Matt Postiff's Blog RSS Feed

The question is basically this: does Acts 3-4 constitute a second offer of the kingdom, after Jesus' first offer during His public ministry? Alva McClain in his excellent work The Greatness of the Kingdom promotes the reoffer view (pages 403-406).

I am not convinced that Acts 3-4 constitute a second offer of the kingdom. I will state my objections to the re-offer view, then address some supporting arguments for the re-offer view. Before doing that, however, I will note that this is a tertiary if not a quaternary theological issue. For this debate to even make sense, you first have to be a Christian, and a dispensationalist as well. We should not be fighting over this issue :-)

First, my objections.

1. It is does not seem clear when reading the text of Acts 3 and 4 that an offer of the kingdom is being given. In other words, the audience hearing Peter preach would probably not connect what he is saying with an immediate coming of the kingdom. I grant that the audience and disciples believed a kingdom would be coming in the future (Acts 1:6) but Jesus had quelled at least the disciples' high hopes (1:7) and focused them on the Great Commission (1:8). Instead of the Israelite conversion meaning immediacy of the kingdom, I would argue that the Israelite conversion was necessary to the kingdom. This necessity must be added to the necessity of at least some of the other people groups (1:8) being converted as well.

Now, I do grant that "repent and be converted so that times of refreshing may come" sounds a lot like "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." So, I can be sympathetic to the re-offer view. There is at least one major difference--the king is absent.

2. The recipients of the offer are not the "right" recipients in Acts 3, where the main support for the re-offer view is drawn. They are the hoi polloi (OK, the ho laos). Apparently the national leaders have to be involved in accepting the offer, and they are not involved until Acts 4. McClain counters that "men of Israel" means "the nation." It seems to me to be a general address that means "men who belong to Israel" not "listen up you whole nation of Israel."

3. We are agreed that Jesus did offer the kingdom to the nation in his first advent. They rejected it. There were several points of rejection along the way, with Matthew 12 being a major one and John 19:15 being another. The national religious leaders were intransigent (unwilling to change their views). This stubbornness was key in Jesus' declaration about the unpardonable sin. Technically that sin had to do with their attribution of Jesus' miraculous power to the Devil, but in reality it constituted a rejection of the king entirely. They were confirmed in a pattern of rejection. It could be that God gives them another offer of the kingdom...but given that they were (in the main) in this stubborn state, it seems more likely that the whole idea of offering the kingdom was dropped at this point. The kingdom will have to be imposed rather than willingly accepted (the Tribulation prompts their acceptance of it). We could get into the whole idea of God "giving over" the leaders to their sinfulness and whether they had a "second chance." I am a generous "second chancer" as long as the person is alive and breathing...but the fact is that they had rejected the offer before, and we see clearly that they continued in that same rejection through the book of Acts and geographically throughout the Roman empire in the synagogues.

4. Jesus declared that the kingdom would be taken from the present nation and it would be given to a nation bearing the fruits of it (Matthew 21:43). That second 'nation' is not another Gentile country, but rather a later rendition of the Jewish nation. The people in Acts 3-4 were the very same nation that crucified Christ (just a couple of months previously). It doesn't seem that a re-offer to the same people is in order after that promise from the Lord.

5. The phrase "so that times of refreshing may come" does not require an fulfillment that follows /immediately/ on the heels of their repentance. It certainly could, but it is not required.

6. The audience in Acts 3 is quite positively responsive. We could not say that everyone responded, but by Acts 4:4, the number of men who had responded positively was 5,000. With women and young people this number may have topped 15,000 people. That is a pretty good response, yet that apparently was not good enough for the kingdom to come.

7. The re-offer view does not give proper place to the church, which was predicted by Christ in Matthew 16 and 18. What I am thinking here is that with a re-offer just days after the ascension, that leaves very little time for the church age and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. It also does not do justice to the parable of Luke 19:11-27 where the nobleman goes on a long journey to a far country. The implication is that there is some time lapse between the first and second advents.

Some additional thoughts, not as well formed:

8. The re-offer view seems to suggest a continuance of the offer throughout the book of Acts. While the kingdom was waning and the church was waxing, the offer was dying off too. Were there three, four, five, ... offers of the kingdom? Was the offer valid until Acts 28? Can we call the "re-offer" view the "continuing offers" view?

9. With an offer in Acts 3, I wonder about the applicability of that passage to the modern era. Can I preach Acts 3 like I did on Sunday evening, or shall I explain that some of it does not apply today?

