« The Living Word (Lesson 1) | Main | Critiquing the Dispensational Hermeneutic »
Is Dispensationalism Biblical?
By pitchford | June 1, 2005
The interpretive grid which sees a literal fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies mandating a futuristic, national restoration of ethnic Israel as an earthly people of God enjoys much currency today. Is this hermeneutical framework biblical? The question is not primarily eschatological, although it does have necessary eschatological implications. Neither is the question exclusively one of literal or figurative interpretation. On the contrary, the question at hand affects the entirety of the essential nature of God’s eternal redemptive plan in Christ. It affects the liberty of an author to foreshadow the truths which it is his purpose to reveal, and later to explain the nature of his foreshadowing, and its intended application. It affects not the reality of promise-fulfillment, nor even the literalness of that fulfillment, but rather the one to whom the promises were made, and therefore, to whom they ought reasonably to be fulfilled. Does a natural, literal reading of the scripture message, from beginning to end, lead to an expectation of an ethnicity exercising world dominance in end times, or to a progression from shadows to spiritual realities, from unclear to manifest, from physical and ethnic to spiritual and multi-national? Could such a spiritualization even possibly be consistent with a literal understanding of scriptures? Consider for a moment an example from Ezekiel 17. There God declares in very specific and literal terms that a great, multi-colored eagle plucked up a vine and planted it elsewhere. Later on, God says about this eagle and this vine, “Say now to the rebellious house: Do you not know what these things mean? Tell them, Behold, the king of Babylon has come to Jerusalem and has taken its king and its rulers, and brings them to himself to Babylon.” Now, would it be consistent with a literal hermeneutic to say that God’s statement in clear terminology about an eagle and a vine was actually referring to the king of Babylon and Israel? Of course it would, because the very author of that parable later declared more manifestly what he intended to signify by what he had said. Only a fool would demand a literal historical event with an eagle and a vine, or insist, “Because God clearly said an eagle plucked up a vine, then a literal eagle plucked up a literal vine. You’re not calling God a liar, are you?” Now consider another example: God said in clear, specific, and literal terms, “This shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.” At that point, it may perhaps be legitimate for one to say, “God said very clearly ‘the house of Israel,’ so he must be talking about ethnic Israel; you’re not calling God a liar, are you?” However, when we read the same Author of this prophecy explain later, in no less specific terms, that this prophecy was made concerning us, the New Testament Church, and that it was fulfilled to us by Christ, then we had better be willing to rethink exactly what God meant by “house of Israel.” God tells us in Hebrews 10:15-22
The Holy Spirit also is a witness to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord; I will put My Laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” also He adds, “their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more.” Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Therefore, brothers, having boldness to enter into the Holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He has consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies having been washed with pure water.
Now that God has declared that he intended all of us New Testament believers by this prophecy referring to the “house of Israel,” it would be foolish for us to say, “He said Israel, he must mean ethnic Israel.” God himself is the best interpreter of what he has spoken. If he makes a promise to Israel, and declares that it is spoken of all believers, regardless of their nationality, that has necessary consequences for what we understand him to mean by “Israel”. If God can say “eagle,” and later show that he means the king of Babylon, then he can likewise say “Israel” and later show that he means all believers. The issue, then, cannot be, “What sort of prophetic fulfillment do we think is consistent with a literal understanding of the terminology employed? But rather, how does the bible itself understand specific terminology as it concerns prophecy-fulfillment? As we look at scriptures with this hermeneutic, that is, a hermeneutic which simply allows the author to speak obscurely at first and explain himself more manifestly later on, then we find a prophetic expectation that is vastly different from the Dispensational brand of “literalness”.
Keeping this simple hermeneutical principle in mind, let’s briefly examine six questions regarding the biblical expectations for the fulfillment of Old Testament “Israel” prophecies.
