A Progressive Dispensational Critique of Elliott E. Johnson's Definition of Inauguration

In his debate with Darrell L. Bock in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, Elliott E. Johnson faces a real dilemma: he concedes that provisions of the promissory covenants - forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Spirit, the coming of the Son of David - are being fulfilled today, yet he still needs to deny that the covenants themselves have been inaugurated. How can one speak of the present blessings of the covenants without speaking of their inauguration?

To avoid using inauguration language for the covenants while still acknowledging present blessings, Johnson makes a conceptual move. He distinguishes between two categories:

• "Partially fulfilled": all elements are present, but only in a limited or initial scope.
• "Fulfilled in part": some elements are realized, while others are altogether absent.

Only the first category, he argues, qualifies as inauguration. In other words, one may speak of inauguration only when all the elements of a covenant are already present, even if not yet present in their full intensity or final extent. Since the present dispensation contains only "fulfilled in part" elements - the King has come, but the throne has not been established, and only some elements of the New Covenant are presently realized - the covenants themselves remain uninaugurated. On this view, individual provisions may be fulfilled without the covenant as a whole being in effect or inaugurated.

At first glance, that distinction looks clever. But it is also artificial and forced.

The Problem with Johnson's Definition

The basic problem is that Johnson's distinction is stipulative. It defines "inauguration" in a way designed to secure a predetermined conclusion. But to inaugurate something is to set it in motion, not to have every element simultaneously present from the start.

Scripture itself provides a decisive counterexample. In Hebrews 9:18-21, the writer points back to Exodus 24:6-8 and treats that blood-sprinkling ceremony at Sinai as the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant. Moses sprinkled the blood, declared, "This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you," and by that act the covenant was formally set in motion. Yet at that very point Israel had not entered the land, the tabernacle had not been constructed, and the priesthood was not yet fully functioning. The covenant was therefore inaugurated even though several major provisions associated with it had not yet come into place.

That single example is enough to show that Johnson's definition does not match the biblical pattern. Inauguration does not require every covenantal element to be fully in place. It requires the covenant to have been formally set into operation.

The Covenant and Its Provisions Cannot Be Separated

Johnson's distinction also fails logically. The provisions are not external add-ons to the covenant; they are part of the covenant itself. A covenant is nothing other than an interrelated set of promises, obligations, sanctions, and blessings. To say that New Covenant provisions are already being fulfilled while the New Covenant itself is not inaugurated is like saying that parts of the engine are running but the engine is not running.

It is conceptually equivalent to saying:

• "The terms of the contract are being carried out, but the contract is not in effect."
• "The promises of the agreement are already being kept, but the agreement has not begun."
• "The mediator is mediating, but the covenant he mediates is not active."
• "The testator has died and the heirs are already receiving the inheritance, but the will has not yet taken effect."

The New Testament nowhere makes Johnson's distinction. Paul calls himself a "minister of a new covenant" (2 Cor. 3:6), not a minister of detached provisions. Hebrews says that the old covenant has become "obsolete" (Heb. 8:13), which only makes sense if the new one is already in force. And Hebrews 9:16-17 compares the covenant to a will that takes effect upon the death of the testator. There is no room there for an intermediate stage between institution and activation. For a fuller treatment of this point in Hebrews, see The New Covenant in Hebrews and Dispensationalism.

Christ Already Meets the Representative Requirement

Johnson insists that a covenant can be inaugurated only with its specified covenant partner, and that partner is Israel as a nation rather than the Church. On that basis, he argues that without Israel's national reception of Messiah there can be no inauguration.

But Johnson himself acknowledges Jesus as the "True Vine" who takes up Israel's covenantal role. And that concession is more significant than his system allows. The blessings we receive do not come to us directly and independently of Israel; they come through Israel's rightful representative, who is Christ. If Christ is the legitimate representative of Israel and is already mediating covenantal blessings, then the representative requirement Johnson appeals to is already satisfied in principle.

This exposes a selective inconsistency in the argument. Johnson wants Christ to function as Israel's representative for the purpose of instituting the covenant, but not for the purpose of inaugurating it. Yet there is no textual warrant for dividing those two acts so sharply. If the representative Messiah has already died, risen, and entered His mediatorial ministry, then the covenantal structure cannot be treated as if it were still dormant.

