Anyone want to take a crack at answering John MacArthur here?

[Scott1]

Your observations on dispensationalism's hermeneutics is probably justified, to a point. Note that this is a basis, and not necessarily followed.

Thanks for acknowledging that. Dispensationalism does not automatically follow their stated "literal" hermeneutic but tends to follow it when it suits the dispensational framework.

Also, it gets it backwards by interpreting the New in light of the Old. The early church certainly didn't do that (cf Book of Acts). If they had, the Jewish Christians like Paul and James and Peter and Silas would have not gone into synagogues with the gospel but would have been preaching "land promises" or "earthly promises." That isn't at all what happened, nor our faith established by the prophets and apostles.

Future for ethnic Israel simply refers to future fulfillment of land promises, and any other promises associated with it. Perhaps a difference between Israel and the church would be better, but still recognizing that all "saints" are part of the church.
Okay, Joe. We have a real difference here.

Covenant theology does not teach fulfillment of a land promise for Israel in the sense of a political entity for people who have some ethnic Jewish blood.

Basically, covenant theology looks at the Old Testament promises for land to the nation of Israel and sees they were already fulfilled (before the theocratic nation was destroyed in 70AD) or as promises that were conditioned upon obedience. Obviously, often the theocratic state of Israel was not broadly obedient- that's why Christ Himself, in fulfillment of the prophets said it would be destroyed, (e.g. the temple, beginning of Matthew 24).

Glad you would recognize that both Old Testament and New Testament saints (believers) are part of the church. I think that contradicts your construct of dispensationalism and is logically inconsistent, but glad you believe that because it really seems that's what Scripture teaches.

How could one read Hebrews 11 and not believe that?

I wonder, does Mr. MacArthur believe this? Is this part of his "leak" in what he describes as his "leaky" dispensationalism.

Also, Joe, I'm not sure of this right now, but my understanding is that covenant theology does not preclude a gathering of people with some ethnic Jewish identity into a land roughly equivalent to the Old Testament land. Nor does it preclude a large scale conversion of the people.

But the difference with dispensationalism is that it is not on the basis of unconditional promises or "earthly promises for an earthly people" like dispensationalism says. It is on the basis of God's Providence, and on the basis of redemption through Christ (not separate "earthly" promises.)"

The promises to Israel all pointed to Christ and are not fulfilled outside of Him as Messiah, redeemer. That's where covenant theology differs from the more broadly popular dispensationalism, a recent invention, found in broadly evangelical circles... but not reformed ones.

- God's glory is absolutely central to everything in reformed theology (which is covenantal). Dispensational is man-centered, tends that way in its whole framework.

This comment is a grave error, Scott. Even Gerstner, in his straw man argumentation, compliments dispensationalism as having at its core a focus on God's glory as His ultimate purpose in everything. You only have personal observation to make such an assertion.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter III
Of God's Eternal Decree


III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]

.

Wow. Saying that putting God's glory central is a hallmark of dispensational theology in contrast to covenantal theology is pretty harsh. Ouch. I don't think any covenantalist would hold that redemption is more central than God's glory. (Though I do believe that redemption brings glory to God.)

No less harsh than Scott's statement where he says dispensationalism focuses on man. Furthermore, I do not think that covenantalism focuses on redemption above God's glory. But, I have heard covenantalists state, on this board, that the purpose of history is more about redemption. Perhaps it was an isolated case.

EDIT: sorry I missed this in my response. Dispensations simply refer to different time periods in which God interacted with man and dispensed His grace differently. He interacted differently with Abraham than with Moses. He interacted differently with Moses than with David. His interaction with Israel during the exile and restoration was different. And His interaction in the advent of Christ was certainly different. This is why I noted to you earlier than "dispensations" in dispensationalism often line up very well with "covenants" in covenantalism.

Another difference. God really, in substance at least, did not dispense His grace differently- it always was grace that was accessed by faith in the coming Messiah Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Even Abraham believed that. He didn't have all the details, it was all explicit like it became in the New Testament- but that is what his faith looked forward toward. That's the same thing believers look back at- salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Always been God's plan revealed in His Word. Never been different, the dispensational system notwithstanding.

Are you really saying you understand dispensationalism is not a separate plan of redemption for those with some Jewish ancestry and one for everyone else?

Absolutely. I'm not just telling you that this is what I believe. I'm telling you that this is the truth. Dispensationalists who claim otherwise are inconsistent and misguided, though they obviously exist in great numbers. Again, you're focused on a possible result, not what is central.

No.

The difference is a different plan of redemption that dispensationalism presents- "earthly" promises for an earthly people and spiritual promises for a "spiritual" people.

This might sound impressive, but really is embarrassingly inconsistent when one gets right down to it.

Dispensationalism has retreated big time in the past generation almost giving up the seven dispensations of Schofield, and now is saying the church and Israel do, after all, get together... eventually.

Covenant theology has always said believers in both are together right now, in the Body of Christ, part of the Church universal, and always have been.

Given his strong propensity toward reformed theology in other areas, it might well be a covenant theology principle he agrees with.
Anyone know?

Other than soteriologically, I don't. Unfortunately dispensationalists tend toward arminianism. I think it may be connected with inconsistent understandings in regard to salvation, as mentioned above.

.

I think it's fair to say the whole dispensational framework is an outgrowth of Arminianism. That's why you find none of it in the church historically, and in none of her creeds.

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks for acknowledging that. Dispensationalism does not automatically follow their stated "literal" hermeneutic but tends to follow it when it suits the dispensational framework.

You're welcome, I think. Your assertion goes a bit far though, and please forgive me for not budging on this. I know it's tedious. Some dispensationalists do not consistently follow the hermeneutics that are the basis of dispensationalism. Many impose their system on their understanding of Scripture. We all do this to a degree, which is often evidenced on this forum in regard to covenantalism. But please understand that I, as a dispensationalist (again, unless you want to relabel me) strive to divorce myself from common conceptions of "the dispensational framework." It is not a necessary ingredient, which is why I clarified above what dispensations are.

Okay, Joe. We have a real difference here. Covenant theology does not teach fulfillment of a land promise for Israel in the sense of a political entity for people who have some ethnic Jewish blood.

Basically, covenant theology looks at the Old Testament promises for land to the nation of Israel and sees they were already fulfilled (before the theocratic nation was destroyed in 70AD or as promises that were conditioned upon obedience. Obviously, often the theocratic state of Israel was not broadly obedient- that's why Christ Himself, in fulfillment of the prophets said it would be destroyed, (e.g. the temple, beginning of Matthew 24).

Matthew 24 is a classic example of already/not yet prophecy. We both would see that, yet draw the line between the two at different places. Basically, you're right though. This is where CT and DT clearly depart from one another in their understanding. And, this a non-negotiable for dispensationalism.

Glad you would recognize that both Old Testament and New Testament saints (believers) are part of the church. I think that contradicts your construct of dispensationalism and is logically inconsistent, but glad you believe that because it really seems that's what Scripture teaches.

Please show how my understanding of salvation contradicts MY construct of dispensationalism. Where is the inconsistency? And, I implore you, please keep within the bounds of what I have espoused, rather than bringing your conceptions of dispensationalism to the table.

How could one read Hebrews 11 and not believe that?

I wonder, does Mr. MacArthur believe this? Is this part of his "leak" in what he describes as his "leaky" dispensationalism.

Did you use "Mr." rather than "Dr." on purpose. Not to worry, God is no respecter of persons, right? Actually, I know as a fact that MacArthur believes this. His soteriology, I would say, is in full agreement with reformed theology. I say "reformed" because covenantalism does not have a monopoly on this. He also sees no necessary eschatological significance in today's geopolitical entity known as Israel. The link that Gil provided should be of some help on this.

- God's glory is absolutely central to everything in reformed theology (which is covenantal). Dispensational is man-centered, tends that way in its whole framework.

This comment is a grave error, Scott. Even Gerstner, in his straw man argumentation, compliments dispensationalism as having at its core a focus on God's glory as His ultimate purpose in everything. You only have personal observation to make such an assertion.

I goofed here. I should not have included your statement in regard to covenantalism. My comments were specifically addressed toward your erroneous claims in regard to dispensationalisms focus on man. That's why I references Gerstner. My apologies for not being clear. Of course you have the claim for covenantalism. Please recognize the same credibility in my claim for dispensationalism.

 

[Grillsy]

Wannabee, with all due respect I am not sure if you fit into the classical dispensational camp. You sound more like you want to be a covenant theologian but are still holding on the some tenants of dispensationalism. You are redefining what Dispensational's believe.
Read the classic dispensational texts and they will say grace was administered differently in the various dispensations. They will say, essentially, the Church and Israel are two completely separate entities with different plans of salvation.
Why not just come on over into the warm waters of Covenant theology brother?

 

[Scott1]

Joe,

It's fair to say many of us like Dr. MacArthur very much and always have. He's solid on the "five points" and articulates them well. He admits his dispensationalism is "leaky"

In the end, it seems more and more inconsistent to believe the doctrines of grace and approach the bible with the modern dispensational framework. Look how far dispensationalism has retreated in two generations!

(We also like Dr. Gerstner, his hard hitting passion and consistency, very much also).

 

[Wannabee]

Wannabee, with all due respect I am not sure if you fit into the classical dispensational camp. You sound more like you want to be a covenant theologian but are still holding on the some tenants of dispensationalism. You are redefining what Dispensational's believe.
Read the classic dispensational texts and they will say grace was administered differently in the various dispensations. They will say, essentially, the Church and Israel are two completely separate entities with different plans of salvation.
Why not just come on over into the warm waters of Covenant theology brother?

Well, that's really not quite right Willie. Dr. Robert Thomas, a very well known dispensationalist, was one of my professors and probably has more right to "define" dispensationalism than any of us here. The hermeneutic principles are from him, and reflect Milton Terry's as well. The definition is from him as well, but also put for by others. Please don't think that I'm just dreaming this up in some sort of wishful vacuum. If you really want to get into the mind of a dispensationalist, read Thomas' book, Evangelical Hermeneutics. You won't agree with it. I don't agree with it all. But you will gain a better understanding of much that is foundational about dispensationalism.
What doesn't seem to be conveying, though I've reiterated it many times, is that "what Dispensationalists believe" and what is inherently dispensationalism are not the same thing. That's like me telling you that you are redefining covenantalism because you don't believe in baptismal regeneration. There are the basic core understandings that undergird both sides, with many tendrils of differing understanding emanating from both as well.

I kinda hate to do this, for obvious reasons. But there's really a lot of misunderstanding going on here. So, here are some quotes from those who have the credentials to make dispensational claims.

The charge of the covenant theologian that dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation is often based on what he thinks ought to be the logical teaching of dispensationalism rather than what is the actual teaching of dispensationalism... dispensationalists sometimes may have overemphasized the differences between law and grace...
The basis of salvation is always the death of Christ; the means is alays faith; the object is always God; but the content of faith depends on the particular revelation God was pleased to give at a certain time.
If by "ways" of salvation is meant different content of faith, then dispensationalism does teach various "ways" because the Scriptures reveal different contents for faith in the progressive nature of God's revelation to mankind. But if by "ways" is meant more than one basis or means of salvation, then dispensationalism most emphatically does nto teach more than one way, for salvation has been, is, and always will be bawed on the substiutionary death of Jesus Christ.

Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 120-21

What is the sine qua non of dispenstionalism? the answer is threefold.
Keeps Israel and the church distinct.
historical-grammatical hermeneutics.
the underlying purpose of God in the world... the glory of God

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispnesationalist's consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects and understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.

Ibid, 39-41

Another book that deals with the challenges of defining dispensationalism is Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, edited by Herbert Bateman IV. He uses these three criteria to investigate the historicity of them. Admittedly it is true that not all Dispensationalists subscribe to these three core values. Darrell Bock, Lanier Burns, Elliot Johnson and Stanley Toussaint are contributors.

There is admittedly much wrong in dispensationalism. But dispensationalism does not, in any way, have a monopoly on heresies and wrong understanding in regard to God, His work and eternal purposes. This is sadly evidenced in every denomination in the land, including the ones represented on this board. But the sweeping statements that are said with authority that is not really delegated or truly present are often (perhaps usually) less than accurate, at least.

Something else to consider, though it's not necessarily conclusive. If dispensationalists hold to position "C" and covenantalists hold to position "S" and the truth is position "P," who needs to move and in what direction? Both parties need to move. And, though covenantalism's perspective is closer, "S" being closer to "P" than "C," the covenantalist still must move closer to dispensationalism to be correct. If nothing else, it's an illustration worthy of consideration at some levels.


