Category Archives: Dispensationalism

Does the ‘Greek’ Support Pre-Tribulational Rapture Theology and the Left Behind Series?

Posted on by

My background is in Dispensational-Pre-Tribulational-Rapture-Premillennial theology. My alma mater (Multnomah Bible College and Multnomah Biblical Seminary) find their heritage squarely ensconced within this orbit; indeed, so much so, that Multnomah has at points been called ‘mini-Dallas’ (Theological Seminary)—in fact Multnomah’s origins are inimically tied into Dallas, by way of its founder[s], and its faculty (which is largely changing nowadays!). Anyway, I thought I would post something that is related to the kind of theology that both Multnomah and Dallas have helped to promulgate over the years through their sending of pastors, missionaries, teachers, evangelists etc.; and in particular what I am going to broach is the fine (and even idiosyncratic–for some) point that has to do with the theory of the Pre-Tribulational rapture. If you are unfamiliar with it, then just think of the story told in the popular Left Behind  series; except in the rendition I will share here, we will experience the more academic side of what stands behind ‘Left Behind’ rapture theology.

parousia

Daniel B. Wallace has written one of the standard New Testament Greek Grammars, and it served as the basis of much of my advanced Greek education in both Bible College and Seminary. At the end of his chapter on Articles, he provides an example of how a proper understanding of the Greek grammar can actually support the Pre-Tribulational rapture theory—which foists an idea that there is a distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (which happens Post-Tribulation). Here is what Wallace writes:

2 Thess 2:1 ‘Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ’ αὐτόν,

Now we ask you, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together with him

This text impacts the discussion in some American evangelical circles over the time of the rapture. Many postribulationalists/non-dispensationalists have considered the two to have the same referent precisely because of their misunderstanding of Sharp’s rule and its specific requirements.

Since the TSKS construction involves impersonal substantives, the highest degree of doubt is cast upon the probability of the terms referring to the same event. This is especially the case since the terms look to concrete temporal referents (the parousia and the gathering of the saints), for the identical category is unattested for concrete impersonals in the NT.

This is not to say that one could not see a postribulational rapture in the text, for even if the words do not have an identical referent, they could have simultaneous ones. Our only point is that because of the misuse of syntax by some scholars, certain approaches to the theology of the NT have often been jettisoned without a fair hearing. [Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament With Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes, 290.]

So even if you fully repudiate Pre-Tribulational rapture theology (as I now do—I am Post-Tribulational, and some days Covenantal/Historic-Premil and other days Amillennial 😉 ), at least you will realize that so called rather disparagingly Left Behind rapture theology actually has some Greek and academic rigor behind it. That said, even as Wallace notes, in the end, the referent of ‘the coming’ and ‘gathering together’ could be synonymous. The only way we can really conclude which way to go with this is not the Greek Grammar (even though it helps lay out the critical options), but by situating the grammar within its larger theological-canonical place in regard to understanding the overall movement of God as given reference in the first coming of Jesus Christ.

I am out of time for this edition, there is always more to be written, but never enough time to write it!

N.T. Wright on Dispensationalism/Pretribulationalism and the Nation of Israel

Posted on by
Jerusalem besieged, 70 A. D.

I thought this was an interesting point made by N. T. Wright in his book Paul: Fresh Perspectives, he is discussing the nation of Israel and how Israel functions in the theology of the Apostle Paul. The point I am lifting from Wright here is a point that illustrates his dismay over North American Dispensational readings of Paul’s theology, in particular his conception of the second coming of Christ. Here is what Wright writes:

[…] For some, alas, the very phrase ‘second coming’, and even perhaps the word ‘eschatology’ itself, conjures up visions of the ‘rapture’ as understood within some branches of (mostly North American) fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity, and as set out, at a popular level, in the ‘Left Behind’ series of novels by Tim F. Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, and the theology, if you can call it that, which those books embody. That scheme of thought, ironically considering its fanatical though bizarre support for the present state of Israel, is actually deeply un-Jewish, collapsing into a dualism in which the present wicked world is left to stew in its own juice while the saints are snatched up to heaven to watch Armageddon from a ringside seat. (p. 145, Nook edition)

And then he goes on in the next paragraph to develop the Apostle Paul’s actual thinking, in contrast to dispensationalism, on such things; he continues to write:

This is massively different from anything we find in Paul [referring to the dispensationalist reading he just mentioned], for all that the central text for the ‘rapture’ theology is of course I Thessalonians 4.16-17. What we find in Paul at this point is four things, in each of which we see the still-future Jewish eschatology redrawn around the Messiah…. (p. 145, Nook edition)

He goes on to develop his ‘four things’, which I don’t want to get into at this point. Instead, I simply want to draw attention to the way that N. T. Wright (unsurprisingly) thinks of dispensational theology. I have come to agree with Wright about my former dispensationalism (I am an American Evangelical after all). But what does Wright mean when he writes ‘That scheme of thought, ironically considering its fanatical though bizarre support for the present state of Israel, is actually deeply un-Jewish, collapsing into a dualism in which the present wicked world is left to stew in its own juice while the saints are snatched up to heaven to watch Armageddon from a ringside seat’? It is something that I have harped on for quite some time, whenever I write about dispensationalism; that is, this neo-Platonic, hard and fast distinction between Israel and the Church (the Church=for Wright ‘the saints snatched up’). It is this distinction that ironically, but not, makes the Church God’s saints, and the nation of Israel his Covenant People; such that the latter are judged (even though Jesus already was … he was the Jew, wasn’t he) by God in the ‘Great Tribulation’ (Daniel’s so called 70th Week, or Jacob’s Trouble, cf. Jer. 30:7), and the former are the beneficiaries of Christ’s death for them on the cross. So we end up with this strange dualism between God’s “two people,” with the result that one still has to go through a blood letting of unimaginable depth, and the other has been released from such blood letting (the Church) through their Savior, Jesus Christ. My depiction might seem crude, but this is the inevitable conclusion to consistent and honest classical dispensational theology.

