I recently have been thinking about dispensationalism -- you know, the seven dispensations thought that is basically proposing that the following dispensations appear in the Bible.
(1) Innocence - Adam and Eve before the fall
(2) Conscience - Every man doing what is right in his own eyes
(3) Human Government
(4) Promise - Abraham's time
(5) Law
(6) Grace
(7) Millennium
It, of course, is never taught in the Bible itself that there are seven dispensations. However, there were the several covenants to be found in the Bible. But when you read the New Testament, all you find stressed is the two covenants of Moses and of Christ.
Anyway, the sixth and seventh "dispensations" concern me. It is taught in raw, outright dispensationalism that God will turn to the Jews after the rapture of the church during the sixth dispensation, in which there is an alleged seven year period after the rapture. (This is based upon what I feel is a blatantly false insertion of a GAP between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel 9. Since Christ came at the 69th week, and the Jews rejected Him, then the timeclock of the seventy weeks allegedly stopped, and will reconvene when the Jews build a temple and offer animal sacrifice. They say the Church was inserted in the meantime.
(That error makes the church out to be a secondary plan while God put the Israeli plan on hold.)
So the Jews are supposed to go back to God while the church is gone through the series of events involving antichrist and so on. Anyway, the thing that absolutely terrifies me about this doctrine is the idea that the Jews will return to God outside of obedience to Acts 2:38!
That is the teaching.
Meanwhile, Paul distinctly said that the middle wall of partition between Gentile and Jew has been destroyed. And to say that God will remove the church and revert back to Judaism and law-keeping for the Jews is to propose that God will build again the thing He destroyed -- the middle wall of partition.
And it smacks of another Gospel. Paul said if any man preach any other Gospel than the one he preached, then let that man, or angel, be accursed. If the Jews can get to God outside Acts 2:38, then there is a second gospel. And that simply cannot be.
This also betrays the pre-trib doctrine as false. For the pre-trib doctrine says the church will be out of here during this seven year period. And that means there is no Acts 2:38 preaching by which the Jews will be saved, yet they will still allegedly be saved! How can that be?
Nobody will be baptizing in Jesus' name, but there will still be people being saved. That cannot be!!!
And then there is the thought that the Jews will pretty well rule the world during a millennium while we are in our glorified bodies, for Christ will allegedly be physically on earth in New Jerusalem in the middle east.
There has always been a Cabalistic mystical teaching that the Jews will rule the world again. And that will require the gentiles to be brought down to hell first, though. This is actually believed by some of these mystics. They supposedly believe that by promoting gay rights, preaching nothing is evil or good, and promote lust and filth through TV and Hollywood, that the gentile element will be brought down so morally low, that God will raise up the Jewish nation to world power.
At any rate, sounds pretty close to the dispensational thought of the Jews in prominence after Christ takes away His church.
Thoughts?
Dear Brother Blume,
If there was no gap between the 69th and 70th week, we would have gone through the tribulation from A.D. 33 to A.D 40, the Day of the Lord where Christ comes back with ten thousands of his saints already would have come. And oh yes, the 1000 millennial reign would have been from A.D 41 to A.D 1041. Then the Great White Throne Judgment immediately after and then by oh I would say 1043 the new heavens and new earth would have been in effect wherein dwelleth righteousness. So then if that is the case, why are people still sinning on this earth, why hasn't the 3rd temple in Israel been built yet. I do think they have construction plans right now. Why hasn't Jesus come down and set up his eternal kingdom? We most assuredly would have our glorified bodies by now, right? In fact we would have had them for at least 1000 years if we followed the thought that the 70th week has already passed, right?
But since none of these things have happened yet, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the 70th week of Daniel has not transpired yet. And therefore we can reasonably conclude that after Messiah was cut off that the time clock stopped after the 69th week. The 70th week is the tribulation. The antichrist won't be revealed until then. Can you tell me the antichrist's name since you believe the 70th week happened right after the 69th week? I don't think you can because it hasn't happened yet.
(That error makes the church out to be a secondary plan while God put the Israeli plan on hold.)
