A notable characteristic of dispensationalism, one which distinguishes it from both amillennial eschatology and even from historic premillennialism, is how the dispensationalist views the Jewish people and the nation Israel. The following are some quite brief notes on the subject, followed by a response to some nonsense (though relatively popular) criticism of this theological persuasion.
1. The promises to the nation (not merely to a faithful people) identified real land.. Leviticus 25-26.
2. This promise was fulfilled in real life, not in metaphor. The sabbath rest is a metaphor that applies to the church, not to Israel. (Hebrews 4:3)
3. The NT acknowledges the place of the physical nation (not just a spiritual people) in God’s promises and calling. (Romans 11:28-29)
4. The Lord’s future plans are set about on the Lord’s timetable and are neither known by people, nor are controllable by people. (Mt. 24:36)
5. Revelation is not simply about apocalypse — exciting events at the end of earth’s history. It is about eschatology (the plan of God), about redemption, about the proper theocracy, and about eternity. It is about principled ends, but not a elimination of the earth (there will be a new one).
Now the dispensationalist may observe God’s place for both national Israel (Romans 11:29) and faithful Israel (Rev. 7:4). With this comes a new attitude, the ability to bless physical Israel (Gen. 12:3) in a way that previously was applied only to the faithful (and that meant the church).
Some, to be certain, have misunderstood dispensationalism. The “hyper” dispensationalist, like the “hyper” Calvinist, ends up with a determinism that predicts an automatic salvation, a rigid type of election that occurs totally apart from human involvement. John Hagee’s teachings fall into this category. Though he has tempered his views a bit, the flavor is still there.
The excitement that accompanies dispensationism came in parallel with other better-world attitudes of the era. Dispensationalism looks to the Lord’s imminent (at any time) return. During the 19th century, the period when dispensationalism was booming, the imminent return of Christ was also anticipated by the other persuasions as well. The world, after all, was getting better and better. The Kingdom was being successfully grown to cover the world. Missions of all sorts were booming.
Liberals, theological and political, were getting into the game. They sought to better the lives of people everywhere. They became “do-gooders” in their efforts to create a proper environment where people could flourish, thinking naively that their efforts (collectivist and governmental) could actually succeed. (This is an attitude that they maintain to this day, despite the failings of every liberal thread of these types for over a century now. When they renew their “we can do more” mantra at every election they admit their willingness to fail Just One More Time.)
There are some who, to be generous, misunderstand dispensationalism. Rachel Tabachnick says that this theology is “to advance a narrative in which the imminent eradication of Judaism from the earth”. So that this is not taken out of context, she has also said (in fairness her remarks fall in a context that indicates a convoluted understanding of differing evangelical opinions) that the goal is to promote “a holy war in preparation for the end times.”
While Hagee’s theology has a variety of issues (such as his “hyper” flavor and also propensity to make everything bad into a discernable judgement), I’ve not seen a direct and immediate promotion of war and death to Jews within his theological structure. It seems that paranoia is all too common.
I realize that the amills and postmills among us have differing opinions regarding how Israel is to be treated theologically.But I find in dispensationalism a better treatment the nation and the people.
May 31st, 2010 | 8:38 am | #1
An intriguing overview, Collin.
I would have thought of myself as a one-time dispensationalist. But I find myself in agreement with most of what you say here, specifically the numbered items (with the possible exception of the theocracy bit).
I would find it helpful if you would clarify the relationship of your interpretation of dispensationalism and “premillennialism” and “pretribulationalism.”
I agree in principle with an “imminent return,” even if we “do not know the day nor the hour”–or the decade, century, or millennium, for that matter. But does dispensationalism require some version of “the rapture” (i.e., a separate “return” of Christ for the saints, distinct from the eschatological consummation)?
And what about the versions of millennialism? Is dispensationalism committed to any particular version? In the dispensationalism that I grew up with, dispensationalism, pre-millennialism, and “rapturism” always seemed interconnected.
Put another way, is it possible that it would be better to formulate a “neo-dispensationalism,” that might remove that elements that do not appear essential to the program you have outlined?
