A Mid-Acts Response to Kevin DeYoung on Dispensationalism

Kevin DeYoung gave a sermon in his church a few years ago asking, “What is dispensationalism?”

For most who don’t know, Dr. DeYoung pastors a church in my town called Christ Covenant. As the name suggests, they teach the Bible from a Covenant Theological perspective adhering closely to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the foundation of reformed doctrine. I appreciated much of his approach. He was very respectful and did not treat dispensationalists as heretics or fools. He acknowledged their historical emphasis on the importance of studying God’s Word for yourself. The total and complete inerrancy of the Bible we have access to today is a core dispensational belief.

His historical overview was also helpful. He covered dispensational teachers such as Darby, Scofield, Chafer, along with the influences that institutions such as the Dallas Theological Seminary had on the movement. And you can’t talk about the evolution of dispensationalism without bringing up the immense effect it had on pop culture and Christianity in the media, such is the case with the Left Behind books and movies and other viral productions that seemed to push a dispensational framework of belief.

What he described in his 45 minute brief overview were systems of thought that have come to be known as “classical dispensationalism” or “pop dispensationalism”.

But the dispensationalism he described is not necessarily the dispensationalism we believe.

Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is an overlooked branch distinct from the more popular dispensationalism. It does share some of core tenets of dispensationalism, especially the distinction between Israel and the Church, but in other areas it rejects some of the ideologies often championed by classic or pop dispensationism. DeYoung presented dispensationalism mainly as an end-times framework built around the rapture, the tribulation, national Israel, and a literal millennium (at the time he was leading his church through Revelation, so it was appropriate to do so. But in general, people do tend to see dispensationalism as purely eschatological in nature). Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does hold strong beliefs around the end times, but it aims to do so much more than just present an end time, prophetic interpretation of scripture. Our system of belief begins with Christ of course, but also the distinct apostleship of Paul, the revelation of the mystery, Israel’s present blindness, and the formation of the Church which is Christ’s Body. Our belief of how the “end times” will unfold is definitely a part of our framework, but honestly, it is much further down the list of priorities than people may assume.

Early Dispensationalism Recovered Truth and Added Error

Early dispensational thinkers like John Nelson Darby and James Hall Brookes–who was an American Presbyterian pastor who mentored C.I. Scofield and taught many dispensational doctrines, including premillennialism–began to recover truths that had been largely overlooked in mainstream Christianity. They saw that Israel and the Church could not simply be blended together. They saw that promises made to Israel should not automatically be spiritualized and handed to the Church. They recognized that prophecy should be allowed to mean what it says. They championed a literal interpretation of Scripture–not ignoring obvious figures of speech but also being much more conservative in chalking up much of the Old Testament to symbolism and metaphor.

A major criticism of dispensationalism is that it was “invented” in the 1800s. I, however, see it as recovering doctrines that were taught in Scripture but largely lost or ignored. With respect to our historical predecessors and teachers in historical Christianity, their beliefs, no matter how long they were taught in churches, do not supersede what the Bible says. History can help, but I think many theologians today put way too much emphasis on the fact that if a doctrine has been taught for many centuries, it must be right.

I apply this truth to my dispensational predecessors as well. I will admit that much of early dispensational systems of theology were messy and incongruent. They would see truth plainly in some areas, but then mix in error in others.

I often read and study out of the Scofield Reference Bible. I read some of his commentaries and many times agree wholeheartedly and admire the truths he was able to pull back out of Scripture that maybe went against the more popular teachings at the time. But then in other areas he was still missing key ideas and teachings that didn’t line up with what I see in the Bible. I probably agree with half of Scofield’s system, depending on which note we are discussing. Some early distinctions were forced or inconsistent because they had not fully recognized the implications of Paul’s distinctive ministry.

Mid-Acts Dispensationalism to me is the further organization and development of this 200 year long attempt to follow Paul’s specific revelation from Christ more consistently. You could almost say it is a reformation of dispensationalism, shedding the baggage and error that came along in the early days while retaining the key truths recovered from God’s Word.

Let’s go through some of them.

Prophecy Is Not Being Fulfilled Today

DeYoung associated a part of dispensationalism with watching the news and identifying current events as fulfillments of Bible prophecy. That has certainly happened in dispensational churches over the years. It has sold books and movies and captured the imagination of both believers and non believers. We are fascinated with apocalypse stories.

