Why Dunham's View Is Promising for Dispensationalism

I previously argued that Kyle C. Dunham's position is highly promising (based on his article in the JBTS) and represents an exceptionally coherent framework, precisely because it ties Christ's present kingdom to the New Covenant rather than to the Davidic Covenant (as Bock does). In Bock's scheme, the exalted Christ sits on the Davidic throne and, as Davidic King, dispenses salvific blessings. In Dunham's scheme, by contrast, the exalted Christ dispenses salvific blessings as Melchizedekian High Priest, not as Davidic King. This is the decisive insight in Dunham's proposal — and the reason I regard it as so promising.

My earlier claim naturally raised a question — and rightly so: Are the salvific blessings that the royal-priest dispenses actually related to the New Covenant? Is the Melchizedekian priesthood, together with its salvific blessings, genuinely connected to the New Covenant? Or is the New Covenant tied exclusively to the Levitical priesthood?

The Present Kingdom and the New Covenant

On my reading, Dunham is indeed linking Christ's present reign to the New Covenant, and this is the foundation of why I consider his view so promising: the kingdom of the present age is grounded in the New Covenant, not the Davidic Covenant. The future kingdom, by contrast — inaugurated by Christ personally at His return — is grounded in the Davidic Covenant (and also in the New Covenant). Bock, on the other hand, tied the present kingdom so tightly to the Davidic Covenant that he arrived at the conclusion that Christ is already seated on the Davidic throne — a conclusion I believe to be mistaken.

Confirmation from Dunham's Other Work

A more detailed examination of Dunham's other publications confirms that my interpretation of his framework appears to be correct. In another article published in The Master's Seminary Journal, titled "The Abrahamic Covenant as the Foundation for Missions," Dunham argues that the basis for the church's mission today is the Abrahamic Covenant. Crucially, however, the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant are accessed through the New Covenant, because the New Covenant, through the Spirit's work, brings to fruition the blessings promised to Abraham in a way that the Mosaic Covenant could not.

Dunham states this explicitly:

“

"Instead, with respect to the nations, the promised Abrahamic blessing comes to fruition by means of the inauguration of the new covenant. Jesus Christ cuts the new covenant through His atoning death (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20), by which the church, encompassing all nations, participates in the promised soteriological blessings through the work of the Spirit (Rom 4:9–11; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 3:14; Heb 7:22; 8:6–13; 9:15; 10:15–18; 12:24; 13:30)."

The basis of my claim in the other article was that dispensing salvific blessings is related to the New Covenant. Notice how clear the relationship is in the citation above; the difference is that instead of "salvific blessings" he used "soteriological blessings," which is the same thing.

The Analogical Logic: Abraham and the Nations

Dunham's reasoning here is analogical: just as Abraham experienced the salvific blessing — faith and justification (Gen 15:6) — prior to the formal ratification ceremony of the covenant (Gen 15:9–21), so too the nations experience the soteriological blessing — salvation through faith in Christ — prior to the full consummation of the New Covenant with Israel:

“

"Blessing for Abraham at the outset is primarily soteriological and prior to the implementation of the covenant, just as the blessing for the nations will be initially soteriological and prior to the full implementation of the new covenant."

This point is profoundly significant within the author's dispensational framework because it implies the following: the New Covenant has already been cut (at the cross), and its soteriological benefits are already available to the nations through faith. However, its complete implementation — which includes the land provisions and the national restoration of Israel (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 37:1–28) — remains future. The church, therefore, lives in an interim period: it already participates in the salvific blessings of the New Covenant, but the covenant has not yet reached its full eschatological realization with Israel in the millennial kingdom.

The Scope of Salvific Benefits and the Question of Two New Covenants

Since Dunham speaks of salvific benefits — and since these benefits include regeneration, the filling of the Spirit, the indwelling of the Spirit, forgiveness of sins, the inscribing of the law on the heart, the knowledge of God, and sanctification —, if I were indeed wrong, the remaining options would be: either (a) there are two New Covenants (like Chafer), one with Israel and one involving the church (where the church participates in the salvific benefits of the latter), or (b) the present salvific benefits are merely analogous or similar to the blessings of the New Covenant.

Notably, at no point does the author appear to defend either of these positions. This suggests that, for Dunham, the church genuinely participates in the soteriological provisions of the one New Covenant — even if that covenant has not yet been fully implemented with respect to national Israel.

The Melchizedekian Priesthood and the New Covenant in Hebrews

As to the question of whether Dunham separates Christ's Melchizedekian priesthood from the New Covenant (as was raised in the discussion), I am not certain he does — and reading Hebrews 7–9 carefully, there is no compelling reason to make such a separation. Hebrews 7 establishes that the change in priesthood — from Levitical to Melchizedekian — entails a corresponding change in the law. Hebrews 8 identifies this new legal arrangement as the New Covenant, the "new law" that corresponds to the new priesthood. And Hebrews 9 presents Christ — who comes not from the tribe of Levi — as the mediator of this New Covenant. This, at the very least, appears to be the natural and most coherent reading of the epistle's argument.

In sum, the Melchizedekian priesthood and the New Covenant are not two separable realities in the logic of Hebrews. They are interlocking components of a single theological argument: a new priest requires a new covenant, and a new covenant requires a new priest. Christ fulfills both.

The New Covenant as the Foundation of the Messianic Kingdom

Finally, those who know me know that I have been saying this for more than 10 years: there is a present Kingdom, fulfilling not the Davidic Covenant (Bock), but already fulfilling the New Covenant. The New Covenant is not an aspect external to the Messianic Kingdom, nor peripheral to it. It is the very foundation of the Messianic Kingdom — i.e., the basis upon which the other blessings are "unlocked": political, social, moral, and so on — blessings we will see from the Millennium onward (see McClain, "The Greatness of the Kingdom," ch. XVIII, who says the same).

Will Traditional Dispensationalists Listen?

Although promising, I foresee that it won't be easy at all for Dunham to be heard by Traditional Dispensationalists. I hope they listen to him, but it is not common for a Traditional Dispensationalist to write an article praising Ladd's inaugurated eschatology, as Dunham does — or even to call inaugurated eschatology one of the most fruitful discoveries of the twentieth century:

“

"One of the most fruitful insights of twentieth-century New Testament theology was its rediscovery that all NT doctrine should be viewed through the lens of inaugurated eschatology."

I am not saying this to criticize Dunham, because I agree with what he is saying. I am saying this because Traditional Dispensationalists often accuse us Progressives (although I am a Revised-Progressive) of being Laddian. Since Dunham praises inaugurated eschatology and Ladd while defending an eschatological kingdom in two phases (already–not yet), the backlash he is likely to face will be considerable. But since he labels himself as a Traditional Dispensationalist, it may not happen.

In my assessment, Traditional Dispensationalists will be much more ready to accept Vlach's kingdom theology (who writes as a revised-Progressive Dispensationalist) than Dunham's kingdom theology (who writes as a Traditional Dispensationalist). Vlach's book (He Will Reign Forever) speaks of postponement and no present kingdom, which naturally fits much better within Traditional Dispensationalism. Dunham operates within an already–not yet framework of inaugurated eschatology, which repels the Traditionalists.

To me, Dunham's article is wonderful. His view is absolutely correct. It aligns with my own view (although I hadn't had the insight he had of connecting it to the Melchizedekian priesthood, who was both king and priest). So I'm eager to see this author's future works.