Almost ... But Not Yet:
The
New Covenant in the Hermeneutics
of Progressive
Dispensationalism
by Matthew Morgan
Attempts to describe the precise nature of
the new covenant have long been a source of disagreement within
the theological development of dispensationalism. Some classical
dispensationalists like C.I. Scofield, commenting on Hebrews 8:8,
spoke about a single new covenant ultimately fulfilled
in Israel but nevertheless with spiritual blessings that pour
over into the church age. [1] Other classical dispensationalists
like Lewis Sperry Chafer preferred to bifurcate the new covenant
into two distinct covenants, one for Israel (Jer. 31:31-
34)
and one for the church (II Cor. 3 and Heb. 8-10). [2]
The current dispensational scene continues to exhibit this lack
of a consensus on the new covenant. Both John Walvoord and
Charles Ryrie
have essentially continued Chafer's two new covenant
approach.
For example, Ryrie attempts to argue that the payment
required
by the new covenant has already been accomplished by the work
of Christ which brings with it blessings now to the Church. [3]
However, according to Ryrie, the actual fulfillment and
inauguration of the new covenant has not yet begun. [4]
Walvoord concurs with Ryrie in placing the fulfillment of the
Jeremiah 31's new covenant in the not-yet-realized thousand year
millennial kingdom. [5] John R. Master of Philadelphia College
of the Bible also follows in the footsteps of Chafer's approach.
He notes the following in a recently edited work attempting to
reclaim classical dispensationalism for the modern era:
Thus, as Ryrie summarizes, "In this view the two new
covenants are distinct and not merged into one" [7]
It is out of this context that current tensions have arisen
within
the ranks of dispensationalism, particularly in the last decade
with the rise of progressive dispensationalism. [8] As
the subtitle of the book edited by Craig Blaising and Darrell
Bock suggests, the progressive dispensationalists have undertaken
a new "search for definition." Blaising summarizes the
progressive approach as "the hermeneutical reexamination
of the relationship between Israel and the Church, which in turn
contributes to the process of self-definition currently underway
in dispensationalism." [9] Such developments have not
gone without criticism from classical dispensationalists like
Ryrie,
who argues that these "so-called developments are too
radical not to be called changes." [10]
The question remains, however, just what in
dispensationalism
has changed with the rise of progressive dispensationalism. Some
Reformed critics such as Bruce Waltke believe that this new
position
has changed to the degree that it now has more formal
similarities
with covenantal theology than to the older forms of
dispensationalism.
[11] Vern Poythress calls this new development "inherently
unstable," and argues that such a position will inevitably
collapse back into either classical dispensationalism (e.g.
Chafer)
on the one side or covenantal premillennialism (e.g. George E.
Ladd) on the other. [12]
Reformed exegetes have largely remained silent in their
assessment
of this new dispensational development. Perhaps this results from
an oversimplification of the issues at stake. There was a time
when the older works criticizing classical dispensationalism were
sufficient, [13] but such older critiques must
be revisited and in many cases modified to account for this
progressive movement within dispensationalism.
This present study seeks to do just that with respect the
progressive
dispensational conception of the new covenant. [14]
The focus of this study will be to exegetically assess Bruce
Ware's
article, "The New Covenant and the People(s) of God,"
in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church,
edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Zondervan,
1992), pages 68-97. While Ware's exegesis
does highlight many of the legitimate discontinuities between
the old and new covenants, it will be argued that his hermeneutic
remains fundamentally flawed because he fails to properly
understand
the "already/not yet" eschatological tension found
within
the New Testament itself. Such an assessment will proceed first
by examining Ware's approach to the new covenant followed by a
critique of his hermeneutic and exegesis.
I. The Progressive Approach to the New Covenant
Ware begins by stating that his precise two-fold purpose in the
article is to examine: "(1) the nature of the new covenant,
as given to Israel, and (2) its fulfillment or realization in
relation both to Israel and the church." His expressed
goal "is to contribute to the formulation of a framework
within which we can think responsibly about the continuity and
discontinuity between Israel and the church as both entities
relate
within the one people of God" (pp. 68-69). From this
general thesis,
he proceeds to examine three different aspects of the Biblical
teaching concerning
the new covenant: first, the new covenant as revealed in the
Old Testament; second, the new covenant as expanded in the New
Testament; and third, the new covenant with respect to all the
peoples of God.
A. The New Covenant and Jeremiah 31:31-34
The chief text that Ware considers with respect to the new
covenant
is Jeremiah 31:31-34. Ware opens his exegesis of Jeremiah
31:31ff.
by stressing the initial parties of this new covenant:
(a) the Lord and (b) the nation of Israel. According to Ware,
God's purpose in enacting the new covenant is to fulfill the
promises
of II Samuel 7:22-24 literally to the parties of
"Israel and Judah together." The basis for such
a restoration pictured in Jeremiah 31 centers around "their
former united national identity … Under the one new
covenant,
then, God would so bind the people of Israel to himself and his
law that they would, as a consequence, no longer and never again
break covenant with him." Ware argues with respect to
these parties "that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:34
is extended to Israel and Judah, not to any other nation or
group" (pp. 71-72).
