My Journey Out of Dispensationalism
My friends have often heard me say, “The more I read my Bible the less dispensational I become.” This statement comes from someone who was spiritually nurtured in churches with dispensational theology, who graduated from a Christian university steeped in dispensational theology, who received his first graduate degree from a dispensational seminary, and who—for twelve years—preached sermons that reflected dispensational theology. For the first sixteen years of my Christian life, I rarely questioned the fundamental distinctions of dispensational theology. What are those distinctions? In his discussion of what he called the “sine qua non of dispensationalism,” Ryrie asserted:
A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct … This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive (Ryrie 44-45).
Later he concluded, “the essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church” (Ryrie 47).
As a dispensationalist I studied my Bible with the understanding that God had dual and separate plans for Israel and the church. I understood this “church age” to be somewhat parenthetical until God resumed His plan with the nation of Israel. I believed that the Abrahamic covenant and all the other Old Testament covenants were essentially for national Israel, and that only the soteriological benefits of the covenants belonged to the church.
As I continued to pastor and preach, I realized that my training in the Old Testament was weak. I decided to pursue a Master of Theology in Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary. My dispensational comrades in ministry assured me that Westminster would ruin my theology. I suppose many of them believe that has happened. Nevertheless, I was drawn to Westminster primarily because Bruce Waltke was teaching there. I had read books and articles by Dr. Waltke and had profited immensely from them.
While at Westminster I had the privilege of learning from Vern Poythress, Tremper Longman, and Raymond Dillard, along with Bruce Waltke. At first I listened as an antagonist, but I was soon won over by their personal graciousness and their commitment to Scripture. I began to experience discomfort as I realized that my commitment to dispensationalism was often unyielding, even when contradicted by the results of exegesis. These words from the introduction to my Th.M thesis summarize my response at that time:
Exegesis often eviscerates one’s theological presuppositions. When a theological bulwark withstands the penetration of biblical exegesis, its tenets remain secure. However, if its walls crumble beneath the weight of incisive and precise exegesis, then one must abandon the fortress and construct a better one (Davis, 1990, 1).
During the course of my study at Westminster, Bruce Waltke was my faculty advisor. I was privileged to have a number of personal discussions with him regarding the uneasiness I felt in questioning dispensationalism. As I considered what to research for my Th.M thesis, he suggested a topic that would be beneficial to me on my journey and helpful to others. I wrote “A Critical Evaluation of the Use of the Abrahamic Covenant in Dispensationalism.” The writing of that thesis opened a door and gave me a gentle push toward my eventual departure from dispensationalism.
As I worked through the exegesis of the Abrahamic Covenant and the hermeneutical issues surrounding it, I came to this conclusion:
Through an inductive study, this paper has arrived at a position that approximates covenant theology, namely, that that covenants confirm and explicate the program by which God redeems a people for Himself. It has been established that Israel and the church need to be perceived as sub-categories of a larger concept, i.e. the people of God. The Abrahamic covenant is not the beginning of the people of God, but rather God’s redemptive means, after the rebellion at Babel and the dispersion, to reclaim a fallen world to Himself. The Abrahamic covenant needs to be viewed in its relation to God’s purposes for the entire world, not simply His purposes for a nation. The Abrahamic covenant needs to viewed in light of the inauguration of eschatological times with the first advent of Jesus Christ, as well as the consummation of eschatology at the second advent (Davis 109).
Since those years at Westminster, I have continued to think about these issues and have become more and more convinced that exegesis and biblical theology do not support the sine qua non of dispensationalism (i.e., the distinction between Israel and the church). Since Christ is the final and fullest revelation of God, I now see that the Old Testament anticipated Christ and finds its interpretation and fulfillment in Christ.
In the New Testament—apart from well-debated text in Romans 11:25-27—there is not even a hint of a future restoration of the nation of Israel to the land. Of the seventy four references to Abraham in the New Testament, not one clearly focuses on the “earthly” elements of the covenant. Even the acceptance of a mass conversion of Israelites at some future time does not demand a return to a former order of things.
Take, for example, the Apostle Paul’s discussion of the relationship of the law to saving faith, in Galatians 3. He introduces Abraham as a paradigm of saving faith and of inclusion in the promises of God. In the course of his discussion, the apostle makes interpretive statements based on his understanding of the Genesis passages. These reflect on the Abrahamic covenant. These statements are as follows:
- “Those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).
- “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ’All nations will be blessed through you’” (Gal. 3:8).
- “Those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham” (Gal. 3:9).