I. Does the Old Testament Expect a Glorious Physical/Ethnic Kingdom of Israel in the End Times?
On the face of it, the answer to this question may seem an obvious yes. Didn’t God promise the land of Palestine to the descendants of Abraham forever? Didn’t the Lord promise David that his kingdom would have no end, and that his seed would reign in Jerusalem forever? Didn’t God commence the fulfillment of these promises when he brought ethnic Israel up from Egypt and gave them the land he had promised to Abraham? When he raised up Solomon to sit on the throne in his father’s stead? What reason then can there be to expect anything different than an ethnic kingdom of Israel to fulfill end times prophecies? Furthermore, this is clearly the expectation that Israel as a whole retained at least until the first coming of Christ. When they heard that Jesus was the Christ, they were willing to make him king by force, so certain were they that the prophecies of the Messiah spoke of one who would restore a physical kingdom to ethnic Israel. However, there are reasons to suppose that the Old Testament itself was never intended to give this firm conviction, and that, in looking for a Restorer of the physical kingdom, Israel missed the true Christ of which the prophets spoke. Throughout the Old Testament, we can pick up on several characteristics of that era that were recognized by all God’s true people.
The Old Testament was confessedly a time of shadows.
It was to Abraham that God first made the land promises. But before his life ended, Abraham himself recognized that the land of Palestine was not the true kingdom which God was preparing for him. It was instead a type of the heavenly kingdom. Abraham looked beyond the type, and longed for “the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” This attitude is characteristic of all true saints, such as David, who looked beyond the sacrificial system to the spiritual reality of non-imputation on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ (Psalms 32, 51, etc.). Not only could the blood of bulls and goats never take away sins; but the true saints of the Old Testament knew this, and knew furthermore that these things were merely types of the coming Christ for whom they were waiting; even as David and others spoke of the resurrection of Christ, and based their eternal hopes on that reality. (e.g. Psalm 16:8-11).
The Old Testament looked ahead to the casting off of the old shadows.
When David recognizes that “Sacrifice and offerings you did not desire,” he rests his hope instead on the coming perfect sacrifice of Christ, who declares to the Father, “I delight to do your will.” (Psalm 40). The true Old Testament saint longed for the time when the types would be cast off forever, because Christ would bring the realities to which they pointed.
Included in this expected casting off of shadows is the casting off of national Israel as God’s people.
When God removed his Shekinah glory from the temple in Jerusalem, he was essentially signifying the taking up of his presence from Israel, so that they were no longer his special people. They were now the same as the Gentiles around them (see Ezekiel 11:23). If the reality of this casting off is not indisputably clear in Ezekiel’s vision, it nevertheless becomes manifestly apparent in Hosea 1. There God very clearly and explicitly declares that Israel will become “lo-ammi” — “not my people”. In this declaration, Israel becomes essentially the same as the Gentiles around them; therefore, immediately afterwards, when God declares that in the future Israel will number as the sand of the sea, he must mean an Israel that is drawn without distinction from a world that is, without distinction, “lo-ammi” with God. So the expected casting off of Old Testament shadows is complete enough to include the casting off of ethnic Israel as God’s people.
Subsequent to this casting off, the old Testament looked ahead to a fulfillment of the spiritual realities which the cast-off shadows had signified.
Hence, David looked ahead to a resurrected Christ exalted on his own throne, executing the office of priest, and reigning forevermore as king (see Psalm 110). His vision of future prophetic fulfillment was not limited to Solomon sitting in physical Jerusalem with the Aaronic priesthood offering up the blood of bulls and goats. And so with many other ceremonial types, which time forbids me now to enumerate.
Included in this spiritual fulfillment is the expectation of a restored, spiritual people of God.
Although God cast off physical Israel, he prophesied of a restoration of Israel. What would be the distinction between this eschatological Israel and the archetypical Israel? Israel would no longer be Israel because of birth or external laws on tablets. Instead, they would be Israel because God had written his law on their hearts, and put a new heart of flesh within their midst. (See Jer. 31:31-36; Ezekiel 36:24-28). This new Israel God would call from all the nations, choosing some who had been Gentiles to be Levites and Priests (See Isaiah 66:18-21). In fact, Paul himself clearly explains that the prophesied restoration of Israel spoken of by Hosea was accomplished when God called to himself a people from both ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles (Romans 9:24-26).