10. Finally, for now, another issue is John 3. Jesus opened the door to the kingdom for those who were born again. We have that same hope today...just not /immediately/ upon receipt of the initial gifts that come with salvation.

Now I address some of the arguments for the re-offer view.

1. Theological argument. I appreciate the construction of theological cases for or against certain propositions, but this one is not convincing to me vis-a-vis the Biblical text. For instance, the assertion that "miracles are always associated with the kingdom" has a measure of truth to it, but I just cannot find a proposition in special revelation that supports it that strongly.

2. Waning of miracles. The gradual phasing out of miracles supposedly relates to the decline of the kingdom in Acts, since miracles and the kingdom are closely connected. It just seems to me that the kingdom was put on hold at the crucifixion, the Great Commission was active, the canon was being established, and the waning of miracles corresponded to the establishment of the canon rather than the decline of the kingdom. This has to do with the authenticating function of the miracles for the messengers of God (cf. Hebrews 2:4 and surrounding context). The fact that Paul could not heal Trophimus or Epaphroditus, or even himself, shows us nothing about the re-offer of the kingdom. It simply says that God was not pleased to extend the miracle of healing to every case of sickness. In fact, we know God had good reasons for not healing Paul; and He possibly healed Epaphroditus through normal means rather than miraculous ones.

3. Some of McClain's arguments are pretty persuasive, I admit. However, I do not think that the regal character of the Abrahamic covenant is very clear (p. 405 bottom). Neither is the prediction of the reoffer of the kingdom in Matthew 22:1-7 (p. 406 middle). The latter seems pretty remote. Neither is his argument about waning miracles in Acts (see above, and p. 409). Finally, I am not convinced by his statement that the gospel miracles would be sufficient proof for all time (p. 410 bottom), for the very reason that the apostles could plausibly use some further divine authentication now that Jesus was absent, to authenticate the new and different nature of their ministry. His argument fails to account for the miracles done around the Mediterranean by Paul.

As I complete my thinking on the subject for the moment, I caution myself that any single unifying theme has its limitations. Whether it is covenant, or kingdom, the interpreter can fall into danger if he or she interprets everything in light of that one theme, and may end up finding things that are not really there.

Some interpreters have suggested that the text in Genesis 12:1-3 is not a statement of the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) because it does not use the Hebrew covenant word “berit.” The covenant is given in Genesis 15, which does use the special term.

When I heard this interpretation some years ago, I was skeptical because I had been taught otherwise. To be sure, when I initially heard this interpretation, I did not consider the omission of the key covenant term. I recently have been preaching through Hebrews and the subject of the AC arose at Hebrews 6:13-15. Someone asked me a question after the sermon about this interpretive issue.

After having re-studied the issue (see below), it seems that there are overwhelming grounds to understand that in Genesis 12:1-3, God initially grants the promises of the AC to Abram. These promises consist of national, personal, and international provisions. The national promises include a reference to a land which we know as the promised land. Some of the provisions have been fulfilled, in particular, the personal provisions to Abraham. The national and international provisions are in process of fulfillment and/or are awaiting their full realization.

There are three key reasons why I believe the AC is initially granted in Genesis 12:1-3.

1. Promissory nature of Genesis 12:1-3.

The AC is a unilateral promise of God to grant certain blessings to Abraham, his seed, and the nations of the earth. The language of Gen 12 seems to have a strongly promissory atmosphere about it. Since the covenant is almost completely, if not entirely, unilateral, it is reasonable to see a one-sided giving of the covenant with no “cutting” mentioned between parties as being a legitimate giving of the covenant promises.

2. Verbal and conceptual similarities of Genesis 12:1-3 with the other AC texts.

The following table shows the data used to establish this argument.

Genesis 15:18 uses the covenant term “berit” so it seems that this chapter marks the official “cutting of the covenant.” The close associations between this text and Genesis 12:1-3 substantiate that 12:1-3 is at least somehow related to the AC, if not the initial granting of it as I understand.

Genesis 17 uses the term “covenant” about 13 times.

The similarities of chapter 12 with the many clear references to the AC throughout Genesis weigh in favor of taking 12:1-3 as the initial offer or grant of the AC. It certainly demonstrates intent on God’s part to do things for Abraham that were included in the later “official” statements and reiterations of the covenant.

