Reconstructionism Or Dominion Theology

Issues – July/August 2015 – Grace & Truth Magazine

This Teaching Is Inconsistent And Tragic!
Reconstructionism Or Dominion Theology

Editor’s note: This article was developed in answer to a question posed to us from a believer in a church in the United States. This teaching, which is becoming increasing prevalent, is misleading believers. We present this as a word of caution. “Hold fast what you have till I come” (Rev. 2:25 NKJV).

One of the basic premises of the Reconstructionism or Dominion Theology, which is growing in power in North America, is that the Church is the same as “the Israel of God” – an expression in Galatians 6:16. What does this doctrine mean? Put in simple terms, it says Israel definitely has been set aside since the Old Testament curses have been applied to the Jews, and now their blessings are for the Church that takes its place. This teaching is inconsistent and tragic!

These mistakes were first introduced into the Church in the days of Constantine the Great (4th century AD). Generally speaking they have been adopted by the Reformers as well, for they frequently went back to Augustine rather than to the foundation laid by the apostles. This kind of error resulted in persecuting the Jews, including the Holocaust. Interestingly, evolutionist teaching has played a major role in preparing the Western world for this tragedy.1 We notice today among so-called evangelical Christians a similar way of thinking, resulting in a shift from “dispensationalism” [God’s administration for a certain time period] to a focus on seeking supernatural experiences (“charismatic”) or joining other popular movements. This could lead to another Holocaust, as Hal Lindsey pointed out in The Road To Holocaust: “Unchecked, the Dominion Theology movement among Christians could lead us – and Israel –- to disaster.” 2

Other Causes For This Deviation
A lack of accuracy in interpreting Scripture leads to error. For example, some people find a certain expression repeated in the Bible and automatically think it always has the same meaning. We accept the thought that, for instance, the Church and the mystery found in Ephesians 3 go together. But when we conclude that everywhere “the mystery” is mentioned the Church is being referred to, we are wrong. The mystery of God in Revelation 10 has little in common with the mystery of 1 Corinthians 15 or Ephesians 3. Nevertheless, this is what we find in the kind of theology we are faced with today.

A similar lack of accuracy plays a role concerning the covenants. Do we have anything to do with the new covenant? Yes, the Church enjoys the spiritual blessings of the new covenant, but not yet the literal or physical blessings since these will be enjoyed in the millennium – in the world to come when we are with the Lord. Paul calls himself and those ministering with him “ministers of the new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6 JND). Does this mean that the Church is literally and formally part of, or in, the new covenant? We find nothing of that nature in Ephesians 2 and 3 – contrary to what respected theologians of newer and older generations sincerely thought, including the idea that today’s believing Jews and Gentiles have been introduced into the new covenant.

Another common misunderstanding is not seeing the difference between the blessings of Abraham – which belong to all believers of both the Old and New Testament – and the new order of blessings the Lord has introduced with the coming of the Holy Spirit.

The Preterite Interpretation Of Prophecy
“Preterite” is a term suggesting that the events of the prophecy have already taken place. The Dominion school of thinking is associated with the so-called preterite interpretation of Hebrews, Revelation and of the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24-25). Although there are variations in position, the Preterites teach that the prophecies have been fulfilled with the destruction of the temple. According to them, the millennium started in the year 70 AD. Of course we have to forbear our brothers and sisters in the faith, but it is important to see the consequences of these and similar erroneous teachings – especially when these views are not only privately held, but imposed on everyone.

One of the arguments we hear is that Mr. Darby received his ideas about the rapture through a prophetess (medium) in the school of Mr. Irving, one of the “fathers” of the Pentecostal movement. It is clear that Mr. Darby has been used by the Lord to teach the imminent coming of the Lord, but it was not his “invention” or a novelty. Based on New Testament teaching he taught that believers should live in the daily expectancy of Christ’s coming with all of its practical and moral consequences. This view is still valid today for it was the view of the apostle Paul and the New Testament believers. Paul was not mistaken when he wrote 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18: “For the Lord Himself, with an assembling shout, with archangel’s voice and with trump of God, shall descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we, the living who remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall be always with the Lord. So encourage one another with these words.” And he did not correct himself in Second Thessalonians, as some have charged.

