Interpreting The Bible's Promises To Israel

As an evangelical Christian I join with many others and am part of a tradition that takes the Bible seriously. In saying that, I am not dismissing authorities such as human tradition and reason; but these are subordinate authorities.

I believe the scriptures to be the word of God written given to show us the way of salvation (2 Tim 3.15). The scriptural Word points to Jesus the Word (Jn 1.1;1.14) who points us to God the Father.

The very next verse in the letter to Timothy (2 Tim 3.16) gives a fuller description of the nature of scripture and its profitability for those who read it and do it.

The Scriptures Invite Interpretation

No one, whatever he may say, can speak the words of Scripture without involving the community of which he is a part. So for example, the Mormon 'missionaries' at your door use Scripture consistent with the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Attempts have been made to override individual, ignorance or bias altogether by insisting that one central body has the one true interpretation of Scripture. 

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) took that position from the 6th century, until the 16th century Protestant Reformation cracked the RCC's monolithic structure apart. And various cults today maintain this same delusion that only those within their organisation¹ are saved.

Granted that the scriptures require interpreting and that this means the involvement of sinful people with human limitations, how can we know what scripture means? Through these two means at least:
  
1. The Holy Spirit is given to 'guide us into all truth' (Jn 16.12-15). When scripture is read with 'an honest and good heart' (Lk 8.15) then the truth of the word can be received. Reading the word together is helpfully done in groups where each can receive direction from others.
2. Teachers within our particular denominational or house church groups play an important role in teaching the word of God. 

Literalness: A Valid Interpretive Principle?

Dispensationalists are passionate about interpreting scripture using a 'literal' hermeneutic (system of interpretation). And it sounds very proper for evangelicals to advance a case for taking the bible's text literally because it can appear to be a method for taking it seriously. 

However, the term 'literal' is a slippery one. (See here for a full treatment.)

The Nature of the Patriarchal Covenants

Many Christians may not recognise the importance of the covenant which God makes with Abram (Gen 12.1-3) (then Isaac, and Jacob) but it is pivotal for understanding the unity of Scripture as taught by dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists.

Abram (later Abraham, 'father of many nations') is first called to go to Canaan and God will make him a great nation (Gen 12.1-3; 13.14-17; 15.5, 13-21; 17.1-11; 21.1-7). In summary, these passages promise that Abraham will have land, descendants ('seed'), and be blessed and a blessing to all 'families' of the earth. (Abram is also promised protection from those who curse him, and promised the fatherhood of a great nation.)

Fulfilment of God's Land Promise

Now the question arises as to how we understand these promises are to be fulfilled. To illustrate, let's look at the promise of LAND (Gen 13.15; 15.18-21; 17.1-9). In Gen 17.8 the Land given by God to Abraham and his descendants is said to be 'all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession [italics added]'.  

This land promise in terms of its geographical extent was fulfilled (Josh 21.43-45; 23.4-5; 24.11, 13, 28; 2 Sam 8.3; I Kings 4.21; II Chron 9.26; Neh 9.8; Jer 11.5).³

God's promise re land spoke of its being 'an everlasting' possession, and it is just at the point that dispensationalist (D) and non-dispensationalist (nD) cross swords. 

For the D says, 'Everlasting means "lasting forever". Hence, those who are cultural descendants of Abraham still have just claims on the land of Palestine-Israel according to the borders of the Abrahamic covenant.'

However, the nD says, 'Not so fast. Don't you Ds say that while believing that 'everlasting' means "lasting forever" also contend that the land promise was suspended for 2000 years? Surely that is a very flexible, 'literal' meaning of everlasting. 

'And don't you Ds claim that when the Jewish leaders comprehensively rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the "woes" of Matt 23.13-36 are pronounced upon them and the nation (Matt 23.37-39) that the offer of the kingdom was taken from them and given to the Church (the congregation)? But where is this major 'stopgap' plan so much as hinted at in any scripture?

Two millennia are devoted to the Gentiles' salvation according to D theology and during that period the Jews have no land and again nDs ask, 'How can the land be said to be an "everlasting" possession when it is obvious that this "everlasting" possession has not been enduring or "continuous"?'

If the D admits that it hasn't been 'everlasting' in the normal, plain sense of 'everlasting' he has surrendered his literal hermeneutic.

Next time, we look further into the question of the land promise and how it affects us as Gentiles.