Hence, even in the Old Testament we start to see the necessity of a change from types to spiritual realities in order to do justice to the prophecies involving future Israel.
II. Did Christ Come to Offer an Earthly Kingdom, or to Proclaim the Inauguration of a Kingdom Not of This World?
Dispensationalism teaches that when Christ came to earth, he offered the Jews a physical kingdom, but they rejected him. Then, he inaugurated the church age instead, and put his plans for the kingdom he was offering to the Jews on the back shelf, so to speak. Therefore, he now has two distinct peoples and two distinct programs, one earthly, that will be picked up again in the end of this age; and one spiritual, that is being accomplished now, and will be effectually completed by a rapture from this earth, before God once again deals with his earthly people, national Israel. But is this understanding borne out by a perusal of the “kingdom of heaven” teaching of Christ throughout the gospels? It would appear from the gospel accounts of Christ, that he did not weakly “offer” himself as king, but proclaimed authoritatively the commencement of his kingdom. It seems obvious, as well, that the Jews did not reject Christ’s offer of being a physical king — in fact, they would have made him a king by force. It seems, moreover, that Christ did not intend a visible kingdom when he spoke of the kingdom that had arrived, but a kingdom that does not come with observation. What then is Christ’s teaching on the kingdom? In the beginning of his ministry, Christ is very clear that the long-awaited kingdom had arrived, and that he was the Messianic king who had long been prophesied. Matthew tells us that from the time Christ came to dwell in Capernaum, he started preaching, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” (Matt. 4:17). From the beginning of his ministry, then, Christ was proclaiming the commencement of the prophetic kingdom. That he was not merely offering himself to be the King of national Israel until they rejected him and caused him to rescind the offer is patently clear from his own testimony. For instance, when the Pharisees accused him of casting out devils by the power of Beelzebub, he demonstrated that on the contrary he was casting them out by the Spirit. Having observed this, he made the application, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Matt. 12:28) If Christ was doing these mighty works through the power of the Spirit, then the kingdom had come. Christ was not offering himself as King, but proclaiming himself to be King and declaring that his kingdom had already been inaugurated. This point is missed when one misunderstands the nature of his kingdom, as did the Jews and Pontius Pilate. They expected a kingdom that would be physical and visible. Christ himself deals with these misconceptions, declaring to the erring Pharisees, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation. Nor shall they say, Lo here! or, behold, there! For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:21). Christ’s clear teaching was that his kingdom had come and was already spreading — but it was not a kingdom which could be seen. He makes the same point again when standing before Pontius Pilate, who poses the question, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus’ reply is very emphatic: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from here” (Jn. 18:33-37). Dispensationalists understand the kingdom to which Christ refers exactly as Israel did — a physical kingdom for national Israel. But Christ rebuked Israel for their spiritual blindness and hardness of heart. You are wise, and know how to apply this.
III. To Whom Were All the Old Testament Promises Made and to Whom Must they be Fulfilled?
Contrary to Dispensational teaching, the seed to whom the Old Testament promises were made was not ethnic Israel. It was instead Christ. Ethnic Israel as God’s people, that is, God’s “Son,” was just a shadow of Christ, the true Son of God. Therefore Matthew is able to tell us that when God called Christ from Egypt, he was fulfilling the prophecy of Hosea: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt.” Matthew clearly tells us that when God said through Hosea, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son,” he was referring to Christ. We must, therefore, understand that Old Testament Israel was intended to signify Christ, as the true Son of God. To deny this would be equivalent to saying, “When God said an eagle, he could not have meant the King of Babylon.” Matthew did not have a flawed hermeneutic. He just did not have a dispensational hermeneutic. God was revealing manifestly through Matthew what he had previously signified more obscurely by this historical event of bringing out Israel from Egypt. And even beyond this interpretation in Matthew, there could be no more clear statement that Christ alone was the one seed to whom the Abrahamic promises were made than what we find in Galatians 3:16. There, Paul tells us, “And to Abraham and to his Seed the promises were spoken. It does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, “And to your Seed,” which is Christ.” Again, we find in II Corinthians 1:20 that, “All the promises of God in [Christ] are yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God by us.” The hermeneutic that demands that the Old Testament promises must be fulfilled to ethnic Israel is in direct opposition to the New Testament teaching that those promises were made to Christ alone and fulfilled in him alone. Christ owns the land of Israel, and reigns on the throne of David, and in him are multitudes numbering as the sand on the seashore. He is the one to whom all those promises were made, and a hermeneutic that demands an additional fulfillment to national Israel does not do justice to New Testament teaching.
