Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Hebrews 1:1-2
This statement in Hebrews, along with a lot of other scripture, is one reason why I believe a simple, plain, normal interpretation of scripture MUST lead someone to an understanding something like normative dispensationalism. Dispensationalism in its classic form teaches that God has used different means to reach mankind through the history of redemption and that the Bible clearly shows this. I chose it as an interpretative grid for scripture and especially for prophetic teaching BECAUSE it is most consistent with a plain method of interpretation. I realize it has its problems and its abuser. I pray I am not one of them. I am not so much worried about charting it all out to the finest detail. I am concerned that we not confuse what God was doing with Israel with what God is doing now in the church.
Hebrews is very clear that in the past in "many times and in many ways" (that is so dispensational in its orientation) God spoke to a past generation (the Jewish fathers) through the prophets. That was one way in which God chose to reveal His truth to humanity in the past. But now to a different group of people (us), God has spoken by his Son.
And the Son is superior. No prophet was heir of all things. No prophet created the world. So listen up... the Son has spoken, and we better pay attention. In many ways that is the theme of the book of Hebrews... the Son is superior, He has spoken, and we had better pay attention so that we can be the people God has now chosen to use in His plan.
- Prepare your minds for action.
1 Peter 1:13
1 comment:
I have been identified with the dispensational camp for decades. That said, in light of the strong covenantal language and emphasis of the book, I would be hard pressed to read "dispensational" teaching or thought into verses 1 & 2, as much as I see that you are. I think that the context of the book as a whole is being voided by such a view. "Better" is still the key word, separating between two, not many.
Post a Comment