What is Replacement Theology?
What is Dispensationalism? 

And why the reason of those who embrace it
– and the reason of those who
reject it

Lorraine Day, M.D.


What is Replacement Theology?

The majority of mainstream Christians may never have heard this term.  If they have, few know clearly what it means.  Because of the startling rise of Charismatic Evangelical Christianity in the latter half of the twentieth century, it is critical that every Christian understand the enormous impact that the false doctrine of Dispensationalism is having on worldwide Christianity.

“Replacement theology essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel.  All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the Church is a continuation of Israel (replacement theology / covenant theology), or the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism / premillennialism).

“Replacement theology teaches that the Church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian Church, not in Israel.  So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” or “allegorized” into promises of God’s blessing for the Church.”  www.gotquestions.org

The author of the above website then goes on to point out what he defines as “major problems” with this view, “such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel.  If Israel has been condemned by God, the author asks, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them?  How do we explain, he continues, why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?

The Problems with Replacement Theology

Both sides are wrong in this debate. 

On one side, the Jews and the Evangelical Christians claim that the Jews are still God’s “Chosen People” and have not been “replaced” by the Christian church, and that the promises of the Old Testament are still in effect for the “ethnic” Jews of today.  They claim that the Jews are saved by their race – just by being “Jewish” - and that God is blessing the Jews by allowing them to return to their “promised land” in Palestine – a land falsely named “Israel.”  In addition, they believe that the Jews can do no wrong because they are God’s “Chosen people” and Christians must support Israel in everything they do – including Israel’s horrific genocide of the Palestinians – because God will, according to the Jews and Evangelical Christians, “bless those who bless the Jews” who they believe are the “seed of Abraham.”

On the other hand, the Christian church believes that Jews are no longer God’s “Chosen People” because they crucified Christ and that the “Israel” of the New Testament is comprised of Christians (who are primarily Gentiles) the new “Spiritual” Israel.  They believe that the present-day Christian Church has “replaced” the Jews as God’s “Chosen people” and that Christians are the recipients of God’s covenant promises.  All who accept Christ as their Messiah, whether “ethnic” Jews or “ethnic” Gentiles, are part of the “church” and have become God’s “chosen people.”

What does the Bible say?

1. First of all, the Israelites were NOT “Jews.”  The word Jew does NOT appear in the Bible, neither in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament.  It is an inaccurate term, a mistranslation of the Greek word Iudean or Judean – in fact, the word “Jew” is a phony term that has been written into the Bible by the translators.

    2. The Israelites of the Old Testament were worshipers of the true God, as opposed to the nations (frequently mistranslated Gentiles but sometimes properly translated as the heathen) who were worshipers of pagan gods.  Jacob’s name was changed to Israel – a spiritual name given to Jacob -   when he finally turned to God after a life of deception.  Again, the name Israel was a spiritual name, not a “genetic” transformation.  Jacob’s genes did not change.  Jacob did not become a “Jew.” 

      The Biblical meaning of the name Jacob was supplanter – one who removes or uproots.  Jacob stole the birthright from his brother Esau by deception of both Esau and their father Isaac.  Jacob was a deceiver – a liar and a thief.  When Jacob gave up that wicked life and turned to God, Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, which means “upright with God and man.”

      After Jacob wrestled with God and asked for a blessing,

      God said to Jacob, “What is your name?” and he said, “Jacob.” And He said to him, “No longer shall your name be called Jacob, but rather Israel is your name.  For you are upright with God and with men, and are prevailing.”  Genesis 32:28 (Concordant literal translation)

      It is obvious that Jacob’s name change to Israel was for spiritual reasons.  Jacob had had a change of heart.  He had left behind his life of cheating, stealing and lying and had given his heart to the Lord.

      Jacob had NOT become a “Jew.”

      Jacob was the grandson of two Babylonians, Abraham and Sarah.  Jacob’s father Isaac was the son of the same two Babylonians – Abraham and Sarah.  Jacob’s TWIN brother, Esau, was an Edomite – and has NEVER been considered even by today’s Jews, to be a “Jew.”  Esau is considered to have been a “Gentile.”

      That is, of course, absurd!

      How could two twins be born - at the same time - from the same mother - and one be an ethnic Jew and the other be an ethnic Gentile?

      Jacob was given the spiritual name Israel after he became a worshiper of the true God.  His offspring and all those who also worshiped the same true God who Israel (formerly Jacob) worshiped, were known as Israel-ites.

      The word Israelite is NOT synonymous with the word Jew

      There were NO “Jews” in the Old Testament, even though the translators have erroneously written the word “Jew” into the Old Testament Scriptures ten times, eight of those times in the book of Esther.  The other two times are in Jeremiah 34:9 and Zech 8:23. 

      In all eight instances, the Hebrew word is Yehuwdiy (#3064 in Strong’s Concordance) pronounced yeh-hoo-dee which is a derivation of the Hebrew word for the true God – Yehovah (pronounced Ye-ho-vaw) - or Jehovah in English and Greek – after the letter “J” was added to Greek and English alphabets in the 1600’s (#3068 in Strong’s Concordance).  There is no letter “J” in the Hebrew alphabet.

      The word Yehuwdiy (yeh-hoo-dee) meant in the Old Testament– and still means – a worshiper of Yehovah (Ye-ho-vaw).

      The tribe that produced Jesus Christ – God in human form – was the tribe of Judah - Yehuwd – pronounced yeh-hood - another derivative of the word Yehovah –  or Jehovah.  The earthly parents of Jesus were from the tribe of Judah.  They were Israelites from the tribe of Judah.  They were  Judahites as the Bible clearly states.  They were NOT ethnic “Jews.”

      All these words pertain to the worship of the true God or the tribe from which Jesus (God in human form) was born into.  They had nothing to do with any particular ethnicity.

      The book of Esther is NOT about the “Jews.”  Esther was NOT a Jew.  Esther was a worshiper of the true God.  The book of Esther is the story of the true followers of the God of heaven – the Israelites (who were not of any particular ethnicity) – and their persecution by those who did NOT worship the God of heaven - the heathen or pagans (the nations).

      The translators of the Bible, many of them cultural Jewish Hebrew scholars, by deliberately – and erroneously - changing the words Judean or Judahite, to the word “Jew” – have committed possibly the greatest translation sacrilege of all time.  They have deliberately tried to change the term that means a worshiper of the true God of heaven – into the definition of an “ethnicity” – a “Jew.”

      Thus, they birthed a bastard child  - a supposed Jewish ethnicity - by claiming that Israelites are/were ethnic “Jews.”  This is not true.  Jewishness is not an ethnicity but a culture and/or a religion – the culture and/or religion of the Talmud, whose god is Lucifer.   Judaism is not the religion of the true God of heaven.

      The deliberate mistranslation of the words Judahite or Judean into the word “Jew” and the deliberate mistranslation of the word nations into “Gentile” is the source of most, if not all, the trouble in the world today, because the cultural “Jews” of today - who have NO relationship to the Israelites of the Old or the New Testament – still consider themselves God’s “Chosen People” who believe they have the right to rule the world and destroy all non-Jews. 

      This abominable false translation and deception are embraced by the Evangelical “Christians” without whose help the cultural Jews could never control the world and destroy Christianity – their two highest priorities.

      The Evangelical Christians are so deceived they are willingly and unknowingly participating in their own demise.

      3. The word Gentile does not appear in the Bible.  It is the mistranslation of the word nation or nations, meaning the heathen or pagan – those who did NOT worship the God of heaven, the God who was worshiped by the Israelites.  Instead the nations (heathen) worshiped pagan gods – idols of stone and wood.

        Again, the translators have deliberately tried to make the designation of the nations – the heathen – the worshipers of pagan gods – into an ethnicity, the “ethnic” Gentiles, supposedly referring to those who were/are not ethnic “Jews.”

      The translation committees of virtually ALL Bibles contain cultural Jews – usually rabbis – because of their proficiency in the Hebrew language.  They are undoubtedly responsible for the change in the terms – and their implied meaning.

      4. The word church does not appear in the Bible.  It has been written into the Bible by the translators – a mistranslation of the Greek word ecclesia that means a group of believers, the followers of the true God, not an hierarchical organization of any kind.

      5. Jesus was NOT a Jew.  Jesus was – and is – God in human form. And God is NOT “Jewish.” Jehovah God is Invisible. (Col 1:15)  Jesus is/was the “express image” (Heb 1:3) (the Visible form) of the Invisible God.

      Jesus was an Israelite – meaning a worshiper of the true God whose presence was in the temple in Jerusalem in Judea.  Jesus was also – in His human form - a Judahite, meaning a member of the tribe of Judah.  But Jesus was NOT an ethnic Jew.

      There were NO ethnic Jews in the Old or New Testament, nor are there any ethnic Jews today.

      6. There is no such thing as an ethnic “Jew.”  “Jewishness” is a culture and/or a religion, the religion of Judaism, the religion of the Talmud.  Both the “Jewish” culture and the religion of Judaism are governed by the Talmud, the “holiest” book (actually a series of books) of Judaism.  These books were written by various rabbis down through the ages and contain the “written down” oral traditions of the Pharisees, the blasphemous writings of those who killed Christ, the traditions that Jesus strongly rebuked as “making the Word of God of none effect.”  (Mark 7:13)  Jesus referred to the Pharisees, those who believed in, taught, and ultimately recorded these wicked anti-Christ traditions (the future Talmud), as “vipers”, “hypocrites”, “the synagogue of Satan”, and “of your father, the Devil.” (John 8:44)

      7. The “Jews” NEVER were God’s “chosen people” nor are the “Jews” God’s “chosen people” now.  The Israelites of the Old Testament WERE God’s “chosen people” because they worshiped the God of heaven, but they were a “mixed multitude” when they came out of Egypt. (Ex 12:38)  They were of NO particular ethnicity.  In fact, because they came out of Egypt – some of the “chosen people” were obviously Arabs!

      8. God’s “chosen people” were “chosen” specifically to exhibit the character of God – which is the character of Jesus Christ.  They were “chosen” to take the Good News of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, to the world.

        Yet the “Jews” of today HATE Jesus Christ, and their “holiest” book, the Talmud, says that “Jesus is boiling in hot excrement in hell.”  That certainly disqualifies them for ANY of the blessings of God for His “chosen people.

      9. God’s “chosen people” are those who love Him, and follow Him, and obey His commandments, those who will take His love to the world, those who LOVE their enemies and do GOOD to those who hate them, as Jesus commanded, those who will FORGIVE everyone who has ever wronged them, rather than repeatedly saying, “NEVER FORGET!” regarding the supposed “Holocaust.”

        10. Over 90% of those in the world today who refer to themselves as “Jews” are Ashkenazi “Jews” and have no Semitic blood – making the term “anti-Semitic” an irrelevant misnomer.  They are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  They are not descendants of the Biblical Israelites.  And they have no right to the land of Palestine nor to any of the promises made to the “Israel” of the Bible.They are descendants of the Khazars - barbarian mongol Turks - from the nation of Khazaria.

      “The Khazars were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who dominated the Pontic steppe and the North Caucasus from the 7th to the 10th century CE. The name 'Khazar' seems to be tied to a Turkic verb form meaning "wandering".

