Posts
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director of NiceneCouncil.com
I have long made the distinction between scholarly dispensationalists (e.g., Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and sometimes Dwight Pentecost) and the populist dispensationalists (e.g., Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and anyone else with book sales over 15 billion copies). I did this out of respect for the more thoughtful presentations in the scholars' writings. But now I don’t know what possessed me to do this. Let me explain and illustrate the blurring of the lines separating populist dispensationalists from the “scholarly” ones.
Generally the “scholarly” dispensationalists present the more theological and exegetical foundations for the system. Whereas the populists run grinning and skipping full-bore into date-setting, rapture-predicting, Antichrist-portending, Armageddon military-operation-plan describing (OPLANs), newspaper-exegeting, system-contradicting inane, vacuous, absurd, silly, vapid, pointless, fatuous, insubstantial slop. They do this for the mere pleasure of fleecing the sheep of untold millions of dollars of their non-invested, discretionary funds.
However, I have begun to question this distinction between populist and scholar in dispensationalism. And I even wonder why I ever allowed such a distinction. Though it is true that the populists never attempt any scholarly-sounding, exegetically-rigorous, theologically-astute presentations of their system, it is most certainly not true that the “scholars” are not lured into crass money-making publications. Consider the following books by the more reputable dispensationalist “scholars” Ryrie and Walvoord. (I believe that Pentecost also wrote one, but fortunately I have lost it.)
Walvoord published his newspaper-exegesis book Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis: What the Bible Says about the Future of the Middle East and the End of Western Civilization in 1974 and again in 1976. Then when the first Gulf War broke out, he revised and re-released it in 1990 whereupon it became a multi-million bestseller, making him so much money that he had to invest it in long-term real estate ventures.
Walvoord not only provides devotional readings from the newspapers, avoids indexing the book, and resists footnotes (as do populists), but he provides a table of “Prophetic Events in History Beginning with the Babylonian Captivity” (on pp. 107–08). And what are some of these “prophecies” (none of which should be occurring in the church age while awaiting the signless, imminent rapture)? Here are a few that may surprise you (I know they surprised the aluminum storm door salesman that came by my house yesterday):
• "1945: Rise of Russia and Communism to power."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Who would have known this would occur in 1945? This is an amazing prophecy. Of course, once you break the number down you will see obvious clues: 1 stands for the first commandment; 9 for number of centuries lived by Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Jared, Methuselah, Noah, Peleg (Gen 5; 9:29; 11:19); 4 for the number of Jacob’s sons whose name starts with the letter “j” [Judah and Joseph] multiplied by 2; 5 is a number often thought of while milking four-uddered cows.)
• "1946: Beginning of world government: United Nations formed."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Notice prophecy’s strange silence about “cheese.”)
• "1948: Israel established as a nation in the land: third return."
(Gentry comment and analysis: This date was necessary to get us into the age of television which would give rise to tele-evangelism.)
• "1956: Israel extends territory."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Carefully notice how this is but eight years after 1948. Need I say more?)
• "1967: Israel regains territory."
(Gentry comment and analysis: This is not the year of the invention of aluminum foil. Though on January 5 of this year Spain and Romania sign in Paris an agreement establishing full consular and commercial relations, though, sadly, not diplomatic ones.)
• "1975: Egypt reopens the Suez Canal."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Though apparently there is no clear prophecy discussing the original dredging of the Suez and the actual building of this particular canal.)
• "1979: Camp David Accords: peace with Egypt."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Little did Jimmy Carter know he was the subject of biblical prophecy, though obviously before he occurred in history peanuts had to be invented. This co-ordination of events then becomes a remarkable demonstration of God’s providence. Sadly though, peanut butter was invented before peanuts themselves, then had to await the later arrival of its main ingredient. Consequently, it originally sold very poorly as a jar of brown butter.)
• "1982: Israel attacks PLO in Lebanon."
(Gentry comment and analysis: I wish he had given the Bible verse backing up this one. I know the letters “p,” “l,” and “o” occur in Scripture, but they appear to be randomly placed rather than carefully articulated. Of course, their “gap theory” may account for this for we note that all three of these letters occur in their proper order in Gen 2:9: “And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is Pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of Life also in the midst Of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This cannot be sheer chance. Unless of course you suppose that 1,000,000 monkies typing on 1,000,000 typewriters for 1,000,000 years produced The Late Great Planet Earth -- a view I confess to holding when I was a cartoon character.)
• "1990: Saddam Hussein, in preparation to attack Israel, seizes Kuwait."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Hussein’s name is difficult to find in biblical prophecy [though not impossible if you are double-jointed]. However, “Kuwait” is found all over both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I think.)
And what of Charles Ryrie, perhaps the most important, articulate, and prominent of dispensationalism’s “scholars”? In 1976 he presented the waiting world with The Living End, which was described on the cover as: “Enlightening and astonishing disclosures about the coming last days of earth.” In 1982 he released The Bible and Tomorrow’s News. Then during the first Gulf War he re-released it as The Final Countdown and enjoyed reprints in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and beyond (I quit buying it after the fourth reprint so I don’t know how many more followed. And I am too tired to look it up.)
I will provide just one more disappointing evidence of absurdity among these “scholars.” In Walvoord’s Prophecy in the New Millennium (2001) we read the following discussion of the massive New Jerusalem:
“Clearly, the New Jerusalem could not rest on the earth because it is described as such a huge city that it would blot out the whole Promised Land, making impossible the fulfillment of other elements of the millennial kingdom. . . . It would have to be a satellite city, situated in space. . . . It may be that those who have been resurrected or translated will live in this satellite city over the earth.”
Consequently, though I will tip my hat to the likes of Ryrie and Walvoord in their attempts to establish secure foundations for the dispensational system, I will not be as quick to point to them as scholars who are immune from the lures of populism and absurdity. Such temptations are endemic to the whole system which reads like a rejected script from television’s Hee-Haw. Junior Samples refused to lower himself to such far-fetched scenarios. He was afraid it would hurt his used car business.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Defending Christianity?
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director NiceneCouncil.com
The header to our blogsite is: AgainstDispensationalism.com: Defending Christianity.” One of our blog readers, Rick Warden, a missionary and strongly conservative Christian, responded to my last blog (“Dispensationalism’s Progress Death” Part 2) and complained about our blog’s header. As a committed dispensationalist he is disturbed about several aspects of our blog heading, as well as its mission and content.
We welcome Mr. Warden’s concerns and would like to respond to them, partly to clarify our mission and partly to defend it. Our response may help others who have similar questions. Warden is not the first person on “planet Earth” (see: we can speak dispensationalese) to raise questions about our mission.
Our Purpose
Mr. Warden’s first comment against our website regards its header or title. He complains: “Your blog title states ‘defending Christianity’ as if dispensationalism is non-Christian. Can you prove that or at least make an attempt to back it up?”
In reply I would begin by noting that we do not believe dispensationalism is “non-Christian” at all. All those associated with NiceneCouncil.com (the sponsor of the blog) were at one time dispensationalists ourselves. Thus, we know quite well that dispensationalists are strongly evangelical Christians, just as we were while in the movement.
However, though recognizing dispensationalism as a form of evangelical Christianity, we believe that it is a seriously defective, misguided, embarrassing, and naive form. Perhaps our brief header is too brief. Actually our header “Defending Christianity” means: “Defending the integrity of Christianity against one of its most embarrassing advocates, dispensationalism.” But that is too long a title, and as Warden complains our blog is already “long-winded.” Consequently, it would not make an effective title. Besides, our title served its purpose: it pulled Warden in to see what is going on.
Our Rationale
But now what do I mean by stating that we are defending the integrity of Christianity? Simply put: dispensationalism is a humiliating embarrassment to the integrity and majesty of the full-fledged Christian worldview is embodied in Scripture. Dispensationalism leaves the impression that the Christian faith is a naive and incompetent faith commitment. Scores of scholarly works point to dispensationalism as evidence of the naivete of the Christian faith itself. Just consider a few works as samples of scholarly criticisms that highlight dispensationalism: Paul Boyer’s, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture. Daniel Wojcik, The End of the World As We Know It: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalypse in America. Bernard McGinn’s Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum. In fact, I am not feeling good right now and will have to finish this posting later....
There. Now I am back. Where was I? Oh, yes:
And why should these secular scholars not write-off the Christian faith (as dominated by multi-million bestselling dispensationalist works) as a serious philosophy of life? Think of Edgar C. Whisenant’s Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988 and Hal Lindsey’s 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon. Think of the book titles that flooded the market before the year 2000:
• Faird, Gorbachev! Has the Real Antichrist Come? (1988)
• Lindsey, Planet Earth -- 2000: Will Mankind Survive? (1994).
• Sumrall, I Predict 2000 (1987).
• Lewis, Prophecy 2000: Rushing to Armageddon (1990).
• Terrell, The 90’s: Decade of the Apocalypse (1992).
• Hunt, How Close Are We?: Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ (1993).
• Graham, Storm Warning (1992).
• Ryrie, The Final Countdown (1991).
• Jeffries, Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny (1988).
• McKeever, The Rapture Book: Victory in the End Times (1987).
• McAlvanny, et al., Earth’s Final Days (1994).
• Marrs, et al., Storming Toward Armageddon: Essays in Apocalypse (1992).
• Liardon, Final Approach: The Opportunity and Adventure of End-Times Living (1993).
