A Response To Messianic Good News
by Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Th.M., Ph.D.
The issue I am responding to began with a simple letter I wrote to the director, Peter Cohen, of Messianic Good News and it was friendly letter simply asking him to be more honest in his critiques of Dispensationalism. I have been receiving Messianic Good News for a number of years, but periodically noticed that whenever they do any attacking on Dispensationalism, it does not seem to be a dispensationalism that Dispensationalists would recognize. There was a tendency to use a straw man argument, claiming a view that Dispensationalists do not hold or taking a view that is held only by some Dispensationalists but not by all and making it a standard to judge all Dispensationalists. My request was simply that if he was going to criticize Dispensationalism, and he certainly has a right to do so, he should do it honestly and criticize what we do believe and not criticize what we do not believe. I offered them a copy of Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology on the condition that they would read it. This was not to convince them to become Dispensationalists but only that they would understand what it really does teach. In place of keeping it between the two of us, they choose to write a lengthy response, by another staff member, Kevin Daly, which goes on to simply repeat the same errors they were guilty of all along. They would quote a statement I made out of context and made it mean something that in context it could not possibly have meant. They launched a three-part critique, the first of which was published in their journal, Messianic Good News, and the second and third segments were chosen not to be published in printed form but posted on their webpage.
At least two people came to me personally, who were both on our mailing list and theirs, told me how disturbed they were by what was written since they know that it was not my position and never was and the accusations were simply quite false. One of the two even personally wrote to them asking them to print an apology for such mishandling of my material, but that was not forthcoming. Therefore, I promised to write a detailed response to be put on our webpage and that is the reason for this article.
Let me begin by simply defining the essence of Dispensationalism that would be held by Dispensationalists across the board. The essence of Dispensationalism is a consistent literal interpretation of Scripture, unless the text and context clearly indicates otherwise. It can be summarized in the simple Golden Rule of Interpretation as formulated by Dr. David L. Cooper: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicates clearly otherwise.” With that rule is a corollary principle: “A text apart from its context is a pretext”. Therefore, literal interpretation does not deny the existence of symbols, or the existence of figures of speech, which all languages have. But in all languages, including English, we take what is written to be literal unless there is something that clearly indicates otherwise... Continue reading the full 43 page response article (PDF).
Dr. Fruchtenbaum's Original correspondence with the Messianic Good News is listed below:
October 18, 2007
Peter Cohen
Messianic Good News
P.O. Box 1156
Fourways Randburg 2055
Gauteng, South Africa
Dear Peter Cohen:
I am on the mailing list for your Messianic Good News and I try to read through them as they come in.
I have noticed that you periodically seem to like to attack Dispensationalists, and that is fine by itself since I frequently attack non-Dispensationalists but I do try to attack them on what they actually do say and teach, not what they do not say and teach.
Furthermore, if a certain teaching is held only by some non-Dispensationalists I do not try to categorize all non-Dispensationalists as holding that same teaching, but I will always specify that only some do and often note who would and who would not. This is the point that now triggers me to write this letter.
In Volume 57 in the second quarter of 2007 you state, “Dispensationalists believe that the Jews, as natural descendents of Abraham, are destined to be restored to the Promised Land, whereas the Church, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, is destined to inhabit heaven, having never been promised any land.” Yes, it is true that some Dispensationalists have stated this though they use a different type of terminology claiming that Israel has an earthly future and the church has a heavenly future. But you need to be honest and also state this is not the view of all Dispensationalists. In fact, many of us believe that both Israel and the church have an earthly future and a heavenly one. Thus during the Messianic Kingdom, Israel will be in the Land, but the church will co-rule with Christ over the Gentiles here on earth. In the Eternal Order, both Israel and the Church are going to be in the heavenly New Jerusalem coming down upon the new earth. In fact, both groups are mentioned as distinctive of the saints in passages such a Hebrews 12:22-24. Regardless of how you might choose to interpret the passage, as far as what you stated about Dispensationalists, you certainly need to make it clear that not all Dispensationalists hold the position you stated.
You also state, “One of the fundamental errors of the dispensational method of interpreting the Scriptures is to make a distinction between Israel and the Church rather than between the faithful and the unfaithful.” That is a major underlying premise of Dispensationalism, a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, and is quite correct. But you make it sound that it is the only distinction Dispensationalists make and that is very inaccurate. Dispensationalists also distinguish between the faithful remnant and the non-remnant among the Jewish people. They also distinguish between believers and unbelievers among both Jews and Gentiles. So though you have presented a correct statement, it is followed up by a very incorrect statement and that is simply not an honest way of dealing with it. In fact, one of the major failings of non-Dispensationalists is they do not have a clear theology of the Remnant of Israel and your articles portray that fallacy frequently. Nor will you ever find the term “Israel”, which is used 73 times in the New Testament, as ever being used of the Church. The one passage you tend to use, Galatians 6:16 requires a straining, ignoring the normal conjunction and trying to turn it into something that is epexegetical, that virtually no translation has ever followed with rare exception like the NIV which is at best a paraphrase.
