While doing work with a fellow believer in Christ some years ago, he commented to me that his pastor was preaching through Revelation and he made the observation (which I have heard countless times before) that the word "church" does not appear after chapter three. His conclusion was that the church would be raptured after chapter three and will not be here on earth during the seven-year great tribulation period, which is the topic of conversation from chapters four on. I listened to my co-worker explain with excitement how this truth has made such an enlightening impact on his understanding of the end times and the book of Revelation in particular.
Maybe I should have said something, but considering the circumstances, I didn't want to get into any sort of debate with my fellow Christian, and I didn't want him to have any sort of lowered opinion of his pastor. This common misinformed deduction from the book of Revelation, though, has more going against it than for it. The word "church" also does not appear in Revelation 21 and 22, so does this mean that the church will not be in heaven as well? A second line of argument is that the word "saints" appear throughout the book of Revelation, from chapter four on, and the word saints is not a reference to a football team in New Orleans; it is always used as a synonym for God's people, the church. Thirdly, I might add, to the surprise of many, that the word "antichrist" appears nowhere in the book of Revelation, but that doesn't seem to stop dispensationalists from talking about an "antichrist" adnauseam.
At another event some years back for the Gideons, my wife and I were sitting at a table with some others whose subject matter turned quickly to the book of Revelation. This time the remark was made by someone that the United States was not mentioned in the book of Revelation; therefore, the obvious lesson from that was that our beloved country will not be around in the "last days". I tried to keep my mouth from dropping open too far, but I sat there with total incredulity. We are trying our best these days to find things that are not listed or mentioned in the book of Revelation, be it the church of a nation, that is no wonder many Christians struggle with expository teaching of God's Word these days--the kind of teaching/preaching that bring to light the things that are there in God's Word. As one unbelieving past popular American author said, "It is not what I don't know or don't find in the Bible that troubles me; it is what I do know and find in the Bible that troubles me."
From A to Z, I started to list in my mind all the countries of the world that are not found in the book of Revelation either, from Australia to Zimbabwe. What about them? Maybe the ugly American characterization is justified at times. Where do we get off that the United States has received God's Favored Nation Status? Isaiah 40:15 says that all nations in God's eyes are but as a drop in a bucket, and are counted as small dust on the scales. Without a doubt, the U.S.A. has been providentially blessed, but the Lord God of the universe was able to get His will done prior to 1776.
Dispensationalism is that fairly new end-time belief system that has filled too many Christians in this country for too long with so many faulty notions (like not finding certain words here and there in Revelation), erroneous predictions (at last count there have been at least 666 guesses who the Antichrist is supposed to have been), doom-and-gloom scare tactics (someone somewhere is writing a book on the riots in Egypt now and how all that fulfills an obscure passage in Ezekiel or Daniel), and terrible hermeneutics and theology (like a secret rapture of Christians, that is so secretive that Christians for eighteen centuries knew nothing about it, to be followed by seven years of tribulation, the appearance of Antichrist, the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem and a return to the inferior old covenant system, an Armageddon war between Israel and Russia(?), or China (?), or Iran (?) or ________ (?), a physical 1000 reign of Christ in a modern Jerusalem with a rebuilt Temple where old testament sacrifices will supersede his death on the cross and where people will die during this 1000 reign on earth after Christ has abolished death at his second coming, etc.) It is hard to keep up with dispensationalism, because it is newspaper exegesis that rules the day, and they keep moving the goal posts.
I don't know of anyone who would keep taking his car to a mechanic or keep taking his body to a doctor who has proved himself wrong in every situation with his analyses and diagnoses. Yet, dispensationalists keep restating their prognostications, keep writing new books that contradict earlier writings, keep preaching new sermons about shifting current news stories, and nobody seems to be bothered by it all. When are the dispensationalists ever going to get it right? Only one time. That is when they repent from their mental strongholds and sensational arguments. (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)
Dispensationalism is a money-making sacred cow to be sure, but it is about time to sacrifice that cow on the altar of biblical faithfulness. It is no accident that sensationalism rhymes with this man-made theory that was birthed in England in the first half of the 1800s. The key players were a man by the name of Darby, Edward Irving and Margaret McDonald. It was brought to America's shores where a lawyer by the name of C.I. Scofield picked it up and ran with it, and as Paul Harvey was fond of saying, "now you know the rest of the story." It is the predominant best-selling viewpoint out there in mainstream conservative Christianity. Most pastors out there probably adhere to a certain form of dispensationalism. Most books written on eschatology come from this angle. I would venture to say that most Christians out there probably have not heard anything or read anything but dispensationalism in one form or another. I will admit it is most popular, but when does something that is popular make something right, especially when it comes to biblical truth?
