I am going to be doing a few posts in the near future on my hereditary line of belief, Dispensationalism. I used to post on this — in past blog lives — quite often. I used to spend time sketching the hermeneutics and actual beliefs of dispensational theology; whether that be from classic, revised, to progressive dispensationalism. I used to like to illustrate (for those not in the know) the nuance available within dispensationalism, both heremeneutically and thus ethically. Given the quite astonishing shift in international perception relative to the Nation of Israel and the Liberation of Palestine, I thought it would be timely to redress this issue through looking at a theological system of interpretation that, I believe, could be THE theological position that has fostered American Christian Zionism in the past 20th century; like nothing has prior to this in the history of the Church and its interpretation (at a regional level). I personally have moved from classic dispensationalism (that’s how I grew up), to progressive dispensationalism (converted to this back in and around 1998), and finally I would claim to be historic premil today (which in all honesty reflects progressive dispy in almost every way, except for its view of the Tribulation — historic premil is usually associated with the post-Trib view vs. the pre-Trib — I think that many who claim to be historic premil fail to understand or realize the development within dispensationalism that progressive dispensationalism represents — in other words, progressive dispensationalism, by and large, is substantially motivated by George Eldon Ladd’s historic premillenialism and appropriated within a dispensational ethos by folks like Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, and Robert Saucy amongst others). Most of this, my posting on this, is motivated by the current geo-political stuff happening in the Middle-East; especially in regards to how this whole “Arab Spring” is affecting the Nation of Israel. I want to talk about — through the forthcoming posts — why it is that so many Evangelical Christians are political Zionists. And I really want to consider if this move is even and actually consistent with the dispensational theology that supposedly fosters such a perspective. My contention will be that, contrary to popular belief, even a dispensationalist should not currently be a political Zionist; as so many are. In the context of my intended aim, here is a video describing the current political crisis Israel faces in regards to her borders and security:
ht: Scot McNight
And here’s one more that gives the history of Israel in 5 minutes:
Bobby,
I will look forward to such, but I would consider myself a “Biblical” Zionist, and I have lived in Israel too, for a few years (late 90’s). There are indeed shades of so-called Political Zionism (Jewish to Messianic Jews, and of course Zionist Christians), but I don’t see the real difference myself.. at least not toward Modern Israel. Of course there are theological differences especially with the Messianic Jews and Zionist Christians, but the so-called political right of Israel? No!
Fr Robert,
I knew you would be the first to post a response on this ;-). Well, I save my response to your points for my forthcoming posts. I will say though that for me to say “Biblical” might not be helpful, that might depend on what you mean by that. Every Christian claims to be “Biblical.” π And in fact I would imagine that many amil folks would say its even more “Biblical Zionist” to hold that what we see in Rev 21–22 is the fulfillment of the LAND (Siniatic) Cov than to collapse that into a literal millennium etc. But anyway, I don’t want to jump ahead too much.
Bobby,
My point to “Biblical” not really being that different to Political, for “political” means Israel in its land. So that is literal and “dispensational” for Biblical Zionists certainly. I am in fact leaning back somewhat toward classic dispensationalism here. I can see the issue beginning to unfold, at least toward the diatribe with Israel! (As it sadly looks like you too are leaning!) I am absolutely with Modern Isreal and even old school Zionism on this!
*Israel
Not much else I need to say, you know the Classic Dispensational teaching! It will simply come back to this, for or against? I will stand both Biblically & Politically with Israel! Old school all the way! π
Thanks Bobby – I love posts with pictures!
No quit playing around and go write a book or something :- ]
Fr Robert,
You’ll have to wait and see what way I’m leaning. I think your comment is a bit premature, really.
Willie,
π If you press play those pictures talk ;-). Our book is forthcoming. Do you think there is a need for another book on Dispensationalism? I think there might be, actually, in light of current developments in Biblical Studies; esp. in light of someone like NT Wright and the impact he is having even on places like DTS students (and maybe some profs).
Bobby,
This is one of grave problems with theology in general, i.e. not speaking clearly and simply biblically! Since all of the hupla with the Camping issue, I have been driven into Scripture once again.. and I can only see the essence of 1 Cor.10:32…”the Jews..Gentiles..[and] the church of God.”
