Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism, Part 17
Republished with permission from Dr. Reluctant. In this series, Dr. Henebury responds to a collection of criticisms of dispensationalism entitled “95 Theses against Dispensationalism” written by a group called “The Nicene Council.” Read the series so far.
Thesis 75
Despite dispensationalism’s “plain and simple” method that undergirds its millennial views, it leads to the bizarre teaching that for 1000 years the earth will be inhabited by a mixed population of resurrected saints who return from heaven with Jesus living side-by-side with non-resurrected people, who will consist of unbelievers who allegedly but unaccountably survive the Second Coming as well as those who enter the millennium from the Great Tribulation as “a new generation of believers” (Walvoord).
Response: The “former dispensationalists” among their number ought to have been able to explain this “problem” to their brethren on the Council.
1. Concerning the “unaccountability” of unbelievers in the Millennium, Robert Thomas writes: “the battle of 19:19-21 resulted in death for all those not faithful to the Messiah. However, the redeemed but nonglorified population on earth survives the battle, enters the Millennium (cf. 11:13, 12:13-17), and reproduces offspring some of whom do not become saved as they mature. These unredeemed will comprise Satan’s rebellious army at the Millennium’s end.” (Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 410-411)
2. Those who enter into the Millennium will be those who do not take the mark of the Beast and who escape the death in the Tribulation. These will be protected in some way (cf. note the contrasts in Rev. 14:14-20) before the Second Coming (see 2 Thess. 1:7-10). The details are not supplied as to just how this will transpire, but the indications are clear enough that it will happen. There is no problem here.
3. What one thinks is bizarre in these matters is rather subjective. In heaven we shall be among all sorts of weird and wonderful creatures for example. Perhaps from our perspective the future may seem a little fantastic. That does not make it false. For our part, we think it bizarre that God could say what He said in Genesis 12:1-3, 7; 15:7-21; Isaiah 62; Jeremiah 33:15-26; and Zechariah 8:1-8, etc., etc., and not mean it!
Thesis 76
Despite dispensationalists’ claim to reasonableness for their views, they hold the bizarre teaching that after 1000 years of dwelling side-by-side with resurrected saints who never get ill or die, a vast multitude of unresurrected sinners whose number is “like the sand of the seashore,” will dare to revolt against the glorified Christ and His millions of glorified saints (Rev 20:7-9).
Response: What is bizarre is that these people have forgotten the sinfulness of sin. The book of Numbers ought to fix the problem. Seriously though, the problem is not with the sin issue, but with a lack of belief that the Bible means what it says. The fact that these men cite Revelation 20:7-9, interpret it literally, and then reject their own interpretation is the real problem.
Thesis 77
Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental principle of God’s glory, they teach a second humiliation of Christ, wherein He returns to earth to set up His millennial kingdom, ruling it personally for 1000 years, only to have a multitude “like the sand of the seashore” revolt against His personal, beneficent rule toward the end (Rev 20:7-9).
Response: To put it plainly, this is pious nonsense. In the first place, Christ’s humiliation was His divestment of divine privileges and “taking upon Himself the form of a servant,” His reliance upon the Spirit and His submitting to abuse and cruel death. Nothing of the sort is involved in the Millennial Kingdom.
When Christ comes “to be glorified in His saints” (2 Thess.1:10), He will be acknowledged as “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16). He will rule the nations with a rod of iron (Psa. 2:6-9, Rev. 12:5), and they shall worship Him (Zech. 14:16). We sense no humiliation here.
As far as the great revolt at the end of the Millennium is concerned, we ask how Christ will fail to be glorified in the final destruction of Satan and his hordes?
In company with Covenant theologians generally, the authors of the 95 Theses are interpreting the Bible with preconceived notions of what must be the case. These kinds of arguments are unconvincing to dispensationalists because these arguments lack objectivity and logical force (e.g. they cannot actually point to a logical fallacy—even though occasionally CT’s misconstrue rejection of their cherished opinions as violations of the law of non-contradiction).
Thesis 78
Despite the dispensationalists’ production of many adherents who “are excited about the very real potential for the rebuilding of Israel’s Temple in Jerusalem” (Randall Price) and who give funds for it, they do not understand that the whole idea of the temple system was associated with the old covenant which was “growing old” and was “ready to disappear” in the first century (Heb 8:13).
Response: Hebrews 8:13 is an allusion to Jeremiah 31. We realize the Nicene Council do not believe either Jeremiah 31:31-32 or Hebrews 8:8-13 is referring to a future Israel (even though Jer. 31:33 ought to make any CT think twice), because, after all, they have concluded that the church is “the new Israel.” Thus, whatever God promises in the OT to Israel by way of land, earthly king, priesthood and temple (please read Jer. 33:14-26!) can be summarily dismissed.
