Hoagies & Stogies: Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology Debate

Kazules Zoo ^ | April 19, 2008 | Jeff Kazules, Moderator

[topcat54]

Audio debate between and a covenant theologian and premillennial pre-tribulational revised dispensationalist.

The question: Does the New Testament present the promises made to the nation of Israel as fulfilled in the Church?

It can be found in three parts:

Here, here, and here.

[topcat54]

Reformed Eschatology Ping List (REPL)

"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)

[ConservativeDude]

Does the New Testament present the promises made to the nation of Israel as fulfilled in the Church? “

That would be yes. But even so some promises to Israel (ethnic) remain. See Romans 11.

(PS - I used to not read the latter part of 11 that way, either. But I think that you have to do mental gymnastics to get away from that).

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The question: Does the New Testament present the promises made to the nation of Israel as fulfilled in the Church?

"The Church"? The question is bogus, because the ecclesiology is all wrong.

[Lee N. Field]

Listened this morning. This dispensationalist is somewhat saner than many I have heard.

[jonno]

esc-bump

[Lee N. Field]

Though, I hasten to add, he’s still wrong. Come on! “Throne of David” prophecies are only fulfilled by a literal chair in Jerusalem? Give me a break.

[topcat54]

Though, I hasten to add, he’s still wrong. Come on! “Throne of David” prophecies are only fulfilled by a literal chair in Jerusalem? Give me a break.

Quite true. There is nothing in the Bible to make us think that the phrase "throne of David" is meant to make us think of a literal seat. The throne of David represents God’s reign over His people. After all, God is the true king of Israel, not a mere man.

You only need to read the passages where this phrase is found to get the sense of how it is to be understood.

"As the Lord has been with my lord the king, even so may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord King David." (1 Kings 1:37) {In this verse a distinction is made between the throne of Solomon and the throne of David. Yet Solomon is said to be heir to the throne of David. Obviously the throne is meant to be symbolic expression.}

"And moreover the king's servants have gone to bless our lord King David, saying, 'May God make the name of Solomon better than your name, and may He make his throne greater than your throne.' Then the king bowed himself on the bed." (1 Kings 1:47) {Obviously throne is meant to represent reign or rule, not a literal seat somewhere.}

"then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, 'You shall not fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.'" (1 Kings 9:5) {Here it is spoken of as the throne of Israel}

Acts 2 is confirmation that Jesus has indeed been raised up to sit on the throne of David/Israel, where He presently is, subduing the nations.

[Uncle Chip]

There is nothing in the Bible to make us think that the phrase "throne of David" is meant to make us think of a literal seat.

Ahhh -- spoken like a true disciple of Origen.

[topcat54]

Ahhh -- spoken like a true disciple of Origen.

Spoken like one who has never read Origen.

But, tell, us, where exactly has David's throne been kept all these years? Is it waiting for Indiana Jones to discover?

Or perhaps you really do not believe that when it says the throne of David it means the exact, literal throne of David that David himself sat upon.

Please give us the consistent literalist interpretation.

[Uncle Chip]

But, tell, us, where exactly has David's throne been kept all these years? Is it waiting for Indiana Jones to discover? Or perhaps you really do not believe that when it says the throne of David it means the exact, literal throne of David that David himself sat upon. Please give us the consistent literalist interpretation.

Here -- Are these words in your bible:

"And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers." [Jeremiah 3:15-18]

Read 'em and weep -- or as Origen would say, read 'em and allegorize.

[topcat54]

Here -- Are these words in your bible:

But that's not David's throne. I thought you were a literalist.

Now you’ve opened yourself up to the demonstration that you, indeed, have totally misinterpreted the OT promises from the NT perspective.

Now the "throne" is not a literal seat (do all your literalists friends believe that?). But if you concede the throne is not literal, but refers to Jerusalem, why can it not follow that Jerusalem refers not to the literal city, but rather the eternal heavenly dwelling of the Most High? That’s what we find in the NT.

22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. (Hebrews 12)

The writer of Hebrews complements the language of Jeremiah; "you have come" meaning all Israel that has come from spiritual exile into the house of the Lord on the mountain of the Lord. And not only Israel but all the nations are represented before the heavenly throne. As a gentile I am included in the nations that are presently worshipping before the throne in the heavenly Jerusalem. What a glorious fulfillment of Jeremiah!

If Christ is presently seated in the heavenly Jerusalem (which He plainly is), then by your definition He must also be seated on David’ throne, which He is.

So we are in fundamental agreement, you just stop too soon in your reading. You just need to get away from the stunted view that minimizes/ignores the NT, and sees the glory of the revelational progression from 1 Kings to Jeremiah to Hebrews 12.

