From the beginning, the temple was intended to convey symbolic information concerning God’s dwelling among his people, and, largely through the furniture and worship cultus, how it was possible for God to dwell among his people. The physical temple was manifestly inferior to the signified realities, involving the need for a constantly dying priesthood and perpetual offering of sacrifices, etc. When Ezekiel had his vision of a much greater temple in the Messianic day, it pointed to the truth that the realities the physical temple conveyed would be ushered in in a much greater and more glorious way when Christ came. It was a vision, which God often uses to convey truth through symbol, not a promise of a future physical temple. When God gave Daniel a vision of a goat, it was not a promise of a future literal goat, but a symbolic representation of the coming of Alexander. And when God gave Ezekiel a vision of a temple, it was not a promise of a future literal temple, but a symbolic representation of what the temple had always signified, the dwelling of God among his people.

In the NT it is utterly apparent that Christ has come and ushered in the reality which the temple signified in a much greater and more glorious way. Hence, he spoke of his body, where the presence of God really did come down to man, as the true temple (John 2), he spoke of the corresponding destruction of the physical temple (Olivet Discourse), and he began to build in his mystical body, the Church, a new temple where the Spirit of God really does dwell among, and even in, his people (e.g. Eph 2). This new covenant temple, where God actually dwells in us, is a fitting fulfillment of the symbolic vision Ezekiel had of a more glorious temple in the Messianic age.

Now for the millennium: first, the book of Revelation is in the prophetic-apocalyptic genre, which means that John was shown visions, not of real (literal) things, but of symbols of spiritual realities. Even from the beginning, John says that God “signified” the things which were to come (that word in the Greek is “esemanen,” which means, made known by ‘signs,’ or symbolic representations). In other words, all the visions to follow, had a symbolic, significatory force, not a straightforward literal force. Rev. 20 makes sense as one of these symbolic representations of the time between Christ’s first and second comings, when Satan is bound so that he cannot deceive the nations (Mat. 12:26-29; Luk 10:17-18; John 12:31-33; John 16:8-11; Heb 2:14-15), and true believers, who have experienced the first resurrection of spiritual regeneration (Rom. 6:3-4, etc.), reign with him. In other words, the chapter is just one more way of describing something about the unseen spiritual realities of this age. If you take it in a straightforward, chronological, fashion, you run into problems within Rev. itself (the consummation of history has already been reached previously [11:15-19; 14:14-16; 16:17-21; 19:11-21], how could history be consummated once again?); but more importantly, insurmountable problems with the teaching of the rest of the NT. In the NT, we learn, not in the context of symbolic visions, but in clear, didactic material, that the church’s being rescued from this world’s persecution, our eternal rest, and the eternal destruction of the wicked will be simultaneous (2 Thes. 1:6-10); the resurrection of the righteous and wicked dead will be at the same time (John 5:28-29); and in many other places, similar things could be said. The relatively more obscure visionary book of Revelation should be interpreted in light of the clearer teachings of the epistles and discourses of Christ; and when that rule is followed, premillennialism beomes impossible. I will also say, however, that even if you feel you have to interpret Rev. 19-20 literally and chronologically, it doesn’t necessarily follow that dispensationalism must stand. Many historic premillennialists are adamantly against Dispensationalism; and in fact, the underlying tenets of Disp. are clearly errant, no matter what one might make of Rev. 20.

Hope this helps, Nathan

I think the best place to start is with NT quotations and interpretations of OT prophecies. If you can show that the inspired interpretations of the NT are quite dissimilar to the interpretations that Dispensationalism demands (which can be done quite facilely), then you can put a dispensationalist in the position of saying, “It’s either Paul’s interpretation or mine — the NT’s or Ryrie’s…”.

A good example is Acts 15:13-18, where James quotes Amos 9, in which God promises to rebuild the tabernacle of David, and clearly says that this is happening in the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God — not a very dispensational interpretation. Also, Romans 9:24-26 is very good. There Paul says that Hosea 1, which clearly states that God will call Israel “Not My People,” but then restore them and call them “My People” again, is being fulfilled in the calling of both Jews and Gentiles alike to be called the people of God. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 is good, as well, as is the whole book of Hebrews.

You might find my scripture list on the people of God helpful. In it, I compile many different scripture passages that are contrary to Dispensationalism. You can read it online here:

http://pitchfordsramblings.com/2007/08/14/dispensationalism-–-categorized-scripture-list/

Or if you want it with all the verses included, here:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/dispensationalism.html

Print copies are available for sale as well, here:

http://www.monergismbooks.com/What-the-Bible-Says-about-THE-PEOPLE-OF-GOD-p-17332.html

I hope this helps! Ultimately, patience and prayer will be needed. Only the Holy Spirit can illuminate minds and change hearts. It was a long process with me, and it may be as well with those to whom you’re speaking, but God will be glorified in the end.

In Christ, Nathan

I was just wondering, how and where should one start when conversing with dispensationalists? I’m in a situation where I’m surrounded by them, and find that their view and interpretation of the Bible differs vastly from me, because of their dispy lens. However, I’m having difficulty in knowing where to start showing the errors of their theology. Where do I begin?

Thank you again!

I was just wondering, being a former dispensationalist yourself, do you have any suggestions as to where to begin to discuss about its flaws/problems? I’m not exactly sure where to start this discussion as dispy seems to affect every single part of our theology…

Thanks for stopping by. My journey out of Dispensationalism was also long and arduous, but all praise to God for his great patience and grace.

Keep pursuing the Savior!

