Dissecting Dispensation Theology

One of the most pervasive theologies in the Evangelical movement is that of Dispensation Theology. Dispensational Theology has become so ingrained in Christian thinking that most don’t even realize they believe in it. Essentially, Dispensation Theology can be broken down into the belief that God deals with different people in different eras in different ways. There are many flavours of Dispensation Theology but most would agree that the main line of demarcation between the dispensations is the cross of the Messiah. Previous to the cross, there was a different way of salvation and different expectations of obedience from God. Not only that, previous to cross, God viewed Israel as His people and, subsequent to the cross, God viewed the Church as His people.

Perhaps on the surface, this theological paradigm makes everything fit together but when put under scrutiny it betrays some major deficiencies. In the following survey of the different facets of this theology, I’m not going to hold back. The following views (which are in bold) are what dispensationalists believe once you strip off the theological jargon:

There are two ways of salvation.

No sincere Christian would actually intentionally confess this to be true but whether they know it or not most Christians believe this is true. For example, when a traditional Christian is confronted with the commandment of the Sabbath, sometimes the response is “well, we have Jesus, so we don’t need to keep the Sabbath.” What is this response implying? It’s implying that the people before the coming of the Messiah were not saved through His work on the cross. It implies that the people before the coming of Messiah kept the Sabbath and the rest of the Torah for their salvation. This is a serious and frightening implication! This perspective implies that God was able to save people apart from the sacrifice of the Messiah. If that’s true, then why did God send the Messiah to die? If there was something that man could have done to attain salvation, then Messiah died needlessly!

The truth is that faith in the Messiah has always been God’s way of salvation. The promise of the coming redeemer has been revealed since the beginning and God has always graciously chosen an elect in each generation to be saved. What this means is that the Torah was not given for salvation. The Torah instructs us on what is right and wrong and is our guide for holy living.

The Holy Spirit was not active in salvation previous to Acts 2.

No one who reads the Hebrew Scriptures can actually say that the Holy Spirit wasn’t active in the lives of God’s faithful. Since it is so evident, most Christians would say that while the Holy Spirit was active in the lives of people before the coming of Jesus, He didn’t come to “live inside” Believers until the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. This notion is consistent with the previous notion that people before the coming of Jesus were not saved by faith in Him. That being said, just as the notion that the people before the coming of Jesus were not saved in Him is false, so is the idea that the Spirit of God was not active in salvation previous to the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Salvation is realized in the life of an individual only through the work of the Holy Spirit. 

It’s the Spirit of God that regenerates our heart and reveals our sinfulness. It’s the Spirit of God that reveals to us our need for the Saviour and leads us to the Messiah. It’s the Spirit of God that illuminates the Scriptures to us and enables us to obey His commandments. Without the work of the Spirit of God, no one would could be saved. So, that being said, all one has to do is examine the lives of the faithful before the coming of Jesus and see if they exhibit the characteristics of a regenerated individual. Did the faithful of the Hebrew Scriptures know their own sinfulness? Did they know they needed a saviour? Did they place their faith in God’s coming Redeemer? Did they know the Word of God and submit their lives to it? The obvious answer to all of the above is “yes!” The truth is that the Holy Spirit was active in the lives of the faithful before the coming of Jesus, both for salvation and for empowerment.

Israel and the Church are completely distinct.

This perspective is so prevalent in our thinking and especially in our interpretation of the Bible that it’s amazing that nowhere in the Bible is this notion stated. In other words, nowhere in the Bible is it ever stated that God has two separate groups of people that He calls His own. The problem with believing that Israel and the Church are distinct is that God has only made covenants with Israel. Israel is made up of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God made a covenant with Abraham, later confirmed through Isaac and Jacob, where their descendants will forever be God’s people. The Mosaic covenant was added to give Israel instructions on how to obey God and to provide a litmus test through which God could either bless or punish Israel. The Davidic covenant promised a king that would forever reign over Israel. Finally, the New Covenant is an, as of yet, unfulfilled promise that He will change the hearts of the entire nation and make them obedient. There are no covenants made with an entity called “the Church.” 

Not only that, Jesus and the Apostles considered themselves to be faithful Jews within the larger scope of the people of Israel. The Apostles and the Apostolic community never abandoned the Jewish people and continued to practice Judaism as taught and lived out by Jesus. Additionally, Paul clearly teaches that Gentile Believers do not make up a new group of elect but rather join the faithful remnant of Israel through their faith in the Messiah.

The word “church” simply means “assembly” or “community.” So, while the word “ecclesia” is used many times in the writings of the Apostles, it should not necessarily be taken in a technical sense. Usually the word is used to simply refer to an assembly of Believers. Even when it appears to be used in a technical sense, it simply refers to the community of Believers who make up the faithful remnant of Israel. This means that the “church” is the faithful remnant of believing Jews within Israel and those Gentiles who, by faith, are joined to Israel, specifically that faithful remnant.

The New Covenant is something that started with the death of Jesus and doesn’t include the Torah.

In the Bible, the New Covenant is never defined as something that started with the coming of Jesus and doesn’t include the Torah. The New Covenant is defined in the Prophets, specifically in the book of Jeremiah. The New Covenant speaks of the time when the Messiah has returned and has gathered Israel to the Land. God will miraculously change the hearts of the entire nation which will result in that they will be obedient to the Torah. This obviously has not happened yet.

The reality of the New Covenant is simply what Christians know as salvation. In other words, the New Covenant is a national expression of what the faithful remnant of Israel has experienced in every generation. The main characteristic of the New Covenant is the change God makes in His people; forgiving them of their sins and enabling them to live in obedience to His commandments.

There exists something called an Old Covenant.

The term “old covenant” is found only once in the entire Bible. The term was invented by the Apostle Paul to describe the Torah when it is read by a Jewish person who does not have faith in the Messiah. The word “old,” when used in Paul’s epistles commonly refers to a person or state before faith. The “old self” refers to an individual’s state before coming to faith in the Messiah. The “old covenant” is the Torah read without faith while the reality of the New Covenant is the Torah written on the heart because of faith. The “old covenant” does not refer to the time before the coming of Jesus. The term “old covenant” refers to a participant of the Mosaic covenant (a Jewish person) who doesn’t have faith and won’t have a share in the coming New Covenant.

Paul is able to trump the Tanakh in terms of authority.

The response to Torah submissive Believers’ exhortation to other Believers that they should be keeping the Torah is usually “I know the Law says ‘that’ but didn’t Paul say we don’t have to?” In other words, according to this perspective, Paul is more authoritative than the Tanakh. Are Paul’s writings more authoritative than the Torah? Can a later revelation from God trump a previous revelation from God?

The reality is that a later revelation of God cannot contradict or trump an earlier revelation from God. This is why Christians do not accept the Book of Mormon or the Koran. If we really believe that the writings of the Apostles, specifically Paul, contradict the Torah then how are they any different from the Book of Mormon?

Paul constantly quotes the Tanakh to validate his arguments and teaching. Not only that, throughout Romans and various other places, Paul exhorts Believers to keep the commandments of God and teaches that those who walk by the Spirit will submit to the Torah of God. When reading Paul’s letters, we must work hard to find the context of his arguments and teachings so that we will be able to properly interpret his words. Paul does not contradict or teach against the Torah.

Only the New Testament applies to Believers.

Many Christians believe that only the commandments that are explicitly repeated in the New Testament apply to Christians. This implies that only the writings of the Apostles applies to Christians, whereas the Tanakh does not. This essentially means that Hebrew Scriptures, while at one time authoritative, no longer carries the same weight of authority as it once did.

Is this really treating the Hebrew Scriptures as the Word of God? If something comes from God, then doesn’t that mean it cannot change, since the speaker, God Himself, cannot change? Not only that, this perspective ignores the fact that the Jesus and the Apostolic communities of His followers did not have the New Testament. The Bible of the first century Believers was the Tanakh. The Scriptures to which Paul refers to as God-breathed was the Tanakh. The Tanakh was authoritative to Jesus, the Apostles and all of the Apostolic communities of the first century. Shouldn’t it be just as authoritative to us? 

Jesus and the Apostles began a new religion distinct from Judaism.

Ether Jesus and the Apostles indeed came to start a new religion called Christianity or they continued to practice Judaism and expected us to as well. If followers of Jesus are not a separate group of elect but are rather a part of the elect of Israel, shouldn’t we follow the religion that God expects Israel to keep?

The reality is that Jesus and the Apostles kept the Sabbath and Appointed Times of Leviticus. They prayed daily in the Temple and worshipped in the synagogues. They wore tassels and kept kosher. They considered themselves to be the elect sect with Israel. They practiced a reform of Second Temple Judaism. Shouldn’t we be practicing a modern form of that?

Conclusions

If virtually every aspect of Dispensation Theology is faulty, shouldn’t it be abandoned? There are no such thing as dispensations! God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Here are some truths:

• Salvation has always been a matter of God’s grace received by faith in the Messiah.
• The Holy Spirit has always been active in the work of salvation in God’s people.
• God’s people are still Israel and Gentile Believers, through faith in the Messiah, are made citizens in Israel.
• The New Covenant is a coming national reality expressed in each generation through Israel’s remnant.
• The Old Covenant refers to the Torah only when it is read by a person without faith.
• Revelation begins with and builds upon the Torah; later revelation cannot contradict the Torah.
• The whole Bible is equally authoritative for Believers.
• Jesus and the Apostles practiced a form of second Temple Judaism.