What is Dispensationalism?

[Iconoclast]

Oh, wow, there are so many I don't have time to even get started. The main one is the promise of a king to sit on David's throne. That would be King Jesus. You guys can spiritualize that all you want, but the promise of a king for David's throne occurs many times in the OT, and I believe it will glorify Jesus when Israel sees that happen in the millennium.

The allegorical argument: "Well, Jesus is now sitting on the throne of David in Heaven." Absolutely ridiculous.

John,
When time permits can you explain how you understand this portion of scripture in light of this post. What was Peter saying here?

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

 

[Covenanter]

Oh, wow, there are so many I don't have time to even get started. The main one is the promise of a king to sit on David's throne. That would be King Jesus. You guys can spiritualize that all you want, but the promise of a king for David's throne occurs many times in the OT, and I believe it will glorify Jesus when Israel sees that happen in the millennium.

The allegorical argument: "Well, Jesus is now sitting on the throne of David in Heaven." Absolutely ridiculous.

Jer. 33
- Jesus came according to that promise. Did he fail? Is he not fulfilling that promise?
Is God glorified in the abandonment of his people Israel for 2000 years?
Is this generation 60 generations suffering God's wrath contrary to Ezekiel 18?

No. No. No.
Jesus Christ IS the fulfilment of God's promises. Many thousands of Jews did respond to the Gospel call forming the church, and continue to respond.
Should they wait for a supposed millennium?
How foolish! Now is the day of salvation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Don't include me among those who think there is no more future for God's chosen people Israel.

I greatly appreciate your taking the time to lay out your understanding of Dispensationalism.

I don't think there is anyone who seriously thinks that there is no future for the people of Israel. Rather, we believe that the Gentiles have been 'grafted in' to Israel, so that what you describe as 'Replacement Theology' is in reality Inclusion Theology and the future for the Jews is now bound in with that of the Gentiles.

When you have time, I would like you understanding of the following verses:

Ephesians 2:11-16. 'Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision , made in the flesh by hands-- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to make in himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.'

It seems self-evident to me that there is now only one people of God (see the underlined portions)-- believing Jew and believing Gentile together in Christ (c.f. Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:3; Galatians 3:28 etc.). Not that Israel after the flesh has been rejected or superseded, but that the Gentiles have been brought in amongst them. This is what makes it impossible for me to accept Dispensationalism.

 

[prophecy70]

I don't think there is anyone who seriously thinks that there is no future for the people of Israel.

There is only a future for those who accept Jesus, like any other person on earth.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is only a future for those who accept Jesus, like any other person on earth.

Exactly so; 'believing Jew and believing Gentile together in Christ.' There never was a future for unbelieving Jews (e.g. Jeremiah 9:25-26).

 

[John of Japan]

And Jesus sitting on an earthy throne of David in this millennium where people burn sacrifices again denies Jesus of what he has done.

I'm glad you brought this up, since it is a typical straw man argument against a dispensationalism that very few dispensationalists believe, which is that there are different plans of salvation for different ages. Ryrie denies the charge in detail in Ch. 6 of his textbook, Dispensationalism, writing: "The charge that dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation is repeated with the regularity of a dripping faucet" (p. 122).

Furthermore, the millennial sacrifices are not to be meritorious for salvation, just as the Jewish sacrifices were not. The OT sacrifices prefigured a coming Sacrifice, Jesus Christ, and the millennial sacrifices will commemorate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. I see no theological problem with that. It glorifies God in the sense that the Jews of the millennium will look at the sacrifices and mourn that their people rejected the eternal sacrifice of Christ.

Where do you get that Jesus is sitting on "Davids throne" in the millennium?

That is absolutely ridiculous.

Many prophetic passages teach this. It hasn't happened literally yet, so a literal fulfillment logically puts it in the millennium. Here's are just a couple:

"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this" (Is. 9:7).

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:42).

 

[John of Japan]

I misspoken on the who, it wasn't the reformers but the earlier

Melito of Sardis
"The people [Israel] was precious before the church arose, and the law was marvelous before the gospel was elucidated. But when the church arose and the gospel took precedence, the model was made void, conceding its power to the reality…The people [Israel] was made void when the church arose."

Ignatius of Antioch
"those who partake of the Passover are partakers with those who killed Jesus"

Justin Martyr
" the Church is "true spiritual Israel"

Cyprian of Carthage
"I have endeavored to show that the Jews…departed from God and lost God’s favor… while the Christians succeeded to their place, deserving well of the Lord by faith, and coming out of all nations and from the whole world."

Origen of Alexandria
"We say with confidence that they [the Jews] will never be restored to their former condition. For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the Savior of the human race… It accordingly behoved that city where Jesus underwent these sufferings to perish utterly, and the Jewish nation to be overthrown, and the invitation of happiness offered them by God to pass to others — the Christians…"

I am not saying I agree or disagree with anything they say, Im saying if things are so plain to you, why are they not to MANY other people that disagree.

I don't know about the quote from Melitus. You don't source it so I can't check it. Ignatius and Justin were both premil. Origen was the one who brought allegorical interpretation into the church (and a very weird dude), so dispensationalism opposes his teaching.

It's much easier to interact with your quotes when you source them.

 

[John of Japan]

So in the millennium, Jesus is not going to rule outside an enlarged Israel as laid out in Joshua 1:4 and/or 1 Kings 4:21. That is the maximum extent of David's rule, so if the Lord Jesus is going to sit on David's throne, that's all He's going to rule, right?