[Uncle Chip]

But that's not David's throne.

Excuse me!!! Here try again:

"At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers." [Jeremiah 3:15-18]

Let me help you here. Jerusalem was and is known as the City of David. Thus the entire City of Jerusalem, the entire City of David, will be called the throne of the Lord. Jerusalem will be the throne of David.

[topcat54]

Let me help you here. Jerusalem was and is known as the City of David. Thus the entire City of Jerusalem, the entire City of David, will be called the throne of the Lord. Jerusalem will be the throne of David.

Actually, Jerusalem and the city of David are not identical in the Bible. Mount Zion is the city of David (cf. 2 Sam. 5:7). Jerusalem was originally inhabited by the Jebusites (Jos. 15:8), and encompassed a much larger area around and including Mount Zion (cf. 2 Kings 14:20). Jerusalem is never called the city of David.

Of course the undeniable fact is that in the NT we see the ultimate expansion of Mount Zion/Jerusalem to include all the nations of the earth. The conquest of Jebusite Jerusalem by the nation of Israel is typical of the spiritual reality we see happening today.

The NT interprets the Old, not vice versa. (I noticed you really have little to say about the NT to make your position.)

The earthly is typical of the heavenly reality. Jerusalem above is free. You just have not gotten there yet. But it’s only a matter of time.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Replacement ping.

[Lee N. Field]

. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD;

So, Jerusalem is the chair?

I don't think you're helping your argument.

[Uncle Chip]

So, Jerusalem is the chair? I don't think you're helping your argument.

Do you think that a throne is just a chair??? Do you think that God's throne in heaven is just one big chair??? If He gets up to walk around, does that mean He is not on His throne anymore???

The dictionary definition of a "capital" city is "the seat of the government" -- not just the chairs under those arses.

The Vatican, for example, is known as the "Holy See" [Holy Seat] -- the official seat, the seat of authority, the papal throne. The Holy See is not a chair but the entire city wherein the Pope and his entourage walk, talk, write, eat, sleep, decree, pontificate....as well as sit.

You guys are all stuck on the whole idea that Jesus has to sit on that same piece of furniture that David's arse rested on. My goodness gracious. Is God that small that his thone has to be something built by human hands??? Talk about idolatry!!! You've made an idol out of a chair.

When Jesus returns He will build His own throne -- and the prophets tell us that throne will be the rebuilt city of Jerusalem -- the city of David -- and

At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD.

[Uncle Chip]

Jerusalem is never called the city of David.

"Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the city of David

And this from Wikipedia:

"The Ophel, העופל, perhaps meaning "fortified hill," or City of David is the name of the narrow promontory beyond the southern edge of Jerusalem's Temple Mount and Old City, with the Tyropoeon Valley (valley of the cheesemakers) on its west, the Hinnom valley to the south, and the Kidron Valley on the east. The previously deep valley (the Tyropoeon) separating the Ophel from what is now referred to as the Old City of Jerusalem currently lies hidden beneath the debris of centuries. Despite the name, the Old City of Jerusalem dates from a much later time than the settlement in the Ophel, which is generally considered to have been the original Jerusalem. The Ophel lies outside the current Old City walls, but it was once surrounded by a city wall. This wall was discovered by the engineers of the Palestine Exploration Fund at the south-eastern angle of the temple area, 4 feet below the present surface level. Since the Books of Samuel credit David as the first Israelite ruler of the city on Ophel, the archaeological remains of the city are usually referred to as the City of David. The Ophel was considered part of Jerusalem until the 12th century CE, but after that point became regarded as a separate village.

[topcat54]

And this from Wikipedia:

I gave you a number of texts from the Bible and you seem to have ignored all of them regarding the difference between Jerusalem and the city of David under the older covenant. I also showed you how the NT interprets and applies to old in the newer covenant since the time of Christ. How we are presently in the new, heavenly Jerusalem and how Christ is reigning from the throne of David/Israel.

And last time I checked Wikipedia was not the 67th book of the Bible.

I guess that means you're done. (Not that that was not obvious before.) When you can come back with some sound biblical reasoning that includes references to the NT, please let us know, otherwise, we're signing off:

[Uncle Chip]

I gave you a number of texts from the Bible and you seem to have ignored all of them regarding the difference between Jerusalem and the city of David under the older covenant.

You mean this one you gave me that calls them one and the same:

"6And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. 7Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David.."[[II Samuel 5:6-7]

Jerusalem = the stronghold of Zion = the city of David

Perhaps you should actually read the texts you cite before using them.