It is true, as Randall Price, being a sober writer, admits, that perhaps many who give money to the Temple Fund do not understand that the Temple they will build will be constructed, it appears, only by agreement with the Antichrist (cf. Dan. 9:26-27), who will have his own uses for it (Matt. 24:15, 2 Thess. 2:3-4, cf. Rev. 11:1-2 with 13:11-15). But nothing in Hebrews precludes a rebuilt Temple, either in the Tribulation or the Millennium which follows it.
Thesis 79
Contrary to dispensationalists’ expectation of a future physical temple in the millennium, wherein will be offered literal animal blood sacrifices, the New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the Passover and the Old Testament sacrificial system, so that Christ’s sacrifice was final, being “once for all” (Heb 10:10b), and that the new covenant causes the old covenant with its sacrifices to be “obsolete” (Heb 8:13).
Response: A careful examination of the future Temple described in minute detail in Ezekiel 40-48 (which detail is allegorized away by CT’s) will reveal, among other things, that there is no Day of Atonement; no Levitical high priest; and no veil cordoning off the Holy Place. The clear differences between the services of the First and Second Temples and that of Ezekiel’s Temple caused the Jews many headaches in accepting the canonicity of Ezekiel. The Mosaic Covenant was temporary and has been done away with by the New Covenant in Christ. But the Millennial Temple has a function within the New Covenant (have you read Jer. 33:14-26 yet?) See also Ezekiel 37:15-28, Zechariah 14:16-21 and Malachi 3:2-6!
I fully realize that non-dispensationalists will not allow these plain texts to be read at face value, but will force them into strange molds through their misunderstanding of the teaching of the New Testament. This will be addressed more in the future.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 6 views
I am new here where can i find the other parts of this topic. I like to read all of it. Thanks.
The link at the top of the article “Series 95” will bring them up.
Well, please understand that I was not trying to give a full explanation of the problem. Only to show that dispensationalists do account for how unbelievers do not enter the Millennium yet there are unbelievers in the Millennium.
Details are somewhat fuzzy, but I would relate Matt. 13:37-43 to Rev. 14:14-20 and Isa. 63:1-3. If that is correct, Isa. 63 seems to me to refer to Rev. 19:11ff. Thus, we are on the same ground here. You have just provided extra detail.
That is my view of it anyway :)
Details are somewhat fuzzy, but I would relate Matt. 13:37-43 to Rev. 14:14-20 and Isa. 63:1-3. If that is correct, Isa. 63 seems to me to refer to Rev. 19:11ff. Thus, we are on the same ground here. You have just provided extra detail.
That is my view of it anyway :)
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Hebrews 8:8-13 says (and infers) nothing about the rebuilding of a physical temple, or about an agreement with the anti-Christ. However, the passage unequivocally teaches, concerning the covenant, “he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” The literal meaning doesn’t allow for a decaying Old Covenant that endures in order for a material temple to be erected in Jerusalem.
The spirit of chapter 8—Christ Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry—is revealed in the opening verses: “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man (Hebrews 8:1,2).”
The writer of Hebrews appears to have committed the Dispensationalist sin of ‘spiritualizing away’ literal truth. “[T] he true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,” has replaced a future, man-made edifice built with Israeli flesh and blood.
Your critique of Thesis 78 is determined to inject a physical temple into a Hebrews intended to exalt the finished work of the Lord Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said (John 2:19-22).”
“Whatever God promises in the OT to Israel,” is fully and finally centered in the Person of Christ Jesus:
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom
also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by
the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
on high (Hebrews 1:1-3).”
_Everything_ in Hebrews precludes a temple rebuilt by humans, ”For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Hebrews 9:24).”
The spirit of chapter 8—Christ Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry—is revealed in the opening verses: “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man (Hebrews 8:1,2).”
The writer of Hebrews appears to have committed the Dispensationalist sin of ‘spiritualizing away’ literal truth. “[T] he true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,” has replaced a future, man-made edifice built with Israeli flesh and blood.
Your critique of Thesis 78 is determined to inject a physical temple into a Hebrews intended to exalt the finished work of the Lord Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said (John 2:19-22).”
“Whatever God promises in the OT to Israel,” is fully and finally centered in the Person of Christ Jesus:
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom
also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by
the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
on high (Hebrews 1:1-3).”
_Everything_ in Hebrews precludes a temple rebuilt by humans, ”For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Hebrews 9:24).”
