This was a frustrating interview. Much respect to Jeremy who kept his cool and brought the discussion back to the question each time despite the countless red herrings and rabbit trails off topic thrown at him by the host. As Jeremy made clear - consistent hermeneutics is the real issue at play.
Disagree. To understand the OT you must have the NT lense. Christ defines the completition and fulfillment of the serpent crusher, Abrahams seed, Davids throne. Mr. Jeremy is forcing a "literal" hermeneutic, but only defined in his terms. He won't allow for example, Jeremiah to say the covenant with Israel is coming to an end with a new and better covenant. Mr Jeremy would have to limit the plane reading of the text to fulfill his presupposition that Genesis Abraham promised must mean a physical Israel
Saying the modern pet trade is the fulfillment of the Kingdom promise is wild. Jesus absolutely fulfills the Covenants. But He doesn't change the definitions and then say "look i fulfilled them (just not the wha you expected)" he says, "all God's promises find their yes in me." And the Bible literally has a book about Jesus fulfilling the exact promises He made in the Old Testament literally in the future. Postmillenials just have this absolutely unwavering commitment to reading what they want to see in the text into the text. And to think dispensationalists get accused of reading the Bible with a newspaper in our hand. Posties will read a news story about domesticating animals and say this is the eternal righteous kingdom being fulfilled.
Jeremy, really appreciated your ending comments, so true. Those dispys that are so doom and gloom are missing out on the wonderful gifts, goodness, and common grace of God in this present world. Scripture tells us that God's blessings are poured out on sinners as well (Acts 14:17 and 17:25).
51:30 "you do a better job letting the guest talk than I am". Glad you recognized that. Invited him on to explain the dispy perspective and talk about how it isn't a modern heresy, and then didn't let him talk but argued against him the whole time. Doesn't seem like a good faith interview.
I was genuinely confused by that, as well. Was this meant to be an "interview," or instead was this designed to be a back-and-forth dialogue of some sort? It sounded like Jeremy was weathering a tidal wave of theories offered by Jon, rather than fielding questions, like one typically would in an interview. Jeremy, as the guest, did a great job of staying on topic, redirecting the conversation to the few questions that were actually asked, and then backing his answers with Scripture.
I truly believe dispy and covenant theologians end up sacrificing a consistent hermeneutic for the sake of their system. Hoping more polite conversations like this lead to growth for the whole church. Thank you both for your time.
Jason A. Staples, a biblical scholar (and not aligned with either camp), completed his PhD and research on what the term "Israel" actually meant during Second Temple Judaism and in the New Testament. In my opinion, his scholarship completely undermines the dispensationalist understanding of who Israel is in the New Testament. His work is definitely worth reading or exploring through his interviews on UA-cam. Books: -The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity -Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites
@@manonthestars I enjoyed the book and it should make some waves but little in the second volume was really new. The best way to understand eschatology is to read the bible like an autistic kid. Most dispy’s are as weak or weaker in Bible than those in historical Christianity. The value in Staples’ book is that it is a very nice shortcut to a lot of understanding without the leg work. A much shorter but easily digestible book is Palmer Robertson’s Israel of God.
A couple questions for our Reformed brothers: So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mt 19:28) Has this been fulfilled? And what would this look like?
Great conversation. I am so done with dispensationalism. It was encouraging to hear him reject the inability to enjoy present blessing, that was encouraging.
Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The Lord of hosts is His name): 36 “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the Lord, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.” 37 Thus says the Lord: “If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the Lord. (Jer 31:35-37)
48:12 Hebrews 3:16-19… it’s like we need a consistent hermeneutic… why did they not enter the land? Are we allowed to use the whole Bible to answer these questions?
@@jhow0089 The covenant was made with Christ and is unconditional because it is made with Him, Galatians 3:16. We are joint heirs with Christ, Romans 8:17, all God’s promises have their fulfillment in Christ 2 Corinthians 1:20, They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham and the blessing of Abraham comes on the gentiles, Galatians 3:9, Galatians 3:14. The land is typical for eternal life, Psalm 37:11, 37:29, Matthew 5:5, Psalm 87 (cf Galatians 4:26) 1 Peter 1:4 Colossians 3:24 the entire Book of Hebrews but see Hebrews 3:19-4:1, Hebrews 11:16, 12:22. Every promise made to Israel in the Old Testament is for those united to Jesus Christ by faith.
