Christopher B. Cone Ron J. Bigalke Jr. Gary R. Gilley Josh .
Journal of Dispensational TheologyJODTVolume 13, Number 40 (December 2009)(formerly The Conservative Theological Journal)Executive EditorChristopher B. ConeGeneral EditorRon J. Bigalke Jr.Book Review EditorGary R. GilleyEditorial CommitteeJosh BaileyPatrick E. BelvillDavid E. OlanderCharles RayThe Journal of Dispensational Theology is published three times per year bythe Society of Dispensational Theology in cooperation with TyndaleTheological Seminary as a means for conservative evangelical scholarship froma traditional dispensational perspective. Tyndale Theological Seminary, itsadministration, or its faculty does not necessarily endorse the views representedby each of the respective authors.Manuscripts and communications can be emailed to editor@tyndale.edu.Authors of articles are expected to use A Manual for Writers by Kate L.Turabian as the style manual. Please avoid formatting articles or using nonstandard fonts. Potential contributors are encouraged to peruse the most recentvolume to observe submission guidelines or may contact the general editor.Books for review should be sent to the address belowEditor, JODT8053 Blvd. 26, Suite INorth Richland Hills, TX 76180Change of address notification, subscriptions, and renewals can be submittedonline at tyndale.edu or through written communication to the above address.Subscription RatesUnited States non-Tyndale student: 25 per yearForeign non-Tyndale student: 35 per year (includes Canada and Mexico)All subscriptions payable in United States currency Copyright 2009 by Tyndale Theological Seminary. Printed in U.S.A. Allrights reserved. Materials in this publication may not be reproduced withoutprior written permission. The editorial committee reserves the right to rejectarticles and advertisements for any reason whatsoever.
Journal of Dispensational Theology – December 2009ContentsHermeneutical Ramifications of Applying the New Covenantto the Church: An Appeal to Consistency.5Christopher ConeSecond Corinthians 3:6 and the Church’s Relationshipto the New Covenant .25George GunnHow Immeasurable Is God?: A Vision of the Greatness of Godin Isaiah 40:9-20 Examined . . .47Kenneth R. CooperBOOK REVIEWSCalvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion:1541 French Edition . . 74Cross, Whitney R. The Burned-Over District:The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religionin Western New York, 1800-1850 84Currid, John D. Calvin and the Biblical Languages . 83Fletcher, Jim. It’s the End of the World As We Know It(and I Feel Fine) . . 75Foster, Richard J. Life with God: Reading the Biblefor Spiritual Transformation . . .76Goheen, Michael W. and Craig G. Bartholomew. Living atthe Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview . 78Harvey, Dave. When Sinners Say “I Do”: Discovering thePower of the Gospel for Marriage?.82MacArthur, John. A Tale of Two Sons . .81Showers, Renald E. The Coming Apocalypse: A Study of ReplacementTheology vs. God’s Faithfulness in the End-Times . 73
JOURNAL OF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY – December 20095HERMENEUTICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF APPLYINGTHE NEW COVENANT TO THE CHURCH:AN APPEAL TO CONSISTENCY1Christopher Cone, Th.D, Ph.DPresident, Professor of Bible & Theology,Tyndale Theological Seminary;Pastor, Tyndale Bible Church, Ft. Worth, TXIn his very thorough assessment of the development of replacement theology inthe history of the church, Ronald Diprose recognized that misunderstanding therole of Israel in God’s plan has a ripple effect on every aspect of theology. Hesaid, “ . . . ecclesiology and eschatology are not the only areas of Christiantheology to have been affected by the Church’s views concerning Israel. In fact,the omission of Israel in Christian theology has had detrimental, yetdeterministic effects on a wide variety of theological issues.”2 He concludedwith even greater emphasis. “Failure to reflect seriously on Israel in light of therelevant biblical data has serious consequences for the entire enterprise ofChristian theology. It was the neglect of relevant biblical data concerning theplace of Israel in God’s plan which permitted replacement theology to developduring the early centuries of the Christian era.”31The author read an earlier draft of this article at the meeting of the Council onDispensational Hermeneutics on 24 September 2009 at Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit,PA. In preface, this author acknowledges that the subject is not an easy matter to discusspersonally, for the simple reason of appeal in this study to the works