Posts
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
John F. Walvoord
I consider Dr. John F. Walvoord to have been one of the two leading scholarly representatives of classic dispensationalism in his heyday. He and Charles C. Ryrie were the most prominent advocates of dispensationalism throughout the period of dispensationalism’s hegemony in the populist market (1955–85). Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost never quite made the grade, partly due to the problem regarding his magnum opus: Things to Come ought to have been called Things to Quote. It was merely an inventory of classic dispensational thought with little creative interaction.
I myself was once a dispensationalist, though I got over it. I graduated from a dispensational college with a degree in Biblical Studies (Tennessee Temple College, B.A., 1973). I always found Walvoord and Ryrie to be the most reputable, trustworthy, and compelling authorities to cite in promoting dispensationalism during those halcyon days in which I could study at leisure in the comfort of my home the identity of the (current) Antichrist prediction and formulate new and more compelling dates for the rapture.
In this blog I will be focusing briefly on the new Jerusalem as found in the Book of Revelation. The new Jerusalem imagery is an excellent test case for demonstrating the attempted consistency of dispensationalism (with its literalistic hermeneutic) on the one hand and its embarrassing absurdity on the other. Let me explain.
Walvoord’s Approach to Revelation
In 1966 Walvoord released his commentary on Revelation: The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Moody, 1966). In his Preface he states his general interpretive approach to Revelation, a mistake that casts its shadow over the entire book (and even extends about three inches beyond the book when left in the full sun at about 3:00 on a summer afternoon): “The author has assumed that this book should be interpreted according to the normal rules of hermeneutics rather than as a special case.” Apparently, this is due to Revelation being simply a normal book and without any special features.
Indeed, Walvoord notes of his commentary conclusions: “The result has been a more literal interpretation of prophecy and revelation in general and a clearer picture of end-time events than is frequently held by expositors.”
Thus, Walvoord attempts a literal approach to this remarkable book. We must remember that Revelation presents us with a leading character who not only is of a scarlet hue but also has seven fully-formed heads possessing ten horns. These ten horns serve as effective anchors for ten diadems which otherwise would be swept off his heads by fluvial action as he makes his way up from the sea channels below to the seashore above. There, once in full public view, he presents himself not so much as an aquatic creature but as a compound of animals, two of which normally avoid water sports (the leopard and the lion, Rev 13:2). (The bear is known for frolicking in rivers and streams in search of trout. The tiger is really the only cat that seems to enjoy water. But I digress, for the tiger is not even mentioned in this amalgamated creature.)
The New Jerusalem Problem
Perhaps no better exposé of both the tenacity and absurdity of dispensationalism exists than its attempt at explaining the new Jerusalem. John’s vision of the new Jerusalem absolutely defies literal description. Let us note some of the oddities created by the dispensationalist attempt at explanation of this glorious symbol.
In introducing the new heaven and new earth to which the new Jerusalem descends, Walvoord makes some important geological observations on John’s statement “and there was no more sea” (Rev 21:1c). Walvoord explains: “Most of the earth is now covered with water, but the new earth apparently will have no bodies of water except for the river mentioned in 22:2” (p. 311). This is odd enough in itself: to where does the river flow? Does it make a continual loop around the world, never pooling into a lake, sea, or ocean? Perhaps future dispensational exegetes can explain this geographical oddity. But Walvoord does not. He refuses to go beyond what Scripture actually states — unless something pops into his mind that seems to him to be a good idea.
Indeed, Walvoord compounds the problem when he observes the three dimensions of the city in 21:16. He suggests that it “could be in the form of a pyramid with sides sloping to a peak at the height indicated.” He notes in this regard that “this would have certain advantages, not necessarily because smaller, but because this shape provides a vehicle for the river of life to proceed out of the throne of God, which seems to be at the top, to find its way to the bottom, assuming our experience of gravity will be somewhat normal also in the new earth” (Walvoord, 323). (This is an actual quote from him; I did not make it up.)
I am not certain of this, but I suspect that had Walvoord been pressed he might have argued that this shape would also make an excellent ski slope for the new world. Undoubtedly he could have availed himself of his clearly stated scientific assumptions and then backed this by a compelling Scripture reference too often overlooked in Revelation’s exegetical history. Let me explain.
Referring back to his quote cited above, we may observe that Walvoord is already operating on the geo-physical assumption that “our experience of gravity will be somewhat normal also in the new earth.” And since the water in the new Jerusalem flows down from a height of 1500 miles above the earth the temperature would be quite nippy and ideal for icy conditions.
Doubtless he could have referred to the lubricating properties of surface ice conditions that would facilitate slipperiness thereby increasing ski enjoyment for those who strap boards on their feet to let gravity pull them down to where the drinks are served. After all, with fewer chemical bonds holding them in place, surface molecules in ice tend to vibrate with greater amplitude than those located in the bulk crystalline sub-structure of the ice mass. This obviously leads to an important reality of physics: the Mean Square Displacement of both the hydrogen and oxygen atoms on the icy surface of frozen water reflects the thermal vibration that increases as a natural function of temperature. But Walvoord is strangely silent on these scientific observations (just as he is on the issue of cheese) that would have further elucidated our understanding of the new world.
When we add these geo-physical assumptions to Scripture references elsewhere, the matter is irrefutably solved. Building on these scientific observations Walvoord could easily have pointed out that the top of the pyramid might also be the place to which God refers when he asks Job: “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow?” (Job 38:22). Job was stumped because he lived long before the rapture and obviously could not have entered the storehouses at the peak of the pyramidal new Jerusalem.
Of course, we will have to overlook Walvoord’s views on the maintenance of gravitational mechanics in the new order when we consider the crushing weight of a city that exists as a 1500 mile high, wide, and long entity. Hopefully the new Jerusalem will be built upon a four inch concrete slab thereby preventing it from being driven down into the mud.
This would not be a concern during the millennium, however, for Walvoord notes: “If the new Jerusalem is in existence throughout the millennial reign of Christ, it is possible that it is a satellite city suspended over the earth during the thousand-year reign of Christ as the dwelling place of resurrected and translated saints who also have access to the earthly scene.”
A benefit of this view would obviously be that during the millennium the river flowing down the slope of the pyramidal new Jerusalem could be a primary source of fresh water for the earth below as it warmed upon reentering the warmer low altitudes. As the river flowed down the sides of the new Jerusalem, it would fall into the atmosphere, collect into clouds, and rain down upon the inhabitants below who would be marveling at the 1500 mile long city floating above. We could also back up Walvoord’s theories by providing Scripture support for this possibility: “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols” (Eze 36:25). This would allow us to take Ezekiel literally, rather than spiritually.
We must, however, recognize Walvoord’s reservation: “The possibility of Jerusalem being a satellite city over the earth during the millennium is not specifically taught in any scripture and at best is an inference based on the implication that it has been in existence prior to its introduction in Revelation 21” (Walvoord, 313). Nevertheless, regarding the question as to when the new Jerusalem is built, Walvoord argues that: “Nothing is revealed concerning this in Scripture unless the expression of John 14:2, ‘I go to prepare a place for you,’ refers to this” (p. 312). Jesus certainly has had sufficient time to build this 1500 hundred mile high, wide, long city, for his ascension was 1,970 years, two months, and three days ago.
Now we must understand that on the literalistic assumptions of dispensationalism, this new Jerusalem is an actual, literal city; it is not a symbol of the church or the people. Walvoord comments: “Of major importance are the facts that John actually saw a city, that this city was inhabited by saints of all ages, and that God Himself was present in it. Until further light is given, it is probably a safe procedure to accept the description of this city as corresponding to the physical characteristics attributed to it” (p. 320).
Walvoord continues, noting that John “itemizes the specific details” so that the symbolic view of the new Jerusalem “is difficult to harmonize with the specific details given which are nowhere explained in other than the literal sense in the Bible” (p. 321). By this he is referring to the many OT references to literal cities built with wall-foundation stones made from jasper, sapphire, emerald, and so forth, which also contain streets of pure gold, and which have gates carved out of single pearls from enormous clams dredged up from the Mediterranean Sea (cp. Rev 21:19–21). (I am writing this at 5:30 am in the morning so I am unable to remember where in the OT these literal cities are; but I am sure you will recognize them once you have had your morning cup of coffee.)
So then, the new Jerusalem is an actual, literal, physical city, complete with a street (21:21; 22:2). We must carefully note, however, that it has only one street: John never mentions “streets” and he does twice mention the street (singular): “the street of the city was pure gold” (21:21) and “in the middle of its street” (22:2). Obviously traffic problems will be solved in the new Jerusalem, proving that Los Angeles (despite it being the “City of Angels”) is not the new Jerusalem. But more significantly, with a city 1500 miles high, elevators will probably be the main means of transport thereby removing the need for a city highway system.
On Walvoord’s (and dispensationalism’s) analysis we must conceive of a whole, fully-functioning, 1500 mile-dimensioned city “that descends from heaven” (p. 321). According to the clear teaching of Scripture, this literal city floats through the sky (Rev 21:2, 10). Obviously it floats with such ease that it does not break up the street, which street apparently rests on nothing but air (though it would be protected from air turbulence by some unknown mechanism as it enters into the lower earth atmosphere).
We surely must surmise that this literal city will have literal pipes, electrical fittings, duct work, tubes, couplings, flanges, traps, strainers, block-and-table, and such hanging beneath it. We know for certain that it has foundation stones (21:14, 19). But these foundation stones are suspended on air — at least throughout the millennium and until it arrives from its near-earth orbit in the eternal state.
