Introduction: The Heart of the Issue
Dispensationalism’s core claim is that Israel and the Church must be carefully distinguished. In essence, it claims that God has two peoples with parallel but separate destinies. It is this distinction that drives Dispensationalism’s eschatological distinctives, viz. pretribulational premillennialism. Therefore, if it can be shown that Israel and the Church are not separate peoples of God, but together form the one people of God and are heirs according to the promises of God, then the impetus for dividing Christ’s coming into two parts falls away. What I am saying is this: a seven year period intervening between the rapture and the visible coming of Christ meets a theological necessity that only arises because of Dispensationalism’s commitment to see the Church and Israel as very distinct entities. More particularly, Dispensationalism believes that the land promises, a crucial element of the Abrahamic covenant, has yet to find fulfillment. In Gen. 12:7 and 17:8 God promises to give to Abraham and to his seed the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance.{[i]} Since God’s promises will most certainly be fulfilled, and since the Church cannot be heir of those promises (because of Dispensationalism’s core claim) Dispensationalism is forced to find an opportunity for the fulfillment of the land promises in the future. By rapturing the church prior to the tribulation, the Dispensationalist provides himself with a new box into which he can fit difficult texts. One must admire the theological ingenuity of the system, but ultimately, the entire house of cards rests on the precarious position that the Church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption, in no way fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant. As we shall see, this position cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny.
Who is Israel?
But who is Israel? According to Romans 2:28-29, “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.” Dispensationalism is vehement that there is a future for national Israel in God’s plan of redemption. So, before examining whether or not the Gentile Church has a part within this people of God, we ought to consider who the recipient of the promises was.{[ii]} What does physical descent from Abraham secure in terms of the promises? Nothing. One need only think of Ishmael or of Esau to see that not every descendent of Abraham (even through Isaac) was included in the promises. Then, when we read John 8:39-47{[iii]}, we begin to see more clearly that the Bible reckons descent and inheritance spiritually, rather than as a mere matter of genetics. If any doubt remains on this point, Paul removes it in Rom. 9:6-8: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: ‘THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED{[iv]}.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”
The significance of recognizing that it is Spiritual Israel, and not merely natural or national Israel that is heir to the promises becomes clear as we look at Galatians 3. In vv. 6-9, Paul says, “Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel 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.” So Gentiles who have received Christ are blessed with Abraham. Gentiles who have their hope in Christ are in fact sons of Abraham. That is, we are Jews. And if we are children of Abraham, then we have as much share in the inheritance promised to Abraham as does any Jew. “If the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.” (v. 18). “But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” (v. 22). Now I need to nuance a bit my claim that we have as much right to the inheritance as does the Jew. We have no right to that inheritance outside of Christ. It is only by virtue of our union with Christ that we have a right to the inheritance. But neither has the natural Jew any right to the inheritance outside of Christ. “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” (v. 16) In fact, Jesus, as the only true Jew, is the sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant. I think this is why Paul says in Gal 2:15-16 “even we” (natural Jews, and not Gentiles) seek justification through faith in Christ. What I mean is this: a Jew must confess that he is not heir by virtue of his genealogy, inasmuch as he is not really a (faithful) Jew, in order to receive his inheritance on the basis of his union with Christ.
So who is the Jew? We are. “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Gal. 3:26-29). “Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision ‘ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” (Eph 2:11-22)
This fact, that the Gentiles are included in the promises to Abraham by virtue of union with Christ, is the content of the “mystery” so often mentioned by Paul. “By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.” (Eph. 3:4-7) Though I cannot imagine how there could remain any doubt that we are heirs with Israel of the promises to Abraham, if doubt remains, we might also mention Rom. 8:16-17: “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” Or Phil. 3:3 “[W]e are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”
The Land Promises
Now if the Church is Israel, the people of God, then the need for a period of time when God works with Israel again disappears. Wait, you might argue, what about the land promises? These are specifically mentioned in Rom. 4.13-16. “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” There is always expansion of the promises in their fulfillment. This promise is no different. Surely Canaan is included in “the world”. And it is clear that it is those who are of faith that are heirs. It is difficult to limit the scope of 2 Cor. 1:20. “For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.” So I am unable to agree that there remain unfulfilled promises of God, save those that, having been initiated or inaugurated, await final and ultimate fulfillment at the return of Christ.
Who are the Theological Innovators Here? (And who are the Conservatives?)