Wright, in the end, is right that dispensational theology offers a bizarre picture of what it means to ‘support’ the nation of Israel. Their theological framework has abstracted the nation of Israel out from Christ (in this dispensation, anyway … i.e. the so called “Church Age”), and essentially placed them into a situation that has them facing something akin to a medieval Roman Catholic conception of purgatory; but instead dispensationalists have named it, ‘The Great Tribulation’, riffing on Jesus’ words in the Olivet Discourse.

What say you Dispensationalist?

PS. In the end, though, I think Wright unhelpfully ends up offering an ecclesiocentric view of God’s people, instead of grounding God’s people (the Pauline ‘One New Man’ cf. Eph. 2.11ff) in God’s life in Christ as his new creation in his covenant life of grace. So I think Wright is still in need of some dogmatic reflection, and I am happy to see that he seems to be open to some correction by some of his more recent interaction with Kevin Vanhoozer (esp. in areas having to do with union with Christ theology).

**This is a repost from another blog of mine. I wrote this many months ago.

Etymology of Dispensationalism, and Its Impact on American Evangelicalism

Posted on by

Motivated, once again (for some reason it just does not take much for me to get motivated to write about this issue—probably because it has had such an impactful formative affect on me growing up in American Evangelicalism, and probably because I am still squarely situated in this sub-culture (although there is a shift happening it seems). As I noted in my last post Larry Garcia, is doing a series of posts (here is his most recent of three articles thus far) which is attempting to articulate the history and hermeneutics of dispensationalism, and in particular its subsequent teaching of the pretribulational rapture theory that it is known for. Here I am going to share a post I wrote for another blog (that didn’t last very long) where I sketch the etymology and formation of dispensationalism. Here it is.

dispy

Maybe you have grown up in a Covenantal system, amillennial in orientation. Maybe your idea of Dispensationalism goes as far as what you’ve heard of Left Behind “eschatology,” or if you’re a little older; Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth. Usually when Covenant theologians want to  disparage Dispensationalism the first few words out of their mouth will have “Left Behind” or Hal Lindsey in them. But to me, if a theologian or biblical interpreter wants to “critically” engage something, he or she should go to the strongest point, the strongest voices available; it is here where a constructive criticism can take place (that’s part of the goal of this blog here, to provide the best of the dispensational voices for critical engagement). In that vein I thought it would be helpful, as we get started here, to take a look at the etymology of the word Dispensation; and further, to catch a glimpse at how this word works as definitive of the Dispensational system. To help us out, let me refer to one of the most prominent voices available, in the 20th century, in regards to articulating the tenets of Dispensational thought; here’s Charles Ryrie on the etymology of “Dispensation”:

The English word dispensation is an Anglicized form of the Latin dispensatio, which the Vulgate uses to translate the Greek word. The Latin verb is a compound, meaning “to weigh out or dispense.” Three principal ideas are connected to the meaning of the English word: (1) “The action of dealing out or distributing”; (2) “the action of adminstering, ordering, or managing: the system by which things are administered”; and (3) “the action of dispensing with some requirement.” In further defining the use of the word theologically, the same dictionary says that a dispensation is “a stage in a progressive revelation, expressly adapted to the needs of a particular nation or period of time. . . . Also, the age or period during which a system has prevailed. . . .”

The Greek word oikonomia comes from the verb that means to manage, regulate, administer, and plan. The word itself is a compound whose parts mean literally “to divide, apportion, administer or manage the affairs of an inhabited house.” In the papyri the officer (oikonomos) who administered a dispensation was referred to as a steward or manager of an estate, or as a treasurer. Thus the central idea in the word dispensation is that managing or administering the affairs of a household.

The Usage of the Word

The various forms of the word dispensation appear in the New Testament twenty times. The verb oikonomeo is used once in Luke 16:2, where it is translated “to be a steward.” The noun oikonomos appears ten times (Luke 12:42; 16:1, 3, 8; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 4:1, 2; Gal. 4:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 4:10) and is usually translated “steward” or “manager” (but “treasurer” in Rom. 16:23). The noun oikonomia is used nine times (Luke 16:2, 3, 4; 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4). In these instances it is translated variously (“stewardship,” “dispensation,” “administration,” “job,” “commission”). (Charles Ryrie, “Dispensationalism,” 25)

And for a concise and too simple of a definition of Dispensationalism as a system of thought here is Ryrie quoting from the Scofield Reference Study Bible:

A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture. (Charles Ryrie, “Dispensationalism,” 23)

