The following mp3 is a debate that took place in San Diego, Ca. on 01/18/2002 between Pastor Dwight Nave of Horizon Christian Fellowship (a Calvary Chapel affiliate) and Gene Cook. To date this is has been the single most influeintial mp3(sermon, teaching, debate, radio show etc.) that Gene has done. Listen here.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Gene,
This is really compelling, and very helpful.
Thanks
thanks Martin.
Best of all Gene, it’s a free download. Really appreciate that. I can pass it along to all of my dispy friends -there are many.
BTW, you, Scott and Jason have converted me from a MacArthurism ‘leaky’ dispy position (very slowly, but surely). Thanks for wrecking my world, brother.
I will be at the Shep Conference this year, and I will be pointing you out as a home-wrecker. My brothers out there are going to hate it, they’re already not speaking to me on the subject…seriously.
SDG
Gene,
You have good debate skills and an articulate grasp of your position. Dwight was good at blustering.
I suggest readers check out the teaching of S. Lewis Johnson at http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/online.htm
for a much more articulate and scholarly approach to the distinction between Israel and the Church. He has a number of messages that deal with the topics and easily downloaded.
Dr. Johnson taught New Testament and Systematic Theology at Dallas and Trinity for several decades.
Gene, overall I thought both sides made weak arguments. However, you both presented your systems well.
I just about fell out of my chair when he said that orthodox jews worship the true God. Uh huh.
I would challenge your idea of fulfillment. It seems to drive some areas of your theology that I think are weak.
Cute!
I congradulate you on a decent presentation. I would be interested in seeing how you would do against someone who was actually qualified to debate the points at issue, say John MaCarthur or someone recommended by him or his people at MTS.
You are right to be proud of your performance, but don’t be too cocky. If this debate is a fair demonstration of Dr. Naves capabilities, I could have taken him, and I don’t even agree with the Reformed position on this issue.
Nevertheless, congradulations on your victory. You’ve really got me looking forward to the next debate.
Gene if you’ll get me a higher quality copy of the debate I’ll clean up the background noise in the audio and send it back to you.
Gene,
Funny, I didn’t know that the “Reformed view” was “your view”. Do you hold an exclusive right to label what or (who) is Reformed and who is not? If one doesn’t believe that God broke His promises to the Hebrew people does that mean they are not Reofrmed (in your estimation)? I thought that being a Reformed theologian had to do mostly with soteriology not eschatology.
Additionally, Paul clearly makes distinctions between Israel and the Church:
“For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.” (Romans 9:3-4). Paul was a member of the Church obviously. But here he refers to Israel as being largely unsaved. They cannot be one in the same.
“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.” (Romans 9:30-31). Here, Gentiles have obtained righteousness, and Israel has not. Again, a distinction is made.
“Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.” (Romans 10:1). Again, another distinction made by Paul.
And quickly, a few more:
“But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”" (Romans 10:16)
“Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.”
“I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.” (Romans 11:13-14)
“Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God” (1 Corinthians 10:32)
~Brian
p.s. “I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.” (Romans 11:1-2)
C’mon, Brianstine — surely a Calvary Chapel pastor is just as much a “leading Dispensationalist” as John Hagee! Topple him, and the whole system goes!
In one debate with a Charismatic, Gene persuades everyone to abandoned the Reformed hermeneutic (g-h) to embrace the Reformed decoder-ring (b-n-s)! Come on, don’t you want to be with the Big Names in Reformed Theology? Everyone wants to belong! Give in to that powerful desire! The skank’s not that skanky!
Brian,
When I say the “Reformed View” I am making reference to the Reformed Confessions. Reformed theology is a lot more than just Soteriology. You should know that it. If you don’t then I suggest that you read the 1689 Confession of Faith or the Westminster.
Scott, thanks for the offer, that would be great.
Funny that every time we mention a dispenstationlist none of the dispensationalist want to be asscociated with him.
