 |
 |
|
You think you just got a problem and you got a devil. You think you just got a headache and you got a devil. You think you just got a problem with your bank account and you got a devil. You think you've got a problem with your temper and you've got a devil. You think you've got a problem with depression and you've got a devil. -- Rod Parsley, Praise The Lord, Dominion Camp Meeting; July 6, 1999 |
|
 |  |
Preterism: The Abrahamic Covenant: Fulfilled or Postponed? (Part 1)
Posted on Monday, August 22 @ 18:24:41 PDT by Gary DeMar |
|
By Gary DeMar
All prophetic eyes are on Israel. A majority of fundamentalists believe that what happens in the Middle East determines the fate of the world. The world moves at Israel’s pace. For the dispensationalist, what the rest of the world does is irrelevant and meaningless because not only are all prophetic eyes on Israel, but God’s eyes are on Israel.
The New Testament focuses on Israel as well. Jesus “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Even so, He ministered to Canaanites, Samaritans, and Greeks because it was part of God’s plan of world-wide redemption (Luke 2:32). All the promises made to Israel were fulfilled in Christ. The first Christians were Jews (Acts 2). The church was not a new concept designed to replace Israel. The first church was made up almost exclusively of Jews. Gentiles were grafted in to an already Jewish congregation of believers called “the church.” The Greek word “church” (ekklesia) was a familiar word to first-century Jews (Matt. 16:18; 18:17; Acts 5:11) because it was an old covenant idea (Acts 7:38).1 Modern-day prophetic theory is based on the false premise that God still owes ethnic Jews the fulfillment of unfulfilled covenant promises.
J. Dwight Pentecost writes that the Abrahamic covenants, “according to the Scriptures, are eternal.”2 The Bible describes them as “everlasting.” If “everlasting” means “lasting or enduring through all time,” then dispensationalists do not believe that the Abrahamic covenants are “everlasting” since they have been postponed for nearly 2000 years! Given that dispensationalists claim that only they follow a consistently literal method of interpretation, it’s surprising that they equivocate on the meaning of “everlasting.” Consider Charles Ryrie’s standard definition of “literal interpretation” and apply its principles to how dispensationalists propose a postponement theory to explain how the Abrahamic covenant was not realized during Jesus’ ministry:
Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.3
Another often quoted definition is David Cooper’s Golden Rule of Interpretation which states, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages, and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” The problem is, dispensationalists do not always follow these guidelines. This is especially true in the way they interpret “everlasting.”4 By applying the Ryrie/Cooper literal litmus test, “everlasting” should have “the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.” To go further and to be more accurate, “everlasting” should have the same meaning it has elsewhere in the Bible unless there is a specific indication that the meaning is different in degree.
All the dispensational writers I consulted, who have the irritating habit of quoting one another to support their claims, agree that the “Abrahamic covenant is called eternal in the Word of God” (Gen. 17:7, 13b, 19; 1 Chron. 16:16–17; Psalm 105:9–10).5 Paul Benware writes, “Those blessings included the guarantee of national existence as well as the greatness of the nation, the land area of Canaan as an everlasting possession, and the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant as an everlasting covenant.”6
At the same time the Abrahamic covenant is said to be “everlasting,” dispensationalists insist that it has been postponed. Mal Couch, an advocate of dispensational theology, writes:
Most dispensationalists hold to a kingdom postponement theory. . . . Dispensationalists believe that the kingdom was set aside, the Jews suffered the final dispersement, and the church, which was not mentioned in the Old Testament, was given to reach the Gentile nations.7
Does “everlasting” include the idea of postponement in its dictionary definition or its biblical usage so that it passes as the “primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning” of the word? Is there anything in “the immediate context” of Genesis 17 or when “studied in the light of related passages, and axiomatic and fundamental truths” that would “indicate clearly” that a definition of “everlasting” can include the idea of postponement? Absolutely not. Everlasting and postponement are contradictory ideas.
Footnotes:
1. The word translated “congregation” in Acts 7:38 is the Greek word ekklesia, translated almost exclusively as “church” in the NT.
2. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, [1958] 1964), 69.
3. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, rev. ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995), 80.
4. Eugene H. Merrill writes that the “everlasting covenant of salt” is “probably . . . a metaphor to speak of its durability [Num. 18:19].” (Eugene H. Merrill, “Numbers,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985], 236).
5. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), 49.
6. Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 33.
7. Mal Couch, “The Postponement Theory,” An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to the History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2000), 221. The book is misnamed. Dispensational hermeneutics cannot be described as “classical.”
Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books. His latest is Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.
|
| |
 |
^^Go to Top - E-mail to Friend - Print - View PDF - Subscribe - Comments RSS
Re: The Abrahamic Covenant: Fulfilled or Postponed? (Part 1) (Score: 2, Interesting)
by coderguy on Monday, August 22 @ 18:58:55 PDT (User Info | Send a Message) | The Abrahamic covenant has still not been fully fulfilled. The promises it makes are still good today. The promises could be fulfilled right now, but God has told us that it won't be until Israel accepts him. The reason Christ ministered to people that were gentiles was to show that the gentiles would accept what the Jews were rejecting.
The authors would say it has been postponed because of the rejection by the Jews of Christ as the Messiah. It won't be until they look upon "whom they have pierced"(Zec 12:10) and accept Christ.
The authors quoted are not saying that the Abrahamic covenant is a-nulled, rather they are saying that it is guaranteed not to be fulfilled during the church age. Delaying the fulfillment does not make it any less eternal.
Also, you have to admit that the covenant was delayed because Abraham never saw all the things promised, nor did his son, nor his, nor any Jew yet, because the promise has not been fully fulfilled.
The offer of the Abrahamic covenant is still good, but the people aren't taking advantage of the author. This is different than the Mosaic covenant, which Christ fulfilled. Since it was fulfilled, and was not promised to be eternal, its requirements are no longer over mankind. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by demario on Monday, August 22 @ 20:12:32 PDT
- by coderguy on Monday, August 22 @ 22:12:12 PDT
- by Virgil on Tuesday, August 23 @ 06:38:11 PDT
- by zerubbabel on Tuesday, August 23 @ 01:09:44 PDT
- by EWMI on Tuesday, August 23 @ 03:45:46 PDT
- by zerubbabel on Tuesday, August 23 @ 06:26:40 PDT
- by EWMI on Tuesday, August 23 @ 14:34:43 PDT
- by zerubbabel on Tuesday, August 23 @ 15:43:55 PDT
- by EWMI on Tuesday, August 23 @ 18:13:53 PDT
- by zerubbabel on Tuesday, August 23 @ 19:08:02 PDT
- by Reformer on Tuesday, August 23 @ 06:03:09 PDT
- by vinster on Tuesday, August 23 @ 05:47:16 PDT
- by coderguy on Tuesday, August 23 @ 05:53:37 PDT
- by Virgil on Tuesday, August 23 @ 06:46:25 PDT
- by coderguy on Tuesday, August 23 @ 09:29:35 PDT
- by Virgil on Tuesday, August 23 @ 09:50:08 PDT
- by vinster on Tuesday, August 23 @ 08:18:06 PDT
- by leslie on Tuesday, August 23 @ 10:27:29 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, August 23 @ 11:06:11 PDT
- by vinster on Wednesday, August 24 @ 05:49:15 PDT
- by NB9M on Tuesday, August 23 @ 13:16:53 PDT
- by leslie on Tuesday, August 23 @ 13:52:42 PDT
- by NB9M on Tuesday, August 23 @ 18:34:34 PDT
- by chrisliv on Tuesday, August 23 @ 18:08:19 PDT
Re: Blessing of Abraham Fulfilled (Score: 1)
by chrisliv on Tuesday, August 23 @ 16:42:57 PDT (User Info | Send a Message) | Yeah,
The article starts off on some key areas. I mean, if you don't get it about Abraham, you probably won't get the rest of the Bible.
The O.T. goes out of its way to state that old Israel received all of the promises that they had coming. They had the land, numerous offspring, enemies subdued roundabout, bumper harvests, etc. But, they repeatedly broke their covenant with God and even handed over the Holy One of Israel to be crucified.
Dispensationalists seem to really believe that Jews have magic DNA that God loves above all others. Sadly, their mistaken Hope is centered on a strip of Middle Eastern real estate.
It's pretty clear, according to the New Testament, that the "remnant" of Jews in the 1st Century AD was also the "all Israel" that would be saved, i.e only those genetic Jews who qualified as "Israel" via their, repentance, faith in Messiah, and acceptance of His non-hostile Kingdom.
As Paul states:
"...For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed..." Rom. 9:6-8
Or, similarly, as Christ states:
"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." John 8:39
"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Rev. 2:9
So, according to the New Testament, Jewish DNA doesn't make someone a child of Abraham or "Israel".
Did Christ Jesus give examples, contained in the New Testament, of what does make a 1st Century ethnic Jew a son or daughter of Abraham? Yes, He did.
Via the repentance demonstrated by Zachchaeauss, according to the Levitical law, was consider by Christ a son of Abraham:
"And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham." Luke 19:8 & 9
"And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour." Mat. 9:20-22
This is what Abraham rejoiced to see. And, on one occassion when the Jews tried to kill Him, Christ informed them that Abraham did see it, through faith:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." John 8:56
Or, later, as Paul tells:
"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Gal. 3:14
And now:
"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Gal.3:7
And:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal.3:16
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal.3:29
So, as Preterists, we're not surprised when the writer of Hebrews tells us that Abraham didn't even bother to build a house in the so-called Promised Land, or that he longed for a "better country" than the one untimately destroyed in 70 AD. We understand that the
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
|
|