Wright on Dispensationalism and the Nation of Israel in the Theology of the Apostle Paul

Jerusalem besieged, 70 A. D.

I thought this was an interesting point made by N. T. Wright in his book Paul: Fresh Perspectives, he is discussing the nation of Israel and how Israel functions in the theology of the Apostle Paul. The point I am lifting from Wright here is a point that illustrates his dismay over North American Dispensational readings of Paul's theology, in particular his conception of the second coming of Christ. Here is what Wright writes:

[...] For some, alas, the very phrase 'second coming', and even perhaps the word 'eschatology' itself, conjures up visions of the 'rapture' as understood within some branches of (mostly North American) fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity, and as set out, at a popular level, in the 'Left Behind' series of novels by Tim F. Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, and the theology, if you can call it that, which those books embody. That scheme of thought, ironically considering its fanatical though bizarre support for the present state of Israel, is actually deeply un-Jewish, collapsing into a dualism in which the present wicked world is left to stew in its own juice while the saints are snatched up to heaven to watch Armageddon from a ringside seat. (p. 145, Nook edition)

And then he goes on in the next paragraph to develop the Apostle Paul's actual thinking, in contrast to dispensationalism, on such things; he continues to write:

This is massively different from anything we find in Paul [referring to the dispensationalist reading he just mentioned], for all that the central text for the 'rapture' theology is of course I Thessalonians 4.16-17. What we find in Paul at this point is four things, in each of which we see the still-future Jewish eschatology redrawn around the Messiah.... (p. 145, Nook edition)

He goes on to develop his 'four things', which I don't want to get into at this point. Instead, I simply want to draw attention to the way that N. T. Wright (unsurprisingly) thinks of dispensational theology. I have come to agree with Wright about my former dispensationalism (I am an American Evangelical after all). But what does Wright mean when he writes 'That scheme of thought, ironically considering its fanatical though bizarre support for the present state of Israel, is actually deeply un-Jewish, collapsing into a dualism in which the present wicked world is left to stew in its own juice while the saints are snatched up to heaven to watch Armageddon from a ringside seat'? It is something that I have harped on for quite some time, whenever I write about dispensationalism; that is, this neo-Platonic, hard and fast distinction between Israel and the Church (the Church=for Wright 'the saints snatched up'). It is this distinction that ironically, but not, makes the Church God's saints, and the nation of Israel his Covenant People; such that the latter are judged (even though Jesus already was ... he was the Jew, wasn't he) by God in the 'Great Tribulation' (Daniel's so called 70th Week, or Jacob's Trouble, cf. Jer. 30:7), and the former are the beneficiaries of Christ's death for them on the cross. So we end up with this strange dualism between God's "two people," with the result that one still has to go through a blood letting of unimaginable depth, and the other has been released from such blood letting (the Church) through their Savior, Jesus Christ. My depiction might seem crude, but this is the inevitable conclusion to consistent and honest classical dispensational theology.

Wright, in the end, is right that dispensational theology offers a bizarre picture of what it means to 'support' the nation of Israel. Their theological framework has abstracted the nation of Israel out from Christ (in this dispensation, anyway ... i.e. the so called "Church Age"), and essentially placed them into a situation that has them facing something akin to a medieval Roman Catholic conception of purgatory; but instead dispensationalists have named it, 'The Great Tribulation', riffing on Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse.

What say you Dispensationalist?

PS. In the end, though, I think Wright unhelpfully ends up offering an ecclesiocentric view of God's people, instead of grounding God's people (the Pauline 'One New Man' cf. Eph. 2.11ff) in God's life in Christ as his new creation in his covenant life of grace. So I think Wright is still in need of some dogmatic reflection, and I am happy to see that he seems to be open to some correction by some of his more recent interaction with Kevin Vanhoozer (esp. in areas having to do with union with Christ theology).

A Primer and Comparison on Classic Dispenationalism and Amillennialism

This post is my inaugural one that will be dealing with a comparison between Dispensational Premillennialism and Amillennialism. This post represents one of many posts that I will be doing in a loose-leaf series kind of way (in another words, sporadic) on a concern that largely is an un-concern for many of the types of folk I generally engage with in Christian academia. In other words, this issue has really become more of an idiosyncratic one that a certain subset of American Evangelicals (usually) emphasize in their biblical interpretive strategies. So consider me an idiosyncratic American Evangelical when it comes to this, especially when I do posts on the finer nuances of the respective systems of interpretation (for that is what these are). My hope though, in the process of doing posts on this topic, is that I can somewhat de-idiosyncratize this issue by framing it in such a way that my personal and rather amorphous 'Christ-conditioned' biblical hermeneutic will bubble over; such that what is at the heart of this 'idiosyncratic issue' (e.g. biblical interpretation/hermeneutics) will become significant relative to framing the finer points of discerning a difference between the philosophy of interpretation that either leads to adopting a system that is Dispensational, or not.

A Classic Dispensational Chart (click on for larger view)

With that ground cleared lets get into it. As a caveat, I have been in some recent correspondence with a brother from my church; and he is interested (and curious) about the differences between classic Dispensationalism (which is what our church denomination teaches from, in general, i.e. Calvary Chapels) and Amillennialism---and then of course the finer nuances that characterize such systems of interpretation, such as: views on the so called 'Tribulation' period (for Dispensational Premillennialists those range from Pre-Tribulational, Mid, and Post and then there is Pre-Wrath for good measure); concerns about the Kingdom 'Now & Not-Yet'; etc. So understand that as I write posts (this one included), I will have my friend in mind (who hasn't had really any exposure to any of these, except for the subconscious teaching that he has received on it, which is informed by a Dispensational lens). And I am sure that as I have him in mind, that his questions and curiosities are representative of a whole host of you readers 'out there'.