If there is someone on this blog that thinks they can do a better job than Pastor Nave or they know someone who would be willing to discuss this issue I will give them two hours on The Narrow Mind. Just let me know.
As to the charge of arrogance, grow up. I was just stating a fact.
Gene
Brian,
This by far is the stupidist thing that I have heard you say:
If one doesn’t believe that God broke His promises to the Hebrew people does that mean they are not Reofrmed
You don’t listen very well. God keeps ALL of his promises. That is our position. If you would like to come on my radio program I would be more than happy to discuss you major misconception. Just let me know.
Gene
Gene,
I listened and enjoyed. I grew up in an SBC church which was dispensational. I have refused to grab hold of any escatalogical views and absolutely refuse to preach from certain portions of Revelation because of that.
I have always used the historical/gramatical method of hermaneutical interpretation and preach only verse by verse.
I am striving to have a consistent thology based on my being a 5 point theologian.
I heard your arguments and find them more than appealing. I am now at a point I am willing to stuy and read concerning this issue for the first time in more than 25 years. I guess it is about time I finalize my theology in a consistent fashion.
What would you suggest I read concerning this issue? I typically read theologians prior to 1850, but in this case, I bet I need to read something newer.
Thanks for the help!
SOOOOOO…..nothing about those bible verses I listed…..?
And quick point: You don’t have to be a “Dispensationalist” to recognize dispensations, and you don’t have to be a “Covenant Theologian” to recognize the covenants. I associate myself with neither camp wholeheartedly. And why do you guys always talk about “Dispensationalists” like they are some sort of disease or non-Christian group? They are your Christian brothers and sisters whether or not they agree with your all of your eschatological views or not.
“I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:10-13 ESV)
~Brian
Actually Brian, we all have many, many close friends who are dispensationalist. We have also listed numerous times one here how much we appreciate the ministry and influence of certian men and schools who teach a dispensational hermeneutic.
While we do disagree with dispensationalism it is an intramural debate, and as far as I know no one has been treated like they have a disease.
Since you say that you don’t associate wholeheartedly with either camp what camp would you place yourself in. Please don’t say biblicist.
I am a biblicist
Gene, I was foolish enough to not take notes when I listened, but there are a few points I remember well.
During the final cross examination time, you both seemed ill-prepared to answer. You were both stumped on some questions.
His presentation was classic dispensationalism whether he wants to admit it or not.
You SEEM to base the majority of your view on the type/antitype view of Israel and the church. You did not develop this at all my friend. Saying that Israel had a temple and we are the temple, etc, doesn’t prove type/antitype. All that did was show similarity, which no one argues against.
Gene, for a guy (Dr. Nave) who doesn’t claim to be a dispensationalist he sure would make Ryrie and Scofield proud. He barely strayed from a classic dispensationlist view.
I dint think Iranaeus or Brian even listened to the debate.
Yeah, I listened to the whole thing there Gene. Is the basis of your comment the fact that I found your arguments weak? Did I not point out several of his weaknesses also? Puhleeze.
Irenaeus,
Let’s follow your reasoning for a minute. What kind of proof would you require to prove that the Old Temple(OC) was replaced by the New Temple (the Body of Christ)?
I do believe the OC temple was replaced by the NC temple (which is the body of Christ). Similarity between the covenants doesn’t prove a type/antitype though. That idea seemed to drive your whole presentation.
“His presentation was classic dispensationalism whether he wants to admit it or not.”
When you’re in the middle of something you make distinctions that those outside are not able to make. Even if he thinks he’s not a good dispensationalist, he’s using dispensational categories, jargon and arguements (“spiritualizing scripture” and the antisemitism trump card.)
Here are my thoughts on the subject at hand. Tear them to shreds if you want.
In the end, is Israel according to the flesh saved or lost? If lost, bad for them. Let them have their little postage stamp country — in the end it won’t matter. If the Israel in “and so all Israel shall be saved” is Israel according to the flesh, then this is a null set.
