INTRODUCTION
First off, your question about
Dispenstionalism is hardly an easy one to address. Many large publications have been produced over the years,
both pro and con, addressing the validity of its method for interpreting biblical
literature, and for the most part they are persuasive only to those who already
agree with the author’s point of view.
The likelihood that my few words will materially add or detract from
what has already been published is remote indeed.
Dispensationalism is one of
several approaches to systematic theology. Every systematic theology attempts to create a conceptual
system within which all of the topics of biblical teaching can be enumerated in
a way that is internally consistent and also consistent with their significance
within the bible. Dispensationalism is not itself a complete system, but rather it is used to answer particular topics within other existing systems. When thinking
about any theological system, one must keep several things in mind:
· Every theological system is the product of human
thought and ingenuity. No
systematizing framework as such is to be found in any part of the bible. People have created the various systems
that now exist by emphasizing one aspect of revelation (e.g., the covenants)
over others.
· Historically the Jews never produce either
biblical or systematic theology.
This whole approach to biblical teaching was alien to their culture and
to their way of thinking about scripture.
Their primary emphases were focused on the mitzvot (commandments) and how one could
avoid transgressing any specific command of YHWH. Today there are some Jewish theological writings, but even
these are exceptions to the rule.
·
The earliest church fathers did not produce
anything like theological treatises.
Essentially all of the early church writings addressed specific problems
that existed in particular local churches – that is, they were topical and
methodological, not theological, and certainly not systematic.
·
The earliest examples of what would now be
called biblical theology came somewhat later, and all of them employed the
methods of Greek/Roman philosophy.
(Biblical theology now is constructed by arranging the content of
biblical teaching under topical categories – theology proper, christology,
anthropology, soteriology, harmartiology, etc.) That does not make the content of these works false, but they are alien to the method and content of the biblical narrative and to the Jewish
way of thinking about it.
FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS OF DISPENSATIONALISM
According to Charles Ryrie (The Basis of the Premillennial Faith),
there are five foundational assumptions that are critical to Premillennial
Dispensationalism. One can agree
with all of these presuppositions and yet not agree with individual aspects of the
conclusions that have been developed.
However, one cannot reject any of their presuppositions without
rejecting the entire system. (Note:
You asked about my reasons for rejecting Dispensationalism, but I have begun
with premillennialism.
Dispensationalism developed relatively recently, but the two ideas are
based on largely the same assumptions.)
LITERAL INTERPRETATION
The first tenet upon which the
system is built is the assumption that the biblical text must be understood and
interpreted literally. This
assertion is more complicated than it might first appear. The bible contains large sections of
historical narrative, legal injunctions, stories, poetry, allegories, and
proverbs. Each of these genres
must be dealt with in its own particular way, and that method of assessment
must be consistent with language usage of the author’s time. Ryrie elaborated what he meant by
literal interpretation at other times
by calling it the natural interpretation of the text. By this he meant that any interpretation must be consistent
with historical and grammatical usage of the language in question, both near
and far literary contexts, and appropriate for the literary genre of that passage. I agree with this. It is the reason why I spend so much
effort with grammar, syntax, and semantic analysis of every individual clause in
a text.
Accomplishing natural
interpretation is more difficult than it sounds. For the Hebrew text, on which I concentrate most, nobody
actually speaks this language, nobody knows for certain when most of it was
written down initially, and nobody knows for certain when the text was last
updated for spelling, syntax, and vocabulary. We have what we have, and that constitutes the only possible
starting point for interpretation.
According to the text itself, the narrative from Abraham to Malachi
covers a period of more than 1500 years, and no language remains unchanged
during such a span of time. Yet
the text that we have is remarkably uniform in linguistic details from
beginning to end. This implies
that scribes reworked the texts for spelling, vocabulary, syntax, etc., potentially, many times. At the latest, such activity stopped
with the Massorites in c. 900-1000 CE.
Yet, the fragmentary evidence from Qumran (about 1000 years earlier) indicates that the scope of
the final changes was not massive, at least for the texts that remained in the
Hebrew canon.
The situation for the Christian
scriptures is very different. All
of the canonical texts were completed in the first century CE in living memory
of some who knew Yeshua first hand, the earliest fragments date from the
second century, and literally thousands of manuscripts and fragments have been preserved. The language of
those texts was Koine Greek, and the characteristics of this language are well
known and well documented. Reliable
interpretation of these texts depends on textual analysis of variants, the
accurate assessment of literary genre, identification of intended symbols,
interpretation of those symbols, and avoiding the tendency for anachronistic
interpretation of terms.
Distinction between CHURCH AND ISRAEL
An absolute dogma for Dispensationalism is that the Church is not the replacement
for Israel, and Israel is not the same as the Church. Now, if the point of reference is the "Church" of the 3rd
century CE and later, I would absolutely agree. However, the question is more complicated. Since all of the Greek texts were
written in the second half of the first century, the term translated as church must be understood from the
perspective of those men who wrote (or translated from an Aramaic or Hebrew original) the text, not the significance that it came
to have after Jewish believers were forcibly ejected from the gentile church
along with all of the Jewish traditions that derived from the Hebrew bible.
First off, there is no term in
the Greek text that corresponds to the modern meaning of the English noun church. According to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary, the three most
common meanings listed for church are
as follows:
·
A building for public worship
·
The clergy of a religious body
·
An organization of religious believers.
The term itself originates from Middle
English chirche, from Old
English cirice, and ultimately
from Late Greek kyriakon. The term emphasized the majesty of a
place rather than the spiritual estate of those that met there.
Some of the terms used in the Greek New
Covenant texts to refer to the believers are as follows:
·
Η
οδος – The Way. This is
among the earliest terms to differentiate Jewish followers of Yeshua from other
forms and traditions that then existed among their contemporary Jews.
· Η
εκκλησια – Assembly. This
term is invariably translated into English by church. In
contemporary Koine Greek usage, it referred to a body of representatives chosen
by vote from the general body of citizens to perform various civil
functions. In the New Covenant
texts, it refers to the group of individuals called to faith in Yeshua (the
elect, or chosen) who met together in a particular location. This term was used in reference to
Jewish assemblies, gentile assemblies, and mixed Jewish/gentile assemblies without
distinction.
· Ο
χριστιανος – Christian. This name, probably one of derision,
was first given to followers of Yeshua by pagan gentiles in Antioch. It appears just three times in the
Greek text, but it became the name of the movement as a whole.
·
Σωμα
του χριστου – Body of Messiah.
This usage is unique to Rav Shaul.
The idea is that the body of Yeshua is mystically present in the
corporate body of believers in any particular location.
There are only about four
locations the Greek text that address the relation between gentile and Jewish
believers in an even oblique manner: 1 Cor 7:17-24, Gal 6:15-16, Eph 2:11-22,
and Rom 11:1-32.
1 Cor 7:17-24
This passage addresses the state of believers after they have come to
faith, specifically relative to the rite of circumcision. If a man was circumcised (a Jew) at
that time, he should not attempt to obscure the mark of circumcision; if a man
was uncircumcised (a gentile) at that time he should not seek
circumcision. According to Rav
Shaul, the physical sign of circumcision is not significant, but keeping the
mitzvot (commandments) of God is what matters (vs
19). This letter was certainly
written after the Jerusalem council (recorded in Acts 15), so Rav Shaul does not
elaborate much more on the question of circumcision in this book.
Gal 6:15-16
This passage is frequently appealed to as the proof text for replacement theology. In my opinion, the book was certainly written before the
Jerusalem council, whose whole purpose was to debate the issue of gentile
circumcision. The passage in
question is as follows:
For neither is
circumcision anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation, and those who
walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, even upon the Israel
of God.
The last clause can also be
translated and upon the Israel of God,
implying two separate groups, and this is the preference of those opposed to
replacement theology. If one
considers the entire context of the book, this syntactic device, though valid, is not is not
necessary. These two verses make
no reference to the gentile believers specifically or to the church generally, and the entire book consistently uses indefinite references
for the Jews who were trying to influence the gentile Galatians to accept
circumcision. Thus, those who walk according to this rule (a
very Jewish expression) are Jewish followers of Yeshua who accept the content
of verse 15, and that group is described
as the Israel of God. The
expression Israel of God appears
nowhere else in either the Greek or Hebrew bible, but the passage in Romans does provide an
elaboration of this expression.
Eph 2:11-22
This entire passage asserts that Jewish believers are joined together
with gentile believers into a new entity (one new man) that never existed
before. As such the two are
equally fellow members of God’s household without animosity, and one is not
complete without the other.
Dispensationalism effectively rejects this entire proposition during the
“church age” unless Jewish believers in Yeshua abandon all aspects of their
Jewish identity. Such a bias is
present in nearly every modern Christian denomination, and it is also present in
many Messianic congregations in Israel.
The bias is not biblical, and it is one of my major objections to both
Dispensationalism and the Christian church as it presently exists.
Rom 11:1-32
This passage addresses the problem that a significant portion of the
Jewish people, particularly those in positions of power, had rejected faith in
Yeshua. Rav Shaul makes four significant points:
·
God never promised that more than a remnant of
Israel would return, and there was at that time a significant remnant of
Israelite followers of Yeshua. These
were the Israel of God in their generation. (In my opinion, Messianic Jews who consciously abandon their
Jewish heritage today cannot be considered part of this remnant.)
· Rav Shaul uses the cultivation of olive trees to illustrate the relation between gentile believers and redeemed Israel. The root of the tree represents Abraham and the patriarchs, the branches represent believers in Yeshua, and God is the one tending the tree. According to the illustration, gentile believers are branches from wild olive trees that have been grafted into the root contrary to nature. Unbelieving Jews are natural branches that have been cut off, so the remaining natural branches are joined with the unnatural branches to derive their life from the same root. His warning: Do not become arrogant against the natural branches that have been cut off. You (either Jew or gentile) can be cut off if you do not remain faithful, and the natural branches can be grafted back in if they come to faith.
·
The gifts and calling of God are without
repentance. This statement alone
completely repudiates the claims of replacement theology. According to Jeremiah 31:35-37, as long
as the fixed order of the universe established at creation remains in place, God’s
promise to Abraham and his physical descendants will remain in force. (See also Isaiah 51:10.) According to Revelation 21, the
fixed order of sun, moon, and stars will be changed following the recreation of the
heaven and earth as a prelude to the eternal state. The bible does
describe some aspects of the eternal estate, but it does not address how
redeemed Israel will relate to the redeemed from the gentiles at that time.
· At some point in the future, God will have mercy
on that portion of Israel who presently are disobedient, and the resulting effect
will be like life from the dead.
Having said the above, it is
evident that on Shavuot following the crucifixion, the roughly 3000 people who
professed belief in Yeshua on that day were all Jews, so the Israel of God = εκκλησια. This pattern remained the case at least
for a number of years until Peter encountered Cornelius and his family. Even after this the number of gentile
believers had to have remained very small until the persecution under Shaul
began. Throughout this period the
body of messiah would be virtually all Jews. Even after Rav Shaul’s two missionary journeys, the majority
of believers still had to be Jews. (In
Acts 21:20 the body of believers in Jerusalem alone was described as many thousands
of Jews all zealous for Torah.) This
situation persisted until the Roman destruction of the second temple, after
which the traditional Jews aggressively expelled the messianic Jews from their
midst. As the gentile Christians
progressively became the majority, the scope of their obvious hostility toward
anything Jewish also expanded. This is evident in the writings of the Church
fathers of the second century and later.
