Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary, understood that the Body of Christ is "wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or follows it":

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:41; 5:348-349).

Charles Ryrie says the same thing: "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

This teaching is fundamental in regard to traditional dispensational thought. The Church "parenthesis" or "intercalation" is "wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it." Therefore it is evident that the Lord's purpose in regard to Israel and the earthly kingdom is not related to the Body of Christ.

First, let us look at the following words of John the Baptist where He speaks of the baptism with the Holy Spirit:

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire" (Mt.3:11).

Many Acts 2 dispensationalists understand that these words in regard to the baptism with the Holy Spirit are in reference to prophecies from the OT with a direct application to Israel. Louis A. Barbieri, Jr. writes the following commentary on Matthew 3:11-12:

"Those hearing John's words would have been reminded of two Old Testament prophecies: Joel 2:28-29 and Malachi 3:2-5. Joel had given the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Israel. An actual outpouring of the Spirit did occur in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, but experientially Israel did not enter into the benefits of that event" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983], p.25).

Barbieri also understands the baptism "with fire" and the verse which follows are speaking of a fulfillment of OT prophecies with the earthly kingdom in view:

"The 'baptism with fire' referred to the judging and cleansing of those who will enter the kingdom, as prophesised in Malachi 3...John was saying that the Messiah, when He came, would prepare a remnant (wheat) for the kingdom by empowering and cleansing the people. Those who reject Him (chaff) would be judged and cast into eternal 'unquenchable fire' (cf. Mal. 4:1)" (Ibid.).

As mentioned earlier, Dr. Ryrie certainly understands that the principle that the Body of Christ is a parentenhesis which represents a definite interlude in God's program for Israel. Therefore he asserts that the baptism of the Spirit of Acts 1:5 was not prophesised in the Old Testament and has nothing to do with God's program in regard to Israel:

"Furthermore, since no reference to the baptism of the Spirit is found in the Old Testament, since all references in the gospels are prophetic, and since in all prophecies of the future kingdom age there is no reference to the Spirit's baptism, we may conclude that this work of His is peculiar to this dispensation and perculiar to the church (which, it follows, must also limited to this dispensation) in forming it and uniting the members of the body of Christ forever" [emphasis added] (Charles C. Ryrie, "The Significance of Pentecost," Bibliotheca Sacra, [Oct. 1955, Vol. 112, # 448] p.333).

Here Ryrie's argument is that since no reference to the "baptism of the Spirit" is found in the OT then this baptism is peculiar and limited to the present dispensation and the Body of Christ. However, Peter said that the things in regard to the "pouring out of the Spirit" was prophesised by the prophet Joel. On the day of Pentecost he said:

"For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams…The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come" (Acts 2:15-17;20).

The words of Joel quoted by Peter speak of the Lord "pouring" out of His Spirit and the sons and daughters will "prophecy." The Greek word translated "prophecy" has a much wider meaning than foretelling future events. It also means "to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon). That is exactly what happened when the believers began to speak in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Also, the Apostle Luke uses the words "poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit" when describing the salvation experience of Cornelius and his household:

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:44-45).

Peter said at Acts 2:16 that "this is that" which the prophet Joel said would come—the Lord will "pour out" His Spirit. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" spoken of at Acts 1:5 was a direct fulfillment of an OT prophecy, so therefore Dr. Ryrie's assertion that this baptism is peculiar and limited to this dispensation and the Body of Christ is in error. Dr. Ryrie attempts to answer Peter's words "this is that" by saying:

"If language means anything Pentecost did not fulfill this prophecy nor did Peter think that it did. The usage need not raise theological questions at all, for the matter is primarily homiletical and any problems should be solved in that light. Peter's point was that the Holy Spirit and not wine was responsible for what the Jews had seen. He quotes Joel to point out that as Jews who knew the Old Testament Scriptures they should have this as the Spirit's work. In other words, their own Scriptures should have reminded them that the Spirit was able to do what they had just seen" [emphasis added] (Charles C. Ryrie, "The Significance of Pentecost," Bibliotheca Sacra, [Oct. 1955, Vol. 112, # 448] p.334-5).

Despite the fact that Peter said "this is that" Ryrie says that the events of the day of Pentecost were not fulfilling Joel's prophecy. Less than two years after Ryrie's article was published in Bibliotheca Sacra the following article written by Roy Aldrich appeared in the same journal:

"Although Joel's prophecy refers primarily to the future kingdom, it is clear that it also has a definite reference to Pentecost. 'This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel' surely means more than merely 'Joel gives us an illustration of this' " [emphasis added] (Roy L. Aldrich, "The Transition Problems in Acts," Bibliotheca Sacra [July 1957, Vol. 114, # 455], p 236).

According to Dr. Aldrich Joel's prophecy "has a definite reference to Pentecost." Another Acts 2 dispensationalist, Stanley D. Toussaint, realizes that Peter's words "this is that" do not mean "this is like this":

"Instead of being drunk the believers were experiencing what was described in Joel 2. In Peter's words, 'This is what was spoken by the Prophet Joel. This clause does not mean, 'This is like that'; it means Pentecost fulfilled what Joel had described. However, the prophecies of Joel quoted in Acts 2:19-20 were not fulfilled. The implication is that the remainder would be fulfilled if Israel would repent" [emphasis added] (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983], p.358).

Next