Hermeneutics Of Dispensationalism

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

Pentecostals 5 and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: The Anatomy of an Uneasy Relationship Gerald T. Sheppard* white ecclesiology describe the attempt by legitimation movement. originally efforts secondarily problems for the identity how some, predominantly to wed a Pentecostal I am concerned to and the new will be, first, to in rapture; agreement second, to illustrate defenses for applying demonstrate eventually raise problems of Acts 2. Though generally critique on the Assemblies out the Assemblies of God, literature this analysis dispensationalist-fundamentalism. My aim in this article is to describe Pentecostal groups have tried to a dispensational eschatology. Pentecostals to find acceptance from the dispensationalist-fundamentalist I hope to show both that Pentecostals were not dispensationalist-fundamentalists and that to embrace such views have raised of Pentecostals-hermeneutically, sociologically, and politically. My procedure show that the earliest Pentecostal views were not united with the doctrine of the pre-tribulation that later Pentecostal dispensationalist a pre-tribulation rapture were inconsistent about the same principles to their ecclesiology; and, third, to that dispensational eschatological views even for the most basic Pentecostal understanding to other denominations, of God. My purpose but is easily accessible to me and one which very early assumed a strict dispensational eschatology. Before attempting a few words must be said about the nature of Dispensationalism For the purposes observes, history prior much of what I present applies I have concentrated my is not to single to choose a denomination whose we must posit an essential style of Weber of this study, “dispensationalism” which gives rise to a particular defense for the pre-tribulation rapture. As Timothy to the nineteenth century no figure in church advocated a “pre-tribulation rapture.” The doctrine finds its formal origin in the prophetic studies of J. N. Darby in the 1830’s.’ Though the exact nature of a “dispensational of interpretation varies somewhat, the essence of this the advocacy of both “literal interpretation” as well as a strict separation in the literal meaning of biblical to the church from those applicable to Israel. From Darby to C.I. Scofield, from Lewis Sperry Chafer system” approach turns on texts relating 1 6 (Scofield’s scholarly protege) like John Walvoord and including popular dispensational surprise only Repeatedly ecclesiology ecclesiology provides eschatological plan Standing developed to the modifications of later Charles Ryrie, Hal Lindsay, one repeatedly One pragmatic point dispensationalists the currently finds these same axioms of interpretation. of consensus, tersely put by Clarence Larkin, the patron saint of chart makers, is “The (OT) prophets did not see the Church,. “2 In this respect, the Church Age is an unpredicted in the light of Old Testament prophecies and occurs after the Jews reject Jesus’ offer of the Kingdom. we are told by dispensationalists that it is one’s that determines one’s eschatology. An appropriate confirms that the promises in the Old Testament are “earthly” in contrast to the entirely “heavenly” character of the church.3 The whole economy or “rule of life” for Israel is thus sharply contrasted, as law is to grace, with that of the Church in the Church Age.4 This Church-Israel distinction for dispensationalists a guiding light which brightens and clarifies an otherwise dimly visible and ambiguous within Scripture.5 over a half century after Darby, within what had into a classical school of dispensationalism, Walvoord affirms the above in explicit terms, “It is not therefore too much to say that the rapture is determined more than eschatology.”6 Further, he notes, the pretribulational view is followed those who consider premillennialism a “system” of Biblical interpretation, while the posttribulational and midtribulational positions characterize those who limit the area of premillennialism to eschatology.7 in his popular study, Things to Come, Dwight D. Pentecost sets out the “essential basis” of a pre-tribulation by ecclesiology Generally speaking, by Similarly, rapturist interpretation), program completed (with the Church) must be Consequently, tradition, unlike Reformed earlier Christian interpreters, appelatives such as “spiritual position, As a necessary adjunct to this (the literal method of the pretribulationist believes in dispen- sational interpretation of the Word of God. The church and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan. This mystery before God can resume His program with Israel and bring it to completion. These considerations all arise from the literal method of interpretation.8 8 dispensationalists covenant in the Darby-Scofield theologians and most reject calling the “church” by Israel,” “the Israel of God,” or 2 “new Israel” because this 7 designation church and falsely “spiritualizes” promises heavenly, forming Jews) rapture “Judaizes” the the “earthly” . and “heavenly” of Jews.9 Darby wrote, accordingly, There is no earthly event between heaven…It (the Church) is this conviction that the Church is in its properly calling and relationship with Christ, no part of the course of the events of the earth which (concerning makes its so (pretribulational) simple and clear; and, on the other hand, it shows how the denial of its rapture brings down the church to an earthly position and destroys its whole character and spiritual position.10 interpretation promises literally belong though, congruent for this wedding of literal between earthly and heavenly system, therefore, rapture, which alone leads to the to an The practical consequence and a segregation is that none of the OT and much of Jesus’ teaching about a kingdom lacks literal significance for the Church Age. For example, the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer to Jesus’ preaching to a Jewish dispensation, as Ryrie and later dispensationalists suggest, some underlying principles to the moral nature of God remain applicable to the church because one confronts the same true God in all periods. ‘ ‘ This necessitates belief in a pre-tribulation of the church as belonging a mysterious and unpredicted in the prophetic time-line after the Jews rejected Jesus. Some scholars, like Chafer, prefer speaking of the age as an “intercalation” in case the connotation of the word “parenthesis” might imply an even marginal to the earthly history which precedes and follows it. logical interpretation unexpected “parenthetical age,” delay complementarity Historical Problem teachings from Scripture to eschatology. Pentecostals outpouring of the Certainly gave remarkable commonly thought Spirit as evidence of the “latter days’ restoration of the Apostolic Christ. For example, in Azusa Street Early Pentecostal Views-The the earliest Pentecostal prominence of the twentieth century rain” or at least as a sign of a last church prior to the return of A.W. Orwig’s 1916 recollection of the revivals a decade earlier, he summarizes the tongue, subject, preaching there as: principal topics of Pentecostal …the teaching that the baptism in the Spirit was upon the sanctified life, and evidenced the in another however by speaking brief, as on the day of Pentecost…The or doctrine, of divine healing received attention…Likewise was the special doctrine of the of Christ premillenial ardently promulgated.?z . coming 3 8 Although the ministers who founded the Assemblies of God “movement” in 1914 in Hot Springs, Arkansas, did not plan to write a “statement of faith,” much less a creed, two years later the exigencies of the period called forth a “Statement of Fundamental Truths.”Only sixteen in number, the abbreviated affirmations were obviously not systematic or comprehensive, lacking any explicit confession, for instance, of the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, or the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead the selection of topics reflected the existential needs of the Pentecostal movement at that time, and four of the sixteen were concerned with eschatology.13 Moreover, one should be cautious about assuming how the language of these confessions relates to the behavior and actual beliefs of the earlier pioneers of the Assemblies of God. The Statement was not a carefully constructed creed hammered out by a college of theologians but a statement subject in its precise wording to the personal ideosyncracies of the hands writing it.’4 The two relevant sections on eschatology are as follows: THE BLESSED HOPE The resurrection of those who have fallen asleep in Christ and their translation together with those who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord is the imminent and blessed hope of the Church. 