Questions re: Kingdom and Israel and Dispensationalism

[ReformedWretch]

Ok guys, bear with me! I have been a believer of dispensational thought my entire life! I am now 34 and just starting to realize a few things. I have a love for Israel because it has been taught to me. Keep all of this in mind as I ask questions NOT to debate but to try and learn.

1) I never, ever was taught that Christ came to set up an earthly Kingdom and the Jews blew it when they had Him crucified. Why do I keep reading this is a "common" belief amongst dispensationalists? None I know believe that.

2) When is the time of the Gentiles fuffilled? And how does that not point to two seperate "dealings"? (I have yet to find a good answer for this)

3) Why are we comanded to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem"? It seems to me that God still has a love for National Israel? And do you all not see the hand of God in the many wars they have had? Just wondering about that.

4) When Christ returns, He is going to return to National Israel is He not? The mount of Olives? Does this not make it seem that Israel is important to Him?

I suppose I am just confused. It seems that covenant theology teaches a place for the Jews, and that the "Chruch age" (time of the gentiles) will end at some point. I am just very confused as to how this is not similar to at least some dispensational thought?

Remember, I am just trying to understand!

[color=green:48fa533dee]{title edited for clarity - fredtgreco}[/color:48fa533dee]

 

[blhowes]

[b:6ba7e6d586]Adam wrote:[/b:6ba7e6d586]
I have a love for Israel because it has been taught to me.

If as you study the scriptures your beliefs about dispensationalism change, I hope this doesn't change.

[b:6ba7e6d586]Adam wrote:[/b:6ba7e6d586]
1) I never, ever was taught that Christ came to set up an earthly Kingdom and the Jews blew it when they had Him crucified. Why do I keep reading this is a "common" belief amongst dispensationalists? None I know believe that.

Just as you are new to this "common" belief, I'm new to the kind of dispensational teachings that you've been taught. I've always been taught I guess what's referred to as classic dispensationalism. I'm interested in learning what you've been taught. I'm particularly interested in what you've been taught about the kingdom. Please bear with me since I don't have much of an idea what's being taught now in churches that don't follow classic dispensationalism.

I would imagine that our two systems would agree that there is a distinction made between the kingdom blessings spoken of in the old testament and the church. The church is not seen in the old testament, so given the literal hermeneutic, the kingdom blessings spoken of in the OT must be fulfilled in the future in a literal kingdom.

When John and Jesus started their ministries, they both said:

Mat 3:1,2 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for [b:6ba7e6d586]the kingdom of heaven is at hand.[/b:6ba7e6d586]

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for [b:6ba7e6d586]the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [/b:6ba7e6d586]

From what you've been taught, which kingdom are they talking about here? Is it the literal kingdom spoken of in the old testament, which will be fulfilled during his 1000 year reign? Or was it the spiritual kingdom that believers are translated into after they've repented and put their faith in Jesus? Which kingdom was at hand?

Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

[b:6ba7e6d586]Adam wrote:[/b:6ba7e6d586]
Keep all of this in mind as I ask questions NOT to debate but to try and learn.


Bob

[Edited on 6-20-2004 by blhowes]

 

[ReformedWretch]

[quote:60e07b0305]When John and Jesus started their ministries, they both said:

Mat 3:1,2 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

From what you've been taught, which kingdom are they talking about here? Is it the literal kingdom spoken of in the old testament, which will be fulfilled during his 1000 year reign? Or was it the spiritual kingdom that believers are translated into after they've repented and put their faith in Jesus? Which kingdom was at hand? [/quote:60e07b0305]

Both

Really, that's what I have come to understand. John meant "the sphere of God's dominion over those who belong to Him AND the eventual earthly Kingdom that is to come." I believe Jesus just backed up what John had been preaching.

 

[blhowes]

[b:2d67f2dbd5]Adam wrote:[/b:2d67f2dbd5]
Both
Really, that's what I have come to understand.

Were you also taught that the OT prophecies are to be understood the same way (having a literal (physical) and a spiritual fulfillment)?

Bob

 

[luvroftheWord]

Adam,

Since nobody else has taken the time to answer your questions, I'll take a stab at it.

[quote:eeeacf9666][i:eeeacf9666]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:eeeacf9666]
1) I never, ever was taught that Christ came to set up an earthly Kingdom and the Jews blew it when they had Him crucified. Why do I keep reading this is a "common" belief amongst dispensationalists? None I know believe that.[/quote:eeeacf9666]

You are very fortunate that you were not taught this. I was raised in the Dispensational Baptist tradition and I heard this view presented over and over again, particularly by my last pastor who enjoyed preaching on eschatology. I earned by B.A. from Liberty University and this view was predominant among the faculty and was taught in all the Bible and Theology courses (though there were a few professors who took exception). What has happened, I believe, is that modern day theologians have begun seeing how bankrupt Classical Dispensationalism really is, and many so called Dispensationalists have abandoned certain ideas that were once central to their theology. This idea of the kingdom may be one of those issues.

