A THEOLOGICAL
DISCOURSE WITH DISPENSATIONALISM
The amalgamation of concepts and ideas that comprise
dispensationalism are surely considered in the various contentions with its
theological framework, especially in discourse with covenant theology.
Dispensationalism is a relatively new theological construct, not gaining
legitimate and broad affirmation until the mid-nineteenth century.
Thomas Ice contends that dispensationalism is “a cluster of items joined
together to form a system of thought.” A
variety of theological concepts, therefore, are combined to form the
overarching contention of dispensationalism. This paper will provide a survey
of dispensationalism’s theological framework as well as offer a discourse from
the perspective of covenant theology. The broad arguments of dispensationalism
will be examined, and theological dissentions with dispensationalism will be
engaged.
With the term
dispensationalism coined by Phillip Mauro, the
construction of dispensationalism holds a variety of supports, not the least of
which is its view on the literal interpretation of Scripture. Here I will
provide an analysis of the overarching concepts within dispensationalism
including interpretation of Scripture, the distinction between Israel and the
church, and typical dispensational divisions. Moreover, this paper will offer a
survey of notable dispensationalists in church history. Finally, this paper
will give a theological critique of dispensationalism and dissent from the
perspective of a covenant theology. Although dispensationalism has seemingly
diminished in recent decades, it is
still a prominent part of eschatological theology among Western (and primarily
American) evangelicals. Thus, the theological arguments offered by
dispensationalists must be considered by all (American) Christians, for surely
such arguments will be encountered.
A Survey of
Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism holds an assortment of theological
contentions that run through its perspectives. In this paper, the overarching
ideas of its framework will be highlighted. In a broad scope, there subsist
four primary distinctions of dispensationalism:
1)
a literal interpretation of Scripture,
2)
a distinction between Israel and the church,
3)
rapture theology, and
4)
separate dispensations or periods throughout history, which
hold bounds by which God interacts with his people.
Furthermore, I
will provide an overview of notable dispensationalists prior to dissenting from
a covenantal perspective. A survey of dispensationalism should offer some
clarity to its distinctives as well as provide a lens through which to view the
theological system for the purpose of interaction, as dispensationalism is
certainly common in the Western church.
The Literal Interpretation of Scripture
A core element of dispensational theology is the literal
interpretation of Scripture—that is not figurative or metaphorical.
Dispensational theology holds a rigid perspective on interpretation, for in
such a framework, the integrity of Scripture is compromised if such a view is
not taken. Often, biblical scholars understand the metaphorical meanings behind
biblical texts. For dispensationalists, however, one should be careful not to
ascribe metaphor to texts that should be taken literally. The distinction then
lies in which texts be taken literally and which figuratively.
Jesus often speaks in metaphors. Thus, a common argument
against dispensational theology is how to interpret such clear teachings of
Jesus himself. For example, when Jesus refers to himself as bread (John 6:35)
or the vine (John 15:5), a sensible conclusion would be that he is utilizing
the element of metaphor. Moreover, the Psalms offer a plurality of metaphors.
In Psalm 43:3, light and truth are personified as guides. In Psalm 1,
well-watered trees are used as metaphors for those who love God’s law. Scripture
is replete with the employment of metaphor for the purpose of clarity and
teaching. A key aspect of studying Scripture properly is deciphering between
literalism and the use of metaphor.
Dispensationalism’s hyper-literal interpretation of Scripture
leads to problems when one encounters biblical texts, especially those
surrounding eschatology. For example:
dispensationalism
supports a literal fulfillment of Israel. Dispensationalists
do not view the land promised to Abraham
as typological, or any typological significance is minor as this “unconditional”
promise must have actual or literal fulfillment to the nation of Israel either
just before or during the millennial reign of Christ. The promise of land goes
straight across the canon then, unchanged and directed to national, ethnic
Israel alone with no alteration or transformation on the basis of Christ’s first
coming and fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.
Regarding
the Davidic throne, questions arise when engaging with a literal interpretation
of the Old Testament covenants.
Is the covenant
unconditional or conditional? Is it a
separate covenant altogether, or merely a different administration of the
covenant of grace? Is it fulfilled ultimately in Jesus Christ, or does the
Davidic covenant point forward to a day where King Jesus will reign on a
literal throne in a geopolitical, ethnic Israel? The questions and implications
are not easily answered with mere summary statements.
The two
concepts mentioned here (a literal fulfillment of Israel and a literal
fulfillment of the Davidic throne) are key elements to dispensationalism. Since
dispensationalists are likely to interpret Scripture literally, eschatological
issues such as the fulfillment of Israel and the Davidic throne are likely to
avoid compromise in interpretation. Unlike covenant theology, the
dispensationalist’s perspective holds firmly to a factual and unembellished
rendering of Scripture.
