Is It Finished?

At least a portion of your questions & answers is apples and oranges. However........

Jesus died for original sin and daily sins. He paid the price in full. Tetelestai! Therefore, He finished the work God sent Him to do. Nothing can be added to what Jesus did at the Cross.

During His ministry to the Jews He promised a Kingdom, available should they repent and accept their Messiah. They didn't repent. Therefore, His promise of a Kingdom for Israel will occur after the Tribulation, in what is known as "The Millenial Kingdom." He finished that work: offering a Kingdom then, then promising a Kingdom for later.

The tragedy is that only 1/3rd of the Jews living in Israel will survive the Tribulation by fleeing from the death and destruction going on around them. Nevertheless, the remnant shall receive His promise.

 

As a Baptist moving away from dispensationalism, I find the idea that the church is an interruption in God plan very distasteful.

One interesting thing I began noticing is how often the word "eklesia" (church) is used of Israel in the LXX. I am beginning to see more of a continuity between the OT and NT, which I assume is compatible with Covenant Theology.

The idea that Jesus was offering a literal physical kingdom to the Jews is also distasteful to me. If they had accepted the offer, there would have been no cross. We would all spend eternity in hell.

Jesus' offer of the kingdom was a spiritual kingdom. He said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Entrance into the spiritual kingdom comes through repentance and faith. The Jews rejected this as well, which brought on the cross.

 

Actually I haven't seen much Moonism here in S.K. I think it may be more active in the States .

 

OldRegular -
At first glance, the passage appears to be inverted parallelism (chiasmus). It is very common in the Gospel of John and in his epistles. Usually the point of a chiasmus is the innermost thought. Everything else builds outward from that in parallel.

Point A is verse 2 with its parallel at verse 9. Notice that both verses refer to those given to Jesus.

Point B is verse 3 with its parallel at verses 7 and 8. Notice both verses refer to knowing God.

Point C is verse 4 with its parallel at verse 6. Notice both verses refer to bringing glory to God.

Point D is verse 5 - the center of the chiasmum (the main point). Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him with the Father's glory.


So...what is the work that Christ finished that was given Him to do? Christ glorified the Father on earth (v. 4). This is further explained in verse 6 where Jesus says that he has manifested the Father's name to the men given to Him out of the world.

This passage has nothing to do with dispensationalism or calvinism or covenant theology or any other system.

 

OR,

Been a while since I have gotten too entrenched in the Dispy vss CT debate, and I am also debating whether to jump in on the Free Will vss Sovereign Election debate. I have hesitated to engage, but here goes, at least on this one for now. I am probably a strange breed to a few of you, a Dispy (the closest label to what I believe) and a Calvinist (again, the closest label to what I believe). However, anytime you accept a label, you automatically know that some will paint you in ways that do not accurately describe your beliefs.

First, as noted in your OP, Jesus had not finished ALL the work He was given to do. He had not died on the cross; He had not risen from the dead; He had not completed His 40 day post-resurrection ministry to the disciples; He had not yet ascended and taken His seat at the right hand of the Father.

Second, there is no clear statement that Jesus established the Church in Matt 16. In fact, He clearly states, “I will build my church” NOT “this is the foundation and beginning of the church”. 1Cor 12:13 tells us that “by one spirit are we all baptized into one body” and Jesus plainly tells the disciples in Acts 1 to “wait for the promise” and that they “shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost”. When did the church begin? When the Holy Spirit baptized them into the body of Christ. This did not happen in Matt 16, but in Acts 2, as Peter recounts before the church in Acts 11:15, “the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning” (emphasis added).

Third, I am a Dispy, and I do not agree with your statement that “dispensationalists claim that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews and that they rejected Him”. Further, I know of NO dispys who claim that Jesus came to ESTABLISH the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, He came to OFFER the kingdom with full knowledge that they would reject the kingdom and crucify their king. He was neither surprised that they rejected Him nor was His plan frustrated, rather, their rebellion was the means of fulfilling His plan of going to the cross. He said over and over again that He came to give Himself as a sacrifice.

PLEASE NOTE: ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL DEBATE IS TO STATE THE POSITION OF THE OTHER SIDE IN TERMS WITH WHICH THEY WOULD AGREE!!! (I AM NOT SHOUTING, I AM SPEAKING EMPHATICALLY.) Very few CTs have accurately represented Dispensationalism before beginning to attack the false caricature that they have erected.

You ask, “Now if Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom, and failed to do so, could He have told God the Father: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.”