Conclusion
Christians: dispensationalism is a bizarre, absurd, and embarrassing theological construct. The fact that so many evangelical Christian believe it is a sad testimony both to Christian naivete and to the dismal lack of solid biblical exegesis in the churches of our land. Actually, the new Jerusalem is a symbol of the redeemed people of God in whom he dwells (Rev 21:3), much like the “temple” in Paul’s writing often represents the people of God and not a physical building (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Dispensationalism's Confused Model
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
In response to my last blog "Pesky Progressives" a reader named Vance argued that progressive dispensationalism was overturning the Greek influence of later Christianity by returning to "restored creation" hope of the early Church. I gave a brief response to his reply, but I would like to say a little more about this subject in a separate blog article.
In response to my last blog "Pesky Progressives" a reader named Vance argued that progressive dispensationalism was overturning the Greek influence of later Christianity by returning to "restored creation" hope of the early Church. I gave a brief response to his reply, but I would like to say a little more about this subject in a separate blog article.
In Zondervan’s millennial debate CounterPoints book Three Views of the End of History and Beyond, Craig A. Blaising provides an interesting summation of a theological paradigm shift in the early Church. He outlines the early Church’s developing understanding of the Christian’s eternal destiny. He sees this as affirming his (progressive) dispensationalist premillennialism and as countering the spiritualistic models of amillennialism and postmillennialism. His argument is also welcomed by more traditional dispensationalists. In fact, dispensationalists believe that this represents a key problem in non-premillennial eschatological systems.
But what is this “spiritualistic” problem? And is it a valid objection against non-premillennial eschatologies?
Model Argument Presentation
Blaising argues that a spiritual model for eternity soon displaced the more biblical new creation model. That is, he argues that the Church eventually began to set aside the concept of a new, physical creation wherein the redeemed will dwell in resurrected bodies for eternity. Instead, he complains, the Church began to “spiritualize” our eternal destiny as being in heaven rather than in a new creation.
Actually I as a postmillennialist endorse the basics of Blaising’s preferred new creation model for eternity. As Blaising put it: in that model the “scope of eternal life is essentially continuous with that of present earthly life except for the absence of sin and death.” Thus, the new creation models sees a physically restored new heavens and new earth as the eternal destiny of physically resurrected saints.
Although Blaising associates the arising of the spiritual model of eternity with the birth of amillennialism and postmillennialism, both of these non-premillennial eschatologies now strongly affirm a new creation model. In fact, since 1992 I have argued for this approach in my exposition and defense of postmillennialism (see the latest version of Shall Have Dominionailable at NiceneCouncil.com). Interestingly, even in the CounterPoint debate book in which Blaising wrote, amillennialist Robert Strimple affirmed this view.
But Strimple is not promoting a new innovation within amillennialism, for amillennialist Anthony Hoekema provided a thorough-going presentation of the new creation model in his 1979 book, Bible and the Futureat is more, the new covenant model appeared in the writings of anti-premillennialist John Calvin in the 1500s. Thus, dispensationalism’s alleged development of the new creation model appears almost 500 hundred years after Calvin!
Model Argument Error
Interestingly, Blaising supports his argument for the new creation model from several passages of Scripture: “Following the language of Isaiah 24, 65 and 66, of Revelation 21, and of Romans 8, the new creation model expects the earth and the cosmic order to be renewed and made everlasting through the same creating power that grants immortal and resurrection life to the saints.” But this is not helpful to h is defense of dispensationalism at all.
Blaising himself later states regarding one of his foundational passages for the “renewed” and “everlasting” new creation order (Isaiah 65): “curiously death still remains a feature in that world order (Isa. 65:20).” This curiosity is explained by a proper understanding of Revelation 21:1—22:5 (another of Blaising’s passages) in its original context. Immediatelyafter the new creation / Jerusalem appears and is explained in Revelation 21:1 — 22:5, we read: “‘These words are faithful and true’; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place. . . . And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near’” (Rev. 22:6, 10; emphasis mine). Thus, the new creation of which Isaiah and John are speaking represent a present reality in Christ. And Paul agrees with the new creation presence (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15. Cp. Luke 4:16-21; Eph. 2:10; 2:12-16; 4:24).
Thus, surprisingly two of Blaising’s foundational passages for demonstrating a future physical new creation actually apply to a present spiritual new creation! Blaising’s premillennial presentation is self-refuting. These two passages present the coming of the new heavens / earth / Jerusalem in the permanent establishing of Christianity. This publically and finally occurs in God’s judgment on Israel when he destroyed the old covenant order in A.D. 70. Consequently, the new creation order began legally and spiritually(!) under Christ and his Apostles; it was confirmed publicly and dramatically in A.D. 70 by removing the typological, old covenant order (which was “ready to vanish away,” Heb. 8:13) so that the final new covenant order could be firmly established (Heb. 12:22-28). The “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21; Rev. 7:14) against the first century Temple (Matt. 23:38 — 24:3, 15; Rev. 11:1-2) in Judea (Matt. 24:16; Rev. 11:8) was to occur in “this generation” (24:34; cp. Rev. 1:1, 2).
The postmillennial eschatological schema involves gradualistic development of the kingdom of God in history. This is opposed to the premillennial catastrophism necessary to impose a bureaucratic, political, temple-based kingdom on a recalcitrant world at the battle of Armageddon. The seed principles of the new order are legally established in Christ’s redemptive work (A.D. 30) and publicly demonstrated in Christ’s judgment of Israel (A.D. 70). The outworking of the kingdom / new covenant / new creation / millennial principle begins progressing in an upward-moving, linear fashion by unfolding, incremental development through history. Ultimately this upward progress will be superseded by final perfection at the Second Advent, which will establish the consummate, eternal new creation order. Thus, Blaising rightly desires “a holistic hope in which the millennium forms one part.” Unfortunately, he looks for the wrong type of millennium (Zionistic politicism) produced by the wrong method (catastrophic imposition).
Nevertheless, the fact of a future, physical new creation remains. It is rooted in other texts of Scripture (such as 2 Peter 3) and in the theological implications of redemptive realities (a physical resurrection suggests a physical environment in which the resurrected will dwell).
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Pesky Progressives
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Dispensationalism is undergoing a gradual, evolutionary change of mammoth proportions. Since the late 1980s many dispensational scholars have been tinkering with the system trying to make it more palatable to evangelical theologians — as well as more biblical. They are doing a pretty good job on both accounts. Their new system is called "progressive dispensationalism." But their work is not done. And it will not be done until they remove the word "dispensationalism" from their title. In other words, their work will not be complete until they no longer classify themselves as dispensationalists. I think that day is coming. (I will not, however, predict the day nor the hour lest I become like unto them.)
You can hear the alarm being sounded in the more popular, more traditional dispensational camp. That is, you can hear it from those few traditional dispensationalists who are somewhat studious and alert. The average dispensationalist-in-the-pew is too busy trying to identify the Antichrist, predict the date of the Rapture, and create a better system for full-color, fold-out charts. (I was just kidding about the last point; as strong advocates of the tri-partite view of man they are resolutely committed to tri-fold charts.)
In the 1990s a number of books attacking progressive dispensationalism were published by the old guard. And several significant debate books were generated out of their intermural debate. One of these debate books was: Herbert W. Bateman, ed., Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999). In this work we see the enormous changes being effected on the theological sub-structure of dispensationalism. (The more popular brand of dispensationalism that dominates the market does not actually have what we would call a "theological sub-structure." Basically their simple motto is: "I believe therefore it am").
To get a feel for the radical nature of the changes being effected, we may quote a brief section of this book. I will cite a couple of paragraphs by Stanley D. Toussaint, an older school dispensationalist. Toussaint writes on p. 227:
"In his classic work Dispensationalism Today, Ryrie sets forth a threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism — a distinction between Israel and the church, a literal hermeneutic, and the glory of God as His purpose on earth. Of these three, undoubtedly the most important is the distinction between Israel and the church. Ryrie calls this ‘the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist.’ He calls it the ‘essence of dispensationalism.’ He goes so far as to say, ‘The nature of the church is a crucial point of difference between dispensationalism and other doctrinal viewpoints. Indeed, ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church, is the touchstone of dispensationalism.’ All dispensationalists would agree that these statements are true. However, the degree of the difference has been and still is a matter of debate. If the church and Israel become so blurred in dispensationalism that there is no separation between them, dispensationalism will become as extinct as the pitied dodo bird."
As you can see: the foundational touchstone of dispensationalism is being reformulated. And "if the foundations be destroyed, what will the populist do?"
Since dispensationalism is a theological system, we can expect that reworking the foundations will impact the rest of their theology. And such is certainly the case. Toussaint goes on to note on p. 228:
"Progressive dispensationalism has taken a new tack. It still makes something of a difference between Israel and the church, but that distinction is not nearly as sharp. Those who hold to this position believe that the promised kingdom has already begun; progressive dispensationalists assert that the Old Testament covenants and promises have had a beginning, a partial fulfillment in the church, but will have their ultimate fulfillment in the Millennium and eternity. Their view of the kingdom is similar to Ladd’s; that is, progressive dispensationalists believe that the kingdom was present when Christ ministered on earth but His reign was not initiated until His ascension. At that time He took His seat on the throne of David. Thus, the kingdom has been inaugurated but will come in fullness only in the millennium and eternity."