This should provide a little more thickness of understanding for those who know nothing of dispensational theology. It has serious students who spent their whole lives in Evangelical seminaries in America (primarily) devleoping and articulating it for the masses. The basic idea of dispensationalism is that it is a “stewardship” and “testing” that God gives to humanity during a period of time in the progressive unfolding of salvation history; once man (like the Nation of Israel) fails at keeping the requirements of a specific dispensation, this triggers the start of a new dispensation provided by God for man to “steward.” This turns into 7 distinct cycles for the Classic and Revised Dispensationalist (and 4 cycles for the Progressive Dispensationalist — and for the PD there is actually a fluidity to the dispensations so that they build on each other like the Covenants in “Covenant Theology” — more on this later). We will, in the near future, outline the 7 dispensations that make-up Classic dispyism, and then also take a look at the 4 dispensations identified by Progressive Dispensationalists.

For most people, and American Evangelicals, who do not inhabit the environs of the bibliosphere; or who will never set foot in the hallowed halls of seminaries, like it or not, it is this kind of theology that still provides shape (interpretively) for most of them. Most Evangelicals don’t know a lick about N. T. Wright’s reification of Pauline Studies and New Testament Biblical Theology; they get dispensational premillennial pre-trib teaching Sunday in-Sunday out. In light of this I think it is important for theology and Bible students to still be sensitive to this reality (culturally), and understand the impact that this has had (and is having, less and less — simply because “self-help” sermons predominate Evangelical sermons nowadays more than back in the Ryrie days etc.). Again, that’s what is motivating me to write this blog in some ways. To try and be informative. To be critical of dispy, but also try to represent it fairly; especially for those who really know nothing of it.

PS. Click on image above to see it in enlarged form.

Answering Questions on My Former Dispensationalism and Barth

Posted on by

A commenter here has been corresponding with me via email; he has a few concerns that he would like me to address in regards to my views on eschatology. He was wondering about Karl Barth, and what Barth meant in this quote taken from Barth’s Commentary on Romans (Der Romerbrief):

“Will there ever be an end to all our ceaseless talk about the delay of the Parousia?  How can the coming of that which does not enter in ever be delayed?  The End of which the New Testament speaks is no temporal event… What delays its coming is not the Parousia, but our awakening…” [Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 500-01.]

dispytimeFor anyone of you Barthians who read here, if you would like to take a stab at this and inform us exactly what Barth meant; then I would be obliged. André, would like to know if Barth actually believed in a bodily return of Jesus Christ. I have communicated with André that Barth definitely believed in the second coming of Jesus Christ, just as any orthodox Christian must. And that the context for the pretextual quote lifted from Barth above must be his apocalyptic conception of revelation as event; with the notion that when Barth refers to ‘no temporal event’ he is emphasizing the idea that God’s coming in Christ is something happens ever anew and afresh moment by moment through God’s being in becoming as we encounter him in Christ through the primary witness of threefold Word. I know that Barth wanted to get away from thinking in classical linear terms, and instead have us think apocalyptically in regard to God’s life interdicting ours on an ongoing basis in Christ. But I would also posit that for Barth, that this continual in-breaking on the world in Christ is portending of final and proleptic encounter that will be ultimately realized in consummate form. In other words, the fact that God is apocalyptic in his life, and that he does break in on the world presently; only reinforces the idea that God will make a final move of Christian hope wherein these shadowy break-ins of his life in Christ on the world find their orientation from the idea that we will finally participate in the glory that the Son has always shared with the Father in their shared life.

But this isn’t what I really wanted to deal with in this post; André asked me this:

Dear Mr. Grow

Do you expect a “second coming” or “return” of Jesus?
Kind Regards
And this:
I espessialy ask you because of your dispensationalist background.
Wondering how you got out of it and how much you got out of and what you used to fill the gap with.
I affirmed, of course, as an orthodox Christian, that my hope is a bodily return of Jesus Christ as the book of Acts asserts in its first chapter. I am thinking that some Preterists have been influencing André; I don’t know that for sure, but it sounds like a full preterist question.
In regards to responding to his question about my dispensationalism; and how I got out of it (like it was a cult); and how much I got out of it; and what I used to fill the gap with (not sure I understand that point … I’m still waiting for further clarification on that from André).
1) I never sought to “get out” of dispensationalism. I grew up as the son of a Conservative Baptist pastor. I grew up being influenced by the commentaries of H. H. Ironside, and then later by Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, Lewis Sperry Chafer,  and all of my Multnomah professors (which many of them were graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary). I started out as a classic/revised dispensationalist which saw a hard discontinuity between Israel and the Church, and when I entered undergrad I moved to a progressive dispensationalism which didn’t see a ontological distinction between Israel and the Church; just a functional/economic one instead. I held onto my progressive dispensationalism until about 2010 … so 7 years after I graduated from seminary; and this was really a function of my commitment to a certain kind of hermeneutical theory (the LGH, Literal, Grammatical, Historical). The seeds of a shift started to happen for me in undergrad when I was taking a class called ‘Dispensationalism’; we read a book that had more to do with Covenant theology than amillennialism, but it was used as representative of the amillennialist hermeneutic (it was O. Palmer Robertson’s “Christ and the Covenants”). It was this book that got me thinking about amillennialism as a viable position. After seminary, in and around 2004, I read Kim Riddlebarger’s book ‘A Case for Amillennialism’; his book made me think twice, and even more. Then I read Stanley Grenz’s ‘Millennial Maze’ at a later date, along with Anthony Hoekma’s ‘Bible and the Future’ (or some such title); and I read others, like G.K. Beale’s commentary on Revelation, and I listened to some lectures by amillennialists. None of this by itself converted me to amillennialism, because all of this was given hermeneutical shape by classic Covenant theology. In the mean time, during this time, I had been reading Thomas Torrance, Karl Barth, and others; and they offered me a Christ conditioned hermeneutic. One that emphasized interpreting scripture, like the Old Testament, through a reinterpretation approach in light of Christ’s fulfillment of the promises. And so my hermeneutical rootage shifted from a Literal, Grammatical, Historical approach (which comes out of the Scottish Common Sense movement, and really a kind of rationalist approach that could find some heritage in the History of Religions approach of the German higher critics) to what I like to call a Christ conditioned ‘depth dimension’ (pace Thomas Torrance and Adam Nigh) approach to scripture that sees Christ as the principled and intensive cipher through which Scripture ought to be interpreted (this is given model through the New Testament author’s usage of the Old Testament, for example). Anyway, with all of this background; I had moved from a Progressive Dispensationalism a couple of years ago to a Post Tribulational Historic Premillennial position (which is a non-dispensational premillennial perspective). And then just over a year ago I read Richard Bauckham’s The Theology of the Book of Revelation & The Climax of Prophecy. After I read these books I was pushed over the edge; I became an amillennialist. That said, I could still be a historic premillennialist, in principle; hermeneutically, there really isn’t much difference between the two, except for how they read Revelation 20 and the thousand years passage.
Anyway, that is a short sketch on my history and movement from dispensationalism. That went longer than I had hoped, and so I will have to pick up André’s other questions on this next time.

Reading the Book of Revelation Properly: Dispensationalists and Non-Dispensationalists

Posted on by

I just listened through the book of Revelation yesterday, performed by Max McLean (the NIV); and it was a great exercise. It is different to listen than it is to read, indeed, it is more true to how the original audience would have received it as an circuit epistle (letter) written to the ‘7 churches’. As I was listening to this (back dropped by my current bible reading which just happens to be in the book of Daniel) I began to reflect on the way I had Maranathagrown up understanding the book of Revelation, and how that has changed, somewhat relative to now.

I grew up understanding the book of Revelation through a Dispensational lens (I am an American Evangelical after all!). The Dispensational lens annexes the whole book of Revelation to a futurist reading (alone). In other words, Dispensationalist readers read Revelation as if all of the visions and apocalypses recorded in this book have to do with future events (even future to our present situation in the 21st century)—which many believe have started to unfold currently. As I said, this approach annexes the whole book of Revelation to the future; and its approach to interpreting the apocalyptic language of Revelation is to do so through a modern day pesher, or the contrivance of relating the language therein with contemporary modes of reality (like nuclear warheads, modern helicopters, etc.). This is in keeping, according to Charles Ryrie, with the sine qua non of what makes someone a Dispensationalist interpreter; that is if you interpret scripture woodenly Literal, the interpreter cannot help but pop out as an Dispensationalist, a Pre-Tribulationist, Premillennial one. But I think this approach is on sandy land.

I read Richard Bauckham’s two books: The Theology of the Book of Revelation and The Climax of Prophecy over a year ago now. He offers an alternative reading—a reading that is actually more historical and mainstream relative to the historic Christian faith than the Dispensational reading [which in itself is not an argument for the validity of the hermeneutic that Bauckham appeals to]. Bauckham emphasizes the genre of Epistle (or letter) as the frame through which we should primarily read Revelation (which is also made up of two other dominant genres: Prophetic and Apocalyptic literature). What this positioning does is to locate the primary audience of this book’s reference to be in the 7 churches mentioned in the first three chapters. If this is the primary audience then this letter or book is oriented in a way that gives shape to the kind of language and appeal that the Revelator would be using; the language would be used in a way that makes sense to this audience in particular, and it would be being ‘revealed’ in a way that is intended to provide the kind of perspective that these early Christian martyrs would need when faced with the ‘Beast’ of the Roman Empire. What this reading does, by way of framing it properly, is that it allows us to read it in a relevant and literal way; a way that understands the usage of the apocalyptic language to find referent in the historical (now) present of its first recipients. As Bauckham develops, all of the language like Beast, 666, the usage of the numbers, etc. all have historical Graceo-Roman explanation and referent to them. And what this usage of language does is to provide the real picture of what is going on for God’s people when up against the Beast (in that period the Roman Empire). What is really going on is that there is a great battle inhering between God and the forces of darkness, but God has overcome the world; and more to the point of these early readers, they should take heart because Jesus has overcome the world, and these martyrs in particular will be vindicated at the second coming of Christ and the establishment (in consummate form) of his Heavenly Zion, the New Jerusalem. This would represent the principled reading of Revelation, its applicational reading works in ‘Perfect tense’; that is, the same truth that was painted through the apocalyptic language of Revelation then, is the same truth and reality that is present now. There is a colossal and global struggle/battle taking place between the kingdom of darkness, and the kingdom of the Son of His love; but take heart, Jesus has overcome this world (Jn 16.33).