and positions of great andgodly men who have in many cases had a direct and personal bearing on his own spiritual growthand understanding, and yet on this vital topic he identifies himself at odds with nearly all of them.Nonetheless, if they have taught this author anything they have taught that reliance must be uponGod’s word as authoritative, and that the church must be willing to challenge each other toaccuracy in interpreting the word of truth—even contending earnestly for the faith which wasonce delivered to the saints. The hope and pray of this author is that none would perceive thechallenges herein to the views of these men as anything but an attempt to honestly evaluate theirviews in the light of Scripture. Dispensationalists in this present age may readily acknowledge thereality of standing on the shoulders of giants—imperfect giants, but giants nonetheless. It isappropriate that all dispensationalists demonstrate gratitude and appreciation, honoring them asfathers and fellow servants who have brought the church far in the quest for a more biblicaltheology. It is likewise appropriate to be unwilling to squander the rich heritage they haveafforded and which reminds the church (as one dear father in the faith has so succinctly phrasedit), “The biblical data gives us the correct doctrine. Everything must be tested against those data”(Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology [Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986] 76).2Ronald Diprose, Israel and the Church: The Origin and Effects of ReplacementTheology (Waynesboro, GA: Authentic Media, 2004) 3.3Ibid. 171.
6Hermeneutical RamificationsAs Diprose correctly observed, one can trace much faulty doctrine tothe improper interpreting of the biblical teaching regarding the nation of Israel.This faulty doctrine often, though not always, manifests itself in the behavior ofbelievers. Arnold Fruchtenbaum stated even further when he (correctly)asserted that while replacement theology does not cause anti-Semitism, the twoare not uncomfortable with one another.4 The history of the church at timesreflects a storied distortion of God’s plan for Israel and at other times therevolting consequences of such distortions. Theological method results intheological conclusions, and theological conclusions generally give origin intheir likeness to the fruit of behavior.In an evenhanded consideration of dispensational conclusions one mustturn to the devices that derive the conclusions. Has a purity of methodnecessary for the accurate interpretation of Scripture been maintained or hasone fallen prey to devices he would otherwise consider wholly inadequate? Theanswer is directly evidenced in understanding how the new covenant will befulfilled. Be certain that this matter of the new covenant and the nation withwhom He made it remains no small concern to God, as He indicates that thefixed order of His created world hangs in the balance (Jer 31:35-36). Onmatters of such importance to God, one might expect to find near universalagreement among His people, but there is nothing of the kind.Postmillennialism, amillennialism, and covenant-premillennialism offerexplanations that are unacceptable. However, even within the dispensationaltradition the understandings are varied and disparate. At least three major viewsare readily discernible upon examination of dispensationalism’s development.(1) The Multiple New Covenant view (hereafter referenced as MC): this was theview of Chafer and Walvoord, for example, who believed there to be an OldTestament covenant for Israel, to be fully and literally fulfilled by Israel, and aNew Testament covenant for the church, fulfilled presently and in the future bythe church. (2) The Single Covenant Multiple Participants view (hereafterreferenced as SCMP): this was the view of Scofield, for example, who believedthat the church participates during the present age in aspects of Israel’s newcovenant, though the covenant will be fulfilled literally with Israel in the future.A variation of this view was presented by Pentecost and is perhaps the mostaccepted of all dispensational views on the new covenant. (3) The SingleCovenant Israel Only view (hereafter referenced as SCIO): Darby was one ofthe few to espouse this view, as he believed the church to be totally unrelated tothe new covenant, yet having a relationship with the One who ratified the newcovenant.The three views each require the utilization of distinct hermeneuticdevices for their derivation, and upon review of these devices it seems clear that4Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin,CA: Ariel Ministries, 1993) 836-37.