If saved, are they saved in Christ, or not? If not, then Christian anthropology and soteriology need to be completely reworked, because Israel is somehow not subject to the Fall or not rescued from the effects of the FaLL in the same way as the rest of us (and Jesus, being a Jew, how’s that going to work?).
If Israel that is saved is saved in Christ (which is where I hope we all end up), note that it is possible to become a Jew. Would it not make sense, if the Jew is in a special position in God’s kingdom, for a Christian to do the circumcision and ritual thing, and become a Jew as well? See where this goes? St. Paul had some words about that.
The Israel in Rom. 11 that is to be saved, is the Israel according to the flesh. They will be saved because they will embrace Christ as Lord and Savior. There is only one way of being saved.
There is no circumcision or ritual involved.
Irenaeus,
I rest my case.
You rest your case? You asked me a question assuming I believed a certain position. How does that rest your case?
Instead of patting yourself on the back for your amazing performance, it would be nice to see something of yours where you specifically deal with some issues that:
a) you did not/could not answer in the debate
b) challenge your understanding of fulfillment
Here is an example of what you did not deal with in your debate:
When dealing with the land promise, you claim that the Joshua text fulfills the promise completely. Yet, after Israel had been kicked out of the land, the land promise is repeated to them throughout the prophets. So it is apparent that your view is inadequate.
But like I said, you did present your system well.
Gene, Isn’t Irenaeus the guy that hid under his desk when you asked him to come on your radio program and defend his positions? Talk about inadequacies.
Jason, instead of a back handed insult, please learn the facts. I have contacted Gene and told him that I work during the hours he has his show. However, I plan on taking a day off soon for the purpose of being on his show.
I won’t hold my breath.
“There is only one way of being saved.
There is no circumcision or ritual involved. “
It’s a redutio ad absurdum arguement, I was trying to show that the separation of Israel and the church takes us to places we really don’t want to go.
Jason, we have agreed to October 31st. Breathe my friend, it will be okay.
Land promises…again irenaeusii.
Thought that horse was beat to death the last time you brought it up.
Since Joshua fullfilled Abram and Ezra and Nehemiah fulfilled the prophets….what prophets are you talking about? Not Jeremiah again, I hope. So are here “other prophets” only you know about? :^)
On another note:
Liked the debate. Since I know more of the opposing position, Gene can you recomend some books so I can investigate your position more fully.
Also, Gene is your radio show available on the internet like James Whites. I work during the day and listen to him at night. Is your show setup in that manner?
Mark
Gene’s show is heard live on the internet, and also each show is archived for your listening pleasure according to your own schedule. Just follow the link in the sidebar of Fide-O’s homepage.
Enough with the ad hominem “arguements”
So going way back to my previous post–> Is anyone going to give an explanation for the bible verses I listed (that clearly demonstrate a difference between Israel and the Church)?
~Saint Brian
In reference to Mark’s comment, is it Fide-o’s position that any land promises made subsequent to Joshua were fulfilled in the returns under Ezra and Nehemiah? I haven’t listened to the interview yet, but I look forward to doing so when I can carve out some time.
Matt that would probably be better posed to individuals than Fide-O as a whole. So I will do that for you. What do you think Jason and Gene?
Sounds good, Scott. And I suppose we’ll leave Bret out of this one, since I’m assuming you all still have him tied up in your basement!
St. Brian, the Israel in the verses you quote is physical, genetic, national, ethnic Israel. Those people were dear to Paul just as Italians would be dear to an Italian evangelist. Paul is making the case that he hopes his ETHNIC brethren will come to know Christ as Savior and ultimately become part of the Israel of God. How could ethnic Israel be reckoned as somehow guaranteed promises that were NOT fulfilled in Christ? Are they left unfulfilled until some sort of political-real-estate deals get solved? Then Christ died to be the mediator between God and ALMOST all His elect, except the Jews, who have special covenantal privileges. The Israel that matters to God is NOT ethnic nor is the promise of God to any one people group except the “Israel of God”, for they are NOT ALL ISRAEL (of God) who are FROM Israel (ethnically).
