An Examination Of The Presuppositions
Of Covenant And Dispensational Theology

3. A General Examination Of The
Presuppositions Dispensationalism

Within a century from when John Nelson Darby started the idea of God's two separate purposes in history (1827). it had arisen to a place of common acceptance among the Bible-believing movement in America, which then centered in Fundamentalism.

There is an intense continuity of thought among dispensationalists. It is not difficult to ascertain the guiding presuppositions of this system. Dr. Charles Ryrie has pointedly faced the question. "What is the sine qua non of dispensationalism?" His answer has three parts.

1. ''A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct . . . a man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions.''

2. Dispensationalists employ "a consistently literal principle of interpretation.'' This principle "is at the heart of dispensational eschatology."

3. Dispensationalists assert that God's purposes center in His glory, rather than in the "single purpose of salvation'' (Dispensationalism Today [Moody 1965]. pp.44-48).

By examining these three pillars we will be able to understand the essence of dispensationalism, and thereby be in a position to justly consider this system in the light of the Bible.

3.1 Israel and the Church Separate. In order to graphically see the continuity of agreement among proponents of dispensationalism, and to see the centrality of this pillar in their syste, I will list chronologically quotations concerning the two-purposes theory. We must start with John Darby, for the teaching found in these quotes was never enunciated at any time in history until 1827. Thus it is a perversion of history for Dr. Ernest Pickering to claim that "the principles of dispensationalism'' are not "theological novelties" ("Dispensational Theology,'' Central Conservative Baptist Quarterly. Spring, 1961. p.29). The dividing of redemptive history into several economies was surely done throughout church history. But the idea that God has "separate" purposes for Israel and the church (as defined in these quotes) is indeed novel, and not to be found from the pens of all post-apostolic writers. Yet this is the teaching on which dispensationalism stands or falls. It is the presupposition that guides their Biblical interpretation. If it is a wrong teaching, the whole system tumbles to the ground.

J.N. Darby - "The Church is in relationship with the Fathers, and the Jews with Jehovah .... The Jewish nation is never to enter the Church .... The Church is . . . a kind of heavenly economy, during the rejection of the earthly people'' (The Hopes of the Church of God, pp.11, 106, 156).

E. W. Bullinger - "It follows . . . that if we read those people and those principles into the present Dispensation, we are taking what God spoke by the prophets to the fathers (i.e., Israel), and reading them as though they were spoken to and about ourselves, in this present Dispensation. This procedure can result only in confusion'' (The Foundations of Dispensational Truth, p.21. Bullinger is recognized by all as an extreme dispensationalist, but he nevertheless illustrates the beginning principle).

J.H. Brookes - "If we forget the distinction between an earthly and a heavenly people, or in other words, if we lose sight of dispensational truth . . . we will be thrown into inextricable confusion in attempting to understand the Scriptures'' (Maranatha, pp. 522-52.3).

C. I. Scofield - "Comparing, then, what is said in Scripture concerning Israel and the Church, we find that in origin, calling, promise, worship, principles of conduct and future destiny all is contrast'' (Scofield Bible Correspondence Course, 19th Ed.. p.23).

L. S. Chafer - "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages, God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved" (Dispensationalism, p.448).

John Walvoord - "Of prime importance to the premillennial interpretation of Scripture is the distinction provided in the New Testament between God's purpose for the Church and His purpose for the nation Israel'' (The Millennial Kingdom, p.vii).

J. Dwight Pentecost - "The Church and Israel are two distinct groups" (Things to Come, p. 193).

Ernest Pickering - ''Dispensationalism views them as two different bodies of saints each having its own promises. responsibilities, and expectations'' ("Dispensational Theology,'' p.35).

Charles Ryrie - "A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct .... The Church is a distinct body in this age having promises and a destiny different from Israel's" (The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. l 2).

Upon this foundation a great building has been erected. This first principle is central and constitutive. Other distinctives, such as the "rapture,'' stand or fall according to the accuracy of this guiding principle (cf. Walvoord. The Rapture Question, pp.15-16; Pentecost, Things To Come, p. 193).

