INTRODUCTION:

• how does the whole Bible fit together?; progressive revelation: relationship between earlier and later parts; what does Christ mean to post revelation?; to what extent the OT is fulfilled?; theological differences in ecclesiology (esp baptism) and eschatology (esp national, political Israel); Covenant theology: aka Reformed/”federal” theology; covenants: “architectonic structure” of Bible; Adam & Christ: two covenant heads; response to Anabaptist challenge to infant baptism (16th century) but known before Reformation too; three covenants: 1) pretemporal covenant of redemption between Father and Son (pactum salutis) 2) covenant of works between God and Adam (foederis operum) 3) covenant of grace between Christ and the elect (foederus grazie); covenant of redemption: challenged (eg Robertson: The Christ of the Covenants); covenant of grace: basis of all post-fall covenants (protoevangelium/Noahic/Abrahamic/Mosaic/Davidic/new covenants are all different administrations of it); unity between testaments (Israel = church, circumcision ~ baptism, amillenial/postmillennial eschatology, affirming already/not-yet tension: kingdom has already arrived but not yet consummated);
• Dispensationalism: originator: John Nelson Darby; popular esp. in US; emphasis on biblical prophecies, nation of Israel, rapture, millennium; “dispensation” = administration, management of household; periods of time during which God dispenses/administers his plan of redemption in different ways; covenants are important but subsidiary to other structures; traditional framework (Scofield): 7 dispensations (innocence, conscience, human government, promise, Mosaic, grace, kingdom/millennium); rejection of “supersessionism”/”replacement theology” (church does not supersede nation of Israel, OT promise land still to be restored); literal/unconditional understanding of OT prophecies/promises to Israel; six key points: 1) Progressive revelation from the NT does not interpret OT passages in a way that cancels the original authorial intent of the OT writers as determined by historical-grammatical hermeneutics. 2) Types exist, but national Israel is not a type that is superseded by the church. 3) Israel and the church are distinct; thus, the church cannot be identified as the new or true Israel. 4) There is both spiritual unity in salvation between Jews and Gentiles and a future role for Israel as a nation. 5) The nation Israel will be saved, restored with a unique identity, and function in a future millennial kingdom on the earth. 6) There are multiple senses of “seed of Abraham”; thus, the church’s identification as “seed of Abraham” does not cancel God’s promises to the believing Jewish “seed of Abraham.”; Traditional dispensationalism: 1) strict literal interpretation (within immediate historical-textual context); meaning is fixed in the original context despite protectives gained by further revelation (how NT uses the OT); literal fulfillment of Israel’s promises requires Israel’s future possession of the Promised Land; 2) rejecting inaugurated eschatology (already/not-yet framework); postponement of Davidic kingdom offered by Jesus but rejected by Israel; church: parenthesis compared to Israel; 3) new covenant with Israel will be completed in millennial kingdom; Progressive dispensationalism: differences compared to traditional view: 1) complementary hermeneutics: NT enhances OT but does not discard it (God can say more but not less); multilayer reading of text; overlap between church and Israel (not just parenthesis); 2) inaugurated eschatology (already-not yet framework): present age first phase of fulfillment, remainder to be fulfilled at second advent; kingdom is present through the church; Christ is reigning now on David’s throne but promises of national Israel will be fulfilled too; 3) one new covenant extended to Gentiles (not “new Israel”);
• Progressive covenantalism: not similar to progressive dispensationalism; covenants are “backbones” but not the center of biblical theology; rejects structuring redemptive history in covenant of works and grace; each covenant contributes to God’s plan; rejects classifying covenants either unconditional or conditional (each exhibits elements of both); new covenant: not just another administration of the covenant of grace but culminating all covenants, each reaching their fulfillment; rejects tripartite distinction of the law (moral, civil, ceremonial); non-Sabbatarian; church not a “mixed” community of believers and unbelievers; church does not replace Israel but Israel was type of regenerate church community (just like Adam was type of Christ); doesn’t unify (covenant) and doesn’t separate them either (dispensationalism);
• Theonomy (Christian Reconstructionism): form of covenant theology with not continuity (from Mosaic law not only moral are still applicable but civil laws too); only ceremonial laws are fulfilled by Christ; popular in 1980s and 1990s but not much today; Reformed Baptist covenant theology: credobaptist (<-> traditional covenant theology is paedobaptist); often referred to as 1689 Federalism; covenant of grace equal to and fully revealed in new covenant; New covenant theology: developed through grass roots movement; similar to progressive covenantalism/progressive dispensationalism; credobaptism; no scholarly representation; rejects covenant of works/grace framework & tripartite distinction of the law but asserts hermeneutical priority of NT over OT;
• Guiding questions: 1)What hermeneutical principles govern your reading and synthesis of the whole Bible? Does the OT or NT have hermeneutical priority? 2) What is the relationship between the biblical covenants (e.g., creation, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new)? Which covenants are fulfilled in Christ’s first coming, which are not, and why? If certain covenants are only partially fulfilled, then when will they be fulfilled? 3) How do you understand inaugurated eschatology, and what bearing does it have for interpreting OT restoration promises for the nation of Israel? How do you understand inaugurated eschatology in relation to the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants? 4) How is the promise of the land to Israel fulfilled? Are national Israel and the land promise typological of greater realities that are fulfilled in Christ and the new creation? Why or why not? 5) What is the relationship between the NT church and the OT people of God, the nation of Israel? 6) Related to the questions above, apart from a future mass salvation of ethnic Jews in the future (which advocates of all theological systems can affirm), will there be a national restoration of national/ethnic Israel? How do the OT and NT support or deny such a conclusion? If so, what role does national Israel have in the millennium and the consummation? Furthermore, are nationalistic distinctions among God’s people eternal- do they continue on after the consummation?