If Christ is the one seed of Abraham, then who does the New Testament say is a Jew? Very simply, the one who is in Christ. Being a Jew is never seen as a matter of ethnicity in the New Testament. Christ himself tells the ethnic Jews that, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.” In other words, they could not claim Jewishness on the basis of ethnic descent, but only on the basis of a spiritual consistency with Abraham. How could this truth be more clear throughout the New Testament? In Romans 2, Paul tells us, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that outwardly in flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart; in spirit and not in letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.” In chapter 4 he tells us, “And [Abraham] received a sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith while still uncircumcised; so that he might be the father of all those believing through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be imputed to them also; and a father of circumcision to those not of the circumcision only, but also to those walking by the steps of the faith of our father Abraham during uncircumcision.” In chapter 9 he tells us, “Not however that the Word of God has failed, for not all those of Israel are Israel; nor because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. But, “In Isaac shall your Seed be called.” That is, not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed.” In Galatians 3 he tells us, “There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” How can Paul be more clear? In the New Testament, Israel is not composed of those ethnically descended from Abraham. Those who believe like Abraham are Abraham’s true children, the true Jews of this era, the true Israel of God.
IV. Does “Israel” Terminology in the New Testament Refer Exclusively to Ethnic Israel?
Dispensationalists teach that, any time the words “Israel,” “Jew,” “temple,” etc., show up in the New Testament, they are referring to ethnic Jews, national Israel, the physical temple, and so on. But is this the case? The briefest perusal of the New Testament will show that this is simply not so. On the contrary, we find throughout references to the church that are saturated with “Jewish” terminology. Consider, for instance, some of the following:
For it is written: Abraham had two sons, the one out of the slave-woman, and one out of the free woman. But, indeed, he out of the slave-woman has been born according to flesh, and he out of the free woman through the promise; which things are being allegorized; for these are the two covenants, one indeed from Mount Sinai bringing forth to slavery, which is Hagar. For Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem from above is free, who is the mother of us all. For it is written, “Rejoice, barren one not bearing; break forth and shout, you not travailing; for more are the children of the desolate than she having the husband.” But brothers, we, like Isaac, are children of promise. But then even as he born according to flesh persecuted him born according to the Spirit, so it is also now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave-woman and her son; for in no way shall the son of the slave-woman inherit with the son of the free woman.” Then, brothers, we are not children of a slave-woman, but of the free woman. [Galatians 4:22-31]
For you have not come to the mountain that might be touched and that burned with fire, nor to blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words (which voice they who heard begged that a word should not be spoken to them any more, for they could not endure the thing commanded, “And if so much as a beast should touch the mountain, it shall be stoned or thrust through with a dart,” and so fearful was the sight that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake). But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are written in Heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. [Hebrews 12:18-24]
We have an altar of which they have no right to eat, those who serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, so that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Therefore let us go forth to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come. By Him, then, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, confessing His name. But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. [Hebrews 13:10-16]
For having been drawn to Him, a living Stone, indeed rejected by men, but elect, precious with God; you also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession, so that you might speak of the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were not a people, but now the people of God, those not pitied then, but now pitied. [I Peter 2:4-5,9-10]
Now therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom every building having been fitly framed together, grows into a holy sanctuary in the Lord; in whom you also are built together for a dwelling place of God through the Spirit. [Ephesians 2:19-22]
In all of these passages, one thing must be patently clear: the New Testament authors were not at all scared to spiritualize Old Testament physical realities, and show that their spiritual fulfillment was being realized in the church. In other words, a literal reading of the New Testament leads one to the realization that the Author of the New Testament is simply explaining more clearly what he had been speaking of and showing forth figuratively throughout the Old Testament.
