Merkle Discontinuity to Continuity

A Survey of Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies
1. Auflage 2020
ISBN: 978-1-68359-388-1
Verlag: Lexham Press
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 288 Seiten

What is the best framework for reading the Bible? The question of how to relate the Old and New Testaments is as old as the Bible itself. While most Protestants are unified on the foundations, there are major disagreements on particular issues. Who should be baptized? Is the Christian obligated to obey the Law of Moses? Does the church supplant Israel? Who are the proper recipients of God's promises to Israel? In Discontinuity to Continuity, Benjamin Merkle brings light to the debates between dispensational and covenantal theological systems. Merkle identifies how Christians have attempted to relate the Testaments, placing viewpoints along a spectrum of discontinuity to continuity. Each system's concerns are sympathetically summarized and critically evaluated. Through his careful exposition of these frameworks, Merkle helps the reader understand the key issues in the debate. Providing more light than heat, Merkle's book will help all readers better appreciate other perspectives and articulate their own.

Benjamin L. Merkle (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author or coauthor of 40Questions about Elders and Deacons (Kregel, 2008), Going Deeper with New Testament Greek (B&H, 2016), and Exegetical Gems from Biblical Greek (Baker, 2019). He is also the editor of Southeastern Theological Review and the 40 Questions Series (Kregel).

Autoren/Hrsg.

Merkle, Benjamin L.

