Questions about Dispensationalism

Mark Grasso

Did God change His mind?

Although God’s sovereignty would, in one sense, permit Him to act as He pleases, God has never changed His mind or, in particular, the way of salvation. As stated earlier in the magazine, dispensations have to do with the different ways in which God has chosen to regulate His dealings with mankind at different periods of time. None of them has been, or will be, undertaken as an experiment to see if human beings can and will do what pleases Him, nor does a change from one dispensation to another suggest that God is trying something new. The idea that dispensational teaching involves God changing His mind may stem from an approach to the Bible which places mankind at the centre, or from an incorrect thought that in each dispensation God is testing mankind in a fresh way to see if the outcome changes. God has always known the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10), including that there would be no one who did good in any dispensation (Rom. 3:9–19). In His mercy, God foreordained the Lord Jesus Christ to be our Passover, who would take away our sins (1 Pet. 1:18–20; 1 Cor. 5:7).

Seeing God’s different dispensational dealings with mankind helps us appreciate that each of us was, by nature, hopeless and without hope, and hence undeserving of anything other than God’s judgment, and that this was and is the case for every human being in each way in which God has regulated His dealings with mankind. It also magnifies God’s patience with mankind, and proves that the way of salvation has always been by grace on God’s part and through faith on the part of individuals. Godly men in Old Testament times knew this (see e.g. Ps. 51:16–17). God passed over their sins because, when the fulness of the time was come (as explained in earlier articles), the Lord Jesus would come and His work at the cross would atone for those sins (Rom. 3:25). Their faith may have been different from ours in that they could only trust in what God had revealed about Himself prior to or in their dispensation. However, in every dispensation the just live by faith (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; 3:26–28; Gal. 3:11). 

Having said the above, and while we receive our salvation by faith in Christ’s work and as a gift of God (Rom. 3:24–30; Eph. 2:8–9), the blessings we receive as Christians are different from, and much higher than, those known or enjoyed in the past. This is discussed in 1 Peter 1:9–12.

How do dispensations fit with covenants?

Covenants were addressed in issue 4 of this magazine in 2014. At the end of the magazine, we set out eight covenants in the Bible. With the exception of the covenant with Noah, the promise of which was for the benefit of all mankind (i.e. that God would never again cut off all flesh with a flood: Gen. 9:8–17), each covenant was limited in scope (e.g. the covenant with David was that he would have a son to reign on his throne: Ps. 89:3–4). Covenants also have primarily to do with blessings on the earth. The sole covenant which extends beyond this — that is, the new covenant which God will make with His earthly people in the millennium and gives them forgiveness of sins and a new nature (Jer. 31:31–34) — is based on the Lord’s work on the cross (Luke 22:20).

Accordingly, covenants and dispensations are distinct, although the history of Israel under the old covenant and the Palestinian covenant (the two conditional covenants) proved that they could not carry out what they bound themselves to do at Mount Sinai — i.e. fulfil the law (Ex. 19; Deut. 29).

For the sake of completeness, so-called ‘covenant theology’ has little to do with the covenants recorded in Scripture. Rather, it is based on three covenants which are not found in the Bible. It also involves ‘spiritualising’ the Old Testament and ignoring the natural interpretation of God’s Word (see again the earlier issue of this magazine).

Didn’t the Lord Jesus and the apostles apply Old Testament scriptures to the assembly (e.g. Acts 2:16–17; Heb. 10; 1 Pet. 2:9)?

When God gave prophecies in Old Testament times, He must have intended that those who heard them would interpret them according to the natural meaning of the words used. If God had meant something else by any of His prophecies (e.g. that a reference to Israel was actually a reference to the church — which was a mystery not revealed in the Old Testament: Eph. 3), God would have been misleading. Clearly, God never acts in such a manner.

There are many examples of Old Testament prophecies being understood according to the terms in which they were given and being fulfilled in the same way. For example, what God told Abram about his seed in Genesis 15:13–16 must have been understood by Abram to mean what His words plainly revealed. That prophecy was subsequently fulfilled to the letter. To take another example, the chief priests and scribes knew that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem because that was what Micah had prophesied (Matt. 2:4–6). In this instance, even unbelievers knew that God meant what He said.

At no point did the Lord Jesus or the apostles suggest that any Old Testament scripture would not be fulfilled in accordance with its terms. Had the approach to the interpretation of the Bible associated with dispensationalism (in particular the expectation of a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth) been wrong, the Lord would have given a very different answer to the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6–7.

However, that Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled according to their terms does not mean that they may not also have a spiritual fulfilment in the meantime. God’s promises to individuals or groups of people are always based on grace. Accordingly, the grace which will bring to pass in the future an Old Testament prophecy may effect a similar blessing in the interim (e.g. Acts 2:16–17; 15:13–18). In fact, the spiritual fulfilment of a prophecy in the day of grace is often more blessed than the complete fulfilment in a future day. For example, believers today are God’s special people (1 Pet. 2:9) in a deeper way than Israel ever was or will be because of our closer relationship to God and the preciousness of the assembly to His Son.

Is the assembly the ‘Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16)?

Paul recognised that the Jews, the Gentiles and the assembly are separate and distinct (1 Cor. 10:32). Every time his letters refer to Israel, he meant Israel (e.g. Rom. 9:3–4; 11:1; Eph. 2:12). The fact that, for those in Christ Jesus, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the day of grace does not change this — the key words in the previous verse are ‘in Christ Jesus’.

However, Paul also knew that ‘they are not all Israel, which are of Israel’ (Rom. 9:6) — in other words, that not everyone who was ‘of Israel’ by birth had faith in God and hence was truly one of His people. The ‘Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:6 is that part of the Jews which had repented and trusted in God and become part of the assembly (i.e. the ‘remnant according to the election of grace’ referred to in Romans 11:5). On this basis, they are truly His people. 

The immediate context in which the verse appears also demonstrates that the ‘Israel of God’ cannot be a synonym for the assembly as Paul refers to some believers using the word ‘them’ which appears earlier in the verse. The wider context of the letter indicates that the ‘them’ are Gentile believers (Paul was writing to a Gentile assembly). Hence the Israel of God is the other of the two groups made one body (Eph. 2:14–16). 

How can dispensationalists claim to interpret the Bible literally when they give a non-literal interpretation to the word ‘everlasting’ in the Old Testament (e.g. Dan. 7:14)?

Dispensationalism is often associated with a ‘literal’ interpretation of Scripture, by which is meant, not that every word in the Bible is applied in an absolutely literal manner without reference to its context, but that words, verses and passages are given their natural meaning based on their immediate context as well as their wider context, which extends to the Scriptures as a whole. This is also referred to as the ‘historical-grammatical’ method. Among other things, this approach recognises that symbolical prophecies are interpreted according to the meaning of the metaphors used.

From a chronological perspective, Old Testament revelation essentially covers the period from the creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) to the millennium. Things before or after that period, and eternal things more generally, are not revealed in the Old Testament or, in the few instances where they may be hinted at, are only described in a veiled manner (e.g. Prov. 8:22–31). Further, the focus of Old Testament prophecy is the earth, not heaven.

Daniel refers to the Lord’s reign over the earth as an ‘everlasting’ kingdom (e.g. Dan. 7:14) because Old Testament saints, including godly men such as Daniel, did not receive any revelation of eternal things to come after the Lord delivers His kingdom to His Father at the end of His 1,000-year reign and the earth has been consumed by fire (1 Cor. 15:24; Rev. 20:4, 6; 2 Pet. 3:10).

For Daniel, the Lord’s reign would be the fulfilment of God’s prophecies concerning the earth. In the dispensation prevailing at the time he prophesied, God had not made known the fact that the kingdom would come to an end. As a result, the Spirit of Christ inspired Daniel to describe it as an everlasting kingdom. However, with the benefit of the New Testament, we know that the kingdom to which Daniel refers will come to an end as set out in Revelation 20, following which there will be a new heaven and a new earth (which are distinct from the ‘new heavens’ and ‘new earth’ referred to in the Old Testament (e.g. Isa. 65:17) — those terms also referring to the millennium due to the great changes there will be on the earth and in the sky after the Lord establishes His rule).

Further, the key passage on the new covenant (also referred to as ‘everlasting covenant’) confirms that it will last for as long as the universe lasts (Jer. 31:31–36; 32:40).

If, in His earthly ministry, the Lord was presenting His kingdom to the Jews, does that mean that He would not have gone / had to go to the cross if they had accepted it?

Generally speaking, the Bible does not answer the ‘what if’ questions which may occur to our human minds. For that reason, it may be best not to debate questions such as the one above, as doing so has little spiritual value.

As already stated, we know that God is never taken by surprise. Because of His omniscience and wisdom, He is able to cause the myriad strands of the world’s history to work together for His glory. In connection with the matters referred to in the question, the Lord Jesus came to His own people because God had promised them a deliverer, yet His rejection then formed the basis for Him to become their true Redeemer by laying down His life on the cross (also a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies such as Isaiah 53). In addition, the same rejection, and the same sacrifice, led God and the Lord Jesus to begin something new, namely opening up the way of salvation to the whole world and calling believers out from the world to form His assembly (Matt. 13; Col. 1:25–27). When one considers matters from this perspective, one sees that the ‘what if’ question is unimportant. What is far more important to see, and precious to consider, is God’s glory.

Is the argument about a pre-tribulation rapture versus a post-tribulation rapture that important?

In 1 Thessalonians 1:10, the Lord Jesus is described as ‘our deliverer from the coming wrath’. Revelation 3:10 contains His promise that He will ‘keep [the assembly] out of the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth’. Some suggest that the wrath and trial referred to in these verses is eternal judgment (i.e. the ‘wrath’ referred to in John 3:36), and go on to argue that the assembly must go through the tribulation.

However, the tribulation period and the judgments which the Lord will cause to come upon the earth in the lead up to the establishment of His kingdom (i.e. the ‘wrath’ referred to in several verses in Revelation) are directed at His earthly people, the world and the professing portion of Christendom which remains on the earth after the rapture. God has not appointed the assembly to wrath (1 Thess. 5:9). It is no part of His counsels that the assembly should be judged in such a manner. It would also be inconsistent with His counsels for a called-out and heavenly company to have to endure the judgments directed at the earth (Acts 17:31).

As set out in the verses quoted above, part of the Lord’s work for believers today is to deliver us from the coming wrath. The suggestion that the church will go through the tribulation is a serious slight on His love for His assembly.

The proper expectation for every believer is the rapture, which is preceded by only one thing: the Lord’s assembling shout (1 Thess. 4:16). To be looking first for the antichrist would be a perverted outlook for a Christian, and would not be conducive to the fulfilment of 1 John 3:3.

The Lord Jesus did not conclude the Scriptures with a suggestion that it would be at least seven years before He would return. Rather, He left us the wonderful promise that He is coming for us very quickly (Rev. 22:20).

________________________

From: Truth and Testimony, 2021