Dispensations & Covenants

Dispensations & Covenants

Robert Thurman, MA

Fall 2013

Presuppositions

Everyone has presuppositions. Here are the ones I am bringing to this course…

1. I presuppose that we agree that the Scriptures are our ultimate authority and that they are uniquely sufficient to provide answers to the questions we will wrestle with during this course.

Presuppositions

Everyone has presuppositions. Here are the ones your instructor brings to this course…

2. I presuppose that you are willing to engage in hard work and study to learn the Word of God.

3. I presuppose that you expect to get your money’s worth out of this class, and that you expect me to challenge your thinking and to stretch you academically.

Presuppositions


4. I presuppose that you will not always agree with my understanding of the Scriptures. You are always free to disagree, but if you want to debate, I expect you to make your case using the Scriptures and with a loving and respectful spirit.

Presuppositions


5. I presuppose that you will not always understand everything in the assigned readings. Read them anyway and get what you can.

6. I presuppose that you will not always understand everything I communicate during lectures. Ask me questions and don’t stop until I’ve made myself clear.

Presuppositions


7. I presuppose that you want to do your best work, and that you want me to tell you how you can improve the work you submit to me.

8. I presuppose that you will face many challenges as you seek to complete this course. Please communicate with me if there’s something I can do to help.

Presuppositions


9. I presuppose that we will grow in Christian love and in mutual respect for each other.

10. I presuppose that you are not here for mere intellectual stimulation, but to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Savior.

Why this course matters…

Learning about the dispensations and covenants of Scripture is essential if you want to…

1. Interpret Scripture-– In particular this course will help you to understand

the promises God made to His people in the Old Testament.

– It will help you understand how the New Testament uses the Old Testament.

– it will also teach you how to approach passages dealing with the doctrines of the people of God and passages dealing with the end times.



2. Understand the present nature of God’s kingdom and to anticipate the future nature of God’s kingdom (the Millennial Kingdom and God’s overall purposes for the future).



3. Identify the people of God and to understand God’s relationship and obligations to Israel, to the Church, to the Gentiles, and to the nations.



4. Relate the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ (the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant).

5. Discern how New Testament believers should respond to Old Testament Law.



6. Recognize and trace God’s overarching purpose for history.

7. Evaluate the teachings of Dispensationalism and the teachings of Covenant Theology.



8. Appreciate God’s sovereign rule over all creation and His faithfulness in keeping the promises He has made.

What Is A Dispensation?

General Sense- The English word dispensation is an Anglicized

form of the Latin word dispensatio. The Latin verb is a compound, meaning "to

weigh out or to dispense.“ Tertullian, a North African Christian, in the

early third century used the Latin word dispensatio to translate the Greek word oikonomia.

What Is A Dispensation?

In ancient Greek culture, an oikonomos was a servant in charge of a household.

Oikonomia referred to his activity of managing the house.

These words came to be used broadly to describe any kind of manager or management activity.

What Is a Dispensation?

The management activity of an oikonomos usually involved financial transactions. The manager would receive money from his master, and he would be expected to use that money to run the household.

The financial aspect of oikonomia gives us our English word economy.


Oikonomia and oikonomos appear in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

The individual in charge of the King of Judah’s palace is called an oikonomos and his management responsibility over the king’s household is called an oikonomia (1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 18:18, 37).


Oikonomia and oikonomos also appear in the New Testament.

In Romans 16:23, Erastus is the oikonomos of the city of Corinth. This probably means he was the chief treasurer or the C.F.O. for the city.


Jesus also used these terms in some of His parables.

In Luke 12:42 there is an oikonomos responsible for making sure all his master’s servants were properly fed.

In Luke 16:1-13, there is an unjust oikonomos who is called in to have his oikonomia evaluated by his master.


From these references we can summarize the general sense of oikonomos and oikonomia.

Oikonomos refers to any type of manager or administrator.

Oikonomia, the word we translate dispensation, refers to the activity of a manager and to the way the manager organizes his activity (his plan, order, structure, etc.)


Theological Sense- The parables of Jesus are not just stories

about managers and households. Jesus told these parables to teach about the coming kingdom of God.

They speak to the relationship between God and Israel and to the fact that God will call Israel to account in the judgments that will precede God’s kingdom.


Through this teaching, oikonomia acquired a theological sense; it came to designate the relationship between God and the world.

Paul uses both oikonomia and oikonomos in his writings to describe God’s management or plan for the world.

Most of these uses refer to Paul’s own office as an apostle.


God, the Master of the world, entrusted to Paul and the other apostles the responsibility of proclaiming new revelation- the mysteries of God and Christ (1 Cor. 4:1-2; Eph. 3:2-6; Col. 1:25-29)

Pastors and teachers were also part of this stewardship (Titus 1:7).

Peter says that all Christians are all oikonomoi of the grace of God (1 Peter 4:10).


In Ephesians 3:9, Paul speaks of the dispensation or oikonomia of the mystery of Christ.

Reading this in the context of verses 4-6, we see that Paul uses dispensation to refer to a new order or a new arrangement in the relationship between God and humanity.


The relationship between God and human beings should be thought of as a dispensation, a management relationship, God has instituted.

We now live in a dispensation which has been established through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit.


This current dispensation or management relationship between God and humanity is different from the arrangement which had been previously in effect.

The previous arrangement was also a dispensation (Galatians 3:23-4:7).


Significance- What is the significance of God calling His

relationship with humanity or His management of our relationship to Him, a dispensation?


1. God is sovereign over human affairs. Just as the master of an estate, God has the authority to manage, structure, or design human affairs in any way that He desires and He has the authority to hold His servants accountable.

2. God has a purpose and a plan. Management activity always has a vision or a plan or a purpose in view. There is a planned and purposeful order to whatever arrangement God institutes.


4. A dispensation involves an ordered set of relationships. In any management plan there is organization, delegation, and accountability.

5. A dispensation involves responsibilities and requirements.

6. Dispensations can change. Managers often change their management plan when they’ve accomplished the goals set in the previous plan.


Summary- A dispensation is a management relationship

between God and humanity, in which God manages the way human beings are to relate to Him and to one another. God has progressively revealed Himself and His plans through successive historical dispensations and He is leading us to a future dispensation in which all of His promises and covenants will be eternally fulfilled.

What Are the Dispensations?

All Christian theologians admit the existence of identifiable dispensations in redemptive history, but not all use the term dispensation.

Charles Hodge, a Covenant Theologian, believed that there are four dispensations after the Fall -- Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the end.

Berkhof, another Covenant Theologian believed that there were two dispensations -- the Old and the New, but within the Old he saw four distinct periods wherein God managed His relationship to humanity in distinctive ways.

What a Dispensation Is Not

1. Strictly speaking, a dispensation is not an age or an era.

Dispensations do exist in time- they begin and they end, but a dispensation is more than a distinct period of time.

We don’t talk about the dispensation of the Judges or the dispensation of the Divided Monarchy, or the Dispensation of the Exile.


