Dispensationalism

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Diogenes wrote:

> > > Conclusion?  The dispensation of Law ended with the death
> > > of Jesus.
> >
> > Jesus said the law and the prophets were until John.
> > But I see your point, too.
> >

 
> Have you considered the scripture in Hebrews 8:13  In that he saith, A
> new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and
> waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
> 
> Notice *ready to vanish away*? Meaning not quite over yet but nearing a
> point of vanishing away completely.  

The passage you quote was referring to an Old testament passage.  You
missed the treu context of the passage.  To show you how, I must 
quote the pertinent parts missed along with your qwuote.

Heb 8:8  For finding fault with them, he saith,...

The wroter of Hebrews is quoting an Old Testament prophet,
Jeremiah.  Jeremiah wrote these words while OT times were
still in effect in Jer. 31.  Let us read the quote made in Hebrews:

... Behold, the days 
come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the 
house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9  Not according to the covenant that I made with their 
fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out 
of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, 
and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house 
of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws 
into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them 
a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every 
man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, 
from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and 
their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

The quote is completed in verse 12, and verse 13 comments upon
that entire quote.

Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first 
old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

We must realize that Hebrews is throwing us back in time to the days
when this prophecy was first uttered  - the days of the Old Covenant.
IN THAT TIME, Hebrews is saying, the Old was ready to vanish away.
Hebrews is proving the New COvenant to be better than the Old.  And
Hebrews quotes the Old itself to prove his point.  Hewbrews is
telling us "Even back in the days of the Old Testament, the people 
were told of a New Covenant to come.  Now, when one is told
something new is coming, it is taken for granted that the then-present
covenant, which is contrasted to the 'new' one to come, is ready to vanish
away.  Back in Jeremiah's day, the Old was ready to vanish away.  Now,
however, it has already vanished."

> It seems to me that there must be a
> transition that takes place between the old and new.  

Granted, but these verses you refer to do not promote that specific 
thought, as pointed out.

I feel that the transition took place between John Baptist
and the Cross.

And I feel the following statements made by Jesus refer directly to that
thought of transition.

Mat 9:15  And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the 
bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but 
the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, 
and then shall they fast.
Mat 9:16  No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, 
for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and 
the rent is made worse.
Mat 9:17  Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the 
bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: 
but they put new wine into new bottles, and

THe NEW WINE was of course the Holy Ghost New Covenant.  But Israel
was not born anew yet during Jesus' time.  His time was transitional.
And it only seems fit that He, personally, minister to the disciples
and PREPARE them for the NEW WINE covenant through parables BEFORE that
fullf forced covenant occur.

And not only that, but the New Covenant involves redemption through His
death, burial and resurrection, and he had not even died yet!!!!

Manty things Jesus spoke about could not even be experienced by anybody
before Pentecost anyway!  Recall how He spoke about the rivers of living 
water to the woman at the well.  If she had known who spoke to her, Jesus 
explained, she would ask Him for living waters whereby she would never 
thirst again.  Elsewhere the Bible shows Jesus speaking about living waters
and comments ...

John 7:39  (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe 
on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because 
that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

And the beattitudes could not be experienced by anybody until after Pentecost
because they each require the Holy Ghost experience to fulfill!

Jesus told Nicodemus he needed to be born again, but that could not happen
before Pentecost either!

So there is transition, but I feel your quote does not prove that 
distinct thought, though.  

In Matthew 9. Jesus was saying He was with the disciples, but time would 
come when the groom would be absent.  THAT was when full forced
GRACE and NEW TESTAMENT was ONLY in effect.

> Theologically I
> guess you could draw a line and say at this point or at that point the
> old ended and the new began.  But there are enough scriptures to warrent
> a interrum from John the Baptist till the destruction of the temple
> building in 70 AD.

I would not say the temple destruction ends the interim since it was merely
the fulfillment of Prophecy when Jesus said the temple would not
be left standing with one stone on another.  That has really nothing to 
do with His abandonment of the Temple.  He abandoned it when they rejcetd 
Him in the triumphal entry.  The tearing of the veil ended Law.

I feel Jesus' words, "It is finished" signified the Law's total end!
His death fulfilled it all!!!

> Although dispensationalism is not without value, the rigidity that some
> hold to concerning it's tenets causes bad exergesis of some scriptural
> maxims.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.  And, really,  the Bible majors on only
TWO dispensations.  The old and the new.

> Am I intruding on your discussion?

No!!!  You are supposed to get involved!  :-)

-- 
In Christ,
Mike Blume
mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm