Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Historical Background of Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism has its modern roots in the covenant theology which was first set forth in the Calvinist Westminster Confession of 1647. Prior to that date, it only appeared in Marcionism. It never appeared in any mainstream Christian writings, including those of Luther and Calvin.
Gradually covenant theology gave way a hundred years ago to a method of analyzing Jesus' words called Dispensationalism. It is a doctrine whose most significant purpose is to resolve conflicts between Paul and Jesus.
This doctrine is quite forthright: once a verse from Jesus is deemed too difficult to reconcile with Paul, the explanation is Jesus was talking to a different dispensation. We are safe to ignore Jesus' words for we are in the dispensation of grace. Jesus' words were meant in that instance for those under the dispensation of Law ( i.e ., the Jews). The Law after the cross supposedly had now become a curse and was abrogated. Therefore, Dispensationalists reason that Jesus' words at issue no longer involve any important truth for us.
17.See "The Biblical Basis to these Charges Against Paul" on page 233 \ff.
18.Dr. Ryrie points out: "It [covenant theology] was not the expressed doctrine of the early church. It was never taught by church leaders in the Middle Ages. It was not even mentioned by the primary leaders of the Reformation. Indeed, covenant theology as a system is only a little older than dispensationalism....Covenant theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or Melanchthon... There were no references to covenant theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster Confession in 1647...." It should be noted that Agricola was a follower of Luther who taught dispensationalism.
For example, Dispensationalists do not ignore the inconsistencies between Jesus and Paul in the Sennon on the Mount. Jesus emphasizes works to enter the kingdom. Jesus called us to have a "righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees," absent which "you shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:20). Jesus is making obedience a condition of entrance into heaven. This is clear from the verses that follow in the Sermon. Jesus explains what it means to have a righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees.
You must not call your brother a fool (5:21-26); you must not lust after a married woman (5:27-30); you must not divorce your wife absent certain circumstances (5:31-32); you must not make false vows (5:33-37); 19 and you must not return evil for evil (5:38-48). The Pharisees obviously committed all these sins. Jesus was promising "entry...into the kingdom of heaven" (5:20) for obedience to His principles.
The Dispensationalists began their modern movement by insisting there is nothing to worry about in the Sermon on the Mount. Their leading text, still cited today, is by Clarence Larkin , Dispensational Truth (Philadelphia: Larkin, 1918). Based on dispensational logic, Parkin explains Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount "have no application to the Christian, but only to those who are under the Law, and therefore must apply to another Dispensation than this." (Id., at 87.)
19.The Greek text against any oath-taking is a corruption of the original Matthew. George Howard published the Hebrew Matthew which, when differences exist, often show the underlying original text. Here, the Hebrew Matthew reveals a single but crucial word was missing in the Greek translation: the word falsely. A Jewish scholar, Nehemiah Gordon, admires Jesus and shows Jesus' command against any oath would have Jesus contradict Scripture, but the command against falsely taking an oath would be consistent with it. He notes the significant variance in the original Hebrew Matthew that has the word falsely. He then explains how this makes perfect sense in what Jesus says in context about various oaths. Jesus was saying 'do not ever testify falsely in an oath, whether taken in Yahweh's name or otherwise.' The Pharisees' doctrine was that a false oath was permissible as long as not in God's name, such as if 'by the gold in the Temple.' See Nehemiah Gordon, Hebrew Yeshua v. the Greek Jesus (Jerusalem: 2006).
Thus, beginning in 1918, dispensationlists demonstrated how easily one could eliminate the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was talking to Jews under the Law. Paul is talking to everyone else who exists in the 'era of grace.' The era of the Law died at the cross. Thus, this Sermon on the Mount's message died there too. Dispensationalists proclaim victory for Paul's words over Christ's words. They are not troubled in the slightest. To them, it is simply grace triumphing over Law.
As a result, for the modem Dispensationalist, the following principles of Jesus are inapplicable to us:
-
Jesus' mention of the Law's ongoing validity and how crucial it is to teach every command, small and large. (Matt. 5:18-19.)
-
Jesus' promise of justification for repentance from sin. (Luke 18:10#)
-
Jesus' salvation principles in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matt. 5:1)
-
Jesus' hell-whole or heaven-maimed statement. ((Mark 9:42)#)
-
Jesus' emphasis on works for salvation in the Parable of the Sheep and The Goats without which one will go to hell. (Matt. 25:32#)
-
Jesus' emphasis on works in Revelation without which Jesus will spew you out of His mouth. (Rev. 3:16#)
All such principles have been carved out of the essential values necessary for New Testament Christians. They are no longer applicable in the "Era of Grace" as defined by Paul. They are wholly irrelevant.
Thus, even though Jesus said His words would remain valid even though "heaven and earth pass away" (Matt. 24:35), dispensationalism harmoni z es away Jesus' teachings as invalid. They were only valid for another two years after Jesus spoke them, i.e., they expired at the crucifixion. "It is finished" for Paulunist-dispensationlists means all of Jesus ' lessons are cancelled unless they fit Paul's doctrines.
This conclusion was driven by the necessity to harmonize Jesus with Paul. The founders of dispensationalism such as Dr. Chafer were fully aware of the tension between Jesus and Paul. Miles J. Stanford became a renown proponent from Dr. Chafer's university. He expressly recognized contradictions between Jesus and Paul.
However, this was not a problem, he claimed. Stanford insisted Paul had a different gospel from the other apostles. Thus, Stanford taught that when they do not line up, we must realize Jesus and the twelve were directed at a different dispensation-Jews under the Law. Paul was directed at humanity in the "era of grace." There is nothing therefore to reconcile when we find conflict. God just has different covenants with Jews than with the world after Jesus' ascension.
20.Sometimes this is explained as an Israel vs. Christian dispensation. For example, Lewis Spencer Chafer (who founded Dallas Theological Seminary) in He That is Spiritual (rev. ed.((Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967) claimed that the dispensation to Israel is distinct from the Christian church. He then contended the era of "pure law" is exclusive of our current era of "pure grace." Thus, before Christ died was the law. Now we are in grace. In the Millennial kingdom, the Law will be restored. In this manner, only Paul's teachings have current validity. The Book of Revelation, with its emphasis on repentance, has no applicability in salvation doctrine until the Millennium. Chafer is wrong on all points. First, as MacArthur says, "both law and grace are part of the program of God in every dispensation." (J. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, supra, at 31-32.) Furthermore, it is a false dichotomy to separate the church from Israel in dispensations. The New Covenant is with the "House of Judah and Israel." (Jer. 31:31). We are the Gentiles who, if righteous sojourners, share in that covenant, but we are not the main target of (Jer. 31:31).
- For more on Stanford (whose doctrine harkens to Marcion), see his \Novk Pauline Dispensationalism reprinted at http://withchrist.org/MJS/index.htm.
That such a theology would ever arise reflects how impossible it is to reconcile Jesus with Paul on too many points. How can Paul fit in with a 'hell-whole or heavenmaimed warning' of Jesus? In Mark chapter 9, Jesus gives no quarter to Paul: you can go to hell whole (unrepentant) or heaven-maimed (after severe repentance from sin). There is no third option of refusing to repent from sin and enjoy a covering of Christ based on mere belief. Cfr. 1Cor. 5:5. In line with Jesus, John tells us the covering applies to a Christian only after confessing and repenting from sin. (1 John 1:7-9.)
Jesus and Paul are certainly at odds. Paul and Apostle John are also at odds. John thinks the covering of Christ only applies upon confession of sin. However, Paul says it permanently happens upon belief that Jesus is the Lord and He rose from the dead. ((Rom. 10:9). See also, Romans 8:1.)
Thus, this dispensational doctrine is necessary to cope with the conflict within Christianity between Paul and Jesus. Also, it is used to cope with the conflict between Paul and the other apostles' teachings. Dispensationalism is an old solution, going back to Marcion. The early church defeated Marcion's attempt to marginalize Jesus in preference for Paul. Will we?