[bagridd] Hebrews 8:8-13 says (and infers) nothing about the rebuilding of a physical temple, or about an agreement with the anti-Christ. However, the passage unequivocally teaches, concerning the covenant, “he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” The literal meaning doesn’t allow for a decaying Old Covenant that endures in order for a material temple to be erected in Jerusalem.I find this element of replacement theology terrifying.
The spirit of chapter 8—Christ Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry—is revealed in the opening verses: “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man (Hebrews 8:1,2).”
The writer of Hebrews appears to have committed the Dispensationalist sin of ‘spiritualizing away’ literal truth. “[T] he true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,” has replaced a future, man-made edifice built with Israeli flesh and blood.
Your critique of Thesis 78 is determined to inject a physical temple into a Hebrews intended to exalt the finished work of the Lord Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said (John 2:19-22).”
“Whatever God promises in the OT to Israel,” is fully and finally centered in the Person of Christ Jesus:
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom
also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by
the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
on high (Hebrews 1:1-3).”
_Everything_ in Hebrews precludes a temple rebuilt by humans, ”For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Hebrews 9:24).”
If I paid money for a car, and was delivered anything other than a car, the contract would be broken. The Lord made certain material promises to Abraham, David, etc. about their future state. Anything other than that violates the promise. The Lord did a valid and binding covenant with Abraham when he passed through the divided livestock. It was as binding a commitment as Abraham’s culture permitted. I believe Abraham would have been surprised to discover that his biological descendants are not necessarily included, and physical land is not part of the deal.
The implications of a God who re-writes His covenants are what terrifies me: Is it possible that the spiritual salvation God has promised to me as a believer on Christ will be taken away and replaced with something that I can’t imagine? I think not.
Even more remarkable to me is that fact that it is the Reformed camp from which this thinking arises. The same language that is used about our election is used of Israel’s elect state. If God can rescind his promises to elect Israel based on their disobedience, how am I in any way eternally secure?
No, I’m sorry. It just doesn’t add up.
I should like to reply to the brother above. Brother, you say,
Really, I’m not interested in “the Dispensationalist sin.” All I care about is whether one has warrant to “spiritualize”, “allegorize”, “typologize” or take any other interpretative line which rejects the plain sense. If I do not find any warrant for adopting these hermeneutical maneuvers, I will reject them. This is because I do not wish to commit the fallacy of equivocation, whereby I lend a meaning to a text which God never intended to convey (there is a more serious error connected with this which I shall discuss below).
I am surprised and disappointed that you failed to interact with the whole response (plus Thesis 79 which is very relevant to this). I directed readers to Jeremiah 33:14ff and requested they read it carefully. Have you done so? That passage is supported by the new covenant passage in Jer. 31:31-36f. It is very explicit. But you appear to be saying that when God said Jer. 33:14-26 He actually didn’t mean what the words say. Did He then mean something like, “these covenant oaths with Israel about king, and land, and priesthood are not to be taken at face-value. They will be fulfilled differently than this passage would lead one to expect. Everything is fulfilled spiritually and typologically in Messiah. I could have said this plainly. I am equivocating.”
You might not like the irony in this, but I am making a serious point. What gives you the right to say that when God says Jer. 31:31ff. and 33:14ff. that He means something other than what the words clearly state? Think about it; if this is true then God knew He was equivocating when He used this language. If that is true then equivocation between God’s intentions and the language He employs is a characteristic of God. It is an attribute. But if that is so and Truth has its source in God, how do you know that all of what you take to be God’s Truth is not an equivocation? That is, how do you know that your most cherished beliefs (any of them) are what God intends to perform? If the seemingly unequivocal language of Jer. 33:14-26 (which I hope you have read over) does not really mean what it says (which I take to be your view), how can anyone know that God means what He says anywhere else? It would be in God’s nature to say one thing but mean something else!
Quoting NT verses (which I suppose you think you are taking, and ought to be taken at face value?) and trying to disallow plain sense interpretations of the OT looks arbitrary to me. After all, it is not the NT verses themselves which prove your point, but your interpretations of those verses, which is a different thing.
I’ll stop here and wait for your response.
Hebrews 8:8-13 says (and infers) nothing about the rebuilding of a physical temple, or about an agreement with the anti-Christ.You are concerned with what texts say and what they do not say. I too am interested in this. For this reason you will notice that I did not claim that Heb. 8:8-13 refers to the temple. The text was used to deny other texts which do see to a future physical temple
However, the passage unequivocally [I shall come back to this word!] teaches, concerning the covenant, “he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” The literal meaning doesn’t allow for a decaying Old Covenant that endures in order for a material temple to be erected in Jerusalem.Again, by reading the “plain-sense” of the text you arrive at a correct view. The Mosaic Covenant has nothing to do with the future [Millennial] temple.