And with your last statement about even a dispensationalist should not “currently” be a political Zionist, how is this premature? As I said, whether one is a Jew, Messianic Jew, or a Christian Zionist.. when it comes to National Israel, they simply must have our support! This is a no brainer to me! But as I said, certain aspects in the world community, simply and really profoundly hate Israel! And again, their diatribe is coming even stronger from so-called Christian groups!
Talking pictures!! God bless God!
Yes, even the Profs!
When your goal (consciously or unconsciously) is to be perceived as clever, fashionable, unique, provocative, or “new”, beware. God has not called us to be any of those – just faithful, from love, with thankfulness.
Peace
Fr Robert,
You said . .. And again, their diatribe is coming even stronger from so-called Christian groups! Which is why I’m highly surprised to hear you say that you think I’m leaning that way. I don’t take that lightly, my friend; that’s a rather serious charge that I do take umbrage at. Yes, I don’t think dispies should collapse the political into the present situation in Israel on their own logic of discontinuity between the covenants etc. But that’s what I’m going to flesh about a bit further through posts.
@Willie,
Indeed! Although I need you to flesh out what you’re saying a little further. What do you mean? Are you saying that you think I’m intending to be clever fashionable, unique, provocative etc. To the negation of being faithful? I don’t understand, my brother?
Fr Robert,
That said, what I just said to you; that does not also mean that I do not think that we shouldn’t support the Nation of Israel on ethical grounds! You’re causing me to show my hand before I get to my actual post.
@Bobby,
I am just going with your logic and own words! It does appear your going against Political Zionism! But I know your push back on theological issues. π Debate and dialogue are part of theological understanding!
Fr Robert,
I can see how you’re going with my own words. I did want to at least provide a little “hook” through them. You’re almost getting me to spoil my future posts ;-). I am just really trying to provide some discussion on this, and this post is to provide introduction to what I intend to try and talk about further. Although I can’t say that my future posts will provide any kind of resolution for anyone. But it should at least say where I’m at on this, and maybe I’ll be corrected somewhat in my own understanding on dispy (but I think I have a pretty good grasp on it).
Bobby,
That’s fine, this issue brings alot of heat, and righty so, it touches not only on bible and theology, but on ideology. I know having lived in Israel, this is an issue of life and death in that region. And now this issue really presses our theology out of the classroom, into Christian doctrine & living. Not to mention the reality of the prophetic for almost everyone.
For myself, both the Amil and the Postmil really don’t deal with this issue fully, and some aspects in this are simply supersessional. And thus it falls only into Christian ethics, which is secondary to my understanding.
Fr Robert,
It truly is an issue of life and death for all parties. And this is definitely an issue that causes great heat, and often no light. I’m going to try and post in a way that produces more of the latter and less of the former.
Well, I’m neither postmil or amil, I can honestly say that. I am also not supersessional, but I do see Jesus as THE new Israel and the point of prophetic of history as well as the telos for both Israel, the Nations and all of creation. The reason I don’t think I’m supersessional is that I still believe that the promises made to the nation of Israel (the remnant of Rom 9–11) will be literally fulfilled on this earth at that point and time. Now I’m really hinting at what my punch lines are going to be in my future posts ;-).
Bobby,
We would agree that Christ Jesus is the fulness/end=telos and the “Israel”.. Prince of God! Note John Nelson Darby’s bible notes on Gal.5:18;25;6:16, as well as E.W. Bullinger the same. There (6:16), the “Israel” of God, is the antithesis of Israel after the flesh (1 Cor.10:18), and compare this with Rom.9:6 and Phil.3:3. But the Covenant is the Salvation history of Israel. We Gentiles share the “Covenant/covenants” of Israel, (Eph.2:12 / Rom.9:4).
Hey Bobby
:- ]
Nope. You misread me. I am not charging you with any of those things. I was commenting on some of what I personally saw at DTS and in other reading. And I bet even those I am thinking of, are trying to be faithful (how could I really know anyway).
I know you Bobby. You love God’s word and bend your thinking it. You are it’s servant. You would never put words in God’s mouth. I completely respect that… and you!
Now, let me say playfully (but truthfully) that your humility is much more obvious in person and your willingness to yield to others is plain to “see” – which is hard to do in the blogo. But I gotta tell ya, it is fun reading you, among other reasons, because I think this venue allows you a freedom that you do not have in face to face conversation. Enjoy it. I am.
Much Love to you and your beautiful family!!