[15] The implication is that God's covenant with Israel is thus
"irrevocable." Nevertheless, Ware admits that
prophecies
such as Isa. 55:3-5 speak of the Gentiles being added to Israel's
fold. Thus, for Ware, "while the new covenant is uniformly
… directed
to the nation of Israel, we see from this text [Isa. 55] that
the new covenant made with Israel includes a host of Gentile
participants,
not directly addressed as God's covenant partners" (pp. 70-
73).
Ware next turns to the nature of the covenant promised
in Jeremiah 31:31ff. He emphasizes the "definitive and
direct
manner" in which God applies this covenant to his people
("I will"). There is a purposeful obligation on the
part of God to bring about this covenant. Ware argues that such
a new covenant is entirely "unilateral and asymmetrical
in its direction" (p. 74).
What constitutes the newness of the new covenant?
Ware lists four components that unfold the new nature of
the new covenant. First, there is a new mode of
implementation
("I will put my law in their minds"). Second, there
is a new result: faithfulness in God ("they will know
me."). Third, there is a new basis: full and
final forgiveness ("for I will forgive their sins.").
Fourth, there is a new scope: covenantal inclusiveness
("from the least of them to the greatest") (pp. 76-83).
Ware concludes his exegesis of Jeremiah 31:31ff by addressing
the question of the anticipated fulfillment for
those in Jeremiah's day. He believes that with respect to
time,
there is "only the assurance that God will enact this
covenant; we have no knowledge of the [precise] time of its
fulfillment."
With respect to the manner of its fulfillment, "It
seems clear that the promised new age, in which the new covenant
would finally be realized, would come only when God's king would
liberate Israel from its oppressors and when God's Spirit would
inhabit the whole company of the people of God" (pp. 83-
84).
B. The New Covenant and the New Testament
Shifting forward to the New Testament, Ware acknowledges that
the new covenant is at the heart of the New Testament's thematic
development. He further admits that the new covenant is
"envisioned
by the prophets in the Old Testament with reference to the
physical
seed of Abraham (the nation of Israel) but applied in the New
Testament, at least in a preliminary form, to the spiritual seed
of Abraham, the church" (p. 84).
Of particular importance is the way in which Ware sees the new
covenant "fulfilled" in the church. First, he
identifies
the arrival of the new covenant with the cross of Christ. By this
Ware is not speaking simply of the actual cross event but rather
the cross as representative of the entire scope of Jesus
ministry.
"The new covenant arrives in the mission of Jesus ... We
see in
Jesus the beginnings of a new-covenant realization."
Ware appeals to Luke 22:20 ("the cup of the covenant")
as that which points to the death of Christ as the ground for
the new covenant reality. He also cites the forgiveness motifs
in Hebrews 8-10 as bearing witness to "the enactment of the
new covenant." In the person and work of Christ, "The
path has been prepared; the basis of the covenant has been
secured"
(pp. 83-86).
Second, Ware devotes attention to the adjoining work of the Holy
Spirit with respect to the new covenant's fulfillment. This new
work of the Spirit, according to Ware, involves both a
quantitative
expansion (as seen in the book of Acts) and a qualitative
expansion (as seen in the writings of Paul) (p. 88). Ware pays
close
attention to the new covenant passage in II Corinthians 3 and
Romans 8:2-4. Commenting on these passages, Ware writes:
Thus, for Ware, the coming of the new covenant involves the work
of the Spirit in a role not previously witnessed under the Old
Covenant. "The Spirit comes to do what the law could not
do. He comes to bring his indwelling power for life,
righteousness,
and covenant fidelity." (pp. 90-91)
C. The New Covenant and the People(s) of God
Having thus examined Ware's approach to the new covenant in the
Old and New Testament, the fundamental question(s)
of Ware's essay come into focus: "Should the New Testament
application of the new covenant lead us to see an identity of
Israel and the church? Or should we understand the new covenant
spoken of by Jesus, by Paul, and in Hebrews as a different new
covenant than that which was prophesied in Jeremiah?" (p.
91).
Ware begins by distancing himself from the classical
dispensational
approach of Ryrie and Walvoord that inevitably sees two
distinct new covenants enacted in God's eschatological program.
According to Ware, "contemporary dispensationalism"
rejects this two covenant approach of Jeremiah 31 because
careful New Testament exegesis renders the older view
"unacceptable"
(pp. 91-92).
But does this one new covenant approach automatically
demand one undifferentiated people of God? Ware
states that such a "conclusion is premature"
(p. 92). Ware prefers to see a mediating position (tertium
quid)
between the "extremes" of covenantal and dispensational
theologies. He argues for ...
Recognizing that this may be a fundamentally flawed distinction,
Ware falls back on the fundamental distinctions made earlier with
respect to "the territorial and political aspects of
the new-covenant promise" as given under the old covenant.
