Editorial -- By: Ron J. Bigalke, Jr.

Journal: Journal of Dispensational Theology
Volume: JODT 18:55 (Winter 2014)
Article: Editorial
Author: Ron J. Bigalke, Jr.


Editorial

Ron J. Bigalke

The primary difference between premillennial and non-premillennial systems is hermeneutical (interpretive), that is, an understanding of the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. The procedure is not to interpret the Old Testament by the New Testament (e.g. Covenant Theology); rather it is to interpret the meaning of an Old Testament passage in its context and to systematize prophetic doctrines from the priority of the Old Testament, as opposed to the New Testament changing the original meaning. The relationship between the Old and New Testaments is a principal emphasis of dispensational premillennialism.

Confusion regarding the church, future events, and Israel is almost always the consequence of giving hermeneutical priority to the New Testament, in such a manner that changes the original intent of the Old Testament. Negatively stated, it is improper to speak of the church as a building, a denomination, or a state or national church. Furthermore, the church is not to be confused with Israel or the kingdom of God. The church is a distinct entity in this age. Both the church and Israel have special relationships with God, but they must be distinguished.

The distinction between Israel and the church is the natural result of interpreting the Bible historically and grammatically (i.e. literal, plain interpretation). One must interpret the words of the Bible in their normal or plain meaning. The opposite would be a spiritualizing (allegorizing) of the biblical text. Charles C. Ryrie wrote astutely, “Use of the words Israel and church shows clearly that in the New Testament national Israel continues with her own promises and that the church is never equated with a so-called “new Israel” but is carefully and continually distinguished as a separate work of God in this age” (Dispensationalism, rev. ed. [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995] 129).

Since Israel and the church are distinct entities, and Israel has not possessed the land under her Messiah-King, nor have the promises been transferred to the church, then the timing of fulfillment must be future. Certainly, there is a sense in which the biblical covenants have been fulfilled progressively. For instance, Abraham enjoyed some of the promises that God has covenanted with him. The Davidic Covenant was fulfilled some in David and Solomon’s day, yet there will be a complete fulfillment in a future millennial kingdom. Since the church came into existence on the Day of Pentecost, the church is distinct from Israel, and cannot inherit the unconditional promises that God made with Israel.

The Old Testament refers to the millennial kingdom when referring to the Davidic kingdom, but it did not designate its length (You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe

visitor : : uid: ()