I didn't say that, nor do I believe it. I see nothing incongruous about David ruling over a limited area, but his descendant, Jesus Christ, ruling over a world wide empire.There are many cases in history where the descendant ruled over much more than the original king.

 

[David Kent]

Many prophetic passages teach this. It hasn't happened literally yet, so a literal fulfillment logically puts it in the millennium. Here's are just a couple:

"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this" (Is. 9:7).

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:42).

So you are not in Christ's Kingdom?

• John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

[John of Japan]

Jer. 33
- Jesus came according to that promise. Did he fail? Is he not fulfilling that promise?
Is God glorified in the abandonment of his people Israel for 2000 years?
Is this generation 60 generations suffering God's wrath contrary to Ezekiel 18?

Dispensationalism teaches none of these things.

No. No. No.
Jesus Christ IS the fulfilment of God's promises. Many thousands of Jews did respond to the Gospel call forming the church, and continue to respond.
Should they wait for a supposed millennium?
How foolish! Now is the day of salvation.

I teach that we should try to win Jews to Christ now. Why in the world would dispensationalism teach anything different???

 

[Yeshua1]

Dispensationalism teaches none of these things.

I teach that we should try to win Jews to Christ now. Why in the world would dispensationalism teach anything different???

Jesus commanded the Church to take His message to all groups and peoples, right?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I have given the question some thought.
All I can say is:

• Yes, I am a dispensationalist.
• JoJ is setting out pretty much what I believe. He just has more of the i's dotted and t's crossed than I do.

I believe

• Israel and the Church are separate.
• That the return of Christ for His saints (aka the Rapture) is not dependent on the existence of a nation of Israel.

For the purposes of this thread, I simply say no comment.

 

[John of Japan]

I greatly appreciate your taking the time to lay out your understanding of Dispensationalism.

You are welcome.

I don't think there is anyone who seriously thinks that there is no future for the people of Israel. Rather, we believe that the Gentiles have been 'grafted in' to Israel, so that what you describe as 'Replacement Theology' is in reality Inclusion Theology and the future for the Jews is now bound in with that of the Gentiles.

I did not invent the term. It is commonly used in eschatology.

When you have time, I would like you understanding of the following verses:

Ephesians 2:11-16. 'Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision , made in the flesh by hands-- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to make in himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.'

It seems self-evident to me that there is now only one people of God (see the underlined portions)-- believing Jew and believing Gentile together in Christ (c.f. Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:3; Galatians 3:28 etc.). Not that Israel after the flesh has been rejected or superseded, but that the Gentiles have been brought in amongst them. This is what makes it impossible for me to accept Dispensationalism.

The dispensation of the Church Age began at Pentecost in Acts 2. There were no local churches before that, and there will be none in the millennium. Those are different stewardships from God.

The passage you quoted is clearly specific to the Church Age, since it speaks of the "body of Christ." In Paul's letters to the churches he refers often to this metaphor, but it is never used for the Jewish people per se, only for the church, which merges Jews and Gentiles into one body. This is clear from Col. 1:24, which says, "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church."

See also Rom. 8:10 &12:5, 3 verses in 1 Cor., your verses in Eph. (specifically to a church), two other verses in Eph., & Col. 2:17. These passages are ecclesiological, not eschatalogical.

 

[John of Japan]

John,
When time permits can you explain how you understand this portion of scripture in light of this post. What was Peter saying here?

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

V. 36 says that God made Christ "Lord and Christ," but it doesn't say "king." Christ being risen from the dead prepares the way for the millennial kingdom, since a dead Christ can't rule anything. Peter's point is the awesomeness of the resurrection, not the assumption of Christ to the throne of David. Christ is now risen, and will in the future sit on the throne of David.

 

[David Kent]

V. 36 says that God made Christ "Lord and Christ," but it doesn't say "king." Christ being risen from the dead prepares the way for the millennial kingdom, since a dead Christ can't rule anything. Peter's point is the awesomeness of the resurrection, not the assumption of Christ to the throne of David. Christ is now risen, and will in the future sit on the throne of David.

So you are not in Christs's kingdom?

 

[Yeshua1]

So you are not in Christs's kingdom?

I think JoJ point is that right now Jesus is in His High Priestly role, and not that of the King!

 

[agedman]

So you are not in Christs's kingdom?

According to Scripture, Christ is seated at His Father’s side.

He is the “Prince of Peace,” and though all authority is His, He remains beside the Father as the Prince.

When He returns He bears the title, “King of Kings.”

 

[John of Japan]

So you are not in Christs's kingdom?

Did I say that? No I did not.

The subject of the kingdom in its various manifestations takes up 531 pages of The Greatness of the Kingdom, by dispensationalist Alva McClain, so I'm not going to get into it on this thread. (I took a grad class on it with that as the textbook.)

 

[Iconoclast]

Did I say that? No.

The subject of the kingdom in its various manifestations takes up 531 pages of The Greatness of the Kingdom, by dispensationalist Alva McClain, so I'm not going to get into it on this thread. (I took a grad class on it with that as the textbook.)

Does that book represent the view solidly, or only in part....in other words would you recommend this book?
If I mentioned this book in premill churches would they be comfortable with its contents?

 

[John of Japan]

Does that book represent the view solidly, or only in part....in other words would you recommend this book?
If I mentioned this book in premill churches would they be comfortable with its contents?

I highly recommend this book. It's a classic in the field, and in fact the only book I know of on a scholarly level that treats the subject thoroughly.

A dispensational church would have solid agreement. If a church is historic premil they would have less agreement.