Now let's get into it. For this first post, let me just highlight (off the top) some general differences between Premil classic Dispensationalism (CD), and Amillennialism (A):

• CD "supposedly" follows a literal method of biblical interpretation. Meaning that they take the plain sense meaning of words in their 'plain sense' until taking them in their plain sense becomes non-sensical. 

1. A is usually purported to follow a allegorical or symbolic ('type/anti-type') method of biblical interpretation. Which for some of its history is true, but not all of its history. I will argue (suggestively on the blog) that A actually is follows a more consistently literal method of biblical interpretation than does CD.

• CD believes, in general, that there is a hard distinction between Israel and the Church (in fact this is probably the sine qua non of what identifies someone as Dispensational, even Progressive Dispensationalists); such that ethnic Israel are God's so called 'earthly people' to whom all the promises were made (like the 'Land Covenant' etc.), and that prophetic history is oriented and directly and solely about the Nation of Israel. And CD sees the Church as God's Heavenly People who are only being included in his salvation as a parenthesis in his 'real' prophetic plan of salvation which is for the Nation of Israel (e.g. so if you were to think of God's plan for prophetic and salvation history in terms of a 'sentence', the Nation of Israel is the subject of the whole sentence, but because of their rejection of their Messiah [initially at his first coming], God interrupts his plan, his sentence, and inserts a parenthesis into his sentence (an after-thought, to be crude)---that parenthesis is the so called 'Church Age' and Dispensation of Grace. Once the full number of Gentiles (and some Jews) come into the fold, during this season, they will be snatched (raptured) out of the world, and God can return his focus back on his primary plan of salvation which only for the Nation of Israel). 

1. A holds that the two peoples, Jew and Gentile, have been made one new man in Christ (Ephesians 2:11ff); and thus God does not have two peoples, but one, and that those peoples find their ground for their humanity in the vicarious humanity of Christ (note, my redressing of Amillennialism will be nuanced by my own appropriation of it---in general, by way of framework, I am consistently thinking from within the Amillennial purview, I will just shape and nuance things per my own theological thinking (Evangelical Calvinism). So prophetic and salvation history, for the A, is actually totally and completely about Jesus Christ. The implication of this being that prophetic and salvation history is all about ALL of Humanity, since Jesus is God for us!

• CD believes that we God relates to humanity through 7 Dispensations (or economies). And that these relationships are cyclical, such that once a particular group finally biffs an economy up so bad (the arrangement God had set up with them, to relate to them---which is preceded by his judgment); then this screw up initiates another cycle. So, for example, we went from a time of Law to a time of Grace (between part of the OT and NT); since Israel messed it up so bad, this in turn initiated God's next Dispensation of Grace, wherein God now relates to humanity in the Church. But once the time of 'Apostasy' comes to fruition (referenced in the Epistles to Timothy), then this will initiate the turn to the Dispensation, again, preceded by judgment which is what the 'Great Tribulation' represents.

1. A believes that God relates to humanity by overarching Covenants. This is a point where I will distinguish myself from the regular Amillennial approach, which is usually framed through Federal or Covenant Theology; the former being a special kind of Covenant theology. Classic Covenant Theology sees God relating to humanity through a Covenant of Works (which he initiated with Adam and Eve in the Garden), and Covenant of Grace. The former is one that is conditional and based upon obedience to God's Law; since Adam and Eve failed, this plunged humanity into an irreparable situation and a penalty was now required to be paid for the 'Law-breaking'. This is remedied by the Covenant of Grace, wherein Jesus comes for an elect group of people (that God arbitrarily had already elected in eternity past) for whom he pays their penalty (death---passively), and fulfills the conditions of the Law for them (actively). This is usually the hermeneutical schema used for framing A through (in the classic way). But for reasons that go beyond this post (and which I have already elaborated upon, substantially), I will not get further into critiquing this position. In Contrast:   I follow a Covenantal scheme as well. Yet, my scheme only has the Covenant of Grace, which its inner reality is God's life (its outer is exemplified in creation); such that God's life and choice for humanity (including the initial act of creation) is all based in his life of other-centeredness, which is definitive of his inner Trinitarian life of love (which I have already discussed at length at the blog here as well). This is the 'Covenantal' scheme that I think from, just to be clear. And this whole point to highlight, that A, in general, is much different in orientation to biblical interpretation than is CD. The primary thing of note here is that, I will argue, that CD's biblical interpretation is given shape by a Nation (Israel); while A is, in general, given biblical interpretive shape by a Person (Jesus Christ). I will get more into this later, as I relate this to my so called 'Christ-conditioned' hermeneutic, which I have posted a bit on already here at the blog. 

• CD believes that the promised Davidic Kingdom (cf. II Sam. 7) will only 'LITERALLY' be fulfilled in the future earthly 1000 year reign of Christ. Which is one of the reasons CD must have a yet future fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom; because they believe it is only applicable for the the Nation of Israel. So this also will tie into their need for a Pre-Tribulational view of the Tribulation options. Further, CD interprets Revelation 20 and the thousand years there as a literal-sequential time frame.

1. A holds that the Davidic Kingdom has been inaugurated at the first coming of Jesus; through the shedding of his blood and the establishment of the New Covenant. They interpret the thousand years of Revelation 20 through an apocalyptic genre lens leading to the conclusion (given the numerous usages of the multiple of 10 in Revelation and gematria as a 1st century interpretive method) that this should be understood symbolically or  figuratively of the current period we inhabit between the first and second comings of Jesus. So A believes that there is a two-age model of the Kingdom, i.e. the "Now/Not-Yet" aspects. 

