Is Bi-lateral Ecclesiology a version of Dispensationalism?
A visitor to my blog, Nate Long, commented on my Dispensationalism post, by saying the following:
[It] has been more than a bit fascinating to me to note the UMJC’s move back in the direction of dispensational tenets; most notably with bi-lateral ecclesiology.
I would like to reply with this:
For all that Dispensationalism got wrong, it got one thing very right (in my opinion) – the perpetuity of [ethnic] Israel in G-d’s plan. This is the very thing that originally stumbled and continues to stumble most [but not all] of Christendom, which does not [want to] see Jews as having a unique place in G-d’s economy any longer.
So, to address Nate’s point: does Bi-lateral Ecclesiology = Dispensationalism? Not at all, in my opinion. Upon examination, the similarities do not extend far from what I outlined above, that is the ongoing role for Israel. First of all, Bi-lateral Ecclesiology, unlike Dispensationalism, does not hold a view that Israel and Gentiles parts of the Body in the Ecclesia represent two totally separate entities. Rather, the two merely represent two wings of the same Entity – the Community of G-d – and complement each other (not apart from each other) by following G-d-ordained differentiated callings.
To summarize: according to Bi-lateral Ecclesiology, the multinational “Church”, therefore, is not a replacement or a continuation of Israel, nor is she a separate entity far removed from Israel, but rather she is an extension of Israel (that is she is part of the Kingdom of Israel). Also, quite unlike classic Dispensationalism, her callings and plans are closely aligned to those of Israel and are in fact absolutely inseparable from it. The multinational Church will not be in Heaven or Israel on earth, but the two will be united together, yet distinct. As with husband and wife coming together to become One Flesh, so it is or will be with the multinational Ecclesia and Israel forming One New Man.
Well said, Gene.
How you doing old buddy? I was waiting for you to make a new post…
-The Drake
“How you doing old buddy? I was waiting for you to make a new post…”
Oh, Drake, life.. kids…work… But, I just set up a new office and I am finally getting back into the blogging swing of things. Expect lots more down the pike in the coming days, weeks and months. I have lots of interesting topics lined up.
Glad to see you distancing yourself from dispensationalism and start to adopt One Law. Yishar Koach….
“As with husband and wife coming together to become One Flesh, so it is or will be with the multinational Ecclesia and Israel forming One New Man.”
There is one major difference, however for BE. For them the marriage model only work if the husband and wife reside in separate houses…..
No cigar…..
Dan, I was hoping for something a bit more constructive than merely sarcastic (and false).
Gene,
I’ve read Kinzer’s Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, Rudolph’s doctoral thesis A Jew to the Jews and his other paper Paul’s Rule…. I didn’t find any of it persuasive. May I ask why you found it so?
I do agree with you that there’s no comparison between Dispensationalism and Bilateralism. They are totally incompatible.
Sincerely,
Peter
“I’ve read Kinzer’s Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, Rudolph’s doctoral thesis A Jew to the Jews and his other paper Paul’s Rule…. I didn’t find any of it persuasive. May I ask why you found it so? ”
Peter, I won’t comment on Rudolph’s work (although I read his Paul’s Rule piece), but I found that Kinzer did a great job in describing and filling the missing piece of the puzzle that was long excised from Yeshua-faith (which later became known as Christianity, in its Gentile form): how do the Jewish people continue as a distinct tribes, people and nation in the plan of G-d as recorded in the Prophets, as made explicitly clear by Yeshua himself (Matthew 19:28) and proclaimed by angels (Luke 1:33).
In my post titled “Supersessionism in the Messianic Movement” I go into detail about the perpetuity of Israel as a distinct nation (and not a blend of Jews and Gentiles) and show how the push within Christianity to declare Gentile believers as “Spiritual Israel” (which would have included “saved” Jews as well, of course) was preached by the likes of Martin Luther. When it comes to declaring themselves Israelites, many of those within the One-Law movement (and other similar movements that exist or once existed) essentially take the same position as Martin Luther (and oftentimes display much of the same anti-Judaism and anti-rabbinism as well).
Margaret Macdonald’s Rapture Chart !
“church” RAPTURE “church”
(present age) (tribulation)
In early 1830 Margaret was the very first one to see a pre-Antichrist (pretrib) rapture in the Bible – and John Walvoord and Hal Lindsey lend support for this claim!
Walvoord’s “Rapture Question” (1979) says her view resembles the “partial-rapture view” and Lindsey’s “The Rapture” (1983) admits that “she definitely teaches a partial rapture.”
But there’s more. Lindsey (p. 26) says that partial rapturists see only “spiritual” Christians in the rapture and “unspiritual” ones left behind to endure Antichrist’s trial. And Walvoord (p. 97) calls partial rapturists “pretribulationists”!
Margaret’s pretrib view was a partial rapture form of it since only those “filled with the Spirit” would be raptured before the revealing of the Antichrist. A few critics, who’ve been repeating more than researching, have noted “Church” in the tribulation section of her account. Since they haven’t known that all partial rapturists see “Church” on earth after their pretrib rapture (see above chart), they’ve wrongly assumed that Margaret was a posttrib!
In Sep. 1830 Edward Irving’s journal “The Morning Watch” (hereafter: TMW) was the first to publicly reflect her novel view when it saw spiritual “Philadelphia” raptured before “the great tribulation” and unspiritual “Laodicea” left on earth.
In Dec. 1830 John Darby (the so-called “father of dispensationalism” even though he wasn’t first on any crucial aspect of it!) was still defending the historic posttrib rapture view in the “Christian Herald.”
Pretrib didn’t spring from a “church/Israel” dichotomy, as many have assumed, but sprang from a “church/church” one, as we’ve seen, and was based only on symbols!
But innate anti-Jewishness soon appeared. (As noted, TMW in Sep. 1830 saw only less worthy church members left behind.) In Sep. 1832 TMW said that less worthy church members and “Jews” would be left behind. But by Mar. 1833 TMW was sure that only “Jews” would face the Antichrist!
As late as 1837 the non-dichotomous Darby saw the church “going in with Him to the marriage, to wit, with Jerusalem and the Jews.” And he didn’t clearly teach pretrib until 1839. His basis then was the Rev. 12:5 “man child…caught up” symbol he’d “borrowed” (without giving credit) from Irving who had been the first to use it for the same purpose in 1831!
For related articles Google “X-Raying Margaret,” “Edward Irving is Unnerving,” “Pretrib Rapture’s Missing Lines,” “The Unoriginal John Darby,” “Deceiving and Being Deceived” by D.M., “Pretrib Rapture Pride,” “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” and “Scholars Weigh My Research.” The most documented and accurate book on pretrib rapture history is “The Rapture Plot” (see Armageddon Books online) – a 300-pager that has hundreds of disarming facts (like the ones above) not found in any other source.
[Saw the preceding item on the web and would love anyone's reaction to it. G-d bless.]
Thanks Irv, interesting info!