Dispensationalism
A reminder of a couple of things that we need to keep in
mind.
1.
Every system of theology is the product of man
and will have error. No one description of any system will satisfy everyone. We
should look for the system that “does the least violence to Scripture.”
2.
Keep Christ clearly in view. The ultimate goal
of all creation is the glorify God the Father and the Son. Our view of the end
times should seek to keep His glory in its rightful place
Dispensationalism is one of the systems within the premil
category; historic premillennialism being the other. From our introduction,
Herman Hoyt's definition of dispensationalism: "A golden age of
civilization...as described in the Bible...a millennial kingdom will be ushered
in by a divine, supernatural and catastrophic manifestation from heaven at the
Second coming of Christ....when the conditions of life have reached the depths
of great tribulation." This hermeneutic: The whole Bible is divided into
several (originally 7) dispensations/time periods in which God acts in
different ways toward man.
Interpretation must be literal whenever possible. Interpret the New
Testament by the Old Testament.
I will not spend time this evening reviewing the historical
origin and development of this system. That is a hotly contested topic and is
secondary to the discussion of the theological aspects that define
dispensationalism.
Charles Ryrie is considered one the most consistent and
respected advocate for modern dispensationalism, putting a little distance
between himself and Darby/Scofield and the newer progressive
dispensationalists. In his 1997 book, Dispensationalism,
Ryrie listed 3 issues that he calls the sine
qua non (the essential qualities) of dispensationalism. Charles Ryrie is
not alone in his views. Michael Vlach is a professor at Master's Seminary and
was written a couple of books espousing the same basic view as Ryrie. I will
present Ryrie's list of essential doctrines and examine them, in reverse order,
to so if they be so.
A Clear and
Consistent Distinction Between Israel and the Church
"This understanding of the fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecies quite naturally leads to the clear and consistent distinction
between Israel and the church, which is a vital part of dispensationalism. All
other views bring the church into Israel's fulfilled prophecies except
dispensationalism. This is probably the most basic theological test of whether
or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most
practical and conclusive."
The Hermeneutical
Principle
"The hermeneutical principle is basic to the entire
dispensational system, including its eschatology. It affects everything, and,
as we have tried to show in chapter 5, dispensationalism is the only system
that practices the literal principle of interpretation consistently." This
hermeneutic sometimes shows up under the term, Rule of First Mention, which
asserts that the first mention of anything in Scripture is the most definitive
of that thing. Contrary to this, we clearly see the progressive revelation
found in Scripture, as more clarity is added over time. Their hermeneutic helps
keep the OT in first place.
The underlying
purpose of God in the world is the glory of God
"The covenant theologian, in practice, believes this
purpose to be salvation (although covenant theologians strongly emphasize the
glory of God in their theology), and the dispensationalist says the purpose is
broader than that; namely, the glory of God."
On this point I heartily agree. I also agree with Ryrie that
many Christians tend to put man's salvation at the center of God's purpose in
the world, but the Bible teaches us that the purpose for God reconciling
sinners to Himself is for His glory (Romans 15:7-9 Therefore accept one another, just as the Messiah also accepted you, to
the glory of God. For I say that the Messiah became a servant of the
circumcised on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises to the fathers,
and so that Gentiles may glorify God for His mercy.). But he soils this
idea later in his book, saying, "The entire program culminates, not in
eternity but in history, in the millennial kingdom of the Lord Christ. This
millennial culmination is the climax of history and the great goal of God's
program for the ages." And yet, even this "great goal of God's
program for the ages" lasts only a literal thousand years.
It's interesting that their view of the millennium is not
one of the essential elements. It is a basic consequence of their hermeneutic.
Dispensationalists have a similar view of the millennium as do the historic
premil, but dispensationalists have a much more aggressive view of defending
national Israel and rebuilding the wall between Jews and Gentiles. This comes
out in Ryrie's second essential point. The dispensations they hold to are not
essential - there being differences in how many and their purposes.
In the introduction to this series, I mentioned several
things that set this system apart: Dispensationalism, alone, interprets the New
Testament by the Old, insists on a literal millennium, insists on two or more
judgments, insists on a secret rapture, claims Satan is rampant, denies the
current reign of Christ, and builds a wall between Gentile and Jewish saints.