All would qualify as distinct eras in Biblical history, but none are referred to as dispensations.

A dispensation is characterized by new revelation from God that changes the way in which He is managing humanity.


2. A dispensation is not a different way of salvation.

Some have suggested that people were saved by the works of the law in the Old Testament, but now they are saved by grace in the New Testament.

Unfortunately, that error was taught in the first edition of the Scofield Study Bible.

What A Dispensation Is Not

"As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation."

Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford, 1909)


The error in the original Scofield Study Bible, has unfortunately caused many people to associate dispensations with different ways of salvation.

This also leads to the charge that dispensationalism teaches that there have been multiple ways of salvation.


According to Ryrie, “the most frequently heard objection against dispensationalism is that it supposedly teaches several ways of salvation.” John Wick Bowman made this accusation in 1956 when he said that dispensationalists are “clearly left with two methods of salvation.” In 1960, Clarence Bass argued that dispensational distinctions between law and grace and Israel and the church “inevitably result in a multiple form of salvation—that men are not saved the same way in all ages.”


In his 1991 book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, John Gerstner accused all dispensationalists of teaching more than one way of salvation. He said, “We must sadly accuse dispensationalists (of all varieties) of teaching, always implicitly and sometimes explicitly, that there is more than one way of salvation and, in the process of developing that theology, excluding the one and only way even from this dispensation of grace.”


However, the dispensations are not to be seen as different ways of salvation.

The error in the Scofield Bible was corrected in later editions.

No one is saved apart from faith in Christ. The Old Testament saints were saved by

believing in what Christ would do, and we are saved by looking back at what Christ has done (Hebrews 11).


Paul makes it very clear that no one can be saved by keeping the Old Testament law (Romans 3:20)

3. A dispensation is not evidence that God has changed or that He is reacting to human events. God is sovereign and His purposes cannot be thwarted.

The attributes of God remain consistent in each dispensation.

God is sovereign and has a plan.

Characteristics of a Dispensation

What are the primary characteristics of a dispensation?

A dispensation is characterized by 1. New revelation2. A distinct management relationship

between God and humanity (or a portion of humanity)

3. Responsibilities for humans

The Dispensations

Some theologians have added secondary features to the dispensations.

1. A test

2. A failure

3. A judgment

The Dispensations

Throughout the centuries many dispensational schemes for understanding the progress of God’s revelation have been developed (See handouts)

Traditional dispensationalist have typically pointed to seven distinct dispensations.

The Dispensations

Innocence or Freedom- Genesis 1:28-30; 2:15; 2:17 What is the new Revelation? What are the specifics of the management

arrangement instituted by God? Is there a covenant? Is there an obvious test or tests? Is there a failure? Is there a judgment?

The Dispensations

Conscience- Genesis 3:14-19; 3:21; 4:1-5; (possibly Jude 14-15)

What is the new Revelation? What are the specifics of the management arrangement

instituted by God? Is there a covenant? Is there an obvious test or tests? Is there a failure? Is there a judgment? Is there a continuation of any divine principles from the

previous dispensation?

The Dispensations

Human Government- Genesis 9:1-17 What is the new Revelation? What are the specifics of the management

arrangement instituted by God? Is there a covenant? Is there an obvious test or tests? Is there a failure? Is there a judgment? Is there a continuation of any divine principles from

the previous dispensation?

The Dispensations

Promise- Genesis 12:2; 13:16; 15:13; 17:2-6 (seed); 12:1; 7; 13:14, 15, 17; 15:18; 18:18-21 (land); Genesis 12:2-3, 13:2; 22:17-18; 26:4; 28:14 (to be a blessing).




The Dispensations

Law- The Mosaic Law (Exodus 19 ->; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy)

What is the new Revelation? What are the specifics of the management

arrangement instituted by God? Is there a covenant? Is there an obvious test or tests? Is there a failure? Is there a judgment? Is there a continuation of any divine principles from the


The Dispensations

Grace- Crucifixion-> continuing at present (John 1:17; Acts 2; Rom. 6:14; 7:22, 1 Cor. 6:19-20; 2 Cor. 3:3-11; Heb. 8:8-12;


instituted by God? Is there a covenant? Is there an obvious test or tests? Is there a failure? Is there a judgment? Is there a continuation of any divine principle from the


The Dispensations

Tribulation* (Revelation 5-18) What is the new Revelation? What are the specifics of the management

arrangement instituted by God? Is there a covenant? Is there an obvious test or tests? Is there a failure? Is there a judgment? Is there a continuation of any divine principles from the


The Dispensations

Kingdom (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 2; Is. 9:6-7; 11; 65:7-25; Ez. 36; 37; Revelation 20-21)




Why Study Dispensationalism?

1. Because Dispensationalism addresses some of the most significant doctrines in Scripture:

– Hermeneutics—it provides a framework for interpreting the Bible consistently

– Kingdom—God’s kingdom purposes (including the millennial Kingdom and God’s purposes for the future)

– People of God—the relationship between Israel, Gentiles, Church, the Nations

– Law of God—the relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant (Law of Moses and Law of Christ)


If you care about these important topics and their relationship to each other then you should be interested in Dispensationalism since Dispensationalism makes a serious attempt to address these doctrines.

2. Because Dispensationalism presents a rival system to Covenant Theology that also addresses many of these same important issues.


3. Because Dispensationalism is a solid fixture and influential force in Protestant theology.

What Is Dispensationalism?

One way to define Dispensationalism is to call it theological framework for viewing the Bible.

Another way to define Dispensationalism is to call it a system of Biblical interpretation.

Both definitions are helpful.


Dispensationalism is built upon four essential components:

1. The Scriptures must consistently be interpreted literally (normally), grammatically, and historically.

2. There is an ongoing distinction between Israel and the church and this distinction involves an eschatological future for Israel.


3. God has ruled and continues to rule over the earth in successive dispensations. (Some definitions of Dispensationalism do not include this, because almost all Christians agree that the Bible speaks of at least two or three dispensations.)

4. God’s overarching purpose for history is His glory.

What Is Dispensationalism

Many non-dispensationalist affirm that consistently interpreting the Scriptures with a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic will lead to a belief in an ongoing distinction between Israel and the Church, a future for national Israel, and a belief that God’s purpose for history is His own glory.

Look at the following quote from a non-dispensationalist…


"Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament promises (Floyd Hamilton, The Basis of the Millennial Faith), 38


Therefore, the debate over Dispensationalism is largely a debate over hermeneutics.

Many non-dispensationalists claim to use a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic, but in reality, they do not. They use a different hermeneutic when interpreting prophecy (especially Old Testament prophecy).


Non-dispensationalists actually use a hermeneutic that is better described as grammatical-historical-theological because they interpret Old Testament prophecies with the theological pre-assumption that all are either fulfilled in Christ or the church.