Some of the texts referenced above do not use the specific term “berit” in reference to the AC promises (Gen 13, 18, 22, 26, 27, 28, 35). But coming as they do historically after the giving of the covenant, it would seem to be a stretch to say they are not the covenant or restatements thereof. The use of “berit” should not be used as a determining factor as to whether the covenant is present; rather, the idea of the covenant is what is important.

Further, I do not believe that any passage in Genesis offers a more complete statement of the covenant than Genesis 12. The passages after Genesis 12 unfold one or two aspects of the covenant, but do not explicitly state them all.

3. NT Usage of Genesis 12:1-3.

Hebrews 6:13-15 refers to the oath-backed covenant; it is quoting specifically from Genesis 22:16-18.

I believe the strongest argument for seeing the AC in Gen 12:1-3 is that the NT quotations of the covenant in Acts 3:25 and Gal 3:8 refer to Genesis 12 and 18 and following chapters of Genesis, but they do not and cannot refer to Genesis 15 because that statement of the covenant does not include the specific portions about personal blessing, blessing and cursing, and all the families of the earth being blessed. Genesis 15 is primarily about the land and Abram’s inheritance of it. His descendants are also included in the promise, but the promise says nothing about the personal or international aspects of the covenant.

I just got a copy of David L. Allen's Hebrews commentary in NAC. I was interested in his take on Hebrews 6:1-3 since that is where I am preaching on Sunday. What caught my interest was his interpretation of the plural "baptisms" at verse 2.

Allen lists the following interpretations of the "baptisms" on pages 341-343:

1. Jewish ritual ablutions.
2. Differences between Jewish and Christian baptism.
3. Multiple events of people being baptized.
4. Purification ceremonies of a Jewish sort that probably would have been employed by Jewish Christians as well.
5. Teaching about the difference between Christian baptism and ritual washings.
6. Baptism of blood, that is, martyrdom.

Allen notes that in the early church, the fathers interpreted the passage as a reference to Christian baptism. In the modern era, commentators broaden the reference to Christian baptism and other washings.

I have interpreted the passage in a way different than all the options Allen lists. It seems to me most natural to interpret the plural baptisms to refer to the two important Christian baptisms given attention in the New Testament: water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism.

The normal emphasis in Christian teaching today is placed on water baptism. But the NT gave Spirit baptism at least as high of a place, if not higher. Note its important placement in texts such as Matthew 3:11, Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16, 1 Corinthians 12:13, and Galatians 3:27. Both baptisms, their meaning, and the distinction between them, would have been taught by the apostles to their converts. I could see the teaching also including the contrast with the baptism of John or other ritual Jewish baptisms, but primarily the two key Christian baptisms are in view.

Maybe I'm just weird to hold an interpretation that is not too common. I am a dispensationalist, so that might explain most of the weirdness!

Full disclosure: I have not read the whole commentary and cannot render an opinion on it.

Another thing is not a necessary part of the dispensational system of belief:

15. A particular study Bible or Bible version. I'm thinking here of the Scofield Reference Bible, in either the 1909 or 1917 KJV editions, the 1967 KJV edition with word changes, or the 1989 NKJV edition. I think some folks believe that dispensationalists are Scofield-carrying types. To be sure, some are. But that doesn't mean they embrace everything that Scofield taught. And, there are better study Bibles with better study notes and cross-references. An NIV Study Bible or ESV Study Bible (as strange as that may seem!) can be just as useful to the dispensationalist. So, don't let the study Bible or Bible version someone is carrying trick you.

Almost two years ago, I posted a list of things that are not necessary to the dispensational system of belief. In this post, I add one more that I ran into and had forgotten to call out in that post.

14. A particular view of Adam's headship in Romans 5. Many Dispensationalists believe that Adam's headship was of the realistic or seminal sort. In this view, when Adam sinned, humanity in him also sinned, and this sin then properly belongs to each individual in the race. However, there are others, like myself, who understand that Adam's headship was a representative or federal headship that resulted in the immediate imputation of Adam's sin to all of his posterity. Note what McCune writes in the second volume of his Systematic Theology: "It is sometimes suggested that this view assumes covenant theology and is, therefore, incompatible with Dispensationalism. There is, though, no necessary connection between this view and either system" (Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, volume 2, p. 79, fn. 24.).