Ryrie lists 6 or 7 things he says are true only of dispensationalism. I'll have
those in my notes that get posted, but will not spend time this evening on
them. At the core, what sets this system apart is the first thing on Ryrie's
list of 3. His second point is that all the other points of distinction are the
product of his use of what Ryrie calls "the literal interpretation of
Scripture."
Ryries describes his hermeneutic principle: "Dispensationalists
claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation.
This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would
have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking."
This is often summed up, “when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,
seek no other sense.” But contrary to this popular hermeneutic, the plain sense
of Scripture often contradicts the true meaning of Scripture and our common
sense often makes no heavenly sense. Ryrie: "Philosophically, the purpose
of language itself seems to require literal interpretation." The ambiguous
nature of language, however, requires one seek to understand what the author
meant, rather than rely on what seems plain or normal. The biblical history of
Christ's ministry shows how far astray the Jewish people had wandered, in part
because they took their Scriptures literally without seeking to truly
understand what YHWH had said.
Ryrie continues: "If one does not use the plain,
normal, or literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost. The dispensationalist claims to be
consistent in his use of this principle, and he accuses the
nondispensationalist of being inconsistent in his use of it." Are dispensationalists consistent in their
literal hermeneutic? A friend of mine observed that dispensationalism "refuses
to interpret Matthew 24 literally because it doesn't make their eschatology
work. Also, forcing a 'literal' interpretation on all of Scripture is foolish.
What is meant by this is that dispensationalism uses a 'literal' hermeneutic
where it benefits the dispensational scheme. When using a 'literal'
hermeneutic, it is impossible to see a gap between the 69th and 70th week."
Ryrie and his kin make exceptions to their literal hermeneutic to accommodate
normal grammatical constructs, such as word pictures. Hence they agree that
Jesus is not a literal door. But when they look at the scene in the first
paragraph of Rev 20 (key, chain, abyss), their rule appears to be very
subjective, not consistent. Does this mean Ryrie has lost all objectivity? Not in his view, because his exceptions to his
literal hermeneutic are within reason (as he sees it) and exceptions taken by
us outside his camp are not. That is a subjective standard, not an objective
one.
One theologian (G.J. Harloff) said, "Man’s literalistic
interpretation is incomplete because: (1) Christ taught that scriptures are
sometimes veiled to hide the truth from nonbelievers (2 Co 4:3), (2)
comprehensive theological backgrounds and God’s help are needed to
understand/teach the scriptures (1 Co 1:20-21), and (3) the literalistic system
may prevent inductive study and seeing the unity in the Scriptures." Contrary
to Ryrie's claim that “prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first
coming of Christ ... were all fulfilled ‘literally’”, many such prophecies were
not fulfilled in a “plain” literal fashion, such as the famous Psalm 22
prophecy that speaks of bulls and dogs surrounding Christ at his crucifixion
(Psa 22:12, 16), and the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy regarding the virgin, that “she
will call His name Immanuel” (cp. Luke 2:21).
Ryrie quotes Floyd Hamilton, an amillennialist, as though he
was in agreement with dispensationalism's hermeneutic. Hamilton said, "Now
we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament
prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as
the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the
Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal kingdom
interpretation of the Old Testament promises." This is not agreement by
Hamilton, but recognition of the problem with Ryrie's system: first century
Jews were looking for a political savior that would overthrow Rome. Jesus did
not come for that purpose, but to establish His kingdom, which He said was not
of this world. It's a sad error for a Christian to fall into the same pit the
Jews fell into. In John 3, Jesus was explaining how no one can even see the
kingdom of God unless he is born again by the Holy Spirit. He asks Nicodemus,
"Are you a teacher of Israel and
don't know these things?" Nicodemus understood the Old Testament the
way Ryrie says Christians should; and he had missed the kingdom of God.
