Category: Theology

In recent years I have been again challenged by the truth that there is so much more Presence and power (ability) in the Holy Spirit available but not received or walked out. In recent years, we have been challenged by Robbie Dawkins who spoke for us in Israel and in America, and Dr. Randy Clark who was our keynote speaker and ministry leader at the Tikkun America Conference at the end of May and early June.  Since that time, I have been reading more books by Randy Clark. I have found his books to be theologically solid and very challenging. (Especially see his Intimacy with God.) He also recommended a book by John Mark Ruthven, The Cessation of the Charismata, an amazing work of scholarship by the late professor of theology at Regent University with over 600 footnotes.  Previously I read Dr. Craig Keener’s monumental Miracles.  Keener’s two large volumes are amazing scholarship, both a theology of the miraculous and its role in evangelism and among believers, while documenting real miracles all over the world.  His book on the Holy Spirit, Gift, and Giver is also a great read. Some years earlier, I read the great volume by Dr.Gordon Fee, His Empowering Presence, on this doctrine in the Pauline writings.

Here is my summary.

The writings show that so much more is available than even most Pentecostals/Charismatics believe and walk in.  Miracles, signs, and wonder will be a key to the harvest in the West just as it is in the majority world.  Much is based on coming to a place where we know the prophetic word (rhema) of the Spirit and the prophetic in us leading us to speak, to pray for, and to see the work of the Spirit in our sharing and in our ministering within the Body and outside to those who do not know Him.  Ruthven proves that the prophetic is a central aspect of the meaning of the New Covenant, a foundational benefit.  However, few really attain it.  For Clark and Ruthven, it should be a normal and very frequently experienced reality.  Clark does a great job of showing how much the Glory of God in the New Covenant Scriptures is connected to his revelation through the miraculous.  Of course, there are other aspects of his Glory, but so many miss how much the desire of Yeshua to reveal his Glory through us is through using us in signs, wonders, and miracles.  Glory of course, has other manifestations including the love etched into the face of a saint or acts of sacrificial love.  However, the miraculous is a central part of fulfilling the prayer of Yeshua in revealing His Glory through us.

Once we understand this, it is hard to understand how people who are charismatic can easily be joined to communities that are not passionately pursuing the Spirit and his power.  For me, I must be joined in a community of people who are in unity in seeking God for more of his presence and power.

We have now come to this last short essay.  We have covered the basics of Classical Dispensationalism and our difficulties with this theology.  Now I want to address Israel.  I believe that Classical Dispensational theology is a foreign imposition upon Israel. It is true that we cannot do our Messianic Jewish/Israeli theology without reference to the scholars and theologies that have dominated the Christian world.  In addition, we should have reference to the Messianic Jewish scholars of the Diaspora.  We do affirm the emphasis of Dispensational Theology that Israel, the Jewish people, continued after the first century to be God’s elect people and are still elect.  However, the dispensational ways of definition, that there are two peoples of God, two plans, an earthly plan and salvation for Israel, and a heavenly salvation and plan for the Church are very problematic.  We especially see this breakdown in Paul’s calling Messianic Jews the saved remnant of Israel and also the first fruits that sanctify the rest of the nation of Israel (Rom. 11:5, 16).  At the same time, they are the Jewish part of the one new man of Ephesians 2.  Dispensational ways of defining grace over against law, the tribulation period with the absent church, and more are very problematic.  The sometimes narrow mentality that is so critical of others is not helpful. 

Dispensational theology becomes part of the mentality of people.  People may not have ever been given a systematic presentation, but the way they talk about law (often quite negatively) and grace (often as hyper-grace salvation that requires no repentance or change of life) is very sad.  “You are not going back under the Law, are you?”  “Are you Judaizing?”  In addition, there is no passion for Last Day’s revival and unity.  These hopes should motivate and excite. Even if we do not see them fulfilled in our lifetime, these hopes can lead to greater passion in prayer and cooperation in unity.  There is a profound optimism that the best is yet to be, even the very best for the Body of the Messiah before the return of the Lord.  Yes, darkness will cover the earth, but there will also be a great harvest through world revival. 

