I’ve been taking some interest lately in a system of theology known as Dispensationalism. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the term, or of its implications, but I’m certain that you’re aware of at least some of what it teaches.
It’s a term which is often used hand-in-hand with what’s known as the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church, and is often focused upon prophetic things.
When searching Google for a definition of Dispensationalism, and for a summary of its general teachings, I came across this page. It appears to be concise enough to be understood by all, and a fair representation of what most Dispensationalists hold to. Admittedly, the writer is not dispensational himself, but he appears to have put together the material from the writings of a key, and highly respected Dispensational theologian, Charles Ryrie. You might like to check it out before reading on.
I want to deal with Dispensationalism with you. There are countless millions of Christian’s throughout the world who hold to it as their biblical hermeneutic (science of interpretation), and although it primarily influences prophetic views, its teaching goes much deeper than simply how the future is going to pan out.
So let’s look at it, try to understand it, and see if it has any biblical warrant.
1. Dispensationalism is a recent departure from historic Christian beliefs
As some of you will be aware (and most honest dispensationalists will admit), Dispensationalism is a comparatively modern approach to Bible interpretation. Traditionally, the Bible was always seen as a harmonious unit - one Bible, one Gospel, one People. However, this is not how the dispensationalist approaches the scriptures. Instead, the Bible is divided, and various ‘groups’ of God’s people are seen in different ‘dispensations’.
The 1800’s were difficult years for many churches. Rationalism began to infiltrate the church, and preachers were beginning to doubt the Bible, and rationalise passages which couldn’t be fully explained by science (Genesis 1-11, miracles, etc).
The result was, when a man came asserting authority in the scriptures, and teaching in a dogmatic manner, many people followed after them. Such was the case with Charles Russell of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Joseph Smith of the Mormon Church, Ellen White of the Seventh-Day Adventist’s, and also John Darby (an ex-anglican who joined himself to, and eventually took over the Plymouth Brethren movement).
John N. Darby is the individual who is credited with the forming of the basic structure of Dispensational Theology. To cut a long story short, Darby found it difficult to reconcile the promises of the Old Testament age, with the spiritual standing of New Testament believers.
Although this had never been a problem to theologians for over 1800 years, Darby wasn’t able to see it, and so his solution was to assert that Israel and the Church are two different groups; and so Dispensationalism began.
This is vital to understand. Many come to a belief of dispensational theology because someone shows them the Pre-Tribulation Rapture from the scriptures, but this wasn’t how it originated.
In order to remain consistent with his new-found hermeneutic, Darby had to develop the idea of the rapture of the Church, but I don’t want to get into that now. What we must be clear on is, if you lift any of the historic Christian confessions, the saints in the Old and New Testaments are always viewed as one body, and what Darby began to assert was entirely new.
2. Converted Gentiles become part of a body which started in the Old Testament
Dispensationalism’s primary tenet is the distinction between Israel and the Church. If it can be proved that the saints of the Old and New Testaments are of one body, the whole system inevitably crumbles.
So what do the scriptures teach? I advise you to read Ephesians 2:11-22.
Speaking to this Gentile church, Paul writes in v12-13, “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”
There are two questions that must be asked here;
- From what are they no longer ‘aliens’ and ’strangers’?
- What have they been ‘made nigh’ to?
What is Paul saying to these Gentiles? The blood of Christ has brought them into something, something which they were once aliens and strangers to; what is it? Clearly, it’s ‘the commonwealth of Israel’ and the ‘covenants of promise’.
Doesn’t that make it clear that Paul believed New Testament Christian’s became part of something which already existed?
The question is, what precisely is this ‘commonwealth of Israel’ and how did it exist before?
3. The apostle Paul taught that there are two ‘types’ of Jews
In Romans 2:28-29, Paul writes, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
So, a man can be a national Jew and circumcised (outwardly), and yet not be a true Jew, which is one which has been inwardly circumcised. In other words, there are national Jews, and there are, what we might term ’spiritual’ Jews.
Is this what Moses taught? Has this always been the case?
Deut 30:6, “And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”
That text is interesting, because Paul talked about this very thing to the Gentiles at Colosse; Col 2:11, “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands”.
Seeing the parallel between Deuteronomy and Colossians, you’d imagine that the great Jewish apostle to the Gentiles was teaching that converted Gentiles had experienced the same thing God said He would do for His people thousands of years before!
Knowing that the Gentiles needed to experience the new birth, Paul must have believed the same experience was what was needed to become a true Jew.
