Awesome teaching, guys! This really cleared up a lot for me. I agree with you, but didn’t understand the other perspectives very well, till now. Thank you!
Thanks for presenting a historical account of the Dispensationalist theory of biblical interpretation that can compete with other hermeneutic interpretations of the Bible.
I am a grace dispensationalist, rightly dividing the Word, in full appreciation of this episode. A question I have is on the ordinances apostle Paul has the members for the Body of Christ. As a dispensationalist living under grace, isn’t water baptism is no longer required to be kept since it is placing yourself under the Law? Thank you
Thank you so much for reaching out. This is a great question but one that is very important. There is an aberrant form of dispensationalism that is generally referred to as hyper-dispensationalism that does not perceive Paul's ministry as corollary to the ministry of the other apostles. So rather than seeing Paul's mission to the Gentiles in light of historical context, they isolate his teachings and reject any other church age doctrines in scripture. This is a huge subject and worthy of its own episode at some point. For now, let's simply use baptism as an example. We see seven forms of baptism in scripture, one of which is John's (the Baptist) Baptism, that is distinctly Jewish in nature and spans the length of John and Christ's ministry and extends into the work of the early apostles in the book of Acts (Acts 2:38). This baptism emphasized immersion as a significant component to one's faith of salvation. But, we see in the book of Acts, a transition and a change in the view and approach to baptism. In light of Christ's resurrection and a soteriological emphasis on repentance and faith in the gospel of Jesus, baptism as a church age function begins to alter, so that what we see in Acts 8:4-24 is different from what we see in Acts 2. By Acts 8:25-40, we begin to see Gentile's getting baptized, BUT only after they have put their faith in Christ for salvation. So scripture establishes that church age Gentiles were saved by faith and then participated in what we refer to as Believer's baptism: a post-salvation immersion as a public signifier of what Christ had done in their life. Baptism is not an act that makes you right or worthy with God, nor is it under the law because believers participated in it after the resurrection. A hyper-dispensationalist might protest, saying, "well Paul's ministry hasn't yet begun, so that isn't the age of grace". To which our response would be, what is the evidence of that? While Paul wasn't in ministry yet, we clearly see in the second half of Acts 8, a soteriology that matches the age of grace. People were coming to faith in the exact same way they are coming to Christ today. So while the ministry of Jerusalem and Peter were still the epicenter of the gospel at the time, it is clear that an emphasis on faith in Christ and a mission to reach the Gentiles has already begun, with baptism fully intact but altered into a post-salvation ordinance - Believer's baptism. Further, we see Paul refer to baptism in 1 Corinthians, so Believer's baptism is functional even within the churches he established; an ordinance for which he never condemns (though he does refrain from administering, deferring such activities to the local ministers). The Living Faith Bible Institute provides Bible education within a dispensational framework and hermeneutic. We do not ascribe to a hyper-dispensational perspective, which is a theology that does not rightly divide the scriptures but over-divides them in a way that undermines doctrine. We hope this helps and we pray God blesses you as you study his word and learn to follow him in the mission. Answer Given by Pastor Brandon Briscoe Provost of LFBI Host of The Postscript
There's so much vicious hatred and false accusations being thrown against dispensationalism, and even though I'm not a dispensational premillennialist (I'm an adherent of olive tree theology, historic premillennialism, and futurism), I appreciate fair, accurate, and charitable explanations of classical dispensationalism.
Acts is a transitional book going from law to grace. Paul taught the gospel of grace that Jesus died on the cross to give us. Signs and wonders are not for the church but for the Jews. Beware of Ecumenicalism.
Scripture is all in an order. Biblical prophecy happens in an order. Rightly dividing and dispensations shows me that I'm not a Jew under the law. Never mix law with grace or you will have neither.
As a religious Jew, I'm very interested in the dispensationalist view of Israel. The section which discusses this concept seems to focus more on the dispute with other Christian points of view about the topic, but doesn't spell out what dispensationalists actually believe concerning the Jewish people's relationship with God through the ages. Among other things, do dispensationalists think that it's important for Jews to remain faithful to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai, to keep the laws, statutes, and commandments they were given in the Torah-as opposed to converting to Christianity, something which many other Christians see as a religious desideratum?