A FINE article and very well written. I grew up in Dispensationalism and even attended a small seminary which taught it. It was there I changed my mind away from Dispensationalism when I was 35. However, I am now 48 years old and when I was only 6 or 7, I remember hearing our preacher teach this doctrine and even THEN I saw many inconsistencies. God began working on me THEN to come out of that teaching. Pity it took me so long. Nevertheless, again, thanks for such a fine and well written article. I hope and pray many will read it and be thrown back into the WORD to review and square their beliefs up with the WORD and NOT what they have been taught to believe. Soli Deo Gloria!

Thanks for your comment. I agree that God is always faithful to fulfill his promises, and that he will always preserve a remnant from ethnic Israel to be among his true people. I would even go further, and say that, not only will God give the physical land of Canaan to his remnant of grace from the ethnic Israelites, but they will inherit the entire new earth as well. I would also go further in saying that this inheritance will not be exclusively theirs, but will likewise be the inheritance of those of us who were grafted into their “tree” (that is, true Israel, the people of God). In fact, all the promises God made to Abraham and his seed were fulfilled to Christ, who now possesses the land of Canaan and all the earth beside. And they are likewise fulfilled to all who are in Christ, who are Abraham’s seed and heirs of the promise (see Galatians 3).

So do you really believe that Alexander the Great was a literal large horn between the eyes of a goat? Or that the two kings of Media and Persia were joined together in one literal physical body – that of a ram with two horns? (see Daniel 8:20-21). But that such physical beasts would arise to rule the earth, as kings of the Medo-Persian and Greek Empires, is exactly what Daniel 8 says (literally).

The prophetic intent has always been fulfilled literally, but it has customarily been intimated through symbolic means: goats, rams, eagles, bizarre beasts, vines, cedars, thistles – the list could go on. Your statement that prophecy has always been fulfilled literally is severely unqualified at best. There never arose a literal two-horned ram that ruled the world. That prophecy was fulfilled symbolically.

Your accusation of playing God is very serious, and should not be made lightly, with no substantiation or scriptural proof. I used many scriptures in my article. You used none in your condemnation of me as a basically satanic figure. If you want to rebuke me, by all means do so, but let’s keep the basis for our condemnation the Word of God. If at any time I misused it, point that out to me, and I’ll repent.

If you’re willing to discuss the scriptures, I’ll be glad to do so; that is the only way we’ll be able to have a profitable discussion. God grant that we both may grow in the knowledge of Jesus our Savior.

Nathan

First, your question assumes an answer to the question, “Who is Israel?”, which cannot be borne out by New Testament witness (or Old Testament witness, for that matter). They who are in Christ, and only they, are “Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:27-29 — see as well Galatians 4:21-31, Romans 2:28-29, and Romans 9:6-8, for instance. Examples could be proliferated.)

Second, your assumption of the nature of the promised kingdom is different from the conception of those to whom the promises were originally made. See Hebrews 11:8-10. I have already treated this question at some length in my post entitled, “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant”, and I am too lazy to reproduce my arguments in a different venue, so I would encourage you to read that post first, and then, if you disagree, interact from there.

Blessings, Nathan

I’m guessing here, but maybe it’s to the Hebrew Christians, just like Romans is to the Roman Christians, Galatians to the Galatian Christians, Titus to the – wait, scratch that last one.

Dawn, notice that the whole of Scripture is considered above. The original audience of the book is important to consider, but is only one necessary consideration. Keeping in mind that 1) the book is written to the Hebrews and 2) viewing it in light of Romans and 3) realizing that God in fact did use the term “Israel” to refer to His people spiritually (see original article in full) and finally 4) that Christ’s blood, not that of animals, is alone sufficient to save (Heb 10:15 ff) can only bring one to the conclusions that Pitchford as made above.

Sola scriptura.

First, let me address the lesser problem: Covenant Theology does not deny the eternal possession of land, or the eternal reign of a king on an eternal throne. Christ is reigning now from the throne of David, and he will reign forever. He will ultimately reign over his people in a new earth, an earth in which his presence really and intimately dwells — the very heart of the land promise. This land will exist forever. I will forbear to comment further, because I have already dealt at more length with some of these issues in this post, with which I would encourage you to interact if you still have questions/arguments.

Now, to the more important issue: your contention that the New Covenant is not operative today is a pernicious error. It cuts at the very heart of the gospel. It invalidates Christ’s own testimony of the import and end of his blood-shedding, as well as that of the apostle Paul, speaking to the Church in Corinth (I Corinthians 11). When Christ said, this cup is the “New Covenant in my blood, which was shed for you…” how could he have been more clear that the New Covenant was inaugurated by the shedding of his blood? The very cup which he gave the church to drink is a cup which he called the New Covenant. How can the Church be drinking the New Covenant when they drink Christ’s blood, and yet be unrelated to the New Covenant? If Christ’s blood does not establish his Church in the New Covenant relationship with him, then we all are still unforgiven, still without access to God, hopeless now and forever. This denial of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, shed to bring his church into that covenant relationship with him, is a logical conclusion arrived at by extreme Dispensationalists — a conclusion which wreaks havoc on the gospel of God’s grace in Christ. I plead with you to renounce this particularly grievous error, even if you still embrace the interpretations of a more moderate Dispensationalism.

By the way, Hebrews 8:6, which prefaces the Jeremiah quotation and the author’s treatment of the New Covenant, says as clearly as is possible to express that the New Covenant is operative today. “Now” (emphatic form) Christ “has obtained” (perfect tense) the position of mediating a better covenant, that is, the New Covenant which Jeremiah prophesied of.