Dispensationalists are keen to point to themselves as the defenders of conservative theology, and not without reason. It is true that some of the founders of Dispensationalism did, in fact, bear the torch of orthodoxy during a period when the mainline churches were becoming progressively liberal. They were not alone in this, however. There were many others, outside of Dispensationalist circles, such as J. Greshem Machen and Cornelius Van Til, to name only a couple, who held firmly to the inspiration, authority and inerrancy of the text. And these did not have to create a completely new way of interpreting the text of the Bible to do so. Make no mistake, Dispensationalism is new. It was invented less than two hundred years ago. While Dispensationalists should be commended for their commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture, it is not logical to argue that because Dispensationalists, unlike others, have not gone liberal, all of their eschatological conclusions should therefore be adopted by any who want to remain faithful to the text.{[v]}
An illustration may help here. Suppose nobody for 2000 years had worn hats. Then, all of a sudden, people started contracting lice. One person who did not have lice suddenly made himself a hat. He drew thousands of people to him, and they all quarantined themselves. Incidentally, they also wore hats. And despite the fact that they had quarantined themselves, they attributed the fact that they never got lice to the hats they wore. Now it’s not as though everyone else got lice. Many others, who never donned a hat, likewise quarrantined themselves and avoided the scourge. Nevertheless, the hat-wearers never trusted those who, though they had quarrantined themselves, refused to wear a hat. I believe the situation we face is similar. The fact of the matter is, Dispensational theology was invented in the midst of the liberal slide, and it happened to be invented by some of those opposed to that slide. It stands to reason, then, that it would be the one theological system that did not fall into liberalism’s grasp. After all, liberalism has nothing to do with eschatology. It has to do with epistemology and the doctrine of scripture. Of course other theological systems, ancient theological systems, all experienced some of their number moving toward liberalism. But the system and keeping the faith are not logically related to one another.
Literal Interpretation
Dispensationalism also adamantly claims to interpret the text of scripture “literally”. In doing so, they claim to seek the “plain sense” of the text. It is not so much that there are no figures of speech in the text, they will maintain, only that the grammar and words should be taken as they would be in normal communication. We are not to look for codes or allegories. But again, this approach is not exclusive to Dispensationalism. In my arguments against cutting the Church out of the Abrahamic promises, I have pretty much allowed the text to speak for itself. To make these texts say anything different would require seeing subtle distinctions – perhaps as subtle as the distinctions between the two second comings of Christ (i.e., so subtle that there is absolutely no linguistic or textual basis for the distinction—it arises from theological necessity, not exegesis). Lately, many dispensationalists have begun to recognize that language is more than words and syntax, that context, genre and canon play a role in interpretation. These are to be commended. Such an enlightened Dispensationalist might consider being more charitable to those who see the 1000 years of Revelation 20 as a figure of speech for a long period of time. After all, it appears in a book that clearly attaches symbolic significance to numbers, and uses symbolic imagery extensively. Nobody expects to see a literal whore riding a literal dragon! The genre of apocalyptic literature is not exclusive to the Bible. And as it was written to a particular people at a particular time, using conventions of a particular, not-exclusively-scriptural genre, we should be careful about how adamantly we insist that a particular number must be read according to what is most natural to us. What I am saying is that the Dispensationalist is dangerously close to a Reader Response hermeneutic. But they are inconsistent in the application of their hermeneutic. Do women speak in Dispensationalist churches? Such would not be the practice of those who read 1 Co. 14:34 in its most natural sense! Nor are they always consistent with their “dividing” of the Word. Many Dispensational churches use the phrase “God’s tithes and our offerings” in reference to what is given when the plate is passed. This is clearly intended to bind the consciences of the congregation under the dictates of the Law, which with the other fork in their tongue they are claiming has no reference to the church. So I hope the reader will pardon my obvious impatience with those who write the amillennial position off as “spiritualizing” Rev. 20:1-6. We are doing no such thing. We are taking “thousand years” as it is intended everywhere else it appears in Scripture. A thousand years usually refers to an extremely long time, a time so long that it is beyond any human reckoning (even that of Methuselah). The reader can quickly verify this fact by looking at Psa. 90:4; Eccl. 6:6; 2 and Pet. 3:8. He might also consider Ex. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; 7:9; and 1 Chr. 16:15 where thousand modifies generations, but the meaning is indefiniteness, perpetuity, or Ps. 50:10 where surely we are not intended to limit God’s ownership by a “literal” interpretation of the number! Or should we be willing, on the basis of Ps. 84:10 to trade one day in God’s courts for 1000 + 1 days elsewhere?! Are we supposed to reckon God’s experience of time as 365,000 times slower than our own, on the basis of Ps. 90:4?! The whole point is that God is outside of time. Our creaturely and not creatorly minds can only approach this notion by way of such an analogy.