Thank you for your question. I am fascinated with Orthodox Judaism and their view of the divine inspiration of the scriptures. The last time we were in Israel we met with Rabbi Yehuda Glick and got some of his books. Each time we go, we visit a community in Judea or Samaria so that our group can hear about things first-hand (and sometimes do a little local shopping in the community). Evangelicals in general have been strong supporters of Israel, because in times past they have also been dispensationalists. That has changed in the last couple of decades as Covenant and Reformed theology has taken-off, and wrongly sees the church as succeeding Israel. 1. What do dispensationalists believe regarding the Jews relationship with God through the ages? Dispensationalism is more a hermeneutic (method of interpreting the Bible) than it is a "theology" per se. It interprets the Bible from the baseline understanding that the scriptures are the mind of God for humanity today, and are therefore self-defining and self-interpreting (just like the Bible says is, Isa 28:9-10,13; Hos 12:10). One other thing that I would add as one dispensationalist voice, is that we know the Bible is the word of God, because the Bible is like God is - past, present and future all at once, Exod 3:14. Therefore, there is a multivalence to scripture - it has multiple simultaneous applications. In a general sense they are: the past historical context, a present inspirational or devotional aspect, and the future prophetic or "doctrinal" aspect. For example, to read Obadiah is to read three simultaneous accounts: A/ The destruction of Edom B/ The destruction of the Arabs in Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the Second Advent, who have been destroying the Jews in the Tribulation C/ The destruction of the life of a child of God who turns back from God, and falls away from the truth of the word Orthodox Judaism is more like Roman Catholicism in regard to interpretation of the Torah. While in dispensational theology we take the Bible as it stands, and compare one scripture with scripture in other places to get the correct interpretation, Catholicism takes scripture and tradition (church fathers, church councils, and papal encyclicals). Religious Jews I have known take scripture and tradition (the Talmud and the writings of their sages, depending on the particular sect of orthodoxy they belong to). So, as one dispensationalist, I define God's relationship with his chosen people through the ages by scripture itself. The Tanakh says two seemingly irreconcilable things unless one views the scriptures the same way I do. A. The Gentiles must come to God through the Israel, who will be the head of the nations, Isa 2:2 and many other places B. Israel will go through "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer 30:7) due to unbelief In other words, except under Moses, Joshua, David, and very few revivals under Judah's kings, Israel has never actually kept the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai, to keep the laws, statutes, and commandments Moses gave. This should be no shock as what Moses prophesied at the time (Deut 4:25-28) is witnessed-to by the prophets and almost all of the writings (the majority of the Tanakh). So dispensationalists, taking scripture at face value, believe that even though Israel is in unbelief today then, When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; 31 (for the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. (Deut 4:30-31) So dispensationalists are perhaps the only group of Christians (even within the broader wing of Evangelicaldom) who believe that God will yet fulfill all his promises (particularly as they relate to the kingdom) to Israel. God promised that the Messiah would be a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15,18-19). Setting aside the moot point of whether Jesus was this Messiah, when he returns a remnant of Israel will receive him then, Isa 10:21-22; 11:16; Jer 23:3; Zeph 2:7, and Zech 13:6 cf. 12:10. Some of these references had a clear historical fulfillment, But you can see from the surrounding context of many of these verses that they await fulfillment "even in the latter days (Deut 4:30), as for instance Joel 2:32; Micah 4:7; 5:8; Zeph 2:9; Zech 8:12. 2. Do dispensationalists think that it's important for Jews to remain faithful to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai as opposed to converting to Christianity? Jeremiah says, Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. (Jer 4:4) And if this circumcision of the heart does not take place then, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; (Jer 9:25) It is because Israel never did remain faithful to the covenant God made with them at Sinai, to keep the laws, statutes, and commandments, that Jeremiah announced God was making a new covenant with both Israel and Judah, Jer 31:31-33. This is the new covenant that dispensationalists believe in, and which the gospels and epistles of Paul teach. Because God destroyed the temple, this is the only covenant available to Jews now, and defines the relationship of both the Jewish people and Gentiles to God. It is clearly not possible for religious Jews today to remain faithful to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai. And the words of men and their Mishnah cannot substitute for the words of God. That is the dispensationalist view, because it coincides with biblical authority - a Tanakh-defined view of both the inspiration and the interpretation of the scriptures. That is a whole other topic, but the prophetic portions of the Christian New Testament also state that there is coming a time, "even the latter days," when the Christian church (those who are believers in Jesus and have been born again, John 3) are removed, and all the prophecies to Israel (including the rescue of the remnant) will be fulfilled, Romans 9:4; 11:1,11,25-26; 15:8. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness [the laws, statutes, and commandments they were given in the Torah], hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone [the first coming of Christ as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29]; 33 as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Rom 9:30-33) - Answer given by Pastor Alan Shelby
@@thepostscriptshow Thank you for taking the time to make a thoughtful and fulsome reply. If I may, and if you are interested, here are a few personal and theological reactions in return: I will confess to some disappointment; I thought that perhaps I had finally come across a traditionalist Christian group which could affirm God's eternal covenant with Israel. What you are affirming, as you realize, of course, is not Israel's religious way of life in its relationship with the Lord God, but some kind of eschatological fulfillment for Israel of promise or covenant. To use your term, I think that point is essentially "moot." We must presume that in God's redemptive fulfillment all will be clarified and known, to the extent that it is possible to know. But what matters now is living, loving, obedient faith and what forms it should take. Therefore, with all due respect, you are still clinging to the classical Christian doctrines of replacement and supersession. You still hold that a Jew should abandon their God-given task and mission of faithful devotion to what God commanded for all time at Sinai. Now, for reasons that Jews consider misguided, you (and most Christians) come to the issue with an "all-or-nothing" orientation. Either Israel is completely keeping