If the church is secondary, then why have we been granted authority to judge the world, angels and the 12 tribes of israel. Furthermore we will sit down in our Father's throne and inherit all things if we overcome. Israel is God's natural body, his natural branches. The Church is His spiritual body. Though the church is composed of Jew and Gentile, it is mainly Gentile (not by design, but because Jews as a whole reject Jesus).
You then wrote: "So the Jews are supposed to go back to God while the church is gone through the series of events involving antichrist and so on. Anyway, the thing that absolutely terrifies me about this doctrine is the idea that the Jews will return to God OUTSIDE OF OBEDIENCE ACTS 2:38!"
"That is the teaching."
No. The teaching is that the church will be raptured before the 70th week of daniel which is the tribulation. Then at the end of the 7 years, the church comes back WITH Jesus (Revelation 19). So then if the scripture tells us that we come back WITH Jesus at the end of the tribulation, how can He come back FOR us at the end? It doesn't make sense. The gospel of the kingdom will be preached during the tribulation. If you notice when Jesus was walking the earth, he didn't preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, he preached the gospel of the kingdom. After the door is shut on the dispensation of grace, then God will rebuild the tabernacle of David and all the Jews which are scattered abroad the face of the earth shall come back to their homeland DURING THE TRIBULATION.
As far as Acts 2:38 goes, that pertains to the dispensation of grace. During
the tribulation, the way a person escapes hell is:
1) Don't take the mark
2) Get beheaded for the name of Jesus
Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. During the Law, the blood of goats, lambs, heifers were required. During grace the blood of Jesus, the sinless One is required. During the tribulation, your own blood will be required.
God does not change his moral laws, but he does change ceremonial laws from dispensation to dispensation.
Then you said, "Meanwhile, Paul distinctly said that the middle wall of partition between Gentile and Jew has been destroyed. And to say that God will remove the church and revert back to Judaism and law-keeping for the Jews is to propose that God will build again the thing He destroyed -- the middle wall of partition"
No Brother Blume. You are taking one thing and running with it, drawing your own conclusions. Nowhere in the teaching does it state that God will revert back to Judaism. To do so would break the pattern of dispensationalism. God does not cast down one thing, build another, tear that thing down and then build back the original thing that was insufficient in the first place. No, what God does from dispensation to dispensation is set a new system of worshipping him and yet still keeping the moral laws.
In the Law, the priest had to offer a sin offering.
In grace, Jesus is the High Priest that offered a continual sin offering with His own blood.
And since Hebrews states that grace is a better covenant built upon better promises than the Law was, it is unreasonable to assume that the teaching of dispensationalism would suggest that God would revert back to Judaism.
Here's how it goes:
1) After the rapture of the church, the tribulation starts, thereby signifying
the end of the dispensation of grace
2) The antichrist will reveal himself and there will be a false peace. The first seal is opened.
2) Then in the middle of 70th week, the antichrist will defile the temple, sitting down in the temple as God, showing himself as God. This marks the start of the Great Tribulation.
3) Then all the judgments from the 2nd seal to all of the bowls and trumpets will transpire.
4) Then Jesus comes back at the end of the tribulation WITH all of his saints mentioned in Revelation 19, destroy the antichrist and set up his millennial reign in Jerusalem with Satan being locked up for 1000 years in the bottomless pit.
5) Then Satan is let loose at the end of the 1000 years to deceive the nations one last time. He gets a massive army from the 4 corners of the earth and moves them to attack Israel. But God reigns fire from heaven and destroys them all. Satan is cast into the lake of fire.
6) The Great White Throne Judgment
7) New Heavens and New Earth
And the one GIANT flaw in believing that there is no gap between the 69th
and 70th week is that all these things would have transpired ALREADY if there
was no gap.
Please ask yourself where you base the idea that the tribulation has to be part of the seventy weeks of Daniel. Nothing in the Bible teaches that explicitly. It is a derived conclusion. So, where did you get that thought? Why do you believe what you believe? Have you followed the reasoning behind such statements through? If so, show me in scripture where we find it.
You will find such relationships between prophecies that you currently see are not explicitly stated in scripture to be connective.