Covenant theologian, Anthony Hoekema, affirms this when he states: “The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament and that a totally and exclusively literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is not justified.”[1]

[1]Anthony A. Hoekema, “An Amillennial Response to Dispensational Premillennialism, in The Meaning of the Millennium, Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 55


Mythical Distinctions of Dispensationalism

1. Dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation.

2. Dispensationalism is inherently Arminian.

3. Dispensationalism is inherently antinomian.

4. Dispensationalism is opposed to “Lordship salvation.”

5. Dispensationalism is all about land.


Mythical Distinctions of Dispensationalism6. Dispensationalism is mostly about believing in

dispensations. 7. Dispensationalism is all about believing in

seven dispensations.8. Dispensationalism is all about a Pre-

Tribulation Rapture.9. Dispensationalist don’t believe the Sermon on

the Mount is applicable today.


Mythical Distinctions of Dispensationalism10. Dispensationalism is new.11. Dispensationalism leaves people

unconcerned about current events and uninvolved in politics.

12. Dispensationalism is causing its adherents to push the world toward the horrors of Armageddon.

*This list is based upon “Busting Myths about Dispensationalism, by Michael Vlach


History Opponents of Dispensationalism often

assert that its ideas are new and didn’t exist until the 19th Century.

J.N. Darby is often credited as the inventor of Dispensationalism.

It is true that Darby popularized some facets of Dispensationalism, but he did not create it.


History The concepts vital to Dispensationalism

existed very early in Church History. The writers of the early post-Apostolic

Church era (e.g., Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Papias), were pre-millennial and held to a distinction between Israel and the Church.


History It was not until around AD 160 that any of

the church fathers blurred this distinction. The first to do this was Justin Martyr.

Irenaeus (130-200) spoke of the various dispensations of God and specifically mentioned the Christian dispensation.

Clement of Alexandria (150-220) saw four dispensations in Scripture.


History Augustine (4th century) spoke of

“successive epochs”, “dispensations” and “various ages” through which an immutable Creator ruled His mutable creation.

Augustine did not find contradiction in the teaching that the diversity of God’s work within the creation was in any way incompatible with the immutability of His character.


History Though each of these authors alluded to

dispensational-like concepts, these early references should not be claimed as the beginning of Dispensationalism.


History The first systematic presentation of

Dispensationalism was by a Frenchman named Pierre Poiret (1649-1719).

He wrote a book titled L’OEconomie Divine which was published in 1687.


History The title, when translated, is The Divine

Economie which is a direct reference to the recognition of “economies” or “dispensations” from the Divine viewpoint.

His six volumes are pre-millennial and dispensational in perspective,

Poiret identified seven dispensations.


History John Edwards (1637-1716) wrote an immense work

titled A Compleat History or Survey of all the Dispensations, in which he developed a dispensational scheme.

Isaac Watts (1674-1748), the hymn writer defined dispensations and developed a six-fold dispensational scheme almost identical to the one used by many modern dispensationalists.


History 1687, the date of Poiret’s work may seem

recent in terms of church history, but consider that Johnanees Cocceius didn’t systematize Covenant Theology until 1647.

Covenant Theology is only 40 years older than Dispensationalism as a theological system.


History John Darby is known as the father of

systematized Dispensationalism. A trained lawyer at the age of 22, he became an ordained clergy in the Church of England in 1826.

After only one year, Darby became dissatisfied with the state church religion and began seeking a closer walk with God that involved more intimate bible study.


History Darby left the Church and gathered with a

group of believers in Plymouth, England (1831), a group later known as the Plymouth Brethren.

He systematized seven dispensations: 1) Paradisaical state to the Flood 2) Noah 3) Abraham 4) Israel 5) Gentiles 6) The Spirit and 7) The Millennium. .


History Darby’s written ministry incorporates some

forty volumes of six hundred pages each, including a translation of the Bible.

His works show a breadth of scholarship in his knowledge of the biblical languages, philosophy, and ecclesiastical history"

(Ryrie, Dispensationalism), 68. .


History James Hall Brookes is the father of

American Dispensationalism. He was a Presbyterian who studied at Princeton Theological Seminary and United Presbyterian Seminary at Oxford, Ohio.

He was pastor of the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in Saint Louis, Missouri


History Brookes became a Dispensationalist

through personal Bible study alone. Brookes was a very popular pastor in

America and was a featured speaker at the Niagara Bible Conference (1857-1900)

Though the conference was not about Dispensationalism, Brookes’s teaching gained popularity through it.


History Brookes was influential in teaching C.I.

Scofield, a lawyer turned pastor, who went on to develop and publish the Scofield Study Bible in 1909.

Brookes was also influential in the life of Lewis Sperry Chafer who founded Dallas Theological Seminary.


Distinctions

1. A literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic The dispensational hermeneutical method is literal in

that it seeks to understand the normal or plain sense of each Bible passage.

Robert Thomas describes this method when he states: “Take each statement in its plain sense if it matches common sense, and do not look for another sense.”[1]

[1]Robert L. Thomans, Evangelical Hermeneutics– The New Versus the Old (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2002), 155


Distinctions A dispensationalist interprets every Bible passage,

regardless of genre, according to the same method.

The passage is interpreted normally according to the normal laws of human language.

This hermeneutical approach is unique to Dispensationalism.


Distinctions The dispensationalist takes the biblical text

literally, but this does not mean that he ignores symbols, figures of speech, or types.


Charles Ryrie states: “Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.”[1]

[1] Ryrie, 80-81


Roy Zuck concurs when he states: “Figurative language then is not antithetical to literal interpretation; it is a part of it. Perhaps it is better not to speak of ‘figurative versus literal’ interpretation, but of ‘ordinary-literal’ versus ‘figurative-literal’ interpretation.”[1]

[1] Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Wheaton, IL:Victor, 1991), p. 147


Distinctives The dispensational hermeneutical method is

grammatical in that it pays close attention to the normal rules of grammar and communication when interpreting the Bible.

The dispensationalist interprets the Bible as he would any other form of written communication.


Distinctives Dispensationalism assumes that God’s

revelation follows the rules of the human language it employs, and he assumes that God communicated his word in a way that would be clear and understandable to humanity.


Charles Ryrie states: “If God is the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense.”[1]

[1]Ryrie, 81


The dispensational hermeneutical method is historical in that it seeks to understand each Bible passage in its historical context.[1]

The dispensationalist seeks to understand each passage as the human writer and the original readers would have understood it.

Using the rules of grammar and the facts of history, the dispensationalist looks for a singular meaning in each passage that is determined by what the human writer intended to communicate.[2]

[1]Thomans, 242[2] Ibid., 242


Distinctives "The aim of grammatico-historical method is to

determine the sense required by the laws of grammar and the facts of history. Thus, the grammatical sense is the simple, direct, plain, ordinary, and literal sense of the phrases, clauses, and sentences. The historical sense is that sense which is demanded by a careful consideration of the time and circumstances in which the author wrote. It is the specific meaning which an author's words require when the historical context and background are taken into account"

Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology), 88.

