What Do Israel And The Church Share From A Traditional Dispensational Viewpoint? -- By: Michael D. Stallard

Journal: Journal of Ministry and Theology
Volume: JMAT 20:1 (Spring 2016)
Article: What Do Israel And The Church Share From A Traditional Dispensational Viewpoint?
Author: Michael D. Stallard


What Do Israel And The Church Share From A Traditional Dispensational Viewpoint?

Mike Stallard

Seminary Dean
Professor of Systematic Theology
Baptist Bible Seminary
Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania

Introduction

Traditional dispensationalism has long frustrated non-dispensationalists with its focus on the distinction between Israel and the church.1 Indeed, this distinction is, as Ryrie noted long ago, the essence of the dispensational approach to Scripture.2 Such a conclusion should be overwhelmingly accepted by those interested in Bible interpretation. Nonetheless, the centering of

dispensationalism on this needed doctrinal conclusion sometimes obscures the fact that most dispensationalists actually believe that Israel and the church share some important elements in God’s historical plan. More importantly, such sharing between these two significant institutional creations of God means that dispensationalists have some theological wickets to discuss. Thus, the purpose of this article is to frame the sharing of various experiences between Israel and the church and thereby bring added precision to the excellent framework of a dispensational understanding of the Bible. To accomplish this task, review of several areas will be undertaken: past intensification of the distinction by dispensationalists, shared points between Israel and the church, and potential implications of such sharing using the pre-tribulational rapture as a case study.

Intensification Of The Doctrinal Distinction Between Israel And The Church

Part of the needed discussion involves the extent to which various dispensationalists in the history of the tradition have ordered theological formulations that intensify the distinction between Israel and the church. Here we will review two such examples. First, Lewis Sperry Chafer offered the view that there are two new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church:

There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a “new covenant.” It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two covenants—one for Israel and one for the Church—are the same is to assume that there is latitude of common interest between God’s purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israel’s covenant, however, is new only because it replaces the M...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()