April 9, 2008
Deconstructing Classic Dispensationalism through the Incarnation
Posted by Bobby Grow under Biblical Studies, Christology, Ecclesiology, Fundamentalism, Theology, TraditionClassic Dispensationalism believes that there are two classes of people, relative to God’s Covenant. One group is God’s heavenly people (the Jews), for whom the New Covenant is constitutive; and the other group, God’s earthly people (the Church) for whom the Cross is constitutive. In other words, only the Jews are privy to the New Covenant, and at best the Church gets to experience the overflow of the New Covenant, but not in the direct way as National Israel.
I think this is at odds with the scriptural witness, and this is most exemplified by the Incarnation of Jesus (a la the Chalcedonian articulation). In other words, Jesus was particularized as a Jewish man from Nazareth, but this particularization was not limited to His Jewishness. His particularization, as foreshadowed in the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15) and Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3ff) and realized in the New Covenant (Ez. 36:24ff; Jer. 31:31ff; II Cor. 3; Hebrews; etc.), encompasses all of humanity—in other words His particularity is the ingressive point through which ALL HUMANITY is brought into “Israel” (isn’t this what Rom. 9–11 is getting at). I think the incarnation presupposes the framework provided by Yahweh’s dealing with the “nation of Israel,” but that once the fullness of time comes the “nation” of Israel is superseded by the Person whom the nation mediated to the nations.
Contrarily, if we follow Classic Dispensationalism’s two peoples paradigm, we follow the Nestorian Heresy. We split Jesus into two people, one “divine” (i.e. God’s Heavenly people, the Jews), and one “earthly” (e.g. God’s earthly people, the Church). Furthermore, in this view, the incarnation does not allow for an accounting of how “all humanity” can be represented by Christ; since His Jewishness is limited to the Jewish nation, and not encompassing all humanity. This is contrary to the intentions of Gen. 3:15, the Abrahamic Covenant, the historic understanding of the church and its apostolic witness codified in particular creeds and councils.
My hope is that if there are any Classic Dispys reading here, that you come to terms with this apparent dilemma, relative to the incarnation, that all Christians hold so dearly. Either the incarnation encompasses all of humanity, or it doesn’t? And if it doesn’t, then I’m afraid “of all men we are to be pitied.”
April 10, 2008 at 2:15 am
Wow, this is non-sense! Why don’t you try reading some EW Bullinger! He was an Anglican by the way. I was weaned on Covenant Theology, but woke up one day to the see that I was not honoring scripture if God’s word was not going to be fulfilled toward his true covenant people! I will give you two Texts (Isa. 60: 21-22). It was the biblical text itself that brought me to see the “dispenational” divide between the Church and Israel. And this has nothing to do with dividing them eternally! Note, if you exegete simply Isaiah 60: 21-22…”Thy people also shalll be all righteous: they shalll inherit the land FOR EVER, the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, THAT I MAY BE GLORIFIED. A little one shalll become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation.”
I will dialog on and over Texts, but not theologize in non biblical ways & words or Creeds. Not even my own. I am a low church Anglican, and love the Thirty Nine Articles really. But they are not the biblical text either!
Rev. Robert Kelly Darby
D. Phil., Th.D.
PS I am Irish, 58 and a one time Royal Marine. But yes, I had a great-grandmother who was among the so-called Kelly Brethren. She had a great infulence upon my youth (she died when I was 16).
April 10, 2008 at 2:31 am
that of course was “dispensational” My type is very poor! lol And “inflluence”
April 10, 2008 at 2:56 am
Not only am I classic dispen. but I am something near EWB, and see that Israel (under the Law) - ended with the rejection by Israel of the grace of God at the end of Acts. The Church of God (the Secret Dispensation / Administration of Grace) was a gradual transition from Law to Grace during the Acts period, culminating in the rejection of Israel in Acts 28: 24-28.
* Dispensation - Administration of a household. Actively the administrative activity of the owner or steward; passively, that which is administerd, (Eng. economy,) i.e. a disposition or arrangement of things, a scheme or dispensation, (Luke 16: 2,3,4)
1 Cor. 9: 17 / Eph. 1: 10; 3:2 / Col. 1: 25 - EW Bullinger
April 10, 2008 at 4:03 am
Off to me bed, …. Exegesis must prefer human theology! And incarnation yes, but not mere humanization. Our capacity in spiritual matters is measured by the promises of God.