The book of Revelation, if read rightly has substantive discipleship properties associated with it. If it is read improperly, it has almost nothing to do with us; other than it gives us a sense of control and gnostic insight into what is purportedly and proleptically to come. Indeed we take heart in what is to come, but only because of what is to come has already come, and is presently breaking in on this world which appears in upheaval. We can have a sense of peace and control, but not because we have a mastery knowledge over the nitty gritty of future events (relative to an idiosyncratic reading of Revelation); but because we know that this world has already lost, and the battle that is supposedly coming is already being waged (in a realized way) right now. We aren’t waiting for all of this Great Tribulation to happen (the futurist reading), it is happening all around us (especially if you live as a Christian in many many parts of the world other than the US and the West); and so we need to take heed to the book of Revelation, and understand that the martyrs and those who have gone before us are indeed sitting in the heavenlies with Christ, ruling and reigning with him (during this realized thousand year period we currently inhabit—the space between the first and second coming of Christ); and that what Dispensationalists are waiting for is currently unfolding before our very eyes (and has been since Christ’s ascension and Pentecost). Maranatha!

Waiting For Armageddon: An American Evangelical Theology

Posted on by

I was thinking about not writing this post on this blog, but my other one that I barely use (Jesus Confession). But I figured since this blog has an actual readership, that I might as well stick it out and write the post I am about to write right here. I thought about not writing this post here, because the subject matter is a little different from what I usually broach on this blog. But the reality is, when it comes right down to it, where this post should end up is spot on with the usual tenor of what I write about at this blog. So with this ground cleared a bit, let me get into what I want to discuss.

In the last few days I have watched a couple of documentaries (one of them was more of an exposé of sorts), and the subject matter has revolved around a largely American Evangelical theme and tradition of interpretation. I have addressed this interpretive tradition more than once in my blogging over the years, because, frankly, it is the interpretive tradition that I grew up with and formally studied biblical studies and theology from for many many years. By now many of you know exactly what I am referring to; yep, Dispensationalism. Now, I have had some scholarly friends wonder why I care to address this issue in my blogging; for these friends this issue is so far out there, that it seems a waste of time to try and outline, or refute (or even make people aware of). I think the reason I am still fascinated with this is because, well, this tradition had such a large say in my life for so long. Beyond that, I am still processing (in some ways) how it was, and what it was that I was shaped by for so long in my own theological/exegetical and spiritual development.

The first video I watched in the last few days, on this, was an exposé that highlights the origins of dispensationalism (pre-trib rapture theology), its exegetical foundations, and its social implications. Here it is just below (it is 24 minutes long, and a really good introductory piece for those of you who are still pre-trib rapture dispensationalists (or who currently sit under this teaching):

Wow, right?! I’d say for the most part this little video is pretty accurate; even though it is dealing in some generalities. One of the points that I would say is mis-accurate is the reference to Ann Coulter. As far as I know, she is not a pre-trib, dispensationally formed Evangelical Christian; and so referencing her in the way the video does seems somewhat pre-textual and thus out of context and unnecessary.

The next thing I watched (and I just did before I began writing this) was an actual documentary called: Waiting For Armageddon which you can watch for free if you have Netflix). This documentary follows just regular (and intelligent) Christian Evangelical couples and families who sit under this teaching (like I did for so many years), and who fully endorse it. Beyond these folks, this film also interviews and follows some Evangelical Dispensational scholars, and gets their take on this whole interpretive tradition. Interspersed, there are also some antagonists to Dispensationalism provided by a female Christian pastor, a Jewish Rabbi who is part of the Temple Institute in Jerusalem, and a Jewish author.

Basically this documentary (‘Waiting For Armageddon’) emphasizes the fact that Pre-trib Dispensational theology is an American phenomenon that offers an idiosyncratic reading of scripture that favors the American Evangelical church. Furthermore, this film shows how this kind of theology has shaped American foreign policy in regard to Israel, and how America engages with nations that are not friendly towards Israel. The basic sense that I came away with, as I finished this documentary was; “I can’t believe I used to believe this stuff!” This film shows how dispensational theology ultimately causes its adherents to get excited about blood shed, war, and carnage; particularly (and ironically) directed at the nation of Israel (during the Great Tribulation). The reason for the excitement is primarily because all of these things, according to dispensational theology, portend of Jesus’ coming; all of these kinds of things must happen before Jesus comes back.

Please understand, I am not making fun of people who hold to this kind of theology (I am intimately connected still to many folk who do hold to this kind of theology), but I am really just amazed that I held to this same kind of teaching for so long. These people love Jesus, but I think that their interpretive schema is totally misguided. I think this, now, because at a methodological level, dispensationalism places the nation of Israel at the center of prophetic history, and not Jesus Christ (which you will see if you are able to watch ‘Waiting For Armageddon’). I almost get an oppressed feeling when I hear this kind of stuff anymore; and in the film, it comes across in very ruthless tones (which might be a result of the editing too).

There are other implications that I could talk about in regard to American Dispensational theology; like in regard to its implications for a political theory, ethics, biblical exegesis and a whole host of other things (an ethic for voting). But I will hold off on that until a later post. I just wanted to highlight these two films, and underscore the fact, that for American Evangelicals, this system of interpretation still is very predominate.

Upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa: Various Christian Readings

Posted on by

The Middle East is burning, indeed, the world in which we live is burning! Sometimes it is easy for the theologian or biblical exegete not to take notice of the world around them; sometimes the only world this kind of person knows is the world of books that surround them, and the book that stands open before them most immediately (and the world that these books conjure up for the reader). But there is contact between the materiality of the theological books, the Bible, and the contemporary world in which we live—I don’t necessarily want to get into this reality much further, my only point by opening up like this is to suggest that the Christian thinkers and readers amongst us ought to try and consider how all of the theological reflection we do provides a cipher through which to engage and interpret current day events that are impacting us to one degree or another (especially dependent upon where someone is regionally located). Ultimately, if we are indeed Martin Luther’s theologian’s of the cross, we have this kind of cruciform template through which to try and read and understand the God-world relation in light of the current events that we are most particularly experiencing, at the moment, in the Middle East. So the rest of this post will be an on the fly (so blogging) reflection, by me, on the Middle East, and what kinds of lenses Christians, in America often interpret such things through.

As I mentioned above, there are ways to try and get at the events unfolding in the Middle East right now. I would assert, from the out set that the most Christianly way to try and read God’s interaction with the world in the Middle East, in particular, must be through the cross of Christ—this is the primary theological lens that will make sense of how a loving God could preside over such chaos and murderous mayhem without apparently acting in the midst of it. This must be the frame for how we think about such things or we will end up with a philosophically abstract God like David Hume’s; if you don’t know his little anecdotal rendition of his conclusion, here it is:

“Epicurus’s old questions are still unanswered: Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? then whence evil?”

But this is not the god that Christians worship, we worship the God revealed in Jesus Christ whose power is displayed in apparent weakness; the kind that takes form in a cross shape.

But I want to go even more idiosyncratic in regard to how Christians in America are interpreting the events currently unfolding in the Middle East. A popular way to consider and interpret the realities on the ground in North Africa and the Middle East is through the lens of biblical prophetic (construed in a wooden literalist way). So scripture, in this kind of approach, is overlaid with a geo-political lens through a modern day pesher; so that every little nuance and event that is unfolding currently and most particularly in the Middle East and Africa is somehow part of the end times schema prophesied of in the Old Testament scriptures. The upheaval and chaos we are currently experiencing in the world is read through this kind of biblical prophetic lens with the guiding assumption that all of this rage is finally directed at the nation of Israel (and America then as Israel’s primary supporter, at at least she was historically). This kind of American biblical prophetic geo-political reading (dispensationalism) believes that the nation of Israel is the prophetic key for understanding and interpreting scripture, and thus all of this chaos in the Mid-East will finally eventuate in Jeremiah’s (chapter 30) “Jacob’s Trouble.” So this represents another and primary way that American Christians, in particular, are reading the events currently unfolding in the Mid-East.

I have quickly surveyed two different ways that Christians might be interpreting the realities on the ground in the Mid-East and North Africa (and the rest of the globe for that matter). There seems to be a kind of platonic split between these two approaches; we have the spiritual way to read things (like through the cross of Christ), and then we have the physical-literal way to read the events unfolding in the Mid-East (like through the American dispensational mantle). And yet I don’t think the physical and spiritual can be read in disjointed ways, they must be read in integrated ways; at least that’s what the analogy of the incarnation requires. The spiritual and physical are one reality, integrated wholes, and thus we ought to consider the physical realities inextricably related to spiritual realities. But these realities are only related to each other in Christ, and so we must start with Christ (not the nation of Israel or America) as the mode through which we see reality integrated. If we do this we won’t allow geo-political realities to high-jack a truly Christian reading of things. If we start with Christ we will read all of this through the concrete particularity of God’s life revealed in Jesus Christ on the cross (cf. Phil. 2:5ff); we will, in contrast to David Hume, understand that God has acted and is acting in his salvation history that is shaped by his cruciform-Triune love. Does this mean that we, as Christians, can no longer be familiar with geo-political issues? No, of course not! Does this mean that God has not given a prophetic apocalyptic backdrop through which we ought to understand the things currently unfolding in the Mid-East and North Africa? Of course not! What it means is that we will, as Christians, understand that God’s love in Christ is redemptively active in these events, and that through the death and chaos his life has risen once and for all providing the hope and perspective that we all need as we live through these last days (which started at Christ’s first coming) of salvation history. He’s not impotent, he’s just impotent by the world’s standards (which by the way are the standards that have been causing all of the un-rest in the world!). So …

7 For we live by faith, not by sight.

See I told you this post would be rather random and off the top.

Reinterpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament Fulfillment of Jesus Christ: Contra Dispensationalism

Posted on by

I am sorry if you have a hard time appreciating this, but I grew up as an American Evangelical (and still am, but I have morphed more into a historic Evangelical and Evangelical Calvinist); and as such, true to form, I grew up under a certain mode of hermeneutics and theological interpretation, namely: premillennial, pretribulational, classic dispensational theology. Indeed, my undergrad degree and grad degree both come from a school which is historically in this interpretive tradition, and still is. Nevertheless, as a result of repentant thinking, and through hours of study, study and thought, I have become a full blown amillennialist, and operate through a depth dimension Christ conditioned hermeneutic; one that hearkens back to a premodern, pre-critical time bequeathed to us through the New Testament authors, the early Church, and the Church Fathers (many of them) [of course it should be known that chialism or premillennialism was also on offer in the early Church, Irenaeus being one of the most prominent advocates for this interpretive move; he being motivated to this, mostly, because of his arguments with the Gnostics, and against their kind of dualism.] So for the remainder of this post I want to give insight to the kinds of interpretive realities in the New Testament that finally led me to “convert” to amillennialism. In the process of this I will highlight a few components of what defines the dispensationalism that I have ultimately rejected.