Blessings,

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 03:18:04 EST-----

Joe,

It's fair to say many of us like Dr. MacArthur very much and always have. He's solid on the "five points" and articulates them well. He admits his dispensationalism is "leaky"

In the end, it seems more and more inconsistent to believe the doctrines of grace and approach the bible with the modern dispensational framework. Look how far dispensationalism has retreated in two generations!

(We also like Dr. Gerstner, his hard hitting passion and consistency, very much also).

I like Gerstner too, except when he's dealing with dispensationalism. As for dispensationalism retreating: perhaps. Perhaps it's simply adjusting. I don't know. I hope that all that is wrong about dispensationalism does "retreat." But you have to remember that covenantalism didn't just happen. It developed and has ebbed and flowed with many variants over the past 300 years.

I see no inconsistency in adhering to grace and the dispensational "framework" that I have presented. Again, I would appreciate clarity; if for no other reason that to be challenged to be more consistent in my own theology.

 

[Grillsy]

A serious question about how you view eschatology.

Do you see a division among God's people as far as promises go? If so, why and to what degree?

Perhaps this will help us get to the bottom of this issue.

 

[DonP]

One Question for the Dispensationalists.

Are there two bodies of Christ?
The saved OT Jews and the saved nt Church members? Or all we all one body?

Are we built into one temple or two?

I only see one body in the scripture. How does your hermeneutic explain your statement that the saved OT Jews are not the church? What are they?
And what body will the jews later be in who are saved?

Are there 2 elect?

Eclessia in the wilderness
Acts 7:38 "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, NKJV

Can you please help me understand how you see this.

thanks

 

[Wannabee]

The bottom line really is hermeneutics and where that places Israel in relation to God and the church.

The spiritual promises are to the elect of God = salvation.
The land/physical promises made to Israel stand until the end of time (forever), but are not necessitate salvation. However, they do have spiritual ramifications just as there were spiritual ramifications for them being the harbingers of the law and there are spiritual ramifications to being born into a Christian family or living next door to a biblically sound Christian church. That may be over simplistic, but should get the point across. And I really wrestle with understanding "all Israel will be saved." That's a tough one.

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 03:47:57 EST-----

One Question for the Dispensationalists.

Are there two bodies of Christ?
The saved OT Jews and the saved nt Church members? Or all we all one body?

This was addressed above. One body of elect - the church catholic.

Are we built into one temple or two?

I only see one body in the scripture. How does your hermeneutic explain your statement that the saved OT Jews are not the church? What are they?
And what body will the jews later be in who are saved?

Who said that? I've not seen this proposed in this thread by anyone. Can you reference a post? Perhaps you're thinking that premillinnialism necessitates a division because of the rapture and millennial kingdom. It doesn't really, though I couldn't provide specifics. What it comes down to is that the elect are the body of Christ.

Are there 2 elect?

There are millions. But they are all of the church.

 

[DonP]

The bottom line really is hermeneutics and where that places Israel in relation to God and the church.

The spiritual promises are to the elect of God = salvation.
The land/physical promises made to Israel stand until the end of time (forever), but are not necessitate salvation. However, they do have spiritual ramifications just as there were spiritual ramifications for them being the harbingers of the law and there are spiritual ramifications to being born into a Christian family or living next door to a biblically sound Christian church..

What are the spiritual ramifications you speak of for the Jew?

 

[Grillsy]

The bottom line really is hermeneutics and where that places Israel in relation to God and the church.

The spiritual promises are to the elect of God = salvation.
The land/physical promises made to Israel stand until the end of time (forever), but are not necessitate salvation. However, they do have spiritual ramifications just as there were spiritual ramifications for them being the harbingers of the law and there are spiritual ramifications to being born into a Christian family or living next door to a biblically sound Christian church..

What are the spiritual ramifications you speak of for the Jew?

Wannabee,

The issue I struggle with in your position is the land promises to the "Jews". The problem is that all who are true sons of Abraham are those who are in Christ and that is without ethnic distinction.

You still hold to the land promises to those of a certain ethnic distinction but the Scriptures deny this. If they land promises are too Abraham's Seed then they are to Christ. If that is the case the Church would be the beneficiaries not an ethnic group.

 

[Wannabee]

I tried to make a distinction earlier between Jew and Israelite. It might not be accurate, but I don't use the term "Jew" in these discussions because I perceive it as focusing more on their religion than ethnicity. The term "Israel" focuses on a people group, however. Those who are saved are of the church, regardless of their ethnicity, social status, gender, earthly influence, etc. But God still made the Israelites for a reason and made promises for a reason. I really don't know what all of those reasons are.
As for the land promises to Abraham, they were reiterated to Isaac and Jacob, not to Ishmael and Esau. And they were referred to by Moses and Joshua, among others. Perhaps it would help to know that I see the spiritual aspects of the Abrahamic covenant realized in the church and the physical/land aspects yet to be fully fulfilled in Israel. All it takes is a reading of Judges 1 to see that they did not possess the land that God gave them. And "forever" has some pretty serious implications...
As for the spiritual ramifications, Don, I really couldn't tell you. Obviously the law is fulfilled in Christ, so that wouldn't be it. And I don't see them necessarily separate from the church, but I really don't know if all of them will be saved. There is too much that is unknown for me to nail it down that tight. Furthermore, I don't know that I've studied it enough to offer much more than that anyway. Good questions though.

 

[DonP]

Romans,
I'll not go into depth here, but, simply put, I do not see how anyone can say that Paul is talking about the church when he refers to Israel here. For instance, in 9:4 he refers to his countrymen, "to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises.." This is not ambiguous. In the following verses the children of promise are clearly those who God chose, Isaac and Jacob, rather than the heirs according to the flesh, Ishmael and Esau. In other words, the church is not presented here. One of God's promises to Israel is that they would possess the land "forever" (Ex 32:13). Forever isn't over yet.

Maybe I misunderstood you but it sounded to me like you said here that,

The children of Promise, God chose, Issac and Jacob, are not the church

Maybe that is not what you meant.

I would suggest it may help if you consider the possibility that Paul goes back and forth in how he is using the term Jew and Israel. He does not use either term the same way all the time.

As in Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; NKJV

So care must be used to see when he says Jew as ethnic, and when he means it as children of promise, elect.
The same is true of Israel.
And the only way all Israel shall be saved, is that the elect are graft in and we are spiritual Israel.

