Keep sharing good news without ads.
The Eschatology of Dispensationalism Sunday School Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
The topic today is the eschatology of dispensationalism, which is really part of it, what it's obsessed.
With.
Unlike other kind of theologies, usually more about salvation or, you know, you talk about Calvinism, usually people think about the approach to salvation. Dispensationalism is most focused on the end times, right?
That's what eschatology means, the end times. We need to ask ourselves, what end times doctrines are essential? What things do you have to believe about the end times to be a member of this church? Dispensationalism often is just a lot of things you have to believe, all their things, these are important things, these are vital things, and they'll, you know, evaluate you by them.
What about for us? What are the essentials that we, from the beginning, we've said that you have to believe? And this is, again, copied from the new members class. There has been divisiveness about the end times, and prior to the rise of dispensationalism, I don't see that Christians did divide over it.
It seems to me this divisiveness has come because of dispensationalism. Even some of the terms, in fact, I just learned this week, the term amillennialism didn't even begin until the early 20th century, and that was probably in response to, responding to dispensationalism saying, no, we don't really believe that, we believe in something else.
So they began to clarify their own doctrine in contrast to the push from them. Dispensationalism comes from John Nelson Darby who lived from 1800 to 1882. He was an Anglo-Irish. He was, in other words, he belonged to the Anglican church, but from Ireland.
He's a Bible teacher. He's one of the most influential figures. He helped found the Plymouth Brethren Church. He is a member, he is considered to be the father of modern dispensationalism and what's called futurism.
That means, in particular, interpreting the book of Revelation as though it's entirely about the future, looking for the future, except for the first three chapters, of course,.
The letters of the church.
It's about the future. Some people think, just assume that, well, that's the way it is supposed to be. Well, in church history, there have been other interpretations of it. And because of Darby, though, he now interpreted it as though it's all about the future.
You remember what the essential doctrine is about the end times? Christ returned. Christ will return. So that only makes, there's a point of view called preterism, that all of the prophecy, the end time stuff about the, in the Bible, particularly in Matthew 24 and 25, where Jesus is, what's called the Olivet Discourse, Jesus teaching the end times, that all of that has been fulfilled in the past, particularly in A .D. 70.
All of it, including Jesus' return. Jesus did return then. You just had to see it symbolically. No, that's excluded. Even the resurrection, and I don't know the reference, somewhere in the epistles, Paul talks about some men who are condemned because they believe the resurrection has happened already.
He says that's a false doctrine. So if you go all out for preterism, really, no, you can't have that. That's wrong. Christ is still going to return. Some things are still our future. Resurrection is still future, and there is a judgment still future.
Views on the end times, very quickly, there is the view of premillennialism, which begins with a literal reading of Revelation chapter 20, verse 4. Let me read it for you. It says, then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom authority to judge was committed.
I also saw souls, the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshipped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.
They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. So there is the mention of the thousand years, as in this is the only place it occurs. But premillennialism begins with the belief that this is going to happen in the future.
There will be a reign of Christ on earth for a literal thousand years, or maybe they would say, well, okay, Revelation, there's a lot of symbolic numbers. Maybe the thousand years is symbolic for a very long time.
Some would say that. It will reign for a long time, premillennialism. Either way, you have what they call the church age. I dislike that term, but it's on the chart. Church age, and then there's a great apostasy, there's a tribulation, which may or may not be seven years.
They wouldn't be all so picky about the definite number of years at different times. And then Christ returns, and then there's a millennium, there's a rebellion at the end, and then eternity, right? That's premillennialism.
Premillennialists believe that there are promises in the Bible that can only be fulfilled literally on earth before the glorification of the new heaven and the new earth. The lion will lay down with the lamb.
Is that literal?
That happened.
Yeah.
Anyway, the millennial reign of Jesus should occur literally on earth. Leaders in church history who have believed in premillennialism include, from very early church, Justin Martyr, a man named Irenaeus, a prominent leader, Tertullian, a prominent early theologian, and much later in church history, in the 19th century, Charles Spurgeon, although he knows this note somewhat about him, that he never felt able to endorse any of the specific premillennial positions than current.