1. COVENANT THEOLOGY (Michael S. Horton): Reformed theology = covenant theology; covenant theology: not central dogma but architectural framework of Scripture; Westminster Confession of Faith: “The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man, by his Fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.”;

   • Law and gospel: commands distinguished from promises; refers either to 1) OT vs NT or 2) condemnation vs justification; Rom 3:21 both sense are referred to; third use of the law: guiding believers in life; law vs gospel ~ covenant of works vs grace; third covenant: covenant of redemption: eternal pact between persons of Trinity for the salvation of elect;
   • Covenant of Works: prior to Adam humanity was not sinful neither was confirmed in righteousness; moral law given at Sinai = natural law given to Adam, inscribed on the conscience of everyone; “leave your country and family” (Gen 12:1 Abraham) ~ “leave your nets and follow me” (Mt 4:19-20 disciples); circumcision: not prerequisite but sign of covenant membership; Sinai covenant: similar to Adamic (“do this and you shall live”) but not the same, different administration of the one covenant of grace; two promises: 1) temporal land 2) eternal salvation for Israel & the nations; “getting in” the land (divine election & grace) vs “staying in” the land (nation’s obedience); “The ultimate promise of a worldwide family of Abraham in a renewed creation is unconditional in its basis, while the continuing existence of the national theocracy as a type of that everlasting covenant depended on Israel’s obedience.”; basis of justification: Christ fulfilled covenant of works; federal theology: recognizes distinction between covenants of law and promise; confirmed by many modern scholars <-> challenged by Reformed theologians (Karl Barth): legalistic system, departure from covenant of grace emphasized by Calvin (-> “Calvin vs Calvinists”); Federal Vision: challenged traditional Reformed (federal) system; common in critiques: deep aversion to law-gospel distinction (one must choose between unilateral gift of grace and conditions for enjoying its blessings; covenant of grace: unilateral in its basis but bilateral in administration; obedience: always fruit, never the root; tension in federal theology indicates complexity of relationship between God and man; eternal covenant of redemption worked out in history through covenants of law (Adamic, Sinai) and covenants of promise (Gen 3:15, Abrahamic, Davidic, new covenant); “like Adam, they broke the covenant” (Hos 6:7); last Adam successfully fulfilled Adamic covenant (Jn 17:19) -> right to eat from the Tree of Life; Sinai covenant: parenthesis in redemptive history, distinct from Abrahamic covenant (conditional vs unconditional, temporal vs eternal blessing/curse, establishes geopolitical nation as theocracy vs worldwide family of spiritual offspring); “Having fulfilled its typological function, the Sinai covenant is now obsolete and all people, Jews and Gentiles, inherit the earth through the Messiah’s obedience. There are now no promises yet to be fulfilled with respect to the nation of Israel, although we long for the outpouring of the Spirit on the Jewish people as masses of Abraham’s ethnic offspring embrace their Messiah (Rom 11:25-32).”; not two people (Jew and Gentile) but one new “person” with Christ as the head; church of Christ: worldwide family of Abraham, “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16); new covenant (shedding blood) better than old (splashing blood); law covenant now “obsolete” (Heb 3:18); two covenants meet in Christ who fulfills Sinaitic law as covenant head;
   • Circumcision and baptism: promise of temporal land and physical dependants fulfilled when settling down in Canaan, after that Sinaitic law-covenant applied; Jesus & John the Baptist: redrawing boundaries of true Israel/Abraham’s true offsprings; Abraham: father of all who believe (Rom 4:11); today: “Israel of God”: Jewish & Gentle believers in Christ (Gal 6:16); Sinai covenant obsolete but Abrahamic (worldwide family from one seed) is not; circumcision and Passover: not just symbols but signs of covenant; changes are expansions: not just male, not just Jewish, not just foreskin but heart; baptism inducts recipients into covenant of grace; identifying them as heirs of promise; “the promise is for you and your children” (Acts 38-39); not all who are baptized are regenerated (Heb 6:6); “Those who are deprived of the blessings of baptism, worship, instruction in the family and the church, and profession of faith and Communion are not apostates, since they are outside the covenant from the start. But those who have received these covenantal blessings and yet turn aside are “like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal” (12:16). All of this suggests that members of the visible church in the new corvenant are in exactly the same place as old covenant believers in this sense. One may be united outwardly to Christ and his visible body and yet not a living branch of the vine.”; same in OT (not all descendants of Israel belong to Israel); means of grace valid regardless of human response; church: “mixed assembly” (wheat and tares); warning passages (esp. Heb 6) are best understood from covenantal perspective; “eternal security” view: warnings are hypothetical; Arminian view: salvation can be lost; both have only two categories: saved and lost <-> Reformed theology: third category (covenant members belonging to the church yet not elected)
   • Israel and the church: hermeneutical priority to NT (divinely inspired interpretation of OT); central point is not Israel but seed of Abraham; Amos 9:11-15: no signs of restoration of Sinai covenant (<-> dispensationalists see it referring to millennial age with restored theocracy and temple worship); James thought this was filled literally (Acts 15:12-21); Jesus/John: no promise about restoration as a nation (not as God’s people); Jesus bypassed the temple by forgiving sins directly; church does not supersede Israel; the church has always existed and fused with a temporal nation-state; church is not a parenthesis in God’s plan with Israel as the main event but vice versa;
2. PROGRESSIVE COVENANTALISM (Stephen J. Wellum): plurality of covenants (not divided into works and grace) reveal God’s one redemptive plan, which reach their fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant; each covenant must be understood in its own context; God has one people but Israel and church are distinct; church: God’s new covenant people in continuity with the elect in all ages but different from Israel (<-> cov.); Israel: mixed community of believers & unbelievers <-> church: believers only; baptism: only applied to those who profess faith, not like circumcision (covenants are different); Jesus: antitypical fulfillment of Israel and Adam (<-> disp.); hermeneutical approaches: assuming overall unity/coherence (-> covenants not independent); canonical reading: OT authors didn’t fully understand full implication of what they wrote but God later gave revelation to later authors -> NT’s interpretation of OT is definitive, may expand original meaning but no contradiction; revelation is progressive; OT is incomplete, fulfilled only in Christ; Scripture must be read according to the Bible’s own interpretation; interpretation according to three horizons/contexts: 1) textual (immediate context), 2) epochal (locating in God’s unfolding plan;most of Scripture’s epochal divisions follow the unfolding of the covenants: Paul: Adam - Moses - Christ (Rom 5:12-21), Stephen: patriarchs - Mosaic age - monarchy (Acts 7:1-53); Matthew: Abraham-David, Solomon-exile, exile-Christ (Mt 1)); 3) canonical (what comes after it); typology: organic relation between persons, events, institutions in OT (types) and their counterparts in NT (antitypes); examples of typology: 1) repetition (eg Adam ~ Christ; Christ is first the “true Israel” not the church); 2) “lesser to greater” (antitype > previous types); 3) covenantal progression; categorizing covenants between conditional/unconditional is incorrect (each contains elements of both);
   • Biblical covenants: kingdom through covenant; triune God is king but sin brings rebellion; 1) creation covenant (Gen 1-2): absence of the word doesn’t entail there is no covenant; distinct words for “cutting” (for the first time) vs “establishing” (continue) covenant, God “establishes” covenant with Noah -> implies preexisting covenant relationship (Hos 6:7); humanity divided under headship of Adam and Christ, new covenant headship of Christ assumes covenant headship of Adam; creation covenant foundational to all subsequent covenants; establishes typological patterns which reach their “telos” in Christ; 2) Noahic covenant; first appearance of word “covenant”; 3) Abrahamic covenant: means to fulfill God’s promises; multifaceted (spiritual & national, unilateral & bilateral elements); 4) Mosaic covenant: temporary, entire covenant fulfilled by Christ, Christians no longer under it as a covenant; single package: Scripture doesn’t partition into moral, civic, ceremonial laws; typological patterns (eg Levites, kingdom of priests, sacrificial system, Passover, exodus); 5) Davidic covenant: epitome of OT covenants; climax in king; 6) new covenant: OT prophets covenantally located post-Davidic -> prophecies build on what God has already revealed; from OT perspective new covenant is viewed as national and international; newness: in 1) structure (no mediators/tribal-representatives, Spirit poured out on everyone) and 2) nature (heart condition, circumcision of the heart, new people will be all regenerate, not mixed people); Christ fulfilled all God’s covenantal promises (2Cor 1:20); Jesus: antitypical fulfillment of previous covenant mediators (Davidic king, true Israel, Abraham’s true seed, last Adam, first man of new creation, greater than Moses, fulfills the temple in himself,