• Webber and Hutchins, Is This the Last Century? (1979).
Even fellow premillennialists bemoan dispensationalism’s tendencies in this direction. One premillennialist admits: “The premillenarians’ credibility is at a low ebb because they succumbed to the temptation to exploit every conceivably possible prophetic fulfillment. . . . It is not likely that the situation will change greatly.” (Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now!, 218).
Premillennialist Craig L. Blomberg bemoans that “a frightening percentage of the evangelical Christian public seems always to suffer a collective amnesia, forgetting how the same kinds of publications just a decade or two earlier turned out to include a considerable amount of false prophecy. The one statistic that remains unvarying is that to date, 100 percent of all such scenarios have proved wrong,” because of engaging in “the next round of speculation.” (Blomberg and Chung, Historic Premillennialism, 70.)
Warden continues stating his reasons for disappointment with our blog: “From what I’ve read of your blog, it is long-winded, filled with hyperbole and lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism. When people freely throw around hyperbole it is a sign that evidence is lacking. ”
This complaint involves two unfortunate statements. First, he is dealing with only “what I’ve read of your blog,” which shows he has not read all of our blogs, and is basing his surmise on partial evidence. Who knows what he has read on our blog? He doesn’t say.
Second, he complains that is “lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism.” But this flows out of his first problem: a partial reading of our blog. It also shows that he expects too much from a blog. We have several published books and video projects that provide deep and serious treatments of dispensationalism, as you can see by checking our webstore at NiceneCouncil.com. We also post a number of focused articles critiquing dispensationalism at NiceneCouncil.com. But then, Mr. Warden expresses a concern about our being “long-winded.” So I am not sure our books would work for him. Anti-dispensationalism is hard to reduce to a bumper sticker.
Finally, Mr. Warden complains: “Dispensationalism is not dying and neither are the prophecies.” We must understand that for any very large entity to die can take time. Massive red giant stars will eventually collapse in on themselves and explode into a supernova. And they are considered short-lived stars to begin with (due to their massive weight which accelerates their eruption). But even still they don’t die overnight. Their enormous size creates strong, internal countervailing internal forces within the star’s nucleus that balance out the gravitational weight problem. For awhile.
This is like dispensationalism: it is such a large behemoth that its death will take a long time. Furthermore, given its inherent naivete — which allows its adherents to tolerate one failed Antichrist prediction after another and which can endure one erroneous rapture prediction after another — we can’t expect the system to die quickly. Dispensationalists are adept at grinning and bearing it.
Nevertheless, it is dying. And as we have pointed out: it dying from a brain-drain. Many of its scholars are opting out; others are radically transforming the system into what it has never been. Read the dominant dispensationalist’s vehement attacks on progressive dispensationalism. Fear is in their words: their beloved system is collapsing within.
We agree that the prophecies of the Bible do not fail of their purposes. But the prophecies of dispensationalists constantly fail. Again, review the titles listed above. As we have said many times: Dispensationalism is embarrassing itself to death.
The header to our blogsite is: AgainstDispensationalism.com: Defending Christianity.” One of our blog readers, Rick Warden, a missionary and strongly conservative Christian, responded to my last blog (“Dispensationalism’s Progress Death” Part 2) and complained about our blog’s header. As a committed dispensationalist he is disturbed about several aspects of our blog heading, as well as its mission and content.
We welcome Mr. Warden’s concerns and would like to respond to them, partly to clarify our mission and partly to defend it. Our response may help others who have similar questions. Warden is not the first person on “planet Earth” (see: we can speak dispensationalese) to raise questions about our mission.
Our Purpose
Mr. Warden’s first comment against our website regards its header or title. He complains: “Your blog title states ‘defending Christianity’ as if dispensationalism is non-Christian. Can you prove that or at least make an attempt to back it up?”
In reply I would begin by noting that we do not believe dispensationalism is “non-Christian” at all. All those associated with NiceneCouncil.com (the sponsor of the blog) were at one time dispensationalists ourselves. Thus, we know quite well that dispensationalists are strongly evangelical Christians, just as we were while in the movement.
However, though recognizing dispensationalism as a form of evangelical Christianity, we believe that it is a seriously defective, misguided, embarrassing, and naive form. Perhaps our brief header is too brief. Actually our header “Defending Christianity” means: “Defending the integrity of Christianity against one of its most embarrassing advocates, dispensationalism.” But that is too long a title, and as Warden complains our blog is already “long-winded.” Consequently, it would not make an effective title. Besides, our title served its purpose: it pulled Warden in to see what is going on.
Our Rationale
But now what do I mean by stating that we are defending the integrity of Christianity? Simply put: dispensationalism is a humiliating embarrassment to the integrity and majesty of the full-fledged Christian worldview is embodied in Scripture. Dispensationalism leaves the impression that the Christian faith is a naive and incompetent faith commitment. Scores of scholarly works point to dispensationalism as evidence of the naivete of the Christian faith itself. Just consider a few works as samples of scholarly criticisms that highlight dispensationalism: Paul Boyer’s, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture. Daniel Wojcik, The End of the World As We Know It: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalypse in America. Bernard McGinn’s Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum. In fact, I am not feeling good right now and will have to finish this posting later....
There. Now I am back. Where was I? Oh, yes:
And why should these secular scholars not write-off the Christian faith (as dominated by multi-million bestselling dispensationalist works) as a serious philosophy of life? Think of Edgar C. Whisenant’s Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988 and Hal Lindsey’s 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon. Think of the book titles that flooded the market before the year 2000:
• Faird, Gorbachev! Has the Real Antichrist Come? (1988)
• Lindsey, Planet Earth -- 2000: Will Mankind Survive? (1994).
• Sumrall, I Predict 2000 (1987).
• Lewis, Prophecy 2000: Rushing to Armageddon (1990).
• Terrell, The 90’s: Decade of the Apocalypse (1992).
• Hunt, How Close Are We?: Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ (1993).
• Graham, Storm Warning (1992).
• Ryrie, The Final Countdown (1991).
• Jeffries, Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny (1988).
• McKeever, The Rapture Book: Victory in the End Times (1987).
• McAlvanny, et al., Earth’s Final Days (1994).
• Marrs, et al., Storming Toward Armageddon: Essays in Apocalypse (1992).
• Liardon, Final Approach: The Opportunity and Adventure of End-Times Living (1993).
• Webber and Hutchins, Is This the Last Century? (1979).
Even fellow premillennialists bemoan dispensationalism’s tendencies in this direction. One premillennialist admits: “The premillenarians’ credibility is at a low ebb because they succumbed to the temptation to exploit every conceivably possible prophetic fulfillment. . . . It is not likely that the situation will change greatly.” (Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now!, 218).
Premillennialist Craig L. Blomberg bemoans that “a frightening percentage of the evangelical Christian public seems always to suffer a collective amnesia, forgetting how the same kinds of publications just a decade or two earlier turned out to include a considerable amount of false prophecy. The one statistic that remains unvarying is that to date, 100 percent of all such scenarios have proved wrong,” because of engaging in “the next round of speculation.” (Blomberg and Chung, Historic Premillennialism, 70.)
Warden continues stating his reasons for disappointment with our blog: “From what I’ve read of your blog, it is long-winded, filled with hyperbole and lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism. When people freely throw around hyperbole it is a sign that evidence is lacking. ”
This complaint involves two unfortunate statements. First, he is dealing with only “what I’ve read of your blog,” which shows he has not read all of our blogs, and is basing his surmise on partial evidence. Who knows what he has read on our blog? He doesn’t say.
Second, he complains that is “lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism.” But this flows out of his first problem: a partial reading of our blog. It also shows that he expects too much from a blog. We have several published books and video projects that provide deep and serious treatments of dispensationalism, as you can see by checking our webstore at NiceneCouncil.com. We also post a number of focused articles critiquing dispensationalism at NiceneCouncil.com. But then, Mr. Warden expresses a concern about our being “long-winded.” So I am not sure our books would work for him. Anti-dispensationalism is hard to reduce to a bumper sticker.
Finally, Mr. Warden complains: “Dispensationalism is not dying and neither are the prophecies.” We must understand that for any very large entity to die can take time. Massive red giant stars will eventually collapse in on themselves and explode into a supernova. And they are considered short-lived stars to begin with (due to their massive weight which accelerates their eruption). But even still they don’t die overnight. Their enormous size creates strong, internal countervailing internal forces within the star’s nucleus that balance out the gravitational weight problem. For awhile.
This is like dispensationalism: it is such a large behemoth that its death will take a long time. Furthermore, given its inherent naivete — which allows its adherents to tolerate one failed Antichrist prediction after another and which can endure one erroneous rapture prediction after another — we can’t expect the system to die quickly. Dispensationalists are adept at grinning and bearing it.
Nevertheless, it is dying. And as we have pointed out: it dying from a brain-drain. Many of its scholars are opting out; others are radically transforming the system into what it has never been. Read the dominant dispensationalist’s vehement attacks on progressive dispensationalism. Fear is in their words: their beloved system is collapsing within.
We agree that the prophecies of the Bible do not fail of their purposes. But the prophecies of dispensationalists constantly fail. Again, review the titles listed above. As we have said many times: Dispensationalism is embarrassing itself to death.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Dispensationalism’s Progressive Death (Part 2)
Dispensationalism’s Progressive Death (Part 2)
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
My previous blog post reviewed an article by progressive dispensationalist, Dr. Robert Chisholm of Dallas Theological Seminary. In that review I noted that Chisholm’s observations effectively drive a stake in the heart of dispensationalism. But I did not give a complete review of his article. Consequently, one Anonymous respondent wondered if my blog failed of its purpose.