Non-Dispensationalists use more adequate language when speaking about the Gospel.  They speak of extending the Kingdom through the Gospel of the Kingdom, whereas dispensationalists only speak of people being saved (not wrong but needs additional language too).  The more adequate language of George Ladd (The Gospel of the Kingdom) and Dallas Willard (Divine Conspiracy) is very helpful.  The wrong language produces some blindness.  We “see” through the language we use. 

Will we in Israel become a movement of supernatural power, revival, and signs and wonders confirming evangelism?  Will we attain John 17:21 unity in Israel and with our church partners?  We believe that all this will happen, but this will require going beyond dispensationalism. 

Sometimes Dispensationalists ask us if we cannot see that it is obvious that there are dispensations, different periods demarked in Scripture that show God’s working in different periods of time with different requirements and tests for the human race.  The answer is yes and no.  Reformed theologians and Calvin himself used the term dispensation to refer to a unique period with unique requirements.  We could all probably use the term dispensation more frequently if it was not associated with a total system of theology, Classical Dispensationalism.   In this essay, I will accept the use of the term but will explain how the problem is Classical Dispensational definitions and descriptions of these dispensations.

There clearly was a change after Adam and Eve fell.  There was a pre-fall period however brief and then the period from that fall to Noah.  The period until Noah was not one without law for it is clear that Noah knew that standards from God (law) were being severely violated by the society of his day.  After the flood, a new era had begun. The salvation of Noah and his family was by grace but required his faith obedience.  After the flood, the promise was given of never again destroying the earth with a flood. Laws were also given, to not eat blood from animals killed for food and to exact the death penalty for murder.  Certainly, many other standards of right and wrong were known.  These standards were no doubt known to Abraham. Before the Covenant of Abraham, we can thus count three dispensations, Innocence, Pre-Flood, and Post flood to Abraham. There is no contrast of grace versus law in these periods. 

A new dispensation began with Abraham and his family but most of the world continued under the covenant God made with Noah. The Noahic Covenant does not end.  However, for Israel, there was a new order of promise.  Dispensationalists sometimes call the period from Abraham to Moses a dispensation of promise, and that it was.  The Abrahamic Covenant continues to be in effect until today.  It was not without law.  Indeed, Abraham was declared righteous because he believed God (Gen. 15:6) but in Genesis 26:5 because he obeyed God’s statutes, ordinances, and judgments.  Abraham knew at least part of the Law of God that was later incorporated into the Mosaic Covenant!  

God hundreds of years later made his constitution for Israel through Moses, the Mosaic Covenant material from Exodus 20 through Deuteronomy (Davarim).   The Abrahamic Covenant is not replaced but is permanent.  Thomas McComiskey asserts in his fine book, Covenants of Promise, the Mosaic Covenant was a temporary administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.   It is a covenant of grace, not a law covenant that challenged Israel to find salvation through law-keeping.  We have already written about this.  This brings us to a fifth dispensation.  

The Mosaic Covenant is not abolished but is superseded in the New Covenant.  All that is applicable from Moses for the New Covenant order is assumed to be applied in the New Covenant (Matthew 5:17,18, Romans 8:4). The New Covenant in Yeshua is made with Israel but then is applied to those from the nations who embrace the apostolic witness and are grafted into the Jewish olive tree.  The New Covenant is the permanent administration of the Mosaic Covenant and comes to fullness in the Millennial Age. 

After the return of Yeshua, we will enter the Age to Come or the seventh dispensation, the Millennial Age.  It is also a dispensation of grace with a response of obedience to the law. 

The New Heavens and the New Earth are eternity and not one of the seven just as eternity past before the creation is not a dispensation.  We can therefore see that there are dispensations, but we describe the contrasts and continuum in very different ways. 

