Dispensationalism and the Problem of Vindication
by slaveofone

Dispensationalism is an intriguing eschatological system, which is, perhaps, one of the reasons it has become a pillar of the popular Christian mythos. However, the more I study, the more I become convinced of its fundamentally flawed theology in numerous areas.¹ Here I wish to advance what I call the problem of vindication. It appears to me that Dispensationalism invalidates the proofs Yeshua called for in order to vindicate himself and his pronouncements. If I am correct in my assessment, it means that if Dispensationalism is true, Yeshua is a false prophet.

Throughout Yeshua’s ministry, he did and said a great deal of things that continually provoked his audience to anger or aggression. First Century Palestine was anything but carefree and at peace. Like a field of dead grass, society in Yeshua’s day needed only a spark to ignite the land and cover it in a veil of blood. Had he not couched his words in parables and stayed away from the major centers of Jewish populace, there is no doubt his head would have quickly been served on a platter alongside John’s. Yet despite these cautions, the gospels still record numerous attempts at his life. The reason for that is because Yeshua claimed to be fulfilling Israel’s eschatological purpose. He claimed for himself not only the vocation of the Messianic King, but also the power and authority to bring about Yahweh’s kingdom. And he pointed to specific things on which he staked the proof that would vindicate these words and actions as being true. These proofs of vindication are two-fold:

1. The destruction of Jerusalem/Temple in an absolute sense.
2. Himself as the final and ultimate messenger to Yahweh’s people.

Let’s look at number one. First Yeshua took over from John the Baptist’s ministry, which symbolically re-enacted the formation of Israel by having people go into the wilderness and pass through the waters. But this was neither remembrance of Yahweh choosing for himself a people, nor repentance as could be done at any time (but usually in the Temple and through its divinely ordained authority). John called Jews out of Israel just as Yahweh had called Jews out of Egypt. One cannot dismiss the obvious implications. Israel had become the enemy of her god. Therefore, her god was calling her people to return to him. This would then be a new people distinct the former, a righteous remnant, the True Israel.

Yeshua then called twelve disciples around him, which to any Jewish eye would be clearly indicative of the twelve tribes of Israel. That Yeshua could fail to take into consideration the symbolic meaning attached to this specific number is preposterous. The only plausible historical answer is that he meant to have this many disciples so such a meaning would be conveyed. And that, in combination with taking over John the Baptist’s program, meant he was dramatically and symbolically creating an alternative Israel--the True Israel--around himself.²

But that is only the beginning. Yeshua was also forming an alternate Temple and priesthood around himself as if he had the right and authority to do so, which meant condemning the normative Jewish symbols and authorities that had so long defined the Jew in the first place. How dare he! Claiming that what would normally be achieved in the Temple and through its ministering priesthood is now achieved alternatively by himself (and consequently by his followers) is also a pronouncement of judgment and condemnation against the Temple in Jerusalem. Instead of going to the Temple to be cleansed, Yeshua pronounced people clean. Instead going to the Temple for healing, they came to him. Instead of seeking forgiveness through the sacrificial system, Yeshua dared say their sins were forgiven. Instead of going to the Temple (as was Pharisaic custom) with no shoes except sandals and carrying no money in a purse except in his bare hand and holding only one cloak, so Yeshua told his disciples as they went out from him that these traditional rules which applied to the Temple now only made sense coming from their association with him.³

Such bold and many would say blasphemous claims could not be shown true in the Jewish world-view simply because Yeshua did a great many wondrous deeds to back up his side of the deal. Yahweh could only be raising up a righteous and true Temple in Yeshua if he was throwing down the false and wicked Temple in Jerusalem. There cannot be two Temples or Yahweh’s people divided against themselves. If then the Temple and Jerusalem remain and Yeshua and his movement fizzles out, such a person would be shown to have been a charlatan or false prophet as the great Rabbi Gamaliel himself said.⁴ But if the sacrifices were to cease,⁵ if pagan hordes were to tear down the Temple stone by stone,⁶ if Jerusalem and the nation of Yahweh’s people were to be destroyed,⁷ and if Yeshua’s followers escaped its fall unharmed in a re-enactment of the return from exile in which the righteous remnant was escaping from doomed Babylon to be Zion at long last,⁸ then Yeshua would be vindicated as a prophet, the true representative of Israel, and his followers the true people of the covenant God. The vindication of Yeshua’s words and actions depend on this. As he said, heaven and earth will pass away, but his words about the destruction of Jerusalem and the rescue of his followers from this judgment would not fail.⁹

So what is all that to Dispensationalism? To say--after Israel and the Temple have been destroyed and the people who rejected Yeshua have met an end--that the former nation of Israel didn’t really end but came back to life and reclaimed its former authority and place (or will do so) as part of the plan of Yahweh, is to nullify the vindication that would have proven Yeshua true and the covenant God faithful. Our choices are:

A. Yeshua is shown to be greater than the Temple¹⁰ and is in fact the cornerstone of the rebuilt Zion,¹¹ Christians are the true people of the covenant God, the promises of the covenant have been fulfilled in Yeshua, and the former house has been destroyed, replaced by the new house which listens to Yeshua’s voice and is cleansed.

