What the Bible Says About the People of God

Introduction

Dispensationalism is basically the method of interpreting the scriptures that sees two distinct peoples of God, with two distinct destinies – Israel and the Church. In various forms and among various groups, this idea has had a widespread influence – but is it biblical? Following is a select list of tenets that many contemporary mainstream Dispensationalists would hold to, and a list of scripture passages that address these tenets. This list represents a wide segment of popular Dispensational teachings; however, Dispensationalism is by no means a monolithic entity, and many self-professed Dispensationalists, particularly in the Progressive school, would not adhere to many of its points.

  1. The Church is not the continuation of God’s Old Testament people, but a distinct body born on the Day of Pentecost.
  2. The Church is never equated with Israel in the New Testament, and Christians are not Jews, true Israel, etc.
  3. The prophecies made to Israel in the Old Testament are not being fulfilled in the Church, nor will they ever be.
  4. The Church does not participate in the New Covenant prophesied in the Old Testament; it is for ethnic Israel, and will be established in a future millennial kingdom.
  5. The Old Testament saints were saved by faith alone, on the basis of the Calvary-work of Christ alone; however, the object of their faith was not Christ, but rather the revelation peculiar to their dispensation.
  6. The Old Testament saints did not know of the coming “Church Age,” of the resurrection of Christ, or basically, of what we today call the gospel.
  7. When Jesus came to earth, he offered the Jews a physical kingdom, but they rejected him.
  8. When Jesus proclaimed “the gospel of the Kingdom,” it was the news about how ethnic Jews might enter and find rewards in this physical kingdom, and is to be distinguished from the gospel as defined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which the apostles later proclaimed to the church.
  9. After the Jews rejected Jesus’ kingdom offer, he inaugurated a parenthetical “Church Age”, which will be concluded immediately before God again takes up his dealings with his national people, ethnic Israel.
  10. During the “Church Age,” Jesus is not reigning from the throne of David; he is engaged instead in his priestly work, and his kingly work will take place in the future millennial kingdom.
  11. At some unspecified but imminent time, Jesus will return (but not all the way to earth, just to the air) and rapture his Church, also called his Bride; for the following seven years, they will feast with him at the marriage supper of the Lamb; meanwhile, on earth, he will begin to deal with his national people, ethnic Israel, again, calling them to himself and preserving them in the midst of seven years of great tribulation; at the midpoint of which, the Antichrist will set himself up as god in the rebuilt Jewish temple, and demand worship from the world.
  12. After these seven years, Christ will return, this time all the way to earth. He will defeat the forces of evil, bind Satan and cast him into a pit, and inaugurate the physical Jewish Kingdom that he had offered during his life on earth. The Jews who survived the tribulation will populate the earth during this blessed golden era, and the Christians will reign spiritually, in glorified bodies.
  13. After these thousand years, Satan will be released and will gather an army from the offspring of the Jews who survived the tribulation. He will be finally defeated and cast into hell. At this time, the wicked dead will be resurrected and judged, whereas the righteous dead had already been resurrected one-thousand-seven years previously, at the rapture. Christ will then usher in the New Heavens and New Earth, and the destinies of all mankind will be finalized. Dispensationalists are divided as to whether or not there will remain a distinction between Christians and Jews in the New Earth.

Continue reading on Google Docs

Continue reading on Scribd

Download PDF file

11 Responses to “What the Bible Says About the People of God”

  1. Fred Butler says:
    October 12, 2009 at 9:13 am

    Just curious. What “dispensationalists” have you actually read? Is your library limited to just stuff from the 1940s, or have you read anyone more contemporary? Dr. Michael Vlach from the Master’s Seminary, for example.