In this follow-up blog I will present a related observation regarding the interpretation of prophecy that serves as the second of the one-two punch Chisholm lands on his own theology. This still falls under the category of “progressive dispensationalism” in that Chisholm favorably cited this material in his own article, though he did not press home the point.
I am referring to the chapter by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. that appears in J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund, eds., The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke (2000) on pages 180-203.. That chapter is titled: “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions.” So now I will offer a brief summary and review of Reformed theologian Pratt’s article which was endorsed by progressive dispensationalist theologian Chisholm. This article takes an additional important step for undermining the dispensational method of prophetic interpretation regarding Israel’s future.
Pratt’s Point
In Pratt’s article he opens with a lament regarding the naive and reckless enthusiasm of dispensational populists (whom he obliquely refers to as “North American evangelicals”). He complains that their “enthusiasm” for prophecy has caused them to “become monomaniacal in their interpretation of biblical prophecy” (p. 180).
Basically he argues that historical contingencies affect the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. As does Chisholm in his article, he points out that many biblical prophecies do not find fulfillment in the expected literalistic fashion that we often expect. He argues that this “failure” of prophecy to occur according to our expectations does not undermine “the immutability of God’s character and eternal decrees” (p. 181). That is, this “failure” does not prove God a liar nor does it dismiss the eternal nature of his decrees.
He argues from Scripture that “divine providence provides a perspective that complements divine immutability” (p. 183). That is, God is behind both the eternal decree and historical providence, and that one does not contradict, but rather complements the other. He continues:
“Old Testament prophets revealed the word of the unchanging Yahweh, but they spoke for God in space and time, not before the foundations of the world. By definition, therefore, they did not utter immutable decrees but providential declarations. For this reason, we should not be surprised to find that intervening historical contingencies, especially human reactions, had significant effects on the way predictions were realized. In fact, we will see that Yahweh often spoke through his prophets, watched the reactions of people, and then determined how to carry through with his declarations.”
Three Kinds of Predictions
Pratt then outlines and discusses “three kinds of predictions: (1) predictions qualified by conditions, (2) predictions qualified by assurances, and (3) predictions with out qualifications” (p. 183).
1. Predictions qualified by conditions. Of course, everyone recognizes that when a prophecy expressly mentions conditions, those conditions will affect the outcome of the prophecy. Pratt surveys several conditional prophecies, such as Isa 1:19–20; 7:9; Jer 7:5–7; 22:4–5). For instance, Isaiah 7:9 declares: “If you are not faithful, then you will not stand at all.” This is clearly conditional and affects the historical outcome of the prophecy. Of course, the problem for many populist prophecy-enthusiasts (who usually designate themselves “prophecy experts”) is: they almost never admit this truth about prophecy.
2. Predictions qualified by assurances. These prophecies include announcements of inescapable doom or of God’s refusal to reverse himself or of oath-bound prophecies. Samples include: Jeremiah 7:15–16; 11:11, 14; 14:10; Ezekiel 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 20:3; 33:27; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6. Pratt observes that “we must remember that these kinds of predictions are few in number and usually not very specific in their descriptions of the future” (p. 187). The very existence of these few prophecies clearly indicate “that not all predictions shared this heightened certainty,” otherwise these assurances would have been wholly unnecessary to state.
3. Predictions without qualifications. Pratt notes that “the OT abounds with examples of unqualified predictions of events that did not take place” (p. 187). He lists a few samples, such as Jonah 3:10; 2 Chr 12:5–8; 3 Kings 22:16–20. For instance, “what caused these turns of events? Each text explicitly sights [sic] human responses as the grounds for the deviations. The people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:6), the leaders of Judah (2 Chr 12:6), Josiah (2 Kgs 22:18–19), and Hezekiah (Jer 26:19) repented or prayed upon hearing the prophetic word” (pp. 187–88). This shows that prophecies contained implied conditions. This also is not admitted by traditional dispensationalists.
Pratt then cites Calvin’s Institutes (1:17:14): “Even though [the prophets] make a simple affirmation, it is to be understood from the outcome that these nonetheless contain a tacit condition” (p. 188). Pratt then points to the lesson we learned from the image of God as the potter. He argues that “the universal perspective of Jer 18:1–12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 189).
Historical Contingencies and Expectations
In his next section (pp. 191–95) Pratt asks the question: “If human responses could affect the way Yahweh directed history afer a prediction, how did prophets or their listeners have any secure expectations for the future?” (p. 191).
To answer this question he points out that “the covenantal parameters surrounding Yahweh and his people provided a basis for many expectations, but they did not settle every question. They set limits, but much latitude existed within these boundaries” (p. 192). Regarding any given prophecy: “Latitude remained. . . . When? How? By whom? How long? These more specific questions remained unanswered for the prophets and their audiences” (p. 193).
I would point out in this regard that when we come to the New Testament and the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, we discover that “how” God blesses Israel is different from the way that the Jews (and dispensationalists) expected. He blesses her through the salvation of a remnant and by re-constituting Israel by making even Gentiles “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The Church of Jesus Christ is “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).
Therefore we must understand what the last great old covenant prophet John the Baptist (Matt 3:9) stated when he warned Israel: “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” And ultimately Israel’s salvation comes on the same terms and in the same manner as the salvation of Gentiles, rather than through their exaltation (as per dispensational theology).
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
My previous blog post reviewed an article by progressive dispensationalist, Dr. Robert Chisholm of Dallas Theological Seminary. In that review I noted that Chisholm’s observations effectively drive a stake in the heart of dispensationalism. But I did not give a complete review of his article. Consequently, one Anonymous respondent wondered if my blog failed of its purpose.
In this follow-up blog I will present a related observation regarding the interpretation of prophecy that serves as the second of the one-two punch Chisholm lands on his own theology. This still falls under the category of “progressive dispensationalism” in that Chisholm favorably cited this material in his own article, though he did not press home the point.
I am referring to the chapter by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. that appears in J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund, eds., The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke (2000) on pages 180-203.. That chapter is titled: “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions.” So now I will offer a brief summary and review of Reformed theologian Pratt’s article which was endorsed by progressive dispensationalist theologian Chisholm. This article takes an additional important step for undermining the dispensational method of prophetic interpretation regarding Israel’s future.
Pratt’s Point
In Pratt’s article he opens with a lament regarding the naive and reckless enthusiasm of dispensational populists (whom he obliquely refers to as “North American evangelicals”). He complains that their “enthusiasm” for prophecy has caused them to “become monomaniacal in their interpretation of biblical prophecy” (p. 180).
Basically he argues that historical contingencies affect the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. As does Chisholm in his article, he points out that many biblical prophecies do not find fulfillment in the expected literalistic fashion that we often expect. He argues that this “failure” of prophecy to occur according to our expectations does not undermine “the immutability of God’s character and eternal decrees” (p. 181). That is, this “failure” does not prove God a liar nor does it dismiss the eternal nature of his decrees.
He argues from Scripture that “divine providence provides a perspective that complements divine immutability” (p. 183). That is, God is behind both the eternal decree and historical providence, and that one does not contradict, but rather complements the other. He continues:
“Old Testament prophets revealed the word of the unchanging Yahweh, but they spoke for God in space and time, not before the foundations of the world. By definition, therefore, they did not utter immutable decrees but providential declarations. For this reason, we should not be surprised to find that intervening historical contingencies, especially human reactions, had significant effects on the way predictions were realized. In fact, we will see that Yahweh often spoke through his prophets, watched the reactions of people, and then determined how to carry through with his declarations.”
Three Kinds of Predictions
Pratt then outlines and discusses “three kinds of predictions: (1) predictions qualified by conditions, (2) predictions qualified by assurances, and (3) predictions with out qualifications” (p. 183).
1. Predictions qualified by conditions. Of course, everyone recognizes that when a prophecy expressly mentions conditions, those conditions will affect the outcome of the prophecy. Pratt surveys several conditional prophecies, such as Isa 1:19–20; 7:9; Jer 7:5–7; 22:4–5). For instance, Isaiah 7:9 declares: “If you are not faithful, then you will not stand at all.” This is clearly conditional and affects the historical outcome of the prophecy. Of course, the problem for many populist prophecy-enthusiasts (who usually designate themselves “prophecy experts”) is: they almost never admit this truth about prophecy.
2. Predictions qualified by assurances. These prophecies include announcements of inescapable doom or of God’s refusal to reverse himself or of oath-bound prophecies. Samples include: Jeremiah 7:15–16; 11:11, 14; 14:10; Ezekiel 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 20:3; 33:27; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6. Pratt observes that “we must remember that these kinds of predictions are few in number and usually not very specific in their descriptions of the future” (p. 187). The very existence of these few prophecies clearly indicate “that not all predictions shared this heightened certainty,” otherwise these assurances would have been wholly unnecessary to state.