• CD holds to a Pretribulational theory of the rapture. Meaning that they believe prior to the the last week of Daniel's so called '70 Weeks'---which is the 7 year period often referenced when thinking about the future tribulation period---the Church will be snatched out or raptured out of this world, this ending the Church Age, and initiating the time of "Jacob's Trouble" (Jer. 3), and/or "The Great Tribulation". CD needs this mechanism (Pre-Trib) in order to remove the Heavenly People from the earth, so that God can get back to dealing with his Earthly People, ethnic Israel. The Tribulation period, is primarily God's judgment on the Nation of Israel for their initial rejection of the Messiah; and yet, it will have universal ramifications causing God to judge the world, since they will rise up to try and destroy Israel and ultimately God (or "Armageddon"). They also argue that Christians are not appointed to God's wrath (cf. I Thess. 5:9), and since the Tribulation is representative of the "Lord's Day" and God's wrath, there is no reason for us (the Church) to be here. I will get into more of this later.

1. A, in general, holds that 'The Great Tribulation' was historically in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD by Titus Vespasian of Rome. Yet, some also believe, that this is typological of an intensification of Tribulation that will encompass the whole globe up until the 'end'. This is how some As interpret the book of Revelation, through a progressive parallelism, such that each of the groupings of judgments (seals, trumpets etc.) are referencing the same thing; but at the same time they also represent an intensification of God's judgment and a Great Tribulation just prior to his coming. So, in general, As believe that we have been in Tribulation and will be, in intensifying ways, right up until the end (or beginning). I will be talking more about an interpretation of the book of Revelation, through Richard Bauckham later, which nuances this in a way that I really appreciate.

I think, as an opener, this will have to suffice. You can check out a comparison chart between Dispensationalism and Amillennialism (that I stole from Google images) below. I am not sure how 'ordered' my following posts on this will be---I might jump around on things---but I will be doing future posting on all of this. Primarily because I am buffeted with this stuff quite frequently in the circles which I inhabit, and so it prompts responses in me that I need to give voice somewhere. And since I don't have anywhere to teach real life people, I end up voicing my thoughts here ;-).

Comparsion Between Premil and Amil

An Up-Tick Discussing Dispensationalism and my Amillennialism

I am planning on writing a bit more on amillennialism V. dispensationalism, stay tuned. For those who don't know, I was a dispensationalist (classic and progressive) for many years; I have been an out of the closet amillennialist (fully persuaded), now, for probably close to a year now. It has taken me years of study to come to this conclusion, and I only came to this conclusion somewhat tentatively. But once I came to this conclusion, I now wonder how I ever held to the Dispensational hermeneutical framework.

Anyway, I look forward to writing some on this; I have a lot to say about it, as I have probably spent more time reading and studying this issue as much as anything else I have spent studying (including Trinitarian theology, and all of the historical systematic and biblical theology that I have studied). I will still be, of course, posting on other things; but I just wanted you all to know that you should expect an up-tick in this area of my posting---I see a bunch of confusion on this stuff out there, especially in the American Evangelical realm which I inhabit.

PS. Hermeneutical theory will definitely a major part of my discussions on this. I will be getting into Torrance's 'Depth Dimension' hermeneutic, and a 'Christ-conditioned' approach to biblical interpretation. A lot of my discussions, I imagine, on this will once again be instances of me simply thinking out loud---which is how I have used my blogging (at points) over the years, i.e. as a notepad where I do my theological brainstorming, and creative writing.

The Guts of Classic Dispensationalism

If you are unaware of what classic Dispensationalism is shaped by, then I offer you this post. I will never fully escape Dispensationalism; I am an American Evangelical after all, and it has held more of my life than not (now I am amil), thus far. So I will continue to write on this system of interpretation, as I have a chance; and I will do so in constructive ways ;-).

According to Charles Ryrie here are the 3 most basic ingredients that must be present in order for someone to pop out as an Dispensationalist:

[T]he essence of dispensationalism is (1) the recognition of a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, (2) a consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation, and (3) a basic and primary conception of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind. (Charles Ryrie, “Dispensationalism,” 45)

Jerusalem, 70 A.D.

This provides the rubric from which dispensationalism flows (esp. in its Classic and Revised forms). Each of these points require further explanation, and development; but for now I will just state them up front like this, just in case you are unaware of some of these basic points upon which dispensational theology pivots. In the same flow, let me also list the 7 dispensations usually articulated by both Classic/Revised dispensationalists; again, we will hear from Ryrie:

1.) Name: INNOCENCY –> Scripture: Genesis 1:3–3:6 –> Responsibilities: Keep Garden, Do not eat one fruit, Fill subdue earth, Fellowship with God. –> Judgment(s): Curses, and physical and spiritual death.

2.) Name: CONSCIENCE –> Scripture: Genesis 3:7–8:14 –> Responsibilities: Do good –> Judgment(s): Flood.

3). Name: CIVIL GOVERNMENT –> Scripture: Genesis 8:15–11:9 –> Responsibilities: Fill earth, Capital Punishment –> Judgment(s): Forced scattering by confusion of languages.

4.) Name: PATRIARCHAL RULE –> Scripture: Genesis 11:10–Exodus 18:27 –> Responsibilities: Stay in Promised Land, Believe and obey God –> Judgment(s): Egyptian bondage and wilderness wanderings.

5.) Name: MOSAIC LAW –> Scripture: Exodus 19:1–John 14:30 –> Responsibilites: Keep the law, Walk with God –> Judgment(s): Captivities.

6.) Name: GRACE –> Scripture: Acts 2:1–Revelation 19:21 –> Responsibilities: Believe on Christ, Walk with Christ –> Judgment(s): Death, Loss of rewards.

7.) Name: MILLENNIUM –> Scripture: Revelation 20:1-15 –> Responsibilities: Believe and obey Christ and His government –> Judgment(s): Death, Great White Throne Judgment.

– Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 54

Do these sound familiar? Maybe not all of these, but I would imagine the last 3 that many of you are quite familiar with; at least if you are an American Evangelical. You can see how the cycles of “stewardship” work between each new dispensation. There are certain responsibilities given to humanity in each dispensation; when this group of people fail, they experience God’s judgment, which then also becomes the trigger for the next dispensation to start. Interestingly, the end of the 6th dispensation would come about by unbelief in Christ (by much of the Church); which for the Apostle Paul (like in his epistles to Timothy) coincides with the “Great Apostasy” that will typify the end of days (which many believe we are experiencing right now).

Let me know what you think . . .

PS. Addendum: You know how I just recently said I was going to be writing at my other blog 'Blogic Of Grace', well I lied ;-). I am just going to post here, it gets too confusing sometimes for folk to follow me at two venues. The reason I was going to blog elsewhere is becomes sometimes being known as 'The Evangelical Calvinist' in the blogosphere carries with it unwanted connotations amongst various Christians, and I get tired (some times) of having to explain how EC is different than what people usually think of as Calvinist; and usually what happens is that people presumptuously pigeon hole me, and don't even give me a chance to explain what Evangelical Calvinism entails. Anyway, forget that, I am 'The Evangelical Calvinist' in the blogosphere for better or worse ... ultimately I think, for the better :-)!

Glenn Beck & Tim Ballard Need to Repent: The Divinization of America and Anglo Israelism Repackaged

I just watched a clip from Glenn Beck's show on his network GBTV. For those who don't know, Glenn Beck is an American commentator who has risen to fame through his analysis of current events; which most often includes themes related to global economic collapse, world war III, and the belief that we are at a tipping point in world history in which there will be a restructuring of the global situation from what we have known it to be up to this point. Beck is LDS (Latter Day Saint), or Mormon in orientation; and it is his commitment to this kind of belief structure that informs his particular kind of Americanism ('Nationalism'), and interpretation of current events. He often collaborates with known Evangelical Christians, and thus has a rather hybrided (from a pure Mormon eschatology) view of prophetic history according to Scripture (in other words he seems to mix Dispensational Premillennial Zionism with his Mormon end times expectations).

Back to the clip I just mentioned, here it is:

In the past, Beck has hinted, for the discerning listener, at the idea that he believes America has ties to ancient Israel (which is exactly what Joseph Smith taught; i.e. that the Mormon's were the descendents of King David, etc.). So with this belief, it is fitting that he would hearken to ideas about the founding of America which believed that America was the 'New Israel' (which is really just post-millennialism gone awry and to its logical conclusion); indeed, there were many founding Fathers of America who believed this (just read Noll's, Hatches', and Marsden's 'The Search For Christian America'). But Glenn (from all appearances), and one of his most recent guests take this even further than many of these founding Fathers. Glenn's guest, Tim Ballard (who I believe is also Mormon, he is a graduate of Brigham Young University), argues in his recently released book, The Covenant, One Nation Under God: America's Sacred Connection with Ancient Israel, that the American Founders were the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That is, that these American's, in fact, are blood descendants of ethnic Israel. Ballard's thinking is only a reiteration of what has been called British Israelism, or Anglo Israelism (read about it here). In a nutshell, this is the belief that the lost 10 tribes of Israel, after the scattering and captivity from the Assyrians, migrated to parts of Western Europe and the British Isles; it is this genealogy, that Anglo Israelism taps into for their argument that the founding Fathers of America believed themselves to be fulfilling prophecy by founding America, or the New Israel. Ballard takes this literally, and gives this belief divine sanction, in his book (from what I can surmise); here is what is written about his book in a blurb at his website:

[T]o be clear, this book is not about America's ties to the Jewish State formed by U.N. edict in 1948 called “Israel” but rather, the text hearkens back to the period of 720 B.C. to the Northern Kingdom of ancient Israel who with her Ten Tribes were scattered by the Assyrians into the "North” land of Western Europe, Great Britain and Scandinavia, who inherited by virtue of birth and bloodline, the right to invoke "the Promises made to the Fathers."

Except for a very few cases, every freedom-loving patriot in modern times (regardless of his birth nation) has already tasted of the blessings which flow from the "just and holy principles" upon which America was founded. Could it be that America was designed to be much more than simply another political entity among many?  Could it be that her founders understood and endeavored to teach the rising generations exactly what it would take to preserve those blessings forever?

As a nation we have both honored and breached the Covenant at various times in our history and have been blessed or suffered as a result, this book is written to leave all without excuse. We have within our grasp the freedom to sacred and ominous power to choose to honor or to violate the terms of the Covenant and surely as a nation, we will live or die by the consequences of that choice. [full quote taken from here]

So really, this is nothing new. British Israelism has been around for along time; indeed, it was a touchstone teaching for the former Worldwide Church of God, through their founder Herbert Armstrong (the WWCG has now renounced their teacher's former teaching, and have become quite orthodox under the new name Grace Communion International---indeed, much of their leadership follows the teaching of Thomas Torrance, and I have some of them reading right here at the blog :-). 

Anyway, Glenn Beck and Tim Ballard are out to lunch; we all know that the Apostle Paul taught that the 'Seed' and promise was all in reference to Jesus Christ (not any lost nations, or even one nation); at least that's what Paul clearly argues in his little epistle to the Galatians. 

Glenn Beck and Tim Ballard need to:

1. Convert to orthodox, historic Christianity.
2. Read their Bibles for all their worth.
3. Take some Christ-centered biblical interpretation classes (hermeneutics).
4. And repent of their divinization of America, and recognize that Jesus alone is the homoousion person who brings nature and grace together in his one divine person!  