   • Inaugurated eschatology: OT speaks of one coming of Christ -> NT modifies: two comings; “age to come”: already came but not yet in full; dispensationalism: distinguishes Israel from the church (Jer 31:31 already applied to church, not yet to national Israel) -> problems: 1) does not properly follow Bible’s covenantal progression (starting with creation/Adam); doesn’t see Christ as true Israel -> church is recipient of all OT promises; 2) distinguishes spiritual (already) and material/physical (not yet) blessings (both are present now, but both still awaits consummation); covenant theology: Israel and church has same nature: mixed people now, entire regenerate people (Jer 31:31-34) not realized yet -> problems: 1) in Christ relationship is spiritual, not biological/physical; 2) in Christ all new covenant realities are now here and applied to the church; one is either in the new covenant or not, to be in the covenant = knowing God, sins forgiven, heart circumcised -> baptism different from circumcision, only applied to believers (apostasy passages eg Heb 6, Heb 10: fact of apostasy only mean the person professed faith not that he actually possessed it, new covenant is not constituted by people who do not profess faith in Christ, eg infants who are baptized, “mixed” community interpretation is not the only one); church receives all promises in Christ, part of one people of God (elect) across time, church: not parenthesis in God’s plan; church: God’s new temple (<-> Israel in OT) -> evidence that church is a regenerate people; church: not just extension of Israel, or amalgam of Jews and Gentiles but something new; restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6): occurred at Pentecost - Jesus not just redirecting the disciples attention to church age; “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:25-27): majority view: “all Israel” = ethnic Israel, some argue elect Jews are being saved throughout church history, others argue for mass conversions at the end of history; both is compatible with progressive covenantalism - but: text says nothing about national Israel receiving promises different from believing Gentiles (eg land)
3. PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM (Darrell L. Bock): theological system: what most holds the Scripture together; dispensation: stewardship, management arrangement: God had managed his salvation plan with different stewards; roots in 19th century but even early church (eg Irenaeus); Israel (nation) != church (transnational) != millennium (both); disp. known for discontinuity (esp. Israel vs church); traditional dispensationalism (TD): complete division <-> revised: recognized oneness in the people of God, realization of all covenant promise but structure of the one people change over time; continuity and discontinuity both exist; both/and instead of either/or (eg kingdom inaugurated but not yet consummated); difference between progressive covenantalism (PC) and progressive dispensationalism (PD): whether ethnic Israel as a nation has future role in God’s program; PD: no appeals to typology but already-not yet progress; Israel’s role is not removed by extension of promise through Christ; Gentile inclusion != (national) Israel’s exclusion; mass of Jewish people will neither l believe as part of national Israel; “progressive” has different meaning in PD and PC;
   • Hermeneutics: traditional covenantal (CD): church has replaced Israel, “better” (world) cancels out original (land) by making it the image (type) vs reality (antitype) -> form of Platonism (“above” triumphs “below”); TD: consistent hermeneutic, meaning does not change -> strained reading of NT texts (realization only as an analogy, illustration of what is to come -> fulfillment is either/or: if something is not completely fulfilled, it is not fulfilled at all); eg Heb 8-10 (old covenant practice not required), Acts 2 (fulfillment of Joel 2, Ps 110:1), Acts 15 (fulfillment of Amos 9) -> shifts of meaning in the original intent are ignored; PC: fails to deal with original form (eg Is 2:1-4, 19:23-25 national structures are still present at consummation), assumes no role for national Israel in fulfillment <-> Jesus and apostles affirm national element, refer back to OT texts that contain this element (eg Acts 3:18-22, Acts 1:6-7, Lk 13:34-35 -> no indication of rereading of OT texts, no redefining Israel; Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ but distinct nations (including Israel) still exist; salvation is comprehensive, touching all structural spheres; evidence for intermediate kingdom: Rev 20:1-6 (“one thousand years” appears 6 times); theodicy: interim period between current time & final new heaven and earth (Is 65-66); progression doesn’t involve replacement (<-> PC); promises are kept not only through Jesus but in light of what was said by Jesus and the apostles; typology: important feature but does not remove previously revealed structures tied to the consummation; examples: 1)sacrifices: can still continue as form of commemoration (Ez 40-48, Lk 22,16 - Jesus looking forward to have Passover at the consummation); 2) temple (Zech 14:4,19 -nations celebrating Feast of Tabernacles); “complementary hermeneutics”: NT completes what OT says without losing original meaning; Christ as realization of Israel doesn’t cancel out Israel because Christ still speaks about Israel;
   • 3 covenants of promise: 1) Abrahamic: multiple nature of seed (Gen 16:10); eternal commitment; Canaan to belong to Abraham’s descendants; two-element covenantal promise: one for national Israel, one for the world; TD keeps them separate <-> PD brings them together; restoration key point of Rom 11; new entity (Jews and Gentiles) can be called “Israel” but not at the expense of original configuration; phrase “all Israel” (154 uses) always means ethnic Israel; 2) Davidic; 3) New Covenant: Israel’s salvation will allow nations to understand God (Ezek 36:23); not Israel above nations but Israel with the nations; salvific oneness but structures are different; 4) Mosaic covenant: distinct category; pedagogue until fulfillment came (Gal 3:24) -> shift in administrative arrangement (new dispensation); 5) Creation mandate/Noahic covenant: creation covenant has no place in dispensationalism; not a covenant but mandate, instruction to live by, true for every human being, not just believers; Noahic covenant: repetition of creation mandate; has covenantal element but not a covenant of promise like with Abraham, David or Israel; singular commitment by God to preserve creation order
   • Inaugurated eschatology: affirmed by PD; kingdom starts small (Mt 13) <-> millennial kingdom: but from the start; church: inaugurated part of kingdom, representation of his presence in the midst of his physical absence
   • People of God: one people of God; unity in salvation but distinction in structures through which salvation comes; OT texts see unity of the people and reconciliation; still place for Israel, not over the nations but among them; analogy: European Union (hostile countries at peace after WWII); ethnic/racial reconciliation: gospel impact beyond personal salvation; corporate dimensions of God’s work; two axes: oneness in salvation, difference in structures; law: instructive but not binding law of Christ applies now; baptism: distinct from circumcision; evidence of new era; specific texts: Acts 1:6-7 (no indication that question is wrong, hope in line with expectations from Jewish texts); Acts 3:18-21 (Peter: if you want to know what is left in God’s program, just pick up the prophets and read); Lk 13:34-35, 21:24 (“until” texts, limit Israel’s excluding in exile-like judgement for rejecting Jesus); Acts 24:14-15; 26:6-7,22-23; 28:20 (end of the book matches with the start); Rom 4:13; Gal 3:27-28 (blessing to Abraham intended for the whole world from the start); Gal 6:16 (debate: should “kai” be translated as “also” or “even [that is]”? are Jewish believers distinguished here (“also”) or all are called Israel including Gentiles (“even”)? either may be correct; Paul affirms oneness, question: how he does it); Heb 8:1-13 (new covenant makes old one obsolete; sacrificial system is not part of God’s program; return to old sacrifices precluded -> Ez 40-48 viewed as symbolic; other explanation: what returns is not Mosaic-like set of sacrifices but commemorations of realization of promise ~ Lord’s supper); 1Pt 2:4-10 (characteristics of Israel applied to the church)