Leseproben

CHAPTER 2 CLASSIC DISPENSATIONALISM Taxonomy of Theological Systems As explained in the introduction and illustrated in chart 2.1, classic dispensationalism represents the position of extreme discontinuity between the covenants and thus between Israel and the church.1 After offering a brief history of the rise of classic dispensationalism, I will seek to answer our four key questions primarily through the voices of (1) John N. Darby, (2) C. I. Scofield, and (3) Lewis S. Chafer. John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) is considered to be the father of modern dispensationalism.2 Darby, a trained lawyer and Anglican priest, became disappointed at the lack of spiritual fervor in the church. He eventually came to believe that the established church was so corrupt that no true believer should remain.3 But finding no comfort in other denominations, Darby sought something simpler and joined a group of individuals for Bible study and communion.4 By 1840, this small meeting had grown to eight hundred people.5 This was the birth of the separatist movement later known as the Plymouth Brethren. The appellation “Plymouth Brethren” was due to Darby’s objection to denominational names. He preferred instead to use the New Testament term “brethren.”6 Darby first published his dispensational views in a paper titled, “Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations.”7 A “futurist,” Darby rejected the “historicist” approach in vogue in Britain in the early nineteenth century.8 Darby added two novel elements to futurist theology. First, he saw a “gap” between the 69th and 70th week in Daniel 9:25–27.9 This gap represented the church age. Second, he suggested that a “rapture” would end the church age,10 thus inaugurating the 70th week, where the wrath of God will be poured out upon the unjust.11 In 1845, Darby returned from Switzerland to Plymouth, Britain. Controversy arose between Darby and B. W. Newton, another leader in the early Brethren. The first evidence of the controversy between Darby and Newton concerned the status of the church during the tribulation. Darby asserted that the church would be raptured prior to the tribulation. Additionally, Darby disagreed with Newton’s view that the Old Testament saints were merely part of the church.12 Bass comments, “Here is tangible evidence that the dichotomy between Israel and the church was forming in the thought of Darby, growing out of a rigidly applied principle of interpretation.”13 The conflict between Darby and Newton would snowball, ultimately resulting in Newton being forced out of Plymouth and the Brethren movement.14 In the coming years, Darby and his followers would gain an attentive audience, particularly among American Presbyterians and Baptists.15 Several other individuals helped launch dispensationalism into a robust theological system. The first was Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843–1921). C. I. Scofield preached his first sermon in Dallas in 1882—the year Darby died.16 In 1888, he published a booklet titled Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, which has sold over a million copies and is still in print today. The pinnacle of Scofield’s work and “the most important publication of this classic form of Dispensationalism was the Scofield Reference Bible, an edition of the King James Bible published in successive editions … in 1909 and 1917.”17 The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible expanded the reach of dispensationalism. Scofield’s contribution is so significant that “the label ‘dispensationalism’ was apparently used first in the 1920s to distinguish Scofield’s dispensational theology from other approaches.”18 Indeed, while Darby’s work gave rise to much of systematic dispensationalism, Scofield’s work was the catalyst for American dispensationalism.19 The second influential American that helped launch dispensationalism was Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952). Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS)—a school committed to the principles of dispensationalism. In addition to founding DTS, which would produce many notable dispensationalists throughout the twentieth century, two of Chafer’s works have been particularly influential. The first was a sixty-page journal article for Bibliotheca Sacra, the journal of DTS of which Chafer served as the editor. This article presented a rigorous argument for classic dispensationalism. Second was Chafer’s eight-volume systematic theology, “which became the standard theology of the ‘Scofieldian’ period of dispensationalism.”20 1. WHAT IS THE BASIC HERMENEUTIC? Is a Literal or Symbolic Hermeneutic Employed? A foundational presupposition of dispensationalism is a consistent literal hermeneutic. For example, Chafer states that a “proper interpretation assumes that each word has its normal literal meaning unless there are good reasons for regarding it as a figure of speech.”21 But in addition to a literal hermeneutic, classic dispensationalism applied typology as a secondary theological observation. For Darby, the key was to apply a literal hermeneutic to texts related to Israel, whereas texts related to gentiles or the church could also have a secondary typological or symbolic meaning. Darby states, “First, in prophecy, when the Jewish church or nation … is concerned, i.e., when the address is directed to the Jews, there we may look for a plain and direct testimony, because earthly things were the Jew’s proper portion.” He continues, “On the contrary, where the address is to the Gentiles, i.e., when the Gentiles are concerned in it, there we may look for symbol, because earthly things were not their portion, and the system of revelation must to them be symbolical.”22 Thus, when dealing with the Jews, a literal interpretation is demanded but not necessarily when the church is being addressed. Scofield’s hermeneutic was very similar to Darby’s in that texts related to Israel needed to be interpreted literally, but those related to the church often included a spiritual or even allegorical interpretation. Thus, Scofield not only accepted that sometimes Scripture needed to be spiritualized, he also endorsed it. He writes, “It is then permitted—while holding firmly to the historical verity—reverently to spiritualize the historical Scriptures.” He qualifies this statement by claiming, “Prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal.”23 Thus, like Darby, Scofield did not hold exclusively to a literal interpretation of Scripture. When the passage of Scripture related to the church, a spiritual interpretation was sometimes permitted.24 When a passage (especially a prophecy) applied to Israel, however, only a literal interpretation was accepted. Additionally, if the New Testament appears to claim that the Old Testament prophecy regarding Israel is fulfilled in Christ and the church, then there are two separate fulfillments or the New Testament “fulfillment” is only an “application” or “partial fulfillment” of the Old Testament principle that will also be literally fulfilled in Israel.25 According to Scofield, a text might have a spiritual fulfillment related to the church but must also have a literal fulfillment related to Israel. In sum, early dispensationalists affirmed that the Bible should be interpreted literally, especially when related to Israel. But this hermeneutic was not rigidly applied to texts that were applied to the church. The uneven application of a literal hermeneutic demonstrates that the foundational commitment of dispensationalism is not a literal interpretation of the Bible but a commitment to maintain a firm distinction between Israel and the church. What Is the Proper Role of Typology? Are the New Testament authors employing typology? Do they allow for a spiritual or allegorical interpretation? Or is the Old Testament always fulfilled in a literal manner? For classic dispensationalists, the emphasis is usually on a literal fulfillment. Yet, as we will see, many classic dispensationalists also embrace the use of typology. Scofield defines a type as “a divinely purposed illustration of some truth” (e.g., a person, event, thing, or institution).26 He gives two rules for practicing typology. If the New Testament does not confirm the type, (1) it cannot be “dogmatically asserted” and (2) it can only be spiritually analogous.27 He states, “Types occur most frequently in the Pentateuch, but are found, more sparingly, elsewhere. The antitype, or fulfilment of the type, is found, usually, in the New Testament.”28 Classic dispensationalism’s understanding of typology is closer to a spiritual or even an allegorical interpretation when put into practice. For example, in Genesis 1:16, Scofield asserts that the “greater light” is a type of Christ (e.g., “sun of righteousness,” Mal 4:2) and the “lesser light” is a type of the church.29 In addition, other types found in The Scofield...