1 Thess. 4:16,17; Romans 8:23; Titus 2:18; 1 Cor. 15:51,52. THE MILLENNIAL REIGN OF JESUS The revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, the salvation of national Israel, and the millennial of Christ on earth are the Scriptural promises reign and the world’s hope. 2 Thess. 1 :7 ; Rev. 19:I 1-14; Romans 11 :26,27 ; Rev. 20:1-7.15 S Certainly these statements may have implied for their writer(s) a secret “rapture” of confessing Christians at the end of the Church Age prior to the tribulation, but in itself this issue remains somewhat ambiguous. Neither of the statements explicitly mentions “the tribulation,” “the Church Age,” or uses the conventional “rapture” terminology. Conversely, the word “translation” in “King James English” and in the theology of that period need not entail the conception of a secret rapture.6 In fact, even adherents to a post-tribulation position may easily assent to this formulation without a twinge of conscience. However, sixteen years later a controversy arose precisely over this issue and led to the following unanimous decision by the General Presbyters: That we affirm our position as being definitely behind the Statement of Fundamental Truths and the declaration . 4 9 therein; that we believe in the imminent personal return of our Lord Jesus Christ as the blessed hope of the church, and that we disapprove of any of our ministers teaching that the church must go through the tribulations Whether behind materials any take. Timothy encouraged By Weber observes that conferences because no real consensus the crisis of place started up analysis, mentalism “dispensationalist” began Street as all of naturally outpouring of fundamentalists, rapture was intended open to debate from was in to in revivalists could afford to press of earlier prophecy century in part had been reached. with E. Sandeen’s a precise pre-tribulation the original statement remains I have seen. But, regardless, such a position case not a self-evident one for all Pentecostal groups Weber’s recent study of dispensationalism America points out that popular pre-millennarian views were by the events of World War I and that, 1920 premillennialist their doctrine, while before then they had been careful to remember premillennialism’s distinct minority status within the evangelical mainstream. IS the success abated at the end of the nineteenth on this point Conversely, World War I helped to forge a new for it in public opinion so that new conferences could be once again in 1919. Agreeing Weber argues that only at this later time did funda- as a “movement” from the 1860’s become fully with the result that popular revivalists to include teaching about “the rapture” as a regular part of their sermons. 19 Certainly, Pentecostals, who look to Azusa their galvanizing moment in history, do not find that the leading figures taught pre-tribulation rapture. For Pentecostals the emphasis on eschatology belonged more to the sense of a final glorious revelation and the Spirit in the last days, than, as with to the dark prospect of impending destruction for those not suddenly taken out of this world. The optimistic of Pentecostalism is evident in a whole range of A.G. Jeffries’ words in The Weekly Evangel of March 18, 1916 are exemplary: The great Pentecostal revival is deepening and spreading hour with an intensity almost inconceivable. We have reached the limit of divine revelation. Faith has almost become sight, and revelation never come nearer to men tangibility. than He has the last few years. …I believe the long dark night of sin is now about and a past glorious diamond-decked morning is now upon us.2° if we look to other Pentecostal denominational flavor publications. every Moreover, statements, we find that their God has positions seem even more 5 10 pre-tribulation rapture among Church of God in Christ, most of the Black eschatology rapture than that of the statements of the Tennessee.21 Typical of nuanced issues in idea of a an examination of Tennessee shows order of church government, features of eschatology. of Jesus Christ remains Overseer A.J. Tomlinson’s at the Eleventh Annual 1915. the treasured sanctification, the equivocal regarding a pre-tribulation rapture Assemblies of God. For example, one finds no affirmation of a the doctrinal Memphis, church generally, received little attention and the specific pre-tribulation is absent from official doctrinal statements up to the present time. Likewise, the minutes of the Church of God, Cleveland, priority given to recovering a lost apostolic with only limited concern for dispensational Of course, the “any moment” coming a shared belief as illustrated by summary of doctrine in his address Assembly Alongside and spirit baptism, Lord and the resurrection. “22 Yet, one looks in vain through the minutes of annual meetings from 1906 to 1917 for a concern with a secret rapture of the church out of the world before a Great Tribulation. As a last example, of the Pentecostal Holiness Church of Faith in the Discipline coming 2:13; of of the Churches of God in doctrines of salvation, he includes “the coming of Article 12 in the Articles affirmed a pre-tribulation Pentecostal Holiness a that this statement rapture. Long after Article leader, Bishop Dan Muse, more extensive declaration particularly Pentecostal denominations dispensationalism are now reading consensus on the doctrine sense, affirms simply that, We believe in the imminent, personal premillennial second of our Lord Jesus Christ ( Thess. 4:15-18; Titus 2 Peter 3:1-4; Matthew 24:29-44); and we love and wait for His appearing ( Timothy 4:8). As in the case of the Assemblies of God, later leaders assume implicitly 12 was penned, is inclined to suggest, “Possibly this truth would be appropriate, in our time.”23 My suspicions are that a number of which came to hold to popular during the 1920’s and the following decades back into their pre-1920’s statements a firm of the pre-tribulation was not originally present among them. This scenario raises afresh the question of just how “pentecostal,” the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture which rapture in an historical was. 6 for a Pre-tribulation 11 Rapture-a any extensive survey of the Later Pentecostal Defenses Hermeneutical Dilemma This brief precludes voluminous the pre-tribulation problem concretely, within the Assemblies to be among doctrine. eschatology God study Pentecostal literature on the biblical defense for rapture. Therefore, I have chosen to examine confident rapture position. recognized by 1932, by waited Though on the subject Section 7), reading The General in order to illustrate the publications at least, claimed to the . was accepted as part of the Council has declared in the of God, which officially, the most rigorous Pentecostal adherents When ambiguities in the above mentioned articles on seemed to allow room for a group of Assemblies of ministers in the early 1930’s to espouse openly post- tribulation views, the response of the Executive Presbytery was and strict in its affirmation of a pre-tribulation the controversy on this issue had been the Executive Presbytery, at least as early as their full response, re-enforced with a pursuasive address Ernest S. Williams at the biennial General Council meeting, until 193524 At this same time, an earlier executive draft of a position Constitution and Bylaws of the General Council (Article XXIV, as follows: ‘ POST-TRIBULATION RAPTURE TEACHING. Whereas, Statement of Fundamental Truths that it holds to the belief in the imminent coming of the Lord as the blessed hope of the Church, and Whereas, The teaching that the Church must to go through the Tribulation tends bring confusion and division the saints; therefore, We recommend that all our ministers teach the imminent coming of Christ, warning all men to be prepared for that which may occur at any time, and not lull their minds into insecurity by any teaching that would cause them to feel that certain events must occur before the among , coming, Rapture of Saints. . issue, doctrine, they Furthermore, We recommend that should ministers hold to the any of our post-tribulation refrain from preaching and teaching it. Should they persist in emphasizing this doctrine to the point of making it an their standing in the fellowship will be seriously affected. With this strong affirmation in mind, we may now turn to examples of some major Assemblies of God publications which show how Assemblies of God leaders mounted a biblical 7 12 defense for this doctrine. chronological and differences in the Pentecostal In each of the following cases, taken in order of publication, I will describe similarities