V. What Does the New Testament Say About the Permanence or Transitoriness of Old Testament Types?
Once again, what dispensationalism teaches of an end time return to God’s earthly program for Israel is not borne out by a perusal of the New Testament on the purpose and transitoriness of the old shadows. Consider the following:
Now the sum of the things which we have spoken is this: We have such a High Priest, who has sat down on the right of the throne of the Majesty in Heaven, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One have something to offer also. For if indeed He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the Law, who serve the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was warned of God when he was about to make the tabernacle. For, He says “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown to you in the mountain.” But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much He is also the Mediator of a better covenant, which was built upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been without fault, then no place would have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, He said to them, “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,” because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more.” In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away. [Hebrews 8:1-13]
Here we find very clearly explained that when Christ brought the substance, the old types — including the tabernacle, the priesthood, and, significantly, even the covenant itself — were permanently done away with. As long as the work of Christ remains operative, a return to the old types can be nothing but blasphemy. Consider again,
But once in the year into the second the high priest goes alone, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people) the Holy Spirit signifying by this that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. For it was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him who did the service perfect as regards the conscience, which stood only in meats and drinks, and different kinds of washings and fleshly ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But when Christ had become a 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 nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered once for all into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifies 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? [Hebrews 9:7-14]
For the Law which has a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things, appearing year by year with the same sacrifices, which they offer continually, they are never able to perfect those drawing near. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because the worshipers, when they had been once for all purged, would have had no more conscience of sin. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Therefore when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but You have prepared a body for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have had no pleasure. Then I said, Lo, I come (in the volume of the Book it is written of Me) to do Your will, O God.” Above, when He said, “Sacrifice and offering, and burnt offerings and offering for sin You did not desire, neither did You have pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “Lo, I come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first so that He may establish the second…For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified… Therefore, brothers, having boldness to enter into the Holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He has consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies having been washed with pure water. [Hebrews 10:1-9;14;19-22]
So we see that the old types are forever done away with, and replaced with something new, something which is spiritual, and not physical. They were transitory, and their time has ended. There can be no return to the old shadows that is not at the same time a blasphemy of Christ. Consider further:
Beware lest anyone rob you through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And you are complete in Him, who is the Head of all principality and power, in whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in whom also you were raised through the faith of the working of God, raising Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. Having stripped rulers and authorities, He made a show of them publicly, triumphing over them in it. Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a feast, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths. For these are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. [Colossians 2:8-17]
And again,
Therefore remember that you, the nations, in time past were in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; and that at that time you 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. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once afar off are made near by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, He making us both one, and He has broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them; and so that He might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity in Himself. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off, and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom every building having been fitly framed together, grows into a holy sanctuary in the Lord; in whom you also are built together for a dwelling place of God through the Spirit.
By revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the nations should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partaker of His promise in Christ through the gospel. [Ephesians 2:11-22; 3:3-6]
Any hermeneutic that suggests that, in the end times, the last trumpet will sound; Christ will re-erect the wall of division between Jews and Gentiles that he had previously torn down by his work on the cross; that he will carve into two peoples what had been one body; that he will strip away from ethnic Gentiles the share that they did have as fellow-heirs of the promises; any such hermeneutic is not only not to be found in the New Testament; but it even does despite to the work of Christ. The day that there is once again an ethnic distinction in the people(s) of God is the day that the distinction-shattering work of Christ will suffer a mighty relapse, the day that the shadows will nullify the substance, which is of Christ. To imagine that God will again deal with an earthly people who are his merely on the basis of ethnic descent, betrays a carnal mind such as the Pharisees had, whose hope of the Christ was so small as to be limited to a physical, ethnic kingdom. This is far different from and vastly inferior to the new Testament teachings we have on the consummative glory of the presently-reigning Davidic King, and of his people who are one body without distinction from all the nations of the earth.
