We see Sadducee-like sects in any of a number of belief systems that incorporate universalism, pseudo-universalism, demythologization, and a defense of lawlessness. In previous articles I've dealt specifically with Sadducee-like groups that are clearly outside of the Christian faith while still claiming adherence to Christianity, but I want to zero in on another errant theological system that is on many of your minds because it's gaining a great deal of internet exposure. That would be hyper-dispensationalism, which was popularized by the Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger.
I want to start by saying that I believe that many in this group are, in fact, true believers and brothers and sisters in Christ. They aren't so far gone, as some say, that they are unsaved. By no means. However, they stand on very shaky ground with Scripture generally, and even specifically with soteriology. Their soteriological issue is not with their understanding of the gospel, but with the true object of their faith. But more on that in a minute.
Below is a simple diagram that lays out the three schools of Christian thought along a continuum. Classic dispensationalism overlaps with both of the other schools in key areas, but holds a solid, Scriptural, middle-ground.
- - -
Why Should We Hold To [Standard] Dispensationalism?
I found a great summary on this from GotQuestions.org that echoes what I've said about the need for
a literal interpretation of Scripture and traditional dispensational theology:
Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the best hermeneutic. The literal interpretation gives each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Allowances are made for symbols, figures of speech, and types, of course. It is understood that even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them. So, for example, when the Bible speaks of 'a thousand years' in Revelation 20, dispensationalists interpret it as a literal period of 1,000 years (the dispensation of the Kingdom), since there is no compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.
There are at least two reasons why literalism is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate. Words are vessels of meaning. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, and resurrection all occurred exactly as the Old Testament predicted. The prophecies were literal. There is no non-literal fulfillment of messianic prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If a literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into 'what this passage says to me' instead of 'the Bible says.' Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called Bible study today.
Furthermore, in addition to maintaining biblical literalism (i.e., accepting what the Bible plainly says), classic dispensationalism holds a solid middle ground in terms of soteriology and the gospel. The biblical distinction between national Israel and the Church is maintained (though not necessarily
spiritual Israel), and a proper understanding of the simplicity of the gospel is also maintained. Salvation is rightly recognized to be by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone via His atoning death and resurrection. Covenantalism and hyper-dispensationalism begin to drift from Scripture in a number of ways as I'll explain below.
- - -
Covenantalism
Before I dig deeper into some of the fundamental problems with hyper-dispensationalism, I want to first clarify why covenantalism misunderstands biblical history and makes several major assumptions that cannot be supported by Scripture.
The first and gravest error made is in parting the Mosaic Law into civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects. The Bible makes no such distinctions. The Law is the Law. Covenantalism holds the moral law as still applicable to Christians. Now there is no argument to be had about the righteousness of the moral law and how we should, indeed, still obey precepts ("Thou shall not murder... Thou shall not commit adultery..."), but Christians must firmly stand their ground with regard to the applicability of moral law to salvation. Some covenantalists can rightly recognize that we are saved by faith alone, but by establishing the moral law as Church Age-applicable, the next logical step is to say obeying its precepts is necessary for salvation, and, in fact, many denominations hold to this requirement in one form or another. By doing that, they've abandoned the gospel and have become alienated from Christ.
Biblical law has
always been given as an all or nothing proposition. Either you keep it all perfectly all of the time, or you're cut off. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That's why covenantalism can lead directly to behavior legalism if you follow it to its logical conclusion. It can be deadly. The Law is holy and righteous and good, but we are no longer under
any of it. Christ died for
all of our sins and rose again. That's the gospel.
Another significant issue with covenantalism is the invention of a framework to try to make the biblical text fit into said framework, rather than letting the text speak for itself. A "covenant of works" and a "covenant of grace" are said to encapsulate all of God's covenants, but the Bible makes no such overarching groupings. Rather, the biblical covenants served distinct purposes all centering around the person of Jesus Christ and His mission to redeem a corrupted creation. And not all of the covenants pertain to salvation.
Finally, covenantalism is upheld by gross allegorizations of biblical prophecies and eschatology completely out of line with how language is used and how prophecies were fulfilled
literally at Jesus' first coming. In many ways, Protestant covenantalists cast off medieval Catholic teaching on soteriology, but retained Catholic teaching on eschatology. For instance, the Bible contains a myriad of promises to national Israel of a literal second return to the land, the reestablishment of an independent state, an earthly kingdom in the messianic era, the full possession of Eretz Yisra'el, the restoration of David's throne (for his heir), and so forth. Even New Testament apostolic teaching on the distinctions between Israel and the Church are largely allegorized and ignored (e.g., Acts 15, Rom. 11).
- - -
Hyper-Dispensationalism
Hyper-dispensationalism (also called "ultra-dispensationalism", "Bullingerism", and "right-dividing") is the polar opposite of covenantalism. Whereas classic dispensationalism was developed as a framework to define the literal truth of the Bible in its own terms, hyper-dispensationalism takes that framework and applies it in a much more rigid way, to the point of going beyond the text. It is unbiblical and is built on several faulty assumptions, some of which may impact a right understanding of salvation:
1. The twelve apostles were only sent to Israel. The first assumption that is made that undergirds the others is that the ministry of Jesus and His twelve apostles was exclusive to the Jews. It is true that Jesus "was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" (Mt. 15:24), however, it is false to suggest that He did not minister to Gentiles. His mission was focused, but Gentiles were impacted. As a matter of fact, in the very passage in which "right-dividers" place so much emphasis, Jesus does not use His Israel-only mandate as an excuse not to heal a Gentile woman's daughter. He tells His apostles that He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel
and then heals the Gentile girl anyway (Mt. 15:28). Similarly, Jesus answers another Gentile's request when He heals a centurion's servant (Mt. 8:5–13). Hyper-dispensationalism attempts to place God in a box that He doesn't place Himself in.
Next, we move on to the apostles' mandate and it's here that we see the plain words of Scripture disprove the whole "right-dividing" paradigm. Like Jesus, the apostles were also sent exclusively to the Jews—
initially. Based on this limitation, hyper-dispensationalism will unscripturally discriminate between the apostles and Paul and also their writings. But hyper-dispensationalism neglects the direct commands of Christ to the apostles post-resurrection:
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations [ἔθνος w/ the definite article: the Gentiles], baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'
- Matthew 28:16–20
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; He rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized [with the Holy Spirit, not water, see Acts 1–2] will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
- Mark 16:14–16
Then He opened their minds [the eleven apostles; see Lk. 24:33] so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in His Name to all nations [ἔθνος w/ the definite article: the Gentiles], beginning at Jerusalem.
- Luke 24:45–47
He said to them: 'It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you [baptism of the Holy Spirit; see Acts 1–2]; and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.'
- Acts 1:7–8
Whereas pre-resurrection the apostles were sent out only to the lost sheep of Israel, post-resurrection their mandate was to preach the gospel to all, including Gentiles. Scripture couldn't possibly be more clear. Rather than rightly dividing, "right-dividers" are in fact wrongly dividing here and cannot uphold a literal hermeneutic with their view.
Side Note: Notice above in Luke 24 that Jesus proclaims the entire gospel message of His death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins!
2. The Church was a mystery that began with Paul. It's true that the Church was a mystery hidden in ages past (Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26; cf. 1 Cor. 2:7), but it was a mystery repeatedly hinted at in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 32:21, 43; Isa. 2:2–4; 11:10; 52:15; Dan. 7:13; Acts 15:14). Again, hyper-dispensationalism attempts to rigidly place God in a box that Scripture itself doesn't place Him in. The mystery was fully revealed in the days of Paul, but it was a mystery already present in the ancient Jewish writings that could have been seen with the insight of a Holy Spirit-directed person.
Additionally, those New Testament passages calling the Church a mystery, also discuss the gospel itself in the same context. The gospel was also a mystery that hadn't yet been fully revealed, but the Old Testament had very clear references to it (e.g., Isa. 53).
3. The Church did not begin on Pentecost. Christianity has historically held that the Church started on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after Christ rose from the dead for it was on this day that Jesus, now ascended and glorified, sent the Holy Spirit to baptize the gathered believers. The dead spirits of believers came alive again (see
here). However, hyper-dispensationalists hold that the Church did not begin until after the stoning of Stephen (mid-Acts) or when Paul declared in Acts 28:28 that God's salvation had been sent to the Gentiles (post-Acts).
In the hyper-dispensational paradigm, Pentecost is seen as the beginning of a period of transition in which the Jews had one last chance to believe and for the Kingdom to be established in Israel. This is incorrect and unsupported by Scripture. Jesus had already set Israel aside. Their opportunity wasn't at Pentecost, it was at the Triumphal Entry when He came into Jerusalem to the very day of the completion of Daniel's first 69 weeks of years. The people hailed Him as King, but within just days the religious leaders made them into traitors who turned on the One they had just given their allegiance to. Judas wasn't the only betrayer. Then some 40 days after His resurrection, Jesus ascended into Heaven, leaving Israel for some 2,000 years. It was
this ascension that fulfilled the words of the prophet Micah:
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
One who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.
Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor bears a son,
and the rest of His brothers return
to join the Israelites.
- Micah 5:2–3
James says as much in Acts 15:14–18 (echoed by Paul in Rom. 11):
Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for His Name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
'After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'—
things known from long ago.
Notice
again that the Old Testament prophets were in agreement that God would first take a Gentile people before returning to the Jews! Scripture is crystal clear.
This is right-division.
Let's take a look at the supposed beginning point of the Church in Acts 28:28:
Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!
Hyper-dispensationalism prides itself on being literal and picking apart every word, so why not the same here? ἀπεστάλη ("has been sent") is in the aorist form, which is generally past tense in Greek. This was a statement of a fact that already was. There were already newly founded Gentile communities of believers (churches) all over the eastern Mediterranean region. Paul's most gospel-centric writings, including those discussing the rapture of the Church, had already been written well before Acts 28 (e.g., Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, etc).
No matter which way you slice and dice Scripture, the first entrants into the Church were Jews. These were not some separate body of believers. Paul was a Jew. The apostles were Jews. Those of varying languages gathered at Pentecost were Jews, and so forth. The Church has
always been a body of Jews and Gentiles
together because Christ's death removed the dividing line between both groups (Eph. 2:11–22; cf. Mt. 27:51), but the Church started with Jews.
Pentecost was the clear beginning point, demarcating the start of the Church. Just as Jesus had promised, His witnesses would have their start in Jerusalem, and from there the movement would go on to the uttermost parts of the earth. And just as John had prophesied, the water baptism of the old covenant would make way for
the Spirit baptism of the new. It was just ten days before that Jesus had set Israel aside—for a season—that He might begin the process of taking a predominantly (though not exclusively) Gentile body of believers to Himself to provoke the Jews to jealousy (Deut. 32:21; Rom. 10:19).
We can gain even more clarity when we go back to the original language of Acts rather than what English translators have supplied. The key word is μετανοέω ("to think differently; be persuaded; change your mind; convert"). You know this word as "repent", but "repent" is widely regarded as a very poor translation borrowed from Latin. In fact, a number of scholars recognize this word as the most significant mistranslation in the Bible. "Repent" is derived from the Latin word from which we get "penitent" and "penance".
Repentance is commonly understood to mean turning from sins, feeling sorry, or amending one's ways. That is simply a wrong understanding of biblical μετανοέω (metanoéō). Metanoéō and its accompanying nounal form metanoia simply mean to change one's mind or to be persuaded. It often carries a deeper connotation of conversion—to be so persuaded by something in heart, soul, and mind, that you change your conviction to something else. According to the LXX, God "repents" many times (Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:12-14; 1 Sm. 15:11; 2 Sm. 24:16; 1 Chr. 21:15; Ps. 106:45; Jer. 4:28; 18:8; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Jl. 2:13-14; Am. 7:3, 6; Jon. 3:9-10; 4:2).
The metanoia in the New Testament is a change of mind from unbelief to belief. It's to be persuaded that the gospel message is true. Thus, Peter's message to the crowd gathered at Pentecost wasn't "turn from your sins and get dunked in water," it was, "believe the gospel message I just preached to you and receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit that the 120 disciples just received."
