I have a question for dispensationalists.
Is Ancient Israel a type of the Church, the individual believer, and Jesus himself?
If so, why do you have an issue with fulfillment theology (which you slanderously call replacement theology)?
I have described on other threads how the believer is united with Jesus Christ through faith. The concept of union with Christ is super important, because, in reality, salvation is being united with Christ. The believer enjoys both legal and vital aspects of this union. Legally, he is accounted righteous because Jesus' righteousness becomes his righteousness. Vitally, he is joined with Jesus, who possesses eternal life, and therefore shares in his eternal life. He also shares in the holiness of Jesus, because Jesus' life permeates him and transforms him into the image of Christ over time.
Additionally, he is accounted a spiritual descendant of Abraham through Jesus. Jesus is a physical descendant of Abraham, therefore by being joined to Jesus, he is accounted as Abraham's physical offspring. Therefore, he receives the benefits of any promises made to Abraham. See Romans 4, Galatians 3.
And, part of these promises is inheriting the entire world, not just Israel. Again, see Romans 4.
My contention is that all the promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ, and that it is irrelevant whether one is a physical descendant of Abraham. My understanding depends on union with Christ, a doctrine which is sorely neglected in the Church.
As an aside, that's why I use the phrase "separation theology" with regards to dispensationalists. They are creating barriers between Jews and Gentiles that I don't believe exist anymore, as they are one man in Jesus (Ephesians 2).
Anyways, here is what I'm wondering. I've never really been a dispensationalist, although some dispensational beliefs influenced the groups I was involved with as a younger person. So, I am not really sure what dispensationalists believe on this issue. My guess is that it will be a hodgepodge as I've found that it is very hard to identify what "dispensationalism" teaches because there are so many differences of opinions. It is like nailing jello to the wall.
Here's the question: do dispensationalists in general understand the typological relationship between ancient Israel and the Church, the individual believer, and Jesus Christ himself?
The Church
Israel initially was to be a kingdom of priests. The Church is a kingdom of priests.
Individual Believers
Israel was led out of Egypt and bondage to Pharaoh in a similar way that believers are led out of the kingdom of darkness and bondage to Satan.
Israel was called God's son. Christians are called God's sons.
Jesus
Israel fled to Egypt during the famine. Jesus and his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod.
Israel was tempted in the wilderness by Satan. Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness.
The comparisons could go on and on, and you can research these by doing google searches or reading a book that focuses on this topic. But my basic question is this: do dispensationalists understand that ancient Israel is typological of the Church, the individual believer, and Jesus?
If so, why is it such a big leap of logic to understand that the Church, the individual believer, and Jesus are fulfillments of the type of ancient Israel?
If so, why do you have issues with the Church (or Christ) being the fulfillment of the type of ancient Israel?
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that dispensationalists in general don't recognize the typology of the Old Testament and how it pointed forward to Jesus and the Church. It could be due to their dispensationalist hermeneutic, which discourages understanding shadows and types of the Old Testament, instead claiming that others are allegorizing.
They would likely criticize Jesus on the road to Emmaus, when he scolded the disciples for not understanding that the entire Old Testament pointed to him.
Luke 23: 13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Anyways, I'm just looking for feedback from dispensationalists.
Do dispensationalists acknowledge that ancient Israel was a type of Jesus, the Church, and individual believers?
Do dispensationalists understand how union with Christ fits into this picture?
In order to understand the related shadows and types, you might read Edmund Clowney's book The Unfolding Mystery. It connects the Old Testament to the New Testament. That's right..I'm not like Andy Stanley (I believe he is a dispensationalist but not sure) who wants to disconnect the OT from the NT.
https://smile.amazon.com/Unfolding-...dmund+clowney&qid=1568465699&s=gateway&sr=8-1
By the way, if you need Scriptural references to prove any point I'm making above, let me know. I didn't refer to a lot of Scriptures because I think it can be distracting, and I am also assuming a certain level of knowledge amongst the participants of the conversation. I expect most of them have read the Bible as much as I have and know the allusions I'm making.