Nothing in the list of purposes of the seventy weeks notes anything about tribulation. Daniel 9:24. I have a study that shows all these events are fulfilled in Christ on the cross.
The idea of the seventieth week involving tribulation is a derived idea that only cropped up after people felt there was a gap between weeks 69 and 70, and the future 7 years (70th week) is split into two sections of 3.5 years. And since Revelation speaks of 3.5 years, then that must be a connection! However, neither Daniel, nor Revelation, nor any biblical text notes any part of the seventy weeks of Daniel to include tribulation, and neither did they say the 3.5 years in Revelation has anything to do with the 70 weeks of Daniel.
Like I said, Jesus ministered 3.5 years and then was cut off. His death put an end to all God's acceptance of foreshadowing animal blood.
Please rethink your idea of where such a thought came from. I am sure you will find no definite connection.
And by the way, where does Daniel 9 say the millennium must follow the seventieth week of Daniel?
Where are you getting all these connections? You are jumbling verses and events in scripture all together and making them consecutive, when the Bible simply does not say that.
A person can be so steeped in a certain interpretation, that originally lumped various events together because they seemed to fit (and not because the Bible fits them together for us), that when we look at another opinion, we inadvertently bypass all the juggling acts that dispensationalism has accomplished and think these events actually are biblically consecutive. The Bible never put them consecutive in the first place. You might say, "Well, if you study it out you will see the relationship between them all as making them consecutive." That is only interpretation. Its not explicit bible teaching.
Check it out. You'll be surprised to find the Bible does not say these events you list are consecutive or inclusive at all!
Nothing says the tribulation must be part of the seventy weeks.
Nothing says the millennium must follow the seventy weeks.
Show me one clear statement that says this, and I will recant.
Why do you think the third temple is going to be physical? Its the church! Have you not read Peter and Paul saying that we are the temple of God? If Israel in the East builds a temple, the apostles would not refer to it as a temple since they know the only temple that is actually a temple in God's eyes is the church from Calvary onward. You'll only see reference to the "temple of God" as the physical building in historical accounts such as the Book of Acts. But never in the New Testament commentaries in the form of the epistles.
So where doe the alleged third temple come into the picture, too? Are you thinking of 2 Thessalonians 2? If so, why does that have anything to do with the seventy weeks of Daniel?
You do make a good point however about the belief of the Church in the millennium ruling over the world and not taking a secondary stance in such placement in events. Bravo! However, my main beef is the idea that people propose Jews will not require Acts 2:38 since they will be under law again due to some strange reversion of God to law of Moses after the Church is gone.
Do you actually believe there is going to be blood sacrifices again after the rapture and during millennium? You must! For we read what dispensationalists refer to as millennial passages that they take literally:
Ezekiel 40:42-43 And the four tables were of hewn stone for the burnt offering, of a cubit and an half long, and a cubit and an half broad, and one cubit high: whereupon also they laid the instruments wherewith they slew the burnt offering and the sacrifice. And within were hooks, an hand broad, fastened round about: and upon the tables was the flesh of the offering.Do you take that literally? Blood sacrifices will be made again since Christ was offered ONCE AND FOR ALL? Think
Hebrews 10:8-12 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;That is not just for this dispensation. Its forever! From now through eternity, nothing will replace the blood of Jesus in some future dispensation. God has reached the maximum with grace, and nothing will follow after that offers an alternative manner of salvation.
You said:
" If you notice when Jesus was walking the earth, he didn't preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, he preached the gospel of the kingdom. After the door is shut on the dispensation of grace, then God will rebuild the tabernacle of David and all the Jews which are scattered abroad the face of the earth shall come back to their homeland DURING THE TRIBULATION."
There is only one Gospel, brother. There is not more than one Gospel!
Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.You may say there is only one Gospel for our age. But that is twisting the scriptures. Paul never said for this age only is there one Gospel. And this is the very type of thing that is utmost dangerous in my mind. Do you really believe the Gospel of Jesus and the Gospel of the Kingdom are two different Gospels? You're actually proving my point.