Sam Storms provides an outline of the premillennial view here, though he is refuting it at each point because he is an amillennialist. But I thought a point-by-point response would be helpful for someone reading out there in web-land, so here goes. The listed items are his evaluation of what a premillennialist must believe. My comments follow each one.

• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ's second coming.
  
  Correct. Isaiah 65:20 indicates that death will occur. Storms is not correct, though, in suggesting that a PM must necessarily believe in death for believers during that time. They may or may not die, depending on whether the Lord is pleased to heal their diseases or if they are born toward the latter part of the millennium. Death certainly does occur after the second coming when Christ judges the lost upon His return.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ's second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.
  
  Correct. Revelation 20:8 indicates that deception will happen, so the curse is still present.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
  
  Right. Revelation 20:11 and 21:1 seem to form a sequence, and 20:11 occurs after the devil was thrown into the lake of fire, which 20:7 says occurred after the 1000 years were finished. The straightforward reading of the text leads to Storms' conclusion.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.
  
  No problem here. See Isaiah 11:9-10. I don't understand why Storms writes, "Are Premillennialists asking us to believe that upon their attaining to an age when they are capable of understanding and responding to the revelation of God and the personal, physical presence of Christ Jesus himself, that none of them will be given the opportunity to respond in faith to the claims of the gospel?" That is, I don't understand his statement unless he is setting up a straw-man version of the PM argument. No PM that I know of ever said there would be no chance for unbelievers in the millennium. So, no, PMs are NOT asking you to believe that ridiculous statement. One key point about the millennium is precisely that many people WILL be saved! By the way, many came to Christ when he was on the earth the first time too.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
  
  You guessed it. This is right on. Revelation 20:5 says "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" (ESV). Again, a straightforward reading of the text seems to say just what Storms objects to.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
  
  Ditto above.
  
  Since Revelation 20 speaks about and is structured around the one thousand year period and mentions it six times, it seems quite a stretch to say there is NO one thousand year period. Sure, one might debate when Christ's coming is relative to that period of time, but to say that period does not exist is a too much of a stretch to take.

• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ's second coming.
  
  Correct. Isaiah 65:20 indicates that death will occur. Storms is not correct, though, in suggesting that a PM must necessarily believe in death for believers during that time. They may or may not die, depending on whether the Lord is pleased to heal their diseases or if they are born toward the latter part of the millennium. Death certainly does occur after the second coming when Christ judges the lost upon His return.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ's second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.
  
  Correct. Revelation 20:8 indicates that deception will happen, so the curse is still present.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
  
  Right. Revelation 20:11 and 21:1 seem to form a sequence, and 20:11 occurs after the devil was thrown into the lake of fire, which 20:7 says occurred after the 1000 years were finished. The straightforward reading of the text leads to Storms' conclusion.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.
  
  No problem here. See Isaiah 11:9-10. I don't understand why Storms writes, "Are Premillennialists asking us to believe that upon their attaining to an age when they are capable of understanding and responding to the revelation of God and the personal, physical presence of Christ Jesus himself, that none of them will be given the opportunity to respond in faith to the claims of the gospel?" That is, I don't understand his statement unless he is setting up a straw-man version of the PM argument. No PM that I know of ever said there would be no chance for unbelievers in the millennium. So, no, PMs are NOT asking you to believe that ridiculous statement. One key point about the millennium is precisely that many people WILL be saved! By the way, many came to Christ when he was on the earth the first time too.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
  
  You guessed it. This is right on. Revelation 20:5 says "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" (ESV). Again, a straightforward reading of the text seems to say just what Storms objects to.
  
  
• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
  
  Ditto above.
  
  Since Revelation 20 speaks about and is structured around the one thousand year period and mentions it six times, it seems quite a stretch to say there is NO one thousand year period. Sure, one might debate when Christ's coming is relative to that period of time, but to say that period does not exist is a too much of a stretch to take.

Previously, I mentioned four essential components of the Dispensational system of thought. If these are removed from the system, it ceases to be what it is.

One argument that has been used against Dispensationalism is that several of these points are not the exclusive property of Dispensationalism; therefore, it is invalid to use them as essential components, or as Ryrie said, the "sine qua non" of Dispensationalism.

From where I sit, this argument seems quite weak. For one thing, just because some truth is shared between two systems of thought does not mean that that truth cannot be essential to one of the systems. So, for instance, covenant premillennialism recognizes a distinction between Israel and the church. Or, covenant theology generally recognizes that the glory of God is a very important concept. But as I said, the fact that these truths are shared does not eliminate the essential nature of them for Dispensationalism.