3. Predictions without qualifications. Pratt notes that “the OT abounds with examples of unqualified predictions of events that did not take place” (p. 187). He lists a few samples, such as Jonah 3:10; 2 Chr 12:5–8; 3 Kings 22:16–20. For instance, “what caused these turns of events? Each text explicitly sights [sic] human responses as the grounds for the deviations. The people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:6), the leaders of Judah (2 Chr 12:6), Josiah (2 Kgs 22:18–19), and Hezekiah (Jer 26:19) repented or prayed upon hearing the prophetic word” (pp. 187–88). This shows that prophecies contained implied conditions. This also is not admitted by traditional dispensationalists.
Pratt then cites Calvin’s Institutes (1:17:14): “Even though [the prophets] make a simple affirmation, it is to be understood from the outcome that these nonetheless contain a tacit condition” (p. 188). Pratt then points to the lesson we learned from the image of God as the potter. He argues that “the universal perspective of Jer 18:1–12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 189).
Historical Contingencies and Expectations
In his next section (pp. 191–95) Pratt asks the question: “If human responses could affect the way Yahweh directed history afer a prediction, how did prophets or their listeners have any secure expectations for the future?” (p. 191).
To answer this question he points out that “the covenantal parameters surrounding Yahweh and his people provided a basis for many expectations, but they did not settle every question. They set limits, but much latitude existed within these boundaries” (p. 192). Regarding any given prophecy: “Latitude remained. . . . When? How? By whom? How long? These more specific questions remained unanswered for the prophets and their audiences” (p. 193).
I would point out in this regard that when we come to the New Testament and the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, we discover that “how” God blesses Israel is different from the way that the Jews (and dispensationalists) expected. He blesses her through the salvation of a remnant and by re-constituting Israel by making even Gentiles “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The Church of Jesus Christ is “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).
Therefore we must understand what the last great old covenant prophet John the Baptist (Matt 3:9) stated when he warned Israel: “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” And ultimately Israel’s salvation comes on the same terms and in the same manner as the salvation of Gentiles, rather than through their exaltation (as per dispensational theology).
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Dispensationalism’s Progressive Death
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Dispensationalism is changing. And as it does so, it is dying; death is the most radical form of change for a living entity. Just think of the death of the prehistoric creature known as the Freborg. They no longer exist anywhere in the world. (The Freborg had the wings of an eagle, the body of a lion, and the head of an accountant. A terrifying image.)
In this blog article I will show that dispensationalism’s death is being effected by suicide. Apparently no amount of embarrassment and humiliation has been able to discomfit dispensational pew-sitters. Like the Eloi in “The Time Machine” they mindlessly wander about to their doom. They drift into Christian bookstores and pick up the latest mind-numbing, apocalyptic drivel. Neither wrong rapture dates nor wrong Antichrist spottings phase erstwhile dispensationalists. Their motto is: “Grin and Bear It.” But now we see that suicide might just do the trick. But first let me give a brief history lesson.
A Brief History Lesson
In the early 1990s Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising led the establishment of what is known as “progressive dispensationalism.” In presenting the changes they effected in the dispensational system, they described three major phases of dispensationalism:
(1) Classic dispensationalism, which was promoted by J. N. Darby through C. I. Scofield to L. S. Chafer. Key components of its success can be traced to Larkin’s charts and Scofield’s Bible.
(2) Revised dispensationalism, which was promoted by Charles C. Ryrie, John F. Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and the New York Times Bestseller List. It is called “revised” because of the major revision of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was revised in 1967 to become the “New Scofield Reference Bible.”
(3) Progressive dispensationalism, which is being promoted by Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Robert Saucey, and others. It is called “progressive” because it no longer sees the seven dispensations as discrete, impermeable units of time. Rather dispensations are gradually unfolding, progressing stages of historical development. That is, older forms of dispensationalism kept each dispensation separate as self-contained, never-merged units, whereas “progressive” dispensationalism sees the seeds of the next dispensation already forming in the preceding one and anticipating the changes to come. Progressives are under vigorous attack by the Revised dispensationalists who have published numerous articles, chapters, and books raising the alarm about the radical changes the progressives are effecting.
But now: Why do I believe dispensationalism is committing suicide? In the first place I should note that dispensationalism has suffered a “brain drain.” And as is so often the case, living without a brain is difficult — if not downright tedious. The leaders of the older form of dispensationalism are now populist, sensationalist, televangelist types such as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and the other guys whose books crowd the shelves of Christian bookstores with excited alarms of the approaching end. But the progressive dispensationalists are producing many academic studies — even outside the field of eschatology. They are showing themselves to be noteworthy and impressive scholars.
This leads me to my second point, which is really my main point: Progressive dispensationalists are not only moving dispensationalism in a more covenantal direction, but are establishing principles that wreck the dispensational system. By way of illustration I will give a brief review of a remarkable article in the latest Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 2010, pp. 561-578): “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic.” Dr. Chisholm is chair and professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. I even went to seminary with him at Grace Theological Seminary — when I was a dispensationalist. You really need to order this article through your local public library’s inter-library loan department. You will thank me for this tidbit.
Jerry Johnson and I are currently working on the script for Late Great Planet Church, volume 2. This article came at just the right time since we will be exposing some of the key errors in dispensationalism (particularly their naive hermeneutic and their love affair with Israel).
In this blog I will not provide a full review of “When Prophecy Fails.” I will simply highlight a few of its key observations which will provide forensic evidence proving suicide. This evidence will show how this dispensationalist is driving a stake through dispensationalism’s heart.
Before I even do that, though, you must bear in mind the following theological truth: Israel is the center of the dispensationalist eschatological system. In fact, an exalted future for Israel in the millennium is the main reason progressive dispensationalists are still dispensationalists. They see a future for Israel restored to the land and offering sacrifices, which makes them differ from historic premillennialists (though they differ from the more popular dispensationalists by not publishing full-color wall charts or playing “Name the Antichrist” or “Guess the Latest Date for the Rapture” games).
Now for the overview (I simply must get back to working on the Late Great Planet Church script; so I will have to be brief.) Note that parenthetical page references are to the JETS article by Chisholm.
Article Overview
Dr. Chisolm begins his article by pointing out something that most Christians do not realize: “A close analysis of OT prophecy reveals that many prophecies were not fulfilled either in part or in whole” (p. 561). He quickly dismisses “two extremes” in responding to this problem: (1) The liberal view which denies supernatural revelatory prophecy. (2) The popular evangelical view which assigns all such unfulfilled prophecy to the final days of history, the eschaton.
Chisholm then makes the following observation which is a two-pronged stake in the heart of dispensationalism: “Prophecy can appear to ‘fail’ if we approach it with a faulty hermeneutic that treats it as inherently unconditional and demands precise fulfillment of any and all details” (p. 561). The two deadly prongs here are: (1) This undermines revised dispensationalism’s second sine qua non: interpretive literalism. (2) This also destroys dispensationalism’s first sine qua non regarding Israel. That is, it removes one of dispensationalism’s strongest arguments for a future for Israel in returning to the land to rule the world and kill sheep: If prophecy is conditional (not “unconditional”) and if it does not demand “precise fulfillment of any and all details” then Israel’s future may not be what dispensationalists depend on it being.
Wow! In one statement Chisholm has driven the stake in the heart of dispensationalism. And he has done so by using a ten ton vibratory pile hammer operating by an intricate system of counter-rotating eccentric weights, powered by hydraulic motors which reduce horizontal vibrations so that its full power may be transmitted vertically into the pile. Well done!
The article shows that prophecy is dynamic, intending either to change or encourage the hearers rather than simply to record the future in advance. Chisholm notes that prophecy “announces God’s intentions conditionally and is intended to motivate a positive response” so that “the prophecy’s predictive element is designed to prevent (in the case of judgment announcement) or facilitate (in the case of a salvation announcement) its fulfillment” (p. 563). That is, prophecy has a hortatory dimension, which means that it seeks to encourage good behavior by promising (conditionally!) blessings in the future or to warn against bad behavior by threatening judgment.
In a section titled “The Contingent Nature of Prophetic Language” Chisholm proves his point by several lines of evidence from the Old Testament.
His first point presents Jeremiah 18 as the key illustration of the matter. He demonstrates that the potter (God) improvises his plan for the clay (Israel) which shows that he can change his (apparent) plan for her. Citing Richard L. Pratt (author of another excellent article in this regard): “The universal perspective of Jer 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 564). The classic illustration of the implied condition in prophecy is Jonah’s prophecy threatening that Nineveh will be destroyed in forty days (Jon 3:4). Though no conditions were mentioned, the prophecy did not come to pass. Because the implied condition allowed for repentance to remove the judgment threat.
Secondly, Chisholm argues that Micah 3:12 is “the clearest example of God’s relenting from a conditional announcement of judgment” (p. 566). There Micah announces that Zion will be destroyed (Mic 3:1-11). Hezekiah understood this prophecy as threatening imminent doom (Jer 26:18-19). But in Jeremiah 26:17-19 Hezekiah repents, which leads the Lord to withdraw the threat. Micah’s prophecy does not come to pass.
Third, in 2 Kings 22:15-20 Huldah prophesies that Josiah would die in peace and not witness Jerusalem’s destruction. But in 2 Kings 23:29-30 Josiah is killed in battle — hardly an example of dying in peace!
Chisholm provides several other clear evidences of prophecy functioning as a goad to either repentance from sin or continuance in righteousness. This is prophecy’s main point: to either dynamically alter or effectively reinforce a people’s moral/spiritual condition, not to foretell the future for political pundits.
Dispensationalism’s Ultimate Death
I believe Chisholm is correct in his view of the conditional nature and dynamic purpose of prophecy. And if he is correct, dispensationalism is no longer theologically viable.
