Posted on 08/25/2006 6:09:27 AM PDT by xzins
General Information
In recent years there has been a rise in what has become known as Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) (Other labels for PD include "revised," "reconstructed," or "new" dispensationalism.). Adherents to PD see themselves as being in the line of normative or traditional dispensationalism, but at the same time, have made several changes and/or modifications to the traditional dispensational system. Thus, PD adherents view themselves as furthering the continual development of dispensational theology. It is also true that progressive dispensationalists seek a mediating position between traditional dispensationalism and nondispensational systems.
According to Charles Ryrie, the adjective 'progressive' refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom). According to Craig Blaising, The name progressive dispensationalism is linked to the progressive& relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.
The public debut of PD was made on November 20, 1986, in the Dispensational Study Group in connection with the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia. . . . Actually, the label 'progressive dispensationalism' was introduced at the 1991 meeting, since 'significant revisions' in dispensationalism had taken place by that time. Some view Kenneth Barker's presidential address at the 33rd annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on December 29, 1981 as the precursor to some of the views of PD. His address was called, False Dichotomies Between the Testaments.
Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Robert Saucy, Kenneth Barker, David Turner, John Martin. NOTE: It should not be thought that all who have associated themselves with PD in some way are agreed on all issues. Blaising and Bock have been the most prolific in promoting PD so it is their views that will mostly be examined.
According to traditional dispensationalism, Jesus is currently exalted at the right hand of the Father, but He is not sitting on David's throne nor has His messianic kingdom reign begun yet. Progressive dispensationalism, however, teaches that the Lord Jesus is now reigning as David's king in heaven at the right hand of the Father in an 'already' fulfillment aspect of the Davidic kingdom and that He will also reign on earth in the Millennium in the 'not yet' aspect. Thus, according to PD, the Davidic throne and the heavenly throne of Jesus at the right hand of the Father are one and the same. The use of Psalm 110 and 132 in Acts 2 are used to support this claim that Jesus is currently reigning as Davidic King. HOWEVER, This view is suspect for a number of reasons:
Thus, when Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is near this meant the kingdom had actually arrived. HOWEVER:
As Blaising states, "One of the most striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. . . .The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ" HOWEVER: It is hard to discern what Blaising means by this but this view seems to blur the distinctions between Israel and the church. One PD advocate, John Turner, for example, refers to the church as the "new Israel". ALSO: Paul does treat the church as an anthropological entity distinct from Israel and the Gentiles when he writes, "Give no offense either to Jews, or to Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor. 10:32). If the church is kept distinct from Israel (even believing Israel) how can the church not be a distinct anthropological group?
NOTE: This appears to be another area where Saucy disagrees with Blaising and Bock. Saucy argues strongly for a clear distinction between Israel and the church. As he states, "The biblical teaching about the roles of Israel and the church in history reveals that although they have much in common, they remain distinctively different". Saucy, however, does use confusing "one people of God" terminology. By this he means that Israel and the church are saved in the same way, which is correct. But if Israel and the church are "distinctively different," why refer to them as "one people of God"? The one people of God concept can easily be interpreted in the covenant theology sense of no essential distinction between Israel and the church.
Saucy writes, "Contrary to the former [traditional dispensationalists], the contents of both mysteries-i.e., the equal participation of Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ (Eph 3) and his indwelling in his people (Col 1)-are best understood as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies". While traditional dispensationalists have taken the NT mysteries to be truths now being revealed that were absolutely not found in the OT, PD's take the mysteries of Eph. 3 and Col. 1 to be truths that were partially hidden in the OT that are now being fully revealed in the NT. The big difference is that PD's see the NT mysteries as being found in some manner in the OT. HOWEVER: though it is true that the ideas of Gentile salvation and Gentile participation in the covenants were found in the OT, the body concept including Jew and Gentiles and the "Christ in you" concept were not found in the OT.