Here is the trailer video to Ballard's book:

Classic Dispensationalism's Faulty Understanding of 'Seed' in Galatians

Let me continue on with my thinking relative to Dispensationalism. And to clarify, for those unaware, I grew up as the son of a Conservative Baptist Dispensational Premillennial Pre-Tribulational pastor; I inherited and owned this view as my own, especially as I entered into Bible College and even Seminary; and then became a vociferous advocate for this framework of interpretation with whoever would listen, and especially here on the internet (in my earlier years of blogging, starting about 7 years ago now). After moving from classic Dispensationalism, I moved into what is called Progressive Dispensationalism (I will have to sketch the differences at a later time). Since, then, I have had a radical shift, moving into Historic Premillennialism; and finally after much ado landing where I am now as an Amillennialist. With that ground cleared, let me get us into what I want to look at in this post.

Classic Dispensationalists [CD from here on out] (Progressives are different at this point) see a hard distinction between the nation of Israel, and the Church. They see the former as God's chosen people, and as those for whom prophetic and salvation history has always been intended; they see the nation of Israel as God's "earthly people." CD see the Church as God's "heavenly people;" as an interruption or parenthesis in God's real plan for his earthly people the Jews. So you see right away that CDs operate with the belief that God has two distinct peoples, and it is this distinction that becomes one of the sine qua nons of Classic Dispensationalism (and all Dispensationalisms). In this context, I want to offer a quote from a stalwart of Classic Dispensational thought from just recent yesteryear, J. Dwight Pentecost; in fact the quote I am providing for our consideration is actually Pentecost quoting another Classic Dispensational stalwart John Walvoord (his colleague for many years at the hub of this teaching, Dallas Theological Seminary). The quote is Walvoord's sketching of how Classic Dispensationalists make a distinction between the 'kinds of seeds mentioned in Scripture'. Walvoord is contrasting the CD approach with his understanding of the amillennial interpretation. After I provide this quote I will offer a critique of Walvoord's presentation, and also offer a short critique of the typical amillennial approach here as well; I actually think the classic amillennial is a bit off as well when it identifies the 'seed'. Without further ado here is that quote:

[T]here are, then, three different senses in which one can be a child of Abraham. First, there is the natural lineage, or natural seed. This is limited largely to the descendants of Jacob in the twelve tribes. To them God promises to be their God. To them was given the law. To them was given the land of Israel in the Old Testament. With them God dealt in a special way. Second, there is the spiritual lineage within the natural. These are the Israelites who believed in God, who kept the law, and who met the conditions for present enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant. Those who ultimately possess the land in the future millennium will also be of spiritual Israel. Third, there is the spiritual seed of Abraham who are not natural Israelites. Here is where the promises to "all the families of the earth" comes in. This is the express application of this phrase in Galatians 3:6-9. . . . in other words, the children of Abraham (spiritually) who come from the heathen or Gentiles fulfill that aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant which dealt with Gentiles in the first place, not the promises pertaining to Israel. The only sense in which Gentiles can be Abraham's seed in the Galatians context is to be "in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). It follows: "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). They are Abraham's seed in the spiritual sense only and heirs of the promise given "to all the families of the earth."

While premillennarians can agree with amillennarians concerning the fact of a spiritual seed for Abraham which includes Gentiles, they deny that this fulfills the promises given to the natural seed or that the promises to the "seed of Abraham" are fulfilled by Gentile believers. To make the blessings promised all the nations the same as the blessings promised the seed of Abraham is an unwarranted conclusion. [John Walvoord cited by J. Dwight Pentecost in, Things To Come, 87-8]

And here is the text from Galatians that is under discussion:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,^[a] before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you^[b] as crucified? ² This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? ³ Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? ⁴ Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?⁵ Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— ⁶ just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”^{[c] 7} Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. ⁸ And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”^{[d] 9} So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.¹⁰ For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”^{[e] 11} But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”^{[f] 12} Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”^[g]13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”^[h]), ¹⁴ that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. ¹⁵ Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. ¹⁶ Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”^[i] who is Christ. ¹⁷ And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ,^[j] that it should make the promise of no effect. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. ¹⁹ What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. ²⁰ Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. ~Galatians 3:1-20

Stupid blogger just ate most of my comments following the quote here. Let me just briefly state that Classic Dispensationalism and Classic Amillennialism understand lineage to Abraham wrongly since they apply the Seed argument of Paul to the 'many' instead of to the One, Jesus Christ. Paul is very explicit about the Seed being singular; Jesus is the new Israel, he fulfills both Walvoord's physical and spiritual aspects in himself (it is this kind of distinction---e.g. physical V. spiritual---wherein Classic Dispensationalism falters most ... this kind of thinking is not biblical or christocentric, it is neo-Platonic and dualistic ... something which Scripture and God's Self-revelation in Christ know nothing of). The Church is not the new Israel (contra classic Amillennialism), unless you want a Roman Catholic ecclesiology; and the nation of Israel is not an end in itself as the new Israel. Only Jesus, according to Paul's singular Seed argument, can and has fulfilled this role. QED

Rebutting Dispensationalism

Let me take a quick run at Dispensationalism; the system of hermeneutics and history that I grew up in, and by and large was trained in for many years. I usually don't like it when a former adherent to a belief system, or interpretive framework returns to their former 'system' only to bash it over the head---as if to bolster their new found, and maybe even novel (to them) way of thinking. And yet, I have avoided head on critique of dispensationalism for quite some time now; to satisfy my own self imposed moorings in line with what I just described. No more. I have been listening to some classic dispensational teachers lately, and they only have made it that much more clear why I have repudiated my once held classic and progressive dispensational beliefs.