John
Calvin (1509-1564 AD) argues, “after
the fall, there is only one covenant: the covenant of grace. This, however,
presents itself in the progressive unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant. The
Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenant are but a progressive revelation of what
Yahweh initiated with the patriarchs.” Thus, the
various Old Testament covenants (the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant,
the Davidic Covenant, etc.) should be understood as types of tokens (i.e.,
manifestations of the overarching covenant of grace between God and his
people).
None should
argue that dispensationalism lacks a high view of Scripture, for the strict
boundary of literal interpretation of the Bible does not allow for a low view
of Scripture. Rather, dispensationalists, if anything, might be accused of
being too rigid in their approach to the study of God’s word. In a common
reading of any text besides the Holy Bible, even in the most conservative of
approaches, the reader would likely understand metaphorical devices and realize
it as merely a tool to convey a story or a crucial point. While
dispensationalism does not negate the concept of metaphor, it overemphasizes its
lack of importance to the point where realizing metaphor in some instances is
dismissed. A key aspect of dispensationalism, therefore, should be understood
as the literal interpretation of Scripture.
Distinction Between Israel and the Church
The Apostle Paul utilizes the metaphor of an olive tree to
describe Gentiles who are now members of God’s family. He writes, “But if some of the branches were broken off, and
you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now
share in the nourishing root of the olive tree” (Rom 11:17). While New Testament theology
seems to propose here a concept of replacement at least in function, classical
dispensationalism supports a stark contrast between Israel and the church that
has not been eradicated (i.e., rather than the same tree, dispensationalism
would consider two disparate trees). An understandable explanation could be
that one tree (Israel) did not bear fruit so God cut down the tree leaving the
stump and then turned his attention to the other tree (the church). In
dispensational theology, a rapture will occur in which the church is taken to
be with the Lord, but the old stump will then sprout again.
The distinction between
Israel and the church is core to dispensationalism and vastly different from
both covenant theology and replacement theology. Robert Saucy contends that
the distinction between Israel and the church is the most crucial. He writes, “This separation
is so sharp that the church is precluded from any present relationship to the
messianic kingdom promises.” Even in a revised
dispensational framework, a clear division between Israel and the church
subsists, but “the promises of the
kingdom in the Old Testament have been put on pause until God’s purposes in the
church are complete. It will be at this time that God will resume his plan with
Israel, and she will receive the promised kingdom.”
“Dispensationalism
and covenant theologians agree that Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant;
however, the point of contention lies in whether the New Covenant is being
fulfilled now or will be fulfilled after the Second Coming of Christ Jesus.” Lewis
Chafer suggests that two separate new covenants exist: one for the church and
one for Israel.
Prominent
dispensationalist theologian, Charles C. Ryrie asserts, “The use of the words Israel and church shows plainly that
in the New Testament national Israel continues with her own promises and the
church is never equated with a so-called ‘new Israel’ but is carefully and
continually distinguished as a separate work of God in this age.” Thus, no matter from which
angle of the framework a contention is made, arguments from a dispensational
perspective will always distinguish between the promises of Israel and the
promises of the church, for to the dispensationalist, God’s promises to Israel
have not been invalidated and remain unchanged.
The
Israel-church distinction is so intertwined with the dispensational framework
that no other ubiquitous theologies propose such a concept. To be a
dispensationalist is to support an Israel-church distinction. Certainly, one
may not contend for dispensational theology if the Israel-church separation
does not exist. While other frameworks support the concept that the church is
not Israel nor Israel the church, there often is not a difference in how God
interacts with his people, whether Israel or the church. The dispensational
framework argues for and supports and clear difference in the way God interacts
with the church and how he does so with Israel, as both are derived from
disparate dispensations.
Rapture Theology
Besides the literal interpretation of Scripture and the
Israel-church separation, a common ingredient in dispensationalism is rapture
theology. The Rapture implies “God’s
taking the church out of the world instantaneously.”[16]
The Latin term rapio, which means to “snatch away” or “carry off,” is the source
of the English word. While there are differing views of the millennium (Rev
20:2–7) in relation to Christ’s second coming (e.g., premillennial,
postmillennial, and amillennial), nevertheless, all evangelicals affirm a
literal return of Christ to the earth preceding the eternal state. In
premillennialism [a significant distinctive millennial view in
dispensationalism], however, the distinct event of the Rapture is often
emphasized.