What Is Dispenstionalism?

The Old Testament is taken as direct, plain, and literal- A dispensationalist understands the Old Testament just like the New Testament, that is, literal and historical.

Old Testament passages (unless addressed in the New Testament) must be believed and understood without applying New Testament revelation.

Therefore, when the Old Testament speaks of eschatology, it is operative and binding.


Distinctives

"The most fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have only one significance in one and the same connection"

This does not mean that later revelation cannot provide a fuller meaning for Old Testament prophecies, but it is to say that later revelation doesn’t change the original plain meaning of the older revelation.

The principal of a single meaning for Biblical passages is also a hallmark of Dispensationalism.

Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology), 88


Distinctions A dispensationalist interprets the Old Testament in

the same way that he interprets the New Testament. He believes and understands the Old Testament on its own merits, and allows it to stand on its own as the authoritative word of God. Therefore, the dispensationalist takes Old Testament prophecies literally and does not see the New Testament as a hermeneutical manual for interpreting them.[1]

[1] Ligon Duncan, Dispensationalism– A Reformed Evaluation http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/Ligons_covtheology/09.htm accessed 4/9/2006


This approach is a hallmark of Dispensationalism.

George Ladd states: “Here is the basic watershed between a dispensational and a nondispensational theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching in the New Testament.” [1]

[1]George E. Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism” in The Meaning of the Millennium, Four Views ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 28


Distinctions A dispensationalist interprets the Old Testament in

the same way that he interprets the New Testament. He believes and understands the Old Testament on its own merits, and allows it to stand on its own as the authoritative word of God. Therefore, the dispensationalist takes Old Testament prophecies literally and does not see the New Testament as a hermeneutical manual for interpreting them.[1]

[1] Ligon Duncan, Dispensationalism– A Reformed Evaluation http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/Ligons_covtheology/09.htm accessed 4/9/2006


George Ladd states: “Here is the basic watershed between a dispensational and a nondispensational theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching in the New Testament.” [1]

[1]George E. Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism” in The Meaning of the Millennium, Four Views ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 28


The New Testament is taken as direct, plain and literal- "Christ's own predictions of His passion were exactly fulfilled (cf. Matthew 12:40, 16:21, 17:22-23, 20:17-19), and the general pattern of fulfillment of Bible prophecy is quite striking (John Urquhart, The Wonders of Prophecy, 2 vols), 1931.


Distinctions The second distinction of Dispensational theology is

the idea that there is an ongoing biblical distinction between the Church and national Israel.

In the Old Testament, this distinction stands out when one considers the nature of the unconditional covenants that God made with Israel. God made each of these covenants to the physical descendents of Abraham, and promised in each covenant literal, tangible blessings.


Distinctions That God made the land promise of the

Abrahamic Covenant to Abraham’s physical descendents becomes evident in Genesis 15:2–3, where we read that Abraham questioned the reality of God’s land promise on the basis that he had no physical descendents.


Distinctions God responded to Abraham’s concern in Genesis

15:4, by promising that Abraham would indeed have an offspring, and ultimately numerous descendents, from his own body. It is also clear that God made this covenant to Abraham’s physical descendants because he passed this covenant down through Abraham’s bloodline. God reaffirmed it to Isaac, to Jacob, to the sons of Jacob, and to the descendents of the sons of Jacob.


Distinctions Likewise, in the land covenant recorded in

Deuteronomy 29–30, God made unconditional promises to the ethnic citizens of Israel and to their progeny. The Davidic Covenant recorded in 2 Samuel 7:12–16 is an unconditional promise by God to the descendents of David and to the ethnic nation of Israel.


Distinctions Furthermore, in Jeremiah 31:31, God made

the New Covenant with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” Interpreted normally, this promise seems to be for the physical descendents of these two kingdoms.


Distinctions In each of these four covenants, God

promised physical tangible blessings. For instance, in Genesis 15:18–21, God defined his land promise to Abraham by giving Abraham specific geographical boundaries.


Distinctions The Abrahamic Covenant also included God’s

promise of a son for Abraham, in Genesis 15:4 and a promise of numerous descendents in Genesis 15:5. Likewise, in the Davidic Covenant, God promised physical, tangible blessings. He promised David an everlasting dynastic political reign over an actual nation. He also promised David in 2 Samuel 7 a physical offspring who would build a physical Temple.


Distinctions In the New Covenant, recorded in Ezekiel

34:25–30, God again made physical tangible promises. He promised the people of Israel that he would drive the wild beasts from their land, that He would make them able to dwell in safety, and that He would give them good weather and good crops.


Distinctions Interpreting these passages normally, one

sees that they contain physical, tangible promises to a specific ethnic nation. One has to allegorize or spiritualize these promises to make them applicable to the New Testament Church.


Distinctions David Larsen agrees when he states: “The

Old Testament prophecies, if literally interpreted, cannot be regarded as having been fulfilled or as being capable of fulfillment in this present age.”[1]

[1]David Larsen, Jews, Gentiles, and the Church, (Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House, 1995), 39


Distinctions These four covenants show that Israel and the

Church are not the same entity and should not be confused. Seeing the eternal promises given to Israel, one cannot help but to conclude that the Church has not replaced Israel or become a spiritual Israel, but rather that it is a distinct national group that still stands to inherit literal, tangible, blessings from God.


Distinctions In the New Testament, the distinctions

between Israel and the Church become evident when we consider the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

For instance, in Matthew 16:18–19, when Jesus spoke of establishing the church he did so in the future tense.


Distinctions In Colossians 1:18–24, Paul explained that the

Church is the Body of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul wrote that God makes people a part of the Body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. During his earthly ministry, Jesus made it clear in John 16:7 that the baptism of the Holy Spirit had not yet come and would not come while he was on earth.


Distinctions On the day of his ascension into heaven,

Jesus commanded his disciples to wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4–5).

In Acts 2:1–4, we read that God gave the Baptism of the Holy Spirit ten days later on the day of Pentecost.


Distinctives The book of Acts also gives us further evidence that

the Israel and the Church are distinct. Arnold Fruchtenbaum observes: “In the Book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.”[1]

[1]Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press, 1993), 118


Distinctions In Ephesians 2:20, Paul wrote that the

Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Since the apostles did not exist in Old Testament times, it seems unlikely that the Church did. It seems illogical that God would build his Church in the Old Testament, but not lay a foundation for it until New Testament times.


Distinctives In Colossians 1:26, Paul describes the

Church as a “mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.”


Paul's passionate argument in Romans 9-11 that God has not rejected His people (Romans 11:1-2) reflects a sensitivity to Israel's place and purpose in the plan of God.

“God's honor (Jeremiah 30:17) and God's fidelity to His promises, both then and now, are on the line in the resolution of this issue" (Larsen, Jews, Gentiles, & the Church), 47.