For Ware, the current state of the new covenant with the
church does not find fulfillment "precisely in the
manner prophesied by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel."
Thus, because the Old covenant promises foresaw a fulfillment
in a "literal fashion," it is impossible to see all
of the new covenant promises realized in the church today (pp.
93-94).
How then does Ware attempt to reconcile these seemingly
contradictory
lines of reason that Jeremiah 31 on the one hand applies to the
church but that it is not fully applicable to them? It
is here that Ware attempts to solve his dilemma by an
"already-not
yet" eschatological framework.
For Ware, the spiritual benefits of the new covenant have
"already" begun in the church, but the "not-
yet"
physical aspects of the Old Covenant are still awaiting
an earthly fulfillment. Complete covenant fidelity and obedience
"will surely be achieved in the end," but
not until then. He summarizes his view as follows:
"Israel and the church are in one sense a united
people of God, while in another sense they remain separate
in their identity and so compromise differing peoples of
God" (pp. 95-96, emphasis Ware's).
II. Assessing the Progressive Approach to the New Covenant
While aspects of Bruce Ware's exegesis of the new covenant are
commendable in light of the older dispensational errors, his
exegesis
reveals three deficient areas that continue to plague
the progressive dispensational approach. These areas of critique
hang together
and highlight the inter-related tensions that remain in this
evolving
dispensational system.
A. Ware fails to properly distinguish the Ordo Salutis
and the
Historia Salutis
One of the difficulties that often
provokes eschatological debate is the issue of continuity
and discontinuity between the old and new covenants. Often
the Reformed approach is characterized as the view upholding
continuity
while the dispensational approach is characterized as the view
that emphasizes discontinuity. Given the classical dispensational
error of confusing soteriology as it pertains to Israel
and the church, the Reformed response has rightfully desired to
uphold the underlying covenant of grace that is operative
in both Israel and the church. Such Reformed considerations
emphasize
the nature of the ordo salutis, the order of salvation.
However, such a critique does not go far enough in identifying
the tensions between dispensational and Reformed eschatology.
If the issue in question is merely the ordo salutis, then
one will have a harder time distinguishing classic Reformed
theology
from progressive dispensationalism; in recent years, the
progressive
dispensationalists have corrected the former classical errors.
Until the systems of theology are compared in terms of their
organic
development within redemptive history, one will fail to
understand
the precise nature of this tension. Stated differently, the real
disagreement between the Reformed theologian and the progressive
dispensationalist is precisely over the nature of the historia
salutis, the history of salvation. Thus, the discussion needs
to move beyond the older question of "continuity vs.
discontinuity"
in the ordo salutis and focus more closely on both
elements as they organically develop within the historia
salutis.
The distinction between historia salutis (the history of
salvation) and
ordo salutis (the order of salvation) seems to have been
first made by Herman
Ridderbos in his 1957 article, "The Redemptive-Historical
Character of Paul's
Preaching." [16] Gaffin states that this "contrast is
virtually identical with
the broader distinction between redemption accomplished and
applied." [17] A
sample quote from Ridderbos's 1957 article illustrates that this
is in fact his
usage:
Notice that for Ridderbos, the historia salutis is not
limited to the
accomplishment of redemption in the cross and resurrection of
Christ. The cross
and resurrection constitutes "the culminating point of the
Kingdom of God which
has appeared in Christ." But this implies a covenant
history – a "divine,
eschatological drama" – which precedes and prepares for the
appearing of Christ.
This drama of the Kingdom began with its initial establishment
at creation. It
was then disrupted but not shattered by the fall. After the
fall, the Kingdom
promises were redemptively renewed to the patriarchs, and then
fulfilled in two
phases – a first-level (typical) fulfillment in Israel as a
nation, and a second-
level (anti-typical) fulfillment in Christ and his church. [19]
This distinction enables us to be more precise in getting at the
questions of
continuity and discontinuity between the old and new covenants.
In terms of the
ordo salutis, covenant theology sees fundamental
continuity. When Paul needs an
illustrative paradigm for the justification of the individual
sinner, he chooses
an old covenant saint – Abraham.
Even so Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him
as righteousness."
Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are
sons of Abraham.
The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by
faith, preached
the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations
will be blessed in you."
So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the
believer (Gal. 3:6-9).
The above statements indicate the fundamental oneness of old and
new covenant
believers in terms of their experience of the same blessings of
the ordo salutis.
We are "fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus
through the gospel"
(Eph. 3:6). In fact, Paul says it is not that the Jews are
sharing in the same
spiritual blessings now being given to the Gentiles, but that
the Gentiles are
sharing in the spiritual blessings originally given to the Jews
(Rom. 15:27). The
Gentile believers are "wild olive branches" who by
God's grace have been
"grafted in among them and become partaker with them of the
rich root of the
olive tree" (Rom. 11:17).
