Posted on 10/20/2009 8:00:19 AM PDT by Gamecock
My friends have often heard me say, “The more I read my Bible the less dispensational I become.”
This statement comes from someone who was spiritually nurtured in churches with dispensational theology, who graduated from a Christian university steeped in dispensational theology, who received his first graduate degree from a dispensational seminary, and who—for twelve years—preached sermons that reflected dispensational theology. For the first sixteen years of my Christian life, I rarely questioned the fundamental distinctions of dispensational theology. What are those distinctions? In his discussion of what he called the “sine qua non of dispensationalism,”
Ryrie asserted:
“A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct … . This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive” (Ryrie 44-45).
Later he concluded:
“the essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church” (Ryrie 47).
As a dispensationalist I studied my Bible with the understanding that God had dual and separate plans for Israel and the church. I understood this “church age” to be somewhat parenthetical until God resumed His plan with the nation of Israel. I believed that the Abrahamic covenant and all the other Old Testament covenants were essentially for national Israel, and that only the soteriological benefits of the covenants belonged to the church.
As I continued to pastor and preach, I realized that my training in the Old Testament was weak. I decided to pursue a Master of Theology in Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary. My dispensational comrades in ministry assured me that Westminster would ruin my theology. I suppose many of them believe that has happened. Nevertheless, I was drawn to Westminster primarily because Bruce Waltke was teaching there. I had read books and articles by Dr. Waltke and had profited immensely from them.
While at Westminster I had the privilege of learning from Vern Poythress, Tremper Longman, and Raymond Dillard, along with Bruce Waltke. At first I listened as an antagonist, but I was soon won over by their personal graciousness and their commitment to Scripture. I began to experience discomfort as I realized that my commitment to dispensationalism was often unyielding, even when contradicted by the results of exegesis. These words from the introduction to my Th.M thesis summarize my response at that time:
Exegesis often eviscerates one’s theological presuppositions. When a theological bulwark withstands the penetration of biblical exegesis, its tenets remain secure. However, if its walls crumble beneath the weight of incisive and precise exegesis, then one must abandon the fortress and construct a better one (Davis, 1990, 1).
During the course of my study at Westminster, Bruce Waltke was my faculty advisor. I was privileged to have a number of personal discussions with him regarding the uneasiness I felt in questioning dispensationalism. As I considered what to research for my Th.M thesis, he suggested a topic that would be beneficial to me on my journey and helpful to others. I wrote “A Critical Evaluation of the Use of the Abrahamic Covenant in Dispensationalism.” The writing of that thesis opened a door and gave me a gentle push toward my eventual departure from dispensationalism.
As I worked through the exegesis of the Abrahamic Covenant and the hermeneutical issues surrounding it, I came to this conclusion:
Through an inductive study, this paper has arrived at a position that approximates covenant theology, namely, that that covenants confirm and explicate the program by which God redeems a people for Himself. It has been established that Israel and the church need to be perceived as sub-categories of a larger concept, i.e. the people of God. The Abrahamic covenant is not the beginning of the people of God, but rather God’s redemptive means, after the rebellion at Babel and the dispersion, to reclaim a fallen world to Himself. The Abrahamic covenant needs to be viewed in its relation to God’s purposes for the entire world, not simply His purposes for a nation. The Abrahamic covenant needs to viewed in light of the inauguration of eschatological times with the first advent of Jesus Christ, as well as the consummation of eschatology at the second advent (Davis 109).
Since those years at Westminster, I have continued to think about these issues and have become more and more convinced that exegesis and biblical theology do not support the sine qua non of dispensationalism (i.e., the distinction between Israel and the church). Since Christ is the final and fullest revelation of God, I now see that the Old Testament anticipated Christ and finds its interpretation and fulfillment in Christ.
In the New Testament—apart from well-debated text in Romans 11:25-27—there is not even a hint of a future restoration of the nation of Israel to the land.
Of the seventy four references to Abraham in the New Testament, not one clearly focuses on the “earthly” elements of the covenant. Even the acceptance of a mass conversion of Israelites at some future time does not demand a return to a former order of things.
Take, for example, the Apostle Paul’s discussion of the relationship of the law to saving faith, in Galatians 3.
He introduces Abraham as a paradigm of saving faith and of inclusion in the promises of God. In the course of his discussion, the apostle makes interpretive statements based on his understanding of the Genesis passages. These reflect on the Abrahamic covenant. These statements are as follows:
1) – “Those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).
2) -“The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ’All nations will be blessed through you’” (Gal. 3:8).
3) - “Those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham” (Gal. 3:9).
