The following comes from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ book Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. As he prepares to discuss Matthew 5:27-30, Lloyd-Jones pauses to discuss sin and evangelism. Below is what he has to say about true and false evangelism.

This doctrine [what sin is], therefore, is absolutely vital in determining our conception of true evangelism. Three is no true evangelism without the doctrine of sin, and without an understanding of what sin is. I do not want to be unfair, but I say that a gospel which merely says, ‘Come to Jesus,’ and offers Him as a Friend, and offers a marvelous new life, without convicting of sin, is not New Testament evangelism. The essence of evangelism is to start by preaching the law; and it is because the law has not been preached that we have had so much superficial evangelism. Go through the ministry of our Lord Himself and you cannot but get the impression that at times, far from pressing people to follow Him and to decide for Him, He put great obstacles in their way. He said in effect: ‘Do you realize what you are doing? Have you counted the cost? Do you realize where it may lead you? Do you know that it means denying yourself, taking up your cross daily and following Me?’ True evangelism, I say, because of this doctrine of sin, must always start by preaching the law. This means that we must explain that mankind is confronted by the holiness of God, by His demands, and also by the consequences of sin. It is the Son of God Himself who speaks about being cast into hell. If you do not like the doctrine of hell you are just disagreeing with Jesus Christ. He, the Son of God, believed in hell; and it is in His exposure to the true nature of sin that He teaches that sin ultimately lands men in hell. So evangelism must start with the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, the demands of the law, the punishment meted out by the law, and the eternal consequences of evil and wrongdoing. It is only the man who is brought to see his guilt in this way who flies to Christ for deliverance and redemption. Any belief in the Lord Jesus Christ which is not based on that is not a true belief in Him. You can have a psychological belief even in the Lord Jesus Christ; but a true belief sees in Him one who delivers us from the curse of the law. True evangelism starts like that, and obviously is primarily a call to repentance, ‘repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.’

Christian, do you follow the law?

On Sunday nights I am preaching through the Sermon on the Mount. This past Sunday our text was Matthew 5:17-20, dealing with Christ and the law (audio of the sermon available at the link).

I want to focus on one of the points brought up in the sermon. Christians often wrestle with the relationship between Christians and the law. We know we are not under the law (Romans 6:14) and that Christ has in some sense been the end of the law (Romans 10:4) but we also know that this does not release us from God’s moral commands and that Jesus taught the law would not pass away (Matthew 5:18).

It was this last verse that puzzled me as I prepared to preach. There are two things Jesus says in Matthew 5:18:

1. Not even the smallest part of the law will pass away, even if the world passes away.
2. Nothing in the law will change until everything is accomplished.

On the one hand Jesus says the law will not pass away. Then he immediately turns around with the caveat, “until all is accomplished.” Something will happen that will cause at least some change in the law.

To determine what Jesus meant it is helpful to take a closer look at the law. When we talk about the Old Testament law we usually refer to the covenantal law established through Moses. The commands of the Mosaic law can be grouped into three categories or three kinds of law:

1. The judicial law. This was the law governing the people of God as a political assembly or nation. God’s law did not just govern individual life, it also governed the political and judicial life of the people. These commands gave instructions for how to behave in war, how to punish various sins, etc.
2. The ceremonial law. This law guided the religious life of the people. In the ceremonial law the people learned about the feast days, rituals and sacrifices to be carried out before God. The centerpiece of the ceremonial law was first the tabernacle then the temple.
3. The moral law. Here we have the commands that governed individual life. Through the moral law God revealed to his people how he wanted them to live their lives and interact with one another. The moral law is generally summarized in the ten commandments.

Looking back at the words of Jesus, in what way does the law not pass away and in what way is it accomplished? I argue that the whole law is fulfilled in Christ (as he himself states in Matthew 5:17) but the first two types of law have been altogether accomplished while the third type, the moral law, will never pass away. Look at the three types again:

1. Through the judicial law God emphasized the seriousness of sin against a holy God and he taught that sin will be punished (these are also taught in the ceremonial law but from a different slant). It was also through the judicial law that God laid down the framework for life in his kingdom: his people would be obedient to him and his rule. The judicial law was fulfilled in Christ who by his death serves as the greatest demonstration of just how great an offense sin is. He has also transformed the judicial landscape. The people of God are no longer defined as a geopolitical entity but as a body, the church, the bride of Christ. The reign of God is no longer centered on a throne, whether the throne of God at the Ark of the Covenant or the throne of a king in a palace. The reign of God comes through human hearts by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not just fulfill the judicial law, through Jesus the judicial law has accomplished its purpose. It was given as a pointer and when the One it pointed to arrived, its purpose was completed.
2. Through the ceremonial law God taught the people that sin must be paid for. Sin requires blood. Either your blood or the blood of someone else. The Old Testament sacrifices did not themselves accomplish any atoning work – the blood of bulls and goats will not cover our sins – but they served as a symbol of the One who would come, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law by perfectly following every one of its precepts. And like the judicial law, through Jesus the ceremonial law was accomplished. It was no longer necessary once the eternal Lamb had come.
3. With the moral law we have something a bit different. The moral law existed before the judicial or ceremonial. Even in the garden Adam and Eve were guided by God’s expectations for how they should behave. Jesus fulfilled the moral law by living without sin. He was holy and righteous, never doing wrong. But the moral law was not accomplished with Jesus. The judicial and ceremonial laws were pointers to Christ but the moral law points not to Christ but to his expectations for us. These expectations did not end with the birth of Jesus or at his cross or resurrection or ascension or the giving of the Holy Spirit. God continues to expect all humans to live according to his moral commands.

The judicial and ceremonial laws have been accomplished and have passed away but the moral law remains binding on humanity. This is why in Matthew 5:19 Jesus says the people of God ought to be both doing and teaching the law of God. He does not mean we ought to do and teach that which has been accomplished but we should do and teach that which remains of the law.

Christians are not antinomian, anti-law. We believe that we are not made righteous by the law but we also believe we are still subject to the law’s commands. The law ought not be a burden. Whenever we find God’s commands burdensome it is not because of the command but because of our continuing sinfulness. We are not free to live life as we please but follow the instructions of our Master, knowing that only by his will and by his way and by his power will we live life to the full.

When did the rainbow come into being?

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all fut

ure generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”
Genesis 9:12-16

Growing up I was taught (or at least believed) that the rainbow did not exist until after the flood. Following the flood God created the rainbow as a sign of his covenant with Noah and the rest of humanity that God would never again destroy the earth by flood.

For those trying to find errors in the Bible, this interpretation provided an opportunity. Critics will say, “What, did God change the very physical laws and properties? A rainbow is just the refraction of light through water, presenting a spectrum of color. Did these properties of water and light not exist before the flood?” The very idea is put forth as ludicrous.

To the skeptic I would say that God can do with his creation what he will. If he decided tomorrow to invert the behavior of gravity so that anything not tied down would go flying into the heavens I would be sure to invest in rope.

That said, I do not think Genesis 9:13 teaches that God spontaneously created rainbows following the flood. What he did was take something he had already made and fill it with meaning. Notice the wording: I have set my bow in the cloud, a divine declaration that God is the one who created the rainbow. Then: and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. God created the rainbow – meaning God created water and light to interact in such a way during a storm that a rainbow would form. He could have done this after the flood but the text makes no such claim, it just recognizes God as the creator of the rainbow. What does happen after the flood is God assigns new meaning to the rainbow. Or rather, God reveals why he originally created the rainbow.

There is something amazing in this. Here we see the planning of God in creation. From the beginning he knew he would need a covenant-sign following the great deluge. When God said “let there be” to the rainbow he put it in place so that one day he could say to Noah, “This is a sign of my covenant.”

Looking at the rainbow itself, we can be further amazed at how much meaning is packed into one symbol. Here are some of the things signified by the rainbow:

1. As revealed in the text, the rainbow is a symbol of God’s mercy to man. God promised that he would never again destroy the world by flood. The promise was not dependent on man’s behavior, it was fixed on God’s character. Regardless of what man would do, God would not destroy the earth by flood. The rainbow would serve as a source of comfort to man and an unending reminder to God. So long as the earth remains we have this assurance of God’s mercy and faithfulness, his guarantee that he will not destroy the earth by flood. Even when heaven and earth are remade rainbows will continue to cross the skies. For the rest of eternity we will have this reminder of God’s grace.
2. It is quite possible that God had in mind a symbol of laying down a weapon of war. At the end of the flood his judgment had been completed and his weapons were put up. Genesis does not mention a rainbow, per se, it mentions a bow, the same word used of a bow and arrow. God has hung (set) his bow in the clouds, putting aside that weapon of war.
3. Another possible symbol of the bow is its bridging of Heaven and Earth. Reaching from Heaven and stretching down to Earth, it symbolizes God’s stooping, bending down to bring both justice and mercy to the earth.
4. The expanse of the rainbow showed the expanse of God’s love. Allen Ross says, “The covenant is cosmic and universal, as seen from the great sign, the rainbow. As it arched over the horizon after the rains, it formed an all-embracing sign of God’s faithfulness to his word of grace.” (Ross, Creation and Blessing, p206)

Someday the world will come to an end. Do you know how it will happen? Despite my recent tweet, my eschatology continues to be a work in progress. Presently, my beliefs about the end are characterized more by what I do not believe than what I do believe. I do believe Christ will someday return, but I’m still working on the details.

