Hebrews Lesson
98
August 30, 2007
NKJ Isaiah 40:7 The
grass withers, the flower fades, Because the breath of the LORD blows upon it;
Surely the people are grass.
We are in Hebrews 7. Last time as we got started
beginning in verse 11 we were looking at this contrast that is being made by
the author between the Levitical priesthood which had dominated Israel since
the inception of the Mosaic Law at Mt. Sinai and a previous and older and more
extensive priesthood called the Melchizedekean priesthood. So just in
terms of review of what we are seeing in this passage…back to point one.
Last time we looked at Hebrews 7:11. The writer
concludes after his discussion in the first ten verses:
NKJ Hebrews 7:11 Therefore,
if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood
Parenthetical thought.
(for under it
That is the Levitical priesthood – through the
Levitical priesthood, on the basis of the Levitical priesthood.
the people received the law),
The priests were responsible for communicating the law,
teaching the Law to the people.
what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of
Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
We saw last time that the “if” here is a second class
condition which represents a condition of unreality. The author is
assuming it is not true. He is basically saying if perfection came through
the Levitical priesthood (and of course we know that it didn’t), then what need
would there be for another priesthood? But what he is basically saying is
that if we set it up as a syllogism he would be saying, “First of all if
completion came through the Levitical priesthood there would be no need for
another priest because everything would be fulfilled with the Levitical
priesthood.” Nothing more would be needed. But, there is another
priesthood. He has been arguing for the priesthood, the royal priesthood
of the Lord Jesus Christ and the eternality of the Melchizedekean
priesthood. Therefore he is concluding (This is the implication of his
argument) the Levitical priesthood is limited and temporary. It was never
designed to be permanent.
Last time I took the time to go back into the Old Testament
to go to passages in Leviticus to talk about the kinds of qualifications that
were necessary to be a Levitical priest. The qualifications were all physical
and they were all genetic. You had to be a descendent of Levi. To be
the high priest you had to be the physical descendent of Aaron and go through a
particular line of descent. You also had to fit certain physical qualifications. There
couldn’t be any physical defects. You couldn’t be lame, crippled. You
couldn’t have leprosy or some other problems. So there is nothing said about
spirituality. There is nothing said about their relationship to the Lord.
That’s part of what makes it an inferior priesthood. You only had physical
and genetic requirements. So we create a little comparison chart here
between the Levitical priesthood and the Melchizedekean priesthood.
The Levitical priesthood is incomplete. That is what
Hebrews 7:11 is saying. “If completion was through the Levitical
priesthood, and it’s not.” So it’s incomplete, but the Melchizedekian
priesthood is complete. The Levitical priesthood is impermanent. It
is temporary. It is only intended for a short time. The Melchizedekian
priesthood according to Psalm 110:4 is forever, so it is viewed as a permanent
priesthood.
Then the Levitical priesthood because the Levitical priests
are sinners because they have to still be cleansed of their own sins, they have
to offer sacrifices for themselves and the sacrifices that they are offering
are inadequate (as the writer of Hebrews will go on to say in chapter 10 that
the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin) that it is an inferior
priesthood. Yet the Melchizedekian priesthood is superior. It is
based on the Messiah who is the eternal Davidic High Priest and He is
perfect. He perfectly complies with the law. So his argument is that based
on Old Testament revelation there was this prophecy regarding the
Melchizedekean priesthood that it would supplant the Levitical priesthood when
the Messiah came.
Now one of the problems that they had was that these Jewish
believers that the writer of Hebrews is addressing very likely were influenced
by some of the theology that characterized the Essenes who lived in the Qumran
community. Not all of them lived at Qumran. Qumran is located down by
the Dead Sea. Qumran is where they found the Dead Sea Scrolls – that
area. This wasn’t quite a monastic community because some had wives there,
but it was a very ascetic community. They had a high standard of
righteousness, but they also had a fairly well developed eschatology – a
fairly well developed view of prophecy. It wasn’t necessarily what we
would understand to be biblical. They did have a well-developed view of
prophecy which was laid out in some of their writings.
