27 Sermon Illustrations on Covenant

In my bedroom I have hung up the picture of an old Covenanter. He sits in a wild glen with his Bible open before him on a huge stone. He leans on his great broadsword, and his horse stands quietly at his side. Evidently he smelleth the battle afar off, and is preparing for it by drinking in some mighty promise. As you look into the old man's face you can almost hear him saying to himself, "For the crown of Christ and the Covenant, I would gladly lay down my life this day." They did lay down their lives, too, right gloriously, and Scotland owes to her covenanting fathers far more than she knows. It was a grand day that in which they spread the Solemn League and the Covenant upon the tombstones of the old kirkyard in Edinburgh, and all sorts of men came forward to set their names to it. Glorious was that roll of worthies. There were the lords of the Covenant and the common men of the Covenant; and some pricked a vein and dipped the pen into their blood, that they might write their names with the very fluid of their hearts. All over England also there were men who entered into a like solemn league and covenant, and met together to worship God according to their light, and not according to human order-books. They were resolved upon this one thing—that Rome should not come back to place and power while they could lift a hand against her; neither should any other power in throne or Parliament prevent the free exercise of their consciences for Christ's cause and covenant. These stern old men, with their stiff notions have gone. And what have we in their places? Indifference and frivolity. We have no Roundheads and Puritans; but then we have scientific dress-making, and we play lawn-tennis! We have no contentions for the faith; but then our amusements occupy all our time. This wonderful nineteenth century has become a child, and put away manly things. Self contained men, men in whom is the true grit, are now few and far between as compared with the old covenanting days.

Dr. Carl Lundquist saw five variations in personal prayer:

1. Covenant Prayer. Begins each day, places ourselves in God's hands.

2. Trysting Prayer. Regular appointment with God. Bill Syrios states that

the basic reason Christians don't do a lot of

praying is that it is hard work, so we need to

become creatures of habit. "You will be most likely

to pray if it is part of your schedule."

3. Living Prayer. Flash prayers or prayers for specific needs that come

up during a day.

4. Centering Prayer. Too much prayer is vocal. Centering prayer calls us

to quietness - "just as we can enjoy the presence of

the loved one by our side without saying anything."

5. Meditative Prayer. Requires a longer period of time, perhaps a couple of

hours, or a full day, or a weekend, or even longer.

"It is the essence of a retreat."

Sermon in Minor Prophets series on Hosea and God's covenant love.

1. Living parable of Hosea's family.

a. Bad marriage.

b. Humiliation of being betrayed.

2. Judgment follows sin.

3. Unfailing love is God's last word.

4. Have you taken this God as your God? [1406]

[Similar to sermon on September 4, 1983]

*

[For printout of article outlines on forgiveness, see hard copy.]

Interpreter's Dictionary on "forgiveness" in Old Testament.

========================

A. In Bible, forgiveness is primarily the act of God by which he

graciously takes away the obstacles or barriers which separate

people from his presence, thus opening the way to

reconciliation and fellowship. It is secondarily man's

forgiveness of his neighbor.

B. Hebrew usage:

1) Metaphors of sending away, covering, removing, and wiping

away are used to express idea of forgiveness.

C. OT theology of forgiveness.

1) God forgives.

a) Holiness is necessary for harmonious human life.

b) God is Holy and cannot tolerate sin. He is jealous.

1> Sin separates humans from God.

2> Only with removal of sin can we be whole.

c) God is also merciful.

1> He wants us to be whole.

2> Forgiveness is based on his righteousness, not our

achievements. 1 Kg 8:30; Ps 130:3-4; Jer 31:34

3> The covenant works in spite of our backsliding

and unfaithfulness.

2) We need forgiveness.

a) Sin is disobedience, straying from the will of God.

1> Sin is a fundamental distortion of human personality.

A> It results in bondage.

2> Forgiveness is the removal of barriers.

A> Sin is covered, expiated, removed.

Isa 38:17; Mic 7:19

B> Healing results.

3) The way of forgiveness.

a) The covenant.

1> Covenant involves relationship.

2> It is God's nature to be gracious and merciful.

3> Forgiveness is not gained by observing rituals but

is the free and sovereign gift of the loving God.

b) The sacrificial cultus.

1> Sacrifice was dramatic-liturgical worship.

2> It is not a barter transaction, but is effective

because God in his mercy chooses to accept the

offering as the offering of the worshiper's life.

3> Sacrifice is not the purchase of forgiveness but the

claiming of God's promise of mercy.

c) Repentance.

1> Our relationship with God is objective but also

personal.

2> Formalistic sacrifice is condemned. Hos 6:6

3> The prophetic insistence on repentance is not so much

concerned with sorrow and contrition as with

amendment of life, restitution, and righteousness.

Joel 2:13; Isa 58:6-7

4) The meaning of forgiveness: the renewal of HOLINESS.

a) The removal of that which separates man from God, the

source of holiness.

b) The restoration of divine favor and the overcoming of

God's wrath.

c) Holiness is the healing of the soul, the recovery of

strength and power in human life. Isa 33:24

d) Forgiveness opens the way to holiness.

1> After destruction of Temple, personal holiness

became very important.

2> Forgiveness comes to be seen more narrowly as the

removal of guilt.

Illustrated Bible Dictionary

============================

I. Forgiveness is not a truism.

A. God does not always forgive.

B. Forgiveness is to be received with gratitude.

II. Pardon is astounding grace.

A. Sin deserves punishment.

B. Forgiveness is sometimes connected with atonement.

1) But God cannot be bribed.

