An Anabaptist Defense of Dispensationalism (You Don’t Have to Be Zionist) - Julian Stoltzfus

In general, covenantalism is more popular, I think, because it's simpler. Uh, it's easier to get a hold of, it traces more the essential storyline of Scripture, and it tends to follow, uh, redemptive historical themes, especially focusing on individual salvation. Um, so most of the conversation in covenantal discussion is, how does God redeem us through the covenants? That's a really good discussion to have. Dispensationalism, I would say, is broader in that we're trying not only to, to look at that, but also how is God, um, redeeming nations, how is God redeeming peoples, and how is God redeeming the world through redeeming nations and peoples. Um, and, and a part of that, of course, is, is what he's doing with Israel.

So I want to welcome Julian Stollsfuss to Anabaptist Perspectives. Uh, we will be talking about dispensationalism and clarifications, basic positions, misconceptions, um, lots of fun stuff. Uh, Julian, could you just introduce yourself first? Sure. Yeah, I live in southern Indiana. I grew up in Goshen, in, uh, northern Indiana. I've been down here in Davis County since, uh, 2016. I live here with my wife, Ruthie, and our four boys. We stay very busy. They're, uh, 7, 4, 2, and, uh, the youngest one will be a year old in April. So, uh, not a lot of sleeping, but a lot of fun.

Um. Busy enough. Yeah, yeah. Uh, huge blessing. And then I have the privilege of serving as editor for Sword and Trumpet, and, uh, have been doing that for about a year and a half now. Uh, worked as assistant for a few years before that, and have been writing for them since, I think, 2018. Um, and also have the opportunity to host the Grounded in Growing podcast, uh, where we talk about theological issues. Um, we call it an Anabaptist podcast discussing theology and connecting it to everyday life. The topic we're talking about today is not something we've covered over there, but, uh, dispensationalism is something I've been interested in and have done some, some, uh, writing on it, which I think was the impetus for this discussion.

Uh. That was a trigger here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Jaren, who's our my good friend and our editorial director here, had sent me a couple articles you had written for the Sword and Trumpet, and you had specifically went to the work of trying to clarify, you know, what it is you care about in calling yourself a dispensationalist and also, you know, addressing misconceptions and so on. And so, you know, basic format here, I want to give you the opportunity to do a do your sketch.

Mm-hmm. Um, opening sketch. I'll have some clarifying questions, and then we'll also get into some of the ah, some of the topics around this that can, can generate a lot of discussion and questions. Um. Mm-hmm. We're recording a couple days after America and Israel launched another round of attacks on Iran and. Mm-hmm. Killed the supreme leader and so on. That's going to bring stuff up to the news, and there's, you know, no doubt going to be Christian voices trying to make a theological interpretation of that. Uh, we'll talk about that, uh, non-resistance, um, and then, yeah, just some of my questions. And make sure we end up with encouragement, though, um, about, you know, Christ is returning.

That's, that's the big theme, to come back to that encouragement. Um, but yeah, I'll let you introduce our topic here. All righty. So what I would like to do is give kind of a general framework, um, of the issue as a whole, kind of across the spectrum from dispensationalism through covenantalism and the different views that are out there, just a really quick thumbnail sketch, and then, uh, try to give a summary apologetic of, uh, the kind of the essential features of dispensationalism. Um, before I actually start talking about it, I mean, regarding my whatever credentials I have and also my limitations, uh, my work with dispensationalism is mostly motivated by just trying to understand it.

And, uh, because of the history of Sword and Trumpet, um, we've been pre-millennial ever since we started almost 100 years ago, and, uh, you know, drilling down into that and then different kinds of millennialism and then realizing dispensationalism affects how you understand the millennium and so what's going on there, and then, uh, just trying to catch up. So I've been kind of looking into this for about two years now as kind of a focused study. Um, coming out of that, I wrote the articles we talked about and trying to just, uh, collect some of my thoughts and also define where we are, uh, as Sword and Trumpet and, um, the, the position we, we plan to promote, uh, in our publication.

So the work I've done so far has been to kind of boil down to the essence of dispensationalism. I would say I'm still working on, um, building that back out to see how it fits with other biblical themes in the rest of Scripture. And so I'm still growing some of those ways, and some of your questions may, may push me a little bit on those things. I'll answer those as well as I can, but, uh, yeah, some of that is pushing me beyond where I've been, uh, so far. So I haven't really had the, the, um, opportunity to do seminary training on this, but I've been reading, uh, and listening to quite a bit of material on both sides, um, both the, the dispensational side and the covenantal side.