On Chisholm’s principles we can argue that the future of Israel is not necessarily to involve a return to the land to rule the world and re-establish the temple sacrificial system. The dynamic purpose of Old Testament prophecies of Israel’s future glory were intended to encourage faithfulness. But Israel rejected all of her prophets and then when God finally sent his Son, they said: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and seize his inheritance” (Matt 21:38). As a result, God gave them a final forty years after Christ to repent and turn to him.
Tragically, Israel did not repent and her temple was destroyed in AD 70. As a result, Israel’s prophetic hope of future world-dominion will not be fulfilled in the literal terms of the Old Testament hope. We should not be surprised at this for Jesus himself taught:
“I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 811-12).
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” (Matt 21:43).
Dispensationalism is changing. And as it does so, it is dying; death is the most radical form of change for a living entity. Just think of the death of the prehistoric creature known as the Freborg. They no longer exist anywhere in the world. (The Freborg had the wings of an eagle, the body of a lion, and the head of an accountant. A terrifying image.)
In this blog article I will show that dispensationalism’s death is being effected by suicide. Apparently no amount of embarrassment and humiliation has been able to discomfit dispensational pew-sitters. Like the Eloi in “The Time Machine” they mindlessly wander about to their doom. They drift into Christian bookstores and pick up the latest mind-numbing, apocalyptic drivel. Neither wrong rapture dates nor wrong Antichrist spottings phase erstwhile dispensationalists. Their motto is: “Grin and Bear It.” But now we see that suicide might just do the trick. But first let me give a brief history lesson.
A Brief History Lesson
In the early 1990s Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising led the establishment of what is known as “progressive dispensationalism.” In presenting the changes they effected in the dispensational system, they described three major phases of dispensationalism:
(1) Classic dispensationalism, which was promoted by J. N. Darby through C. I. Scofield to L. S. Chafer. Key components of its success can be traced to Larkin’s charts and Scofield’s Bible.
(2) Revised dispensationalism, which was promoted by Charles C. Ryrie, John F. Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and the New York Times Bestseller List. It is called “revised” because of the major revision of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was revised in 1967 to become the “New Scofield Reference Bible.”
(3) Progressive dispensationalism, which is being promoted by Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Robert Saucey, and others. It is called “progressive” because it no longer sees the seven dispensations as discrete, impermeable units of time. Rather dispensations are gradually unfolding, progressing stages of historical development. That is, older forms of dispensationalism kept each dispensation separate as self-contained, never-merged units, whereas “progressive” dispensationalism sees the seeds of the next dispensation already forming in the preceding one and anticipating the changes to come. Progressives are under vigorous attack by the Revised dispensationalists who have published numerous articles, chapters, and books raising the alarm about the radical changes the progressives are effecting.
But now: Why do I believe dispensationalism is committing suicide? In the first place I should note that dispensationalism has suffered a “brain drain.” And as is so often the case, living without a brain is difficult — if not downright tedious. The leaders of the older form of dispensationalism are now populist, sensationalist, televangelist types such as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and the other guys whose books crowd the shelves of Christian bookstores with excited alarms of the approaching end. But the progressive dispensationalists are producing many academic studies — even outside the field of eschatology. They are showing themselves to be noteworthy and impressive scholars.
This leads me to my second point, which is really my main point: Progressive dispensationalists are not only moving dispensationalism in a more covenantal direction, but are establishing principles that wreck the dispensational system. By way of illustration I will give a brief review of a remarkable article in the latest Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 2010, pp. 561-578): “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic.” Dr. Chisholm is chair and professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. I even went to seminary with him at Grace Theological Seminary — when I was a dispensationalist. You really need to order this article through your local public library’s inter-library loan department. You will thank me for this tidbit.
Jerry Johnson and I are currently working on the script for Late Great Planet Church, volume 2. This article came at just the right time since we will be exposing some of the key errors in dispensationalism (particularly their naive hermeneutic and their love affair with Israel).
In this blog I will not provide a full review of “When Prophecy Fails.” I will simply highlight a few of its key observations which will provide forensic evidence proving suicide. This evidence will show how this dispensationalist is driving a stake through dispensationalism’s heart.
Before I even do that, though, you must bear in mind the following theological truth: Israel is the center of the dispensationalist eschatological system. In fact, an exalted future for Israel in the millennium is the main reason progressive dispensationalists are still dispensationalists. They see a future for Israel restored to the land and offering sacrifices, which makes them differ from historic premillennialists (though they differ from the more popular dispensationalists by not publishing full-color wall charts or playing “Name the Antichrist” or “Guess the Latest Date for the Rapture” games).
Now for the overview (I simply must get back to working on the Late Great Planet Church script; so I will have to be brief.) Note that parenthetical page references are to the JETS article by Chisholm.
Article Overview
Dr. Chisolm begins his article by pointing out something that most Christians do not realize: “A close analysis of OT prophecy reveals that many prophecies were not fulfilled either in part or in whole” (p. 561). He quickly dismisses “two extremes” in responding to this problem: (1) The liberal view which denies supernatural revelatory prophecy. (2) The popular evangelical view which assigns all such unfulfilled prophecy to the final days of history, the eschaton.
Chisholm then makes the following observation which is a two-pronged stake in the heart of dispensationalism: “Prophecy can appear to ‘fail’ if we approach it with a faulty hermeneutic that treats it as inherently unconditional and demands precise fulfillment of any and all details” (p. 561). The two deadly prongs here are: (1) This undermines revised dispensationalism’s second sine qua non: interpretive literalism. (2) This also destroys dispensationalism’s first sine qua non regarding Israel. That is, it removes one of dispensationalism’s strongest arguments for a future for Israel in returning to the land to rule the world and kill sheep: If prophecy is conditional (not “unconditional”) and if it does not demand “precise fulfillment of any and all details” then Israel’s future may not be what dispensationalists depend on it being.
Wow! In one statement Chisholm has driven the stake in the heart of dispensationalism. And he has done so by using a ten ton vibratory pile hammer operating by an intricate system of counter-rotating eccentric weights, powered by hydraulic motors which reduce horizontal vibrations so that its full power may be transmitted vertically into the pile. Well done!
The article shows that prophecy is dynamic, intending either to change or encourage the hearers rather than simply to record the future in advance. Chisholm notes that prophecy “announces God’s intentions conditionally and is intended to motivate a positive response” so that “the prophecy’s predictive element is designed to prevent (in the case of judgment announcement) or facilitate (in the case of a salvation announcement) its fulfillment” (p. 563). That is, prophecy has a hortatory dimension, which means that it seeks to encourage good behavior by promising (conditionally!) blessings in the future or to warn against bad behavior by threatening judgment.
In a section titled “The Contingent Nature of Prophetic Language” Chisholm proves his point by several lines of evidence from the Old Testament.
His first point presents Jeremiah 18 as the key illustration of the matter. He demonstrates that the potter (God) improvises his plan for the clay (Israel) which shows that he can change his (apparent) plan for her. Citing Richard L. Pratt (author of another excellent article in this regard): “The universal perspective of Jer 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 564). The classic illustration of the implied condition in prophecy is Jonah’s prophecy threatening that Nineveh will be destroyed in forty days (Jon 3:4). Though no conditions were mentioned, the prophecy did not come to pass. Because the implied condition allowed for repentance to remove the judgment threat.
Secondly, Chisholm argues that Micah 3:12 is “the clearest example of God’s relenting from a conditional announcement of judgment” (p. 566). There Micah announces that Zion will be destroyed (Mic 3:1-11). Hezekiah understood this prophecy as threatening imminent doom (Jer 26:18-19). But in Jeremiah 26:17-19 Hezekiah repents, which leads the Lord to withdraw the threat. Micah’s prophecy does not come to pass.
Third, in 2 Kings 22:15-20 Huldah prophesies that Josiah would die in peace and not witness Jerusalem’s destruction. But in 2 Kings 23:29-30 Josiah is killed in battle — hardly an example of dying in peace!
Chisholm provides several other clear evidences of prophecy functioning as a goad to either repentance from sin or continuance in righteousness. This is prophecy’s main point: to either dynamically alter or effectively reinforce a people’s moral/spiritual condition, not to foretell the future for political pundits.
Dispensationalism’s Ultimate Death
I believe Chisholm is correct in his view of the conditional nature and dynamic purpose of prophecy. And if he is correct, dispensationalism is no longer theologically viable.
On Chisholm’s principles we can argue that the future of Israel is not necessarily to involve a return to the land to rule the world and re-establish the temple sacrificial system. The dynamic purpose of Old Testament prophecies of Israel’s future glory were intended to encourage faithfulness. But Israel rejected all of her prophets and then when God finally sent his Son, they said: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and seize his inheritance” (Matt 21:38). As a result, God gave them a final forty years after Christ to repent and turn to him.
Tragically, Israel did not repent and her temple was destroyed in AD 70. As a result, Israel’s prophetic hope of future world-dominion will not be fulfilled in the literal terms of the Old Testament hope. We should not be surprised at this for Jesus himself taught:
“I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 811-12).
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” (Matt 21:43).
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Millennial Absurdity
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Though dispensationalism appears to be more interested in the Great Tribulation than in the Milllenial Reign of Christ (judging from the number of books on these topics and their multi-million sales), this really might be a good strategy for dispensationalists. For once someone looks into the Millennium proposed by the system, so many red flags start popping out all over that one would think you were at a University of Alabama football game at home.