What is also unfortunate is that many present day Covenant Theologians spend a great deal of time critiquing Classical Dispensationalism, when in reality they should be spending time interacting with the more modern ideas. Ken Gentry, I believe, is one of the leading contemporary Covenant Theologians interacting with today's "progressive" Dispensationalists.

[quote:eeeacf9666]2) When is the time of the Gentiles fuffilled? And how does that not point to two seperate "dealings"? (I have yet to find a good answer for this)[/quote:eeeacf9666]

The time of the Gentiles is the current age in which we live. Paul says in Romans 11 that the Gentiles have been engrafted into the olive tree, and Israel has been cut off. But there is only one olive tree. There is not one olive tree for Israel and one for the Gentiles. There is one olive tree for both. God only has one plan for both Jews and Gentiles, not two plans for each respective group.

Furthermore, the inclusion of Gentiles is not something new to the NT, but this was foretold to Abraham himself when God established his covenant with him. "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed'." (Galatians 3:8) The inclusion of the Gentiles is not a seperate "dealing" from Israel, but this was part of God's promise during his original "dealing" with Abraham.

The time of the Gentiles extends to the end of all things at Christ's second coming. When Paul speaks of the "partial" hardening of Israel until the fullness of Gentiles come in (Romans 11:25), he is not saying that Israel is hardened temporarily, but then one day the hardening will be removed so that every last Israelite will be saved. The point is that the hardening is "partial", not because it is only temporary, but because Israel is not utterly hardened. Paul proves this by pointing to himself as being both a Jew and a believer in the gospel (Romans 11:2). Israel's partial hardening is that most of them are hardened, but there are a few that are not (like Paul). And this will be the case all the way until Christ returns, when the "already" and the "not yet" converge and all Israel is saved (i.e., all of the TRUE Israel, that being believers from both the Jews and the Gentiles).

[quote:eeeacf9666]3) Why are we comanded to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem"? It seems to me that God still has a love for National Israel? And do you all not see the hand of God in the many wars they have had? Just wondering about that.[/quote:eeeacf9666]

The only place I can think of where we are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem is in Psalm 122:6, which of course is during the OT kingdom when Jerusalem was the center of God's dealings with his covenant people. If this verse were to be found in the NT, I might understand why it would be significant.

But even still, the NT speaks of the church as Jerusalem.

Galatians 4:26--"But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."

Hebrews 12:22--"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem..."

[quote:eeeacf9666]4) When Christ returns, He is going to return to National Israel is He not? The mount of Olives? Does this not make it seem that Israel is important to Him?[/quote:eeeacf9666]

I'm not sure why it logically follows that national Israel is important to God since Christ will return on the Mount of Olives. If Jesus comes back in Orlando, Florida I'm not sure we could argue that it was because America is overly important to him more so than the other nations.

But on the other hand, maybe God does care a great deal about the land of Israel. But I'm not really sure why it would contradict anything I believe.

I hope this helps some. I'm sorry if anything I said is confusing.

 

[blhowes]

[b:3301c1d908]Craig wrote:[/b:3301c1d908]
You are very fortunate that you were not taught this. I was raised in the Dispensational Baptist tradition and I heard this view presented over and over again...

Ditto, ad nauseam.

[b:3301c1d908]Craig wrote:[/b:3301c1d908]
What has happened, I believe, is that modern day theologians have begun seeing how bankrupt Classical Dispensationalism really is, and many so called Dispensationalists have abandoned certain ideas that were once central to their theology. This idea of the kingdom may be one of those issues.

There's probably no way to tell, but I wonder what percentage of the churches now would consider themselves classical dispensationalists and what percentage would consider themselves to be progressive?

I found an interesting article that Tim Warner wrote called [u:3301c1d908]Progressive Dispensationalism 101 and 102.[/u:3301c1d908] In the article he contrasts classic dispensationalism with progressive dispensationalism. I must say that progressive dispensationalism is definitely (In my humble opinion) much more worthy of consideration than classic dispensationalism, by far.

[b:3301c1d908]Adam,[/b:3301c1d908]
If you get a chance to read Tim Warner's short articles, I'd be curious if what he presents is the same as what you've been taught?

Bob

 

[ReformedWretch]

[b:db848bec23]YES![/b:db848bec23]

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TAUGHT!

Also Craig (and anyone who wants to reply now) what do you think of this?

[quote:db848bec23]And do you all not see the hand of God in the many wars they have had? Just wondering about that.[/quote:db848bec23]

Thanks for answering Craig! I was wondering if anyone was ever going to! I appreciate it much!

[Edited on 6/20/2004 by houseparent]

 

[luvroftheWord]

Could you be a little more specific with your question? As in, are you referring to the Holocaust? Or the fact that in 1948 Israel became a nation again?

At any rate, however plausible we believe it is that these events are due to God having a special plan for ethnic Israel will depend upon the system of theology we use to examine these events. But we cannot base our convictions on these events, since they are not authoritative. Obviously, as a CT guy, I do not believe there is as much significance there as a Dispensational guy will. But it's only because my assumptions are different.

By the way, I sent you a U2U... did you get it?