4. TRADITIONAL DISPENSATIONALISM (Mark A. Snoeberger): Marcion: dismissed OT; church rejected his views but was influenced by it: used historical/literal solution & allegory to OT; Protestantism removed excess allegory but didn’t abandon literary solutions -> christological/typological interpretation; radical Reformers/Baptists: deep distrust in organized religion (restricted by Scripture to 1) Jewish era and/or 2) future kingdom); modernism: robbing Bible of 1) miracles 2) unity 3) authority, viewed as patchwork of religions -> dispensationalism: addressing the problem of OT without 1) resorting to unnatural readings (~Reformers) 2) compromising biblical unity (~modernism); “fathers” of TD: John Nelson Darby, James Hall Brookes: refused to commit to either side of Civil War (unlike OT Israel, NT church only spiritual entity, not civil government); postmillennialists: had to pick side in civil war (in pursuit of “kingdom” with social/civil contours) <-> amillenialists not (kingdom strictly spiritual); Brookes: systemic discontinuities between testaments -> church neither Israel, nor kingdom, these are distinct ideas -> dispensationalism; committed to 1) harmonization of the whole Scriptures 2) doctrine of spirituality (PD: antipathy to spirituality, try to revive church’s interest in civic matters based on being a manifestation of the future kingdom -> lost sight of why the dispensational movement was founded); essence of TD (Charles Ryrie): 1) distinction between Israel and the church 2) consistently “literal” approach to hermeneutics 3) God’s saving program only one of several means to achieve glory to himself;

