Identify Your View

[John of Japan]

Marcia, I am not well schooled in either theology. I have always respected your posts as being thoughtful and biblical. I hope I'm not putting you on the spot.

I want to ask an honest question to you. I have asked others, but have yet to get a straight answer (except from skypair....and I am still shaking my head trying to understand what he was trying to say:tonofbricks: )

What little I know about Dispensationalism is that it is usually marked by these two features. The bible is to be taken literally, especially concerning eschatology. And that Israel and the church have separate "futures" in God's new heaven and new earth.

What I have tried to understand is how those positions are reconciled with scripture's teachings concerning the impartiality of God. Especially concerning Eph. 2, where Christ is said to have abolished the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile (the Law of Commandments) by His death on the cross, and that both groups have been made into one new group (the body of Christ, the bride of Christ...i.e the church).

How can there be a separate future for Jews and Gentiles, if the distinctions have been abolished by Jesus' death on the cross?

peace to youraying:

Marcia has answered this well, but I'd like to add something.

These two issues are apples and oranges, canadyjd. On the one hand, God is dealing with the Jews as a nation, not as individuals. Literal interpretation (technically, grammatical-historical) of prophecy demands that passages about Israel be about the nation Israel, not the church.

As soon as you allow allegorical interpretation of prophecy (as opposed to literal), whether you are a dispensationalist or not, then you open the door to a floodgate of various subjective interpretations. In other words, my allegory may be quite different from yours, since prophecy passages rarely give any sure key as to what the allegory should be.

On the other hand, the church is made up of individual Christians, not nations. Thus, as it teaches in Galatians, all are one in Christ. When you talk about the church you are not talking about Jews or Gentiles, Americans or Japanese, Latinos or gringos. You are just talking about Christians.

By the way, my grandfather, well-known evangelist and Bible teacher John R. Rice, was neither dispensational nor covenent in theology. However, by interpreting the Bible literally, he came out pre-trib and pre-mil. :smilewinkgrin:

I hope this answers your questions.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia has answered this well, but I'd like to add something.

Well, that's high praise coming from you, John of J.! Especially since I'm a little shaky on this.

These two issues are apples and oranges, canadyjd. On the one hand, God is dealing with the Jews as a nation, not as individuals. Literal interpretation (technically, grammatical-historical) of prophecy demands that passages about Israel be about the nation Israel, not the church.

As soon as you allow allegorical interpretation of prophecy (as opposed to literal), whether you are a dispensationalist or not, then you open the door to a floodgate of various subjective interpretations. In other words, my allegory may be quite different from yours, since prophecy passages rarely give any sure key as to what the allegory should be.

On the other hand, the church is made up of individual Christians, not nations. Thus, as it teaches in Galatians, all are one in Christ. When you talk about the church you are not talking about Jews or Gentiles, Americans or Japanese, Latinos or gringos. You are just talking about Christians.

Good points! You explained it great! :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

I don't think dispensationalists believe in a separate future for saved Jews and Gentiles, they just don't think God has finished dealing with Israel yet. The Eph 2 passage is to show that saved Jews and Gentiles are both in the body of Christ, which I don't think any disp. would disagree with. I think it was primarily to keep the Jews and Gentiles in unity and not see each other differently as believers.

So Eph. 2 is about the equal salvation of Jews and Gentiles, but disp. have a different view of Israel and the Church than do the Reformed people.

I think Rom 9 has something to do with this Israel thing but I do not feel I know enough to say much more.

I echo JoJ :thumbs:

I'll add that Romans 11 is clear that Israel is still in God's plan.

 

[webdog]

I don't think dispensationalists believe in a separate future for saved Jews and Gentiles, they just don't think God has finished dealing with Israel yet. The Eph 2 passage is to show that saved Jews and Gentiles are both in the body of Christ, which I don't think any disp. would disagree with. I think it was primarily to keep the Jews and Gentiles in unity and not see each other differently as believers.

So Eph. 2 is about the equal salvation of Jews and Gentiles, but disp. have a different view of Israel and the Church than do the Reformed people.

I think Rom 9 has something to do with this Israel thing but I do not feel I know enough to say much more.