JOURNAL OF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY – December 20097the devices are as incompatible as the conclusions themselves. Whichconclusion is correct, or nearest correct? Which hermeneutic device is to beemployed? As Diprose observed, these are not simply matters of ecclesiologyor eschatology, rather these matters are applicable to the very character of Godand how believers understand His word. In light of the importance of this issue,what follows is an attempt to evaluate the three basic views and the legitimacyof the three devices applied to derive them.THREE VIEWS, THREE DEVICESThe Multiple New Covenant View (MC)Lewis Sperry Chafer suggested that the church is “sheltered under a newcovenant made in His blood.”5 Further, he distinguished between “the newcovenant yet to be made with Israel and . . . the new covenant now in force withthe church.”6 In agreement, Walvoord wrote, “Most premillenarians (Darbyexcepted) would agree that a new covenant has been provided for the church,but not the new covenant for Israel.”7 Walvoord believed the MC view has twosignificant advantages. First,It provides a sensible reason for establishing the Lord’s supper for believers in this agein commemoration of the blood of the new covenant. The language of 1 Corinthians11:25 seems to require it. . . . It hardly seems reasonable to expect Christians todistinguish between the cup and the new covenant when these appear to be identified inthis passage.8It seems that this argument misses the revealed purpose of the ordinance, atleast as it pertained to Paul’s immediate audience. Paul added a postscript toJesus’ words, saying “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, youproclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor 11:26). If the new covenantwas a significant aspect of the cup for the Corinthians’ application, then whywere they not told to proclaim the new covenant? Why did Paul say nothingmore of the matter in his letter? The ordinance focuses on His death, not on thecovenant.Second, Walvoord appealed to one of Paul’s two other direct referencesto the new covenant, saying,In 2 Corinthians 3:6, Paul speaking of himself states: “Our sufficiency is of God: whoalso made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant.” It would be difficult to adjust5Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. in 4 (Dallas: Dallas SeminaryPress, 1947-48; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993) 4:49.6Ibid. 4:325.7John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959) 214.8Ibid. 218-19.
8Hermeneutical Ramificationsthe ministry of Paul as a minister of the new covenant if, in fact, there is no newcovenant for the present age.9This argument is based on the premise that in order for one to serve a covenantthat covenant must be in effect. That premise seems flawed, however, in lightof Paul’s stated hope of Israel’s national salvation (e.g. Rom 11:13-15). Noticehe used the same term here (diakonous) as he did in Romans 11:13 (diakonian).He magnified his service that Jews might be saved. Additionally, the covenantcan be ratified and awaiting fulfillment without being in effect or presentlyfulfilled, and one can be serving it even as he hopes for its future fulfillment.Another writer explained that the theological framework ofdispensations understood in a particular way requires multiple new covenants.Each dispensation is, in fact, a covenantal arrangement that establishes the stewardshiprequired of each dispensation. The dispensations of “human government” and of the“Mosaic Law,” or any dispensation including the “church age,” involve “newcovenants.” By definition, a change in dispensations results from a change instipulations (with the implied or specifically articulated blessings and cursings). Theformer covenant relationship is replaced with an updated and revised covenant. In somecases this involves the updating of the historical prologue section of the covenant aswell. Every new dispensation involves some “new covenant,” not only the presentchurch age.”10 [emphasis added]Here, the theological hermeneutic is employed. The writer cannot identifyspecifically and precisely identified covenants in Scripture that wouldcharacterize each dispensation. This is the same device used to derive thecovenants of redemption, works, and grace. If one is to have any credibility inhis assertion that