Spurgeon didn't talk a whole lot about the end times. But here's Irenaeus. He is an early premillennialist, from 130 to about the year 200. But here's Justin Martyr. Okay, so these men would believe in premillennialism, that they believe the scripture taught that.
But notice Justin Martyr, another early church leader. He said, I and many others are of this opinion, of premillennialism. We believe this, and believe that such will take place, that there will be, Jesus will return, bring a millennial reign on earth, as you are assuredly are aware.
But on the other hand, he's writing to someone, I signify to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. So from the early church, although he said, I'm premillennial, and many of us are, other true Christians are not, okay, from the early church.
So number two, premillennialism teaches that Jesus will reign on earth for a thousand years, or a very long time, because Revelation chapter 20, verse 4 must be interpreted, literally. Then there's the view of postmillennialism, which literally means that Christ comes after the millennium.
And notice this quote from Daniel chapter 7, and he gave them dominion and was the honor and the kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him. That picture of the Son of Man coming in Daniel 7.
Now, the biblical support they would find for that, they wouldn't go so much to Revelation 20, obviously there's a reign for a very long time, but they would look at the parables of the kingdom growth, like yeast, remember Jesus said, kingdom of God, it's just like yeast, put it in the dough and it'll leaven the whole thing, or a mustard seed starts out very small.
And remember George Ladd, when we went through the kingdom of God series, he said, well, that just has to do with the way it begins, it begins mysteriously, it wasn't the way that the Jews of Jesus's time thought it would be, it came in a different form, a small form, it looks insignificant at first.
He says it's not necessarily mean it will grow progressively, of course, postmillennialists would disagree, they'd say, okay, sure, it begins in a different form, but it will continue to grow and ferment the whole, the lump being the world, the culture.
And for example, also in Daniel chapter 2, verse 44, Daniel sees this vision, remember the statue and different parts of it are different kingdoms. And then comes this, what do you call it, a meteor or a meteorite or some stone comes and smashes the statue.
And then the stone grows, that's kind of odd picture, right? Because stones don't usually grow, but it grows to fill the whole earth. And so that postmillennialist would say, see, kingdom of God comes in Jesus's time, smashes the time, the time of that last kingdom, which is the Roman empire, the feet of iron, smashes them and then fills the earth, continues to grow.
Or Psalm 72, Psalm 72 says, we learn of Christ's ruling from the river, which is the Euphrates, to the end of the earth, otherwise he'll rule the whole earth. And we learn that this will occur before the final conflagration.
So they say the final judgment, 2 Peter chapter 3, and that produces the new heavens and the new earth because he will reign till the moon is no more. By the way, does that sound anything like a hymn we sing?
Jesus shall reign, Isaac Watts. Almost certainly he was, he meant that in a postmillennial way. You didn't know we were singing a postmillennial hymn when we sang that, did you? I don't mind. But postmillennialism believes that during the last days, which is the entire time from after the cross to when he comes, returns.
In the last days, we will witness many people streaming into the kingdom of God where they will be taught God's ways, like from Isaiah chapter 2. I believe it's also repeated in Micah, isn't it? In that day, the mountain of the house of the Lord shall become the highest of all mountains.
That's what it says in Isaiah 2. And peoples will, all nations will stream to it. And now you remember the dispensationalist says, we take it literally. So does that mean literally Mount Zion, where the temple was, which is really just a hill, not that high.
Is it going to be taller than Mount Everest? Is that what it means? It's going to be the highest of all mountains, it says in Isaiah, literally. Is it going to be the highest? Highest meaning, I think, Isaiah and Micah mean, the most prominent, the most glorious, the most significant, the most important.
And peoples will, all nations will stream to it, which is what is happening right now. People all nations, American, Mexican, Chinese, are flowing into, not a mountain, into what the book of Hebrews says is the mountain of the Lord, which is what?
The church.
So it's being fulfilled. There's a chart of post-millennialism. So you have Christ's first coming. He brings in the kingdom of God. And then there's the millennium is a symbolic way of speaking of this whole time when he is reigning.
And they would say, they would say revelation is apocalyptic literature. It puts things a very colorful ways and it kind of only looks at one thing at one time. So it's looking at the reign of Christ and it focuses on that.
He will reign. And then at other times, the, the rebellion of the world, and then it focuses on that. So that's the way they would interpret that. So the kingdom of God continues to grow. And then there's a final resurrection and judgment at the end of Christ's second coming and leaders who bleed in post-millennialism, maybe John Calvin, but in those days they didn't particularly define themselves very clearly.
The subway declaration, which is Puritan, I believe that's the congregational one, congregational church government. The Puritans, many of the Puritans did probably like Isaac Watts, John Owen, maybe Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, later Presbyterian, 19th century theologian.
Here's just a quote by John Calvin, not necessarily on post-millennialism, but here's what he said about pre-millennialism. He said, it's a fiction, pre-millennialism is, that is too childish either to need or be worth a refutation.
That's what he says. He would be surprised at how prominent it is now. Number three, post-millennialism believes that the gospel will continue to grow or expand. It's the word I chose, but grow is fine.
Convert people and transform the culture. So it's, it's pretty optimistic, which, you know, maybe by my personality and, but also by a little knowledge of history, I have a little problem believing some of that.
It doesn't seem like we've grown from a few hundred years ago, at least, anyway. Now next is amillennialism. Like post-millennialism, it's like that in a way, it's similar. The millennium of Revelation chapter 20, verse 4 is symbolic for the time of the kingdom growth begun by Christ, right?
So it's, in other words, right now we're in the millennium, they would say, because Christ is reigning, they'd say that he is reigning now. And like pre-millennialism, it allows for a great apostasy, that things could get worse.
And it would also allow, you know, for ongoing resistance, for continuing, maybe for times of decline in the church. Maybe things will get worse for the church at the end. It's not necessarily optimistic.
It's kind of mysterious and Jesus could come back at any time. Doesn't have to, because you're post-millennialist, he can't, he's not going to return yet, is.
He?
There's still a lot of nations to be evangelized. There's still, you know, our particular, our culture is in shambles, you know, we're not exactly, the kingdom of God doesn't look like it's on the verge of triumphing everywhere.
Now.
So, you know, if you have to have, if you have to believe that Jesus could return at any time, you can't really, that doesn't really square with post-millennialism, does it? He's got to wait until he's, he's real successful.
Where in Amillennialism, he could, he could return at any time. Again like post-millennialism, when Jesus comes, like initiates, he brings in the kingdom of God and Satan is bound. And you remember that passage in Revelations, that Satan is bound for the thousand years and they would, they would look then, both Amillennialists and post-millennialists would say, look, in Revelations, Satan is bound and Jesus said, remember, the strong man, me, no, the strong man is Satan, the strong man's house is not, can't be robbed, can't take anything from his house, unless someone stronger than he comes in and binds him.
And Jesus said that as a way of explaining how he is doing what he is doing, he is bound the strong man. So they would say that's the same thing. The strong man is bound now and that's why the kingdom of God is spreading.
People are being evangelized while the gospel is growing. So during this time, Christ reigns through the church, Christ reigns from heaven, and the church is still, can still be persecuted by the unsaved, maybe, and have even times of apostasy, maybe even worse near the end, and at the end there'll be a resurrection and then the judgment and then eternity begins.
That's Amillennialism. Christ reign and the heavenly reign, Christ reign is the heavenly reign that he spoke of in Matthew chapter 28, verse 18, remember, all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me.
Now there's a verse in John chapter 13, we'll be looking at it later today, where he talks about him having all authority. The millennium is a figure of speech for a long period of time, they would say, and there's one resurrection, that would just be true of the dispensationalists, it's a resurrection at the rapture and then there's a later resurrection later on, they would say that.
That's just the dispensationalists. Leaders who believed in Amillennialism would include Epistle of Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, so these are some early church leaders, Augustine, very prominent, very important, and of course, some would say the Protestant Reformers, so there's a question whether you put Calvin with the Postmillennialists or with the Amillennialists, it's hard to tell.
They didn't really define themselves so clearly, but Amillennialism teaches the gospel will continue to spread with resistance and persecution until Jesus returns, and he can return at any time. So the conclusion is, prior to the rise of dispensationalism, Christians did not seem to divide over end times theories, after a while they became very critical of pre-millennialists, there was no one dogmatic end times doctrine, and the result is that we emphasize what is clear, this is Christ's return, the resurrection, and the judgment, so number five, the church did not settle on one dogmatic doctrine of eschatology, the fancy word, so there was freedom as long as believers held to the essentials.
Now we get to the eschatology of dispensationalism, it has several distinctives, one it is a type of pre-millennialism, sometimes some pre-millennialists call themselves historic pre-millennialists, or traditional pre-millennialists, like George Ladd, but they're not dispensational, but to be dispensational you have to be pre-millennialist.
It generally holds to a pre-tribulation rapture, there's a few exceptions, but mostly a pre-tribulation rapture, it's not an eschatology built on theology, but a theology built on eschatology. Most other, I think the reason why before dispensationalism Christian leaders didn't divide and debate so much over end times is because first they started with their theology, about doctrines of God, about man, you know, depravity, about Christ, about salvation, and those are the definitive ones, and once they got those down, the eschatology sort of took care of itself.
With dispensationalism they kind of start with the eschatology and they defend that at all costs, and then they'll build their theology on top of what preserves their end times doctrine, their eschatology.
So it's a type of pre-millennialism, you have a church age, and a tribulation which is generally a literal seven years, which is to say before the tribulation, a rapture, church is taken up before the tribulation, and then tribulation for seven years, Christ returns again, second return, and then the millennium, which Jesus rules liberally from Jerusalem at the end of the millennium eternity.
And the eschatology of dispensationalism, there's a rapture of believers when Jesus Christ secretly returns to the earth before the seven year tribulation period, before it begins, which they sometimes reference as what they call the 70th week of Daniel in Daniel chapter 9.
Believers do not experience the persecution of the antichrist, who rises to prominence during the tribulation period. Leaders who believe in the pre-tribulation rapture, there they are, that's all of them.
The early church history, there's none, because the doctrine didn't come about until the 19th century. No one for 1 ,830 years or so, looking at scripture, no one found this, if it's really.
There.
That's kind of mysterious, isn't it? Again, the key to that is the pre-tribulation rapture, it's one of the novelties that came about, first taught prominently, at least by John Nelson Darby. There's some question whether he got it from a prophetess from the Catholic Apostolic Church, but that's not proven, but it's possible.
Anyway, for pre-tribulation rapture, they would defend it by saying the Bible describes the rapture and the second coming as different events. And so for pre-tribulation rapture, they look at several scriptures here.
I got this right off a pre-tribulation rapture website. These are the scriptures, to be fair to them, that they say teach pre-tribulation rapture. One is John 14, verses 1 to 4, let not your heart be troubled, believe in God, believe also in me.
In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself that where I am, you may be also, and you know the way to where I am going.
Okay, I see the second coming in there. Where's the pre-tribulation rapture part? I don't see that. Next one, 1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 53, behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, means die, but we will all be changed, resurrected in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet, for the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
Okay, I see the second coming in there. I see going to meet the Lord, resurrected, looks like it happens at the same time Jesus returns. And notice, by the way, in this passage, it happens at the last trumpet.
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, which is actually, they use this as a pre-tribulation rapture scripture, but it's kind of, it doesn't really work, because if the rapture happens at the last trumpet, then what about all those trumpets in Revelation you read about, the seven trumpets?
And the argument for that, I guess I went to run convoluted argument, well, the last of that series of trumpets, the last trumpet, the last meant the last one at this feast, the feast of trumpets, and so when that particular trumpet is blown, that last one, that's when the rapture is.
The ones that come after that are not last trumpets, they're just after the last trumpet. Well, you're not, you're not interpreting scripture, what happened to literal? Last means last, in literal interpretation, doesn't it?
So if the rapture happens at the last trumpet, there can't be any more trumpets after that one, if you're being literal. Next scripture, 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, verse 14, for since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, that sounds like the other passages, doesn't it? Was there, said it was the last trumpet.
And the dead in Christ will rise first, okay, there's the resurrection, then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, what they call the rapture, to meet the Lord in the air, okay, there it is, it's at the same time as the last trumpet, it's at the same time Christ comes, and so we will ever be with the Lord.
Wherefore comfort one another with these words. Okay, I see the second coming, I see the resurrection, I don't see coming to meet the Lord in the air, I don't see how it's separate from the second coming, I don't see that it comes before.
Where's the pre-tribulation rapture part? I remember I was teaching in Ethiopia, a class on eschatology, and they had a book of theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, which was sort of the headquarters of dispensationalism, in that textbook, theology, listed the scriptures for pre-tribulation rapture, and we just went through them one by one, like I tried to do here, I think there were even more then if I remember, and see where's the pre-tribulation rapture in all these, according to you, and by the end of it, the whole class was just laughing, there's no pre-tribulation rapture.
There is no single text of scripture, which definitively, definitely, teaches a pre-tribulation.
Rapture.
I just say that as a fact. So the pre-tribulation rapture is built on inferences, it's built on inferences, where do they get it from? They say believers will escape the wrath of God, that the Christ return has to be imminent, so the rapture could happen any time, but his return, you know, there'll be signs beforehand, so that's how it has to be separate, and plus the way they interpret the 70th week of Daniel.
The pre-tribulation rapture, you go through all these things, these are sort of the, this is the way they infer from scripture that there must be a tribulation rapture. One, believers escape the wrath of God, number two, the return of Jesus has to be able to happen at any time, you know, there can't be these signs ahead of time before it happens, that you can mark off, know when it will happen, and finally, about the 70th week of Daniel.
Well, first about the wrath of God, there is a promise to a church in Philadelphia, that you have kept my word, and they say I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world. Well, first of all, that's a promise to a specific church, the church in Philadelphia, and there's six others that don't get that, and that's because they kept their word, and they were a persecuted church too, Philadelphia was, I believe.
But the idea of avoiding the wrath of God and avoiding suffering are two different things. God disciplines every child he receives, you know, Jesus says, in this world you will have trouble, you'll have tribulation, and anyway, the wrath of God that believers will have to avoid, when it says believers will avoid the wrath of God, that's hell, that's judgment.
Because Jesus has paid the price for our sins, therefore, we will not suffer wrath for those, for our sins, from God. But Jesus said, in John 16, verse 33, in this world you will have trouble, but take heart I have overcome the world, doesn't mean we don't get the trouble, it just means you're going to have confidence he'll protect us through them.
And where in the history of what God has dealt with people, have people been beamed out of suffering? Did Daniel get out of trouble because of his faithfulness? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? Were they just totally zapped up to heaven instead of when they were about to be thrown into the fiery furnace?
No, they had to go through it. Promises of believers avoiding God's wrath have to do with the judgment, not with avoiding all tribulation in this world. Pre-tribulation rapture, the imminence of Christ's return, the warning, when Jesus says, you know, watch, that's one of the major themes, particularly in Matthew 24, 25, watch, it'll happen in an hour, you do not know.
That would seem to me to work against a pre-tribulation rapture, because what happens if we're raptured right now, and then there's all these people out there that have heard this pre-tribulation rapture stuff, who aren't Christians and are left, and then they're smart, and some of them are, we'll be able to say, hey, they all got raptured, we got seven years until he returns, so we know exactly when it'll happen.
There's no imminence left in his return. You'll be able to, you know, they'll be able to mark, hey, this was, happened on May 7th, they were all raptured on May 7th, 2017, so seven years, counted exactly to the day, mark it on your calendar, Jesus was returning then.
We all know, we'll all know the day and the hour he returns. But Jesus said, but about that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in the heaven or the sun, but only the Father, so the conclusion is be on your guard, be alert, you do not know when that time will come.
And that time is the time of his coming, not the time of his coming seven years beforehand to take out the church, which will happen to, you know, all Christians, they get saved by grace anyway, whether they believe it or not, according to dispensationalism.
Number eight, Christ's warnings about the imminence of his return had to do with his coming, not a secret taking away of his people seven years before. And then the 70th week of Daniel, I'll go over this very quickly, I don't have time to explain what all that means, but in Daniel chapter 9, he talks about 77, that's the way it literally reads in Hebrew, 77, 70 weeks of years, in other words, they look at years and collections of sevens, and Daniel says at the end of the 69th, basically the Messiah will come, he'll be cut off, and then there's the 70th week.
Now first of all, where in Daniel chapter 9 does it say that the 70th week is delayed after the previous 69? Daniel said, beginning from when there is an edict to rebuild Jerusalem to the Messiah is 77th, okay, that many years, about 490 years, and in fact, if you date it from when there was that edict to rebuild Jerusalem to exactly when Jesus died, it falls exactly right in that 70 year period, so it's a great way, I would think, particularly if you were trying to evangelize, I would think, I haven't done it, but to prove to a Jew, say, someone who believes that the Old Testament's inspired, but you look, Jesus died exactly when Daniel said it would happen, but dispensationalists say, after the 69th week, there's a gap, and the 70th week is the coming tribulation in the future, but if you read Daniel 9, there's no gap there, there's nothing mentioned of a gap there, 70 sevens, it's all continuous, and how would that be convincing to anybody if you can just insert a gap anywhere, well, it'll continue at a time to be known in the future, that's, oh, come on, that's just arbitrary.
Where are the believers raptured in Daniel 9, it's not there, there's no rapture there, by the way, if pre-tribulation rapture's just one of the major events in the Bible, in times, why is it not mentioned in Revelation?
There's no rapture mentioned, pre-tribulation rapture mentioned in Revelation, Revelation's all about the future, and one of the major events in the end times is the pre-tribulation rapture, why is there no pre-tribulation rapture in the book of Revelation, that seems odd,.
Doesn't it?
Is this so key to understanding Revelation, why is it mentioned, oh, that's, excuse me, this should say, why isn't it mentioned in Daniel? You have to have, you have to understand Revelation, and Daniel, and vice versa.
Why are the 70 weeks not mentioned in Revelation? So anyway, the dispensations say you have these weeks, but there's a gap there in the middle, so it says mystery, sacred secret, they call it, the heavenly people, there's a timeless period, until we don't know when the gap will be over, and then the 70th week will begin.
Okay, that's, the text says that nowhere, if you read it literally, I thought they said literal interpretation, it would be 490 continuous years, not a gap stuck in there, just so you can make it, your system fit.
Daniel's 70 weeks, though subject to debate, you know, I think it's a difficult passage to interpret, that passage in Daniel 9, contain no hint of a gap before the 70th week, or of a rapture there, nor is it mentioned explicitly in Revelation, the 70 weeks, it seems kind of odd, doesn't it?
So where's the proof? I think you're talking about the pre-tribulation rapture. Is it in Daniel? Is it in Revelation? Or in 1 Thessalonians? And if you listen to the way dispensations present their case, it's always somewhere.
Else.
It's not in the passage you're looking at right now. And I compare it to a shell game, you know, the guy hides a little ball under a shell and mixes up the shells real fast, you've got to try to keep track of it, and you point at one, it's there, and oh no, it's over here.
And that's the way they do with trying to prove the pre-tribulation rapture from Scripture.
Where is it? Where is it?
Is it here in, if you say, I don't see it here in Daniel, well, you have to understand Revelation. Okay, let's go to Revelation. I don't see it here. Well, it's in Daniel. It's in 1 Thessalonians. It's always somewhere else.
The Bible is not, and of course that's a bad way to interpret the Bible, the Bible is not a disconnected puzzle of pieces that we're supposed to put together, kind of by ourselves, by mixing verses that are totally out of context, we mix them, we put them back together, and then we get this doctrine that supposedly is there.
That's not the way you interpret the Bible.