So just in terms of a general framework of what we're talking about here, dispensationalism and covenantalism are kind of the two big, um, ways of understanding the storyline of Scripture. Um, I've called these, um, big picture theology or, um, Bible theology. It's a, it's a category of biblical theology in trying to answer the question, how do we put together the overall story of Scripture in a way that makes sense?

Um, and historically, Christians have done that in, in two different ways, what's called dispensationalism, what's called covenantalism. Dispensationalism as a movement, um, traces its origins to, uh, Darby in, uh, I think the late 1800s and has developed since then. Uh, he was collecting together themes that were present in, in church teaching before then, going back, uh, people like Edwards, people like Isaac Watts, and even back to, uh, early church teachers who would have taught of a, a thousand-year reign. Um, but there's a kind of a distinctive brand that came together with Darby and then how it was developed by, uh, Schofield and Schofield Reference Bible. That version of dispensationalism has come to be known as classic dispensationalism.

Um, and though it is kind of the origin of what we call dispensationalism, uh, it dispensationalism has had to correct itself along the way, and there are things that would have been taught early on that most modern dispensationalists would no longer accept. Uh, probably one of the biggest things is a hard distinction between, uh, the church and Israel, uh, with two eternal destinies, even two ways of salvation. Um, some things that just are, are clearly out of step with what the Bible actually teaches.

Um, yeah, that's, that's what's called yeah, go ahead. Oh, if I could just pause you there, just to emphasize that, because, you know, I think for a lot of us, we hear the term dispensationalist, and, you know, what you just described is kind of what we think about. Mm-hmm. And so just to note that, you know, you're, you're wrestling with these themes and saying, no, I'm not taking all these pieces from the Schofield Reference Bible. Again, especially in Mennonite circles, has become kind, you know, kind of infamous for comments about the Sermon on the Mount and so on. Mm-hmm. Um, yeah, just wanting to, to flag that right up front, that what you said there.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And that, that's something we're going to get back to, but that's one of the things that, um, I would definitely disagree with, uh, classic dispensationalists on the idea that the Sermon on the Mount, uh, does not apply to this dispensation. Um, I think it does, and I think most modern dispensationalists would agree with that. Um, that goes back to that hard distinction between Israel and the church. And so as that developed, uh, developed in what's sometimes called revised dispensationalism, um, people like Charles Riley, John Wahlberg, Dwight Pentecost, and Alva McLean are influential teachers in that and definitely moved it in a better direction, um, moving toward, uh, seeing more continuity in the storyline rather than, you know, maybe two separate stories, more continuity between the dispensations.

And of course, there's more specificity there, but for the sake of brevity, we're going to have to keep going. And then what's called progressive dispensationalism, um, which was put forward by, um, I think Robert Sosey was the first one to publish on it, and then Craig Blazing and Darryl Bach also put out a book called Progressive Dispensationalism. Uh, I forget the exact timeframe, but I think it was about 40 years ago that that was put out. Um, and one of the big changes that happened from revised to progressive dispensationalism is seeing, again, another level of continuity, um, between the church and Israel, where, as, as I would say, as I would put it, trying to put it simply, it put the church within the redemptive stream of Israel rather than seeing it as having a, a separate, uh, identity and a separate, um, existence.

And so, and we'll get a chance to talk about that here in a bit as well. Um, so in terms of the dispensationalism that you'll find today, uh, most people are somewhere between the revised and progressive dispensationalism. Those are kind of the two poles that, uh, and there are still people that would consider themselves revised dispensationalists. Um, and, uh, and so again, one of the things that I was going for in my study is trying to say, what do all of these dispensationalists have in common that they can all consider themselves dispensational? And there are things that are in common, and then there are, you know, smaller divisions within that. So I would find myself somewhere between those.

I'm probably closest to progressive dispensationalism, and it's one of those words that, I mean, we think progressive and liberal, and we kind of react to that. That's not the intention at all. It's not, uh, progressive in that way. The, the word progressive is in reference to the way that dispensations relate to one another, um, seeing them as building on each other and, and have a movement in the overall storyline of Scripture, uh, toward Christ. And, uh, and so it's not, uh, isolated dispensations, but rather one unfolding storyline that culminates in Christ. So those would be kind of the basic camps, three kinds of dispensationalism, and then what's called covenantalism. Um, classic covenantalism goes back to Zwingli and Calvin, uh, very much a staple of reform thought.