2) God is a forgiving God. Neh 9:17

III. Yet God does not acquit the guilty.

A. On man's side there is need for repentance.

1) Not demanded, but implied.

B. God's forgiveness is complete.

1) Our sin is forgotten, cast away, etc.

#2978

*

Jonathan Alter admonishes the singer Madonna to marry the man who got her pregnant. Being unmarried is conventional, predictable and uncool these days - even Farrah Fawcett does it! She says she has been burned by men (Sean Penn) and doesn't need them.

In truth, marriage is an important antidote to the social pathology that is ravaging America. The most accurate predictor for whether a child will drop out of school, face unemployment and commit crime is not poverty, race or neighborhood, but growing up in a single-parent family. It's the only killer correlation.

Even though her money might avoid these consequences, she should set an example for the youth who admire her. Marriage continues to be the pathway to responsible fatherhood. Married men, as David Blankenhorn, author of "Fatherless America" puts it, are "less likely to do bad, and more likely to do good, in any area you measure," from supporting their children to holding a job. Marriage tames men, socializing them so they don't wreck the culture.

Since she is in show business, she understands the significance of contracts. They impose reciprocal responsibilities that make completing a project (be it cutting an album or raising a child) easier. The bond is more than a piece of paper. It's a measure of the commitment necessary to properly shepherd

children toward adulthood.

American values have certainly changed since the day when Ingrid Bergman's career was almost ruined because she had a baby out of wedlock. "I'm not advocating a return to those days, though a little stigma directed at errant role models wouldn't hurt. What I'm suggesting is that artists like you who claim to be interested in divining the future of American culture need to readjust your vision. The next wave is restoring the family, and with it, the country itself. Ride it, Madonna."

#3602

*

I still remember my sadness on hearing that an old friend and someone I believed was a sincere Christian, was leaving his wife of many years. I was shocked and disappointed. I wondered: How could this man, committed to both his spouse and his Lord, fall in love with another woman?

An essay by the late Sheldon Vanauken helps answer the question and reminds us that such temptations are all too common.

Vanauken, best known as the author of the powerful love story titled "A Severe Mercy," also published a collection of essays called "Under the Mercy," which explores these feelings.

In one essay called "The Loves," Vanauken describes how a Christian friend named John shocked him by announcing that he was leaving his wife to marry another woman. John explained his sudden change of heart by saying, "It seemed so good, so right. That's when we knew we had to get the divorces. We belonged together."

Vanauken then describes a conversation with a friend named Diana, who left her husband for another man. Diana defended herself with virtually the same words: "It was just so good and right with Roger that I knew it would be wrong to go on with Paul."

As Vanauken explains, both John and Diana were "invoking a higher law: the feeling of goodness and rightness. A feeling so powerful that it swept away ... whatever guilt they would otherwise have felt" for what they were doing to their families.

When Christian couples marry, they often say, "till death us do part." But what many unconsciously mean is, "till failing love do us part."

In reality, many people love their spouse, not as a person but as someone who evokes certain feelings. Their wedding vow was not so much to the person as to that feeling.

So when such people fall in love with someone else, they transfer that vow to the other person. And why not? says Vanauken, "If vows are nothing but feelings?"

Vanauken dubs these thrilling emotions "The Sanction of Eros." When John and Diana spoke of the goodness of their love, they were appealing to something higher than judgment, higher even than their own desires. But as Vanauken points out, "the sacred approval they felt could not possibly have come from [God,] whose disapproval of divorce is explicit in Scripture. It is Eros, the pagan god of lovers, who confers this sanction upon the worshippers at his altar."

"The pronouncement of Eros that this love is so good and so right that all betrayals are justified is simply a lie," Vanauken writes. But worst of all, few people are prepared "for the amazing sanction of Eros." Those caught in its thrall are convinced that their love is different, even sacred. They do not dream, the writer says, "that every other lover has the same assurance."

And that's why pastors have to work hard to warn engaged couples about this deadly appeal. At some point, Eros will almost certainly beckon with an exciting new love -- and the feelings of rightness, and even sacredness, may be overwhelming.

Couples need to know that it is only when Christ is at the heart of their marriage that they will be able to resist this ancient pagan call.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Persons were saved during Old Testament times by the same means as those in the New Testament -- by grace through faith in Jesus Christ – according to Daniel Block, a professor of Old Testament interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

How were people saved before the time of Christ? Christ is the only way for all time. Some Christians falsely believe that Old Testament saints were saved by keeping the law. Others say they were saved by “doing the best they could.” Still others believe those who lived during Old Testament times were not saved at all, Block said.

One of the keys to understanding salvation through Christ as being consistent with Old Testament teaching is in seeing that Israel's covenant God “Yahweh” is the same eternal God as Jesus Christ.

“There is salvation by no other way than by the grace of God who revealed himself in person as Yahweh in the Old Testament and provided a way of forgiveness that was fulfilled and completed in the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament,” Block said. “The two names refer to the same person.

“The question, 'What about before Christ?’ is an earthly question. With God, that question is irrelevant because there is no 'before.’ God lives in the eternal present, and Jesus Christ was sacrificed in the eternal present (1 Peter 1:17-21). Thanks be to God.”

The most frequent answer Block hears to the question is that people in the Old Testament age were saved through obedience to the law. Most Christians say this even while quoting the apostle Paul in Romans 4:1-3, which says Abraham was saved by faith, Block said.