      “In the 7th century CE, the Khazars founded an independent Khaganate in the Northern Caucasus along the Caspian Sea. Although the Khazars were initially Tengri shamanists, many of them converted to Christianity, Islam, and other religions. During the eighth or ninth century the state religion became Judaism. At their height, the Khazar khaganate and its tributaries controlled much of what is today southern Russia, western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine, Azerbaijan, large portions of the Northern Caucasus (Circassia, Dagestan, Chechnya), parts of Georgia and the Crimea.”  Wikipedia

      11. Who is the “seed of Abraham”?

      Christians base their support of the present-day State of Israel and the present-day "Jews" on Genesis 12:1-3, 

      "Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee: 

      "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make the name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 

      And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." 

      This is interpreted by many Christians to mean that God will bless those who bless the “Jews” and curse those who curse the “Jews.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

      We have just shown that Abraham's "seed" are those who follow Christ!  The Jews (of today) in general, and the Jewish religion, HATE Christ!  First of all, the present day "Jews" CANNOT trace their ancestry to Abraham.  In addition, the Bible clearly states that being the "offspring of Abraham" is based on spiritual - NOT physical - factors. 

      In Romans 2:17,25,26,28,29,, Paul points out that someone who is "called a Jew" because he is a physical descendant of Abraham, and yet who lives as a breaker of God's law, "is NOT a Jew." 

      And the literal word here is not “Jew” – it is Judean – meaning a worshiper of Jehovah, the true God.

      Romans 9:7 "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall by seed be called."

      Abraham had two sons. The first, Ishmael, was born after the flesh. He was a son of "unbelief." Abraham didn't believe that God could give a son to his wife, Sarah, and himself in their very old age. 

      The second son was Isaac, who was born when Abraham had faith in God's promise (Gen 16:1-3, 15; 21:1-3; Rom 4:18-21) Isaac was the son of the promise – the son that God gave to Abraham when Abraham demonstrated faith in God.

      In Galatians 4:22-31, Paul reveals that Ishmael represents those without faith – irrespective of their ancestry, while Isaac represents both all those who have faith – irrespective of their ancestry.

      In Romans 9:8, Paul concludes by saying,          

      "That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God; but the children of the promise ARE COUNTED for the seed." 

      But Galatians 3:16 says:

      "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds, as of many, but as of ONE,' And to your Seed,' who is Christ." 

      Again Paul says in Galatians 3:29

      "And if you are Christ's, then YOU ARE Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

      So CLEARLY what God is talking about when He says, "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee" are the TRUE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST, those who have an intimate relationship with Jesus - THESE are the "True Children of Abraham!"  NOT the residents of present-day Israel - - who hate Jesus!

      Another text often quoted is Matt 25:40 where Jesus says,

      "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me," claiming that Jesus is referring to His "Jewish" brethren.


      First of All, Jesus was – and is – NOT Jewish.

      Jesus is GOD. God is NOT Jewish. Jesus wasn't, and isn't, Jewish. Here Jesus, as a human being, is speaking of His brothers (and sisters) of the human race. Paul, considered to be a “Jew of ALL Jews” (literally “a Judean of all Judeans”), writes to the "Gentiles" (more correctly translated non-Israelites or nations) in the books of Romans, Corinthinians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and the other epistles, and over 100 times refers to them as his "brethren." That DOESN'T mean they were "Jewish." They were his brethren in Christ.

      Jesus explains this plainly in Matt 12:46-50:

      "While He talked to the people, behold, His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to speak with Him.

      "Then one said unto Him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

      "But He answered and said unto him that told him, 'Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

      'And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, 'Behold my mother and my brethren!

      "For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the SAME is My brother, and sister, and mother."

      The present-day State of Israel is populated by a group of people who are NOT the descendants of Abraham and have NO right to the area of Palestine based on Bible promises nor any factor, other than their indiscriminate use of military force.

      I have found no such evidence regarding the Arab population, including the Palestinians. It appears that they may well be able to trace their lineage back to Ishmael and thus to Abraham, Ishmael's father, who was a descendant of Shem, Noah's son. A descendant of Shem is a Shemite or Semite. 

      They (the Palestinians) then are the TRUE Semites - and ANY words or actions against THEM (the Palestinians), must be considered Anti-Semitism! It would follow then that the State of Israel and the "Jews" around the world are guilty of the most intense and abhorrent anti-Semitism against the Palestinians.


      12. Is Salvation "OF the Jews?"

      Is "Salvation of the Jews" as the King James Bible translates John 4:22? The prepositions in the Greek are far more specific. The Greek word used here is "Ek" (#1537) which means "origin."   Since Jesus was born in Judea and since He identifies Himself as the "Saviour of ALL mankind" (1 Tim 4:10), the phrase should be translated, "Salvation is OUT OF Judea." (John 4:22) Salvation is found ONLY in Jesus, Who was born (came OUT OF) Judea!

      It's ALL ABOUT JESUS - NOT about Israel or the "Jews!"

      Look at Matt 2:6

      "And thus Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for OUT OF ("Ek" #1537) thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel."  Matt 2:6

      Micah 5:2

      "And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah; yet OUT OF ("Ek" #1537) thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and His goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity."   Micah 5:2(From the Greek O.T.)  

      "For it is manifest that OUT OF ("Ek" #1537) Judah has sprung our Lord..."  Heb 7:14

      In the Old Testament, the Israelites were those who worshiped the true God and looked forward to the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, and thus, they were actually Christians.  They were NOT “Jews.”

      In the New Testament, those who worshiped the true God (who is Invisible) – who is Jesus Christ (the Visible form of the true God) - were also called Christians.   Because they were followers of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judea, who was also born (of God’s spirit) to parents who were both in the tribe of Judah, the worshipers of Christ were called “Judeans” or more accurately Iudeans, since the letter “J” was not introduced into any alphabet until approximately the 16th century.

       As stated above, the word Iudean or Judean is actually a derivative of the word Jehovah, showing clearly that the word Judean means a worshiper of Jehovah. 

      In addition, the presence of the true God resided in the temple in Jerusalem, in Judea.  Thus the worshipers of that God – the true God - were referred to as Judeans.

      And Jesus was born of parents who were of the tribe of Judah.  They were Judahites – but they were NOT “Jews.”

      The Translators incorrectly – and apparently deliberately – shortened the word Iudeans, and later Judeans, to the word Iue, or later Jew, a term that does not appear anywhere in the original Scriptures, neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament.

      They also then implied incorrectly that the term “Jew” referred to an ethnicity when the Bible clearly tells us that the term Judean referred to those who worshiped the one and only true God.  The Iudeans or Judeans worshiped the God in the temple in Jerusalem, in Judea as opposed to the nations (or heathen – incorrectly translated Gentiles) who worshiped many pagan gods.

      There are only two main groups of people referred to in the Bible:  Believers and Unbelievers – those who worshiped the true God and those who worshiped many pagan gods, respectively.

      In the Old Testament, the Believers are called Israelites and the Unbelievers are referred to as the nations (heathen or pagans).

      In the New Testament, the Believers are called Judeans or Judahites, or Israelites, whereas the Unbelievers (erroneously translated “Gentiles) are again referred to as the nations (heathen or pagans).

      God is not concerned with ethnicity.  His only concern is whether we are with Him or against Him - whether we are Believers or Unbelievers.

      Final Analysis

      The Final Analysis of Replacement Theology is that the starting point of both sides is wrong. 

      The Old Testament followers of God (Jehovah - Yehovah) were called Israelites or yehuwdiy or yehuwdah, a derivative of Yehovah.  They were Spiritual Believers.  They were NOT ethnic “Jews.”  They were worshipers of the true God of heaven.  Therefore, they were God’s “Chosen People” – chosen to take God’s message to the world.  The majority of the Israelites went into apostasy and left God, but a remnant remained true to Him. 

      Those who did not worship the true God were called the nations (pagans or the heathen) – the Unbelievers.

       The New Testament followers of Jesus Christ – who was God in human form – were called Israelites or Judeans or Judahites, which meant Believers in, and worshipers of, the true God of heaven, who came to earth as Jesus Christ.  They were the Believers.

      Those who did not worship the true God were called the nations (pagans or the heathen – improperly translated Gentiles) – the Unbelievers.

      All terms referred to which God one worshiped – the true God or pagan gods.  These terms had nothing to do with ethnicity.

      No group has been “Replaced.” 

      God’s “Chosen People” in the Old Testament were all those who worshiped the true God.  They were of no particular ethnicity.

      God’s “Chosen People” in the New Testament are all those who worship the true God – who is Jesus Christ in the flesh.  They are of no particular ethnicity.


      What is Dispensationalism?

      Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D. of TheologicalStudies.org describes it in the following way.

       Since the mid-1800s, the system of theology known as dispensationalism has exerted great influence on how many Christians view the doctrines of ecclesiology and eschatology. In this article, we will survey the history of dispensationalism and look at the key beliefs associated with the system.

      History of Dispensationalism

      Theologians continue to argue over the origin of  dispensationalism. Those who are dispensationalists argue that the basic beliefs of dispensationalism were held by the apostles and the first generation church. Those who are not dispensationalists often argue that dispensationalism is a new theology that began in the 19th century. What is clear, though, is that dispensationalism, as a system, began to take shape in the mid-1800s.

      1.  John Nelson Darby The beginning of systematized dispensationalism is usually linked with John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), a Plymouth Brethren minister. While at Trinity College in Dublin (1819), Darby came to believe in a future salvation and restoration of national physical Israel. Based on his study of Isaiah 32, Darby concluded that Israel, in a future dispensation, would enjoy earthly blessings that were different from the heavenly blessings experienced by the church. He thus saw a clear distinction between Israel and the church. Darby also came to believe in an “any moment” rapture of the church that was followed by Daniel’s Seventieth Week in which physical Israel would once again take center stage in God’s plan. After this period, Darby believed there would be a millennial kingdom in which God would fulfill His unconditional promises with Israel.  According to Paul Enns, “Darby advanced the scheme of dispensationalism by noting that each dispensation places man under some condition; man has some responsibility before God.  Darby also noted that each dispensation culminates in failure.”   Darby saw seven dispensations: (1) Paradisaical state to the Flood; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Israel; (5) Gentiles; (6) The Spirit; and (7) The Millennium. By his own testimony, Darby says his dispensational theology was fully formed by 1833.  

      2.  The Brethren Movement  Dispensationalism first took shape in the Brethren Movement in early nineteenth century Britain. Those within the Brethren Movement rejected a special role for ordained clergy and stressed the spiritual giftedness of ordinary believers and their freedom, under the Spirit’s guidance, to teach and admonish each other from Scripture. The writings of the Brethren had a broad impact on evangelical Protestantism and influenced ministers in the United States such as D. L. Moody, James Brookes, J. R. Graves, A. J. Gordon, and C. I. Scofield.  

      3.  The Bible Conference Movement  Beginning in the 1870s, various Bible conferences began to spring up in various parts of the United States. These conferences helped spread Dispensationalism. The Niagara conferences (1870—early 1900s) were not started to promote dispensationalism but dispensational ideas were often promoted at these conferences. The American Bible and Prophetic Conferences from 1878—1914 promoted a dispensational theology.  

      4.  The Bible Institute Movement  In the late 1800s, several Bible institutes were founded that taught dispensational theology including The Nyack Bible Institute (1882), The Boston Missionary Training School (1889), and The Moody Bible Institute (1889).  

      5.  The Scofield Reference Bible  C. I. Scofield, a participant in the Niagara conferences, formed a board of Bible conference teachers in 1909 and produced what came to be known as, the Scofield Reference Bible. This work became famous in the United States with its theological annotations right next to the Scripture. This reference Bible became the greatest influence in the spread of dispensationalism.  

      6Dallas Theological Seminary  After World War I, many dispensational Bible schools were formed. Led by Dallas Theological Seminary (1924), dispensationalism began to be promoted in formal, academic settings. Under Scofield, dispensationalism entered a scholastic period that was later carried on by his successor, Lewis Sperry Chafer.  Further promotion of dispensationalism took place with the writing of Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology.  

      Foundational Features of Dispensationalism

      What Dispensationalists believe:

      1.  Hermeneutical (the art of interpretation) approach that stresses a literal fulfillment of Old Testament promises to Israel  Though the issue of “literal interpretation” is heavily debated today, many dispensationalists claim that consistent literal interpretation applied to all areas of the Bible, including Old Testament promises to Israel, is a distinguishing mark of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists usually argue that the progress of revelation, including New Testament revelation, does not cancel Old Testament promises made with national Israel. Although there is internal debate concerning how much the church is related to the Old Testament covenants and promises, dispensationalists believe national Israel will see the literal fulfillment of the promises made with her in the Old Testament.  

      2.  Belief that the unconditional, eternal covenants made with national Israel (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New) must be fulfilled literally with national Israel  Although the church may participate in or partially fulfill the biblical covenants, they do not take over the covenants to the exclusion of national Israel.  Physical and spiritual promises to Israel must be fulfilled with Israel.  

      3.   Distinct future for national Israel  “Only Dispensationalism clearly sees a distinctive future for ethnic Israel as a nation.”   This future includes a restoration of the nation with a distinct identity and function.  

      4. The church is distinct from Israel  The church does not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to as Israel. According to dispensationalists, the church did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Old Testament promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with the church. Evidences often used by dispensationalists to show that the church is distinct from Israel include:

      (a)  Jesus viewed the church as future in Matthew 16:18;
      (b) (b) an essential element of the church—Spirit baptism—did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (compare 1 Cor. 12:13 with Acts 2);
      (c)   Christ became Head of the church as a result of His resurrection (compare Eph. 4:15; Col. 1:18 with Eph. 1:19-23);
      (d)  the spiritual gifts associated with the church (cf. Eph. 4:7-12; 1 Cor. 12:11-13) were not given until the ascension of Christ;
      (e)  the “new man” nature of the church (cf. Eph. 2:15) shows that the church is a NT organism and not something incorporated into Israel;
      (f)    the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ and the New Testament apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20);
      (g)  the author, Luke, keeps Israel and the church distinct. On this last point, Fruchtenbaum states, “In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ecclesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.” 

      5. Multiple senses of “seed of Abraham” According to Feinberg, the designation “seed of Abraham” is used in different ways in Scripture. First it is used in reference to ethnic, biological Jews (cf. Romans 9—11). Second, it is used in a political sense. Third, it is used in a spiritual sense to refer to people, whether Jew or Gentile, who are spiritually related to God by faith (cf. Romans 4:11-12; Galatians 3:7). Feinberg argues that the spiritual sense of the title does not take over the physical sense to such an extent that the physical seed of Abraham is no longer related to the biblical covenants.

      Numerous Errors

      There are so many doctrinal errors in the paragraphs above that it will take the rest of this Bible study to sort them out.

      The false doctrine of Dispensationalsim and the idea that the Israelites in the Old Testament were ethnic “Jews” have absolutely NO basis in the Scriptures.  They are concoctions of “man” and NOT of God! More precisely, they are concoctions of the present-day Jews – the “spiritual” offspring of the Pharisees who Jesus strongly rebuked because by their traditions, they made the “Scriptures of no effect.”  It was the Pharisees, the leaders of the Organized “church” of the day – who called for the death of Jesus Christ.  Their Messiah came – but they didn’t recognize Him.  Instead, they killed Him.

      In addition, the Dispensationalists say they interpret all the Bible literally, including Daniel and Revelation – books that clearly must be interpreted symbolically.  The definitions of the symbols are even given in the respective books.

      1. Contrary to the assertion of many dispensationalists that modern-day Jews are faithful to the Old Testament and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (as John Hagee claims), religious Jews are governed by the Talmud – the antithesis of the Bible.  The Jewish culture is Talmudic, whether the average Jew understands that or not.  The Talmud governs the life of the Jews – both secular and religious.

      2. Despite the dispensationalists’ proclamation that they have a high view of God’s Word in their “coherent and consistent interpretations (John Walvoord), in fact they have fragmented the Bible into numerous dispensational parts with two redemptive programs – one for Israel (who they believe is comprised of ethnic “Jews) and one for the Church (the ethnic “Gentile” Christians) – and they have doubled new covenants, returns of Christ, physical resurrections, and final judgments, thereby destroying the unity and coherence of Scripture.

      In their belief system, there is one salvation for ethnic Jews – an automatic salvation because of their race – and a different salvation for Gentiles.

      The Old Testament is nothing but a ritualistic icon in Orthodox Judaism.  It is carried through the temple – like an idol – but is not studied.  The Old Testament looks forward to the Messiah – Jesus Christ.  The Talmud – the holiest book(s) of Orthodox Judaism says that Jesus is “boiling in hot excrement in hell.”

      3. Despite the dispensationalists’ structuring of redemptive history into several dispensations, the Bible establishes the basic divisions of redemptive history into the old covenant, and the new covenant.  (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15), even declaring that the “new covenant. . . has made the first obsolete.  But whatever is becoming obsolete is ready to disappear.”  (Heb 8:13)

      The Old Covenant was the Ten Commandments written on stone, because the Israelites would not allow God to speak to them directly, to guide them directly by changing each of their hearts.  They wanted to follow a human being – Moses – rather than have God speak to them directly.

      But God knew that the Israelites would never be able to keep the Ten Commandments if they were written only on stone.  They would have no power.