   • Originalist interpretation: strictly fundamentalist theory, rejects typological (TC/PC) & complementary (PD) approach; not based on discursive study of the Scripture’s own use of itself but argues transcendentially: originalist hermeneutic is axiomatic to the successful use of language (eg the authors of this book implicitly use the same approach because that’s how language works); NT add to OT but cannot change it; examples: Abram’s seed and land: promise means today precisely and exactly what Abraham understood it mean and what Moses meant by when recording it; Christ is unique seed but doesn’t wipe out plural seed; biblical covenants: not vague augurs but precise legal documents (which can’t be altered - Gal 3:15); changing biblical covenant ~ changing marriage covenant; God’s “gifts and calling are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29); Israel: at least four meanings: Jacob, ethnic Jews, national Israel, believing subset of Israelites -> Israel cannot mean church; Gal 6:16: “Israel of God” refers to converted Jews who continue to practice circumcision; types exist but national Israel is not an inferior type that is superseded by the church; types may exist as figures of speech but typological interpretation is not acceptable; originalist alternatives: 1) analogy (eg Gentiles as seed of Abraham - Gal 3:29, Christ & Israel’s sojourn in Egypt - Hos 11:1, Mt 2:15) 2) implication (eg fulfillment of seed promises - Gal 3, David’s soul not abandoned in grave - Ps 16:10, he talked about himself but not only himself - Acts 2:26-36; James was not suggesting in Acts 15:16-18 that the events of Amos 9:11 are unfolding - Amos prophecy first required the reestablishment of house of Israel - rather he was suggesting that since the yet-future plan of God included Gentiles, early church should not withstand Gentile faith, Peter in Acts 2 didn’t argue that Joel 2 was fulfilled but since OT anticipate radical supernatural phenomena in distant future, they shouldn’t be surprised to see similar miracles in NT); 3) generic/serial fulfillment: David’s kingdom established forever -> coronation promises applied to David apply to Christ; 4) corpus linguistics (lexical priming): language users borrow words, phrases or sentences without reference to context (eg Shakespeare) -> doesn’t imply prophecies/types; many uses of OT in NT similar (eg Christ’s use of Psalms 22 on the cross - instead of trying to spiritualize it, this came to his tortured but Bible-saturated mind)
   • Rule of God: Bible’s governing ‘mitte’ (center): doxological center (TD) vs soteriological center (TC); goal of history: God’s glory (TD=TC) vs plan to achieve that goal: history of redemption (TC) vs rule of God (TD); “covenant of redemption”: 1) not even mentioned in Scriptures 2) incomprehensive 3) narrow 4) anthropocentric 5) relatively ambivalent toward eschatology; rule of God: “two kingdoms/governments”, focus shifts from redemptive center (cross) to regal climax (crown); most “yes” to promises occur at second advent; strict divorce of two governments (“give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, give to God what is God’s”); postmillennialist vs dispensationalist: both see God’s kingdom as comprehensive in scope but disagree on timing (postmil: kingdom ongoing since resurrection, disp: kingdom delayed until Christ’s return); two kingdom: civil & redemptive sphere; 1) Edenic arrangement 2) Protoevangelium 3) Noahic covenant (only universal covenant, others distinctly Israelite: “to they belong the […] covenants” Rom 9:4, other nations may benefit but only indirectly, through Israel, many terms are eternal -> if they are not presently being fulfilled, must necessarily be in the future because “gifts and calling of God is irrevocable” - Rom 11:29, not just reiterations but there is dependency); 4) Abrahamic covenant: a) seed (Christ: singular seed but nation too), b) land (debate whether Israel ever occupied it but promise also includes eternal dwelling, since Abraham’s seed is not presently in whole Promise Land -> covenant remains unfulfilled), c) blessing (Christ is necessary component but not fulfilled until national Israel functions as kingdom of priests) -> not fulfilled (max partially); 5) Mosaic covenant (civil & redemptive spheres merge); fulfilled custodian function; set aside by Christ; did not stop -> Christ’s obedience enables to enjoy benefits, reason why Jews will be saved as nation; 6) Davidic covenant: not just a dynastic king but a kingdom and a throne -> twofold reign of Christ: 1) shares Father’s throne 2) will assume his own throne over the millennial kingdom; promise includes permanent place of safety for national Israel + “charter for humanity”-> remains unfulfilled; 7) new covenant: Jewish covenant (Jer 31:31); bilateral (inauguration conditioned by both divine and human oaths); binding suzerainty covenant (hearts will be changed, Israel will be forgiven, God will regather Israel in the Promised Land); church has no/indirect/direct relationship with new covenant (author believes no relationship); Bible describes Israel as new covenant people of God just as it describes them as his old covenant people; Two other “arrangements”: 1) church: no covenant unique to them; intercalation parenthetical to God’s covenant with Israel; during parenthesis kingdom program interrupted, God’s two governments again divorced; NT Christians do have personal mandate to be good fathers/workers/citizens but institutional/ecclesiastical mandate restricted to redemptive sphere (ie. preach the gospel); purpose of church: make Israel jealous (Rom 10); after number of Gentiles are full (Rom 11), God will return his focus to his first people -> all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26); 2) eternal state: scant coverage in Scriptures; mostly speculations
   • Israel vs church: distinction between Israel and church: least essential feature, mere implication of hermeneutics; Israel neither replaced by the church not typical of it (analogies are possible); Israel and the church remain distinct forever, and they are even administered differently; God has only one immutable plan but administered differently: 1) Israel: spiritually mixed, ethnically segregated people, mission: love God & obey God’s representative (king); mission is holistic but not evangelistic (“come and see” instead of “go and tell”); 2) church: ethnically mixed, spiritually homogenous, dual citizens within God’s two governments; mission: obey Caesar and Jesus Christ; mission focused entirely on discipleship and church-planting; no social obligation, only internally; -> that’s why Paul is ambivalent toward covenant symbols (circumcision, Sabbath); that’s why baptism restricted to regenerate alone