Will
Fr Robert,
Paul applies the New Covenant to the Church in Christ in II Cor. 3. To say that we merely participate in national Israel’s Covenants, that they themselves could not fulfill, doesn’t follow. It’s all bound up in Christ and ontological union with Him by the Spirit. The Law was given UNTIL Christ came Gal 3, and for that purpose to point us to Christ. The point of Eph. 2 is to say that both Jew and Gentile are one in Christ because he is the telos fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant through fulfillment of the conditional Mosaic/Davidic Cov. I don’t buy the classic dispy line whatsoever, for exegetical reasons (see Blaising/Bock and Saucy). The purpose of Israel was to mediate the seed (Gen 3) to the nations Gen. 12. They failed at meeting the conditions of the Mos. Cov. etc. Anyway, I simply don’t buy classic dispy whatsoever! You’re a funny fella, Fr Robert, you swing quite drastically at points. Going from the Theotokos, to Eastern Orthodoxy, back to Federal/Covenant scholastic Calvinism; from historic premil/progressive dispy now back to classic dispy. I’m trying to keep up with ya, but it’s hard ;-). (of course we’re all funny people out here, you’re not alone in that . . . but I must say your swing is quite big on things).
@Willie,
Thank you. It was good talking to you earlier. You’re a good brother! And blogging definitely has some pluses; one of those being the ability to communicate through the written word, which certainly changes the dynamic of communication juxtaposed with the spoken word. Thanks for the good words, and I look forward to talking with you about Jn 6!
Bobby,
I never said that we simply “participate” in just Israel’s covenants, your misunderstanding my meaning, I too have read Blasing, Bock, and Saucy. I in fact meet Robert Saucy years back. I am in some ways more Progressive Dispensational. So be careful and pay attention to what I actually say! But when it comes to Israel, I am much more toward the classic. The blog is certainly no place to try and express one’s whole theological makeup and belief. I was doing theology when you were in the sandbox! π But yes, I have covered some ground over the years! I did both of doctorates in the mid and later 90’s. I was perhaps drawn btw more toward Orthodoxy because of the mess in Anglicanism. I respect their Trinitarian and Christological history, but I simply cannot follow their ecclesiology. But I did try. And as to dispensationalism, I was raised around it (my greatgram) and had my contact with it thru the “Brethren”. Though I was also a R. Catholic at the time. So again, it is part of my long history, etc. Please don’t try and conceptualize my theological history okay? I have not plowed into your personal theology really, and you know I don’t care for your methodology! π
Fr Robert,
Take it easy. To me truth is timeless, in other words I know how old you are, I know how many doctorates you have, I know that you were a Commando, I know you’ve met this and that theologian/bib exegete. But none of those things (as cool and respectable as all of that is!) make what you say, contra what I say, more true or sound (plus I didn’t have a sandbox, I had a basketball court in the “hood” where I played street ball with the brothers ;-). That said, here’s what you said:
And then you say:
How can you be Progressive and Classic in regards to Israel. They are mutually exclusive systems of thought. It’s an either/or. So what is it? Do you mean that you’re more of a [p]rogressive with a little “p?” I had a couple profs like that in bible college, and I know that that is how John MacArthur and most of the MacArthurites are. But still, when you make the statements that you have, that I have quoted above, about being “Classic” again; you’ll have to understand why I’ve misunderstood your current position. All I can do is go with the words that you say ;-).
You have every right to have your views, as do I; but when you come on my blog and challenge my views, in suggestive ways, and say that you’re progressive and classic then you should expect me to press you back on that kind of stuff. If you don’t want me to press then don’t make the comment (as much as I hope that you will continue to).
Fr Robert,
Take the last comment if you want, after that I’ll be closing comments on this thread. This issue is just more of a can of worms than it’s worth to discuss on the world wide web like this. π
Bobby,
All am gonna say in the end, is that many Progressive Dispensationalists, as the classic D’s, are still pro-Israel, its really much more than a theological position. Note the history of the secular type Zionist leader Theodore Herzl. In fact many of the Jews in modern Israel, are just that secular people, even in their religion. And certainly Modern Israel is in their land in basic unbelief, at least as to Christianity. Again, God is only going to save a third of the Nation in the end, (Zech.13:8-9). Funny, but what kinda overt “spiritualizing” can one do here and in chapter 14? Really none! Note again, Acts 1:11-12!
Finally, I love the Jewish people, culture and the Land of Israel, and certainly Jerusalem! May God have mercy there!