Chapter Twenty-Three

There is a widely accepted theological view in Christian circles that basically promotes the idea that throughout history, mankind has advanced through various spiritual stages. The doctrine is called dispensationalism. Over the years it has given rise to a variety of distinct groups, all falling under the title of dispensationalists. These groups range from classical to traditional, progressive to ultra or hyperdispensationalist in their particular views. Overall, the premise is that from the Garden of Eden to the present day, the human race has experienced several changes in the administration of God’s truth, leading to different moral expectations of and requirements for mankind during each administration. These proposed periods in history are referred to as ages or dispensations that are presumed to coincide with certain events in history whereby God, through progressive revelation, from time to time, supposedly brought about a fundamental change in the way He dealt with mankind and in what He expected from them, particularly in regard to the issue of sin. The different dispensations have been categorized and named. The overall number and names of the dispensations vary depending on the source. Generally speaking though, they include the age of innocence, the age of conscience, the age of human government, the age of promise, the age of Law, the age of grace, and the millennial age. It should be noted that no such distinction is actually made by God Himself. Dispensationalism is found nowhere in the Bible. The concept is strictly man-made and attempts to address what many see as a theological disconnect or conflict of theologies between the Old and New Testaments. It is an effort to make sense of the Bible in light of the particular bias or point of view that gave birth to the idea that, for the most part, Israel and the Church have neither the same calling nor the same destiny and that Law and grace are mutually exclusive. These two points are two of the major tenets of dispensationalism.

Under the concept of dispensationalism, the gradual development or evolution of the spiritual man as he has progressed through the ages has created the Christian of today, one who is said to no longer be under the Law but under grace and is therefore free to live by the Spirit. Today’s Christian lives under the New Covenant, in the age of grace, a dispensation considered by many dispensationalists to be a parenthesis of time between the age of Law and the millennial reign of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha’Mashiach). This Western, evolutionary view of the Bible, although appearing to make perfect sense at first glance, has only managed to confuse the true purpose of the New Covenant and has at times required the massaging of Scripture in order to make God’s word conform to dispensational theology. Now I realize that I will incur the wrath of many a dispensationalist for suggesting such a thing as a large number of them have, in good conscience, invested much time and energy into promoting the doctrine. Some might even label my suggestion as heretical, but for now we will allow the Bible to speak for itself. Doing so should bring to light some of the scriptural inconsistencies that are created by dispensational theology, not the least of which is the problem created when we isolate Israel from the Church. You see, when we separate God’s Israel from God’s Church, we remove God’s word from His people. This is never a good thing, and it was never God’s intent.

The National Dictionary defines the word “dispensation” as “the particular way by which, at different periods, God has made known His dealings with mankind; the suspending of a rule or law.” The Random House American Dictionary’s definition for the same word includes the “relaxation of law.” Aside from the fact that the idea of biblical dispensations comes directly from a Greek linear perspective of human history, the predominant view in Christianity concerning the dispensation of grace has further zeroed in on the notion that God has relaxed or suspended the Mosaic Law and that it has been superseded by the New Covenant, presumably, one in which God’s Law has been reduced to two commandments and where the Mosaic Law is, for the most part, no longer necessary as a guide for daily Christian living and need not be practiced or observed. This assumption is based in part on the sentiment that our Lord and Savior began a new program post-resurrection, which He supposedly alluded to in Matthew 16:18 (KJV) when He said, “[U]pon this rock I will build my church.” It is also erroneously based on the perception that Paul seems to suggest more than once in his letters that our Lord abolished, did away with, or freed us from the Mosaic Law (at least our obligation to it) when He offered Himself on our behalf. Although it is true that the New Covenant is far better than the Old, the problem is that mainstream Christianity as a whole has long misinterpreted what that means exactly, as well as what the Messiah and Paul each meant by some of the things they said in regard to the Law. Add to this the fact that Christians, having read what the religious leaders of Jesus’ (Yeshua’s) day did with the Mosaic Law and taking for granted that they kept said Law, on the one hand interpret the Messiah’s rebukes of those leaders as indicative of the futility of attempting to live by the commandments. Then, on the other hand, innocently assuming that the Jews understand perfectly everything that there is to know about the Old Testament, they imply that if one believes that the Old Testament is still true and applicable to the Christian today, then the Jews are the perfect example to emulate. They reason that anyone teaching obedience to God’s commandments as found in the Torah should be obligated to keep the same example. This is often done as an attempt to prove the folly in applying God’s commandments to today’s believer. In the minds of such individuals, any attempt to keep or advocate for God’s commandments as outlined in the Old Testament is absurd or dangerous and quickly labeled legalism since our Lord supposedly came to change all that. Such individuals will remind us that the Church, as God’s latest creation on the ladder of spiritual evolution, has risen above the Old Covenant. According to them, the spiritually evolved Christian supposedly no longer has need of such “weak and beggarly elements” as found in the Mosaic Law (Galatians 4:9). Hence, we have discarded them as superfluous appendages. This view, although lending itself nicely to separating all things Jewish from the Church and while only partially correct, is based on simple misinterpretation of facts and perhaps unintended manipulation of Scripture (taking verses in isolation and ignoring what God’s word as a whole has to say on a subject). Let me show you how this is true by posing and briefly addressing the following seven questions one at a time.