“I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.” (Romans 11:1-2)
So your saying there is a difference between Israel and the church. I agree. The church is not Israel. We ar enot “Spiritual Jews”. And by admitting this distinction then by default you must also admit that the OT promises God made to Israel will be fulfilled.
You cannot (or should not) pick and choose when the word “Israel” refers to the church and when it doesn’t; as it fits your theological lens. That is a what we call a bad hermenutic. If those verses I quoted earlier are referring to ethnic Hebrews then why for some reason do you believe the OT verses (when they mention Israel) are not?
How do you get away with spiritualizing all the blessings God promised Israel and holding the curses, etc. as literal. You just pick and choose. It doesn’t work.
And Paul also says that all of Israel will be saved. In the future, they will eventually come to seee Christ as Savior and thus be saved. God is not done with the Jews or NATIONAL Israel. This view is what did, does and will continue to contribute to the anti-semitism we see in the church. This is evidenced by your own statement: “…the Israel that matters to God is NOT ethnic nor is the promise of God to any one people group except the “Israel of God”
So…..God doesn’t care about Jews in your estimation? Looks like he does to me. Israel has flourished since 1948. God has his hand on them to show that he keeps his promises. For his own names sake, he blesses them, to show himself faithful in keeping the promises he made to them.
This is why your theological lens is dangerous. It led to the holocaust…
~Brian
p.s. I reccomend a book by Erwin Lutzer called, “Hitler’s Cross” It’s an eye opener.
yeah and you can see the dangerous side effects of “Covenant Theology” in a man like ……. Mel Gibson, he drank too much of it, way too much of it and the rest is history and now he is trying to rebuild his fake image.
hehe
and btw I am part of an alien species that is all out to wipe the universe of all sentient life by the sheer stupidity and ignorance of activating the Halos for the purpose of fulfilling a bizzare eschatology and we will kick the tail of Master Cheif
ok, I’ll take a stab at your verses Brian.
You have taken them out of context and used them outside of the definitions give to us by Christ Jesus as to who is and is not of the Seed of Abraham. To understand scripture and what is being presented, one needs to know what has been said prior, especially if the idea, command or comment has come from God and/or Christ.
To understand what Paul is saying you must start with the “Old” Testament. Why? Because the Apostles did not have the “New” Testament as it was being written as they lived. They relied upon the “Old” Testament.
Deuteronomy 7:9 tells us that God is faithful and merciful to those who love him and keep his commandments and He destroys those who hate him. He warns Moses and the people to remember that.
Throughout His ministry on earth, Jesus repeats this by telling us “if we love him keep his commandments.” The Apostle John repeats this in his 1st Epistle.
So who are God’s people? Those who love Him and keep His commandments. Who are Christ’s people? Again, those who love Him and keep’s His commandments.
Now Jesus in John8:37-47 seperated His people from all others. Jesus tells us that having Abraham as a father means nothing in the flesh. He calls the Jews of the Jews the sons of the devil. Why? They reject God, Christ and the gospel. It is not the flesh, but their love of God and obedience that makes one of “Abraham’s children”.
Romans 11:1 according to the Greek is not “By no means”. The Interlinear Greek-English NT by Green has the direct translation as “May it not be.” Paul is not giving a definite response, but a response that he hopes they are not rejected. In Romans 9:3-4,He mades the same appeal Moses made in Ex 32:30-32. In this passage Moses is appealing to God to forgive the sins of Israel and if not, to punish him (Moses) instead of the sinners. Paul is making the same heartfelt plea.
Paul also teaches in Philippians 3:3 “For we are the cicumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” Later inthe same chapter he counts all the things that define him as a physcial Jew to be loss or rubbish.