Distinctions We’ve already spent time discussing the

distinctive of dispensationalism sees that God has managed humanity in different ways at different times

The fourth distinction of dispensationalism that that God’s ultimate purpose for history is His own glory.


Distinctives Other systems of biblical interpretation limit

God’s purpose for history to be merely a redemptive one.[1]

Dispensationalism correctly recognizes that God gets glory through all things that he has made. [1]Showers, 50-51


Distinctives For instance, God gets glory through nature (Psalm 19:1) God gets glory through his rule over the nations (Ezekiel

39:17–21) God gets glory through His headship over human kings and

authorities (Daniel 4:28-36) God gets glory through Israel (Isaiah 60:1–3). God gets glory through the Church, and through individual

members of the Church Ephesians (3:20–21). God gets glory through the eternal punishment of those who

are not elect (Romans 9:17–18).

What Is Covenant Theology?

Covenant Theology also has four essential elements.

First, Covenant theology employs a grammatical-historical-theological hermeneutic.[1]

[1]Thomas, 66


When studying the Old Testament, especially Old Testament prophecies, a covenant theologian does not ignore grammar or history, but he does not allow them to be the ultimate determining factor in his interpretation.[1] Instead, he filters the results of a grammatical and historical exegesis through a set of theological pre-understandings.[2]

[1]Duncan, Dispensationalism– A Reformed Evaluation[2]Thomas, 66


This theological method assumes that Christ or the New Testament Church has brought fulfillment to every Old Testament prophecy.[1] Therefore, the covenant theologian does not see the original contextual meaning of the Old Testament author as conclusively authoritative. He believes that the New Testament often changes the clear contextual meaning of Old Testament passages.[2]

[1]Duncan, Dispensationalism– A Reformed Evaluation[2]Thomas, 66


"In Covenant Theology there is the tendency to impute to a passage a meaning which would not be gained merely from their historical and grammatical associations“

(Daniel P. Fuller, The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism), 147.


In other words, the covenant theologian gives the New Testament hermeneutical control over any interpretation of the Old Testament.[1] Covenant theologian, Ligon Duncan, affirms this when he states: “Later revelation, by definition, controls the final Systematic Theological understanding of earlier revelation.”[2] [1]Duncan, Dispensationalism– A Reformed Evaluation

[2]Ibid.


Since covenant theologians see all Old Testament prophecies as ultimately fulfilled in either Christ or the church, their theological hermeneutical method frequently forces them to “spiritualize” Old Testament promises to Israel.[1]

[1]Showers, 24


Covenant theologian, Anthony Hoekema, affirms this when he states: “The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament and that a totally and exclusively literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is not justified.”[1]

[1]Anthony A. Hoekema, “An Amillennial Response to Dispensational Premillennialism, in The Meaning of the Millennium, Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 55


Covenant theologian Lorraine Boettner provides an excellent example of what it means to spiritualize an Old Testament prophecy when he gives his commentary on Isaiah 11:6–9.

A normal literal-grammatical-historical interpretation of this passage would conclude that this is a prophecy about the restoration of creation to a pre-fall state that will take place during the yet future millennial reign of Christ on the earth. However, using his theological presuppositions to interpret this text, Boettner says that it “refers to a spiritual transformation as in Saul of Tarsus, who was changed from a vicious wolf-like persecutor to a lamb-like follower of Christ.”[1]

[1]Lorraine Boettner, The Millennium (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958), 90


The second essential feature of Covenant Theology is the belief that two or three covenants unify and give meaning to the whole message of the Bible.[1]

[1]Ryrie, 183-184


Many covenant theologians believe that there was a covenant of redemption made before Creation.

This covenant was instituted between God the Father and God the Son. The Father promised to redeem an elect people. In turn the Son volunteered to earn the salvation of this people by becoming incarnate...by acting as surety of the covenant of grace for and as mediator of the covenant of grace to the elect.


There are a few problems with believing in a covenant of redemption:

1. There is no such covenant mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

2. The oneness in nature, essence, and will possessed by the members of the Trinity would seem to negate the need for a covenant. The idea of a covenant between the Father and the Son could lead some to tri-theism.


There are a few problems with believing in a covenant of redemption:

3. The authority for this teaching is our inference (it could be that something akin to this covenant took place) and not God’s stated Word. This submits the Bible’s teaching to us, instead of us submitting to the Bible’s teaching.


Beyond the Covenant of Redemption, most Covenant Theologians believe in two additional covenants- the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.

Covenant theologians consider every covenant made after Adam’s sin to be a different administration of the covenant of grace. For instance, the covenant theologian sees the Mosaic Covenant as a new administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, and as an earlier administration of the New Covenant.[1] [1]Robert L. Reymond, Five Arguments for the Unity of the Covenant of Grace, http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/five_arguments.htm accessed 4/9/05


This theological presupposition also serves to bias their interpretations of Old Testament passages. Since they see the sum and substance of the covenant of grace to be salvation through faith in Christ, the covenant theologian must spiritualize many historical details of the Old Testament covenants to give them New Testament meanings. For instance, Covenant theologians believe that the original meaning of unconditional land promises made by God to Israel in the Old Testament are changed by the New Testament into spiritual promises to all believers. To the covenant theologian the land promise to Abraham is a mere shadow or type of the eternal state.[1]

[1]Ibid.http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/five_arguments.htm accessed 4/9/05


The Covenant of Works.- Ostensibly, this covenant was enacted between God and Adam in Genesis between Adam’s creation and Fall.

In the Covenant of Works God required perfect obedience from Adam.

Adam was placed on probation temporarily in order to determine if he would willingly subject his will to God’s.


Covenant theologians say that God promised Adam eternal life (not natural life) in return for perfect obedience. If Adam disobeyed, he and his progeny would receive eternal spiritual death.

There are also problems with believing in the covenant of works…


1. The covenant of works is not mentioned in Scripture and there is no covenantal language recorded between God and Adam.

2. It seems that this covenant would be issued in bad faith by God, because the New Testament tells us that it was decreed for Christ to die before the foundations of the earth were laid.


The Covenant of Grace- Covenant theologians say that after Adam sinned, God made a new covenant with Adam and with all the elect. They call this covenant the covenant of grace.

In this covenant of grace, God promises the elect salvation through faith in Christ.[1] Covenant theologians are not unanimous when asked when they believe God made this covenant. Some argue that God made this covenant in Genesis 3:15, while others argue that God did not establish it until his covenant with Abraham in Genesis. [1]Showers, 11


Again believing in covenant of works is problematic because there is no universal agreement on where in the Bible this covenant can be found.

While it is correct to say that God is always gracious in His dealings with humanity- the concept of a unifying covenant of grace serves to blur the distinctions between the various Old Testament covenants. The distinct meaning and promise of each separate covenant is lost.

t


Furthermore, the specific revelation of the Old Testament is washed over or changed by New Testament revelation.

A unifying covenant of grace blurs the distinction the New Testament’s teaching on the nature of the church.


A third distinction of Covenant Theology is states that covenant theologians see the church as “the continuing covenanted community of God's people throughout history.”[1] Furthermore, they believe that the New Testament Church has replaced the nation of Israel in God’s covenants.[2]

[1]Showers, 23 [2]Ibid.


Since covenant theologians see all Old Testament prophecies as ultimately fulfilled in either Christ or the church; and since they see God’s unconditional Old Testament covenants to be merely different administrative forms of a covenant of grace (that has as its substance salvation by faith in Christ) they do not recognize the clear biblical distinctions between Israel and the Church.


They believe that Old Testament saints are part of the Church.[1] Most of them see the Church beginning in Genesis with the inauguration of the Abrahamic Covenant.[2]

[1]Duncan, Dispensationalism– A Reformed Evaluation

[2]Showers, 13


The fourth essential element of Covenant theology is the belief that God’s overarching purpose for history is the redemption of his elect.[1] While covenant theologians admit that God ultimately gets glory in all things, they are convinced that God’s redemption of the elect should be a theme looked for in virtually every passage of Scripture.[2] [1]Ibid., 20-21

[2]O Palmer Robertson, Old Testament Biblical Theology, http://www.angelfire.com/nt2/paulastevenson/BT01.html accessed 4/9/06


This biases their hermeneutic. Covenant theologian Roderick Campbell admits this when he states: “Everything in history and life is subservient to spiritual redemption.”[1]

[1]Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1954), 14

The Major Biblical Covenants

Though not totally foreign to present-day vocabulary, the English term covenant is seldom used. Outside of legal documents and marriage ceremonies, the word is absent from normal conversation.

Webster defines it as “a binding and solemn agreement made by two or more individuals or parties to do or keep from doing a specified thing; a compact.”

The term derives from the Latin covenire, meaning “to convene, meet together, to assemble for a common purpose.”


The Hebrew word translated covenant in the Old Testament is berit.

The English word covenant may not be the best word to convey what is happening between God and man in the Old Testament covenants.

All but one of the major Old Testament covenants lacks any kind of mutual agreement.


In the Noahic Covenant- God promises never again to destroy the earth with water and gives the rainbow as a sign. God places no conditions on Noah or humanity.

In the Abrahamic Covenant, God places no conditions on Abram.

In the Davidic Covenant, no responsibilities are placed upon David. To keep the covenant in force.


Likewise, humans are not expected to fulfill any obligations to ensure that God will keep the New Covenant.

For this reason, some theologians have suggested it would be more accurate to think of these covenants as grants. God is simply committing Himself to bless in a certain way.


In the Mosaic or Sinai Covenant, God places demands upon the nation of Israel. They must keep His laws and statues or be disciplined.

This is also not the usual way we think about a covenant. Though Israel agrees to this arrangement, it doesn’t seem they have much choice.

For this reason, some theologians think of the Mosaic Covenant as a treaty.


In fact, it has long been observed that the Mosaic Covenant has all the features of a Hittite suzerain vassal treaty.


The Old Testament Law is given to Israel in the form on an ANE suzerain-vassal treaty. This would have been a document very familiar to Moses and very familiar to the kings and officials of the surrounding nations.

Components of the Suzerain-Vassal Treaty (Hittite 2nd Millennium B.C.)

Description Exodus Leviticus Deuteronomy

Introduction of the Suzerain

Identifies the Suzerain and his right to make the covenant

20:1 1:1-5

Historical Prologue

A history of the relationship between the two parties

20:2 1:6-3:29

Stipulations Listing of treaty observations

25:16 14-25 4-26

Statement concerning document

A statement for public reading between the parties

27:2-3

Witnesses Identifies who witnesses the oath

32:1

Curses and blessings

How the Suzerain will respond to non-compliance and to compliance

26:1-33 28

Components of the Suzerain-Vassal Treaty (Hittite 2nd Millennium B.C.)

Description Exodus Leviticus Deuteronomy

Witnesses Identifies who witnesses the oath

32:1

Curses and blessings

How the Suzerain will respond to non-compliance and to compliance

26:1-33 28


In English versions of the New Testament berit is often translated as testament.

This is problematic if we think in terms of a last will and testament, because such a document requires the death of the one who institutes it.

However, Greco-Syrian testaments could be instituted before death. The writer of Hebrews may have had this kind of testament in mind.


Covenant in the OT essentially incorporates a legally binding obligation.11 It is employed primarily in two ways.

Frequently, the covenant represents an agreement between two parties in which there is basic parity. Both sides enter into the treaty voluntarily, resulting in a partnership relationship.


This type of covenant in the Old Testament is usually made between men (Jacob and Laban, David and Jonathon) or nations (Israel and the Gibeonites).

A second usage depicts an arrangement imposed by a superior on subordinates (e.g., Joshua 9; 1 Sam 11:1-2). In other words, parity between the two parties is absent.


This type of legally binding promise is often seen between nations (Babylon and Israel) or between God and men (As already the Mosaic Covenant seems to be an example of this type of covenant).

in the covenants of God, it is God alone who sets forth the conditions. “The original idea of a covenant comes directly to expression in the phraseology: God ‘establishes the covenant.”


The Noahic, Abrahamic, Priestly, and Davidic covenants might better be understood as grants.

God binds Himself to promises in all of these covenants without imposing conditions.

As already noted, the Mosaic Covenant seems more like a treaty, because Israel took obligations upon themselves.


A number of OT phrases describe the covenant event. Jeremiah 34:10 speaks of entering a covenant.

In Dan 9:27, antichrist is said to impose by force a covenant with Israel at the outset of the Tribulation period.

God instructs Noah to build an ark (Gen 6:18), promising Noah that “I will establish My covenant

with you.”


Elsewhere He says “I will give My covenant” (Gen 17:2), establish it (2 Sam 23:5), and command it (Ps 111:9).

The predominate phrase associated with Old Testament covenant making is to cut (Gen. 15:12-18.

So common was this practice that 1 Sam 22:8 uses the term “cut” itself as a synonym for covenant making.


Covenants were usually accompanied by one or more features. Common features include:

Pledges- Abraham gave sheep and oxen to Abimelech to confirm their covenant and assure his

ownership rights to the well he had dug at Beersheba. A more modern assertion of fidelity to a covenant is reflected in Ezek 17:18, where Zedekiah pledged allegiance by giving his hand. Jonathan sealed his covenant with David when he gave David his robe, armor, sword, bow, and belt (1 Sam 18:4)


Sometimes, oaths or solemn promises were given as pledges of fidelity (e.g., Gen 21:23-24, 31; 26:28; 2 Kings 11:4) as well. Even God is mentioned as having sworn an oath when He reiterated His covenant with Israel prior to entering the land (D eut 29:12, 14) and when He promised David a perpetual throne (Ps 89:3, 34-37, 49).


Signs- similar to a pledge, but usually something repeated on numerous occasions or in perpetuity. For example the rainbow or circumcision.

Covenant Witnesses- Frequently, covenants between individuals were said to be divinely witnessed. David’s covenant with Jonathan was made “before the LORD” (1 Sam 23:18; cf. 1 Sam 20:8). Laban, when making a covenant with Jacob, repeatedly reminded his son-in-law that though “no man is with us, God is witness between you and me” (Gen 31:50; cf. v. 53)


Covenant Consequences- could be either positive or negative (rains and harvest in due season for obedience, draught and famine for disobedience)


THE NOAHIC COVENANT Genesis 6:18; 9:8-17The Setting The Noahic Covenant comes within the context of

the rise of the Nephilim and great flood. In contrast to the rest of mankind, it notes that “Noah

found grace in the eyes of the LORD” (Gen 6:8), and as a result, God instructed him to build an ark by means of which he, his family, and “two of every living thing” would be spared.


Significant aspects of God’s original creation of earth were reversed by the great flood. Yet through the flood, these same aspects would be reinstated.

The nature of this covenant is revealed in three passages of the Genesis account: 6:17-22; 8:20-22; and 9:8-17. This is not to suggest that there is more than one covenant. Rather, the earlier statements merely precede the actual inauguration and implementation of the covenant after the flood.


Terminology The text (Gen 9:9) is literally rendered, “And

I, behold I am utterly establishing My covenant with you”

God’s authorization is reasserted five times throughout the covenant (Gen 9:12, 13, 15, 16, 17).


In terms of recipients, this is the widest of all the covenants. The beneficiaries of this covenant encompass a wider group of recipients than the other major covenants.

Initially the covenant was established with Noah and w ith his descendants after him (Gen 9:9). Obviously, since only Noah’s immediate family was preserved through the flood, this covenant extended to all mankind who would subsequently populate the earth.


Later God enlarged the list to include “every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth” (Gen 9:10).

God adds in v. 11: “and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood.” “The reason for such detail is to make the divine concern for even the least of the creatures strongly apparent to Noah.


In v. 13, God expanded the recipient list even further to incorporate a third element—the earth: “I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth.”

The earth, too, as a recipient of God’s wrath in this worldwide judgment, would receive divine assurances of “never again.”

The cycle of seasons after catastrophic interruption would be permanently reestablished (G en 8:22).


The Sign As a sign of the covenant, God placed a rainbow in

the cloud (Gen 9:13, 14, 16, 17). As with other covenant signs, this was a repeatable evidence of God’s promise to Noah.

Strikingly, the sign itself incorporated an element of the judgment; it was taken from nature itself. While circumcision

(Gen 17:11) and the Sabbath (Exod 31:13-17; Ezek 20:12, 20), as signs of a covenant, were intended to remind man of God’s covenant requirements, this sign is said to be for the purpose of reminding God (Gen 9:15, 16).


The Promise Two aspects stand preeminent in the

promise made to Noah—the essence of the promise and the extent of the promise. God promises that “all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth” (Gen 9:11).


Though the two phrases are essentially parallel, the former focuses more specifically on physical life (both human and animal) while the latter focuses on the destruction of the earth itself.

Floods on a smaller scale may destroy many and cause considerable devastation, but never again will He permit worldwide destruction by means of a flood.

Major Biblical Covenants

The promise to Noah was an everlasting one. The LORD’s earlier promise to Noah, “While the

earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen 8:22, emphasis added), provides the contextual clue that clarifies the meaning here. In other words, this covenant will continue until the earth is destroyed by fire (2 Pet 3:10-11; Rev 21:1).


The Noahic Covenant is similar to other covenants in that it is guaranteed by the seasons and the order of nature.

The Priestly Covenant-The Setting The Priestly Covenant is set in the final end

of Israel’s forty years of wilderness wanderings.


God revealed this covenant after Phinehas acted to save Israel from the influence of sin with the Moabites (Numbers 25).

The Terminology Here, God tells Moses that He is “giving” the

covenant (Num 25:12) to Phinehas because acted with the zeal of the LORD, staying the hand of God’s wrath


The giving of the covenant was not a reaction on God’s part, but God chose to reveal the covenant when the zeal of Phinehas was displayed.

“In the case of Abram, God first chose him; then by Abram’s action of faith, the Lord confirmed his covenant with him (see Gen 12,15, 22). In the case of Phinehas, he was already chosen by God; but in his action, God’s covenant with him is confirmed.


The Promise First of all, the promise made with Phinehas

is said to be a “covenant of peace” (Num 25:12). The Hebrew construction is unusual, making understanding difficult. It possibly denotes the peace made through Phinehas’ atoning action, causing the plague to be halted.


The covenant given to Phinehas included his descendants (lit., “seed,” Num 25:13). God promised him and his descendants a perpetual priesthood.

The high priesthood promised continued among the Israelites, with the exception of an interval during the time of Eli (1 Sam 1-3; 14:3), until the final dissolution of the Jewish state in NT times.

However, the priestly promise continues through Zadok into the Millennial Kingdom (Ez.44:15, 48:11)


The perpetual nature of the priestly covenant separates it from the Mosaic Covenant.

The Mosaic Covenant was abrogated by the New Covenant, but the promise given to Phinehas continues into the Millennium!

Also the language of Jer 33:20-21 places its permanence alongside the Davidic Covenant, contending that it remains in force as long as the cycle of day and night remains. “


The Priestly Covenant creates difficulty for amillenialists because the covenant extends forever. This forces the amillelinialists to employ a dual hermeneutic.


The Abrahamic Covenant The importance of the Abrahamic Covenant for a proper

understanding of the whole Bible is widely accepted. For example, dispensationalist John F.Walvoord writes,

It is recognized by all serious students of the Bible that the covenant with Abraham is one of the important and determinative revelations of Scripture. It furnishes the key to the entire Old Testament and reaches for its fulfillment into the New. In the controversy between premillenarians and amillenarians, the interpretation of this covenant more or less settles the entire argument. The analysis of its provisions and the character of their fulfillment set the mold for the entire body of Scriptural truth.


Covenant theologian John Murray also affirms the importance of this covenant. He writes,

It is this Abrahamic covenant, so explicitly set forth in Gn. xv and xvii, that underlies the whole subsequent development of God’s redemptive promise, word, and action. . . . The redemptive grace of God in the highest and furthest reaches of its realization is the unfolding of the promise given to Abraham and therefore the unfolding of the Abrahamiccovenant


Though widespread agreement exists about the importance of the Abrahamic Covenant, the same unanimity concerning its meaning does not prevail.

Interpreting the Abrahamic Covenant produces problems for non premillenialists because the covenant promises Abraham a nation descended from his own body and eternal possession of the land of Canaan.


The Abrahamic Covenant the Lord’s promises to Abraham can be grouped into

three main categories: (1) land; (2) seed; and (3) blessing.

An alternate, threefold grouping proposes the promises as: (1) national; (2) personal; and (3) universal.