This question is based on the false premise that Jesus intended to ESTABLISH the kingdom in His first advent. Very early in His ministry, Jesus made it clear that He came to fulfill Isa 61:1-2a and not 2b. When He read this passage in the Synagogue at Nazareth, after finding the passage and reading verse one and the first part of verse two, He stopped in the middle of verse 2 and closed the scroll. Then He announced, “This day is this Scripture fulfilled” (Luke 4:21). He did not come to bring vengeance the first time, but He will execute judgement when He returns the second time!

Jesus did exactly what HE PLANNED to do, but He did not do all He desired to do BECAUSE HIS PLAN INCLUDES THE FREE WILL OF MEN. He desired to gather Israel to Himself as a mother hen gathers her chicks. But Israel would not. He knew they would not before He came. He knew they would not before He spoke the first creative word! He knew that He would die on the cross and Jerusalem would be destroyed by the armies of Rome in 70 AD.

BUT, even as early as Deut 30:1, God foretold that the Jewish nation would reject His grace and mercy and be scattered among the nations. This looks way past the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities to a scattering throughout the world. BUT EVEN THEN, God promised that one day He would bring them back. I used to say that if you are going to understand Bible prophecy regarding the end times, you must start in Daniel. Now I say, “If you want to understand Bible prophecy regarding the end times, you must start in GENESIS. God knew the plan.

Did the fact that God knew they would rebel when they got into the land mean that His promises for blessing in the land (Deut 28) were meaningless? Absolutely not. If they had obeyed in the land, they would have experienced the blessing and not the cursing. If the Jews had accepted their Messiah, somehow He would have established the literal kingdom promised to the patriarchs. BUT, God knew that they would not and God’s sovereign plan included their rebellion in such as way as to fulfill His plan perfectly. David foretold the rejection of Christ in Psalm 2 as quoted by Peter in Acts 4:26-28.

Has Jesus finished ALL THE WORK that they Father gave Him to do? No. He has yet to return in glory and stand on the Mount of Olives as foretold in Zech 14. The Jews have yet to look on the one whom they pierced and mourn for Him (Zech 12:10). He has yet to cause the desert to blossom as a rose when He comes in power and glory as prophesied in Isa 35. He has yet to save all Israel as promised in Rom 11:25-27. Has He finished His work? Not hardly.

So what does the passage you cited mean?

Simply this – Jesus had finished what He needed to do in His earthly ministry. He had not finished His cross ministry. He had not finished His post res ministry. But to this point, He had faithfully fulfilled EVERYTHING to bring Him to the Cross.

Amazing, how you assume that “I have finished the work” is an indisputable reference to the widely disputed notion that the church was somehow formed in Matt 16. On what basis can you make such an outlandish and unfounded assertion?


THE CHURCH IS NOT AN INTERRUPTION IN GOD’S PLAN. IT IS AN INTERRUPTION IN GOD’S PLAN FOR ISRAEL. AS SOON AS THE AGE OF THE GENTILES IS COMPLETE, GOD WILL RESUME HIS LITERAL PROMISES TO ISRAEL.

Luke 21:24, 27b-28 – “they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled... And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

The only problem with preterist interpretation of this passage is that in AD 70, the Jews did not experience redemption... they experienced the scattering foretold in Deut 30:1.

Rom 11:25-27 – “25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”

In the second post you write, “according to dispensational doctrine Jesus Christ lied since He did not do what they say God sent Him to do”.

UNBELIEVABLE!!! (THIS TIME I AM SHOUTING) THAT YOU SUGGEST THAT DISPENSATIONALISTS MAKE JESUS OUT TO BE A LIAR WHEN COVENANT THEOLOGY ALLEGORIZES SUCH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF OT PROPHECY SO AS TO BLATANTLY DENY GOD’S CLEAR PROMISES TO ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB (ISRAEL), DAVID, et al.!!! Gentile believers may be the Spiritual seed of Abraham, but Gentiles are never said to be the seed of Israel! I have never seen ANY dispy make such a quantum leap as that!!! (though I have seen a few miss some other things)

All my intensity aside for a moment, the fact that a few dispensationalists may not have stated their position clearly, or may even have been incorrect in what they did state, does not mean that Dispensationalism as representative of a theological system of interpretation is flawed. I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY COVENANT THEOLOGIAN CLEARLY STATE DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY ON THIS SITE!!! IN FACT I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY COVENANT THEOLOGIAN REPRESENT DISPENSATIONALISM CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY IN ANY OF THEIR WORKS!!! Dispensationalists are still awaiting the “profound apology” for having “failed to understand dispensational theology correctly” as promised in Sproul’s forward to Gerstner’s “Wrongly Dividing”. But, few of us are holding our breaths...

Why is that CTs cannot clearly state D theology? It is because they do not understand it! They are stuck in what has been called the “incomplete reformation” – Protestant in soteriology and ecclesiology, but sound Roman Catholic in their eschatology! We claim “sola scriptura” and then wholeheartedly embrace the allegorical method of Origen embodied in Augustine’s City of God, effectively denying clear words of Holy Writ...