PD's see a partial fulfillment of the spiritual promises of the covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic and New) but see a future fulfillment of the physical promises in the millennium. ON THE OTHER HAND: Traditional dispensationalists do not see the Davidic covenant as being partially fulfilled in any sense in this age. They are also reluctant to say that the New covenant is fulfilled in any way in this age, though they do believe that some spiritual benefits of the New covenant are being applied to the church. As Homer Kent states, "There is one new covenant to be fulfilled eschatologically with Israel, but participated in soteriologically by the church today. This view recognizes that Christ's death provided the basis for instituting the new covenant, and also accepts the unconditional character of Jeremiah's prophecy which leaves no room for Israel's forfeiture. At the same time it also notes that the New Testament passages definitely relate New Testament Christians to this covenant".
God's divine plan is holistic encompassing all peoples and every area of life: personal, cultural, societal and political.
PD's, for the most part, accept the pre-tribulational view of the Rapture though most of their writings ignore the issue altogether.
The foundational difference between PD and traditional dispensationalism is hermeneutical. With PD's desire for cordial relations has come a hermeneutical shift away from literal interpretation, also called the grammatical-historical method, which has been one of the ongoing hallmarks of dispensationalism.
Blaising and Bock believe the meaning of biblical texts can change. "Meaning of events in texts has a dynamic, not a static, quality." "Once a text is produced, commentary on it can follow in subsequent texts. Connection to the original passage exists, but not in a way that is limited to the understanding of the original human author." "Does the expansion of meaning entail a change of meaning? . . .The answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, to add to the revelation of a promise is to introduce 'change' to it through addition."
The PD emphasis on "preunderstanding" as part of the interpretive process is confusing. If all they mean by it is that the interpreter should be aware of one's predetermined ideas so that he can suppress them and come up with the intended meaning of the text, it is a good thing. They do not say this, though. The implication of their writings is that we all have presuppositions and preunderstandings that influence our understanding of Scripture but they say nothing on how to deal with these. What are they getting at? Does this mean all our interpretations are the product of our preunderstandings? Is it not possible with the help of the Holy Spirit to lay aside our biases and come up with the intended meaning of the text? This is one area where PD advocates are too vague. What they say, in and of itself is not wrong, but it could lead to faulty conclusions.
Part of the confusion over PD is that its adherents claim to hold to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation but by it they mean something different. Historically, the grammatical-historical method meant that biblical texts had only one meaning that could not change. This meaning was what the biblical author intended. This meaning could be found as the believer put aside his biases, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and sought the author's meaning by looking at the grammar of the text and taking into account the historical situation facing the biblical author. PD advocates, though, say the meaning of texts can change and we cannot be sure of our findings because of our "preunderstandings." This approach places PD outside the realm of dispensationalism.
The hermeneutical doors that PD has opened make very possible the eventual shift to covenant theology. As a covenant theologian, Vern Poythress is appreciative of the moves PD's have been making. But he also says, "However, their position is inherently unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible in the long run to create a safe haven theologically between classical dispensationalism and covenantal premillennialism. The forces that their own observations have set in motion will most likely lead to covenantal premillennialism after the pattern of George Ladd." Walter A. Elwell: "the newer dispensationalism looks so much like nondispensationalist premillennialism that one struggles to see any real difference" Commenting on the one people of God concept of PD, Bruce Waltke states, "That position is closer to covenant theology than to dispensationalism".
"One expects that there will be further revisions and changes in progressive dispensationalism as time passes. Where it will all lead and whether or not it will be understood and received by those who have embraced normative dispensationalism, no one knows. But already progressive dispensationalism certainly appears to be more than a development with normative dispensational teaching. Some so-called developments are too radical not to be called changes" (Ryrie).
M Vlach
Bibliography
C Ryrie, Dispensationalism; C Blaising and D Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); R L Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (1992) edited by C Blaising and D Bock; R L Saucy, The Presence of the Kingdom in the Life of the Church; V Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists; H Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews; W A Elwell, "Dispensationalists of the Third Kind," Christianity Today, 9/12, 1994, p. 28; R L Thomas, "A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics," When the Trumpet Sounds, p. 415; E. Johnson, "Prophetic Fulfillment: The Already and Not Yet," Issues in Dispensationalism; C Ryrie, "Update on Dispensationalism," Issues in Dispensationalism; D Bock, "The Reign of the Lord Christ," DIC, pp. 37-67; B Waltke, DIC, p. 348.