The visible and invisible aspect of the covenant mu st be seen. God calls them My People and yet they were not all His people spiritually.
Just as to day we call all, members of the church or brother but not all are converted.

So we all must use care to watch for his changes in terminology.

And as for Mac Arthur, lets admit, he is not standard dispensational.

The normative standard dispesationals write against Mac Arthur and even say he is not a dispensational.
He has had to defend himself and try to claim he is dispensational.

So what it seems you hold and he hold are variants of dispensationalism and not traditional 20th century dispensationalism.

Not saying this is bad. A lot of more honest exegetes have had to find new territory over the decades.

I am at least glad that you say you don't know the meaning of, So all Israel shall be saved.
I encourage you to see this a breakdown in your hermeneutic.

This is not a complex passage and can have only one meaning. The elect.

There is a physical sense of Israel, there is the typological, and there is the fulfillment, the spiritual Israel is the fulfillment of the promise to the children of Israel, but this promise was really only to the elect who are the spiritual Israel and the church true believers who are converted are also heir of abraham and the promises.
We are Israel in the elect spiritual meaning of it.

Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise . NKJV
This is Israel, the real eternal Israel that lasts forever.

The promises that last forever are the spiritual ones. Not the physical which ended with the end of the nation and the coming of the fulfillment. God was done with Jews and Greeks at that time. We are just people, sinners who need to be saved.

The fact some part mixbreed Jews came to fight for some Palestinian land has no significance whatsoever in the Plan of Redemption.
Those people in Israel are denying God, doing false worship and going to hell.
Only a converted Jew, in the church, would be doing good over there.

Have you ever considered that while Dispensationalists call the Jews good, and support them to take the land, they are supporting evil and calling evil good, while supporting the jews to kill our Christian brothers?
A significant amount of Palestinians are Catholic or Orthodox and a small group of other Christians.
Yet Dispensationalists support the Unbelieving Jew to kill off the brothers in Christ.

Any hermeneutic that gets to this needs serious re-evaluation.

Spurgeon may have recanted to see this.

 

[Wannabee]

You are seriously quick on the draw, Don.

I see how this is confusing. I think I'm saying it clearly, but there are overlaps in terminology that lends to some difficulty.

As for Paul's terminology, yes, he goes back and forth. That's why I attempted to make the distinction in how I said it. Perhaps I didn't communicate well.

Okay, so the only way that all Israel is to be saved is to be grafted in. That's what Paul says. And my understanding in no way precludes that. But I see it as an eschatological fulfillment related to the millennium.

Don, I was honest about not really understanding the full implication of "all Israel will be saved." But that doesn't necessitate a breakdown in my hermeneutic. It does signify some ignorance on my part. We all have gaps in understanding. And, in regard to eschatology, this is even more so. That doesn't point to a breakdown in hermeneutics. It points to the awesomeness of God and the limits of man. Since my understanding of this statement is eschatological in nature, I really cannot understand it fully. You see it as realized, so think you have the more consistent hermeneutic. But, as I showed earlier, this whole passage in Romans reveals over and over that Paul is not talking about the church when He says Israel. In fact, he contrasts Israel with the elect. This has not be adequately dealt with by covenantalists.

As for your final statements, they have no bearing on my understanding. As I've stated numerous times in this thread, I really see no necessary significance of what passes for Israel in the world today. The video Gil referenced earlier offers MacArthur's clarification as well. It's not "the hermeneutic" that gets this nonsense. Fallible men mishandling Scripture do, just as fallible paedobaptists murdered their anabaptist brethren many years ago. Yes, we are just people, sinners who need to be saved.

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 04:54:42 EST-----

Spurgeon distanced himself from the dispensationalism of his day and really seems to have been covenantal. He was, however, premil and did see a future for ethnic Israel.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Don, I was honest about not really understanding the full implication of "all Israel will be saved." But that doesn't necessitate a breakdown in my hermeneutic. It does signify some ignorance on my part. We all have gaps in understanding. And, in regard to eschatology, this is even more so. That doesn't point to a breakdown in hermeneutics. It points to the awesomeness of God and the limits of man. Since my understanding of this statement is eschatological in nature, I really cannot understand it fully. You see it as realized, so think you have the more consistent hermeneutic. But, as I showed earlier, this whole passage in Romans reveals over and over that Paul is not talking about the church when He says Israel. In fact, he contrasts Israel with the elect. This has not be adequately dealt with by covenantalists.

I've tried to deal with it in my last couple posts, but apparently my voice is not "loud" enough in the shouting match.

Read Ridderbos's, Paul; An Outline of His Theology, ch. 8 (especially section 58 on the Future of Israel), for a good covenantal explanation, especially of Romans 9-11.

Robertson is also good, but slightly different in his conclusion.

With that, I'll bow out.

 

[Scott1]

Here is Dr. MacArthur in his own words describing his "leaky" dispensationalism.

To be fair and take him in context his substantial defense of dispensationalism is included. Portions relating to the parts where he diverges are highlighted (the "leaks).

While well stated, Dr. MacArthur can easily be challenged on his theological basis for supporting the main part of dispensationalism that he does support.

The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-16, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.

...

Question

What is dispensationalism? And what is your position, from Scripture, on the subject?

Answer

I will try to condense this because I don't want to get too bogged down. Dispensationalism is a system. It is a system that got, sort of, out of control. I think it started out with a right understanding. The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of dispensationalism was:

"That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews)."

Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that's all I want to take of it, that's where I am on that), dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.

I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren't in Scripture. For example, traditionally, dispensationalism says, "The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don't need to worry about it." When I went through the Sermon on the Mount in writing my commentary, as well, I pointed out how foolish that is.

So let me tell you, I have been accused through the years of being a "leaky dispensationalist" and I suppose I am. So let me take you down to where I believe dispensationalism (I don't use that term because it carries too much baggage), but let me take you down to what part of dispensationalism I affirm with all my heart--it is this: "That there is a real future for Israel," and that has nothing to do with some kind of extrabiblical system. That has nothing to do with some developed sort of grid placed over Scripture. The reason that I believe you have to have a future for Israel is because that is what God promised. And you see it in Jeremiah, in Jeremiah, chapter 30, right on to the 33rd chapter, there is a future for Israel--there is a new covenant. Ezekiel, chapter 37, the Valley of Dry Bones is going to come alive--right? God's going to raise them back up; God's going to put a heart of flesh in and take the stony heart out and give them His Spirit. And you have the promise of a kingdom to Israel; you have the promise of a king; a David's line; a Messiah; a throne in Jerusalem. You have the promise that there is going to be a real kingdom.