And in Presbyterian thoughts, um, Presbyterians are credally covenantal. The Westminster is, uh, covenantal, um, in its structure and, and teaching. Uh, part of the reason for covenantalism, uh, developing the way it did, uh, in the Reformation era was related to the church-state relationship and trying to explain how the church could exist, um, as an entity with national, um, as a, as a, um, political organism, organism alongside a religious organism in a state church structure. Um, and so by taking the basic structure of Israel being a theocratic kingdom and overlaying that on the church, it gave them a framework, uh, for seeing the church as being involved in politics and in culture in a way we as Anabaptists wouldn't necessarily agree with.

Um, of course, that comes with, uh, connecting the Old Testament sign of the covenant with the New Testament sign of the covenant. And so, uh, that's part of the rationale for infant baptism is, uh, that's it parallels the way the sign worked in the Old Covenant. So Old Covenant, you're circumcised into the covenant, into Israel. Uh, New Covenant, you're baptized into the covenant. And, uh, it's part of the reason for infant baptism. And, and they would frame the storyline of Scripture essentially along the lines of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. Some of them also include a covenant of redemption within the Trinity, uh, before creation. Um, covenant of works is in the garden.

There's a, uh, command to not eat of the tree. And Adam and Eve, of course, break that command, fall into sin. And then they would put the rest of redemptive history under what they called the covenant of grace. Now, I would look at that and say the reason you see God's grace working through all of Scripture is that's who God is. Uh, it doesn't require God to make a covenant of grace for Him to operate graciously. Um, and, and that approach has tended to miss the details in the way the covenants have actually unfolded and the distinctions between, uh, the Noahic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant and the, the Davidic covenant and the way they worked together.

So the reason I bring up the baptism is, uh, more recently has developed what's called progressive covenantalism. Uh, and this was, uh, developed in large part by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellam. At least they're the ones I'm aware of who would, uh, teach this. And I would call this, uh, covenantalism for Baptists. Um, because, as I mentioned, part of the problem with classic covenantalism is it, uh, with the way it relates Israel to the church, it creates the framework for infant baptism. Well, of course, that doesn't work for us as those who believe in a believer's baptism, not an infant baptism. And so, um, this developed as an alternative, uh, to covenantal theology, which was prevalent many places through the 20th century, as was dispensationalism, and, and yet explained the covenants in a way that doesn't, um, support infant baptism.

Um, also does a better job of following the progression of God's plan through the covenants. Um, I would need to look into this some more, but I'm, I think, based on some comments that were made on a discussion between Craig Blazing, who's a progressive covenantalist, and, um, Peter, oh, Stephen Wellam, who's a progressive covenantalist.

Uh, did I say that right? Blazing is progressive dispensationalist. Wellam is progressive covenantalist. I think it's right that progressive covenantalism actually came out of progressive dispensationalism. And, um, they actually agree on a lot of things, um, but there are a few distinctions, uh, mainly regarding, uh, the, the future for Israel and also some interpretive issues, which I'll talk about here in a bit as the basic features of dispensationalism.

So again, very similar progressive covenantalism, progressive dispensationalism are actually really, really similar to each other, um, but have a few, uh, a few differences there. Yeah, that's also, you know, I think worth highlighting what you're describing with all these names is maybe theological systems that seem a long ways apart. And as they've been, as people have worked and paid attention to Scripture, it's not that they've become the same, but those differences have narrowed. Mm-hmm. In some ways. Mm-hmm. I think that's right. That's actually, which is, of course, encouraging. Yes. Yeah. I mean, as we look at Scripture, we want to amend our views to try to be more consistent with what the Bible says.

Um, it's actually where in the book Progressive Covenantalism, uh, sorry, Progressive Dispensationalism by, uh, Blazing and, and Bach, uh, they start there looking at the development of hermeneutics and how that shaped some of these overall, um, big Bible theologies and the systems. And yeah, they, they have tended to move, uh, close together. So maybe just one more comment on these systems, or maybe, maybe two. Um, what you find when you start to look into it, at least what I found, is it's not as much that you have two camps as it is you have a spectrum of views, um, asking, you know, how do we fit all these different biblical themes together? There are a lot of different answers, um, from a classic covenantalism on the one side to a classic dispensationalism on the other side.

And they tend to get closer together. And again, progressive covenantalism, progressive dispensationalism are very similar in a lot of ways. In general, covenantalism is more popular, I think, because it's simpler. Uh, it's easier to get a hold of. It traces more the essential storyline of Scripture, and it tends to follow, uh, redemptive historical themes, especially focusing on individual salvation. Um, so most of the conversation in covenantal discussion is, how does God redeem us through the covenants? That's a really good discussion to have.