Reformed theology (Calvin, Reformed Church theologians, and Presbyterian theologians) generally taught that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit and power of God’s manifestations were for the purpose of launching the first-century Ecclesia and are not for today.  Once the Bible was written these gifts were no longer needed, especially revelatory gifts since we had God’s written revelation.  The perfect had come, the Bible, and that which was imperfect, the gifts, were no longer needed.  This included the gifts of apostles and prophets in Eph. 4:11 ff.  This was fully argued over 100 years ago in the book Counterfeit Miracles by Princeton Professor Benjamin Warfield.  (Warfield was responding to those who accepted these gifts such as A. J. Gordon of Gordon College and A. B. Simpson of the Christian and Missionary Alliance).  Dispensational teachers picked up this teaching and added a new twist.  The gifts of the Spirit were meant for a transitional period in moving from the Mosaic Dispensation of Law to the New Covenant Dispensation of Grace.  These gifts are not for this present Dispensation of Grace.  This is still in the statement of faith for all faculty at Dallas Theological Seminary.  These views are known as cessationism.  

This is a strange teaching since all of the passages on supernatural gifts (Romans 12, I Cor. 12, 14, etc.) do not give any time limits but assume their continuation until the return of Yeshua.  It is also the consensus of commentators that when “that which is perfect is come” refers to the Age to Come and the Age of the direct rule of Yeshua.  If we add the text from Eph. 4:11 we note that it teaches that the listed leadership gift ministries for the “equipping of the saints for the work of ministry” continues until we come to unity and the full maturity of the Messiah.  This is well interpreted in Craig Keeners great book Spirit Hermeneutics.  

The two great refutations of this cessationism are exegetical and empirical.  The most complete exegetical refutation I know is John Mark Ruthven’s, The Cessation of the Charismata.  Professor Ruthven takes on Warfield in a comprehensive review.  He exegetes passage after passage to show that part of the essence of the New Covenant is the presence of the Spirit that shows Himself in the prophetic gifting in all believers.  It is an amazing study.  Also, Gordon Fee’s His Empowering Presence on the teaching of the Spirit in the Pauline corpus shows cessationism to be an impossible interpretation.  

The second refutation is that worldwide, but especially in Southern Hemisphere Christianity, the supernatural gifts of the Spirit and signs and wonders are a significant part of the progress of the Gospel.  It is real, miraculous, and not imagination. Today the leaders of the World Evangelical Alliance estimate that they network 600 million Christians, 400 million are Pentecostal=Charismatics, and 200 million non-Charismatics.  Why 400 million?  The supernatural is key to the advance of the Gospel.  Craig Keener is today the President of the prestigious Evangelical Theological Society.  His two-volume set, Miracles, the Credibility of New Testament Miracles is definitive.  The same kind of miracles seen in the pages of the New Testament are happening frequently all over the world, but especially in the Southern Hemisphere.  Keener traveled the world To document many examples of most of the same kinds of miracles as in the New Testament. His book is affirmed by many Evangelical scholars in the United States.   The Classical Dispensational view on miracles today and the supernatural gifts of the Spirit has certainly been refuted. 

Oswald T. Allis was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and then Westminster Theological Seminary.  Allis provides a blistering critique of Classical Dispensational theology that is unequaled though published over 75 years ago. 

He takes them to task on many of the points we have made in our essays.  The most blistering attack is on the dispensational view that the Gospels and the teaching of Yeshua are still part of the dispensation of law raised to its height but not directly relevant to Christians under the Covenant of Grace.  On this view, Christians are responsible to obey the teaching of the epistles of the New Testament and not literally obeying the impossible injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount which is the Law raised to its height of impossible perfection.  It reveals our need for the way of grace.  Allis seems almost incensed that the sublime teaching of Yeshua is not directly for the Church though dispensationalism did say that it was applicable in some ways when seen through the lens of the epistles. 

Then Allis takes dispensationalism to task for rejecting the promises of God in the Old Testament as applicable to Christians.  In this, we do come to the mixed-bag aspect of Allis and Classical Reformed theology.  Yes, many promises to Israel are applicable to Christians. We can list so many.  “You will seek me and find me when you search for me with all your heart.”  God promises that when we go through the waters, He will be with us.  We all know that Christians quote many Old Testament promises and claim them for themselves.  Are they right to do so?  For Allis, the answer is yes, because these promises given to Israel are for the Israel of God, the Church, in the New Covenant.  This includes for Allis the dry bones passage for the revival of the Church. (Ezek. 37)  For myself, these promises were given to Israel and the prophecies of Israel’s ultimate salvation and redemption are primarily for Israel, but the underlying principles are clear.  They have an underlying and secondary and important application to all believers.  However, as Messianic Jews, we would have interpreters always acknowledge the primary application to Israel. 