Is Ancient Israel a type of the Church, the individual believer, and Jesus himself?
If so, why do you have an issue with fulfillment theology (which you slanderously call replacement theology)?
I have described on other threads how the believer is united with Jesus Christ through faith. The concept of union with Christ is super important, because, in reality, salvation is being united with Christ. The believer enjoys both legal and vital aspects of this union. Legally, he is accounted righteous because Jesus' righteousness becomes his righteousness. Vitally, he is joined with Jesus, who possesses eternal life, and therefore shares in his eternal life. He also shares in the holiness of Jesus, because Jesus' life permeates him and transforms him into the image of Christ over time.
Additionally, he is accounted a spiritual descendant of Abraham through Jesus. Jesus is a physical descendant of Abraham, therefore by being joined to Jesus, he is accounted as Abraham's physical offspring. Therefore, he receives the benefits of any promises made to Abraham. See Romans 4, Galatians 3.
And, part of these promises is inheriting the entire world, not just Israel. Again, see Romans 4.
My contention is that all the promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ, and that it is irrelevant whether one is a physical descendant of Abraham. My understanding depends on union with Christ, a doctrine which is sorely neglected in the Church.
As an aside, that's why I use the phrase "separation theology" with regards to dispensationalists. They are creating barriers between Jews and Gentiles that I don't believe exist anymore, as they are one man in Jesus (Ephesians 2).
Anyways, here is what I'm wondering. I've never really been a dispensationalist, although some dispensational beliefs influenced the groups I was involved with as a younger person. So, I am not really sure what dispensationalists believe on this issue. My guess is that it will be a hodgepodge as I've found that it is very hard to identify what "dispensationalism" teaches because there are so many differences of opinions. It is like nailing jello to the wall.
Here's the question: do dispensationalists in general understand the typological relationship between ancient Israel and the Church, the individual believer, and Jesus Christ himself?
The Church
Israel initially was to be a kingdom of priests. The Church is a kingdom of priests.
Individual Believers
Israel was led out of Egypt and bondage to Pharaoh in a similar way that believers are led out of the kingdom of darkness and bondage to Satan.
Israel was called God's son. Christians are called God's sons.
Jesus
Israel fled to Egypt during the famine. Jesus and his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod.
Israel was tempted in the wilderness by Satan. Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness.
The comparisons could go on and on, and you can research these by doing google searches or reading a book that focuses on this topic. But my basic question is this: do dispensationalists understand that ancient Israel is typological of the Church, the individual believer, and Jesus?
If so, why is it such a big leap of logic to understand that the Church, the individual believer, and Jesus are fulfillments of the type of ancient Israel?
If so, why do you have issues with the Church (or Christ) being the fulfillment of the type of ancient Israel?
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that dispensationalists in general don't recognize the typology of the Old Testament and how it pointed forward to Jesus and the Church. It could be due to their dispensationalist hermeneutic, which discourages understanding shadows and types of the Old Testament, instead claiming that others are allegorizing.
They would likely criticize Jesus on the road to Emmaus, when he scolded the disciples for not understanding that the entire Old Testament pointed to him.
Luke 23: 13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Anyways, I'm just looking for feedback from dispensationalists.
Do dispensationalists acknowledge that ancient Israel was a type of Jesus, the Church, and individual believers?
Do dispensationalists understand how union with Christ fits into this picture?
In order to understand the related shadows and types, you might read Edmund Clowney's book The Unfolding Mystery. It connects the Old Testament to the New Testament. That's right..I'm not like Andy Stanley (I believe he is a dispensationalist but not sure) who wants to disconnect the OT from the NT.
https://smile.amazon.com/Unfolding-...dmund+clowney&qid=1568465699&s=gateway&sr=8-1
By the way, if you need Scriptural references to prove any point I'm making above, let me know. I didn't refer to a lot of Scriptures because I think it can be distracting, and I am also assuming a certain level of knowledge amongst the participants of the conversation. I expect most of them have read the Bible as much as I have and know the allusions I'm making.
(