dispensationalists are uniquely literal grammatical-historicalin interpreting the text, then one cannot engage in such maneuvers.The writer added, “When the new covenant and the Melchizedekianpriesthood have begun to function, there is no going back to the Aaronicpriesthood and the Mosaic Law (Heb. 7:17-19).”11 While there is no return tothe Mosaic Law, the continuation of the Levitical priesthood is demanded byGod’s eternal salt-covenant with Aaron (Numb 18:19) and a literal fulfillmentof an addendum to the Davidic covenant (Jer 33:12-23) and is to be fulfilledliterally through the Zadokian line (Ezek 43:19ff). The writer crystallized theissue when he wrote, “The new covenant specifically mentioned in theScriptures is yet future for a redeemed and sanctified Jewish people.Theologically there are many new covenants because each dispensation is anew covenant.”129Ibid. 219.John Master, “The New Covenant,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, eds. WesleyWillis and John Master (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994) 102.11Ibid. 104.12Ibid. 108.10
JOURNAL OF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY – December 20099Many admirable thinkers would agree with this statement, at least inpart. Note for example, the observation of Eugene Merrill. . . the “New” Covenant of Jeremiah is not precisely the same as the New Covenant ofmost New Testament texts but that nonetheless both flow from the AbrahamicCovenant. Jeremiah’s covenant is made explicitly with a renewed, eschatological Israeland Judah (cf. Jer. 31:1, 17, 23, 27, 31) whereas the New Covenant of the NewTestament is universalized to include not only Israel but also all the nations who turn tothe Lord in repentance and faith.13In this view, Jeremiah’s new covenant then is not for the church, but there is atheologically derived new covenant that is necessitated by the basic theologicalunderstanding of how God works in each dispensation. Note this understandingbuilds upon the premise that dispensations are soteriological outworkings ofGod rather than doxological ones. It cannot be overstated how destructive thesoteriological centered understanding is, since the logical and theologicalrequirements of such grounding force one to interpret the text as creatively ascovenant-theology brothers.14 To say that “Church saints have a covenantalrelationship with God”15 by way of the new covenant demands either that oneidentify a passage in which God directly made a new covenant (andconsequently an old one) with the church or that one relinquishes thesuperiority of consistency in applying literal grammatical-historicalhermeneutics, recognizing as John Gerstner did, that “far from determiningdispensational theology, the dispensational literal hermeneutic (with all itsinconsistencies), is in fact the direct result of that theology.”16How can one criticize the covenants of redemption, works, and grace asbeing unbiblical and artificial when one refers likewise to, for example, anAdamic17 covenant and an Edenic covenant, when nothing is ever so called inScripture? After all, if one adopts the view that every dispensation representssome kind of new covenant, then these “covenants” are indeed logically and13Eugene Merrill, “The Covenant with Abraham: The Keystone of BiblicalArchitecture,” Journal of Dispensational Theology 12 (August 2008): 16.14For sake of brevity, the importance of recognizing God’s doxological purpose ratherthan soteriological purpose as the central factor in defining a dispensation will not be addressedhere. Nonetheless, this author believes it to be the greatest single issue that dispensationaltheology must rectify for the purpose of maintaining a truly biblical theology. Read, for instance,this author’s work, Prolegomena: Introductory Notes on Bible Study & Theological Method (FortWorth, TX: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2009) 94-96.15Master, “The New Covenant,” 109.16John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria,2000) 111.17Though Hosea 6:7 may be best understood to reference Adam directly (it couldreference men in general, as in the KJV), the passage references the severity of offense by way ofanalogy and does not provide explicit evidence that God made a covenant with Adam. If onewere to affirm that such a covenant was made, there would be difficulty in demonstrating thelocation and content with specificity.