1.  Do Israel and the Church have the same calling and destiny?
2.  Are Law and grace mutually exclusive?
3.  Is God’s Law necessary for daily living?
4.  Did our Lord proclaim the beginning of a new program when He announced the building of the Church in Matthew 16:18?
5.  Did Paul say that our Lord abolished, did away with, or freed us from the Mosaic Law?
6.  Did the teachers of the Law in Messiah’s day keep God’s Law?
7.  Is Paul’s reference to the “weak and beggarly elements” of Galatians 4:9 a reference to the Mosaic Law?

Now before we go any further, I realize that in some Christian circles, it is believed that God’s Law and the Mosaic Law are two separate laws. Some believe that God’s Law is the Ten Commandments while the Mosaic Law is everything else and that God’s Law was given for all men while the Mosaic Law is for a select people. I do not believe that Scripture teaches this. There are too many occasions where the Bible makes it clear that God’s Law and the Mosaic Law are one and the same and that they are meant for all men, both Jew and non-Jew (Numbers 29:40; Deuteronomy 4:14, 5:27–32, 6:25, 8:11; Ezra 7:6, 9–10; Nehemiah 8:1, 8, 9, 14, 17–18; 2 Kings 10:31; Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:16; 2 Timothy 3:16–17). So to be clear, I, as the Bible does, will use the phrases “the Law,” “God’s Law,” and “the Mosaic Law” interchangeably to mean the same thing.

Now then, by way of introduction to the above seven questions, let’s review what God’s word says about the New Covenant, which is first mentioned in Jeremiah 31:

Note that Jeremiah explains that as a result of the New Covenant, God’s Law would be placed in our minds and written on our hearts. Remember that this is not a New Testament concept. It has always been God’s objective that His Law be written on our hearts (Deuteronomy 6:5–6, 30:6, 14; Psalms 40:8; Proverbs 3:1, 3; Isaiah 51:7; Jeremiah 24:4–7). The difference, as I mentioned a while back, is that, under the New Covenant, God Himself would achieve this. Also, the New Covenant is based on better promises. Rather than depending on a fallible priesthood and endless animal sacrifices, it all now rests on the offering and eternal priesthood of our Savior, the Lamb of God and High Priest Himself. However, if the Messiah’s death, burial, and resurrection supposedly did away with the believer’s need or obligation to live by the Mosaic Law, as some proclaim, why would God want to place it in our minds? If the Mosaic Law is supposedly no longer relevant to the New Testament believer, why would God desire to go through the superfluous act of writing it on our hearts? As a sidenote, notice that the directive to place and write God’s Law in our minds and hearts as stated in Jeremiah is specifically aimed at the house of Israel (Ephraim, the Northern Kingdom scattered among the nations or Gentiles). This begs the question: why did God single out the house of Israel? Why did He not also address the house of Judah when explaining that the New Covenant would entail placing His Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts? The answer is simple. Although the ancient house of Judah did not follow after God with their whole hearts (Jeremiah 3:10), they did not totally discard God’s commandments. The house of Israel, on the other hand, did just that. Subsequently, God divorced and exiled them for it (Jeremiah 3:7). Now contrast the fact that the Bible says that God’s Law is to be placed and written in our minds and hearts with the traditional Christian view that essentially professes that the New Covenant freed us from the Mosaic Law and the need for anyone to observe or live by it, and you can see the obvious disconnect. So now let’s go over those seven questions one by one.