and has always completely kept the covenant, or else the covenant is over. But this is not at all the Scriptural picture of covenant or human life. In many places-too many to count-God affirms the permanent character of the divine commandments, the holy way of life, and the covenant with Israel. Even when Israel itself isn't holding onto their mission, God holds it close and will never let his beloved People go. (For the sake of time, I'm not going to cite too many chapters and verses right now, but I will if you are interested in pursuing the conversation further.) Unfortunately, these things said about God staying immutably faithful to Israel are either transferred by Christians to Christians or, as in your case, are assigned to the ultimate future. But, to put it mildly, the Tanakh does not need to be read that way. It is a particular, sincere but tendentious, Christian reading. Another major point in your argument pertains to the Jerusalem Temple. You claim that the destruction of the Temple ends the Jewish duty to obey God's commandments and ends God's this-worldly concern for Jewish religion. There is no Scriptural (Tanakhic) basis for that notion. All to the contrary. Did the destruction of the first Temple represent the end of God's covenant of commandments and spiritual intimacy with Israel? Obviously not, as confirmed by the prophets of the time. By 70 CE, prophecy had long ceased, but the underlying dynamics of the Israel-God relationship remain unchanged. A massively important theme in Scripture that is overlooked, not to say repudiated, by Christians is its teaching about Return, "Teshuvah" in Hebrew. This doctrine, repeated frequently in the Prophets, concerns Israel's ability and need to return to God, and God's ability and desire to return to Israel. Here I will go ahead and mention Ezekiel 18, a powerful chapter concerning Teshuvah, the message of which is clearly independent of Temple service and its sacrifices. When Israel sins, as all men do, as all Christians do, they are called to return in repentance to their Creator. Most Christians are able to understand that being baptized and professing faith in Jesus doesn't end one's spiritual journey. It doesn't mean one no longer sins. It doesn't even mean that Christians as a religious community cannot commit terrible deeds. But for its own theological reasons, Christianity tends to deny God's inherent ability to forgive and pardon out of the supreme graciousness and compassion of His divine nature (see e.g., Exodus 34:5-10). An excellent example of this universal divine capacity, as is well-known, is the story of Jonah. "God saw their deeds, how they turned back from their wicked ways. And God renounced the punishment He had planned to do to them, and did not do it" (3:10). This outcome upset Jonah; he did not want God to exercise His merciful nature (4:2). Jonah was thinking of Israel's needs. I will conclude for now with a brief reflection on your ideas about "human traditions." Here I must also strongly dissent. From the classical Jewish point of view, the Mishnah, Talmud, and Midrash is not mere human interpretation; they are the essence of what is called "Oral Torah," a continuation of revelation that originated at Sinai itself. Now, of course I don't expect Christians to accept the Rabbinic doctrine that alongside the Written Scriptures an Oral Complement was given too. But by the same token, you can't expect Jews to see the New Testament as anything more than a human book of religious writing-certainly not in any way, shape, or form on the level of Tanakh. And from a more historical standpoint, the New Testament stands in exactly the same relationship to Israelite Scripture as Rabbinic Texts do. Both of them are 1st century and beyond human attempts to understand and apply Tanakh in light of present day events and concerns. At the end of the day, it is impossible to take Scripture in an utterly uninterpreted and simply literalist manner. The most basic verses can be read and applied in multiple ways. This is true a fortiori with something as complex as the nature of God's ongoing relationship with Israel and humanity generally. None of that can be reduced to some sort of A + B = C set of isolated propositions-and certainly not when also reading the propositions through a specifically, committed Christian lens, where the outcome is already determined by the creed of faith. Only when read in that Christian manner might one presume to reach the conclusion that "It is clearly not possible for religious Jews today to remain faithful to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai." What you are choosing to see as temporary or time-bound or defunct, and what you are choosing to see as eternally true and enduring is indeed an interpretive choice, guided by other beliefs and commitments. Instead, you are invited to read passages such the following as an eternal statement of what God wants from the Jewish People: 'When you listen to the voice of the Lord your God to keep his commandments and his laws written in this book of Torah, then you shall return to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. For this Torah which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it far off. It is not in the heavens that you should say, “Who will go up to the heavens for us and get it for us and teach it to us so that we may do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say, “Who will cross the sea for us and get it for us and teach it to us so that we may do it?” For in fact the word/thing/matter is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it.' (Deuteronomy 30:10-14) All the best and I welcome your thoughts.
Thank you! Let's look at the actual scripture evidence. As to God's "eternal covenant with Israel" there are several specified in the Tanakh. I will "book-chapter-verse" every assertion, so it is clear. 1/ There is an everlasting covenant God makes with humanity after Noah's flood, and the sign is the rainbow, Gen 6:18; 9:9-17 2/ There is the everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed for the benefit of humanity, and its sign is circumcision, Gen 17:7-19 This covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob related to the possession of the promised land (Gen 15:18) as headquarters for a humanity-blessing kingdom of his descendants, 1 Chron 16:15-18; Psa 105:8-12. 3/ There is an everlasting covenant made with Aaron and his descendants to prepare the "continual bread" on the table of shewbread, whose sign was the "ordinance" of the sabbath, Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; Num 4:7; 1 Chron 9:32; 2 Chron 2:4; Num 25:12-13 This is unique. The bread was an offering of the fruit of the ground representing Israel's required response (works) to keep the everlasting covenant given to Moses in effect. For the sake of the sabbath, and because of this covenant, the priests were exempt from the command not to work on the sabbath (Matt 12:3-5; Exod 25:30), because this was an expression of the covenant of law made with Moses and with israel, Exod 34:27-28. 