Dispensationalism and the Pre-Trib Rapture

A Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology

A cause of divide in the twentieth century church that has continued into the early parts of the twenty-first century is the divide over the identity of Israel. Some see the ethnic group of people migrating to present day Palestine as Israel, whereas others in the church believe that the Church is the continuation of Israel. The pursuit of this paper will be to compare and contrast the two views. I will be up front now in revealing that this paper will indeed make the case that it is those with a Covenant Theological view of the Church as Israel who indeed stand on truth.

In order to accomplish this task, we will explore what the distinctives are between the two views and how this not only affects our interpretation of Scripture but can also gets the identity of the Church wrong. I have many friends and loved ones who are dispensational and I have a great respect for many theologians who espouse the view of dispensationalism. You will see me citing some of these theologians below. My aim is not to straw man, nor is it to disparage the wonderful Christians who hold to dispensationalism. I will open this blog with a fair, but brief, overview of the distinctives of dispensationalism. Then I will use the Holy Scriptures, and covenantal theologians of both the Presbyterian view and Baptist view to hopefully make a strong case for covenant theology as the correct system of interpretation for the Bible. I will not be arguing either for nor against paedobaptism or credobaptism in this paper as that is outside the focus of such a paper, but instead will show where the two great traditional views are united: the Church is Israel and not just a parenthesis as dispensationalism would suggest.

Distinctives of Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism is a big theological word that comes from the word dispensation. Dispensation is found in the Bible (Ephesians 1:10, 3:2), and the original Greek word “oikonomía is rendered “dispensation” with the obsolete meaning of administration, as of a household, of a commission, or of stewardship”1. Therefore, dispensationalism is a systemic theology that seeks to define the whole biblical narrative into dispensations. God’s way of dealing with man changes between the dispensations according to dispensationalism. Traditional Dispensationalism sees seven distinct dispensations of time as follows: Innocency, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Mosaic, Grace, and Kingdom/millennium.2

Origins of Dispensationalism

In order to proceed with what dispensationalism teaches, a brief understanding of its origins is necessary. Some claims have been made that Pseudo-Ephraim the Syrian wrote about a pre-tribulation rapture based off a sermon written by Ephraim the Syrian on the last days which could date anywhere from 374-627ad.3 But whether that be the case or not will also remain out of the scope of this paper, however it is none-the-less worth noting for the sake of remaining transparent. I will be more concerned with the better established belief that John Nelson Darby is responsible for creating the traditional system of dispensationalism around the year 1830.

Michael Vlach is a well-respected dispensationalist, and is a former Professor of Theology at The Master's Seminary and Editor of The Master's Seminary Journal. In his book, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, Vlach considers that it was indeed J.N. Darby that created the system of thought. And it was upon studying Isaiah 32 that Darby believed there was a distinction between Israel and the Church. Darby came to believe as a result, that there was “an ‘any moment’ rapture of the church that would be followed by Daniel’s Seventieth Week when Israel would once again take center stage in God’s plan.”4 So since a sound peer-reviewed dispensationalist himself attributes the system to Darby, for the purpose of this paper I will agree with Dr. Michael Vlach.

Darby believed in a pre-tribulation rapture of the church, which is a main distinction of dispensationalism. There are other premillennial views, however, such as mid-tribulation/pre-wrath rapture and post-tribulation rapture, as well. And of course some in the very early church, such as Justin Martyr, were premillennial. What is it though that makes dispensationalism new and unique?

Distinction between the Church and Israel

One of its main objections to Covenantal Theology held by the reformed church is its view of the Church of Christ and Israel as unique. This distinction is not something that the early fathers like Martyr held to, nor something we see until the advent of the theological system in 1830 by J.N. Darby. The majority of Presbyterians of the 19th Century were postmillennialist and viewed that the Kingdom was not only spiritual but also political and civil in nature. Mark A. Snoeberger explains this distinction of dispensationalism in contrast to postmillennialism. He says that, “the ideas of Israel, church, and kingdom were distinct ideas that resisted all attempts at amalgamation, each one having its own distinct origin, mission, and destiny”5.

In their book, The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?, Kenneth Gentry Jr. and Tommy Ice each make their case for their view of the Great Tribulation. Gentry representing a partial preterist view of the Olivet Discourse, resulting in the judgement of the Jews being final in the destruction of the Temple in 70ad, and Ice is representing dispensationalism. Outlining a core difference to their views Gentry writes:

Regarding tribulational purpose: I hold that the Tribulation closes out the Jewish-based, old covenant order and establishes the new covenant (Christian) order as the conclusive redemptive- historical reality; [Ice] holds that it sets the stage for reestablishing a Jewish based, millennial order complete with a rebuilt temple and reinstituted sacrificial system.6

So here we see a major distinction between the Covenantal view that Gentry holds versus the dispensational view that Ice holds. Ice would argue that the Church must be raptured out of the world prior to the Great Tribulation in order for God to return to his redemptive plans for ethnic Israel. Whereas Gentry believes that the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus was the fulfilment of prophecy (Hebrews 8:13, Matthew 23:38). Since Dispensationalists view the Church as distinct from Israel, they believe that the Church must be raptured, and therefore, God must deal with Israel separately which stands in the way of the Scriptures (Gal. 3:1ff; Romans 2:28-29; Ephesians 2:11-22; Acts 4:12).

Pre-tribulation Rapture

John MacArthur, whom I would suggest is the biggest name in Christian circles pertaining to dispensationalism in the 20th and early 21st centuries, explains that the rapture is necessary to take place prior to the Tribulation in his commentary on 1st Thessalonians. MacArthur says regarding 1st Thessalonians 4:13-18, “First, they seem to have been afraid that they had missed the Rapture, since the persecution they were suffering (3:3–4) caused some to fear they were in the Day of the Lord, which they obviously had not expected to experience”.7 Now this is an interesting note that John MacArthur has made here regarding the fear the Thessalonian church was facing, but we don’t build doctrine on the speculative thoughts of a 1st century church. Much of the New Testament was written in order to correct the mistakes and false teachings in the 1st century churches, and that is no different here in 1st Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes to them to correct such thinking. Therefore, that thinking in and of itself cannot build doctrine nor affirm the doctrine unless confirmed by the Inspired Writings of the Holy Spirit as found in the New Testament. Paul goes on to tell them that the dead in Christ will rise first and then those alive will be caught up together to meet Jesus Christ in the air at His Coming (1 Thes. 4:13-18). In the next section of this paper, I will outline what I believe the Scriptures, supported by others in the endnotes, teach regarding the Resurrection of the Dead. As you will see, the Scriptures do not teach nor demand a pre-tribulation rapture at all. John MacArthur must impose it on the text here by making assertions as to what the Thessalonian church believed as if it was an inerrant truth. This is a very astute observation no doubt, but we can’t build doctrine on such an assertion when it is not what Paul is saying, but rather what Paul is correcting.

Now the Dispensationalist will also say that God must pour out wrath on the unbelieving world, including on Jerusalem, and thus Christians must be removed from such wrath. I think this line of thinking again derives from a lack of understanding of the Church as the Covenantal people of God or simply: Israel. God will indeed pour out His wrath on the unbelieving sinner on Judgement Day (Rev. 20:15).

Literal, Grammatical, Historical Hermeneutic

One of the biggest reasons that dispensationalism exists is due to its view of how one should read the Scriptures. The Literal-Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic, exactly like its name suggests, means that the reader of the Bible ought to read the Bible like one reads any other book or text. Dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists alike would agree to the importance of reading the Bible whilst examining the literary, historical and grammatical features of the text. However, the Dispensationalist takes this view and almost elevates it as if it is the only way to read the Bible. This rule means one must read the Bible and understand it literally. Abner Chou in his article, A Hermeneutical Evaluation of the Christocentric Hermeneutic, defines the Literal-Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic this way:

Scripture is literal in that its meaning is the author’s intent. The Scripture expresses its ideas as “thus says the Lord” (Exod 4:22; Isa 7:7), “as the prophet says” (Acts 7:48), and the very communication of God (2 Tim 3:16). The Bible asserts its meaning, not whatever the reader desires, the community imposes, or what a text could denote. Rather, it is what the author said, authorial intent. That intent is expressed through language (grammar) in light of the facts of history.8

Now this blanket rule of how one ought to read the Holy Scriptures, if I might suggest, is exactly how the Pharisees and Scribes read their Scriptures. Reading them literally, they expected Christ to impose a militaristic rule from Jerusalem. They missed their own Messiah because they didn’t understand that he must die and rise again (Psalm 22; Isa. 53), messaging that Christ gave to his Disciples during his time on Earth. Applying such a rule to the Holy Scriptures means that an academic unregenerate scholar could read the Living Word of God and understand it the same way a Christian ought to understand the intent of the Scriptures. Of course, we know this is not the case since the those who are perishing are at enmity with God (John 3:18; Romans 1:22), and the regenerate Christian must spiritually discern the Word of God (1 Cor. 2:14). This literal way of reading the Scriptures suppresses the Spirit. Brad Klassen writing for the Master’s Seminary Journal says, “But more than just affirming literal interpretation as one good approach among many, premillennialism—and dispensational premillennialism in particular—is committed to the consistent practice of literal interpretation in all parts of Scripture, including its prophetic portions”.9 Now no dispensationalist is consistent with this rule. They become the arbitrator of when to read literally and when not to read literally. The problem with doing this is that you take literally an Old Testament passage, and you end up claiming to have a better understanding of the Old Testament than the Apostles. For example, to the Dispensationalist Israel must always mean Israel. The problem with this, is the Apostle Matthew writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit quotes the Old Testament passage “When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son” (Hosea 11:1). When Matthew quotes this passage he says that this was fulfilled when Jesus returns from escaping to Egypt (Matthew 2:15). So Matthew is using an Old Testament passage and applying Israel as a youth to Christ as a youth coming out of Egypt. If you read your Bible literally, you would find yourself disagreeing with the Apostle Matthew. Reading the Bible this way is new and Sung Wook Chung, a historic premillennialist, claims “one cannot emphasize strongly enough that this hermeneutic is utterly foreign to the early church.”10 If reading the Bible this way is correct, then how did centuries of Holy Spirit indwelt churchmen miss this? If indeed Jerusalem will literally be raised to be the highest of mountains (Micah 4:1) it would become uninhabitable at such an altitude.

The Millennial Kingdom

The Dispensational understanding of Revelation 20 likens a future 1000 year reign on Earth by Jesus Christ to be wooden literal. In this view, the dispensationalist believes that the Kingdom will be distinctively Jewish even to the point that they will reinstitute Temple sacrifice due to their reading of Zechariah 14. In order to establish that the Millennial reign of Christ happens after the Return of Christ, John MacArthur ignores the clearer teachings of the Return of Christ found in the teachings of Christ Himself in John 5:28-29, John 6:38-44, as well as what Paul teaches throughout his epistles and Peter (2 Peter 3) in favor of a chronological reading of Revelation. Thus MacArthur says, “to get around the difficulty the chronology of Revelation poses for their views, postmillennialists and amillennialists must deny that chapter 20 follows chapter 19 chronologically.”11

Joel Beeke would argue that Revelation follows a more cyclical structure. We see this in Revelation 12 for example where we see Satan pursuing Christ as an infant in the same way Chapter 20, “steps back to consider the era between Christ’s first and second comings before moving ahead to judgement day and eternity”.12 So MacArthur is right, Joel Beeke, an Amillennialist, does deny that Chapter 20 is chronological, and for good reason. And of course we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, and the parable of the wheat and the tares tells us that both believers and unbelievers alike will remain together until the harvest (Matt. 13:24-30).

As we covered already, the Dispensationalist holds to a distinction between Israel and the Church. They call those who deny this as holding to ‘replacement theology’. Not only does the Dispensationalist see a Jewish Kingdom in the millennium, but that this Davidic/Jewish Kingdom will be “exalted above the Gentiles.”13 This clearly contradicts the clear teaching of the Apostle Paul, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Of course, the Covenantal view of the Millennium Kingdom is different in nature and timing than the Dispensational view. The next section of this paper will examine the Covenantal approach to the Kingdom in relation to who Israel is, and when the Kingdom began.

Conclusion

This is part one of this blog. In next week's blog we will look at a positive case for Covenant Theology.

Endnotes

1 D. K. McKim, “Dispensation,” ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988). Pg. 962.

2 Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Introduction to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, ed. Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2022). Pg. 13.

3 Ice, Thomas D., "The Rapture in Pseudo-Ephraem" (2009). Article Archives. 32. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/pretrib_arch/32

4 Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, Revised and updated (Los Angeles: Theological Studies Press, 2017). Pg. 15.

5 Mark A. Snoeberger, “Traditional Dispensationalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, ed. Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2022), Pg. 151.

6 Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry Jr, The Great Tribulation; Past or Future? (EISENBRAUNS, 1999). Pg. 12.

7 John F. MacArthur Jr., 1 & 2 Thessalonians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 2002), Pg. 124.

8 Abner Chou, “A Hermeneutical Evaluation Of The Christocentric Hermeneutic,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 27, no. 2 (2016). Pg. 124.

9 Brad Klassen, “Premillennialism and Hermeneutics” The Master’s Seminary Journal 29, no. 2 (2018). Pg. 129-130.

10 Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009). Pg. 119.

11 John F. MacArthur Jr., Revelation 12–22, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 2000), 234.

12 Joel R. Beeke, Revelation, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016). Pg. 513.

13 John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1959). Pg. 136.