Let The Texts Speak For Themselves!

People may be wondering why I am coming so strong against my dispensational brethren. Let my affirm that I do indeed love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. I am confident that we will spend eternity bowing before Christ our Lord of Glory. Therefore, if I am to spend eternity in the presence of the Almighty with them, I certainly can maintain friendship and fellowship with them in this present age. Furthermore, I have learned a great amount from Dr. John MacArthur ( a "leaky dispensationalist" whom I voted, on Facebook, as one of the greatest preachers). So my issue here is not one of fellowship or friendship but as Dr. Kenneth Gentry Jr. writes, "However, though recognizing dispensationalism as a form of evangelical Christianity, we believe that it is a seriously defective, misguided, embarrassing, and naive form." This was manifested the other day when I had a conversation with a friend who stated, in a conversation he had with some dispensationalists, that they maintained certain parables have no application to the church since they are for the nation of Israel. This not only grieved me but it also angered me that Christ's body would be treated in such a second rate status compared to an unbelieving ethnic people. Now as a former dispensationalist, I sat on the sidelines assessing things, trying to avoid the heated exchanges in the body that result over this discussion. However, I can only sit on the sideline for so long. Comments like "Matthew is for the Jews and not the church" move me to action. Not that I am any authority in the matter but I do love my Lord and His Bride.

Now one of the main problems I have with the system know as dispensatinalism is it's hermeneutic that calls for two peoples of God. This framework is allegedly built on a "plain, literal meaning of the text" or a "consistent literalism" or "plain meaning." This, in my opinion, is a straw man. It is often presented that dispensationalists are the ones that believe and teach the "plain meaning" of Scripture or are consistent with interpreting the Bible literally. In fact, this was ingrained in me so much that I avoided reading covenant theologians because I thought they were just as bad as Origen in allegory. Luther said of him, "Origen's allegories aren't worth so much dirt!" Nope, I didn't want to read anyone like that! So I faithfully stuck with the dispensational "plain meaning, " which I soon realized, thanks to the help of my paedobaptist covenant theologian brothers, that sometimes the "plain literal meaning" requires the dreaded "spiritualizing" of passages. Take for instance Romans 14:17: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Ro 14:17). The "plain literal" meaning of this verse requires that the kingdom be understood in terms of something spiritual! For the dispensationalist the kingdom is primarily thought of in terms of something that is future, earthly and for the nation of Israel. Well, obviously that won't work here. A "plain meaning" here, requires use of the dreaded "spiritualizing" that they so strongly detest. It is this very failure to understand the "plain literal meaning" requires the use of "spiritualizing," which has led them to all sorts of madness. Let the texts speak for themselves. If Christ says, "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Mt 12:28). Take it at face value that the Kingdom of God came with His first advent and will be fully experienced in the "age to come" at at His second coming and is not for national Israel (Matt. 12:28, Matt. 21:43). Again, I repeat, let the texts speak for themselves.

What also troubles me about the dispensational way of understanding of Scripture is that they are not consistent with their own hermeneutic. As Jeff Johnson writes, "What many Dispensationlists mean by the word 'literal' is something that is physical and earthly." This has caused them much trouble and when taken to its logical conclusion they abandon it after it suits their preconceived beliefs only to return to it sometimes in the same context! According to Ezekiel chapters 40-48, by the dispensational "literal" hermeneutic, this requires that a future temple will be rebuilt with a return to the Levitical sacrificial system. Here is where the dispensationalist will take a large part in a "literal" way and then take a part of the same passage and make it non literal. The temple, the sacrificial system is to be taken "literally" but when it comes to the purpose of the animal sacrifices then the "literal' is abandoned and subtly substituted with the non-literal. According to them the animal sacrifices are a "memorial" and non atoning as that would take away from the only perfect and sufficient sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. But the text does not say the animal sacrifices are for a "memorial" but for a "sin offering." Here is what the text says, "And he said to me, “Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: These are the ordinances for the altar: On the day when it is erected for offering burnt offerings upon it and for throwing blood against it, you shall give to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who draw near to me to minister to me, declares the Lord GOD, a bull from the herd for a sin offering. And you shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the ledge and upon the rim all around. Thus you shall purify the altar and make atonement for it. You shall also take the bull of the sin offering, and it shall be burned in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area. And on the second day you shall offer a male goat without blemish for a sin offering; and the altar shall be purified, as it was purified with the bull" (Eze 43:18–22).  
Here is a prime example of where they recognize their hermeneutic will lead them into heresy if they stick with it. So they abandon it where it suits them (which is probably a good idea but need to do away with it all together). Thus, they cannot even let the texts speak for themselves by their own interpretive system! Now time will not allow me to go into these chapters. I do recommend G.K Beale's book: "The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God," for an in depth study.

If you let the text's speak for themselves you come to a conclusion vastly different than what is taught in dispensationalism. They, however, won't allow for it. They already have preconceived ideas that they must read into passages for their system to work. Dispensationalists have recognized this and abandoned classic dispensationalism for "progressive" dispensationalism.  Dr. Kenneth Gentry writes, "Dispensationalist theologians are now even forsaking so-called literalism. For instance, John S. Feinberg, a noted contemporary dispensationalist, complains of one of Ice’s mentors: 'Ryrie is too simplistic' in his literalism. Craig A. Blaising of Dallas Theological Seminary warns that: 'consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism. Development is taking place on how to characterize a proper hermeneutic for dispensationalists.'” 


Let the texts speak for themselves and you will say a hearty amen to Paul: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Ga 3:28–29), in a non dispensational way! Soli Deo Gloria

For His Glory,
Fernando