“Many of us wouldn't believe [that Abraham was saved] unless it is affirmed in the New Testament. The witness of the Old Testament is rarely enough,” Block said.

When Scripture says “there is salvation in no name other than Jesus,” this does not mean the name “Jesus” by itself holds a mystical power that saves, Block said. Rather, it is the divine person behind the name -- God -- who saves. God is the same both in the Old Testament and New, he said.

A clue to seeing this truth is found in the meaning of the name of Jesus -- “Savior,” Block said. “Jesus” is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Joshua,” which is short for “Yahweh has saved,” he said.

“But curiously the name is never used of God in the Old Testament. And when the angel tells Joseph that Mary's child shall be called 'Jesus,' he is in effect affirming the saving action of Yahweh, though now it is not a matter of saving his people from the sins of others in Egypt but from their own sins.”

That the names are the same is even more apparent in John 18, Block said. There, Judas and a group of soldiers come to arrest Jesus, and when the men tell Christ that they are seeking “Jesus of Nazareth,” the Lord replies, “I Am.”

Most English translations render this “I am he,” but the pronoun “he” is not part of the Greek construction, Block said. A more accurate reading is simply “I Am.” The soldiers drew back and fell to the ground because the Lord's answer echoes Yahweh's self-introduction in the Old Testament. Jesus hereby claims to be the “I Am” of Exodus 3-4, he said.

Block said the fact that Jesus is the same as Yahweh of the Old Testament seems to be Paul's point in Romans 10:1,8-10 where the apostle begins in verse 1 by writing, “Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for [the Jews] is that they may be saved,” and goes on to say in verse 12, “The same person is Lord of all, bestowing His riches on all who call on him. And whoever will call upon the name of the Lord [Yahweh] will be saved.”

How should readers of Scripture reconcile Old Testament sacrifices which individuals and priests carried out for the remission of sins with Hebrews 10:4 which says, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins”?

The sacrificial system took away sins by pointing to the true sacrifice, Christ, “the lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” Block said. While the sacrifices themselves did not remove sins, when they were brought in faith and by persons whose lives were pure and clean before God, God accepted them on the basis of Christ's atoning death, which was foreknown by God. As the Book of Hebrews insists, this is the only sacrifice that could actually take away sins, Block said.

“There is no contradiction here at all between [the Old Testament declarations and those in the New Testament],” Block said. “There's only one sacrifice for sin and that is the sacrifice of Christ slain before the foundation of the world.”

Christ came in New Testament times and both fulfilled and clarified the redemption typified in the tabernacle/temple ritual and anticipated in the Old Testament.

“For clarification we need to wait until the New Testament when the seed -- now capital 'S' -- of the woman defeats the devil and death itself on the cross,” Block said.

As in the New Testament, salvation was by faith alone, Block said. He pointed out that the law was given after the salvation of the Israelites when they miraculously crossed the Red Sea. God gave the law so that Israel might live as those set apart as the covenant people of God, he said.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #16539]

God makes promises. For those who grew up with the Bible stories in which God makes covenants with ancient Israel such a statement does not seem strange. But think about it for a moment. God, the Supreme Being in the universe, the Creator, the all-powerful, stepping into human history and making pacts with a particular people.

Maybe an analogy would help capture the peculiarities of this notion. Take the great Roman Empire of antiquity, which ruled the Mediterranean with an awesome military that squelched all adversaries. Let's say that the Roman Emperor decided that he wanted to get involved in the local economy of Nazareth, a no-where town, no walls, no defenses, just a humble hamlet in the Galilean countryside. Do you think it strange for the Roman Emperor to send emissaries to entreat the Nazarenes into signing a trade agreement? Yes, that sounds crazy. The Roman Emperor would demand the Nazarenes be subject to him and give him tribute. Roman Emperors don’t make pacts with Nazarenes.

But God does — as ancient Judaism tells it. The Emperor of the universe makes agreements with the little folks. Strange, yet beautiful.

Transcendently, Yahweh declares, “I am that I am” (Exodus 3:14), yet immanently Yahweh comes near. He came near to Moses at the burning bush, and in a cloud of fire He stayed near to the people of Israel as He led them out of bondage in Egypt. Then he met with them on Mt. Sinai and made a covenant with them. Be my people and I will be your God, He said. And you will enjoy my blessings, the blessings of my presence.

As a Christian, I believe, that God came nearer still in the form of a man, Jesus Christ. That is, that a Nazarene came to us to be involved in the economy of our lives. He came to make a covenant, and to bring the promises of His good graces. This is the wonder of the Christian faith: the Emperor of the universe comes near to be involved with us. And involve us in His Kingdom. A kingdom, which will endure beyond Rome and all such earthly empires.

____________

Copyright © 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

As we have observed in the past few days, the language of remembering runs throughout God's Word, notably within the context of his covenant. This should not be surprising, of course, because a covenant is a binding promise and implicit in such a bond — as in marriage — is a vow to not forget one's pledge.

Like the marriage vow, God's covenant is more than a contract written on stone years ago. Rather, it is a life-sustaining promise and blessing of a relationship with the author Himself: God, our Creator and Redeemer. When the Israelites suffered in Egypt, Exodus 2:24 says, “God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.” A few verses later we read that God instructs Moses, “Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob — has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.... I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt. And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into...a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:15-17).

