| Christian Writings: Written by or Recommended by Christian Friends |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Some excerpts from Carl Olof Rosenius, A Faithful Guide to Peace with God received from Pastor Don Baron |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Characteristic of classic Evangelicalism, in comparison with Dispensationalism, is that it is comparatively less
dependent, in doing its theology, on the Old Testament. On the other hand, Dispensationalism, especially in
handling prophecy, seems less controlled by the New Testament. The Old Testament is understood almost as
an autonomous unit, independent of the New. This approach lies at the basis of their Millennialism. For classic
Evangelicals, the Old Testament is an authoritative foreword or introduction for the New, and for
Dispensationalism the New Testament is merely an epilogue of the Old. Classic Evangelicals seem unwilling
to tread in the Old Testament unless they are attached by a rope anchored to the New Testament and unless they
back into the Old from the New, having the answers in their hands to questions still to be asked. If perhaps
classic Evangelicals could be criticized as too closely resembling Marcion (who rejected the Old Testament),
Dispensationalists appear as neo-Judaizers. The crucified Christ is only an interim figure between the Old
Testament and the millennium, as is the church. The Old Testament nation of Israel remains the ideal state.
From this mindset, Dispensational eschatology emerges. Dispensational eschatology moves backward into the
reigns of David and Solomon in search of the ideal kingdom which will one day be reestablished in the reign of
Jesus. The keeping of some law or the restitution of some Old Testament institution always seems to surface
as the chief item in religion, regardless of how effectively the Gospel is emphasized.
Dispensational eschatology tends to isolate certain Old Testament institutions as having eschatological
significance in themselves without Christological reference for their ultimate meaning. It looks forward to the
return of Jerusalem to political and religious prominence and the restitution of one form or another of the Davidic
throne, the temple, and the sacrifices. What Israel once was under David and Solomon shall reappear in an
even more glorious way in Jesus with the millennium’s coming. Dispensationalism sees the modern State of
Israel or Jewish people in general as having a significant role in the still unfolding salvific history of the world. (So
strong is this belief that American foreign policy must operate with the State of Israel as a permanent,
irreplaceable political reality. Israeli leaders take full advantage of the eschatological significance given them by
American Dispensationalists by giving them full attention in their visits to this country.)
The classic Evangelical response to the Dispensational eschatology that isolates certain institutions in the Old
Testament, including the nation of Israel, must finally be a Christological one. Dispensational eschatology puts
into the future what classic Evangelicals insist has already come in Jesus Christ. Dispensationalism
recognizes Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, but then goes on to claim that the Old
Testament has many more prophecies than could be fulfilled in Christ. This may at first sound innocent enough,
as it gives high honor to the Old Testament as a revelatory divine document. Such a view, however, is destructive
of the Old Testament as a Messianic document, that is, a document or a collection of documents whose total,
and hence also final, conclusion is found in Jesus of Nazareth. For Dispensational eschatology, what does not
find its conclusion in Jesus can find its fulfillment in later historical events, such as the restoration of the temple,
the Davidic throne, and the nation of Israel. To these claims, classic Evangelicalism must answer that Jesus is
that long hoped-for David, the final Solomon. He is Himself the temple. He is Moses. He is the embodiment of
the whole line of prophets in Himself. He is the priest. He is the paschal lamb. He is the land where the faithful
find rest.
dependent, in doing its theology, on the Old Testament. On the other hand, Dispensationalism, especially in
handling prophecy, seems less controlled by the New Testament. The Old Testament is understood almost as
an autonomous unit, independent of the New. This approach lies at the basis of their Millennialism. For classic
Evangelicals, the Old Testament is an authoritative foreword or introduction for the New, and for
Dispensationalism the New Testament is merely an epilogue of the Old. Classic Evangelicals seem unwilling
to tread in the Old Testament unless they are attached by a rope anchored to the New Testament and unless they
back into the Old from the New, having the answers in their hands to questions still to be asked. If perhaps
classic Evangelicals could be criticized as too closely resembling Marcion (who rejected the Old Testament),
Dispensationalists appear as neo-Judaizers. The crucified Christ is only an interim figure between the Old
Testament and the millennium, as is the church. The Old Testament nation of Israel remains the ideal state.