4/ There is an everlasting covenant with David regarding his seed sitting on the throne of the kingdom in spite of their subsequent failure to keep the Mosaic covenant of the law listed above, 2 Sam 23:5; Psa 89:3-4,28-29; 2 Chron 13:5; 21:7 This Davidic covenant is validated even after the Mosaic covenant is broken, Isa 55:3, in context. God divorced Israel because she broke that covenant, Hos 6:7; 8:1; 2:1-2; Ezek 16:35-38. That she could not keep it was prophesied early on, Josh 24:19-20. If, on the condition they later repent for breaking that covenant, then God reverts to the Abrahamic covenant - as he is doing today! (Lev 26:40-42) - plus an amazing new device. How did God get around the breaking of his everlasting covenant (the conditional Mosaic covenant) by his people? The solution is given through Jeremiah 32:39-40 in a remarkable way (confirmed by Ezekiel 16:60,62; 36:26-27). The amazing methodology (Isa 59:15-16,21) by which God completes his original purpose results in a new covenant to replace the old, Jer 31:31-32. This new covenant ensures that the commandment-requirements of the old one can always be fulfilled by Israel, Jer 31:33. Note that I (and Jeremiah) am not talking about “Christians” here, only Israel and Judah. Unfortunately, the only "eternal covenant with Israel" I think you are referring to is the one that Israel broke and God gave up on, Lev 26:14-39. This covenant broken by Israel was not reinstated, Isa 24:5. That "old" eternal covenant was only "eternal" as long as Israel obeyed it. While circumcision was a crisis, continual obedience was a process. So the covenant was eternal, yet its eternality was clearly conditional, Deut 7:12-13; 11:26-28; 28:45-46; 29:24-28. So God will remarry Israel (Hos 2:14-20), and institute his "new covenant" with a reunited Israel and Judah (Ezek 37:20-26), where Israel will not have priests, but the entire nation will function as priests for the Gentiles, Isa 61:6-8. This could not be characterized as "replacement" except by mis-definition. And the church does not supersede Israel in God's adherence to his unconditional covenants, and eventual fulfillment of all his promises to his people Israel - who are physical descendants of Abraham (the ones inside the land and out, both Sephardi and Ashkenazi). "I" have not "assigned" anything to the future. This is simple Biblical exegesis. I did not make these covenants up. Make sure you look up the phrase "everlasting covenant," read the references in context, and confirm. It is a "reading" of the Tanakh that allows God to speak for himself - consistently and completely. It is a Bible-believing "reading" that does not allow for skepticism, human opinion and rationalization to enter in, because it lets God define his own covenants, what happened to them, and what he has committed in writing will come. Do not misunderstand. The destruction of the temple did not "end the Jewish duty to obey God's commandments." It obliterated any way for them to be kept according to the law of Moses. A chicken is no scriptural substitute for a lamb or a ram. And yet, you will notice from the above, that the scriptures never assert an end to God's concern for his people. The disdain he had for "Jewish religion," however, is clearly manifest in the Prophets (Amos 4:4--5; 5:21-22; but especially Hos 6:6). After the everlasting new covenant is instituted, sacrifices will be re-instituted at the new temple (Herod's second temple work does not fit this description - another one is coming), Ezek 40:41-42; 44:11;46:24. I would hardly call that admission a propagation of either replacement or succession by the church. The destruction of the first temple did not end the Mosaic covenant. Yet there is ample Tanakhic preaching in the prophets (noted above) that a divorce was coming, and a new covenant would replace it. And here I would ask to make the same distinction regarding “Christianity" and the "religion" of Christianity, that I will concede exists between Judaism and the "religion" of Jews. For its own reasons, liturgical and Pentecostal "Christianity" denies God's inherent ability to forgive and pardon out of supreme graciousness. They require either ceremonies, sacraments, rituals or experiences (“baptism with the Holy Ghost” and speaking in “tongues"). Bible Christianity does not deny God's inherent ability to forgive and pardon by free grace. Yet the whole idea behind the Mosaic covenant (which follows the verses you reference in Exod 34:17-28), is that this grace is only accessible by keeping the commandments of the law. Only the Torah is scripture, because scripture itself was "oral Torah" until a scribe committed it to writing (script), Jer 36:4,17-18. Not all God's words given through Moses or the prophets were committed to writing, but everything written was scripture. You will have to book-chapter-verse for me the permission you have to open the "canon" of scripture to include all the speculations and contradictory opinions contained in the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash. Revelation you say? Oy vey! At the very least you must admit, there is nothing written there which can either "replace" or "supersede" the scriptures I have actually cited for you. So read them instead. I am not avoiding what you say about the New Testament, but I was not going to bring it up because the Tanakh is very much clear enough on its own. But lest you misread that as being reluctant to address what you said - to say the New Testament is an attempt "to understand and apply Tanakh in light of present day events and concerns" is an anachronistic reading of postmodern philosophy back into those texts. You have no permission or authority to do that. And it is only "impossible for you to take scripture in a simply literalist manner" because you do not want to. It is because you choose skepticism of God's words over belief in what he is saying. All prophecy that is fulfilled has been fulfilled literally (Daniel is a prime example). Are you saying God's promises to the Jews will not be fulfilled “literally"? That they cannot be "utterly uninterpreted," and must by some human attempt be read to mean something other than fulfillment of the covenants God himself describes? You sound like a Reformed theologian! You make me think that as a dispensationalist I am a better Jew than you. If you want to plead the multivalence in scripture, it is found in the fact that God's word is just like God is (Exod 3:14). And being past-present-future all at once, it does have multiple simultaneous applications. This is why prophets who start off by talking about "the prince of Tyrus” (Ezek 28:2), can then go on to describe a being that can in no way be describing him (28:12-14). However, I would still argue that this is a literalist view of scripture as it applies in Bible prophecy. And one that is not at all uncertain, but certain (Prov 22:20-21), because everything said is defined from other data points in "the scripture of truth," Dan 10:21. If anything is true at all from the Tanakh it is this - if God reduces the certainty of the words of truth to A + B = C (as he did in the whole Mosaic covenant), or to isolated propositions (as he does in the entire book of Proverbs) - then you better believe what is written no matter what you have been taught, or who instructed you, Psa 50:21-23. - Answer given by Pastor Alan Shelby
@@thepostscriptshow Dear Pastor Shelby and The Postscript. My attempt to post a very long reply was not to the liking of the spirit of RUclips. I sent it to the pastor as an email. Thank you and all the best.
Awesome teaching, guys! This really cleared up a lot for me. I agree with you, but didn’t understand the other perspectives very well, till now. Thank you!
Glad this episode was clarifying! Thank you for listening!
I learned to rightly divide and now they call me a Cessationist
Thanks for presenting a historical account of the Dispensationalist theory of biblical interpretation that can compete with other hermeneutic interpretations of the Bible.