B. The former house has not been destroyed, the Jewish people are still the covenant people of Yahweh, the Holy City will be redeemed (or is being redeemed), there is no fulfillment of the covenant through Yeshua, Yeshua is not greater than the Temple, and Yeshua’s claims and prophecies have failed because he has not redefined and reformed Israel around himself.

Just as Yeshua’s resurrection from the dead authenticates him and his movement, so too would the Jewish nation be authenticated if it were to rise again from the dead by the will and plan of Yahweh. Dispensationalism says that Yahweh is still working to redeem the Jewish nation. It thus destroys Yeshua’s proof of vindication and vindicates instead the former Israel in his place.

Going back to number two, Dispensationalism says that when Yeshua went to Jerusalem, he did not go as the last prophet, nor was this Jerusalem’s last chance. It may have been a chance to avoid a 2,000 year long exile, but it was definitely not the end of Yahweh’s dealings with the Holy City, nor the last time he would send prophets to her. But if Yeshua was not the last prophet to Jerusalem, and if there are going to be more prophets coming after him to the Jewish nation, and if this wasn’t the nation’s last chance to remain in the covenant, then what Yeshua taught about himself is a lie. Take, for example, the vineyard sayings:

Then he began to tell the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one, and threw him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, What should I do? I will send my one dear son, perhaps they will respect him. But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, This is the heir; let’s kill him so the inheritance will be ours! So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.

Luke 20:9-16

Then he began to speak to them in parables: A man planted a vineyard. He put a fence around it, dug a pit for its winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went on a journey. At harvest time he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his portion of the crop. But those tenants seized his slave, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave to them again. This one they struck on the head and treated outrageously. He sent another, and that one they killed. This happened to many others, some of whom were beaten, others killed. He had one left, his one dear son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, They will respect my son. But those tenants said to one another, This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and the inheritance will be ours! So they seized him, killed him, and threw his body out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.

Mark 12:1-9

For this reason I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Matthew 21:43

Yeshua told us that Yahweh had sent prophets to Israel for a long time, and finally and lastly he had sent his son. Once he has sent his son, he will send nobody else. To reject the son is to reject the last chance, at which point Yahweh will then come himself to destroy the evil tenants and put others in their place.

Dispensationalism makes the parable mean:

Yahweh sent his prophets to the Israel for a long time, and then sent his son. But they killed the son, so Yahweh came and disciplined them roughly. Then he put them back in charge of the vineyard again and sent prophets again. The people again didn’t listen. And so he again sent his son. This time, the son isn’t killed but makes things right in the vineyard and the former tenants are never really destroyed or others given their place.

But there is no mention of those who have been destroyed coming back. And there is no mention of the son coming a second time. Such an interpretation can do nothing but deny and destroy Yeshua’s words. He is left without the vindication he needs to be proven true and for his followers to be vindicated as the true people of the covenant God that a complete and finished work of judgment against the false Israel would give. He has not only lost his vindication, but it has been proven false¹² because he said after he was killed Yahweh would come and destroy and that never happened--they were just scattered. He said Israel’s special status would be given to others, but it wasn’t--Israel retained her status and reclaimed it at a later date. If Yahweh remakes the old Jewish nation or intends for the old Jewish nation to be remade as his people, or if the son will again go to Jerusalem and prophets will again be sent there, Yahweh is validating the old Jewish nation and invalidating Yeshua and Yeshua’s followers.

• Digest
  • slaveofone's Digest
  • Imaginated's Digest
  • Mit The Destroyer's Digest
• Bias
• Imaginarium
  • Poetry
  • Photography
  • Movies
  • Digital Art
  • Stories
• Twisted Minds
  • slaveofone's Bio
  • Imaginated's Bio
  • Mit The Destroyer's Bio
• Resources

Echo Of Eden^© 2005-2007

• -made on GNU/Linux^®
• -Gimp
• -Inkscape
• -Jedit