We see first in these two passages that God intimately associates his name with the patriarchs — as He does repeatedly — revealing again that his covenant is a promise of enduring relationship. Second, his people — and subsequently, we ourselves — are exhorted to remember God. And third, we are assured that God will not overlook his people; He remembers his covenant and blesses those who hope in Him.

Yet frail human beings we are, and how frequently we fail to remember and rest in God's pledge to us. Even after God delivered Israel from Egypt, they soon forgot Him, for just as the past shapes the present, so the present shapes one's view of the past. When we experience pain or hardship, we in turn can forget — or just plain miss — God's provision and promise to us.

So hear again the Word of the Lord: “For the LORD your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them” (Deut. 4:31, NASB). And listen to God's tender words through Jeremiah: “'Is Ephraim My dear son? Is he a delightful child? Indeed, as often as I have spoken against him, I certainly still remember him; Therefore My heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him,' declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:20, NASB). Ephraim here is Israel, the people of God — men and women of old, just like us — whose Creator and Redeemer again and again proves also to be a covenant-keeping, compassionate God. Indeed, this promise precedes God's assurance of a new covenant (see vv. 31-33 and Hebrews 8:8-12) that Christ would ultimately fulfill, writing his law upon our fragile hearts that we might pledge ourselves fully to him.

“Men have forgotten God,” cried Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. Thankfully, God has not forgotten us.

__________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #5082]

Sermon in Abraham series, #4 Genesis 15:7-18

HOW CAN I KNOW?

===============

I. Weird dreams.

II. Confirmation by covenant.

A. Abram - how can I know I'll get all this? 15:9

B. Sealed with a curse. 15:10, Jer 34:18

III. A long look forward.

A. The history of Israel in a thumbnail sketch. 15:13

B. God keeps his promises over the long haul.

IV. Sealed with a theophany. 15:17

A. Firepot and torch anticipate Exodus' pillar of fire and cloud.

B. Don't mess with God.

C. Notice who is cursed. 15:17

V. We can be assured.

A. Abraham's experience might not be that reassuring to us.

B. Christians have better promises.

In this article, I propose to give an introduction to the study of Dispensational theology. I intend to start with the simple, work towards the hard, and finally to give practical application. I would like to do this for two reasons. First, I want to show that theological study can be understandable, interesting and relevant. Second, I want introduce you to a very important topic - dispensationalism.

DEFINITION OF DISPENSATIONALISM

Dispensationalism forms the background to how many Christians read and understand the Bible. And yet, most Christians have never heard the word “Dispensationalism”, and if they have, would not be able to define it or describe it. So, what is Dispensationalism? Quite simply, Dispensationalism is a framework for understanding the Bible. It is a system of Bible interpretation. In essence, dispensationalism is a period of stewardship during which man is tested during God’s dealings with him. This is so important, I will repeat this: dispensationalism is a period of stewardship during which man is tested during God’s dealings with him. Needless to say, such a definition merely scratches the surface, but it will serve as a starting point.

So how did this doctrine or system of interpretation come about? It would seem that different people thought of this idea of dispensationalism at different times, all independently of each other. Some of these men expressed themselves clearer than others. For instance, dispensational thinking is present in the theological works of Isaac Watts, the great hymn writer. One of the men to express this system clearest in his writings was Mr. Darby, and his thoughts were borrowed by a Presbyterian by the name of C.I. Scofield who included them in his study Bible. Another Presbyterian by the name of Lewis Sperry Chafer adopted dispensational thinking, and propagated it at Dallas Theological Seminary. Other notable dispensational teachers include H.A. Ironside, John Walvoord and Charles Ryrie.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISPENSATIONAL THOUGHT

Why did the doctrine of dispensationalism come to be developed? Yes, we have seen a definition of dispensationalism. Yes, it was thought of by different men over the years. But what lead them to develop this theological system based on God dealing with different people at different times in different ways? Really, there were two factors. The first factor is a simple realization that there are differences in Scripture. The biggest difference is between the OT and the NT, but there are also other differences. As Christians, if we have sinned, we don’t have to sacrifice a lamb. Adam lived before the fall, and surely his life was different than ours in many ways. We read of a future Millennial kingdom in which Christ will reign on earth - surely things will be different during the Millennium. So the first factor that led to Dispensational thought is the realization that at different periods, God has dealt with man in different ways.

The second factor that led to the development of dispensational thought were a couple of verses in Ephesians. Ephesians 1:9,10 says, “Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him”. Ephesians 3:2 says, “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward”. Now, I have quoted this in the King James Version, which I feel makes this a little clearer. Other translations may use the words “administration”, “economy” or “stewardship” to replace the word “dispensation”. These are all words used to translate the Greek word, oikonomia. This word can refer to the stewardship or administration of a household.

Now admittedly, just because the word “dispensation” is found in the King James Bible doesn’t mean that the whole system of dispensational theology is proven. After all, some people take a verse in 1 Corinthians 15 about those who are baptized for the dead, and build a whole doctrine upon it. Just because a word was written in the Bible 2000 years ago, and translated a certain way almost 400 years ago, does not mean that a complete doctrinal system is Biblical. As far as I know, the translators of the King James Version had never heard of or never thought of dispensational doctrine. They were simply looking for a word to translate the Greek word “oikonomia”. However, this word “oikonomia” is used in the Bible and so it must mean something! In some way, God says that there are at least 2 stewardships. These are the stewardship of grace and the stewardship of the fullness of time.

WHAT IS A STEWARDSHIP?