I am a grace dispensationalist, rightly dividing the Word, in full appreciation of this episode. A question I have is on the ordinances apostle Paul has the members for the Body of Christ. As a dispensationalist living under grace, isn’t water baptism is no longer required to be kept since it is placing yourself under the Law? Thank you
Thank you so much for reaching out. This is a great question but one that is very important. There is an aberrant form of dispensationalism that is generally referred to as hyper-dispensationalism that does not perceive Paul's ministry as corollary to the ministry of the other apostles. So rather than seeing Paul's mission to the Gentiles in light of historical context, they isolate his teachings and reject any other church age doctrines in scripture. This is a huge subject and worthy of its own episode at some point.
For now, let's simply use baptism as an example. We see seven forms of baptism in scripture, one of which is John's (the Baptist) Baptism, that is distinctly Jewish in nature and spans the length of John and Christ's ministry and extends into the work of the early apostles in the book of Acts (Acts 2:38). This baptism emphasized immersion as a significant component to one's faith of salvation. But, we see in the book of Acts, a transition and a change in the view and approach to baptism. In light of Christ's resurrection and a soteriological emphasis on repentance and faith in the gospel of Jesus, baptism as a church age function begins to alter, so that what we see in Acts 8:4-24 is different from what we see in Acts 2.
By Acts 8:25-40, we begin to see Gentile's getting baptized, BUT only after they have put their faith in Christ for salvation. So scripture establishes that church age Gentiles were saved by faith and then participated in what we refer to as Believer's baptism: a post-salvation immersion as a public signifier of what Christ had done in their life. Baptism is not an act that makes you right or worthy with God, nor is it under the law because believers participated in it after the resurrection.
A hyper-dispensationalist might protest, saying, "well Paul's ministry hasn't yet begun, so that isn't the age of grace". To which our response would be, what is the evidence of that? While Paul wasn't in ministry yet, we clearly see in the second half of Acts 8, a soteriology that matches the age of grace. People were coming to faith in the exact same way they are coming to Christ today. So while the ministry of Jerusalem and Peter were still the epicenter of the gospel at the time, it is clear that an emphasis on faith in Christ and a mission to reach the Gentiles has already begun, with baptism fully intact but altered into a post-salvation ordinance - Believer's baptism.
Further, we see Paul refer to baptism in 1 Corinthians, so Believer's baptism is functional even within the churches he established; an ordinance for which he never condemns (though he does refrain from administering, deferring such activities to the local ministers).
The Living Faith Bible Institute provides Bible education within a dispensational framework and hermeneutic. We do not ascribe to a hyper-dispensational perspective, which is a theology that does not rightly divide the scriptures but over-divides them in a way that undermines doctrine.
We hope this helps and we pray God blesses you as you study his word and learn to follow him in the mission.
Answer Given by Pastor Brandon Briscoe
Provost of LFBI
Host of The Postscript
There's so much vicious hatred and false accusations being thrown against dispensationalism, and even though I'm not a dispensational premillennialist (I'm an adherent of olive tree theology, historic premillennialism, and futurism), I appreciate fair, accurate, and charitable explanations of classical dispensationalism.
Consider that just as with the Gospel, if it's true, the adversary will vigorously attack it. 🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
Good stuff guys
Thanks for listening!
Acts is a transitional book going from law to grace. Paul taught the gospel of grace that Jesus died on the cross to give us. Signs and wonders are not for the church but for the Jews. Beware of Ecumenicalism.
But the problem I see is that different dispensationalists uses different charts. Which of them is right?
Scripture is all in an order. Biblical prophecy happens in an order. Rightly dividing and dispensations shows me that I'm not a Jew under the law. Never mix law with grace or you will have neither.
As a religious Jew, I'm very interested in the dispensationalist view of Israel. The section which discusses this concept seems to focus more on the dispute with other Christian points of view about the topic, but doesn't spell out what dispensationalists actually believe concerning the Jewish people's relationship with God through the ages. Among other things, do dispensationalists think that it's important for Jews to remain faithful to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai, to keep the laws, statutes, and commandments they were given in the Torah-as opposed to converting to Christianity, something which many other Christians see as a religious desideratum?
Thank you for your question. I am fascinated with Orthodox Judaism and their view of the divine inspiration of the scriptures. The last time we were in Israel we met with Rabbi Yehuda Glick and got some of his books. Each time we go, we visit a community in Judea or Samaria so that our group can hear about things first-hand (and sometimes do a little local shopping in the community).
Evangelicals in general have been strong supporters of Israel, because in times past they have also been dispensationalists. That has changed in the last couple of decades as Covenant and Reformed theology has taken-off, and wrongly sees the church as succeeding Israel.
1. What do dispensationalists believe regarding the Jews relationship with God through the ages?
Dispensationalism is more a hermeneutic (method of interpreting the Bible) than it is a "theology" per se. It interprets the Bible from the baseline understanding that the scriptures are the mind of God for humanity today, and are therefore self-defining and self-interpreting (just like the Bible says is, Isa 28:9-10,13; Hos 12:10).
One other thing that I would add as one dispensationalist voice, is that we know the Bible is the word of God, because the Bible is like God is - past, present and future all at once, Exod 3:14. Therefore, there is a multivalence to scripture - it has multiple simultaneous applications. In a general sense they are: the past historical context, a present inspirational or devotional aspect, and the future prophetic or "doctrinal" aspect.