5. COVENANT THEOLOGY RESPONSE

   • To Traditional Dispensationalism: danger: “type-aholism” (finding Jesus under every rock); unwillingness to prioritize NT over OT in interpretation: goes against church history and apostles too (Jesus taught he was the center of OT); finding Christ in all Scriptures: not because importing alien hermeneutics but because following NT interpretations; disp. exegesis: rigidly literalistic, questing-begging (eg already assumes Amos 9:11 must be fulfilled literally -> concludes James cannot be announcing fulfillment of prophecy in Acts 15:16-18 -> ergo: Amos 9 must await future fulfillment); millennial age: catch-all for every prophecy which literalistic view considers unfulfilled even if apostles view contrary; literalistic hermeneutic not consistent (eg if Gog & Magog literal in Ezekiel, it refers to near future <-> in Rev 20 they represent “four corners of the earth”); “analogy/implication”: miss point in NT (eg we are not just like children of Abraham - we are children of Abraham); interpretation of Gen 12 & 15 needs to be determined by NT; disp. approach: too bound to modernist (logical positivist) approach - does “historical-grammatical” mean “regardless of its meaning in the light of the whole canon”?; trying to find “unifying theological center” (mitte): central-dogma theories inherently problematic; instead: Scripture should be interpreted canonically (more obscure passages in light of the clearer); if church has no legal relationship with new covenant, should they be excluded from the Lord’s supper?; on what basis do Gentiles inherit salvation if they have no covenant?; Gentiles in Christ are no longer aliens to Israel but fellow citizens (Eph 2:19-20); no NT prediction of restoring theocracy and temple with sacrificial system; impression: real center of TD: national Israel not Jesus Christ as true Israel
   • To Progressive Dispensationalism: baptism ~ circumcision (Col 2:11-12); Abrahamic covenant: ethnic progeny & territory fulfilled (Josh 21:45); right after that Sinai covenant renewed (Josh 24:19-22), conditioned on obedience; Rom 9-11: future for ethnic Jews, yes, restoration of national theocracy, no; Lk 13:34-35 (“you will not see me until you say: Blessed is he…”) fulfilled in Lk 19 (entering Jerusalem); Acts 1:6-7 doesn’t support national restoration of Israel, Jesus tells tell to wait for the Spirit (new kingdom does not come through sword); no biblical support for symbolic sacrificial system; we celebrate Lord’s supper “until he comes again” (1Cor 11:26); kingdom not “Platonized” but expanded (Israel -> Gentiles, Canaan -> world); Col 3:1-4 not contemplative ascent but focus on Christ; we await “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21), not theocracy limited to one time (millennium) and place (nation in the Middle East)
   • To Progressive Covenantalism: weakness: continuity; fear of running the covenants together; question is not whether a covenant contain both promises and obligations but whether it is based on law or promise; Adamic covenant not the same as Noahic/Abrahamic (they were not sentences for death for disobedience); nor are Noah/Abraham other Adams (Paul says there are only two); TD conflates Adamic/Noahic/Abrahamic covenants but separates Abrahamic and new covenant; Jer 31:34 single argument for church not being mixed, there are more counterarguments (eg Paul’s warning: unfruitful Gentile branches will be broken off, weeds must grow together with the wheat)

6. PROGRESSIVE COVENANTALISM RESPONSE: Other views fail to grasp God’s unified plan; interpret Scripture insistently; do not account for the newness of Christ; TC: church’s newness downplayed, TD: church only parenthesis, PD: church present-day illustration of what nation-states will be in the future.

   • To Covenant Theology: many agreements; different understanding of progression of covenants & effect of new covenant; simplistic distinction: covenants are either suzerain-vassal (conditional) or royal grant (unconditional); Israel has forfeited the land due to their disobedience; no more promises to be fulfilled; categorizing each covenant to either law or grace: too simplistic and artificial; misses the tension introduced in the covenants; Israel’s land is also typical of Eden -> both lost due to disobedience; parable of wheat and tares -> not about church being mixed people;
   • To Dispensationalism: TD: impression: few have understood Scripture except dispensationalists; only his version is legitimate; PD: different inheritance for believing Gentile nations and Israel: spiritual application to church, literal to national Israel; dispensational plotline out of sync with the Bible (begins with Gen 12 not with Gen 1, fails to locate Abrahamic covenant after creation covenant and Gen 3:15); typology: not merely figures of speech but indirect form of prophecy;

7. PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONAL RESPONSE

   • To covenant theology: TC: covenant structure not found in the text; typology: cancelling effect on the text; remarrying of Hosea to wayward wife becomes act if Israel is redefined; Adamic covenant never gets named; Hosea 6:7 misread (Adam refers to location not person or reference to humanity in general); there never was a covenant of works; law not a means of saving by works but pedagogue until Christ; no treaty with humanity in Gen 1, only call to trust God; promise of land doesn’t end with Joshua, later prophets still speak of it;
   • To Progressive Covenantalism: Scripture starts with regal/relational connection, not a legal one; types do not cancel promises but they can illustrate them; later covenants do not cancel out/redefine earlier ones unless otherwise stated (not successive); fail to address how kingdom relates to the world; problem with typology: type disappears when the antitype appears; church is not a separate group from Israel but a different kind of entity (eg Italians, Russians); future is not about national Israel but part of comprehensive restoration
   • To Traditional Dispensationalism: definition of originalism: flawed, not following consistently; typology is not replacement (PC) but complementarity (PD); excessive appeal to analogy at the expense of fulfillment; false dilemmas (either literal/historical or literary/theological; either spiritual/relational or civil/social-political); not holistic but dualistic; feature of dispensationalism: testing and altering system to better conform with Scripture -> PD does exactly the same against TD; partial fulfillment not an oxymoron; Davidic covenant was made with David not Israel;

8. TRADITIONAL DISPENSATIONAL RESPONSE Agreements: 1) God is building a kingdom 2) God is redeeming a people; all reject postmillennial material kingdom. [The author did not really seem to engage with the arguments of other writers merely restarted how what he believed was different.]

9. CONCLUSION

   • TC: Covenant Theology (Horton)
   • PC: Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum)
   • PD: Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock)
   • TD: Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger)

   • Hermeneutics

     • Hermeneutical Framework and/or Principles:
       • TC: Law/gospel contrast (wrath, curse, condemnation versus grace, blessing, promise); covenant of works and covenant of grace as the outworking of the covenant of redemption.
       • PC: God’s one plan is developed through the plurality of covenants (creation, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, new) across the storyline of Scripture; three horizons of Scripture are key: textual, epochal, and canonical.
       • PD: Emphasis on three key covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, and new); complementary hermeneutic (both/and reading) as the original meaning can be expanded as it is developed in the NT, but the original sense is not lost.
       • TD: Dispensations and arrangements with emphasis on the covenants to and for Israel (including the new covenant); originalist hermeneutic- strict intentionality with binding authority to the author’s intention, meaning and referents are fixed.

     • Hermeneutical Priority:

