The future dispensational kingdom involves a racial prejudice favoring the Jews above even saved Gentiles during the millennium. As such it re-introduces the distinction between Jew and Gentile and replaces faith with race as a basis for divine favor. Of course, Dr. MacArthur recently informed us that scientist know what Jewish DNA looks like, which is important if we shall have world domination by ethnic Jews. I wonder what percentage of Jewish DNA one must have in order to be considered one of the exalted race? And I guess they know there are Levi chromosomes and Judah chromosomes and Benjamin chromosomes. Consider the following citations from dispensationalists:
Thomas Ice: “God will keep his original promises to the fathers and will one day convert and place Israel as the head of the nations.” (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p. 175.)
Ryrie: “Israel, regathered and turned to the Lord in salvation, will be exalted, blessed, and favored throughout the period.”
Pentecost: “The Gentiles will be Israel’s servants during that age. . . . The Gentiles that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission.”
Walvoord: “Israel will be a glorious nation, protected from her enemies, exalted above the Gentiles. . . ” (The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1959), p. 136.)
Herman Hoyt (past president of Grace Theological Seminary) puts it quite starkly: “The redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land, will be head over all the nations of earth. . . . So he exalts them above the Gentile nations . . . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations.”
Dave Hunt comments: “The Messiah ruling the world from the throne of David and with national Israel restored to its place of supremacy over the nations.”
However, with the establishment of the New Testament phase of the Church, the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been abolished. This was the whole point of Peter’s vision of the sheet filled with unclean animals in Acts 10: “What God has called clean, let no man call unclean.” Thus, there is no separate Jewish program exalting them over saved Gentiles.
The Church, which includes Jew and Gentile in one body, is the fruition and culmination of God’s promises to the Abraham, Moses, David, and Jeremiah. In evidence of this, we should note that Christians are called by distinctively Jewish names in the New Testament. “He is a Jew, which is one inwardly” (Romans 2:29). Christians are called “the circumcision” (Philippians 3:3), “the children” and “the seed of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7, 29), the “Jerusalem which is above” and the “children of the promise” (Galatians 4:24-29). In fact, Christians compose “the Israel of God” for we are a “new creature” regarding which “circumcision avails nothing” (Galatians 6:16).
I ask my Dispy brothers and sisters to consider this reversal of the New Covenant. It is another glaring flaw that cannot be explained away as “Well this is just the way God planned it.” No, friend, do not argue for a confused God to protect your theological presuppositions.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Hey, if you don’t mind Kudos from a BHTer then I think this is the best post yet regarding dispensationalism. I just don’t see God setting up a master race in the end times (whenever they are). Besides, at this stage of history I would be very surprised if most of us don’t have a little ethnic Jewishness in our ancestry.
The other thing that simply boggles the mind is the idea that we (or someone) will bring a struggling little lamb before the Lamb of God in a newly built temple, and cut its throat.
Jason,
Do amils see the last 3 1/2 years of Daniel’s “seventy weeks” to be symbolic of the church age? I am reading Riddlebarger’s book, and he criticizes dispys for putting a 2,000 year gap in the middle of the seven weeks for the tribulation. Then, he seems to simply add it to the end. Can you help me with this?
What about when John Calvin (commenting on Romans 11:26) said:
When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.
Or what about the fact that many of the church fathers (including Tertullian and Chrysostom), Aquinas, Calvin, most of the Puritans, and even many amill commentators today see a literal future for ethnic Israel? (Including Murray, Hendrickson, Sproul, Cranfield, Moule, Godet, Schreiner, and others)
It seems you guys are being a little selective with the data here.
I have always approached dispy/premil theology from a “defence of Amil” position, along with the occasional “Dispies are inconsistent” idea. But your posts are showing up MAJOR problems with Dispensationalism and how they contradict MAJOR Biblical themes.
Put a link on the side somewhere where all these articles can be easily accessed by visitors.
The only problem is that you are now getting praise from the BHT! You MUST being doing something terribly wrong!
I was sad to hear the Jewish DNA argument from MacArthur. This Dave Hunt-ian type of desperate argument revealed MacArthur’s true colors in that his whole sermon was built upon fallacies. Because I love MacArthur and his ministry so very much, it hurt to hear that. What a pathetic attempt to pull the veil over our eyes.
This ‘debate’ is also starting to reveal its true nature. I’m not seeing much interaction on here from the pre-mill standpoint, and not on any other blogs for that matter. It’s starting to remind me of the Calvinist vs Arminan debate within the SBC: there are many who will stand up and shout from the pulpit, but going down in the trenches to defend their position is rare. Obviously, Premillennialism is so easily refuted that those who hold to their tradition in this area have counted the cost of actually engaging the arguments.