Heavenly Or Earthly Calling
It is no wonder that the teachers of the Preterite school focus so much on this earth and world, for they see themselves as having an earthly calling rather than the heavenly, holy calling that sets believers apart in this world – being in it, but not of it. According to them, the millennium (one thousand year reign) has already been here for almost 1,950 years and Christians are here to improve this world! Of course the believer has obligations and responsibilities for his walk through this world, and in that sense he definitely has an earthly responsibility. However, when we teach that we are already living in the millennium, we lose the biblical concept of the Church. It did not begin with Adam and Eve or with the giving of the Law, but it started on the basis of Christ’s death, resurrection and glorification, with the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Church has a very special position and relationship with Christ in the glory, absent from this world (see Ephesians 1:23). Yet, He is present with the believers through the Holy Spirit who dwells in them. It is God’s desire that we enjoy right now all spiritual blessings, during the time of Christ’s rejection in this scene.

Based on the belief that all prophecies were fulfilled around the year 70 AD, the Reconstructionists deny that the messianic or orthodox Jews will return to the old shadows, meaning those things of the Old Testament that are pictures of Christ. Nevertheless, the temple will be rebuilt and the services reinstituted by a remnant – Jewish people who will be recognized by God (see Psalms 42-45). He will consider this rebuilt temple as His temple, even though the Antichrist will take over (Rev. 12-13).

At that time the true Church will no longer be on earth (2 Th. 2:3-12), but the apostate [heretical, abandonment of Christ] church will be here when this will happen (Rev. 17-18). Together with the masses of the Christian profession left here after the rapture, the majority of the nation of Israel will also be apostates. There will be Jewish believers who will act according to the light [spiritual understanding] they will have, but they will not be part of the true Church, for it then will be in heaven (Rev. 4-5, 19). Today, before the rapture, the Church is composed of Jewish and Gentile believers (Eph. 2).

Inconsistencies In Dominion Theology
Firstly, the dominion theologians say (because of the destruction of the temple) that there is a fundamental difference between the kingdom our Lord preached and the one the apostles preached. Yet the kingdom preached by the Lord and the apostles is the same kingdom – noting that all the apostles preached before the temple’s destruction. The issue is the kingdom adopted a different character when the Lord was rejected by His own nation (Mt. 11-13) and it still is different because of His absence as King (Lk. 19:11-27). In contrast, while Christ was on earth the kingdom was there also, because the King was among them (Lk. 17:21). Soon, in an entirely different character than those days or today, the kingdom will be established in glory, when the King will reign in glory – a different character, but the same kingdom with the same King as today.

Secondly, the “dispensationalists” are accused of making a puzzle book out of the Bible. One of the charges is that they teach that God interrupted His ways when He introduced the church age. Of course there is no interruption in God’s ways for they are always consistent with who He is. But the Church does have a parenthetical aspect in the sense that God withdrew from Israel for a time. This implies a difference in the character of His dealings but not an interruption of His ways. This point is illustrated in the vision of the sheet Peter saw in Acts 10 and in the character of Paul’s ministry in Ephesians 3 about the Church, presented as a parenthesis (that is, something inserted in between). In a certain sense Israel has been set aside – namely as God’s testimony here on earth – but this is true only for the time being (Rom. 9-11). The Church never has nor will replace Israel.

Thirdly, a favorite verse to deny the millennial reign of the future is “the scepter will not depart from Judah, until Shiloh comes” (Gen. 49:10). This simply is a wrong conclusion because of the way the Reconstructionists read this verse, in order to defend their claims that we are, supposedly, already in the millennium. “Shiloh” could be translated with “to whom it belongs,” and when our Lord Jesus was born Judah still had the scepter, even under the Roman occupation (Lk. 2). However, shortly before the Messiah was to be crucified, this right of life and death – the scepter – was removed by the Romans and God used this fact so the prophecies about the way Christ should die could be literally fulfilled (Ps. 22; Isa. 53). We cannot be 100% certain about “Shiloh’s” meaning, but the old rabbis interpreted it referring to the Messiah’s coming, just as they understood “the Seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15) to refer to the Messiah. They did not and could not know the differences between His first and second coming. We may compare the scepter with the crown that God will give “to whom it belongs,” namely to the Messiah (Ezek. 21:27). Interestingly, the Antichrist and the true Christ are from Judah – Christ was born in Bethlehem-Judah and Judas Iscariot, a type of the Antichrist, in a town in Judah; the other disciples came from Galilee.

Fourthly, one more example of inconsistency: a very strange interpretation is given of Hebrews 10:37 suggesting that the coming One refers to the Antichrist or his spirit, and the destruction of the temple signals the end of his reign. But we know that the verse speaks of our Lord Jesus Christ: “For yet a very little while He that comes will come, and will not delay.”