They thought there would be two messianic figures –
one of them would be a priestly messiah who would be descended from the tribe
of Aaron and another would be a royal messiah who would rule over Israel.
But, in their view the royal messiah would be subordinate to the priestly
messiah that was a descendent from Aaron. They looked at a future Golden
Age that would be brought in by a new prophet who would reestablish this
Aaronic priesthood and restore and cleanse the old system. And the Aaronic
priest would be over everything. He would be the ultimate authority in Israel
in the new Golden Age. So if they were influenced by that they are having
a question about what is going on with Jesus and His high priesthood. This
has to be straightened out and they have to be shown that the old Levitical
system is going to end and that the priesthood was insignificant – not
insignificant but that the old priesthood was not permanent and would not
provide long-range spiritual value.
The priesthood as we will see in the next verse…
NKJ Hebrews 7:12 For
the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
…is directly connected to the Mosaic Law so you can’t
separate the Aaronic high priesthood, the Levitical priesthood from the Mosaic
Law. The Mosaic Law establishes the Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical
priesthood provides the qualifications for Levitical priesthood. Then it
is through the Levitical priesthood that the law is taught and propagated down
through the generations. Now as we come to this we always have a problem
with Christians today who are trying to understand the role of the Mosaic Law to
today – how does the Mosaic Law related to Christians today? Is it
just completely irrelevant? Does it have some relevance or are we to live
under parts of it? Those are basically the three options.
You often hear people say, “Well, we are in the Church Age,
the Mosaic Law has no application whatsoever.”
Hummm…, what do you do with II Timothy 3:16-7. When
Paul wrote II Timothy 3:16-7 “that all Scripture is God breathed”, he is talking
about the Old Testament. It is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness. He is talking to Timothy in
terms of how the Old Testament scriptures were used by his mother and his
grandmother to teach him and that the Old Testament scriptures still have
value.
So you can’t come along and many people get this idea that
if you are a dispensationalist that means you look at the Bible and say, “Well,
forget the Old Testament.”
Dispensationalists – or some dispensationalists
– have been their own worst enemies. I knew a very good doctrinal
pastor up in Dallas. He never taught the Old Testament. He went to be
with the Lord a few years ago. He never taught the Old Testament. In
almost 50 years of pastoral ministry he never taught an Old Testament
book. He majored in Galatians and Ephesians and Romans. Then he would go back
and do it all over again. There have been other dispensationalists who
have done that. They want to focus on the mystery doctrine of the Church
Age and what we have in Christ and the spiritual life to the exclusion of
almost everything else. So there is no teaching on the Old Testament, yet the
Old Testament is still considered by the Apostle Paul to be applicable,
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and for correction and instruction in
righteousness. So there is a place for the Old Testament. So it is
not irrelevant.
We don’t take out our razor blades and cut out the Old Testament
say, “That’s historical. That’s interesting. That helps us understand
a little bit about the background for the New Testament.”
It has greater relevance than that.
We also come to the Mosaic Law and we think, “Well, that
just had to do with how God wants Israel to operate. So, that really
doesn’t have any application today.”
Some people have even said, “Well, you know they had all
that legalism. That is what the law was. It was all about legalism.
That is contrasted to grace. We read in the New Testament this contrast
between law and grace. So we have to exclude the Mosaic Law.”
Well, that is not quite right either because when you do
that, you completely misunderstand the purpose for the law and the nature of
the Law. So let me give you about 7 points in understanding the
significance of the Mosaic Law and its relevance for the Church Age.
So we can’t
come in and say, “Golly, the Law led to legalism.”