VI. Do New Testament Authors Understand Old Testament Prophecies as Dispensationalists Interpret Them?
Once again, the dispensational understanding of Old Testament prophecy-fulfillment is vastly different from the New Testament teachings on how the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled. Read how Peter interprets Joel 2 in his sermon recorded in Acts 2. Or how he interprets Psalms 16 and 110 in the same sermon. Or How Matthew interprets Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. Or How the author of Hebrews interprets the cutting of the new covenant with “Israel,” from Jeremiah 33. Or how Paul interprets the wilderness account of the Rock that gave water in I Corinthians 10. Or how he interprets the prophesied restoration of the “house of Israel” in Romans 9. And so on. A hermeneutic that will allow an author to prefigure something initially, and explain unequivocally what he meant later on can never arrive at a dispensational understanding of scriptures. When one presupposes what interpretation a “literal” hermeneutic demands, and clings to that interpretation in spite of a clearly contradictory interpretation of the same prophecy given later on in scripture — then, and only then, can he reject the possibility of the church of this age being the spiritual people of God which was foreshadowed by his temporary earthly people, national Israel. Dispensationalism errs in that it demands the same brand of literalism which Christ rejected in the Pharisees. The spiritualization of the Old Testament people of God, so that in this age true Israel is equivalent to the church, is not an imaginative and careless theory. On the contrary, it is the only understanding that a literal reading of the New Testament will allow for.
Addendum:This was one of the first articles I wrote after God had graciously opened my eyes to the errors of the Dispensational hermeneutic; and hence, in my initial attempt to express my newly-discovered beliefs, I employed some terminology which I recognized, upon a more recent reading of the article, is misleading at best, and just plain wrong at worst. This includes phrases such as “his temporary earthly people, national Israel,” and, “The spiritualization of the Old Testament people of God, so that in this age true Israel is equivalent to the church.” Israel has always been God’s people, and true Israel has always been co-terminous with the Church. God did not replace Israel with the Church, he just expanded his Israel to include those of the Gentiles who were true heirs of Abraham by faith, while removing those of the Jews who were not inwardly Jews, but hardened in unbelief. The point that this article fails to make clear is that the Church in this age is not a replacement, but an expansion of true Israel, and an expansion in which the full remnant of elect ethnic Jews will be finally brought back in to their own natural tree. Anyway, just a few terminological corrections, but I still firmly believe that the essence of the article is eminently biblical.
Topics: Articles, Dispensationalism |
September 14th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
This is a wonderful article. A clear statement that represents an authentic Christ-centered hermeneutic. Christ is God’s plan for the fullness of time not ethnic Israel. God bless you Nathan.
More and more of this is needed, since less and less of evangelicalism seem to be aware of such a hermeneutic. Dispensationalism has gone far and wide and I pray that articles such as yours rise to the top for the sake of the glory of Christ our Savior and Redeemer.
I will pass this along to others. I believe it is not only logically clear, but exegetically faithful.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:26 am
Thanks, Nathan. Wow, this gives me a lot to think about. Thank you for using so much scripture in this artical. God bless you,
Joy
September 18th, 2005 at 12:46 am
Well-written, Pitchford. I have felt for some time that classic dispensationalism does not take into account the complexities of human language in the conveyance of meaning. This form of dispensationalism has presented us with a false dichotomy of “literal/objective” vs. “allegorical/subjective.” The rediscovery of a more biblical hermeneutic in which we allow the Scriptures to interpret themselves will, I pray, lead others not to pride or dissension but to a richer understanding of both covenants.
September 20th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Having just read your article I can thankfully say that I am enriched. Having read the bible through the lens of a dispensational hermeneutic for most of my Christian life, I have missed the full joy conveyed to me in the entirety of Scripture. However, I do not condemn as Pharisees those who still utilize a dispensational hermeneutic but rather join St. Augustine in confessing that I only ‘know’ as I am granted by God the faculty to ‘know’. I trust that all who read your article will leave the reading of it with a greater joy and appreciation of Scripture as I did. Thank you.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
I must apologize that I have not read this until now. It is excellent.