I used to believe that differences in eschatology were no big deal, and it is best to let dead dogs lie, so to speak. I have come to see things differently. Since one's eschatology flavors and colors so much of his understanding on so many other key biblical mattes, it can not be quietly pushed aside or relegated to the area of the non-essentials. To hear classic dispensationalists talk and write, the church is nothing more than a hiccup from God, or a speed bump on the road to something more glorious, which is the modern state of Israel. According to consistent dispensationalists, the cross was an afterthought from God, a Plan B that went into effect after the Jews rejected Jesus' offer of the kingdom. The atonement of Christ and the assembly of God's people are not minor issues at stake. Ephesians 1-3 by themselves should put to rest any idea that there is something better out there yet than the church. The book of Hebrews, Galatians or Romans should forever silence any false inkling to return to the days of the old covenant now or anytime in the future. It makes far better sense for a person to trade in his brand new Apple computer for a 20-year old computer dinosaur than for anyone in the new covenant days to desire a return to the old covenant, and that includes a reinstated sacrificial system in a rebuilt Temple that duped Christians are funding to build hopefully one day in Jerusalem.
Part of the reformation of the church today would involve, in my humble opinion, an eradication of dispensationalism. It needs to be yanked up by the roots. It needs to be LEFT BEHIND.
My inspiration for writing this blog article comes from an excellent sermon I heard last Sunday at our church from Bro. Ron Andrews. His text was from Matthew 13:24-30, the parable on the wheat and the tares. That parable by itself throws all sorts of monkey wrenches into dispensational preconceived plans. It is only one of two parables that Jesus told wherein He fully explained the meaning. The first one was earlier on in the same chapter, the parable of the sower. Now for the second time, this time at the request of His disciples, He takes the time to explain every part of this parable of the wheat and the tares. (Matthew 13:36-43)
The kingdom of heaven is a present reality, even though it is yet to be fully consummated. Christ has established His kingdom through his death, resurrection and ascension. He reigns at the right hand of God the Father now. As He told Pilate, "My kingdom is NOT of this world." A seat on a kingly throne in an earthly Jerusalem would be a serious and downright blasphemous reduction of His glorious position in heaven. During this kingdom reign over all the earth, He is sowing His good seed in the world (the field is the world, not the church), and His elect are being saved and bearing fruit. At the same time of the growth of the kingdom between now and Christ's second coming, the final harvest yet to come, Satan is out planting his tares in the world. God has His people during Christ's reign now, and Satan has his people as well. Sometimes it may be hard to tell the difference, since tares initially may have a similar appearance as wheat when it is growing. We have no business as the church by physical force to pull up the tares. Christianity is the only world religion to advance the cause of religious freedom. Other religions may use the physical sword to convert, but we use the sword of the Spirit and not physical coercion or intimidation.
Jesus says we are to let the wheat and the tares grow together until the final harvest at the end of this age when Christ will come back with His angels. According to dispensationalism, the next step will be that Christ will gather His people first to Himself, and they will escape the seven year tribulation period, after which the tares will be gathered and be assigned to their eternal destination, the eternal lake of fire. Somebody forgot to tell Jesus of the plan and to show Him all our neatly drawn diagrams and charts.
In this parable, and how can anybody can miss this is a mystery, Jesus says, "first, gather together the TARES (not the wheat) and bind them in bundles, but gather the wheat into my barn." In case anybody misses the point, Jesus would take three verses to explain what would happen to the tares FIRST (v. 40-42), before He explains in just one verse what would be the glorious outcome of the wheat (v.43). Jesus has it backwards from the dispensationalists, or should we say that the dispensationalists have it backwards from Jesus? The wheat are not raptured or secretly carried away first into his barn, only to be followed much later by the burning of the tares. The tares are gathered first and will be cast into the furnace of fire. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
John the apostle heard every word Jesus said. He with the other apostles got it, as Matthew 13:51-52 bring out. We are not surprised then to find John the apostle writing about this final harvest in Revelation 20-22, where first, the tares, those whose names are not found in the Book of Life, are judged by Christ in Revelation 20:11-15. This is a judgment strictly for Satan's tares at the great white throne judgment. Then next up is Revelation 21-22. The holy city, the new Jerusalem (why put all our focus on an earthly, old Jerusalem?), the bride, the church, are with God forever and ever in a new heaven and a new earth. Part of the description of their eternal dwelling sounds really familiar to the parable of the wheat and the tares. . .about the righteous shining forth as the sun.
"But I saw no temple in it (so why all this attention to a rebuilt Temple on earth?), for the Lord Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city had no need of the sun or of the moon in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. . .There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever." (Revelation 21:22-23, 22:5)
All this may be new stuff to those who have been force-fed dispensationalism all their lives long, and I certainly can relate when as a young person this is all I heard. But if we are going to be Berean Christians (Acts 17:11), then we should not take anything we read (including this blog article) as the gospel truth. We should take the gospel as the gospel truth. If a pastor is preaching dispensationalism, and if it is not the truth, then there is a decision a Christian may have to make in good conscience and in a spirit of humility. What that decision entails may be different in various circumstances. There are books in our library that may have to go. There are changes in our theological outlook that will occur. Change is sometimes hard, but if it is a good change, it is a necessary change. Sanctification is a lifelong commitment to change toward godliness in belief and behavior.
The thing about wheat is that it has to be crushed in some way for it to produce edible bread. Dying to self and being crushed is a painful enterprise, but before the truth is worth dying for, it has to be worth living for. And it can only be worth living for, if we know it and want to know it more and more, whatever changes that may involve in the process.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