I think John Hagee is one who believes the Jews are saved under the Old Cov, and don't need the gospel. Other than him, I don't know of any other today, though I'm sure there are some. But no credible dispy would accept that view.
I wish Mr. Howard had defined his terms. I believe Scripture interprets Scripture. Who is Abraham's offspring? Who is Israel? The answer should be based on Scripture. Gal. 3:29 states if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heir according to promise. What promise? The promise to Abraham in Genesis. Joshua 21: 43-45 and Joshua 23: 14-16 state "Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass". This was a fulfillment in their time and they would keep their land as long as they didn't transgress the covenant of the LORD. Romans 2: 28-29 states "But a Jew is one inwardly and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter". Based on Scripture, since I trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior I am Abraham's offspring and part of Israel.
Being Abraham’s spiritual offspring (sharing his faith) does not mean that you are part of Israel (descended from Jacob). The Jew/Gentile distinction is present throughout all of Scripture. We are together in Christ but distinct members of the same body (Eph. 3:6). “Heirs together *with* Israel,” not “in place of” or “have now become.”
@ When Zorubbabel and the exiles who were with him returned to the land, what criteria did they use to determine who was descended from Jacob? (Ezra 2, Neh. 7). If this is the example given in Scripture, what changed that it is no longer necessary to use the same method?
@@warriorpriestblog In Eph. 2:11-22 states Christ created one new man in place of two...reconcile both to God in one body through the cross, therefore killing the hostility. No longer strangers, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. Jesus Christ is the true Israel. He alone fulfilled the law perfectly. Being part of true Israel (Christ) means you are faithful to Christ. John 8:37-59; John 10:22- 31; Rev. 2:9, 3:9 Those who claim to be Jews but hate Christ are not part of true Israel. Rabbinic Judaism follows the Babylonia Talmud which hates Christ and rebukes the idea of the Trinity. I hope this helps.
@@matthewsouthwell3500 I'm afraid you're mistaken. Dispensationalism is true. And Jeremy did a great job demonstrating that you have to do mental gymnastics to conclude its false. People just really want it to be false so they can justify their politics.
@@GoodnessandTruthThe sharp distinction made in dispensationalism between the church and Israel is unbiblical. The body of Christ and Israel are conflated in the Scriptures, and passages which spoke of the nation of Israel in the OT are likewise spoken of in the NT, this time being applied to those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. The "consistent" literal hermeneutic breaks down when the discussion is turned to the new covenant, yet this question was not delved into fully. At one point (16:48) the host said "...the idea of the new covenant is one I think we both agree is to the church." (This was something they clearly didn't agree on). Then he said, "I benefit from the" NC. This was nearly doubling back on his position as a concession, as the benefit is only gained from being part of it (which necessitates a joining to Christ). The promised covenant in Jer. 31 also should not be separated from the same promise given through the other prophets of the LORD.
Dispensationalism is not a heresy, but there are certain extremes, such as mid-Acts dispensationalism or even two-covenant theology (where they believe Jews do not need to be Christians to be saved). There is also a heresy called full preterism a completely different view of eschatology, and one of their key claims is that they have a consistent hermeneutic. A claim to a consistent hermeneutic doesn't mean much if it does not correspond with the text. Consistency is not enough; what is needed is the correct hermeneutic and consistency within it. So, can we stop using the term "consistent hermeneutic" as some type of argument? It’s meaningless if not defined and proven to come out of the text itself.
Consistency = What the OT prophets intended to communicate to the people is what the meaning of their message is. We should interpret Jeremiah the same way we interpret Paul.
@@jhow0089 Yes, I'm aware of the literal historical grammatical hermeneutic (and have learned a lot from Dispensationalist like Abner Chou's book on hermeneutics). However, the point is that Jeremy needs to argue that this is the correct interpretive method before claiming he's holding to a consistent hermeneutic. Because if it's the wrong hermeneutic (which I believe it is), it doesn't matter if he's consistent.