Dispensationalism, I would say, is broader in that we're trying not only to, to look at that, but also how is God, um, redeeming nations? How is God redeeming peoples? And how is God redeeming the world through redeeming nations and peoples? Um, and, and a part of that, of course, is, is what he's doing with Israel. So that means dispensationalism tends to be more complicated because, in my opinion, we're trying to get our arms around more biblical material and trying to get it to fit together. Um, it's also why it tends to be more varied because you're just dealing with more pieces, and, and you find very few dispensationalists that agree with each other on everything.

Um, even the four revised dispensationalists that I described, um, have different ways of putting together how the kingdom works, how much of the kingdom is inaugurated, how much of it is waiting, what does it look like when it comes, and all of those things. So it's not like there's one dispensational view, but it's more just a general approach. Leads to some certain conclusions, but then there are a lot of, you know, disagreements. And that's comforting to me because, as I'm getting into this, I mean, those who made it their life's work to try to figure these things out, they're still disagreeing with each other on the best way to put everything together. So, uh, should keep us humble in trying to say, uh, it's not like, you know, my way is the best way or the only way.

But we are trying to understand, uh, how does the overall storyline of Scripture fit together in a way that makes sense and in a way that points to Christ and is fulfilled in Him. So one thing that's fascinating there that I don't know if we'll have time to come back to, um, but just your comments about how, you know, especially in a reformed framework, you know, it's like every nation is Israel. Israel had a government like this in the Old Testament. So now the British, the Americans, the, the Japanese, whatever God wants everybody to have that kind of a nation.

And so again, I don't know if we can, if we'll have any space to come back there, but I just want to to note the way you're using dispensationalism to resist that and say, no, like Israel had something special. Mm-hmm. Um, we can't just carry that over to whatever nation we happen to live in.

Yeah, absolutely. And I would want to say, um, again, that's going to look, that has looked different for different covenantalists in different contexts. And, uh, they haven't always made the same conclusions or the same applications. Um, and I wouldn't say that they're, for the most part, there, there are times when they try to make a theocratic kingdom. For the most part, it's not so much trying to bring a theocratic kingdom, but it is seeing, um, all the promises to Israel being fulfilled in the church and having application in the church. And, uh, it leads to using the Old Testament, um, treating the Old Testament as if it's written to the church rather than as it's written to another nation.

That is very significant to us because Abraham and the seed of Abraham, Christ, um, uh, those are significant figures in terms of our redemption. But we see it as a book that has to do with a nation, uh, that's not us, the nation of Israel. And, uh, not everything can just be pulled out and unplied to us. So if my people who are called by my name, uh, that's speaking of Israel, um, there may be applications to us. God is kind of God who hears and responds to repentance. But that promise is specifically to Israel. That's where, you know, on the ground, um, it changes how we interpret Scripture. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that would be an interesting conversation to have.

We don't have time for that today. And I'm not sure that I'm qualified to have that conversation beyond whatever Eddie said. No, that, well, that, I mean, that's a good segue to, um, like you said, a framework, um, you know, you've talked about it from the hermeneutical level, but maybe more, okay, what concretely are some of these claims or beliefs? What's meant by a dispensation and so on? Mm-hmm. Yeah, so kind of a basic framework of dispensationalism. So I have this in two parts. Kind of what's the way we approach, um, formulating a system? What are the essential features there? And then, um, tracing the actual teaching and the way we put together the storyline of Scripture.

Mm-hmm. Uh, I did want to say this before I go into this. Um, you mentioned, at least in your notes, I forget if you said it in person, uh, that this issue is somewhat controversial in the Anabaptists. And I, I think it, it is at times and places and has been. I've, I've, uh, witnessed some of that, received some of that. My goal in writing has not been to try to stir up controversy or make a big deal as much as to try to, um, promote clarity, uh, so that we know, you know, what we're actually dealing with here. And, and I would want to say these are important issues. Uh, they're not worth dividing fellowship over.

Um, I would say a broad church level or even a local church level, I don't think we should be dividing over this. I have fellow Christians in my church who don't agree with me on this. I've got good friends who don't agree with me on this. Uh, one of them, Paula Michelle, you had on here to talk about a different perspective. And I'm actually really concerned that this doesn't turn into, um, you know, a me versus him kind of conversation, even though we don't agree on this, uh, on everything. Um, I don't see him as an opponent. We're both trying to put together the storyline of Scripture in a way that makes sense, in a way that helps people, you know, love and obey Christ.