The spirit of chapter 8 [I’m not sure what you mean by “the spirit of”] —Christ Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry—is revealed in the opening verses: “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man (Hebrews 8:1,2).”All good here.
The writer of Hebrews appears to have committed the Dispensationalist sin of ‘spiritualizing away’ literal truth. “[T] he true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,” has replaced a future, man-made edifice built with Israeli flesh and blood.Sorry? What is “spiritualized” about the temple of Heb. 8:1-2? According to the writer Moses’ tabernacle was constructed as a “copy” (v.5) of an original “true tabernacle.” You seem not to want to believe that there is such a tabernacle? Why? Disbelief? You don’t think of heaven as some Platonic cloudland I hope. Are you implying that Jesus is this “true tabernacle”? Perhaps not, but if so, how could Moses’ tabernacle be patterned after a human body?
Really, I’m not interested in “the Dispensationalist sin.” All I care about is whether one has warrant to “spiritualize”, “allegorize”, “typologize” or take any other interpretative line which rejects the plain sense. If I do not find any warrant for adopting these hermeneutical maneuvers, I will reject them. This is because I do not wish to commit the fallacy of equivocation, whereby I lend a meaning to a text which God never intended to convey (there is a more serious error connected with this which I shall discuss below).
Your critique of Thesis 78 is determined to inject a physical temple into a Hebrews intended to exalt the finished work of the Lord Jesus [It is? Can you show me where I inject a physical temple into Hebrews?] who said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said (John 2:19-22).”Question: if the temple in Jn. 2:19 is identified as Jesus’ body, what does that have to do with this discussion? Surely you are not claiming that because John 2 speaks of Jesus’ physical frame as “this temple” that no other temple existed? Why, there was one other (Herod’s temple) in the very context! The Lord was referring to His body (He was not equivocating!), but He knew that His words would be interpreted to refer to the physical temple (thus, the Jews did equivocate on the word “temple”). But I do not wish to put words in your mouth, so I’ll move on.
“Whatever God promises in the OT to Israel,” is fully and finally centered in the Person of Christ Jesus:I’m not sure that you are communicating what you mean. I take you to mean that Jesus fulfills all the covenant promises to Israel. Heb. 1:1-3 has nothing to say about that one way or another, so I admit to being confused here. Perhaps you can help me, as I have no wish to misrepresent you.
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom
also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by
the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
on high (Hebrews 1:1-3).”
Everything_ in Hebrews precludes a temple rebuilt by humans, ”For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Hebrews 9:24).”It does? Do you think you have shown that? How does this verse support your claim? (I know what you will say, but I want you to say it, not me).
I am surprised and disappointed that you failed to interact with the whole response (plus Thesis 79 which is very relevant to this). I directed readers to Jeremiah 33:14ff and requested they read it carefully. Have you done so? That passage is supported by the new covenant passage in Jer. 31:31-36f. It is very explicit. But you appear to be saying that when God said Jer. 33:14-26 He actually didn’t mean what the words say. Did He then mean something like, “these covenant oaths with Israel about king, and land, and priesthood are not to be taken at face-value. They will be fulfilled differently than this passage would lead one to expect. Everything is fulfilled spiritually and typologically in Messiah. I could have said this plainly. I am equivocating.”
You might not like the irony in this, but I am making a serious point. What gives you the right to say that when God says Jer. 31:31ff. and 33:14ff. that He means something other than what the words clearly state? Think about it; if this is true then God knew He was equivocating when He used this language. If that is true then equivocation between God’s intentions and the language He employs is a characteristic of God. It is an attribute. But if that is so and Truth has its source in God, how do you know that all of what you take to be God’s Truth is not an equivocation? That is, how do you know that your most cherished beliefs (any of them) are what God intends to perform? If the seemingly unequivocal language of Jer. 33:14-26 (which I hope you have read over) does not really mean what it says (which I take to be your view), how can anyone know that God means what He says anywhere else? It would be in God’s nature to say one thing but mean something else!
Quoting NT verses (which I suppose you think you are taking, and ought to be taken at face value?) and trying to disallow plain sense interpretations of the OT looks arbitrary to me. After all, it is not the NT verses themselves which prove your point, but your interpretations of those verses, which is a different thing.
I’ll stop here and wait for your response.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Mike wrote,
As our friend seems to like the Book of Hebrews, he might profit from prayerfully reading Heb. 6:13-19. His oaths are immutable! Praise God!