- “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:14).
- “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).
- “But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22).
Paramount in these verses is the redemptive significance of the Abrahamic covenant as it finds its consummation in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ, as the quintessential seed of Abraham, is both the guarantor and inheritor of the promises of the covenant.
Relationship with Christ, established by emulating the faith of Abraham, guarantees one’s participation in the promises of the covenant. It is not the keeping of the law or physical descent from Abraham that constitutes one as a child of Abraham, but rather faith in Jesus Christ.
These verses sanction the redemptive nature of the Abrahamic covenant. They confirm that covenant as the unifying factor between Jews and Gentiles, and they substantiate the view that there is one people of God of all ages that share the covenants of Scripture which find their consummation in Christ.
Strikingly, Paul perceives redemption in Christ to be the dominant, though not exclusive, feature of the Abrahamic covenant. He finds the consummation of the covenant in Christ and participation in the covenant to be predicated on relationship to Christ. Though, admittedly, I argue from silence here, the “material” nature of the promises to Abraham appears to be somewhat idealized in Christ. Though not necessarily removing those “material” elements of the Abrahamic covenant, Paul’s treatment certainly places them in a new light.
Consequently, due to the advent of Christ as the seed of Abraham, the New Testament sees a semi-realized fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in New Testament believers and the church and an ultimate eternal fulfillment in the New Heavens and Earth for all those who are “seed” of Abraham by faith.
In Christ we have our “landedness” as we are “blessed in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ,” (Eph. 1:3) and are assured that we have “an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade kept in heaven” (1 Pet. 1:3).
The New Testament texts that consider the question, “Who are the legitimate heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant?” unequivocally answer, “All of those who are in Christ Jesus.” In reference to the unity of believing Jews and Gentiles, George N. H. Peters cogently concludes:
Both elect are the seed, the children of Abraham; both sets of branches are on the same stock, on the same root, on the same olive tree; both constitute the same Israel of God, the members of the same body, fellow-citizens of the same commonwealth; both are Jews “inwardly” (Romans 2:29), and of the true “circumcision” (Phil. 3:3), forming the same “peculiar people,” “holy nation,” and “royal priesthood”; both are interested in the same promises, covenants, and kingdom; both inherit and realize the same blessings at the same time (Peters 404).
In conclusion, may we all continue to “do theology” rooted in humility, exegesis, biblical theology, and community. Though I do not agree with many of Clark Pinnock’s theological conclusions, I do appreciate his delightful approach to the theological enterprise. He said,
I approach theology in a spirit of adventure, being always curious about what I may find. For me theology is like a rich feast, with many dishes to enjoy and delicacies to taste. It is like a centuries-old conversation that I am privileged to take part in, a conversation replete with innumerable voices to listen to…. More like a pilgrim than a settler, I tread the path of discovery and do my theology en route (quoted in Grenz 134).
Works Cited
Davis, John P. “A Critical Examination of the Use of the Abrahamic Covenant in Dispensationalism.” Master of Theology Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1990.
Grenz, Stanley J. Renewing the Center. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.
Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 1952.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.
Dr. John P. Davis is currently planting a church in Sunnyside (Queens), New York. Grace Fellowship Church is a gospel-centered city church seeking to reach people of all nations. John received the Bachelor of Arts in Bible with a minor in Greek at Bob Jones University, a Master of Divinity from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, the Master of Theology in Old Testament from Westminster Theological Seminary, and the Doctor of Ministry from Biblical Theological Seminary. His Th.M. thesis was A Critical Evaluation of the Use of the Abrahamic Covenant in Dispensationalism. His D.Min. project/dissertation was Common Factors in the Practice of Ongoing Personal Evangelism. In addition to Sunnyside, NY John has pastored churches in Buckingham, Pennsylvania, in Brooklyn, New York, and in Roslyn, Pennsylvania. Two of the churches were new church-plants.
- 1776 views
Thank you for your essay. Having grown up in a moderately dispensational home and having attended a dispensational college and seminary, I identify with your journey. I have come to many of the same conclusions. I must admit to jealousy is reading that you were able to study under Walke, Longman, and Poythress. :) Is it possible to get a copy of your Th.M. Thesis? While I do not identify myself with Covenant Theology, I empathize with many of its tenets, in particular its Christocentric nature. I still cannot swallow classic Covenant Theology’s Theological covenants (Works and Grace). I think I understand how these theologians arrived at these conclusions, but I can find no exegetical support for them. From an exegetical standpoint, I feel more comfortable with New Covenant theology.
