This is a huge (and difficult) issue.  However, from my limited experience with all things theological, an individual's "theory" of God, His Law, and His Will comes down to how you view Israel.

So in light of

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:27-29)

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed.  For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring ..." (Romans 9:6-7)

"Lest you be wise in your own concerns, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.  And in this way all Israel will be saved ..." (Romans 11:25-26)

Who is Israel?

Four answers:

1. Israel is Jacob.

2. Israel is the nation on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.

3. Israel is the descendants of Abraham.

4. Israel is the true followers of Christ.

In all of the verses quoted, Paul is talking about # 4. That's the important one.

Is Biblical discernment killed by Dispensationalism?  I say yes!  More later ...

WesleySonofCornelius:

Is Biblical discernment killed by Dispensationalism?  I say yes!  More later ...

Well said. Mohler would be proud.

As I look into the history of dispensationalism, I have learned that it has had a large impact on Presbyterian Churches.  What is strange about that is the fact that Presbyterian Churches have had a long history under the guidance of Covenant Theology.  With that said ...

The theology of dispensationalism places us currently in The Church Age.  However, this is a misnomer.  The word church is used to define the Greek word ekklesia.  The word church can be connected back to the Greek noun kyrios, which means "of the lord" or "belonging to the ruler."  So unfortunately, we have chosen a word that originates from a different Greek word to represent another Greek word.  Interestingly, the English word ecclesiastical did come from ekklesiastes, meaning "teacher."

The word ekklesia is used throughout the Septuagint (Greek translation of OT).  Furthermore, Acts 7:38 reads: "This is the one who was in the [ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers.  He received living oracles to give to us."  A church at the foot of Mount Sinai?

The dispensationalist thought is that the Church Age is primarily for the Gentiles.  Interestingly, the assemblies (a better translation for ekklesia in my opinion) after Pentecost are almost completely made up of Jews.

So with this erroneous understanding of the word ekklesia, the dispensationalist has already limited his ability to clearly see the deeper aspects of the Bible!

Should a Christian long for the rebuilding of the temple?  If so, why?

WesleySonofCornelius:

Should a Christian long for the rebuilding of the temple?  If so, why?

Yes.  It would make for an interesting field trip.  I've been to the rebuilt Tabernacle in Lancaster, PA.  That was kinda neat.  I hope they rebuild the temple somewhere more convenient than Israel though.  Maybe Kentucky.

Unfortunately, I believe many Christians have fallen for the "build the temple" fad which should usher in a new era.  I guess they see this era as one where Jesus' sacrifice takes a back-seat to the renewed temple sacrifices.  Many times I wonder if their hope is in a false future--one where the "old" Christians are raptured and God returns his focus back on the Jews (as if his focus has ever really left the Jews).

But I do like the idea of a temple built in Kentucky.  Would you allow visitors to tour the Most Holy Place?

 So who are the 144,000 in the book of revelation?

Istvan:

 So who are the 144,000 in the book of revelation?

First, Istvan, it is good to hear from you!  I hope all is going well.

Second, to give my final answer before I ramble, I don't exactly know (and I believe I am not alone).

The straight-forward Biblical answer is that the 144,000 are those "who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins.  It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes.  These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless."  (Rev. 14:4-5).  We also see they know a song that "no one could learn ... except the 144,000."  In chapter 7 they are associated with the sons of Israel: Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin.  But we know this is not the nationalistic Israel for Levi and Joseph are included and Ephraim and Dan are missing.  And we know this is not the biological Israel because Manasseh is included (interestingly it was Ephraim, the younger, who was placed ahead of Manasseh, Genesis 48).

What is my conclusion?  The 144,000 are the "chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession."  These titles are found in the OT for Israel.  However, in the NT Peter uses it for God's elect--both Jew and Gentile (1 Peter 2:9-10).

For me it comes down to this, there are two siblings in the Family of God--the natural born and the adopted.  Both are heirs to the promises.  If the 144,000 is only the natural born sibling (who is currently not holding up his seat in the Family), why is the adopted sibling not able to learn the song of Revelation?  I believe this flies in the face of the established doctrines throughout the letters of Paul (something Dispensationalists do regularly).

(Did I say yet, welcome back, Istvan?)

Glad to be back!  Thanks.

Sounds like some interesting and thought provoking questions.

John does not call them (144,000) "the chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,..." 

In the Bible the Names of the tribes occur many times ( I want to say 24 but I do not have my study note book with me to be for sure) and each list is different.  Meaning What? Why does some list leave out certian names and add others? I don't really know, but could it be when the list of names are used GOD really does mean the descendants of Jacob?

Comparing the prophesy statements of Paul with John is a great study, the problem with many are they try to tie the two together.  What if they are not tied together? Would this make a difference? You bet it would?  Paul was called to the Gentiles but would always go first to the Jews and preach to them in the synagoge <sp>; John, well his gospel does not match the others, His letters are short and usally denouncing the gnostics, and revelation really just blows people away ( is it literal, alagoric, coded, etc...?).