Paul in Romans 2:28-29 tells us
28″For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is curcumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.”
Reviewing you quotes of scripture in light of the teachings of Christ and God, we see that neither Christ or God seem overly concerned with the physical, but with the spiritual. Throughout the OT, gentiles are grafted into the vine and “members of the covenant” such as Esau are cast out. Prior to Abram, Noah and God had a covenant. Ham was cast out of that covenant for dishonor and disobedience.
Brian, let’s use a modern analogy. The church you attend. Your church is composed of members. Is everyone of those members Christians? No. There is the visible and invisible church. When Christ comes for His bride, the church, will everyone of the members of your and my church be considered “the church” by Christ. No. Christ with the church, as He and God did with Israel, looks at the spiritual, not physical.
If you have a hangup with the church=Israel, just look at it this way. God’s chosen or elect. And since the beginning of time, He as choosen spiritual Israel. Even in the Exodus, God save a multiude of non physical Jews with the physcial Jews.
Now to the charge that covenant theology lead to the holocaust. You have made that comment once before and then asked forgiveness. This is repeated sin and breaking of the 9th commandment of bearing false witness against brothers in Christ. The beliefs of covenant Christians did not lead to the holocaust. To imply so is absurd.
If you had any knowledge of history, especially of Nazi Germany, you would realize just how stupid that comment is. Hitler and his government was not covenant. They were occultic. Many Christian pastors and theologicans in Germany fought him and the church was persecuted by him. Yes there was an offical church, just like in China. But the cross was replaced with the Nazi emblem. It preached Nazism. What next? Are our Lutheran brethern now responsible for the holocaust? Lutherans were a big part of the Christian church in the 1920-40′s.
Lay the holocaust at the feet of Darwin and evolution. The Nazis relied heavily upon it.
Since 1948 God has blessed Israel that has rejected Him and turned from Him? This flys in the face of God’s revealed word. They broke covenant and have not repented. So what? God ignores sin? God does not have one plan for one group and one for another. Jesus tells us in John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” There is not a clause, exception for the Jews or any other loophole. They exist at the pleasure of the US. They know it, that is why they have a huge lobby in Washington. That is why they lobby evangical Christians and play the Abram card.
Now to deflect the “you hate Jews” comments. Israel has every right to exist and we should support them as we would any allied nation. Sad, that on this site, I would have to put that disclaimer up.
Mark,
A few things:
So are you implying that unless one keeps God’s commandments and follows/obeys Him they are non-elect? What about the elect who haven’t been saved yet? What about the elect who are in the future and have yet to make their confession of faith and believe? The same goes for Israel in the future.
And you seem to imply that God’s faithfulness is based on US!! It is based on God himself. God does not cast us off if we disobey Him; we do it everyday. I’d like to think that my eternal security is in the hands of Christ, not my own efforts. “If we are faithless, he remains faithful– for he cannot deny himself.” (2 Timothy 2:13 ESV)
As for this: “This is repeated sin and breaking of the 9th commandment of bearing false witness against brothers in Christ.” I would agree if I believed it was “false witness”! Have you not studied church history? Have you not read the quotes of Luther and many other church Fathers/theologians that have went before us? They hated Jews. They despised them.
The German Christians in the 30’s and 40’s (most of them, there was a remnant however that stood up against Hitler, Bonhoeffer, etc.) actually supported Hitler! They backed Him up in what he was doing. Read about it. The church has been known throughout the ages for its anti-Semitism. I am not making this charge against you or anyone here, but I am saying that this particular theological system lends to the anti-Semitic attitude in the church today. It is anti-Jewish through and through. I am not lying; therefore I have not bore false witness.