DDP (dreaded double post)

 

[Benjamin]

CT is as close as I could be labeled; way to many holes in what I consider force to fit literalisms of dispensationalism for me to ever buy into it. Progressive revelation works well within my view that Israel is the church and I see the scriptures plainly bearing that out.

 

[skypair]

I want to ask an honest question to you. I have asked others, but have yet to get a straight answer (except from skypair....and I am still shaking my head trying to understand what he was trying to say:tonofbricks: )

Don't be too hard on me. I was answering JerryL's question that really wasn't directly concerned with CT.

The bible is to be taken literally, especially concerning eschatology. And that Israel and the church have separate "futures" in God's new heaven and new earth.

Let's just look at the events yet to come and see who God deals with whom.

Rapture: 1Thes 4:16-17, John 14:1-3, etal. -- the believing, new covenant church -- the Eph 2 unity of believing Jews and Gentiles with no wall in between -- is taken out of the world.

Tribulation: God restores (Mal 4:5, Rev 11:3-6) His OT "program" with Israel by calling them back in unbelief (Zech 10-11) and rescuing them in the midst of the Gog war (Zech 12:9, Joel 2) into belief.

MK/Christ's kingdom: God keeps His promises with Israel who a) receives the land forever, b) whose "Davidic" King rules the earth, and c) receive the new covenant of Spirit indwelling (Jer 31:31) and d) perhaps most telling of all, God keeps the Palestinian covenant fulfilling His promise to 1) bring them back together again, 2) in the land, 3) regenerate them causing them to love Him, 4) judge their enemies, 5) cause them to obey Him and 6) He would prosper them, Deut 30:1-10.

That's a pretty impressive "program," wouldn't you say? That's 4 separate covenants with national/religious Israel that have yet to be fulfilled (But not spiritual Israel because spiritual Israel is "in Christ" and was taken out/glorified already.)!

Eternal kingdom/God's "kingdom come:" Rev 20:11-22 -- MK saints "raptured" to heaven and come back to New Earth with the church in NJ (notice, both "bride" and "wife" mentioned) all having same glorified bodies. And yes, I say that the church lives in NJ for which it was built and Israel lives in the earth to whom the land was promised forever.

What I have tried to understand is how those positions are reconciled with scripture's teachings concerning the impartiality of God. ... How can there be a separate future for Jews and Gentiles, if the distinctions have been abolished by Jesus' death on the cross?

The "impartiality" that you see is that God gives His new covenant revelation of Himself to both Jews and Gentiles whereas in the OT, He gave it only to the Jews.

The future distinction arises because 1) God's program for Israel was for THEM to be a "blessing" to the Gentiles by leading them to God (which they will with the church gone) and 2) when the church is raptured out, the remaining Gentiles fall for Satan's religion from which they must be rescued by God through Israel. BTW, a "rightly divided" reading to Rom 11 and especially of the olive tree would give you all of this good information. The natural branches are "cut out" at the first BUT grafted back in at the end such that they will bless the Gentiles (11:12, 15, 23-28, 31).

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

By the way, my grandfather, well-known evangelist and Bible teacher John R. Rice, was neither dispensational nor covenent in theology. However, by interpreting the Bible literally, he came out pre-trib and pre-mil. :smilewinkgrin:

And believed Mussolini was the anti-Christ.

What is the literal/grammatical historical definition of:

Rev 1:1 A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to declare to His servants things which must shortly come to pass. And He signified it by sending His angel to His servant John,
Rev 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads and hears the Words of this prophecy, and the ones keeping the things written in it, for the time is near.

Now if you don't take those statements literally then doesn't this statement become true:

"As soon as you allow allegorical interpretation of prophecy (as opposed to literal), whether you are a dispensationalist or not, then you open the door to a floodgate of various subjective interpretations."

If time statements are to be ignored or "allegorized" then one can place the prophecy anywhere in time and make it mean whatever they wish. Thus, Mussolini is the anti-christ!

 

[nodak]

I am generally dispensationalist, but not hyper. I don't get into "were there 7 or 9" or that sort of thing. I believe there were at least 2.