    Fred

  2. pitchford says:
    October 12, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Hi Fred,

    I was raised in a staunchly “old school” dispensational milieu, so I am most familiar with both “classic” (Scofield, Chafer) and “revised” (Ryrie, Showers) Dispensationalism. The list above deals directly with the latter Charles Ryrie variety, which is why I listed those precise tenets before laying out the scripture passages. As I mentioned, though, I realize that some varieties of Dispensationalism do not adhere to all those points, and to the extent that they do not, certain portions of my list will not have a direct bearing on them.

    As far as my own reading, I confess I have not done a whole lot in the progressives (Bock, Blaising, etc.) beyond short articles, although I have had interaction with careful and thoughtful theologians who would classify themselves in those ranks, and I must say I have a great deal more respect for them than for the older Dallas professors. I’ve done a bit more reading in MacArthur, and, although I much appreciate his works in certain capacities, I find his Dispensationalism quite troubling. I have not read anything by Dr. Vlach.

    But in the final sum, I am so sold on the scriptural necessity of viewing covenant continuity and discontinuity, etc., in a certain way, that I am not too troubled by the countless little nuances of difference within a broad way of looking at things that is, in my estimation, fundamentally and irrecoverably flawed. The best apologetic against any one of the countless specific versions of Dispensationalism, in other words, is a robust and scripturally-grounded explanation of Covenant Theology, which I have attempted to provide at various places here. And I think my list above, while specifically addressing the Ryrie contingency, is broad enough in its implications to invalidate many similar systems, whether they come from Masters, Dallas, etc. I’m just baldly stating my opinion, of course, but I would be more than willing to dialogue if you have a specific nuance or framework in mind that my list fails to address adequately.

    Thanks for stopping by and commenting, by the way.

    Nathan

  3. Fred Butler says:
    October 12, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    Welp, before you label all forms of dispensationalism as “problematic” it may be good to familarize yourself to the refutation of a lot of your comments you make in your article. It is been my experience that the good many of the critiques of dispensationalism these days has come from individuals such as your self who come from a fundamentalist background (a background that is shallow theologically in all areas, even dispensational theology) who have now “seen the light” of Reformed Christological hermeneutics. They embrace Calvinism (which you are to be commended for), and in order to complete the fully Reformed circle, must become padeobaptists and some sort of non-premillennialist of the Augustian stripe. Honestly, their critique of dispensationalism smacks of the Dave Hunt style of historical revisionism I find in “What Love is This?”

    A good place to start in getting some response to your critique of dispensational theology is HERE. It is an on going refutation of the so-called 95 theses of the “Against Dispensationalism” website. A lot of their points are similar to yours.

  4. pitchford says:
    October 12, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    First of all, I take offense at being addressed as a “welp” :) .

    Just kidding, but the typo struck me as humorous. But at any rate, your assessment of my theological journey is unfair and basically wrong. I have good reasons for my paedo-baptism, amillennial theology, etc., and it was certainly not a reactionary trail that I took to arrive at them. To be a little more fair, you ought to deal with those arguments I make, and not just write them off as an attempt to complete the Reformed circle. I know there are persons out there such as you describe, but I think the care and thoughtfulness with which I have stated all my opinions demonstrate that, right or wrong, I am not one of them. I believe the arguments I have made for all of those cases are compelling, and will stand up to any critique you might bring, but still you are welcome to bring it. I may be wrong, I certainly have been before :) .

    I’d be really surprised if I find anything in the page you linked that I haven’t already come across. I’ve dealt with many, many dispensationalists, and not just the fundamentalistic, shallow-tending sort, and I have only become more and more firmly convinced that any kind of Dispensationalism out there is fundamentally flawed. Like I said, I’m open to any specific dialogue you may want to bring, and since I have some time today I might peruse that page. If I find anything new, I’ll consider it, but if it is new enough that I don’t already have clear biblical reasons in response to it, then I suppose it is far enough removed from Dispensationalism that it would be a misnomer to call it such. I don’t need to know every specific argument or nuance of the early anti-Trinitarians to say confidently that I am opposed to anti-Trinitarian thought and a firm subscriber to the doctrine of the Trinity; and neither do I need to know every argument any dispensationalist has ever made to be firm in my well-supported and scripturally-necessary opinion on the redemptive-historical storyline of the bible, with its anti-Dispensational intent. (Please note, I am comparing the two issues only to show the viability of being firmly committed to a position while having only extensive, but not exhaustive knowledge of opposing positions, not to suggest equality of importance).