This brings us to the Achilles’ heel of Allis’s theology.  It is the failure to first interpret texts according to the original intent of the author in context.  He spiritualizes and applies texts to the Church without the qualification.  Dispensationalists point out the subjective nature of these interpretations, which are the classical approaches of much of Reformed theology and indeed the Church Fathers and classical Catholic and Orthodox Christian interpretation.  Indeed, Classical Reformed theology is replacement theology.  The Church is the new and true Israel, and ethnic Israel is no longer God’s elect people.  When we read the promises to Israel as yet unfulfilled, we are told to read the Church into these passages. 

When Dispensationalists point this out and then claim to be the proponents of a more objective and defensible literal (natural) interpretive approach, they win many over to their side.  It is as though you are either Classical Reformed like Allis or Classical Dispensational.  However, as we have shown, Dispensationalism has its own Bible-stretching interpretations.  We are not locked into just two choices.  There are natural interpreters such as Dr. Walter Kaiser and the late J.Barton Payne of Wheaton and many more who transcend these two approaches and provide a more adequate theology.  We do not have a fool’s choice of either Reformed or Dispensational theologies. Unless we point this out, Classical Reformed theology empowers Dispensationalists.  However, let us promote the third way. 

A historic interpretation in Protestantism asserts the importance of powerful outpourings of the Holy Spirit that will lead to a great worldwide outpouring of the Holy Spirit before the return of Yeshua.  This interpretation comes both from the examination of biblical texts and the experience of revival.  

Though the Puritans are looked at as stogy formalists, this was far from the truth for some of them. Ian Murray in his important book, The Puritan Hope, writes about outpourings of the Spirit in Puritan meetings as recorded in Puritan documents.  An eschatology was developed by some that taught that such outpourings would continue, that they would ebb but then a new outpouring would take place.  This ebb and flow would ultimately lead to a great outpouring that would not ebb but would lead to the second coming of Yeshua.  Some Lutheran Pietists affirmed the same view in the 18^th century. This view reached great clarity among the Moravians under Count Von Zinzendorf in Hernhutt, Germany in the 1730s.  They experienced such an outpouring that had dramatic effects.  This was partly enabling them to maintain their 24/7 continual prayer meeting and sending many into world missions.  It is usually thought that the Moravians began the modern Protestant world missions movement.  As an important side note, the Moravians were passionate about the Jewish people and had missions to them that actually planted congregations.  

The Moravians influenced John and Charles Wesley and the Methodist movement. There were outpourings of the Spirit, strange manifestations of the Spirit, and miracles. In America, the leader of the First Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards, defended the revival and the strange manifestations of the Spirit (His writings on this are still available).   The second great awakening and the ministry of Charles Finney were also very similar to the outpourings of Wesley. 

Rubin Archer Torrey was the right arm of Dwight L. Moody, the great 19th-century evangelist in the second half of the century in America.  They both believed in the second work of grace, the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  When Moody died, R. A. Torey became the President of Moody Bible Institute, but his theology of revival and the baptism of the Spirit led to a separation.  The same was repeated at Biola, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. Torrey left Biola and then traveled the world to inspire city-wide prayer meetings seeking God for revival.  Some believe that Torrey’s efforts were part of several revivals in the early 20^th century.  One was in China, but the most famous was the Welsh revival. Torrey as well looked for world revival leading to the completion of the great commission and the return of Jesus.  This orientation on revival is strong in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles today but also is very common among leaders in the World Evangelical Alliance.  

What is the biblical basis?  The most important text is Acts 2.  Many scholars interpret Acts 2 as partial fulfillment of Joel 2:28ff., that God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh.  The last days began with the coming of Yeshua and Pentecost (Shavuot) but the last of the last day is before the great, glorious and terrible day of the Lord’s judgment where the Sun is darkened, and the moon turned to blood red. That final day of the Lord is yet to come and the great outpouring on all flesh, not just a Jewish contingent in Jerusalem, is still to come. Other texts in Isaiah especially are supportive (Isaiah 60).  World revival is now a common theme among Christians worldwide.  

