Bear with me folks, for I am going to sound extremely argumentative and negative with this post. However, my purpose for doing so is to be a kind of devil's advocate, to see what answers can be brought up and then we can further the discussion about "Right Division" and Dispensationalism. Keep in mind, most of my formal teaching on this subject was from the negative POV.
vic C. said:
No, I believe there is a Judgment seat of Christ for those who are saved prior to His second Coming. A close examination of Revelation 20:12-15 shows it is a judgment of works, as is the Sheep and Goat judgment.
Lets look:
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Two verses in a row point to one's works. These can't be Christians because we aren't saved by "works". ;-)
We are not saved by works, but let me point out two things:
a: Our works will be judged. Now, this judgement does not involve our salvation, but rather is a time for the motivations of our heart in regards to our works to be revealed, both good and bad, and a time to either have our works rewarded or suffer the loss of them. 1 Corinthians 3:10-16 1 Corinthians 4:5
b: The passage in Revelations does not say that those who are cast into the fires are put there because of their works. They are put there because they are not written in the Book of Life. Revelations 20:15
mondar said:
The problem is if Jereiman 31:31-40 is read, it clearly says that this covenant is for national Israel. If this promise is made to Israel, then why does the NT quote the these promises as relating to the Church?
This problem has indeed been a bugaboo for dispy's since Darby. And it has caused dispy's to delve into the minutia of Scripture, hang the 'right division' of passages upon whether or not certain words like 'fulfill' are inculded or take entire passages even books and separate them into promises for the Church and promises for a future national theocracy of Israel, even to, as mondar pointed out, bizzare conclusions such as there being two New Covenants along with the two Second Comings (one secret).
One problem though with applying these Old Testament prophesies as only being able to refer to a future national Israel is that you also have interpret these prophesies as meaning that during 'national Israel' there will be a return to sacrifices.
If Jeremiah 31:31-40 is meant for a future 'national Israel', then so is Jeremiah 33:14-18:
"'Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteious Branch of David to sprink forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. (clearly speaking of the time that dispy's refer to as the 'national Israel') IN those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: The Lord is Our Righteousness.' For thus says the Lord, 'David shall never lack a man to sit o the throne of the house of Israel.'"
Now, this is a classic example of the type of prophesy that dispy's point to when they state that there has to be a difference between the church and the Nation of Israel. God meant that this would take place and He even went so far as to use the same imagery in this passage as He did in Jeremiah 31, that of His covenant of the sun and the moon being broken, if this covenant can be broken. Jeremiah 31:35-37 & Jeremiah 33:20.
But the problem with this is that not only does God promise a Son of David to sit upon the throne, but also:
"'and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to prepare sacrifices continually.'"
This return to the sacrifical system is the major, (insurmountable IMO) stumbling block to the idea that these Old Testament prophesies refer to a national rather than a spritual Israel.
This is where the Book of Hebrews is so key to understanding how God did fulfill His prophesies through Jesus and the Church. But, for some reason, dispy's in their 'right division' of Scripture put Hebrews as being for the future National Israel instead of for those to whom it was actually written, those 'holy brethren' that the author and Timothy were going to visit shortly.
I realize this is getting long, but bear with me a bit more. Clearly, I'm not convinced that 'right division' as explained by the dispy's is what Paul was speaking to Timothy about in his second letter. Key to the verse is the word orthotomeo. Orthotomeo is a word that dispy's define as meaning literally to 'cut through'. Think in terms of a butcher cutting the different cuts of meat at the proper places, or a tailor cutting the material in the correct way. This actually gets into the idea of an ethical businessman, not a cheater. Orthotomeo is also defined as proceeding upon the straight path, to handle correctly, to make straight and smooth. The English word 'rightly divide' is one way to translate orthotomeo, but 'handle accurately' is just as correct and fits far better into the context of Paul's instuction to Timothy to teach the Ephesians to be workmen who need not be ashamed, not because they cut the Scriptures into divisions but rather because they handled accurately what the instructions of the Scriptures were.
Because it is a hallmark of Dispensationalism to 'divide' the Scriptures and especially the prophesies into those that are for the church and those that are for National Israel, they run into issues like just how are they going to reconcile the fact that Jesus did away with sacrifices 'once for all time'. But, if instead of 'dividing' the word of God, we actively work towards reconciling the passages, 'bringing them together' we can avoid setting up out and out contradictions.
