Resources on Dispensationalism and the New Covenant

In his excellent book, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, Michael J. Vlach laments the fact that many critics of dispensationalism seem to believe that dispensational thought was frozen in place by 1950. In reality, the past thirty years in particular have seen much development within this theological system. Unfortunately, many covenantalists are either unaware of these developments or simply choose to ignore them.


For example, over at Fide-o, blogger Jason Robertson recently wrote an extremely condescending article entitled “If Only Peter Knew as Much as Dispys.” About half-way through the article, Robertson makes the following claim:

Some of you may not be aware that Dispensationalists do not believe that the church today is in the New Covenant. Sadly, they don’t. For proof read this document recently published by The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics.

Fortunately, one of the very first commenters, Aaron Blumer from SharperIron.org, corrected Robertson and told him that many dispensationalists actually do believe that the church is in the New Covenant. Unfortunately, Robertson simply ignored Blumer’s correction. At this point, I should have rolled my eyes and moved on, but instead I left the following comment to Robertson:

[Jason Robertson wrote:] “Some of you may not be aware that Dispensationalists do not believe that the church today is in the New Covenant. Sadly, they don’t. For proof read this document recently published by The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics.”

I guess it all depends on what you mean by the phrase “in the New Covenant.” Ironically, in the very article you linked as proof that dispensationalists do not believe that the church is in the New Covenant, Rodney Decker refers to four different dispensational views on the church’s relationship to the New Covenant, and two of the four affirm that the church is indeed in the New Covenant. Admittedly, this is not as clear in the article you linked, primarily because that was not the purpose of the article, and, as Decker himself states on the first page, he is assuming that these various positions are generally understood by his readers (keep in mind that he presented this paper to a dispensational study group). But if you read the articles he refers to as setting forth these various views at length—his articles in The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology and BibSac—this is abundantly clear. In light of this, you may want to revise your statement to say that “some” (or even more accurately, “a few”) dispensationalists do not believe that the church today is in the New Covenant. Or, if you stand by your statement, you may want to clarify precisely what you mean by the phrase “in the New Covenant.” Otherwise, your statement may not be taken seriously by those who are well-read on this issue and may end up misleading those who are not.

The reality is that very few dispensationalists today fall into the category of the two positions which deny that the church is in the New Covenant. This was the view of Chafer and Darby, but you would be hard pressed to list very many today that hold this view. I can only think of two, and one of them is an old friend of mine who has never published a thing in his life. In contrast, there is tons of stuff out there by dispensationalists who are specifically writing on the New Covenant and who specifically affirm that the church is in the New Covenant (e.g., Decker, Compton, Kent, Saucy, Pettegrew, Ware, Alexander, not to mention progressives like Bock and Hoch).

At this point, I honestly thought Robertson would respond by either (a) clarifying the phrase “in the New Covenant” in such a way that would add some credibility to his original assertion (which I invited him to do, if that were indeed the case), or (b) simply conceding that he had indeed misrepresented dispensationalism. Instead, Robertson responded to me with this:

Matt, Thanks for your comments and the further insight to our readers that the linked article was only Lead Balloon Theology.

Then, in a later comment, Robertson continued to address me with this:

And don’t forget…for 15 years in the ministry I was Dispensational…. So anytime someone says that I am misrepresenting Dispensationalism it is because they are frustrated with the fact I know as much about it than any of them.

Amazing analysis: Any time someone says that Jason Robertson is misrepresenting dispensationalism it is because that person is frustrated with the fact that Robertson knows as much about dispensationalism as that person does? Wow. No wonder he is not open to correction. Frankly, the question of whether Robertson knows as much about dispensationalism as I do never even crossed my mind. Nor would it frustrate me if he does. I was just trying to help him represent dispensationalism more accurately, something I thought he would have been eager to do.