Ryrie goes on to say, "In the progress of revelation
there has been no change in the meaning of these words (Israel and church), and
they are kept distinct." I will not spend time looking at the word
"church" as it's not critical to this topic and because it has such a
controversial history in the translation of English Bibles. But to see how the
word "Israel" has changed in meaning over the unveiling of God's Word
is critical to one's proper understanding of Scripture, so we will see what the
Bible says about this word. Ryrie says, "The term Israel continues to be
used for the natural (not spiritual) descendants of Abraham after the church
was instituted, and it is not equated with the church. Only when a believer belongs also to the Jewish race can he in any
sense be called a spiritual Israelite." Romans 2:28-29 tells us a true
Jew is not merely circumcised in the flesh, but in the heart. This is without
regard to genealogy. Is he not a "spiritual Israelite?"
He continues: "If the yet unfulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament made in the Abrahamic,
Davidic, and new covenants are to be
literally fulfilled, there must be a future period, the Millennium, in
which they can be fulfilled, for the church is not now fulfilling them." His
earthly focus demands earthly fulfillment of OT prophecies. Yet all the
promises of God find their "Yes" in Christ, not in national Israel. If,
as Ryrie asserts, national physical Israel still plays a significant role in
God's redemptive plan, why do we read in Matthew 21 (page 1867) this tale?
Beginning in verse 33, Jesus tells the elders and chief priests a parable of a
vineyard owner who left his vineyard in the care of tenants and sent his
servants and then his son to reap the harvest. Each of them was beaten or
killed. When the landowner returned, he was expected by to destroy the
unfaithful tenants and lease his vineyard
to other farmers that would give him produce at the harvest.
Jesus told the elders and priests that the kingdom will be
taken from them and given to another that would produce fruit! The stone that
was rejected HAS become the cornerstone. Not WILL BE in the future. HAS become.
Upon this stone, all who fall will be broken, but all upon whom the stone falls
will be ground up to powder. Note what the Scriptures says - the elders and
priests knew Jesus was speaking about them in the parable and explanation He
had just told them. The kingdom of God is being given to a people who will
produce fruit - the fruit of the Spirit. What kingdom does that leave to be
given to physical Israel?
Again, from Ryrie: "Jews today who believe in Christ
are members of the church, His Body, and their destiny is the same as Gentile
believers during this age. But to those
Jews who will be living on the earth in earthly bodies when the Millennium
begins and to those who will be born with earthly bodies during the period will fulfill the promises made to Israel
that have remained unfulfilled until the Millennium. These include possession
of the land (Gen. 15:18-21), prosperity in the land (Amos 9:11-15), and the
blessings of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34)."
Here is the distinction between church and national Israel
Ryrie spoke about, saying it was foundational to his hermeneutic; it is what
drives their hermeneutic. It is a focus on the temporal. A detailed review of
the land promise would take about an hour, to see if the scope is what
dispensationalists claim. But there is one short passage that should settle the
point about land promises. In Joshua 14, we see the beginning of a recitation
of the land that had been given to Israel. This continues on until 21:43 where
we see this (page 426). The literal fulfillment of this promise took place a
long time ago - it's not hanging out until some time in the future. But
dispensationalists do not accept this; they are looking for a renewal of
temporal Israel. We are familiar with the passage in Hebrews where we read that
Abraham was not looking for a piece of dirt but a heavenly city designed and
built by God. The main focus of this land promise is not a temporal one, but an
eternal, spiritual one.
His second promise is "prosperity in the land"
based on Amos 9:11-15 (page 1675). Is
this a temporal promise yet unfulfilled? In the famous church council in
Jerusalem, James referred to this prophecy as being fulfilled in the work then
begun by Paul, and reported to the Jerusalem church - that Gentiles were being
called by God into His kingdom (vs 13-18, page 2115). Once again, the true
fulfillment is spiritual and eternal, not temporal. For the kingdom of God is
focused on "precious metals" but on the power and Word of God!
Thirdly, the dispensational wedge between national Israel
and the church means they see two new covenants, one for the church (Hebrews 8)
and one for national Israel, in Jer 31. This aspect of Dispensationalism,
separating believing Israelites from believing Gentiles, is the most grievous. By
accepting this as fact, the whole system of temporal blessings for one ethnic
groups as the focus of God's redemptive plan makes God a respecter of persons
in matters of redemption and fractures the people He bought with His blood.