No, the sin
nature led to legalism. The Law was in its very essence holy and righteous
and good. So we can’t come in and just negate it. What we tend to do is
look at the Mosaic Law through the legalistic lens of the Pharisees and their
interpretation of the Law in the gospels. As I pointed out last time, what
happened in Judaism was that after the return to Israel from the Babylonian
captivity, once they were building the second temple, they began to try to
figure out why it was that God had disciplined them so severely. It was
because they had violated the 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law.
So they said,
“Well, let’s build a fence around the Law.”
That was the
rabbinic traditions. So for example if the law said that you can’t boil a
calf in the mother’s milk, then they came up with the tradition that said that
it means that we can’t mix dairy products with meat products at all because it
just might be that if we take a dish and we have steak on it one day and the
next day we have cheese on that same plate that even though we washed it to the
best of our ability, there might be one molecule of meat that’s left on that
plate. If it gets mixed with that cheese and there may be the possibility
that the cheese comes from the mother of the calf that produced the meat. So
it may be an infinitesimal chance that they are related, but we can take that
chance because God will kick us out of the land again. So we are going to
have to have one set of dishes and one set of cookware for meat and a completely
different set of dishes and a completely different set of cookware and silverware
and everything for dairy. That’s true.
If you go to
Israel today and you go to a kosher place -last year we stayed at a hotel that
was a dairy restaurant. You could not get beef. You could only get
fish and you could get various pasta dishes; but you couldn’t get lamb or beef
or chicken with your meal because it was a dairy restaurant. Now if you
ordered from room service you could order a steak or hamburger or something
like that. They had two different kitchens. If you go to McDonalds, you
can’t get cheese-burgers. You can’t mix dairy and meat if it is a kosher
McDonald’s. You could come to the first floor and get your Big Mac and eat
it and then you can go upstairs and get your milkshake. Isn’t legalism
wonderful?
So they built
this fence around the Law. That became codified in the Mishnah. Then
later on they built a second fence around that which became codified in the
Talmud. The Talmud is basically a commentary on the Mishnah. When you
see a Talmud it will have a large page. In the middle of the page it will
have the Mishnah and then there will be a border around that and then you will
have writings in the margins (top and bottom, left and right) and that’s the
Talmud. That’s the rabbinical commentary on the Mishnah. So they built
these fences. The idea was that if they established these traditions, then
if you don’t break the traditions then you won’t break the Law. So it is
to keep the Jews away from breaking one of those 613 commandments. That’s
legalism. That doesn’t indicate that the Law is bad. That is a misuse
and abuse and misinterpretation of the Mosaic Law. The New Testament says
that the law was holy and righteous and good.
The second
thing they are held accountable for is their treatment of Israel which has to
do with the Abrahamic Covenant.
God says, “I
will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.”
So the Mosaic
Law was not - no nation, no gentile was obligated to keep the Mosaic Law. The
Mosaic Law was just for Jews. It had to do with their criminal law; it had to
do with their civil law; it had to do with their ceremonial law - those three
aspects. They are interwoven. You can’t just say these chapters relate to
the criminal law. These chapters relate to civil law and these chapters relate
to ceremonial law although you can break out the ceremonial law more than you can
the civil and criminal law. Those are kind of woven together. But all
of them are interwoven because it deals with the whole fabric of the culture
and of the society. So the Mosaic Law represents God’s revelation in
relationship to how a 4th divine institution (a nation, a
government) should operate. There are implications and applications from
the Mosaic Law because the Mosaic Law shows how a national entity should
support and defend the divine institutions of human responsibility, marriage,
family and government. Part of the responsibility of the government of any nation
is to protect and promote the 5 divine institutions which are personal
responsibility, marriage, family, government and national distinctions –
not giving up your identity to internationalism – not saying that we are
going to make up our laws on the basis of what the French do or on the basis of
what the Dutch do or what the Germans do.
But,
unfortunately we are losing that in our country.
We have Supreme
Court justices who are thinking, “Let’s see how the Germans and the French and
everybody else handle this. Let’s base our law on someone else’s
law.”
