Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism, Part 16

LookItUpRepublished with permission from Dr. Reluctant. In this series, Dr. Henebury responds to a collection of criticisms of dispensationalism entitled “95 Theses against Dispensationalism” written by a group called “The Nicene Council.” Read the series so far.

Thesis 71

Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that their so-called literalistic premillennialism is superior to the other evangelical millennial views because Revelation 20:1-6 is one text that clearly sets forth their system, this view imposes the literalistic system unjustifiably and inconsistently on the most symbolic book in all the Bible, a book containing references to scorpions with faces like men and teeth like lions (Rev 9:7), fire-breathing prophets (Rev 11:5), a seven-headed beast (Rev 13:1), and more.

Response: First, it is not “literalistic” premillennialism. Dispensationalists recognize one can’t be literalistic in one’s interpretation of anything, including daily conversations. By “literal” we mean what everybody else means by it unless they are trying to give the term a spin it does not normally have in day to day usage. We mean what the “Nicene Council” meant when they posted the “95 Theses” and expected people to take their objections to dispensationalism at face value, believing that folks are smart enough to interpret any figures of speech correctly.

These objectors assert that, “dispensationalism has at least crippled the Church in her duty of proclaiming the gospel and discipling the nations” (Preface). When they wrote that sentence, these brethren took it for granted that people could identify the metaphor in it and make a literal sense out of it. That is, they assumed readers would know that “crippled” was not to be taken literalistically, but that it was functioning as a figure, meaning “harmed” or “impaired.” Indeed, if they didn’t think others would be able to derive a literal sense to the metaphor they would not have used it! They wish to be interpreted in a plain-sense manner, though not literalistically. They do not wish us to place some fanciful midrash upon their words so as to distort the plain sense out of all recognition. Well, this is how dispensationalists approach God’s Word. They ask, “Can it be taken at face value? And if not, what are its parameters of meaning?”

This first question is crucial, for it is often not asked by Covenant theologians when they come up against prophetic texts. That said, let us see if the rest of this objection holds water.

First off, notice that Revelation 20:1-6 (actually 1-7) “is one text which clearly sets forth their system.” This is true to a degree. It is one text. There are very many others! But this text does provide the duration of the future millennium. All one has to do is to read it to find out what that is. But can they? What about all the symbolism in the book? Dispensationalists will ask the questions put above: The first is, “Can it be taken at face value?” We answer, “Certainly! why not?” It is easy to interpret these verses literally. As non-dispensationalist George E. Ladd said, “The language of the passage is quite clear and unambiguous…The passage makes perfectly good sense when interpreted literally.” (The Meaning of the Millennium ed. Robert Clouse, 37).

The trouble is not the difficulty in a plain-sense interpretation, but in what to do with that interpretation once it is allowed to stand. Amillennialists, for example, cannot allow it to stand as read. It would explode their system. They must make these verses mean something other than what they say. The first thing to do is to complain that Revelation is symbolic (as if this goes unnoticed among premillennialists). Then comes the pat objection that the numbers in Revelation are symbolic (this is usually done without any proof that they are to be so taken). The numbers in Revelation are not symbolic and always produce clear meanings when taken literally (this is even more the case when the number is repeated six times in the context as “1,000″ is here!).

From there the verb ezesan meaning “lived” or “came to life” is interpreted spiritually v. 4 and then literally in v.5. This entails making anastasis (“resurrection”) in the context mean, they say, not physical resurrection (of people who had been beheaded remember!), but “the new birth”! We demur.

So whatever one makes of the other passages in the book of Revelation, chapter 20:1-6 means what it says. Finally, it must be seen within its larger context which clearly begins with the Second Coming in Revelation 19:11f. Again to cite Ladd: “Chapters 19-20 form a continuous narrative announcing the marriage of the Lamb, the victorious return of Christ, and his victory over his enemies.” (Ibid. 35). Interpreted in its plain sense the passage proves premillennialism (though not necessarily in its dispensationalist form).

The Nicene Council are again employing what could be called a “hermeneutics of objection” whereby the plain teaching of a passage is disapproved of because it cuts across their theology.

Thesis 72

Dispensationalism’s claim that Revelation 20:1-6 is a clear text that establishes literalistic premillennialism has an inconsistency that is overlooked: it also precludes Christians who live in the dispensation of the Church from taking part in the millennium, since Revelation 20:4 limits the millennium to those who are beheaded and who resist the Beast, which are actions that occur (on their view) during the Great Tribulation, after the Church is raptured out of the world.

Response: While the passage in question does speak only of the martyrs of the Tribulation it does not assert that only they will experience the 1,000 year reign. For example, if the church is taken out of the world prior to the Tribulation, it seems reasonable to infer that, as the bride of Christ, its members will be with Christ in His earthly millennial kingdom. It appears the disciples and the twelves tribes of Israel will be there (Matt. 19:28); and the disciples were in the church (Eph. 2:20). This, then, is not a sound objection.

Thesis 73

Despite the dispensationalists’ view of the glory of the millennium for Christ and his people, they teach, contrary to Scripture, that regenerated Gentile believers will be subservient to the Jews, as we see, for instance, in Herman Hoyt’s statement that “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.”

Response: The quotation from Hoyt is to be found on page 81 of the book The Meaning of the Millennium and the reader is advised to consult it to see whether Hoyt cites Scripture for his view. Just saying something is contrary to Scripture does not make it so. What these brethren really mean to say is “contrary to our understanding of Scripture,” which is a very different thing.

Hoyt paints the Millennial hierarchy like this: 1. Christ the King. 2. What Hoyt calls “a spiritual nobility” comprising the church, the OT saints and the tribulation martyrs. 3. The nation of Israel as head over all the other nations (Hoyt cites Deut. 28:1, 13; Isa. 41:8-16; 60:1-3, 12). Then he says, “On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations.”

Whether one agrees with every detail in Hoyt’s description (which not all dispensationalists would), or with all the verses he uses (certain of which some might dispute), there is nothing “unbiblical” in his presentation. But this is beside the point of this particular objection, which seems to be contemptuous of the status of redeemed ethnic Israel in the future kingdom (a reading of Isa. 49, 55, 62 and Zech. 14 might help). Since Israel has never been “the head and not the tail” (see Deut. 28:1-13 – interpreting Israel as Israel), and a new covenant involving redemption has been made with them (Jer. 31:31ff.), dispensationalists expect God to be as good as His word and bring this to pass regardless of the personal feelings of anyone about the advisability of it.

What we have called a “hermeneutics of objection” is all that stands behind these kinds of arguments.

Thesis 74

Despite dispensationalism’s claim that the Jews will be dominant over all peoples in the eschatological future, the Scripture teaches that “In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.’” (Isa. 19:23-25).

Response: We are glad to see an attempt to take a prophetic utterance at face value. However, our friends ought to have noted verses 16-18 which describe a certain deference to Judah. The passage does not deny the supremacy of Israel in the coming kingdom, it simply states that there will be some sort of spiritual and economic union between them. The verse should be understood in light of the verses given above regarding Israel’s dominant role, although we must take care not to introduce these verses before we have fully exegeted this passage in its context. Bringing in the “Analogy of Faith” (Scripture with Scripture) too soon is often the means of twisting an intransigent passage to accord with prior assumptions.

2845 reads

There are 35 Comments

Jack Hampton's picture

In Dr. Henebury's article we read him quoting Robert Thomas saying the following:

Quote:
Concerning the “unaccountability” of unbelievers in the Millennium, Robert Thomas writes: “the battle of 19:19-21 resulted in death for all those not faithful to the Messiah. However, the redeemed but nonglorified population on earth survives the battle, enters the Millennium (cf. 11:13, 12:13-17), and reproduces offspring some of whom do not become saved as they mature. These unredeemed will comprise Satan’s rebellious army at the Millennium’s end.” (Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 410-411)

I do not see any evidence that the battle of 19:19-21 results in the death of all the unbelievers upon the earth. I believe that the following verses describe exactly how all of the unbelievers will be removed at that time:

" He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Mt.13:37-43).

Andrew K.'s picture

Quote:
"Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David…I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime" (2 Sam.7:8,10).

In my view, these land promises will yet be fulfilled, only more so. That is, the land has been expanded to the whole earth, and Israel has been expanded from merely the ethnic descendants (while not excluding an ethnic remnant, even as is so today) to include spiritual descendants as well. (Although I do think Romans 11 makes it clear that a time will come when the Gentiles largely reject the gospel, only for it to return to many of those who self-identify as Jews.)

Mike said:

Quote:
If I paid money for a car, and was delivered anything other than a car, the contract would be broken. The Lord made certain material promises to Abraham, David, etc. about their future state. Anything other than that violates the promise. The Lord did a valid and binding covenant with Abraham when he passed through the divided livestock. It was as binding a commitment as Abraham's culture permitted. I believe Abraham would have been surprised to discover that his biological descendants are not necessarily included, and physical land is not part of the deal.

But what if twenty cars were given? And a fleet of jets, and an airport? Would the contract be broken then?

神是爱

Paul Henebury's picture

Andrew, thank you for putting a rational claim together. I despair of people who equate citing selections from any book as teaching it. May I offer a few thoughts in reply?

Firstly, I welcome any solid critique or counter-proposal to dispensationalism. I am a "reluctant dispensationalist" because I am convinced it needs an overhaul. For one thing, calling it "Dispensationalism" is self-defeating, let alone defining it by such a theologically empty thing as a "dispensation." I have written about it, e.g., here: [url ]http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/articles-on-dispensationalism/

Saying this does not mean that I am eager to depart for other fields. It means that while I accept "dispensational premillennialism," I do not think a system of theology can be built upon dispensational premises. Let me clarify: I believe the general hermeneutical approach is right, and a system can and should be erected on that approach, but it's not all about dispensations - which are incidental to the procedure.

Anyway, from my point of view it seems ironic that a position which rejects the plain sense of passages like Jer. 33:14ff. or Ezek. 36-37; 40-48 would employ the word "expansion" in such an ambiguous way. Since this view must read these and many other promises first with an attitude of denial (no future Davidic throne on earth in Jerusalem; no future Levitical priesthood, no future temple), then with a reinterpretation which alters the original terms of the promises, I find it a little disingenuous to use the word "expansion." While ,some sort of "expansion" may be in view, it is clear that a lot of replacement and change are envisaged. This word "expansion" seems to have been adopted only recently by supercessionists to appear a bit more PC. I am not at all accusing you Andrew of deception. But, just as the God you propose spoke misleadingly in the texts cited above, so to use "expansion" without coming clean on other agendas (E.g. the Church = the new Israel) looks to many of us to be less than candid.

Thanks again for your comment.

Paul H.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Jack Hampton's picture

Andrew K. wrote:
In my view, these land promises will yet be fulfilled, only more so. That is, the land has been expanded to the whole earth, and Israel has been expanded from merely the ethnic descendants (while not excluding an ethnic remnant, even as is so today) to include spiritual descendants as well.

At the Jerusalem Council the leaders of the church were faced with the fact that some were saying that the Gentiles must be circumcised and therefore become full fledged members of the commonwealth of Israel.

However, James used the OT to demonstrate that in the future, when the Lord Jesus returns, the Gentiles will be saved as Gentiles so he ruled that the Gentiles did not need to be circimcised:

"'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things" (Acts 15:16-17).

There is no hint that at the time when the Lord Jesus returns that the Gentiles will be considered as being anything other than Gentiles and therefore they are not "spiritual Jews," as some teach.

bagridd's picture

“At the Jerusalem Council the leaders of the church were faced with the fact that some were saying that the Gentiles must be circumcised and therefore become full fledged members of the commonwealth of Israel.”

Nevertheless, Gentiles are “made nigh” to “the commonwealth of Israel” by the blood of Christ”:

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye 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: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

“However, James used the OT to demonstrate that in the future, when the Lord Jesus returns, the Gentiles will be saved as Gentiles so he ruled that the Gentiles did not need to be circimcised:”

In the context of Acts 15:8-19, James used the OT to confirm how God, in the present, “... put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith (v.9),” to show that Amos’ prophecy concerning the salvation of Gentiles had come to pass. Paul concurs in Romans 15:
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, ‘For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name’. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people (vs. 8-10).

“There is no hint that at the time when the Lord Jesus returns that the Gentiles will be considered as being anything other than Gentiles and therefore they are not "spiritual Jews," as some teach.”

Explicitly, Paul taught that, after the Lord Jesus’ first coming, a Jew was a spiritual, not ethnic, individual, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Romans 2:28,29).”

Paul declares this ‘circumcision of the heart’ to be the condition of Colossian Gentiles: “And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:10,11).”

In Christ Jesus, a Gentile believer is indistinguishable, spiritually, from an ‘inward Jew’, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:3; cf. Galatians 3:27-29).”

bagridd's picture

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.