defense and that typical of In order their fundamentalist-dispensationalist counterparts. to heighten these differences, I have selected only books from the 1930’s and later, in a period in which the Assemblies of God have confirmed officially its commitment to this dispensational view of eschatology. A. Myer Pearlman’s In the 1930’s Pearlman highly regarded teacher the denominational During this time, concerning this book is salvation, textbook of theology colleges of the Assemblies model of biblical generation of Assemblies His acceptance equivocal. On the one hand, sound typically dispensational, the relation the Doctrines of the Bible ( 1937) of God as a Bible Institute, adjacent to in Springfield, Missouri. contained in systematic chapters became a standard and became a the promised other hand, the Israel Knowing served the Assemblies at Central headquarters he composed the first large scale book of doctrine written within the Assemblies of God. He states the nature of this study, “The material a combination of Biblical and theology.”25 He divided his work into eleven doctrinal on: the scripture, God, angels, man, sin, Christ, the atonement, the Holy Spirit, the church, and the last things. From the late thirties on, Pearlman’s treatment used in various Bible Institutes of God. His approach theological interpretation for at least a of God ministers in training. of the dispensational hermeneutic is in matters of eschatology he can for example, when he describes of Israel to the Second Coming: “He who is the Head and Saviour of the Church, the heavenly people, is also Messiah of Israel, the earthly people.”260n the this sharp line begins to blur when he expounds on nature of the “The Founding Church.” is described as a church in that it was a nation called out from other nations to be the servant of God. Acts 7:38. When the Old Testament was translated word “congregation” or “church.” Israel, then, was the congregation of Jehovah. After His rejection of the Jewish church, Christ predicted the founding of a new congregation or into Greek the (of Israel) was rendered “ekklesia” or church church,..,27 Pearlman’s congregation or “the church Reformed Theology designation of the Christian church church” and his repeated naming of Jehovah” implies terms of continuity to dispensationalism.z8 but alien as a “new of Israel as common to On the 8 same biblical evidence, the wilderness wanderings for Israel in which might provide of esch-atological 13 Scofield concedes that Israel might in some sense be called a “congregation” or “church” only during but never is such a term appropriate the land.29 Likewise, Pearlman draws no consistently sharp distinction a hermeneutical interpretation doctrinal treatment of “The Church” the same rubric of the “bride of the faithful “in both the Old and between the church and Israel key to this later texts. So, under his separate he does not hesitate to of Christ” the New on the nature of the describe under community Testaments.1130 Moreover, in Pearlman’s church he neither makes any for Jews nor does Even more significantly, church synonymous assurance, exposition reference to a “postponed kingdom” he locate the church in a “parenthetical” age. he answers the question-“Is the with the kingdom of God?”-with the description that the church age is a phase of the kingdom is implied in Matt. 16:18,19 by the parables in Matt. 13, and by Paul’s of Christian work as being in the sphere of God’s kingdom. Col. 4:11. Inasmuch as the “kingdom of heaven” is a more comprehensive term we may also describe the church as a part of the kingdoM.31 Even though, under criticism, from Scofield’s terms “kingdom warned that church as a continuation Walvoord between and Ryrie departed Matthew’s use of the of God,” still, they has done, view the As Ryrie explains, . rigid distinctions of heaven” and “kingdom one should never, as Pearlman of the kingdom.32 The issue is whether or not the Church in this age as recognized by dispensationalists is a “sine qua non” of the One sees again how ecclesiology and eschatology of dispensationalism are closely related.33 system. Turning (Matthew 25:6), hermeneutics itself, we find instruction from general issues in dispensational to the defense for the pre-tribulation rapture Pearlman’s own synopsis regarding the Lord’s about the rapture and subsequent Second Coming: “After a long time” (Matthew 25:19), “at midnight” at a time of the day and the hour of which not one of His disciples knows (Matthew 24:36,42,50), the Lord will appear suddenly to gather His servants and to them according to their works. Matthew 25:19 and 2 Cor. 5:10. Later, after the gospel has been universally and they have rejected it-when the people of the world shall be living in utter oblivion of the coming judge preached 9 14 17:28,29)-the catastrophe, as in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37-39) and as in the days of the destruction of Sodom (Luke Son of man will appear in outward glory and power to judge and rule over all the nations of the world. (Matthew 25 :31-46)34 citations primarily Matthew 24-25 proves 24:40,41, Pearlman adds, in Pearlman’s presentation conditions its literal sense Jewish remnant that the Good tribulation, and 24: l6ff. belongs Finally, after referring to Matthew “this is called the Rapture, or the Parousia. “3s A number of problems appear from a standard dispensational point of view. First, Pearlman never presents a classical defense for the Rapture. He simply assumes it to be an obvious teaching and illustrates it with from Matthew 24-25. Second, how equivocal dispensational argument. According to Scofield, Matthew 24-25 is open to “a double interpretation” be seen as true of the present age but describes during Daniel’s seventieth week (the tribulation). Matthew 24:14 describes present course, age over position Christ’s return! Regardless, Scofield’s proposal his use of these texts are for a the text of which may literally the In only preaching by the News is “at hand” during the to this same period. Scofield’s (esp. vv.37ff.) at the end of applicable to the Of reflects this same double verses from events, rapture and dispensational questionable point is only that these warnings tribulation may also be used as “warnings which these events are ever impending.”36 one problem with these texts in any case is that they warn of an “any moment” coming of Christ even after the tribulation in Matt. 24:36-46, suggesting that a post-tribulation need not sacrifice belief in the imminence of the Pearlman interpretation suggested by Scofield for he employs the same Matt. 24:36-46 for both impending second coming. Precisely because such a use of Matt. 24 entails a double interpretation which weakens the sharp biblical distinctions elsewhere, most later dispensationalists rejected and stopped treating Matt. 24 as applicable in any literal way to the rapture. For example, Dwight Pente- cost omits Matt. 24 entirely from his rapture texts since it does not literally speak of the rapture but concerns the Jews in the tribulation and at the time of the Second Coming.37 From a of view Pearlman’s use of these texts is not adequate pre-tribulation A third and quite typical problem that Pearlman inconsistently to his doctrine of ecclesiology point and certainly rapture. treatments is very same distinctions to produce belief in a for such Pente-costal refuses to apply the which 10 15 become implicit in his eschatological exposition. Perhaps a more fair assessment would be to say that while his ecclesiology would not require such a view, his eschatology assumed the truth of it anyway. His scriptural supports are based on the weakest prooftexts and depend on a double interpretation which is later rejected by leading dispensationalist teachers. B. Ralph M. Riggs, The Path of Prophecy ( 1937) Ralph Riggs served as the eighth General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God and finished his years of ministry as a teacher at one of the denominational schools, Bethany Bible College in Santa Cruz, California. As an advocate of a pre- tribulation rapture, Riggs’ presentation early in his career would surprise his dispensationalist friends because in his “General Hermeneutical Laws Governing Its Study” he fails to mention the Israel-Church dichotomy necessitated by a dispensational system of interpretation.38 Also, Riggs openly differs from dispensationalist principles when he makes statements like: ” He (Christ) announced the kingdom (the church) as ‘at hand’ in mystery form. (Matthew 4:17; 10:7; 12:28; Luke 10 :9,11 ; 16:16; 17:21)”39 Darby, Scofield, and later dispensationalists forthrightly reject such an exposition of Jesus’ early ministry. Scofield explicitly argues that the phrase “at hand” does not mean that something “will immediately appear but only that no known or predicted event must intervene. “4? Therefore, Jesus was offering only the Davidic kingdom which was subsequently postponed after its rejection by Jews. Typical of standard dispensationalism, Jesus’ early preaching of the kingdom had nothing to do with the church which was “as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God. (Matthew 13:11,17; Ephesians Nevertheless, in matters of eschatology, Riggs treats Daniel’s seventieth week in familiar dispensational terms as occurring after the parenthetical Church Age has ended with the rapture. Riggs also speaks of the Jews’rejection of the kingdom on Palm Sunday, though he does not specifically describe that kingdom as “postponed.” Only after the Jews, thus, rejected Jesus in Matt. 11:20 does the mystery of the church begin to be revealed.42 As in the case of Pearlman, Riggs relies heavily on Matthew 24 as a rapture text which can be so only through a “double interpretation” and which was subsequently dropped by later dispensationalists as a “literal” witness to the rapture. 