10Hermeneutical Ramificationstheologically necessitated, thus one defends a characterization of somepromises as covenants based on something other than exegetical necessity. Theresult is a hermeneutic that becomes “a very shaky affair indeed.”18 Regardlessof the grand heritage and tradition of the multiple new covenant view, onecannot affirm it as biblical, as the detriment to do so will erode the foundation.Consider the following statements:Accordingly, the best solution to the problem is to recognize that Christ introduced byHis death on the cross this covenant of grace which has many applications.The covenant of grace, accordingly, is extended principally to Israel in the OldTestament, to the church in the present age. . . .The reader would expect the comments to belong to perhaps the following:Zacharias Ursinus, Johannes Cocceius, O. T. Allis, Louis Berkhof, JohnGerstner, or R. C. Sproul. It is actually none of these men. The statement comesfrom an affirmation of MC by John Walvoord.19 Contrast Walvoord’s wordswith Berkhof’s on dispensationalism’s “Adamic covenant,” and a near stunningrole reversal is observed. Berkhof wrote,The first revelation of the covenant is found in the protoevangel, Gen. 3:15. Some denythat this has any reference to the covenant; and it certainly does not refer to any formalestablishment of a covenant [emphasis added]. The revelation of such an establishmentcould only follow after the covenant idea had been developed in history. At the sametime Gen. 3:15 certainly contains a revelation of the essence of the covenant.20The covenant theologian argues that the text does not refer to the formalestablishment of a covenant, and that deriving such a covenant requires readingtheology into the text. Moreover, while he may not protest too vehemently (ashe cannot with any great consistency), his methodology seems morecharacteristically dispensational in this instance than that of the di
Lewis Sperry Chafer suggested that the church is “sheltered under a new covenant made in His blood.”5 Further, he distinguished between “the new covenant yet to be made with Israel and . . . the new covenant now in force with the church.”6 In agreement, Walvoord wrote, “Most premillenarians (Darby
Cone penetration test. CPTu Cone penetration test with pore pressure measurement – piezocone test. Cone The part of the cone penetrometer on which the cone resistance is measured. Cone penetrometer The assembly containing the cone, friction sleeve, and any other sensors, as well
La paroi exerce alors une force ⃗ sur le fluide, telle que : ⃗ J⃗⃗ avec S la surface de la paroi et J⃗⃗ le vecteur unitaire orthogonal à la paroi et dirigé vers l’extérieur. Lorsque la
cone 4/6 stoneware glazes cone 4/6 ash glazes cone 4/6 semi-transparent glazes cone 4/6 nova stoneware glazes cone 9/10 hi-fire glazes. lead free, non-toxic food safe unless marked 2, 3, 4 spectrum glazes inc 273 bowes rd, unit a1 concord, ont l4k 1h8 (800)970-1970 fax (905)695-8354
302187 5 ml Central cone 0.2 ml 100 400 302188 10 ml Eccentric cone 0.5 ml 100 400 301183 20 ml Eccentric cone 1 ml 60 240 300613 20 ml Eccentric cone 1 ml 120 480 301231 30 ml Eccentric cone 1 ml 60 240 300866 50/ 60 ml Eccentric cone 1 ml 60 240 3
jd8188 lm11949 cone 0.75 19.05 0.655 16.64 na na na na jd8190 15101 cone 1 25.4 0.813 20.64 na na na na jd8191 497 cone 3.375 85.73 1.172 29.77 na na na na jd8192 3872 cone 1.375 34.93 1.188 30.16 na na na na jd8194 lm48548 cone 1.375 34.93 0.72 18.29 na n
HP cone crushers are built on the success of our 70 years of Symons cone experience, and 20 years of Omnicone experience. The Symons cone is well known for its rugged construction and application versatility. The Symons cone has set the standard in the mining industry, where 24
Place the Small Juicer Cone on the Drive Axle. In the process, the Small Juicer Cone must lock into the Screen. For large citrus fruits (e.g. oranges, grapefruit), place the Large Juicer Cone on the Small Juicer Cone so that the wings of the Small Juicer Cone fit into the recesses of the Large Juicer Cone. 6. Insert the Main Plug into a wall socket
PREFIX SUFFIX CONE OR CUP EXPLANATION Tapered Roller Bearings Prefixes and Suffixes 1. CA Cone Single cone, envelope dimensions same as basic part number, different internal geometry. CB Cone Single cone, dimensionally different from basic part number. CD Cup Double cup with oil holes and groove. One hole counter-bored for locking pin.