I cannot help my umbrage at one who condemns me for not taking 1000 literally in Revelation 20, but – as the pot calling the kettle black – refuses to understand “last” in 1 Cor. 15:51 as literally the last?!: “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will 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 will be changed.” And if I might go on the offensive myself, I’d like to know how the Dispensationalists escapes the charge of making the text say what he wants it to say if he also ignores the temporal markers in Matt 24:29-31? "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” Clearly, the trumpet and the rapture take place after the tribulation. But the Dispensationalist is skilled at seeing a difference where none exists, as between saints and saints, or between trumpet and trumpet, or between day and day. Who, then, should answer the charge of twisting the text to mean what he wants or needs it to mean? I do hope the reader will pardon my tone. It is the hypocrasy that rankles me.
Amillenialism
There is a certain deficiency in the name with which amillennialism is saddled. There is a sense in which we do not deny that there is a millennium. We maintain that the millennium, like everything else in our experience of the gospel is already and not yet We see this principle at work in our whole experience of grace.
Already: Mat 12:28; Luk 4:21; 11:20; 17:20-21; Acts 2:16-17; Gal 4:4; 1Co 10:11; Heb 9:26; 1John 2:18; 2Co 5:17; Col 3:1; Eph 2:6; 1Co 4:19-20; Rom 14:17; Col 1:13-14
Not Yet: Mat 7:21-23; 8:11-12; Heb 6:5; Eph 2:7; 2Tim 4:18; 1Co 6:9; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 1Co 15:50 – Both: Mat 12:32; Luk 18:29-30; 20:34-35 – Already is guarantee of Not Yet: Acts 1:11; Heb 9:27-28; Tit 2:11-13.
There is a sense in which the millennium is “not yet”, since we will never be without tribulation this side of Christ’s return (2 Tim. 3:12). So from one perspective (the not yet) we are premillennial: The kingdom will come in its fulness, and only then will we have perfect peace. From another perspective we are postmillennial: The kingdom is a present reality (though only in an inaugurated form). We have access to all the benefits of Christ’s work. We are indwelt with the spirit of the enthroned Christ. Satan is bound now (Mat. 12:22-32), and we are robbing his house by evangelizing the world. But we are not really postmillennial, nor premillennial for the same reasons. We can’t be postmillennial since the kingdom of evil grows right alongside the kingdom of God until the judgment (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43). We can’t be premillennial, since evil cannot persist after Christ’s return in glory (Isa. 35:10; 60:20 – does the Lord cease to be our light at the end of the 1000 years in the premillennial understanding? Of course not. So how can this verse not find fulfillment at the return of Christ?; John 16:22). The ‘thousand year’ imagery does double duty (already/not yet) in the amillennial reading. On the one hand, it refers to our present experience where we take hold of that which is “not yet” in a hope that is based on that which is “already”. And once Christ comes, the “not yet” passes into the “already” and we enter the consummation of all things – after all, if Christ is physically present in glory, how could things get better?
That being said, there should be some degree of tolerance for each of the three views. Postmillennialism is optimistic about the power of the Spirit to win converts and transform culture. Premillennialism, however, better preserves the imminence of Christ’s return. Each has its pros and cons, and each has its textual supports and stumbling blocks. Amillennialism is no different in this regard, I suppose. I believe my interpretation does the most justice to the text. But I can understand someone placing more emphasis here or less emphasis there, focussing and demanding consistency with this verse, but putting that verse on a shelf to be dealt with later. Such is the nature of our theology generally, but it is most pronounced in matters of eschatology. And that is why I do not think eschatology is an issue that should divide the Church. None of the faithful approach the scripture intending to get it wrong. Lorraine Boettner (a postmillennialist) stated so well what I am trying to convey:
It should be added that while the Church has debated and reached conclusions and has embodied these conclusions in her creeds as regards all of the other great doctrines of the faith, the subject of Eschatology still remains in dispute as to the manner of Christ's return and the kind of kingdom that He is setting up or will set up in this world. For this reason the Church in practically all of her branches has refused to make any one of the millennial interpretations an article of the creed, and has preferred rather to accept as Christian brethren all those who believe in the fact of Christ's Coming. Hence, while personally we may have very definite views concerning the manner and time of His coming, it would seem that our motto should be: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
There are earnest believers on both sides of the issue, who simply come to different conclusions based on the same text. It is one thing for a local church to take a position. It is another thing entirely for them to arrogantly condemn those who disagree.
