© 2009, F. DeRuvo – All rights reserved.

A Review of Vern Poythress’ “Understanding Dispensationalists”

I have to say, as a Dispensationalist, Poythress' critique of Dispensationalism certainly bears the distinct
mark of Christian love. I cannot thank him enough for that, as I've grown SO tired of being labeled
everything from "wrong" to a "heretic" to "unsaved" to a "member of a cult." Poythress never goes
there. He is as much as gentleman as Ryrie and others are within Dispensationalism. If more Covenant
Theologians were this amicable, it would be much easier to read their works.

I gave this book a three because in my view, Poythress misses a number of things that are important to
my particular understanding of Scripture. For instance, referring to Romans 11, Poythress states,
"Romans 11 tells the story [of position in Christ vs. apostasy] very effectively. Some dispensationalists
construe the olive tree in Romans 11 as a symbol for being in the place of spiritual opportunity and
privilege. It certainly involves that. But it also implies being holy (Rom 11:16). To be part of the olive is
thus similar to being part of the "holy nation" of 1 Pet 2:9. It is similar to what Peter means by being "a
chosen race, God's own people" (1 Pet 2:9)." His comments here are a bit confusing. On one hand he
seems to be saying that the Dispensationalist is incorrect in viewing the Olive Tree as the place of
spiritual blessing. Yet, immediately prior to this, he also seems to be saying that what has taken place
with the Jew who were cut off from the Olive Tree is that they apostacized, but can be grafted back into
the tree. He does not explain what he means by "apostacized." Does he mean losing one's salvation, or
does he mean, backsliding far enough so that outwardly, the Christian's life looks nothing like what a
Christian life should look like?

The other stickler in just this one spot (at least for me), is his explanation of various sections of Peter's
epistles and the use of the terms "Israel" and the "Church" in various places throughout the NT. In the
case of Peter's epistles, I'm not convinced that he was writing to Gentiles at all. In fact, if he was writing
to Jewish believers (in the majority), then much of his language is completely understandable. If he was
instead writing mainly to Gentiles, it seems perplexing since they would not necessarily have understood
terms such as "you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy
priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" and "But you are a
chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim
the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a
people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received
mercy."

This type of terminology equates to Jewish readers, but not necessarily to Gentiles. In fact, with the
amount of quoting Peter does from the OT, it seems obvious that he expected his readers to be very
familiar with what he was talking about. However, Gentiles would not have been familiar with it at all.
Even the part of about "once you were not a people, but now are God's people" is predicated on the
fact that though Israel as a nation was God's chosen nation, they rarely acted like it. It is only through
Christ that the wall of partition has come down; that which separates man from approaching God boldly.
© 2009, F. DeRuvo – All rights reserved. 2

I am not sure I see the problem that Poythress maintains is there in the Hebrews 12:22‐24 passage. If I
am not misunderstanding him, Poythress seems to forget that the name of the book is Hebrews. This is
an obvious reference to the fact that the writer of Hebrews was writing mainly to Jewish Christians, who
would have had a decidedly firm grasp of the OT and the typology found therein.

Poythress seems to be saying that since both Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians have arrived
at the true Mt. Zion, this then represents the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant? So then, since
Abraham and the Patriarchs have inherited the “heavenly land,” the promise made to Abraham by God
beginning with Genesis 12:1‐3, and repeated in Genesis 13, 15 and 17, has been fulfilled. But what is the
reality NOW?

For instance, Paul states in Ephesians that I am presently seated with Christ in the heavenlies (cf.
Ephesians 2:6). Is this my reality now? Certainly, in some sense, yet at the same time, I am still fully
human and I am still alive on this planet and I still possess the sin nature. While I have the fullness of
Christ in potentially, in actuality, I am not really there yet. So, in reality, it is the promise of being with
Christ that I know I will one day experience in actuality. What keeps me from enjoying that fullness now
is this “body of death.”

It seems that what Poythress is doing then is going to the END of the journey so to speak, and pointing
out from Hebrews that we are already THERE (technically), so in that sense everything that was
promised to Abraham has been fulfilled. While it is true that WHEN we get there, everything will have
been fulfilled, for NOW, while I am HERE, God still has a will and plan for my life that will yet unfold over
the remaining time of my earthly life.

I’m not sure how Hebrews 12:22‐24 somehow negates the concept that as a Dispensationalist, I believe
that Christ will reign physically over a political Kingdom for 1,000 years. Yes, Christ reigns NOW from His
Father’s throne, but there is a very good LEGAL reason as to why Christ MUST reign on earth, physically.

What the writer of Hebrews is pointing out is the ultimate fulfillment which WILL become our ACTUAL
experience with the start of the Eternal Order. Poythress seems to agree when he states,
“Dispensationalists nevertheless have an important point to make. This fulfillment in Heb 12:22 is "a"
fulfillment, but not the greatest, broadest, most climactic realization of the promises to Abraham. That
is still future. We err if we minimize this.”

Regarding the alleged problem with 1 Corinthians 15:50‐53, I don’t see the problem at all. First of all,
Paul uses the definite article “the” in reference to this Trumpet. While both midtribulationists and
posttribulationists believe this is related to the seventh trumpet of Revelation, it cannot be. The people
in the Corinthian church would have had NO knowledge of the book of Revelation since it had NOT been
written yet!

I think it is extremely obvious what Paul is referring to here. He MUST be referring to the Feast of
Trumpets and it is very likely that because of his previous teaching for the Corinthians, he may well have
spoken of it before.
© 2009, F. DeRuvo – All rights reserved. 3

According to Fruchtenbaum, “During the ceremony there are a series of short trumpet sounds

concluding with one long trumpet blast which is called the tekiah gedolah, the great trumpet blast. This
is what Paul means by the last trump. As such, it says nothing concerning the timing of the Rapture;

only that the Rapture, whenever it comes, will fulfill the Feast of Trumpets. This trumpet is the same as
the trump of God found in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. In that passage, at the sound of the trumpet the dead
are raised as incorruptible and we, the living, will be changed.” (Footsteps of the Messiah, page 148)

This is at least PART of the problem with interpretations today. We have completely taken the
Jewishness out of the Bible, seeing everything through Gentile eyes. Yet, the Bible was written BY Jews
and essentially FOR Jews, at least to start with (ultimately by God). IF we would put the Jewish context
BACK into the Bible, that the Roman Catholic Church and others have removed, most of the meaning
would become obvious.

Overall, as I said at the beginning, Poythress’ critique of Dispensationalism is honest, worthwhile and
extremely charitable. This is the type of person I could sit down with, enjoy a dinner and dialogue. I’m
sure I could learn a great deal from him regarding Covenant Theology was well.

The trouble though is that his own interpretation of Scripture is questionable at various points and he
assumes the position of the Dispensationalist at times without meaning to do so. These aside, this is
one book that I am very glad to have in my library!