[Edited on 6-20-2004 by luvroftheWord]

 

[blhowes]

[b:7ec6818781]Adam wrote:[/b:7ec6818781]
YES! THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TAUGHT!

Well, that's much more reasonable than what I was taught. You wouldn't believe all the time I spent trying to figure out why the pickiest little distinctions taught in classic dispensationalism were wrong. I guess that any time spent in the scriptures is time well spent, but...

[b:7ec6818781]Adam wrote:[/b:7ec6818781]
And do you all not see the hand of God in the many wars they have had? Just wondering about that.

I'm not real familiar with all their wars.

I do see God's hand of judgment in the Jewish wars of 70 AD.

I've heard some who claimed God's hand in the "7-day" war, but I heard that a while ago and can't remember the details. Apparently, they were the underdogs and were greatly outnumbered and won miraculously - are you familiar with the details?

Bob

 

[ReformedWretch]

[quote:044a0fc97b][i:044a0fc97b]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:044a0fc97b]
Could you be a little more specific with your question? As in, are you referring to the Holocaust? Or the fact that in 1948 Israel became a nation again?

At any rate, however plausible we believe it is that these events are due to God having a special plan for ethnic Israel will depend upon the system of theology we use to examine these events. But we cannot base our convictions on these events, since they are not authoritative. Obviously, as a CT guy, I do not believe there is as much significance there as a Dispensational guy will. But it's only because my assumptions are different.

By the way, I sent you a U2U... did you get it?

[Edited on 6-20-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:044a0fc97b]

I am pretty much talking about that 7-day war where it was OBVIOUS by all accounts and measure Israel should have lost. Just the fact that they remain a soverign Nation is somewhat of a miracle in my opinion.

And Yes, I just now saw the U2U and replied!

 

[cupotea]

Not at all, Israel's Arab opponents may have outnumbered her but they had significantly poorer armament and a divided command.

It has been said that the effectiveness of any military endeavor can be directly taken back to the victor's ability to "shoot, move and communicate". In this, Israel did far better than her Arab opponents, indeed far better than they ever could have given their divisions and inferior equipment.



[Edited on 6-21-2004 by Steadfast]

 

[tcalbrecht]

[quote:960d4d76b5][i:960d4d76b5]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:960d4d76b5]
I am pretty much talking about that 7-day war where it was OBVIOUS by all accounts and measure Israel should have lost. Just the fact that they remain a soverign Nation is somewhat of a miracle in my opinion.

[/quote:960d4d76b5]

You mean like raising the dead or making the blind see?

We know that God controls the affairs of men, and that nations rise and fall according to His good pleasure and purpose. Israel would not exist as a sovereign nation if it were not for His will. But then again neither would the USA, South Africa, or communist China.

The danger is in looking at events and seeing the hand of God as fulfilling a particular [b:960d4d76b5]revealed[/b:960d4d76b5] plan. It may seem like a "miracle" to you because you have been schooled in a theology that emphasizes end time events are presently being fulfilled.

The question is does the Six-Day War qualify as some revealed miracle from God. I do not think this idea can be supported. Israel as a nation could go away tomorrow.

 

[Ranger]

I was talking with a friend who just enrolled at DTS this past spring. In his preliminary systematic theology class, he was taught progressive dispensationalism. Since the only type of dispensationalism that he knew was classical (which is why he chose DTS), he was very disappointed to hear the professor talking about a current reign of Christ in heaven, and all of the talk about the unity of the covenants (2 BIG no-no's for classical dispensationalism). So, being frustrated, he confronted his professor. He challenged his professor arguing that since he had signed the DTS doctrinal statement that he should teach true dispensationalism. The professor said that he was teaching dispensationalism, but my friend argued this point. Eventually, the professor admitted that he believed that the main reason for calling their system progressive "dispensationalism" was so that the early founders of the system could continue teaching at DTS where they had become so well known. I found that funny.

Adam,
Just about eveyone I know that believes in classical dispensationalism (i.e. Chafer, Scofield, etc.) believes that an earthly kingdom was literally offered to the Jews, but rejected and that was the reason for Christ's woes. In Chafer's Systematic Theology IV.2 he states that the gospels live under and age of "the Mosaic Law under which Christ lived." Christ "anticipated the kingdom age in connection with the offer of Himself as Israel's King; and after being rejected [by the Jews] he announced his death and resurrection." Therefore, the offer of the kingdom was real to Chafer, and the church was only an afterthought, or fall back plan of God.

I fear this type of dispensationalism for many reasons, but one is that it so easily lends itself to open theism. God starts a dispensation, gives man a challenge, man fails, so God changes his mind and starts again. A reason this is fearful is that it could easily be said that in the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, man failed and God therefore sent Christ to fulfill the Law and begin a new dispensation, i.e. the church. In fact, most dispensationalists would agree with that. The scary thing is that you could also say (if you were an open theist dispensationalist, which is becoming very popular at DTS), that man has failed to have faith in this present dispensation, and that God has therefore changed his mind again and Christ's sacrifice is no longer valid. Of course, they wouldn't admit this, but when dispensationalism and open theism combine, this type of thinking is a real possibility.