These are enormously significant alterations occurring in this popular eschatological system. Dispensationalism is in serious trouble. It is not simply changing, it is becoming its opposite. But again: they are not there yet, though the prospects look good for the final demise of dispensationalism. Of course, if the average dispensationalist ever gets wind of what their theologians are doing, they will simply write it off as another one of the signs of the times. And they will return to the mountain top with their friends to eagerly wait.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Literalism and the Rejection of Messiah
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
The Error of Dispensational Literalism
The two cornerstones of dispensationalism are: (1) Israel and the Church must be kept distinct as two separate peoples of God throughout all eternity. (2) Scripture must be interpreted literalistically unless it would lead to absurdity. Both of these foundational premises are absolutely erroneous. In this blog I will briefly demonstrate the tragedy of literalism for both first century Israel and present-day dispensationalism.
Dispensationalists proudly point out that first century Jewish rabbis interpreted the Old Testament literalistically. In fact, this claim is often made at the beginning of their argument for literalism in an effort to establish the historical nature of their hermeneutic. For instance, Dallas Seminary’s J. Dwight Pentecost asserts: "The prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly the literal method of interpretation" (Things to Come, 17). Popular and prolific dispensational author Malcolm Ollie Couch, Jr. agrees: "Jewish orthodoxy generally interpreted the Old Testament literally" (Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, 148).
Unfortunately, literalism was not only a tragedy for the Jews, but is an embarrassment to their best friends, the dispensationalists. (And through dispensationalism’s behemoth presence in American Christian circles, an embarrassment to evangelical theology.) Let us see how this is so.
The Tragedy of Jewish Literalism
The tragedy of literalism for Israel was perhaps the key human component leading the nation to reject their own prophesied Messiah. Evangelical theologian Stanley J. Grenz observes "it was their expectations of a literal earthly kingdom and political ruler that caused many Jews to fail to recognize Jesus as their Messiah at his first coming" (The Millennial Maze, 79). Interestingly, we see this point made throughout John’s Gospel. Indeed, it seems almost as if his Gospel was designed to demonstrate this affliction.
John’s Gospel opens early-on with a foreboding lament: "He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him" (John 1:11). And this was despite the fact that Jesus was "the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it" (John 1:4b–5). Then throughout his Gospel John repeatedly points out why this happened: it was due to the naive literalism of the majority of first-century Jews.
Jesus even has to rebuke a religious leader in Israel for this nonsense. In John 2 Jesus is at the Temple during Passover where he drives the moneychangers out of the Temple court. The temple authorities confront him, asking: "What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things" (John 2:18). John records Jesus’ response and the Jewish confusion based on their literalistic interpretation of it: "Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews therefore said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’" (John 2:19–20). John exposes their error by properly interpreting Jesus’ answer: "But He was speaking of the temple of His body" (John 2:21).
Just five verses later John records Jesus’ interaction with "a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews" (John 3:1). Nicodemus informs Jesus that he recognizes the significance of Jesus’ miracles. Then we read: "Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?’ (John 3:3–4). He totally misses Jesus’ teaching on being "born again." Here is a ruler of the Jews thinking as a dispensationalist: apparently for him "truly, truly" meant "literally, literally."
But how does Jesus respond? With a sharp rebuke and a correction to his literalism. "Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again. . . .’" ‘Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?’ . . . If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:5–7, 10, 12). Ouch! Here is an educated Pharisee, a "ruler of the Jews" being questioned as to his intelligence because of his literalistic approach.
Then in the next chapter we find another encounter of Jesus. This time with the Samaritan woman at the well. In his interaction with her we discover her dullness of understanding which is also rooted in simplistic literalism.
"Jesus answered and said to her, ‘If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, "Give Me a drink," you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.’ She said to Him, ‘Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?’ Jesus answered and said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life. The woman said to Him, ‘Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty, nor come all the way here to draw’" (John 4:10–15).
If Jesus teaches about his providing "living water" had prompted his hearers to go about looking for ladles, they would be sorely disappointed. She missed his spiritual instruction because of her literalistic assumption.
But this is not all, for we read further: "In the meanwhile the disciples were requesting Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, eat.’ But He said to them, ‘I have food to eat that you do not know about.’ The disciples therefore were saying to one another, ‘No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work. Do you not say, "There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest"? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. Already he who reaps is receiving wages, and is gathering fruit for life eternal; that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this case the saying is true, "One sows, and another reaps." I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor’" (John 4:31–38).
Had Jesus not constrained them they would have probably run off to begin looking for a sickle to help him harvest some wheat while the Samaritan woman went off looking for a longer ladle. No wonder people back then were such hard workers. They took everything so literally. (By saying they "took" everything literally, I do not mean they manually lifted everything up and hauled it off to another geographical destination. You can’t have everything: where would you put it?).
Later Jesus really gets into trouble and offended a crowd of literalistic Jews. He does so after miraculously feeding 5000 of them (John 6:1–14, 24–26). We see literalism raising its dense head once again when the Jews finally find him shortly thereafter:
"‘Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread out of heaven to eat."’ Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.’ They said therefore to Him, ‘Lord, evermore give us this bread.’ Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.’ (John 6:31– 35). The story continues:
"‘I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.’ The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever’" (John 6:51– 58).
And you know what happens next (John has already established the pattern for you!): "Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this said, ‘This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?’ But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, ‘Does this cause you to stumble?’ . . . As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore" (John 6:60–61, 66).
All of this interpretive stumbling does not end here! It continues on relentlessly throughout John’s record. In John 8:21–22 we read: "He said therefore again to them, ‘I go away, and you shall seek Me, and shall die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come. Therefore the Jews were saying, ‘Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, "Where I am going, you cannot come"?’" (John 8:21–22).
Then a few verses later we read of Jesus’ preaching: "‘You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ They answered Him, ‘We are Abraham's offspring, and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, "You shall become free"?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. And the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed" (John 8:32–36). They were in danger of remaining in slavery to sin because they could not understand Jesus’ warning about that spiritual slavery, partly due to their literalism.
Then just a few more verses afterwards we see the same problem arising again: "‘Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.’ The Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, "If anyone keeps My word, he shall never taste of death." Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?’" (John 8:51–53).
Just a few verse later in the following context (beginning in John 9:1) Jesus heals a blind man. Then he causes confusion by speaking of spiritual blindness to the dispensationalist Pharisees. (We know they were dispensationalists because they not only were literalists but they also held to the distinction between the Church and Israel — as well as believing in a special future for Israel wherein they would rule the world.) "And Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind.’ Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, ‘We are not blind too, are we?’" (John 9:39–40). They had confronted him regarding his healing of the blind man. So when Jesus calls them "blind," they literalistically assume he is speaking of physical blindness.
Jesus’ own closest associates were Jewish, and therefore afflicted with literalism. We see this in the episode of the raising of Lazarus: "This He said, and after that He said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awaken him out of sleep.’ The disciples therefore said to Him, ‘Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.’" But once again, John helps us out by adding: "Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then Jesus therefore said to them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead’" (John 11:11–14).
Even Peter, the leading disciple and one of the inner circle of three (with James and John, cf. Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33), was confused by his cultural literalism: Jesus said: "‘Little children, I am with you a little while longer. You shall seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, I now say to you also, "Where I am going, you cannot come."’ . . . Simon Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, where are You going?’ Jesus answered, ‘Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you shall follow later.’ Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, why can I not follow You right now?’" (John 13:33, 36–37).
Literalism is such a bad problem among the Jews that Jesus has to interact with Pilate to discover whether Pilate had directly heard him speak on the kingdom of heaven, or whether he got all of his information from the Jews. As we can tell from the preceding narrative in John’s Gospel, this was a great concern for Jesus since the Jews tended to misconstrue his teaching by subjecting it to a literalistic analysis. Thus we read:
"Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus, and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?’ Pilate answered, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what have You done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’ Pilate therefore said to Him, ‘So You are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice’" (John 18:33-37).
Thus, once Jesus discounts any Jewish, literalistic interpretation of his kingdom sayings. He informs Pilate he is indeed a "king." But he defines his kingdom as a spiritual kingdom not of this world, a kingdom related to the proclamation of truth and uninterested in armies and a police force. His kingdom is spiritual, not literal . And because of his answer we read: "Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’ And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, ‘I find no guilt in Him’" (John 18:38). He well knew, as did the Jews, that "everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar" (John 19:12). Yet as Caesar’s appointed procurator Pilate stated: "I find no guilt in Him."
Conclusion
In all of this we see the dangers of a naive literalism. It caused Jesus’ embarrassing rebuke of a high-ranking Jewish leader (Nicodemus). It caused many would-be disciples to turn away from him. It caused his disciples to be confused. It caused the Jews to reject Jesus as Messiah. It even caused them to demand his crucifixion (cp. Matt 27:29, 37).
Furthermore, the literalistic hermeneutic eventually created a whole, new theological movement in history 1800 years after Christ: dispensationalism was founded in 1830. This movement has created its own rapturistic theological system. It has also caused embarrassment to the broader evangelical faith by its naive theology, with all of its calls for the end, demands for preferential treatment for Jews, and for almost the entire herd of televangelists.
In addition to all of this, dispensational literalism can be personally dangerous. And you need to take this very seriously. Please allow me to just give one piece of advice to you for your own safety in ministry. If you ever have a distraught dispensationalist come to you for counsel and asking: "May I talk to you about my problem with a violent temper?," never ever, under any circumstances whatsoever respond: "Shoot."