For those who don't know; classic Dispensationalism holds that there is a hard or even soft (depending on what version) distinction between ethnic Israel and the Church. Such that the former are God's special covenant people whom all of history and creation is oriented around and toward, and the latter are God's mystery people whom he briefly interrupted his plans for Israel with; in order to let some of the Gentiles into the heavenlies. Clearly this is bolderdash! And yet the teachers I have been listening to lately believe just the opposite; they believe that anyone, like me, who thinks that Jesus is the point and purpose of Israel, and Creation, no less are most likely close to not being Christian. And/or, they believe folk like me are severely confused, and need to be corrected. But wait a minute, who needs to be corrected? Doesn't the Apostle Paul say that there has been one new man created in Jesus Christ? That the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been broken down in Christ? Doesn't the Apostle say that Jesus is the point of creation, being the firstborn from the dead? Doesn't the Apostle Paul argue that the point of the Abrahamic Covenant was not for seeds (like the nation of Israel), but for the Seed, singular, who is Jesus Christ? And if this is so, doesn't it make more sense to conclude that the point and vocation of the nation of Israel was to serve as the mediator of the Mediator to the nations; and that in their mediation, their election is made sure through the fulfillment of Jesus Christ's life for them and all humanity? Jesus is Israel (not even the church); Jesus is the point and fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant; Jesus is the point of prophetic history; Jesus is the point of salvation history; Jesus is the point of creation through recreation in him. Dispensationalism, in any of its forms, has just been defeated at this point; it can go no further. It can't cope with the straightforward teaching of the Apostle Paul.

So it isn't someone like me, who affirms an amillennial understanding of salvation history, that needs to be corrected on the point and purpose of salvation history and creation; it is the dispensationalist who denies the clear teaching of Scripture on this issue. Salvation history has never primarily been about the nation of Israel, it has always been about the one whom Israel was elected to mediate to the nations in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant; Jesus Christ. If your interpretive schema, dispensationalist, ends with a nation instead of a person; then you are wrong, and you ought to reconsider your interpretive paradigm.

This was somewhat of a rant; in the near future I plan on offering some more substantial/supported points in this regard. I grow weary of hearing dispensationalists assert the things they do without understanding.

My Conscience Won't Let Me: Still Amillennial

You know, I just put a post up that said I was reverting back to historic premil, post trib; but I simply cannot do that! I am amillennial in my eschatological perspective, through and through. Hermeneutically, theologically, christologically, etc.; I cannot countenance a premil perspective anymore. It would certainly make it easier for me if I was still a dispensational premil (pre-trib to boot), given the church circles I am in (Calvary Chapel which is staunchly dispy, premil, pretrib); but I simply, by conscience, cannot make this move. I am convinced for many many reasons that the amil hermeneutic (which it is, a hermeneutic that ultimately, I think, takes shape theo-logically from a properly construed christological understanding) is the most biblical! There are various ways to construe amillennialism (just like there are many variations amongst dispy premillers etc); I am most comfortable with the way that Richard Bauckham develops this in his books, The Theology of the Book of Revelation & The Climax of Prophecy. Let me close this with something I wrote years ago as a bit of a synopsis of amillennialism (monergism.com picked it up as their synopsis for their amil category):

Fall of Jerusalem, 70 AD

The Amillennialist affirms that the people of Israel have not been cast off or replaced, but rather, that the Gentiles have now been included among the Jews in God's Covenantal promises. In other words, not replacement but expansion. God's redemptive plan, as first promised to Abraham, was that "all nations" would be blessed through him. Israel is, and always has been, saved the same as any other nation: by the promises to the seed, Christ. Amillennialists, do not believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth after His second coming. Rather, they affirm that when Christ returns, the resurrection of both the righteous and wicked will take place simultaneously (see John 5), followed by judgment and and the eternal state where heaven and earth merge and Christ reigns forever.

1. It is highly Christocentric: it makes Christ the center of all the biblical covenants (even the “Land” covenant or Siniatic).
2. It notes the universal scope of the Abrahamic Covenant (as key) to interpreting the rest of the biblical covenants.
3. It sees salvation history oriented to a person (Christ), instead of a people (the nation of Israel).
4. It emphasizes continuity between the “people of God” (Israel and the Church are one in Christ Eph. 2:11ff).
5. It provides an ethic that is rooted in creation, and “re-creation” (continuity between God’s redemptive work now, carried over into the eternal state then).
6. It emphasizes a trinitarian view of God as it elevates the “person”, Christ Jesus, the second person of the trinity as the point and mediator of all history.
7. It flows from a hermeneutic that takes seriously the literary character of the Scriptures (esp. the book of Revelation).

I would probably revise a few things here, but I still think most of this is pretty accurate, for me. I am not saying that a historic premil wouldn't be able to affirm all of the above, but I just think the amil can affirm it with much more ease ;-).

Evangelical Calvinist Christ Conditioned Supralapsarian Election

Here is Thomas F. Torrance critiquing George Hill’s understanding of limited atonement (you can find a fuller explication of this in TFT’s “The Mediation of Christ [must read]):

Hill seemed to have no idea of the biblical teaching about the election of one for the many found both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and of the idea that the redemptive purpose of God for all nations of the earth was narrowed down to Israel, to a remnant, and then in the most intensive way to Jesus in the midst of Israel, and was fulfilled in and through him in a universal way for all mankind. Thus in respect of the people of Israel the universalising purpose of God will lead to the point when ‘all Israel shall be saved’. Instead, Hill limited the universal sufficiency and extent of Christ’s atoning redemption by a notion of specific ‘destination’, governed by God’s eternal degree, of only certain individuals for ultimate salvation. Regarded from the end result, therefore, the penal satisfaction offered by Christ in his sacrificial death was held to be actually and finally effectual only for particular people. Thus even for George Hill, this evangelical moderate who sought to restore, in some measure at least, the place of the love and mercy of God to its primary place in redemption, the atonement was essentially and rigidly limited in its nature and extent. The question had to asked, therefore, as indeed it was by Thomas Chalmers, what kind of God does this imply? That was the great question with which the General Assembly was faced in 1830, with McLeod Campbell’s revolt against the idea of God that lay behind the doctrine of predestination and limited atonement in what George Hill regularly referred to as ‘the Calvinistic System’ that prevailed in the Kirk.

– Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology,” 262-63

The one for the many is a key biblical motif, and it first finds its ‘rootage’ in the antecedent life of God. In other words, who we see mediated through the national life of Israel, and then fully enfleshed in the tabernacling of Jesus (Jn 1:14); is what has always already been a reality in God’s life for us in the Son for all eternity (or ‘supra-time’). This is the some of the stuff that goes into an Evangelical Calvinist understanding of a Christ conditioned election or Christic Supralapsarianism. Salvation is grounded in God’s life, and so who we see revealed in Jesus of Nazareth is who has always been in the ontological coinhering relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

All of this dovetails nicely with Scott’s recent post on election.

*PS. This is a repost from way back in October 2009. This kind of 'Christ-conditioned' supralapsarianism is given masterful explication in Myk Habets' chapter on the same topic in our forthcoming book (due out, Lord willing, this May).

The Problem of Sin, and Its Answer: Good Friday, Holy Saturday and ...

I don't know about you, but I grow weary of sin; I (we) face an ongoing battle every breath that we take. Whether it be perverse thoughts, dark deep secrets that plague the conscience, actions that result in destruction for you and all those related to you, systemic evil that permeates the very fabric of society (this is probably most insidious since we are conditioned by it in ways that give it a normalcy and thus societal and then personal acceptance); the Apostle can relate,

²³But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. ²⁴O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Romans 7:23, 24

 We battle on. But how do we know what we battle; how do we gauge the target, how do we even know that there is a target to hit? How do we realize that evil isn't some just mysterious lurking principle 'out there' that ultimately is outside of me, and not something that actually implicates my very being to its deepest depths---even when I engage in the evil 'out there' occasionally or situationally? How do I know, even if I can index concrete and ongoing instantiations of evil 'out there, that the evil is indeed me? And that this all encompassing wickedness and deprivation consumes my inner self, which organically shapes my outer self---since really ourselves (body/soul) are integrated wholes. In other words, I am sin to the depths, and the reason there is sin, evil, wickedness 'out there'; it is mostly because it has a context 'in here', in me. But how can I say such things, how can I ground such assertions beyond some sort of psychological intuition? We know that we are blind when the impression of light intensifies our darkness; when Jesus acts the way he does, and did, we know we are indeed blind. We come to the realization that for all our good, for all our posturing toward ourselves; that the next to the last word is that we live in a state of No, or blindness to the fact that what we see the Apostle Paul giving voice to can only come when faced with the depth of our problem as we participate in the life of Christ. The One who took our No, our blindness, and indeed our sin unto himself 'by becoming sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him' (II Cor. 5:21). As Calvin so perceptively knew, we only truly have knowledge of ourselves (and our abysmal state), when we first have knowledge of God through Christ, God the Redeemer.

It is this that John Webster masterfully elucidates as he engages Karl Barth's vision of a christologically conditioned knowledge of sin in its most depth dimension. Let me quote Webster, who is commenting on Barth's Church Dogmatics & Ethics, and the moral anthropology embedded therein:

[B]arth's Christological determination of sin is not so much an attempt to dislocate 'theological' from 'empirical' reality, as an argument born of a sense that human persons are characteristically self-deceived. Human life is a sphere in which fantasy operates, in which human persons are not able to see themselves as they truly are. The 'man of sin'

thinks he sits on a high throne, but in reality he sits only on a child's stool, cracking his little whip, pointing with frightful seriousness his little finger, while all the time nothing happens that really matters. He can only play the judge. He is only a dilettante, a blunderer, in his attempt to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, acting as though he really had the capacity to do it. He can only pretend to himself and others that he has the capacity and that there is any real significance in his judging. (CD IV/1, p. 446.)

This theme of concealment surfaces frequently in paragraph 60 (and elsewhere). Believing ourselves to see clearly, even allowing ourselves to suppose our sight to be sharper than that of our fellows, we are blind to the reality of our own selves. Barth acutely perceives that moral earnestness frequently rests upon clouded vision and lack of self-awareness and self-distrust. And so, once again, we return to the Christological basis for the treatment of human sin: 'Compared with Him we stand there in all our corruption ... The untruth in which we are men is disclosed ... We are forced to see and know ourselves in the loathsomeness in which we find ourselves exposed and known.'

Human sinfulness, then, entails an ability to disentangle ourselves from our acts in such a way that they are no longer really ours. As Barth puts it in a passage in Church Dogmatics IV/2, we allow ourselves to believe that:

The sinful act is regrettable but external, incidental and isolated failure and defect; a misfortune, comparable to one of the passing sicknesses in which a healthy organism remains healthy and to which it shows itself to be more than equal. On this view, the individual --- I myself --- cannot really be affected by the evil action. I do not have any direct part in its loathsome and offensive character. In the last resort it has taken place in my absence. I myself am elsewhere and aloof from it. And from this neutral place which is my real home, I can survey and evaluate the evil that has happened to me in its involvement with other less evil and perhaps even good motives and elements; in its not absolutely harmful but to some extent positive effects; in its relationship to my other much less doubtful and perhaps even praiseworthy achievements; and especially in my relationship to what I see other men do or not do (a comparison in which I may not come out too badly); in short, in a relativity in which I am not really affected at bottom. I may acknowledge and regret that I have sinned, but I do not need to confess that I am a sinner.  (CD IV/2, p. 394)

These clarifications of the forms of human self-deception (which are by no means intended to underrate the ambiguity of the moral situation) are an important background to Barth's treatment of original sin. His objection to some formulations of that doctrine is, at heart, that they are deficient in their account of positive evil. And his refusal of an independent locus peccati, his rejection of anything other than a Christologically determined account of sin, is directed by precisely the same concern. Far from averting attention from evil as fact, Christology is intended to furnish a means of clarifying our vision and dissolving our illusions about our own moral integrity. [John Webster, Barth's Moral Theology: Human Action in Barth's Thought, 69-70.]