1. However mercifully, the scriptures have a power through the Holy Spirit that can also transcend the restrictions of the traditions to which we belong.
2. Cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses are controlled by 'The Organisation' as to what they must believe about the bible's teaching. Such control becomes more and more pervasive as one become more deeply involved. Even the Seventh-Day Adventist Church regards itself as the 'remnant' Church although the SDAs are not as monolithic as they once were.
3. Joshua's confirmation of God's fulfilment of his promise re land was accompanied by a stiff warning of the consequences of sinning against the Lord (Josh 23.16; 24.11-27). We know that Israel did go into apostasy after Joshua's death and God sent the deliverer-judges, prophets and kings to deliver them from their distress. Finally, they lost their land altogether to the Assyrians in the North in 721BC and to the Babylonians in 586BC. After 70 years they came back to their land but were ruled by the Persians then by the Greeks, and after a short time of independence under the Maccabees, were finally conquered by the Romans (63BC).

A Summary And A Way Forward

Catching Our Breath

Discussion of the various forms of eschatology reveals complications; but it can also reveal major points of difference that can help us to make greater sense of the field of study about our major topic, The One People of God. 

However, like many areas of scholarship when beginning to try to understand them it is as if one is learning a new language. In some ways that is what is happening. One is learning a new language!

Furthermore, we can feel as if others have been having an intense conversation in that language for many years. 

That metaphor in effect does sum up why we can feel lost in the middle of a forest.

Moreover, because we have been absent much of that time we don't really understand why other people fuss over the various issues I have referred to briefly in earlier posts.

Some people just enjoy learning about such issues for their own sake. (People enjoy all sorts of knowledge with which I don't interest myself. For example, I can't understand why people love learning about and studying spiders but some people do!) Others like the order that man-made¹ systems give to what appears initially to be complicated. However, others see that eschatology issues have implications for the national policies of countries today. (I've referred to this reason in my first post.)

What We Have Covered

I am interested in dispensationalism because it 'discovered' the idea of a radical difference between cultural Israel and the Church. Dispensationalism is a child of the 19th century and the Irishman, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was its major early systematiser. 

His views were given more permanent form in The Scofield Reference Bible and by that means gained a significant foothold in the evangelical world.That meant that Christians in the Plymouth Brethren along with Baptists and even Pentecostals adopted variations of a Darby-Scofield dispensationalism.

Second, this orthodox and traditional dispensationalism was somewhat revised in the important work of C. C. Ryrie who identified three cardinal, defining issues of dispensationalism as being: 1) the important distinction between cultural Israel and the Church; 2) a commitment to a consistent adherence to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures; and 3) the view that the  glory of God is paramount in the plan of God (as opposed to the salvation of mankind).

Finally, this revision was challenged by Progressive Dispensationalism (which we covered in an earlier post), that moved much further away from Darby's original ideas.

And Therefore?

It is certainly the case that Darby's ideas and particularly his American descendants Cyrus I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, J Dwight Pentecost, and C C Ryrie that have widespread influence in Evangelicalism today and continue to do so.

Hence, it will be the dispensationalist beliefs as summarised by C C Ryrie and the tradition of associated teaching, that the continuing discussion on this blog will focus.

1. It is important to realise that all human constructions placed on the Scriptures are created by flawed, limited human beings and though reflective of the truth in some measure cannot be said to be infallible.

Introduction to the Collects of Thomas Cranmer

The story of Henry VIII's obsession to secure a male heir so that the possibility of another Civil War (as had happened between the Lancasters and the Yorks in the brutal 'War of the Roses') could be avoided is well-known. Catherine of Aragon of Spain, had formerly been married to his older brother Arthur who died six months after their marriage.

John Nelson Darby: An Excursus

J. N. Darby's Life

It seems odd that evangelicalism has been so deeply influenced by John Nelson Darby's views and yet his name is hardly known. 

Consonant with that observation,  Sweetman and Gribben (2009) remark that few biographies of worth have been written about the Irishman even though he was an original thinker and later had great influence in several branches of theology.

Darby seemed destined for the law profession initially and although he qualified and practised for a year, he moved into the clerical ministry of the Church of Ireland (CofI) in Dublin (Anglican). This position seemed well below his past scholarly achievements at Trinity College, Dublin University where he graduated in 1819 having earned a Gold Medal in Classics. He lived an austere life along with his parishioners and followed a 'catholic' view of churchmanship that divine grace was given primarily through the sacraments (hence, a 'High' Churchman).

His Conversion and Gospel Preaching

After a bad riding accident, Darby was laid up in bed and spent time while convalescing in studies which led him to conversion; 'a release from bondage' as he put it. He immediately began to preach the gospel as he had now experienced it and many Roman Catholics in the Dublin area became devout Christ-followers.

Dublin's Archbishop at the time of these new conversions ordered that all those joining the CofI must swear an oath of allegiance to the British Crown. Darby was flabbergasted.  

Can you imagine what effect such an insensitive decision had on Irishmen who resented everything to do with the English? It effectively stopped the flow of converts under Darby's ministry and left him angry and disillusioned with the CofI.

Church and Eschatology Changes Related

With this CofI barrier being placed across his pathway to the gaining of new converts, Darby began to question¹ his commitment to the CofI. He concluded that its being an arm of the State for one thing was unBiblical. 

Moreover, he said that its view of the Church itself was contrary to the Word of God. In his letter of resignation from his curacy in 1828 (but not yet from the CofI--that came later) to the archbishop, he stated that God's people were to be found in all churches, all denominations. The unity of the Church was not to be found in any temporal, institutional organisation but in each individual's spiritual connection to Christ. 

In this significant respect then, the Church was essentially different from cultural Israel he contended. The Church was a spiritual entity with a heavenly destination; Israel was an earthly entity with an earthly destiny. 

Furthermore, up to this point, Darby seems to have held some type of post-millennialism. He seems to have believed that the 'millennium' was a symbolic 1000-year period from Pentecost to the Final Coming of Christ wherein the gospel of Christ would be preached successfully to the nations. On this basis, Jesus was to return after the millennium.

Darby began to question his post-millennialism being led by his newly found belief in the radical distinction between the heavenly Church and the eathly Israel.

The Church's Secret Rapture

Darby began to fellowship with a small of 'Brethren' who 'broke bread' together. He gradually gave up his membership in the CofI and became the driving force in the Plymouth Brethren (as they were known) to his death at 82.

Of course, Darby did not create pre-millennialism which can even be found in some of the church fathers.

However, arguably he did help to develop a scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Coming of Christ in two stages: the first stage was to be a  'secret rapture' of the church from the earth, seven years before the Final Revelation of Christ as Judge of all the nations; after which the millennium would take place. The diagram I've included shows some of this detail.

Daniel's prophecy of the 70 'weeks'² can be found in Daniel 9.24-27. Futurists such as Darby who believed that a radical distinction must be made between the Church universal and Israel insert a 'gap' between the end of the 62 'weeks' and the last 'week' (7 years) which they believe is yet future.

This 7-year period is one of Great Tribulation for the world out of which the Church has already been 'raptured'. Antichrist will arise during this time and dominate the world harassing the Jews mercilessly.  The Jews will have rebuilt the Temple and will be sacrificing offerings to God as they set out in the book of Leviticus.

Then Jesus will return as victorious Lord, chain up Satan and rule for a 1,000 years from physical Mt Zion in Jerusalem.  

Personal

I didn't plan to be writing this post on J N Darby but found his life and beliefs to be compulsive reading. So although I've taken a sidetrack on aspects regarding his life, I trust it will provide readers with valuable background. My sisters and I attended both a local 'Brethren'³ Sunday School and an Assemblies of God⁴ Sunday School and look back to both as places where we learned Bible verses and passages by heart; and also learned to take the holy Scriptures to our hearts.

1. Darby questioned the close association between the State (England) and the CofI in that the latter carried out the dictates of the former and also looked to the State for protection. In this regard Darby was concerned that it was becoming just like the Church of Rome. (This form of connection between State and Church is known as 'Erastianism'.)
2. I've placed 'weeks' in quotation marks to show that the weeks are not normal weeks = 7 days but weeks = 7 years. Hence, 70 weeks equals 490 years.
3. Our Brethren Chapel was first a 'closed' Brethren but then a split occurred and the Chapel continued as an 'open' Brethren group. We knew something big had happened because the main leaders (much loved) departed and then suddenly musical instruments such as a piano accordion appeared!! The former leaders did not allow instruments because they believed that Bible did not sanction their use in their meetings.
4. Ironically, our Pentecostal family and our Church differed over a Brethren doctrine which only goes to show the inroads that Darby's views had made into the various forms of Pentecostalism! Our family followed Darby (without knowing it) and his teaching of a pre-tribulation 'rapture' while the Church adopted a 'mid-tribulation' rapture view.