You say: “Hitler and his government was not covenant. They were occultic.” I agree, I know that! My point is that the Christian church in Germany let him do what he did, without standing up to him (like I said, there was a remnant) because they saw the Jews as inferior. The church embraced Hitler. The Nazi’s used things like Luther’s “Concerning the Jews and Their Lies” to try and legitimize what they were doing. An example from Luther:
“First, their synagogues or churches (sic) should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught. Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under the threat of death to teach any more…Fifthly, passports and travelling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to Jews. Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. All their cash and valuables of silver and gold ought to be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. Seventhly, let the young Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the ax, the hoe, the spade, the distaff and spindle, and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses…”
This is the attitude that was prevalent in Nazi Germany amongst most Christians. Luther was a “great German Christian” and his teachings were embraced by the Christians and even held up by the Nazi party.
You say: “They broke covenant and have not repented.” Have you not done the same before? Did God cast you off? Read Romans 9, 10, and 11, these chapters deal with Israel’s past, present and future. God has not rejected his people. Paul deals with this all over Romans and elsewhere. Luckily, God is faithful and His covenants aren’t based on human works. Were God’s covenants based on what people did or His faithfulness? God has temporarily set aside the Jews until the times of the Gentiles are through. He will graft them back in.
“Jesus tells us in John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” There is not a clause, exception for the Jews or any other loophole.” = funny, I never said there was. What’s your point? Straw man anyone…?
“They exist at the pleasure of the US.” = this is such an asinine statement. They exist because God is faithful to keep His promises, to show His glory and to preserve the honor of His name. SEE EZEKIEL 36 BELOW. READ IT.
“They know it, that is why they have a huge lobby in Washington. That is why they lobby evangical Christians and play the Abram card.” Tell me this doesn’t sound spiteful. You sound like you despise their existence!
“Now to deflect the “you hate Jews” comments. Israel has every right to exist and we should support them as we would any allied nation. Sad, that on this site, I would have to put that disclaimer up.” = Somehow, based on your comment above, I don’t fully believe you.
Ezekiel Chapter 36:
“And you, son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel, and say, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD. Thus says the Lord GOD: Because the enemy said of you, ‘Aha!’ and, ‘The ancient heights have become our possession,’ therefore prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: Precisely because they made you desolate and crushed you from all sides, so that you became the possession of the rest of the nations, and you became the talk and evil gossip of the people, therefore, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD: Thus says the Lord GOD to the mountains and the hills, the ravines and the valleys, the desolate wastes and the deserted cities, which have become a prey and derision to the rest of the nations all around, therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Surely I have spoken in my hot jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave my land to themselves as a possession with wholehearted joy and utter contempt, that they might make its pasturelands a prey. Therefore prophesy concerning the land of Israel, and say to the mountains and hills, to the ravines and valleys, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I have spoken in my jealous wrath, because you have suffered the reproach of the nations. Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: I swear that the nations that are all around you shall themselves suffer reproach. “But you, O mountains of Israel, shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to my people Israel, for they will soon come home. For behold, I am for you, and I will turn to you, and you shall be tilled and sown. And I will multiply people on you, the whole house of Israel, all of it. The cities shall be inhabited and the waste places rebuilt. And I will multiply on you man and beast, and they shall multiply and be fruitful. And I will cause you to be inhabited as in your former times, and will do more good to you than ever before. Then you will know that I am the LORD. I will let people walk on you, even my people Israel. And they shall possess you, and you shall be their inheritance, and you shall no longer bereave them of children. Thus says the Lord GOD: Because they say to you, ‘You devour people, and you bereave your nation of children,’ therefore you shall no longer devour people and no longer bereave your nation of children, declares the Lord GOD. And I will not let you hear anymore the reproach of the nations, and you shall no longer bear the disgrace of the peoples and no longer cause your nation to stumble, declares the Lord GOD.” The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity. So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them. But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they had to go out of his land.’ But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came. “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel. “Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt. And the land that was desolate shall be tilled, instead of being the desolation that it was in the sight of all who passed by. And they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.’ Then the nations that are left all around you shall know that I am the LORD; I have rebuilt the ruined places and replanted that which was desolate. I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it. “Thus says the Lord GOD: This also I will let the house of Israel ask me to do for them: to increase their people like a flock. Like the flock for sacrifices, like the flock at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts, so shall the waste cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the LORD.”