Anyway, the main purpose of this post is to follow up on that interaction and provide some resources for those who may want to study and think through this issue further. I invite you to make other suggestions in the comment section, but here are some of the resources that I found most helpful as I’ve wrestled with this question of the church’s relationship to the New Covenant:

  • Alexander, Ralph H. “A New Covenant—An Eternal People (Jeremiah 31).” In Israel, the Land and the People: An Evangelical Affirmation of God’s Promises, ed. H. Wayne House, 169–206. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998.
  • Compton, R. Bruce. “Dispensationalism, the Church, and the New Covenant.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (2003) 8:3-48.
  • Decker, Rodney J. “The New Covenant and the Church.” Bibliotheca Sacra (1995) 152:290-305, 431-56 (two-part series).
  • Kent, Homer A. Jr. “The New Covenant and the Church.” Grace Theological Journal (1985) 6:289–98.
  • Pettegrew, Larry D. “The New Covenant.” The Master’s Seminary Journal (1999) 10:251–70.
  • Saucy, Robert L. “The New Covenant and the Salvation of the Gentiles.” In The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, Robert L. Saucy, 111-39. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
  • Ware, Bruce A. “The New Covenant and the People(s) of God.” In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, 68–97. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Advertisements

28 responses to this post.

  1. I thought I would start by making it clear that this thread is not intended to be a forum for people to comment on how Robertson has handled this issue. I’ve certainly done enough of that above. Instead, feel free to share any helpful resources you may be aware of on dispensationalism’s view of the church and the New Covenant. At the same time, if Robertson himself would like to clarify anything he wrote over at Fide-o, he is certainly welcome to do so here.

  2. Posted by chuck on February 4, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    I can’t say much about the other resources, but I have read Compton’s and it was very helpful to me, a layman.

  3. Matt,

    Keep up the good work. You or one of your fellow contributors had not long ago wondered aloud on the blog if you still had any readers. Let me assure you that you do. And it’s not just people linking to Paul’s song! I hope to get your books on premillenialism and baptism soon.

    Unfortunately I have found that many who grew up steeped in certain popular forms of dispensationalism that may not have been very theologically informed are some of the worst at erecting straw men and refusing to consider the arguments of the other side. The same goes for Baptists who cross the fence into what appear to be greener Presbyterian pastures as I once did. It is often done for the most superficial of reasons. At one time I would have told you that I used to be a dispensationalist of the MacArthur type, but in reality I didn’t know much about it at all and only held that position by default.

    While I think some of MacArthur’s characterizations of amils a few years ago were unfortunate to say the least (I’ve actually been to an amil prophecy conference that featured Dr. Riddlebarger) and probably turned off some of those who most needed to hear his message, overall I find myself agreeing with him that the Scriptures teach a literal restoration of the Jews to the land, something that I wouldn’t have fathomed that I would have believed even two years ago. I’ve also been influenced by Barry Horner, the little book by Dr. Vlach you noted and several unpublished essays by R.K. MacGregor Wright. I recently watched the webinars of the Waldron lectures at MCTS and am more unconvinced of the amil position (or FIDE-o’s postmillenialism) than ever. Horner especially had performed a great service in demonstrating that what passes as historic premillenialism today really isn’t very historical and doesn’t represent what men like Spurgeon, Bonar and Ryle believed.

  4. Posted by Massimo on February 4, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Thanks for advancing the discussion with the resources Matt.

  5. Well done Matt,

    Compton’s article is one of the best I’ve read on the relationships of the NC. His is a great study which is both inductive and theological.

  6. Posted by Scott Christensen on February 5, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Matt,
    Which of these do you believe is the best treatment of the issues?

  7. Posted by Scott Christensen on February 5, 2009 at 11:29 am

    The Compton Article can be found here:
    http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2003/Compton.pdf

  8. Nice article. I think the whole the church and the new covenant talk along with the Kingdom here/now views has led me to be opened up to progressive D.

  9. Scott: Perhaps Compton’s (thanks for the link by the way), but it’s hard to say. I read them over a long span of time, starting with Ware and Alexander back in 1999, and my own understanding was evolving throughout that process. But I would probably start with Compton. As Paul mentioned, his study is both inductive and theological, as always. When I read his article on Acts 2:38, I remember really appreciating his approach to the issue even though I ended up disagreeing with his final conclusion. I would love to emulate him in my own research and writing.

    Chris: Thanks for the encouragment and for the input. Good stuff.

  10. Posted by clearly on February 6, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Matt,

    It’s been very interesting to watch this discussion; I’ve really enjoyed it!

    The debate seems to really go back to what is meant by the little phrase “in the new covenant.”