The Error of Dispensational Literalism
Dispensationalists proudly point out that first century Jewish rabbis interpreted the Old Testament literalistically. In fact, this claim is often made at the beginning of their argument for literalism in an effort to establish the historical nature of their hermeneutic. For instance, Dallas Seminary’s J. Dwight Pentecost asserts: "The prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly the literal method of interpretation" (Things to Come, 17). Popular and prolific dispensational author Malcolm Ollie Couch, Jr. agrees: "Jewish orthodoxy generally interpreted the Old Testament literally" (Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, 148).
Unfortunately, literalism was not only a tragedy for the Jews, but is an embarrassment to their best friends, the dispensationalists. (And through dispensationalism’s behemoth presence in American Christian circles, an embarrassment to evangelical theology.) Let us see how this is so.
The Tragedy of Jewish Literalism
The tragedy of literalism for Israel was perhaps the key human component leading the nation to reject their own prophesied Messiah. Evangelical theologian Stanley J. Grenz observes "it was their expectations of a literal earthly kingdom and political ruler that caused many Jews to fail to recognize Jesus as their Messiah at his first coming" (The Millennial Maze, 79). Interestingly, we see this point made throughout John’s Gospel. Indeed, it seems almost as if his Gospel was designed to demonstrate this affliction.
John’s Gospel opens early-on with a foreboding lament: "He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him" (John 1:11). And this was despite the fact that Jesus was "the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it" (John 1:4b–5). Then throughout his Gospel John repeatedly points out why this happened: it was due to the naive literalism of the majority of first-century Jews.
Jesus even has to rebuke a religious leader in Israel for this nonsense. In John 2 Jesus is at the Temple during Passover where he drives the moneychangers out of the Temple court. The temple authorities confront him, asking: "What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things" (John 2:18). John records Jesus’ response and the Jewish confusion based on their literalistic interpretation of it: "Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews therefore said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’" (John 2:19–20). John exposes their error by properly interpreting Jesus’ answer: "But He was speaking of the temple of His body" (John 2:21).
Just five verses later John records Jesus’ interaction with "a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews" (John 3:1). Nicodemus informs Jesus that he recognizes the significance of Jesus’ miracles. Then we read: "Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?’ (John 3:3–4). He totally misses Jesus’ teaching on being "born again." Here is a ruler of the Jews thinking as a dispensationalist: apparently for him "truly, truly" meant "literally, literally."
But how does Jesus respond? With a sharp rebuke and a correction to his literalism. "Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again. . . .’" ‘Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?’ . . . If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:5–7, 10, 12). Ouch! Here is an educated Pharisee, a "ruler of the Jews" being questioned as to his intelligence because of his literalistic approach.
Then in the next chapter we find another encounter of Jesus. This time with the Samaritan woman at the well. In his interaction with her we discover her dullness of understanding which is also rooted in simplistic literalism.
"Jesus answered and said to her, ‘If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, "Give Me a drink," you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.’ She said to Him, ‘Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?’ Jesus answered and said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life. The woman said to Him, ‘Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty, nor come all the way here to draw’" (John 4:10–15).
If Jesus teaches about his providing "living water" had prompted his hearers to go about looking for ladles, they would be sorely disappointed. She missed his spiritual instruction because of her literalistic assumption.
But this is not all, for we read further: "In the meanwhile the disciples were requesting Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, eat.’ But He said to them, ‘I have food to eat that you do not know about.’ The disciples therefore were saying to one another, ‘No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work. Do you not say, "There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest"? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. Already he who reaps is receiving wages, and is gathering fruit for life eternal; that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this case the saying is true, "One sows, and another reaps." I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor’" (John 4:31–38).
Had Jesus not constrained them they would have probably run off to begin looking for a sickle to help him harvest some wheat while the Samaritan woman went off looking for a longer ladle. No wonder people back then were such hard workers. They took everything so literally. (By saying they "took" everything literally, I do not mean they manually lifted everything up and hauled it off to another geographical destination. You can’t have everything: where would you put it?).
Later Jesus really gets into trouble and offended a crowd of literalistic Jews. He does so after miraculously feeding 5000 of them (John 6:1–14, 24–26). We see literalism raising its dense head once again when the Jews finally find him shortly thereafter:
"‘Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread out of heaven to eat."’ Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.’ They said therefore to Him, ‘Lord, evermore give us this bread.’ Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.’ (John 6:31– 35). The story continues:
"‘I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.’ The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever’" (John 6:51– 58).
And you know what happens next (John has already established the pattern for you!): "Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this said, ‘This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?’ But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, ‘Does this cause you to stumble?’ . . . As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore" (John 6:60–61, 66).
All of this interpretive stumbling does not end here! It continues on relentlessly throughout John’s record. In John 8:21–22 we read: "He said therefore again to them, ‘I go away, and you shall seek Me, and shall die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come. Therefore the Jews were saying, ‘Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, "Where I am going, you cannot come"?’" (John 8:21–22).
Then a few verses later we read of Jesus’ preaching: "‘You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ They answered Him, ‘We are Abraham's offspring, and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, "You shall become free"?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. And the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed" (John 8:32–36). They were in danger of remaining in slavery to sin because they could not understand Jesus’ warning about that spiritual slavery, partly due to their literalism.
Then just a few more verses afterwards we see the same problem arising again: "‘Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.’ The Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, "If anyone keeps My word, he shall never taste of death." Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?’" (John 8:51–53).
Just a few verse later in the following context (beginning in John 9:1) Jesus heals a blind man. Then he causes confusion by speaking of spiritual blindness to the dispensationalist Pharisees. (We know they were dispensationalists because they not only were literalists but they also held to the distinction between the Church and Israel — as well as believing in a special future for Israel wherein they would rule the world.) "And Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind.’ Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, ‘We are not blind too, are we?’" (John 9:39–40). They had confronted him regarding his healing of the blind man. So when Jesus calls them "blind," they literalistically assume he is speaking of physical blindness.
Jesus’ own closest associates were Jewish, and therefore afflicted with literalism. We see this in the episode of the raising of Lazarus: "This He said, and after that He said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awaken him out of sleep.’ The disciples therefore said to Him, ‘Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.’" But once again, John helps us out by adding: "Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then Jesus therefore said to them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead’" (John 11:11–14).
Even Peter, the leading disciple and one of the inner circle of three (with James and John, cf. Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33), was confused by his cultural literalism: Jesus said: "‘Little children, I am with you a little while longer. You shall seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, I now say to you also, "Where I am going, you cannot come."’ . . . Simon Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, where are You going?’ Jesus answered, ‘Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you shall follow later.’ Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, why can I not follow You right now?’" (John 13:33, 36–37).
Literalism is such a bad problem among the Jews that Jesus has to interact with Pilate to discover whether Pilate had directly heard him speak on the kingdom of heaven, or whether he got all of his information from the Jews. As we can tell from the preceding narrative in John’s Gospel, this was a great concern for Jesus since the Jews tended to misconstrue his teaching by subjecting it to a literalistic analysis. Thus we read:
"Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus, and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?’ Pilate answered, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what have You done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’ Pilate therefore said to Him, ‘So You are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice’" (John 18:33-37).
Thus, once Jesus discounts any Jewish, literalistic interpretation of his kingdom sayings. He informs Pilate he is indeed a "king." But he defines his kingdom as a spiritual kingdom not of this world, a kingdom related to the proclamation of truth and uninterested in armies and a police force. His kingdom is spiritual, not literal . And because of his answer we read: "Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’ And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, ‘I find no guilt in Him’" (John 18:38). He well knew, as did the Jews, that "everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar" (John 19:12). Yet as Caesar’s appointed procurator Pilate stated: "I find no guilt in Him."
Conclusion
In all of this we see the dangers of a naive literalism. It caused Jesus’ embarrassing rebuke of a high-ranking Jewish leader (Nicodemus). It caused many would-be disciples to turn away from him. It caused his disciples to be confused. It caused the Jews to reject Jesus as Messiah. It even caused them to demand his crucifixion (cp. Matt 27:29, 37).
Furthermore, the literalistic hermeneutic eventually created a whole, new theological movement in history 1800 years after Christ: dispensationalism was founded in 1830. This movement has created its own rapturistic theological system. It has also caused embarrassment to the broader evangelical faith by its naive theology, with all of its calls for the end, demands for preferential treatment for Jews, and for almost the entire herd of televangelists.
In addition to all of this, dispensational literalism can be personally dangerous. And you need to take this very seriously. Please allow me to just give one piece of advice to you for your own safety in ministry. If you ever have a distraught dispensationalist come to you for counsel and asking: "May I talk to you about my problem with a violent temper?," never ever, under any circumstances whatsoever respond: "Shoot."
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The “Secret” Rapture Revisited
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
In response to a previous blog titled "The Loud Verse and the Secret Rapture," I received the following anonymous response:
"Because, you deceiver, no-one ever called it a ‘Secret Rapture’ EXCEPT anti-dispensationalists like yourself. You have created a straw man. knocked it down and proved nothing."
I would use this response to point out the emotional nature of commitment to dispensationalism. This anonymous response was not an intellectual challenge to my blog, but an emotional outburst against it. He does not assert that I am argumentatively mistaken, but rather charges that I am morally a "deceiver."
What is worse, my respondent's objection is fallacious. Indeed, it is mistaken in its foundational, over-riding, singular point! The writer claims: (1) "no-one ever called it a ‘Secret Rapture’ EXCEPT anti-dispensationalists," and because of this alleged fact (2) "you have created a straw man."