3.2 A Consistently Literal Principle of Interpretation. This principle arose in Darby's thinking out of his prior contemplation upon the church. When he read Isaiah 32 he saw a tension between the earthly Old Testament description and his heavenly position in Christ. Hence he concluded that there was ''an obvious change in dispensation."

Contemporary dispensationalists argue that the prophecies concerning Christ's birth, death and resurrection were literally fulfilled, and that therefore what they see as promises to Israel must be literally fulfilled. This reasoning, of course, is based on the presupposition of their Israel Church distinction. If the church and Israel ultimately have the same hope in Christ, then the question must be faced. ''Does the Bible teach a separate destiny for Israel apart from the church?" This in turn would have serious implications for the proper interpretation of prophecy.

Further, the question arises whether the ''historical-grammatical'' approach to the Old Testament (as conceived of by dispensationalists) was indeed used by Christ and His apostles. To impose a method that is not in harmony with infallible instructors is surely a dubious course. J. Dwight Pentecost submits that there is no question but that ''the literalism of the Jewish interpreters was identical with present day grammatical-historical interpretation'' (Things To Come, p.19). It would appear to me that this form of literalism present in the first century was rebuked and rejected by Christ (cf. John 2:19-22).

The dispensationalists contend that other methods of interpretation are guilty of ''imposing the New Testament on the Old'' (Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, p.187). However, this offense arises solely because the central presupposition of this system has ruled out the possibility that the promises to the fathers have already been confirmed by Christ (Rom. 15:8). Israel's destiny must be kept separate from that of the church. I will seek to show that dispensationalists are guilty of taking the Old Testament out of the New. For example they assert that the Day of Pentecost was the ''beginning of a new thing in human history, the Church'' (Scofield Bible p.vi). However, on that day Peter said "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.'' But dispensationalists must get around the strength of such assertions in the New Testament: ''the Church, corporately, is not in the vision of the Old Testament prophet [Joel]" (Scofield Bible, p.711: also compare Heb. 2:12 with his note on p.989).

Further, it must be questioned whether dispensationalists are indeed "consistently literal'' in their interpretations. There are sufficient examples to indicate that they are very selective in what is taken literally, and often take figuratively that which is historical. This points to a problem that must be faced honestly by despensationalists: ''What hermeneutical guidelines - apart from the purely subjective - determine what in the historical sections of Scripture can be taken figuratively, and what in the figurative (prophetic/apocalyptic) sections may be taken literally?" It remains for them to explain the Biblical basis for finding the church (topologically) in historical sections of the Old Testament, but ruling out the church in the prophetic sections (cf. Ryrie, Basis of Premillennial Faith, p.43).

3.3 God's Purposes Center in His Glory. It would be superfluous to argue that covenant theology has always maintained that God's purposes center in His own glory. This is not to deny that dispensationalists may claim also to hold to the centrality of God's glory. But it is to deny Ryrie's claim that covenant theology limits God's purposes to the "single purpose of salvation.''

What seems to bother dispensationalists is that covenant theology views God's purpose as primarily soteriological (relating to salvation). This is to be expected because dispensationalists presuppose that "God is pursuing two distinct purposes . . . one related to earth . . . the other is related to heaven" (Chafer). The dispensationalist must produce Biblical evidences that, in light of the universal implications of Adam's fall, God is indeed pursuing any purposes that are not directly related to soteriology. After the fall, all of history was moving toward the fullness of time when the Son would be sent (Gen. 3:15 Gal. 4:4). Even with pointed reference to God's purpose for Israel, was not the manifestation of Messiah to the end that ''He will save His people from their sins,'' and "to you first God. having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you in turning away every one of you from your iniquities" (Acts 3:26). Is this not primarily soteriological? If the Bible is to be regarded as a progressive history of redemption, would this not be a misnomer if from Gen.1:1 to Acts 2 the Bible is ''chiefly concerned" with God's "earthly purpose'' (Scofield Bible, p.vi )?

If what the Bible says about God's pre-temporal counsel is reviewed (1 Pet. 1:19-20 et al.), it appears that the salvation of men from sin by Christ is central. God is now working in a post-lapsarian world, and the fundamental purpose He is pursuing is redemptive, or soteriological.

4. A Biblical Evaluation of the Presuppositions of Dispensationalism.

We will now seek to compare the teachings of Scripture to dispensationalism. The following study is intended to be suggestive. That is, since we cannot go through the entire New Testament, I will set forth crucial representative passages that directly challenge the pillars of the system.

4. I The Gospels: The Kingdom Has Come And Christ Has Begun His Glory By Resurrection.

4.1.a Matt. 11:14 - "And if you will receive it, this is Elijah which was to come."

We have noted before that J. Dwight Pentecost asserted that the "literalism of the Jewish interpreters was identical with present day grammatical-historical interpretation." In this passage it appears that to apply a rigid literalism would produce a wrong fulfillment and contradict these words of Christ. According to dispensationalists a ''literal" fulfillment of Malachi 4:5 would require Elijah the Old Testament prophet to personally come in the flesh (which corresponded with the notions of Jewish interpreters in Christ's day, John 1:21). Thus Scofield posits that Malachi 4:5 will be truly fulfilled just before the coming of Christ, and he sees this delineated in Rev. 11:3-6 (Scofield Bible, p.984). But Jesus and the angel that appeared to Zacharias (Luke 1:13) inform us that this O.T. passage has found its fulfillment in John the Baptist. Fulfillment here took place, not "literally" by the bodily appearance of Elijah, but in him who came "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1: 17). Thus the hyper-literalism of the Jews, and the "literalism" of the dispensationalists is shown to be a questionable methodology in light of the N.T. descriptions of how prophecy may be fulfilled (cf. John 2:18-22).

4.1.b Matt. 16:19 - "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."

Scofield submits that at Matt. 11:28 Jesus initiates a "new message," "not the kingdom, but personal discipleship." Thus when the kingdom is mentioned by Jesus in 16:19, he must of necessity argue that these keys are "not the keys of the church'' (p 1022). But then in 18:15-19 he sees "discipline in the future church (p.1024). Thus Jesus clearly connects the keys of the kingdom, the church, and the authority to bind and loose in discipline. Dispensationalists, however, must disjoin the kingdom from the church because of their two-purposes theory.

4.1.c Matt. 21:43 - "The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth its fruits."

Ryrie asserts that this passage "conclusively" demonstrates that Israel is to be restored in the future (Basis of Premillennial Faith, p.72). The word "nation," he says, ''in its strict interpretation . . . refers to the nation Israel when she shall turn to the Lord and be saved before entering the millennial kingdom'' (p.71). Yet the context, especially v.41 at the conclusion of the parable, suggests that the householder (God) punishes the wicked husbandmen (Israel), and gives out the vineyard (the kingdom) to others (Gentiles). This indeed occurred when the Jews killed the heir (v.38). After they rejected their lowly Messiah, the gospel of their exalted Messiah came to them first, and this they also reject. Paul summarizes the fulfillment of v.43 by saying, "since you have judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46). It is difficult to understand how Dr. Ryrie can so ''conclusively'' find Israel's future restoration in this passage, when the natural interpretation would point to the fact that Israel's stewardship of the kingdom was judicially ended, and the "times of the Gentiles" were to begin.

4.1.d John 6:15 - "When Jesus perceived that they would come and take him by force to make him king, he departed again by himself to a mountain."

Walvoord suggests that if the amillennialist is right, then there should have been "extensive correction" of the prevailing idea among the Jews that an earthly Kingdom was their Messianic prospect. This will be further examined in Acts, but in the Gospels there was correction of the prevailing misguided earthly prospects among the Jews. This correction, however, is not structured so much by Jesus and the apostles as a polemic attack, but rather as a positive exposition of the nature and subjects of the kingdom of God.

If, as the dispensationalists contend, Jesus came to offer an earthly Messianic kingdom, why did He not at this point in John 6 accept this Jewish desire to make Him king? The Jews had in v.14 just acknowledged "this is truly that prophet that should come into the world." Would this not have been an opportune time for their kingdom to be established? Interestingly, neither Scofield nor Chafer offers any explanation of this crucial passage.

In John 18:36, it seems hard to reconcile the idea of an earthly kingdom with Jesus' words. Jesus was being delivered up because He did not fit into the "prevailing idea among the Jews." According to dispensationalists and the Jewish interpreters, Jesus' kingdom must be ''of this world."

4.1.c Luke 24:26 - "O fools and slow of heart to believe all the prophets have spoken: ought not the Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?"

The dispensationalists is forced to play down the present kingly office of Christ. If Christ has not yet fulfilled the covenant promises concerning David's throne, the essence of His kingship is still future (Scofield. ''The Doctrine of 'Last Things' in the Prophets," The Coming and Kingdom, p.42). Thus in the seven ''mystery'' parables of Matt. 13, Scofield says:

Our Lord explained that the advent to suffer, and the advent to reign, are separated in the divine purpose, already nineteen centuries long .... Our Lord bridged the space between His advent to suffer and His advent to reign with these seven mysteries (''The Doctrine of 'Last Things' in the Gospels," The Coming and Kingdom, p. 116; 'The Doctrine of 'Last Things in the Epistles and Revelation," Ibid., p. 175).

Yet the note of Luke 24:26 is one of triumph. What solace would Christ's future glory be to these disciples? On that road they met the risen, triumphant Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:4). They had already witnessed His sufferings and were downcast. The point of Christ's words to them was to show that the suffering was finished, and that He was now in a position of glory. To believe that ''a period of time is to intervene between His suffering and His glory'' (Scofield) is a terrible misrepresentation of our Lord's ministry. Dispensationalists are guilty of separating what God has joined together. The promise to David was that God "would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, he seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ" (Acts 2:30-31).

The neglect of Christ's present kingship by dispensationalists has serious implications for the Christian life. The Christian cannot, in this scheme, regard Jesus as King in the fullest sense, for this would imply that the Davidic promises were being fulfilled. This dispensational de-emphasis of kingship no doubt accounts for Dr. Ryrie's disdain of "Lordship preachers" in his Balancing the Christian Life.

4.2. The Acts: The Hope of the Jews Has Come And Is Preached By The Apostles.

4.2.a Acts 10:.34-43 - "The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching grace by Jesus Christ . . . that word was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism that John preached."

In this context Peter is preaching the gospel of "repentance and remission of sins" to Gentiles (Luke 24:47). This word, however, had its beginning when it first went to the Jews. This word began in the public ministry of Jesus after John's baptism. Thus this passage clearly reveals a continuity between the message that started with Jesus' preaching and the message given to Cornelius and his house.

This one gospel is called "the kingdom of God": "the law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and ever man presses into it" (Luke 16:16). Paul was separated unto the "gospel of God" which was promised in the Old Testament (Rom. 1:2). But this message did not start with Paul, for in Mark 1:14 we read that "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God."

This context dispels the dispensationalist claim that the "kingdom" Jesus preached is different than that of the apostles. The "kingdom'' offered to the Jews, they say, was an earthly Davidic kingdom. This was rejected, and a "new message'' began. Thus God's earthly purposes are interrupted, and a heavenly parenthesis was inserted. After the ''rapture'' of the church, the "postponed'' Davidic kingdom is set up. Peter, on the other hand, saw no radical disjunction between the ''word'' which began with Jesus and what he was preaching to Cornelius.

4.2.b Acts 13:32-34 - ''And we declare glad tidings, how that the promise which was made to the fathers, God fulfilled the same to their children, in that He raised up Jesus again .... And as concerning that He raised him up from the dead . . . He said in this manner, 'I will give you the sure mercies of David.'"

As we have seen, dispensationalists teach that Israel's real fulfillment lies in the future when the alleged unfulfilled promises are confirmed after the ''rapture'' of the church. But v.32 points out that the "hope of Israel" has already been accomplished in the resurrection. Further, the resurrection is said to be a fulfillment of the "sure mercies of David." It is on the basis of this recently accomplished promise that the Jews are commanded to repent and believe the gospel. God's dealings with Israel have not been "postponed." He has at this time fulfilled the promise "to the fathers for us their children." It is only in utter disregard for a clear text like this that H. A. Ironside can blindly assert:

The moment Messiah died on the cross, the prophetic clock stopped. There has not been a tick upon that clock for nineteen centuries. It will not begin again until the entire present age has come to an end (The Great Parenthesis, p.23).

4.2.c Acts 24:5,14-15 - ''But I confess that I worship the God of my fathers, according to the way which they call heresy, believing all things written in the law and the prophets."

Jews were accusing Paul of being an apostate Israelite. But Paul confounds them by asserting the closest continuity between his life as a Christian and the Jewish hope. Paul worships the same God, holds to the same canonical books, and cherishes the same hope of resurrection as the Jews.

This simply cannot be allowed in the dispensationalist scheme. There must be great discontinuity between Israel and the church. L. S. Chafer strongly asserts this discontinuity:

A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows after: but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation (Systematic Theology, Vol. . IV, p.41)

But Paul asserts that there is a direct relationship between the church age and the O.T. hopes and aspirations.

4.2.d Acts 28:17, 20, 23 - "For the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain . . ."

What is this "hope" for which Paul was bound? "The only hope answering to the description, as an ancient, national, and still intense one, is the hope of the Messiah'' (J. A. Alexander, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, II, p. 412; cf. Acts 26:6-7). Thus it was Paul's "Messianic doctrine that had caused the breach between him and his countrymen" (Ibid., p. 486).

There is nothing to suggest in Paul's testimonies that the "hope" of Israel is future, except with respect to the resurrection (24:15) which has just been fulfilled by Christ in the recent past (26:23). The hope of future resurrection is based on the accomplished resurrection of Christ. Paul's point is that the "hope" of Israel has come. On this foundation he proclaimed from the O.T. Scriptures "that Christ should suffer and that he should be the first to rise from the dead, and should show light to the Gentiles" (26:22-23). Since their "hope" had come it was Paul's intense desire to see Israel "saved" (Rom. 10:1) and "converted" by the gospel (Acts 28:27).

But dispensationalists claim that the essence of Israel's hope is still future. They still await a land, a throne, a king, and a kingdom (Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol.. IV, p . 7) . Was Paul accused of the Jews because he taught such future "hopes" for Israel?

Further, in light of the dispensationalist's claim that the Jews have different promises and a divergent destiny than the church, how can this be reconciled with Paul's claim that his hope and Israel's are one and the same? It would be to the dispensationalist a contradiction par excellence for a Christian to be jailed for believing a Jewish hope. Yet this was why Paul was in chains.

4.3 The Pauline Epistles: The Purposes of God For Israel, Gentiles and the Entire Creation Center in the Church.

4.3.a Rom. 8:19-24 - "For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God . . . the adoption, the redemption of our body..."

Ryrie states that "the goal of history is the earthly millennium . . . this millennial culmination is the climax of history and the great goal of God's program for the ages" (Dispensationalism Today, pp. 18, 104). But these texts assert that the goal for which the creation awaits is not a millennium but the "adoption, the redemption of our body." Thus the entire creation is groaning for the consummation of the church, that is, the glorification of the saints. Notice that deliverance from corruption (the curse) is coterminous with the glorious liberty of the saints. How, then, can the goal of the creation be an "earthly millennium" which is, according to dispensationalists, essentially Jewish?

4.3.b Rom. 10:1, 12-15; 11:14ff. - "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek . . . . How then shall they hear without a preacher? . . . . If by any means I may provoke them who are my flesh and might save some of them."

Many things are disclosed in this context relevant to dispensationalism. Here however, we simply would note there is no hope for Israel apart from the gospel of free grace which is proclaimed in this age by the church. There may well be an ingathering of Jews after "the times of the Gentiles." But when and if this happens Israel will be ''saved'' and joined to the body of Christ by faith in the gospel.

4.3.c Eph. 2:11-19 - "You were Gentiles in the flesh . . . being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise . . . Now therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners."

"In this passage" says Ryrie, "Gentiles are expressly said to be excluded from the blessings peculiar to Israel" (Basis of Premillennial Faith, p 64). However, nothing could be more obviously contrary to what Paul says. The apostle clearly says that Gentiles were "aliens and strangers." But Paul also says, "but now . . . you are made near by the blood of Christ." The question Ryrie avoids is: What are the Gentiles now made "near" to? The answer is clear. they were far away from Israel and the covenants. Now, by Christ's work, they are near to both of these. Jesus' work has made Jew and Gentile one new mad, by breaking down "the middle wall of partition."

Dispensationalists must resurrect the barrier between Jew and Gentile after the rapture," when the earthly purpose starts again. But the history of redemption is an organic continuity, not two disjointed purposes (Rom. 11:17, 23).

4.4 Hebrews: the Jewish economy - With Its Prophetic Word, Priestly Ritual, and Kingly Rule - Was Never Intended To Be A Separate Earthly Purpose.

4.4.a Heb. 3:5 - "And Moses truly was faithful . . . as a servant, for a witness of those things which were to be spoken after."

Dispensationalism has made the error of eternalizing a national entity which was intended to be a temporary and preparatory economy. The writer here says that the Mosiac economy was a witness to future gospel realities. The documents of the O.T. were primarily written for us in this age (1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 1:9-12).

4.4.b Heb. 8:5 - "Who serve as an example and shadow of heavenly things. . ."

Darby felt that the Jews had an "earthly religion." But this text informs us that even the earthly elements of Israel's ceremonies were but types and shadows of heavenly things. This points out the basic weakness of dispensationalism. It has designated Israel as an "earthly purpose," when in fact all its history and institutions pointed to the heavens. This text also reveals that the whole economy was preparatory, and awaited some future fulfillment. This fulfillment has come. This is seen clearly in the fact that the entire national system has been "abolishes" (2 Cor. 3:13). that it should be resurrected again after the "rapture" of the church is to contradict the clearness of Scripture.

4.4.c Heb. 11:10, 13-16, 26, 35, 40 - "For he looked for a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God . . . These . . . confessed that they were pilgrims and strangers on the earth . . . But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly."

Darby said, "If I want an earthly religion, I ought to be a Jew" (Hopes of the church of God, p. 159). But we have already seen that the earthly accouterments of the Mosaic system were heavenly oriented. In Heb. 11 we see that the people who lived by faith were related to heaven and not earth.

In vv. 13-16, the writer tells us that the O.T. saints were not led to confess a hope in a great earthly kingdom. Rather, they were pilgrims and strangers on the earth. Does this not parallel the church's confession (1 Pet. 2:11)? Were not their affections ultimately set on "better" things above, namely, a "heavenly" city?

The Book of Hebrews levels to the ground the false conception and crucial starting point of dispensationalism, that God has two purposes, one earthly and one heavenly. All that was ever connected to Israel's history and institutions was, in the final analysis, directed toward heaven (Christ), not earth.

The ruling presupposition of dispensationalism has failed to pass the test of scripture; therefore, its superstructure has no Biblical foundation.

5. Specific Interaction with Dr. Ryrie's The Basis of the Premillenail Faith

This book is a representative presentation of contemporary dispensationalism. Before his death in 1952, Dr. L.S. Chafer said in the "foreword" of this book that in many areas Dr. Ryrie "has given a true and final word." By interacting with this work, we can further evaluate the presuppositions of dispensationalism.

5.1 Dispensationalism's "Basis In History" (p. 17ff.). Dr. Ryrie claims that dispensational premillennialism "is the historic faith of the Church" (p. 12). While it is true that premillennialism can be found in the early church fathers, Dr. Ryrie fails to point out a significant and major difference between his dispensational form of it, and the earlier manifestation of it. No one prior to the 1830s ever posited the radical discontinuity of God's purpose for Israel and the church that undergirds dispensationalism. Dr. Ryrie asserts that "certain refinements may be of recent origin" (p. 33). But this is very misleading. No form of premillennialism prior to the 1830s was ever based on the notion that God had two different purposes in history. There are indeed major differences between what is generally called "historic premillennialism" and "dispensational premillennialism." "Historic premillennialism" believes that the conversion of Israel will result in their association with "Christian churches" (John Gill, Body of Divinity, Book IV, p. 641). "Dispensational premillennialism" believes that the church has "promises and a destiny different than Israel's" (p. 12). That which is the sine qua non of dispensationalism - two separate purposes - is foreign to pre-1830 premillennialism.

5.2 Dispensationalism's "Basis In Hermeneutics" (p. 34ff.). Dr. Ryrie rightly observes that the arena of hermeneutics is "determinative in the controversy" (p. 35). He believes that a proper hermeneutical approach will lead to dispensationalism (p. 47). Here, I will just focus on his idea that the Scriptures must be interpreted "literally" (p. 38).

He insists that other positions "spiritualize" Scriptures, and he equates this with the "allegorical" method of interpretation (p. 46). He concludes that any method of interpretation but his "fosters modernism," and that "the allegorical method of amillennialism is a step toward modernism" (p. 46).

I suggest that he falsely accuses amillennialists of employing "allegory." The N.T. reveals that an O.T. passage can be fulfilled historically, but yet not be a one-for-one literal fulfillment (cf. 4.1a above). In other words, Dr. Ryrie's approach utterly fails to consider how the N.T. specifically states that certain prophecies have been fulfilled (cf. 3.2 above; and R. L. Whitelaw, The gospel Millennium and Obedience to Scriptures, pp. 6-7). His demand for "literalness" contradicts Christ and His apostles, and parallels the mistaken wooden literalism of the Jewish interpreters.

Further, the N.T. quotes passages from the O.T. which are specifically addressed to Israel, and yet are applied to the church as a whole (Rom. 9:24-26; Heb. 8:8, 10:16; 1 Pet. 1:16, 2:9-10; cf. H. Hoyt, The First Christian Theology, p. 106). The O.T. was primarily written for us, upon whom the end of the ages has come. But dispensationalists have ruled this perspective out by insisting that most of what is in the O.T. relates to a future earthly purpose for national Israel.

5.3 Dispensationalism's "Basis In the New Covenant" (p. 105ff.). Their presuppositions rule out the possibility that the New Covenant enacted by Christ has exclusive reference to the church age. Therefore they must posit either that there are two new covenants, or that the one new covenant has two different aspects (p. 107). So Ryrie says, "the new covenant with Israel is yet to be fulfilled" (p. 106). Since Jer. 31:31 says "house of Israel," Ryrie teaches that the new covenant proper "is for the Jewish people" (p. 108), and is millennial" (p. 111). The N.T., however, reveals that one new covenant has been sealed by Christ's blood, in order that Jew and Gentile might be joined in the one body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:25).

5.4 Dispensationalism's "Basis In Ecclesiology" (p. 126ff.). Believing that "the church is not a subject of O.T. prophecy" (p. 126), Dr. Ryrie posits that the body of Christ must be "raptured" before God's earthly purpose with Israel can be resumed. He argues, "of what comfort would the hope of the rapture be if the church is to pass through the tribulation if that time is as terrible as it is described to be?" (p. 133). Dispensationalists have a real problem with the church going through "tribulation," as if it is opposed to the fact that God has not "appointed us to wrath" (1 Thess. 5:9). "Surely," they say, "God would not allow the church to go through the tribulation." However, the N.T. teaches that, following the pattern of our Lord, saints pass through suffering (tribulation) in this age, and then enter into glory (Luke 24:26; John 16:33; Rom. 8:17; acts 14:22; 1 Thess. 3:3; 2 Thess. 1:4-10; 1 Pet. 2:21). The second coming is of tremendous consolation to believers, for it will result in (1) glorification for the saints (2 Thess. 1:10); and (2) judgment on those who afflicted the saints (2 Thess. 1:6-7).

5.5 Dispensationalism's "Basis In Eschatology" (p. 139ff.). After the "rapture," says Ryrie, "the Holy Spirit, though withdrawn in a special way . . . will nevertheless have a ministry in the world during the tribulation much the same as He had in O.T. times" (p. 142). after the "tribulation," he continues, "the temple is to be rebuilt" and "the sacrificial system reestablished . . . animal sacrifices will be offered in the millennium" (pp. 151, 153). So, minus the church (to whom the Great Commission was given), and minus the Spirit (for the most part), "the greatest period of evangelism in the history of the world" will take place (Herman A Hoyt, The First Christian Theology - Studies in Romans [Baker, 1977], p. 126). People who take the Scriptures seriously ought to think long and hard about embracing such ludicrous and strange ideas.