11 16 C. P.C. Nelson, Bible Doctrines (1948). Annotating the list of doctrines found in the Statement of Fundamental Truths, this esteemed Pentecostal teacher elaborates on the article concerning “The Blessed Hope,” This hope is founded on the plain, positive of Christ Himself often repeated and elucidated promises by the inspired writers of the Word of God. See Luke 21 :36 ; John 14:2,3; I Thess. 4:13-16; Romans 8:23,24; I John 3:1-3.43 In an appendix on “The Time of the Rapture,” Nelson similarly cites verses which “literally” assert this doctrine: I Thess. 1:9-10, 4:17; I Cor. 1:7, 15:51; Luke 21:28. Apparently viewing a post-tribulationist position as the only competing alternative, Nelson seeks to affirm that “the blessed hope” as understood “among us has always carried the meaning that the rapture was near and so far as we know, may take place at any moment.”44 Without showing awareness of other optional “any moment” eschatologies, Nelson simply assumes that a “plain” biblical teaching of “imminence” must indicate support for the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture. However, a dispensationalist will miss once again the clear evidence of a corresponding ecclesiological hermeneutic which makes such a literal reading of the eschatological verses “plain” and convincing. In his selection of rapture texts, Nelson may well be relying on Scofield for many of his chosen prooftexts for the rapture. Most later dispensationalists, for example, rejected Scofield’s appeal to the church of Philadelphia’s being taken “out of the hour of trial” as referring to the rapture since the literal meaning seems clearly assigned to historical churches in Paul’s own time. Scofield’s justification for a rapture oriented interpretation of the seven churches as seven periods in the Church Age grew out of his reasoning that “These messages (Rev. 1-3) must contain that foreview (of the Church Age) if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after 3:22. “45 Such logic leads to a typological exegesis which cannot, even in dispensationalist circles, offer a basic proof for doctrine. Likewise, Nelson’s appeal to Luke 21:36 depends on a text parallel to Matt. 24 which only refers to the rapture for Scofield in the secondary “double interpretation,” as we have already seen. If we have any doubts about what a literal sense means to Nelson, we need only consult Eric Lund’s Hermeneutics or The Science and Art of Interpreting the Bible, which Nelson first translated from Spanish in 1934 and which by 1948 had been republished in four editions. This text, still commonly used in Spanish by many Hispanic Pentecostals, is non-dispen- 12 17 Baptist of This popular and widely might best be classed as a interpretation, aided by of rhetorical devices within on minister’s aid, and the sationalist missionary the nineteenth century. students Bible School, distributed “pre-critical” primer some detailed attention Scripture. Nelson’s adding footnotes, two new chapters dispensational C, “Helps materials, though numerous few “modernistic” Apparently, regarding eschatology to make certain biblical passages to support obviously sought idea that Jesus’ in its approach. Eric Lund, a Swedish-born, to Spain wrote these lectures in the last quarter The English editions were published by at the Press of the Assemblies of God’s Southwestern where Nelson taught. textbook on hermeneutics on contextual to the use Even in the third edition and fourth editions-with an appendix on rhetoric-the book totally ignores hermeneutical system. More significantly, in his Appendix and How to Use Them,” no reference is made to the Scofield Bible or standard Lutheran, sources are recommended.46 the narrowness of the polemical in Nelson’s own time was alone sufficient dispensational Reformed and even a situation appear in their “plain sense” Again, what Nelson views was the Clearly, “plainly” a pre-tribulation position. to preserve in his eschatological return could occur at “any moment.” the restricted sense of popular options for such an eschatology and not the presence of a particular system of dispensational hermeneutics dictated his conviction of what the Scripture on this matter. – taught My purpose decade show attention was paid dispensationalist envision different “The ecclesiology economy Studies ( 1948). over a is to He openly seeks to dispensation,” However, he rejects ways. of Israel and the church in the D. Ralph M. Riggs, Dispensational in returning to Riggs and a book published after his above mentioned The Path to Prophecy that gradually within the Assemblies of God more to specifically dispensational issues. Riggs sounds in this later book more like a conventional than in his earlier writing. ages, e.g., “The Israelitish Ecclesiastical dispensation.” dispensational in several overt and crucial For Riggs, a sharp separation of God is lacking. He affirms, can be also considered that, since the giving of the covenant to Abraham, the members of this mystical Christ’s body, have been the faith-children of the faithful Abraham.47 once more, typical of Reformed covenant rather theology Riggs the It church, In language, than dispensational states, “although 13 18 Church and outwardly He freely calls the terms of two entirely economies, Riggs argues simply, nature the Yet, rapture, dispensational yet dispensationally system which led to so that a completely could finish its course. was not a new thing spiritually, it began to take form on the Day of Pentecost. “48 church the “new Israel” and “spiritual Israel. “49 Rather than distinguishing Israel and the Church in different rules of life, dispensations, or “the principal distinguishing feature is that Israel was national but the Church was inter- national.”50 Such an assessment is at variance with the entire of a dispensational hermeneutical view of a secret rapture of the church different “postponed” dispensation if we focus solely on his defense for the pre-tribulation we find a use of Scripture more typical of a uniquely hermeneutic. In the one paragraph devoted to this subject, Riggs confirms, The believing remnant of the Church is to be taken out of the world before the full fury of the Tribulation breaks but the Church visible, after whom this is named, will receive her judgment and from God for her unfaithfulness and apostasy. I Peter 4:17; Hebrews 10:30; Rev. (Rev. 3:10; 12:5); dispensation punishment concept to defend this view. The of Scripture, his eschatology depends pretation One senses little need on Riggs’ part is viewed as a simple and plain teaching the obvious choice in light of the options. Once again, on a dispensational system of inter- while ecclesiology does not. E. E.S. Williams, As a General during twenty years baggage Williams take (1953). to Ralph M. Riggs, in favor of a rapture obvious in the 1930’s. Now, about some of the though Systematic Theology Superintendent prior Williams had made his position a denominational controversy later he shows that he has not accepted dispensationalist which seems to be associated, in his view unnecessarily, with a pre-tribulation perspective. warns that many dispensationalists, the position that the earthly ministry of Jesus was entirely Jewish, (and) make the Sermon on the Mount to be the laws of the kingdom which. will be set up, not Church truths at all. They reason that there were no Church truths earlier than the founding of the Church at Pentecost.52 His own position is that “the Church and the spiritual are one and the same with slightly different “53 Among the few distinguishing evidence that “Jesus linked His own government but not in its earthly form.”54 Consequently, kingdom connotations. the ancient theocracy, connotations is with the 14 19 the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ early ministry are all literally applicable to the church. As with Riggs, another distinction is that Israel is one nation, while the church is international- “a people called’out from all the nations of this world, being born again by the Spirit of God.”55 A standard dispensationalist would undoubtedly feel that Williams has “Judaized” the church. Nonetheless, Williams’ assessment of the text remains for him a “literal” one precisely because he rejects the dispensational system at this point and assumes substantive continuity between the church and ancient Israel, including the idea that promises were given to them both in the Old Testament. However, when Williams comes to defend his belief in a pre-tribulation rapture for the church, he suddenly reverts back to the very dispensational system he has openly criticised in his discussion of ecclesiology! Besides quoting the familiar prooftext of I Thess. 