Please consider the following in reply:
Dispensationalists employ the term "secret" for the Rapture
The largest selling book of the 1970s, and one of the largest selling Christian books of all times, was Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth. In the 1970s it sold over 9 million copies. And though quite dated now, it is still on the market and has sold over 28 million copies worldwide. As a consequence, it has influenced millions of Christians.
In this book dispensationalist mega-bestseller Hal Lindsey states on pages 142–43:
"Another reason why we support the idea that the Rapture and the second coming are separate events is that the second coming is said to be visible to the whole earth (Revelation 1:7). However, in the Rapture, only the Christians see Him — it’s a mystery, a secret. When the living believers are taken out, the world is going to be mystified."
Thus, one of the most influential dispensational authors uses the term, despite the anonymous writer declaring that "no-one" ever called it a secret rapture.
Another best-selling dispensationalist who uses the term is Dave Hunt. In his book Whatever Happened to Heaven? he writes on page 303:
"The rapture as expressed in 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to be a private event involving the church only, and unseen and unknown to the world. . . . The actual event seems to be a secret experience only by the church."
Major theologian Robert H. Gundry wrote The Church and the Tribulation, in which he classifies himself as a "dispensationalist" (p. 28). He is also called a dispensationalist in Thomas Ice and Tim Demy’s book, When the Trumpet Sounds: "Gundry, who is not only premillennial but also dispensational..." (p. 239). While discussing 1 Thess 4:16–17, Gundry refers to the secret rapture in his book: "The ‘shout,’ ‘voice,’ and ‘trumpet’ have led some posttribulationists to mock at a secret, pretribulational rapture..." (p. 104).
Dispensationalism requires that the Rapture be "secret."
We also find that the very theological construct of the Rapture entails that it be "secret." According to the dictionary, the first meaning of "secret" is: "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" (Dictionary.com). The second listed meaning there is: "kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged." This is precisely how the Rapture must be characterized. Note the following.
Consider major dispensationalist theologian Charles L. Feinberg. In his book, Millennialism: The Two Major Views, p. 287 he distinguishes the Rapture from the Second Coming by noting: "The coming of the Lord Jesus for His own will not be seen by the world, whereas His visible appearing will be seen by all when He comes in power and great glory with His holy angles" (emph. mine). By definition, this Rapture coming is secret, for it "will not be seen by the world." It is "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)."
Another important dispensational theologian is Paul D. Feinberg. He is contributor to the debate book by Gleason Archer, et al., The Rapture: Pre–, Mid–, or Post–tribulational?). In that book he, too, distinguishes the Second Advent from the Rapture similarly: "The return of Christ is preceded by great upheaval, distress, and signs that alert one to its occurrence. Neither the trial nor the signs are to be found in the Rapture text..." (p. 157–58; emph. mine). Thus, it is "secret" as far as the world is concerned for it is "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)."
Perhaps the most popular and influential dispensationalist today is Tim LaHaye. In his Prophecy Study Bible (at 1 Thess. 4:13) he provides a chart of "Comparisons between the Rapture and the Glorious Appearance." In that chart, item five is: At the Rapture "Only His own see Him"; whereas in the "Glorious Appearance" (the Second Advent) "Every eye will see Him." Thus, a major distinction between the Rapture and the Second Advent is that the Rapture is not seen by those who are not believers. Is this, then, not "secret"? Is this not "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)?"
Norm Geisler in his Systematic Theology: Church, Last Things presents a similar chart to LaHaye, where he contrasts the "Rapture" and the "Second Coming" (p. 623): Under the "Rapture" column we read: "only believers see him." Under the "Second Coming" column we read: "all people see him."
John Walvoord, The Church in Prophecy, speaks of the Rapture as a secret event, though without using the express term:
"It is probable, however, that just as atmospheric clouds received the Lord when He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9) and as He will come in the ‘clouds of heaven’ at His return to the earth, so here also at the rapture the church will be enveloped by the atmospheric heavens and thus be taken out of sight of men on earth. There is no indication, however, that residents of earth will be able to see the church thus rapture."
But now, if the residents of earth do not see it, is it not — by definition — "secret"? Is it not "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)?
However, on p. 136 Walvoord expressly allows the concept:
"The revelation indicates that the event [the Rapture] will take place in a moment and apparently that the earth and its inhabitants are left undisturbed. The Scripture does not use the term ‘secret rapture,’ and there is no sure evidence what the world will see and hear at the time of rapture. On the other hand, the Scriptures do not give any indication that the rapture will be subject to observation by the world as a whole."
So then, though "the Scripture does not use the term ‘secret,’" he argues for its secrecy, nevertheless. After all, he declares "there is no sure evidence what the world will see and hear." And he notes "on the other hand, the Scriptures do not give any indication that the rapture will be subject to observation by the world as a whole." He has worked his way around the "problem" that the adjective "secret" is not applied to the rapture in Scripture by declaring that it is, nonetheless, secret!
Then two paragraphs later Walvoord writes: "A survey of the major Scriptures dealing with the second coming reveal an entirely different picture than the rapture. In Matthew 24, it is indicated that the second coming of Christ will fill the heavens with glory and will be ‘as lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west....' In contrast to the rapture, the second coming will be a visible event which both saved and unsaved will see" (pp. 136–37; emph. mine).
Conclusion
Like it or not, dispensationalism requires a "secret" rapture. And dispensationalists can and do use the term. I created no straw man; nor did I deceive anyone. I do admit, however, to not having much emotion about the whole matter.
In response to a previous blog titled "The Loud Verse and the Secret Rapture," I received the following anonymous response:
"Because, you deceiver, no-one ever called it a ‘Secret Rapture’ EXCEPT anti-dispensationalists like yourself. You have created a straw man. knocked it down and proved nothing."
I would use this response to point out the emotional nature of commitment to dispensationalism. This anonymous response was not an intellectual challenge to my blog, but an emotional outburst against it. He does not assert that I am argumentatively mistaken, but rather charges that I am morally a "deceiver."
What is worse, my respondent's objection is fallacious. Indeed, it is mistaken in its foundational, over-riding, singular point! The writer claims: (1) "no-one ever called it a ‘Secret Rapture’ EXCEPT anti-dispensationalists," and because of this alleged fact (2) "you have created a straw man."
Please consider the following in reply:
Dispensationalists employ the term "secret" for the Rapture
The largest selling book of the 1970s, and one of the largest selling Christian books of all times, was Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth. In the 1970s it sold over 9 million copies. And though quite dated now, it is still on the market and has sold over 28 million copies worldwide. As a consequence, it has influenced millions of Christians.
In this book dispensationalist mega-bestseller Hal Lindsey states on pages 142–43:
"Another reason why we support the idea that the Rapture and the second coming are separate events is that the second coming is said to be visible to the whole earth (Revelation 1:7). However, in the Rapture, only the Christians see Him — it’s a mystery, a secret. When the living believers are taken out, the world is going to be mystified."
Thus, one of the most influential dispensational authors uses the term, despite the anonymous writer declaring that "no-one" ever called it a secret rapture.
Another best-selling dispensationalist who uses the term is Dave Hunt. In his book Whatever Happened to Heaven? he writes on page 303:
"The rapture as expressed in 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to be a private event involving the church only, and unseen and unknown to the world. . . . The actual event seems to be a secret experience only by the church."
Major theologian Robert H. Gundry wrote The Church and the Tribulation, in which he classifies himself as a "dispensationalist" (p. 28). He is also called a dispensationalist in Thomas Ice and Tim Demy’s book, When the Trumpet Sounds: "Gundry, who is not only premillennial but also dispensational..." (p. 239). While discussing 1 Thess 4:16–17, Gundry refers to the secret rapture in his book: "The ‘shout,’ ‘voice,’ and ‘trumpet’ have led some posttribulationists to mock at a secret, pretribulational rapture..." (p. 104).
Dispensationalism requires that the Rapture be "secret."
We also find that the very theological construct of the Rapture entails that it be "secret." According to the dictionary, the first meaning of "secret" is: "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" (Dictionary.com). The second listed meaning there is: "kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged." This is precisely how the Rapture must be characterized. Note the following.
Consider major dispensationalist theologian Charles L. Feinberg. In his book, Millennialism: The Two Major Views, p. 287 he distinguishes the Rapture from the Second Coming by noting: "The coming of the Lord Jesus for His own will not be seen by the world, whereas His visible appearing will be seen by all when He comes in power and great glory with His holy angles" (emph. mine). By definition, this Rapture coming is secret, for it "will not be seen by the world." It is "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)."
Another important dispensational theologian is Paul D. Feinberg. He is contributor to the debate book by Gleason Archer, et al., The Rapture: Pre–, Mid–, or Post–tribulational?). In that book he, too, distinguishes the Second Advent from the Rapture similarly: "The return of Christ is preceded by great upheaval, distress, and signs that alert one to its occurrence. Neither the trial nor the signs are to be found in the Rapture text..." (p. 157–58; emph. mine). Thus, it is "secret" as far as the world is concerned for it is "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)."
Perhaps the most popular and influential dispensationalist today is Tim LaHaye. In his Prophecy Study Bible (at 1 Thess. 4:13) he provides a chart of "Comparisons between the Rapture and the Glorious Appearance." In that chart, item five is: At the Rapture "Only His own see Him"; whereas in the "Glorious Appearance" (the Second Advent) "Every eye will see Him." Thus, a major distinction between the Rapture and the Second Advent is that the Rapture is not seen by those who are not believers. Is this, then, not "secret"? Is this not "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)?"