As to keeping Israel and the church separate, I must admit at times I find scripture seems to present the church as superceding Israel.

Guess I am a somewhat non systematic person when it comes to systematic theology.

 

[John of Japan]

And believed Mussolini was the anti-Christ.

I'm impressed that you would know this. He actually did preach this once or twice, as many did in those days, but soon changed his views.

What is the literal/grammatical historical definition of:

Rev 1:1 A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to declare to His servants things which must shortly come to pass. And He signified it by sending His angel to His servant John,
Rev 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads and hears the Words of this prophecy, and the ones keeping the things written in it, for the time is near.

Now if you don't take those statements literally then doesn't this statement become true:

"As soon as you allow allegorical interpretation of prophecy (as opposed to literal), whether you are a dispensationalist or not, then you open the door to a floodgate of various subjective interpretations."

If time statements are to be ignored or "allegorized" then one can place the prophecy anywhere in time and make it mean whatever they wish. Thus, Mussolini is the anti-christ!

I have no problems whatsoever taking these statements literally. And I also think it is a mistake to try to name the antichrist. I really don't see where you are coming from.

 

[nunatak]

why isn't IDK listed as one?

 

[Grasshopper]

I'm impressed that you would know this. He actually did preach this once or twice, as many did in those days, but soon changed his views.

My mother has an old book by him, I believe a question and answer type book. That is where I found the reference. My mom was a big John R Rice fan as were her parents.


I have no problems whatsoever taking these statements literally. And I also think it is a mistake to try to name the antichrist. I really don't see where you are coming from.

But those words were spoken to 1st century Christians. How would they literally interpret "shortly come to pass" or "near"? This is the inconsistant interpretation among dispies. They insist stars will fall from heaven or the heavens will depart like a scroll but then say that "near" and "shortly come to pass" really don't mean what those 1st century Jews think.

 

[canadyjd]

I don't think dispensationalists believe in a separate future for saved Jews and Gentiles, they just don't think God has finished dealing with Israel yet. The Eph 2 passage is to show that saved Jews and Gentiles are both in the body of Christ, which I don't think any disp. would disagree with. I think it was primarily to keep the Jews and Gentiles in unity and not see each other differently as believers.

So Eph. 2 is about the equal salvation of Jews and Gentiles, but disp. have a different view of Israel and the Church than do the Reformed people.

I think Rom 9 has something to do with this Israel thing but I do not feel I know enough to say much more.

I appreciate your comments. I am in agreement concerning the Eph. 2 passage.

I have heard one person claim that the Jews will re-establish the Temple and the sacrifices in the MK. They will live by the Law as God had intended.

I do not know if that is a mainstream view among dispensationalists or not, but the thought of re-instituting the sacrifices and the Law in the MK strikes me as undermining what Jesus did on the cross.

John of Japan:

I appreciate your comments as well. Perhaps you know. Is the view that the Temple and the sacrifices will be re-instituted in the MK a common view among dispensationalists?

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

I appreciate your comments. I am in agreement concerning the Eph. 2 passage.

Oh, okay! :wavey:

I have heard one person claim that the Jews will re-establish the Temple and the sacrifices in the MK. They will live by the Law as God had intended.

I do not know if that is a mainstream view among dispensationalists or not, but the thought of re-instituting the sacrifices and the Law in the MK strikes me as undermining what Jesus did on the cross.

I have heard this view (can't recall where) but not that much so my impression is that it's not very common. One explanation I heard was that the sacrifices that would be re-established would not be the sacrifices for sin or guilt, but the ones like the thanksgiving offering. I am not sure what to think of this as I have not looked into it.

 

[sag38]

J. Veron McGee holds that there will be sacrifices during the thousand year rule. I don't have his commentary here with me to explain why but I believe it has to do with this occuring in a post church era or dispensation. And, taking some verses at face value this certainly appears to be the case. But one, in my opinion, cannot be too dogmatic about such matters. We will only know for sure, after the fact.

 

[John of Japan]

But those words were spoken to 1st century Christians. How would they literally interpret "shortly come to pass" or "near"? This is the inconsistant interpretation among dispies. They insist stars will fall from heaven or the heavens will depart like a scroll but then say that "near" and "shortly come to pass" really don't mean what those 1st century Jews think.

