Against Dispensationalism's "Unhitching" from the Old Testament

from an exposition on Matthew 5:17-20

Over the last century and a half, a theological movement has been prominent in evangelicalism, especially in America, called dispensationalism. Dispensationalism presupposes a wrong assumption about Jesus’ purpose. It says that Jesus came to offer a literal kingdom to the Jews, to re-establish the kingdom begun by David in 1-2 Samuel. Of course, that would require that the Jews return to law-keeping as the basis of their relationship with God. That is, dispensationalism claims that Jesus came first to Israel to be their king, literally ruling from Jerusalem. But, they say, the Jews rejected Jesus’ kingship. This is untrue, of course, because in John 6:15, we’re told that Jesus knew that the Jews were intending to “make Him king by force.” He withdrew from them to avoid that. Yet, still, dispensationalism claims that Jesus’ primary purpose was to by a literal king, re-instituting the Law.

The Law had been given to them, so says dispensationalism, as a way to earn God’s approval. John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensationalism, wrote that if man fulfils the Law “it is his righteousness.” C. I. Scofield, the major popularizer of dispensationalism in America with his famous study Bible, wrote that “legal obedience” had been “the condition of salvation” during most Old Testament times, the so-called “dispensational of Law.” Scofield claims that now, with Christ’s death and resurrection, “legal obedience” is “no longer” the “condition of salvation.” He implies, then, that “legal obedience” had been the “condition of salvation” prior to the death and resurrection of Christ, that is during the “dispensation of law.” Here Scofield specifically says that the “the point of testing” was exactly about the “condition of salvation.” That is, he implies that prior to Christ’s death and resurrection — thus including Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount — the condition of salvation was “legal obedience,” law-keeping.

For an exposition of Matthew 5:17-20 that shows the error of dispensationalism, click on the YouTube link at the bottom.

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952, the third founding father of dispensationalism wrote, “According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaic Law. … men were therefore just because of their own works for God…” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 7:219.)

Thus, dispensationalism originally taught that there had been a “dispensation of law” in which people could attain righteousness by keeping the law. Now, it is different and thus, according to the dispensationalists, the Law and even, according to some dispensationalists, like Scofield, much of Jesus’ teaching are not relevant to the Christian. They think the “law and the prophets” are effectively abolished when the “dispensation of law” is over.

Thus, the Law, according to dispensationalism, was given to be a way of be right with God, thus be saved. The purpose of the Law was to show you what you should do to save yourself during the “dispensation of law,” so the dispensationalists taught and so the Jews in the New Testament believed.

But Paul says in Romans 9:32 – what actually the Lord Jesus is proving in Matthew 5 – that the Jews, the Pharisees, didn’t gain salvation by their law-keeping because they “did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.”

“As if it were,” means that their assumption of its purpose was wrong; that it was not based on works. If I say, ‘he came into the gym as if he were LeBron James,’ you know I mean, first, he’s not LeBron James; indeed, he’s probably not even a very good basketball player; he thinks he’s something he’s not. Pursuing salvation as if it were based on works is going about it the wrong way. Notice, Paul is speaking in the past tense: they pursued it “as if it were based on works.” Thus, he’s not just commenting on Jews in his day, after Christ has come but on their history that he began Romans 9 with. That is, in the past, before Christ came, in their Old Testament history, they pursued a right standing with God as if it were attained by law-keeping. But it was not. Even before Christ came, being right with God came through faith.

So, salvation, even before Christ, in Old Testament times, was not based on works; that was never the purpose of the Law. And so, the purpose of Christ was not to bring or revive the Law as a way of salvation -- law-keeping – because that was not the purpose of the law in the first place. There was no dispensation of law. So, the scripture that was given in the Old Testament is not for another era. It is still for us today. None of it has been abolished or cancelled. Some of it has been fulfilled but none of it is irrelevant.

The Purpose Jesus Came

For an exposition of Matthew 5:17-20 that shows the error of dispensationalism, click on the YouTube link at the bottom.