Dispensationalism believes that God’s primary purpose for salvation history revolves around the nation of Israel. Dispensationalists hold that the reestablishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy, and that this reality then is able to reinforce their interpretive commitments given shape by the dispensational system. As a result of this, it is the belief of many American dispensationalists that if a government (like the U.S.), or nation turns against the nation of Israel, then God will turn against the nation (they cite the Abrahamic Covenant for this, cf. Gen. 12:1-3). But this is, for me, what is the fundamental problem with dispensationalism. The New Testament authors didn’t see the nation of Israel as the fulfillment of the promises made in the Old Testament of the ‘Servant King’ or Messiah; no, instead the New Testament authors reinterpreted all of these Old Testament promises not in light of the nation of Israel (as the point and purpose of salvation history), but in light of their true fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It was this belief that became the rule and control that shaped the hermeneutics of the Apostolic understanding deposited for us in the New Testament writings. To illustrate this, and with this I will close the post, let me provide a scant sampling that should suffice to underscore what I have been asserting heretofore; i.e. that the NT authors reinterpreted the OT promises in light of their fulfillment in Jesus Christ (not in light of the nation of Israel, which is how dispensationalists so often interpret scripture). I will highlight two passages in the New Testament that I believe substantiate the general thrust of this post.

  1. Matthew 2:15 states: “He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken of by the Lord, through the prophet: ‘OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON.” This is quoting Hosea 11:1, which states in its context of the nation of Israel: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called my Son.”
  • We see in this instance, Matthew engaging in what has been called in Latin, sensus plenior, or ‘fuller meaning’. He reinterprets the passage in Hosea 11, which in context was originally referencing the nation of Israel, and now sees Jesus as the fulfillment of this passage (e.g. not the nation of Israel).
  1. Galatians 3:16 argues: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” This passage is referencing Genesis 12:1-3, 7 etc., which states: “Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; 2. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; 3. And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. 7. The LORD appeared to Abram and said , ‘To your descendants [literally translated SEED] I will give this land.’ So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.” And then also, following this motif of ‘SEED’, literarily and intertextually as well as intratextually, relative to the Torah (the first 5 books, or the Book of Moses, that make up the Hebrew Bible or our Old Testament), we also have Genesis 3:15, which states: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall be bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”
  • Here we see the Apostle Paul reinterpreting what might appear as the nation of Israel (it does for the dispensationalist) being referred to in the Abrahamic Covenant (i.e. Gen. 12:1-3, 7), as really in reference to Jesus Christ, not the nation of Israel. This does not seem to require much argument, it really is just the straightforward read on this one that is clearly referring to Jesus as the fulfillment and not the nation of Israel. And so to apply this understanding the Abrahamic covenant; it would be anyone who curses Jesus will be cursed, and not primarily the nation of Israel (which is in keeping with other messianic texts such as Psalms 2).

There are many many more examples like this of how the New Testament authors reinterpreted passages that seemingly, in their original context, were in reference to the nation of Israel only to have the Christian reinterpretation to be understood as ultimately in reference to Jesus Christ. If this is the case, this seems to be the paradigm and hermeneutic that we should biblically theologically read all of the Old Testament through; through this kind of Christ conditioned, depth dimension hermeneutic that the New Testament does.

This seems absolutely devastating to the dispensational hermeneutic, and I am fully aware of the dispensational responses and argument to this (since I used to argue them vociferously quite frequently); and I simply cannot see how they can stand up to these simple but profound New Testament reinterpretations of the Old Testament in light of their fulfillment in Jesus Christ! If I believed that the dispensational hermeneutic could respond to the weight of this, I would obviously still be a dispensationalist.

Let me also say, though, that Jesus could not, or would not be Jesus without the nation of Israel. Thomas Torrance in his book The Mediation of Christ makes a grand argument for the centrality of the nation of Israel relative to mediating, concretely, the person of Jesus Christ; and this reality will always be the reality. Jesus will always be the Jew from Nazareth, the Son of David who is King of kings and Lord of lords over all peoples and nations. But clearly, Yahweh, as Isaiah makes clear, will share his glory with no one; not even the nation of Israel (which cuts against the emphasis of an dispensational hermeneutic). Instead he has invited all of us, all nations, through Christ to participate in his glorious life for all eternity wherein righteousness dwells. This is the exciting hope, and Christ is the key to salvation history (not without Israel of course), not the nation of Israel. Scripture is clear on this, and I hope we are now too.

I still see the nation, providentially (and according to Romans 9–11), as very important to God; and I still believe that the Jewish people have a special heritage with God (simply given their vocation as the people group chosen to mediate the Savior of the World to the world). But, that said, the only way they can realize that special and rich heritage is through their reception of Jesus Christ as their Messiah just like the rest of us who make up the world in all of the various nations.