But it is not a necessary result of dispensationalism. I would even argue that it is a corruption of it.

The present dispensation was a mystery “kept secret since the world began” until it was revealed through Paul (Romans 16:25; Ephesians 3:1-9). Prophecy concerns what God “spake by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21). One was spoken. The other was secret.

A key dispensational belief is that ethnic Israel has been set aside and the prophetic program (including the kingdom) has been interrupted. If this is the case, then how can dispensationalism also teach that prophecy is presently being fulfilled through today’s headlines? Events may resemble conditions that will exist when prophecy resumes, but it fundamentally goes against the beliefs of dispensationalism to say that we can interpret events today as prophecy being fulfilled.

The modern State of Israel is not presently God’s covenant nation operating under the prophetic program, which means Israel is not the active conduit of God’s work today. The Church is. Israel is blinded in part “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” (Romans 11:25). Her setting aside we believe is not permanent, but it is certainly the case while the church is alive and operating. God is not fulfilling prophecy today. Period.

Israel and the Church Are Distinct, but the Church Is Not a Mistake

DeYoung correctly identified the sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel is a nation with earthly covenants, a promised land, a throne, a priesthood, and a future kingdom under her Messiah. The Church, the Body of Christ, is a new creature in which believing Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to God in one body by the cross.

We see these as two distinct groups in God’s plan of reconciliation, not one people as the Westminster Confession teaches.

However, the Church is not a digression from God’s “real” plan. It is not a detour while God waits to get back to Israel. The mystery was hidden in God, but it was never an emergency plan. God knew it before the world began. He purposed it in Christ and revealed it in “due time” (Titus 1:2-3; Ephesians 3:9-11).

The word parenthesis, as DeYoung, and many dispensationalists, use to describe the age of the church today, can be useful if it simply means that Israel’s prophetic program has been temporarily interrupted. It becomes misleading when it suggests that the Body of Christ is secondary or accidental. We do not see the Body of Christ as less grand because we see it as separate from God’s plan for Israel (and earth).

I see two grand threads in God’s purpose. One concerns the earth, where Israel will serve as the chief nation under Christ’s earthly kingdom. The other concerns the heavenly places, where the Body of Christ has its calling and inheritance. Both equally grand and glorious, just different. Similar, sure. Both founded on Christ, yes. But still distinct in God’s purposes. Ephesians 1:10 speaks of God gathering together in Christ “all things…which are in heaven, and which are on earth.” Both realms belong to Christ. One does not need to swallow the other.

Mid-Acts Dispensationalism Begins with Paul’s Apostleship

The greatest oversight in DeYoung’s presentation is that Paul’s distinct ministry barely factors into his definition. Yet for Mid-Acts believers, this is the heart of the issue.

Paul did not merely preach the same message as the Twelve to a different audience. Christ gave him a distinct apostleship and revealed through him truth that had previously been hidden. Paul calls his message “my gospel” and speaks of “the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery” (Romans 16:25).

The Twelve proclaimed Israel’s Messiah, Israel’s repentance, and the coming restoration of the kingdom promised by the prophets. We see this as God’s earthly program, or prophetic program–“that which was known”. Paul proclaimed Christ according to a mystery: Jew and Gentile reconciled in one Body, apart from Israel’s rise, covenants, and kingdom. We see this as God’s heavenly program, or mystery program–“that which was hidden”.

This does not mean Paul preached a different Saviour. There is one Lord Jesus Christ and one cross. The question is what God was making known about Christ, through whom, and for what purpose. Do we teach Christ according to the flesh, or according to Peter, or according to Paul? (2 Corinthians 5:16; Galatians 1:11-12).

In the Mid Acts Pauline Dispensational circle (mouthful, I know), we believe the present dispensation begins with Paul’s salvation and commission in Acts 9. The transition and revelation gradually unfolds across Acts, but the new apostolic commission begins there. Once Paul’s apostleship is treated as the doctrinal center rather than a later missionary expansion of Pentecost, many biblical distinctions are seen naturally.

Salvation Is Not Divided into Two Tiers

DeYoung included a two-tier view of salvation among the common features of dispensationalism: a person may receive Christ as Saviour while refusing him as Lord, remaining a permanently carnal Christian.

I guess in principle I do hold this belief. But really a “two tier salvation”, the way I understand it, is just an odd way of saying we are saved by faith and grace alone, not by works. Yes, doctrinally, I believe that if someone truly puts genuine faith in the gospel of grace, believing that Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection is what saves them, then they could live the rest of their life carnally and still be saved. This is the definition of pure grace, which is a major stance in Mid Acts Dispensationalism.

But come to our church, or one of the few Mid Acts churches I know of, and you will be challenged to “grow up” in Christ.

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.” — Ephesians 4:14-15

There is much emphasis on the importance of maturing in your faith which requires a lifetime of daily walking with the Lord. But we also emphasize the importance of standing on right doctrine, meaning, truth from Paul’s revelation. We study Genesis to Revelation, rightly divided and recognizing instruction for the church vs instruction for other dispensations.

Christ is Lord whether a believer behaves like it or not. Grace does not make obedience irrelevant. Paul rebukes carnality more than almost anyone.

Works do not purchase or maintain salvation. They matter because saved people belong to Christ. That is the difference between salvation and service, not two levels of salvation.

Some of the “Stranger Doctrines” Are Still Biblical

DeYoung noted that later dispensationalists backed away from the “stranger” teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount belonging to the future kingdom and the kingdom of heaven being distinct from the kingdom of God.

Call me strange then.

Mid Acts dispensationalism is not to be confused with progressive dispensationalism. We hold many of the biblical doctrines that were recovered by early dispensationalists.

I believe the Sermon on the Mount is the constitution of Israel’s coming kingdom. Jesus was speaking to Israel about the righteousness required for entrance into that kingdom. That does not make Matthew 5-7 useless to us. All Scripture is profitable. But profitable application is not the same as direct doctrinal address.

I also believe the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are distinguishable. The kingdom of God is the broader rule of God. The kingdom of heaven, as Matthew presents it, concerns heaven’s rule established over the earth through Israel’s Messiah. The two overlap, but they are not interchangeable in every passage. The kingdom of heaven is the millennial kingdom come to earth.

“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). We interpret this as the believing remnant of ethnic Israel praying for the fulfillment and ushering in of the prophetic kingdom to earth (still unfulfilled, and not a prayer for today).

These views may sound strange because covenant theology has supplied the default categories for centuries. Strange is not the same as unscriptural.

Answering DeYoung’s Five Final Questions

DeYoung ended by asking five questions of dispensationalists. They deserve direct answers.

1. Has the dispensational literal hermeneutic been applied consistently throughout Scripture?

It should be, yes.

To interpret Scripture literally does not mean pretending figures of speech are not figures of speech. When Jesus says, “I am the door,” no dispensationalist should look for hinges. Revelation tells us when it is presenting signs, symbols, and visions. Symbols still point to real people, nations, judgments, and events.

Take the words in their normal sense unless the text or context gives a reason not to. A symbolic passage should be interpreted symbolically. A promise of land, a throne, a nation, or a restored kingdom should not become symbolic merely because a theological system has no place for its plain meaning.

“Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).

2. Does the Bible warrant such a sharp discontinuity between Israel and the Church?

Yes, though not two ways of salvation.

Romans 11 says blindness has happened to Israel “in part, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in,” and then “all Israel shall be saved.” Israel cannot be the Church in that passage. One has been blinded while God forms the other. After the present work among the Gentiles is complete, God resumes his dealings with Israel.

Galatians 6:16 does not erase that distinction. “The Israel of God” is believing Israel, the faithful Jewish remnant that accepted her Messiah. Paul blesses those who walk according to the rule of the new creature, “and” the Israel of God. He is not renaming the entire Body of Christ Israel in this one verse.

3. Can earthly and physical promises to Israel remain when Hebrews calls Israel’s institutions shadows and types?

Yes.

Hebrews teaches that the sacrifices, priesthood, and tabernacle of the old covenant were shadows of a substance to come. Christ is the better sacrifice, the better priest, and the mediator of a better covenant. But the substance to come is not the Body of Christ.

