior, results, and personal character. Or to use John Frame’s terminology, it has to do with a right standard, a right goal, and a right motive. Wilson is only looking at the ends, the results, the goal in his analysis.

Wilson mocks “fastidious” Christians who would not compromise their moral convictions to support President Trump and instead argues for a transactional ethic in which Christians support immoral and unfit candidates in exchange for policy wins. Wilson is in grave danger here: “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15).

Wilson fails to articulate the moral standards to which Christians should adhere when voting. Wilson’s argument also fails to deal with the significance of virtue in making ethical choices. He would be more convincing if Christians who supported former President Trump had maintained their principles and held President Trump to account when he did wrong. Instead, many Christians defended the former president when he acted lawlessly and pressured their representatives in Congress not to hold him to account. This is neither conservative nor Christian. Why, after Trump tried to stay in office through various underhanded and unconstitutional means, does he still get cheered at Christian events while Vice President Pence, who adhered to the constitution and prevented a constitutional crisis, get booed? For many, the support of Trump inculcated vices rather than virtues. No attention was paid to the “personal character” impact of the ethical decision to support the former President.

The casualties are not only among the Trump supporters. It is difficult to be without a tribe. And many exiled from their conservative turned populist tribe have moved to the left politically and theologically. Unlike Wilson, it is of little concern to me if someone who used to support open carry now supports red flag laws. That’s the kind of thing Christians can agree to disagree about. However, it is very concerning to see Christians who used to support biblical teaching about men and women now defend women pastors.

When professing Christians turn egalitarian, they are conforming to this present evil age. When professing Christians turn utilitarian, they are conforming to this present evil age. I find it difficult to see the options that Americans were faced with in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections as anything less than God’s judgment. That judgment should have led to repentance across the American church. Instead, it led to a doubling down on our worldliness. While we can thank God for mercy in the midst of judgment in the form of the Dobbs decision, we dare not presume upon God’s mercy.

Review of Michael G. McKelvey, “The New Covenant as Promised in the Major Prophets,” in Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives

by

McKelvey locates Jeremiah’s teaching about the new covenant within chapters 30-33, the book of consolation. He claims that New Testament quotations of 31:31-34 are meant to evoke this entire section and that this whole section deals with the new covenant. Within this section, David is a central focus, which indicates that the new covenant “extends and fulfills the Davidic covenant” (193). Something similar can be said of the relationship between the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants to the new covenant. The Mosaic covenant is contrasted with the new covenant, being “the only nonpermanent covenant” among these covenants (194). This section also emphasizes the land promise and the restoration of Israel to the land. McKelvey sees an initial fulfillment of this aspect of the new covenant in the return from exile. McKelvey wishes to emphasize that the new covenant is connected to the previous covenants. Even though Jeremiah indicates that the new covenant “is not like the Mosaic covenant (3:32),” he stresses that “it achieves that to which the Mosaic administration typologically pointed” (197).

McKelvey also warns against Baptist readings of the now covenant, which he thinks are eschatologically overrealized. Specifically, he does not think that the statement that all in the covenant will know the Lord will be true until Christ returns. In contrast to the Baptist understanding of the new covenant, McKelvey argues that Jeremiah 32:39 demonstrates that the children of believers are included within the new covenant. Since children of believers are included in the new covenant, they should receive baptism, the sign of the new covenant.

McKelvey identifies Ezekiel 34:20-31 and 36:22-37:28 as the key new covenant texts in this prophet. In the first passage Ezekiel predicts that God will remove self-serving leaders and replace them with the Davidic Messiah (he notes again the close connection between the Davidic covenant and the new). The latter passage promises the Spirit, transformed hearts, restoration to the land, and the establishment of the Davidic king.

When he turns to Isaiah, McKelvey observes that the first part of the book contains numerous predictions of a coming Davidic king while the latter part of the book predicts a coming servant of the Lord. McKelvey identifies these figures and notes that this coming Messiah will bring about the new creation in fulfillment of the new covenant.

McKelvey’s chapter, especially the section on Jeremiah contains a great deal of helpful exegetical data. As a Baptist, I disagree that the holding that all new covenant members are regenerate and know the Lord over-realizes the eschatology of the covenant. To be sure there are eschatological aspects to the covenant that await fulfillment, such as the land promises. But that fact that everyone in the covenant knows the Lord is part of what makes the new covenant the new covenant.

McKelvey’s claim that Jeremiah 32:39 includes the unregenerate children of believers in the new covenant fails to take into account the context of this statement. Jeremiah 32:39 is a millennial promise. The Israelites referred to in this verse are gathered back not simply from Babylon or Persia but from “all the countries,” and they are made to “dwell in safety.” Furthermore, they will begiven “one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever.” Thus, the children spoken of here would be Israelite children born during the Millennium, and this verse would refer to all Israel being saved.