So you can continue attacking Dispensationalism and that by itself is something you have the right to do, but I would hope that you would do it honestly.
I do not know if you have my book, Israelology: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology, and if not I would be happy to send you a copy gratis, if you send me an address and with a promise you would take time to read it. I am not trying convince you to be a Dispensationalist, but at least it will give you a better knowledge of what the Dispensationalists really teach and believe. Furthermore, if you see anything I have said about non-Dispensationalists as being incorrect, you are more than welcome to correct me and it will be corrected.
In the Messiah,
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Director
Dear Peter Cohen:
Thank you for you e-mail letter of November 16, 2007.
I will not proceed to respond to all the points your paper raised since they are pretty well dealt with in my works which I will be sending you.
I am not asking you to respond to them since my goal is not to turn you into a dispensationalist (though it would be nice if it happens), but to educate you in exactly what dispensationalists really do believe and teach in mainline Classical Dispensationalism.
Hopefully and prayerfully, you will find the works beneficial whether you are able to accept the key points or not.
In the Messiah,
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Director
Enclosures:
Israelology: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology
The Footsteps Of The Messiah: A Study Of The Sequence Of Prophetic Events
Dear Kevin Daly:
Thank you for your e-mail letter of November 15, 2007.
Your argumentation you are presenting in your paper is not new to me since I have seen it before in other contexts.
A basic problem I see in your hermeneutical principle is you seem to use the New Testament to interpret what the Old Testament says, but I think that is the wrong way to go about it. Every Old Testament passage must be interpreted as to actually what it means contextually and exegetically in its own context. Once that is established then precede [proceed] and interpret subsequent revelation about what God gave previously.
Whatever additional information subsequent revelation gives it cannot so totally change what the original revelation says.
Whatever additional information the New Testament gives, whatever it may promise for the church, et cetera, it cannot undo, change, rectify the promises already made in the Old Testament specifically for Israel. If it does that then the New Testament becomes a fraudulent document.
We reject other so-called scriptures such as the Book of Mormon and The Key To The Scriptures because it contradicts what is clearly taught by the revelation found in the Old and New Testaments. The same applies to the New Testament. The Old Testament promises a national salvation of Israel, it promises a natural restoration when the Jews will live in peace in the whole Promised Land, and nothing in the New Testament can cancel those divine unconditional promises, and if it does so it becomes a fraudulent document. If it precedes [proceeds] to provide additional information, that is a different issue.
But to interpret the Old Testament by the New means that the Old Testament documents cannot be understood, or the meaning cannot be determined until centuries later when the New Testament came into being and that is just a faulty way to treat the Holy Scripture.
The issue is not what constitutes salvation, salvation is by grace through faith and the content of our faith today is the death of the Messiah for our sins and His resurrection. Nor is there any question that when Israel is saved it is saved only because they believed the content of the gospel. But to say what constitutes Israel, and trying to make the Church Israel just carries no biblical warrant and you will not find a single verse that clearly uses the term “Israel” in reference to the Church.
I have also received a letter from Peter Cohen and I will be sending him two of our books, Israelology: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology and The Footsteps Of The Messiah: A Study Of The Sequence Of Prophetic Events. I will be happy to send you both of those books if you send me your mailing address where we can send them to you so you have a better understanding where we stand. Whether you choose to accept it or not you really should be more informed.
In the meantime, with this e-mail I will be sending you in PDF form a copy of our manuscript entitled “The Eight Covenants of the Bible” that will help to spell things out in a clear way though in less detail than the books I am offering you, if you would like to receive them.
Yours for the salvation of Israel,
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Director
Dear Kevin Daly:
In response to your e-mail letter of December 28, 2007 where you state that you are going to write “a refutation” of my biblical interpretation “which is clearly anti-biblical”, let me just make this point to your rather dogmatic statement.
If after reading Israelology you can show me any Hebrew word, Greek word, or Aramaic word that I misunderstood or misinterpreted, you will then have a convert. But not until then.
Yours for the salvation of Israel,
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Director
Dear Kevin Daly:
In response to your e-mail of January 16, 2008, your description in your letter really fits your own hermeneutics and theology more than mine.
If you are truly interested in my methodology then read Israelology and show me where I have made the error and show me from Scriptures and not so called Church fathers.
Concerning the preservation of biblical faith, just how have I not taught the preservation of biblical faith? There will be a salvation of Israel as a nation only because they come to faith and not for any other reason.
Yours for the salvation of Israel,
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Director
Click here for Kevin Daly's series of articles on the Messianic Good News website.