       • TC: NT, for it is the divinely inspired interpretation of the OT.
       • PC: NT, later texts in progressive revelation bring more clarity and understanding; yet, grammatical- historical- canonical method focuses on covenants in terms of what precedes and follows each one.
       • PD: Neither, a complementary hermeneutic allows each text in each testament to say what they say without nullifying what was originally communicated.
       • TD: OT, Christ and NT authors honor the OT and bring NT faith, practice, and mission in conformity to it.
   • Covenants
     • Is there a Covenant in Gen 1-3?:
       • TC: Yes, the covenant of works with a commandment of life based on law (“Do this and you shall live; disobey and you will surely die”), made with Adam as the covenant head in a state of nature prior to grace.
       • PC: Covenant of creation - Adam is federal head, image, son, and in a Lord/vassal relationship; foundational for all future covenants as Adam’s role as priest-king and progressive image-son is unpacked and the typological structures are tied to the creation covenant.
       • PD: No covenant but a mandate. Covenants are about restoration and the delivering work of God. The idea of creation covenant has no role in dispensationalism.
       • TD: Not a formal covenant, but an Edenic “arrangement” with Adam and Eve involving civil and redemptive spheres.
     • Categorization of the Covenants:
       • TC: Conditional (suzerain vassal or bilateral) and unconditional (promissory) covenants.
       • PC: All covenants have both unilateral and bilateral aspects (conditional and unconditional elements) even as an accent may be on the bilateral or unilateral aspects (e.g. the Mosaic covenant is predominantly bilateral, but God unilaterally keeps his promises).
       • PD: There are covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, new covenants), and covenants that are other. Mosaic covenant is promise and law; Noahic covenant is not promissory but features God’s commitment to preserve the creation.
       • TD: Covenants are unilateral or promissory or royal grant (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic) or bilateral, suzerain vassal (Mosaic and new covenants). Note: God’s expectations are communicated through “arrangements” that may or may not be governed by covenants.
     • Covenants Already Fulfilled in Christ:
       • TC: All
       • PC: All covenants (even as creation and Noahic structures continue in this age) are fulfilled in Christ and the new covenant.
       • PD: Covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, new) have initial realization in Christ. The Mosaic covenant has been completely fulfilled through the work of Christ and the indwelling Spirit.
       • TD: Abrahamic covenant could be considered “partially” fulfilled but generally is not. Mosaic covenant is fully fulfilled in Christ. The church has no legal relationship to the new covenant and it will be fulfilled to national Israel in the future.
     • Covenants to Be Fulfilled:
       • TC: None
       • PC: None
       • PD: The covenant promises to Israel remain especially the Abrahamic covenant) and will be realized in the future.
       • TD: The Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants are distinctly Israelite and the terms must be fulfilled by ethnic Israel. Fulfillment (except the Mosaic covenant) will occur in the future along with the eternal benefits to national Israel.
   • Eschatology
     • Israel/Church Relationship:
       • TC: The church is the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the descendants of Abraham are those who believe and so the true Israel are the people of Christ. Israel is not superseded as Rom 9-11 holds out hope of a future salvation of Jews. It is the nation of Israel that is a parenthesis; the church from Eden onward are those in the body whose head is Christ.
       • PC: The church is part of the one people of God and yet is covenantally new. The church is God’s new creation and remains forever, consisting of Jews and Gentiles together. The church receives all of God’s promises through Jesus Christ. Rom 9-11 could speak of a mass gathering of Jews into the church at the return of Christ.
       • PD: There is unity as Jews and Gentiles are made one and are saved in Christ, but the expansion of the Abrahamic promises does not lose what was originally promised for the people of Israel. Israel is not transformed into another entity even if nations are added to the people of God. There is one people of God, unity in salvation, but diversity in reconciliation as Israel will be among the nations.
       • TD: The church is an intercalation parenthetical to God’s covenants with Israel. Israel and the church remain distinct forever.
     • Future Restoration for National Israel?:
       • TC: No, for example James’s citation of Amos 9:15 in Acts 15:13-21 shows that the promise of restoration is fulfilled in Christ. The people of God are redefined around Jesus. The Mosaic/Sinai covenant is made obsolete and there is no revival renewal of it. Jesus is the fulfillment of the temple and the sacrificial system and nothing is then left for Israel as a nation now or in the future.
       • PC: No, Christ fulfills the OT covenants as all the promises, instruction, and typological patterns culminate in him. Further, Israel’s restoration begins at Pentecost, and the OT restoration promises for Israel are applied to the church through Christ.
       • PD: Yes, the national hope of Israel remains and will occur in the future and through the new heavens and earth. The role of national, territorial Israel is promised and is complementary to the blessing extended to all who believe in Christ. National Israel will live in shalom with the nations in the new creation.
       • TD: Yes, after the church age (when all the Gentiles enter), God returns his attention to Israel with Christ returning after the tribulation and thus fulfilling the Abrahamic and new covenants with the mass conversion every Israelite. Israel will remain distinct from the nations in the eternal state.
     • Israel and the Promised Land:
       • TC: No. the promise was fulfilled when God brought Israel in the land. The Mosaic/Sinai covenant took over for the nation of Israel to remain in the land. Israel and the land point and lead to God’s worldwide family inheriting the whole earth through Christ.
       • PC: No, in the context of Genesis, the land points back to creation and an expansion beyond the Promised Land to include the whole earth. The land is typological and is fulfilled in Christ already in his inauguration of the new creation and finally in the consummated new heavens and earth.
       • PD: Yes, even if the NT adds or augments the original promise of land, the language of the original OT text stands.
       • TD: Yes, the Abrahamic covenant is left unfulfilled unless Abraham’s physical descendants [national Israel) occupy the Promised Land forever.
     • Circumcision and Baptism:
       • TC: Paedobaptism - the Abrahamic covenant continues with respect to the promises of worldwide family and inheritance in Christ. Circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham’s faith and baptism welcomes recipients into the covenant of grace. The covenant promises are to believers and their children as the household texts in the NT indicate. The warning passages of Hebrews show that members of the visible church can turn away.
       • PC: Credobaptism - the arrival of Christ and the new covenant brings changes to the structure and nature of the people of God such that all in the new covenant community receive the Spirit and forgiveness of sin, and all know God savingly unlike OT Israel. The church by nature consists of those circumcised in heart and in faith union with Christ.
       • PD: Baptism is distinct from the practice of circumcision and represents Spirit baptism, evidencing a new era and God such that new dispensation. Baptism depicts union with Christ and the new life of the Spirit indwelling believers, pointing to circumcision of the heart.
       • TD: Baptism is restricted in the NT to the regenerate (believers only).