    All that just to say, you ironically overlooked all my argumentation and reasoning and jumped to conclusions about why I believe what I believe in your ungrounded suggestion that I had done the same thing with regards to the Dispensationalists with whom I disagree. But my offer stands, bring any argument against any part of my theology and I will be happy to consider it and dialogue. I may well change my opinion on some issues, but I am utterly certain of the truth of a few broad and unassailable truths such as the doctrine of the Trinity, penal substitution, the unity of the one people of God, etc.

    Yours in Christ, Nathan

  5. Fred Butler says:
    October 14, 2009 at 10:28 am

    “welp” is an expression. I use it a lot. Like when Regan started many of his retorts with “well…” It has nothing to do with your age or lack of maturity. Sorry you took that wrong.

    Couple of things.

    First, I am doing a series on eschatology at my blog. More for my edification than anything else. I didn’t skip over your argumentation because I didn’t bother reading it or don’t want to interact with it in any meaningful fashion. What you wrote is nothing original to me. I am familiar with all the academic and popular level arguments for your position. I have been immersed in non dispensationalism and pro amillennialism and postmillennialism for 2 years now. My point was to get down to fundamentals. In this case, with out fail, pretty much all people who write screeds against dispensationalism are like yourself, from a fundamentalist background. They believe they have now found the truth and feel it is their duty to let everyone know how blind they once were.

    What has been my observation of these folks, as well intentioned as they may be, were just dispensationalist by default because they attended a fundamentalist church. They never really studied dispensationalism with any depth. There may be some rare exceptions. Crenshaw and Gunn come to mind. However, carrying a Ryrie Study Bible, attending a Chuck Missler seminar, and reading Hal Lindsey doesn’t really count as being a “dispensationalist.” The reaction they now present against dispensationalism in their blog articles reflects that shallow awareness and no thoughtful interaction with theological dispensationalism. I am talking about John Feinberg, or Robert Saucy, or Robert Thomas, or even really the works of John MacArthur. This may sting a bit, but honestly its the same sort of sloppiness I see coming from those so-called Catholic converts who were once supposedly Presbyterian and are now ardent anti-protestants.

    I just started going over Revelation 20 and explaining why the exegesis of the passage does not bear out the conclusions made by amillennialists and postmillennialists. Unless of course there is a pre-commitment to a specific hermeneutical method through which one filters his understanding of the book. And then, one needs to demonstrate why that method is correct. You are more than welcome to leave comments, or write up a counter post if you wish. I would look forward to it if you are inclined.

    Secondly, and most importantly, I would ask if you believe I, as a dispensationalist, am heretical. You make many assertions that dispensationalism is flawed, problematic, and the like, but those are terms that are more appropriate with describing heresy, not just someone who holds to a different perspective on the Bible, say for example if Jesus died on a Thursday or on a Friday. I hold to the same unassailable truths you list in your concluding comments, but for some reason, my position is flawed and problematic. If it is as you say, then there needs to someone with the fortitude to say I am teaching heresy and then prove it.

  6. pitchford says:
    October 14, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Hi again, Fred,

    My attempt at humor failed, so I’ll keep it all serious now. But just so you know, I really wasn’t offended, I just thought “welp” was an ironic typo (“p” is quite close to “l” on a “qwerty” layout, so I thought it was a mere slip of your finger). But if it was written intentionally, so be it. I’m really not offended. At all.