May 31st, 2010 | 8:40 am | #2
In the February 2005 issue of FT, in response to David Klinghoffer, Fr. Neuhaus published Why The Jews Did or Did Not Reject Jesus, in which this passage occurs:
I do not know where Neuhaus got his statistics, so I cannot offer an informed assessment of his argument. However, that some — perhaps even many — Jews came to faith in Christ is undeniable.
If this is true, then given what we know about statistical genealogy, two-thousand years after the split between rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, there would seem to be a good possibility that most Christians — at least those in the middle east and in the west with longstanding christian roots — are, quite literally and biologically, children of Abraham. Thus the distinction Paul makes between biological and spiritual children of Abraham would have become irrelevant in the intervening millennia.
My question to you, Collin, is how this possibility would affect the dispensationalist distinction between two plans for two peoples of God.
May 31st, 2010 | 9:06 am | #3
Here are population statistics from Jeff Malka’s Sephardic Genealogical Resources:
Malka's total population figures differ with Neuhaus' sources by one million, but both appear to agree that Jews constituted one-tenth of the Roman Empire's population, which I admit came as a surprise to me when I first read this. That Jews made up fully one-quarter of the population in the eastern Empire is even more remarkable. Of course, Iran, Yemen and Ethiopia were not part of the Empire, and "Babylon" (Mesopotamia) was only briefly within its boundaries.
Again I cannot vouch for the accuracy of such figures, as no sources are listed. Yet even if they are not accurate, my point above about the erasure of the line between biological and spiritual Israel still stands. The reality is that there were indeed many Jews who came to confess Christ as Lord and Saviour.
May 31st, 2010 | 1:04 pm | #4
David,
Historic Premill (in which the E Free church has its footing) treats Israel in the same fashion as do the amills. They also tend toward a mid-trib rapture.
The rapture is the only exegetical portion of dispensationalism that gives me any concern. Maybe more on that in the future.
The progressive dispensationalists have some relatively minor issues, which Ryrie has dealt with adequately.
David K,
If this is true, then given what we know about statistical genealogy, two-thousand years after the split between rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, there would seem to be a good possibility that most Christians — at least those in the middle east and in the west with longstanding christian roots — are, quite literally and biologically, children of Abraham. Thus the distinction Paul makes between biological and spiritual children of Abraham would have become irrelevant in the intervening millennia.
My question to you, Collin, is how this possibility would affect the dispensationalist distinction between two plans for two peoples of God.
I think your point would have merit if all Jews would have come to Christ. This would have eliminated the church/Israel distinction. But that did not happen. Romans 11:29 keeps the distinction clear.
Even Sproul, a die-hard amill, had trouble with this passage as he taught through Romans (on the radio). I do wonder why he didn’t just give in to the distinction as set out so plainly.
(Question: When you say “rabbinic” don’t you really mean “Talmudic”?)
May 31st, 2010 | 2:21 pm | #5
I assume then that the only distinguishing feature between the two peoples of God is that one accepts Christ and the other rejects him. Yet in Ephesians 2:11-22 Paul clearly indicates that Jews and gentiles find their ultimate unity in Christ, who
How then, Collin, can we speak of two plans for two peoples? How would dispensationalists deal with such texts as we find in Ephesians?
May 31st, 2010 | 2:29 pm | #6
I would have to say for the record that I regard “rapturism” (perhaps better, “adventism”) as simply wrong. There is simply the return of Christ, the final judgment, and and new heaven and a new earth. Adventism developed out of the peculiar expectations of antebellum evangelical enthusiasms. It read the relevant texts in accordance with its own expectations.
Also, I regard Revelation (the Apocalypse) as a trans-historical allegory or symbol: it expresses the recurring patterns of human self-destruction. It is historical in the sense that the actions and experiences it “predicts” do happen in space and time, but its fulfillment is happening even now, and occurs anew in every era of history (similar to your point 5). While it stands to reason that one such recurrence of the pattern will be penultimately and uniquely destructive, that seems inconsistent with the claim that “no man knows the day nor the hour”. If the penultimate “tribulation” can be discerned as such, then Christians [i]could[/i] begin to predict the approaching moment.
My question remains: do we need a “neo-dispensationalism” to make sense of these shifts, or can they be accommodated within some contemporary formulation (e.g., “progressive dispensationalism”). Remove adventism and a literalist interpretation of Revelation, and what changes? Can the central affirmation–the ongoing chosen-ness of the Jews as God’s people in their land–stand as an intelligible, coherent theological formulation?
May 31st, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #7
David K,
I may be mistaken, but you seem to hold with the false dichotomy, Jew/Christian, instead of the true one, Jew/Gentile. This is, unfortunately, still a common misunderstanding. When a Jew becomes a believer in Christ, he is still a Jew, whether or not he self-identifies as one. Throughout Scripture, a distinction is made between Jew and Gentile, whether believer or not.
Also, you seem to use the phrases “spiritual children of Abraham” and “spiritual Israel” to mean both Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus. Concerning the former, Rom. 9:6-8 makes a distinction between Jewish believers and Jewish non-believers. Concerning the latter, there is no such phrase in Scripture, though some falsely use it to designate the present-day church.
May 31st, 2010 | 4:26 pm | #8
Jeff & David K,
It is a false dilemma. Only the “hyper” would hold that the physical Israel maintains spiritual benefit (eg. salvation). But (for the proper dispensationalist) the temporal plan still includes a meaningful place for the physical nation in the eschatological process as the full covenant is fulfilled.
May 31st, 2010 | 5:08 pm | #9
I think Rodney Stark in recent books came to the belief that a lot of Jews became christians over the centuries. Paul Johnson in his book a history of christianity came to the same belief.
May 31st, 2010 | 5:50 pm | #10
Once again, if Stark is correct, then even the biological distinction between Jew and gentile, at least for most of us in Europe, North America and the Middle East, has no relevance. It is certainly possible that God intends to save those who claim the Jewish label at some point in the future, but this is far from admitting that there are two plans for two peoples, as dispensationalists hold.
May 31st, 2010 | 11:04 pm | #11
So these Ebonite Christans became Muslims. Are they still Jews?
June 1st, 2010 | 11:06 am | #12
Collin – I never meant to imply that “physical Israel maintains spiritual benefit (e.g. salvation).” I agree that “the temporal plan still includes a meaningful place for the physical nation in the eschatological process as the full covenant is fulfilled.” Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
David K and Cynthia – Please show me one place in Scripture where a Jew is called a “Christian” or where a Jew who believes in Jesus stops being a Jew.
David K – A Jew is someone who is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The difference between a Jew and Gentile is always biological and is always relevant. The passage from Ephesians that you quoted is in the context of how Jews and Gentiles are saved – i.e. the same way. You made reference to Eph. 2:11-22. Eph. 2:18 says, “For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.” Gal. 3:28: “There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Because males and females are saved the same way doesn’t erase the distinction between them.
Concerning two plans for two peoples: God commanded circumcision for Jews, not Gentiles. He made land promises to Jews, not to Gentiles. Are these not examples of two plans?
June 2nd, 2010 | 7:56 am | #13
Jeff Brown wrote:
Read once again my comments # 2 and 3. After two millennia the biological distinction is obsolete. There are hundreds of millions of Christians and Muslims alike who are biological descendants of Abraham. If there are indeed two plans for two peoples, the only relevant distinction by this point in history is that one accepts Christ and the other does not. Are we to believe that the promises of the land, the command of circumcision, &c., are given only to those descendants of Abraham who reject Christ?
June 2nd, 2010 | 7:30 pm | #14
The “two peoples” claim requires another challenge. This is as simple an analogy as I can make:
You love your wife.
You love your children.
You have 1 plan for your wife.
You have another plan for your children.
Two loves. Two plans.
Two owned relationships.
But no conflict. No dilemma as to which relationship is more real.
June 4th, 2010 | 4:30 pm | #15
Arabs are descendants of Abraham and Ishmael. Jews are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God changed Jacob’s name to Israel.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact