What is dispensationalism

[Grasshopper]

Quote:
The New Covenant was established for the House of Judah and the House of Israel in the first century. The two sticks are one and now exist with all the nations as the Church.


THe first has problems,

Where is the problem. The House of Judah was present at the time of Jesus. The House of Israel had scattered among the Gentiles (Hos. 8:8) because of her Harlotry(Jer.3:8), perhaps even becoming Gentiles. The Messiah shows up at the fulfilled time(Mk.1:13) to make the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. The House of Judah was in Jerusalem and the land of Judea, Jesus sent His disciples to the House of Israel (Matt 10:23 & 15:24). Thus making the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

So a dispensationalist can believe that the NC was established, or inaugurated (the word usually used I think), and not contradict their position.

So the New Covenant was established and inaugurated but not made. Word games, yet you accuse me of “lack of exegesis”.

But the key word there is "in the church." the NC did not promise the establishment of the church. It promised a new heart to be given to Israel with a restoration to the land. In conjunction with other prophets, we see that that is an end time restoration (cf. Zech 12).

Is Zech 12 all to occur within the same general time-frame?

I think the major issue here is a lack of exegesis on your side. You start with your position and then go to Scripture and support it. We should start with Scripture and then arrive at a position .

May I borrow your Scofield glasses to help my exegesis?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where is the problem. The House of Judah was present at the time of Jesus. The House of Israel had scattered among the Gentiles (Hos. 8:8) because of her Harlotry(Jer.3:8), perhaps even becoming Gentiles. The Messiah shows up at the fulfilled time(Mk.1:13) to make the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. The House of Judah was in

Jerusalem and the land of Judea, Jesus sent His disciples to the House of Israel (Matt 10:23 & 15:24). Thus making the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

The NC says they will be given a new heart, etc. ... meanign regeneration. That did not happen when Jesus came. Jesus sent his disciples to teh house of Israel and of Judah, but they didn't repent ... They didn't get the new heart that the NC promised.

So the New Covenant was established and inaugurated but not made. Word games, yet you accuse me of “lack of exegesis”.

Yes. The new covenant was made in Jeremiah. It was inaugurated at the crucifixion, but it has not been fulfilled or completed. You should be familiar with these distinctions, particaurlly given the fact that you have such a strong position on it. To arrive at such a strong position, surely you are familiar with these basic disctintions.

'

Is Zech 12 all to occur within the same general time-frame?

Generally, speaking yes. There is no reason to see it spread over a long period of time, though that is not particularly destructive to the fundamental idea.

May I borrow your Scofield glasses to help my exegesis?

No since I don't have any. I am not a big fan of Scofield. But a normal hermeneutic--literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic will get you there.

 

[Grasshopper]

The NC says they will be given a new heart, etc. ... meanign regeneration. That did not happen when Jesus came. Jesus sent his disciples to teh house of Israel and of Judah, but they didn't repent ... They didn't get the new heart that the NC promised.

Really? Who made up the early Church? No one in the New Testament recieved a new heart?

Quote:
Is Zech 12 all to occur within the same general time-frame?

Generally, speaking yes. There is no reason to see it spread over a long period of time, though that is not particularly destructive to the fundamental idea.

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.


John quotes this verse and says it was fulfilled:

Joh 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
Joh 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

We agree,no reason to see it over a long period of time.

But a normal hermeneutic--literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic will get you there.

Like Revelation 1:1,3? What is the “literal” interpretation? Or perhaps the one I gave, John 19:37? Or will I receive the stand by “Double-fulfillment” card?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Really? Who made up the earlyChurch? No one in the New Testament recieved a new heart?

The early church was made up of Jews and Gentiles. And yes, they received a new heart. But the NC was with the nation based on a national repentance. That is hte part you are missing. Furthermore, it also involves a restoration to the land.

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.


John quotes this verse and says it was fulfilled:

Joh 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
Joh 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

We agree,no reason to see it over a long period of time.

Notice that John only quotes half of it. Isn't that significant? Where is the other half? In Rev 1, when Jesus returns. Those who pierce him (which was undeniably the Jews) will be those who look on him in repentance (which must also be the Jews).

I thought you were asking about the surrounding of the cities and the nations gathered.

ke Revelation 1:1,3? What is the “literal” interpretation? Or perhaps the one I gave, John 19:37? Or will I receive the stand by “Double-fulfillment” card?

No, I reject double fulfillment. Not sure what the confusion is with either verse. If you ask more specifically I will tell you what I believe about it.

 

[skypair]

Grasshopper

But the NC was with the nation based on a national repentance. That is hte part you are missing. Furthermore, it also involves a restoration to the land.

Larry is right, GH. In fact, do you know in Rom 11 where is says, "and then shall all Israel be saved?" That is talking not only about living Israel but the resurrection and salvation of all the OT saints of Israel!

Notice that John only quotes half of it. Isn't that significant? Where is the other half?

Indeed, when they are resurrected, they will be resurrected indwelt as if by birth (their "rebirth") by the Spirit. Essentially, they will be as Christ was in His earthly ministry (that's why He said, "I AM the resurrection!" Look at Christ and you see an OT saints MK body!).

No, I reject double fulfillment. Not sure what the confusion is with either verse. If you ask more specifically I will tell you what I believe about it.

It's not "double fulfillment" but similar fulfillment for church vs. Israel. Peter quoting Joel 2 at Pentecost left out the portion that was NOT fulfilled completely. The church is NOT in bodies as Christ had -- completely indwelt/controlled by the Spirit of God.

Do you see the partial fulfillment thesis?

skypair