    I’ve read some of the sources above rather recently and I went away thinking that the above language (“in the new covenant”) would not be pleasing to some of them.

    It seems, to me at least, that “in the new covenant” implies fulness or some degree of finality (I guess it could also simply point towards inclusion). Compton and others (non-progressive) argue that the Church is receiving benefits of the (1) NC without presently fulfilling it in any sense.

    Would they truly be comfortable making the statement, “The Church is in the NC.” I’m thinking not.

    Are we saying the same things but using different terminology?

  11. Clearly,

    I think you raise a very good point about the meaning of the phrase, which is exactly why I began my first comment to Jason Robertson by writing, “I guess it all depends on what you mean by the phrase ‘in the New Covenant.’” And then, at the end of that comment, I told him that if he stands by his original claim that dispensationalists don’t believe that the church is in the New Covenant, he may want to clarify precisely what he means by the phrase.

    The difficulty with the phrase itself is that we’re not dealing with biblical terminology. In fact, I suspect that the use of phrase flows out of discussions over infant baptism in which paedobaptists refer to infants of believers as being “in the covenant,” meaning “in the covenant community.” I usually interpret the use of the phrase as referring to something along the lines of the following: a member of the New Covenant; a participant in the New Covenant; a partaker of the New Covenant; a partaker of the blessings of the New Covenant; a minister of the New Covenant; someone who is saved by the New Covenant; or someone who is represented by the Mediator of the New Covenant. I can’t speak for Compton and others, but I myself am very comfortable with saying that the church is “in the New Covenant” in any and all of these senses. In fact, I would insist upon it. And I don’t think any of those definitions are contrary to what most dispensationalists today believe about the church’s relationship to the New Covenant. They may not use this terminology, and that is fine, because neither does Scripture, and there is always the danger of carrying extra baggage when you use extra-biblical terminology.

    As you know, there is disagreement among dispensationalists regarding whether the church partially “fulfills” the New Covenant promises in the OT (the more “progressive” you are, the more likely you are to use this terminology), but the one thing that all dispensationalists would agree on is that the church is not the complete and final fulfillment of the New Covenant. This flows out of the dispensational view of passages like Romans 11:25-27 where Paul speaks of an eschatological salvation of the nation of Israel in fulfillment of the New Covenant. As you can tell, I would differ with you in that I don’t hear any degree of “finality” when I hear the phrase “in the New Covenant.” I believe that the church is “in the New Covenant” today (as defined above) and that the nation of Israel will be “in the New Covenant” when she is saved after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. But again, we’re dealing with extra-biblical terminology.

    Good insights.

  12. Posted by clearly on February 6, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    Matt,

    Thanks for the detailed response and quickly too. I’d have to say that I agree with your basic position. If the church is not participating in at least the blessings of the (1) NC, then the message of Hebrews, specifically, becomes very muddled!

    While I would agree with all your descriptions above, as they relate to the Church, I still would not be comfortable with the statement (in the NC) unless it was given ample nuance.

    It seems we agree on that nuance, however. For that I’m glad!

    Take care.

  13. I know that I may be a bit late to get in on the discussion here, but I think that that Matt has made some excellent observations. The fact is that unfortunately all too often (as noted above) the criticisms of Dispensationalism are based on a simplistic or outdated understanding of the position(s). I find it troubling that critiques of Dispensationalism too often resort to straw man or ad hominem argumentation. In my opinion, such attacks are neither charitable nor profitable.

  14. Posted by Bobby Grow on February 10, 2009 at 5:40 am

    Matt,

    good one! I have really been struggling with this whole issue (not the PD stuff) — I’ve actually been flirting with the idea of amil (can you believe it, given all my talk in the past on Apostolic Hermeneutics, and such); but as I’ve continued to talk it out, and lead a small group through Revelation, I really cannot leave PD — and what is at stake for me, is the macro-hermeneutical issues . . . I just cannot jettison those principles (and that’s not even mentioning the Greek grammar of Rev. 20, and the preceding context “kai eidon” ;-) ). Anyway, I am PROGRESSIVE dispensational; and I remember you in the past mentioning that you were more progressive DISPENSATIONAL — so we might differ a little at points. But I certainly see the Church as fulfilling the NC (cf. II Cor 3; Eph 2); but not apart from the Jew first (who is of course Christ, and His Apostles).

