I have come to the end of Holdcroft’s Eschatology, glory be! I am so glad to have that out of the way, but I think it was necessary to push through to the bitter end, just so I could say I gave it a fair chance.
Unfortunately, this relationship with dispensationalism has seemed doomed almost since the beginning, at least since I started to evaluate where we stood with each other. It's funny what happens when you actually start talking...
Chapters 1-3 are foundational to Holdcroft’s presentation of futurism, and to the way he interprets Scripture. Chapters 4-14 detail the different “events” and “periods” of the end of the world, from the Rapture to the Final State.
By the end of Chapter 3, I was already in disagreement with his theology and hermeneutics. My disagreements with the rest of the book were just detail.
So, why can’t I accept dispensationalism? Though hermeneutics does come in to play somewhat, what it boils down to is Christology. The Christology of dispensationalism is insufficient. It limits Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection to a certain period of time on earth.
Since Holdcroft does not actually interact with Christology, or any other streams of theology for that matter, it was through his understanding of the identities of Israel and the Church that I discovered just how “low” his view of Christ is. Much of dispensationalism rests on the distinction between the Church and Israel.
The Argument
If you’re the nosy type, feel free to listen in on this argument we had in the margins of Chapter 2: Eschatological Identities.
Page 20
Holdcroft:
“The church and national Israel are fundamentally different bodies, with each existing under its own covenant.” Now he says that God extends Christ’s new covenant to all humankind, but “to the Jews not under the new covenant, the old Abrahamic covenant still stands.”
Me:
I disagree. Didn’t Jesus fulfill the Abrahamic covenant? Wasn’t the whole point of the Abrahamic covenant that through Abraham’s seed (Jesus), all the nations of the earth would be blessed? How is the Abrahamic covenant still in effect?
The Abrahamic covenant was about land, offspring and blessing. All of which I see fulfilled in Christ. God promised place for his people to dwell, so that He could come and dwell in their midst, and through them that all peoples on earth would be blessed.
Well, the land, and specifically the temple, all point to Jesus. Jesus is the new temple, the location of God’s presence is now through Him. So why does God need a particular parcel of land anymore where He can show up?
The offspring were meant to be a holy people, set apart for a purpose to show God’s glory. We all know they fell short, but Jesus fulfilled everything that Israel as a nation failed to do. Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel, He is Israel as Israel was meant to live. Yes, the Jewish people are important because it is through them that Jesus came, and through them and their history that we understand who God is and what Jesus did. But the purpose of offspring was not just to have lots of kids…the goal of the offspring was Jesus!
And blessing. Again, fulfilled in Jesus. He is the One through whom all peoples can be blessed.
Of course, the OT hints at all of this, but only after Jesus came do we see what it was all really about, that it was really about Him. So I would say the Abrahamic covenant lives on in Christ, but it doesn’t run in a parallel track to the New Covenant. It doesn’t exist in the same way it did before Christ. It doesn’t exist now apart from Christ.
Holdcroft:
“Since God provided Israel with the Old Testament (or covenant), and the church with the New Testament (or covenant), these actions provide ample precedent to expect that God will supply the people of the millennial kingdom with their own testament-covenant.”
Me:
I guess this is basic dispensationalism. God acts in different ways in different dispensations, holding people of different times (and in the case of Israel, ethnicities), to different standards in their dealings with Him. But to me, this demotes what Jesus came and accomplished to just another method in a long line of methods. His is just one of many covenants. I would argue that He is THE covenant, all the OT covenants were really about Him, and He fulfilled them, He supersedes all other covenants. There will be no new covenants after Him, because God has ultimately and decisively revealed Himself and the way we are to relate to Him in Christ. Otherwise, what’s the point of Jesus?
Are you saying that the Old Testament doesn’t apply to the church? And the New Testament doesn’t apply to Israel? That seems crazy. And I really don’t see how this is “ample precedent” for God dropping another new covenant during the millennial kingdom.
Page 25
Holdcroft:
“Scripture distinctively portrays Israel as a perpetually enduring nation of people uniquely favored of God with the promise of land as an everlasting possession.”
Me:
I think these promises were redefined in Christ. I think He is the ultimate goal, not a means to another goal, ie. a nation in a strip of land.