Norm Geisler in his Systematic Theology: Church, Last Things presents a similar chart to LaHaye, where he contrasts the "Rapture" and the "Second Coming" (p. 623): Under the "Rapture" column we read: "only believers see him." Under the "Second Coming" column we read: "all people see him."
John Walvoord, The Church in Prophecy, speaks of the Rapture as a secret event, though without using the express term:
"It is probable, however, that just as atmospheric clouds received the Lord when He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9) and as He will come in the ‘clouds of heaven’ at His return to the earth, so here also at the rapture the church will be enveloped by the atmospheric heavens and thus be taken out of sight of men on earth. There is no indication, however, that residents of earth will be able to see the church thus rapture."
But now, if the residents of earth do not see it, is it not — by definition — "secret"? Is it not "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)?
However, on p. 136 Walvoord expressly allows the concept:
"The revelation indicates that the event [the Rapture] will take place in a moment and apparently that the earth and its inhabitants are left undisturbed. The Scripture does not use the term ‘secret rapture,’ and there is no sure evidence what the world will see and hear at the time of rapture. On the other hand, the Scriptures do not give any indication that the rapture will be subject to observation by the world as a whole."
So then, though "the Scripture does not use the term ‘secret,’" he argues for its secrecy, nevertheless. After all, he declares "there is no sure evidence what the world will see and hear." And he notes "on the other hand, the Scriptures do not give any indication that the rapture will be subject to observation by the world as a whole." He has worked his way around the "problem" that the adjective "secret" is not applied to the rapture in Scripture by declaring that it is, nonetheless, secret!
Then two paragraphs later Walvoord writes: "A survey of the major Scriptures dealing with the second coming reveal an entirely different picture than the rapture. In Matthew 24, it is indicated that the second coming of Christ will fill the heavens with glory and will be ‘as lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west....' In contrast to the rapture, the second coming will be a visible event which both saved and unsaved will see" (pp. 136–37; emph. mine).
Conclusion
Like it or not, dispensationalism requires a "secret" rapture. And dispensationalists can and do use the term. I created no straw man; nor did I deceive anyone. I do admit, however, to not having much emotion about the whole matter.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A Response to Dave
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Dave:
Thank you for reading and interacting with my blog, "I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist." I would like to respond to you, since you took the time to reply.
You are correct that the reading of the Acts 2 passage was a catalyst in my thinking; it was, not an end all. It led to my further research, which led me out of dispensationalism.
Upon your second reading of my original blog, you realized that I do distinguish the more scholarly men, such as Ryrie and Walvoord, from the popular writers, such as Lindsey and LaHaye. Generally speaking, Ryrie and Walvoord are less inclined to populist extravagance and date-setting. However, they are not entirely untouched by the charge of "naivete" and even to date-setting.
You state: "I think a survey of responsible dispensational scholars would reveal that very few of them would engage in anything approximating date-setting." I find interesting your statement that "very few" of them would do so. As I will show, though they tend not to be as overt as the populists, they still have that temptation.
You go on to state: "However, it is extremely unfortunate that some, even quite a few, have made far too many extreme statements correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy." But correlating "current events with fullfilment of prophecy" even occurs in Ryrie and Walvoord, for instance.
For example, consider Walvoord’s best-seller: Armageddon, Oil, and Terror: What the Bible Says about the Future. He was viewing the (then) current oil crisis as an indicator of "Armageddon." You will never find even a progressive dispensationalist writing such a book.
In his Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (p. 258–59) Walvoord states: "The fact that Israel is already back in the land, that a world movement toward world government is also current, and that there is already a world religious movement combine to indicate that the time of fulfillment of end-time events may not be distant." This is certainly doing what you lament: "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy."
On p. 400 Walvoord even provides a table of "Predicted Events Relating to the Nations." #1 is "United Nations organized as first step toward world government in 1946." #6 is "Red China becomes a military power." #8 is "The Arab oil embargo in 1973 results in world recognition of the power of wealth and energy in the Middle East." He mixes these "predicted events" right in with #20 "Second coming of Christ occurs accompanied by the armies from heaven." So the establishment of the UN, the military prowess of Red China, and the 1973 Arab oil embargo are "predicted events" in biblical prophecy? How is that for "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy"?
On p. 422 he lists a table of "Predicted Events Relating to the Church." This includes "2. The rise of Communism and atheism as major opponents of Christianity. 3. The ecumenical movement promoting a world church organization in 1948." He mixes this in with "6. The Rapture of the church" and "12. Second coming of Christ occurs...." So, the establishment of the ecumenical movement in 1948 is a "predicted event"? Is this not "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy"?
And consider Ryrie’s book The Living End. On p. 45 he writes of Revelation 9: "John’s description sounds very much like some kind of war machine or UFO.... Until someone comes up with a satisfactory answer to the UFO question, this possibility should not be ruled out." This is absolutely bizarre.
In that same book on page 56 he writes of Ezekiel 38: "Suddenly Zionism blossomed, and with the blessing of the United Nations the Jewish State of Israel was born in 1948, and since then the Jewish people have been returning in unprecedented numbers.... Ezekiel’s prophecy could not have been fulfilled fifty years ago. But today it can, and soon it will." He clearly declares that Ezekiel's prophecy will "soon" be fulfilled. This is date-setting. He does not even qualify it with "it seems that" or "it may."
Chapter 10 of The Living End is titled: "No Tricentennial for the U.S.A." On pages 128 and 129 we read: "But even if the messages of the prophets do not alert you, before finally dismissing them, take a good look again at current events.... How do you account for these unusual events converging in our present day? Jesus said: ‘Even so when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.’ (Matthew 24:33 NIV)." (Emphasis KLG) How is that for "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy"? And date-setting? These "current events" (events actually happening now) indciate "it is near, right at the door."
You state that "the Scriptures indicate that there is only one regathering of Israel into the land." However, the verses you would use to support such a view speak of their return in faith. Whereas, modern Israel is close to being an atheistic nation, and is at the very least non-Christian.
Dispensationalists too easily succumb to naivete in interpretation and date-setting in prophetic pronouncements. This even occurs with noted, scholarly dispensationalists such as Ryrie and Walvoord, though with a little more moderation.
Dave:
Thank you for reading and interacting with my blog, "I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist." I would like to respond to you, since you took the time to reply.
You are correct that the reading of the Acts 2 passage was a catalyst in my thinking; it was, not an end all. It led to my further research, which led me out of dispensationalism.
Upon your second reading of my original blog, you realized that I do distinguish the more scholarly men, such as Ryrie and Walvoord, from the popular writers, such as Lindsey and LaHaye. Generally speaking, Ryrie and Walvoord are less inclined to populist extravagance and date-setting. However, they are not entirely untouched by the charge of "naivete" and even to date-setting.
You state: "I think a survey of responsible dispensational scholars would reveal that very few of them would engage in anything approximating date-setting." I find interesting your statement that "very few" of them would do so. As I will show, though they tend not to be as overt as the populists, they still have that temptation.
You go on to state: "However, it is extremely unfortunate that some, even quite a few, have made far too many extreme statements correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy." But correlating "current events with fullfilment of prophecy" even occurs in Ryrie and Walvoord, for instance.
For example, consider Walvoord’s best-seller: Armageddon, Oil, and Terror: What the Bible Says about the Future. He was viewing the (then) current oil crisis as an indicator of "Armageddon." You will never find even a progressive dispensationalist writing such a book.
In his Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (p. 258–59) Walvoord states: "The fact that Israel is already back in the land, that a world movement toward world government is also current, and that there is already a world religious movement combine to indicate that the time of fulfillment of end-time events may not be distant." This is certainly doing what you lament: "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy."
On p. 400 Walvoord even provides a table of "Predicted Events Relating to the Nations." #1 is "United Nations organized as first step toward world government in 1946." #6 is "Red China becomes a military power." #8 is "The Arab oil embargo in 1973 results in world recognition of the power of wealth and energy in the Middle East." He mixes these "predicted events" right in with #20 "Second coming of Christ occurs accompanied by the armies from heaven." So the establishment of the UN, the military prowess of Red China, and the 1973 Arab oil embargo are "predicted events" in biblical prophecy? How is that for "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy"?
On p. 422 he lists a table of "Predicted Events Relating to the Church." This includes "2. The rise of Communism and atheism as major opponents of Christianity. 3. The ecumenical movement promoting a world church organization in 1948." He mixes this in with "6. The Rapture of the church" and "12. Second coming of Christ occurs...." So, the establishment of the ecumenical movement in 1948 is a "predicted event"? Is this not "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy"?
And consider Ryrie’s book The Living End. On p. 45 he writes of Revelation 9: "John’s description sounds very much like some kind of war machine or UFO.... Until someone comes up with a satisfactory answer to the UFO question, this possibility should not be ruled out." This is absolutely bizarre.
In that same book on page 56 he writes of Ezekiel 38: "Suddenly Zionism blossomed, and with the blessing of the United Nations the Jewish State of Israel was born in 1948, and since then the Jewish people have been returning in unprecedented numbers.... Ezekiel’s prophecy could not have been fulfilled fifty years ago. But today it can, and soon it will." He clearly declares that Ezekiel's prophecy will "soon" be fulfilled. This is date-setting. He does not even qualify it with "it seems that" or "it may."