    Anyway, I don’t know what else I could say that I haven’t said already. My anti-dispensationalism is well-thought-out, it doesn’t come from reactionary bias, I have no bitter emotions against fundamentalism affecting my reasoning. I’ve read MacArthur, Saucy, et al extensively, I know what Dispensationalism is and teaches, both at a scholarly level, and on a more popular and widespread level, as it affects and shapes the mindsets of hosts of fundamentalists and evangelicals alike. It is specifically the set of dogma that has such a huge impact on the common person which I am arguing against with this list, and that set of dogma is more generally a Ryrie-type Dispensationalism than anything else. So as I said, Saucy, for instance, may not be impacted by all those points (although his doctrine will be impacted by some of them).

    Just a thought for your consideration: it might not be the most profitable approach to come in to conversations such as this with your presuppositions in hand like automatic weapons spewing out incendiary accusations. You and I both know that a knee-jerk comparison to Dave Hunt, Presbyterians-turned-papists, etc., is designed to be offensive. I don’t take offense, I’ve heard much worse, and I don’t let it affect my dealing rationally with whatever arguments or reasons you may legitimately have, but not everyone will be able and willing to isolate ungrounded personal attacks from legitimate reasons. You’ve assumed from the beginning that I don’t know the more scholarly forms of Dispensationalism, that the points in the list above are all I know by default from my upbringing, but that is simply not the case. There are very good reasons for dealing primarily with a Ryrie/Showers popular Dispensationalism in my list intended for a broad audience, some of which I have laid out. But I recognize (as I made clear even in my list) that Ryrie and Showers’ version is not the only one out there. I am quite familiar with others. I would not be surprised if I have done more reading in the leading Dispensational scholars than you have. That’s just an aside, but you may do well to consider it for the future.

    Moving along: I’d love to interact with your posts on Rev. 20 (which is a discussion not necessarily related to Dispensationalism anyway), but I really don’t have the time. I think a fairly firm case can be made for amillennialism from passages such as 2 Thes. 1 (Poythress has an excellent article on that) and I think a pretty solid explanation of Rev. 20 can be made which accords perfectly with the strong amil. arguments from other scriptures (Augustine, for example, did a good job with that in The City of God). But whether I’m right or you’re right, the whole debate over the timing of the millennium is not high on my list of doctrinal priorities.

    To answer your “most important” question, I would shrink from calling dispensationalism heresy (although I believe it may lead to heresy in its more extreme forms, such as the Christian Zionism of Hagee), but I feel confident in labeling it problematic, flawed, etc. I very firmly believe that you are wrong on this point, and by definition, that means I think your system is “flawed”. Some flaws and problems are greater than others, and while I would rate dispensationalism less a problem than errors that deny penal substitution, for instance, I would also rate it much greater than errors pertaining to which day of the week Christ died on. So that’s my opinion, anyway, and you’ll find my reasoning for it laid out in much more detail in the articles in this category.

    I think that’s all I have for now. You’re certainly welcome to say anything further that you would like, but as of now, as I see it, the conversation is more or less just, “You’re just reacting against what you don’t even know with the same sort of sloppiness characteristic of supposed Catholic converts,” to which I reply, “No I’m not, I’ve given good reasons!”. “Are too!” “Am not!”… Eventually, the profitableness of that kind of conversation becomes suspect.