But, I have figured out why no Covenant Theologian can clearly state the position of Dispensationalism as clearly explained in Ryrie’s “Dispensationalism”. The reason is that those who fully understand D are no longer CT’s! They are Ds!


Calvibaptist,

Get Ryrie’s Dispensationalism and read it carefully and prayerfully. Do not reject Dispensationalism on the basis of the arguments of those who do not understand it.

The fact that the LXX translates congregation with the word ecclessia no more makes it a church than the mob in Ephesus was a church (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).

OReg

I have always tried to read the very best that I could of those who argued against my position. My works of Gentry, DeMar, Sproul, Gerstner, Matthison, have been thoroughly devoured and ruminated over. I do not reject CT on the basis of what D’s have said about it. I reject after having thoroughly worked trough as much of their material as I could get my hands on. I have read the works and their reviews, both friendly and unfriendly, in BibSac, Grace Journal, JETS, Westminster, et al.

Next thing you know, some of the Baptists here will start accepting the notion that Paedobaptism is the symbol of the New Covenant! Not all that big of a stretch with these methods of hermeneutics!


Keith S,

The issue is not whether this passage HAS anything to do with CT or D or Calvinism, the issue for OldReg, is can I use this passage to launch an attack against Dispensational Theology?! Your explanation certainly fits the context of Jesus’ statement which was used as the springboard for the attacks against D on this thread.


Finally to all.

I bear no malice to anyone on this board. If the intensity of my argument has been offensive, I most humbly apologize for my manner. However, I absolutely refuse to back down from my position, unless it can be shown to be contrary to a consistent interpretation of Scripture. Here I stand. I can do nought else.

Ray

 

Calvibapt,

You wrote,

“The idea that Jesus was offering a literal physical kingdom to the Jews is also distasteful to me. If they had accepted the offer, there would have been no cross.”

Allow me a parallel...

The idea of Adam having free choice as to eat of the fruit or not eat is also distasteful to me. If Adam had not eaten, Christ need not have died and He could not have been the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Followup:

Adam sinned. Adam could have NOT sinned. God did not make Him sin, but God is that architect of a plan that included Adam’s sin and God’s provision for his sin, and ours. God’s plan also presented Israel with a choice to accept their Messiah, or to crucify Him. He was not surprised when the Jews crucified their Messiah. He knew that was what they would chose to do. Their free choice to reject their King and therefore their kingdom fits perfectly into His plan. The return of Jesus to fulfill the promises to the Jews will demonstrate both the greatness of His grace in redeeming the nation that killed His Son and His faithfulness to the many promises of His Word.

Ray

 

OldRegular, please understand that by this question I am not debating you, I am just curious.

I understand how you could hold to the Abstract and the London Confession and not be a dispensationalist. It says very little regarding eschatology. And what it does is close to Covenant.

But when you say you are not a Calvinist are you just saying you don't hold to everything Calvin believed? Because, both the Abstract and the London Confession are very calvinistic in the popular sense of the word. I guess I'm just wondering if you have some different view.

 

Thanks, Old Reg. I agree with you about your disagreements with Calvin. That is why I would hold to the London Confession (or the American version - Philadelphia Confession) instead of the WCF.

I have the same major problem with dispensationalism. Even though they deny it, because of the complete separation of Jews and the Church. I took a class in progressive dispy when at DTS, taught by Craig Blaising. They admit this problem and deny the separation. In that, they are moving away from Classical Dispy. They also deny the Classical division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.

I don't currently have a label for myself. I am still pre-millenial, mostly because I have not seen enough biblical evidence to move me away from that position yet.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, here, but I believe the Abstract of Principles is a 'binding document' on only two Southern Baptist Seminaries that have adopted it for their 'Statement of faith', so to speak. I am not aware that it is 'binding' on any other SBC entity. While I may or may not agree with what is in it, unless I as [or not as] an SBC church member were teaching or maybe even otherwise employed there, it has no specific reference to me. Is that correct?
Ed

 

I think you are correct Ed. It is an SBC document. I am not sure if it was only adopted by 2 seminaries or if it was more of a convention-wide historical document. I am not SBC, so you would have to get an answer from someone else on that one.

It was only being discussed because, as a statement of what that group believes the Scripture teaches, it helps to know what one believes.

 

Unbelievable. How anyone could arrive at that conclusion (especially a student of dispensationalism) is -- well -- unbelievable. But I guess Ray has already addressed the issue.

In other news --- Ryrie certainly doesn't depart from classic dispensationalism in his textbook, Basic Theology. There he points out the flaws of progressive dispensationalism, along with a lot of other 'isms'.