And these words were spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ. And a thousand years is as a day to Him! (Peter's epistles had already been written.) See, I have no problem!

And yes, I insist that stars will fall from heaven. To the first century Christian reading Greek, the term "star" included everything from planet to meteor, just as in modern Japanese. So yes, some seriously dangerous meteors will fall to earth during the Tribulation Period. And why can't the sky be rolled back as a scroll? Makes sense to me, as long as God is doing it. Scientists thinks they know astrophysics, but they havn't begun to plumb its depths.

But hey, Revelation was written in 96 AD. So where are the 7 trumpets, etc.? There is nothing in "near" history from the human viewpoint after 96 AD to fit anything in the book of Revelation after chapter 3. :type:

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan:

I appreciate your comments as well. Perhaps you know. Is the view that the Temple and the sacrifices will be re-instituted in the MK a common view among dispensationalists?

peace to youraying:

Most dispensational writers don't touch on this much. Personally I don't have a finished view on this particular issue. It doesn't seem important to me.

 

[Grasshopper]

And these words were spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ. And a thousand years is as a day to Him! (Peter's epistles had already been written.) See, I have no problem!

Oh I see, those aren't meant to be time indicators to the audience wriiten to, just a general statement by Jesus for Jesus not meant to be understood by anyone else. Basically meaningless to all of mankind.

And yes, I insist that stars will fall from heaven. To the first century Christian reading Greek, the term "star" included everything from planet to meteor, just as in modern Japanese.

Source?


So yes, some seriously dangerous meteors will fall to earth during the Tribulation Period. And why can't the sky be rolled back as a scroll? Makes sense to me, as long as God is doing it. Scientists thinks they know astrophysics, but they havn't begun to plumb its depths.

Or we could use the OT as our guide and see how the OT prophets used this language:

The destruction of Edom:

Isa 34:4 And all the host of the heavens shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled like a scroll; and all their host shall droop, as a leaf falls off from the vine, and as the falling from the fig tree.
Isa 34:5 For My sword bathed in the heavens. Behold, it shall come down on Edom, and on the people of My curse for judgment.

But hey, Revelation was written in 96 AD. So where are the 7 trumpets, etc.? There is nothing in "near" history from the human viewpoint after 96 AD to fit anything in the book of Revelation after chapter 3. :type:

Who says Revelation was written in 96AD? I can give a list of scholars equal to yours who say it was written pre-AD70.

 

[RustySword]

I'm a dispensationalist. I was educated at Dallas Theological Seminary back in the 1970s, so it's pretty well ingrained in me.

I am (or at least I was) primarily a Bible expositor, and my reading and studying has exposed me to a lot of other systems (most of the commentaries I have in my library were written by non-dispensationalists), but I've remained dispensational.

 

[John of Japan]

Oh I see, those aren't meant to be time indicators to the audience wriiten to, just a general statement by Jesus for Jesus not meant to be understood by anyone else. Basically meaningless to all of mankind.

It would be nice if you actually asked what I thought instead of the sarcasm. The passage is quite meaningful to me.

Source?

Any Greek lexicon. I'm a Bible translator, fairly fluent in NT Greek. You can take my word for it. :smilewinkgrin:

Or we could use the OT as our guide and see how the OT prophets used this language:

The destruction of Edom:

Isa 34:4 And all the host of the heavens shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled like a scroll; and all their host shall droop, as a leaf falls off from the vine, and as the falling from the fig tree.
Isa 34:5 For My sword bathed in the heavens. Behold, it shall come down on Edom, and on the people of My curse for judgment.

Yep. And OT prophecy often has a double fulfillment.

Who says Revelation was written in 96AD? I can give a list of scholars equal to yours who say it was written pre-AD70.

I'd much rather believe my scholars!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Any Greek lexicon. I'm a Bible translator, fairly fluent in NT Greek. You can take my word for it.

Not to derail the thread, but have you completed any work of translation? Our church supports such work through the Trinitarian Bible Society.