Page 26
Holdcroft:
“The chosen descendants of Abraham who comprise national Israel are the objects of a sovereign God’s special favor in His unconditionally guaranteed covenanted promises. The effects of these promises continue into the realm of the everlasting, and they include a land, a king, a restored and regenerated people, and even after the horrors of tribulation, a guaranteed count of survivors of the flesh and blood offspring of Abraham.”
Me:
Again, I think these promises are redefined in Christ. He is the promised King. There is no need now or in the future for an ethnic Jew to be sitting on some throne as a king.
Page 28-29
Holdcroft:
These Abrahamic blessings are still awaiting fulfillment, and the time of their fulfillment will be the millennium.
“In that day [in the millennial kingdom] when national Israel’s survivors accept their Messiah, they will enjoy all the political and earthly advantages of the Abrahamic covenant. “
Me:
So Jesus wasn’t the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant? Isn’t this going backwards?
Is the literal futurist Millennium invented as a necessity because national Israel hasn’t yet experienced these “political and earthly advantages”? Futurists see these promises as unfulfilled. But what if God fulfills His promises in a radically different – and better! – way, unimaginable until God revealed Himself in Jesus?
Holdcroft:
The new covenant predicted by Jeremiah in 31:31-34 is Israel’s millennial covenant. “Jeremiah does not speak of the new covenant that Christ provided for His church. The two “new” covenants should not be confused.”
Me:
Really? 2 New Covenants? Is one better than the other? Is Jesus not the plan for the Jews?
Holdcroft:
“This covenant will provide the spiritual basis for the transformation of flesh and blood Israelites into penitent and devout millennial citizens, and prepare them for eternity in the new Jerusalem.”
Me:
Oooh, so the millennium is like a 1000 year purgatory for the Jews, so they can prove they are worthy of entering the new Jerusalem at the end of it all!
Holdcroft:
“Israel’s future new covenant is quite different from the Christian’s present new covenant.”
Me:
AAaaaggghhhh….. I disagree! Are we – Jews and Gentiles – not joined in one family? Does not all the true seed of Abraham have a common destiny in Christ? Hasn’t God “planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect” (Hebrews 11:40)?
Page 32
Holdcroft:
“The unbelieving Jew still retains God’s promise of an earthly land for him or his descendants.”
Me:
But why? What is the point of this earthly land?
Page 37
Holdcroft:
Speaking of Jesus’ time on earth: “God’s desire for the Jews of that day was that they enthrone the incarnate Christ as their Messiah, but they failed to do so. […] Since what Jesus offered was rejected, the fulfillment of God’s plan now awaits the kingdom age – the millennium.”
“The Jews of Jesus’ day could have directly entered into the kingdom, just as in Moses’ time the people could have entered the promised land a few days after leaving Egypt.”
Me:
You have got to be kidding me. This misses the whole point of the incarnation, the cross. It was never God’s intent for Jesus to be installed as a political Messiah over national Israel in 33 AD, for the establishment of an earthly kingdom. This is horrible Christology!!!!!!!!!!!!
You’ve probably heard enough by now. My poor margins are a mess. I finished this chapter extremely frustrated. The rest of the book, and the rest of Holdcroft’s interpretation of Scripture, are all tied in to this particular form of dispensationalism.
Conclusion
I tried to give futurism a fair chance, I really did. I tried to see the theological logic of dispensationalism, to wrap my head around this particular way of reading the Bible. But at the end of it all, I simply cannot accept the theological, and especially Christological, premises of dispensationalism, at least the way Holdcroft presents them.
I guess dispensationalism and I have been in one of those relationships that existed by default more than anything else. But now I see how different we really are. Irreconcilably so, perhaps. We need a break. I need some space, to clear my head, to think, to see what other fish are out there in the eschatological sea.
It’s not you, it’s me. No, actually, I think it is you.
~
So where do I go from here?
- I need to explore different ways of understanding the distinction and connection between Israel and the Church.
- I need to explore different ways of understanding how the biblical covenants are related to each other. (Covenant Theology?)
- I would like to do some study on Romans 9-11, a section I have always found tricky. I want to check out several commentaries, perhaps from different traditions/perspectives.
- I would also like to hear some other dispensationalist voices, to see how they differ from or conform to Holdcroft’s view. I am still open to someone explaining dispensationalism in a way that has theological integrity, especially when it comes to Christology.
~lg
No comments:
Post a Comment