[Matchett-PI]

"..as I saw it in 1979 ...I wrote this article as a doctoral student at Westminster Seminary ... In the final analysis the critical issue is not simple consistency of a theological "package” but rather fidelity to the biblical texts. Therefore, dispensationalists should welcome and furthermore initiate more extensive exegesis of the key texts. Dispensational commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, are just too few and far between to suit this writer.".

Thanks for posting the article you wrote 23 years ago based upon how you "saw it" then. I perceive that you had misgivings about the various dispensationalist views back then because there were just too few commentaries on the "Epistle to the Hebrews" to suit you.

Am I right -- did you have the misgivings that I detect for the reason you stated -- and if so, do you still have them?

I agree with you about what the critical issue is.

I'm going to post a separate thread on Amillennialism by William Kilgore. (I don't agree with his view on Rom.11 or on his annihilistic view on hell, but I agree with just about everything else he writes on the subject we've been discussing).

Here are excerpts of Kilgore's comments:

What does Scripture teach?

The first point to be recognized and acknowledged is that whenever Scripture speaks of "the Kingdom of God," "the Kingdom of Heaven," or "the Kingdom of Christ," it is the same Kingdom.

These are not different "kingdoms," but synonyms for the same reality (despite claims made by some dispensationalists).

A comparison of the synoptic Gospels reveals quite clearly that whether referred to as "of heaven" or as "of God," one Kingdom is in view (e.g., Mt. 4:17/Mark 1:14-15; Mt. 5:3/Luke 6:20).

Further, it is this same Kingdom that is given to the Messiah in Daniel 7:13-14 (cf. Mt. 12:28; cp. Luke 22:16 with 22:30) -- "the kingdom of Christ" (Eph. 5:5).

Daniel interprets Nebucchadnezzar's dream of the great statue in Daniel 2. The statue represents his own kingdom and some that would follow. Then, in verse 44, we read:

"And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." (NKJV)

That this description does not square with the dispensationalists' "kingdom" should be obvious.

The kingdom spoken of by Daniel is set up before the Second Coming of Christ ("in the days of these kings") - that is, during His first coming!

Furthermore, this kingdom will plainly last far longer than a mere 1,000 years. So what gives?

Psalm 110:1-2 is the foundational passage for the New Testament picture of the Kingdom.

The Messiah sits at God's right hand - this was fulfilled in Christ's resurrection, exaltation, and ascension (Acts 2:29-36).

This is to be "until I (the Father) make Thine enemies Thy footstool" - this is Christ's present reign (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

Note that Christ's reign is parallel with His priesthood - i.e., He reigns as Priest (Ps. 110:4); this is further proof for a present reign of Christ (cf. Heb. 7-9).

Note especially Psalm 110:2 -- Christ's reign is described as being "in the midst of (His) enemies." This is true because Christ's Kingdom is a spiritual reality.

The New Testament expressly teaches that this Kingdom is not a natural Kingdom, but a spiritual one.

Please read the following key passages: Luke 17:20-21; John 3:3,5-7; 18:36; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; 15:50; Col. 1:13; 1 Thes. 2:12; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 12:28; 2 Peter 1:11.

In summary these passages teach that the Kingdom:

1. does not come "with observation" (lit., 'with outward show').

2. is "within" believers.

3. cannot be entered, nor even seen, apart from spiritual rebirth.

4. is not of this world.

5. has nothing to do with substances like "food and drink," but rather is manifested in the changed character of individual Christians.

6. is not simply a message, but a demonstration of spiritual power.

7. is an incorruptible Kingdom that cannot be inherited by corruption - our mere "flesh and blood."

8. is the present reality where we are "translated" when we are delivered from the powers of darkness.

9. is where God has "called" us in saving us.

10. is not earthly, but "heavenly."

11. "cannot be moved" - i.e., is of a spiritual nature.

12. is "everlasting" even in its final manifestation.

In my estimation, then, the Scriptures are quite clear as to the precise nature of the Kingdom.

Survey the popular prophecy teachings of our day. All manner of make-shift explanations are put forth to offset this clear fact.

But the fact remains: the Kingdom of God and of His Christ is a present spiritual reality that is being extended in this age.

This is the Kingdom that is the focus of the faith of Abraham -- Heb. 11:8-10.

[drstevej]

I didn't indicate my position in the paper because that was not my purpose. Of the views presented in the paper my own are closer to Darby's one new covenant view. My comment on the lack of commentaries on Hebrews was a factual statement.

I have chosen not to enter into the midst of the debate over eschatology on these threads but rather have mostly posted info to clarify issues historically.

I had told a friend via freep mail I'd send him a copy of the article and then decided to post it and get it to him that way plus provide some background to fellow freepers interested in eschatology.

It is my own opinion that there is far too much rancor over this issue. Having done a ThM at Dallas and a PhD at Westminster I have gained an appreciation for both covenant theologians and dispensationalists.

I will defer your specific questions to others. They are valid questions, but not ones I want to address in this forum. Hope you understand.