So Bible students saw differences in God’s dealings with mankind through the years. And we are faced with the fact that these two verses in Ephesians refer to a stewardship. This causes us to ask the question, what do we know about stewardships? To start, let’s think about the dishonest steward of Luke 16. The first 2 verses of Luke 16 say, “Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.” There were two parties, the master and the steward. The steward had specific responsibilities, and was accountable for how he managed the household. And finally, the steward could be relieved of his responsibilities. None of this should be particularly shocking to us. If a wealthy person hires someone to manage his household for him, to act as a steward, there are two parties, there are specific responsibilities, there is accountability and the steward can be relieved from the position.

ARE THERE OTHER STEWARDSHIPS?

Now if we start thinking, we see that the idea of a difference between the present age and the future Millennium fits in quite nicely with the idea of the stewardship of grace and the stewardship of the fullness of time. But are there other stewardships in the Bible? The Scripture mentions two stewardships by name, but this doesn’t necessarily limit us to two stewardships.

Most people would not only concede that unfallen Adam lived under different conditions than us, but also had a different stewardship. There were 2 parties - God and Adam. Adam was given dominion over the animals, and had certain responsibilities, including the responsibility to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And when Adam failed, the stewardship was taken from him and he was driven from the garden.

The Old Testament Law was certainly another stewardship. There were two parties - God and the Nation of Israel. There were certain responsibilities as listed in the Law of Moses. And the stewardship was taken away from them - perhaps at the point when the Lord Jesus began to go to the gentiles instead of just to the nation of Israel. Certainly this stewardship is different than the stewardship or dispensation of grace. Of course, grace has been at work through every stewardship or dispensation, but grace was not the primary element of the stewardship of the Law - Law was! We read about this in John 1:17, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

How many dispensations are there? Dispensational writers will vary the number. Some would say there are 5 dispensations:

1. creation to the fall being the dispensation of innocence.

2. the fall to the Law of Moses, being the dispensation of

human government.

3. the Law of Moses to Christ being the dispensation of the Law.

4. Christ to the second coming being the dispensation of Grace.

5. and the Millennium to the eternal state being the dispensation

of the fullness of times.

Others would add divisions in with Noah and Abraham, and possibly make the coming 7-year tribulation into a dispensation. So, in these people's eyes, the following dispensations would exist:

1. creation to the fall being the dispensation of innocence.

2. the fall to Noah being the dispensation of conscience.

3. Noah to Abraham being the dispensation of human government.

4. Abraham to the Law of Moses, being the dispensation of the patriarchs.

5. the Law of Moses to Christ being the dispensation of the Law.

6. Christ to the tribulation being the dispensation of Grace.

7. the tribulation period being a dispensation.

8. and the Millennium to the eternal state being the dispensation

of the fullness of times.

Part of the reason for suggesting these divisions are the various covenants that God made with man, such as the covenants with Noah and Abraham. In any case, it is not our purpose in this article to decide how many dispensations there are. In this article we are only trying to give an overview. But quite frankly, how many dispensations you think there are is not as important as approaching the study of the Bible with a dispensational framework. To have a dispensational approach to Bible study means we see God dealing with different people in different ways.

DISPENSATIONALISM AND SALVATION

But is dispensationalism teaching that there are multiple ways to be saved? No! Dispensationalism does not carry with it the idea of different ways of salvation. Dispensationalism has to do with God’s testing, not His redeeming. How did believers in the Old Testament get saved? This is another huge topic, and one we won’t enter into in this article. Suffice to say that dispensationalists believe John 14:6 where Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Throughout all times, all testings and all dispensations, salvation comes ultimately through the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

THREE DISTINCTIVES OF DISPENSATIONALISM

As dispensational thought began to be developed, it was noticed that there are three distinctives about dispensationalism. These are three things which are more true of dispensationalism than they are about other theological systems. First, dispensationalism most consistently interprets the Bible literally. Other systems of understanding the Bible may interpret the Bible literally on occasion, or even most of the time. But dispensationalism is the system that most consistently interprets the Bible literally.

The second distinctive of dispensationalism is that it distinguishes between the church and Israel. This is really just an application of the first distinctive. But the other leading system of understanding the Bible, Covenant Theology, often blends the church and Israel together. A dispensational approach allows us to understand that at one time, God was dealing with Israel, He is now dealing with the church, and one day He will deal with Israel again.

The third distinctive of dispensational understanding has to do with God’s ultimate purpose. Covenant Theology is centered primarily around the idea of salvation. God’s saving of people throughout the Bible is what they base their understanding on. For the dispensationalist, salvation is important, but more important is God’s Glory. Dispensationalism does not focus on salvation. It focuses on God’s testing of man. In every test, man is found wanting, God is vindicated in his power and righteousness, and the glory goes to God.

OBJECTIONS TO DISPENSATIONALISM

Like any system of theology, some objections are raised to dispensationalism. First, there is an objection to terminology. We use the term Dispensation of Grace, and people complain, “but God has always shown grace.” To this the dispensationalist replies, “Yes! Of course God has. Where’s the problem?” Grace is the distinguishing characteristic of this dispensation, just as Law was the distinguishing characteristic of the previous dispensation. So really, this objection is a bit of a straw man. I always find objections based on terminology a bit weak. I remind myself that some people deny the doctrine of the Trinity just because the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible.