And even though I, you know, I disagree with his, his, uh, perspective on some points, and, and honestly, I'm not sure he got dispensationalism quite right in the videos that you did with him, um, I count him as a brother, and I would not want something like this to come between us. Um, and yet it is important. I mean, we're talking about the things the Bible teaches. So how do we put this together?

Yeah, um, that was something I appreciated came through the writing is that you really had, you had, I could tell you could sunk some energy into clarifying there and describing disagreements and, you know, endeavoring to describe them in an accurate way and, and so on. And yeah, I appreciated the way those were framed.

I think the two words that, uh, that kept going through my mind as I was writing were, uh, clarity and charity. Uh, wanting to be clear, but also wanting to be fair to the other side and, and so forth.

Uh, so just in terms of dispensationalism, what is it? Uh, a few things actually that are not essential to dispensationalism. So you mentioned, uh, what is a dispensation? Um, actually having a, uh, specific framework of, of the dispensations is not essential to dispensationalism. That means may sound counterintuitive.

Um, in saying we believe in dispensations, it's a belief that, uh, God works progressively, uh, and sequentially through periods of time and that some of the principles and rules have developed or changed over time. And we'll look at that in, in a little bit.

Also not essential to dispensationalism is, uh, belief in a pre-trib rapture. Now, most of us do believe in a pre-trib rapture. And I personally do. I'm not dogmatic about it, but that seems to be the best evidence. Um, but that's, that's not actually an essential feature. There are dispensationalists who are, uh, open on that, um, mainly because we don't have a text that says specifically that it's going to happen. Um, but in putting pieces together, there is an approach that makes sense, uh, regarding what Paul's talking about in, uh, I think it's First Thessalonians, uh, it's First or Second Thessalonians, um, regarding the snatching or the, the snatching away the, the caught up sure. Um, George Brunk, uh, too, like calling it the, the caught up sure, previous editor of Sordan Trumpet.

And, and so most of us do believe in a pre-trib rapture, but it's not actually an essential feature of dispensationalism. Um, and the other thing, the third thing I would say that's not essential to dispensationalism is support for the modern nation-state of Israel. Now, a lot of people, when they hear dispensationalism, they assume that those go hand in hand. And so I want to go out of my way to emphasize that those do not necessarily go together. And I personally, though, I support Jewish evangelism in, uh, in keeping with the Apostle Paul's aim to go to the Jews first. Um, I don't support unqualified support for the nation of Israel, nor do I support anti-Semitism.

Um, I think the nation-state as it exists is a legitimately founded nation-state that can operate as a nation according to the same rules as any nation. Um, but I would not see it necessarily as restored Israel in keeping with the Old Testament. Um, I, I expect that to happen sometime, but I don't see that, that this, um, I'm agnostic on that. I wouldn't say that this has nothing to do with what God's doing. Uh, but, and so I wouldn't want to come against it necessarily. I'm just really hesitant to say that this is God doing what He promised to do because there are so many pieces that just seem to be missing when you look at the biblical material.

So we'll talk about that some more later too if we don't run out of time. Um, but I want to start by saying that these are some things that people usually think are essential to dispensationalism that are not actually at the heart of it, at least as it exists among the best modern scholars, uh, and, and my own view as well.

What is it? It's a whole Bible theology. I talked about this earlier. It's a way of putting together the biblical storyline. Um, so in my article, I talk about it as a meta framework or a summary of the high points of redemptive history, uh, recognizes that God's redemptive purposes are consistent through the Bible, but that He is related at different times according to different rules. And so, for example, we, we talked about this earlier, but for example, um, if we think about the Ten Commandments, by extension the Mosaic Covenant, um, the Ten Commandments were binding on the children of Israel in a way that they were not binding on people who lived before them. And the New Testament makes it clear that the Mosaic Law is fulfilled in Christ, so they're not binding on us.

And so there's a, a change in how God is relating to people, uh, not according to who He is as a gracious God redeeming sinners, but, um, the, the specific rules He's operating by and what He expects of people. Um, another thing we could look at would be dietary laws. Um, Adam, it was plants only. Noah, you can eat the animals. Moses, there are animals you can't eat. Now, Christ, uh, all foods are clean. Like there's a, there's a development. So it's not so much about saying, like, here's the end of one dispensation and here's the beginning of another, as it is recognizing there's development, there's change. And, uh, and then as I want to talk about it later, I actually like to follow the biblical covenants, um, more than trying to come up with specific dispensations and tracing how the storyline of Scripture unfolds.

