Replies

Deal with Hebrews first, and then we can talk about Zechariah, the priesthood, prophecies, etc in the light of what we learn from Hebrews and the rest of the NT.

I've noticed whenever these dispensational topics are being discussed, the emphasis is always on the Old Testament to the very real exclusion of the New Testament. It's almost as if they stopped reading right before Matthew.

Every word of Hebrews denies the dispensational error of a reconstructed blood Israel. The only blood that matters is the blood of Christ. The only covenant now in place is the New Covenant.

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." -- Hebrews 8:13

Well that makes perfect sense since we are living in one of the multiple "gaps" invented for the dispensational system. The so-called “church age” was not spoken of in the OT (Acts 15 notwithstanding).

So if you want to talk about the promises to Israel, like the so-called “land promise” you must restrict you subject material to the unfiltered OT (untouched by the NT that is).

This can be demonstrated by examining the writings of folks like Dr. Robert Thomas at The Master's Seminary. His theory is that when the Jesus and the apostles read the OT prophecies and applied them to Christ, they were forced to reinterpret and change the meaning of the original prophecies, since they all had to do with Israel, not Jesus.

Thomas writes:

NT writers applied OT texts to situations entirely different from what the corresponding OT contexts entailed. The NT writers disregarded the main thrust of grammatical-historical meaning of the OT passages and applied those passages in different ways to suit different points they wanted to make. They may have maintained some connecting link in thought with the OT passages, but the literal OT meanings are absent from the citations. ...We may call this nonliteral use an "inspired sensus plenior application" of the OT passage to a new situation. Such a usage is "inspired" because the NT writing in which it appears is inspired by God. It is "sensus plenior" in that it gives an additional or fuller sense than the passage had in its OT setting. It is an application because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage, but simply applies the OT wording to a new setting.

Yes, you heard right, boys and girls. Jesus, et al were not “grammatical-historical literalists” when they interpreted the OT prophecies. I’ve been arguing this for years against the dispensational approach, and have been pooh-poohed by the futurist literalists. Finally one of their own is saying the exact same thing!

Read the FIDE-O blog for more information: Does the Bible Mean What It Says.