Then, after having committed the error of claiming some scripture is for a previous dispensation (and so irrelevant for us), the dispensationalists say that the Lord Jesus’ purpose for us is different than in Matthew 5, when addressing a mostly Jewish audience. ‘Sure, here,’ they say, ‘talking to His Jewish disciples, it was to uphold the Law but for us, in the “dispensation of grace” the Law is abolished.’ So, they say, Jesus is doing for us precisely what He here says He’s not doing: to abolish the Law and the Prophets, to start a new dispensation in which all that is not binding on us, or even relevant to us, so we can, now, “unhitch” the Old Testament from our faith.

This fundamental error — ignoring the explicit words of Jesus by ascribing them to a prior “dispensation” — effectively makes large portions of scripture, especially all of the Old Testament, which Jesus is talking about, irrelevant to us. So, Andy Stanley, the Atlanta-area mega church pastor and dispensationalist (trained at Dallas Theological Seminary), famous for his claim that we need to “unhitch” the Law from the Gospel, wrote “The Ten Commandments have no authority over you. None. To be clear: Thou shalt not obey the Ten Commandments.” Here, Jesus says, “Do not think” that.. He was consistently applying dispensationalism.

This filters down to the common folk in numerous destructive ways. Once I was speaking with this lady about irregular church attendance and I referred to Hebrews 10:25, “do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together.” The lady’s daughter, who I wished wasn’t there, interrupted and somewhat arrogantly said, “Why don’t you try reading the New Testament?!” Of course, I had to correct her that Hebrews is in the New Testament, to which she looked surprised. But obviously her way of thinking was that if it was in the Old Testament – “the Law and the Prophets” – then it doesn’t apply to us. We can “unhitch” from it. But the Lord Jesus tells us, in Matthew 5:17, “do not think” that.

I have four theological degrees, beginning with an undergraduate degree from Samford University and the very first session of the very first course, Old Testament survey, on a nice Fall day in Alabama, began with a professor saying something like, ‘Jesus quoted the Old Testament and then said, ‘But I say to you’’ something totally different, cancelling it. Here, the Lord Jesus introduces that block of teaching by making clear that is not what He’s doing. If we interpret His coming words – ‘You’ve heard . . . but I say to you’ – as nullifying the Old Testament, we’ve interpreted Him wrong. He makes it as clear as He can possibly make it that what is coming is not Him revoking the Law or the Prophets – the Old Testament; He might be revoking a bad interpretation of the Law but not the Law itself. He would say to my professor on that nice Fall day in Alabama, “Do not think” that!

Dispensationalism asserts that all of the Law, Prophets, and Writings (the Old Testament) is for a different time, a so-called “dispensation of law.” Oh, it says all the Bible is inspired and it’s good to know the stories but, in the end, it is abolished for us. It was for different people at a different time, a so-called “dispensation.” But here by insisting that all scripture, even the least parts, is relevant for all time, “Until heaven and earth pass away,” for the entirety of this creation, this universe, Jesus shows that there is no dispensation of law. That’s why the Bible never tells us when one dispensation ends and another begins because it doesn’t teach the idea at all. There’s one, successful plan of salvation revealed as soon as the first sin, in Genesis 3, is committed. So, this teaching, in the Sermon on the Mount, is for us. It has not expired. “Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law.” It is still for us. All of the Bible is for us, “until all is accomplished.” All of it is (or will be) accomplished. The Law accomplishes the gospel.

Conclusion

There’s a unity of the Bible. It was a mystery in the Old Testament but revealed in the New Testament (Ephesians 3:2-4). That unity of the Bible in which not a single letter or stroke will be abolished until the whole universe is done away means that “all scripture” is still, currently “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16.) Not one iota or brush stroke has been done away.

To hear more about the unity of the Bible and the purpose of Jesus, listen:

Covenant Reformed Baptist Church is Danville’s/Yanceyville’s Reformed church.