       The New Covenant is the SAME Ten Commandments now written on the heart, with God’s presence in the person’s life, so he or she will have the power to keep them because God will personally be directing their life.    We will have the mind of Christ.

      “Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus.”   (Phil 2:5)

      “I will put My spirit in you. . .” (Ezekiel 26:7)

      The fact of God’s grace does NOT allow us to abrogate our responsibility to keep God’s law.  Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep my Commandments.”  (John 14:15)  The fact of God’s grace means that now we are able to keep the commandments because God has put His law “into our hearts” by changing our nature, by giving us the power to keep the law.  When we have the spirit and disposition of Jesus in us, our nature will be to automatically keep the law.  Eventually we will have no tendency to sin.  It will not even occur to us.  Our very nature will be the nature of Jesus Christ.

      The Law was NOT done away with at the Cross.  Hebrews tells us that now Christ has the authority (His death paid for ALL sin) to put His law into our Heart – to change our nature to be like His.

      4. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ view, frequent citation of the King James Version translation of 2 Tim. 2:15, “rightly dividing” the truth, as evidence for the need to divide the biblical record into discrete dispensations, all modern versions of Scripture and non-dispensational commentators translate this verse without any allusion to “dividing” Scripture into discrete historical divisions at all, but rather show that it means to “handle accurately “ (NASB) or “correctly handle” (NIV) the word of God.

      5. The dispensational structuring of history was unknown to the Church prior to 1830, the dispensationalists’ claim to be “rightly dividing the word of Truth” by structuring history that way.  This implies that no one until then had “rightly divided” God’s Word.

      6. Despite the dispensationalists’ popular presentation of seven distinct dispensations as necessary for properly understanding Scripture, scholars within dispensationalism admit that “one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a consistent dispensationalist” (Charles Ryrie) so that the proper structuring of the dispensations is inconsequential.

      7. Despite the dispensationalists’ affirmation of God’s grace in the Church Age, early forms of dispensationalism (and many populist forms even today) deny that grace characterized the mosaic dispensation of law, as when C. I. Scofield stated that with the coming of Christ “the point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation” (cf. John 1:17), even though the Ten Commandments themselves open with a statement of God’s grace to Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”  (Exodus 20:1)

      8. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ historic position that the Sermon on the Mount was designed for Israel alone, to define kingdom living, and “is law, not grace”, historic evangelical orthodoxy sees this great Sermon as applicable to the Church in the present era, applying the Beatitudes (Matt 5:2-12), calling us to be the salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13), urging us to build our house on a rock (Matt. 7:21-27), directing us to pray the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13), and more.

      This is also a message of grace for our time.  It is God who brings us out of the “bondage or slavery” of sin, represented by literal bondage or slavery in the Bible.

      9. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first century Israelites, such “literalism” led those Israelites to misunderstand Christ’s basic teaching by believing that He would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must actually eat His flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).

      10. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews (Israelites) at the time of Christ was certainly this same method”

      (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews (Israelites) to misunderstand Christ and to reject Him as their Messiah because He did not come as the king that their method of interpretation predicted.

      11. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that “prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ . . . were all fulfilled “literally” (Charles Ryrie), many such prophecies were not fulfilled in a “plain” (Ryrie) literal fashion, such as the famous Psalm 22 prophecy that speaks of bulls and dogs surrounding Christ at His crucifixion (Psa 22:12), and the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy regarding the virgin, that “she will call His name Immanuel” (cp. Luke 2:21), and others.

      12. Despite the dispensationalists’ argument for the “literal” fulfillment of prophecy, when confronted with obvious new Testament, non-literal fulfillments, they will either (1) declare that the original prophecy had “figures of speech” in them (Scofield), or (2) call these “applications” of the Old Testament rather than fulfillments (Paul Tan) – which means that they try to make it impossible to bring any contrary evidence against their system by re-interpreting any such evidence in one of these two directions.

      13. Despite the dispensationalists’ strong commitment to the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charels Ryrie) and its dependence on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks as “of major importance to premillennialism” (John Walvoord), they have to insert into the otherwise chronological progress of the singular period of “Seventy Weeks” (Dan 9:24) a gap in order to make their system work; and that gap is already four times longer than the whole Seventy Weeks (490 years) period.

      14. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim regarding “the unconditional character of the {Abrahamic} covenant” (J. Dwight Pentecost), which claim is essential for maintaining separate programs for Israel and the Church, the Bible in Deuteronomy 30 and other passages presents it as conditional;’ consequently not all of Abraham’s descendants possess the land and the covenantal blessings but only those who, by having the same faith as Abraham, become heirs through Christ.

      15. Despite the dispensationalists’ necessary claim that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, they inconsistently teach that Esau is not included in the inheritance of Canaan and Abraham’s blessings, even though he was as much the son of Isaac (Abraham’s son) as was Jacob, his twin (Gen 25:21-25), because he sold his birthright and thus was excluded from the allegedly “unconditional” term of the inheritance.

      Again, it must be asked, if “Jews” are saved by their race, and Jacob is considered a Jew, then Esau, Jacob’s twin brother, must also be considered a Jew.  Yet the “Jews” do NOT consider Esau a “Jew.”  If the inheritance is “unconditional” – certainly Esau would qualify.