I am curious if you have studied the teachings of the early church with regard to eschatology and the relationship between Israel and the Church. From my reading it appears the general consensus (I say this with fear and trepidation of reductionism) of the early church was to see the Church as the true Israel and true seed of Abraham, yet still take the physical provisions (aka land promises) of the Abrahamic covenant literally as being fulfilled in a future 1000 yr reign of Christ on the earth. For example Justin Martyr in his “Dialogue with Trypho” Chapter 119 said, “along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land” (cf. Chapter 139). Passages such as Rom 4:13 (Abraham would be heir of the world) would seem to support this reading). The NT use of the inheritance motif would also seem to confirm this. Since these promises could theoretically be fulfilled in either a future millennium or in the new heavens and new earth, I realize it does not answer the millennial question. I am curious exactly how Waltke understands promises like these (I know he uses that term “landedness” a lot).
Thank you for your essay. I pray many people take what you say to heart. Again, please let me know if I can get a copy of your thesis.
For me, Rom. 4:11-16 coupled with Gal. 3 was pivotal. In Rom. 4, it stresses: 1) Believer’s are Abraham’s true children, 2) Abraham was promised that he would be heir of the kosmos (world) 3) This precise promise (that Abraham would be heir of the world) is intended for all the spiritual children of Abraham.
The Old Testament background to 1 Pet. 2:9-10 and Eph. 6:1-3’s claim that Gentile children can extend life “in the land” by obedience, are two of the other hugely influential texts that forced me to re-evaluate dispensationalism.
Thanks again, and God bless,
Bob Hayton
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[C.S. Gates] I must admit to jealousy is reading that you were able to study under Walke, Longman, and Poythress. :)Me too, LOL.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Pastor Mike Harding
You write: “In the New Testament—apart from well-debated text in Romans 11:25-27—there is not even a hint of a future restoration of the nation of Israel to the land. ” Are you kidding, John?
Let me start with a more obscure text. Check out James 5:17-18 in context - written to godly Jews expereincing God’s judgment on Israel by being removed out of the land of Israel - just like Elijah did, who also was removed out of the land of Israel for being faithful to the God of Israel (1 Kings 17:8ff). Notice the repeitiion of “land” in 17-18, and the promise at the end of v. 18 of future fruit. BTW, Elijah’s removal from the land resulted in Getnile salvation, (widow from Sidon and family), even as the Jews being scattered (James 1:1) resulted in the same. The point of the text is to pray that God will end his judgment on Israel, just as Elijah prayed for an end to rain on the land of Israel. I trust you know the OT significance of rain in relation to God’s cov’t with Israel (Lev. 26:3-4, Deut 8, 1 Kings 8:35ff).
Or, moving to those texts we are more familiar with, check out Mark 9:9-12, in which Jesus assures the 3 disciples that Elijah does come and fulfill Malachi. 4. He came in John the Baptist, but the people rejected him. JB never did “restore the hearts of the father to the sons,” etc., which in context is covenant promise to the nation, not merely families within the nation. Elijah’s ministry is yet to be fulfilled, since the people did not receive John the Baptist any more than they received Jesus (c.f. Matthew 11:14). Elijah even shows up on the Mt. of Transfiguration in connection with the Kingdom in the promised land (Mark 9:1-4). The disciples recognize that Elijah, the future land of Israel, and bodily resurrection, all go together - and Jesus does not correct their understanding of this (Mark 9:9-13).
Perhaps the best known is the discussion of land in Acts 1:6ff. It is an assurance from the Lord that the kingdom will be restored to Israel, but not at this time. To see this, trace out what Jesus leaves out in 1:5 - “fire.” He left it out since the baptism of fire is eschatological fire on Israel, not the tongues of fire at Pentecost (see Mat. 3:11-12, Luke 3:16-17). Since Jesus told the disciples that the only baptism coming was that of the Holy spirit, and not fire (eschatological fire) in Acts 1:5, it prompted their correct question of Acts 1:6 - an eschatological question.
That’s enough for now. All that to answer a statement you made which has an apriori commitment you have about what you want the NT to say so it reflects the larger schema of theology that you embrace. Of course, if the apostles and NT prophets did not share your covenantal stance, they would see no reason to reiterate the land promise since they embraced it by the equally as inspired OT. They were writing to churches, were they not?
Apart from all that - may God send His Beloved Holy Spirit, in direct connection with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, to draw sinners to Christ and thereby bless immensely the new church you are laboring to establish. All for His eternal glory.