To the degree that this existed in any particular congregation, that
congregation ceased to constitute part of the one new man envisioned by Rav Shaul in
Ephesians 2. Additionally, the
gentile church progressively lost any real connection to the content of faith
proclaimed by the Apostles. For
this reason, the proposition that the gentile church after the 2nd
or 3rd century CE had any connection to God’s promised for Israel is
preposterous. Nevertheless, a body
of believing gentiles and a body of believing Jews living in mutual harmony
remains necessary for Rav Shaul’s vision of the one new man to be realized.
THE MILLENNIUM
The millennium is
Dispensationalism’s answer to how the vision of one new man will be
realized. According to Revelation
20, Yeshua will return with his resurrected and glorified saints (the gentile
church) to end the Great Tribulation.
These will be joined by believing Israel who came to faith during the
tribulation. After Satan’s host
(human and spirit beings) have been dealt with, Yeshua and his saints will rule
over the entire earth for 1000 years.
After the 1000 years have passed, Satan will be freed for a brief time
to deceive the nations, and this will result in a final war that will bring
about the end of planet earth as it presently exists. God will then recreate heaven and earth, and this act will
inaugurate the eternal state. From
this point on the dwelling of God will be with man, and Yeshua will rule all
the earth from Jerusalem.
These details are literally
presented in the last chapters of Revelation, and supporting texts are in
Isaiah, Ezekiel, and various other books.
Competing theological systems avoid the futuristic interpretation of Revelation by
making the descriptions symbolic, allegorical, or strictly applicable to the
early period (1sr through 3rd centuries CE) of church
history. Here one’s conclusions
are determined by his starting presuppositions.
DISPENSATION
Dispensationalism is a system
of interpreting revealed history – past, present, and future – in terms of the
progressive series of God’s administrative economies over human affairs. The system defines a dispensation as a
distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose. One can acknowledge that the bible
records differences in the way God interacted with individuals and that the
bible focuses primarily on the developments between God and Israel. And yet some passages in the bible
(e.g., Job, Balaam’s encounter with YHWH, Jonah and Nineveh, etc.) indicate
that God interacted with both individuals and societies in a manner that was
consistent with their response to the revelation that they had been given. This approach to the analysis of God’s
methods is not consistent with the Dispenational system in any of its
varieties.
IMMINENCY
According to Premillennial
Dispensationalism, imminency refers to the return of Messiah to remove his
church from the earth prior to the start of the great tribulation. This is essential to their system in
order to ensure that the church and Israel remain completely separate from one
another in the outworking of God’s purposes. The entire doctrine of the rapture is built on 1
Thessalonians 4:16, 17. Ryrie,
Walvoord, and others have acknowledged that no passage in the bible actually addresses
the timing of this “catching up” of the "church"; rather, the pre-tribulation rapture is a
theological construct based on their presuppositions. The following observations should be noted:
· Dispensationalism was initially developed
through the writings of Darby and Scofield toward the end of the 19th
century. At that time, none of the
events concerning Israel and Jerusalem existed even in conceptual form among Christians,
but as they came into existence they were viewed as essential signs of the end
times. Either the idea of
imminency or of the pre-tribulation rapture is incorrect.
· 1 Thes 4:16 states that following the catching up “… we shall always be with
the Lord.” According to
Dispensationalism, the church and redeemed Israel will rule on earth throughout
the millennium, but in the eternal state the church will be in heaven and
redeemed Israel will be on the recreated earth. The problem is that Rev 21 and 22 clearly indicates that the
abode of God and the lamb will be on earth. If the promise of 1 Thes 4:17 is to be realized, the
glorified church must also be on earth.
Additionally, Rev 22:2 indicates that the tree of life will be present,
and its leaves will be for the healing of the nations. Among other things, this implies that the redeemed of the
gentiles will be there on earth, not in heaven.
· Probably, the most eloquent rebuttal against imminency as asserted by this system was uttered by Yeshua himself. According to Matthew 23:37-39, Yeshua stated during his last trip to Jerusalem, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How many times I have desired to gather your sons like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Listen, your house will be abandoned for you desolate. For I say to you, from now on you will not see me until you (Israel) say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of YHWH.’” Even though there are now a growing minority of Jewish believers in Israel, this has not yet happened, and Yeshua will not return until it does happen.
