…THANK GOD!
I was having a conversation with a Fide-o reader about the fact that Dispys have a warped view of Jewish world dominance. They’ve got 40′ charts mapping it all out! They believe God will get the Devil out of their way by chaining him up and throwing him into a literal bottomless pit with a lid on it (btw, why does a bottomless pit need a lid??). They even believe God will get the Church out of Israel’s way.
So according to Dispy’s there will one day be ONLY ONE people of God, and if you ain’t of the Jewish race you ain’t it.
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.
“So according to Dispy’s there will one day be ONLY ONE people of God, and if you ain’t of the Jewish race you ain’t it. “
Seems to me that, in dispensationalism consistently held eschatology trumps soteriology, and breaks the gospel.
Well, I for one am glad that your are refraining from “extreme misrepresentations” and implying that the beliefs of a few are the beliefs of the many when it comes to that great satan, dispies.
dac, which description above is an “extreme misrepresentation?” Do only a few Dispys believe that Satan will be chained and thrown in a pit during the Millennium? I would say that they all do. Do only a few Dispys believe in a Pre-trib, Pre-wrath, or Pre-mil rapture of the church? I would say that they all believe in at least one of those options. Do only a few Dispys believe that Israel will dominate the world politically in the Millennium? Hmmm, dac, are you really sure I have misrepresented the majority of Dispys, much less extremely misrepresented?
Jason, I agree with you. Every Dispy has 40 foot wall charts. Infact, JM’s church has two of them! (well, I have never been there, but I am sure it’s true) Every dispy believes there will be a lid on the bottomless pit and triple master locks on them (you know, the kind that survives bullets).
If there is topic that generates more heat and less edification that pissing matches over eschetology, I am not aware of it.
It is not the discussion that bothers me, it is the all consuming nature of the subject, a subject which is simply not worth the time, paper and electrons spent on it.
As a former dispie I would say you are using some hyperbole in describing what they do or do not do. Given John Hagee and some like him do use over sized charts to illustrate their positions. Not all do.
Can you honestly say that Ryrie would be the same as Hagee? Or MacArthur? I think you need to be just as irenic as Waldron is when it comes to this issue. After all are we going to deny that they are brothers in Christ because they hold to a Pre-trib, Pre-wrath, Pre-mil view?
dac, chill dude. Are you aware of how many books have been written about Genesis? Are you aware how many religious institutions have warred over just the first three chapters of Genesis?
Was it worth it? Yes, and it still is worth getting the beginning right!
But it is just as important to get the end right as well.
What I like about Covenant Theology is that its eschatology does not drive the ship; soteriology does. That is why CT describes a Covenant of Works in Genesis. And that is also why CT doesn’t let Revelations rewrite ones understanding of the Cross, rather it holds to an analogy of faith hermeneutic letting Scripture interpret Scripture. Thus the whole Bible becomes one story of Redemption.
p.d,
You ask “are we going to deny that they are brothers…?” Of course not. Why do people get afraid of that when brothers disagree? I have written extensively on my respect and love for MacArthur, so don’t run away from good theological debate in fear.
As far as hyperbole goes, have you ever read The Sword and the Trowel by Spurgeon.
Grace and Peace, brothers.
And here’s to world domination by one ethnic group! (Does that smell of racism?)
Jason – I googled “Jewish world dominance dispensationalism”, just to see who was talking about. What I got where a bunch of posts attacking dispensationalism, not dispy’s themselves.
Then I googled “replacement theology” – and got the reverse – a bunch of non CT’s who were lambasting CT’s.
I should “chill”? It’s not my blog posts that showed up in either of those searches.
dac, did you read the articles? I can’t say much for the first one, but the others are quite academic, well written, and helpful. Thanks for the heads-up!
my point is you have a lot of people talking “at” each other, not “to” each other
Which, as you point out, is also a key characteristic of arguements around Genesis. Especially thanks to the young earth creationists these days. Either you are a YEC, or you are suspect at best, a heretic at worst.
Hey Jason,
Long time listener, first time caller
I think this post is a bit of a mis-characterization. Being a “dispy” myself, I would never say God “gets the church out of Israel’s way” or “if you ain’t of the Jewish race you ain’t [the ONLY ONE people of God],” even jokingly. Dispensationalism sees not contradiction by allowing God’s promises to Israel to remain God’s promises to Israel. There is no reason why Christ can’t sit on two thrones; in fact, one qualifies Him for the other. This neither enhances nor de-values his work on the cross.
I think it’s rather ironic that there is so little consensus among a-mils as to how to interpret “apocalyptic” passages, don’t you? You throw literalism out the door, and you have no real plumb line by which to measure the interpretation. Let the pit be a pit and the angel and angel (in Rev 20); if they’re not that, than who is to say what they are?