That is the
road to perdition. It is rejection of the 5th divine
institution. But that is what we see with the Mosaic Law. It gives us
a pattern for how criminal law and civil law ought to function in terms of
various penalties and in terms of how it’s applied. It doesn’t mean you should
do it the same way, but it gives you a pattern or a model. It is not
mandated for every nation.
Now let’s look at Hebrews 7:12. We will take a minute
to exegete through the passage and look at it grammatically.
NKJ Hebrews 7:12 For
the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
“For” tells us that it is an explanation. It is an
explanation of the principle laid down in the previous verse through the second
class condition.
Here we have the participial form of the verb metatithemi which denotes a place or
condition. It is the combination of two words, meta and tithemi. Meta is a preposition denoting a change
of place or condition and tithemi
meaning place. It has to do with transposing something, to put one thing
in place of another, substituting one thing for another and hence comes to mean
to transport, to transfer, to translate, to basically change something.
Then we have a related word in the second part of the verse,
the noun form metathesis which has to
do with transposition, moving something from one place to another. So we
have a statement for the priesthood “being changed of necessity.” That
word for necessity is the preposition ek
plus the noun anagke meaning from an
internal compelling force. There is an essential or an inherent logic to the
whole situation that when you move from a temporary insufficient priesthood to
an eternal permanent sufficient priesthood that there is a logic that that kind
of a transition changes everything. It is not going to be the same. The
Mosaic Law must end because the priesthood has ended because the former
priesthood was essential to the Mosaic Law. So once the priesthood is
supplanted by a superior priesthood there is going to be a substitution of a
superior law and thus a superior covenant.
So this is a great passage to indicate that a major shift
takes place with the death of Christ on the cross. The Law is going to
end. So therefore everything that has been operational and normative for
1400 years since the giving of the Mosaic Law comes to a conclusion and we go
into a completely new era with a new priesthood, a new spiritual life and a new
high priest. The new High Priest is not going to be based on the old order but
is going to be based on a superior order which is the order of Melchizedek. So
this sets up and is the foundation of this is dispensationalism – a
complete change of the law. Romans 3:27 says that the law contrasts the
old law with the new law and relates the old law to works.
Paul says in Romans 3:27:
NKJ Romans 3:27 Where
is boasting then? It is excluded. By
what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
So he is contrasting a law of faith with the law of
works. It is on not on the basis of works, but it’s on the basis of
faith. There is a new law which supplants the old law. So this is
related to the new priesthood.
NKJ Psalm 110:4 The
LORD has sworn And will not relent, "You are a priest forever
It’s not limited.
According to the order of
Melchizedek."
So at the very least this involves what we call a
dispensational shift. Now there are those who would say that everybody is
a dispensationalist in one sense. If you are not going to Jerusalem, if you’re
not sacrificing animals; then you recognize that there is a difference between
the Old Testament and the New Testament. But that is a rather silly
argument because there are a lot of people who don’t understand what
dispensationalism is. There is a lot of distortion in the teaching by some
people of what dispensationalism is. So I think it is important for us to
go back and understand what dispensational teaching is all about.
So we need to answer the question, what is a
dispensation. Many people get confused at this point. Let me try to
clarify this. Most of us think of dispensation in terms of a
timeframe. Actually the term dispensation doesn’t have a time aspect to
it. That comes from other words. So just keep that in mind as I go through
this explanation.
The first word that we want to look at is the term
seasons. This is the translation of the Greek word kairos. Sometimes it is translated ages or times.
Different English translations use different words. It
indicates broad expanses of time. It is synonymous with ages. But these
seasons, these times have definable characteristics. It is very easy to
look at the period before the cross and say that it is clearly different from
the period after the cross. The period of the Millennial Kingdom is
clearly different from the present age. There are measurable quantifiable
definable differences in these ages. So at the very least we have three
ages. We have the Age of the Mosaic Law. We have the Church Age and we
have the future kingdom. Those are clearly spelled out in
Scripture. That is why I have used those three examples.