The most popular brand of eschatology today is pre-trib premillennialism. But in my list of things I do not believe, I do not believe the Bible teaches a pre-trib rapture.

This post is not an exhaustive argument against pre-trib rapture but against the frequent citing of 1 Thessalonians 1:10 by pre-trib proponents. Here is the verse:

…and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Here is how the pre-trib argument goes. Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven. We await for his return. He will come back to deliver his people from the seven-year tribulation at the end during which God’s wrath is poured upon the earth. Thus in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 we have the promise that all Christians will be removed from the earth (raptured) before the tribulation takes place.

The problem with this view is 1 Thessalonians 1:10 has nothing to do with some period of judgment occurring on Earth just before the coming of Christ. Nothing in the context makes reference to rapture; wrath here does not refer to an end-times tribulation but to eternal judgment.

The natural meaning of this verse is that the believers in Thessalonica trusted that Jesus Christ was the one who delivered them from God’s eternal judgment. Believers were secure in the knowledge that they would be raised to life with Christ in Heaven rather than cast into Hell for eternal judgment.

This meaning becomes clear a few chapters later, 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10: For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Note the contrast here. The people of God have not been destined for wrath but for salvation. Their deliverance is not from temporal suffering just before the end of time but deliverance from eternal judgment. We do not receive salvation so that we can avoid the tribulation, we receive salvation to be rescued from Hell.

Revelation also speaks of this. Revelation 11:9-10 tells us about the wrath faced by those who take the mark of the beast: And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

Note how it describes God’s wrath. It is not in terms of a tribulation period but eternal judgment.

Christians are in the world to shine the light of Christ even in the midst of great suffering. We labor no matter the cost knowing that this world is not our home. We wait patiently for our Lord Jesus Christ, knowing he has delivered us from the coming wrath: we need not fear the flames of judgment, we are secure in Christ. But there are many, many more who do not know God’s mercy. God will keep us here to share with them about his love and grace. When finally he returns, we (Christians) will still be around to see it.

I was recently given a number of books from the library of a man who passed away. I’m still sorting through them but among them I found Pulpit and Communion Table by Rev. John Duncan. Flipping through it, I came across the following:

There was lately put into my hands a very short tract of two pages, called “The Converted Negro.”

A lady called on a minister, and said, “My dear sir, I never till lately knew the importance of personal religion, till I saw it in my own negro servant. We were in a storm at sea, looking to be all drowned: I was in great alarm – all on board were – this poor negro alone was calm. She said to me when she saw my distress, ‘O missus, don’t fear; look to Jesus, see the rock.’ We were in fear of being sunk in the waters or dashed on a rock; but she said, ‘Jesus is the rock, nearer than that rock.’”

The minister called on the lady, and asked the negro when and how she came to know Jesus. She said, “Good mister Hinnican came and tell us negroes that Christ Jesus, the Son of God, came down from the good place to save us sinners. He die, or me die; He die, me no die. I weep very much – I ask Jesus – He good, He save me.” And it was asked, “Where is Mr. Hinnican now?” “O, he fall asleep.” “I see, Mr. Hinnican is dead?” “O no, he no die, He call us negroes, tell us he go to Jesus, bid us follow, then he fall asleep. He sleep till the trumpet of the archangel sound, where he arise.”

I think here is a noble specimen of the teaching of the Spirit of God – his sublime mystery in all its simplicity…
(page 86)

This one was stumbled upon by accident and I confess I’ve not done much more than skim it. Jack Kelley at the Bible Prophecy Today website writes about animal sacrifice in the millennial kingdom. In the article he makes the rather astounding claim that when the millennial kingdom begins Jesus will re-institute the sacrificial system. The Jews will continue to be guided by the requirements of the law and will have none of the same assurances of salvation we enjoy as believers. With the church age ended at the rapture, the reign of the Old Testament law (returns? continues?).