(Ezekiel 36:1-38 ESV)
Still interested in the answer to my question above (if Gene and/or Jason are still reading this).
Matt, the book of Hebrews answers your question, especially when it speaks of Abraham in chapter 11. The writer of Hebrews reveals to us that even Abraham himself understood that the land promises were not ultimately physical. Abraham even considered himself an alien in the land of promise, “as in a foreign land.” Vs. 10 specifically states that he was looking for the fulfillment of the promise to be the Kingdom of God itself. Now every promise dealing with land followed that which was promised to Abraham and was connected to it. Thus all the promises must be considered in light of what Hebrews tells us. Matt, you should know that one of the important rules of hermeneutics that you learned at TMS is that we must interpret the meaning of the text in light of what the original recipients understood based on normal human language. The writer of Hebrews lets us know that Abraham understood the land promises to be more about the Kingdom of God than dirt. So based on a Historical-Grammatical-Literal interpretation we cannot be dispensational in our interpretation = the text forces us to understand the metaphorical reality of God’s promises as He pointed the OT saints to Christ.
Brian, you are just so far off it is a waste of time to respond. But let me just say this: the fact that you believe that God restored Israel to her land is the foundational theological scandal of dispensationalism. Show me one time in the Bible were God blessed anyone for blasphemy and rebellion. Show me just once where Israel was restored to her land physically for anything short of repentance. You can’t because it never happened. And Brian and the rest of the Dispys, Israel didn’t repent in 1948. Israel today is not the same Israel as that which is spoken of in the Biblical text. Just because it shares the same name and geographic location doesn’t mean that it is the same. Christ is the Israel of God and no people group or political group or nation will ever replace Christ as God’s Israel. And all who have ever had faith in Christ, starting with Adam, are considered the Israel of God, and no ethnic group has ever or will ever replace God’s elect.
Jason,
If I’m reading you correctly, you are saying that the land promised to Abraham was both physical and spiritual (i.e., God promised to bring Abraham’s descendants into a literal physical land, which He did according to Joshua, but this land pointed ahead to a heavenly land which was their ultimate destiny and their ultimate hope). Is that correct? If so, then I guess I don’t quite understand why you see the land promises subsequent to Joshua as being fulfilled only spiritually and not also physically (if that’s what you’re saying—I’m not really sure, which is why I asked about the returns under Ezra and Nehemiah to begin with).
The paradigm of the-physical-which-points-ahead-to-the-spiritual seems to fit very well with my “somewhat dispensational” premillennialism, which sees an eschatological restoration of Israel to the physical land for the millennial reign of Christ (Rev 20), which then gives way to the eternal state of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21). In this way, I believe I am expecting precisely what Abraham expected for the Jewish people: a literal restoration to physical land and a looking ahead to “the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb 11:10).
Jason, thanks for the opportunity to clarify some of these things. Sometimes it can be difficult to dialogue about these issues without creating tension and then a shouting match, neither of which I have much of a stomach for. By the way, you wrote that “we must interpret the meaning of the text in light of what the original recipients understood based on normal human language.” I fully agree. In fact, I can’t think of a better way to summarize why I could never embrace covenant theology!
On another note, I think one thing that many dispensationalists fail to recognize is that apostate Israel has no divine right to the land.
Jason, please don’t feel any obligation to respond. I know time is precious, your schedule is busy, and comment threads are oftentimes ill-suited to work through these kinds of issues.
Still gotta hook up some time.
Matt,
Thank you for engaging the subject with such grace and civility. Indeed, it is important.