No, there is only One Gospel. The Kingdom of God is in us, right now.
Luke 17:20-21 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.True dispensationalism teaches that when Israel offers blood again in a physical temple, then God will start the seventieth week ticking again, and the church will be gone.
No. From Calvary onward it is the Church and nothing else. And Israel must be grafted back onto the same olive tree that we are presently on. And that will only be accomplished through the same means we were grafted onto it.
Tabernacle of David? That was fulfilled 2000 years ago!
Acts 15:14-17 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.James was inspired of the Holy Ghost to say that the rebuilding of the Tabernacle of David is the Church involving the Gentile inclusion! This is not future. James said its what occurred in his day when the gentiles were coming into the church!
We must throw out our interpretations if they contradict the apostles' interpretations, and accept those of the apostles.
Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;And then you said:
"As far as Acts 2:38 goes, that pertains to the dispensation
of grace. During the tribulation, the way a person escapes hell is:
1) Don't take the mark
2) Get beheaded for the name of Jesus
"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. During the Law, the blood of goats, lambs, heifers were required. During grace the blood of Jesus, the sinless One is required. During the tribulation, your own blood will be required."
I am sorry brother. I simply and adamantly will never accept the thought that salvation can be obtained outside the blood of Jesus. Never!
Even the blood of animals was simply futile, and the old testament saints could not even ascend into glory until Christ died and shed His blood for them as well as us. They require Jesus blood as much as we do.
Show me biblically teaching that explicitly states that shedding one's own blood during tribulation will save one. Its not there. This is the danger of dispensationalism, folks. It proposes very strong statements that have huge ramifications, that are never proposed in explicit terms in Scripture.
It is offered to us to realize these may not be explicitly taught, but if you read between the lines you will get it. No sir. All I see between the lines is white paper.
I cannot say how strong my thoughts are against your words that shedding our own blood will save us after the church is out of here! Whew! Its not just shed blood that saves.
Hebrews says:
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.But it also says:
Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away (REMIT) sins....and such verses do not contradict. People only read it wrongly.
The whole difference between Jesus' blood and animal blood was that animal blood never remitted anyone's sins. That is the reason such sacrifices had to be made annually. The entire point in Christ's single shedding of blood in death was for remission of sins, making it unnecessary for any further sacrifice.
Hebrews 10:17-18 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.Remission of sins is when God remembers sins no more. And that was no accomplished through animal blood.
Apostolics! Are you reading this?
This absolutely casts aside any idea of animal blood or our own blood remitting sins whatsoever. And this has nothing to do with ceremonial laws. Troy, there are no ceremonial laws in our time nor will there be any more. All the "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" are gone forever! His laws are written in our hearts. And I hope you are not taking the New Testament statements and turning them in Old Testament-type laws!
I agree with you that God will not revert to Judaism. However, it is taught by Marvin Treece, and I have the tapes to prove it, that the seventieth week of Daniel will only recommence when Israel offers animal blood again, moving God to honour it due to their adherence to Old Testament law. Our beloved (and I sincerely mean beloved) brother taught that everytime Israel ceased offering blood in Jerusalem, God stopped counting time upon them. And he alleged he could prove that with the book of Acts and contrasting it with historical accounts in the old testament regarding years. Anyway, this is taught in circles of dispensationalism. Maybe you have a different brand of the teaching, but it is there.
I know your series of events you listed backwards and forwards as I taught them myself to people as far back as the seventies. However, I felt all of that to be false and error after time. And you really need to check out your connections of the events of Millennium and the alleged temple, etc., with the seventy weeks of Daniel. The Bible makes no connection with them.
Since dispensationalists felt Daniel 9:27 was speaking about a future time, they jumbled various prophecies together into that idea -- prophecies that are actually not related to one another at all. This is assumed relationship. Its not biblically noted as such. So since they felt this was the period between grace and millennium, then millennium must consecutively occur after it! But that is only a derived thought based upon a supposition claiming to be a revelation, although its not explicit in the Bible as such.
I am sorry, brother. With all due respect, human blood and animal blood can never take away (remit) sins.
What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of
Jesus! (In our day or any day!)