One of the more bizzare elements of the Millennium is that for 1000 years resurrected saints will dwell among unresurrected sinners and saints. And to top it all off: at the end of the thousand years the unresurrected sinners will rebel against the 1000 year old, never-dying resurrected saints.
Another strange factor of the dispensationalist Millennium -- the one we will be focusing on -- is the inherent racism controlling it. Despite the fact that the new covenant established by Christ made Jew and Gentile equal in God's eyes (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), the most glorious era of history will remove that equality. What is more, it will place the saved, living Gentile nations on the lowest level of the Millennium where they will be the servants of the Jews.
In the following quotes we find evidence of this racial inequality, of this elevation of the Jew, and the denigration of the Gentile.
"God has two distinct purposes — one for Israel and one for the Church."1
"Israel, regathered and turned to the Lord in salvation, will be exalted, blessed, and favored through this period."2
"The Gentiles will be Israel’s servants during that age. . . . The nations which usurped authority over Israel in past ages find that downtrodden people exalted and themselves in subjection in their kingdom. And these are not unsaved Gentiles: The Gentiles that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission."3
"The redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land will be head over all the nations of the earth. . . . So he exalts them above the Gentile nations. . . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations."4
"God will keep his original promises to the fathers and will one day convert and place Israel as the head of the nations."5
"Israel will be a glorious nation, protected from her enemies, exalted above the Gentiles. . . . In contrast to the present church age in which Jew and Gentile are on an equal plane of privilege, the millennium is clearly a period of time in which Israel is in prominence and blessing. . . . Israel as a nation will be exalted."6
"In the millennium Israel as a nation will rule over the Gentiles."7
"The whole point of this passage [Ro 11] revolves around Israel’s being restored to a position of preeminence as a believing nation."8
"The biblical teaching [is] that the coming millennial kingdom will have its headquarters in Jerusalem with the Messiah ruling the world from the throne of David and with national Israel restored to its place of supremacy over the nations."9
The ACLU will have their hands full if this proposal sticks. No! I take that back. Since those on the lowest level are the saved, living Gentile nations, this may work just fine for that august union. This effectively puts Christians beneath Jews.
Footnotes:
1. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 85.
2. Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 149.
3. Pentecost, Things to Come, 508.
4. Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialism," in Clouse, Meaning of the Millennium, 81.
5. House and Ice, Dominion Theology, 175.
6. Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 136, 302–303.
7. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israelology, Doctrine of," Popular Encyclopeida of Bible Prophecy, 201.
8. Lindsey, Road to Holocaust, 176.
9. Hunt, Whatever Happened to Heaven?, 246.
Though dispensationalism appears to be more interested in the Great Tribulation than in the Milllenial Reign of Christ (judging from the number of books on these topics and their multi-million sales), this really might be a good strategy for dispensationalists. For once someone looks into the Millennium proposed by the system, so many red flags start popping out all over that one would think you were at a University of Alabama football game at home.
One of the more bizzare elements of the Millennium is that for 1000 years resurrected saints will dwell among unresurrected sinners and saints. And to top it all off: at the end of the thousand years the unresurrected sinners will rebel against the 1000 year old, never-dying resurrected saints.
Another strange factor of the dispensationalist Millennium -- the one we will be focusing on -- is the inherent racism controlling it. Despite the fact that the new covenant established by Christ made Jew and Gentile equal in God's eyes (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), the most glorious era of history will remove that equality. What is more, it will place the saved, living Gentile nations on the lowest level of the Millennium where they will be the servants of the Jews.
In the following quotes we find evidence of this racial inequality, of this elevation of the Jew, and the denigration of the Gentile.
"God has two distinct purposes — one for Israel and one for the Church."1
"Israel, regathered and turned to the Lord in salvation, will be exalted, blessed, and favored through this period."2
"The Gentiles will be Israel’s servants during that age. . . . The nations which usurped authority over Israel in past ages find that downtrodden people exalted and themselves in subjection in their kingdom. And these are not unsaved Gentiles: The Gentiles that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission."3
"The redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land will be head over all the nations of the earth. . . . So he exalts them above the Gentile nations. . . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations."4
"God will keep his original promises to the fathers and will one day convert and place Israel as the head of the nations."5
"Israel will be a glorious nation, protected from her enemies, exalted above the Gentiles. . . . In contrast to the present church age in which Jew and Gentile are on an equal plane of privilege, the millennium is clearly a period of time in which Israel is in prominence and blessing. . . . Israel as a nation will be exalted."6
"In the millennium Israel as a nation will rule over the Gentiles."7
"The whole point of this passage [Ro 11] revolves around Israel’s being restored to a position of preeminence as a believing nation."8
"The biblical teaching [is] that the coming millennial kingdom will have its headquarters in Jerusalem with the Messiah ruling the world from the throne of David and with national Israel restored to its place of supremacy over the nations."9
The ACLU will have their hands full if this proposal sticks. No! I take that back. Since those on the lowest level are the saved, living Gentile nations, this may work just fine for that august union. This effectively puts Christians beneath Jews.
Footnotes:
1. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 85.
2. Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 149.
3. Pentecost, Things to Come, 508.
4. Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialism," in Clouse, Meaning of the Millennium, 81.
5. House and Ice, Dominion Theology, 175.
6. Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 136, 302–303.
7. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israelology, Doctrine of," Popular Encyclopeida of Bible Prophecy, 201.
8. Lindsey, Road to Holocaust, 176.
9. Hunt, Whatever Happened to Heaven?, 246.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Stone by Stone
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
From time-to-time when I speak at conferences on the Olivet Discourse, I will have dispensationalists raise a question that they believe presents a problem for the preterist interpretation. I have even seen this in some published articles and books. Perhaps you have heard it yourselves. In fact, I know at least one of you have because you wrote me to ask me about it!
Now what is this challenge that some raise against the AD 70 fulfillment of the first portion of the Olivet Discourse? The challenge is:
How can you teach that AD 70 fulfills Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24:3? After all, that verse says “not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” But we all know that the huge Wailing Wall that exists today was a part of the temple.
In reply I would note the following:
First, the Wailing Wall is a portion of the retaining wall of the foundation of the temple, it is not a part of the temple building itself. The entire usable temple structure was demolished stone-by-stone. Josephus writes:
Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind. (J.W. 7:1:1)
Jesus prophesied while the temple stood and functioned. Before the Roman siege the temple was a magnificent structure that perfectly functioned as a temple for worship. In fact, Jesus’ prophecy is given just after he came out of the temple and was going away (Matt 24:1). After the siege the temple was a mass of rubble with only a few of its foundation stones remaining together. It was no longer magnificent; it was no longer suitable for worship. The “temple buildings” (Matt 24:1) were destroyed stone-by-stone.
Archaeologists report from their investigations regarding the temple:
"Absolutely nothing survives of the Temple built by Herod." (Kathleen Kenyon, The Bible and recent Archaeology [London: British Museum, 1978], 85-86)
"The Temple is gone. Not a stone, not a trace, remains." (J. L. Porter, Jerusalem, Bethany, and Bethlehem [London: Nelson, 1887], 52)
"The location of the actual Temple, the central problem, cannot yet be ascertained." (Michael Avi-Yonah, "Jerusalem of the Second Temple Period," in Yigael Yadin, ed., Jerusalem Revealed [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976], 13)
Second, to argue that this is a portion of the temple and that Matthew 24:2 has not yet been perfectly fulfilled and therefore still remains to be fulfilled is to demand a too literal interpretation. If we go that route, then we will have to dismiss numerous biblical prophecies that are not fulfilled in a pedantic manner and many biblical statements that are too generalistic.
For instance, in Acts 21:10–11 Luke writes: “And as we were staying there for some days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says: “In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.”’” Yet this prophecy did not come to pass in the exact manner presented.
We find this prophecy’s fulfillment in Acts 21:31, 33. But there it is not the Jews who physically bind him and deliver him to the Romans, but the Romans who seize him from the hands of the Jews who were attempting to kill him: “And while they were seeking to kill him, report came up to the commander of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion.... Then the commander came up and took hold of him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains.” Thus, it was not the Jews who literally “bind” Paul and then physically “deliver” Paul into the hands of the Gentiles. In fact, they were trying to kill him (Acts 21:31). He was rescued from the Jews, not delivered by them (Acts 21:32–25). Yet the fundamental, important point of Agabus prophecy is established: Paul went to Jerusalem and because of the Jews he ended up in jail by the Romans.
Another example appears in Malachi 4:5: “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.” Despite this rather clear prophecy of “Elijah’s” return, Jesus clearly and dogmatically informs us of the non-Elijah fulfillment of the prophecy: “I say to you, that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him.... Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist” (Matt. 17:11, 12). Yet the prophecy was fulfilled by someone coming in the spirit and power of Elijah.
Again were this pedantic hermeneutic employed, Peter could be faulted for an erroneous historical statement in Acts 1:18. There he stated that Judas purchased a field with the silver he received for betraying Christ. But Matthew 27:1–7 shows us that Judas was dead when the field was purchased by others. Yet the fundamental, relevant idea remains: the field was purchased with Judas’ payment for betraying Jesus.
Also what would we do with the several references that say the Jews crucified Christ? This is very much parallel to the situation presently before us. For instance, in Acts 3:13–14 we read:
“You disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.” In Acts 5:30 Peter declares: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.”