So let me ask a question that should require of you a short answer: Did anyone in the Old Testament misinterpret God’s Word? For example, did Abraham or Sarah ever misunderstand God? Did Moses? Did Joshua? Did Jonah? Did Job’s friends? Did the Israelites?
Secondly, Are there any examples in the New Testament where Jesus or one of the NT writers is correcting a misinterpretation of Old Testament?
I’m sure you can see where I am going. Hermenuetically, we discover that often times people misunderstood the “plain human language” of God’s OT revelations. The zealots were looking for a “physical kingdom” fulfillment. Even Peter, until the Jerusalem council, was still thinking that physical Israel mattered spiritually. Jesus, using plain human language, constantly rebuked those who were looking for a physical Israel as the fulfillment of OT promises. Paul wrote extensively in Romans and Galatians dispelling this misunderstanding of the Old Testament. John dealt with it in practically every chapter of the his Gospel and the Epistle of Revelation. (Yes, epistle… based on the fact that the recipients of the letter would have understood it as an epistle that contained prophecies, much like Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians and Peter’s second epistle.)
My point is that Dispensationalists often say that CTers spiritualize or allegorize the OT promises. Yet, it seems the consistent problem that was being addressed by Jesus to men like the Pharisees and Paul to men like the Judaizers was that they were over literalizing the Old Testament and missing the spiritual truth of God’s revelation. The zealots were looking for a physical Messiah-king. Peter was willing to use his knife to defend this position.
But a plain understanding of God’s words to Adam and Eve after the Fall and in His covenant with Abraham is that God has been bringing Himself glory by saving the elect and judging the the reprobates. Israel was only a tool used by God to deliver His Gospel to the world. The elect is among every ethnic group, including among Jews (see Rom. 11) and God will successfully save them all (see whole Bible).
To therefore think that after God completes His will of saving all the elect that He will then set up a physical kingdom for just one ethnic group with a literal king just like the Pharisees and zealots interpreted the OT is just to make the same mistake over again that Jesus, John, and Paul confronted and corrected.
In short, a interpretation based on the normal human language of the Bible leads one only to Covenant Theology: God chose the elect before the foundation of the world, revealed His Gospel, and saves them by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ. When Jesus came He fully accomplished everything for this to happen. He will return again when it is completed. And then comes eternity.
I do look forward to getting together to discuss this and more.
Matt said:
By the way, you wrote that “we must interpret the meaning of the text in light of what the original recipients understood based on normal human language.” I fully agree. In fact, I can’t think of a better way to summarize why I could never embrace covenant theology!
I’m a little confused by this. First off, if we grant that Abraham did understand that the promises would ultimately be fulfilled in the New Jerusalem, then imho, the dispensational argument falls off the table, even though you say that this causes you to stay away from CT.
Secondly, if we affirm that “we must interpret the meaning of the text in light of what the original recipients understood based on normal human language”, how can we know this for sure unless there is a Divine commentary on the OT promises? Can we read the minds of the prophets? For example, who can go to Malachi 4:5 (Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes) and use the L/H/G/C hermeneutic to pinpoint that John was actually the one to come? We cannot, UNLESS we have Jesus’ commentary on this prophecy.
Personally, I think we have plenty of NT Divine Commentary to begin ‘getting in the minds’ of how OT prophecy was understood by the True Israel. Let’s see, we have now come to Mt. Zion…the Heavenly Jerusalem…to a temple made without hands…etc.
We must recognize that wisdom is a gift from God, it is NOT a ‘perfect hermeneutic’, something that exists in word only. Scripture must interpret scripture…especially New interpreting Old.
SDG
Jason and Nathan,
As brief as this interaction has been, it has confirmed my earlier observation that comment threads are oftentimes ill-suited to work through these kinds of issues. So I think I will promise to think through what you have written and yet bring my side of the discussion to a close. Thanks guys, and blessings to you both.
Thanks Matt and Nathan.