A Refutation of Dispensational TheologyYou will need to download and install the free Greek & Hebrew fonts to properly view and print from this site.
On our “Welcome” page I made the statement that “I follow a literal, historical, grammatical, and somewhat-dispensational approach to interpreting the Scriptures,” and I have been asked by several individuals to clarify what I mean by that phrase, and more specifically what I mean by the term “somewhat dispensational approach.”
But first it is necessary to define “dispensational” before I can clarify in what ways my approach to Biblical interpretation is similar and in what ways it is different. “Classic Dispensationalism” is a system of interpreting the scriptures, of which Dr. C. I. Scofield was the major proponent, and in which tradition I received nearly all of my formal theological training. This system teaches that:
In each of these “dispositions,” this
system teaches,
For another chart of the “dispensations” go here. Philip Mauro presents an excellent argument against the dispensations at GospelTruth.net.
Most dispensationalists (those who accept this
division of the Scriptures) teach that
There are, I believe, a number of serious problems with this interpretation, the most obvious of which are these three: 1. For I am ADONAI your For I am ADONAI, who brought you
up out of the land of Egypt to be your "Speak to the entire community
of Isra'el; tell them, 'You people are to be holy
because I, ADONAI your In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, for praising ADONAI. Therefore consecrate yourselves
-you people must be holy, because I am ADONAI your Observe my regulations, and obey them; I am ADONAI, who sets you apart to be holy. Rather, you people are to be holy for me; because I, ADONAI, am holy; and I have set you apart from the other peoples, so that you can belong to me In the Messiah he chose us in love before the creation of the universe to be holy and without defect in his presence. What since the Tanakh says, "You are to be holy because I am holy." 2.
For what does the Tanakh say? "Avraham put his trust in It was the same with Avraham: "He trusted in and the passage of the Tanakh
was fulfilled which says, "Avraham had faith in 3. "But because I, ADONAI, do not change, you sons of Ya'akov will not be destroyed. Every good act of giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father who made the heavenly lights; with him there is neither variation nor darkness caused by turning. The rainbow will be in the
cloud; so that when I look at it, I will remember the everlasting
covenant between "I am establishing my covenant
between me and you, along with your descendants after you, generation after generation, as
an everlasting covenant, to be The slave born in your house and the person bought with your money must be circumcised; thus my covenant will be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. "For my house stands firm with
and established as a law for Ya'akov, for Isra'el as an everlasting covenant: and established as a law for Ya'akov, for Isra'el as an everlasting covenant: The land lies defiled under its inhabitants; because they have transgressed the teachings, changed the law and broken the everlasting covenant. Open your ears, and come to me; listen well, and you will live - I will make an everlasting covenant with you, the grace I assured David. I will make with them an everlasting covenant not to turn away from them, but to do them good; I will put fear of me in their hearts, so that they will not leave me. They will ask the way to Tziyon; and, turning their faces toward it, will say, 'Come, join yourselves to ADONAI by an everlasting covenant never to be forgotten.' Nevertheless, I will remember the covenant I made with you when you were a girl and will establish an everlasting covenant with you. I will make a covenant of peace with them, an everlasting covenant. I will give to them, increase their numbers, and set my sanctuary among them forever. Now people swear oaths by someone greater than
themselves, and confirmation by an oath puts an end to all dispute. Therefore, when If it were possible for And just so there is no misunderstanding of the duration of
From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary Main Entry: everlasting 1ev·er·last·ing lasting or enduring through all time : eternal Main Entry: eternal 1eter·nal 1 a: having infinite duration : everlasting b: of or relating to eternity c: characterized by
abiding fellowship with 2 a: continued without intermission : perpetual 4 a: valid or existing at all times : timeless Now that we have, I believe, shattered the “myth” of dispensationalism, let me explain what I mean by the phrase: “I follow a literal, historical, grammatical, and somewhat-dispensational approach to interpreting the Scriptures.” Literal I believe that Ruach HaKodesh
inspired the recorders of the Sacred Message in such a way that every sentence, every word,
every letter of the original autographs was delivered to mankind exactly the way that I agree with the old adage, “When the literal sense makes sense, then to interpret in any other sense is to create nonsense.” Grammatical I believe that in order to be correctly understood, the interpreter must strive to determine the correct grammatical context in which the text was written. For example, poetry must be interpreted as poetry; allegory must be interpreted as allegory; history must be interpreted as history; prophecy must be interpreted as prophecy. Thus when the Master said, “I am the bread of life,” He did not mean to imply that he just came out of the oven, and when He said, “I am the door,” He did not meant to imply that he had a lock and hinges. Every language has its own idioms, and in order to properly interpret Scripture we must be aware of the language in which the text was written and the idioms that were common to that language. We must understand the text in the same way that those to whom it was originally written would have understood it. Thus when we say in English, “I was just pulling your leg,” we must understand that an English-speaking reader would understand it to mean, “I was just kidding.” Contrary to what most interpreters believe, I believe that the original Apostolic Scriptures (the so-called “New Testament”) were written in the language in which those writers would have been most comfortable, probably Hebrew but possibly Aramaic, and translated from Hebrew into Greek for transmission to the Diaspora. I believe that when Constantine ordered the destruction of all Hebrew scriptures, those original Hebrew versions were destroyed and were therefore lost to us. Since the Apostolic Scriptures were written by Jews, to Jews, about the Jewish Messiah, then need to be interpreted in their original Hebrew/Jewish sense. I also believe that when the Master said that Moshe wrote down the Torah
as Historical Every event occurs within its own historical context. In order to
understand the writer’s intent, it is necessary to understand the historical context. For
example, to think of ancient Babylon in terms of modern-day Iraq would be totally
inappropriate. Likewise, to interpret the Apostolic Scriptures outside of their
first-century historical Jewish context produces error. We must remember that when the
Apostolic Scriptures were written, there was no “Church” as we know it today, and there were
no “Christians”; there was only the Temple and the Synagogue, in which Messianic and
non-Messianic Jews and Gentiles worshipped the Somewhat Dispensational Part of the process of properly interpreting the Scriptures in their
historical content is to understand that The Prophets knew that For me, the time periods that Dr. Scofield defined as “dispensations” are
no more than convenient “markers” in history to remind us of what Job said, “But I know that my Redeemer lives, that in the end he will
rise on the dust; so that after my skin has been thus destroyed, then even without my flesh,
I will see What we find when we study the Scriptures and pay attention to the
historical context, we find a progressive revelation, in which
If we neglect this essential interpretive principle, we forget extremely important facts, like the fact that Avraham, Yitz'chak, and Ya'akov knew nothing about the Torah, or we believe that Jews before [or even after] Calvary were “saved” by obeying the “Law.” We also arrive at very erroneous conclusions like thinking that Paul and Silas went around “planting churches” or that when Jews become completed in their Messiah they become “Christians” and stop being Jews. By neglecting the historical context of the Apostolic Scriptures, we wind up with such ridiculous assumptions as: “Jesus was a good Christian boy who went to church every Sunday,” and “the Fourth Commandment has been repealed and the Sabbath has moved to ‘The Lord’s Day’ on Sunday.” We fail to realize that the Shliachim (Apostles) who wrote the “New Testament” knew nothing at all of the “Church.” In fact, the “Church” as we know it did not come into existence in the first century, the second century, or even the third century of the Common Era. In approximately 311 CE (which would be the fourth century), Emperor Constantine created a new Roman state religion by modifying the Roman version of the Babylon Mystery Religion, dressing it up with “Bible words,” and changing the names of the pantheon of “gods” and “goddesses” to the names of prominent first-century Messianic Believers, particularly the Apostles [MORE], and called it “the Church” or “Christianity.” Up until that event, Judaism (which included Messianic Judaism, which was called “the Way,” as a sub-set, or sect of Judaism) was one of the many “authorized” religions of the Roman Empire. “Wait a minute!" someone is saying. My Bible says, “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch” (Acts 11:26, NIV). That is exactly part of the problem that arises when we ignore the historical context. If we understand that the writers of the Apostolic Scriptures spoke Hebrew and that the original autographs were penned in their native Hebrew and then later translated into Greek for transmission to the Gentile and Hellenized (Greek-speaking) Jewish believers in the Diaspora, then we can figure out how the word “Christians” wound up in the book of Acts. The word “Christ” is derived from the Greek word Christos, which means “anointed.” The Hebrew word for “abnointed” is Mashiach, or Messiah. So what Luke actually wrote is that “it was in Antioch that the talmidim for the first time were called ‘Messianic.’” That sentence was then translated literally into Greek, and since before that time there was no concept of (or Greek word for) Messianic, the Greek-speaking translators had to “coin” a completely new Greek word that could convey the meaning of the Hebrew word for “Messianic.” To the root word Christos they added the suffix “ianous.” The intended readers would have had no problem at all understanding what Luke meant by the newly-coined Greek term for “Messianic.” Centuries later, the Greek word Xristianouvß (Christianous) was simply transliterated into English and wound up as Christians (Acts 11:26). It would be grossly unfair to call this a “translation error,” but for us to think that the first-, second-, and third-century Messianic believers thought of or referred to themselves as Christians would be totally anachronistic. Of course, the same would apply to the word “Christian” in Acts 26:28 and 1Peter 4:16. The Bottom Line I hope that this has helped clarify my use of the term “somewhat
dispensational” to describe my historical approach to Biblical interpretation, though now
having written this explanation, I wonder if there is not some term that I should use to
better state this method, and in time I will probably find that word and use it. My ultimate
intention for the use of “somewhat dispensational” was to mean that to arrive at accurate
conclusions about the Scriptures, the interpreter needs to remember that I hope that this has served to clarify my position. Except where otherwise indicated,
Scripture quotations on this page are from
The Complete Jewish Bible
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