4:16-17, he depends on a lengthy quote from Frank M. Boyd’s recently published Introduction to Prophecy. The seven points in this defense may be summarized as follows: (1) There is no specific mention of the church in connection with the tribulation in Scripture. (2) The overcomer of the church at Thyatira is promised-” I will give him the morning star” (Rev. 2:28). By contrast, the “Sun of Righteousness” (Mal. 4:1-21) refers to the messianic hope of Israel and, therefore, to the Second Coming. (3) The promise to the true church at Philadelphia is that “I will keep you out of the hour of trial” (Rev. 3:10). (4) The time of tribulation is one of unprecedented wrath, yet the church is promised that the believer will be “delivered from the wrath to come” (I Thess. 1 : 10). (5) Time details and signs can be found applying to Israel in the tribulation but none to the church. (6) Elijah represents a type of the Christian saints raptured away from the earth. (7) So also is the small group who escaped the flood, which is according to Luke 17:26-30 viewed as a type of those who are rescued from the tribulation.56 Williams particularly elaborates on Boyd’s fifth point, suggesting that the church as a New Testament mystery leads one to the assumption that it will be taken out of the world before Daniel’s seventh week (the tribulation period). At the same time, Williams avoids any claim that the church belongs to a “parenthetical” age. A comparison of these arguments with those of dispensationalist Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come finds only the second one absent from a standard dispensational defense. Williams would appear inconsistent in terms of his willingness to distinguish sharply the eschatological verses 15 20 their application either to Israel or to the church, while, at the same time, allowing non-eschatological to both parties as members sharing revelation. progressive eschatological sational system. One growing rapport Evangelicals (NAE). greatly dissipated early rejection larger portions predecessors, openly into only with texts to offer a message in the same scheme of F. Frank M. Boyd, Ages and Dispensations, ( 1955). We have already noted Williams’ dependence on Boyd’s earlier study, this last work illustrates for me an effort by some Pentecostals particularly in the 1950’s to bring their views fully into fidelity to the established dispen- reason for this attempt may have been the with dispensationalist groups since the early 1940’s through membership in the National Association of The period of bitter condemnation by white holiness and fundamentalist groups in the 1920’s had and led to an era of cooperation. It was a time for the Pentecostals to bring their doctrinal positions more in line with mainstream conservative evangelical views. By the 1960’s the Assemblies of God became the largest denomination in the NAE, Thomas F. Zimmerman became the president of that fellowship and the Statement of Fundamental Truth was enlarged to include some missing, key evangelical tenets.57 Boyd’s book on Ages and Dispensations moves a step closer to a consistent dispensational posture well beyond that of Williams’ earlier Systematic Theology and its predecessors. At the outset, Boyd appears to echo the usual Pentecostal of “ultra-dispensational teaching which takes away from us as Christians, not only the whole Old Testament, but of the New…”5g However, Boyd, unlike his is ready to compartmentalize the Bible more sections dealing with Israel, and those concerned the church. By “ultra-dispensational” he may not mean the Pentecostal rejection of the dispensational system of ecclesiology as was the case with Williams and earlier Pente- but only an extreme position like that of a British clergyman, that all the Gospels covers a transitional the dispensations of law and grace so that only and truly begin to offer a message to the church. of the Old Testament, and almost all of the teaching of Jesus applies only to Jews, except for its witness to moral principles inherent in the nature of God. This difference between this view and conventional costals, “Bullingerism” posited and that the book of Acts epistles purely The literal meaning within dispensationalism, E.W. Bullinger:s9 are entirely Jewish period between Paul’s prison dispensationalism is only a 16 21 matter of the extent to which the New Testament does not have a literal message for the church. Most dispensationalists agreed that Jesus turned to address the mystery of the church late in the Gospels and that the book of Acts belongs to the dispensation of grace. Hence, Boyd’s corrective is the standard one within dispensationalism and does not belong to a distinctly Pentecostal challenge. Proof that “ultra-dispensationalism” meant for Boyd approximately the same thing as it did for conventional dispensationalists like H.A. Ironsides is found in his consistent distinction of the church and Israel even in matters of ecclesiology. For example, like a conventional dispensationalist Boyd remarks, Paul calls the church a mystery. Jesus spoke of His church , (Matt. 16:13-19), but further than revealing the foundation truth on which it was to be built, he did not go. The mystery of the church was first fully revealed to the apostle Paul. (Eph. 3:3-6,9; Rev. 16:25) Except that blessing was promised to the Gentiles (Isa. 11: 10; Rom. 9:25-30), the church was unknown to the prophets.6o Like other dispensationalists, and in contrast to Williams, he warns against ever calling Israel the “Church” since the church begins at Pentecost and exists on earth until the rapture. Similarly, Boyd never describes the church as “spiritual Israel” or “new Israel.” One might suggest that just this position had been sufficient evidence for previous Pentecostal interpreters that they had lost “not only the Old Testament, but large portions of the New.” When Boyd comes to his justification for the pre-tribulation rapture his arguments are the same as cited earlier by Williams with the addition of a new argument fully in accord with the Scofield Bible. Boyd contends that the “After this” at the beginning of Revelation 4 means literally “after the church period.”61 In all of these matters Boyd is not merely reflecting an old established Pentecostal tradition, but, as did those who later added overlooked orthodox doctrines to the Statement of Fundamental Truths, sought to bring Pentecostal views into a full harmony with fundamentalist-dispensationalist orthodoxy. The theology of the Pentecostal antagonists of the 1920’s was, thus, gradually being adopted as the new orthodoxy of a larger generation of Pentecostals. My point in this selective assessment is not to deny that there were some orthodox dispensationalists among Pentecostals in the 1920’s, if not before. Rather, I have tried to show that, while Pentecostal figures tended generally to reject the , ‘ 17 22 dispensational between the Church tribulation best concern for a strict, non-Reformed and Israel, rapture preserved moment” return of Jesus Christ. of hermeneutics separation they assumed that a pre- their hope in the “any In other words, once one gave rise to the idea of a like the Pentecostals who were particular system pre-tribulation rapture, groups excluded from becoming amentalists” succeeded in either members of the coalition of “fund- perhaps inconsistently, ecclesiology). inventing their own ad hoc inconsistently only one part while rejecting, of inter- in a literalistic fashion church throughout the Old Testament, Prayer. Nonetheless, limited popular knowledge confirm an imminent, “any than the idea that fulfillments, lining This reading of Scripture considered pragmatic popular theological perspectives spirit-filled consistently