Chapter 10 of The Living End is titled: "No Tricentennial for the U.S.A." On pages 128 and 129 we read: "But even if the messages of the prophets do not alert you, before finally dismissing them, take a good look again at current events.... How do you account for these unusual events converging in our present day? Jesus said: ‘Even so when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.’ (Matthew 24:33 NIV)." (Emphasis KLG) How is that for "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy"? And date-setting? These "current events" (events actually happening now) indciate "it is near, right at the door."
You state that "the Scriptures indicate that there is only one regathering of Israel into the land." However, the verses you would use to support such a view speak of their return in faith. Whereas, modern Israel is close to being an atheistic nation, and is at the very least non-Christian.
Dispensationalists too easily succumb to naivete in interpretation and date-setting in prophetic pronouncements. This even occurs with noted, scholarly dispensationalists such as Ryrie and Walvoord, though with a little more moderation.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist (Revisited 2009)
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
I am the Director of NiceneCouncil.com, which produces and distributes much evangelical and Reformed theological material. One of our main ministries is our witness against the errors in dispensationalism and the naivete of dispensationalists. Dispensationalism has absolutely saturated the American evangelical mind and has, conversely, diluted the integrity of the Christian witness to our culture and the world. Hence we have developed an important video documentary The Late Great Planet Church (see our on-line store at: NiceneCouncil.com). And also this very blogspot: AgainstDispenationalism.com. We are serious in our anti-dispensationalism.
In that you are a visitor to this blogspot, perhaps a personal testimony from me would be of interest. (If you are not a visitor, how in the world are you reading this blog? Nobody actually lives here. I rest my case.) Sometimes it is helpful to read the testimony of others, especially regarding their current theological standing and its historic development. This might be especially interesting in light of my and NiceneCouncil.com’s strong position against dispensationalism.
Though dispensationalists are our brothers in Christ.... And though they affirm the same Scriptures that we do, and with equal conviction.... We must recognize this “in house” squabble as being significant. In fact, we feel that dispensationalism is embarrassing the evangelical Christian faith (with its naivete and its frequent calls for the End). We believe our brothers need to be challenged to look more carefully at Scripture in order to learn where they have fumbled.
In my next blog I will write a letter to dispensationalists, challenging them to reconsider their foundations. In this one I will provide my testimony regarding my dispensational background, showing them my previous involvement in the system and my dispensationalist credentials.
My Early Dispensational Experience
I once was a dispensationalist. I have the spiritual experience and the academic credentials of a certified dispensationalist. But you might say that I raptured out of the system. Though I was a teenage dispensationalist I am now a mature covenantalist. In other words, I was once a dispensationalist but I got over it. Leaving dispensationalism — where virtually all of my family resided — was emotionally difficult. But in the final analysis it was a matter of “thus saith the Lord.” Leaving dispensationalism was like being born-again again. The impact on my spiritual life and development was just that great.
As a sixteen year-old teenager I was converted to Christ under a dispensational youth ministry at a Bible camp at Florida Bible College in Boca Raton, Florida (1966). I was sent there by my uncle, Rev. John S. Lanham, a dispensational pastor. My uncle was generously stepping in to help my sister and me through our parents divorce (my uncle was my mother’s brother). While at that youth camp, and on the very first night, I heard the gospel preached from Ephesians 2:8–9. Right then and there God wonderfully opened my heart to his gospel. I knew that I now had eternal life. Though I am now Reformed, I must confess that God used an altar call to save me!
Naturally I returned home with great enthusiasm for the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I knew the truth and the truth had set me free. I immediately began attending my uncle’s dispensational church in Chattanooga, Tennessee (Calvary Bible Church). There I was schooled in the Scofield Reference Bible. In his preaching my uncle would often say: “If you have a good Bible, turn to page so-and-so for our next text.” My hope was built on nothing less / than Scofield’s notes and Moody Press. I was so eager to learn that within two years I soon was teaching a youth Sunday school class.
While there I developed a great facility with the church’s dispensational charts and graphs, and put them to good use. Furthermore, I had a dispensational bad of honor: a well-marked Scofield Reference Bible. None of that newfangled New Scofield Reference Bible stuff for me: I had the old Bible. If it was good enough for Scofield, it was good enough for me.
As I was studying Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga (1969–70), I began attending a campus ministry conducted by Kay Arthur, who is now well-known for her Precepts Ministries International. Kay happened also to be our Youth Director at Calvary Bible Church. She was a dynamic and effective teacher; I was an excited and committed Christian eager to learn.
(As an interesting aside, I also daily played table tennis with a UTC classmate, Timothy George. He has since demonstrated himself to be a remarkable Reformed scholar: He has Th.D. from Harvard University and has been the dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University since 1988. He is the author of Theology of the Reformers and other scholarly works. I can’t remember if I could beat him at table tennis. I do remember he was quite good at it, though. And I used to be also, as a member of the Junior United States Table Tennis Association. But I digress.)
During my time at UTC Jack and Kay Arthur established a dispensational youth ranch in Chattanooga. It was known initially as Outreach Youth Ranch, but soon became Reachout Youth Ranch (due to a conflict of names with another local ministry). My future wife (Melissa) and I greatly enjoyed Kay’s challenging instruction. This youth ministry quickly evolved into Precepts Ministry (1970), which has become an international Bible study ministry of dispensational convictions taught by Kay Arthur. The next year Melissa and I married (July 31, 1971). We were glad the Rapture was delayed a little while.
My Academic Dispensational Training
As I developed spiritually and grew in my understanding biblically, I experienced an increasingly strong desire to learn the Bible better so that I might teach it more accurately. You might say that I wanted to “rightly divide the word of truth” — into the proper dispensations, of course. So I transferred from UTC’s Engineering program to Tennessee Temple College, a few blocks away from UTC in downtown Chattanooga. There I majored in “Biblical Studies.” I like to tell people that when I took a calculus class at UTC, the Lord called me to ministry. (Don’t tell my daughter-in-law, Sara, who teaches calculus in advanced math classes in high school! She graduated from Covenant College where they teach that sort of thing.)
While at Temple my dispensational understanding was fleshed out and given a more thorough theological foundation and super-structure. I studied under some very effective Bible teachers, such as Dr. Wymal Porter and Dr. Dennis Wisdom. In fact, I became friends with Dr. Wisdom. I even took him to visit another dispensational teacher friend of mine outside of the Temple community. He wanted to discuss with this gentlemen the question of whether the “bride of Christ” is to be distinguished from the larger body of Christians, like Eve was drawn out of a part of the body of Adam.
This gentlemen that Dr. Wisdom and I visited taught that the “bride of Christ” was a special designation for a smaller realm of “strongly committed” Christians in the Church. He taught that God distinguished these faithful Christians from those merely born-again and largely uncommitted, carnal Christians. This friend worked with me at my uncle’s dispensationalist bookstore, Lanham’s Bible Bookshop on Brainerd Road in Chattanooga. Dr. Wisdom soundly refuted him, arguing that the whole born-again community of believers makes up the bride of Christ. I was relieved; I was on the inside.
Returning now to my college experience: Despite my great appreciation for the teaching skills of Dr. Wisdom, I remember that in the course on “Premillennialism” he made the (oft heard) claim: “You will not find a liberal premillennialist, though you will find many liberal amillennialists.” (I believe this derived from our course textbook by Ryrie: The Basis of the Premillennial Faith.) I don’t know what possessed me, but I asked him in class: “But don’t we find a lot of premillennial cults, like Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses?” Perhaps the Greek courses and the hermeneutics study I was receiving at Temple was already beginning to expose flaws in the system. However, at that time I wrote this off as a mere problem I was having with indigestion.
In May of 1973 I received my B.A. degree in “Biblical Studies” at Tennessee Temple College (cum laude, nonetheless; I think this was “with praise” that I was leaving). Now I was schooled in the Bible and theology and held a degree in the field. I was increasingly eager to enter into some full-time Christian teaching — perhaps teaching at a college or seminary. So I enrolled at a dispensationalist, Grace Brethren school: Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana (August 1973). While there I received further and deeper instruction in dispensationalism at the graduate level (I was there from 1973–75).
But in a course on soteriology, I began to research the question regarding “Lordship salvation.” In my research I stumbled on a powerful passage relating Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” (Acts 2:29–30).
It suddenly and powerfully struck me: Peter was declaring that Christ was raised up to sit on David’s throne at his resurrection! If that were true, then we were currently in the kingdom of Christ. And if that were true, then dispensationalism was mistaken. What was I to do? My system was falling down around me, even as I studied it at a deeper, graduate level.
My Ultimate Dispensational “Rapture”
In that I had Calvinistic convictions (I was a member of the “Calvinist Underground” at Tennessee Temple College), I thought I should read something by a Reformed scholar. I looked through the Grace Seminary library (where my wife was a librarian) and found O. T. Allis’s masterful work Prophecy and the Church. That was it. He destroyed my dispensationalism. I was now a Christian without a theological home.
As a result of this, three Grace Seminary friends of mine and I drove all night to get to Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. We attended a few classes, talked with the Administrator, and liked what we saw. Soon thereafter all three of us raptured out of Grace Seminary and enrolled at Reformed. While studying at RTS we were swept away by our new theological hero, Greg L. Bahnsen.