      16. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that the descendants of the patriarchs never inhabited all the land promised to them in the Abrahamic covenant and therefore, since God cannot lie, the possession of the land by the Jews is still in the future; on the contrary, Joshua wrote, “so the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. . . Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel.  All came to pass.”  (Joshua 21:43,45)

      17. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental theological commitment to the radical distinction between “Israel and the Church” (Ryrie), the new Testament sees two “Israels” (Rom. 9:6-8) – one of the flesh, and one of the spirit – with the only true Israel being the spiritual one, which has come to mature fulfillment in the Church.  (The Christian Church has not replaced Israel; rather, it is the New Testament expansion.)  This is why the New Testament calls members of the Church “Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:26-29) and the Church itself :the Israel of God.”  (Gal 6:16)

      18. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that Jews are to be eternally distinct from Gentiles in the plan of God, because “throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes” with “one related to the earth” while “the other is related to heaven” (Chafer and Ryrie), the New Testament speaks of the permanent union of Jew and Gentile into one body “by abolishing in His flesh the enmity” that “in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15).  Accordingly, with the finished work of Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” in the eyes of God (Gal 3:28)

      19. Contrary to dispensationalism’s implication of race-based salvation for Jewish people (salvation by race instead of salvation by grace), Christ and the New Testament writers warn against assuming that genealogy or race insures salvation, saying to the Jews:

      “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father’: for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”  (Matt 3:9) because “children of God” are “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 2:12b-13; 3:3)

      20. Despite dispensationalism’s presentation of the Church as a “parenthesis” (J. F. Walvoord) in the major plan of God in history (which focuses on racial Israel), the New Testament teaches that the Church is the God-ordained result of God’s Old Testament plan, so that the Church is not simply a temporary aside in God’s plan but is  the institution over which Christ is the head so that He may “put all things in subjection under His feet.” (Eph 1:22; 1 Cor 15:24-28_)

      21. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ creation of a unique double coming of Christs – the Rapture being separated from the Second Advent – which are so different that it makes “any harmony of these two events an impossibility” (Walvoord), the Bible mentions only one future coming of Christ, the parousia, or epiphany, or revelation (Matt 24:3; 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; Jas 5:7; 2 Pet 3:4; 1Jn 2:28), and states that He “shall appear a second time” (Heb 9:28a), not that He shall appear “again and again” or for a third time.

      22. Despite dispensationalism’s commitment to the secret Rapture of the Church by which Christians are removed from the world to leave only non-Christians in the world, Jesus teaches that the wheat and the tares are to remain in the world to the end (Matt 13J and He even prays that the Father not take His people out of the world (John 17:15).

      23. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ expectation that the Mark of the Beast is to be some sort of “microchip implant” (Timothy Demy), Revelation 13 states that it is a mark (the Greek word charagma, a derivative of the Greek word charakter), not an instrument of some kind.

      In truth, the person who has taken the Mark of the Beast is the person who has developed the same character of the Beast power.  He will degenerate into the lowest realm and become, in all aspects, like the Beast power.

      If the “mark” is in the forehead, that means that the person intellectually agrees with what the Beast power is doing and is willing to do what the Beast power asks.  If the “mark” of the Beast is in the hand, that symbolizes that the person may not agree with the Beast power, but will “go along to get along” – to continue to have food, shelter, and possibly even a job.

      24. Despite the dispensationalists’ view of the glory of the millennium for Christ and His people, they teach, contrary to Scripture, that regenerated Gentile believers will be subservient to the Jews, as we see, for instance, in Herman Hoyt’s statement that “the redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land, will be head over all the nations of the earth. . . So He exalts them above the Gentile nations. . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations.”

      25. Despite the dispensationalists’ production of many adherents who “are excited about the very real potential for the rebuilding of Israel’s Temple in Jerusalem” (Randall Price) and who give funds for it, they do not understand that the whole idea of the temple system was associated with the old covenant which was “growing old” and was “ready to disappear” in the first century (Heb 8:13).  The Temple system of sacrifices looked forward to Christ – and was fulfilled in Christ.

      26. Contrary to dispensationalists’ expectation of a future physical temple in the millennium, wherein will be offered literal animal blood sacrifices, the New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the Passover and the Old Testament sacrificial system, so that Christ’s sacrifice was final, being “once for all” (Heb 10:10b), and that the new covenant causes the old covenant with its sacrifices to be “obsolete” (Heb 8:13).

      27. Contrary to dispensationalism’s populist argument for “unconditional support” for Israel, the Bible views it as a form of Judeaolotry in that only God can demand our unconditional obligation; for “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29); and God even expressly warns Israel of her destruction “if you do not obey the Lord your God: (Deut 28:15,63).

      28. Despite the dispensationalists’ declaration that “genuine and wholesome spirituality is the goal of all Christian living” (Charles Ryrie), their theology actually encourages unrighteous living by teaching that Christians can simply declare Christ as Savior and then live any way they desire.  Similarly, dispensationalism teaches that “God’s love can embrace sinful people unconditionally, with no binding requirements attached at all” (Zane Hodges), even though the Gospel teaches that Jesus “was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you abide in My Word, then you are truly disciples of Mine’” (John 8:31) and that He declared “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27).

      29. Despite the early versions of dispensationalism and the more popular contemporary variety of dispensationalism today teaching that “it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation” (L.S. Chafer and Zane Hodges), the Apostle Paul “solemnly testifies to both Jews and Greeks repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Acts 20:21).

      30. Contrary to dispensationalism’s tendency to distinguish receiving Christ as Savior and receiving Him as Lord as two separate actions, so that saving faith involves “no spiritual commitment whatsoever” (Zane Hodges), the Bible presents both realities as aspects of the one act of saving faith; for the New Testament calls men to “the obedience of faith” (Rom 16:26; James 2:14-20)

      31. Despite dispensationalism’s affirmation of” genuine and wholesome spirituality” (Charles Ryrie), it actually encourages antinomianism by denying the role of God’s law as the God-ordained standard of righteousness, deeming God’s law (including the Tee Commandments) to be only for the Jews in another dispensation.  Dispensationalists reject the Ten Commandments because “the law was never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away for the Christian” (Charles Ryrie) – even though the New Testament teaches that all men “are under the Law” so “that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God” (Rom 3:19).

