I’m not sure we can say the first church saw a dispensational point of view however since God still spoke directly to some of them on many occasions. True dispensationalism would have to be started later since the Bible wasn’t totally delivered from God to man until after the first century.

To me, the people who were living during the first century had a ‘current events’ view and a near-term expectation of Christ’s return. Only those who live later can have a historical view of past events. Then systems of thought like dispensationalism can be developed… right? But, then again, what do I know… I’m just a country boy living in one of the largests cities in the US… Opine si vou ples

What did people do with Revelation before Dispensationalism was invented?

Here part 1 of a very good short series on this book of the Bible from an historic perspective, rather than a new one: http://pjmiller.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-book-of-revelation-is-not-meant-to-be-scary/

You can find the other videos on pj’s site, or search the web for bzell333 and Revelation.

We are all recovering and reforming (those who are saved that is) and it is called santification. He who began a good work in us will see it through and all things work together for good for those who are called according to His purpose and all who are in Christ are new creatures with old things passing away and all things becoming new…

Welcome aboard.

http://5ptsalt.com/comment-policy/

Thanks. – JT

We have to be careful about using it to erase all kinds of distinctions between Jew & Greek, male & female, slave & free. Egalitarians use this to argue that in Christ, both male and female can serve as elders–but that wasn’t the point. Paul wasn’t addressing offices in the church.

If we want to use Gal 3:28-29 to deny a certain distinction between believing Jews & believing Gentiles, then we have to show that Paul had that kind of distinction in mind.

To make Paul say that in Romans 11 the “Zion” and “Jacob” to whom the promises belong and to whom the Redeemer is sent, are in fact the earthly nation of Israel, is to overturn the New testament and set Paul against paul.

I would be very, very surprised if you could get a dispensationalist to agree, “Yep, that’s what we’re saying.” Certainly on the phrase “to whom the Redeemer is sent”–don’t dispensationalists believe that the Redeemer was sent to the Gentiles as well as to ethnic Israel?

They might say that ethnic Israel is the one “to whom the promises belong”, but I doubt even that–they distinguish between promises. They assert that there are many OT promises & prophecies made to ethnic Israel specifically, which are not inherited by the church. But that doesn’t mean that none of the OT promises are inherited by the church!

I also want to point out an interpretive leap that was made, but not defended:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (ESV)

Who are the Jews? Who are the Israelites? Who are Abraham’s descendants? Paul answers, “All, and only those who are Christ’s, be they Jew or Gentile.”

In that passage, Paul clearly identifies all believers as “children of Abraham”. He does not identify them as “Israel”. If the two are interchangeable, that needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. (All believers inherit the promises of salvation, as children of Abraham. But this passage leaves open the question, “Is there anything God said to ethnic Israel that was intended for them? Does God intend to do anything in the future specifically through believing Jews?”) Gal. 3:28-29 doesn’t get you there, nor does Romans 11. (I argued the Church/Israel implications of Romans 9-11 in some posts at my blog.)

Ideally, we need a passage that directly says, “Believing Gentiles are now considered to be Jews as well, in addition to being children of Abraham. Everywhere you see ‘Israel’, you can replace that with ‘all believers’.”

The strongest I’ve found is Romans 2:25-29.

25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (ESV)

A dispensationalist could try to say that v. 29 only means, “Ethnic Jewishness isn’t enough–you need to be inwardly circumcised, too.” But that’s pretty hard to maintain with v.26 in context. That does seem to push the point to, “A circumcised heart makes you a Jew in God’s eyes.”