The implications of a God who re-writes His covenants are what terrifies me: Is it possible that the spiritual salvation God has promised to me as a believer on Christ will be taken away and replaced with something that I can’t imagine? I think not.Mike, the reason you respond this way is because you see clearly that if God were to “re-write His covenants”, or, which is even worse, did not state His plain intentions in the covenant oaths, He would not be God. It is not just that we would have to ruefully cling on to the specious hope that God’s promises to us in the Gospel are to be taken at face value (which is an awful thought). It is that a god who enters into a covenant and does not intend to do what he says in the covenant is not an honest god.
As our friend seems to like the Book of Hebrews, he might profit from prayerfully reading Heb. 6:13-19. His oaths are immutable! Praise God!
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Jack Hampton wrote: “Therefore it is certain that the land promises were not fulfilled at the Cross in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
The Old Testament is certain that “land promises” were fulfilled _before_ the Cross:
“And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass (Joshua 21:43-45).”
The New Testament, moreover, is certain that “land promises” are not fulfilled _after_ the Cross.
The disciples on the Road to Emmaus, troubled by a sense of unfulfilled, national promise, “trusted that it had been he [Christ Jesus] which should have redeemed Israel.” The Lord replied: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke24:25-27).
He expounded nothing concerning “land promises.”
“Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:45-47).”
No “land promises” are attached to His opening of their understanding of scriptures.
The Old Testament is certain that “land promises” were fulfilled _before_ the Cross:
“And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass (Joshua 21:43-45).”
The New Testament, moreover, is certain that “land promises” are not fulfilled _after_ the Cross.
The disciples on the Road to Emmaus, troubled by a sense of unfulfilled, national promise, “trusted that it had been he [Christ Jesus] which should have redeemed Israel.” The Lord replied: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke24:25-27).
He expounded nothing concerning “land promises.”
“Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:45-47).”
No “land promises” are attached to His opening of their understanding of scriptures.
Mike Durning wrote: “I find this element of replacement theology terrifying.”
Then you should find the “replacement” taught by the Lord Jesus “terrifying” as well:
“And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:11,12),” and, “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:43).”
Then you should find the “replacement” taught by the Lord Jesus “terrifying” as well:
“And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:11,12),” and, “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:43).”
Paul Hennebury’s claim, “But nothing in Hebrews precludes a rebuilt Temple, either in the Tribulation or the Millennium which follows it,” is spurious because the entire letter uplifts the Person of Christ Jesus as having completely fulfilled the temple type, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Hebrews 9:24).” This scripture proceeds from Hebrews 8:1,2, “ …We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.”
Paul Hennebury writes: “But you appear to be saying that when God said Jer. 33:14-26 He actually didn’t mean what the words say. Did He then mean something like, ‘these covenant oaths with Israel about king, and land, and priesthood are not to be taken at face-value. They will be fulfilled differently than this passage would lead one to expect. Everything is fulfilled spiritually and typologically in Messiah. I could have said this plainly. I am equivocating.’
Obviously, his argument is with New Testament scripture ”taken at face value,” especially the declaration, “For all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him, Amen, unto the glory of God by us (2 Corinth. 1:20)”; it does not comprehend that Christ Jesus’ finished work fulfills the covenant oaths to Israel:
“But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. [For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:11-15).”
At the conclusion of Hebrews there’s an ‘unequivocal‘ exhortation to Christian Jews grounded in “the holy scriptures [including Jeremiah] which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15)”:
“Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come (13:12-14).”
Paul Hennebury’s approach to the Hebrew letter is welded to dispensationalism’s “continuing city” with its “rebuilt Temple, either in the Tribulation or the Millennium.” Abraham, however, “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10).”’
There is, accordingly, a far greater profit for “our” Hebrews-liking friend, if he reads Hebrews 6:13-19 (about the promise God made to Abraham) without dispensational glasses. He’d read it through the Christ-centered testimony of Galatians 3:
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree… 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith… 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ… 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise… 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Abraham’s seed, unlike dispensationalist ideology, have absolutely no need for a “rebuilt Temple.”
Paul Hennebury writes: “But you appear to be saying that when God said Jer. 33:14-26 He actually didn’t mean what the words say. Did He then mean something like, ‘these covenant oaths with Israel about king, and land, and priesthood are not to be taken at face-value. They will be fulfilled differently than this passage would lead one to expect. Everything is fulfilled spiritually and typologically in Messiah. I could have said this plainly. I am equivocating.’
Obviously, his argument is with New Testament scripture ”taken at face value,” especially the declaration, “For all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him, Amen, unto the glory of God by us (2 Corinth. 1:20)”; it does not comprehend that Christ Jesus’ finished work fulfills the covenant oaths to Israel:
“But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. [For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:11-15).”
At the conclusion of Hebrews there’s an ‘unequivocal‘ exhortation to Christian Jews grounded in “the holy scriptures [including Jeremiah] which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15)”:
“Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come (13:12-14).”
Paul Hennebury’s approach to the Hebrew letter is welded to dispensationalism’s “continuing city” with its “rebuilt Temple, either in the Tribulation or the Millennium.” Abraham, however, “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10).”’
There is, accordingly, a far greater profit for “our” Hebrews-liking friend, if he reads Hebrews 6:13-19 (about the promise God made to Abraham) without dispensational glasses. He’d read it through the Christ-centered testimony of Galatians 3:
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree… 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith… 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ… 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise… 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Abraham’s seed, unlike dispensationalist ideology, have absolutely no need for a “rebuilt Temple.”
[bagridd] Mike Durning wrote: “I find this element of replacement theology terrifying.”Romans 11:1-11 and the already mentioned Acts 15:16-17. God has not cast away His people. It is a temporary measure — that brings us a benefit. And Israel will be restored.
Then you should find the “replacement” taught by the Lord Jesus “terrifying” as well:
“And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:11,12),” and, “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:43).”
Let us not pretend that Dispensationalism has no answer for verses like the one you quote, bagridd. Nor should we pretend that an Amil Replacement Theology has no answers to our challenges. In making decisions between positions like Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology, we all weigh hundreds of factors and nuances differently.
I am simply saying that I cannot in any way see how the unchanging God could commit to Israel and then change His mind and promises.
For what it’s worth, here is a reply to bagridd:
His first paragraph appears to be saying that because Christ has entered heaven for us by ministering in “the sanctuary” of “the true tabernacle” (neither of which he believes in), then that is all there is to it. No more proof is needed. There will be no rebuilt temple. The thinking is presumably that the rebuilt temple is vestigial and God’s covenant promise to the Levites (Jer. 33:17-22 - this entails reading passages like Num. 25:11-13 & Mal. 3:2-4) doesn’t mean anything. Even a novice knows that Jesus was not a Levite and His priesthood is different (Heb. 7:11-15). Thus, we are presented with covenant promises in the OT and how to reconcile them to Christ’s priestly work. One option is to make God prevaricate. God’s words in e.g. Jer. 30-33 & Ezek. 36-37 were deliberately misleading. The other option is to inquire whether a rebuilt temple is in any way contradictory to the final work of Christ and His session. After all, it is God Himself who made the oaths. It is not up to us to fulfill them; it is God’s problem. But since God knew exactly what He was promising I may rest secure that He will fulfill all his covenants to the letter.
One clue that there is no contradiction is Heb. 2:4. It was never possible for the blood of beasts to take away sin. But Israel still had a temple! This was true in OT times and it will hold for the future. Our anti-dispensationalist, bagridd, wants God to equivocate and all will be okay.
Then he thinks he can sweep away Jer. 33:14ff. by quoting 2 Cor. 1:20. This is what we might call not addressing the question. Tell you what bagridd, let’s excise all this language about “If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night…”, and “If my covenant is not with the day and night [ref. to Gen. 8:22] , and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then I will cast away the descendents of Jacob and Davis My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendents to be rulers over the descendents of …” and let’s just say God cannot be believed here! After all, this whole passage is the strongest pledge in Scripture that God will do what the covenants say, and bagridd’s response is a misuse of 2 Cor. 1:20 with “Christ Jesus’ finished work fulfills the covenant oaths to Israel.” How does he know this? Easy, his interpretation of the NT proves it! Again, none of his proof-texts say what he interprets them as saying (Can he show me [as in demonstrate] where Heb. 9:11-15 speaks to the matter of a rebuilt temple?). But he will read his meaning into God’s Word come what may. He’ll do this while carefully avoiding the passages he is confronted with.
Further, how does he know that a God who equivocates on OT promises can be trusted with NT promises?
He has failed to address Jer. 31ff. or 33:14ff. He has failed to account for spiritualizing the “true tabernacle” in Hebrews 8:2. He has failed to tell us how Jn. 2 has anything to do with a rebuilt temple. And he has failed to address my important argument about equivocation in the nature of [his] God. He seems to be bearing a grudge. He doesn’t like Dispensationalism. Okay, but these posts were meant as correctives to 95 Theses which charged Dispensationalism but failed to substantiate the charges. Bagridd would doubtless fit in well with this company.
Btw, brother bagridd, there is only one ‘n’ in Henebury. Read it.
