Was Dispensationalism

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

Diogenes wrote:

> > 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.

No.  I cannot agree with you.  Hebrews is quoting Old Testament
proofs to inform New Testament readers to not revert to Law.  
And he says that which was spoken through Jeremiah

> 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.

No.  Hebrews was interpreting what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah's day when he read
God's comments upon the Mosaic covenant in contrast to the covenant to come.
Hebrews said:

Heb 8:7  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should 
no place have been sought for the second.

HAD BEEN FAULTLESS refers to past tense.
 
> I cannot find any commentary, christian writer or pseudo-christian
> writer to agree with you on your assessment.  

Sorry, but my basis for interpretaion is not what a commentary or
christian writer, preudo or not, says about scriptures.  

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.

Notice the contrary tense of terms in "HATH MADE" and
"IS READY"?    The term with HATH MADE in it is referring
directly to Jeremiah's day.  And the term IS READ is used
in a "for instance" example and illustration.  The issue
is JEremiah's prophecy as spoken in OT times.  The explanation
which follows is an illustrate.  The simplee fact that Hebrews
said "He hath made thefirst old" tells us that back at 
JEremiah's time, as soon as God uttered the words concerning
a new covenant, the first covenant was rendered "old".  Then Hebrews
uses PRESENT tense terms to explain what he is saying.

Hebrews said in effect,
"God told Israel a new covenant is coming, rendering the first
covenant obsolete.  Now when someone tells us
that something new is coming we understand that the element
that presently exists is ready to disappear!  So when God told 
Jeremiah that a new covenant was coming God implicated that he
first one was old. So if the first one was old, and old things 
vanish, then apply that thought to Jeremiah's day and realize that
in HIS DAY the first covenant was soon to vanish."

It is like me saying: "Three years ago I was told to
go to the store.  Now when one is told to go to the store, one
will try to go.  So I went to the store three years ago"  Hebrews 
is not restricting the issue to the day 
in which Hebrews was written!  It is a form of speech and manner 
of speaking in whic the writer refers to a past statement and brings 
it into the present experience in order to show the reader what 
was intended for that past time. 

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

No.  Why did you say that?  Shortly meant shortly - not 2,000 years!
(Read my thoughts on Revelation and you will see that.)

> 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.

You mean "exegesis" ;-).

> > 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.

Wrong.  Paul was trying to compare Jeremiah's statement with a situation
we might be in should we presently be told something new was coming.

The whole context of Hebrews says that the Old was GONE by that day.

> > > 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 all I will ever need.  The Bible and the Holy Ghost.

It seems so irrelevant to mention "sources of repute."

> I have qouted and taken meaning of the scripture
> for exactly what it purports, i.e Paul affirms

You have overlooked the words "HATH MADE"

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.

He HATH MADE the first OLD.  See the precedent.    By having 
mentioned something "new" to come we are to realize that
God HATH MADE the frist OLD.  That is past tense and refers
to Jeremiah's day?  Agreed?  Of course you agree.  Get it.
God said back in Jeremiah's day a new covenant was coming.
When?  Injeremiah's day.  And Hebrews said that in having said
that, God made (past tense) the first covenant which was the 
then-present covenant, as far as Jeremiah was concerned, "old."
When did God render the first one old?  In Jeremiah's day.
It was OLD back then.  For as soon as God mentioned a NEW
one, the first one WAS MADE (past tense) old.

So....  The next words explain that when a thing is "old", 
as the first covenant was old as soon as God said a new one
is to come, that thing is ready to vanish away.  When?  As
soon as it is rendered "old".  So if the first covenant was
made OLD in Jeremiah's day when God said  a NEW covenant was
coming, then back in Jeremiah's day the first covenant whcih 
was old was ready to vanish away.

To say anything else is ignoring the vital words "HATH MADE...OLD".

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

The "old" is ready to vanish away when it is rendered old. 
And when was the Law rendered old?  In Pauls' day?  No.  
It was rendered Old as soon as God told Jeremiah that a new was coming.

> > 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?

The Law and the prophets were until John.

And New could not be in force until Christ rose and ascended, in John 20,
to the Father to present His blood.  But you must understand temple
ritual in order to appreciate that Jesus ascended the very day He rose
immediately after talking to Mary.

> > 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.

I have and it is plain to me that he referred to Jeremiah's day.

> 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.  

Poing is you must analyze when God rendered the first covenant old.
You missed that aspect.

> 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.  

Well, that reference is out of context.  But that is another chat...

> > 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.  

Give me chapter and verse that explains the destruction of the temple
was the official end of Law.  

Think about it.  How long was it after Christ made that statement
concerning its destruction that it was indeed destroyed?

40 years.

God often used forty day sor years in an intention to spread 
judgment apart from its pronouncement.  There is no basis for 
saying the Law ended with the temple destruction other than speculation 
and opinion, for the Bible says nothing to the effect that there is.

> 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.

I cannot buy that in light of Hebrews 8.

> > > 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.

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