I'm interested in other dispensationalist's viewpoints. Non-dispensationalists are certainly invited to offer FRIENDLY, non-disruptive observations. However, there is no desire here to get in a food fight with those having other millennial views (amil, postmil, preterist, etc.)
the intent of the caucus is to list the BIBLICAL strengths/weaknesses of Progressive Dispensationalism (PD.)
I understand it came out of Dallas Seminary, has a bit of a following there, and there is also a following at Moody Bible Institute.
I've not heard of Progressive Dispensationalism before, but is it related to God's progressive revelation?
(I'll read the article in a bit to see.)
It starts from the premise that prophecy is being progressively fulfilled now and that the kingdom of God is both already and not yet.
Without reading any replies, I'll say:
A. I agree with the article, at least basically. And
B. It's really going to irritate the guilty consciences of devotees of the "shrug+'whatever'" approach to blurring 2/3 of the Bible.
Dan
BTW, the joke around Talbot was:
Q: When is a dispensationalist not a dispensationalist?
A: When he's Bob Saucy.
Nor had I. I was expecting some new version of dispensationalism to pop up, filling the void created by Hal Lindsey's 1988 rapture predictions (40 years after the foundation of modern Israel) not coming to pass. This appears to be one of the contenders....
The public debut of PD was made on November 20, 1986, in the Dispensational Study Group in connection with the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia. . . . Actually, the label 'progressive dispensationalism' was introduced at the 1991 meeting, since 'significant revisions' in dispensationalism had taken place by that time. Some view Kenneth Barker's presidential address at the 33rd annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on December 29, 1981 as the precursor to some of the views of PD.
My major concern is the blurring the distinction between national Israel and the Church. I am convinced that the bible teaches a role for national Israel.
If this were simply a dispute over "how many" dispensations there are, and these folks are in favor of 2 basic covenants in this era (Old Covenant/New Covenant), one called the millennium, and then one called the "new heaven and new earth," then I'm not going to think there's any real concern here.
But the national Israel issue is the major consideration.
Oh yeah, among any who know anything about it, the number of dispensations has never been the big deal. That's why the label isn't the best; it focuses on what really isn't the distinguishing factor of the system.
Zola Levitt and others in his ministry had/have a running argument with the PD advocates. He took up the subject often in his monthly newsletters.
http://www.levitt.com/essays/progdisp.html
I took it to mean that they saw a matrix with Jew/Gentile on one axis and Christian/Non-Christian on the other axis. (Jew/Christian; Jew/Non-Christian; Gentile/Christian; Gentirle/Non-Christian.) I assumed they meant that the first category Jew/Christian placed that particular Jew BOTH in the Church and in national Israel.
If that were the case, I had no problem. It would mean that currently non-Christian Jews have a separate future mapped out for them that means eternal death for some, and a point in time (tribulation?) when a "remnant" would be restored.
I'm not sure now that's what they meant.
Read later
Does Acts 1:6–7 Teach the Restoration of the Nation Israel?:
A Comparison of Supersessionist
and Nonsupersessionist Interpretations
by Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
Acts 1:6–7 reads: “And so when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, ‘Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.’”
This text is important in the debate over whether national Israel will undergo a national restoration. Nonsupersessionists, who believe in a restoration of national Israel, claim this text, which describes Jesus’ final interchange with his apostles, affirms the idea of a restoration of the nation Israel.[i] They usually do so by asserting two points: (1) the disciples expected a restoration of national Israel; and (2) this nationalistic expectation of the disciples was correct.
