Imperishable Inheritance

After being in the faith for two years, I have learned so much about Biblical and Systematic Theology that I decided I was ready to tackle the issue of understanding the relation of the covenants. I approached the study with the presupposition of reformed Soteriology so I came out of the gate already dismissing most of those who do not hold to the five point reformed faith. This led to a lot of confusion for me, because I never interacted honestly with the positions held by Dispensationalists.

The issue of Law/Gospel brought me a deal of respect regarding Dispensationalists focus on discontinuity which I felt was ignored with the trichotomized view of the Mosaic Law and the errors made by many classical covenant theologians including baptism and theonomy (although I'm not going to go there in this post). Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner, and D.A. Carson influenced me greatly in seeing the amount of discontinuity present in the New Testament that I didn't find with many Classical Covenant Theologians who wanted to find continuity at all costs.

But I have to reject Classical Dispensationalism outright. I don't want to through around the "H" word, but if you honestly believe that the Gentiles are a parenthetical working in God's plan despite such great New Testament witness (Gal 3:8,9 for example) seemed appalling to me. Add on to the fact that extreme Dispensationalists believe that the Mosaic sacrifices will be brought back in a millennial reign which to me found no connection with these land restoration prophecies found in the major prophets. Also, denying the fact that the Kingdom of God is now seemed blasphemous to me as well. I completely, and outright, reject classical Dispensationalism.

But Progressive Dispensationalism has done much to improve dialogue between the two camps. By recognizing a degree of continuity that wasn't in the Scofield/Darby versions is great progress. They also accepted inaugurated eschatology and the line between "Israel" and the "Church" was softer. Also recognizing that gentiles are indeed heirs to the Abrahamic promises was an important step. For these reasons I would not use the "H" word for Progressive Dispensationalism. But non-the-less I still feel empty with a Progressive Dispensational stance.

Enter New Covenant Theology. I have found relief in this position. It's a shame that people like Reisinger throw straw men at both sides. In fact, I think that most New Covenant Theologians have a long way to go in properly dealing with arguments outside their own. I do enjoy their explicit teaching on the Old/New dichotomy in the NT (2 Cor 3; Heb 8/10; Luke 22:20). I can't accept many Dispensationalists interpretation that Gentiles are just "participators" in the New Covenant, because it was ultimately promised to ethnic Israel.

I do take issue of talking of a "covenant of grace" in contrast to a "covenant of works." I don't think that reformed federalism necessitates a covenant of works. Nor do I see Adam in a "probationary" period as espoused by many classical covenant theologians. I also think that speak of administrations of one covenant is not helpful either. Although, I understand why they do it, but I just don't feel it would be the way any of the Biblical writers would have talked about the unfolding revelation of God through an "overarching covenant."

I think that the debate over who Israel is is much simpler than we make it out to be. It is clear that Christ alone is the God's true first born, and His "exodus" out of Egypt (Mat 2) and testing in the wilderness (Mat 4) typified that Christ is the true light to the nations that Israel never held up to. I also see Peter claiming that the Church age is the true "holy nation." This promise was given to the Israelites upon obedience to the Mosaic Covenant. It seems that the "Church" has inherited the promises given to Israel which would not be kosher to someone like MacArthur. Ephesians 2 also leads me to believe that 'in Christ' we are heirs, Jew and Gentile alike, to the true Israel of God. As Israel is "one who strives with God" (Gen 32) so any Jew/Gentile who seeks the blessing Jacob had is brought into the true Israel. I think also that Israel is giving a mystical meaning in Rom 2:29, 4:9-13, 9:6a; Gal 3:29, 6:16; Eph 2:14-16.

I struggle with Rom 11:26 to the point of agony. I can't figure out for the life of me what Israel is in vs. 26. I find it hard to believe that it is a mystical Israel of Jews/Gentiles due to the texts after vs. 26 (see N.T. Wright and Calvin on this). I think Hoekema/Robertson's position of elect remnant being brought in throughout time has some validity, but from reading Sproul, Piper, Moo, Schreiner, Gill, Hodge, and others it seems to offer an interpretation that there will be a widespread conversion of national Jews. This puzzles me though, because with the destruction of the temple no one anymore can claim that they descend from a tribe of Jacob (hence they don't perform the Levitical sacrifices anymore). No matter what, I can't see Paul connection Rom 11:26 to a future reinstatement of a national Israel again in earthly Palestine. Nathan's article does much to contribute to the understanding the importance of Biblical typology which I actually feel sad for Dispy's whose flawed "literal" interpretation misses out on the great spiritual truths as recorded in Scripture. Studying Biblical Typology and the redemptive-historical hermeneutic (circa Graeme Goldsworthy) has done wonders for my spirituality and belief in the Biblical revelation.

I do still have questions about all the land promises in the major prophets. So many of those passages talk about literal Israel being restored to a literal land. Now I could see them being spiritualized as is done in Heb 11 towards the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21), but it amazes me that the NT doesn't expound upon these promises in depth. You would think it would be a focal point of interpretation for the NT writers.

Any references by covenant theologians regarding the promises of land restoration in the major prophets would be appreciated. Included in that a definition and explanation of the fact that the New Covenant was to be made with the "house of Israel and Judah" would be appreciated. Walter Kaiser aptly pointed me to the fact that the New Covenant was not made with the Church.