Blessings
Tom
Tm,
Your statement: There is no reason why Christ can’t sit on two thrones needs clarification. What are these two thrones that Christ sits upon? Please give us Scriptures.
I believe that Peter made it clear that Christ sits one one throne, the Throne of David, thus ruling and reigning over the Kingdom. No king takes the throne and then does not reign.
Peter said, “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David… Therefore, being a prophet, and that God had sworn a oath with him that… He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he forseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of Christ… This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God… Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:29-36)
Three thousand Jews repented and were saved on the spot! And daily more and more were saved including a “great many of the priests” (Acts 6:7).
The King is on THE throne! Not two thrones.
Hi Jason, thanks for responding. Without taking a whirlwind tour, the clearest is Rev 3:21: “He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Christ is presently sitting on the throne at the right hand of the Father (Acts 5:31; Mark 16:19). This is not David’s throne. David’s throne was on earth, and that’s the throne that was promised to David that would be occupied, not a “spiritual application” of it. It is because Jesus is the Messiah, and because he is able to occupy the Father’s throne, that he is qualified to occupy David’s throne. Peter’s statements in Acts 3-4 more or less show this. There is no statement in Acts 2 that says Jesus is presently occupying David’s throne.
Peace
Tom
Tom,
Acts 2 EXPLICITLY declares that Jesus sits on the Davidic Throne RIGHT NOW. I am referring to Acts 2:30-31. It explicitly states that David knew that God had sworn that the son of David, called Christ, would be raised up to sit on the Davidic Throne. Verse 31 says explicitly that David FORESAW this a speaking of the RESURRECTION of Christ. And then in verse 33 Peter affirms David’s prophecy as being thusly fulfilled.
That is explicitly why the JEWS who were looking for the Son of David were cut to the heart upon hearing that they killed the Messiah and that God had raised Him up and seated him on the Davidic Throne.
Thus they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of David, realized that God had fulfilled the prophecies of Joel and David — and so they repented and were converted.
Peter then repeated this whole thing in Acts 3, adding that not only did Joel and David foresee that Jesus was the Messiah, but every prophet in the Old Testament had “foretold these days” (Acts 3:24). “These days” means that these days are the days of the kingdom that all of the prophets foresaw! It can’t be any more clear, Tom.
In fact, in Acts 3:25 Peter adds Abraham’s Covenant into the list of things fulfilled RIGHT NOW just to make sure that the Jews understood that this Jesus is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament RIGHT NOW! And thousands of Jews were converted including a great many priests (Acts 6:7)!!
Jason,
Acts 2 just doesn’t say Christ is sitting on David’s throne. 29-31 affirms the promises made to David. 32 says that Christ has “been exalted to the right hand of God.” Are you saying that the throne of David is at the right hand of God?
In fact, look at the flow. 1) Peter says God promised David an heir on his throne. 2) David foresees the resurrection of Christ. 3) Christ is raised and now sits on the right hand of God. 4) It wasn’t David who ascended, but Christ. Thus, it is the fact that Christ has resurrected, that he sits on his heavenly throne, that proves he will fulfill the original promise to David. Just as the Holy Spirit is a “seal” for us, so is Christ’s Messiahship a “seal” for David’s throne. The text just doesn’t say he presently sits on David’s throne. I do understand how you can infer it; but I hope we can agree it is not explicitly stated.
Indeed, many OT prophecies are fulfilled, but not all. What is the necessity that the promise of sitting on David’s throne be fulfilled in Christ’s first advent? How do you think David understood God’s promise?
Anyway, what did you think of the Rev 3:21 text?
Blessings
Tom
Tom, go here to read a more comprehensive description of the Davidic Covenant. I wrote this post in November 2006 to answer some of the very questions you are raising.
The Davidic Covenant is recorded in the following O.T. passages:
2 Samuel 7:1-17; 1 Chronicles 17:1-27; 1 Kings 8:12-21.
In 2 Samuel 7:2 David wishes to build a temple for God’s presence. God respects David’s desires (1 King 8:18-19) but has different plans (2 Samuel 7:4-16). God reminded David that He had always dwelt among His people (v.6). This foreshadows Christ’s tabernacling among His people (John 1:14).
2 Samuel 7:8-9a describes the aspect of God’s sovereignty in the Davidic Covenant. All of God’s covenants have been based on His sovereignty. Indeed, the ultimate purpose of the covenants is to reveal God’s glory.
2 Samuel 7:8 describes the aspect of predestination in God’s plan. God has always decreed to fulfillments of His plans. His actions are never reactionary but are the outworkings of His eternal plan.
2 Samuel 7:9b – God declares that He will give David a great name.
God said the same thing to Abram in the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:2). Jesus who is the Messianic fulfillment of the typology of Abraham and David is said to have the greatest “name” of all.