For example, to read Obadiah is to read three simultaneous accounts:
A/ The destruction of Edom
B/ The destruction of the Arabs in Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the Second Advent, who have been destroying the Jews in the Tribulation
C/ The destruction of the life of a child of God who turns back from God, and falls away from the truth of the word
Orthodox Judaism is more like Roman Catholicism in regard to interpretation of the Torah. While in dispensational theology we take the Bible as it stands, and compare one scripture with scripture in other places to get the correct interpretation, Catholicism takes scripture and tradition (church fathers, church councils, and papal encyclicals). Religious Jews I have known take scripture and tradition (the Talmud and the writings of their sages, depending on the particular sect of orthodoxy they belong to).
So, as one dispensationalist, I define God's relationship with his chosen people through the ages by scripture itself. The Tanakh says two seemingly irreconcilable things unless one views the scriptures the same way I do.
A. The Gentiles must come to God through the Israel, who will be the head of the nations, Isa 2:2 and many other places
B. Israel will go through "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer 30:7) due to unbelief
In other words, except under Moses, Joshua, David, and very few revivals under Judah's kings, Israel has never actually kept the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai, to keep the laws, statutes, and commandments Moses gave.
This should be no shock as what Moses prophesied at the time (Deut 4:25-28) is witnessed-to by the prophets and almost all of the writings (the majority of the Tanakh).
So dispensationalists, taking scripture at face value, believe that even though Israel is in unbelief today then,
When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; 31 (for the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. (Deut 4:30-31)
So dispensationalists are perhaps the only group of Christians (even within the broader wing of Evangelicaldom) who believe that God will yet fulfill all his promises (particularly as they relate to the kingdom) to Israel.
God promised that the Messiah would be a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15,18-19). Setting aside the moot point of whether Jesus was this Messiah, when he returns a remnant of Israel will receive him then, Isa 10:21-22; 11:16; Jer 23:3; Zeph 2:7, and Zech 13:6 cf. 12:10.
Some of these references had a clear historical fulfillment, But you can see from the surrounding context of many of these verses that they await fulfillment "even in the latter days (Deut 4:30), as for instance Joel 2:32; Micah 4:7; 5:8; Zeph 2:9; Zech 8:12.
2. Do dispensationalists think that it's important for Jews to remain faithful to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai as opposed to converting to Christianity?
Jeremiah says,
Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. (Jer 4:4)
And if this circumcision of the heart does not take place then,
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; (Jer 9:25)
It is because Israel never did remain faithful to the covenant God made with them at Sinai, to keep the laws, statutes, and commandments, that Jeremiah announced God was making a new covenant with both Israel and Judah, Jer 31:31-33.
This is the new covenant that dispensationalists believe in, and which the gospels and epistles of Paul teach. Because God destroyed the temple, this is the only covenant available to Jews now, and defines the relationship of both the Jewish people and Gentiles to God. It is clearly not possible for religious Jews today to remain faithful to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai. And the words of men and their Mishnah cannot substitute for the words of God. That is the dispensationalist view, because it coincides with biblical authority - a Tanakh-defined view of both the inspiration and the interpretation of the scriptures.
That is a whole other topic, but the prophetic portions of the Christian New Testament also state that there is coming a time, "even the latter days," when the Christian church (those who are believers in Jesus and have been born again, John 3) are removed, and all the prophecies to Israel (including the rescue of the remnant) will be fulfilled, Romans 9:4; 11:1,11,25-26; 15:8.
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness [the laws, statutes, and commandments they were given in the Torah], hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone [the first coming of Christ as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29]; 33 as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Rom 9:30-33)
- Answer given by Pastor Alan Shelby
@@thepostscriptshow Thank you for taking the time to make a thoughtful and fulsome reply. If I may, and if you are interested, here are a few personal and theological reactions in return:
I will confess to some disappointment; I thought that perhaps I had finally come across a traditionalist Christian group which could affirm God's eternal covenant with Israel. What you are affirming, as you realize, of course, is not Israel's religious way of life in its relationship with the Lord God, but some kind of eschatological fulfillment for Israel of promise or covenant. To use your term, I think that point is essentially "moot." We must presume that in God's redemptive fulfillment all will be clarified and known, to the extent that it is possible to know. But what matters now is living, loving, obedient faith and what forms it should take.
Therefore, with all due respect, you are still clinging to the classical Christian doctrines of replacement and supersession. You still hold that a Jew should abandon their God-given task and mission of faithful devotion to what God commanded for all time at Sinai. Now, for reasons that Jews consider misguided, you (and most Christians) come to the issue with an "all-or-nothing" orientation. Either Israel is completely keeping and has always completely kept the covenant, or else the covenant is over. But this is not at all the Scriptural picture of covenant or human life. In many places-too many to count-God affirms the permanent character of the divine commandments, the holy way of life, and the covenant with Israel. Even when Israel itself isn't holding onto their mission, God holds it close and will never let his beloved People go. (For the sake of time, I'm not going to cite too many chapters and verses right now, but I will if you are interested in pursuing the conversation further.) Unfortunately, these things said about God staying immutably faithful to Israel are either transferred by Christians to Christians or, as in your case, are assigned to the ultimate future. But, to put it mildly, the Tanakh does not need to be read that way. It is a particular, sincere but tendentious, Christian reading.
Another major point in your argument pertains to the Jerusalem Temple. You claim that the destruction of the Temple ends the Jewish duty to obey God's commandments and ends God's this-worldly concern for Jewish religion. There is no Scriptural (Tanakhic) basis for that notion. All to the contrary. Did the destruction of the first Temple represent the end of God's covenant of commandments and spiritual intimacy with Israel? Obviously not, as confirmed by the prophets of the time. By 70 CE, prophecy had long ceased, but the underlying dynamics of the Israel-God relationship remain unchanged. A massively important theme in Scripture that is overlooked, not to say repudiated, by Christians is its teaching about Return, "Teshuvah" in Hebrew. This doctrine, repeated frequently in the Prophets, concerns Israel's ability and need to return to God, and God's ability and desire to return to Israel. Here I will go ahead and mention Ezekiel 18, a powerful chapter concerning Teshuvah, the message of which is clearly independent of Temple service and its sacrifices.