So my dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament--it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on them. The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an "amillennialist," or a "Covenant Theologian" that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel--an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.

My answer to them is simply this, "You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church--show me!" Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says "Israel" He means the "Church"? Where does it say that? That's where the burden of proof really lies. A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel. One way to understand that is to ask yourself a question. In the Old Testament . . . and if you wanted to get sort of a general sense of what the Old Testament is about, it's simply about this--it reveals God and His Law, and it tells what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and what's going to happen to you if you don't--and then it gives you a whole lot of illustrations of that--right? It reveals God and His Law and it tells you what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and if you don't--blessings and cursing.

Now, when Israel sinned, disobeyed God--what happened? Judgment, chastening, cursing, slaughter--was it literal? Yes. Was it Israel? Yes. So if Israel received all of the promised curses--literally--why would we assumed they would not receive the promised blessings literally, because some of those are in the same passages? And how can you say in this passage the cursing means literal Israel, but the blessings means the Church? There is no exegetical basis for that and you now have arbitrarily split the verse in half--you've given all the curses to Israel and all the blessing to the Church--on what basis exegetically?

I remember when I was in Jerusalem one time and we were in the convention center, right near the Knesset in Jerusalem, and I was there with Dr. Charles Feinberg, who was the keynote speaker, and David Ben-Gurion was there, who was the Premier of the Land of Israel at that time, and Teddy Kalik (sp.) who was the mayor of Jerusalem. We were sitting on the platform and an amillennialist had come to speak, it was the Jerusalem conference on prophecy, it was a tremendous event, and it was an amillennialist who got up to speak and he made the great announcement to David Ben-Gurion and to some of the Knesset members, and the mayor of Jerusalem, and all these Jewish dignitaries as well as the three thousand people that were there, that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament were being fulfilled in the Church. Now it is one thing to say that, but you don't need to take a trip to Jerusalem to say that. There would be no kingdom . . . he preached on Isaiah 9:6, "The government will be upon His shoulders" (9:6ff), and he said that means the government of your life, and he's talking about personal conversion here and so on and so forth. Well, I remember when that message was done, and I sat through it with Dr. Feinberg--Dr. Feinberg was, to put it mildly, "upset." And his opening line, because he gave the next address, was, "So we have come all the way to Jerusalem to tell you that you get all the curses but the Gentile Church gets all the blessings." And then he launched into a message about the promises of God.

If you take a literal approach to Scripture, then you cannot conclude anything other than that God has a future for Israel. What that means is that the Church is distinct from Israel, and when God is through with the Church, and takes the church to glory then He brings that time of Jacob's distress, that we read about earlier, purges, redeems Israel, and the kingdom comes.

I don't want to say any more than that about dispensationalism. I don't believe there are two different kinds of salvation. I don't believe there are two different covenants. I don't believe there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I don't believe the Sermon of the Mount is for some future age. I don't believe that you can hack up New Testament books--some for the Jews and some for the Church. I think that the only thing the Bible really holds up in that kind of system is that there is a future for Israel, and that's an exegetical issue.

It is probably more than you wanted to know, but it is very, very important, because it preserves the literal interpretation of Scripture. Listen folks, once you're not literal, then who's to say? Right? I mean, then why not just say, "Well, Israel really means 'left-handed Texans'--if it's not exegetical--if it's not in the text, it could mean 'Canadians'" How can you say, if you can't say what's literally there?

 

[Grillsy]

"I remember when I was in Jerusalem one time and we were in the convention center, right near the Knesset in Jerusalem, and I was there with Dr. Charles Feinberg, who was the keynote speaker, and David Ben-Gurion was there, who was the Premier of the Land of Israel at that time, and Teddy Kalik (sp.) who was the mayor of Jerusalem. We were sitting on the platform and an amillennialist had come to speak, it was the Jerusalem conference on prophecy, it was a tremendous event, and it was an amillennialist who got up to speak and he made the great announcement to David Ben-Gurion and to some of the Knesset members, and the mayor of Jerusalem, and all these Jewish dignitaries as well as the three thousand people that were there, that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament were being fulfilled in the Church. Now it is one thing to say that, but you don't need to take a trip to Jerusalem to say that. There would be no kingdom . . . he preached on Isaiah 9:6, "The government will be upon His shoulders" (9:6ff), and he said that means the government of your life, and he's talking about personal conversion here and so on and so forth. Well, I remember when that message was done, and I sat through it with Dr. Feinberg--Dr. Feinberg was, to put it mildly, "upset." And his opening line, because he gave the next address, was, "So we have come all the way to Jerusalem to tell you that you get all the curses but the Gentile Church gets all the blessings." And then he launched into a message about the promises of God.

If you take a literal approach to Scripture, then you cannot conclude anything other than that God has a future for Israel. What that means is that the Church is distinct from Israel, and when God is through with the Church, and takes the church to glory then He brings that time of Jacob's distress, that we read about earlier, purges, redeems Israel, and the kingdom comes."

Says Macarthur in the above post.
____

Apparently Dr. Feinberg thinks that are two different churches with two different promises as does Macarthur.
So the message I take from Johnny Mac's conclusion "don't try to stand up for what you believe in front of a crowd the disagrees with you, because you will upset them".

He really didn't prove anything with the above story. Really went for the emotions that was about it.

We see MacArthur articulating a division among God's chosen with regards to the promises. Even though he says he believes the opposite.

 

[DonP]

Acts 28:20 For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain." NKJV

Was Paul in chains for the unregenerate or the elect? He says he is the apostle to the Gentiles, how then is he in chains for the hope of Israel if Israel is not also used to mean elect at times?

Rom 11:2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. NKJV
Now he is referring to Israel here. But he says God has not cast them off, How so, they can be converted and therefore be part of the promises to Israel.

1 Cor 10:18 Observe Israel after the flesh: NKJV
In distinction to what other Israel? If it only refers to those of the flesh there is no need to say this. Only to make the distinction between Israel after the promise or the elect.

Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. NKJV

Peace upon the unregenerate false worshipers??? No the Israel of God is the elect here also.