One of the most revealing things you brought up, yet one of the simplest, is the fact that Christ proclaimed Himself (as did John) as the promised Messiah - right then. The dispensationalists I know would definitely agree that the promises of the Messiah King, Son of David were fulfilled in Christ as He came two thousand years ago, but they would then necessarily have to assume that there should be a future, second fulfillment of the same prophecies - with no Scriptural precedent of twice-fulfilled (better, re-fulfilled) prophecies. Everything you said is good and Scriptural, but the brief mention you made of Christ as Messiah then sits pretty powerfully with me in regard to this issue.
Your thorough outlining of the case against the theology I grew up with will help me specifically with my pending study of eschatology. I’ve come to Covenant conclusions from other study, but some of your reminders of Christ’s teachings about the kingdom will help me come to a [presumably] amillenial conclusion.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:24 am
An amazing article Nathan! Very enriching!
April 5th, 2006 at 6:01 am
What about the literal fufillment of the other covenants? doesn’t that give evidence that the “New Covenant” will be literal as well. It also says that They will have a Land that was literal and that they would have it forever. A king forever, a throne forever, and a land forever three themes that are always consistant. None have been fufilled under this view. Yet with a deispensational viewpoint all of these are possible and will be fufilled in the future. No wherein Hebrews 8 does it say that the “New Covenant” is at work now. Only by severe SPIRITUALIZING scripture can a person come up witha ammillenial view.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Oikonomia,
First, let me address the lesser problem: Covenant Theology does not deny the eternal possession of land, or the eternal reign of a king on an eternal throne. Christ is reigning now from the throne of David, and he will reign forever. He will ultimately reign over his people in a new earth, an earth in which his presence really and intimately dwells — the very heart of the land promise. This land will exist forever. I will forbear to comment further, because I have already dealt at more length with some of these issues in this post, with which I would encourage you to interact if you still have questions/arguments.
Now, to the more important issue: your contention that the New Covenant is not operative today is a pernicious error. It cuts at the very heart of the gospel. It invalidates Christ’s own testimony of the import and end of his blood-shedding, as well as that of the apostle Paul, speaking to the Church in Corinth (I Corinthians 11). When Christ said, this cup is the “New Covenant in my blood, which was shed for you…” how could he have been more clear that the New Covenant was inaugurated by the shedding of his blood? The very cup which he gave the church to drink is a cup which he called the New Covenant. How can the Church be drinking the New Covenant when they drink Christ’s blood, and yet be unrelated to the New Covenant? If Christ’s blood does not establish his Church in the New Covenant relationship with him, then we all are still unforgiven, still without access to God, hopeless now and forever. This denial of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, shed to bring his church into that covenant relationship with him, is a logical conclusion arrived at by extreme Dispensationalists — a conclusion which wreaks havoc on the gospel of God’s grace in Christ. I plead with you to renounce this particularly grievous error, even if you still embrace the interpretations of a more moderate Dispensationalism.
By the way, Hebrews 8:6, which prefaces the Jeremiah quotation and the author’s treatment of the New Covenant, says as clearly as is possible to express that the New Covenant is operative today. “Now” (emphatic form) Christ “has obtained” (perfect tense) the position of mediating a better covenant, that is, the New Covenant which Jeremiah prophesied of.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Hey, I just read the first part of this article. Just wondering how you are going to prove that the purpose of the kingdom on earth is not for Israel by quoting Hebrews, a book written to the Hebrews?
August 25th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Maybe you should read Hebrews and find out. It’s pretty obvious.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Now, Matthew…
I’m guessing here, but maybe it’s to the Hebrew Christians, just like Romans is to the Roman Christians, Galatians to the Galatian Christians, Titus to the - wait, scratch that last one.
Dawn, notice that the whole of Scripture is considered above. The original audience of the book is important to consider, but is only one necessary consideration. Keeping in mind that 1) the book is written to the Hebrews and 2) viewing it in light of Romans and 3) realizing that God in fact did use the term “Israel” to refer to His people spiritually (see original article in full) and finally 4) that Christ’s blood, not that of animals, is alone sufficient to save (Heb 10:15 ff) can only bring one to the conclusions that Pitchford as made above.