Another objection sometimes raised is that dispensationalism is a modern doctrine. To this I have two answers. First of all, the age of a doctrine does not determine it’s truthfulness. The same charge was leveled in Martin Luther’s time at salvation by grace through faith. My second answer is that dispensationalism was first suggested in the mid-1600’s while the competing doctrine, Covenant Theology, was first suggested about 50 years previous to that. In fact, both doctrines are relatively new.

A third objection is that the fruits of dispensationalism are division. A person who opposes dispensationalism will say that the “Plymouth Brethren” were dispensationalists, and look at all the divisions they had. This is a rather strange objection for two reasons. First, the Reformed theologians who follow covenant theology have just as many divisions within their ranks. Secondly, anyone who knows anything about the history of the “Plymouth Brethren” knows that none of the divisions they have had have been over dispensational doctrine.

The last objection I would like to mention concerns the number of dispensations. Covenant theologians will complain that different dispensational teachers teach different numbers of dispensations. This objection is true, but not relevant. One can get the benefits of a dispensational understanding of the Bible even if one doesn’t know whether Abraham initiated a new dispensation or whether he was part of the old one. Again, we must point out that this is a rather strange objection since covenant theologians have at times debated whether God has made 2 or 3 great covenants with mankind.

WHY IS THIS PRACTICAL?

We have gone through a lot of difficult material in this article and we must ask ourselves, why is this practical? What practical effect will dispensational understanding have in my life? First, dispensationalism protects us from wrong doctrine and practice. Every once in a while we hear about some group of professing Christians who have decided they must start sacrificing animals. As dispensationalists, we understand that the system of animal sacrifices is not for the church. Less drastic perhaps is that dispensationalism reminds us that the church does not need to keep the Old Testament dietary restrictions or the Sabbath Day. If a person wishes to personally do these things, they are free to do so, but what was required in Israel is not meritorious to us.

Secondly, our understanding of dispensationalism helps us with our church practice. As dispensationalists, we understand that an ordained priesthood, special garments, ornate buildings, altars, incense and repeated sacrifices are not for the church today. So we have freedom to follow the New Testament pattern for the church.

Thirdly, consider our hymns. Parry’s Jerusalem is set to some of the most beautiful music ever written, but the words are absolute heresy. As dispensationalists, we understand the distinction between the church and Israel. We don’t sing about the New Jerusalem being established in England!

Fourthly, consider our theology. We don’t follow British-Israelism - a system that says that the English are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel and thus are promised all the blessings of the Old Testament. We are spared from the heartache of trying to claim Old Testament promises for ourselves or to assume that if we are faithful to God, He will give us material blessings. These things were promised to Israel in the previous dispensation, but they are not promised to the church in the Dispensation of Grace.

Fifth, consider anti-Semitism. If one follows Covenant Theology, and believes that the church has replaced Israel, one is free to show respect to Jews or persecute the Jews as one sees fit. On the other hand, the dispensationalist sees that God was working with the Jews, is now working with the church, and will one day again work with the Jews. And so while many who hold to covenant theology have spoken out against anti-Semitism, the dispensationalist simply cannot be anti-Semitic.

For our last practical application, lets consider our worship. Our worship is likely to be very different if we assume God’s highest purpose is to save us, rather than assuming like a dispensationalist does, that God’s highest purpose is to Glorify Himself.

CONCLUSION

I know that this article has been a deep one. I have only scratched the surface of this topic. We have seen that dispensationalism is a period of stewardship during which man is tested during God’s dealings with him. We have seen how dispensationalism came to be discovered - through noticeable differences in how God dealt with man and through the use of the word “stewardship” in Ephesians. We have seen what a stewardship is, and considered other stewardships in the Bible, such as that with Adam. We have seen the 3 distinctives of dispensationalism.

We have answered some objections and we have shown that dispensational thinking is practical in our personal and corporate lives. But before we end this article, I would like to mention one last little thing. We must understand that dispensationalism represents the final vindication of God’s righteousness. When all is said and done, and the final person stands in judgement before God, what excuse will he give? “If only God was less theological” - well Adam only had one rule, don’t eat from a certain tree, and he failed. “If only I could have followed my conscience” - men did this at the time of Noah, and failed for their thoughts were continually wicked. “If only I knew what all the rules were” - an Israelite could please God by following specific written regulations, but in this, mankind failed. “If only God was more personal” - Jesus Christ took on sinless humanity, but man ignored him and failed again. “If only I didn’t have to worry about what to eat, and the repressive political conditions and so on” - well in the Millennium, perfect conditions will exist, and man will fail the test. Through these dispensations, God’s justice is vindicated. The failure was not with God - the failure was with man, and God is justified in judging that failure.

*

When Britney Spears and Jason Allen Alexander emerged from the Little White Wedding Chapel on January 3, 2004, in Las Vegas, a collective gasp could be heard from advocates of heterosexual marriage.

Displayed before the world was a mockery of marriage -- an act which played into the hands of those who seek legal sanction for homosexual “marriage.” For a cadre of scholars, journalists and theologians who stand at their posts ever ready to offer the apologetic for same-sex “marriage,” their job was made easier by Britney's 55-hour escapade.

Spears is not alone. What of late night television host David Letterman, who received a standing ovation last Nov. 3 when his son, Harry Joseph, was born? Little attention was given to the fact that Letterman is not married to the child's mother. His cohabitation has all but become the accepted status for heterosexual relationships in this age of serial monogamy.