That's very helpful and, you know, in some ways does just make me curious, you know, where you keep going from there, um, you know, as an Anabaptist and dealing with, I keep coming back to this reformed comparison, right? Because we're always responding to the reformed or so on and saying, just because God allowed Israel to do this in the Old Testament doesn't mean we can join the army or whatever. Mm-hmm. And I know you're going a lot, um, further beyond that, but. So getting into kind of the meat of this section, the features of dispensationalism, um, in the articles I describe this, I, I gave two main features.

Um, these are somewhat borrowed from, um, Charles Ryrie. Uh, Michael Vlock would use a very similar kind of framework. Um, the one that Ryrie has that I, excuse me, that I didn't include, uh, he talks about, um, the overarching theme of Scripture being the glory of God and that being a dispensational emphasis. The reason I wouldn't include that is that I see as much of that among the covenantalists, if not more, in emphasizing the glory of God and redemption through history. So it just doesn't seem right to me to say that's a feature of dispensationalism. It, it is present. It's just not a defining feature as opposed to covenantalism. Uh, so the two features that I would say are distinct, uh, of dispensationalism with dispensationalism.

One is what we call passage priority. You know, what does this mean? Uh, what we don't mean by this is that, uh, the New Testament is not relevant to our interpretation of the Old Testament. Um, of course, we want to see how the Old Testament is used and fulfilled in the New. Uh, what we do mean by this is that the authorial intent of a text, uh, does not change even as it is explained and fulfilled in the New Testament. Um, so an example on this, um, well, actually, before I go there, so authorial intent, when we're asking that question, uh, we're, we're saying, what did the author mean to communicate? And trying to understand that.

I, I think this is a more helpful way of framing it than saying it's a literal interpretation because authorial intent gives us space to consider, uh, allegory, typology, imagery, all of those things that are not strictly literal, but they are, uh, what the author meant to say in the passage. And, and so we recognize there's imagery in Revelation, um, that is speaking of greater realities. Now, again, I wouldn't parse that exactly the same way as a covenantalist, and especially not the same ways as an all-millennial. But, uh, I would recognize that there's symbols that are pointing to something else. It's not describing exactly what this is going to look like in terms of the creatures and the beasts and everything that's going to show up physically on the earth.

Um, and so what did the author mean to communicate? We're, we're after that. And so an example for this, what this would look like, uh, Hebrews, uh, sorry, Jeremiah 31, uh, 31 through 33 is a big block describing a future redemption of Israel. And in 31, it talks about what God's going to do in bringing a new covenant. It's the promise of a new covenant. Uh, different features of that, including writing, uh, God's law on their minds and on their hearts. And, and that thread is picked up in Hebrews chapter 8 and connected to the church. So that what's happening in the church is the fulfillment or a fulfillment of this covenant which God made with Israel.

Now, some will take that and say, well, this covenant is fulfilled in the church. Therefore, the details of Jeremiah are no longer relevant. Um, it's, it's all subsumed in the church. There's a connection in Scripture between Jeremiah and Hebrews 8. And so the new covenant is the church and therefore God's done with the, the, uh, the Jews.

The way I would understand that, and other dispensationalists would, is that Jeremiah chapters 31 to 33, uh, continues to mean what it meant to the original people. And its interpretation and application in the New Testament does not negate its original meaning. Now, that doesn't mean that they're inconsistent. I would see what's going on in Hebrews 8 as an expansion of Hebrew, uh, of Jeremiah, not a fundamental change.

So if you look at Jeremiah 31 through 33, uh, it describes God's people returning to the promised land, being established under a restored king, rebuilding God's city. Uh, it specifically talks about the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob returning to the land. That's a reference to the nation of Israel, um, as opposed to Scripture sometimes talks about Abraham's seed, which can be the nation of Israel, can be believers, and it can be Christ. It's used different ways in the New Testament. But it seems to me that when Jeremiah says the descendants of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, he's trying to be specific in saying these are the physical offspring of Abraham that are going to be brought back to the land and going to experience these things.