2 Samuel 7:10 describes the inheritance promised the Davidic Kingdom. This is the recurring theme of land and possessions. God’s elect are not citizens of this world, but belong to the land Abraham was looking for in Hebrews 11.
2 Samuel 7:11a describes the “peace” of the Davidic Kingdom.
Rest is found in this kingdom. Rest “in Christ” is a major theme in Hebrews.
Enemies are “bound” by God, failing to overcome this kingdom. The kingdom has real enemies, but overcoming these enemies is guaranteed. The Davidic Kingdom is not absent of wars as noted immediately in 2 Samuel 8. This issue reminds us of the description of spiritual warfare in the New Testament; though very active the “strong man” has been defeated and cannot stop the work of the Great Commission among the nations of the earth. Furthermore, citizens of the Davidic Kingdom find “rest in Christ” from the curses of sin.
2 Samuel 7:11b-12 – God promises to build David a “house.”
Based on the Hebrew definition of bayith God is using a word play based on David’s original desire to build God a house.
Bayith means tent, house, palace, mansion, temple, and dynasty.
David says, “Lord, I want to build You a temple (bayith) because it is not right for me to be in a palace (bayith) and You dwell in a tent (bayith).”
And God responds to David saying, “David, will you build Me a temple (bayith)? No. I will build you a dynasty (bayith).”
The Lord was not speaking of building David a house of cedar. He was speaking of building David a dynasty. That is something that He has not given to Saul. Saul wanted Jonathan to sit on the throne and God told Saul that Jonathan would not sit on the throne of Israel.
2 Samuel 7:14-15 – David’s heir will stand in unique relationship to God.
Nowhere else in the Old Testament is an individual so clearly designated a son of God. And yet that is the blessing of David’s covenant. Now, we who live under the New Covenant, and who have the precious privilege of addressing God as Father, may not be too startled by that statement, but to the Hebrew ear, it would have been unbelievable.
Furthermore, it is promised that David’s heir will persevere in faith, will have “eternal security.” David’s son will experience punishment for sins, but he will not be cast off like Saul. We are likely to read verse 14, very negatively. Look at that second phrase in verse 14, “when he commits inequity, I will correct him with the rod of men and strokes of the sons of man.” On the surface, that looks very negative. However, you need to understand that in the context of Saul’s having been cut off, so that is actually a very positive thing that is being said there.
This is a powerful foreshadowing of Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement. He suffered the Cross but was vindicated by God. In Christ, our sins have been forgiven forever and we shall never be “cut off” from God’s covenants.
2 Samuel 7:13-16 – God makes the astonishing promise that David’s kingdom will last forever.
The Davidic Covenant has been Fulfilled!
A. Who is David’s Son? Solomon was the immediate fulfillment of this covenant.
Jesus is revealed as the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant in New Testament passages such as Luke 1:31-33; Acts 2:30-34; Acts 5:31-42; Romans 1:3; Hebrews 1:5.
I Chronicles 29:22-23 says that Solomon sat upon the throne of Yahweh. The throne of David is the throne of the Lord! Thus, for Christ to sit upon the throne of the Lord is to sit upon David’s throne.
Compare that truth to Acts 2:30-34 to see without any doubt that Peter declared that the Davidic Kingdom began when Jesus ascended to the throne of David at God’s right hand.
As O. Palmer Robertson says, “When the king sits on his throne, the kingdom has come.” The Jews should have listened to John the Baptist who announced that the Kingdom had come!
B. What is the Temple? The Solomonic Temple was the immediate fulfillment (1 Kings 6:14). Jesus declared himself to be the true Solomonic Temple (John 2:19-22).
Thus all who are “in Christ” by faith are part of the “Body of Christ” – The Solomonic Temple.
Peter, whose name reminded him of these spiritual truths, explains in 1 Peter 2:5 that all believers are “living stones” who make up the Solomonic Temple.
The issue of the covenants being fulfilled in Christ is found through out the New Testament. For example, Galatians 3:29 declares that all believers are “in Christ” and are thus Abraham’s seed and heirs of the covenant promises as was Isaac (Galatians 4:28).
Paul asked the Corinthians if they realized that they are the Temple of God (1 Corinthians 6:19), which is thus a clear theological concept based on the Davidic Covenant.
C. Is the Davidic Kingdom really eternal? The promise was not that David would reign for a long time, but that he would reign forever. That very fact lead the prophets of the Old Testament to see that this Davidic promise would only be fulfilled in the Messiah, and that is of course exactly how the New Testament interprets it. This reign is ultimately only fulfilled in the reign of the son of David, Jesus Christ and His eternal messianic rule. Christ bore our iniquity and suffered the rod and stripes of men but was resurrected and exalted by God as was promised to David’s heir in 2 Samuel 7:14. Christ was exalted to God’s right hand after the resurrection and reigns eternally. Revelation 20:1-10 describes the present reality of the Davidic Kingdom as it is active in heaven and on earth.
D. Who has the great name? Jesus is declared to have a “name above all names” (Phil. 2:9-11). David called him the “highest of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:26-28).
Peter declared to the Sanhedrin that Jesus was the “rejected stone” (Psalm 118:22) and “chief cornerstone” (Isaiah 28:16) who has the only name by which we must be saved.
Thus we see from Scriptures that Jesus sits upon the Davidic Throne today at the right hand of God.
By the way, if you believe the Davidic Throne is a literal, physical throne on the earth in the future, then your hermeneutic requires you to believe that God has an actual right hand.
Tom, don’t be inconsistent any more. Come to Covenant Theology. You will find great biblical joy and theological consistency with a Christocentric understanding of Scripture.
Jason,
I read the post and the associated comments. I agree with much of what you wrote, up until the part where you say the covenant is fulfilled. Long story short, I won’t rewrite everything that the reader “TJP” wrote – I could have done without his disparaging remarks (which is inexcusable in Christian conversations), but he brought up very good refutations. Honestly, it didn’t really look like either of you interacted with each other’s arguments.
So, I’ll take a different approach here. You claim that you once were a pre-mil guy, replete with all the charts, timelines, etc. However, from your posts, it seems you don’t really grasp a few things, because you make the same assumptions about pre-millenialism as someone who has never looked into and just assumes a-mil. Here are some of those assumptions:
1. A-millenialism is more “Christocentric” and, therefore, correct. I think such a claim is downright unfair. Pre-mil’ism affords Christ all the “glory, honor, and power” due Him. He reigns in heaven, on the right hand of God, every bit as much as A-mil’s claim. He is our Saviour and Lord. But we also believe in the literal fulfillment of Scripture. Hundreds of prophecies have and will be fulfilled literally. Why not an earthly reign? And how is that not Christocentric and glorifying to God when we simply believe what the Scriptures plainly say? Isn’t that what faith is? It’s a baseless claim to imply that pre-mil’ism isn’t Christocentric.
2. Literalism. You say you’re familiar with pre-mil arguments. If that’s truly the case, you should know that our hermeneutic does not force us to “believe that God has an actual right hand.” That’s hyper-literalism. The plain fact is that Scripture is rich in allegory, anthropomorphism, parable, allusion, etc. Our hermeneutic certainly allows for that. And yours certainly allows for literal interpretation (else you’d turn into Harold Camping!). So the issue isn’t whose hermeneutic is “right” (for both claim to use literal and spiritual where appropriate), but how consistently the hermeneutic is applied. I would argue that a-mils take far too much liberty with prophetic passages. That is why there is so much inconsistency with prophetic interpretations among a-mil guys. There’s no plumb line.
3. Pre-mil’ism allows for immediate-future fulfillments. I think we can agree that some prophecies of Christ were fulfilled in his first advent, and others will be fulfilled in his second. I agree with your immediate-future interpretations of the Davidic Covenant. I think we can agree we see aspects of the New Covenant in effect now, but not completely fulfilled. Thus it is with literal reign of Christ. A-mil’s allow that such immediate-future and literal-spiritual fulfillments of other prophecies. Why not the earthly kingdom. It’s not a matter either-or; it’s a matter of both-and.
4. A-mil’ism is “simpler” and, therefore, correct. I guess it’s true to an extent that pre-mil’s have charts out the wazoo, but so what? A-mil’ism certainly isn’t “simpler.” One has to do some Scriptural acrobatics to start making (for example) Rev 20:1-6 mean what a-mil’ism says it means. The charts, as silly as they may seem sometimes, are efforts to piece together the tons of prophetic passages dealing with Christ’s second advent, the description of the future temple, the kingdom, etc. etc. Don’t hate — appreciate!
5. Appealing to history. Since you’re familiar with pre-mil’ism, you should know that church history does not confirm that it has always been a-mil. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox churches make the same baseless claims. Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian… they all show some understanding of (what we would call) the groundworks of pre-mil’ism. And if you really want to appeal to history, why not consider how the Jews interpreted their own prophetic OT passages? They believed in a literal, future, earthly reign of the Messiah, almost by consensus! It just didn’t happen at his first advent as they expected because the OT is not clear on there being two advents. And going back to #2, it’d be inconsistent for Christ and the apostles to appeal to the literal fulfillment of Messianic prophecies but then say that the earthly kingdom prophecies should not be considered literal. That doesn’t make sense. Why can’t it mean what it says?
So, again, what do you make of Rev 3:21?
Blessings
Tom