Peace
April 10, 2008 at 8:40 am
Yeah, I know all about Classic Dispensationalism, I grew up as one, studied, for a time as one; and then converted to Prog. Dispy., and probably closer to historic premil.
Since you didn’t deal with my incarnational analogy, except to call it nonsense, then I don’t think I will respond to any of your rhetoric. If you don’t hold to Chalcedonian Christology, well I’m sorry.
And actually I would rather you don’t comment here anymore, thanks.
April 10, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Cannot take a bit of heat aye! It was nothing personal, but you are kid to me, sorry. And of course I hold to some aspect to Chalcedon. But as I said, the Incarnation is not a philosophical humanization. And it appears to me at least, that you want to try and beat down Christian brethren with this issue. I note that you don’t want to go with the Text with me? This betrays your lack of positional assurance to me, aagain at least. Again sorry, but you seem to want to dish it out, but not take it in return! This is why human theology is too often “rhetoric”…yours also! Now if you want to calm down, then maybe we can both act like Christian Brethren?
April 10, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Also you must realize that this issue of constant diatribes against classic dispensationalism, is not going to open the lines of communication. I know I was a reformed covenant theologian for too many years myself. There is a most definite arrogant attitude with many (but not all) of the Reformed towards dispensationalists. Like we are a bunch of dummies. This just won’t fly! That is why I recommend reading EW Bullinger. Certainly independent, and not always classic anything. But a fine mind and exegete. If you don’t have his book The Figures of Speech Used in The Bible? You are losing something.
Peace of Christ
April 10, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Finally, to say that to follow “two peoples paradigm” we follow the Nestorian Hersey? This is the worst non-sense. You just cannot throw around theological terms like “badminton”! The Nestorian error was very serious, and to compare dispensationalism here is crazy! There is not even analogy here! Well you must expect some flack with words like yours!
I know you want me to go, so…
Adieu, but still peace
April 10, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Bobby,
I really had planned to stop commenting on any blog but your post has (temporarily) changed my mind. It is hard to believe that you did not intend to get a reaction like Irish Anglican’s. Accusing those who disagree with you on this point of sliding down the slippery slope into the Nestorian Heresy? What did you expect?
I am not going to argue with you about this. However, for anyone else who reads this post and would like to read more about Classic Dispensationalist beliefs on the subject, I would recommend the writings of Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He is an Hebrew Christian and a dispensationalist who has written a lot on the subject. The best resource would be to purchase his book ISRAELOLOGY: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology, but if you do not wish to do that I recommend looking through a series of articles he wrote in the Chafer Theological Journal a few years ago. I have produced links for them below with a couple of quotes thrown in for good measure.
Glenn W.
————–
ISRAELOLOGY-Part 1 of 6
INTRODUCTION
—– Begin Quote —–
The importance of the New Covenant is that it amplifies the blessing aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, especially in relationship to salvation. In relationship to the Church, the New Covenant is the basis for the Dispensation of Grace. In relationship to Israel, it will be the basis for the Dispensation of the Kingdom. The New Covenant, being an unconditional covenant, is still very much in effect.
—– End Quote —–
ISRAELOLOGY-Part 2 of 6
ISRAEL PRESENT
—– Begin Quote —–
The relationship of the Church to the New Covenant is the same as its relationship to the Abrahamic, the Land, and the Davidic covenants. God promised the physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant (as amplified by the Land and Davidic covenants) exclusively to Israel. However, the blessing aspect (amplified by the New Covenant) was to include the Gentiles. The Church enjoys the spiritual blessings of these covenants, not the material and physical benefits. The physical promises still belong to Israel and will be fulfilled exclusively with Israel, especially those involving the land.