The explanation for this trans-epochal, ordo salutis
continuity across old and
new covenants is to be sought in Christ. Since he is the one and
only Savior
for all the elect, whether living before or after Pentecost, all
saving blessings
necessarily share the same legal ground. Biblical theologian
Richard B. Gaffin,
Jr., stresses this vital point:
But while the ordo salutis benefits remain essentially
unchanged as we move
from the old covenant to the new, significant changes have
occurred in terms
of the historia salutis. At times it does seem as though
some Reformed
theologians are almost embarrassed by such New Testament language
of discontinuity, with some going to great lengths to muffle this
New Testament witness in favor of pure continuity. [21] But there
is no need for such embarrassment if one rightly recognizes the
distinction between the ordo salutis and
the historia salutis. Ridderbos carefully delineates
this point when he writes
Gaffin uses even more forceful language:
This crucial distinction between ordo salutis and
historia salutis
helps in evaluating the exegesis of Ware. He rightly emphasizes
the newness of
the new covenant and the legitimate discontinuities that exist
between the
old and new covenants as demonstrated in Romans 8:2ff and II
Corinthians 3. [24]
The difficulty in Ware is properly distinguishing these two
features
in his exegesis. VanGemeren expresses "grave
reservations"
of Ware's treatment of the Holy Spirit because Ware speaks as
if the Holy Spirit was not involved in the "regeneration
and sanctification of the Old Testament saints." [25] But
again the question arises: Is the point under question the
historia
salutis or the ordo salutis? If the contrasts between
old and new
covenant in passages like Romans 8:2ff. and II Corinthians 3 are
interpreted
in light of the historia salutis, there is no threat to
the ordo salutis
unity of the old and new covenant saints.
VanGemeren's criticism
reveals what he perceives to be a problem in Ware's conception
of the ordo salutis. However, his critique of Ware may
be overstating the case because Ware is not entirely clear on
just what he is addressing. If Ware is addressing the historia
salutis, then he is not attempting anything fundamentally
different from Ridderbos; however, if he is addressing the
ordo salutis, then there are some serious implications
that
Ware needs to account for.
To be fair, Ware is attempting to do
justice to the discontinuities that come with the historia
salutis, whether he recognizes this theological category or
not. The difficulty is that his understanding of the historia
salutis is not clear or cogently presented. [26] In fact,
it will be shown that he has not properly grasped the progressive
nature of revelation within the historia salutis.
B. Ware has not escaped the classical dispensational
hermeneutic
and thus fails to understand the Biblical perspective on
typology
Progressive dispensationalists admit the need to get beyond
viewing
hermeneutics in terms of "literal" vs.
"spiritual."
Craig Blaising, for example, admits rather frankly, "it is
becoming
increasingly clear that this approach will not be
successful." [27] Happily,
Ware does not follow classical dispensationalism's
insistence on this point either, thus opening the door for a
more constructive
dialogue. Indeed, he cannot because of his desire to
see the blessings of the new covenant realized (in some sense)
in the new covenant church.
But when these new changes (demonstrated in Ware's exegesis)
are taken into account, a fundamental inconsistency
emerges. [28]
On the one hand, he appears to recognize the confusion (and
error)
caused by the "literalist" dispensational hermeneutic.
On the other hand, he still desires to hold onto some
distinction between Israel and the church. According to Ryrie,
the sin qua non of dispensationalism must include both
a literal hermeneutic and a distinction between
Israel and the church. "The essence of
dispensationalism…is
the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out
of the dispensationalist's consistent employment of normal and
plain or historical-grammatical interpretation" [29]
Notice how Ryrie identifies these sin qua non elements
as essentially being two sides of the same coin; they both hang
or fall together.
What emerges in progressive dispensationalism is not a
giving up of the "literal hermeneutic" but rather
simply
a modification of it. The fact that Ware starts his exegesis of
Jeremiah 31 by emphasizing the parties of the covenant
is a telling indication of his literal hermeneutic. For Ware, a
literal
reading of the new covenant demands that it function with literal
Israel.
At this point, one can hardly detect any disagreement with
classical
dispensational hermeneutics.
The question that Ware (and the other progressives) must address
is this remaining tension between the apparent need to hold on
to a "literal" hermeneutic while at the same time
recognizing
a "spiritual" fulfillment in the church. As it stands,
this "spiritual-here-but-literal-there"
hermeneutic of Ware stands as an overly subjective distinction
that has no real textual warrant. If, as Ware argues, the new
covenant is "central to the overall teaching of the
New Testament" (p. 84), then one would certainly expect
this bifurcated hermeneutic to be just as "central"
in the New Testament as well. Yet Ware offers only one
New Testament example (Romans 11:26) where this Israel-Church
distinction supposedly remains (p. 96). One should hardly base
such
an entire eschatological paradigm on a highly debated passage
among dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists alike. [30]
Ware can speak of the New Testament as "applying" the
new covenant in Jeremiah 31, (p. 94) but he cannot bring himself
to see just how the New Testament "interprets" the New
Covenant promise of Jer. 31 in light of its fulfillment. It is
not coincidental that Ware lacks any detailed exegesis of how
the context of Hebrews 8-10 illumines and interprets
Jeremiah 31, preferring instead to address only the original
context
and then some "applications" to the present era.