Eschatologi-Mania
Why is it that Dispensationalists are fanatically interested in eschatology, when none of their eschatology is relevant to the Church? Dispensationalists flock to studies of Daniel or Revelation, even though the believe these books to describe events that take place after the Church is raptured. Why? Are they hoping to watch things unfold from heaven like one who watches a movie but knows the plot ahead of time? I wonder if they would get upset were I to spoil the ending of the next great movie they want to see by telling them how it ends? That’s tongue-in-cheek, of course. But I do wonder why Dispensationalists are so Tribulation-focussed, given that they think the Church is spared the Tribulation. As for me, I believe that anyone who seeks to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Tribulation is where the church lives. The book of Revelation is very meaningful to me, because it tells me that Christ will have the victory, that my sufferings have a role to play in the unfolding drama, but that I am on the right side. How is the Dispensationalist edified by the book?
The I Don’t Knows
Dispensationalism – or rather, the eschatological distinctives of Dispensationalism are extremely widespread in North America and where North American missionaries have taken it (It is a rarity elsewhere). Words like rapture, tribulation, and millennium have been popularized by men like Darby, Schofield and Hal Lindsay. What is not so familiar, however, is the theological starting point of Dispensationalism. Without the Church/Israel distinction, there is no Dispensationalism. The eschatological distinctives are driven by this division between the Church and Israel, not by a pure exegesis of the text. Since I don’t believe a division between the Church and Israel is scripturally sustainable, I cannot accept Dispensationalism’s eschatological distinctives, either. I can understand premillennialism, just not pre-tribulational premillennialism. I can understand and countenance any of the major eschatological perspectives (Pre-, Post-, and Amillennialism), but I cannot find a division between Christ’s coming for the Church and his coming in glory. I don’t have the theological necessity that creates such a division.
I am Amillennial. There are many things I don’t know. I believe the scripture speaks of the Antichrist. But 1 John 2:18 says “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” Four verses later he says, “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-- he denies the Father and the Son.” Am I to look forward to one great Antichrist? I don’t know. Perhaps. But I am reluctant to discard the imminent return of Christ. 1 John 4:3 says, “but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” 2 John 1:7 says, “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” These are the only four verse that refer to Antichrist by title. Perhaps I am to understand Revelation’s “beast” as a personification. I just don’t know. But that’s okay. If a single great Antichrist arises, it does not undo my theology, and if Christ comes today and says, “the Antichrist was all around you”, I won’t be surprised, either.
Will Christ usher in the Millennium? Perhaps. That would be the Premillennial position. If so, however, I don’t believe the Millennium will ever end. If I am Premillennial, I understand the Millennium as heaven. Does the Millennium usher Christ’s return in? I doubt it. I can understand the optimism of this perspective, and the hope in the power that indwells the Church. But I believe the imminent return is a certain doctrine. The notion that the world will get better and better until Christ comes is, I think, contrary to the wheat and tares parable among many other scriptures and is, I think, naïve.
Amillennialism holds to the imminent return of Christ. Amillennialism also holds to the coexistence of evil throughout the Church age. Amillennialism, though, is not pessimistic. It believes in the conquering power of the Holy Spirit. It believes that we should throw our weight against the culture, while we try to win the culture with our message. Amillennialism, for instance, would be in favor of getting involved in government to outlaw abortion, to rectify slavery, to prosecute injustice, etc. But Amillennialism would not mistake the inroads it makes politically for expansion of the church (a mistake Postmillennialism is known to make on occasion). It would understand the persecution it endures in its stand against injustice as part and parcel of its lot in this age.
The already/not yet structure of New Testament revelation has persuaded me that Amillennialism stands on the firmest ground scripturally, but I rest on 1 Cor. 8:2-3:
“The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But the man who loves God is known by God.”
I hope the reader has not been bored. Much remains to be said in favor of my position. But I took as my starting point the refutation of Dispensationalism, so I’ll leave it to the reader to research further the pros and cons of Amillennialism.
[i] It should be noted that Abraham himself never owned more than a grave site within the land.
[ii] I use the singular advisedly.
[iii] They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."
[iv] All capital letters marks an OT quotation. Underlining marks my own emphasis.
[v] Incidentally, Dispensationlists who employ such illogical arguments ought to deal with the fact that the non-lordship heresy arose within their circles.