      32. Despite dispensationalism’s teaching regarding two kinds of Christians, one spiritual and one fleshly (resulting in a “great mass of carnal Christians,” Charles Ryrie), the Scripture makes no such class distinction, noting that Christians “are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you,” so that “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom 8:9).

        S.J. Mounce ThM; MCE, writing for the membership of the Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ wrote his errors in support of dispensationalism in their official organ, the * Apostolic Witness* in the August 1992 edition.
        AgainstDispensationalism.com/95 theses.

        Dispensationalists believe that the “Jews” and the “Gentiles” DO NOT SHARE THE SAME COVENANT OR PROMISES together! Is this Biblical?  Is this New Testament?  Is this found in the books of Romans, Galatians, or Hebrews?

        According to the dispensationalists, the Noahic Covenant (Noahide laws) "cover the whole Gentile world; and that the "Dispensations of Conscience and Human Government still continue as to the Gentiles."  This is a false doctine that authenticates the Talmudic heresy that the seven laws of the Noahide Covenant are the present salvation of Gentiles and not the finished work of Messiah on Calvary.

        The Noahide laws establish, according to the Jews, that the worship of Jesus Christ is defined as idolatry and is punishable by beheading.  The naïve Evangelical Christians support the Jews’ presumed control of the “Gentiles” under the fraudulent Noahide laws (that have nothing to do with Noah – but originate from the Satanic Talmud), and thus are supporting the demise of Christianity and Christians.

        (For more information, see “Now the U.S. Government can legally KILL Christians.”  www.goodnewsaboutgod.com) 

        Conclusion on Dispensationalism:

        Who can understand God’s Word?

        Though the Evangelical Christians pride themselves in a literal interpretation of the Bible – particularly the prophetic portions – they apparently are unaware that it is a sign of a very immature Christian.  It is a sign of a Christian who has only heard about Christ, but does not know Him personally.

        But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit (spiritual things) of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they (spiritual things) are spiritually discerned (understood).  1 Cor 2:14

        The Natural man (the soulish or unspiritual man) understands only with his five senses.  He has “sense” knowledge but NO “revelation” knowledge.  He cannot understand spiritual things.  He interprets the prophetic portions of the Bible literally rather than spiritually and symbolically.

        God’s Rule for Bible Interpretation

        God has clearly given us the rules for interpretation of His Word, a fact that virtually all Christian denominations seem to have missed completely.

        The “First” is physical (literal), the “Second” is spiritual (symbolic).

        Jesus, when speaking to Nicodemus, the Pharisee, Jesus was telling him that he must be born again.  Nicodemus asked,

        “How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?  John 3:3

        Jesus responded that the First birth is a Physical birth that can be detected with the five physical senses.  But the Second birth is a Spiritual re-birth.  It CANNOT be detected with the five physical senses, it can only be detected spiritually by a change in the person’s life. 

        The wind cannot be seen, but its effects can be seen.  So is the working of God’s spirit in the heart – the Second birth – being “born again.”

        Jesus said to Nicodemus the Pharisee, Art thou a master (teacher) in Israel and you don’t know these things?”

        Nicodemus was a well-known leader in the “Organized Church” of the day, yet he could NOT understand Spiritual things.

        The First birth is a Physical birth.

        The Second birth is a Spiritual birth.

        Paul gave the same rules of Scripture interpretation in 1 Cor. 15:44-49

        “It is sown a natural (soulish) body; it is raised a spiritual body.  There is a natural (soulish) body and there is a spiritual body.

        And so it is written, The First man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam (Christ) was made a life-giving spirit (breath).

        Howbeit that was NOT First which is spiritual, but that which is natural (soulish – physical); and afterward that which is Spiritual.

        The first man is of the earth, earthy (made of dust); the Second man is the Lord from heaven.”  1 Cor 15:44-49

        Paul explicitly states that the First is ALWAYS physical, while the Second is ALWAYS Spiritual.

        Thus, we see the following in Scripture:


        First Birth – physical

        Second Birth – spiritual – being Born again spiritually


        First Life – physical (psuche in Greek)

        Second Life – spiritual (zoe in Greek) – eonian life (NOT “eternal life” – meaning the life of Christ in us.


        First death – physical – the death we die on this earth

        Second death – spiritual – dying to sin (NOT a literal hellfire). 

        “I am crucified with Christ, yet I live.  But not I, but Christ lives in me. Gal 2:20)


        First – God’s presence was in the temple – a literal building

        Second – “Your Body is the temple of God’s spirit.” (1 Cor 6:19)

        “God’s presence does NOT dwell in temples made with hands.” 
        (Acts 7:48; 17:24)


        First – fire in the Old Testament – literal fire (Sodom and Gomorrah)

        Second – “fire” in the New Testament – burns the sin out of the sinner’s life

        (See, “Was the Doctrine of Hell Manufactured by Theologians” at www.goodnewsaboutgod.com)


        First – physical lamb in the Old testament – sacrificed for sin - - - which looked forward to - - -

        Second – spiritual “lamb” – Jesus Christ – who was sacrificed ONCE for the sin of the whole world.


        First – Babylon in the Old Testament – literal Babylon, a one world government

        Second – “Babylon” in Revelation – a spiritual Babylon – the One World Government – a worldwide power (NOT the country of Iraq)

        And many other symbols in Daniel and Revelation.

        Both Jesus and Paul have detailed for us how these things should be interpreted – symbolically – figuratively, and NOT literally.

        And as 1 Cor 2:14 states plainly, a literal interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures is not only wrong, but it is foolishness and a clear sign of spiritual immaturity.

        “The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God (spiritual things): for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know (understand) them, because they (spiritual things) are spiritually discerned (understood).

        The false doctrine of “Dispensationalism” is based on a literal interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures – a sure sign of error – a sure sign of “foolishness.”