Concerning the first issue, John A. McLean holds that the disciples clearly expected a future restoration of the Davidic kingdom to national Israel:
The terms “Israel” and “Israelite” occur 32 times in Luke-Acts. In each occurrence the terms refer to the people of Israel as a national entity. Therefore it seems correct to understand that the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 referred to a restoration of a kingdom to the nation of Israel. They were asking Jesus about the timing of the future restoration of the Davidic kingdom of Israel as described and defined in the Old Testament.[ii]
The second issue concerns whether the disciples were correct in having nationalistic views concerning Israel’s restoration. Nonsupersessionists argue that the belief of the disciples was valid and not misguided. Two reasons are given to support this view. First, Acts 1:3 states that Jesus met with the disciples for a period of forty days after his resurrection “speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.” To nonsupersessionists, it seems unlikely that the disciples could be misguided in their perceptions of the kingdom for Israel after having received forty days of instruction about the kingdom from the risen Lord. As McLean argues:
These disciples, however, were the same ones to whom Jesus had explained the Scriptures (Luke 24:32), whose minds He had opened to understand the Scriptures (v. 45), and with whom He had spent 40 days speaking about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). Therefore it is highly unlikely they would have thought He meant to alter the meaning of the kingdom by excluding its national, political character. Therefore rather than correcting the disciples’ understanding of a kingdom He led them to expect a kingdom at some undisclosed time period.[iii]
Larry Helyer, too, argues against the possibility that the disciples were wrong about their conceptions of the kingdom based on the belief that Jesus had many opportunities to correct any misconceptions they may have had:
The disciples have had the benefit of forty days of postresurrection instruction about the kingdom of God (1:3). Luke specifies that the question about the time of restoration was immediately prior to the ascension. In other words it was their last question. It seems psychologically improbable that the issue of national restoration had not come up for discussion prior to that moment. According to Luke, as late as the last supper the disciples had been quarreling about who was to be the greatest in the kingdom (22:24). This must have involved leadership in the new commonwealth. Therefore if Christ never intended to restore Israel nationally he surely would have addressed that burning issue. Yet we have this question in 1:6. I conclude that the point of the question could hardly have been whether there would be a restoration but, rather, when it would occur.[iv]
According to John Michael Penney, “The disciples’ question here (1.6) is hardly to be construed as a nationalistic misunderstanding. It echoes Gabriel’s language from the opening chapter of the Gospel.”[v]
Nonsupersessionists also believe that the lack of correction from Jesus in Acts 1:7 is validation that the disciples were correct in their beliefs about Israel’s restoration. If the disciples were wrong about their idea of a future restoration of the kingdom to Israel, they assert, Jesus probably would have corrected their misconception like he did on other occasions. But Jesus’ lack of correction is viewed as affirmation of their idea. As McLean asserts:
The ministry of Jesus focused, in part, on correcting false doctrine and rebuking errant teachers. However, it is noteworthy that Jesus did not correct the disciples’ question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Therefore in view of the consistent ministry of Jesus to correct the disciples when they were in error, it seems correct to conclude that in their question in Acts 1:6 they properly anticipated a future restoration of the kingdom for Israel.[vi]
Robert Saucy acknowledges that “the disciples had difficulty with some of the spiritual teaching about the kingdom,”[vii] but he also believes the idea that they were totally wrong about the kingdom’s relationship to national Israel is hard to substantiate:
To charge them with a total misunderstanding of the kingdom hope of Israel based on an alleged reinterpretation of this hope is difficult to substantiate in Scripture. Just before the disciples asked about Israel and the kingdom, Luke records that Jesus had been teaching them “about the kingdom of God” (v. 3). If after all this instruction from Jesus their question had still been wrong-headed, we would certainly expect to find a rebuke and a correction in Jesus’ reply. After all, he was about to leave and send them out as his witnesses. But though some disagree, we find nothing like a rebuke in Jesus’ words.[viii]
According to nonsupersessionists, Jesus refused to address the timing of the kingdom, but he offered no correction to their idea that a restoration of national Israel would take place. As J. Bradley Chance writes, “In short, Jesus’ response challenges the hope for an immediate restoration of Israel. It does not challenge the hope of such a restoration itself.”[ix]
Nonsupersessionists assert that Acts 1:6 shows that the disciples of Jesus correctly expected a future restoration of national Israel, but supersessionists, who deny a restoration of national Israel, disagree. While supersessionists have often acknowledged that the disciples at this point had nationalistic expectations on their minds,[x] they disagree with the idea that Acts 1:6 is evidence for the idea of a future national restoration of Israel. Supersessionists have offered two alternative explanations for the meaning of Acts 1:6. First, some have claimed that the disciples were simply misguided in their understanding of the kingdom or that they had not grasped the true meaning of Jesus’ kingdom message.[xi] Raymond O. Zorn states that Acts 1:6 indicates “the last flicker on the apostles’ part . . . concerning their hope that national Israel would once again be a political theocracy.”[xii]
Second, others like Robertson hold that Israel would indeed be restored, but it would be restored in a way different from the nationalistic expectations of the apostles. As he states, “The kingdom of God would be restored to Israel in the rule of the Messiah, which would be realized by the working of the Holy Spirit through the disciples of Christ as they extended their witness to the ends of the earth.”[xiii] Thus, as the kingdom message was carried to the world through the Holy Spirit, Israel’s kingdom was being restored. To support this view, Robertson ties the question of the disciples in Acts 1:6 with Jesus’ statement in 1:8 that the disciples would receive the power of the Holy Spirit and they would be Jesus’ witnesses throughout the earth: “This statement [in 1:8] should not be regarded as peripheral to the question asked by the disciples. Instead, it is germane to the whole issue of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.”[xiv]
In spite of these explanations, however, Acts 1:6 seems to be significant evidence for the nonsupersessionist view. The fact that these disciples had immediately experienced forty days of kingdom instruction from the risen Jesus (see Acts 1:3) makes it unlikely they could be so wrong about the nature of the kingdom and national Israel’s relationship to it. Plus, Jesus’ answer, although not an explicit affirmation of their hope, appears to assume the correctness of their expectation. As Scot McKnight states:
Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity.[xv]
We thus conclude with Paul W. Walaskay that Jesus said nothing that “dampened the hope of his disciples for a national kingdom.”[xvi] Acts 1:6–7, therefore, is evidence for the restoration of the nation Israel.
[i] The following people view this text as affirming a future restoration of national Israel: Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teaching of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 130–01; Paul W. Walaskay, ‘And So We Came to Rome’: The Political Perspective of St Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 17; John A. McLean, “Did Jesus Correct the Disciples’ View of the Kingdom?” Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (1994): 222; Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 268; Larry Helyer, “Luke and the Restoration of Israel,” 327; John Michael Penny, The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 69; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 237;David L. Tiede, “The Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1,” Harvard Theological Review 79:1–3 (1986): 278; David Larsen, Jews, Gentiles and the Church: A New Perspective on History and Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Discovery House, 1995), 35; Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 104–05.
My initial reaction is that the Jer 31:33-37 and Romans 11:18-28 are speaking to the nation of Israel which is to say the descendants of Jacob, not the geopolitical "nation" we call "Israel". God's promise is not broken, Jesus sits on the throne of David - He is also the Alpha and Omega. Interestingly, Revelation refers to both Jesus and the Father as Alpha and Omega.
Because I see Jesus in timelessness, I would say He exists in that position regardless of our timeline (sense of an "arrow of time") - just as He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that He is always our crucified Lord and always our risen Lord, always the Logos, etc.
But I would also say that the descendants of Jacob have not yet realized the promise because they are "time-bound" as are all of us "in" this Creation, this heaven and earth. The new heaven and earth of Revelation may not have a sense of time passing according to other Jewish interpretations discussed on a previous thread.
The millennial reign does not end Christ's authority on the seat of David (or in any other respect) - it is more like a prologue to the new heaven and the new earth.
In sum, I see the "sheep" of Eze 34 encompassing both the nation of Israel, and the "other" fold of John 10 (we who are grafted in) - but that we are ultimately one fold with one Shepherd - hence the 24 thrones in Revelation.
I'm not sure where that puts me in this "progressive dispensationalism" issue - I wouldn't care anyway because I eschew such labels. LOL!
On the other hand, I don't find the "now/not yet" aspect of the Kingdom to be at all objectionable. Certainly, the Kingdom is not yet comprised of Yeshua's visible rule on the earth, but we are yet "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light" (1 Pt. 2:9). Since we are subjects of a King, we are by definition a Kingdom, especially since said King rules in our hearts by way of His Spirit.
Those terms, by the way, were all originally used of Israel, which at the very least suggests a parallel kinship between Israel and the Church--more on this in a moment.
Acknowledging the "now" aspect of the Kingdom does not require in any way surrendering or softening our hope for the day when the Messiah King visibly and bodily rules over the earth from Jerusalem on the throne of David.
Neither do I find it objectionable that the mysteries of the New Covenant were there, but veiled from human understanding, in the Tanakh (the OT). After all, when the Jerusalem council decided against forcing Gentile believers to become Jewish (circumcise), they quoted Amos' promise that there would be a gathering of "all the Gentiles, upon whom My name is called" (Acts 15:17, quoting Amos 9:12).