Riddlebarger views the Book of Revelation from a historicist viewpoint. I view it from a preterist viewpoint except for the last couple of chapters of course.
Albert,
What you quoted from Calvin and others is not even comparable to what Dispensationalists are describing. So, no, we aren’t being selective.
Nathan White,
If you believe that no one is engaging the arguments from a premill standpoint you are not reading the right websites. There has been plenty of good debate over at Pulpit Magazines website (www.sfpulpit.com).
Hi,
I have been following your blog for some time now. I favoured a dispensational premillennial eschatology previously but I now am in the amill camp. I am still learning and searching what Scripture says about the end times. I find your blog helpful. Could you clarify the difference between a historicist and a preterist? I thought they were the same. Thanks.
Jason,
What’s the difference between a historicist and a preterist?
A Preterist interpretation of the book of Revelation holds that most of the prophecies of the book have already been fulfilled, that they were fulfilled shortly after the writer, John, first penned them. In a sense, one might say that there is an element of futurism, in that it truly was future to John, but from our perspective, it relates to history. Hence, we might say, in a technical sense that preterism is futuristic to John, yet historical to us.
Preterists take literally the words of Revelation 1:1, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John.” They would say the same of Revelation 22:10, which reads: “And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.”
Some preterist interpreters believe that the prophecies of the book of Revelation were largely fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred in AD 70. For example, they would view Revelation 11:1-8 as speaking of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans in AD 70. Others view the first half of the book as speaking of Jerusalem’s destruction and most of the latter chapters of the book as reflecting the eventual fall of the Roman Empire the great persecutor of the church.
Preterist are able to interpret literally, what seem to be quite clear statements about the soon fulfillment of prophecies as taught by the Lord Himself and His Apostles. The interpretation of the Revelation from a Preterist standpoint is able to demonstrate an immediate relevance for the original readers, i.e. the churches of Asia Minor. I cannot overstate this point. I believe that any interpretation of the Revelation has to have made sense to the original readers for whom the book was written. Also, a Preterist interpretation of Revelation is able to show that it parallels the prophetic words of our Lord in His Olivet discourse in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21, in which He foretold of the soon destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple.
A Historicist approach to interpretation of the Revelation sees the book prophesying events that transpire over the course of the entire church age. The book of Revelation, they would say, is a foretelling of all history from the time of the first coming of Christ unto the end of the age.
Examples: Revelation 6 & 7, record the Lord Jesus breaking seven seals that are on a scroll in His hand. As each seal is broken and the scroll is unwound, great events of judgment transpire on the earth. It was a common interpretation of the historical approach to view these chapters as predicting the sacking of the Roman Empire by invading barbarians. The fifth seal was viewed as signaling the rise of Mohammedanism and the sixth seal signaled the invasion of Rome by the Turks. Of course, the most significant interpretation that was promoted by Historicist was that of Revelation 13. There the Beast is declared the Roman papacy. The pope was universally held to be the antichrist by the Reformers who used the Historicist approach of interpreting the book of Revelation.
This has been the most predominant approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation by Bible believers down through history. Essentially all of the Reformers and evangelical leaders used this approach until toward the end of the last century. Some notable persons who used this approach would include John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale,
Martin Luther, John Calvin, Isaac Newton, John Hus, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, and Matthew Henry—a virtual who’s who of great historical evangelical leaders.
Weaknesses: If the book of Revelation were to be seen in this way, it would mean that the book had little or no meaning to the churches of Asia Minor to whom it was first written and sent. The subjective nature of assigning meaning to the symbols is unavoidable. No two, independent Historicists can agree on the meaning of the symbols from the text alone. Most who hold to this view have a tendency to see the culmination of history in one’s own time. There is among this view a tendency to see the fulfillment only from Western European church history.
The Futurist approach to interpretation of the Revelation sees the book prophesying events that are largely future to all but those living just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The book of Revelation, they would say, is for the most part a foretelling of events that will not begin to transpire until the end of the current age shortly before the Second Coming of Christ. Most futurists are dispensationalists, but not all of them are.