So Dispesationalists are wrong and missed the mark, the preterist are wrong and missed the mark, so is there a group that has it right?

I agree about the two siblings, and being heirs to the promises. Also, I like that statement about the adopted ones not knowing the song, I have to study tht one out ... maybe we are not holding up the seat either?

Thanks for your insights

Istvan:

In the Bible the Names of the tribes occur many times ( I want to say 24 but I do not have my study note book with me to be for sure) and each list is different.  Meaning What? Why does some list leave out certian names and add others? I don't really know, but could it be when the list of names are used GOD really does mean the descendants of Jacob?

Each list is different?  Could you show me an example.  So far, the lists I have found have been consistent.

Istvan:

Comparing the prophesy statements of Paul with John is a great study, the problem with many are they try to tie the two together.  What if they are not tied together? Would this make a difference? You bet it would?  Paul was called to the Gentiles but would always go first to the Jews and preach to them in the synagoge <sp>; John, well his gospel does not match the others, His letters are short and usally denouncing the gnostics, and revelation really just blows people away ( is it literal, alagoric, coded, etc...?).

You are going to have to clarify this paragraph for me.  I am not sure what point you are trying to make.  Maybe some clarification.

While you clarify, I believe we should not overlook who John wrote Revelation to: the seven CHURCHES in the province of Asia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea).  These ASSEMBLIES, from a first glance, all appear to be within very important cities with both a Jewish and Greek population.  Interestingly, when Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus he placed emphasis on the unity between the Gentiles and Jews in this city (Eph. 2:11-3:13).  Why then some 30 years later would John give the Ephesians a letter that could possibly teach the dissection of the Jews from the Gentiles, pulling the carpet out from under the teachings of Paul?  The messages of the Bible are everlasting and fit every time and culture.  IF (big if) the Rapture (as seen by dispensationalists) is true, we must be able to imagine flying back in time and teaching this message to the original recipients of the letter (Ephesus for example).  I cannot see the Gentile Rapture thought to be an appropiate teaching to these churches, and, therefore, it is a weak theological creation.

PS: Istvan, you don't buy into that seven church periods do you?  For example, the order of the churches is a preview of history.

In my typical fashion, I have to have three posts in a row.  I have a lot of concerns with dispensationalism.  I actually believe it to be more damaging then my concerns with Covenant Theology.  First, the dispensationalists have redefined the concept of the word ekklesia (what has unfortunately been translated church in English).  They speak of the Age of the Church.  They also speak about the Church being Raptured.  This erroneously implies that the Church is a Gentile concept/form or that God's Church is a concept sandwiched between two other dispensations (i.e., the Age of the Law and the Millennial Kingdom).  Yet Paul clearly taught that God's Assembly (a better English translation of the word ekklesia, in my opinion) was NOW open to the Gentiles.  The Gentiles were grafted into an already existing establishment.  The Greek word ekklesia is found throughout the LXX (Greek translation of the OT).  Therefore, the early Christians were not creating something new.  Interestingly, Stephen said that the Israelites were in ekklesia at the foot of Mt. Sinai (Acts 7:38).  Also see Hebrews 12:22-24.

Dispensationalists also have a problem with owning up to their views history.  You cannot speak about this theological view without talking about Darby and the Plymouth Brethern.  I also believe the dispensational view gives false hope to the "Church Age" believer.  "Don't worry about Revelation or the end times.  You will be Raptured."  For the dispensationalist, why should he or she even study Revelation?

Istvan:

So Dispesationalists are wrong and missed the mark, the preterist are wrong and missed the mark, so is there a group that has it right?

That is a great question!

I think we can see Christian eschatology outlined as follows:

I. The Prophecies
   A. Idealism
   B. Historicism
   C. Futurism
   D. Preterism
      i. Consistent (Full)
      ii. Orthodox (Partial)

II. The Millennium
   A. Premillennialism
      i. Dispensational
         a. Traditional
         b. Progressive
      ii. Historic
   B. Amillennialism
   C. Postmillennialism
      i. Extent
         a. Total Conquest
         b. Partial Conquest (apostasy)
      ii. Means
         a. Revivalism (bottom up)
         b. Reconstructionsim (top down)

WOW!  That is complicated.  Therefore, I am going to stick with the Biblicist group.  What is this group?  This group allows the Bible to define terms and not the eschatological view to define terms.  Many of the eschatological groups (as well as theological groups) will say they do the same, but I beg to differ.  For example, Dispensationalists start to define the word ekklesia to best fit their end-times view.  They also create concepts like the Rapture and support this weak creation with odd verses (i.e., Gen. 45:1 or Rev. 4:1).  Convenantilists are not without weak theological creations, either.  Where does the Bible clearly teach (or teach at all) the covenant of redemption, works, or grace?  What makes eschatology so diverse is fundamental theology.  However, I believe we have destroyed good theology by introducing more man-made concepts than God-made concepts.

Wikipedia actually has a great definition for Christian theology: "Christian theology is a discourse concerning Christian faith ... [where] biblical exegesis, rational analysis, and arguments [are used] to understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote Christianity."