Progressive Dispensationalism

The revising of dispensationalism we talked about in the last post in turn gave way to a third form of dispensationalism which began in the 1980s called progressive dispensationalism (PD). 

One of the major features of this new dispensationalism was that its adherents began to subject one of C. C. Ryrie's defining criteria -literal interpretation- to closer examination and found it wanting.

At the same time, dialogue took place between some dispensationalists and nondispensational¹ theologians which brought about more understanding and greater unity between the two opposing groups.

The PD group believes that God has one plan of salvation. That plan is being unfolded through a series of different administrations (dispensations) but they emphasise the unity of the dispensations. 

However, the PD group still holds to the main dispensational tenet that Israel and the Church are distinct; nevertheless, they also hold that both receive blessings through the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenants.

Interpretation

This subject is a large one and highly vexed with strong differences of opinion. 

But as an example I had always believed that Gentiles could claim to be beneficiaries of the New Covenant set out in Jeremiah 31.31-34 (even though I was brought up as a dispensationalist without even knowing it). This fact seemed to be clear from Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper (1 Cor 11.25; Luke 22.20²). We also have in The Letter to the Hebrews where the New Covenant is specifically mentioned as making the Old covenant obsolete (Heb 8.8-12³). 

But some consistent dispensationalists don't believe that the New Covenant benefits the Gentiles. They believe that the New Covenant is for Israel alone. They reason this way on the basis that Jeremiah's words address, 'the house of Israel [Northern Kingdom] and the house of Judah [Southern Kingdom]' (Jer 31.31) and say nothing about the Gentiles.

Such exegetes would argue that all they are doing is being faithful to the 'literal' meaning of the words of Jeremiah 31.31. Hence, differences are apparent even within the classical⁴ dispensational school and require that we look further at the subject of interpretation which will be examined in future posts.

1. I've used this category to designate premillennialists who are nondispensational, as well as amillennialists (those who don't believe in a millennium on earth). It would also included preterism (that most prophecy has already been fulfilled) of all types.
2. Modern translations omit 'new' because of their use of a variant text. However, the Gospel accounts are clearly describing a covenantal Meal.
3. Of course, it can also be said that Hebrews is not addressed to Gentiles but to Hebrew Christians who were in danger of going back into Judaism once again.
4. Another issue that dispensationalists are divided on is the time the Church actually began. Some hold to an Acts 2 beginning; others to Acts 13 with the beginning of Paul's ministry; others to an Acts 28: 25-31.

Dispensationalism Revised

Before we outline a development in the classical dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield and others, I invite readers to look at Charles C Ryrie (b.1925) in a 7-minute You Tube interview explaining dispensationalism. 

Ryrie's teaching in the video is clear and easy to follow even if basic; and importantly, his work in 1965 led to a revised dispensationalism taking form.

Ryrie (1965, 1995) laid down three essential characteristics unique to dispensationalism¹ in his printed work: first, a consistent difference being maintained between the Church and Israel; second, the adherence to 'literalism' or a 'plain' reading of scripture (as opposed to allegorical or 'spiritual' readings); and third, more controversially¹, the belief that God's primary intention in creation was His own glory (as opposed to man's salvation). 

But in this process some notable differences between the Darby-Scofield view and mid-20th century views emerged. For whereas in traditional dispensationalism, a sharp dualism was believed to exist between the Church ('heavenly' destination and rewards) and Israel ('earthly', land of Palestine, ruling on earth, material prosperity), in 'revised' dispensationalism, this radical difference became an 'earthly' difference.

That is to say, the differences between the Church and Israel though still marked and basic were not as radical and far-reaching as they had been in traditional dispensationalism.

1. I should repeat a good point that Ryrie makes on You Tube that: all Bible students acknowledge various 'dispensations' to some extent. Just to recognise that living under the Mosaic Law for Israel is different from living in New Testament times is to do that. Hence, dispensationalism is greatly focussed on change and variety in God's administration across history while those opposed focus more on the continuity and unity found across the whole of scriptural revelation.

2. My reason for saying that this criterion is more controversial is that surely Ryrie was clearly misinformed to have thought that only dispensationalists hold firmly to such a belief. Famed Calvinist Jonathan Edwards taught this understanding which, in our time, has been taken over by John Piper.