Dispensionalism and its critic
Dispensationalism is discussed and may be very confusing for the reader to understand. Here are some small points of criticism of Dispensionalism.
It is hard to criticize Dispensionalism because of its great variety, but I will try to keep it sharp and also include aspects from “Left Behind”.
Literal understanding
It is argued that this approach will use the Bible literally which is basically good, but such an approach would not reflect the literature of the Bible in each case.
There is poetic literature such as the Song of Songs. If you took everything literally, Sulamith would look like that. There are several other places, where it is unlikely that this is meant literally.
Furthermore, Dispensationalists are inconsistent in their application of this principle. They agree that the beast will not have seven heads and ten horns. Even Gog and Magog are mentioned with the reference to God destroying the bow and arrows, these are interpreted as aircrafts and missiles.
Lack of literature understanding
The theory does not take into account the nature of the literature: An apocalyptic, prophetic “ set “ of letters. It interprets it as a description of history.
No relevance for the original readers
The theory makes no sense to the original readers. The argument that it is about things in the future does not count because the book of Daniel also looks far into the future, but that book was sealed (until the time was ready), but this is not the case with Revelation.
Context based
The theory often makes claims without explanation, or uses an arsenal of Bible verses that are not considered in their context.
The main 2000 year delay in the prophecy of the 70 years depends on a very specific reading, even punctuation, of this verse that is supported only in the King James translations.
Prediction of the future
This interpretation is very often used to claim that some specific element of current politics is predicted in the book of Revelation, or even that the path of history up to the present day was laid out in the book.
There are several flaws in this approach:
- God’s detailed plan is not fixed even when proclaimed by prophets, see the story of Jonah or Hesekiah.
- As a prophetic book, the intention is not to predict, but to describe (possible) consequences and to encourage people to act so that these things don’t happen.
- There have been so many “fits” with historical events that were so convincing, but all of them have been revised as time has gone on, so the amount of all these fitting predictions is the best argument against it. 😎
- The prediction is often done with a special tunnel view, e.g. the seven letters to the churches are seen as 7 epochs of the church and we are now living in the last era of Laodicea, the lukewarm church. This may be an interpretation of some Western churches, but it would be a very wrong view of the many churches that are now in tribulation.
No rapture
The third temple
The theory speaks of a new temple being built in Jerusalem, based on the fact that the temple is given to the Gentiles in Revelation. Since there is no temple as a building right now existing, it must be built. This interpretation does not take into account that the temple is not necessarily a building but a description of the presence of God.
Therefore, there is statement that a new temple building will be erected.
The tribulation
The church and Israel
The theory places the church as an intermediate construct between the Old Testament and the 1000 year kingdom due to the “dispensations”: After the time of the church, the covenant with Israel will be restored and ethnic Israel will rule over the world. The church is raptured at this time because the term “church” does not exist after chapter 3 and does not appear until chapter 21.
There are several things wrong with this. But before I get to those, I want to acknowledge that this view is a good counterpart to the theory that God rejected Israel, which gave the church the excuse to persecute the Jews in the Middle Ages.
So what is wrong?
- The church is identified with Israel in the sense that the church has become the fulfillment of Israel’s original calling and the church is part of Israel.
- There is no longer a wall/distinction between Israel and the Gentiles.
- It is not the church that is temporal but the covenant at Sinai, while faith in Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham.
- The church does not disappear because the term disappears.
- If all Israel will rule what is about the people who do not believe in God at all — and this was even better in the Old Testament, where there were no atheists ;-).
The most important things
The most important things in the theory are the rapture and the tribulation, both of which are mentioned once. Other topics, which occur much more frequently and are the content of the book, are neglected.
The reason for faith
The reason for faith in this theory is fear — if you do not believe, you will not be part of the rapture and will be left behind. Fear is not a trait of the church but, of the beast. Furthermore, faith is reduced to being saved, not becoming like Christ, loving your neighbor, or influencing society.
The weapons of warfare
Faith is described in a very militaristic way, joining the army, which is not a reflection of Revelation: Jesus goes to war alone with the sword of his mouth. This is a very symbolic act and does not imply a violent act of war.
Is wrongly political
The theory makes statements about politics that are unsupported by the Bible and even contradictory:
- It is anti-Catholic.
- It is uncritically pro-American and pro-Israel (note: the Old Testament was very critical of Israel).
- It sees the war in the Middle East as part of God’s plan and therefore a good thing.