    As far as Robertson, well I’ve had run-in with him before on this issue (its been at least a couple years now); and I just think he is disingenuous, and I also think any amiller who takes this tact is equally so — it’s always easier to blow down a “straw man,” than it is a “brick house.”

    I like Blaising, Bock, and Saucy on PD stuff.

    Keep up the good work, Matt . . . I’m glad to see you’re still blogging!

    P.S. also one point of clarification on amillers; there is a camp who sees a hope for a remnant of ethnic Jews (instead of happening ‘after the time of the Gentiles’ they see it as running concurrent and climaxing at the end, right before Christ returns) to be saved — Riddlebarger is one of those.

  15. Hey guys,
    I thought I might speak up, not to defend myself, but to bring further context to my FIDE-O post that spurned this post by Matt. On my blog, I wrote a post that discussed the sermons of Peter in Acts 2 & 3. WHY?

    I was listening to a Master’s Grad, who will remained unnamed because he is a great guy and doesn’t need to be outed, as he expounded Acts 2. He tried his best to explain away the fact that Peter was claiming that the prophecy of Amos was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The reason this pastor was having trouble was because he was Dispensational and he knew that if Amos’ prophecy was fulfilled then that means that God did keep his promise to Israel (and even to Jews because that was precisely Peter’s audience).

    The Master’s Grad insisted that Peter could not have meant that all of Amos’ prophecy of the New Covenant was fulfilled. But I ask, WHY? Was there something in the text to support the assertion that Peter did not mean what he said? Or that Peter did not mean for us to take him literally? Or that Peter was not saying that all of Amos’ prophecy was being fulfilled NOW — or as Peter said, “what you are seeing and hearing”?

    Regardless of how you try to parse my words or divert attention away from the theological issues the fact remains that at its core Dispensational Theology (DT) denies the fact that the Church is in the New Covenant.

    By the way, my use of term “New Covenant” would be consistent with the biblical term “new covenant” used in such passages as Jer 31, Lk 22, and Heb 9. Thus, the New Covenant is a single covenant that is the final covenant promised to God’s people by the Prophets. This covenant was inaugurated by Jesus Christ and has never ended — it will only mature until its full consummation at the end of this age.

    It seems DT proponents are now trying to redefine the New Covenant into something that is one thing for the Church and another thing for Israel. Yet there is no such distinction in the Bible when it defines the New Covenant.

    So either a DT does not believe that the Church is in the New Covenant or DT has to create a NEW-New Covenant that the Church can be in without messing with Israel’s New Covenant.

    By the way, I know that my way of writing may not be balmy enough for those who are more “read” or those who consider themselves the “academic dispys” as one guy claimed to be on my blog recently — but I am the very opposite of disingenuous. I served in Southern Baptist churches for 10 years as an evangelist, I served for two years on Jerry Falwell’s staff, and have graduated from two SBC institutions. I KNOW MY DISPENSATIONALISM whether you wish to believe me or not.

    But I have no desire to argue about sub-points of DT when the major points are erroneous. I have no need therefore to discuss DT books written recently when they all stem from the same presuppositions held by men like Chafer, Scofield, and Ryrie.

    Arguing all the new forms of DT would be as absurd to me as trying to argue that Arminianism is a more biblical version of Pelagianism. It doesn’t matter that many good Christians, born-again believers, YES even members of the elect are Arminians — Arminianism is still rooted in Pelagianism. And DT is still DT no matter which strand you are dealing with.

    Thanks guys, for hearing me out. I want you to know that my view on this do not cause me to have any negative personal thoughts towards any of my brothers. Indeed, I will be preaching in two churches in the next two weeks that are DT and I have DT’ers preaching for me at times.

    So I hope that you guys think long and hard about what you are saying about guys like us. I am Baptist, Covenant, and Postmil. We preach the Gospel of Christ and shepherd in His church. We are the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem, the Children of Abraham. Don’t try to prove to us that all the promises of God for His elect are not ours… you will get nowhere with us. Our Messiah has come and He reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords — and we reign with Him. We would simply like to welcome you guys to the New Covenant — stop waiting for more that what the Cross accomplished. Christ came, His body is spiritually here, and He will return to consummate Redemption.