Turning from your sins is a natural consequence of a heart that believes in Jesus, but it isn't repentance. Biblical, New Testament repentance is to be persuaded about Jesus and who He claimed to be, and to believe in the gospel message.
Read more about repentance here.
4. Dispensations have a unique soteriological system. Hyper-dispensationalism loudly (and rightly) proclaims salvation through faith alone because of our inability to do anything good in our flesh, yet, ironically, it turns and presents a false gospel in other dispensations. This is perhaps my biggest beef with the wrong division of "right-dividers". It is one of the most dangerous flaws in the system. God's plan to redeem the world through Christ via the gospel was being enacted from the very beginning when Adam and Eve sinned in Eden. Jeff wrote an excellent article highlighting the gospel in Genesis 3–4
here and I wrote all about the history-spanning plan of redemption
here.
Works were
never the basis for salvation in a previous dispensation
nor will they be the basis in the future. This is a major point I want to raise. You can argue both ways until you are blue in the face, but
sola fide is a central theme found in Genesis all the way through Revelation. From Abraham whose faith was counted as righteousness, to David who broke the Law and did not pay its due penalty (death)—the multiple death-deserving lawbreaker whom God established an everlasting covenant with! From righteous Abel who brought an acceptable blood sacrifice, to the High Priest Joshua whom God clothed in His own righteousness in Zechariah 3; and from the prostitute Rahab and the Gentile Namaan to the Prophet Habakkuk whose declaration "the just shall live by his faith" formed
the very basis of Paul's explanation of salvation through faith alone in Romans.
Why was the Law given and why the focus on works in the Old Testament and the gospels? Here is the answer:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
- Romans 3:19–20
- The Law only speaks to those under it. It is holy and good and true, but we are not under it (Rom. 3:31; 6:14).
- It makes the whole world accountable to God, because its stringent requirements are such that not even one person will be declared righteous by obeying it.
- The Law makes us conscious of our sin.
To say that works are the basis of salvation in a previous dispensation or in a future dispensation is in effect to state that only Church Age Christians will be saved, because the Bible is repeatedly and emphatically clear that no one has or ever will be justified by works. All are fallen. None are good. No one does right. No one seeks God.
To say that those in the Old Testament (or those in the Tribulation or in the Millennial Kingdom) will be saved by works is to say that their situation is entirely, completely, unalterably hopeless. It's shutting the door of salvation in their face. No! Salvation has only ever been on the basis of grace via the atoning sacrifice of God's Son. See
the gospel in Genesis 3–4 and Isaiah 53 in particular.
The gospel was declared to Adam and Eve beforehand in Genesis 3:15–16. A blood sacrifice—
the first death in creation—
provided a sufficient covering for our first parents (Gen. 3:21). This was the declaration of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world:
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
- Revelation 13:8
Why does Christ appear as a Lamb-as-if-slain in Revelation? Because He was the Lamb slain in Genesis. And in Genesis Adam and Eve lost their access to the Tree of Life, but in Revelation 22 we regain it. And right in the middle of this Genesis to Revelation story is the incarnate Christ on the Cross, who bore all of our sins in His body on the tree (1 Pt. 2:24; there's a little
Peter for you, fyi!).
I'm saved because Christ died and rose again.
You're saved because Christ died and rose again.
And Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Rahab and Namaan; King Darius and King Nebuchadnezzar; all of these, if any, will be saved
only because Christ died and rose again.
Again, why was the Law given?
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
- Isaiah 53:6
After the Fall in the Garden, no one would seek God. No one would listen. Everyone turned to his own way and in the end, our ways can only ever lead to death. So the Law was given
to condemn us. Yes, you heard that correctly. It finally made us realize that we are each accountable to God for our thoughts and behaviors and if we approach Him with labor
He will accept nothing less than perfection. It finally made us see that we need Him and this life and what our eyes see are not all there is. We must turn back, repent (
metanoia; which means
to change your mind,
convert), and place our faith in Him. And only then can imperfect creatures such as we are become acceptable to a perfect God.