From this mindset, Dispensational eschatology emerges. Dispensational eschatology moves backward into the
reigns of David and Solomon in search of the ideal kingdom which will one day be reestablished in the reign of
Jesus. The keeping of some law or the restitution of some Old Testament institution always seems to surface
as the chief item in religion, regardless of how effectively the Gospel is emphasized.
Dispensational eschatology tends to isolate certain Old Testament institutions as having eschatological
significance in themselves without Christological reference for their ultimate meaning. It looks forward to the
return of Jerusalem to political and religious prominence and the restitution of one form or another of the Davidic
throne, the temple, and the sacrifices. What Israel once was under David and Solomon shall reappear in an
even more glorious way in Jesus with the millennium’s coming. Dispensationalism sees the modern State of
Israel or Jewish people in general as having a significant role in the still unfolding salvific history of the world. (So
strong is this belief that American foreign policy must operate with the State of Israel as a permanent,
irreplaceable political reality. Israeli leaders take full advantage of the eschatological significance given them by
American Dispensationalists by giving them full attention in their visits to this country.)
The classic Evangelical response to the Dispensational eschatology that isolates certain institutions in the Old
Testament, including the nation of Israel, must finally be a Christological one. Dispensational eschatology puts
into the future what classic Evangelicals insist has already come in Jesus Christ. Dispensationalism
recognizes Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, but then goes on to claim that the Old
Testament has many more prophecies than could be fulfilled in Christ. This may at first sound innocent enough,
as it gives high honor to the Old Testament as a revelatory divine document. Such a view, however, is destructive
of the Old Testament as a Messianic document, that is, a document or a collection of documents whose total,
and hence also final, conclusion is found in Jesus of Nazareth. For Dispensational eschatology, what does not
find its conclusion in Jesus can find its fulfillment in later historical events, such as the restoration of the temple,
the Davidic throne, and the nation of Israel. To these claims, classic Evangelicalism must answer that Jesus is
that long hoped-for David, the final Solomon. He is Himself the temple. He is Moses. He is the embodiment of
the whole line of prophets in Himself. He is the priest. He is the paschal lamb. He is the land where the faithful
find rest.
With the coming of Jesus, all of Israel’s institutions, which were clearly revelatory in themselves as having both Messianic and eschatological significance, suddenly are
recognized as anticipating Him. While the institutions of Israel define the Christ, the coming of Jesus as the Christ raises the ultimate significance of these institutions to a
level far beyond the comprehension of those to whom they were first given. Yet Jesus is, as Martin Luther points out, not like the Old Testament paschal lamb, but He is the
paschal lamb. Only from Him do those countless Old Testament sacrifices receive their meaning. By His own admission Jesus is the greater Jonah (prophet), the greater
Solomon (king), the greater temple (priest) - Matthew 12:6, 41, 42. His parting words of “Lo, I am with you until the end of the age” identify Him as God’s temple (God with
us) and preclude the possibility of any future restoration.
Dispensationalism, which sees the state or people of Israel as having salvific purpose, fails in not seeing Jesus as God’s only true Israel. Jesus is in Himself that faithful
remnant of Israel from whom alone God constitutes a new nation. He is the seed. But He is that true seed not in isolation, but the seed from which God constitutes His
new Israel. The descendants of Abraham failed, and Israel’s burden in its entirety came to Jesus, whom God designated as His Israel by calling Him out of Egypt as He
did the 12 tribes (Matthew 2:15), by placing the world’s burdens on Him, and by raising Him to life. In Him all the salvific institutions of Israel have been restored and
permanently established. The church has claim to the designation and promises of Israel not as a separate religious community, but only because they have been
incorporated in Him. The church, in Christ, is Abraham’s promised seed.
Classic Evangelicals affirm the uniquely “sacramental” purpose that God accomplished in Israel: salvation is of, from, and for the Jews. At the same time it is also
affirmed that God is perfectly content with Jesus, in whom all Israel is incorporated. Those who are gathered by faith in Him can through Him claim to be the new Israel.
The ax, according to John the Baptist, has already been laid to the root of ancient Israel, and God not only promises, but He actually has raised and is still raising sons to
Abraham from the stones (Matthew 3:9). Jesus is sent not only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but those from the east and the west are sitting down with the
patriarchs, while the sons of the old kingdom of Israel are being thrown into the outer darkness (Matthew 8:11-12). The falling of Israel and the coming of Christ have given
God an opportunity to be eschatologically indiscriminate: no nation is favored over another. He never loved the Old Testament nation of Israel simply for itself but also for
what He intended to accomplish through them in the world’s redemption.