I graduated from RTS with a Master of Divinity degree in 1977 and entered the pastorate just three months later. And the rest, you might say, is history. I was now totally disenchanted with dispensationalism and was busy extricating my mind from all of its constructs (which took some time). I was well on the way to a consistently Reformed theology. Dispensationalism was now anathema.
My Seeking Dispensational Testimonies
So that is my story, and I’m sticking to it. What is your testimony regarding dispensationalism? I would love to hear a paragraph or two testimonial. What brought you out of the system?
And if you have some friends who have converted out of the system, please have them come to our blog site and give their testimonies. We won’t tell anyone. :)
I am the Director of NiceneCouncil.com, which produces and distributes much evangelical and Reformed theological material. One of our main ministries is our witness against the errors in dispensationalism and the naivete of dispensationalists. Dispensationalism has absolutely saturated the American evangelical mind and has, conversely, diluted the integrity of the Christian witness to our culture and the world. Hence we have developed an important video documentary The Late Great Planet Church (see our on-line store at: NiceneCouncil.com). And also this very blogspot: AgainstDispenationalism.com. We are serious in our anti-dispensationalism.
In that you are a visitor to this blogspot, perhaps a personal testimony from me would be of interest. (If you are not a visitor, how in the world are you reading this blog? Nobody actually lives here. I rest my case.) Sometimes it is helpful to read the testimony of others, especially regarding their current theological standing and its historic development. This might be especially interesting in light of my and NiceneCouncil.com’s strong position against dispensationalism.
Though dispensationalists are our brothers in Christ.... And though they affirm the same Scriptures that we do, and with equal conviction.... We must recognize this “in house” squabble as being significant. In fact, we feel that dispensationalism is embarrassing the evangelical Christian faith (with its naivete and its frequent calls for the End). We believe our brothers need to be challenged to look more carefully at Scripture in order to learn where they have fumbled.
In my next blog I will write a letter to dispensationalists, challenging them to reconsider their foundations. In this one I will provide my testimony regarding my dispensational background, showing them my previous involvement in the system and my dispensationalist credentials.
My Early Dispensational Experience
I once was a dispensationalist. I have the spiritual experience and the academic credentials of a certified dispensationalist. But you might say that I raptured out of the system. Though I was a teenage dispensationalist I am now a mature covenantalist. In other words, I was once a dispensationalist but I got over it. Leaving dispensationalism — where virtually all of my family resided — was emotionally difficult. But in the final analysis it was a matter of “thus saith the Lord.” Leaving dispensationalism was like being born-again again. The impact on my spiritual life and development was just that great.
As a sixteen year-old teenager I was converted to Christ under a dispensational youth ministry at a Bible camp at Florida Bible College in Boca Raton, Florida (1966). I was sent there by my uncle, Rev. John S. Lanham, a dispensational pastor. My uncle was generously stepping in to help my sister and me through our parents divorce (my uncle was my mother’s brother). While at that youth camp, and on the very first night, I heard the gospel preached from Ephesians 2:8–9. Right then and there God wonderfully opened my heart to his gospel. I knew that I now had eternal life. Though I am now Reformed, I must confess that God used an altar call to save me!
Naturally I returned home with great enthusiasm for the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I knew the truth and the truth had set me free. I immediately began attending my uncle’s dispensational church in Chattanooga, Tennessee (Calvary Bible Church). There I was schooled in the Scofield Reference Bible. In his preaching my uncle would often say: “If you have a good Bible, turn to page so-and-so for our next text.” My hope was built on nothing less / than Scofield’s notes and Moody Press. I was so eager to learn that within two years I soon was teaching a youth Sunday school class.
While there I developed a great facility with the church’s dispensational charts and graphs, and put them to good use. Furthermore, I had a dispensational bad of honor: a well-marked Scofield Reference Bible. None of that newfangled New Scofield Reference Bible stuff for me: I had the old Bible. If it was good enough for Scofield, it was good enough for me.
As I was studying Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga (1969–70), I began attending a campus ministry conducted by Kay Arthur, who is now well-known for her Precepts Ministries International. Kay happened also to be our Youth Director at Calvary Bible Church. She was a dynamic and effective teacher; I was an excited and committed Christian eager to learn.
(As an interesting aside, I also daily played table tennis with a UTC classmate, Timothy George. He has since demonstrated himself to be a remarkable Reformed scholar: He has Th.D. from Harvard University and has been the dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University since 1988. He is the author of Theology of the Reformers and other scholarly works. I can’t remember if I could beat him at table tennis. I do remember he was quite good at it, though. And I used to be also, as a member of the Junior United States Table Tennis Association. But I digress.)
During my time at UTC Jack and Kay Arthur established a dispensational youth ranch in Chattanooga. It was known initially as Outreach Youth Ranch, but soon became Reachout Youth Ranch (due to a conflict of names with another local ministry). My future wife (Melissa) and I greatly enjoyed Kay’s challenging instruction. This youth ministry quickly evolved into Precepts Ministry (1970), which has become an international Bible study ministry of dispensational convictions taught by Kay Arthur. The next year Melissa and I married (July 31, 1971). We were glad the Rapture was delayed a little while.
My Academic Dispensational Training
As I developed spiritually and grew in my understanding biblically, I experienced an increasingly strong desire to learn the Bible better so that I might teach it more accurately. You might say that I wanted to “rightly divide the word of truth” — into the proper dispensations, of course. So I transferred from UTC’s Engineering program to Tennessee Temple College, a few blocks away from UTC in downtown Chattanooga. There I majored in “Biblical Studies.” I like to tell people that when I took a calculus class at UTC, the Lord called me to ministry. (Don’t tell my daughter-in-law, Sara, who teaches calculus in advanced math classes in high school! She graduated from Covenant College where they teach that sort of thing.)
While at Temple my dispensational understanding was fleshed out and given a more thorough theological foundation and super-structure. I studied under some very effective Bible teachers, such as Dr. Wymal Porter and Dr. Dennis Wisdom. In fact, I became friends with Dr. Wisdom. I even took him to visit another dispensational teacher friend of mine outside of the Temple community. He wanted to discuss with this gentlemen the question of whether the “bride of Christ” is to be distinguished from the larger body of Christians, like Eve was drawn out of a part of the body of Adam.
This gentlemen that Dr. Wisdom and I visited taught that the “bride of Christ” was a special designation for a smaller realm of “strongly committed” Christians in the Church. He taught that God distinguished these faithful Christians from those merely born-again and largely uncommitted, carnal Christians. This friend worked with me at my uncle’s dispensationalist bookstore, Lanham’s Bible Bookshop on Brainerd Road in Chattanooga. Dr. Wisdom soundly refuted him, arguing that the whole born-again community of believers makes up the bride of Christ. I was relieved; I was on the inside.
Returning now to my college experience: Despite my great appreciation for the teaching skills of Dr. Wisdom, I remember that in the course on “Premillennialism” he made the (oft heard) claim: “You will not find a liberal premillennialist, though you will find many liberal amillennialists.” (I believe this derived from our course textbook by Ryrie: The Basis of the Premillennial Faith.) I don’t know what possessed me, but I asked him in class: “But don’t we find a lot of premillennial cults, like Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses?” Perhaps the Greek courses and the hermeneutics study I was receiving at Temple was already beginning to expose flaws in the system. However, at that time I wrote this off as a mere problem I was having with indigestion.
In May of 1973 I received my B.A. degree in “Biblical Studies” at Tennessee Temple College (cum laude, nonetheless; I think this was “with praise” that I was leaving). Now I was schooled in the Bible and theology and held a degree in the field. I was increasingly eager to enter into some full-time Christian teaching — perhaps teaching at a college or seminary. So I enrolled at a dispensationalist, Grace Brethren school: Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana (August 1973). While there I received further and deeper instruction in dispensationalism at the graduate level (I was there from 1973–75).
But in a course on soteriology, I began to research the question regarding “Lordship salvation.” In my research I stumbled on a powerful passage relating Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” (Acts 2:29–30).
It suddenly and powerfully struck me: Peter was declaring that Christ was raised up to sit on David’s throne at his resurrection! If that were true, then we were currently in the kingdom of Christ. And if that were true, then dispensationalism was mistaken. What was I to do? My system was falling down around me, even as I studied it at a deeper, graduate level.
My Ultimate Dispensational “Rapture”
In that I had Calvinistic convictions (I was a member of the “Calvinist Underground” at Tennessee Temple College), I thought I should read something by a Reformed scholar. I looked through the Grace Seminary library (where my wife was a librarian) and found O. T. Allis’s masterful work Prophecy and the Church. That was it. He destroyed my dispensationalism. I was now a Christian without a theological home.
As a result of this, three Grace Seminary friends of mine and I drove all night to get to Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. We attended a few classes, talked with the Administrator, and liked what we saw. Soon thereafter all three of us raptured out of Grace Seminary and enrolled at Reformed. While studying at RTS we were swept away by our new theological hero, Greg L. Bahnsen.
I graduated from RTS with a Master of Divinity degree in 1977 and entered the pastorate just three months later. And the rest, you might say, is history. I was now totally disenchanted with dispensationalism and was busy extricating my mind from all of its constructs (which took some time). I was well on the way to a consistently Reformed theology. Dispensationalism was now anathema.
My Seeking Dispensational Testimonies
So that is my story, and I’m sticking to it. What is your testimony regarding dispensationalism? I would love to hear a paragraph or two testimonial. What brought you out of the system?
And if you have some friends who have converted out of the system, please have them come to our blog site and give their testimonies. We won’t tell anyone. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