4) – “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:14).
5) – “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).
6) - “But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22).
Paramount in these verses is the redemptive significance of the Abrahamic covenant as it finds its consummation in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ, as the quintessential seed of Abraham, is both the guarantor and inheritor of the promises of the covenant.
Relationship with Christ, established by emulating the faith of Abraham, guarantees one’s participation in the promises of the covenant. It is not the keeping of the law or physical descent from Abraham that constitutes one as a child of Abraham, but rather faith in Jesus Christ.
These verses sanction the redemptive nature of the Abrahamic covenant. They confirm that covenant as the unifying factor between Jews and Gentiles, and they substantiate the view that there is one people of God of all ages that share the covenants of Scripture which find their consummation in Christ.
Strikingly, Paul perceives redemption in Christ to be the dominant, though not exclusive, feature of the Abrahamic covenant. He finds the consummation of the covenant in Christ and participation in the covenant to be predicated on relationship to Christ. Though, admittedly, I argue from silence here, the “material” nature of the promises to Abraham appears to be somewhat idealized in Christ. Though not necessarily removing those “material” elements of the Abrahamic covenant, Paul’s treatment certainly places them in a new light.
Consequently, due to the advent of Christ as the seed of Abraham, the New Testament sees a semi-realized fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in New Testament believers and the church and an ultimate eternal fulfillment in the New Heavens and Earth for all those who are “seed” of Abraham by faith.
In Christ we have our “landedness” as we are “blessed in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ,” (Eph. 1:3) and are assured that we have “an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade kept in heaven” (1 Pet. 1:3).
The New Testament texts that consider the question, “Who are the legitimate heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant?” unequivocally answer, “All of those who are in Christ Jesus.”
In reference to the unity of believing Jews and Gentiles, George N. H. Peters cogently concludes:
Both elect are the seed, the children of Abraham; both sets of branches are on the same stock, on the same root, on the same olive tree; both constitute the same Israel of God, the members of the same body, fellow-citizens of the same commonwealth; both are Jews “inwardly” (Romans 2:29), and of the true “circumcision” (Phil. 3:3), forming the same “peculiar people,” “holy nation,” and “royal priesthood”; both are interested in the same promises, covenants, and kingdom; both inherit and realize the same blessings at the same time (Peters 404).
In conclusion, may we all continue to “do theology” rooted in humility, exegesis, biblical theology, and community. Though I do not agree with many of Clark Pinnock’s theological conclusions, I do appreciate his delightful approach to the theological enterprise. He said,
I approach theology in a spirit of adventure, being always curious about what I may find. For me theology is like a rich feast, with many dishes to enjoy and delicacies to taste. It is like a centuries-old conversation that I am privileged to take part in, a conversation replete with innumerable voices to listen to…. More like a pilgrim than a settler, I tread the path of discovery and do my theology en route (quoted in Grenz 134).
Works Cited
Davis, John P. “A Critical Examination of the Use of the Abrahamic Covenant in Dispensationalism.” Master of Theology Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1990.
Grenz, Stanley J. Renewing the Center. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.
Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 1952.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.
I know what you mean.
If new covenant believers wish to keep traditions for traditions sake, that’s fine by me. It’s not something I would do based on the testimony of the Bible and the opportunity for undermining the true religion. (BTW, I’ve noticed in recent years how these “Christ in the Passover” presentations are all the rage in liberal churches. I can’t help but wonder it is has anything to do with their downplaying of orthodox Christian teaching.)
However, when someone comes along and claims that they have a better, more pleasing way of honoring God that involves old covenant shadows, that’s to me than they have walked off the deep end.
The Jewish Law was never intended to bind Gentiles as the Gentiles were not chosen by God for that purpose.
The problem I think that Paul was dealing with is the subtlety of the error. Folks start off sounding all fine and good, until group pressure makes it clear that you are not really measuring up to God’s standard unless you do thus and so from the old covenant.
Besides, there is still the unresolved error that leads folks to think they are keeping old covenant law (say, wrt feast days), when in reality they are not. God commanded in the Law of Moses how these days were to be observed with great precision. God never gave any commands other than those. So anyone who comes along today and claims they are keeping the feast days is being dishonest, unless they are doing exactly as God told the Israelites to do it. This is where human traditions take over. Post-apostolic rabbinic notions are no replacement for the Word of God.
Just for the record, what we are talking about here are not “traditions” but “commandments”, at least that was how that were given by God to Israel. God never authorized a change of status. Even the sojourner in Israel was expected to keep them as written.
How they got retained but turned into an option is beyond me. Perhaps that is the subtlety of the error. If folks (not you) were honest in calling them commandments and acting as if they were, perhaps others would not be enticed into trying to maintain them.
“I don’t know about you, but my shadow follows me right through the church doors.”
What about a cloud of witnesses? They must cast a shadow otherwise why would you call them a cloud.
p.s. I pinged you twice to include your shadow. Don’t want to leave him out.
That's what Roman Catholics say about their seven sacraments and their prayers to dead people and their veneration of Mary and all the other rituals and observances that make them feel more pious in and of themselves.
For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart." -- 2 Corinthians 5:11-12"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
Glory in the heart of flesh, not in appearance; in the renewed conscience, not in the renewed ritual.
For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth." -- 2 Corinthians 10:17-18 "But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
While there is "no condemnation," Paul is clearly preaching a "better testament." Why worship according to the covenant that has passed away? Seems like a stubborn clinging to what now has been made better by Christ, for Christ, through Christ.
Israel was not redeemed out of Egypt by keeping the Torah--Israel was redeemed out of Egypt so that they might learn and keep the Torah.
The Christian and/or Messianic is not redeemed out of the world by keeping the Holy One's commandments. We are redeemed out of the world in order that way might learn and keep His commandments (Eph. 2:8-10).
All of this talk about observing the Passover or keeping kosher is somehow putting one's self "under the law" is as foolish as claiming that staying faithful to one's wife is a matter of being "under the law." We all recognize that there are commandments that we should keep as followers of the Messiah; the only debate is which ones.
And Calvinists really need to stop reading 1st Century Jewish documents and theology through the lense of 15th Century squabbles--Orthodox Judaism has always taught that salvation is by the Holy One's grace received by faith.
Shalom.
Wow, more false information about the Catholic Church posted by Dr. Eckleburg. Color me sooooo surprised.
How they got retained but turned into an option is beyond me. Perhaps that is the subtlety of the error. If folks (not you) were honest in calling them commandments and acting as if they were, perhaps others would not be enticed into trying to maintain them.
Gosh, is that ever a good point.
Paul did. Do you understand Grace and Torah better than he?
Shalom.
Did someone mention “shadow?”
Do you believe that Paul continued to sacrifice nearly three decades after the Cross?
Shalom.
Did someone mention "anti-Catholic fetish?"
Only you.
And who would admit to such a sorry malady, by name?
Amen.
IMO this practice is being signified for geopolitical reasons that have nothing to do with Scripture or Christ's kingdom on earth.
A careful reading of the last 150 years of history along with Scripture is helpful in revealing the agenda behind a return to these ancient Jewish mysteries and practices (heavy on the "mystery.")
To paraphrase Abraham in the Midrash, "Have your eyes not seen what your fingers have typed?"
The Holy One, who is not a man that He might change His mind, commanded Israel to keep the very commands you say are cast aside forever, "throughout your generations." Not, "Until the Messiah comes." Not, "Until the Second Temple Falls." Forever.
God wrote the Sabbath (and by extention, all the Feasts; cf. Lev. 23) into stone by His own finger. Yeshua commnaded us to keep even the least commandments of the Torah (Mat. 5:17-19). Paul does not have the authority to gainsay the voice of the King Himself. In fact, he took a voluntary Nazrite vow in his journey (Acts 18:18) and helped four other guys keep theirs in order to prove that he was not teaching Jews to forsake Moses, to cease circumcision, or even to cease from our traditions.
The only valid question is whether Gentile followers of the God of Israel should keep all of the commandments, or whether some are just for the Jewish people. Given that the commandments in question are mostly the fun ones (I can understand not wanting to keep kosher, but Passover?), I can't see Paul telling Gentiles, "There's no more Jew or Gentile . . . you're fellowheirs!" on the one hand but, "Don't come to Passover! No lamb or wine for you!" on the other.
It's just not consistant with his writings or ministry.
Shalom.
I suspect that was because the covenant was directly linked to the land.
(Which of course brings us back to the subject at hand :-)
“Because I was not denying that animal sacrifices pictured propitiation/expiation/atonement”
The question was not did they “picture” but were they “efficient” for the propriation/expiation for sin.
propriation-—propitiation
I would agree. And since there has been a transference from the physical land as it was known under the old covenant to the heavenly land that we now enjoy under the new covenant, one would naturally expect a similar radical change in the nature of the ordinances related to each.
One being temporal, has decayed and passed away, and one eternal in nature.
9 By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. … 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them. (Heb. 11)People who dwell in the heavenly city do not need to observe the ordinances related to the carnal one.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. (Heb. 12)
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. (Gal. 4)
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.