Ironically,
Ware retreats into the classical dispensational error of
insisting
that the New Testament does not really interpret the Old
Testament but rather only applies it generally. [31]
Waltke
perceptively notes
Ware acknowledges that "Christ is the mediator of the new
covenant" (Heb. 9:15), but he fails to grasp the
implications of how a "fulfillment" interprets the
exegetical
citations of Jer. 31 found in both Hebrews 8 and 10. [33]
Thus, this literal hermeneutical approach to
Old Testament prophecy reveals the more fundamental problem with
both the classical and progressive dispensational
approaches. Both schemes fail to understand the typological
connection between the old covenant made with Israel
and the new covenant made with the Church. Meredith Kline
perceptively
notes this fundamental error.
The progressive dispensationalists think they have sharpened
their
hermeneutic from their classical dispensational counterparts, but
what they are left with is a system that shares fundamentally
the same approach to typology. [35] Kline's analysis is
particularly illuminating because it destroys the progressive
dispensationalist's insistence that they have moved fundamentally
beyond the older "parenthetical view" of the church
found in classical dispensationalism. A "parenthesis"
still exists
in the progressive scheme because there still exists a gap
- however one wants to speak of it - between the resurrection
of Christ and the literal fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 in
a future pre-consummation epoch. This problem leads to one final
criticism of progressive dispensational.
C. Ware fails to properly understand inaugurated New Testament
eschatology
The previous discussion invites the question
of how Ware can all but ignore the exegesis of Hebrews 8-10 when
writing an essay on the new covenant. Is it merely
a literal hermeneutic that prevents Ware from grasping
the full import of the new covenant in Hebrews 8-10? Or is there
a related problem that better explains this progressive
hermeneutic?
While the literal hermeneutic of progressive dispensationalism
is certainly
problematic, this is a problem it shares with classical
dispensationalism.
Unique to progressive dispensationalism is its
misapplication of inaugurated
eschatology. Can this
present age "inaugurate" what was originally promised
in typological
form to Israel? Classical dispensationalism flatly denies any
present, inaugurated eschatology, because the church is seen as
something entirely parenthetical and separate from God's plan
for Israel. [36]
However, progressive dispensationalism
marks a significant change in the discussion, for Ware
acknowledges
the importance of the "already/not yet" tension in the
New Testament. [37]
While such an acknowledgement by Ware is a shift in the right
direction, he fails to grasp the precise nature of this
"already/not
yet" tension. The New Testament writers uniformly depict
this tension in terms of "this age" (already) and
"the
age to come" (not yet). For example, note the juxtaposition
of these two ages in Matthew 12:32, "And whoever says a word
against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks
against
the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age
or in the age to come." Similar juxtapositions occur
in Luke 18:29-30 and 20:34-35. This two-age approach is
fundamental
to the New Testament eschatological perspective. [38] With this
understanding comes "the distinctive notion that the
eschaton,
the 'age to come,' is both present and future." [39] What
emerges from a careful exegesis of these ages is an
"antithesis
between a world (age) that is and a world (age) that is
to come." [40] This eschatological conception can be
portrayed as follows: [41]
As Vos concludes, "the Christian [in this age] has
only his members upon earth…[but] himself, and as a whole,
he belongs to the high mountain-land above [in the age to
come],
Col. 3:5." [42]
Contrary to the New Testament's "already/not yet"
conception,
the progressive dispensational approach does not conceive of
inaugurated
eschatology in this manner. Ware comes close
to the New Testament conception when he acknowledges that the
spiritual aspects have been "already" inaugurated in
the present
age. But his identification of the "not yet" with the
coming
arrival of Israel's restored territory in millennial age prior
to
the consummation (pp. 94-95) is wide of the mark.
Whereas the New Testament writers uniformly place the "not
yet" reality within the final, post-consummation
epoch, Ware argues for a "not yet" reality that looks
forward to a pre-consummation epoch. The following
diagram illustrates Ware's progressive view:
Stated simply, the New Testament defines the "not yet"
in terms of the heavenly consummation, while progressive
dispensationalism defines the "not yet" in terms of
an earthly pre-consummation period.
What results from Ware's conception of the "not yet"
looks nothing like the biblical definition of the "not
yet."
In fact, Ware's approach might be better described as a
"three-age"
eschatology - "the already / the not-yet / the
consummation."
In Ware's scheme, the "not yet" is reduced to a pre-
consummation
extension of the "already," leaving the question of
the final consummation completely unaccounted for. [43] Notice
that in his scheme, one is left to speculate precisely what Ware
can call the consummation epoch that comes after
the "not yet." Further, it must be asked if Ware can
provide any New Testament references that speak of an
eschatological
period coming after the "not yet."