@@jhow0089 lol, didn't know it was you. What's up? I didn’t have a question, just a critique, which I believe I articulated above. But now that I’m talking to you, I’d like to request if you could please interact with Jason A. Staples’ work on the use of "Israel" in Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament. I haven't heard a dispensationalist critique of it yet. But Also two question would be: 1 Corinthians 10:1 "For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea." Paul is addressing mostly Gentiles here, right? So, who are the "fathers" he is claiming as theirs to these gentiles? Isn't it more than just Abraham? Also, regarding: Ezekiel 38:4 "And I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed in full armor, a great host, all of them with buckler and shield, wielding swords." Ezekiel 39:9 "Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go out and make fires of the weapons and burn them, shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, clubs and spears; and they will make fires of them for seven years." Is this referring to our future? If so, how do you understand the references to ancient weaponry-is it literal, or is it accommodation language? What was Ezekiel's intended meaning when mentioning these weapons? Thanks God bless brother.
The error of dispensationalism is simple when you really look at the grammatical-historical hermeneutics. It just flops compared to a more contextual-theological hermeneutic. Read the OT with an eye on the Temple for example. Afterwards you’ll question if Ezekiel’s vision is really a structural temple. When you read the NT it becomes almost impossible it is a structural Temple. For the Dispensationalist, this is akin to telling me Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin or didn’t raise from the dead. It becomes an emotional-philosophical issue for them. I liken it to the Chinese person who doesn’t get sarcasm. Each eschatological event is viewed in its own box and to suggest otherwise means we have no warrant to believe anything in scripture. Calvin said chiliasm was too puerile to deserve refutation. Others have refuted it but it doesn’t matter because to do it actually takes time and your average conservative church goer not only has an emotional attachment to dispensational eschatology but would also rather watch the ball game. “Look here sonny it says right here God will plant them back in the Land. God said it, that settles it”. Ever thus
Thank you for having me on! May we all grow in our understanding of what God has communicated to us.
Jeremy, you represented Dispensationalism with skill, wisdom, and grace. Excellent work.
This was a frustrating interview. Much respect to Jeremy who kept his cool and brought the discussion back to the question each time despite the countless red herrings and rabbit trails off topic thrown at him by the host. As Jeremy made clear - consistent hermeneutics is the real issue at play.
Disagree. To understand the OT you must have the NT lense. Christ defines the completition and fulfillment of the serpent crusher, Abrahams seed, Davids throne.
Mr. Jeremy is forcing a "literal" hermeneutic, but only defined in his terms. He won't allow for example, Jeremiah to say the covenant with Israel is coming to an end with a new and better covenant. Mr Jeremy would have to limit the plane reading of the text to fulfill his presupposition that Genesis Abraham promised must mean a physical Israel
I really appreciated this conversation.
Saying the modern pet trade is the fulfillment of the Kingdom promise is wild. Jesus absolutely fulfills the Covenants. But He doesn't change the definitions and then say "look i fulfilled them (just not the wha you expected)" he says, "all God's promises find their yes in me." And the Bible literally has a book about Jesus fulfilling the exact promises He made in the Old Testament literally in the future. Postmillenials just have this absolutely unwavering commitment to reading what they want to see in the text into the text. And to think dispensationalists get accused of reading the Bible with a newspaper in our hand. Posties will read a news story about domesticating animals and say this is the eternal righteous kingdom being fulfilled.
Jeremy, really appreciated your ending comments, so true. Those dispys that are so doom and gloom are missing out on the wonderful gifts, goodness, and common grace of God in this present world. Scripture tells us that God's blessings are poured out on sinners as well (Acts 14:17 and 17:25).
51:30 "you do a better job letting the guest talk than I am". Glad you recognized that. Invited him on to explain the dispy perspective and talk about how it isn't a modern heresy, and then didn't let him talk but argued against him the whole time. Doesn't seem like a good faith interview.
I was genuinely confused by that, as well. Was this meant to be an "interview," or instead was this designed to be a back-and-forth dialogue of some sort? It sounded like Jeremy was weathering a tidal wave of theories offered by Jon, rather than fielding questions, like one typically would in an interview. Jeremy, as the guest, did a great job of staying on topic, redirecting the conversation to the few questions that were actually asked, and then backing his answers with Scripture.
“We have snakes as pets.” Maybe the worst theological argument ever made.
Gotta hand it to the guy. He was extremely consistent in asserting that he was using a consistent hermeneutic.
I truly believe dispy and covenant theologians end up sacrificing a consistent hermeneutic for the sake of their system. Hoping more polite conversations like this lead to growth for the whole church. Thank you both for your time.