His first paragraph appears to be saying that because Christ has entered heaven for us by ministering in “the sanctuary” of “the true tabernacle” (neither of which he believes in), then that is all there is to it. No more proof is needed. There will be no rebuilt temple. The thinking is presumably that the rebuilt temple is vestigial and God’s covenant promise to the Levites (Jer. 33:17-22 - this entails reading passages like Num. 25:11-13 & Mal. 3:2-4) doesn’t mean anything. Even a novice knows that Jesus was not a Levite and His priesthood is different (Heb. 7:11-15). Thus, we are presented with covenant promises in the OT and how to reconcile them to Christ’s priestly work. One option is to make God prevaricate. God’s words in e.g. Jer. 30-33 & Ezek. 36-37 were deliberately misleading. The other option is to inquire whether a rebuilt temple is in any way contradictory to the final work of Christ and His session. After all, it is God Himself who made the oaths. It is not up to us to fulfill them; it is God’s problem. But since God knew exactly what He was promising I may rest secure that He will fulfill all his covenants to the letter.
One clue that there is no contradiction is Heb. 2:4. It was never possible for the blood of beasts to take away sin. But Israel still had a temple! This was true in OT times and it will hold for the future. Our anti-dispensationalist, bagridd, wants God to equivocate and all will be okay.
Then he thinks he can sweep away Jer. 33:14ff. by quoting 2 Cor. 1:20. This is what we might call not addressing the question. Tell you what bagridd, let’s excise all this language about “If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night…”, and “If my covenant is not with the day and night [ref. to Gen. 8:22] , and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then I will cast away the descendents of Jacob and Davis My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendents to be rulers over the descendents of …” and let’s just say God cannot be believed here! After all, this whole passage is the strongest pledge in Scripture that God will do what the covenants say, and bagridd’s response is a misuse of 2 Cor. 1:20 with “Christ Jesus’ finished work fulfills the covenant oaths to Israel.” How does he know this? Easy, his interpretation of the NT proves it! Again, none of his proof-texts say what he interprets them as saying (Can he show me [as in demonstrate] where Heb. 9:11-15 speaks to the matter of a rebuilt temple?). But he will read his meaning into God’s Word come what may. He’ll do this while carefully avoiding the passages he is confronted with.
At the conclusion of Hebrews there’s an ‘unequivocal‘ exhortation to Christian Jews grounded in “the holy scriptures [including Jeremiah] which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15)”:Eh? Is this guy really saying that Jeremiah knew that Jesus of Nazareth would die on a Roman Cross for his sins? Where does he pull that from? 2 Tim. 3:15 is written to Timothy [“make thee…”] and other Christians after the fact; not people in the 6th Century B.C.!
“Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come (13:12-14).”
Paul Hennebury’s approach to the Hebrew letter is welded to dispensationalism’s “continuing city” with its “rebuilt Temple, either in the Tribulation or the Millennium.” Abraham, however, “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10).”’And Abraham was told by God that he wouldn’t inherit the promises, yet his physical posterity would (Gen. 15:13-21). There is no contradiction. NB this again is a covenant oath (15:17). But so what? Bagridd’s version of God can prevaricate when entering upon covenants. His god simply is not to be trusted. Bagridd will piously tell us that the NT means what it says. I agree! But what he means is “the NT means what I want it to mean” which I don’t agree with. If bagridd wants to prove his point he will have to do a lot more than quote verses which have nothing to do with the issue and lend Divine authority to his assertions.
Further, how does he know that a God who equivocates on OT promises can be trusted with NT promises?
There is, accordingly, a far greater profit for “our” Hebrews-liking friend, if he reads Hebrews 6:13-19 (about the promiseHe missed the point by a few miles. This is what I said (to Mike):
God made to Abraham) without dispensational glasses.
As our friend seems to like the Book of Hebrews, he might profit from prayerfully reading Heb. 6:13-19. His oaths are immutable! Praise God!I was trying to get bagridd to look at this passage and twig that God’s oaths are “immutable” (i.e. unchangeable – cf. Mal 3:16). It was not read with “dispensationalist glasses”! Is this person prepared to say God’s oaths are not immutable? Probably, although getting him to address any matter put to him is tough. We are supposed to read Hebrews 6 through Galatians 3. Did God tell him that? That bagridd is reading Heb. 6:13-19 through the “glasses” of Galatians 3 he admits. I’ll read Heb. 6 through the lens of Heb. 6 and then I’ll see if Gal 3 is speaking about the same thing. It’s Not! In the Hebrews passage the author is speaking about God’s oaths to Abraham, which are based on Christ’s priestly work. Paul’s argument in Gal. 3 is that Christ took our curse so that the blessing for the Gentiles in the Abrahamic covenant (Gal. 3:8) comes through. The two texts are only commentaries on each other in bagridd’s mind.