dispensational defense for the position or accepted of the dispensational system (its eschatology) another corresponding part (its A cherished belief necessitated by one system may, thus, gain a life and momentum of its own and receive new rationalizations for its survival within other systems pretation. More often than not, Pentecostal interpreters and found direct applications Scripture, the Sermon on the Mount, certain texts read the Bible to the including, among such resources, and the Lord’s seemed, in the light of a options to view rather regarding of eschatological moment” “rapture” the church endure seven years of doomsday the road to Armageddon like milestones. lacked investment in the. “system” essential for dispensationalists and remained a and intuitive interpretation within the poverty of the future hope of believers. With the exception of some later, more exposition, like that of F. M. Boyd, these Pentecostal readings remain problematic because they depend primarily on an intuitive-contextual defense of a doctrine which was only necessitated interpreting Scripture. As we have seen, some of the latest literature on these subjects suggests a growing tendency among teachers (e.g., see J.G. Hall, below) to orthodox dispensational position with new for a modification of traditional Pentecostal some Assemblies of God move toward an implications views. Blessing by a particular system for and Dispensationalism – A The Pentecostal Problematic As is general agreement Wedding I have understood the earlier Pentecostal literature there that the church is founded in a special 18 23 sense on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and that this event fulfills the promise of Joel 2:28-32. The problem created by such an inter-pretation for dispensationalists is that the Old Testament prophets are supposed to predict nothing about the church and certainly not its founding. One of the most famous parallels to this situation for dispensationalists is the citation of Amos 9 by James at the close of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Rather than allow this example to confirm a “spirit-ualizing” interpretation of “rebuilding the booth of David,” most dispen- sationalists have insisted that James unexpectedly repeats a familiar promise directed only to the Jews. Similarly, when critics pointed to Paul’s assertion that the church was founded “upon the apostles and prophets,” Darby had insisted that these were New Testament prophets and not those of the Old.62 Though perhaps less spectacular in nature, Peter’s statement that “this is that” in reference to Joel’s promise creates a similar difficulty for such a system of interpretation. Some scholars, like Bullinger, simply consigned this part of Acts to an interim period between the dispensation of law and grace, therefore, not yet fully belonging to the church period. Other dispensationalists, like Scofield, acknowledged in the particular case of Acts 2, comparable to instances in which the New Testament appeals to the New Covenant of Jer. 31:31-34 (Luke 22:2; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Hebrews 8:8, 9:15), that some fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy had to have taken place in order for the biblical text to make any sense at all. In the Scofield Bible, the notes inform the reader of this point: “Afterward”in Joel 2:28 means “in the last days”…and has a partial and continuous fulfillment during the “last days” which began with the first advent of Christ (Hebrews 1:2); but the greater fulfillment awaits the “last days” as applied to Israe1.63 Still, many conventional dispensationalists, like James Brookes, argue more consistently that the event of Pentecost was not a fulfillment but a “type” of the future fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel to the Jews.64 Ironically, the insistence on literal interpretation commonly led dispensationalists to view the Old Testament and much of the teaching of Jesus available to the church only by typological exegesis. For this reason, Daniel P. Fuller can reasonably challenge that “Dispen- sationalists are therefore inconsistent in finding the Church in types but not in prophecy.”65 Vinson Synan summarizes the implications of this situation for Pentecostals in the 1920’s The fundamentalists had also been captured by a rather 19 24 new biblical sationalism” glossolalia “dispensation of grave view known as “Scofieldian Our concern show that on were to interpret dispensationalism presented Stanley H. Frodsham, Evangel, by finding both the fulfillment and of Isaiah 28:11 in Paul’s dispen- practices of the but to in Acts 2, interpretation in Acts 2:4 in other which viewed the pentecostalist and divine healing as signs of Grace”destined to cease with the heralding the New Testament. The apostles pentecostals were therefore in error and beyond the pale of orthodox fundamentalism.66 here is not to refute dispensationalism the crucial matter of how Pentecostal believers the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy a problem. Even as late as 1941, former editor of the Pentecostal confirms an older, familiar Pentecostal of Joel’s prophecy recognition of speaking tongues within the experience of the church (cf. I Cor. 14:21).67 He is naturally aware that dispensationalist’s have an alternative assessment and remarks Many have eyes to recognize forthcoming but how few recognize that at the same time God is about the restoration of His true church, giving to her in these last days what she had at the beginning?68 concerning time, bringing rhetorically concerning it, the very significant evidence the restoration of Israel at this the but as At most, Frodsham concedes possibility of apparently regards at least as obvious As another example Testament on this distinctive Bible Doctrines, repeats to the dispensationalists a double fulfillment of Joel’s promise, the common Pentecostal interpretation if not more so. of how Pentecostals used the Old another central issue, P.C. Nelson, in his old familiar Pentecostal interpretation. Then in Joel 2:28,29 we have that great prediction which has partial fulfillment at Pentecost (the former rain), and is now being fulfilled in a more general diffusion of the Spirit all over the world (the latter rain). See Joel 2:23 and James Notice that the promise is to pour the Spirit upon all 5:7,8. fTesh.69 Of course, the former interpretation dispensational this commonplace and latter rain depends finding a further fulfillment of an Old Testament church by linking adjacent prophecies about “the early and latter rain.” This violates strict adherence to the clearly system. Pentecostal interpretation of for its rationale on one’s promise to the of Joel to James’ words manner of literal 20 approach, some only 25 dispensational dispensational ecclesiology than procedure was the Boyd began both and in “dispensation now cautiously observes, with While not fully engaging regarding to dispensational multiple rejections precisely the pertains literally only acknowledge dispensationalists, some later stage In recent years, in line with a more consistent Pentecostal scholars have tried to modify this earlier position regarding the fulfillment of Joel. I will mention two examples. As we saw above, in Frank M. Boyd’s later writing, he follows a more strictly in eschatology of grace” in his Ages and Dispensations. “Potentially, this dispensation the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost,. “7° this matter, Nelson equivocates the beginning of the church age in a matter common interpretation. Just as Scofield allows for of Jesus, so dispensationalists church age began. Since the prophecy to Jews, Boyd is reserved enough only to a “potential” fulfillment. Like other he may have assigned the actual founding to in the biblical traditional a well-known gained taught dispensational the United dispensations Revelation?2 solely rapture debated when of Joel we can mention J.G. Hall, who for instance, the common 24-25 and Rev. 3:10 to the ‘baptism 28:11,12; As a second, more recent example, Assemblies of God evangelist-teacher, fame in the 1950’s and later as the “walking Bible” and doctrine with the aid of a thirty by eight foot eschatology chart. Hall dazzled congregations throughout States by inviting any question from the audience about he past, present and future ages. Striding with a pointer in hand in front of his brightly painted canvas of all the various he would answer rapidly with a catena of memorized Bible verses. Over the years he published three books concerned with and the interpretation of Daniel and His use of Scripture was far more consistently dispensational than had been that of most other of his Pente- costal predecessors. He rejected, Pentecostal