  7. pitchford says:
    October 14, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    I’m about to go to work, so this will be quick, but just one added observation to make clear what’s happening here: I initially admitted a relative weakness in one area pertaining to Dispensationalism, and that was the progressive school, and in particular Bock and Blaising, with whom I’ve only had limited interaction (although if you classify Saucy as progressive, I’ve read his book on the Church in God’s Program, etc., so that’s not to say I’m completely ignorant). But seizing on that admission, you made an argument that I essentially have nothing to say about Dispensationalism, and do not even know what it is. Now, the issue is twofold: first, I’m dealing above with revised dispensationalism, and by implication you are saying, if I don’t know about progressive dispensationalism, I’m not qualified to say anything about revised dispensationalism either. Now, if you were to write an essay specifically on classic Covenant Theology, and were very well-studied in its origins and more recent scholarly development, and I were to see that and ask, “But have you read much in New Covenant Theology?” — wouldn’t it be presumptuous of me to dismiss your arguments flippantly, because you are admittedly not expert in a separate but related field? The present case is even more shocking, because as far as I can tell from the people you champion (e.g. MacArthur), you are actually arguing for a dispensationalism which is substantially closer to what someone (I believe it is Pentecost, but I could be wrong) designated “Revised Dispensationalism” than it is to his other category, “Progressive Dispensationalism”. In the second place, it is really a cheap and ineffective way to argue and avoid any real substance to compare amounts of reading and give the victory to him who comes out on top. You say you are against Covenant Theology, but is your list of scholarly works on the subject, which have come out within the past few years, and which you have carefully read, as big as mine? It very well might not be, I have read many scholarly works on the subject within the past couple years, but that is not the way to argue, especially for this format and venue. I am not against reading, and I think you may be surprised by the extent to which I’ve read on both sides of the issue, but the bottom line is, flapping wings and ruffling feathers is a poor way to advance in any conversation.

    That’s all I have for now — take it with a grain of salt, by all means. If I’m being too sharp, I apologize: you may not intend to say that my arguments are invalid because I have not done much reading, but at the least you are strongly implying that I have not done much serious study because I was raised in a fundamentalist milieu. Either way, it’s prematurely jumping to a false conclusion. Mostly, however, I apologize for letting this conversation become about me, primarily. Lest anyone who feels compelled to read this exchange should be derailed, let me just say this: (A) the article above has many and compelling scriptural arguments against the revised Dispensationalism championed by Ryrie, Showers, MacArthur, et al; and (B) I am more than willing to field arguments arising from any tweaks or nuancing to the scheme I’m specifically dealing with from the progressive dispensationalism of Saucy, Bock, Blaising, et al. One thing that’s specifically lacking here is any substantive argument whatsoever, just one giant ad hominem that leaves the weight of the many scriptures above untouched.

  8. Fred Butler says:
    October 16, 2009 at 7:23 am

    Pitchford,

    I’ll take your criticisms of my few comments here to heart. I really am a nice guy and everyone who knows me knows I am hardly the theological aggitator. Sorry to give you the wrong impression.

    That said, I do get a bit miffed when I read blog after blog of dispensationalism bashing. When ever I offer any corrective to the misinformed bigotry that is so often displayed in these types of posts, I am dismissed as being unlearned and patted on the head and told, “You’ll get it someday, you keep at it boy.” You may think my raising the illustration of apostate protestants turning catholic is inappropriate, but I speak of person experience from extensive dialog with amillers and postmillers. When I challenge their presuppositions, interpretations, and attacks against my position, offer sound rebuttals, the rebuttals go right over their head and they loop back around and repeat the same presuppositions, interpretations, and attacks. Its like they are in some sort of infinite regress. Honestly, it is just like when James White challenges Dave Hunt’s mischaracterizations of Calvinism and Dave Hunt just returns to repeating the same stuff White has already addressed.

    So maybe I am being a bit emotional when I leave my comments, and for that I apologize, because I am rarely overly zealous and emotional guy that allows things to get to me.

    That said, I would encourage you to engage the exegesis of Revelation 20. In fact the entire book, for that matter. You end the above post with your take on Revelation, so obviously you think it matters to some degree to your overall argument. If it can be demonstrated, and I believe beyond a doubt it can be, that the exegesis of Revelation DOES NOT affirm or justify the amillennial and postmillennial conclusions of the book, then the two systems of eschatology are suspect and the proponents are in serious need of re-evaluating their position. The Lord willing I will be posting an article on the binding of Satan later today, or this weekend. Your comments are welcome.