When Israel sins, as all men do, as all Christians do, they are called to return in repentance to their Creator. Most Christians are able to understand that being baptized and professing faith in Jesus doesn't end one's spiritual journey. It doesn't mean one no longer sins. It doesn't even mean that Christians as a religious community cannot commit terrible deeds. But for its own theological reasons, Christianity tends to deny God's inherent ability to forgive and pardon out of the supreme graciousness and compassion of His divine nature (see e.g., Exodus 34:5-10). An excellent example of this universal divine capacity, as is well-known, is the story of Jonah. "God saw their deeds, how they turned back from their wicked ways. And God renounced the punishment He had planned to do to them, and did not do it" (3:10). This outcome upset Jonah; he did not want God to exercise His merciful nature (4:2). Jonah was thinking of Israel's needs.
I will conclude for now with a brief reflection on your ideas about "human traditions." Here I must also strongly dissent. From the classical Jewish point of view, the Mishnah, Talmud, and Midrash is not mere human interpretation; they are the essence of what is called "Oral Torah," a continuation of revelation that originated at Sinai itself. Now, of course I don't expect Christians to accept the Rabbinic doctrine that alongside the Written Scriptures an Oral Complement was given too. But by the same token, you can't expect Jews to see the New Testament as anything more than a human book of religious writing-certainly not in any way, shape, or form on the level of Tanakh. And from a more historical standpoint, the New Testament stands in exactly the same relationship to Israelite Scripture as Rabbinic Texts do. Both of them are 1st century and beyond human attempts to understand and apply Tanakh in light of present day events and concerns.
At the end of the day, it is impossible to take Scripture in an utterly uninterpreted and simply literalist manner. The most basic verses can be read and applied in multiple ways. This is true a fortiori with something as complex as the nature of God's ongoing relationship with Israel and humanity generally. None of that can be reduced to some sort of A + B = C set of isolated propositions-and certainly not when also reading the propositions through a specifically, committed Christian lens, where the outcome is already determined by the creed of faith. Only when read in that Christian manner might one presume to reach the conclusion that "It is clearly not possible for religious Jews today to remain faithful to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai." What you are choosing to see as temporary or time-bound or defunct, and what you are choosing to see as eternally true and enduring is indeed an interpretive choice, guided by other beliefs and commitments. Instead, you are invited to read passages such the following as an eternal statement of what God wants from the Jewish People:
'When you listen to the voice of the Lord your God to keep his commandments and his laws written in this book of Torah, then you shall return to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. For this Torah which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it far off. It is not in the heavens that you should say, “Who will go up to the heavens for us and get it for us and teach it to us so that we may do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say, “Who will cross the sea for us and get it for us and teach it to us so that we may do it?” For in fact the word/thing/matter is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it.' (Deuteronomy 30:10-14)
All the best and I welcome your thoughts.
Thank you! Let's look at the actual scripture evidence. As to God's "eternal covenant with Israel" there are several specified in the Tanakh. I will "book-chapter-verse" every assertion, so it is clear.
1/ There is an everlasting covenant God makes with humanity after Noah's flood, and the sign is the rainbow, Gen 6:18; 9:9-17
2/ There is the everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed for the benefit of humanity, and its sign is circumcision, Gen 17:7-19
This covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob related to the possession of the promised land (Gen 15:18) as headquarters for a humanity-blessing kingdom of his descendants, 1 Chron 16:15-18; Psa 105:8-12.
3/ There is an everlasting covenant made with Aaron and his descendants to prepare the "continual bread" on the table of shewbread, whose sign was the "ordinance" of the sabbath, Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; Num 4:7; 1 Chron 9:32; 2 Chron 2:4; Num 25:12-13
This is unique. The bread was an offering of the fruit of the ground representing Israel's required response (works) to keep the everlasting covenant given to Moses in effect. For the sake of the sabbath, and because of this covenant, the priests were exempt from the command not to work on the sabbath (Matt 12:3-5; Exod 25:30), because this was an expression of the covenant of law made with Moses and with israel, Exod 34:27-28.
4/ There is an everlasting covenant with David regarding his seed sitting on the throne of the kingdom in spite of their subsequent failure to keep the Mosaic covenant of the law listed above, 2 Sam 23:5; Psa 89:3-4,28-29; 2 Chron 13:5; 21:7
This Davidic covenant is validated even after the Mosaic covenant is broken, Isa 55:3, in context.
God divorced Israel because she broke that covenant, Hos 6:7; 8:1; 2:1-2; Ezek 16:35-38. That she could not keep it was prophesied early on, Josh 24:19-20. If, on the condition they later repent for breaking that covenant, then God reverts to the Abrahamic covenant - as he is doing today! (Lev 26:40-42) - plus an amazing new device.
How did God get around the breaking of his everlasting covenant (the conditional Mosaic covenant) by his people? The solution is given through Jeremiah 32:39-40 in a remarkable way (confirmed by Ezekiel 16:60,62; 36:26-27). The amazing methodology (Isa 59:15-16,21) by which God completes his original purpose results in a new covenant to replace the old, Jer 31:31-32. This new covenant ensures that the commandment-requirements of the old one can always be fulfilled by Israel, Jer 31:33. Note that I (and Jeremiah) am not talking about “Christians” here, only Israel and Judah.