Because Ware places the "not yet" within the pre-
consummation
arena, such texts as Matthew 12:32 must be radically
reinterpreted.
Is Jesus really trying to distinguish between two pre-
consummation
earthly periods? Luke 18:30 is rendered virtually
meaningless
because Jesus juxtaposes "the age to come" with
"eternal
life." Is Ware prepared to argue that "eternal
life"
in its fullness is experienced prior to the consummation?
Or consider Luke 20:34-35 and the juxtaposition of "that
age" and with resurrection from the dead and the elimination
of marriage. Is Ware prepared to argue that the resurrection of
the dead takes place and that physical marriage is
eliminated
prior to the consummation?
Even the "already" character, which Ware recognizes
(contrary to classical dispensationalists), becomes convoluted
due
to the smoothing over of the cosmic tension of the
"ages."
Ironically, then, it is the progressive dispensationalist that
errs not only in terms of an erroneous discontinuity
placed
between Israel and the church, but also in terms of an erroneous
continuity placed between "this age" and
"the
age to come." By refusing to see "the age to come"
as a post-consummational reality, one can no longer clearly
distinguish
the proper antithesis that exists between the ages.
The clear teaching of the New Testament does not uphold Ware's
desire to pre-consummatize the "not yet." Ware attempts
to fit the "already/not yet" schema of the New
Testament
within a presupposed dispensational grid rather than allowing
the New Testament itself to organically dictate the grid for the
"already/not yet" schema. The end result in Ware is
a highly convoluted eschatological program that misses the New
Testament's focus.
Conclusion
The progressive dispensational hermeneutic, particularly as it
pertains to the new covenant, marks a shift in the discussion
from the older classical dispensational approaches. Bruce Ware
has made a credible attempt to reconcile the Biblical data as
pertaining to the new covenant, and in so doing, has moved beyond
some of the older dispensational blunders. Nevertheless, the
tertium
quid that Ware and other progressive dispensationalists are
after does not hold up under careful Biblical exegesis and is
"condemned by the inconsistency of its hermeneutics."
[44] Ware continues to borrow hermeneutical principles inherited
from classical dispensationalism. With that hermeneutic comes a
fundamental misunderstanding of both Old Testament typology and
the New Testament's "already/not yet" schema. While
on the one hand it appears that progressive dispensationalists
have almost captured the essence of the "new
covenant," it becomes clear that they have not yet
grasped the correct New Testament hermeneutic of inaugurated
eschatology.
NOTES
[1] Scofield Study Bible (New York:
Oxford, 1967), p. 1317.
[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 7
(Dallas:
Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), pp. 98-99.
[3] Charles R. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1995), p. 172.
[4] Ryrie, pp. 172-73. "Similarity of blessings (even
partial
similarity) does not mean equation of covenants."
[5] John Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1969), pp. 282ff.
[6] John R. Master, "The New Covenant" in Issues
in Dispensationalism, Willis and Master, eds. (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1994), p. 108.
[7] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 174 (emphasis mine).
[8] For a more detailed look at these developments, see the
introductory
chapters in Robert Saucy, The Case for Progressive
Dispensationalism
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) and in Craig A. Blaising and
Darrell
L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The
Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). This
is not to suggest that such tensions are new to
dispensationalism.
However, the progressive dispensational movement marks a
significant
shift from classical dispensationalism.
[9] Craig A. Blaising, "Dispensationalism: The Search for
Definition," in Dispensationalism, Israel and the
Church,
p. 34.
[10] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 178.
[11] Bruce K. Waltke, "A Response," in
Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church, p. 348.
[12] Vern Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists,
2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1994), p. 137.
[13] For example, Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955).
[14] This is only one aspect of progressive dispensationalism
that needs assessment. Others include: the Reign of Christ in
the present; 'Israel' in Romans 9-11; Revelation 20; and The New
Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22.
[15] To prove his point, Ware cites numerous
Old Testament texts that all have their initial reference to the
nation of Israel: Isa. 54:10; Isa. 61:8; Ezek. 11:18-21,
18:30-31, 34:25, 36:22-32, 37:26; Jer. 24:7, 32:36-41, 50:4:5.
[16] Chapter 4 (pp. 44-60) in Ridderbos, When the Time Had
Fully Come: Studies
in New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957;
reprinted by Paideia
Press, 1982).
[17] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., "The Vitality of Reformed
Dogmatics," pp. 16-50 in
The Vitality of Reformed Dogmatics: Proceedings of the
International Theological
Congress, June 20-24th 1994, Noordwijkerhout, The
Netherlands, eds. J. M.
Batteau, J. W. Maris, and K. Veling (Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok,
1994), p. 31
note 29. In Dutch the terms are heilshistorisch and
heilsordelijk.
[18] Ridderbos, When the Time Had Fully Come, pp. 49-50.
[19] This double fulfillment schema has been worked out in
detail as an
over-arching analysis of the historia salutis by Meredith
G. Kline,
Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal
Worldview
(Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000).