  9. pitchford says:
    October 16, 2009 at 7:52 am

    Thanks for your gracious reply, Fred. I hope I didn’t get too sharp or defensive in my last response — I can empathize with you a bit, I suppose, I too have had the experience of interacting with Dispensationalist after Dispensationalist who refuses to examine arguments but is liberal with groundless and inflammatory attacks. Perhaps part of the problem is the way the internet levels the playing field — anyone with access to a computer may freely dialogue, regardless of any other qualifications.

    Three quick things in response — first, I honestly don’t think I can interact meaningfully on your series in Revelation. Not that I don’t think it would be engaging and stimulating, but between working full time, preparing for a weekly adult education course in Leviticus at my Church, and other various things, I really am pressed for the kind of time it would take to contribute intelligently to another discussion. Second, although in my opinion Revelation fully justifies an amil. approach, I think the greater issue is this: certain didactic, epistolary passages seem very strongly exclusive of premillennialism, so the question in Revelation is, “Can this highly symbolic genre be forced to contradict other more didactic genres?” I think, to argue persuasively for premil., you really ought to give a viable exegesis of 2 Thes. 1, etc., in addition to your work in Rev. Not telling you what to do, just saying what it would take to convince me, as a fairly convicted amillennialist. Third, I don’t think the bigger question of Dispensationalism/covenant theology stands or falls on the millennial question. I added that in my list as an integrally related topic, but I think a covenantally-shaped premillennialism is a perfectly responsible position to take, and not obviously in self-contradiction.

    Thanks again for the comments.

  10. Fred Butler says:
    October 21, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Welp, I wish you could come around and leave some comments, but I understand the business.

    As for 2 Thessalonians 1, once I finish up my thoughts on Rev. 20, I will try to devote a post on it. At this point, just glancing over the text, I fail to see how there is anything problematic for premillennialism. Perhaps you can point out some specifics. And if you have a list of other such passages, please pass them along. My intention is to give a lot of time to objections I have accumulated over the last year doing my series. I plan a long response to Sam Storms internet article allegedly providing the problems for premillennialists. You can email the list to my email linked in my profile at my blog.

    Hope to hear from you.

    Fred

  11. pitchford says:
    October 21, 2009 at 10:15 am

    To whom it may concern:

    I responded to Fred by e-mail, but I wanted to leave my list of passages here as well, for anyone who may find it useful.

    Hi Fred,

    I’d be glad to give you a brief list of passages which seem to indicate (sometimes quite strongly, to me) that the whole complex of end times events will occur at basically the same time:

    2 Thes 1:6-10 (The eternal punishment of the dead will occur when the suffering Church is rescued by Jesus’ appearance); Mat. 24:29-31 (the elect will be gathered together by the trumpet call when the earth-destructive and world-terrifying appearance of the Son of Man takes place); Mat. 25:31-46 (When the Son of Man comes, he will at once judge all inhabitants of earth and send the wicked to eternal punishment and the righteous to eternal life); 1 Cor. 15:51-57 (At the last trumpet, when we are changed and the dead raised, death will be forever destroyed [unlike the millennial expectations of ongoing death in a Disp. scheme[); 2 Pet. 3:3-14 (Here, immediately before the dissolution of the heavens and earth in fervent heat, people are saying that all things are continuing in the same way they always have; which could not be said following all the events of Dispensational eschatology. Furthermore, the delay is intended to bring in the full measure of those who should repent and be added to the Church, and also provides a basis for Peter’s exhortation to contemporary believers to be watchful, looking for this final, catastrophic day. He does not exhort us to be watchful for the appearing of Christ as that which rescues us from the earth, but leaves one-thousand-seven years of history afterward; but for the appearing of Christ as that which brings the final destruction of the world); Dan 12:1-2 (The resurrection and final destiny of both wicked and righteous will occur simultaneously); John 5:28-29 (the resurrection and rewards of wicked and righteous will occur simultaneously).

    That should give you enough fodder for now. Let me also link you to an article by Poythress on 2 Thes. 1:

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/19952Thessalonians.htm

    Thanks for the ongoing discussion, Nathan

Leave a Reply