These verses declare that the Jews “put to death” Jesus, even by “hanging Him on a cross.” Yet we know as a matter of historical record that the Romans were the ones who actually crucified Christ. John 19:13-16 is clear that Pilate “delivered Him up” to be crucified, for the Jews were not allowed the right to capital punishment (John 18:29–32). But the fundamental truth remains: the Jews cause Christ’s crucifixion.
Third, to argue that this is some portion of the temple and that Matthew 24:2 has not yet been perfectly fulfilled and therefore still awaits fulfillment causes Christ himself to be a false prophet.
After all, the text states that the disciples pointed out the temple buildings to him, the very buildings from which he had just come (Matt 24:1). Then he says “to them” (those disciples who had just pointed to those temple buildings): “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt 24:2). They asked him “when will these things be” (Matt 24:3)? He informs them that a number of things must occur first (Matt 24:6, 8), but that finally: “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt 24:34). Was Christ mistaken?
Fourth, in the final analysis, if some hapless dispensationalism stumbles into your conversation on the Olivet Discourse and mutters this complaint (that some stones of the temple still remain, therefore the prophecy has not been fulfilled), direct him to go to any number of dispensationalist works that state that Matthew 24:2 was fulfilled in AD 70.
For instance, in Tim LaHaye’s Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy we read: “Clearly the [disciples] first question related to the destruction of the Temple, which happened during the Roman invasion and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70” and “the disciples’ first question in the Olivet Discourse relates to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70” (p. 249). The Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible states the same thing (p. 1151). Many other published works also admit this.
Then, if he will still not listen to you: Go to his house and take it apart stone-by-stone. If he complains, you can respond: “But there are a couple of stones still connected, so nothing of the sort of thing you complain about really happened.”
From time-to-time when I speak at conferences on the Olivet Discourse, I will have dispensationalists raise a question that they believe presents a problem for the preterist interpretation. I have even seen this in some published articles and books. Perhaps you have heard it yourselves. In fact, I know at least one of you have because you wrote me to ask me about it!
Now what is this challenge that some raise against the AD 70 fulfillment of the first portion of the Olivet Discourse? The challenge is:
How can you teach that AD 70 fulfills Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24:3? After all, that verse says “not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” But we all know that the huge Wailing Wall that exists today was a part of the temple.
In reply I would note the following:
First, the Wailing Wall is a portion of the retaining wall of the foundation of the temple, it is not a part of the temple building itself. The entire usable temple structure was demolished stone-by-stone. Josephus writes:
Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind. (J.W. 7:1:1)
Jesus prophesied while the temple stood and functioned. Before the Roman siege the temple was a magnificent structure that perfectly functioned as a temple for worship. In fact, Jesus’ prophecy is given just after he came out of the temple and was going away (Matt 24:1). After the siege the temple was a mass of rubble with only a few of its foundation stones remaining together. It was no longer magnificent; it was no longer suitable for worship. The “temple buildings” (Matt 24:1) were destroyed stone-by-stone.
Archaeologists report from their investigations regarding the temple:
"Absolutely nothing survives of the Temple built by Herod." (Kathleen Kenyon, The Bible and recent Archaeology [London: British Museum, 1978], 85-86)
"The Temple is gone. Not a stone, not a trace, remains." (J. L. Porter, Jerusalem, Bethany, and Bethlehem [London: Nelson, 1887], 52)
"The location of the actual Temple, the central problem, cannot yet be ascertained." (Michael Avi-Yonah, "Jerusalem of the Second Temple Period," in Yigael Yadin, ed., Jerusalem Revealed [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976], 13)
Second, to argue that this is a portion of the temple and that Matthew 24:2 has not yet been perfectly fulfilled and therefore still remains to be fulfilled is to demand a too literal interpretation. If we go that route, then we will have to dismiss numerous biblical prophecies that are not fulfilled in a pedantic manner and many biblical statements that are too generalistic.
For instance, in Acts 21:10–11 Luke writes: “And as we were staying there for some days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says: “In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.”’” Yet this prophecy did not come to pass in the exact manner presented.
We find this prophecy’s fulfillment in Acts 21:31, 33. But there it is not the Jews who physically bind him and deliver him to the Romans, but the Romans who seize him from the hands of the Jews who were attempting to kill him: “And while they were seeking to kill him, report came up to the commander of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion.... Then the commander came up and took hold of him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains.” Thus, it was not the Jews who literally “bind” Paul and then physically “deliver” Paul into the hands of the Gentiles. In fact, they were trying to kill him (Acts 21:31). He was rescued from the Jews, not delivered by them (Acts 21:32–25). Yet the fundamental, important point of Agabus prophecy is established: Paul went to Jerusalem and because of the Jews he ended up in jail by the Romans.
Another example appears in Malachi 4:5: “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.” Despite this rather clear prophecy of “Elijah’s” return, Jesus clearly and dogmatically informs us of the non-Elijah fulfillment of the prophecy: “I say to you, that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him.... Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist” (Matt. 17:11, 12). Yet the prophecy was fulfilled by someone coming in the spirit and power of Elijah.
Again were this pedantic hermeneutic employed, Peter could be faulted for an erroneous historical statement in Acts 1:18. There he stated that Judas purchased a field with the silver he received for betraying Christ. But Matthew 27:1–7 shows us that Judas was dead when the field was purchased by others. Yet the fundamental, relevant idea remains: the field was purchased with Judas’ payment for betraying Jesus.
Also what would we do with the several references that say the Jews crucified Christ? This is very much parallel to the situation presently before us. For instance, in Acts 3:13–14 we read:
“You disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.” In Acts 5:30 Peter declares: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.”
These verses declare that the Jews “put to death” Jesus, even by “hanging Him on a cross.” Yet we know as a matter of historical record that the Romans were the ones who actually crucified Christ. John 19:13-16 is clear that Pilate “delivered Him up” to be crucified, for the Jews were not allowed the right to capital punishment (John 18:29–32). But the fundamental truth remains: the Jews cause Christ’s crucifixion.
Third, to argue that this is some portion of the temple and that Matthew 24:2 has not yet been perfectly fulfilled and therefore still awaits fulfillment causes Christ himself to be a false prophet.
After all, the text states that the disciples pointed out the temple buildings to him, the very buildings from which he had just come (Matt 24:1). Then he says “to them” (those disciples who had just pointed to those temple buildings): “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt 24:2). They asked him “when will these things be” (Matt 24:3)? He informs them that a number of things must occur first (Matt 24:6, 8), but that finally: “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt 24:34). Was Christ mistaken?
Fourth, in the final analysis, if some hapless dispensationalism stumbles into your conversation on the Olivet Discourse and mutters this complaint (that some stones of the temple still remain, therefore the prophecy has not been fulfilled), direct him to go to any number of dispensationalist works that state that Matthew 24:2 was fulfilled in AD 70.
For instance, in Tim LaHaye’s Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy we read: “Clearly the [disciples] first question related to the destruction of the Temple, which happened during the Roman invasion and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70” and “the disciples’ first question in the Olivet Discourse relates to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70” (p. 249). The Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible states the same thing (p. 1151). Many other published works also admit this.
Then, if he will still not listen to you: Go to his house and take it apart stone-by-stone. If he complains, you can respond: “But there are a couple of stones still connected, so nothing of the sort of thing you complain about really happened.”
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
What Is Your Favorite Gap?
One thing that I appreciate about dispensationalists is that they refreshingly admit when they are having trouble making their system work. Rather than bore their readers with exacting exegesis, dispensationalists admit that their system has gaps in it and just throw it out there for their audience. In fact, one of the more distinctive aspects of dispensationalism is its admission that it is full of holes: When the system cannot explain an important eschatological text, they declare: “There is a gap here! There must be!”
Daniel’s Famous Gap
Perhaps dispensationalism’s most famous — and most important — gap is the one they impose upon Daniel’s prophecies of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24–27. This prophecy is deemed by dispensationalists such as John F. Walvoord to be a linchpin in the dispensational system. In this prophecy Daniel uses the image of Seventy Weeks to represent a period of 490 years, with each “week” representing seven years.
Daniel breaks those 490 years into three sections: The first period is seven weeks (Dan 9:25; i.e., forty-nine years), then follows the second period of sixty-two weeks (Dan 9:25; you will have to compute the actual number of years by multiplying 7 x 62. I am no mathematician; I don’t do such high-level mathematical computation). Then finally the last week (Dan 9:27; I can handle this since there is none of this “carrying” business: it represents seven years).
But a problem arises for dispensationalists: Their best book sales deal with the great tribulation by which they frighten people to buy their novels so that they can become millionaires in order to invest their retirement into long-term real estate ventures. Consequently, they cannot allow that the last “week” follows immediately upon the preceding sixty-nine weeks — despite it appearing to do so when reading Daniel’s prophecy.
If they allowed this consecutive computation of the weeks-of-years, it would mean that the tribulation occurred in the first century when the Jewish temple was forever destroyed in A.D. 70 — just as Christ prophesied it would be. For the dispensationalist this would not make sense: Why is that such an important event? Big deal! So Israel worshiped by sacrifices for 1500 years from the time of Moses and the tabernacle. Big deal! So Israel worshiped in a temple for a 1000 years since the time of Solomon (except for a brief interruption during the Babylonian captivity). Big deal! Why would the final cessation of the sacrificial system, the rendering null and void the entire levitical system, and the absolute destruction of their central, unifying temple mean anything of significance to redemptive-history?