Ted Bigelow, www.gracechurchministry.org
Pastor Mike Harding
I also experienced a transition out of dispensationalism, which had as key components a number of the Scriptural texts already mentioned as well a growing awareness of the, at best, provincial understanding of hermeneutics that dominated dispensationalism’s self-understanding, certainly in its main propnents, like Chafer. Reading Hans Frei’s The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, as well some other works of a similar nature, helped me historically situate the kind of “literalism” that dispensationalism advocated. Frei also made centrally problematic for me the idea of a hermeneutic center, which I grew to find lacking or seriously inadequate in dispensationalism, largely because the problematic ideals of things like “univocality,” as Mike has mentioned.
I have become convinced by my study of historical theology/church history that, had the early church adopted and successfully applied the kind of literalism advocated by Dispensationalists on paper, orthodox Christianity would not have come to exist.
Moreover, the kind of hermeneutical and theological positions and sensibilities that characterize dispensationalism’s relationship to the history of the church’s thought and Scriptural interpretation seems to me to be sub-sets of the deadly anti-traditional mentality that characterizes Americans especially but also modernity and late-modernity in particular. The factors (including populism and primitivism and their anti-historical, traditional, and intellectual corollaries) dealt with in Nathan Hatch’s “The Democratization of American Christianity” partially explain why Dispensationalism was primarily an American phenomenon. It is these same factors, I think, that go a long way towards explaining the anti-Calvinist mentality of many dispensationalists; Confessional theology, from which Calvinism derives and to which it often leads, runs, in many ways, deeply against the grain of American culture, as D.G. Hart has shown in his work on the topic, whereas practical if not confessed Arminianism is deeply congruous with a number of defining elements of American culture that gained ascendancy in the nineteenth-century. As an illustration of this, Warren Susman in his brilliant essay, “Personality and the Making of Twentieth Century Culture” notes “the persistence in nineteenth century America of a predominantly Arminian vision.”
I think, then, that many people come to question not merely the explicit underpinning of dispensationalism, which most people are not taught explicitly in their churches anyway, but more fundamentally the sensibilities and plausibility structure that render dispensationalism a natural or obvious and easy to believe view of Scripture, and this shift in sensibilities is often corellated with an appreciation of Reformed soteriology, the adoption of which often draws people towards historical theology and an appreciation of creeds and confessions. So while there may be no logically necessary connection between dispansationalism and Arminian theology, I think there is a connection in that both are usually attended and rendered plausible by the same family of cultural sensibilities and intellectual dispositions. (And I would argue that exceptions to this prove the general rule.)
a) Things I’ve believed for as long as I can remember and
b) Not un-dispensationalist at all
Then I came to this and realized abruptly that he apparently means something different with several of the terms he uses…
[John P. Davis] In Christ we have our “landedness” as we are “blessed in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ,” (Eph. 1:3) and are assured that we have “an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade kept in heaven” (1 Pet. 1:3).Landedness?
I also found this pair of observations interesting.
In reference to his dispensational upbringing…
[John P. Davis] I believed that the Abrahamic covenant and all the other Old Testament covenants were essentially for national Israel, and that only the soteriological benefits of the covenants belonged to the church.Then later emphasizing the redemptive nature of the Abrahamic covenant as that which speaks to us today…
[John P. Davis] These verses sanction the redemptive nature of the Abrahamic covenant. They confirm that covenant as the unifying factor between Jews and Gentiles….The only difference here between John’s before and his after (the disp years vs. the post-Waltke years) is what happens to the land idea in relation to ethnic Israel, which, in any case, is greatly strengthened and clarified by covenants that came after the Abrahamic.
Strikingly, Paul perceives redemption in Christ to be the dominant, though not exclusive, feature of the Abrahamic covenant.
That the two peoples of God are one in Christ is really not in dispute between CT and Disp. What’s in dispute is whether the oneness in Christ results in an identicalness in Christ. For example, male and female are one in Christ as well, yet do not cease to be male and female (Gal. 3:28). So, on the one hand, there is a present and future unity of the people of God, yet we read of “the nations” in Rev. 21:24, for example (and Isaiah 60 and 66). So distinctions remain. My own view is that one huge distinction centers on the the land promises of the OT.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
One other note, about literal interpretation: in Mike Harding’s comment above, he stresses a literal approach to the Old Testament. Often, the literal approach to the New Testament seems to me to be ignored. How does one literally interpret Eph. 6:3, and 1 Pet. 2:9-10 as addressed to Gentile Christians? A literal exegesis of Rom. 4:11-16 and Gal. 3 also would influence one’s view on all of this.