Some of the things in the article caused rather bemused reactions from me, others caused a bit of agitation. I was a bit amused with the following image:

In the coming age, men on Earth will look up into the sky and see the New Jerusalem, home of the Church, in orbit nearby. It will be their source of light and though they’ll never be able to visit it, descriptions of its beauty and majesty will stagger their imaginations. All of creation will stand in awe of this display of the incomparable riches of God’s grace.

and angered by this one:

In an earlier study, The Nature Of Post Church Salvation, I made the case that post Church believers, whether Jew or Gentile, will not enjoy the seal of the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their inheritance. Eternal Security is a blessing for the Church alone and ends with the end of the Age of Grace at the Rapture.

Can anyone really argue that the promise of assurance and security will someday come to an end? His “proof” comes from two passages (Rev. 14:12; Rev. 16:15) which seem to require both faith and obedience – something he seems to argue could only be required of those not part of the church: “…the Lord had John say that both obedience and faith will be required of Tribulation believers, whereas the Church is saved by grace through faith alone.” I trust any regular readers here will immediately recognize the enormous problem in this teaching. I won’t elaborate. Ask in the comments if it is not clear to you.

There is lots more. As I said, I just skimmed and I don’t want to tackle all the problems. I suspect this represents the more extreme end of dispensationalism rather than normative dispensationalism. We shall see.

You’ve most likely heard the gap illustration of salvation. Just to refresh your memory, it goes like this.

God created man to live in relationship with him. We stood with him, walked with him. Then Adam and Eve sinned and caused a great void to open up between man and God. There was no way we could cross that void. It was a deep canyon with God on one side and man on the other.

Jesus gave the solution by crossing the canyon, something we could not do. He came among us and lived and died on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins. The cross then became the bridge between God and man, giving us the means to cross the canyon and reach God. Through the cross we can find God and salvation.

Let me suggest an alternate picture.

God created man to live in relationship with him. We stood with him, walked with him. Then Adam and Eve sinned and all creation fell as though down a huge cliff. We stood at the bottom of that cliff with God at the top. Nothing we do would enable us to climb the cliff.

Jesus presented the solution by descending the cliff. He stepped down from high above and lived among fallen humanity. He died on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins. Through the cross he draws us to himself. Jesus then ascends back to God at the top of the cliff, taking us with him.

The difference in these two illustrations is enormous. In both of them God is the one who makes salvation possible. Man is helpless to make a way to God. But in the first God only makes salvation possible, not certain – and only in a world different from our own. In the first illustration Jesus creates a bridge we must walk across to be saved, but this ignores man’s inability to walk toward God. Dead in our sins, we neither have the desire nor the ability to approach God. We are enemies in rebellion against him. The first illustration is truly semi-Pelagian in imagining some ability remains in man so that he can walk to God. Perhaps some who present this illustration would include the Arminian notion of prevenient grace, the belief that God has enabled people to respond to him. This would take the illustration out of the realm of Pelagian heresy but it still leaves the person with an ability the Bible says we simply do not have.

The second illustration does a better job of presenting the biblical picture. It is not perfect, no illustration can contain everything, but it shows that man is not capable of any of the work to reach God.

God brings us to himself. He descends the cliff, does what is necessary to bring us into righteousness, then wraps his arms around us and carries us with him back into Heaven. This is what it means to be saved, to be found in the arms of Christ when he has returned to his heavenly home. “But wait!” you say “He was raised 2,000 years ago! I was not there, I could not have been risen with him!” Ahh but you were, dear saint. Thus we are told a few times in the New Testament, as at Ephesians 2:6, that God has raised us up with him and ​seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. In an event that is both very real and very mysterious, all the saints of God were raised with Jesus Christ. He carried us from the fallen world to the throne of his Father. This is the only way our salvation could take place.

Perhaps I should make some tracts.

Where is the world headed? What will be the high point of the history of the world? Estimates of the age of the universe vary, anywhere from 6,000 years to 15 billion years or so. Whatever the case, in that time God has done many, many amazing acts. Creation, protection, overthrowing mighty rulers, raising the dead, walking on water, healing the sick, talking donkeys, saving people from sin and death, etc etc. The history of the world is absolutely packed with the wonders of God’s glory and grace. What will be the high point?

I would say there isn’t really a high point, that it all just keeps growing greater and greater. At some point the history of creation will come to an end (sort of, not really – it will all be made new) but our experience will not end. I believe our enjoyment of God will only grow throughout eternity and thus the glory God receives from us will grow. There will be no high point, just newer and newer heights of delight and glory.