Hear what Paul said about these two groups of people and their relationship to
one another in Christ: Eph 2:11-22 (page 2265). Further, with the finished work
of Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek”
in the eyes of God (Gal 3:28). You see why dispensationalists need to interpret
the NT by the OT? The apostolic hermeneutic destroys their system.
Ryrie's support for national Israel's part in the New
Covenant is based on his belief that the new covenant in Jer 31 is not the same
New Covenant spoken of in Hebrews. "The reference to "new
covenant" (in Heb 8:31) is without the definite article. The text does not
say we are ministers of "the new covenant" but of "a new
covenant. Obviously, not all the provisions of the new covenant as revealed in
the Old Testament have been inaugurated, as, for example, no need of teaching
(Jer. 31:34) and Israel being firmly and safely planted in its own land
(32:41)." Hebrews 8 contrasts the old and new covenants, describing Christ
Jesus as the great high priest of the New Covenant, calling it a better
covenant that the first one. The apostolic writer quotes Jer 31:31-34,
assigning that to the work of Christ in redeeming sinners. This is repeated in
Heb 10. There is ONE New Covenant, prophesied in Jeremiah and Ezekiel and
fulfilled in the Lord Jesus for one people. As to Ryrie's assertion that this
inaugurated covenant doesn't fulfill the teaching promise, recall what Jeremiah
wrote: Jeremiah 31:34 (ESV) And no
longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know
the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,
declares the LORD.” This does not promise a full and complete knowledge that
does away with the preaching and teaching of the Word in this age. It promises
that all those redeemed by God will know Him and won't need to be told,
"Know the Lord." As for the land promise, if your focus is on earthly
things, you will expect to see a literal fulfillment, even though much of the
language is alluded to in John's description of the new earth. If your focus is
on spiritual, heavenly things, it's easy to see how the apostle interpreted
this promise.
If we rightly see how God redeemed His people, we'll find no
need to split His body, no need for 2 new covenants, no reason to return to the
shadows and rebuild the tent of David in stone. For Christ Jesus has removed
our stone hearts and is building new Jerusalem as He brings each of His sheep
into His sheepfold. One sheepfold of God, not two.
Dispensationalism mistakenly holds that
Israel and the church are not interchangeable in the Bible, however, in
Galatians 6: 16 Paul directly calls the Christian church "the Israel of
God" (including Gentile believers: cf. Gal. 2:2,5; 4:8; 5:2). Christians
are the true 'Jews" (Rom. 2:28-29), the true "circumcision"
(Phil. 3:3), the true "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7, 29), the
"children of promise" like Isaac (Gal. 4:28), the "commonwealth
of Israel" (Eph. 2:12, 19). Israel's glory was the presence of God among
them in the temple (Lev. 26:11-12), and the church now is that temple, indwelt
by the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:14-16; Eph. 2:21-22; I Peter 2:5).
Israel was called the people of God's own possession (Ex. 19:5; Deut. 7:6;
14:2; 26:18), and now the church has been given that same designation (Eph. I:
14; 1 Peter 2:9; Titus 2: 14). There is but one olive tree, with Gentile and
Jewish branches both a part of it (Rom. 11:17-18). The New Covenant, which was
made with Israel, is established with the church Jer.31:33; Matt. 26:28; 2 Cor.
3:3-18). - Greg Bahnsen
Hal Brunson points out that God was meticulous in crafting
ethnic Israel as a foreshadowing of God's elect people, comprised of elect from
every nation, tribe, and tongue, whom Paul declared to be Abraham's seed (Gal
3:29). He observes that the name, Israel, was claimed as belonging to Christ
Jesus (in Matthew's citation of Hosea 11:1) and is, by extension, applied to
the redeemed wherein Paul refers to the people of God, whether circumcised or
not, as the Israel of God (Gal 6:16). Brunson also sees correlation between the
physical circumcision of physical Israel with the spiritual circumcision of
spiritual Israel, the Jew that Paul said was truly a Jew (Romans 2:28-29).