I am aware how big a discussion this is, and that a forum is not the best venue to help change people’s opinions. I also respect the care on both sides to follow the Bible’s teaching. For anyone interested, I did a series on the land promise on my blog a while back, while I was going through Robertson’s book.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Joseph]I agree. (Classical) Dispensationalism, on the whole, is unsatisfying as an approach to hermeneutics, history, philosophy, and life in general. Just recently I read David Naugle’ s Worldview: History of a Concept. In his introduction he states that he needed to shift from Dispensationalism to covenant theology in order to think in terms of worldview. How he works that out is quite interesting. The apologetic endeavors of Cornelius Van Til, so popular with some Calvinist Dispensationalists, are based squarely upon a Reformed (even Vossian) reading of the biblical storyline. As you pointed out, Joseph, ideas like “univocality” and the lack of a hermeneutical center are the reason that no higher level work of hermeneutics has been penned by a Dispensationalist. Robert Thomas for example, in his screed Evangelical Hermeneutics, repeatedly states that he is not a hermeneutician yet has no problem taking to task every prominent hermeneutician of the 20th century! (The great irony is that he suggests a return to Ramm and Milton, who were not Dispensationalists.)
I think, then, that many people come to question not merely the explicit underpinning of dispensationalism, which most people are not taught explicitly in their churches anyway, but more fundamentally the sensibilities and plausibility structure that render dispensationalism a natural or obvious and easy to believe view of Scripture, and this shift in sensibilities is often corellated with an appreciation of Reformed soteriology, the adoption of which often draws people towards historical theology and an appreciation of creeds and confessions. So while there may be no logically necessary connection between dispansationalism and Arminian theology, I think there is a connection in that both are usually attended and rendered plausible by the same family of cultural sensibilities and intellectual dispositions. (And I would argue that exceptions to this prove the general rule.)
Calvinism provides categories that make covenant theology plausible (or vice versa). As our author noted, the strongly Calvinist conception of union with Christ resolves difficulties concerning the recipient of the Abrahamic Covenant, as well as identifies a substratum of blessings that must be common to all believers in all times and places. Some concept of the Covenant of Works/Grace (call it what you will) underlies Christ as the 2nd Adam, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and sola gratia. Also, once one takes an interest in historical theology, one can find thousands of pages of pre-Dispensational high quality theological material on the unfolding revelation of Scripture - Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, Witsius, Cocceius, Owen, Edwards, a’Brakel, etc. These men all conceived of, considered, and refuted challenges to the unity of “the covenant of grace” (not always by that term). They answered Dispensationalism before it was invented.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Ted Bigelow] I have traveled the opposite path, from a covenantal approach to a dispensational awareness in Scripture. It would be nice to see someone with a background like mine write up his own theological understanding. I would love to, but am already too involved in ministry and other book projects. I even posses the same theological degrees on my wall you do. But since I’m here now, let me snipe in a little, OK, John ;)I fail to see what you see in these texts. To use your words, “are you kidding?” It is this kind of dispensational textual maneuvering that gives impetus to my journey.
You write: “In the New Testament—apart from well-debated text in Romans 11:25-27—there is not even a hint of a future restoration of the nation of Israel to the land. ” Are you kidding, John?
Let me start with a more obscure text. Check out James 5:17-18 in context - written to godly Jews expereincing God’s judgment on Israel by being removed out of the land of Israel - just like Elijah did, who also was removed out of the land of Israel for being faithful to the God of Israel (1 Kings 17:8ff). Notice the repeitiion of “land” in 17-18, and the promise at the end of v. 18 of future fruit. BTW, Elijah’s removal from the land resulted in Getnile salvation, (widow from Sidon and family), even as the Jews being scattered (James 1:1) resulted in the same. The point of the text is to pray that God will end his judgment on Israel, just as Elijah prayed for an end to rain on the land of Israel. I trust you know the OT significance of rain in relation to God’s cov’t with Israel (Lev. 26:3-4, Deut 8, 1 Kings 8:35ff).
Or, moving to those texts we are more familiar with, check out Mark 9:9-12, in which Jesus assures the 3 disciples that Elijah does come and fulfill Malachi. 4. He came in John the Baptist, but the people rejected him. JB never did “restore the hearts of the father to the sons,” etc., which in context is covenant promise to the nation, not merely families within the nation. Elijah’s ministry is yet to be fulfilled, since the people did not receive John the Baptist any more than they received Jesus (c.f. Matthew 11:14). Elijah even shows up on the Mt. of Transfiguration in connection with the Kingdom in the promised land (Mark 9:1-4). The disciples recognize that Elijah, the future land of Israel, and bodily resurrection, all go together - and Jesus does not correct their understanding of this (Mark 9:9-13).