So I would see a partial fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8. Uh, it's consistent with the content. And there are aspects of Jeremiah 31, especially the spiritual aspects, that are realized now in the church. But as a dispensationalist, I would say that doesn't mean that God won't do the other things He said He would do. Um, so that's kind of a simple example of what we mean by passage priority. We want the Old Testament passage to be allowed to stand on its own feet, um, even though it has relevance and fulfillment in the New Testament. Uh, and I would see what's happening now as, uh, a layer of fulfillment, um, but a text can be fulfilled in multiple ways and be fulfilled progressively.

And so, uh, there's, there's an inauguration of the kingdom in the church, but not the fulfillment yet. That's, that's coming. That's where I, as a dispensationalist, look for a future restoration of Israel in the land under Christ as the King who comes and reigns on the earth for a thousand years. Um, and, you know, that's a dispensational distinctive. Uh, and it comes out of the way we read the Old Testament in wanting to say, what does this author intend to communicate? What did its original audience understand it to mean? And how do we give that, uh, meaning, proper representation alongside what's going on in the New Testament? Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think that's a really, a really good, you know, illustration, uh, kind of a sample passage. Uh, so we've been talking about, you know, interpretive principles and so on. But when it comes to actually putting together the, what is the big picture, the story of the Bible, is that idea that, you know, there's a continuation of national Israel that has God's plans in the future. Is that the crux when it comes to what the storyline looks like? I think that's what most of us think of. That's the, the crux of the disagreement, yes, between, uh, dispensationalists and non. Um, so a progressive covenantalist and, and those who are sympathetic to this, I would welcome feedback if, if this doesn't represent them correctly.

But, uh, they would see the significance of, of what's going on in the Old Testament. Um, I think their explanation would be, uh, God has reconstituted Israel around Christ in the New Testament and the New Covenant. And these promises are going to be fulfilled in Christ in the future, but not necessarily with any reference to a national Israel. Some of what I have later, I think, maybe help, uh, may help develop a why I don't think that's right, um, to see it merely as being Christ, um, though it is. I mean, Christ is the seed of Abraham. Christ is the true Israel. Um, does that mean that God is, is done with the nation of Israel?

I don't think so. And again, that's the fundamental disagreement probably between where I am and where non-dispensationalists would be. Right. Yeah. And we'll, we'll discuss a bit more as we go along, but. So that would be the one feature, what we call passage priority or, uh, authorial intent, and especially regarding the Old Testament. Um, it does become fundamentally an issue of hermeneutics. Uh, and, and there are different principles of hermeneutics, um, between, uh, dispensationalists and covenantalists in, um, especially how we understand what the New Testament authors are doing when they cite the Old Testament, um, in, in making applications maybe that are beyond what was originally intended. Does that give us license to do the same?

I would say no. And again, difference to, uh, the, the degree to which that's the case. The example I have in mind where I heard that done was somebody who was a classic covenantalist, uh, reformed, um, where they, uh, glossed over, well, it was this argument, the apostles allegorize the Old Testament so we can too, was essentially the argument to which I would say no. Uh, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and they were speaking inspired Scripture. That doesn't give us license to do whatever we want with the Old Testament. Um, they can, they're doing specific things in specific contexts and so forth. Uh, the other feature of dispensationalism is the Israel church distinction.

This flows out of the first one. So because we, uh, emphasize the Old Testament and we think it still means what it meant originally, uh, we think there is a future for Israel. It's promised in the Old Testament. It's promised repeatedly, uh, starting in Deuteronomy 30. There's this basic framework of you're going to rebel. I'm going to drive you out of the land. And then you're going to, um, turn to me and I'm going to bring you back. Of course, we see that pattern repeat itself multiple times through Israel's history, but never do we find an event which checks all the boxes that are present in Deuteronomy 30 in the first, uh, 10 verses there where it talks about being established in the land.

It talks about turning to God with all their hearts. It seems to talk about something that hasn't happened that way. And especially when you've developed that, uh, with other passages in the New Testament, when, when you put them all together, you get this picture of, of a heart revival among Jews. This isn't merely returning to the land with their legs, but coming when you seek me with all your heart. And so these are people, uh, accepting Christ as their Messiah and coming back to the land. Uh, you have Christ returning and reigning as a king over reconstituted Israel. All those pieces, um, have not come together in, in history in a way that we can say this has happened.

And so we say we think it's going to happen yet before the end. Um, and so there's, there's the Israel church, uh, distinction. Um, I, I've labored the point that I believe this should be a distinction, not a separation. So we're not saying that what's happening with the church is something totally different than what God was doing with Israel. Um, so Romans, uh, 11, the Gentile believers are grafted in. Uh, Ephesians 2 talks about the Gentiles being made a part of the same, uh, community. Galatians 3 talks about those who are of faith are, are of the seed of Abraham. Christ is the seed of Abraham. We become the seed of Abraham, uh, by faith.