Abraham And God’s Promises
These theologians accuse God of being unjust, if we accept the “dispensational” interpretation of Scripture, saying that He deceived His own in giving promises but not fulfilling them. This is important enough to discuss in more detail. The final fulfillment of the blessings of Genesis 12 is still future. However, this does not imply that God was deceiving Abraham when He gave him these promises. Abraham responded to God’s glory and walked by faith even though he failed here and there like we do as his sons. When living in the land of God’s promise, Abraham did not receive the fulfillment of the promises, but remained a stranger in the Land of Promise. He learned there and then that God had prepared something better for him, not that God was unjust in not fulfilling His promises, for He accepted by faith that their fulfillment was for a future day (Heb. 11:8-16).

Does this mean that God’s promises for Israel have been set aside or have been fulfilled in the Church? What then about the curses? On the contrary, Romans 9-11 teaches a different story. God’s calling is without repentance and His promises will be fulfilled after the rapture of the Church and the coming judgments, when Israel as a nation will repent and return to God.

Dividing The Word Of Truth
We may find some errors in Scofield’s outlines as well as in the writings of other dispensationalists, but that does not disqualify the main body of teaching. On the other hand, we may learn lessons from covenant theologians as far as certain areas are concerned, but does this mean that we should adopt covenant theology and set aside what God’s Word shows about dispensations? We should not be too dogmatic, biased or hold to preconceived ideas when proven wrong, realizing the limitations of any “system” or “school.” But when we take the Word of God “as is” we can be sure that we are on solid ground.

Here we should find a balance as we also need to do in many different areas, such as: earthly / heavenly blessings; God’s purpose / man’s responsibility; and God’s counsel for the Church from before the world’s foundation / God’s plan for Israel from the foundation of the world. When we read the Bible and take God at His Word we will get His thoughts – as long as we do not try to put our own ideas into His Word and we judge ourselves so we can be in the right condition or attitude towards Him and others. Also, some dispensationalists have been too “pessimistic” and neglected their responsibilities for this earth, which would discredit them as it does us when we are not ‘balanced’ in heavenly and earthly things.

I would feel ashamed to have my Jewish friends read the articles and books of Reconstructionists who refer to the “Old Testament Church” – a terminology typical of the errors of this school of thinking. The Old Testament Church, if you want to use the word “church” (KJV) as Stephen did in Acts 7:38, has little to do with the New Testament Church, which the Lord refers to in Matthew 16 and we find its birth in history in Acts 2. A parallel between the two is that both have life from God and are found in a certain relationship with God. But, we need to learn to distinguish between biblical contrasts and lessons we can draw despite contrasts in position, as we learn for instance in Galatians and Hebrews.

In conclusion let me suggest that there are elements which both Israel and the Church have in common – this is sometimes not noticed enough by “Dispensationalists.” On the other hand, there are great differences between Israel and the Church. These are denied or misunderstood by the Dominionists in making Israel the Church of God, or vice versa. Let us not forget that this discussion also has to do with the Person of our blessed Lord and with God’s character. What does He mean for our hearts and lives? It is expressed in this well-known verse: “We also have the prophetic word made more sure, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” (2 Pet. 1:19 NKJV).

END NOTES
1. For more on this point, see The Long War Against God, especially Chapter 2 on “Political Evolutionism,” by Henry M. Morris, Baker Book House, 1989.
2. A more recent book to recommend is Christian Zionism, formerly titled For Zion’s Sake by Dr. Paul Wilkinson. “Christian Zionism” has been described by Hamas as “the greatest danger to world truth, justice, and peace” and by the church as “a powerful force” that “fuels the Arab-Israeli conflict” and “encourages the destruction of millions of people” with its “Armageddon theology.” It has also been denounced as “pernicious,” “biblically untenable,” “anathema [thing detested] to the Christian faith,” and “one of the most dangerous and heretical movements in the world.” How sustainable are these charges, and is there a case to answer? By locating Christian Zionism firmly within the evangelical tradition, Paul Wilkinson takes issue with those who have portrayed it as a “totally unbiblical menace” and as the “road map to Armageddon.” Charting in detail its origins and historical development, he argues that Christian Zionism lays the biblical foundation for Israel’s restoration and the return of Christ. No one has contributed more to this cause than its leading architect and patron, John Nelson Darby, an “uncompromising champion for Christ’s glory and God’s truth.” This groundbreaking book challenges decades of misrepresentation and scholarship, exploding the myth that John Nelson Darby stole the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture from his contemporaries. By revealing the man and his message, Paul Wilkinson vindicates Darby and spotlights the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ as the centerpiece of his theology (The comments in this note are from “The Berean Call” website).

By Alfred Bouter