—– End Quote —–
ISRAELOLOGY-Part 3 of 6
ISRAEL PRESENT (continued)
—– Begin Quote —–
The Gentiles are not taker-overs, but rather partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings. Paul spoke of grafting of wild olive branches into a good olive tree. Critics of Paul claim that he misunderstood horticulture, because grafting a wild olive branch into a good olive tree would be unnatural. That is exactly Paul’s point. Likewise, it is unnatural to graft Gentiles into this place of blessing originating from the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul does not regard this as normal; he says that it is contrary to nature (Romans 11:24). Normally, such a graft would be unfruitful. The point is that God is doing something unnatural: He brings Gentiles into the place of blessing based on the unconditional Jewish covenants.
—– End Quote —–
ISRAELOLOGY-Part 4 of 6
ISRAEL FUTURE (Part One)
ISRAELOLOGY-Part 5 of 6
ISRAEL FUTURE (Part Two)
—– Begin Quote —–
As if the unfulfilled provisions of the four unconditional covenants are not enough, Dispensationalist’s belief in a literal 1000 year Messianic Kingdom has yet another foundation. Huge portions of the Old Testament, foretell the Messiah coming to reign on David’s throne over a peaceful kingdom. A literal interpretation of these passages concerning the Messianic Kingdom requires a literal kingdom. Again, Israel during the period of the Messianic Kingdom is a major theme of the Old Testament prophets and the high point of their prophecy. Why spiritualize any of these prophecies? If so, why not spiritualize the prophecies dealing with the first coming of Christ, such as the virgin birth, His birth in Bethlehem, His death, or His physical resurrection?
—– End Quote —–
ISRAELOLOGY-Part 6 of 6
OTHER RELEVANT TOPICS
April 10, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Hey, Bobby, right off the bat I am not following you. I would say that the church is the “heavenly” people, Christ’s Bride. The nation of Israel are key to God’s plan for the earth.
April 10, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Irish,
like I said, don’t comment here again. I will blacklist you, seriously. When you engage in ad hominen attacks, call what I’ve said—nonsense—without substantiation or development of why what I said is non-sense . . . other than rhetorical assertions. And presumptuously assume you know my views, which you obviously don’t given your charge that I see no “literal” fulfillment relative to the people of Israel, then no, I have no patience or respect for this kind of engagement.
Glenn W.,
what I expect is a little thoughtful engagement. What I expect is for someone to engage my analogy, i.e. to deconstruct my article, and thus undercut its implications. I’ve read most of Arnold’s Israelology, and it is interesting, but I don’t think it is relevant to what I am trying to articulate in this post.
As far as the Nestorian analogy, I think this follows, since Christians do not believe that Jesus had two distinct persons in His one person (one divine one earthly) . . . this is indeed nonsense. So why do classic dispys believe it is possible to believe in two different persons (people) in one person (Jesus)? This is illogical, and parallels the Nestorian Heresy to a “T”.
Rose,
I think Jesus is key for understanding God’s plan for the earth, and not apart from the nation of Israel’s mediatorial role (see Jn 1:18). I don’t know how to flesh out my analogy any more clearly.
To all: if you are going to question this, then please deal with what I have written. If you need clarification on what I have written, then let me know, at what point, and I will try.
But don’t drive-by and make assertions, without engaging the substance of this post. Thanks.
April 10, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Bobby,
Why must you insist that seeing the church and Israel as two separate works of God makes Christ into two separate people? God has many works and is doing many things in many ways, all for His glory and many purposes. Does that make Him many persons in one God?
I think the basis for your post is a non-starter.
April 10, 2008 at 8:14 pm
A friend wrote this once when we were discussing this very thing and I thought it was well-put:
In Christ all of redeemed humanity is brought into union with God. In eternity, the cosmos is redeemed through Christ, so that God is all in all. There will be nothing that is not in essential union with God through Christ. However, this union is progressive in time and even in eternity different beings will experience fellowship with God in different ways.
April 10, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Because Rose,
I am driven by passages like Eph. 2:11ff, that Israel and the nations (Gentiles) are ONE IN Christ. In other words “our ontological identity” is defined by Christ’s humanity for us. We either are all in Christ, the same way, or we are not.
I’m not sure how that parallels God’s ability to do many things at one time?
Obviously I disagree with your last clause, given passages like Eph. 2. As soon as you deal with that, then I might concede to your non-starter charge.