Lastly, we see physical Jerusalem foreshadowing spiritual Jerusalem. In Hebrews
12:22, the writer says Christians have come to Mount Zion and to the city of
the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. This is not a future condition during
the dispensational millennium; it is a current circumstance for everyone who is
enrolled in heaven, their spirits having been made perfect (verse 23). This
correlates with Paul's description of Hagar and Sarah as allegories of two
covenants, wherein he describes earthly Jerusalem as slavery with her children
in bondage. This bondage is being under the Mosaic Law, as Paul made reference
to in verse 21 - Tell me, you who wish to
be under the Law, do you not listen to the Law? That Law brought
condemnation to all mortals who tried to keep it. That was earthly Jerusalem in
Paul's day. But, he says, the Jerusalem above (which can only be the heavenly
Jerusalem mentioned in Heb 12) is liberty and freedom. It was for freedom
Christ set us free!
Contrary to the dispensational claim that physical Israel
always means ethnic, physical Israel, God's Word reveals that physical Jews,
physical Israel, and physical Jerusalem each served as types and shadows of the
spiritual, eternal realities of what is a Jew (the redeemed), who is Israel
(all those who are in Christ), and where is Jerusalem (in heaven with God until
the next age).
Galatians 6:15-16 For
neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new
creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them,
and upon the Israel of God. This construction, and upon the Israel of God, is not establishing another category of
people (as Ryrie claims in asserting they describe ethnic Israel) who are
reconciled to God. Paul is emphasizing who these people he calls a new creation are. The literal
hermeneutic consistently divides what Christ has reconciled and contradicts the
very clear teaching that, in redemption, God is no respecter of persons - that
is, He does not favor one people group over another. As Paul says in Gal 6 - neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new
creation. And in Galatians 3:28-29 There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and
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. But premillennialism
says ethnic Jews have an advantage. Vlach says it is an ethnic advantage, not
an advantage in salvation. No matter how it is described, it makes God a
respecter of persons and it makes circumcision count for something.
Here's an example of where the dispensational literal
hermeneutic can lead. David Jeremiah succeeded Tim LaHaye as "Senior
Pastor" of Shadow Mountain Community Church in San Diego, CA. In his book,
What in the World is Going On?, Jeremiah
reveals that he has based a sermon or two on crude oil, calling it “the stuff
of life” and a “sign” (the inference I drew is that he considers this a
biblical sign). He disbelieves the biblical account of creation, believing oil
took “eons of time” to create and tells us that Deuteronomy 33:24 (And of Asher he said, "Most blessed of
sons be Asher; let him be the favorite of his brothers, and let him dip his
foot in oil.) and Genesis 49:22 – 26 indicate there is oil beneath the dirt
occupied by the modern nation of Israel. The oil mentioned in Deuteronomy is
olive oil, used in medicine and religious anointing. The passage from Genesis
simply refers to blessings directly from God in Heaven and indirectly from God
here below. To derive a promise of crude oil from these passages is perhaps the
worst example of a literal hermeneutic that I’ve seen. Now I'm not saying every
dispensationalist believes this, but many do. Shadow Mountain is a YUGE church
with as many as 9 satellite campus "churches" where Jeremiah appears
weekly on a big screen.
On more quote from Ryrie: "All nondispensationalists
blur to some extent the distinction between Israel and the church. Such
blurring fails to recognize the contrast that is maintained in Scripture
between Israel, the Gentiles, and the church. In the New Testament natural
Israel and the Gentiles are contrasted." He seems to fail to grasp that
the Bible shows a contrast between the people of God and those of the world.
When Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to God, they are part of one body -
wherein ethnic and class distinctions cease to matter! There is the temporal
kingdom of man that will crumble before the wrath of the Lamb (Rev 6:15-17),
and there is the spiritual, eternal kingdom of God that will never end (Luke 1:31-33).
When the King of glory stood before the king of this world,
He said, (John 18:36) My kingdom is not
of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been
fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not
from the world. The Kingdom of God is not of or from this world. The
premillennial millennium is of this world. Think about that.
All the promises of God are in Christ (II Cor. 1:20). All
the promises of God were made to Christ, as the Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16).
Therefore, there can be no promise of any kind for any unbeliever outside of
Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 I
tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor
does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling
of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will
be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must
put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. What
God promises is far, far better than version of a cursed earth.
Let us fix our eyes on the Lord, from Whom our help comes.
No ethnic group has special standing in His kingdom or redemptive work.
Notes not in the sermon:
Why I cannot embrace Dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism splits in half what Christ reconciled in
His blood, tearing down the wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile, make
both men one in Himself.
Dispensationalism holds the children of Abraham according to
the flesh as God's people whereas the Bible says it is children of Abraham
according to the promise.
Dispensationalism focuses on re-establishing a religion that
was ended by the sacrifice of Christ, claiming the Levitical Religion is the
true expression of worship of God. Types and shadows give way when the
anti-type comes. The Levitical religion was shadows of the heavenly things and
was swept away when Christ finished His redemptive work. Just as some herald
the Decalogue to a degree that it obscure Christ, so the focus on the religion
that was given with the Decalogue. The fullness has come, do not turn back to
the shadows.
Dispensationalism encourages people to overlay the news onto
the Scriptures, interpreting the Word by the news of the world. This lends
itself to endless promotions of NEW insights, which sells more books and
conference tickets to those who do not work to interpret Scripture with
Scripture.
I know many people who follow Dispensationalism whom I
consider brothers. But I can no more accept Dispensationalist theology than I
can accept a state church.
Ryrie makes many absolute claims about his theological
system, claiming "only dispensationalism" provides this or does that.
"Only dispensationalism can maintain unity and diversity at the same time
and offer a consistent system of interpretation, only dispensationalism can
adequately account for the variety of distinguishable economies or
dispensations in (not apart from) the outworking of God's purpose. Only
dispensationalism with its cross-sectional and longitudinal/spiral perspectives
can recognize the wealth, mobility, and complexity of the history of God's
running the affairs of this world."
"Only dispensationalism can cause historical events and
successions to be seen in their own light and not to be reflected in the
artificial light of an overall covenant. Thus, a correct philosophy of history
with its requirements of a proper goal, a proper unifying principle, and a
proper concept of progress is best satisfied by the dispensational system. Like
the need for biblical distinctions, the proper concept of the philosophy of
history leads to dispensationalism. Dispensationalism sees the unity, the
variety, and the progressiveness of this purpose of God for the world as no
other system of theology."
"Classic dispensationalism is a result of consistent
application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain
interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this." "Dispensationalism
claims to employ principles of literal, plain, normal, or historical grammatical
interpretation consistently. If plain or normal interpretation is the only
valid hermeneutical principle and if it is consistently applied, it will cause
one to be a dispensationalist."
In his book, Dispensationalism,
Michael Vlach (a professor of theology at The Master's Seminary) says,
"The New Testament at times adds additional information, offer commentary
on, draws principles from, and show how Christ fulfills the Mosaic Law. But the
New Testament writers do not reinterpret or transcend the original intent of
the Old Testament writers."
Two passages from Scripture show us how Vlach goes wrong in
claiming no New Testament writers reinterpret the Old Testament and provide
examples of the apostolic hermeneutic that many preachers use responsibly but
dispensationalist call dangerous. First up, a passage from Matthew 2 that some
liberals point to in claiming the Bible has errors. While the wise men were
seeking the Christ child, an angel appeared to Joseph, warning him to take his
family to Egypt to avoid Herod's murderous scheme. Matthew says this was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken
by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I shall call my son." This is a
citation from Hosea 11:1, where that prophet recounted the Hebrew people being
called out of Egypt after their captivity. Matthew doesn't add "additional
information, offer commentary on, draws principles from" Hosea; he
reinterprets it as applying to Christ as a prophecy rather than a commentary on
a historical account.
Our second example comes from Paul, in 1 Cor 9. He has been
teaching the saints that apostles and other saints had the right to marry, to
eat and drink and that those who preach should be taken care of financially.
(read 7-11, page 2203). As with Matthew, Paul does not merely add
"additional information, offer commentary on, draws principles from"
Deut 25:4; he reinterprets it entirely! He goes so far as to say it wasn't even
written for what Moses intended!
Vlach is wrong in saying New Testament authors don't
reinterpret Old Testament passages. It's clear from what Matthew and Paul wrote
that they were interpreting and applying those Old Testament passages in ways
the human writers would have never imagined. Dispensationalists turn a blind
eye to this reality because their "literal hermeneutic" cannot hold
together, if they recognize it. And their "literal hermeneutic" is the
lynch pin to the other distinctions you find in their system.
Ryrie and Vlach both include national Israel as the human
party to the New Covenant, because the first mention of the New Covenant is in
the Old Testament!
Another Old Testament passage which dispensationalists claim
for the second advent, which means the reestablishment of national Israel in
their millennium, is found in Joel 2 and is cited by Peter as being fulfilled
in the first advent! In Acts 2 the Spirit has been poured out in a magnificent
display of people preaching in their tongue and being understood in the various
languages of the people who were there - over a dozen languages! (Read 14-21,
page 2083). The literal hermeneutic cannot accept what Peter has said - that
these signs and wonders with heavenly displays were apocalyptically fulfilled
in the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. That system cannot
accept that His death on the cross was the
great and terrible day of the Lord - which it must have been because that
is what opened the way for the New Covenant, wherein all the elect from all
nations and tribes will be gathered - everyone
who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved! This cannot be
describing the second coming of Jesus, for the Scripture says (Heb 9:28) Christ
will appear a second time, not to deal
with sin but save those who eagerly await Him.
The literal hermeneutic requires literal, physical
fulfillment of this prophecy - the moon turned to blood - even though this
requires them to push it off into the future (because these things haven't
happened yet). Even though the Spirit, speaking through Peter said, This is what was uttered through the prophet.
Our hermeneutic must bow the knee to holy writ.
The distinction between Israel and the church leads to the
belief that the church will be taken from the earth before the beginning of the
Tribulation (which in one major sense concerns Israel). Note: A key feature of
dispensationalism is a belief in a "pretrib rapture." Yet concerning
the tribulation, Ryrie says it is based on a gap he claims exists between the
69th and 70th weeks of Daniel's prophecy. And yet, of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9
he says, "They are not in themselves determinative of a dispensational
change."
The Millennial
Kingdom
Of course, the thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth is
also a feature of dispensational eschatology. The difference between the
dispensational and nondispensational views of premillennialism is not in the
fact of the coming millennial kingdom (for both include it in their systems)
but in the integration of the kingdom into their overall systems. The doctrine
of the millennial kingdom is for the dispensationalist an integral part of his
entire scheme and interpretation of many biblical passages.
Yet he also asserts, "Concerning the goal of history,
dispensationalists find it in the establishment of the millennial kingdom on
earth, whereas the covenant theologian regards it as the eternal state."
The "underlying purpose of God in the world" is the glory of God, but
the "goal of history" is "the millennial kingdom on earth"
where sin, death, and rebellion take place.
It's important to note: the various dispensations Ryrie
claims to find in Scripture are not included in his list of essential
qualities. Yet he goes so far as to say, "It is the marking off of these
stages in the revelation of the purpose of God that is the basis for the
dispensational approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures." Ryrie
says the number of dispensations is not determinative, and he observes how some
of his colleagues see 3 or 4 or 8. Then he states, "it is not difficult to
deduce how many dispensations are revealed in Scripture."
So the number and purposes of the various dispensations
claimed by Ryrie and his compatriots are not essential, but they form the basis
of their hermeneutic rule. He also claims the distinction between Israel and
the church is basic to his hermeneutic: "The essence of dispensationalism,
then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the
dispensationalist's consistent employment of normal or plain or
historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the
basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying
Himself through salvation and other purposes as well."
Ryrie describes a dispensation: "The principal
characteristic of a dispensation is the economic arrangement and responsibility
that God reveals in each dispensation. Such responsibility is a test in itself.
Most men fail the test, and then judgment follows. The dispensational scheme
has two perspectives: a cross-sectional aspect (which is sometimes misconstrued
as cycles but which is in reality a spiral) and a longitudinal aspect (which
emphasizes the unfolding progress of revelation and continuing principles
throughout the ages of the dispensations)." "The basic scheme
involving the different dispensations remains the most helpful tool of
consistent, noncontradictory interpretation of Scripture."
Ryrie quotes John Walvoord: "All the events of the
created world are designed to manifest the glory of God. The error of covenant
theologians is that they combine all the many facets of divine purpose in the
one objective of the fulfillment of the covenant of grace. From a logical
standpoint, this is the reductive error-the use of one aspect of the whole as
the determining element." I will attempt to show how Ryrie falls to this
same error, as each distinctive of dispensationalism flows from their first,
and truly the only, essential point - their literal hermeneutic.