The Church Is More Than a Mere Beneficiary

This same move leads Johnson to another conclusion: because he denies present inauguration, he also denies that the Church stands in any covenantal relationship with God. On his account, the Church is merely a beneficiary of provisions, not a covenant people and not in any covenantal relation.

Johnson is right to resist flattening Israel and the Church into the same covenantal entity. The Church is not the original covenant partner in the same way Israel is, and the covenants will find their complete fulfillment with Israel. But it does not follow from that truth that the Church has no covenantal relation whatsoever.

The New Testament says otherwise. Paul calls himself a minister of the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3:6). He uses covenantal language to describe the present standing of believers (Gal. 3:15-18). And he says that Gentiles who were once "strangers to the covenants of promise" have now been "brought near by the blood of Christ" (Eph. 2:12-13). Brought near to what? To the covenants. Not as the original covenant partner, but not as mere outsiders either. Rather, believers are grafted into the covenantal olive tree, sharing in its root and nourishment (Rom. 11:17). To be grafted into that tree is to stand in a real covenantal relation, even if not in the same way Israel does. That broader argument is developed in Belonging to the Church in Dispensationalism: Ephesians 2-3.

Already-Not Yet Under Another Name

Johnson's category of "fulfilled in part" is, in substance, simply another name for an already-not yet structure. Without quite realizing it, he ends up using the very architecture he wants to avoid:

“

"This position of preeminence is a fulfillment in part of the promise of Sonship forever and an anticipation of the promise of an eternal throne and kingdom." (Elliott E. Johnson, in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism)

Johnson uses "fulfillment in part" and "anticipation" as different labels, but the structure he describes is identical to already-not yet: something has already been realized, while something else is not yet.

In practice, even his category of "partial fulfillment" also operates within an already-not yet structure:

“

"There are some Old Testament promises that are partially fulfilled now (such as redemption or salvation) in light of Christ's first advent." (Elliott E. Johnson, in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism)

Notice what this means. The elements are already present, but not yet present in their full scope and intensity. That is precisely the logic of already and not yet.

Johnson says the same thing again when discussing the Davidic covenant:

“

"While the first advent of Jesus Christ does not represent a partial fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, it does represent a fulfillment 'in part' concerning the provision of the Son of David." (Elliott E. Johnson, in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism)

But once something is partially fulfilled, or fulfilled in part, one already has some real fulfillment, even if not all the elements are yet fulfilled. In that sense, Johnson's maneuver is terminological rather than substantial. In the end, he affirms in substance what he wishes to deny in terminology. He rejects already-not yet as a theological model, yet in practice he describes exactly an already-not yet reality: some covenant provisions have already been fulfilled, while others remain not yet fulfilled.

That is why Bock highlights the contradiction so directly:

“

"It may surprise the reader to note that, according to point four in Johnson's conclusion, we are agreed that the Abrahamic, Davidic and new covenants are all 'fulfilled in part' (though I do not see how this is different than 'partially fulfilled')... Johnson's distinction possesses no real material difference when applied to specific examples. It really concedes that an 'already-not yet' structure is a part of New Testament teaching in all of these areas, regardless of the semantic tags we attempt to make in differentiating how we see these issues. We discuss only which elements are already and which are not yet." (Darrell Bock, in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism)

Clever, but Still Artificial

Johnson's distinction is clever as a conceptual device because it allows him to acknowledge present fulfillment without conceding inauguration. But that is precisely why it is unpersuasive. It works only by redefining inauguration beyond its natural meaning, by separating covenantal provisions from the covenant they belong to, and by treating Christ's representative role selectively.

The biblical texts move in the opposite direction. They present the New Covenant as an operative regime, not as a dormant agreement from which blessings somehow leak out ahead of schedule. If forgiveness is being administered, if the Mediator is actively mediating, if the heirs are already receiving covenantal blessings through the death of the testator, then the covenant cannot be described as wholly uninaugurated.

Johnson's distinction may be ingenious, but it is not exegetically stable. It is clever - but artificial and forced.