Was Dispensationalism

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

MF Blume wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

> > 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.  

> 

> 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.



This is a case of the kettle calling the dish black.  Paul's use of the
qoute in Jer 31 was to bring the reader to understand that He was
speaking of the change from the Old Covenant to the New in *his* day NOT
Jeremiah's day.  You have too many hoops to jump through to come to the
conclusion that you have.

Paul's comment upon the whole was defined by the very words that were
chose.

First the word, IS.  This is used as you will discover as a present
tense verb that must accompany the word *ready* because of the structure
"eggus" used in the passage in the present tense.  Notice what strongs
tells us "ready" means.  

1451  eggus (eng-goos'); from a primary verb agcho (to squeeze or
throttle; akin to the base of 43); near (literally or figuratively, of
place or time): KJV-- from at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready.

The period of time we are dealing with is not Jeremiahs day but Pauls
day.

  

I cannot find any commentary, christian writer or pseudo-christian
writer to agree with you on your assessment.  It is an impossible
position to hold that the Old was ready to vanish away in Jeremiah's
day, or that it is infered in the passage qouted.



Do you also hold Revelation 1:1 the word shortly does not mean shortly
(very soon)?

But really means 2000 years?  To leave the basic meaning of a word in
order to hold a doctinal supposition does not make for good exergesis.


> Hebrews is proving the New COvenant to be better than the Old.



Agreed, but again it is an untenable position at the very best to hold
that the OT was ready to vanish away in Jeremiahs day.  Pauls acertion
is that it IS (presently) ready to vanish away. 

 

> > 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 wholly disagree that these verses do not promote the thought and have
several sources that are in agreement with this while you have no one of
any repute for yours.  I have qouted and taken meaning of the scripture
for exactly what it purports, i.e Paul affirms

the old is ready to vanish and not the old has already vanished away.



> I feel that the transition took place between John Baptist

> and the Cross.

> 


Thats fine.

> 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


Nothing in these leads me to understand any transition from John to the
cross, they are in fact about the Old vanishing away and the inaguration
of the New, but were is the time frame of John to the cross?  


> 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.)

> 

> So there is transition, but I feel your quote does not prove that

> distinct thought, though.

 
We are agreed in all points save the last.  Please revisit Hebrews and
if you hold that Paul is in no way speaking of his day but only of
Jeremiah's day then the Old was ready (presently) to pass away back some
600 plus years before the actual occurance.  

It is the most arbitrary position to hold when one places no credence
upon time and space.  Everything becomes subject to an individuals
paradigm without any regard for history. Symbolism without any
substance.  With God a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a
thousand years but with man time is a reality a factor that must be
considered.  God wants us to understand based upon our experience and
not in philosophic terms.

> 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.

 
There must be a reality to the transition.  The removal of the temple
and the destuction of the city is a clear and poignant exclaimation of
the end of the OT age.  IMHO it is not just a prophetic fulfillment but
the exclaimation point that the Old has indeed vanished away
completely.  No longer a need for the temple for we are the temple of
God


> I feel Jesus' words, "It is finished" signified the Law's total end!

> His death fulfilled it all!!!

> 

Yes fulfilled all the requirements of the Law.  Fulfilled all the
scriptural maxims.  Yet Pentecost was yet to come and the Law that
Jeremiah said God would write in our hearts would take place when one
was filled with the spirit, therefore no longer a need to teach Know the
Lord, for all would know him, for they would be baptized with His
spirit. The transition from the Old to the New was recorded in the book
of Acts and ended in the destruction of Jeruselem.

> > 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.

> 

Agreed.