And also Romans 4 makes a very similar argument. So there are multiple places in the New Testament which connect us as Gentiles to what God was doing in the nation of Israel. And so we're grafted into the tree and we participate in some of the blessings. But I would say that doesn't mean that all of the promises given to Israel are experienced in the church. So we're participating in some of them, especially, uh, God said, in you, all the nations of the earth will be blessed. Uh, Paul connects that to Christ's work and redeeming us in Galatians 3. And, uh, and so I see that having a fulfillment now within the covenant, the overall covenant storyline of Scripture.

So again, that Israel church distinction, and yet the church is a part of the same storyline of redemptive history. And yet the church is not Israel. God has a future for Israel. And that's how, uh, the New Testament authors deal with Israel. They always deal with Israel as a separate entity from the church. They never conflate the two. Um, that's a, that's a probably a point that could be discussed at length. And maybe we'll get a chance to look at some of those texts a little later. Uh, so I have a quote here. Maybe I'll try to summarize it. A quote. This is from, um, Craig Blazing. He gave a, uh, talk a couple of years ago, Progressive Dispensationalism as Kingdom Theology.

And in talking about the relationship between, um, Israel and Gentiles and the church, I think the way he frames it here is really helpful. Um, he says, Progressive Dispensationalism does not see Christian identity and ethnic national identity as mutually exclusive. So he's talking about, uh, Christian being Christian and being Jewish. And he says, these are not mutually exclusive. The church is not a replacement for Israel or a redefinition of Israel, but it's not an alternate group of people in contrast to Israel. In Progressive Dispensationalism, the church is a Holy Spirit created communion that penetrates and transverses, and he's using technical language here, but penetrates and transverses ethnical, uh, ethnic national groupings, uniting individuals therein to Christ Jesus and to one another in a spiritual renewal network that extends across all people groups and nations.

So what he's saying here is the church should not be seen as a people group, uh, alongside Gentiles and Jews. Um, rather, it is the group of those who are redeemed and in Christ. And there's overlap between, um, the church and nations. So when somebody becomes a Christian, they don't cease to be Jewish any more than I cease to be, uh, American of, of German Swiss history just because I'm a Christian. I maintain my ethnic identity even as I become a Christian. And those who have that ethnic identity as Jews, as Israel, are involved in covenant blessings that don't apply to those of us who are Christians but are, are Gentiles. They maintain the ethnic identity.

God made promises to Abraham and to his descendants and to, uh, the nation of Israel. And those promises have significance, uh, for the nation of Israel, um, in the future, uh, to a degree now, but in particular in the future and a restored, redeemed Israel. Anyway, that, that feature of that Israel church distinction is, I would say, the other main thing that would separate a dispensationalist from a non-dispensationalist. Um, most non-dispensationalists, in fact, all that I know of who have thought carefully and tried to put it together systematically, um, would see Israel in one way or another being fulfilled in the church.

And yeah, that is one of the points where. So I mean, okay, I follow the analogy in the first part with German Christians don't cease to be German. Um, American Christians don't seem cease to be American. Um, you know, putting Jewish identity in their whatever other tribe. Like, I guess maybe one clarifying point, like, is the picture God bringing back the 12 tribes of Israel? Um, is it, and this may be getting too far off in the weeds, but it's kind of where my mind goes when you, um, bring some of that up. Like, not every Jewish convert has maintained a sense of Jewish identity. Mm - hmm We have Messianic Jews. Mm - hmm I'm not familiar.

Have they maintained that kind of Messianic Jewishness over multiple generations, or does it tend to be a, I mean, I think even the most believing Jews have assimilated. Go ahead. I was just, I think even the Apostle Paul felt free to do some non-Jewish things at times.

Um, and I even criticized Peter for following the Old Testament law and not eating with Gentiles. Um, he said, you're communicating something. He's, you're communicating that these people are not as in Christ as we are. And he said, that's, that's a denial of the Gospel. It's a really good question. Um, I, I think maybe at least one part of an answer would be, uh, I would see some of the promises, um, in the Old Testament being made to Israel as a nation, uh, and therefore having fulfillment. Uh, it, it, it should be fulfilled to the people to whom the promise was, was made. So as I understand the church's relationship, there is an expansion to include the church without a negation of the promises to the Jews, um, particularly related to a future restoration.