He makes it clear in Romans 2:28-29 that not every Jew was a true Jew, even if they have been physically circumcised, so therefore, the spiritual circumcision which Paul talks about in the New Testament (Col 2:11), is the same which God required in the Old Testament (Deut 30:6).
So clearly there are two types of Jews. But, what about this ‘commonwealth of Israel’?
4. The apostle Paul taught that there are two ‘types’ of Israel
If there is a a national Jew and a spiritual Jew, is there a national Israel and a spiritual Israel? And, can a Gentile become part of this spiritual Israel?
In Eph 2:11, Paul writes, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh…”
Notice those words, “in time past”. Paul is referring to what they were before they became Christian’s. What were they? “Gentiles in the flesh”. What are they now? Well, tie it in with v12-13 and you’ll see that he is clearly teaching that they are now of this ‘commonwealth of Israel’, or what we might term, ‘Spiritual Israel’.
Paul talks about this spiritual Israel in Rom 9:6, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”.
If you take the time to understand the passage, Paul is saying, ‘not everyone is of spiritual Israel, which are of national Israel’. It’s the only way to understand what he’s saying. If ‘Israel’ means national Israel in both cases, what he says makes no sense at all!
This spiritual Israel Paul terms as the “Israel of God” in Gal 6:16.
Conclusion
The alternative to Dispensational Theology is Covenant Theology, which teaches that God progressively revealed the covenant of grace through various means throughout the ages, and in Old Testament times they did not possess the full revelation that we have since the dawn of the New Testament period.
This is the very thing Paul teaches in Eph 3:5-6, “Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel”
God’s plan of salvation for one elect people (’fellowheirs of the same body’) in all ages has been revealed progressively (’as it is now revealed’). Paul, clearly, was not a dispensationalist. Therefore, though one may be a genuine Christian and hold to this system, careful study should bring every sincere believer to a recognition that its main tenet of distinction (dichotomy) between Israel and the Church, is irreconcilable with scripture.
Do you forget to visit the blog? Get free updates via email. Or via RSS if you use a feedreaderWant to read other articles? Try these...
Want to pray intelligently for this preacher? Go here to learn more!
Added Commentary
By Jonathan Wagener
on 18.09.08
very interesting - i went to a church not so long ago where they taught about a pre-tribulation rapture, but that clashes with a passage in thessalonians (cant remember exactly where).
great article.
By Armen
on 19.09.08
Welcome Jonathan W.,
To be perfectly honest, if the scriptures are approached without bias, the pre-trib rapture can be seen nowhere. But, that’s an entirely different topic which I have dealt with on other occasions. Just search for the word ‘rapture’.
By Davey Boyd
on 19.09.08
Armen, when I arrived onto your blog today and saw the word “Dispensationalism” I thought for a split-second that you’d saw the light and come on over to the truth! You can only imagine my disappointment when I read the post.
It’ll take a while for me to respond to each of your points, but I will, especially I hold to Dispensational teaching.
Thanks mate.
By Armen
on 22.09.08
Davey Boyd,
Ha ha!
All joking aside, I look forward to a rebuttal from you bro!
By Peter
on 22.09.08
Am an interested spectator guys, having good friends on both sides of this fence… I lean more towards the CT side these days, but having said that, I dislike any label that encourage us to insert prefixes before “Christian” as they tend to be used to make us sound more devout than the next person.
In times past I’ve heard some on either side of this divide referring to the alternate view as “heretical”, or words to that effect. Funny, I always found it hard to reconcile statements like that with the professing Christians from whose mouths they were proceeding… Thankfully Armen, I have never heard that from you!
Oops…am I still on topic? Ha…
May it be a clean fight, keep your gloves high, protect yourselves at all times
By Armen
on 22.09.08
Peter,
You make a good point. It’s maybe not the best analogy, but if I had been asked to explain the doctrine of justification shortly after I was saved, there’s a good chance I may have given a ‘heretical’ answer. Yet, if we get the doctrine of justification wrong in our actual experience, then we’re doomed!
As I’ve heard Alan Cairns say, many Christians are better than their stated theology.
By Deborah
on 23.09.08
Very interesting. I was brought up in the Gospel Halls.- saved at almost 15 years of age, and have done a lot of searching in the years since I left.
By Glenn
on 23.09.08
Although I have never really studied Dispensationalism, thinking about it now…ever since the Lord saved me, I subconsciously just knew that I was “one of the children of Israel”, infact I strongly felt that I had a right to that title, possibly more than someone who is Jewish by birth.
So…if someone holds to the “pre-tribulation rapture”, does this mean they are dispensationalist?
By Nathan W. Bingham
on 23.09.08
Glenn:
Yes, traditionally if someone holds to a “pre-tribulation rapture” they are Dispensational as they are making a radical distinction between Israel and the Church. The rapture in that system is the removal of the Church so that God can return to His plan with national Israel.
By Armen
on 23.09.08
Deborah,
In your searching, have you read a clearly presented message or article outlining the differences between the two systems? If not, how did you find this post?
Glenn,
It’s amazing what some Christian’s grasp without the influence of man. You’re completely right to ‘know’ that, subconsciously or otherwise.
Nathan’s correct in his answer. I’ll hasten to add though, that some are dispensational because they take a very literal understanding of prophetic passages, and have been led to believe that only dispensationalists take the literal approach to biblical eschatology.
This is a lie. Historic Pre-millenialist’s take a literal understanding of biblical prophecy without being dispensational, and I honestly believe that if many of our dispensational brethren realised this, they would be Pre-millenial Covenant theologians, rather than Pre-millenial Dispensational theologians.
Does that make sense?
Nathan,
Spot on. This is why I emphasised “In order to remain consistent with his new-found hermeneutic, Darby had to develop the idea of the rapture of the Church”.
For others reading, the pre-trib ‘rapture’ is God removing the Church, so that He can continue where He left off in establishing of an earthly kingdom with Israel. The Church age is in essence (in the eyes of the dispensationalist) a parenthesis stuck in the middle of God’s plan for Israel.
In other words, taken to its logical conclusion, it may be stated that the ‘Church’ is sort of an afterthought after Israel rejected Christ as their King, and crucified Him. But, Christ will return again to fulfill what He intended to do for Israel the first time, but before He does that, He must remove ‘the Church’.
By Deborah
on 29.09.08
A lot of what you have said, I kinda figured out through personal reading and asking God to reveal his word to me. BWT, the previous comment / article I posted on your other thread was written by a dispensationalist as you may gather from the closing paragraph, however I thought the election aspect may be helpful although feel free to remove if you think it’s a bit too long.
I also read a book by Grier titled The Momentous Event some years back - had no clue that other Christians had a differing view to the system I’d been brought up in. There was a lot of things I’d been taught which I couldn’t really see clearly for myself. I left home at a very young age and as a new Christian had some rough experiences. Went through a period of not doing anything unless I had a clear conviction about it, which got me into a bit of strife lol.
But your article is the clearest and most informative thing that I’ve read about it and I’ve just come on to share it with my husband - brought up also in strict brethren halls albeit NZ.
Look forward to reading more.
By Armen
on 29.09.08
Deborah,
If I’m right in saying, Grier’s book is a classic on the Amillenial position. Is that correct? I’m quite sure someone gave me a copy, but it’s boxed away in Northern Ireland.
I’m delighted that you found this article clear. Often, discussions on either side of the fence on these issues, become (at times) unnecessarily cloudy.
By Deborah
on 30.09.08
Yes but it lays out all positions - made me go back to the bible to examine each against scripture.
Al is starting to understand what I’ve been going on about for years! He didn’t really grasp what he was supposed to believe in brethren circles re eschatology whereas as a kid even before I was saved I took in all that was taught on the subject.
Enjoying the other discussion too. The hall I was brought up in was totally against the doctrine of election - anyone who taught it was banned from the pulpit. As a young person prior to my conversion, I read about it in the Bible and was convinced there and then that I may or may not be one of God’s elect - and that if I died (or lived) and went to hell, i fully deserved it because of my own sin. God is sovereign.
By Armen
on 01.10.08
Deborah,
Ah right. I’m maybe get to read it some time. I’m leisurely making my way through Kim Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillenialism”. I’m not fully settled as yet, but there’s a lot of it which makes sense. The reformers weren’t convinced of the amillenial position for nothing I suppose.
Yeah, the other conversation has dealt with quite a lot in a short period of time. It’s difficult to discuss these matters without the personal touch, but I trust it’s profitable to some.
I love to hear of people recognising God’s absolutely sovereignty in His dealings. I think everyone realises it, but they find it hard to admit because they can’t reconcile some of the difficult issues that our sinful nature finds replusive (although I may be wrong).
By jesse
on 08.05.09
Loved the article, I have came up with similar conclutions when reading the scripture. I have never went with dispensationalism from my youth. Look up House of David, also the Davidic covenant
By Armen
on 10.05.09
Thanks, Jesse.
Haven't you got anything to say?
Trackbacks...