Sola scriptura.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Dawn,
First, your question assumes an answer to the question, “Who is Israel?”, which cannot be borne out by New Testament witness (or Old Testament witness, for that matter). They who are in Christ, and only they, are “Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:27-29 — see as well Galatians 4:21-31, Romans 2:28-29, and Romans 9:6-8, for instance. Examples could be proliferated.)
Second, your assumption of the nature of the promised kingdom is different from the conception of those to whom the promises were originally made. See Hebrews 11:8-10. I have already treated this question at some length in my post entitled, “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant”, and I am too lazy to reproduce my arguments in a different venue, so I would encourage you to read that post first, and then, if you disagree, interact from there.
Blessings,
Nathan
June 1st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
What about the fact that every single prophecy concerning the 1st Advent of Christ was fulfilled literally. Secondly, what about the fact that every single prophecy of Scripture that has been fulfilled has been fulfilled literally. Maybe I’ve misread your article, but it seems to me you are guilty of spiritualizing many of the prophetic promises concerning Israel and the covenant. If that is the case, it must be nice to play God. It would take more faith for me to believe God has somehow changed from a literal fulfillment of prophecy to a symbolic use of prophecy. I will re-read the article when I’m a little less high on cough medicine though
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Scott,
So do you really believe that Alexander the Great was a literal large horn between the eyes of a goat? Or that the two kings of Media and Persia were joined together in one literal physical body – that of a ram with two horns? (see Daniel 8:20-21). But that such physical beasts would arise to rule the earth, as kings of the Medo-Persian and Greek Empires, is exactly what Daniel 8 says (literally).
The prophetic intent has always been fulfilled literally, but it has customarily been intimated through symbolic means: goats, rams, eagles, bizarre beasts, vines, cedars, thistles – the list could go on. Your statement that prophecy has always been fulfilled literally is severely unqualified at best. There never arose a literal two-horned ram that ruled the world. That prophecy was fulfilled symbolically.
Your accusation of playing God is very serious, and should not be made lightly, with no substantiation or scriptural proof. I used many scriptures in my article. You used none in your condemnation of me as a basically satanic figure. If you want to rebuke me, by all means do so, but let’s keep the basis for our condemnation the Word of God. If at any time I misused it, point that out to me, and I’ll repent.
If you’re willing to discuss the scriptures, I’ll be glad to do so; that is the only way we’ll be able to have a profitable discussion. God grant that we both may grow in the knowledge of Jesus our Savior.
Nathan
March 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
There are many, many verses ( I underlined them all in whole Bible) saying God keeps His promises forever to Isarel that He will give them the land. Jeremiah 31:35-36 Says “Thus says the lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordiances of the moon & the stars for light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar(The Lord of hosts is His name) 36- If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the Lord, then the seed of israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever. ” it seems to me God is saying He will not cast off Israel. A remnant will turn back to Him. I cling to these promises because it reminds me that because God has been faithful to send His son Jesus for me I don’t have to worry when I am not perfect because I am covered by the blood sacrifice of Jesus. He will continue to teach me how to live a Holy life. I try to be open minded when I read Reform ideas but these promises seem very important to me that God keeps His Word. Ann
March 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Ann,
Thanks for your comment. I agree that God is always faithful to fulfill his promises, and that he will always preserve a remnant from ethnic Israel to be among his true people. I would even go further, and say that, not only will God give the physical land of Canaan to his remnant of grace from the ethnic Israelites, but they will inherit the entire new earth as well. I would also go further in saying that this inheritance will not be exclusively theirs, but will likewise be the inheritance of those of us who were grafted into their “tree” (that is, true Israel, the people of God). In fact, all the promises God made to Abraham and his seed were fulfilled to Christ, who now possesses the land of Canaan and all the earth beside. And they are likewise fulfilled to all who are in Christ, who are Abraham’s seed and heirs of the promise (see Galatians 3).