The Apostle Paul concurs with this kind of assessment about the deleterious effects of sin upon a life that knows that it only knows its true state of affairs because of the One who finally has given the last word  to our No-being by his Yes to the Father for us---viz. a Yes that is given concrete form through his death, burial, and most importantly resurrection-ascension. The Apostle Paul, with his eyes wide open, as we noted earlier, gives a final sigh of relief when he writes:

 ²⁵I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Romans 7:25

The Apostle knew, that he knew sin, not ultimately because of the Law; but ultimately, because of Christ who penetrated deeper than the Law could on its own---viz. into the cavernous depths of the human soul which left to itself continues to look at evil and wickedness as if its 'out there', while all along failing to realize that they've never even seen sin and evil and wickedness in its most grotesque form; that's because they've never presumed that maybe, just maybe the most insidious form of evil, in the end, dwells where they can't peer, where they dare not, in themselves.

'The Beast' and Americana

As some of you know I have been working and re-working my view on eschatological biblical hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) for quite a few years. I grew up dispy, was trained as a progressive dispy (pretrib, premil), converted to historic premil and post-trib; but now I am a convinced amillennialist, thanks in no small part to Richard Bauckham (who I have been in personal correspondence with over the last week) and his writings on the book of Revelation. I don’t want you to think that I just changed my view on a dime; this has been long and coming, and Bauckham has simply provided a way to be amil without also having to be a Federal-Covenantal Calvinist [Bauckham himself doesn't commit to either an amil or postmil position; he remains open on that continuum].

I open this way to get us into what I really want to write about; that is what Bauckham has to say about Revelation 18 as an economic critique of the Beast [Rome], and any other empires that imbibe this kind of empiric mantle. Let me quote a bit from Bauckham on this issue, and then I will provide further elaboration of my own afterwards.

[F]inally, the portrait of the harlot in Revelation 17:1-6 ends with a fresh and even more sinister use of the image of drunkeness: she who made the earth drunk with her seductive wiles is herself ‘drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus’ (17:6). The accusation recurs, this time with a judicial image, in 18:24: ‘in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth’. Here the prophets and saints are the Christian martyrs, and many commentators understand ‘all who have been slain on earth’ also as Christian martyrs, but this is not the natural sense, and it robs the verse of its climax. Rome is indicted not only for the martyrdom of Christians, but also for the slaughter of all the innocent victims of its muderous policies. The verse expresses a sense of solidarity between the Christian martyrs and all whose lives were the price of Rome’s acquisition and maintenance of power. John has not forgotten that Babylon rides on the beast with its bear’s hug and its lion’s teeth (13:2). He knows that the Pax Romana was, in Tacitus’s phrase, ‘peace with bloodshed,’ established by violent conquest, maintained by continual war on the frontiers, and requiring repression of dissent. Like every society which absolutizes its own power and prosperity, the Roman empire could not exist without victims. Thus John sees a connexion between Rome’s economic affluence, Rome’s idolatrous self-deification, and Rome’s military and political brutality. The power of his critique of Rome—perhaps the most thoroughgoing critique from the period of the early empire—lies in the connexion it portrays between these various facets of Rome’s evil

Thus it is a serious mistake to suppose that John opposes Rome only because of the imperial cult and the persecution of Christians. Rather this issue serves to bring to the surface evils which were deeply rooted in the whole system of Roman power. In John’s perspective, the evils of Rome came to a head in her persecution of Christians, because here Rome’s self-deification clashed with the lordship of the Lamb to which the Christian martyrs bore witness and so what was implicit in all of Rome’s imperial policies here became explicit. Hence Revelation most often portrays the fall of Rome as vengeance for the death of the Christian martyrs (16:6; 18:24; 19:2; cf. 18:6). But this is certainly not the whole story: God’s judgment of Rome is also attributed to her slaughter of the innocent in general (18:24; cf. 18:6), her idolatrous arrogance (18:8), and her self-indulgent luxury at the expense of her empire (18:7). [Richard Bauckham, "The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation," 350-51]

Theological Implications

This has immediate application for our current situation, as Americans and Westerners in particular. What Bauckham argues is that the book of Revelation was primarily intended for the seven churches he wrote it too (what a novel idea). Then the apocalyptic language, and prophetic genre of the book take on new character, we no longer ought to read it through a purely ‘futuristic’ lens; as so many do, at least in my orbit of contacts. While the book was initially written to first century Graceo-Roman Christians; its prophetic reach comes into our present and into the future yet to come. Bauckham is arguing that the harlot who rides the ‘Beast’ is the economic affluence of Rome, and then any empire following that walks in the same footsteps as Rome. That society is the Beast; the kingdom of the world that would seek to exalt itself against the kingdom of the Lamb.

The sobering reality of what Bauckham is getting at is that America, and the West (and much of the East) could be the ‘Beast’. I will pick on America since I am American. We feature all of the characteristics that Bauckham notes as features of the Roman empire, or the ‘Beastly empire.’ We have absolutized our power (American exceptionalism), we have indulged our affluence, we have ‘self-deified’ ourselves by synthesizing Christianity with a certain set of Americana and her Judeo-Christian values, and we have established all of this through our overpowering military might and political maneuvering. We have swallowed up the world to the point now that we are feeding on ourselves, and we don’t even realize it (given the global nature of things, it could be argued that the nations of the world have come together to take her stand against the King of kings and Lord of lords).

It seems to me that the blood of the martyrs, the cries of the saints who have gone before us is crying out louder than ever before. In light of these things how then should we live?

*I thought I would repost this post of mine.