The mystery that Sha'ul was the recipient of was not simply that there would be Gentiles in God's Assembly (or Ekklesia), but that these Gentiles would be "fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in the Messiah by the gospel" (Eph. 3:6) rather than second-class citizens, slaves to Israel as Israel was in the first century slaves to Rome.
In fact, there are a number of passages which speak of a time during which God would temporarily glorify a Gentile remnant over Israel, and speak to Israel through the Gentiles instead of to the Gentiles through Israel.
They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked Me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. (Deu. 32:21, quoted in Rom. 10:19)Here, of course, we find the defense against "blurring" the distinction between Israel and the Church, as the latter is called "those which are not a people, a foolish (or unlearned) nation," and "a nation that was not called by My name." But by the same token, there is no denying that we wild branches are grafted into the cultivated olive tree of Israel. How then do we embrace our Israeli/Jewish root without succumbing to either Replacement theology or the foolish desire many of my Gentile (born and raised) Messianic brethren have to prove that they are "really" Jewish?I am sought of them that asked not for Me ; I am found of them that sought Me not: I said, "Behold Me, behold Me," unto a nation that was not called by My name. (Isa. 65:1, quoted in Rom. 10: 20)
I think an example may be shown from adoption. Imagine that a loving Father has an oftimes rebelleous son, named Y'hudah. Y'hudah was born in the Father's household as an heir, but the Father decides that He wants more children, and adopts a scruffy, unmannered kid off the streets. We'll call him Kirk. This adoption causes immense jealousy in Y'hudah, especially when the Father does not require Kirk to learn and keep all of the household rules as a prerequisite to his adoption, so Y'hudah leaves the house.
Now, because Y'hudah has rebelled against the Father, does this in any way change the fact that he was born into the household and into the family name? Especially when the Father has promised to bring Y'hudah home? And just because our friend Kirk was adopted into the household and family name when Y'hudah rebelled, does this make him a replacement for the elder son? Does Kirk become Y'hudah? Obviously, the answer is no to all of the above.
The error of the Church in this matter has been to assume that Y'hudah has been cast out, and that to return he would have to place himself under Kirk. On the contrary, when the Father brings Y'hudah home, it will be to restore him to his rightful place as the firstborn son (Exo. 4:22f). Neither does Kirk's adopted status make him any less loved or any less a member of the family--on the contrary, as I can say from personal experience (my youngest brother being adopted), he is just as much the Father's son.
(And yes, I'm leaving Yeshua without a specific symbol in this parable. Consider Him One with the Father. I'm also ignoring the remnant of Israel which has always believed in the Messiah and stayed within the house. Call it Occam's Razor of parables.)
I'm not sure that blurring the distinction between the Church and Israel is so much the problem as is a failure to understand that adoption does not equal replacement. Of course, for the sake of being clear, we should probably continue to use separate terms for the adopted son (the Church) and the firstborn (Israel) when discussing ecclesiology or eschatology, especially since every time we start to blend those terms, someone inevitably denies the particular promises to the natural seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!
Of course, to me the most telling point of those who claim to be Israel in replacement of the Jews is that they refuse to keep the commandments God gave Israel. A Dispensationalist who believes that there is a distinction between--and therefore distinctive commandments for--Israel and the Church is at least being consistant on this point (though I would argue against any perceived shift from Law to Grace: Salvation has always been by Grace, and the Torah is reinforced, not done away with, by the New Covenant). As Ryrie points out, if you worship on Sunday instead of on Saturday, you are a Dispensationalist, and the rest is just dickering on the details of the Dispensations.
That being the case, I'm probably the least Dispensational Christian on FR (or at least tied with the other Messianics here). Hopefully you won't hold that against me or my post. ;-)
Haven't I asked you not to ping me?
Nationally, the promises of the Father are still to Yehuda. On an individual basis, each "Yehuda" still has to decide to return to the house of the Father (be born again, place his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation), or he will be cut off eternally.
Historic Premil, as I understand it, also believes that from the time of Jesus' ascension various prophecies started being fulfilled in "history" and will continue to be fulfilled until the end. In order to get fulfilled prophecies, there is a penchant for deeply symbolizing some of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.