[20] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., "Pentecost: Before and After,"
Kerux 10:2
(Sept. 1995) p. 17.
[21] I particularly have in mind theonomic reconstructionism.
For a very recent example, see Andrew Sandlin, "The Old
Covenant
and the New, Revisited," Chalcedon Report 418 (May
2000). "We no longer look at the new covenant as being
exclusively
after Christ came. The new covenant was present (in an earlier
phase) in the Old Testament" (5). Note carefully that his
entire article identifies the new covenant in purely ordo
salutis
terms.
[22] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology,
translated by John R. De Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),
pp. 205-206. Note that I am not (nor is Ridderbos!) denying that
there is an ordo salutis! Rather, the purpose is to follow
Paul's lead in properly grounding the ordo salutis in the
historia salutis.
[23] Gaffin, "Pentecost: Before and After," p. 16.
[24] I am merely giving Ware the
benefit of the doubt that he is headed in the right
direction in wanting to properly call the new covenant
new.
However, his formulations of the discontinuities are often
unclear and imprecise.
[25] Willem A. VanGemeren, "A Response," in
Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church, p. 339.
[26] I would suggest that progressive dispensationalists ponder
more closely Ridderbos' careful argumentation of this "new
life" in Paul: An Outline, pp. 205-252.
[27] Blaising, "Dispensationalism: The Search for
Definition," p. 32.
[28] Classical dispensationalists have also pointed out this
inconsistency,
and are thus typically quite critical of progressive
dispensationalism.
See Ryrie, pp. 161-181.
[29] Ryrie, p. 41.
[30] For a discussion of the issues, see C. Lee Irons,
"Paul's
Theology of Israel's Future: A Nonmillennial Interpretation of
Romans 11," Reformation and Revival 6:2 (Spring 1997)
101-126. Since Ware refers to this passage without offering any
exegesis, such a digression at this point would take us beyond
the present scope. However, a thorough critique of progressive
dispensationalism would want to include a treatment of Romans
11. For the present discussion, it is enough to note that Romans
11 is the primary proof text for the progressive position.
[31] In both the classical and progressive schemes, there is a
fundamental distinction
between the New Testament "applying" the Old Testament
and the New Testament "interpreting" the Old Testament.
When dispensationalists (classical or progressive) accuse the
Reformed
theologians of "spiritualizing" the Old Testament, they
are rejecting the later as a valid method of interpretation!
Notice
how Ware never speaks about the New Testament
"interpreting"
this old covenant text of Jeremiah 31.
[32] Waltke, "A Reponse," pp. 350-51.
[33] The progressive dispensationalist's inconsistency is just
this: how can we speak of an inaugurated new covenant without
acknowledging the interpretative character found in the new
covenant?
[34] Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p. 341.
[35] Kline, pp. 347-50.
[36] In the classical dispensational scheme, the inauguration of
the new covenant
is "postponed"
for the present era until Christ returns and reestablishes the
people of Israel in their land. For a recent treatment of this
position, see Elliot E. Johnson,
"Prophetic Fulfillment: The Already and Not Yet," in
Issues in Dispensationalism, Willis and Master, eds.
(Chicago:
Moody Press, 1994), pp. 183ff. Somewhat ironically, Johnson
recognizes
that the "already/not yet" hermeneutic, if true,
destroys his
dispensational position. But, of course, he rejects the
hermeneutic, citing that it "is the abandonment of
the biblical authority of the Old Testament message as it was
expressed in the original context" (p. 197).
[37] Ware cites approvingly the works of Oscar Cullmann, George
Ladd, and Anthony Hoekema. Ware, p. 94.
[38] Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1952), pp. 36-41. Also see chapter 2 in Ridderbos,
Paul:
An Outline, pp. 44ff.
[39] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A
Study in
Paul's Soteriology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed,
1987).
[40] Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 36.
[41] Vos, p. 38. My chart is a slightly modified version of Vos'
chart.
[42] Vos, p. 41.
[43] It is rather striking that Ware's eschatological discussion
focuses entirely on the pre-consummation age.
[44] Kline, p. 349.
The new covenant specifically mentioned in the Scriptures is yet
future for a redeemed and sanctified Jewish people. Theologically
there are many new covenants because each dispensation is a new
covenant. There is no need to apply the promises of Israel's new
covenant to the church because the same spiritual promises are
specified for the church (Rom 8:30; I John 3:2; etc.). [6]
It seems clear that Paul does not mean to describe some
transcovenantal reality but is clearly marking off what he says
about the Spirit as distinctively new covenant in reference. If
any doubt exists, it is removed in 2 Corinthians 3:7-11, where
Paul describes the glory of the old-covenant ministry as fading
away and the glory of the new covenant as surpassing that of the
old and remaining. (p. 90)
a middle position that would suggest that Israel and the
church share theologically rich and important elements of
commonality
while at the same time maintaining distinct identities. One of
these elements of theologically rich commonality is their co-
participation
in the one new covenant, on the basis of which they are united
as one people of God. And yet, their distinct identities should
be maintained insofar as we can legitimately distinguish clearly
different manners by which that one new covenant is fulfilled.