In his description of the dispensational millennium, Ryrie
says "The earthly purpose of Israel of which dispensationalists speak
concerns the yet unfulfilled national promises that will be fulfilled by Israel
during the Millennium as they live on the earth in unresurrected bodies."
He says neither Jews nor Gentiles who die before the millennium will
participate in it. He quotes Dwight Pentecost: "The nature of the
millennium, as the period of the test of fallen humanity under the righteous
reign of the King, precludes the participation by resurrected individuals in
that testing. Thus the millennial age will be concerned only with men who ...
are living in their natural bodies." Ryrie says, "It will continue
for a thousand years, and man will be responsible for obedience to the King and
His laws." He observes that sin and rebellion and revolt take place during
this time, although not unchecked. So Ryrie's view of the millennium is
populated with unregenerate people who are under the law who rebel against King
Jesus. This is a worse condition than what existed upon the earth during the
Lord's first advent, as there were people (John the Baptizer, Anna and Simeon)
who anxiously awaited Him and heralded His kingdom, which is spiritual and
eternal - not earthly and temporal.
Ryrie laments the tendency of progressive dispensationalists
who have abandoned parenthesis or intercalation to describe the distinctiveness
of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. Ryrie says the word
parenthesis does not convey the idea the church is an afterthought. A literary
dictionary defines it this way: "Parenthesis is a qualifying or
explanatory sentence, clause, or word that writers insert into a paragraph or
passage. However, if they leave it out, even then it does not grammatically
affect the text, which is correct without it."
2 Kings 19:30-31; Isaiah 10:20-22; 37:31-32, Joel 2:32;
Micah 4:7; Zephaniah 3:13; Zechariah 8:1-8, 12; Romans 9:27; 11:5. Each of
these verses speak of the nation of Israel but they speak in reference to only
a remnant being saved.
A friend: "In retrospect - I never thought of this till
the past couple of days - I realize that I set myself up for abandoning
dispensationalism long before I actually did so. Early on I realized that a
"face value" view of the Bible is the only rational way to approach
it. This is the view that whatever in the Word you're reading, 𝘺𝘰𝘶
𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦
𝘵𝘰
𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦
𝘪𝘵
𝘢𝘵
𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦
𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦.
If it's poetry, you take it as poetry. If it's history, you take it as history.
If it's highly figurative, you take it as symbolism. If it's didactic, you take
it as teaching. And you don't try to turn symbolism into history, nor didactic
literature into poetry, etc."
If Romans 11:26 means all ethnic Israel will be saved, how
is this determined - all Jews alive at the time, all Jews who ever lived, all
Jews since first advent? If the first, then not ALL Israel will be saved. If
the second or third, then God is a respecter of persons and fleshly bloodlines
determine salvation.
Ryrie says, "Old Testament promises that Israel would
be God's people forever, that they will inherit the land of Palestine forever,
that they will form God's theocratic kingdom forever. These predictions will be
fulfilled in the millennium." Rather than examine the Hebrew use of the
word "forever." "Forever" it doesn't mean
"forever" as we think, but rather often refers to "as long as
the parties are able." The Levitical priesthood is a priesthood for Israel
"forever" yet it was ended when Christ came as the high priest of the
New Covenant. But premillennialism says "forever" promises to
national Israel will be fulfilled in the millennium. Which is not forever; it's
not even in the next age.
Ryrie's insistence on a separate new covenant for national
Israel is based on his need to have the Davidic Covenant yet unfulfilled. His
view of the millennium has David on the throne of David, as Christ's
vice-regent during the millennium. Every distinctive of dispensationalism is
the fruit of their hermeneutic. Just as the Westminster system was developed to
defend their view of infant baptism, so called, so the system of
dispensationalism exists to defend the "literal hermeneutic" that
draws people away from Christ and His finished work to an ethnic people that
has been rejected by God. Romans 11:5-7 So
too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by
grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer
be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect
obtained it, but the rest were hardened. It's not about an ethnic people,
it's about the Lord Jesus and His chosen ones, the sheep of God, the elect.