  16. Oops. Replace “Amos” with “Joel” above. I had Amos on my mind.

  17. Posted by caleb kolstad on February 10, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    Jason-
    What ever happened to the “already-not yet” view or the “inaugurated but not fulfilled” idea?

  18. Now and becoming.

  19. Much like my salvation.

  20. […] post that raised more questions than it answered. You can read it in it’s entirety here. He continues to make the same tired point that is factually untrue which in sum is: Regardless of […]

  21. Posted by Matt Waymeyer on February 11, 2009 at 11:13 am

    Frankly, Jason, the louder you tell us that you KNOW YOUR DISPENSATIONALISM, only to follow that with justification for why you have no need to think through any developments in the system in the past 30 years, the harder it is to take you seriously. This—in combination with your claim that the only reason people say you misrepresent dispensationalism is because they are frustrated that you know as much about it as they do—makes me realize that further dialogue on the subject may not be the best use of either of our time. But I do thank you for taking the opportunity to confirm that you do indeed stand by your original claim that dispensationalists do not believe the church is in the New Covenant.

  22. *sigh* I realize that you “can’t take seriously” someone who points out the errors of Dispensationalism. I’ve been there. I too was pretty much closed-minded. I had an answer for almost every question. I too thought that Dispensationalism was tried and true even though I knew that it was constantly changing. In fact, I was so sure that Dispensationalism was right that the changes seemed to be a good thing — not a bad thing — because it only proved that the system was improving our understanding of Scripture.

    But one day I without even realizing it I began to allow myself to respect the arguments of Covenant Theologians. I stopped turning a deaf ear. I stopped trying to defend and started listening. I studied especially the theology of Baptists and Calvinists in Church history. I also studied everyone from Augustine to John Calvin to Charles Spurgeon. I then read the scholars of the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries. And then I listened closely to such men as Mark Dever and Ligon Duncan.

    I realized that nowhere in Dispy circles is CT accurately defined. I had rejected something based on false information. Furthermore, upon listening to sound Calvinistic Baptist critique Dispensationalism I realized that the DT system could not survive biblical scrutiny no matter how many times it tried to improve. And the last thirty years of “improvements” have only made the system worse for now it is completely inconsistent with itself. (Of course, Dispys are blind to this because they see everything through the prism of the system.)

    I finally realized that DT is not consistent with itself, not consistent with Calvinism, and not consistent with the Gospel.

    So I will continue to put my good reputation on the line with my colleagues because I’ve been right where they are. Through the years, I had friends leave Dispensationalism and I would lose a little respect for them — as if they had lost the faith or had, at least, been duped by Presbyterians or something. In other words, I didn’t take them seriously any more.

    So I realize that I risk my reputation by talking about this stuff. But so be it.

    It is kind of like telling a brother not to talk about Calvinism or not say anything Calvinistic when he preaches — it is impossible! As much as Calvinism is intrinsically connected to soteriology, Covenant Theology (and Postmil) is connected to ecclessiology. In other words, if you can’t talk about salvation without talking about God’s grace, how can one talk about the church without talking about all the promises that God has given His people are now being fulfilled in Christ?

    Sure Dispys will throw arguments at me about Amil or paedobaptism or hyper-theonomy or hyper-preterism, but that is like Arminians throwing arguments at us about hyper-Calvinism or Calvin’s involvement with Servetus’s burning at the stake or babies going to Hell.

    Nevertheless, we keep talking about Calvinism. And most of us keep talking about Covenant Theology. The truth is worth it.

  23. Posted by bobby grow on February 11, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    When you speak of “Covenant Theology,” Jason, do you mean its “Federal version,” or its Covenant version? You do realize that “Covenant theology” is not a monolith in past history; there were many competing versions of Covenant theology (see Scottish Theology, T. F. Torrance’s book) at play during the 16th and 17th centuries — the peculiarity is that the English “Federalism” is what Americans, in general (in the “Reformed” tradition) have gravitated to.

    To speak of Covenant theology as you do, historically, just isn’t careful ;-).

