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.

Activity

12 total comments, leave your comment.
  1. Daniel
    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?

  2. Chris
    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.

  3. Daniel
    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.

  4. Chris
    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.

    [Matthew 8:11] shows, that the faith of Old and New Tes­ta­ment saints, Jews and Gen­tiles, is the same; their bless­ings the same, and so their eter­nal hap­pi­ness; they have the same God and Father, the same Medi­a­tor and Redeemer, are actu­ated and influ­enced by the same Spirit, par­take of the same grace, and shall share the same glory.
    John Gill, Exeget­i­cal Com­men­tary on Matthew 8:11

  5. Daniel
    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.

  6. Chris
    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?

  7. Daniel
    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.

  8. robert828
    Jun 19th 2005

    Chris where is the church ever promised actual lit­eral land in the N.T. also the israelites were seper­ated from all gen­tile nations ex.33:16, lev,20:24. 1ki.8:53. Israelites also had a national pride of descent,Jer.13:9, Jn.8:33,41. Love of country,ps.137:6.

    Israel is seper­ated from all other nations.
    Ex. 33:16. Lev.20:24. 1Ki.8:53

  9. Chris
    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).

  10. robert828
    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.

  11. robert828
    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

  12. Chris
    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).

Leave a Reply