The free love of the '60s has given way to the free market of love in the 21st century, with marriage seen as little more than a formal ceremony with little or no meaning. Sex, not marriage, has become the source of self-fulfillment to the exclusion of a covenantal commitment as the key ingredient for long-term happiness. Such a social calculus will soon wreak havoc on a society emboldened in a race to the bottom.

The church, largely intimidated into silence for fear of being publicly caricatured as founding an ethic upon the Bible, almost wholly has capitulated to a defense of marriage on purely secular terms. Marriage is now described as good for society; the building block of a nation without which children cannot be born; a social utility laden with great good for all people. This is done in hopes that even non- religious people will agree with the church that a singular definition of marriage can be sustained in the court of public opinion.

Perhaps Schopenhauer was right when he said, “To preach morality is easy, to give it a foundation is hard.” British pastor and theologian Christopher Ash in his new book, “Marriage: Sex in the Service of God,” agrees that the gap between morality and its foundation must be closed. “The perceived distinction between 'marriage' and 'Christian marriage,'“ Ash writes, “touches on a deep ethical question which affects the apologetics and evangelism of any marginalized church: is Christian ethics for the church alone, or does it have a moral call upon the world?”

And with this, the war begins. To admit that there is a unifying definition of marriage which is binding for both the church and the world is to reconcile what the Enlightenment sought to separate: that every object and action has a purpose for being within the whole of the created order. In other words, nothing and no one is absolutely autonomous. Being and doing are critically linked, and attempts to separate them fashions the facade that each individual possesses both the right and ability to actually create acceptable ethics apart from revealed truth. Such an idea is ethically impossible.

Seeking to shore up support for traditional marriage, the church's apologetic for the one-man-one-woman-for-life doctrine has come on hard times. How this could be in an age when evangelical ministries abound with marriage conferences and targeted communication techniques designed to make every marriage happy is no longer a mystery. For few churches teach why marriage fits into the overall purposes of God, how it squares with the whole of biblical theology, and what purpose it serves as an aid toward greater and more meaningful service in the Kingdom of God.

The church, like the world, seems to have bought into the thinking that marriage has no deeper theological meaning other than making the couple happy and fulfilled. To think beyond that point -- theologically or otherwise -- finds modern evangelicals mute on marriage other than, of course, their compliance to valid “secular” reasoning. The result of such teaching is that many church members behave in like manner as Spears and Letterman. In this light, just exactly what difference does marriage make? Why bother?

A defense of marriage on its demonstrable value to civilization might be a viable strategy for public engagement but ultimately it stands on weak and arbitrary foundations if not grounded in an ethic above that of various sociological and psychological constructs.

Marriage, empirically defined, is a human invention rather than a divine creation. As Ash rightly points out, the search for an ethical foundation for marriage is doomed for all who would seek to locate the creation and purpose of marriage “only in human beings.”

It was none other than Michael Foucoult, who in his famous three-volume work, “The History of Sexuality,” insisted that sexual identity is a work in progress -- always changing and never given to one dominant view. For Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, marriage is the path to increased self-actualization and self-fulfillment, while philosopher W.A. Meeks states in his defining work, “The Origins of Christian Morality,” that “the process of inventing Christian and human morality will continue.”

To the contrary, marriage is a creation of God for a certain end and should not be seen as an appendage or something distinctly separate from personal responsibility and service to God.

For Christian and non-Christian alike, marriage's purpose, rightly understood as a creation ordinance, is to be enjoyed and used as an aid toward true love, loyalty, stability and intentional selfless service to another. Christians should especially take heed of Ash's warning: “Marriage lived in the light of the purpose of God will be dynamic and actively teleological; marriage considered only in terms of rules and definitions may be coldly static.” Could it be that far too many evangelicals have cold and static marriages?

While the all-important work of public policy should continue to fortify the legal definitions and standing of marriage, the church also should be working on strengthening its own understanding of biblical marriage. Perhaps then, the overwhelming evidence of familial stability and parental duty will be founded on a biblical ethic greater than political pressure and more persuasive than ballot initiatives.

__________

Douglas Baker is a writer who lives and works in Washington, D.C.

*

The adopted family, not the nuclear family, is the New Testament model, according to Diana Garland, who recently resigned from the Carver School of Social Work at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

“It is the job of the church to cut across boundaries of blood and marriage and define family the way the Bible defines it, not as culture does,” she told the governing board of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission.

Garland led members of the Texas CLC in an examination of Jesus’ teachings on family at their April 18-19 quarterly meeting near Dallas. At that meeting, the commission adopted a comprehensive proposal to enhance family life in Texas.

“All of God’s children need family. We are created not to be alone. Jesus linked the people he loved into family in a new way,” she said.

Garland took Jesus’ words from the cross commending his mother to the care of the apostle John and his special relationship with Mary, Martha and Lazarus as examples of family formation.

“Jesus did not sit down on the hillside and talk to us about how to be family. Sometimes I wish he had. But what he did was model it for us. And that is more powerful,” she said.

Shared faith creates stronger family ties than bloodlines, Garland said. Pointing to Jesus’ words in Matthew 12 regarding his own mother and siblings and the wider family of God, she noted, “Jesus doesn’t paint them

out. He’s widening the circle, breaking the bounds. He is saying that family is not limited to biological and legal kinfolk.

“The New Testament model is not the nuclear family. It is the adopted family. In God’s kingdom, nobody has to be alone. Family transcends kinship for us.”

Garland drew a distinction between universal “neighbor love” and the special love that exists within families. While Christians are called to love their neighbors unconditionally, expecting nothing in return, family love makes demands and confronts conflict.