Heb 8:8 Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." NKJV

Now is this not The new covenant, the church? He made the covenant with the House of Israel and Judah. Those of promise. The spiritual aspect of Israel .

Am I missing something here?

Its not that your hermeneutic is so much flawed as it is your presuppositions are. With your hermeneutic, you can see this clearly is what scripture says.
Just have to be willing to consider it as possible.

Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks Don,

Possible, yes. I will not be crestfallen if I one day find out that I'm wrong. But I disagree with your conclusions. And neither of us is going to persuade the other by throwing verses at one another. Furthermore, because of the overwhelming odds of trying to defend such a position on a board such as this one, I'm just not up to it. In the end, you're just as settled in your presups as I am. We all bring them to the table and perceive God's Word through our preconceived grid. I'm okay with that and hope that some greater understanding has been garnered for our efforts here.

For now, I'm preaching on the armor of God. It reminds me of the incredible wonders of God that we do agree on. And they're overwhelmingly more vast in number than our disagreements.

Blessings,

 

[Peairtach]

But the Q is, does Romans 11 teach a future national conversion of the Jews?

The question is much bigger than that. Does the NT anywhere teach a national conversion of ethnic Jews? I would challenge you to prove that first before you try to interpret Romans 11 that way. Whenever the OT promises are spoken of in the NT, it's always in reference to their fulfillment in the Church (Jewish and Gentile believers) as the true children of Abraham and heirs of the same promise. In Galatians 3, Paul makes it clear that was the intention from the get-go, that God intended to bring the promises to the Gentiles. In Hebrews 11, we see how the OT saints themselves interpreted the promises, not in terms of land and ethnicity but in terms of a better resurrection and a city whose builder and maker is God. Indeed, if Romans 11 is teaching a national conversion of Jews, then it is the only place in the NT teaching such.

What you seem to be missing, and I tried to point it out to you in my last post, is that Paul is providing a theological justification for evangelizing the Jews, even though they are so hostile to the gospel. Paul's concern is for the remnant according to the election of grace, not the nation. He includes himself in that remnant. And what he describes in Romans 11 is the evangelization process, through which the remnant will be gathered and re-engrafted to during the "time of the Gentiles." The "And so" in vs 26 means "and in this manner" all ethnic Israel will be saved, not "afterward all Israel will be saved." By interpreting this as some future national conversion, you are ripping this passage out of the first century context.

Why is it that Paul always went to the Jews first, then the Gentiles? We see his theology of evangelism here in Romans 9-11, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. He was provoking that remnant to jealousy, Rom 11:14, "in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them." By bringing the gospel to the Gentiles he was provoking the remnant to envy and believe now. Rom 11:31 "so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you." The hardness upon the Jews was only partial, the remnant will still believe as they are provoked to jealousy. It's through that process that the remnant of Israel (the true Israel) is saved.

Paul's concern is evangelism now, during the time of the Gentiles, not some end-times conversion.

Good post. I'll check out Robertson.

What about Matthew 23:39?

 

[DonP]

Thanks Don,

Possible, yes. I will not be crestfallen if I one day find out that I'm wrong. But I disagree with your conclusions. And neither of us is going to persuade the other by throwing verses at one another. Furthermore, because of the overwhelming odds of trying to defend such a position on a board such as this one, I'm just not up to it. In the end, you're just as settled in your presups as I am. We all bring them to the table and perceive God's Word through our preconceived grid. I'm okay with that and hope that some greater understanding has been garnered for our efforts here.

For now, I'm preaching on the armor of God. It reminds me of the incredible wonders of God that we do agree on. And they're overwhelmingly more vast in number than our disagreements.

Blessings,

I think we can and others have changed their positions by what they have been exposed to.

As for me remember I was raised on dispensational teaching and so I would say I am and others are not unwilling to drop our grid and look at the scriptures from other perspectives to see if we are wrong.
I did have to do this while I was at Mac Arthurs church, my dad a deacon.
I used to try to convince John of election and he wouldn't hear of it. He was a 1/2 point Calvinist like many Evangelicals who might think of themselves as Calvinist because they not want to be Arminian. But they are Arminian. To say I am a 1/2 point Calvinist, Eternal Security, is not a Calvinist. I would think one would need to be at least 3 point Calvinist to be more Calvinistic than Arminian.
Anyway eventually others in his church who got the 5 points, including my father, thank God, helped John to see them too.

But I had to be willing to drop my grid and be open to having been very wrong, leaving an Asst. pastorate position I was to take at another Grace Baptist church.

So no. We do not all bring and only see the scriptures through our grid.

Maybe this is something a man cannot do on his own and takes a work of God, I am willing to admit, but it can happen.

Thanks for the interaction. And now I understand your beliefs so I understand why our differences are there which I didn't when we started this thread.
We all are daily in need of His grace as we study and serve Him and seek to advance the kingdom. May God have mercy on us all and Come Quickly.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

But the Q is, does Romans 11 teach a future national conversion of the Jews?

The question is much bigger than that. Does the NT anywhere teach a national conversion of ethnic Jews? I would challenge you to prove that first before you try to interpret Romans 11 that way. Whenever the OT promises are spoken of in the NT, it's always in reference to their fulfillment in the Church (Jewish and Gentile believers) as the true children of Abraham and heirs of the same promise. In Galatians 3, Paul makes it clear that was the intention from the get-go, that God intended to bring the promises to the Gentiles. In Hebrews 11, we see how the OT saints themselves interpreted the promises, not in terms of land and ethnicity but in terms of a better resurrection and a city whose builder and maker is God. Indeed, if Romans 11 is teaching a national conversion of Jews, then it is the only place in the NT teaching such.

What you seem to be missing, and I tried to point it out to you in my last post, is that Paul is providing a theological justification for evangelizing the Jews, even though they are so hostile to the gospel. Paul's concern is for the remnant according to the election of grace, not the nation. He includes himself in that remnant. And what he describes in Romans 11 is the evangelization process, through which the remnant will be gathered and re-engrafted to during the "time of the Gentiles." The "And so" in vs 26 means "and in this manner" all ethnic Israel will be saved, not "afterward all Israel will be saved." By interpreting this as some future national conversion, you are ripping this passage out of the first century context.

