Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Dispensational Strategy To Avoid Jesus
A more intellectual effort to displace Jesus with Paul was developed in what is called Dispensational Theology. It has given this Jesus vs. Paul division a theological basis. The fact people have had to devise a theological explanation for the division is proof that it is otherwise impossible logically to keep Jesus and Paul in the same canon. One or the other must go.
What some Christians have done, trying to be faithful to both Jesus and Paul, is take all the tension away by a theological crutch. They deem Jesus' conflicting statements as addressing the era of Law. All Paul's contrary teachings were addressed to the present era of Grace. The conflict is resolved elegantly because Paul and Jesus conflict for good reason: they are talking to different people who are subject to different covenants. These different covenants are described as different dispensations.
As a result, Jesus' words are deprived of any ongoing relevance. As John MacArthur says in The Gospel According to Jesus:
This lamentable hermeneutic [i.e., Jesus' words were for a
different dispensation] is widely applied in varying degrees to
much of our Lord's earthly teaching, emasculating the message of
the Gospels. 16
Any doctrine that tells us to ignore Jesus' words should raise an immediate red flag. If we take this route, we have a legitimized barrier, however well-intentioned, against listening any longer to Jesus on salvation issues. Jesus' words on how to be saved and have eternal life no longer interest us (unless, of course, we think they agree with Paul). Jesus' statements lose their ongoing validity after His death on the cross. Only Paul thereafter is left to address us on how to be saved. With this kind of reasoning, Paul trumps Jesus every time.
16.John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan 1994) at 33-34.
Yet, to the contrary, Jesus said "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). Jesus was saying His words were not only valid now, but remain continuously valid in the kingdom up through the passing away of the heaven and earth. (Rev. 20:7-10). Dispensationalism ignores this. Instead, it gives Jesus' words only a brief continuing validity on the doctrine of salvation. Once the Law was abolished at the crucifixion, as they interpret Paul's Gospel, Jesus' words on salvation became all moot. Jesus' words were meant for those under the Law. Because Jesus nailed the Law to a tree in His crucifixion, Jesus did away with the Law. Thus, all Jesus' statements no longer have any bearing on how God will deal with us who live under Grace, and who no longer are under the Law.
Can you see how the dispensational argument has an obvious logical flaw when used as a harmonization instrument? Essentially, this argument depends on the presupposition that Paul is inspired and he could define a covenant of Grace that excludes relevance of the Law ( i.e ., repentance from sin, obedience, works, etc.) Yet, the very issue that Jesus' words raise is the legitimacy of this point of view. Only a presupposition that Paul is correct would force you to marginalize Jesus by claiming His words cannot possibly apply to those under a new covenant of Grace. Absent this bootstrapping, this conflict in salvation messages is proof itself that Paul is uninspired. It actually proves Paul is a false apostle. Thus, a crucial assumption of the dispensational/covcnant argument is the same as its conclusion. The bootstrap is the a priori assumption that Paul is inspired to declare a covenant of grace that excludes repentance, obedience, and works. (Deut. 6:25). Instead, that is the very issue at stake. This is discussed in more detail below at page 394.
Paul's Flawed Covenant Theology
Of course, there is also a Biblical flaw in Paul's presentation of a New Covenant of Grace that excludes the Law (Torah). It contradicts the Bible prophecy of a New Covenant. This prophecy appears in (Jer. 31:31) et seq. This prediction about the New Covenant expressly says the New Covenant continues the Torah and continues God s special relationship with the seed of Israel. The New Covenant of Grace is specifically mentioned in that passage too, saying it
is based on God "forgiving sins.' Thus, despite a New Covenant of Grace, God told us already some things will never change: the Torah and God's covenant partner is Israel.
Please read (Jer. 31:31) et seq. right now if you have any doubt. For a fuller discussion, see page 397.