“Family is based on covenant, and that is mutual,” she said.

Strengthening families is central to the church’s task in evangelism and ministry, Garland said. “It is the church’s job to seek out lonely -- to mend families that need mending,” she said.

Specifically, Garland said churches should:

• Foster “family” relationships among groups of 15 to 20 people within the larger family of faith. “Strengthen families by building community around them,” she said. “We need to be about the task of making sure there is nobody alone.”

• Find ways to recognize and celebrate family ties as they are biblically defined.

• Give families the tools for facing conflict and life’s struggles together.

When Britney Spears and Jason Allen Alexander emerged from the Little White Wedding Chapel on January 3, 2004, in Las Vegas, a collective gasp could be heard from advocates of heterosexual marriage.

Displayed before the world was a mockery of marriage -- an act which played into the hands of those who seek legal sanction for homosexual “marriage.” For a cadre of scholars, journalists and theologians who stand at their posts ever ready to offer the apologetic for same-sex “marriage,” their job was made easier by Britney's 55-hour escapade.

Spears is not alone. What of late night television host David Letterman, who received a standing ovation last Nov. 3 when his son, Harry Joseph, was born? Little attention was given to the fact that Letterman is not married to the child's mother. His cohabitation has all but become the accepted status for heterosexual relationships in this age of serial monogamy.

The free love of the '60s has given way to the free market of love in the 21st century, with marriage seen as little more than a formal ceremony with little or no meaning. Sex, not marriage, has become the source of self-fulfillment to the exclusion of a covenantal commitment as the key ingredient for long-term happiness. Such a social calculus will soon wreak havoc on a society emboldened in a race to the bottom.

The church, largely intimidated into silence for fear of being publicly caricatured as founding an ethic upon the Bible, almost wholly has capitulated to a defense of marriage on purely secular terms. Marriage is now described as good for society; the building block of a nation without which children cannot be born; a social utility laden with great good for all people. This is done in hopes that even non- religious people will agree with the church that a singular definition of marriage can be sustained in the court of public opinion.

Perhaps Schopenhauer was right when he said, “To preach morality is easy, to give it a foundation is hard.” British pastor and theologian Christopher Ash in his new book, “Marriage: Sex in the Service of God,” agrees that the gap between morality and its foundation must be closed. “The perceived distinction between 'marriage' and 'Christian marriage,'“ Ash writes, “touches on a deep ethical question which affects the apologetics and evangelism of any marginalized church: is Christian ethics for the church alone, or does it have a moral call upon the world?”

And with this, the war begins. To admit that there is a unifying definition of marriage which is binding for both the church and the world is to reconcile what the Enlightenment sought to separate: that every object and action has a purpose for being within the whole of the created order. In other words, nothing and no one is absolutely autonomous. Being and doing are critically linked, and attempts to separate them fashions the facade that each individual possesses both the right and ability to actually create acceptable ethics apart from revealed truth. Such an idea is ethically impossible.

Seeking to shore up support for traditional marriage, the church's apologetic for the one-man-one-woman-for-life doctrine has come on hard times. How this could be in an age when evangelical ministries abound with marriage conferences and targeted communication techniques designed to make every marriage happy is no longer a mystery. For few churches teach why marriage fits into the overall purposes of God, how it squares with the whole of biblical theology, and what purpose it serves as an aid toward greater and more meaningful service in the Kingdom of God.

The church, like the world, seems to have bought into the thinking that marriage has no deeper theological meaning other than making the couple happy and fulfilled. To think beyond that point -- theologically or otherwise -- finds modern evangelicals mute on marriage other than, of course, their compliance to valid “secular” reasoning. The result of such teaching is that many church members behave in like manner as Spears and Letterman. In this light, just exactly what difference does marriage make? Why bother?

A defense of marriage on its demonstrable value to civilization might be a viable strategy for public engagement but ultimately it stands on weak and arbitrary foundations if not grounded in an ethic above that of various sociological and psychological constructs.

Marriage, empirically defined, is a human invention rather than a divine creation. As Ash rightly points out, the search for an ethical foundation for marriage is doomed for all who would seek to locate the creation and purpose of marriage “only in human beings.”

It was none other than Michael Foucoult, who in his famous three-volume work, “The History of Sexuality,” insisted that sexual identity is a work in progress -- always changing and never given to one dominant view. For Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, marriage is the path to increased self-actualization and self-fulfillment, while philosopher W.A. Meeks states in his defining work, “The Origins of Christian Morality,” that “the process of inventing Christian and human morality will continue.”

To the contrary, marriage is a creation of God for a certain end and should not be seen as an appendage or something distinctly separate from personal responsibility and service to God.

For Christian and non-Christian alike, marriage's purpose, rightly understood as a creation ordinance, is to be enjoyed and used as an aid toward true love, loyalty, stability and intentional selfless service to another. Christians should especially take heed of Ash's warning: “Marriage lived in the light of the purpose of God will be dynamic and actively teleological; marriage considered only in terms of rules and definitions may be coldly static.” Could it be that far too many evangelicals have cold and static marriages?

While the all-important work of public policy should continue to fortify the legal definitions and standing of marriage, the church also should be working on strengthening its own understanding of biblical marriage. Perhaps then, the overwhelming evidence of familial stability and parental duty will be founded on a biblical ethic greater than political pressure and more persuasive than ballot initiatives.

__________

Douglas Baker is a writer who lives and works in Washington, D.C.

*