Perhaps the best known is the discussion of land in Acts 1:6ff. It is an assurance from the Lord that the kingdom will be restored to Israel, but not at this time. To see this, trace out what Jesus leaves out in 1:5 - “fire.” He left it out since the baptism of fire is eschatological fire on Israel, not the tongues of fire at Pentecost (see Mat. 3:11-12, Luke 3:16-17). Since Jesus told the disciples that the only baptism coming was that of the Holy spirit, and not fire (eschatological fire) in Acts 1:5, it prompted their correct question of Acts 1:6 - an eschatological question.
That’s enough for now. All that to answer a statement you made which has an apriori commitment you have about what you want the NT to say so it reflects the larger schema of theology that you embrace. Of course, if the apostles and NT prophets did not share your covenantal stance, they would see no reason to reiterate the land promise since they embraced it by the equally as inspired OT. They were writing to churches, were they not?
Apart from all that - may God send His Beloved Holy Spirit, in direct connection with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, to draw sinners to Christ and thereby bless immensely the new church you are laboring to establish. All for His eternal glory.
Ted Bigelow, www.gracechurchministry.org
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
Will the Jews gather in their land in belief at a future day?
Zechariah 12:10-14—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 first born.
In that day shall there be a great mourning in JERUSALEM, a the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the vlley of Megiddon.
And the LAND shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart…
13:1—In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of JERUSALEM for sin and for uncleanness.
LET GOD BE TRUE, GENTLEMEN!
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
[Pastor Marc Monte] Will there come a day when God gathers the Jews back to their land and when they believe on Christ? Zechariah thought so:Of course, God is always true. The text you quote actaully says nothing about the Jews being gathered back to the land. In Zechariah they are already in the land. Neither does it say they will believe in Christ, only that a fountain is opened. I respect your understanding of Zechariah 12-14 as referring to the Second Coming of the Messiah, though others understand it to refer to the First Coming of the Messiah, as seen in what follows..
Zechariah 12:10-14—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 first born.
In that day shall there be a great mourning in JERUSALEM, a the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the vlley of Megiddon.
And the LAND shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart…
13:1—In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of JERUSALEM for sin and for uncleanness.
LET GOD BE TRUE, GENTLEMEN!
“It is important for us to make another point here. Some desire to understand chapters 12-14 to refer to the second coming of Christ and the events that will take place in the supposed millennial kingdom of Christ. Therefore, it is argued that the phrase “in that day�? refers to the second coming. Consider that this is not possible due to the content of things that will happen “in that day.�? If “in that day�? has not happened yet, then the fountain for forgiveness of sins has not been opened for all yet. Thus, we are dying in our sins and do not have forgiveness, if these are all future events. We must understand these events to be referring to the work of the Messiah in His first coming to the earth. (http://www.apocalypseproject.com/index.php/zechariah-13/)
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
My blog: http://www.thinkingrandom.com
I appreciate your deep commitment to Scripture and its message as indicated by your many years of study and ministry. I also appreciate the ending emphasis of your original post when you stated, “May we all continue to ‘do theology’ rooted in humility, exegesis, biblical theology, and community.”
With respect to your studies and your road from dispensational to nondispensational theology, I was wondering if you could answer the following:
You realized after your MDiv training that your “training in the Old Testament was weak.” Would you say this comment reflects either not being fully introduced to the pertinent issues between nondispensational and dispensational theologies or simply not having a good grasp on the Old Testament as it pertains to knowing the Scriptural content itself?
As a follow-up question to either answer (or another that you may suggest if my options fail to describe your experience), do you think you would have landed on the side of dispensationalism had you pursued a ThM at a seminary like Baptist Bible Seminary since you would have been strengthening yourself in these matters as taught from a dispensational perspective?
Last, what would you say have been the practical ramifications of your journey from nondispensational to dispensational theology? Have you had to move from one “camp” to the other as Fundamentalism is largely dispensational, or has your journey led to little to no practical consequences concerning these matters?
I ask these questions from the vantage of point of a “junior” seminary student at a traditional-dispensational seminary and thus see a point of similarity between you and myself in that sense. Your answers would be helpful.
Discussion