Jason A. Staples, a biblical scholar (and not aligned with either camp), completed his PhD and research on what the term "Israel" actually meant during Second Temple Judaism and in the New Testament. In my opinion, his scholarship completely undermines the dispensationalist understanding of who Israel is in the New Testament. His work is definitely worth reading or exploring through his interviews on UA-cam.
Books:
-The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity
-Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites
@@manonthestars I enjoyed the book and it should make some waves but little in the second volume was really new. The best way to understand eschatology is to read the bible like an autistic kid. Most dispy’s are as weak or weaker in Bible than those in historical Christianity. The value in Staples’ book is that it is a very nice shortcut to a lot of understanding without the leg work. A much shorter but easily digestible book is Palmer Robertson’s Israel of God.
A couple questions for our Reformed brothers: So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mt 19:28) Has this been fulfilled? And what would this look like?
Great conversation. I am so done with dispensationalism. It was encouraging to hear him reject the inability to enjoy present blessing, that was encouraging.
Thus says the Lord,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The Lord of hosts is His name):
36 “If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the Lord,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
37 Thus says the Lord:
“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the Lord. (Jer 31:35-37)
48:12 Hebrews 3:16-19… it’s like we need a consistent hermeneutic… why did they not enter the land? Are we allowed to use the whole Bible to answer these questions?
Failing to enter and losing the ownership promised through an unconditional covenant are two different things.
@@jhow0089 The covenant was made with Christ and is unconditional because it is made with Him, Galatians 3:16. We are joint heirs with Christ, Romans 8:17, all God’s promises have their fulfillment in Christ 2 Corinthians 1:20, They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham and the blessing of Abraham comes on the gentiles, Galatians 3:9, Galatians 3:14.
The land is typical for eternal life, Psalm 37:11, 37:29, Matthew 5:5, Psalm 87 (cf Galatians 4:26) 1 Peter 1:4 Colossians 3:24 the entire Book of Hebrews but see Hebrews 3:19-4:1, Hebrews 11:16, 12:22.
Every promise made to Israel in the Old Testament is for those united to Jesus Christ by faith.
Eze 36:19-38 and Eze 37
I think John Hagee is one who believes the Jews are saved under the Old Cov, and don't need the gospel. Other than him, I don't know of any other today, though I'm sure there are some. But no credible dispy would accept that view.
I wish Mr. Howard had defined his terms. I believe Scripture interprets Scripture. Who is Abraham's offspring? Who is Israel? The answer should be based on Scripture. Gal. 3:29 states if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heir according to promise. What promise? The promise to Abraham in Genesis. Joshua 21: 43-45 and Joshua 23: 14-16 state "Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass". This was a fulfillment in their time and they would keep their land as long as they didn't transgress the covenant of the LORD. Romans 2: 28-29 states "But a Jew is one inwardly and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter". Based on Scripture, since I trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior I am Abraham's offspring and part of Israel.
Being Abraham’s spiritual offspring (sharing his faith) does not mean that you are part of Israel (descended from Jacob).
The Jew/Gentile distinction is present throughout all of Scripture. We are together in Christ but distinct members of the same body (Eph. 3:6). “Heirs together *with* Israel,” not “in place of” or “have now become.”
@ When Zorubbabel and the exiles who were with him returned to the land, what criteria did they use to determine who was descended from Jacob? (Ezra 2, Neh. 7). If this is the example given in Scripture, what changed that it is no longer necessary to use the same method?
@@warriorpriestblog In Eph. 2:11-22 states Christ created one new man in place of two...reconcile both to God in one body through the cross, therefore killing the hostility. No longer strangers, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. Jesus Christ is the true Israel. He alone fulfilled the law perfectly. Being part of true Israel (Christ) means you are faithful to Christ. John 8:37-59; John 10:22- 31; Rev. 2:9, 3:9 Those who claim to be Jews but hate Christ are not part of true Israel. Rabbinic Judaism follows the Babylonia Talmud which hates Christ and rebukes the idea of the Trinity. I hope this helps.
The cow and the bear shall graze; Their young ones shall lie down together; And the lion shall eat straw like the ox. (Isa 11:7)
Lol at the idea this is fulfilled in the modern pet trade 🤦🏽♂️
@@GoodnessandTruthYes, that was bad, and his line of reasoning falls apart in light of James 3:7. Nevertheless, dispensationalism is false.
@@matthewsouthwell3500 I'm afraid you're mistaken. Dispensationalism is true. And Jeremy did a great job demonstrating that you have to do mental gymnastics to conclude its false. People just really want it to be false so they can justify their politics.
@@GoodnessandTruthThe sharp distinction made in dispensationalism between the church and Israel is unbiblical. The body of Christ and Israel are conflated in the Scriptures, and passages which spoke of the nation of Israel in the OT are likewise spoken of in the NT, this time being applied to those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The "consistent" literal hermeneutic breaks down when the discussion is turned to the new covenant, yet this question was not delved into fully. At one point (16:48) the host said "...the idea of the new covenant is one I think we both agree is to the church." (This was something they clearly didn't agree on). Then he said, "I benefit from the" NC. This was nearly doubling back on his position as a concession, as the benefit is only gained from being part of it (which necessitates a joining to Christ).
The promised covenant in Jer. 31 also should not be separated from the same promise given through the other prophets of the LORD.
Dispensationalism is not a heresy, but there are certain extremes, such as mid-Acts dispensationalism or even two-covenant theology (where they believe Jews do not need to be Christians to be saved). There is also a heresy called full preterism a completely different view of eschatology, and one of their key claims is that they have a consistent hermeneutic. A claim to a consistent hermeneutic doesn't mean much if it does not correspond with the text. Consistency is not enough; what is needed is the correct hermeneutic and consistency within it. So, can we stop using the term "consistent hermeneutic" as some type of argument? It’s meaningless if not defined and proven to come out of the text itself.
@@manonthestars exactly. Hard to listen to tbh
Consistency = What the OT prophets intended to communicate to the people is what the meaning of their message is. We should interpret Jeremiah the same way we interpret Paul.
@@jhow0089 Yes, I'm aware of the literal historical grammatical hermeneutic (and have learned a lot from Dispensationalist like Abner Chou's book on hermeneutics). However, the point is that Jeremy needs to argue that this is the correct interpretive method before claiming he's holding to a consistent hermeneutic. Because if it's the wrong hermeneutic (which I believe it is), it doesn't matter if he's consistent.
@manonthestars You're talking to Jeremy. What questions do you have that the interviewer didn't ask me?
@@jhow0089 lol, didn't know it was you. What's up? I didn’t have a question, just a critique, which I believe I articulated above. But now that I’m talking to you, I’d like to request if you could please interact with Jason A. Staples’ work on the use of "Israel" in Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament. I haven't heard a dispensationalist critique of it yet.
But Also two question would be:
1 Corinthians 10:1
"For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea."
Paul is addressing mostly Gentiles here, right? So, who are the "fathers" he is claiming as theirs to these gentiles? Isn't it more than just Abraham?
Also, regarding:
Ezekiel 38:4
"And I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed in full armor, a great host, all of them with buckler and shield, wielding swords."
Ezekiel 39:9
"Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go out and make fires of the weapons and burn them, shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, clubs and spears; and they will make fires of them for seven years."
Is this referring to our future? If so, how do you understand the references to ancient weaponry-is it literal, or is it accommodation language? What was Ezekiel's intended meaning when mentioning these weapons?
Thanks God bless brother.
The error of dispensationalism is simple when you really look at the grammatical-historical hermeneutics. It just flops compared to a more contextual-theological hermeneutic. Read the OT with an eye on the Temple for example. Afterwards you’ll question if Ezekiel’s vision is really a structural temple. When you read the NT it becomes almost impossible it is a structural Temple. For the Dispensationalist, this is akin to telling me Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin or didn’t raise from the dead. It becomes an emotional-philosophical issue for them. I liken it to the Chinese person who doesn’t get sarcasm. Each eschatological event is viewed in its own box and to suggest otherwise means we have no warrant to believe anything in scripture. Calvin said chiliasm was too puerile to deserve refutation. Others have refuted it but it doesn’t matter because to do it actually takes time and your average conservative church goer not only has an emotional attachment to dispensational eschatology but would also rather watch the ball game. “Look here sonny it says right here God will plant them back in the Land. God said it, that settles it”. Ever thus
2 Samuel 7 -> 1 Peter 2/Ephesians 2 ("spiritual house," "holy temple in the Lord")