Abraham’s seed, unlike dispensationalist ideology, have absolutely no need for a “rebuilt Temple.”Thanks for the information. That really is what it comes down to for bagridd. If he doesn’t see a “need” then he can turn the God of Truth into an equivocator (notice he didn’t even touch this point!). He can ignore every counter-argument he doesn’t like and cling to a hermeneutics of opinion. I addressed all his points by looking at all his proof-texts. He has not even addressed one text I raised. He just blows past them with an assertion.
He has failed to address Jer. 31ff. or 33:14ff. He has failed to account for spiritualizing the “true tabernacle” in Hebrews 8:2. He has failed to tell us how Jn. 2 has anything to do with a rebuilt temple. And he has failed to address my important argument about equivocation in the nature of [his] God. He seems to be bearing a grudge. He doesn’t like Dispensationalism. Okay, but these posts were meant as correctives to 95 Theses which charged Dispensationalism but failed to substantiate the charges. Bagridd would doubtless fit in well with this company.
Btw, brother bagridd, there is only one ‘n’ in Henebury. Read it.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Correction:
One clue that there is no contradiction is Heb. 2:4. It was never possible for the blood of beasts to take away sin.. I meant of course, Heb. 10:4!
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul Henebury writes: “…and bagridd’s response is a misuse of 2 Cor. 1:20 with ‘Christ Jesus’ finished work fulfills the covenant oaths to Israel’. How does he know this?”
1 Corinth. 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
- - - - - - -
Paul Henebury writes: “Eh? Is this guy really saying that Jeremiah knew that Jesus of Nazareth would die on a Roman Cross for his sins? Where does he pull that from? 2 Tim. 3:15 is written to Timothy [“make thee…”] and other Christians after the fact; not people in the 6th Century B.C.!”
Luke 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
1 Peter 1: 9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
- - - - - - -
Paul Henebury writes: “Bagridd will piously tell us that the NT means what it says… If bagridd wants to prove his point he will have to do a lot more than quote verses which have nothing to do with the issue and lend Divine authority to his assertions. Further, how does he know that a God who equivocates on OT promises can be trusted with NT promises?”
Acts 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
2 Corinth. 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
- - - - - - -
Paul Henebury writes: “He has not even addressed one text I raised. He just blows past them with an assertion.”
Paul Henebury had also written: “But nothing in Hebrews precludes a rebuilt Temple, either in the Tribulation or the Millennium which follows it,”
[No text from the Letter to the Hebrews supporting the concept of a “rebuilt temple” has been provided.]
1 Corinth. 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
- - - - - - -
Paul Henebury writes: “Eh? Is this guy really saying that Jeremiah knew that Jesus of Nazareth would die on a Roman Cross for his sins? Where does he pull that from? 2 Tim. 3:15 is written to Timothy [“make thee…”] and other Christians after the fact; not people in the 6th Century B.C.!”
Luke 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
1 Peter 1: 9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
- - - - - - -
Paul Henebury writes: “Bagridd will piously tell us that the NT means what it says… If bagridd wants to prove his point he will have to do a lot more than quote verses which have nothing to do with the issue and lend Divine authority to his assertions. Further, how does he know that a God who equivocates on OT promises can be trusted with NT promises?”
Acts 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
2 Corinth. 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
- - - - - - -
Paul Henebury writes: “He has not even addressed one text I raised. He just blows past them with an assertion.”
Paul Henebury had also written: “But nothing in Hebrews precludes a rebuilt Temple, either in the Tribulation or the Millennium which follows it,”
[No text from the Letter to the Hebrews supporting the concept of a “rebuilt temple” has been provided.]
Jack Hampton wrote: “The verses which you quote are in regard to only[sic] the Mosaic Covenant. Dr. Henebury speaks of the ‘covenant oaths’ and that includes much more than just the Mosaic Covenant. You failed to address the following verse that is in regard to the Davidic covenant:
‘Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David…I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime” (2 Sam.7:8,10)’.”
Scripture replies: 2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
Luke 1: 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Mark 12: 35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
Acts 13: 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
“…[W] orship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev.19:10).” The testimony of unfulfilled earthly promises to an unbelieving, earthly ethnicity is the spirit of dispensationalist prognostication.
‘Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David…I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime” (2 Sam.7:8,10)’.”
Scripture replies: 2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
Luke 1: 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Mark 12: 35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
Acts 13: 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
“…[W] orship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev.19:10).” The testimony of unfulfilled earthly promises to an unbelieving, earthly ethnicity is the spirit of dispensationalist prognostication.
Discussion