For another thing, the sharing of various truths between two systems does not mean that the systems are indistinct. This is because each truth of the system is or should be interpreted in light of the other elements of that system. If we believe that truth coheres together and there is a certain consistency in our system of thought (as there should be if the system of thought at all reflects the Bible, which is totally consistent in itself because of its divine origin), then each part is affected by each other part. For example, Dispensationalism and Covenant theology both give an important place to the idea of covenants. However, Dispensationalism's emphasis on the four essentials I mentioned earlier make its approach to the covenants far different than in Covenant theology.

Thus, the essential components of Dispensationalism stand as essential and distinguishing characteristics of the system even though they or aspects of them are shared with Covenant theology.

In this post, I want to convey what is not entailed by the interpretive system called Dispensationalism. When I use the verb entail, I mean that there are certain things that do not follow from Dispensationalism as a logical consequence. These things are not necessary accompaniments or results of holding to Dispensationalism.

The main point I am making is this: if you hold Dispensationalism, you need not hold these other beliefs. Some Dispensationalists may have held these beliefs in the past, or may hold them today, but that does not impugn the basic integrity of the system. In other words, we cannot impute guilt to the system based on some of its adherents also holding to these positions which are not inherent parts of the system. So--Dispensationalism does not entail...

1. Different ways of salvation. Perhaps the most serious and simultaneously tiresome of all arguments leveled against Dispensationalism is that it teaches two ways of salvation: salvation by works in the Old Testament and salvation by faith in the New Testament. This argument has long ago been debunked, but I have had it brought up to me in very recent arguments against Dispensationalism. I will probably say more about this point later, but suffice it to say that Dispensationalism teaches ONE way of salvation in all times of history--sourced in God's grace, through conscious faith, on the basis of the substitutionary atonement accomplished in the cross-work of Jesus Christ.

2. A particular view of Spirit Indwelling. Some Dispensationalists have taught that the Spirit's indwelling in a believer could be lost or removed in times of divine chastisement, or that not all regenerated people were necessarily indwelt in the OT. However, there are other Dispensationalists who teach that the Spirit indwells all believers permanently in every age. Some Dispensationalists make a distinction between the OT and NT ministries of indwelling as to their extent or the particular benefits involved, but neither basic view is entailed by the system. The Dispensational approach does note distinctions in God's working in various ages, so it may be "spring-loaded" to find differences in more places than are actually there.

3. Exactly 7 Dispensations. Many Dispensationalists hold to 7 Dispensations. This author does as well. However, whether there are 8, 6, 5, 4, etc. is not inherent in the system itself. Of course, if you get down to 2 (OT and NT) then you likely are not a Dispensationalist.

4. Wooden literalism. Another worn-out argument against Dispensationalists is that they can only interpret the Bible according to a very stiff kind of literalism. I don't have any personal experience with Dispensationalists who are this way. Many seem to be able to find a lot of meaning in parables and other figures of speech (many times, they find more meaning than is actually there!). The fact is that many Dispensationalists work diligently to properly understand the various figures of speech and poetic parts of the Bible. Dispensationalists do not ignore the various forms and genres of the Scripture. Wooden literalism is not entailed by the system.

5. Easy believism. Dispensationalism does not entail a watered down view of the transformative power of God's grace. Nor does it require one to accept that faith is not necessarily followed by works, or that justification is not inevitably followed by sanctification. Just because some Dispensationalists view the doctrine of salvation this way does not mean that others do.

6. A particular view of Calvinism. You do not have to be a three-point Calvinist (or less) to hold to Dispensationalism. There are plenty of four- and five-point Calvinists who are also Dispensational (believe it or not!).

7. A particular view of the Sermon on the Mount. The sermon on the mount is relegated by some D's (my new shorthand for Dispensationalists) to only the kingdom dispensation in the future. This beloved passage of Scripture does arouse some emotions, to be sure, and its interpretation is not trivial, coming as it does at the end of the Law dispensation, when the Lord genuinely offered the Kingdom to Israel, and at the beginning of the age of Grace. However, many traditional D's find a great deal of application of the passage to the modern era.

8. A hypothetical atonement. Since I mentioned the offer of the Kingdom, I might as well also say that Dispensationalism does not require you to believe that such an offer makes the cross of Christ only an afterthought, or that it hypothetically could have been avoided. Nope--it was necessary for Christ to suffer, and then be glorified, in accordance with the OT prophets. No D I know of suggests that the Cross could have been avoided.

9. A mutilated Bible. Dispensationalism recognizes a great deal of continuity between the Dispensations, so one is not required to "snip sections out of the Bible and throw them away!"

10. That salvation is unimportant. Since Covenant theology emphasizes that the program of history is centered around the salvation of man, it is easy to overlook that D's recognize a VERY IMPORTANT place for the salvation of man within God's eternal program. D's just want to remind us that the glory of God is the ultimate goal of all things--that all revolves around God, not ultimately around man.

11. That there are no covenants in the Bible. This is perhaps stating the case somewhat extremely, but Dispensationalists do believe the covenants--like the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. The idea of covenant is important in the Scriptures. Again, D's believe that there are other issues that rise to a higher level of importance.

12. Zionism. This is a hot-button issue. D's do not uniformly give tacit approval to everything Israel does. Neither do D's uniformly say that Israel should have complete possession of the land today, particularly in the face of their rejection of God and Christ. Not all D's believe that we need to continue to give money to Israel to maintain blessings under the Abrahamic covenant. In other words, a "Zionistic" type of Dispensationalism exists, but it is not entailed in the system.

13. Sensus plenior, equivocal use of language, or prophetic double reference. There are a good number of D's who are committed to a literal hermeneutic that is associated with a univocal use of language, namely that a word means only one thing in a given context. There are many others who believe that double-meaning or some kind of fuller sense is found by the NT authors in their understanding of OT Scripture.

Well, that was a long list. To the point of my series, if you believe Dispensationalism is dead, it may be because you see it as a narrower system than it really is. I have a thought that Reformed theology may not be the greatest threat to Dispensationalism, for the very reason that there are some D's who are thoroughly reformed in their soteriology.

Our first order of business is to understand what Dispensationalism is. A good starting point in matters of definition is Charles C. Ryrie's book Dispensationalism. My discussion will largely reflect his text but will expand on it somewhat. There are four issues which are essential to the Dispensational view of the Scriptures. They are:

1. Consistent Literal Interpretation. In Dispensationalism, the Bible is interpreted according to the plain meaning of its text. Dispensationalism does not allegorize or spiritualize Old Testament prophecies that are, as yet, unfulfilled. It is not strictly literal in the sense that it allows for poetry, metaphors, similes, parables, hyperbole, other figures of speech, types and anti-types, and the like. A better term might be normal or plain. It is the basic historical/grammatical/theological approach to interpretation. The key point is that this hermeneutic is practiced consistently, insofar as humanly possible.

2. Progressive Revelation. This tenet points out that God gave revelation at various points throughout history. He did not give it all at once. Therefore, because man is unable to know God's mind apart from revelation (1 Corinthians 2:9-16), there are some things later in the Bible that earlier saints simply did not and could not know. For instance, they did not know the Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth. Their gospel proclamation did not include the facts of the death, burial, and resurrection of this Man. They did not know of the new institution called the Church. They also knew some things less clearly than we can now--the second coming of Christ, for instance, or the deity of Christ. Ryrie does not raise this point to a sine qua non but as a concept it seems so important to the system that it cannot be omitted.

3. Distinction between Israel and the Church. Dispensationalism makes clear that the Church does not replace Israel. Promises made to Israel that have not yet been fulfilled will still be fulfilled, in the manner portrayed in the Bible. We could treat this as a secondary point, since it is derived from the first point (literal hermeneutic). But it is such a point of distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology that it is helpful to raise it to the level of a primary point to make sure there is no confusion. Ryrie writes that this issue is the most basic test to determine if one is a Dispensationalist (p. 39). It helps to define the meaning of the literal hermeneutic tenet mentioned earlier.

4. Purpose of God in History is His Own Glory. This is to say that everything else is subservient to that larger purpose. Some theologians object that this point of Dispensational thought is simply a reaction against the Covenant notion of the redemption of mankind being the ultimate purpose of history. But despite such an objection, the dispensational view here is not simply a denial cloaked in terms of an affirmation. Texts such as Ephesians 1:6, 12, and 14 make it clear that even salvation is intended to the end of bringing praise to the glory of God's grace (see also 2 Corinthians 4:15). Indeed, all Dispensationalists recognize that the redemption of man is a very important purpose of God, but it is only a part of the whole picture.