Having that in my mind I am a bit astonished at what Ryrie sees as the high point of history. It is possible he is drawing a line between temporal history and eternal history, drawing out the high point of creation history before the end of all things, but I don’t think he makes this distinction. Nonetheless, if the question is limited to temporal history, I would say the high point has already passed, that it took place at the cross. In all of human history, in the time before God finally closes his work on earth, the cross is the moment when God was most glorified.

So, in the span of eternity there is no high point, in the span of world history the cross was the high point.

Ryrie says the high point of history is found in the millennial kingdom. The significance of the millennium is it stands as the climax of all that has happened: “The entire program culminates, not in eternity but in history, in the millennial kingdom of the Lord Christ. This millennial culmination is the climax of history and the great goal of God’s program for the ages.” (108)

The presence of the comma before the second clause causes some confusion. Is Ryrie specifying that the high point of history, not including any consideration about eternity, is found in the millennial reign, or is he saying that the high point is found in history, not in eternity, and it is the millennial reign? I believe he is saying the latter. Earlier in the book Ryrie makes this statement: “Concerning the goal of history, dispensationalists find it in the establishment of the millennial kingdom on earth, whereas the covenant theologian regards it as the eternal state.” (21) There he makes a clear distinction between the dispensationalist view of temporal history and the covenant theology view of the eternal. He goes on to say that the dispensationalist does not minimize the importance of eternity but he never really says what he thinks God is doing in eternity. Perhaps that will come later.

It seems very strange to me to see all that God has done in history, all his mighty acts including the infinite value of the gift of the precious Son of God, finding their culmination, their goal, their end in a period that will only last 1000 years. This greatly undervalues the importance and majesty of God’s work. It may well be that I am missing something, I’m still new to the details of dispensationalism and still have a lot of reading to do, but I believe I have presented Ryrie accurately.

That ends the main part of my post, what follows is me following out loud a train of thought. Jump in if my reasoning is faulty somewhere.

Here is another question/observation. Dispensationalists distinguish God’s work with Israel from God’s work with the church. The rapture would separate the church so that most (not all, assuming some people are saved after the rapture) Christians are not (physically?) present during the millennial reign. The millennium fulfills God’s promises to Israel, bringing about the powerful, secure, mighty nation of Israel with God on the throne. So what does the cross have to do with the millennium? Does the death of Jesus Christ have a specific purpose for the millennial kingdom? If God’s purposes for the church and for Israel are distinct, and the church is made up of those who have become the children of God through the death of Christ, I’m not sure what role the cross would play in the millennial kingdom. That would make Ryrie’s claim all the more astounding since he would be saying the goal of history involves something that has nothing to do with the cross. Am I making any sense?

I do want to note that Ryrie is clear that dispensationalists believe there is only one way of salvation. There is not one way for Jews to be saved and another for Christians. All who are saved receive salvation only through Jesus Christ by faith, so even those Jews who experience salvation do so only because of Jesus.

Whatever the case, this whole notion strikes me as very odd and it reduces the significance of God’s work. The kingdom of God is eternal, not temporal, and entrance into the kingdom is through the cross. Those in the kingdom will be in it forever and will forever grow in their delight of God, giving him increasing measures of glory.

It has been over a month since I wrote my post Blogging the System of Scripture, starting off my examination of dispensationalism vs covenant theology. Three things have slowed me down. First, I’m busy. Second, I’m a slow reader. Third, I’m still not entirely sure of the best way to blog through my study. I will probably do more of what I am doing here: the occasional short (or not so short) post addressing things I’ve come across. To start things off I’ve been making my way through Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism and I have a few thoughts.

First on the book itself. On the whole I appreciate Ryrie’s tone. I believe he is trying to be fair when he discusses covenant theology. I’ve already come across too much writing on both sides that seems to distort and slander rather than disagree fairly and with respect.

That said, Ryrie does one thing I hoped he wouldn’t do. He is spending far too much time talking about covenant theology. I expect him to address places where he thinks covenant theology is wrong and dispensationalism is right, but so far the amount of material devoted to covenant theology has been excessive and somewhat repetitive. He could say what he does with fewer words, but I’d prefer it if he said less about why covenant theology is wrong and more about why dispensationalism is right.

He does talk mostly about dispensationalism, of course, so I have some things to discuss.