This final grouping of the promises seems to emerge most naturally from the foundational text (Gen 12:1-3), with further explanation in later texts (Gen 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-21; 18:17-19; 22:15-18; 26:2-5, 24; 28:13-15; 35:10-12; 46:2-4).


First, the LORD promised to make Abraham into a great nation. This is the first promise given in Gen 12:2, being reiterated in 18:18 and 46:3. Ishmael, as a son of Abraham, will also become a great nation (Gen 17:20; 21:18), but the great nation of the LORD’s covenant will come through Isaac (Gen 17:19, 21; 26:3-4) and Jacob/Israel (Gen 28:13-14; 35:11; 46:3).


People coming from a common ancestor inhabiting a particular land (Gen 10:5, 20, 31-32) comprise a nation. Thus, if Abraham is to be a great nation, he must have numerous offspring who will occupy a certain land. Accordingly, the LORD promised Abraham a multitude of descendants (Gen 13:16; 15:5; 17:2, 4-6; 22:17a) who would receive the land of Canaan (Gen 13:14-15, 17; 15:18-21; 17:8).


The LORD’s word to Abraham when he first came to the land of the Canaanites summarized this promise: “To your seed I will give this land” (Gen 12:7).

He reiterated the promise of numerous descendants who would receive the land promised to Isaac (Gen 26:4) and Jacob/Israel (Gen 28:13-14; 35:11-12).


Second, the LORD promised to bless Abraham personally (Gen 12:2). He showed His favor to Abraham in His provision of livestock (Gen 13:2), victory in battle (Gen 14:1-24), and sons (Gen 16:15; 21:22-3; 25:1-4).

The following statement comes toward the end of the narrative of Abraham’s life: “The Lord had blessed Abraham in every way” (G en 24:1). The LORD also gave a promise of personal blessing to Isaac (Gen 26:3) and Jacob/Israel (Gen 28:15).


Third, the Lord promised to bless all the nations (families) of the earth in Abraham (Gen 12:3). Even though the LORD called Abraham (Gen 12:2) and all his descendants (Gen 18:18-19) to be a blessing to the nations, the ultimate fulfillment of this promise is stated to be the singular “seed” of Abraham (Gen 22:18).

Again, God repeated this promise of universal blessing to Isaac (Gen 26:4) and Jacob/Israel (Gen 28:14).


During the last century, the most discussed issue concerning the Abrahamic Covenant has been its nature. Paul N. Benware introduces this topic with the following words:

Probably the most significant issue related to the Abrahamic covenant has to do with its nature. Is it a conditional (bilateral) covenant or an unconditional (unilateral) covenant? How one answers that question determines the framework of one’s prophetic studies.


In the biblical text God placed definite indications of obligation on Abraham.

First, He gave commands to Abraham on a number of occasions in Genesis (“go,” 12:1; “arise and walk to and fro,” 13:17; “look and count,” 15:5; “take,” 15:9; “walk,” 17:1; “take,” 22:2).


Second, He obligated Abraham and his “seed” to submit to circumcision in order to participate in the covenant (Gen 17:9-14).

Third, He said He would fulfill His promises to Abraham because of Abraham’s obedience (Gen 22:18; 26:5).


These considerations seem to point to the Abrahamic Covenant as essentially conditional in nature, a bilateral (i.e., obligations placed on two parties) relationship where the LORD only obligated Himself to fulfill His promises if the response was human obedience.


However, the biblicat text also has strong indications of unconditionality.

First, the LORD made promises to Abraham whose only human contingencies were clearly stated as being met (Gen 12:1, 4; 17:1, 3). Thus, the present obligation rests solely upon Him to do what He has promised.


Second, in the covenant-making ceremony, only God walked through the animals (Gen 15:17). Although He and Abraham were both parties to the covenant, the covenant was unilateral in the sense that God obligated only Himself to fulfill His commitments.


Third, the promises (Gen 13:15) and covenant (Gen 17:7-8, 13, 19) were called “everlasting.” Since the fulfillment lies far into the future it rests upon the LORD alone for realization.

These considerations seem to point to the conclusion that the Abrahamic Covenant is essentially unconditional in nature, a unilateral (i.e., obligations undertaken by only one party) relationship where only the LORD has bound Himself to fulfill His promises to Abraham.


Differing understandings of the biblical affirmations of divine commitment and human obligation in reference to the Abrahamic Covenant have arisen.

First, some assert that human obedience is necessary for the fulfillment of the covenant. Without this obedience, God is not obligated to fulfill His promises.


Second, some declare that no human obedience is required for the instituting or the fulfillment of the covenant.

Third, some state that the Abrahamic promises were originally unconditional, but were understood as conditional in later Israelite history.

Fourth, some say that the LORD made two covenants with Abraham, one unconditional (Gen 15:17-21) and one conditional (Gen 17:1-21).


Fifth, a consensus is growing that the promises the LORD bound Himself to fulfill in the Abrahamic Covenant are unconditional, but the timing of and participants in that fulfillment are conditioned by faith-produced human obedience.


Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. writes, In our judgment, the conditionality was not

attached to the promise but only to the participants who would benefit from these abiding promises. . . . The duty of obedience (law, if you wish) was intimately tied up with promise as a desired sequel.


The Mosaic Covenant The Mosaic Covenant is somewhat different

from the other five covenants God made with Israel.

It is different first, in that it is largely conditional. It is given by God not as a grant but a treaty. The word “If” is frequently found in this covenant.


The Mosaic Covenant is different from four of the other covenants in its scope. The Mosaic Covenant is only between God and Israel.

The Mosaic Covenant is unique to Israel because it functioned as Israel’s civil law.

The Mosaic Covenant is also unique in that it was temporary.


In Hebrews 7:11-28 several principles are given to explain the end of the Mosaic Covenant:

(1) Mosaic Law could not perfect the believer in his or her relationship to God (7:11).

(2) A change (metathesis) has taken place in the Law of Moses (7:12).

(3) The ordinance or commandment regarding the priesthood under the Law has been set aside (7:18).

(4) The reason for the change in the ordinance of the priesthood is related to the New Covenant which is better than the Mosaic Covenant (7:22).

(5) The change provided an unchangeable priesthood (7:24).


Those who insist that the Mosaic Covenant is still in force for New Testament beleivers has to face the following questions:

1. Are you observing the seventh day as the Sabbath?

2. Are you wearing unmixed fabrics and keeping kosher?

3. Are you offering animal sacrifices?


The NT believer is “free from the Law” (Rom 7:3; 8:2; Gal 5:1).

Some divide the Mosaic Law into three parts- moral, civil, and ceremonial. However, Christ fulfilled the entire law, thus the law has passed away.

) The NT believer is “free from the Law” (Rom 7:3; 8:2;

Gal 5:1).Read Cripplegate article)


The New Covenant

Dispensations & Covenants

Documents

Transcript of Dispensations & Covenants