Ever since I talked to a pastor in Florida a few weeks ago, I have been thinking about the future of Dispensationalism. My title above was inspired by this pastor showing concern that the resurgence in popularity of Reformed theology may basically kill dispensational thought. In fact, he reported that Charles Ryrie, speaking at a Bible conference recently, said that the greatest threat to Dispensationalism is Reformed theology. Caution: This is not to say that if Dispensationalism dies it takes Christianity down with it--I'm not trying to raise Dispensationalism to the level of a fundamental of the faith! More on that later.

I have serious doubts about the death of Dispensationalism. I think that the concerns of its demise are greatly exaggerated, and hope to allay those concerns in future blog entries by defining and commenting on it. That said, I am concerned that the Dispensationalism be better understood. In many circles, it is greatly misunderstood. Many have not even heard of it, despite it being taught for several generations within fundamental and evangelical circles in the United States through schools like Dallas Theological Seminary and Grace Theological Seminary, not to mention many others. Antagonists who hold to a Covenant approach to the Bible often have such a skewed view of what Dispensationalism is and what it is not that they cannot possibly make an objective analysis of it. Even Dispensationalists misunderstand the genius of the system and think that many other doctrines necessarily rise or fall with it. I will justify these comments in later posts.

Let me also comment on two examples that show that Dispensationalism could be more rigorously promoted. The first is the school I've attended and taught at, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. It is dispensational in the traditional sense of the term (as opposed to progressive dispensational), and this is commendable. And while Dispensationalism is sprinkled throughout the curriculum and is treated some in the systematic and hermeneutics courses, two key courses, Dispensationalism and the Kingdom of God, are taught in summer school and as a result many students do not take them. As a result, students can graduate and lack more in-depth training that would be helpful to respond to the progressive dispensational view and the covenant view. To be sure, DBTS is not about duplicating theological robots, but that does not mean it must not confidently promote a certain form of doctrine. This is not to lay blame, but just to make an observation--after all, the curriculum at DBTS is packed and it is hard to decide between many necessary courses in the M.Div. program.

A second example is the IFCA International. A recent Voice magazine (May/June 2007) mentioned some issues in Dispensationalism. Another pastor integrally involved in the IFCA in Michigan told me of concerns in the fellowship that, though Dispensationalism is part of their doctrinal basis, many pastors of IFCA churches are not versed in it and it seems to be on the wane. Thus, even a fellowship dedicated to promoting this approach to the Bible is weakening in it.

Please feel free to send me comments on this and other future posts at .

A careful reader pointed out that the preterist view is not "one size fits all." There are "full" preterists and "partial" preterists. The latter are more common. The website http://www.therefinersfire.org/preterism.htm has a couple of helpful paragraphs on this.

So, in the previous entry on this topic, I started from the end of Revelation and began to work backward. We definitively showed that chapters 21 and 22 are yet future. This makes the full preterist view completely untenable. I had also continued working back to chapter 20 and showed that the imprisonment of Satan has not yet occurred. This alone would seem to negate the partial preterist view, if it takes Rev. 20 as already fulfilled or at least being fulfilled in the church age. But furthermore, the kingdom, of whatever length you take it to be, has not happened either. One might argue that Christ is reigning in his kingdom now, but it is hard to find resurrected saints reigning with Him anywhere. Finally, the Great White Throne judgment has not yet occurred.

We briefly stated last time also that Revelation 19 refers to the second coming of Jesus Christ. It is manifestly Him who alone can be called "Faithful," "True," and "The Word of God." Orthodox believers confess that a fundamental of the Christian faith is the second coming of Christ. Normal interpretation of the words of this passage show it refers to the second coming. It can be correlated with Matthew 24:29-31. It seems so obvious as to not need stating that Christ has not yet returned. I can only conclude that Rev. 19 refers to events yet future.

The preterist interpreter may quibble with some of these points, or may bring up others such as the marriage supper or other events that he thinks happened already. But so far, all the major events point to future fulfillment. It is safe to conclude that God is painting a picture through John of what He has decreed for the end of times.

The preterist view of Revelation basically teaches that most, if not all, of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. There are several sources that the reader may visit to become more familiar with this view:

• http://www.gotquestions.org/preterist.html
• http://www.tektonics.org/esch/revdate.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

There are a number of severe problems with this interpretation of Revelation. The first is that it depends on a very particular date of composition. If Revelation was composed by the apostle John after 70 A.D., as many conservative scholars understand, then the preterist view falls apart. A date of 68 A.D. or so must be assigned for the preterist view to be viable.

The second major problem is that there are parts of the book which are unequivocally predictive of future events--events which have not yet occurred as of the writing of this blog. Consider a couple of them in the following paragraphs. We will work backwards from the end of the book.

Chapters 21 and 22 are unquestionably future predictions that have not yet been fulfilled. The new heaven and new earth have not yet made an appearance. The New Jerusalem has also not been seen as of yet. The elimination of death, sorrow, crying, and pain in 21:4 has obviously not yet occurred. We have not yet been spared from everything that defiles or causes a lie or has to do with unbelievers (21:27). No church on earth has those qualities, much less the world at large. Chapter 22 follows chronologically after chapter 21 and explains the presence of the tree of life, another thing which has not yet come to pass.

Moving backward from chapter 21, we see also many features of chapter 20 that prohibit it from being interpreted as a record of now-past events. Satan does not seem to be bound in any way during the present age. However the 1000 years are understood, either literally or as a very long time, it is apparent that Satan has not been on any kind of severe restriction for that length of time. There is a first and second resurrection (the first is mentioned in 20:5b-6, the second in 20:5a and 20:12), yet there have been no mass resurrections of dead people in history up to this point. The Great White Throne judgment has not happened. When it does, something very serious will happen to the old heaven and earth (20:11). Also, many dead will stand before God and be judged. The unbelieving among them (it turns out that all who appear there will be unbelievers, but let us not get hung up on that point) will be thrown into the Lake of Fire (20:15). None of this has yet happened.

It should hopefully be fairly obvious that at least the last three chapters of Revelation cannot be correctly interpreted as having happened in the past. We will have to consider the other chapters of Revelation in another blog entry. But the reader might in the meantime consider that in chapter 19 Christ returns so that he can be present to reign in his kingdom in 20:4. The second coming of Christ has also not yet occurred, except in those systems of interpretation that suggest a secret coming at some past date. Such interpretations ring hollow when compared with the Revelation.

• http://www.gotquestions.org/preterist.html
• http://www.tektonics.org/esch/revdate.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

There are a number of severe problems with this interpretation of Revelation. The first is that it depends on a very particular date of composition. If Revelation was composed by the apostle John after 70 A.D., as many conservative scholars understand, then the preterist view falls apart. A date of 68 A.D. or so must be assigned for the preterist view to be viable.

The second major problem is that there are parts of the book which are unequivocally predictive of future events--events which have not yet occurred as of the writing of this blog. Consider a couple of them in the following paragraphs. We will work backwards from the end of the book.

Chapters 21 and 22 are unquestionably future predictions that have not yet been fulfilled. The new heaven and new earth have not yet made an appearance. The New Jerusalem has also not been seen as of yet. The elimination of death, sorrow, crying, and pain in 21:4 has obviously not yet occurred. We have not yet been spared from everything that defiles or causes a lie or has to do with unbelievers (21:27). No church on earth has those qualities, much less the world at large. Chapter 22 follows chronologically after chapter 21 and explains the presence of the tree of life, another thing which has not yet come to pass.

Moving backward from chapter 21, we see also many features of chapter 20 that prohibit it from being interpreted as a record of now-past events. Satan does not seem to be bound in any way during the present age. However the 1000 years are understood, either literally or as a very long time, it is apparent that Satan has not been on any kind of severe restriction for that length of time. There is a first and second resurrection (the first is mentioned in 20:5b-6, the second in 20:5a and 20:12), yet there have been no mass resurrections of dead people in history up to this point. The Great White Throne judgment has not happened. When it does, something very serious will happen to the old heaven and earth (20:11). Also, many dead will stand before God and be judged. The unbelieving among them (it turns out that all who appear there will be unbelievers, but let us not get hung up on that point) will be thrown into the Lake of Fire (20:15). None of this has yet happened.

It should hopefully be fairly obvious that at least the last three chapters of Revelation cannot be correctly interpreted as having happened in the past. We will have to consider the other chapters of Revelation in another blog entry. But the reader might in the meantime consider that in chapter 19 Christ returns so that he can be present to reign in his kingdom in 20:4. The second coming of Christ has also not yet occurred, except in those systems of interpretation that suggest a secret coming at some past date. Such interpretations ring hollow when compared with the Revelation.