How does Classical Dispensation respond to this?  Generally, it is pessimistic about the end of this age, whereas the revival oriented to see the darkness getting darker but also see the greatest revival and the greatest harvest.  It seems to already be happening in some parts of the world.  There is as well an outpouring of miracles today (See Craig Keener’s amazing documentation in Miracles).  The most important dispensational statement today is the one required for all Dallas Theological Seminary faculty.  There is no revival mentioned, and miracles and supernatural gifts of the Spirit are declared not for today or for this dispensation.  This orientation changes the direction and expectation of Christians who hold to it. Indeed, those who expect and pray for revivals and the last great revival have much more optimism. We also believe in such a revival among the Jewish people.  This idea of a Jewish revival has been a central emphasis of the Messianic Jewish Alliance leaders in America for the last 45 years.  It is indeed true that revivals have led to great Gospel advances.  Just trace the effects of the Welsh revival.  There is no downside to this theology, but it intensifies prayer and faith. 

Classical Dispensationalism has blunted our hopes for revival. My conviction is that in Israel, we will not see much progress for the Gospel without revival, and Holy Spirit outpourings. 

I have a little book, a reprint of the 1946 100th-year anniversary edition, of a short history of the World Evangelical Alliance.  One of the goals of the WEA was to promote the John 17:21 unity of the Church.  This was considered one of the keys to the return of the Lord.  It remains so today for the WEA as it networks hundreds of millions.  Instead of competition, they seek cooperation in every city and region of the world.  They believe that the prayer of Yeshua will be answered before He returns.  “That they may be one that the world will believe.”  This was the heart of the great Zinzendorf and the Moravians in Herrnhut in the first half of the 18th century. 

 

However, in many Dispensational circles, the quest for unity is feared as something that will lead to deception and perhaps the great falling away or apostasy.  When classical Dispensationalists looked at John 17, they often interpreted as for the local church. Nott all hold this view. As one leader told us last year in a gathering of leaders here, John 17:21 is only saying that a local congregation in unity will be more successful.  As an example, he described a congregational picnic in a public park.  If the people show a lot of love to one another, the unbelievers in the park will be drawn to this love.  It is about the world around the local people of God.  In addition to the hope for unity, they do not see Acts 2 pointing to a great last days revival before the return of the Lord. 

 

Dispensational eschatology, or last days teaching, noted the Bible’s warning of a coming last days apostasy (II Thes.2:3).  That apostasy or rebellion, they believe, had already begun as mainline denominations compromised with evolution, critical approaches to the Bible, and denials of Biblical truth. The Ecumenical Movement also quoted John 17 in their question of unity in the World Council of Churches and other efforts. Many of these churches have departed from biblical truth. This, they believe, is all leading to the false world religion that will be part of the one world government of the Antichrist. 

 

They see other efforts for unity, Evangelical, charismatic, or Pentecostal all leading to the same danger. What is the answer to this?  First, one cannot get around John 17.  Anyone who reads this honestly has to conclude that unity will characterize a revived worldwide Church before the return of the Lord. This Church will complete the task of world Evangelism and making Israel jealous.  Secondly, this unity is based on a solid biblical confession of faith.  For example, the WEA has maintained its doctrinal standards from 1846 until today. However, to do so, they have to eschew the narrower fundamentalism that finds fault and criticism for all kinds of non-essentials and separated them from others on that basis.  The unity is maintained by the Reformers’ dictum.  “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things love.”  We cannot merely evaluate from an American perspective.  From a World perspective, we are closer to the fulfillment of the prayer of Yeshua than ever before except for biblical times. 

 

What are the consequences of one’s view of John 17?  If one agrees that the prayer of Yeshua will be answered then we are to give ourselves to cooperative unity locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.  This will greatly strengthen the Church.  However, if we do not believe this it will lead to independence, lack of mutual accountability, competition, and local churches that just build their little fiefdoms.