Dispensational eschatology is theologically problematic because it fails to recognize that the revelation of God in both testaments is entirely Christological. (It is also a
practical problem since the church, as it awaits the final appearing of Christ, should not dissipate its energies in looking for the restoration of the physical Israel, but should
use all its energies in bringing the blessings first intended for Israel to all peoples of the world.)
We have faulted Dispensational eschatology because of a Christological failure in interpreting the Old Testament. In doing this we are saying that the Old Testament in
itself, even before the writing of the New Testament, was a Christological document. The failure to understand the Old Testament as a Christological document does not
come from the failure to read first the New Testament, but from the failure to understand the Old Testament on its own terms. Both classic Evangelicals and
Dispensationalists agree that the Bible is the originating principle and source of theology. The problem comes in Dispensationalism’s failure to recognize Christ as the
entire content of the Bible.
recognized as anticipating Him. While the institutions of Israel define the Christ, the coming of Jesus as the Christ raises the ultimate significance of these institutions to a
level far beyond the comprehension of those to whom they were first given. Yet Jesus is, as Martin Luther points out, not like the Old Testament paschal lamb, but He is the
paschal lamb. Only from Him do those countless Old Testament sacrifices receive their meaning. By His own admission Jesus is the greater Jonah (prophet), the greater
Solomon (king), the greater temple (priest) - Matthew 12:6, 41, 42. His parting words of “Lo, I am with you until the end of the age” identify Him as God’s temple (God with
us) and preclude the possibility of any future restoration.
Dispensationalism, which sees the state or people of Israel as having salvific purpose, fails in not seeing Jesus as God’s only true Israel. Jesus is in Himself that faithful
remnant of Israel from whom alone God constitutes a new nation. He is the seed. But He is that true seed not in isolation, but the seed from which God constitutes His
new Israel. The descendants of Abraham failed, and Israel’s burden in its entirety came to Jesus, whom God designated as His Israel by calling Him out of Egypt as He
did the 12 tribes (Matthew 2:15), by placing the world’s burdens on Him, and by raising Him to life. In Him all the salvific institutions of Israel have been restored and
permanently established. The church has claim to the designation and promises of Israel not as a separate religious community, but only because they have been
incorporated in Him. The church, in Christ, is Abraham’s promised seed.
Classic Evangelicals affirm the uniquely “sacramental” purpose that God accomplished in Israel: salvation is of, from, and for the Jews. At the same time it is also
affirmed that God is perfectly content with Jesus, in whom all Israel is incorporated. Those who are gathered by faith in Him can through Him claim to be the new Israel.
The ax, according to John the Baptist, has already been laid to the root of ancient Israel, and God not only promises, but He actually has raised and is still raising sons to
Abraham from the stones (Matthew 3:9). Jesus is sent not only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but those from the east and the west are sitting down with the
patriarchs, while the sons of the old kingdom of Israel are being thrown into the outer darkness (Matthew 8:11-12). The falling of Israel and the coming of Christ have given
God an opportunity to be eschatologically indiscriminate: no nation is favored over another. He never loved the Old Testament nation of Israel simply for itself but also for
what He intended to accomplish through them in the world’s redemption.
Dispensational eschatology is theologically problematic because it fails to recognize that the revelation of God in both testaments is entirely Christological. (It is also a
practical problem since the church, as it awaits the final appearing of Christ, should not dissipate its energies in looking for the restoration of the physical Israel, but should
use all its energies in bringing the blessings first intended for Israel to all peoples of the world.)
We have faulted Dispensational eschatology because of a Christological failure in interpreting the Old Testament. In doing this we are saying that the Old Testament in
itself, even before the writing of the New Testament, was a Christological document. The failure to understand the Old Testament as a Christological document does not
come from the failure to read first the New Testament, but from the failure to understand the Old Testament on its own terms. Both classic Evangelicals and
Dispensationalists agree that the Bible is the originating principle and source of theology. The problem comes in Dispensationalism’s failure to recognize Christ as the
entire content of the Bible.
| CHRISTOLOGY AS KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPHECY (excerpted and adapted from an article in Concordia Journal, January, 1984) received from Pastor Don Baron |