Too Much Jesus? Your Method of Biblical Interpretation

Posted on by

I would like to expose you all to Thomas Torrance’s take on Irenaeus’ understanding on what could be called a Christocentric Hermeneutic. As you read Torrance’s account of Irenaeus, understand that you are reading Torrance too. Here is Torrance on Irenaeus:

It is, then, to the Incarnation that Irenaeus turns for the clue to the interpretation of the history of creation and redemption and therefore for the clue to the interpretation of the Scriptures. The essential order and connection of things is embodied in Jesus Christ and it is by reference to him that the economic ministrations of God in humanity and the historical covenants are to be understood aright, and therefore the interconnection between the scriptures of the prophets and the scriptures of the Apostles, ‘the Gospel and the Apostles. Even the Scriptures of the old covenant have to be read in the light of Christ’s advent in the flesh, for his coming connected the end with the beginning and made the beginning predictive of the end, thus showing that the faith of the patriarchs and prophets and ours is one and the same. They sowed the seed, the word about Christ (sermonem de Christo), but it is in us that the fruit is reaped and received, and only in the Church is the truth of the things prefigured realised. ‘Certain facts had to be announced beforehand by the fathers in a paternal manner, (paternaliter), and others prefigured by the prophets in a legal manner (legaliter), but others delineated according to the pattern of Christ (deformari secundum formationem Christi) by those who perceived the adoption, for in one God are all things shown forth.’ [Thomas F. Torrance, Divine Meaning, 122-23]

How does this strike you? Do you think this is too intense for a hermeneutic or mode for interpreting Scripture? Is your method of biblical interpretation this intensively Christ focused? I am really curious how you all think of this; I obviously highly appreciate this kind of ‘Patristic’ method of interpreting and reinterpreting (the OT) Scripture in light of  its fulfillment in Christ. This rubs against the method of interpretation I learned (by and large) in Bible College and Seminary; which is the Literal Grammatical Historical method (the kind that leads to and from Dispensationalism).

How the Dispensationalists Get It Wrong; They Don’t “Re-interpret”

Posted on by

Addendum: See this dovetailing post I just read by Matthew Malcolm: Fundamentalist Hermeneutics Serves a Secularistic, Atheistic Agenda . Matthew’s title is quite provocative, especially if you’re still working from a dispensational hermeneutic; how would you counter Matthew’s (and my) claim contra dispensational hermeneutics in particular? Matthew doesn’t use the language of dispensational, but this is what he’s referring to in the post (and then he broadens this out, as I have, to the issue that this revolves around; hermeneutical structure).

Must I? I guess I must. I must inform any of my newer readers that I grew up classic dispensational, moved to progressive dispensationalism (about 14 years ago), and finally (after much angst and study and deliberation … seriously!) have arrived at all truth; viz. I am amillennial (so called). This is my little caveat prior to getting into the rest of this post.

With that ground cleared before us, I simply wanted to highlight something that kept hitting me in the face as I was reading through Deuteronomy tonight. That is, that my dispensational brethren severely misread scripture (this is a strong statement … who can hear it?) when they supposedly follow their literalist hermeneutic of interpretation instead of re-interpreting Scripture (like the New Testament authors did, as well as the early Church) in light of the Old Testament fulfillment, in Christ. Jesus was under no delusion that, indeed, Scripture was all about him; notice what he said to the religious leadership of his day (I think he would reiterate the same thing to Dispensationalists today):

39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, … [John 5:39]

Jesus understood the Old Testament Scriptures, and the promises therein; as finding their reality and fulfillment and purpose in him. He believed that the Scriptures, and the Old Testament promises to his covenant people were all about him; and that they were personally fulfilled in him. For example, as I was reading through Deuteronomy this evening; the concept of “land” and blessing and “Yahweh’s people” kept popping up. Like the Jewish zealots of Jesus’ day, dispensationalists collapse this promise of blessing in the land for Yahweh’s people into a geo-political and “literal” promise that is yet (and is currently) to be fulfilled by the Jewish people in present day Israel (a sign of this fulfillment, for dispensationalists, is the re-establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948). But if we re-interpret these promises as if their fulfillment has come to reality in Jesus Christ; then the promise of blessing in the land for Yahweh’s covenant people will be understood to have fulfillment in and through the obedient humanity of Christ as the new man, the new and obedient Israel (Eph. 2:11ff), and in the New Heavens and New Earth, the Heavenly Jerusalem, as described in Revelation 21–22. So there is a literal fulfillment after all, but it has already been fulfilled (the now and not yet aspect of the kingdom … or the in-between time we inhabit currently) penultimately in Christ’s first advent; and yet ultimately in Christ’s second advent and the consummation of all things.

One of the problems for dispensationalists is that they understand “literal” through a neo-Platonic lens; so that there is a hard distinction between the spiritual heavenly realm and the physical earthly realm. What the dispensationalist fails to appreciate, properly, is that if we interpret all of reality and the purpose of creation through the analogy of the incarnation and the hypostatic union between the divine and human; that the hard distinction between heaven and earth is not a viable option. If you will, the dividing wall has been broken, and all things have become One in Christ.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest …