Central Baptist Theological Seminary just published Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement. This book is a Festschrift for Charles Hauser, Jr. that is comprised of chapters by his former colleagues and students. The first three chapters focus on the classic sine qua nons of dispensationalism.

This chapter by Douglas Brown, dean of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, investigates whether the glory of God is one of the sine qua nons of dispensationalism.

Brown begins by noting that not all dispensationalists, especially progressive dispensationalists, agree that Ryrie’s sine qua nons (the Israel/church distinction, literal interpretation, and God’s glory as God’s fundamental purpose) mark out the essentials of dispensationalism. Brown, by contrast, defends the inclusion of the glory of God in the sine qua nons of dispensationalism.

Brown notes that the emphasis on the glory of God emerged as a response to the critique that early dispensationalists undermined the “unity of the Bible” by having two redemptive purposes for the two peoples of God: “John Walvoord responded to these charges by affirming that there is one overarching purpose of Scripture—the glory of God” (17). This was seen by dispensationalists as superior to seeing the covenant of grace as the unifying principle in Scripture.

There are two lines of critiques for including the glory of God in the sine qua nons. First, before Walvoord no dispensationalist made it an “overarching principle” and contemporaries of Walvoord, as well as dispensationalists of the following generation, have argued that the kingdom of God is the “unifying theme” of Scripture (Brown mentions Pentecost, McClain, and Blaising). Second, non-dispensationalists also emphasize the importance of God’s glory as is seen in WSC 1 and Jonathan Edwards’s The End for Which God Created the World.

In response, Brown argues that there remains something distinctive about the glory of God as a unifying principle of history that sets traditional dispensationalism apart from both progressive dispensationalism and non-dispensational theologies.

In the remainder of the chapter Brown offers seven premises regarding a dispensational understanding of God’s glory

• “Premise One: God is a glorious God” (20).
• “Premise Two: The ultimate goal of all creation is the glory of God” (22).
• “Premise Three: God wants every creature to glorify him” (23).
• “Premise Four: Glorifying God is bound to God’s self-disclosure” (25). Here Brown highlights that God has revealed himself in both general and special revelation. In special revelation God has revealed himself in the Word of God and in the Son of God.
• “Premise Five: God has chosen to reveal his glory progressively and systematically through redemptive history (i.e., through every dispensation)” (26).
• “Premise Six: The climax of God’s glorification in human history will occur at the second coming and during the millennium” (27).
• “Premise Seven: The ultimate completion of God’s glorification before all creation will occur only as he fulfils the national promises to Israel in the millennium” (28).

In light of these premises Brown concludes that “the glory of God is the overarching purpose of God” (31). He grants that this conclusion is not unique to dispensationalism, and he observes that this is the reason why many dispensationalists do no think it is a valid sine qua non of dispensationalism. Brown responds, however, that it should be retained as the “unifying principle” of dispensationalism. In addition, he argues that “the dispensational view of God’s glory is unique” in that it sees the millennial kingdom as the culmination of God’s display of his glory. He thinks that this observation has the potential to unite dispensationalists who make the kingdom the “unifying principle of the Scripture” (31).

Brown is careful in his presentation of this theme to acknowledge that adherents to other systems also recognize the importance of the glory of God, and he does a good job of demonstrating its importance as a “unifying principle” in the dispensational system. That said, I’m not sure that a single center to Scripture is necessary. If I were asked for Scripture’s central theme(s), I would provide three: glory, kingdom, and redemption. If given the opportunity to elaborate I’d observe that the kingdom theme is developed through a series of covenants which forward God’s plan of redemption—all for the purpose of bringing glory to God.

I appreciate Brown’s purpose in uniting the glory and kingdom themes by emphasizing that the glory theme culminates in the millennial kingdom. However, it does seem strange to make the millennium to the exclusion of the new creation the climax of the theme. In addition, while I agree with Brown about the fulfillment of God’s promises to the nation of Israel, it seems strange to omit the extension of God’s purposes to all the nations. From the beginning, God chose Israel to bless the nations. It seems that their omission detracts from the worldwide international scope of God’s glory.

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).

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).