Hebrews is written to the Hebrew people, which should be obvious. Its readers are being prepared to endure the coming tribulation and enter in the promised rest at the end, which is Israel’s kingdom under the new covenant. The old rituals cannot perfect them or bring that kingdom, but Christ can (just not for us).

A fulfilled sacrifice does not cancel a promised land. A better priest does not erase David’s throne. Christ makes Israel’s promises possible; he is not the reason God no longer needs to keep them.

4. Is it reasonable that such an all-encompassing system was unknown for most of church history?

A doctrine is not true because it is old. The term dispensationalism is recent. The distinction between prophecy and mystery is in Paul. Israel’s future restoration is in Paul. The Body of Christ, the apostleship of the Gentiles, and the heavenly calling are in Paul.

Martin Luther did not invent justification by faith when he recovered it after centuries of corruption and neglect. Someone could have asked why such an important doctrine had been missed by so much of the visible church. That would not have answered his exegesis.

Church history can be helpful to understand and look at, but it should not be given veto power over Scripture.

5. Is the Bible essentially one story about one covenant of grace administered in different ways?

No.

The Bible is one revelation of one God accomplishing his purpose in Christ, but it contains multiple covenants made with particular people for particular purposes. Scripture speaks of covenants, plural. The covenant with Noah is not the covenant with Abraham. The Mosaic covenant is not the Davidic covenant. The new covenant is promised to “the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31).

These covenants are related within God’s larger purpose, but they are not merely different administrations of one underlying covenant. They contain different promises, obligations, signs, recipients, and purposes. The Noahic covenant concerned the earth and God’s promise never again to destroy all flesh with a flood. The Abrahamic covenant included a nation, a land, a seed, and worldwide blessing. The Mosaic covenant established Israel under the law. The Davidic covenant promised an enduring throne and kingdom through David’s seed. The new covenant promises Israel forgiveness, spiritual cleansing, a new heart, the law written within them, and restoration to their land.

The land promise does not become a vague promise that believers inherit the world. God identified the land by name, intentionally marking its boundaries in multiple different prophecies, and gave it to Abraham’s seed. If God said he will do it, he will do it.

And God did not merely say, “Israel will inherit a land,” or, “The meek shall inherit the earth.” He described Israel’s future with an astonishing level of detail. He spoke about the nation being gathered from among the Gentiles, cleansed from her sins, reunited as one people, ruled by the Son of David, protected from her enemies, and established permanently in the land promised to her fathers.

Ezekiel describes Israel being gathered out of the countries and brought into her own land, where God will give the people a new heart and cause them to walk in His statutes (Ezekiel 36:24–28). The next chapter describes Judah and Israel being reunited as one nation under one king, with “David my servant” ruling over them (Ezekiel 37:21–28). Isaiah describes a future kingdom in which the Messiah rules in righteousness, the nations seek Him, creation itself is changed, and the scattered people of Israel are gathered again (Isaiah 11:1–12). Amos says that God will raise up the fallen tabernacle of David, restore Israel, and plant the people upon their land so that they will “no more be pulled up” (Amos 9:11–15).

Jeremiah connects the new covenant with the continued existence of Israel as a nation before God. He compares Israel’s permanence to the ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars (Jeremiah 31:35–37). Zechariah speaks of the Lord returning to Jerusalem, fighting against the nations, reigning as King over all the earth, and receiving worship from the nations that survive the conflict (Zechariah 14). Ezekiel devotes multiple chapters to the measurements of a future temple, the division of the land among the tribes, the service of the priests, and the river flowing out from the sanctuary (Ezekiel 40–48).

I know many will disagree, but I cannot read the thousands of words dedicated to describing what God told Israel she would one day receive and reduce them to mere symbolism for the Church today. I cannot read hundreds of lines of prophecy concerning Jerusalem, the tribes of Israel, David’s throne, a restored land, national cleansing, earthly peace, and the submission of the nations, and conclude that God was simply using all of that detail to describe salvation in general.

Were all the tribal names unnecessary? Were all the geographical boundaries merely illustrations? Were the promises concerning Jerusalem, Mount Zion, the throne of David, Israel’s enemies, and the nations only shadows without a corresponding earthly fulfillment? At some point, spiritualizing every concrete feature of the promises risks making the words themselves almost meaningless.