Why is it that Paul always went to the Jews first, then the Gentiles? We see his theology of evangelism here in Romans 9-11, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. He was provoking that remnant to jealousy, Rom 11:14, "in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them." By bringing the gospel to the Gentiles he was provoking the remnant to envy and believe now. Rom 11:31 "so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you." The hardness upon the Jews was only partial, the remnant will still believe as they are provoked to jealousy. It's through that process that the remnant of Israel (the true Israel) is saved.

Paul's concern is evangelism now, during the time of the Gentiles, not some end-times conversion.

Good post. I'll check out Robertson.

What about Matthew 23:39?

That as well refers to the remnant. Their house was left desolate. They're no longer the chosen nation. Only those who believe will say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Only the Remnant recognize the Messiah. Again, look at the rest of the NT. Look at Philippians 3. Paul says "we are the circumcision" refering to those in Christ and he throws out his Jewish credentials, even calling those who still practiced circumcision "dogs" and "mutilators of the flesh". If "we" are the circumcision, then the Jews no longer are. In Gal 3, he says that the promise to Abraham was pointing to the gathering of the Gentiles, not national Israel. We who believe are heirs of all the promises. That's how the OT saints interpret the promises too in Hebrews 11. Peter says that we, the Church, are the chosen people. You can't interpret Roman 11 to say the opposite of all these other Scriptures.

And when you analyze the grammar of the passage, especially in Greek, (which both Robertson and Ridderbos do) it simply doesn't hold up. Paul's concern in the chapter is present ministry (notice the "nows" and "at this time"). The Jews are so hardened (note the end of Chapter 10) so should we just give up on them? Paul says no, and chapter 11 is the answer. Yes they are hardened, but only partially. There is a remnant that will be gathered in as they are provoked to jealousy by the conversion of the Gentiles, a fulfillment of Moses' own prophecy (Rom 10:19). That how "all" ethnic Israel, the true Israel (Rom 9:6), will be saved during the time of the Gentiles. The "and so" in vs. 26 is not a temporal marker but explaining the outcome of the process previously discussed, meaning "in this manner". That's how it works in Greek.

 

[MW]

I don't think the fact that Rom. 11 might be the ony NT passage teaching the conversion of the Jews can be a barrier to accepting this teaching. 1 Cor. 15, death is the final enemy to be destroyed, and Christ delivering up the consummated kingdom to the Father, are not really explicated elsewhere. Besides, Rom. 9-11 deals with God's promises to Israel in the OT, so it only requires one interpretative statement to place the OT eschatology in NT perspective.

I have always found John Murray's exegesis quite persuasive. The apostle speaks of a cutting off and an ingrafting, a hardening and restoring. At the time of the apostle there were Jews being saved; it was only the mass of the Jews who were hardened. Clearly, then, the apostle did not envisage merely a few Jews here and there being converted down through the ages, but spoke of the ingrafting and restoring of the mass. What that eventually entails is a mystery, but nevertheless it is a general concept which should be hoped for by the church.

 

[Grillsy]

I don't think the fact that Rom. 11 might be the ony NT passage teaching the conversion of the Jews can be a barrier to accepting this teaching. 1 Cor. 15, death is the final enemy to be destroyed, and Christ delivering up the consummated kingdom to the Father, are not really explicated elsewhere. Besides, Rom. 9-11 deals with God's promises to Israel in the OT, so it only requires one interpretative statement to place the OT eschatology in NT perspective.

I have always found John Murray's exegesis quite persuasive. The apostle speaks of a cutting off and an ingrafting, a hardening and restoring. At the time of the apostle there were Jews being saved; it was only the mass of the Jews who were hardened. Clearly, then, the apostle did not envisage merely a few Jews here and there being converted down through the ages, but spoke of the ingrafting and restoring of the mass. What that eventually entails is a mystery, but nevertheless it is a general concept which should be hoped for by the church.

But you would mean, obviously, the mass of elect Jews. Again this would not entail a mass conversion of the Jews at one time in the future. My reasoning would be because if you want to interpret it the way that wrote above then it would apply to only the Jews broken off in Paul's time and then they would be restored before they died. I don't see a large, future conversion of Jews in Romans 9-11. If it is a mass of Jews, and it very well could be, it seems that the said mass would be acquired over time via God's election.

 

[Turtle]

not yet, or now

As I understand it, dispensationalism says the "real kingdom" is not now...

Covenant theology says the kingdom of God really came with Christ's first advent...

Hi Scott, enjoy reading your posts. I especially liked your concise DT and CT definitions. Wouldn’t it be easier if the kingdom was the only distinctive point to defend? CT and DT seem to possess extra points depending on who defines them, making it a challenge to “prove” one system or the other. It might seem even more daunting that some who generally accept the label of DT or CT don’t even hold to the respective kingdom view normally associated with DT or CT.

But should we be surprised? DT and CT are really just propositions. They are conclusive in nature, summaries. They are effectively “secondary sources” and secondary sources are inadequate to prove themselves or disprove another secondary source. Just as with differing hermenuetics, if the point of departure begins with a secondary source, we cant’ be surprised when folks end up concluding the discussion with the same disagreement they started with. Even verses (“primary sources”) sometimes seem inadequate to convince folks of DT or CT, which isn’t a surprise either since niether system rests on just a couple verses.

I do like the focus your definitions provided (the kingdom now vs. not now). Certainly from a systematic approach the kingdom question raises many more passionate thoughts about associated implications, such as who it is for. But it seems it sometimes devolves into attempts (or assumptions that there was an attempt) to prove an entire system of theology rather than just consider a focused question of the text.

How about a couple verses that speak to just the “kingdom now, or not yet” question? No attempt to prove either DT or CT.

In the beginning of Acts, Jesus appeared to his disciples for forty days, “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God”. Right before He ascended they asked Him if He would at that time restore the kingdom. He told them it was not for them to know the times but it was instead for them to be witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth. If their question indicated they misunderstood the teaching they had received about the kingdom (ie. It seems they thought that the kingdom was not yet), was it a misunderstanding that could be allowed to persist, and even be propogated by their witness, far and wide? If we were to teach a group of folks and send them out as witnesses to spread the teaching, the Larger Catechism seems to explain our duty in the ninth commandment would require us to clarify misunderstandings in order to preserve and promote truth, as well as preserve the good name of our neighbor .