So regarding the Law: believe it, obey it, teach it. It's true. But do not, under any circumstances, look to it as the path to salvation. That's not what it is and that's not why it was given.
5. Many New Testament books are not written to the Church. I've already dealt with this from the apostolic perspective—the apostles were clearly sent to both the Jews
and Gentiles—but I want to point out that just because a book was written to a particular audience, doesn't mean it doesn't have general applicability. The books and letters themselves do not even claim particular applicability! In fact, Paul wrote to Timothy that:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16
Timothy was a Gentile! So James isn't applicable because it was written to the Diaspora and the gospels aren't applicable because they contain messages in which Jesus preached to the Jews. I suppose that means that Galatians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians aren't applicable to us either since they were written to those particular churches. Again, the books and letters themselves contain no claim of particular applicability! All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful. All.
It goes without saying that the New Testament's readership has been almost exclusively Christian for these past 2,000 years. I'm sure God knows that. He knew what He was doing when He breathed into men to compose the work.
We don't rightly divide Scripture by neglecting whole books. We rightly divide Scripture by studying the whole counsel of God and rightly applying it. We rightly apply the Law by recognizing how it condemns us and exposes our great need for the Savior. We rightly apply the gospels by learning what God's true heart is for how we should love and treat one another and who the person of Jesus is. We rightly apply the epistles by understanding that the gospel (already prophesied in the Old Testament and revealed in the gospels) is simple and the only message through which anyone can be saved, and furthermore, we learn in the epistles how Christians ought to live. And we rightly apply prophecy by recognizing that it all points to Christ and should be accepted for its plain, literal meaning if at all possible.
Again, Jews and Gentiles are saved by the
same Jesus through the
same gospel.
Conclusion
- - -
I hope this article has been informative and has helped clear up some confusion. If anything, I pray it will steer all towards the straight and narrow path of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. And this brings me to my final point: faith is a
conviction, not knowledge or understanding. Isn't it obvious that you can know certain things, but not believe them? You might know about Islam, but not believe it. You might know about NASA's moon landings, but have conviction they didn't happen. Knowledge and understanding are just thoughts in your head. Conviction is
why you think and act the way you do. Conviction is what drives you.
Faith = Conviction = Belief = Trust
Besides presenting a false gospel to the future dispensation and causing confusion in this one, I fear that hyper-dispensationalism, if taken to its logical extreme, might lead some away from Christ
now. Intellectual legalism is just as real as behavior legalism. Just as you can trust in your behavior instead of the Savior, you can trust in your knowledge instead of Him, as well. Knowledge doesn't save you. Jesus does. We are saved by faith alone, but not faith in words or how well we can recite 1 Corinthians 15:3–4. We are saved by faith alone in an actual Person named Jesus Christ who came and died for us. There are many who may not be able to perfectly recite the gospel, yet are very much convicted that Jesus died for their sins and rose again. And there may be some who can perfectly recite the gospel, yet have no true inner conviction in the real person of Jesus who actually did the dying and rising again. Don't trust in your behavior. Trust in Christ. And don't trust in your beliefs. Trust in the One behind them.
Just like the early Church had to deal with infiltration by those trying to bring Christians back under the yoke of the Mosaic Law (Judaizers), so too we have to deal with Pharisaical sects like the Hebrew-Roots Movement. But there was another false teaching that the early believers had to deal with head on in the 1st and 2nd centuries, and it came from an entirely different angle. It was called Gnosticism.
The "Christian" Gnostics taught that the deity of the Old Testament was vengeful—even evil. And they taught that Jesus had come to give us secret knowledge, so that we could be free from the flesh. Moral codes were shunned as fleshly concerns, so that people could live lawlessly. So they chopped up Scripture into parts they liked and didn't like and were left with little to nothing of the real Jesus. I can't help but think hyper-dispensationalism might be defined as Gnosticism-lite. It's one small step in that direction: over-dividing and neglect of Scripture, obsession with perfect knowledge, and in some instances, no clear adherence to biblical morality.
- - -
What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying,
'I follow Paul,'
'I follow Apollos,'
'I follow Cephas [Peter],'
or 'I follow Christ.'
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