    Jason said:

    Sure Dispys will throw arguments at me about Amil or paedobaptism or hyper-theonomy or hyper-preterism, but that is like Arminians throwing arguments at us about hyper-Calvinism or Calvin’s involvement with Servetus’s burning at the stake or babies going to Hell.

    This is the most ironic thing you say. This is exactly, as I’ve already underscored at your blog, the point. You can create straw man caricatures of dispys, just like folks can make them of you; nobody likes that, its just not a genuine way to argue or communicate. So you should quit it.

    Personally I think you just haven’t spent the time studying PD thought. Have you even read Bock or Saucy on this stuff? I doubt it.

  24. Sure, I have read Bock and Saucy and Blaising and Walvoord and Pentecost and Chafer. I have read them all. Interviewed Robert Thomas. Worked for Jerry Falwell. Studied the Scofield notes. Preached a form of Dispensationalism, having never believed the classic model. I’ve studied the writings in the Master’s Journal. Read nearly every book on the issue. In fact, spent most of my last ten years in DT studying hermeneutics and was a huge proponent of LGH.

    Why do you doubt?
    Maybe it is because you just can’t believe that someone can know DT and reject it.
    But, yes, my friend it happens. And is happening at a greater rate than you may want to think about.

  25. Posted by Bobby Grow on February 12, 2009 at 5:12 am

    Jason,

    its not that I am naive to the fact that many dispys are indeed “converting” (probably half the guys I went to school with are no longer dispy); its your reductionistic approach to this issue that is problematic to me. You set up Scofield/Darby style dispyism as normative; when today it is not! You just speak on these things like you are unaware of what folks like Blaising and Bock and Saucy are saying (esp. in re. to the New Covenant).

    Beyond this, all I’ve wanted to see you do is admit that you do understand that there are genuine distinctions amongst different versions of dispyism; and (indirectly) you do that here:

    . . . Preached a form of Dispensationalism, having never believed the classic model. . .

    So how about you quit lumping all dispyism together (like you do in your post, which prompted this whole discussion); and just come clean, that you indeed recognize that there are substantial differences amongst dispy camps . . . and quit taking the lazy man’s approach of saying “ahh it’s all the same.” That’s all I want, I really don’t care to argue with you over the finer herm. points, at least at this time.

  26. If one is to believe the idea that those in the Body of Christ partake of Israel’s New Covenant then it is necessary to abandon the idea that the Body of Christ represnts an “intercalation” in God’s program for Israel. Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote:

    “But for the Church intercalation — which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term ‘parenthetical,’ commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation” (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. [Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948; reprint, 8 vols. in 4, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993], 4:41; 5:348-349).

    Those who teach that the Body of Christ participates in Israel’s New Covenant are unaware that there are “two” New Covenants–a “type” and an “antitype.”

  27. Jerry, those of us who believe the church participates in the New Covenant are not “unaware” that there are two NC, actually we deny that there are two NC. There is no NT passage that mentions two NC. In fact, Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:15-18 both refer to Jeremiah’s NC as the one enjoyed by the church. Additionally your premise that the church’s participation would cancel Israel’s unique function does not follow. Our saying that the church participates in the NC does not mean that all previous promises are rendered null and void (Paul deals with this in Romans 11).

    Thanks for stopping by.

    • Paul, have you studied one form of hermeneutics which is in regard to “types” and “antitypes”? Just because these is no specific verse that states that Israel’s New Covenant is a “type” of the New Covenant which is in operation today does not mean that this typological relationship does not exist. For instance, there will a “kingdom of God” which will be set up on the earth which men in their flesh and blood bodies will enter. That “kingdom of God” is a “type” of the “kingdom of God” which men in their flesh and blood bodies cannot enter (1 Cor.15:50). However, the Scriptures will be searched in vain for any specific revelation stating that the Scriptures speak of a “type” of the “kingdom of God” and an “antitype” of the “kingdom of God.”

      If you would go to my site you will see that I demonstrate that Israel’s New Covenant is but a “type” of the New Covenant which is in effect today. There I answer your assertions about what is said in the book of Hebrews.

      By the way, the earliest and most influential dispensationalists saw characteristics of a typological relationship between the two New Covenants. I also cover that on my article titled “Israel’s New Covenant and the Body of Christ.”

      Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: