There Really Is a Difference
There Really Is a Difference by Renald E. Showers
I’ve entered into quite a few discussions on Dispensationalism. The people I discussed it with held their position on it (for or against) quite strongly yet most did not actually understand what Dispensationalism actually contains. The explanations I got on Dispensationalism were always either confusing or incomplete. I heard that Dispensationalists don’t believe in the Old Testament. I have heard that Dispensationalism is seeing a distinction between Israel and the Church. I have heard that Dispensationalism reads the Bible more literally. I have heard that Dispensationalism is about the different ways God relates to people throughout history. I was unsatisfied with these descriptions. I dug into Dispensationalism some more using resources from Reformed perspectives and the more I understood it the more I did not trust it. A comment on a particular YouTube video on Dispensationalism struck me, “I was a Dispensational until I tried to explain Dispensationalism.” And that basically summed up my thoughts on the idea. That it is a confusing system of understanding the Bible. That it sees the Bible in a disjointed way. That it reads things woodenly and misses proper understandings of passages.
But I wanted to get a Dispensational perspective so I read There Really Is A Difference.
I was disappointed.
There Really Is a Difference promises, as stated in the subtitle, “a Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology” but the comparison is unfair and lopsided. Covenant Theology is briefly summarized, then strawmanned and invalidated with arbitrary requirements. Dispensationalism is analyzed far deeper but is never challenged or critiqued. If this was supposed to be about how great Dispensationalism is, it succeeded, but as an objective comparison, it does not deliver.
Arbitrary Requirements
Showers begins by explaining that man is in a search for meaning and that he has tried to deal with this issue systematically through philosophies of history. Showers quotes Karl Lowith who says that “a systematic interpretation of universal history in accordance with a principle by which historical events and successions are unified and directed toward ultimate meaning.” Showers thus argues that because we need to answer the issue of meaning, we need to determine a philosophy of history.
First, it offers a systematic interpretation of history. In other words, it explains the why of historic events in an organized way. Second, it covers the whole scope of history from beginning to end. It explains why things happened in the past, why the world is where it is in the present, and the what and why of the future. Third, a philosophy of history has a unifying principle which ties together and makes sense of events, distinctions, and successions. Fourth, it assigns ultimate meaning to history. It demonstrates that the flow of history has an ultimate goal or purpose, that events are not disjointed or unrelated to each other, and that future events are the grand climax toward which all previous events have been moving.
Showers then argues that the Bible “presents the ultimate, authoritative philosophy of history.”
Fair enough.
Then Showers lays out attributes to identify valid expositions of biblical philosophy of history. He determines that 1) “it must contain an ultimate purpose or goal for history toward the fulfillment of which all history moves.” 2) “it must recognize distinctions or things that differ in history.” and 3) “it must have a proper concept of the progress of revelation.”
My first thought reading this was: “Ok, but why does that make an exposition valid?” These seem to be arbitrary rules that Showers has just pulled out of thin air.
Then he supports his second requirement for valid expositions by arguing that “Jesus gave two distinct gospels to His disciples to preach.” What?
He supports this through this quote, which I’ll put here for dissection purposes.
Paul defined the second gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 when he said: ‘Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you,…By which also ye are saved,…that Christ died for our sins…And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day…and that he was seen.’
An examination of these gospels indicates that their contents were quite distinct. This was made even more obvious by Matthew. After the disciples had been out for some time preaching the first gospel, they returned to Christ to report on their ministry. Matthew records, “From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day” (Mt. 16:21). The language indicates that although the disciples had already been preaching one gospel, up to this point Jesus had never told them about His coming death, burial, and resurrection. Therefore, the first gospel contained nothing concerning Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Peter’s negative reaction to Jesus’ new teaching emphasized the distinction in the gospels very strongly: “Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee” (Mt. 16:22). If Peter had already been preaching Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, he would not have reacted so negatively when Christ referred to these coming events.
This misses the point of basically the entire New Testament.
When Jesus first sent the Twelve to preach that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 10:7), their message was preliminary and anticipatory. They were proclaiming that the Messiah who fulfilled all the promises to Israel was drawing near.
When Peter objects to Jesus being crucified, it’s because he expected Jesus to lead a political and national restoration. Many Jews had in mind an earthly king and thought the Messiah was going to lead a revolt against the Romans. John 6:15 says “So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone.” It is not unfeasible to believe that Peter thought the same thing.
This idea of two gospels is not supported in the New Testament. Acts 8:12 says “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” This is post-resurrection and yet Philip is preaching about the kingdom of God, uniting these two themes that Showers deems distinct.
Later, in Acts 20:24-25, Paul says “But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face.” The gospel of grace and the kingdom are not separate.
The New Testament presents the gospel as progressively revealed but it is never replaced. Jesus’ death and resurrection unveil the mystery long concealed (Romans 16:25–26; Ephesians 3:4–6), but it never divides the message into two distinct gospels.
Showers discusses more so-called distinctions in the Bible.
- Distinct Commissions (lost sheep of the house of Israel vs all nations)
- Distinct Preparations (no money, bags, multiple tunics, sandals, or a staff vs take a bag and a sword)
- Distinct ways God deals with adulterers
- Distinct ways God deals with murders
- Different dietary laws
Showers says that “these and all other biblical distinctions must not be ignored, watered down, or explained away if an exposition of the biblical philosophy of history is to be valid.” But he never shows why we can’t try to explain these apparent differences. Understanding how these distinctions fit together does not “water them down,” but rather it magnifies the unity and glory of scripture.
The third attribute of valid expositions that Showers lays out is having a “proper concept of the progress of revelation.” He correctly says “the Bible indicates that God’s truth has been revealed in stages at different points in history. God did not give all of His revealed truth to man in one lump sum at the beginning of history.” However this is used to trojan-horse the idea that we “dare not read the content of later revelation back into earlier revelation,”
Full context:
For example, God did not reveal the fact that there would be a Redeemer until after the fall of man (Gen. 3:15). God did not reveal the practice of capital punishment until after the flood (Gen. 9:5-6). While Jesus was here in His first coming, He did not reveal everything that He wanted His disciples to know (Jn. 16:12). He indicated that the Spirit of God would reveal the additional truth to them after Christ’s ascension (Jn. 14:26; 16:13). Paul talked about truth which had been hidden from people in past ages of history but was revealed to him and others in New Testament times (1 Cor. 2:6-10; Eph. 3:2-6). In light of this progress of revelation, in order for an exposition of the biblical philosophy of history to be valid, it dare not read the content of later revelation back into earlier revelation. It must not make the earlier revelation say all that the later revelation said.
Yet reading the “content of later revelation back into earlier revelation” is something the apostles do frequently in the New Testament. The later revelation is not imposed onto the earlier revelation, it simply reveals what was always there.
Hebrews, Romans, Galatians, and nearly every New Testament book has at least some analysis of an Old Testament verse that gives it more meaning. We get commentary from the Apostles themselves on a multitude of verses from everywhere in the Old Testament.
It’s not a misguided hermeneutic, it’s how the apostles read the Bible.
Scarecrows
I was disappointed by the analysis of Covenant Theology. Showers spends less than 10 pages providing a surface level analysis of Covenant Theology before putting the husk on a post in the garden and stuffing it with straw.
“Space will not permit a thorough evaluation of Covenant Theology.”
Renald, your book’s subtitle is A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology, a “thorough evaluation” is exactly what you need to have space for. And, you have ample room for a thorough evaluation of Dispensational Theology. Seems unfair.
Limited Ultimate Goal
First, Covenant Theology’s ultimate goal of history is too limited or narrow. As noted in the previous chapter, Covenant Theology sees the ultimate goal of history as being the glory of God through the redemption of the elect. Although the redemption of elect human beings is a very important part of God’s purpose for history, it is only one part of that purpose. During the course of history, God not only has a program for the elect but also a program for the nonelect (Rom. 9:10-23). In addition, God has different programs for nations (Job 12:23; Isa. 14:24-27; Jer. 10:7; Dan. 2:36-45), rulers (Isa. 44:28-45:7; Dan. 4:17), Satan (Jn. 12:31; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:7-10; 20:1-3), and nature (Mt. 19:28; Acts 3:19-21; Rom. 8:1922). Since God has many different programs which He is operating during the course of history, all of them must be contributing something to His ultimate purpose for history. Thus, the ultimate goal of history has to be large enough to incorporate all of God’s programs, not just one of them.
Denial or Weakening of Distinctions
Second, Covenant Theology denies or weakens some of the distinctions which are in the Bible by insisting that distinctions are simply different phases of the same Covenant of Grace. For example, Covenant Theology nullifies the genuine distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant (the Law). Berkhof wrote, “The covenant of Sinai was essentially the same as that established with Abraham, though the form differed somewhat.” But, if these two covenants were essentially the same, why did Paul emphasize their distinctiveness in Galatians 3? For example, in Galatians 3:18 Paul asserted that if the inheritance is based on the Law of the Mosaic Covenant, it cannot at the same time be based upon the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant.
=== destroy
“In addition, Covenant Theology denies the existence of distinctive gospels in the Bible. By contrast, it was demonstrated in the first chapter that there are indeed different gospels in the Bible.”
=== destroy
Perhaps one of the most central points of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This is why Showers will only consider philosophies that maintain distinctions to be valid. This is covered in greater detail in later chapters.
Biblical Covenants as Continuations and Newer Phases of the Covenant of Grace
Third, Covenant Theology is mistaken when it teaches that each of the biblical covenants is a continuation and newer phase of the Covenant of Grace. This mistake becomes apparent, for example, when it deals with the New Covenant. As noted earlier, Covenant Theologians equate the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace which they claim has been in existence since the fall of man or Abraham. They claim that the New Covenant in the New Testament is essentially the same as the Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament. Covenant Theologians assert that the word new does not permit the conclusion that there is an essential contrast between the New Covenant in the New Testament and what existed in the Old Testament.
He squabbles about the word new in Hebrews 12:24.
“This would not be true if the New Covenant were simply a continuation of a covenant which has been in existence since early Old Testament history.” Well, it is good that Covenant Theologians don’t believe that then.
Limited Unifying Principle
Fourth, Covenant Theology’s unifying principle is too limited or narrow. The Covenant of Grace is the factor which Covenant Theology employs to unify history either from the fall of man or the time of Abraham. This unifying factor is too limited in at least two respects. First, the Covenant of Grace deals only with God’s redemption of the elect. It does not unify the program of redemption with all of God’s other programs. Second, since the Covenant of Grace did not begin until the fall of man at the earliest, it does not unify prefall history with postfall history, which the unifying principle of a valid exposition of the biblical philosophy of history must do.
Double Hermeneutic
Fifth, in order to make its system work, Covenant Theology must employ a double hermeneutic (a double system of interpretation). Covenant Theology recognizes that the historicalgrammatical method of interpreting the Bible is normal. In this method, attention is focused upon historical background and grammar to determine the correct meaning of a passage. Words are given the common, ordinary meaning which they had in the culture and time in which the passage was written. Covenant Theology also recognizes that the employment of another method of interpretation could lead to disaster when seeking the meaning of a passage.
Lopsided
Showers begins his analysis of Covenant Theology like this:
Covenant Theology did not begin as a system until the 16th and 17th centuries. It did not exist in the early Church. Louis Berkhof, a prominent Covenant Theologian, wrote, ‘In the early Church Fathers the covenant idea is not found at all.’ Nor was the system developed during the Middle Ages or by the prominent Reformers Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or Melanchthon.
His analysis of Dispensational Theology begins like this:
Dispensational Theology did not exist as a developed system of thought in the early Church, although early Church leaders did recognize some of the biblical principles which are basic to Dispensational Theology. For example, Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A.D.) recognized four dispensations of God’s rule. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) noted the fact that God has employed several distinct ways of working in the world as He executes His plan for history. Augustine used the term dispensation when referring to these different ways. It must be said, however, that these Church leaders did not develop these recognized principles into a system of thought. They were not Dispensational Theologians.
Interesting. It seems lopsided to acknowledge Augustine merely using the term “dispensation” (could be a word-concept fallacy) while refusing to affirm the extensive lines of Covenantal thought in the early church.
A Vague Relationship
The relationship between the Church and God is argued by Showers to be something the Old Testament is silent on.
In spite of the Old Testament’s silence concerning the relationship of the Church to the New Covenant, the New Testament seems to indicate that the Church is related somehow to it.
Somehow related? Seriously?
Later in the same chapter, Showers tells us that because the Church partakes of the cup of the New Covenant, this “seems to indicate that the Church partakes of that New Covenant.”
It seems obvious that Jesus was stating that the communion cup represents the New Covenant which God promised to Israel in the Old Testament. The very fact that the Church partakes of the communion cup which represents the New Covenant promised by God to Israel seems to indicate that the Church partakes of that New Covenant.
Why must the relationship be so tenuous?
It does indicate. It must indicate.