Certainly, Christ is the center and guarantee of every promise God has made. But Christ does not fulfill the promises by changing their meaning. He fulfills them by accomplishing what God actually said He would accomplish. Jesus is the promised seed of Abraham, the Son of David, the King of Israel, and the mediator of the new covenant. His centrality does not erase Israel’s promises. It is what guarantees their eventual fulfillment.

The question is not whether the Old Testament points to Christ. It unquestionably does. The question is whether pointing to Christ requires the particular promises made to Israel to be transferred to another people, generalized into spiritual blessings, or reinterpreted so that their original details no longer need to occur.

A consistently dispensational reading says no. God’s revelation forms one unified purpose centered in Christ, but unity does not require sameness. God can have one ultimate purpose while administering distinct programs, making distinct covenants, and giving distinct promises to different groups. The Bible is not one covenant told in different forms. It is the unfolding revelation of God’s manifold purpose, in which every promise will be fulfilled exactly as faithfully as it was given.

Peter’s language about a chosen generation, royal priesthood, and holy nation is not proof that the Church has replaced Israel. Peter was the apostle of the circumcision, writing to scattered believers connected with Israel’s program (1 Peter 1:1). He draws from Exodus 19 because that identity belongs to the believing nation that will serve as priests in the kingdom. The audience of Peter’s letters is the same audience of Hebrews.

Paul can quote an Old Testament promise and apply its moral truth to the Body of Christ without transferring every covenant detail to us. A shared spiritual truth does not make Israel and the Church the same people.

God has one ultimate purpose in Christ–to bring all things, both heaven and earth, together in reconciliation. But this plan is still unfolding. For such a time, the two things, both heaven and earth, are separate. Israel will be what God promised Israel would be. The Body of Christ will be what God revealed through Paul.

God does not need to break one promise to fulfill another. He, the omniscient and omnipotent God he is, can and will literally fulfill all prophecy in the way he said he will, while also leading a body of new creatures towards a different, heavenly destiny.

A Few Questions Back to Our Covenant Theology Friends

Kevin DeYoung ended his message by asking dispensationalists five thoughtful questions. I appreciate that approach. Systems should be tested.

So allow me to end with a few questions in return.

If God made dozens of detailed promises to Israel concerning a specific land, a specific nation, a specific throne, a specific kingdom, and a specific future restoration, on what biblical basis should those promises now be understood differently than when they were first given? At what point does a literal promise become a symbolic one?

If Israel and the Church are ultimately the same covenant people, why does Paul speak of Israel’s present blindness until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in (Romans 11:25)? Why describe Israel’s future restoration if the Church has already inherited everything promised to her?

If the Church began in Acts 2, why does Paul repeatedly describe his ministry as revealing truths “kept secret since the world began” (Romans 16:25), “hid in God” (Ephesians 3:9), and “not made known unto the sons of men” in previous ages? What exactly was the mystery if the Church was already operating under Peter’s ministry?

If Peter and Paul preached the same message to the same people under the same program, why does Paul spend so much time defending the distinct apostleship committed to him? Why does he call himself “the apostle of the Gentiles”? Why does he speak of “my gospel”? Why does Galatians 2 distinguish Peter’s apostleship to the circumcision from Paul’s apostleship to the uncircumcision?

Finally, If the Body of Christ is simply the continuation or fulfillment of Israel, why are believers today never told to keep Israel’s kingdom hope, await David’s throne, inherit the promised land, or prepare for the restoration spoken by the prophets? Instead, Paul consistently directs our attention to a heavenly calling, heavenly citizenship, heavenly blessings, and a hope that “was kept secret.”

At the end of the day, this discussion is bigger than dispensationalism or covenant theology. It is about the character of God. Does God mean what He says?

If He promised Israel a kingdom, I believe He will give Israel a kingdom.

If He promised the Body of Christ a heavenly inheritance, I believe He will give the Body of Christ a heavenly inheritance.

Neither promise diminishes the other. Together they display the manifold wisdom of God. One purpose in Christ. One cross. One Savior. Distinct callings. Distinct hopes. A faithful God who will accomplish every word He has spoken.

That is ultimately why I remain convinced that Mid-Acts Dispensationalism best accounts for the whole counsel of God.