Unfortunately, the only "eternal covenant with Israel" I think you are referring to is the one that Israel broke and God gave up on, Lev 26:14-39. This covenant broken by Israel was not reinstated, Isa 24:5.
That "old" eternal covenant was only "eternal" as long as Israel obeyed it. While circumcision was a crisis, continual obedience was a process. So the covenant was eternal, yet its eternality was clearly conditional, Deut 7:12-13; 11:26-28; 28:45-46; 29:24-28.
So God will remarry Israel (Hos 2:14-20), and institute his "new covenant" with a reunited Israel and Judah (Ezek 37:20-26), where Israel will not have priests, but the entire nation will function as priests for the Gentiles, Isa 61:6-8.
This could not be characterized as "replacement" except by mis-definition. And the church does not supersede Israel in God's adherence to his unconditional covenants, and eventual fulfillment of all his promises to his people Israel - who are physical descendants of Abraham (the ones inside the land and out, both Sephardi and Ashkenazi).
"I" have not "assigned" anything to the future. This is simple Biblical exegesis. I did not make these covenants up. Make sure you look up the phrase "everlasting covenant," read the references in context, and confirm. It is a "reading" of the Tanakh that allows God to speak for himself - consistently and completely. It is a Bible-believing "reading" that does not allow for skepticism, human opinion and rationalization to enter in, because it lets God define his own covenants, what happened to them, and what he has committed in writing will come.
Do not misunderstand. The destruction of the temple did not "end the Jewish duty to obey God's commandments." It obliterated any way for them to be kept according to the law of Moses. A chicken is no scriptural substitute for a lamb or a ram.
And yet, you will notice from the above, that the scriptures never assert an end to God's concern for his people. The disdain he had for "Jewish religion," however, is clearly manifest in the Prophets (Amos 4:4--5; 5:21-22; but especially Hos 6:6).
After the everlasting new covenant is instituted, sacrifices will be re-instituted at the new temple (Herod's second temple work does not fit this description - another one is coming), Ezek 40:41-42; 44:11;46:24. I would hardly call that admission a propagation of either replacement or succession by the church.
The destruction of the first temple did not end the Mosaic covenant. Yet there is ample Tanakhic preaching in the prophets (noted above) that a divorce was coming, and a new covenant would replace it.
And here I would ask to make the same distinction regarding “Christianity" and the "religion" of Christianity, that I will concede exists between Judaism and the "religion" of Jews. For its own reasons, liturgical and Pentecostal "Christianity" denies God's inherent ability to forgive and pardon out of supreme graciousness. They require either ceremonies, sacraments, rituals or experiences (“baptism with the Holy Ghost” and speaking in “tongues").
Bible Christianity does not deny God's inherent ability to forgive and pardon by free grace. Yet the whole idea behind the Mosaic covenant (which follows the verses you reference in Exod 34:17-28), is that this grace is only accessible by keeping the commandments of the law.
Only the Torah is scripture, because scripture itself was "oral Torah" until a scribe committed it to writing (script), Jer 36:4,17-18.
Not all God's words given through Moses or the prophets were committed to writing, but everything written was scripture. You will have to book-chapter-verse for me the permission you have to open the "canon" of scripture to include all the speculations and contradictory opinions contained in the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash. Revelation you say? Oy vey!
At the very least you must admit, there is nothing written there which can either "replace" or "supersede" the scriptures I have actually cited for you. So read them instead.
I am not avoiding what you say about the New Testament, but I was not going to bring it up because the Tanakh is very much clear enough on its own. But lest you misread that as being reluctant to address what you said - to say the New Testament is an attempt "to understand and apply Tanakh in light of present day events and concerns" is an anachronistic reading of postmodern philosophy back into those texts. You have no permission or authority to do that.
And it is only "impossible for you to take scripture in a simply literalist manner" because you do not want to. It is because you choose skepticism of God's words over belief in what he is saying.
All prophecy that is fulfilled has been fulfilled literally (Daniel is a prime example).
Are you saying God's promises to the Jews will not be fulfilled “literally"? That they cannot be "utterly uninterpreted," and must by some human attempt be read to mean something other than fulfillment of the covenants God himself describes?
You sound like a Reformed theologian! You make me think that as a dispensationalist I am a better Jew than you.
If you want to plead the multivalence in scripture, it is found in the fact that God's word is just like God is (Exod 3:14). And being past-present-future all at once, it does have multiple simultaneous applications. This is why prophets who start off by talking about "the prince of Tyrus” (Ezek 28:2), can then go on to describe a being that can in no way be describing him (28:12-14).
However, I would still argue that this is a literalist view of scripture as it applies in Bible prophecy. And one that is not at all uncertain, but certain (Prov 22:20-21), because everything said is defined from other data points in "the scripture of truth," Dan 10:21.
If anything is true at all from the Tanakh it is this - if God reduces the certainty of the words of truth to A + B = C (as he did in the whole Mosaic covenant), or to isolated propositions (as he does in the entire book of Proverbs) - then you better believe what is written no matter what you have been taught, or who instructed you, Psa 50:21-23.
- Answer given by Pastor Alan Shelby
@@thepostscriptshow Dear Pastor Shelby and The Postscript. My attempt to post a very long reply was not to the liking of the spirit of RUclips. I sent it to the pastor as an email. Thank you and all the best.
Thank you for such an awesome question and the opportunity to answer it! We really do appreciate it!
Christianity isn't something you do, it's something that's done to you by the Holy Spirit
I ask people who speak in tongues what's the difference is between tongues and babbling.
Research the history of pentecostalism
👍
Jesus is the builder of His Church
Labels confuse me
Sola Scriptora