How then do they escape the obvious consecutive flow of weeks? By their own version of deus ex machina. They impose a gap between the sixty-ninth week and the seventieth. A gap arises on the scene to save the day. That is, the sixty-ninth week reaches until Jesus triumphal entry into Jerusalem, but then the next week leaps into the distant future over 2000 years distant! Consequently, they impose a gap in the record. Though the whole period of prophetic interest is 490 years, dispensationalists say that this measuring device must have a gap of over 2000 years before the last seven years starts. Voila! Prophecy doesn’t fit? No problem! Look for the gap.
The Old Testament’s Many Gaps
We also find the system’s tendency to impose gaps in various Old Testament prophecies that speak of the coming of Christ’s kingdom. Many prophecies read as if Christ comes to earth in the incarnation to establish his kingdom. For instance, consider Isaiah 9:6–7:
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.
This (and many similar verses) appears to teach that Christ is born into history in the first century and that he establishes his kingdom then. But this will not do for dispensationalists. You can’t sell books by telling people that Christ established a spiritual-redemptive kingdom in the first century. Readers of the National Inquirer and others need something a little more exciting than that.
Thus, once again the necessity of a gap. Those prophecies that speak of Christ’s coming to establish his kingdom are not to be read consecutively. According to dispensationalists we must read these prophecies as teaching that Christ comes in the first century, then he returns to heaven for 2000 years or so, then he returns once again to establish his kingdom.
Looking at these Old Testament prophecies, they say, is like looking at mountain ranges: the farther mountain ranges in one’s view appear to be right behind the closer ones. But we know there is a great distance separating them. Likewise, must we read all those Old Testament prophecies that speak of Christ coming and establishing his kingdom
Matthew’s Gap
In Matthew 23–24 Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (Matt 23:37), declares her temple desolate (Matt 23:38), then leaves the temple only to have the disciples come and remind him of its magnificence (Matt 24:1). To this Jesus responds: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt 24:2). In surprise the disciples ask him: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt 24:3).
Then beginning in Matthew 24:4 the Lord launches into his great eschatological discourse, known as the Olivet Discourse: “And Jesus answered and said unto them. . .”
You would think Matthew might record Jesus’s answer to their surprised question about the destruction of the temple that sparks the discourse. But in the dispensational view he does not. All classic dispensationalists say that Matthew’s record of Jesus’ response does not record the answer to their specific question — which involves issues that would dramatically affect them. Rather, Matthew only records the part of Jesus’ answer that refers to events 2000 or more years into the future. Hence, another infamous dispensationalist gap.
This time, though, it is not necessarily a gap in prophetic time, but a gap in the revelational record of Matthew. Jesus’ reply to his disciples’ questions — as recorded by Matthew (and Mark!) — totally skips over any answer to it and begins deliberating upon events that will not occur for thousands of years. But you must admit: this makes the dispensational system work admirably!
Conclusion
Dispensationalism is an unworkable system that is literally full of holes (i.e., gaps). To make their system function dispensationalists must lay the Scriptures on a Procrustean bed. Much like Damastes (called Procrustes) of old, dispensationalists must either stretch or chop up things to make them fit their predetermined system. A Procrustean bed is an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced; dispensationalism is a Procrustean bed, an arbitrary standard.
But now, my readers, what are some of your favorite dispensational gaps? Everyone knows Daniel 9; most are familiar with the mountain-valley theory of prophetic interpretation; some even know of Matthew’s gap. Dispensationalism, though, does not just apply to Daniel, or to Matthew, or even to the Old Testament in general. Dispensationalism’s gap theory applies throughout the biblical record. You must have a favorite make-it-work gap. Please let me know by replying to this blog
Perhaps we could start a collection of gaps and publish a multi-million selling book? I will split the profits with you — 2000 years after I receive them.
Daniel’s Famous Gap
Perhaps dispensationalism’s most famous — and most important — gap is the one they impose upon Daniel’s prophecies of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24–27. This prophecy is deemed by dispensationalists such as John F. Walvoord to be a linchpin in the dispensational system. In this prophecy Daniel uses the image of Seventy Weeks to represent a period of 490 years, with each “week” representing seven years.
Daniel breaks those 490 years into three sections: The first period is seven weeks (Dan 9:25; i.e., forty-nine years), then follows the second period of sixty-two weeks (Dan 9:25; you will have to compute the actual number of years by multiplying 7 x 62. I am no mathematician; I don’t do such high-level mathematical computation). Then finally the last week (Dan 9:27; I can handle this since there is none of this “carrying” business: it represents seven years).
But a problem arises for dispensationalists: Their best book sales deal with the great tribulation by which they frighten people to buy their novels so that they can become millionaires in order to invest their retirement into long-term real estate ventures. Consequently, they cannot allow that the last “week” follows immediately upon the preceding sixty-nine weeks — despite it appearing to do so when reading Daniel’s prophecy.
If they allowed this consecutive computation of the weeks-of-years, it would mean that the tribulation occurred in the first century when the Jewish temple was forever destroyed in A.D. 70 — just as Christ prophesied it would be. For the dispensationalist this would not make sense: Why is that such an important event? Big deal! So Israel worshiped by sacrifices for 1500 years from the time of Moses and the tabernacle. Big deal! So Israel worshiped in a temple for a 1000 years since the time of Solomon (except for a brief interruption during the Babylonian captivity). Big deal! Why would the final cessation of the sacrificial system, the rendering null and void the entire levitical system, and the absolute destruction of their central, unifying temple mean anything of significance to redemptive-history?
How then do they escape the obvious consecutive flow of weeks? By their own version of deus ex machina. They impose a gap between the sixty-ninth week and the seventieth. A gap arises on the scene to save the day. That is, the sixty-ninth week reaches until Jesus triumphal entry into Jerusalem, but then the next week leaps into the distant future over 2000 years distant! Consequently, they impose a gap in the record. Though the whole period of prophetic interest is 490 years, dispensationalists say that this measuring device must have a gap of over 2000 years before the last seven years starts. Voila! Prophecy doesn’t fit? No problem! Look for the gap.
The Old Testament’s Many Gaps
We also find the system’s tendency to impose gaps in various Old Testament prophecies that speak of the coming of Christ’s kingdom. Many prophecies read as if Christ comes to earth in the incarnation to establish his kingdom. For instance, consider Isaiah 9:6–7:
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.
This (and many similar verses) appears to teach that Christ is born into history in the first century and that he establishes his kingdom then. But this will not do for dispensationalists. You can’t sell books by telling people that Christ established a spiritual-redemptive kingdom in the first century. Readers of the National Inquirer and others need something a little more exciting than that.
Thus, once again the necessity of a gap. Those prophecies that speak of Christ’s coming to establish his kingdom are not to be read consecutively. According to dispensationalists we must read these prophecies as teaching that Christ comes in the first century, then he returns to heaven for 2000 years or so, then he returns once again to establish his kingdom.
Looking at these Old Testament prophecies, they say, is like looking at mountain ranges: the farther mountain ranges in one’s view appear to be right behind the closer ones. But we know there is a great distance separating them. Likewise, must we read all those Old Testament prophecies that speak of Christ coming and establishing his kingdom
Matthew’s Gap
In Matthew 23–24 Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (Matt 23:37), declares her temple desolate (Matt 23:38), then leaves the temple only to have the disciples come and remind him of its magnificence (Matt 24:1). To this Jesus responds: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt 24:2). In surprise the disciples ask him: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt 24:3).
Then beginning in Matthew 24:4 the Lord launches into his great eschatological discourse, known as the Olivet Discourse: “And Jesus answered and said unto them. . .”
You would think Matthew might record Jesus’s answer to their surprised question about the destruction of the temple that sparks the discourse. But in the dispensational view he does not. All classic dispensationalists say that Matthew’s record of Jesus’ response does not record the answer to their specific question — which involves issues that would dramatically affect them. Rather, Matthew only records the part of Jesus’ answer that refers to events 2000 or more years into the future. Hence, another infamous dispensationalist gap.
This time, though, it is not necessarily a gap in prophetic time, but a gap in the revelational record of Matthew. Jesus’ reply to his disciples’ questions — as recorded by Matthew (and Mark!) — totally skips over any answer to it and begins deliberating upon events that will not occur for thousands of years. But you must admit: this makes the dispensational system work admirably!
Conclusion
Dispensationalism is an unworkable system that is literally full of holes (i.e., gaps). To make their system function dispensationalists must lay the Scriptures on a Procrustean bed. Much like Damastes (called Procrustes) of old, dispensationalists must either stretch or chop up things to make them fit their predetermined system. A Procrustean bed is an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced; dispensationalism is a Procrustean bed, an arbitrary standard.
But now, my readers, what are some of your favorite dispensational gaps? Everyone knows Daniel 9; most are familiar with the mountain-valley theory of prophetic interpretation; some even know of Matthew’s gap. Dispensationalism, though, does not just apply to Daniel, or to Matthew, or even to the Old Testament in general. Dispensationalism’s gap theory applies throughout the biblical record. You must have a favorite make-it-work gap. Please let me know by replying to this blog
Perhaps we could start a collection of gaps and publish a multi-million selling book? I will split the profits with you — 2000 years after I receive them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