But you still have not dealt with my argument through the incarnational analogy.
April 10, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I have no real problem with the quote you provide, Rose. Although the language of “progressive union” is misleading, since this implies a sort of “progressive justification.” Also “fellowship with God in different ways,” is also to ambiguous, on its face, I don’t have a problem with that; just how that might be fleshed out or applied to this discussion. In other words, this is almost to general to be helpful, in regards to this discussion.
April 10, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Bobby, in Ephesians we are talking about the church - Israelites and those from “the nations” are one in Christ - in the church, but not yet outside this special situation that we have in the church. In the church we are in Christ, where there is neither Jew nor Greek.
I have gotten too hung up on your other statements and issues to comment on the ‘incarnational analogy.’ Maybe I will have to come back later. :~) ;~)
April 10, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Rose,
to come to your conclusion you have to assume your conclusion, i.e. this special situation, in order to establish your major premiss, which is circular.
April 10, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Let me just respond to the Irishanglican, who is no longer able to comment here. In an comment, I just deleted (since I told him to cease from commenting previously). He asserted again that my idea of the Nestorian heresy was misguided, and that it fit a contorted understanding of monophysitism. Just to set the record straight, for him, and those reading here, let me clarify what the Nestorian heresy actually is. I will quote a scholar, Donald Bloesch (since I am just angry, and not able enough to understand christological heresies, according to the double doctored reverend “the anglican.” Here is Bloesch on Nestorianism and its logic:
I think my appeal to the Nestorian heresy is a fair one, and one that, thus far, no one has engaged.
April 10, 2008 at 9:26 pm
From irishanglican:
“There is a most definite arrogant attitude with many (but not all) of the Reformed towards dispensationalists. Like we are a bunch of dummies.”
My suggestion is that if you want to allay such impressions, a good first step would be to learn to spell with at least some level of accuracy. That and to not wildly spam blogs. It doesn’t really foster an image of credibility. In other words, if you want people to stop thinking you’re a dummy, don’t flagrantly act like one.
April 11, 2008 at 12:27 am
Man…looks like everyone is piling on Bobby. Looks like you might be hitting a nerve or something. I am concerned about theology that doesn’t lift and magnify the person of Christ as well and certainly need to be cautious where the incarnation is concerned. I am still studying this and am thankful for your Christ provoking post here. Still reading Ryries book and it has been helpful. Don’t want to be a Ryrie dittohead though and desire to seek Christ alone in all things. You are a very levelheaded blogger Bobby. Keep on brother. I think you may have a very valid point here, but I must still explore these systems and try to discover which one I agree closest to. I have not arrived in my theology and am still growing brother, so this post is very beneficial and helpful to me as well.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
April 11, 2008 at 12:33 am
BTW brother…you have a very pertinent point in Ephesians 2:11 as well as all the way up to verse 22. We mustnt blow over this deeply important passage. God was doing one work and of that we can be certain and the work rests on one foundation. We always must work within that framework always keeping in mind that He was seeking a bride for Himself. I will get some books on PD.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
April 11, 2008 at 1:42 am
hmmmm…. I think if I discuss it further I will need to do it at my blog, Bobby. Maybe tomorrow?
April 11, 2008 at 3:19 am
Just a word of encouragement brother to you. Your Christ centeredness is a blessing. This truly is an incredible life we have in Him and to discover more of Him each day is truly a delight. May we all look to Him, for it is He that has made us and not we ourselves.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
April 11, 2008 at 8:39 am
Hey Brian,
thanks for the encouragement. Now if I didn’t want everybody to pile on me, I wouldn’t blog
. I do realize that this is a hot issue, amongst some, they tend to get the most interaction. Besides stuff on Catholicism ;-). Thanks again Brian. Once you finish Ryrie you should get Progressive Dispensationalism by Blaising and Bock, great read.
Alright Rose, I’ll be there, watch out
.
April 11, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Thanks Bobby. I look forward to reading it. AS I was meditating on Ephesians 2:11-12 today I truly combed over the words and considered. It does present a bit of a dilema so I must study more.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
April 11, 2008 at 7:29 pm
And even as you read up to verse 22.