application of Matt. indicate the rapture of the church?3 For Hall, these texts belong to the Jewish promise of a coming messiah, not to the of the church. Likewise, in his understanding of Acts 2, Hall followed the lead of dispensationalism, more than did iscent earlier Pentecostal interpreters. initially he grants that in the Holy Spirit is fulfillment of prophecy. Isa. Joel 2:28.1174 However, he then qualifies this statement with an observation, reminiscent of Scofield: In the prophecy of Joel the Baptism is present from God’s side and, strictly speaking, remains for its fulfillment in the tribulation is (sic!) but partly fulfilled on the day of we are blessed with the Spirit early Pentecost; i.e., 21 26 In sum, in several cases, a more consistent dispensational eschatology has led later Pentecostals to a more consistently dispensational ecclesiology, one that could challenge even the most basic doctrines common among Pentecostals. These changes are at present ad hoc and lack full consensus. The matter is not merely academic, for the implications of such a shift in ecclesiology is both sociologically and politically significant.76 In any case, we have seen that the hermeneutical prescription of 2 Pet. 1:20 harbors an equally convincing social description: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. “77 22 *Gerald T. Sheppard is Associate 27 Church of God presented at the 1983 annual Pentecostal Studies. Union Theological Seminary. in Christ. This Professor of Old Testament at He is an ordained minister in the paper was originally meeting of the Society for 1. Timothy Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism, 1875-1925 (New York: Oxford Press, 1979) 17-24, 30-32. Truth’in 2. Clarence Larkin, The Greatest Book on’Dispensational the World (Philadelphia: Clarence Larkin Est., 1918, rev. 1920), 3. Cf. C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965) 44-46. Language,” ed., 23-25; Seminary, 1944) 3. Examples: J.N. Darby, “On `Days’ Signifying `Years’ in Prophetic Collected Writings Vol. 2, 53-54; C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago: Moody Bible Institute) 19th L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas Theological Vol. 5, 318; John F. Walvoord, “Premillennialism and the Church as a Mystery,” Bibliotheca Sacra 91 (January, 1954) 1-10 others) “pictured lacking.” 4:8; 3:10; today.” For particular (Chafer and 4. Ryrie, 120, he notes that some dispensationalists the Law as a period when enablement was completely He modifies this view as follows: “…it is not accurate to under the say there was no enablement law. The Spirit indwelt many (Dan. 1 Peter 1:11 ) and came upon many others for special power (Judges 1 Sam. 10:9-10; Ex. 28:3), but there was no guarantee that He would permanently or universally indwell God’s people as He does a discussion of charges brought against L.S. Chafer on this issue by the southern Presbyterian church, see Daniel Fuller’s The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism (unpublished doctoral dissertation: Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957) 149ff. 5. Cf. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Dispensationalism,”Bibliotheca 83 (October, 1936) 448f. The Rapture 6. John F. Walvoord, Dunham Pub. Co., 1957) 16. Sacra Question (Grand Rapids: 8. Dwight D. Pentecost, Pub. Co., 1958) 193. 7. Walvoord, 15. Ryrie, Ibid., 157 reiterates this same point. Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Dunham Jersey: 9. C.I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (Neptune, New Loizeaux Brothers, 1896) 12. 10. J.N. Darby, “The Rapture of the Saints,” Collected Writings, Vol. 2, 237-238. 11. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 5, 97, observes that while the Sermon on the Mount is primarily directed to the Messianic Kingdom, 23 28 we may draw “secondary applications” from it for the church. He explains, “A secondary application to the church means that lessons and principles may be drawn from it..” Ryrie ( 108) notes that to the Messianic sympathetically “have passages literally applying only Kingdom secondary relevance today in the principles they set forth.” 12. The Weekly Evangel, March 18, 1916, p.4. 13. Cf. P.C. Nelson, Bible Doctrines book (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1948, rev. ed.). This offers the statement to its enlargement in their prior 1961, with Nelson’s notes regarding intent. The preamble of the statement, found in the minutes of the Second General Council, 1916, Oct. 2-7 although omitted from Bible Doctrines asserts clearly, that the “‘Statement of Fundamental Truths’ is not intended as a creed for the church…but only as a basis of unity for the ministers alone (i.e., that we all speak the same thing, I Cor. 1:10; Acts 2:42).” On the secondary priority given to doctrine in the early Pentecostal period, we might recall the observation of Donald Gee, the well-known British Pentecostal spokesman, “When we came out for Pentecost we came out not merely for a theory, or a doctrine; we came out for an EXPERIENCE that revolutionized our lives. The Baptism in the which we sought and received was a REALITY, even though we probably Spirit understood little of the doctrine involved at the time. How different, then, from the purely doctrinal and theoretical issues involved in this matter” (“Tests for Fuller Revelation,” The Pentecostal Evangel February 14, 1925). 14. An attempt to refine such doctrines as dispensationalism from a Pentecostal perspective and to teach it in the Bible institutes cannot even be taken for granted in the 1920’s. In Frank M. Boyd’s report in 1924 on the Bible colleges, he remarked under the heading “What are Students Learning?” that “they (the Bible institute teachers) were teaching doctrine.” “Some people criticized the teaching of doctrine,” he wrote, “but the New Testament has much to say regarding sound doctrine and sound teaching.” Boyd warned that “otherwise the students were in danger of being overturned into the error known as the “New Issue” (the Jesus-Only view of water baptism).” He added “they were also making a special study of dispensational truth” (The Pentecostal Evangel June 7, 1924). For a brief sketch of the changes in the Assemblies of God doctrine against the background of its social history, see Gerald T. Sheppard, “Word and Scripture in the Pentecostal Tradition,” Agora 1:4 (1978) 4-5, 17-22; 2:1 ( 1978) 14-19. 15. Nelson, 139, 149. 16. The term can mean either “to transfer” (cf. 2 Sam 3: 10; Col. I: 13) or “to take to heaven without death” (cf. Heb. 11:5). The dispensationalist use of the term “rapture,” not found in the King James Translation of Scripture helped to clarify this ambiguity in favor of the second meaning and even more explicitly as a meeting of 24 29 Cf. Melvin E. Elliott, The Jesus “in the air” prior to the tribulation. the King James Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1967). Language of 17. Nelson, 171f. 18. Weber, 52. Fundamentalism: (Chicago: University The Roots of 1800-1930 movement 19. Weber, 162. Weber quotes from Sandeen’s British and American Millenarianism, of Chicago Press. 1970) 246, “as a result of the 1919 World’s Conference on Christian Fundamentals, the millenarian had changed its name. The millenarian had become Fund- amentalists.” 6-7. 20. In an article entitled, “The Limit of Divine Revelation,” 21. Cf. the COGIC ministers’ handbooks. The earlier statement on reads, a shout, of God the “Second Coming” remains unchanged by the 1940 revision. It “We believe in the second coming of Christ and that the church, the bride, the Lamb’s wife will be caught up to meet him in the air. I Thess. 4:16-17; “For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 22. Book of Minutes: General Assemblies Churches Cleveland: Church of God Publishing House, 1922) Vol. I, 183. 23. “The Second Coming,” in Hubert T. Spence, et. al., eds. The Pentecostal Message, (Franklin Holiness Springs: The Publishing House- Pentecostal Church, 1950), 201 1 24. Cf. Minutes of the Sixteenth General Council of the Assemblies of God, 1935. This record includes the following from E.S. Williams’ address: “If we do have any dissension among us to this it is not the fault of the General pertaining Council: the responsibility rests upon these brothers who when they came into the General Council claimed to have stood for the Statement of Fundamental If they had not declared their stand for the Statement Fundamental Truths, they could not have come into the General Council and if they no longer stand for these Fundamental Truths, not to remain in our ranks to bring about differences among the brethren.” matter, Truths. they ought 25. Myer Pearlman, Knowing of the Doctrines of the Bible (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1937), xii. 26. Pearlman, 391. 