Weaknesses:
a. The futurist interpretation of the Revelation renders the bulk of the book as inapplicable to any Christian of any time. Since apart from chapters 1-3 the book records events after the church is removed, not only do the details of the book have no direct relevance for the churches of Asia Minor at the end of the first century, they have no relevance for us Christians as well, for according to their understanding we will be gone.
b. There is the great danger of subjective interpretation. One can never refute even the most bizarre futurist assertions of what the book predicts will happen. Futurists over the past 150 years have been able to give interpretations of the book in the light of their own current events. The book is claimed to have prophesied Huey helicopters, a red Chinese army of 200,000,000 in number, the attack of Israel by Russia, which is made possible, by the way, of Russia recently building a dam at the headwaters of the Euphrates River. The book is said to prophesy the revival of the Roman Empire in the modern European Common Market. In this book, they claim, we can read of the prophecy of the computer chip, satellite technology, television, and a world-wide cashless economy. The Antichrist has been variously identified as Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, John Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, and Ronald Reagan.
c. There is a refusal to see that any of the details of the Revelation may have already been fulfilled in the lives of the original recipients of the book. Everything is presumed unquestionably to be unfulfilled yet.
d. Some reject the futurist approach on the basis of its origin. It was first introduced in 1585 by a Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Riberia. He originated the approach of placing the Antichrist as a future end-time individual who would yet rise to power. He did this in order to refute the Historicist teaching of the Reformers that the Pope was the Antichrist.
e. From a theological perspective, there are both Christological and Covenantal issues that are unable to be reconciled.
Sojourner,
Not sure about Riddlebarger’s view on the chronology of the Seventy Weeks, but I take them as being completed in the 1st century.
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”
Jesus’ earthly ministry lasted for approx. 3 1/2 years. In the middle of the last week Jesus confirmed the covenant by His death on the cross. In the 3 1/2 years which followed, His apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit began to proselytize in a mighty way, thus further establishing the covenant. As Peter said on the day of Pentecost, “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, …”. Peter preached a gospel message of both deliverance and judgment. Deliverance to those who would respond to the call, and judgment upon those who refused. “The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.” The “desolations” spoken of in Dan. 9:26 had been determined and would be carried out in the judgement upon Jerusalem.
Jason,
Thank you. That was a helpful summary. I appreciate the time you took to write that.
Tom,
The last 3 1/2 years has no distinctive “end marker” other than the passing of time? The destruction of the temple is not the end of the 3 1/2 years?
The last 3 1/2 years has no distinctive “end marker” other than the passing of time? The destruction of the temple is not the end of the 3 1/2 years?
Sojourner,
Some folks stretch the 3 1/2 years out to AD70, but I do not think that is necessary. Jesus certainly accomplished the main items in the Daniel 9 sequence by His appearing, sacrifice on the cross, establishment of His successors, and ascension into glory. He also established the destruction of the temple in AD70 when He spoke the words of the Olivet Discourse.
One potential problem with not taking it all the way to AD70 is the phrase in Daniel 9:24, “To seal up vision and prophecy, …” If one takes this as referring to the canon of Scripture, then we need to go all the way to AD70, since Revelation as the last NT book was written just prior to that event. I’m not sure I have a good answer to that.
BTW, the Daniel 9:24 phrase is one reason why I’m a cessationist. I believe the extra-ordinary gifts of the Spirit ceased with the close of the canon and the destruction of the Jewish temple, since tongues were mainly a sign to the Jews (1 Cor. 14:21). But that’s another topic.
What I always wondering in the idea of dispensational thought is: who is an ethnic Jew? And how do we identify such a person today?
Mark
Hi,
Just to say thank you so much for the recent series of posts on eschatology and dispensationalism. I’ve been struggling with getting to grips with it all (a Christian for a few months now), but it’s been great to get read such a thorough (and well scripturally supported) treatment of this. A lot of sites seem to just have one or two posts on the issue and then move on despite a lot of comment interest and debate, which is frustrating, so this has been great.
Thanks again, Antonio
“What I always wondering in the idea of dispensational thought is: who is an ethnic Jew? And how do we identify such a person today?”
Really, since it is possible to become a Jew by conversion. Do those guys loose out on the land promise because they don’t have the Jewish gene?
How about Jews who become Christians? Still get their piece of Caanan and get raptured away in the nick of time?
How about Christians who become Jews? Still under God’s blessing? Let’s ask the apostle Paul.
All sorts of absurdities possible here.
How about Jews who become Christians? Still get their piece of Caanan and get raptured away in the nick of time?
The schizophrenia of dispensational thought. Presumably this is some odd variation on Paul’s statement, “They are not all Israel who are of Israel”. When is a Jew not “of Israel”? When they profess Christ and are in the church. When is a Jew a real Jew? When they profess Christ in the Great Tribulation.
Identification with the true Israel has always been by way of covenant. Paul makes it clear that it does not matter if one is a Jew or a gentile, but rather than one is found to be “in Christ” (Gal. 3:26). Dispensationalists get around this obvious implication by claiming that the New Covenant was only made with Israel and not the church. The church only shares in the blessing of the covenant (temporarily), but not the promises. That only happens after the kingdom is established after the second coming.