· The assertion that the time frame of the "catching up" is not specifically addressed in the New Covenant writings is not quite accurate. The Olivet Discourse as recorded in both Matthew and Mark includes the following statement: "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels (spirit messengers), and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven." (Cf, Mat 24:30, 31; Mark 13:36,37) In context, this occurs after the Great Tribulation and after all the tribes of earth have seen the sign of the Son of Man.
TORAH
TORAH
The attitude of Dispensationalism
toward the Torah is not addressed as one of their fundamental tenets, but it is
often practiced as such. That
attitude is generally expressed as follows: “We are not under law (Torah) as a
code but under grace,” and “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law
(Torah).” Both are used as absolute slogans in many churches, and they express
the attitude of those churches toward the Hebrew scriptures. Such an attitude was not shared by the
apostles who consistently appealed to the Hebrew scripture as the basis for their
teaching.
The first of the above statements
is taken from Romans 6:15, but it omits the context that provides the basis for
understanding Rav Shaul’s meaning.
The more complete statement is as follows:
Therefore do not
let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go
on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of
unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you,
for you are not under law (Torah), but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law (Torah) but
under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present
yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you become slaves of the one
whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in
righteousness.
I have heard the statement "We are not under law but under grace' from Christian pulpits many times, but I have never heard an exposition of what this is supposed to mean or look like. Rav Shaul is vary clear in the above passage: being under grace is not to be an excuse for indulging in sin, for as Yeshua himself stated, "Anyone who sins is a slave to sin." So how does one know what is good, and just, and righteous? In a single word, Torah. Rav Shaul spends the next chapter of the book to pronounce Torah holy, righteous, and good. The problem resides within us, but through faith Messiah enables us to fulfill the intent of the Torah, whose demands are opposed by our natural inclinations.
The second phrase is from Galatians 3:13.
Again, the context that
provides the basis for the point Rav Shaul is trying to make has been omitted.
Does he who
provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you do it by works of the
law ()Torah) or by hearing with faith? Even
so, Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who
are of faith that are sons of Abraham.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the gentiles by
faith, preached the good news beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations
will be blessed in you.” So then,
those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. As many as are of the works of the law
are under a curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by
all things written in the book of the law to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the law (Torah) before God is evident, for “the righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the law (Torah) is not of faith; on
the contrary, “he who practices them shall live by them.” Messiah redeemed us from the curse of
the law (Torah), having become a curse for us -- for it is written, “Cursed is everyone
who hangs on a tree” – in order that in Messiah Yeshua the blessing of Abraham
might come to the gentiles so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith.
Many Christians who hear “Messiah
redeemed us from the curse of the law” interpret this to mean that the law is a
curse. This is not the point of
the text. Rav Shaul, who wrote
that the Torah is holy, righteous, and good, certainly would not have accepted
such an idea. The Torah does
contain an extensive list of temporal curses for Israelites who are unfaithful to
the covenant with YHWH as well as a list of temporal blessings for faithful
obedience. The point is that no
matter how well one may live up to the stipulations of Torah, that does not
result in justification to righteousness.
The demands of Torah are requirements, and one does not receive a reward
for doing what is required. Rather, living up to the requirements avoids a penalty.
Jeremiah 31:31-35 addresses this
question from a different perspective.
This passage foretells the establishment of the New Covenant with Israel,
and Yeshua stated that he was inaugurating this New Covenant through his
death. Most Christian
denominations, including Dispensationalists, assert that they are either
participants or beneficiaries of this New Covenant. However, the major provision of this New Covenant is that
YHWH will write his Torah on their hearts and in their mind so that every individual will know
God. This is Rav Shaul's point in 2 Cor 3, where he compare the letter written on human hearts with the tablets of stone obtained through Moses. Any church organization or theological system that repudiates the validity of the Torah is effectively stating that they want no part of the New Covenant.