27. Pearlman, 348f. 28. For an example of a conservative evangelical, Reformed view of covenant theology in antagonism to dispensational teaching, see, Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1945). 25 30 29. C.I. Scofield, editor, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York, 1917) 1158, n.1. Note his sharp contrast between Israel and the church in his note on Matt. 16:18 (1021, n.2.). 30. Pearlman, 348. Contrast Walvoord, The Rapture Question, 37f. 31. Pearlman, 351. This statement is immediately followed a quote from Williams Evans (source book by undisclosed) to illustrate the relationship, “The Church may be looked upon as part of the of God just as Illinois is part of the United kingdom States.” 32. Fuller, 288-90. 33. Ryrie, 173. 34. Pearlman, 389-390. 35. Pearlman, 390. 36. Scofield, Bible, 1032n2. 37. Pentecost, 202-204. 38. Ralph M. Riggs, The Path to Prophecy 28-31. The (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1937) following chapter, “Special Laws Governing Its Study,” likewise, omits any reference to this seminal hermeneutical theory of dispensationalism. 39. Riggs, 102. 40. Scofield, Bible, 998n3. 41. Ibid. 42. Scofield, Bible, 101Inl,2. 43. P.C. Nelson, Bible Doctrine (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1948, rev. ed.) 141. 44. Nelson, 172. 45. Scofield, Bible, 133n3. 46. Eric Lund Hermeneutics or The Science and Art the P.C. Nelson Worth: The of Interpreting Bible, trans, by (Fort Southwestern Book Shop, 1948, 4th ed.) 194-202. 47. Ralph M. Riggs, Dispensational Studies (“Correspondence Course,” Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1948) Bk. 2, 30. 48. Riggs, Studies, 32. 49. Riggs, Studies, 27. 50. Riggs, Studies, 39. This statement follows a list of thirteen ways in which Israel and the church are alike. 51. Riggs, Studies, 40. 52. E.S. Williams, Systematic Theology (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1953) Vol. 3, 95. 53. Ibid. 26 31 54. Ibid. 55. Williams, 92. 56. Williams, 193-95. 57. Cf. Sheppard, “Word.” 58. Frank M. Boyd, Ages and Dispensations (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1955) 14. 59. Cf. H.A. Ironside, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: Ultra . Dispensationalism Examined in the Light of Holy Scripture (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1938) 81 l. 60. Boyd, 54. ‘ ‘ 61. Boyd, 61. 62. Fuller, 347. 63. Scofield, 932, n.l. 64. James H. Brookes, “Caught Up Together,” The Truth 6 (April, 1888) 210. 65. Fuller, 348f.,n.24. 66. Vinson Synan, The Holiness/ Pentecostal Movement in the United States (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971) 206. 67. Stanley H. Frodsham, With Signs Following: The Story of the Pentecostal Revival in the Twentieth Century Gospel Publishing House, 1941, rev. ed.) 263-65. (Springfield: 68. Frodsham, 265. 69. Boyd, 80. 70. Boyd, 46. Italics mine. 71. Fuller, 304ff. 72. J.G. Hall, Dispensations of the Eternal Program of God (Springfield: Inland Printing Co., 1957) and two other books published by the same company: Prophecy Marches On! Daniel, and Prophecy Marches On! Revelation. 73. Hall, Dispensations, 50. 74. Hall, Dispensations, 118. 75. Hall, Dispensations, 119. 76. Cf. Cornelia Butler Flora, Pentecostalism in Columbia: Baptism by Fire and Spirit (Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated University Presses, 1976). 77. At the risk of a facile over-simplification, I think of Pentecostals as belonging essentially to a highly important movement in the history of Christian spirituality [Donald L. Gelpi, Pentecostalism: A Theological Viewpoint (New York: Paulist Press, 1971) and John 27 32 God’s Gifts for God’s People (Philadelphia: Koenig, Charismata: Westminster Press, 1978)]. If we may think momentarily in terms of “ideal types,” to use Weber’s terminology, we may describe the model of classical Pentecostals as shamanistic or prophetic in character, reflecting a community in quest of an intense sense of divine presence and divine power to meet various needs of members in the Prophetic leaders generally perform a group. social maintenance function, more inclined toward the preservation of traditional values than to the avant-garde. Moreover, the group’s search for unity in the power and the presence of Spirit, confirmed by signs, miracles, and interpretations, usually takes over concern with pneumatic precedence nuanced creeds, esoteric doctrines, or schemes of eschatology. Pentecostal groups can be or survivalistic when Consequently, apolitical also they are peripheral to the larger society but are of broad and social critique when they have a stake capable in the central culture political the [Cf,. difference between peripheral and central prophets in I. M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion (Baltimore: Penguin Books, While such reformist prophetic groups may also be overtly 1971]. futurist, they often see positive evidence of the Spirit working in the present-politically, socially, spiritually. The empowerment of the can be viewed as an instrumental means for altering the Spirit present order and demonic forces the exorcising working against group or in society at large. fundamentalist-dispensationalist groups tend to be visionary They emphasize agreement on By contrast, or apocalyptic in character. the part of members to a detailed code of eternal truths which correspond to a revealed world order. They tend not to be reformist except in very limited personalistic ways because they remain sojourners in an evil world. Their comfort comes from the hidden of a coming kingdom, which lies in the impending future signs and in which they will find God’s final vindication. The vision so exceeds the can present reality that only God bring it about. They tend to chart or map-out the future as well as anticipate the times and seasons which will the at the end of time. In the precede cosmic reversals interim, communities or even they may form highly regimented utopian nations. In political assessments and in biblical exegesis fundamentalist-apocalyptic inter- preters are frequently fatalistic, relying on revealed of a fixed knowledge pattern for their future which they discern in the sealed oracle of Scripture and find confirmed by the signs of the time. Both approaches, the prophetic and the have their own special strengths and weaknesses for apocalyptic, the politics of biblical interpretation within the limits of particular historical circumstances. At least, we must recognize that subtle issues of eschatology do not necessarily represent simply a trivial descent into the abyss of religious esoterica. Instead, eschatological symbolism often fitly renders the hope of the faith and, in turn, circumscribes the terms in which believers are able to respond to the world politically and socially. The adoption by some Pentecostal and charismatic groups of rationalized fundamentalism is more than merely an act of acquiring new knowledge and legitimacy from an orthodox prestige group. In 28 33 becoming fundamentalist-dispensationalist, Pentecostal groups also opt for a different darkened glass through which they can perceive the Bible and the world. [A significant assessment of the political positions Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal dispensationalists have been inclined to take can be found in Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now!: The Premillenial Response to Russia and Israel Since 1917 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977). Pentecostal statesman, David du Plessis once observed, “Those famous charts we used to see stretched across the platform showing God’s have been plan for the ages, from the Garden of Eden to the new Jerusalem, gathering dust in basements for years now. One reason was that every time someone found a decent anti- Christ someone else always shot them!” in “Agora Talks to David du Plessis,” Agora 2:1 (1978), 13]. Such a transition entails a transformation which will be uneasy and which, in my opinion, grows out of a poverty of imagination and at the expense of some of the best elements of the Pentecostal tradition. and I think Pentecostals would be wiser to Theologically politically, look to the eschatology and ecclesiology of black and hispanic Pentecostal churches whose racial and national marginality has frequently evoked a critique of culture rather than to follow white fundamentalism’s passive acceptance of evil in the world as a hopeful sign of the last days. [Cf. James Cone, God of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), and Cornel West, Prophesy Deliverance: An Afro-American Revolutionary Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), especially 149, n.3]. , 29