We also have the word “age” which comes from the Greek word aion which relates to a period of
time. These two words focus on the temporal aspect of God’s plan, that
there are different times and seasons.
The third word that is used is this word, oikonomos. See that is where we get
our word economy. Oikonomos
– economy - you can hear the similarity. Now we think of economy as
having to do with money, but the root meaning in the Greek has to do with
stewardship or how you handle money or financial affairs or things that you are
responsible for. It comes to refer to an administration. That’s the
idea in a dispensation. God is going to administer human history in
different ways in different eras.
There are some things that are going to be the same in all
the ages. Whether you are in the Old Testament or New Testament, salvation
is always by grace through faith. The object of faith is going to differ. Whether
you are living in the Old Testament or in the New Testament there are certain
principles related to the spiritual life and faith rest living that are
similar.
But, there are also differences. In the Old Testament,
believers did not have the Holy Spirit living within them. In the New
Testament we have the Holy Spirit living inside every believer. In the Old
Testament there is a term related to the filling of the Holy Spirit that has
nothing to do with the filling of the Spirit in the New Testament era. In the Old
Testament the Spirit came upon certain key individuals who had responsibility
in administering the kingdom of Israel. You had the Holy Spirit coming
upon the craftsmen who were constructing the tabernacle – the goldsmith,
the jewellers, the carpenters. The chief men were Bezalel and
Aholiab. The Holy Spirit came upon them and filled them with skill to do
what they were doing in constructing the tabernacle. Later on you had the
judges. Some of the judges have the Holy Spirit come upon them to give them
military skill, but it doesn’t have anything to do with inspiration. It
doesn’t have anything to do with holy living. You have examples of:
The Holy Spirit’s ministry in their lives is not related to
their spiritual life, their spiritual growth; but to give them the ability to
do what God wants them to do in relationship to the administration of the
kingdom.
But the role of the Holy Spirit is very different in the Old
Testament.
You get in the New Testament and every believer is indwelt
by the Holy Spirit. Then when we are in fellowship the Holy Spirit is
active in a special way related to our spiritual growth but is referred to as
the filling of the Spirit. So these words indicate different aspects of
God’s plan and the outworking of that plan historically.
The terms for times and seasons (aionos and kairos and chronos) have to do with the temporal
aspect. There are different time periods. Then oikonomos has to do with how God is administering human history
during those time periods.
That leads us to the word dispensation. Perhaps the simplest
term or the simplest definition for dispensation is simply to say that it is a
distinct and identifiable administration in the development of God’s plan and
purposes for human history.
Now I am going to stop there with that bit of a
definition. When we take this word and apply it consistently as a
theological system or as a system of interpretation, then it becomes known as
dispensationalism. Now dispensationalism is unique. It is completely
different from all other theological systems.
You have a number of different overall theological systems.
The one that is most often contrasted with dispensationalism is covenant
theology. Covenant theology is usually associated with reformed theology,
Presbyterian theology – associated with Calvinism. Covenant
theology emphasizes two theological covenants – not biblical
covenants. See we all believe in biblical covenants – the Noahic
Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the New
Covenant. Everybody believes in those. But when you talk about
covenant theology, the covenants they are referring to are not the biblical
covenants. They are talking about extrapolated theological covenants
– that when Adam was fist placed in the garden, there was a condition
placed upon him that if he was going to have eternal life - he would not eat
from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So it was a
covenant of works as they would say. Then after Adam ate from the fruit of
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and sinned, then God established a
covenant of grace. So in covenant theology, you primarily have these two
covenants – the covenant of works until Adam sinned and then the rest of
human history is the covenant of grace.
There are some within the reformed camp who will say there
is a third covenant, a covenant of redemption. But for them there is one
covenant of grace that began with Adam and extends all the way through
history. Now that fits in their understanding of Scripture because they
see that the primary purpose of the Bible and God’s plan in history as
redemption. It’s redemption. Redemption of whom? Redemption of
the human race. What about angels?
“Oh well, they are not included.”
See that’s a limitation in covenant theology. It really
doesn’t deal well with the angels because the purpose of the Bible is
redemptive. Angels don’t get redeemed so they are sort of left out.
I remember several years ago I was going to Russia to teach
on spiritual warfare. Joe Wall had asked me to come over and teach.
He said, “Well, you have done a lot of work on spiritual
warfare. Why is it that within the reformed camp, very little has ever
been written on spiritual warfare until the 20th century?”
I get forced into some things because that is what other
people are talking about. I thought that was interesting. I hadn’t
thought about that. But this why, within the reformed camp they haven’t
given enough emphasis to the Holy Spirit or to angles or to some of these
things. They don’t give enough attention to the Holy Spirit.
You talk to anybody who has gone to seminary and you ask,
“What are the two most important books ever written on the Holy Spirit” and
they will tell you it is John Owen’s book on the Holy Spirit (John Owens was
Oliver Cromwell’s chaplain. It was written in the 1600’s around 1640 or
1650.) and Abraham Kyper’s work on the Holy Spirit written in the 1890’s.
Neither one of them even mentions the indwelling, filling or
the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is reformed theology. Everything
is basically the same. That is why they end up saying there is one people
of God. There is Israel up until they reject Christ as Messiah, and then they
are replaced with the church. But the church now becomes the heir to all
of the promises that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The land is no
longer going to be a physical land. It is now spiritualized to
heaven. That is what happens in reformed theology. It is one form of
replacement theology.
Now you have to be careful. I have watched a couple of
specials on TV in the last year looking at A&E or one of the other
channels. They’ll talk about replacement theology and they will talk to a
Roman Catholic priest.
“Oh, we don’t believe in replacement theology.”
What they are doing is they are loading the term with
anti-Semitism. So they want to make it an extreme form of replacement
theology. But replacement theology is the view that the church replaces
Israel in God’s plan and so genetic Israel is no longer significant. The fact
that the Jews are back in the land is no longer significant because God is
through with the Israel. He is through with the Jews. The only way a
Jew can have any significance is to become a Christian and forget the fact that
he is a Jew. So there is an element to replacement theology that can breed
anti-Semitism. But just because somebody has a form of replacement
theology doesn’t mean that they will breed anti-Semitism.
Now I mentioned covenant theology. That’s one form of
replacement theology. You also have Lutheran theology. You have
Eastern Orthodox theology. You have various other smaller categories of
theology - Church of Christ, other schools of thought. But they all have
one thing in common. They all buy into replacement theology in one way or
another. Only dispensationalism draws a consistent distinction between
God’s plan and purposes for Israel on the one hand and God’s plan and purposes
for the church on the other hand. That flows out of the fact that
dispensational theology – what isn’t developed abstractly.
Like I said, covenant theology starts off with two
covenants. Where do you find those two covenants in the Bible? You
don’t. They are abstract. They are abstractly developed theologically and
then you impose that on the text.
But even though you may hear people say, “Well, I am a
dispensationalist so I think that is what this verse means.”
Don’t take it that way. That is not what a dispensationalist
is saying. He is a dispensationalist because that is what the Bible says.
I remember (I think it was about 10 years ago now.) I went
up to Dallas Seminary and I had a meeting with John Walvoord. We were
talking about various aspects of sanctification. He had written a very good
article in the early ‘80’s called The Augustinian
Dispensational View of the Spiritual Life. I am not going to try to
explain that to you, but the point was that Walvoord clearly understood that
there was a view of the spiritual life that was unique to dispensationalism
that was distinct from all the other systems of theology, that there was a
dispensational view of the Holy Spirit.
I would make the mistake of saying, “Well, if we look at
this as a dispensational view…”
“No, no, no, Robby. It’s biblical. We are
dispensationalists because that is what the Bible says. We don’t think the
Bible says that because we are dispensationalists. We are
dispensationalists because that is what the Bible says.”