In the same vein (asking is the kingdom now or not yet), in Act 4 the desciples are threatened for speaking out. They pray for the Lord to grant that they would speak the word with boldness (in order to be the witnesses they were told they would be immediately before Christ ascended). An additional basis of their request to God was Psalm 2. In effect, “See now, the kings and rulers are doing what was told by the mouth of David”. The kings, rulers, etc. all gathered against the Lord and His Christ. “Help us to be bold witnesses”. Psalm 2 also mentions that Christ will break the kings and rulers with a rod of iron and dash them like a potters vessel. If it were the case that the kings and rulers were then being dashed it seems inconsistant that the desciples would have needed intervention to have boldness. I think it fair to consider, were the desciples asking for boldness to tell the kings that they were being dashed, or that they would be dashed if they didn’t become wise and fear the Lord?

The above verses don’t prove DT or CT but I think they are close enough to speak to the focused question of the kindom “now or not yet”. Many more of course should be considered, and if they seem to be at odds then I suppose a resolution might be discoverable, or not... till much later.

Bryan
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[DonP]

I have always found John Murray's exegesis quite persuasive. The apostle speaks of a cutting off and an ingrafting, a hardening and restoring. At the time of the apostle there were Jews being saved; it was only the mass of the Jews who were hardened. Clearly, then, the apostle did not envisage merely a few Jews here and there being converted down through the ages, but spoke of the ingrafting and restoring of the mass. What that eventually entails is a mystery, but nevertheless it is a general concept which should be hoped for by the church.

How does the mass of Jews living at that time, and now dead, imply a mass of Jews at some later time?

Can you show me, "mass of Jews" in the scripture?

 

[MW]

But you would mean, obviously, the mass of elect Jews.

No, I mean an election of the mass, that is, the Jews as a people are not cast off by God, but there is a purpose of election which envisages their restoration at a future period in accord with the covenant promise of God.

 

[MW]

How does the mass of Jews living at that time, and now dead, imply a mass of Jews at some later time?

Can you show me, "mass of Jews" in the scripture?

The passage in Rom. 11 is concerned to explain God's purpose for Israel as a "people," verse 1. The idea of "mass" comes from that corporate context. In dealing with this corporate purpose the apostle explicitly states that the "remnant" were being saved according to the election of grace at that present time, verse 5. He explained that this remnant salvation was owing to blindness which had come in part on the nation, 7-10; but this blindness was only temporary, verses 11, 12. While at the present time there is casting away and a cutting off of the people, in the future it is expected there will be a receiving and ingrafting of them, verses 15-32, and this because God has not cast them off from being His people but continues to own and acknowledge them on account of the promises made to the fathers.

 

[kceaster]

Kevin, you seem to place an emphasis where it is not necessary. Premillennialism sees the church ultimately united after the millennium. Both CT and DT see OT saints taken to heaven before Pentecost. Could that not also be viewed as diving God's people in the same way? Again, perspective seems to be forced on a position instead of stepping back and really understanding what the other party is saying. Like I said earlier, Spurgeon was premil, as was Ryle and others. Do you think they "divided the people of God"?

I guess I must be post-millenial or amillennial...

I do not see a rapture, either secret or otherwise. I do not see the saints being taken out of the world for a tribulation, since saints go through tribulation as it is now. So to my thinking there is a separation between the peoples of God. There would necessarily be a separation in the parousia of Christ, "For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord."

This sounds necessarily to me that this is the final chapter of the history of redemption. There is nothing after this. There is no history, or anyone left on the earth. He actually says until the coming of the Lord. This is the Day of the Lord.

So to take others out of the world in a secret rapture, that leaves no one on earth to preach the gospel, does it not? God is free to use means or not use them, so I suppose He could save others after the rapture without the succession of the keys of the kingdom, and those to preach the gospel. But I would think that contradicts Scripture. There are too many hoops to jump through in order to connect the dots. I just can't see it.

I rather believe that God will continue the world until the end of days, Christ will return, just as Paul writes above; and the judgment will come, Christ will receive His reward, and we shall receive ours. But there is no reason to think that there are two separate ingatherings, one for the saints before the millennium and one for the saints (Israel or otherwise) after. It doesn't jive with what Paul is saying here.

In Christ,

KC

 

[DonP]

How does the mass of Jews living at that time, and now dead, imply a mass of Jews at some later time?

Can you show me, "mass of Jews" in the scripture?

The passage in Rom. 11 is concerned to explain God's purpose for Israel as a "people," verse 1. The idea of "mass" comes from that corporate context. In dealing with this corporate purpose the apostle explicitly states that the "remnant" were being saved according to the election of grace at that present time, verse 5. He explained that this remnant salvation was owing to blindness which had come in part on the nation, 7-10; but this blindness was only temporary, verses 11, 12. While at the present time there is casting away and a cutting off of the people, in the future it is expected there will be a receiving and ingrafting of them, verses 15-32, and this because God has not cast them off from being His people but continues to own and acknowledge them on account of the promises made to the fathers.

According to Paul, the only evidence God has not cast off the Jews is that some are currently being converted.
Those are the only ones not cast off.

In fact the whole point was to prove that God is faithful to His promises because his promises were never made to their fathers. That it was only to the faithful Jew not just any Jew of the flesh.

The promise was spiritual, they thought it was earthly, ethnic.

This is the consistent teaching from Jesus through the apostles.

The blindness has happened so that the gospel is spread to the Gentiles.

I have heard the word "until" is not absolutely to be understood in the way we now think of it.
Rather it is really:
Looking back when the blindness first came on the Jews, it would remain on them "until" the time came when the Gentiles would be gathered, and though there has always been a few Gentiles coming in, the blindness is until the time when the fullness of Gentiles comes, which is now when large numbers of Gentiles come in.
The Jews had it for a a couple thousand years and now the Gentiles have had it for 2000.

Even if you understood it in the simpler sense of until the fullness. I do not see that there is anything after that.

ie. blindness until all the Gentiles come in then we are done.

Would you at least say that the texts are not specific about this latter mass conversion of some mixbreed Jews some where in the world, and you just choose to believe this

idea of "mass" comes from that corporate context

There is no statement that there is anything after, until.
They will be blind until the last gentile and last person is saved.
They will be blind the whole time until the end.

At least these are all valid understandings and something after the fullness of Jews is only speculation?
Thanks

 

[Wannabee]

Dear Kevin,

I have not argued for a seven year tribulation period. I hold that aspect of eschatology very loosely. I see it as a mere possibility. But, since I take the 144,000 literally just as I do the 1000 years, I see more to the equation in this regard than you do.

Blessings,