Two Thoughts
First of all, how does a Dispensationalist answer this passage?
Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew 8:10-12
I'm currently reading this incredible, Biblically-saturated essay entitled: "Five Arguments for the Unity of the Covenant of Grace" by Robert Reymond; I suggest taking the time to read through it. Lastly, I was really excited about how "The Other Jesus" started, but then I got to where he "explains" Matthew 22:14 (in the book it says Matthew 21:14).
"Jesus' hard saying "Many are called, but few are chosen" could mean simply, "Many are invited, but few respond." The kingdom of heaven is not an exclusive affair. All are invited, but so few take up the offer.
[Jesus] made that clear to the disciples. "You did not choose Me, but I chose you..." Yet the disciples struggled for three years to be willing to choose to be chosen. It was only after Pentecost that they were ready to accept their chosenness.
The 95/5 Ratio
The call and chose of us is God's gracious invitation. He created us for Himself, came in Christ to redeem us, and works in us to set us free to respond. Our part in salvation is a small percentage. I like to think of it as a 95/5 percentage ratio: 95 percent God's action and 5 percent our response. But on that 5 percent expression of our free wills depends how much of the 95 percent we are able to receive. God has made it that way. [...] the flip side is also true: we can choose not to be chosen.
Lloyd Ogilvie, "The Other Jesus" (pgs. 175, 177-178)
What a disappointment. I was so excited. Also, when he was going through John 6:53-56 it sounded Modalistic. At least it can be a good coaster.
Jun 3rd 2005 
12 Comments 
Jun 3rd 2005
Chris,
I don't get it. How is that passage difficult for dispensationalism? Does it just indicate that some Jews will not be a part of the kingdom and that some Gentiles will be in the kingdom? What's the problem?
Jun 3rd 2005
What's being said is that there are not two separate destines for Israel and the Church, and that both will recline at the table with the ones that had been given the original convenantal promise. This passage, in effect, proves that there is one covenant of grace.
Jun 3rd 2005
Not that I'm a dispensationalist, or a least a classic Scotfield-style dispensationalist for that matter, but I think that you're overstating your case. All the text says is that both Jews and Gentiles will enjoy the kingdom together. The passage doesn't address whether in the OT God worked in a different way with Israel than He does with the church.
Jun 4th 2005
Precisely, they will join in the kingdom together; it is a statement that He does not work different from Israel and the Church. Forgive me as I appeal to authority.
Jun 4th 2005
I have no problem with what Gill wrote. Dispensationalists believe that OT saints will be in the kingdom along with the church made up of Gentile and Jewish believers.
Anytime we study Scripture, we must recognize the continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT. Here's an area of continuity. However, just because we find one area of continuity doesn't mean that there's not any discontinuity.
Let's not assume that this passage means that God didn't work in different ways with Israel and the church.
Jun 4th 2005
I have continued to stick with the intepretation that what the passage says is that the Church and ethnic Israel will dine together. That's all I've elaborated here, and I've wanted to know what impact that has on the two different destines for Israel and the Church in dispensationalism.
Where is there discontinuity? Could you explain your assertion?
Jun 4th 2005
Since I'm not sold on dispensationalism, it's not fair for me to comment on "two different destinies for Israel and the church." I do agree with dispensationalists that the church started around Acts 2. I also agree that ethnic Israel served in a different function than the church. Dr. John Walton and Dr. Andrew Hill from Wheaton have written a lot of good material here. I would strongly recommend their A Survey of the Old Testament. It's a great help, not just with this issue, but with the OT at large.
According to Walton, the focus of the Old Covenant was primarily revelation--to reveal God's character to the nations. Whether through obedience or disobedience of Israel, God accomplished this pourpose. On the other hand, I don't think that this is the primarily role of the church.
Jun 19th 2005
Jun 19th 2005
Well, Robert, the question to me is not about the land promise (as I can see that being fulfilled in a greater context, even within a milennial rein inside a covenant view). The issue for me is what Paul was talking about a Jew being that of the heart (Romans 2) and is even echoed is Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 30:6 cf. 10:16).
Jun 20th 2005
chris what's up? judging from your site, you're busy! Circumcision is the issue, NOT what a Jew is. every letter of the Bible awnsers a ? we don't always get clear idea what the ? is. hold up i just heard that an orthodox nun was found dead from an apparent excocism, weird. although Romans is a clear letter from which we can tell that Paul is talking to the church at Rome about the Gospel in which some jews were confused about. circumcised? keep the law? great there is value. uncircumcised? keep the Law? great your uncircumcision is counted against you. but can a man keep the Law? James 2"10 says that a man that stumbles at just one point is then guilty of breaking the whole thing.Gal. 3:21 says that the law cannot impute righteousness. Deut. 30:6-descendants- what do you think that means? what do i think that means? it doesn't matter What did the writer and the recipients think, The jewish life and future was all about their phisical descendants. so it was said and understood as physical descendants.
Jun 23rd 2005
in the above post iwrote that your uncircumcision is counted against you, the verse says what i meant to say "your circumcision is not counted against you. robert
Jun 24th 2005
Robert, your justification that is based around future descendants is a straw man. The presentation revolving around Paul's definition of a Jew, which is paralled in the verse you mentioned (Deut 30:6), speaks of a Jew (or that being the elect of God), as being not held to a physical circumcision. Paul equates the two testaments by illustrating that true Jews are not just of physical but spiritual descendance as well (Romans 2) and that God's promise to the Jews hadn't failed (Romans 9) which is in the context of weaving in Gentiles (Romans 11).