He would correct me every time I would say that. It was
very good emphasis. We are dispensationalists because that is what the
Bible says, not because we developed a nice tight integrated theological system
that we then read back into the text. That’s what reformed theology has
done and what other systems have done. But dispensationalism begins with a
consistent, literal, plain interpretation of Scripture.
In fact, Dr. Ryrie who was the chairman of the Systematic
Theology Department at Dallas Seminary for many years wrote an excellent book
on dispensationalism that came out in the ‘60’s. It was originally called Dispensationalism Today and he revised
it in the ‘90’s. Now it is called Dispensationalism. But
Ryrie tried to boil down dispensational theology to its essential core. He came
up with three things that are the key to dispensationalism.
“Pick me up and
take me and go across the river. Strike the tent.”
He is talking
about going across the river. That was the idea. That imagery is
embedded in his Presbyterian theology that we are crossing the River Jordan to
get into heaven. So the land of Israel is now allegorized to
heaven. The River Jordan is now allegorized to that transition point from physical
life to eternal life. That is what happens when you get away from a
literal interpretation. So dispensationalism starts with a literal
hermeneutic (literal interpretation of Scripture) that leads to a consistent
distinction between Israel and the church.
So these are the three key elements that Dr. Ryrie
emphasized and that is still understood by traditional dispensationalists to be
the key to dispensationalism today.
Now where did we get this term dispensation?
So that brings in the idea of human responsibility.
The word dispensation is used (oikonomos) in several key passages in the New Testament. We
will get to those in just a minute.
Let me give you 6 features, 6 characteristics of a
dispensation.
That leads me to the quote of the week. This is from a
Southern Baptist pastor here in town. When he was talking with an
assistant pastor of his who has been meeting with me for some time, they got
into a discussion over a passage in Proverbs.
So the young man who has been meeting with me said, “I
wonder what the Hebrew says.”
To which the Southern Baptist pastor replied (something to
the effect that) “Only an idiot goes to the Hebrew to find out what the Bible
says.”
That’s the quote of the week.
So pastors are to be faithful to the
Word – faithful to the Word.
Ephesians 1:10 With a view toward an administration or
dispensation suitable to the fullness of times.
NKJ Ephesians 1:10 that
in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in
one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in
Him.
That is the summing up of all things in Christ. There
is an administration or dispensation called the fullness of times. When is
that? That is the Millennial Kingdom. So that is clearly demarcated in
Scripture as a separate time period.
Then you have Ephesians 3:8-9. Paul says:
NKJ Ephesians 3:8 To
me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I
should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
NKJ Ephesians 3:9 and
to make all see what is
Present tense is.
the fellowship of the mystery, which
from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things
through Jesus Christ;
It clearly states a present administration and implies a
previous administration where this information was hidden. So just looking
at those two verses we see three dispensations - the future Millennial Kingdom,
the present Church Age and the period before the present Church Age.
Paul mentions these three dispensations. Ephesians 1:10
we just mentioned. Ephesians 3:2 is the administration or the stewardship
of God’s grace, which was given to me. That would be the present Church
Age. And Colossians 1:25-26:
NKJ Colossians 1:25 of
which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given
to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,
Colossians 1:26 is where we see the previous dispensation.
NKJ Colossians 1:26 the
mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been
revealed to His saints.
That’s the previous dispensation.
It is interesting that the doctrinal statement of Dallas
Seminary only defines these three dispensations. Some people get the idea that
a dispensationalist depends on how many dispensations you believe in. But,
that’s not true. Dallas Seminary just has these three in their doctrinal
statement. So it is not a matter of how many dispensations you have. It’s
a matter of primarily, I believe, of consistent distinction between Israel and
the church.
Well, we will get back to dispensations next time. We
need to get through this introduction because we will go into covenants, the
role of covenants in history. That will help us understand and set things up
for chapter 8 in Hebrews.
With our heads bowed and our eyes closed…