tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post5339588040105374270..comments2023-10-02T22:27:44.618-04:00Comments on AgainstDispensationalism.com: Literalism and the Rejection of MessiahNiceneCouncil.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03520465956622728760noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-25981202677016967722009-12-23T18:37:25.187-05:002009-12-23T18:37:25.187-05:00As a side note, and one that echoes one of Dispens...As a side note, and one that echoes one of Dispensationalism’s primary tenants, this statement is found in the same Chapter where Edersheim states that the Jews believed that:<br /><br />“As for the heathen nations, the Law had been offered by God to them, but refused, and even their after repentance would prove hypocritical, as all their excuses would be shown to be futile. But as for Israel, even though their good deeds should be few, yet, by cumulating them from among all the people, they would appear great in the end, and God would exact payment for their sins as a man does from his friends, taking little sums at a time.” <br /> <br />One thing that becomes obvious in reading Edersheim is the ego-centric nature of Judaism which existed at the time. He comments on the Scribes in Chapter 8 of Book 1:<br /><br />“Although generally appearing in company with ‘the Pharisees,’ he is not necessarily one of them - for they represent a religious party, while he has a status, and holds an office. In short, he is the Talmid or learned student, the Chakham or sage, whose honour is to be great in the future world. Each Scribe outweighed all the common people, who must accordingly pay him every honour. Nay, they were honoured of God Himself, and their praises proclaimed by the angels; and in heaven also, each of them would hold the same rank and distinction as on earth. Such was to be the respect paid to their sayings, that they were to be absolutely believed, even if they were to declare that to be at the right hand which was at the left, or vice versâ.” <br /><br />Another point which Edersheim points out in Book 1 is the fact that anti-Semitism did not originate in the first or second century because Christians blamed the Jews for the murder of Christ. It originated long before that and was brought on by the Jews themselves by the way they treated the “Gentiles” and regarded them in relation to their “exulted” status in their own and God’s sight. They considered them lower than dirt, and while they were more than willing and delighted to take advantage of the Gentiles financially in order to amass their own wealth, they hated the Gentiles and anything to do with them. As a result, the Jews, though tolerated, were in turn hated by the Gentiles.<br /><br />It seems to me that if more Christians had a better understanding of Jewish history, they would be amazed at how apostate Judaism was at the time of Christ. You add to that their rejection of the Messiah for whom they were so longing for, this era easily qualifies for the greatest “falling away” anyone could imagine. Far greater than the “falling away” anticipated by the Dispensationalists.<br /><br />P.S. Sorry I’m so long winded.Lennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-86440821613521135392009-12-23T18:36:48.120-05:002009-12-23T18:36:48.120-05:00By the time of Christ, the Scribes and Pharisees h...By the time of Christ, the Scribes and Pharisees had elevated themselves to a position of authority and status which bordered on the ridiculous. It was believed that the study of the law and the traditions was even more important and gained more merit for an individual than simply obedience to the Law and traditions. In Chapter 7 of Book 1, Edersheim states:<br /><br />“To the orthodox Jew the mental and spiritual horizon was bounded by Palestine. It was ‘the land’; all the rest of the world, except Babylonia, was ‘outside the land.’ No need to designate it specially as ‘holy;’ for all here bore the impress of sanctity, as he understood it. Not that the soil itself, irrespective of the people, was holy; it was Israel that made it such. For, had not God given so many commandments and ordinances, some of them apparently needless, simply to call forth the righteousness of Israel; did not Israel possess the merits of ‘the fathers, and specially that of Abraham, itself so valuable that, even if his descendants had, morally speaking, been as a dead body, his merit would have been imputed to them? More than that, God had created the world on account of Israel, and for their merit, making preparation for them long before their appearance on the scene, just as a king who foresees the birth of his son; nay, Israel had been in God’s thoughts not only before anything had actually been created, but even before every other creative thought. If these distinctions seem excessive, they were, at least, not out of proportion to the estimate formed of Israel’s merits. In theory, the latter might be supposed to flow from ‘good works,’ of course, including the strict practice of legal piety, and from ‘study of the law.’ But in reality it was ‘study’ alone to which such supreme merit attached. Practice required knowledge for its direction; such as the Am-ha-arets (‘country people,’ plebeians, in the Jewish sense of being unlearned) could not possess, who had bartered away the highest crown for a spade with which to dig. And ‘the school of Arum’ - the sages - the ‘great ones of the world’ had long settled it, that study was before works. And how could it well be otherwise, since the studies, which engaged His chosen children on earth, equally occupied their Almighty Father in heaven?”Lennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-49118103635134153162009-12-23T18:34:11.620-05:002009-12-23T18:34:11.620-05:00This subject brings to mind an area which does not...This subject brings to mind an area which does not seem to ever be discussed regarding the Jewish nation and the Judaism of Christ’s day, and that is the sovereignty of God. Without getting to a discussion of God’s sovereignty vs. man’s accountability, God had not simply known that Christ would be rejected by the Jews, but He had planned from all eternity past that this would occur. Dispensationalists, if I understand their thinking correctly, hold that the Jews could have accepted Christ (that God in effect offered them a choice) as the Messiah, but they refused and therefore God had to come up with a different plan – the Church. Though the Jews freely rejected Him as the Messiah, this was all in accordance with God’s ultimate plan and purpose to reveal His glory to mankind and to provide the means of salvation for those whom He, in His wisdom, had chosen to save. This is why much of what Christ spoke and taught was misunderstood by the majority of the Jews who heard His message, His meaning was deliberately hidden from them. Some, such as His disciples and Nicodemus asked questions regarding His teachings, but, I believe that this was only due to the fact that they were among the few who had been chosen for salvation. Even there, they didn’t fully understand, and would not understand until Pentecost when they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Then, and only then, did they understand that the physical nation of Israel was a type of the true kingdom of God, a spiritual kingdom rather than a physical kingdom of Jews ruling over the world. Christ even stated that the truth of His statements and teachings were revealed to only certain people. This is why the Scribes and Pharisees seemed to take Christ’s statements, such as rebuilding the temple in three days, literally. God chose to leave them ignorant of His truth.<br /><br />Sort of related to this is the great degree of apostasy that existed in Judaism at the time of Christ. I have been slowly wading through Alfred Edersheim’s “The Life and Time of Jesus the Messiah.” (I can’t vouch for his credentials as a Jewish historian since I’m not a historian myself, and I haven’t come upon many references to his work, but if it is historically true, it is very enlightening and explains alot) His writing paints a picture of a religion which was so far removed from “true Judaism” that any resemblance between the two was merely a coincidence. Traditionalism (later written down in the Talmud) had replaced Scripture as the basis for life and worship. (Book 1, Chapter 8) He states: <br /><br />“Israel had made void the Law by its traditions. Under a load of outward ordinances and observances its spirit had been crushed. The religion as well as the grand hope of the Old Testament had become externalized. And so alike Heathenism and Judaism - for it was no longer the pure religion of the Old Testament - each following its own direction, had reached its goal. All was prepared and waiting. The very porch had been built, through which the new, and yet old, religion was to pass into the ancient world, and the ancient world into the new religion. Only one thing was needed: the Coming of the Christ.”<br /><br />Actually, it seems to me that this apostasy had started even before Moses came to lead them out of Egypt. The Old Testament from Exodus onward is a history of the apostasy of the nation of Israel.lENnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-3321436947898389802009-12-23T08:39:16.524-05:002009-12-23T08:39:16.524-05:00A Response to Dave: And yet in all of this Dispens...A Response to Dave: And yet in all of this Dispensationalist are the most inconsistent when it comes to their so-called literalism. I encourage Dave to get the DVD series entitled Against Dispensationalism: Israel, the Church and Bible Prophecy and listen to Jerry Johnson as he dismatles dispensationalisms trojan horse.<br /><br />Larry SteinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-18963076954115022052009-12-23T07:58:19.251-05:002009-12-23T07:58:19.251-05:00You are brave to tackle this topic. I can just he...You are brave to tackle this topic. I can just hear the accusations: "What, is this guy a liberal? Doesn't he believe in taking scripture literally?"<br /><br />We should take scripture according to the intention of the author and how that would have been interpreted by the original reader and/or hearer. When this leads to "literal" interpretation we should interpret literally. When it leads to allegorical or other types of interpretation we should interpret accordingly.<br /><br />This is so different than believing that the Bible is entirely figurative and allegorical.<br /><br />Anyways... Interesting Article.ThirstyJonhttp://freedomthirst.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-67395647514354122012009-12-22T16:43:33.391-05:002009-12-22T16:43:33.391-05:00Ken Gentry responds to Dave (part 2):
You state:...Ken Gentry responds to Dave (part 2): <br /><br />You state: “dispensationalists would generally agree with all of your expositional work — very well understanding that the first-century Jews misinterpreted Jesus' use of figurative and parabolic language.” As a dispensationalist you fall into the inescapable problem hampering dispensationalism: circular reasoning. You imply that dispensationalists recognize Jesus’ use of “figurative and parabolic language.” But that is precisely the problem: <i>Which</i> statements by Christ are “figurative” and which are not? The principle of literalism cannot sort them out — without imposing dispensationalism's preconceived eschatological system on the text in advance. Literalism is a presupposition of the dispensational system. Poythress has ably demonstrated that in his book <i>Understanding Dispensationalists.</i><br /><br />This circular reason is endemic to dispensationalism. For instance, on page 29 in <i>Dispensationalism</i> Ryrie falls into circular reasoning <i>without even realizing it</i>. In the last sentence of paragraph one he states of the distinctive features of the different dispensations: “These are contained in the particular revelation distinctive to each dispensation.” But then two paragraphs later he states: “The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.” This is even quoted in the <i>Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy</i> on p. 82. <br /><br />So let's note the circularity: The features of each dispensation are distinctive to that dispensation, but you must understand “God's differing economies” in advance in order to have “a proper interpretation of His revelation <i>within</i> those various economies.” In other words, you have to be a dispensationalist in order to see God’s revelation of the dispensations.<br /><br />Regarding the Jews’ first-century tendency to literalism, I agree with you. Not all Jews interpreted in that way. I was simply referring to the standard argument by dispensationalists (such as Pentecost whom I quoted). Actually Judaism was not unified in the first century, though dispensationalist generally speak as if it was. There were several “Judaisms,” including that of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, the Qumranians, and others. It just so happens that the Pharisees whom Jesus constantly confronts tended to be literalists — and rejected Christ largely on that basis.<br /><br />And finally I must deny something you assert about my abilities. You state: “It seems odd that you would spend so much time and effort to attack a straw-man that took a few seconds to construct.” It actually took me about fifteen minutes; I did not construct my argument in a “few seconds.” I wish I could. And thanks for believing I could. But I did not.NiceneCouncil.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03520465956622728760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-28071540885119209562009-12-22T16:33:43.177-05:002009-12-22T16:33:43.177-05:00Ken Gentry responds to Dave (part 1):
I must conf...Ken Gentry responds to Dave (part 1):<br /><br />I must confess that I am impressed. You say that I “successfully created one of the most elaborate and biblically referenced straw-man arguments I have ever encountered.” In all of your reading from the Internet, all of your research in Christian literature, and in all of your surveying of church history, this one thirty-paragraph blog is “one of the most elaborate” straw-man arguments? I suppose I should be proud, but this sounds more like exaggeration and rhetoric than fact.<br /><br />Please note that you are mistaken in your very first assertion when you write against my blog: “Dispensationalists hold to ‘literal interpretation unless it leads to absurdity’ as only ONE of several interpretive principles, not the sole principle.” Nowhere in the blog did I state that this was the “sole” principle. <br /><br />But according to Charles Ryrie it is one of the <i>sine qua non</i> of dispensationalism and thus one of “two cornerstones” of the system. Ryrie writes: “This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a systems of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation.” He calls this “the second aspect of the <i>sine qua non</i> of dispensationalism.” He goes on to say that “in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does” (<i>Dispensationalism</i>, 40). <br /><br />On p. 80 of <i>Dispensationalism </i>he states “Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation.” Again, I was referring to that. “Their principle.” Then he goes on to falsely claim that this method “is sometimes called the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation.” But this is not the way non-dispensational evangelicalism interpret “grammatical-historical interpretation.” This is an equation that only dispensationalists hold — and perhaps some Mormons, given their view of the physical nature of God.NiceneCouncil.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03520465956622728760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-46473479878785628592009-12-22T13:22:27.049-05:002009-12-22T13:22:27.049-05:00You have successfully created one of the most elab...You have successfully created one of the most elaborate and biblically referenced straw-man arguments I have ever encountered. Dispensationalists hold to "literal interpretation unless it leads to absurdity" as only ONE of several interpretive principles, not the sole principle. And, of course, dispensationalists would generally agree with all of your expositional work - very well understanding that the first-century Jews misinterpreted Jesus' use of figurative and parabolic language. And it isn't true that the Jews were rigidly literal - their interpretation of Isaiah 53 is a classic example. So, their problem was in the application of their hermeneutic - and even a violation of it because of their antagonism toward Jesus (although not everyone who misunderstood things Jesus said was antagonistic).<br /><br />It seems odd that you would spend so much time and effort to attack a straw-man that took a few seconds to construct.<br /><br />Dave James<br />The Alliance for Biblical Integrity<br />www.biblicalintegrity.orgDave Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06800619945755554640noreply@blogger.com