(pp. 92-93)
How can these be reconciled? The are reconciled when we permit
the fulfillment of such eschatological promises to take both a
preliminary and partial ("already") fulfillment as well
as a later full and complete ("not yet") realization.
And such in fact seems to be the case in regard to the new
covenant.
(p. 94)
Paul as the witness last called stands behind the facts, notably
behind the
facts of Christ's death and resurrection. It is these facts that
he is to preach
and interpret as the culminating point of the Kingdom of God
which has appeared
in Christ, as the deciding acts in the divine, eschatological
drama … It is at
once obvious now, that the central motive of justification by
faith can be
understood in its real, pregnant significance only from this
redemptive-historical
viewpoint. No doubt, the ordo salutis, that is, the
application and appropriation
of the salvation, is also involved here. Paul preaches
justification by faith,
as opposed to Judaism, and Romans 4 is the great proof of this.
But the starting-
point of Paul's preaching of justification by faith is to be
found in the great
turning-point in the historia salutis. This is the
significance of the great
thematic pronouncement in Romans 1:17, repeated in Romans 3:21:
"But now apart
from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested [from
faith to faith –
v. 17]." Every word can be used as evidence. "But
now" – now that the great day
of salvation has become present time, "hath been manifested" –
not, in the first
place, made known as a noetic piece of information, but has
appeared as an
historical event. [18]
Therefore "it was also credited to him as
righteousness." Now not for his sake
only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our
sake also, to whom
it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised
Jesus our Lord from
the dead (Rom. 4:22-24).
Basic experiential continuity exists because every soteric
blessing whatsoever,
before and after Pentecost, has a single, common source; all are
based on and
flow from, whether proleptically or retrospectively, the once-
for-all work of
Christ. [20]
The work of the Holy Spirit … stands entirely under this
[new
covenant] sign. The Spirit as the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit
of the new aeon, and all that he renews, re-creates, [and]
changes
is new and different because it pertains to this eschatological
"newness." … The result is that in Paul's
preaching
there is no such thing as a systematic development of the ordo
salutis. [22]
From the viewpoint of redemptive history - covenant history in
its ongoing,
epochal movement toward consummation - there is the most radical
contrast. In
this respect I will yield to no one in stressing the absolute,
"dispensational"
difference before and after Pentecost. Before Christ - before
his climactic
coming in "the fullness of time" (Gal. 4:4; Eph.
1:10), "at the end of the ages"
(Heb. 9:26; cf. 1:2) - there is nothing, nothing of
substance, only anticipatory,
evanescent (Heb. 8:13) shadows cast in advance (Col. 2:17; Heb.
8:5; 10:1). With
and after Christ's coming there is everything; he is,
without precedent, God's
(finally) revealed "fullness" (Eph. 4:13; Col. 1:19;
2:9) ... (Preincarnate) Christ
and the Holy Spirit are surely active throughout the old
covenant (e.g., I Cor. 10:3-4),
but only anomalously, "out of season," in advance,
and, above all, on the basis
of who the last Adam was to become, "the life-giving
Spirit." In the
redemptive-historical sense ... the "not yet" of John
7:39 is to be taken at
face value; it is absolute, unqualified. [23]
To the extent that our hermeneutics are regulated by the
principle
of authorial intent, we are given ample reason to expect this
literal rendering of what God … originally promised to his
people Israel. Furthermore, the New Testament does not permit
a spiritual absorption of the literal promises to Israel by the
church. (p. 93)
Ware begs the issue by starting with the Old and uses the
book of Hebrews selectively to substantiate his interpretation.
In other words, he autonomously eisegetes Hebrews, not
submissively
exegetes it. What is needed is a careful exegesis of this
inspired
interpretation of the two covenants, the Old and the New. [32]
Dispensationalists, failing to see that the first level kingdom
[the old covenant] becomes obsolete and gets replaced by the
antitype
in the messianic age, continue the obsolete order on indefinitely
into the new age. They assign it a place parallel to the second
level kingdom [the new covenant] … while relegating the
second
level fulfillment to a parenthetical rather than perfective
status.
In so doing, Dispensationalism radically misconstrues the
typological
structure of the old and new covenants, reducing typology to
merely
analogy and obscuring the historical promise-fulfillment
relationship
of these two covenants. [34]
The age to come
----------------------------------------------------->
| |
| |
Resurrection of Parousia
Christ Last Resurrection
("Already") ("Not yet")
| |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------
This age
VOS'S TWO-AGE DIAGRAM
----------------------------------------------------->
| | |
| "Already" | "Not yet" |
| (Church) | (Israel) |
| | |
| | |
------------------------------------------------------------
WARE'S "TWO-AGE" MODEL
Copyright © 2002
By Matthew Morgan