One item that has come up several times is that dispensationalism always interprets the Bible literally while covenant theology does not. Ryrie acknowledges that those in the covenant theology camp may have a generally literal approach to the Bible but he says there are times when they must spiritualize passages in order to remain covenant theologians. He says the dispensationalist “admits that the nondispensationalist is a literalist in much of his interpretation of the Scriptures but charges him with allegorizing or spiritualizing when it comes to the interpretation of prophecy.” (93) Later he adds “Classic dispensationalism is a result of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this.” (97)

By way of example he mentions the Old Testament prophecies which speak of the establishment, prosperity, and security of the nation of Israel. Covenant theologians “are saying that these promises have been inaugurated and begun to be fulfilled now in the church age and will be consummated in the new heavens and new earth (the already/not yet concept)” while dispensationalists believe the promises will be fulfilled during the millennial reign of Christ. (100)

He stresses that all of the Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted literally, by which he means at face value. But there are some passages that it seems would be difficult to interpret from a dispensationalist perspective. I will mention two. The first is Isaiah 53:10 and the second is Ezekiel 37:26-28.

[esvbible format="inline" reference="Isaiah 53:10"]Isaiah 53:10[/esvbible]

The face value meaning of this passage is that the person spoken of in Isaiah 53 will have physical children.

How can this be taken at face value rather than recognizing that this is fulfilled in a spiritual sense? Would the dispensationalist argue on the side of Dan Brown that Jesus had children? Or, since the dispensationalist sees the fulfillment of many of these prophecies coming during the millennial kingdom, will Jesus have physical offspring during that time?

The passage must be understood as referring to spiritual offspring. Because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are able to be the children of God. This is not immediately obvious in the text, and probably was not how the Old Testament saints understood the passage, but it becomes clear in the New Testament. Ryrie argues in favor of progressive revelation but nonetheless frowns on the idea that New Testament passages reveal spiritual interpretations to Old Testament promises.

[esvbible format="inline" reference="Ezekiel 37:26-28"]Ezekiel 37:26-28[/esvbible]

Ryrie says that dispensationalists believe the Old Testament promises regarding Israel will be fulfilled during the millenial kingdom (I will have another post soon dealing briefly with the dispensationalist view of the significance of the millennial kingdom). The dispensationalist, taking this passage at face value and placing its fulfillment in the millennial kingdom, is faced with an immediate problem. The millennial kingdom is millennial, it lasts 1000 years. Ezekiel tells us about a promise for the future of Israel that is eternal. There is no temporal limitation on the promise in this passage. This is not an oddity: many of the Old Testament promises regarding Israel are eternal in scope.

If we accept the dispensationalist view of a literal, face value reading of Scripture and we agree that these prophecies are positioned in the millennial kingdom then we have the odd condition of an eternal promise somehow fitting in a literal 1000 year period.

I think it is more fitting to avoid Ryrie’s distinction between a literal interpretation and a spiritual interpretation. The distinction is rather between different kinds of literal interpretation. The dispensationalist wants to interpret these passages in an isolated, face value fashion. I want to interpret them while including understanding from other parts of Scripture. Part of the dispensationalist error here is believing the Bible separates into different economies or dispensations and that the promises in one do not necessarily fit into another. There is a distinction made between physical Israel and the spiritual people of God so the promises of the New Testament do not help us when trying to understand the promises made specifically to Israel. I think this does a disservice to Scripture as an unfolding whole. As I mentioned before, Ryrie defends the notion of progressive revelation, but I don’t think he does it justice when one part of the Bible is in a sense cut off from another. He argues that dispensationalism does a better job of showing the unity of Scripture but theirs is a strange unity.

In that last paragraph I’m summarizing a number of other arguments made in the book. This post is already long enough so I won’t examine those arguments in detail. Perhaps that will come another time. Next in this series will be a brief look at the significance of the millennium.

I’m working with Ephesians 2:4-7 for Sunday’s sermon. In verse 4 Paul seems to describe the motivation of God in saving sinners to be his mercy and his love for us. In verse 7 it seems to be the desire of God to magnify his grace throughout eternity.

Perhaps sense is made of this by seeing the first as a motivation and the second as a purpose.

God is motivated to save sinners because he is merciful and loving. He loves those he has made and desires to save the lost. At the same time, the purpose behind God’s actions is to magnify his glory. 

Put another way, God saves us because he loves us in order that we might glorify him.

His purpose stands higher than his motivation. This is why not everyone goes to Heaven even though God loves everyone. To accomplish his purpose of being glorified all of his character must be displayed, his grace and his mercy. As such some will be saved and some will be damned. Judgment is just, delivered based on the sins of the unbeliever, while salvation is only by grace, delivered based on the good pleasure of God.