Rapture
theology might seem more common than it actually is especially because of books
like the Left Behind series and the vast amount of evangelical preachers
who support and teach its pillars. Nonetheless, a Rapture theology is unique to
dispensationalism and unfamiliar to (especially) eastern and orthodox
Christianity. Although not all dispensationalists hold to a pretribulation Rapture
theology, dispensationalism has an overarching theme of future events where 1)
the church is taken and 2) the return of Christ is eminent
(which would find a similarity among many other theological frameworks). While the
term, rapture, does not exist in any New Testament writings, the concept
of a great taking of the church by Jesus Christ certainly persists (1 Thess
4:15-17). Surely, there those exist who believe the Second Coming and the
Rapture are one and the same, but a unique aspect of dispensational theology is
the absolute separation of the two events.
“Dispensationalism, as a system, believes in a
premillennial interpretation of Christ’s Second Coming and usually a pretribulation interpretation of
the Rapture.”
In
brief, the teachings of dispensationalism are as follows:
1.
The
Jews are to be saved by repentance; they are to be left here on earth as God's earthly
people.
2.
The
Gentiles are to be saved by faith; they will be taken to heaven after the
Rapture.
3.
The
church is a parenthesis in God's plan and will end in apostasy.
4.
The
kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are sharply differentiated, the first being
the Davidic kingdom and the latter being God's universal world-wide kingdom.
5.
God deals with men
according to seven dispensations.
The
Rapture is a key element to the dispensational framework, for eschatological
thought within dispensationalism requires that God take the church to
accomplish his promised plan with Israel. Moreover, most dispensationalists
hold to a pretribulation Rapture implying that the Jewish people will remain on
earth during the seven-year period. Additionally, the number of one-hundred
forty-four thousand (Rev 7:1-8) is a literal number of Jews in
dispensationalism, consistent with the literal interpretation of Scripture.
In the seemingly convoluted narrative of end
times events, dispensationalism has found a clear and unapologetic explanation.
Whether correct or disagreeable to orthodox Christianity, dispensational
theology holds to a firm commitment on end times perspectives and the return of
Christ. Within the dispensational framework, there may be no other explanation
than not only a Rapture but a pretribulation Rapture and (often) a
premillennial Second Coming of Christ. Assuredly, other theological frameworks
hold to other perspectives, but dispensationalism is impenitent about its
unyielding eschatological views. An indicator of the rigidity of
dispensationalism is surely an emphasis on Rapture theology.
Typical Dispensations
As the name suggests, the dispensational framework is based
upon the concept of ages (called dispensations) in which God interacts with his
people in various manners depending on the specific dispensation. Although
opinions vary on the different dispensations, generally speaking, there are
seven—seven is the most common perspective. The seven dispensations are as
follows:
1.
Innocence (Adam to the Fall)
2.
Conscience (Fall to the Flood)
3.
Human Government (Flood to the Tower of Babel)
4.
Promise (Abram to the Mosaic Law)
5.
Mosaic Law (Sinai to Calvary)
6.
Grace (Shavuot to Tribulation)
7.
Kingdom Reign (the Millennial Reign).
Dispensational theology is highlighted by the idea that God
interacts with his people and works among them in ways that correspond to the
specific dispensational era. The period of Innocence begins in the Garden of
Eden and ends with the fall of humankind. Some might refer to this period of
the Adamic period or the Adamic Law. The Innocence Dispensation occurs from
Genesis 1 to Genesis 3:6; this period ends with the eating of the forbidden
fruit.
The Conscience Dispensation begins with the Fall (Gen 3:9)
and ends with the Flood (Gen 8:14). This period is given the title of
Conscience because of humankind’s realization of right and wrong due to the
Fall. As sin has entered the world, humanity has become corrupt and radically
depraved so God destroys humanity with a great flood.
The Human Government Dispensation begins with the Flood (Gen
8:15) and finalizes with the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:19). Referred to as the
Human Government Dispensation because of the responsibility of law and order
God ordained, humankind sets forth regulations for order and
governance—certainly part of God’s design during this dispensation.
The Promise Dispensation begins with Abram (Gen 12:1) and
ends with the Mosaic Law (Exod 18:27). This dispensation might also be called
the Patriarchal Rule. Some might also use the term, Abrahamic Covenant or
Abrahamic Rule since so much of God’s interaction with his people revolves
around huis covenant with the patriarch, Abraham. The Promise Dispensation
includes God’s work in the lives of his people from the promise made to Abraham
to God delivering his people from slavery in Egypt. The Promise Dispensation
ends with the refusal to enter Caanan and subsequently forty years in the
wilderness.
The next dispensation is the era of the Mosaic Law, which
begins with Sinai (Exod 19:1) and ends with Calvary (Acts 1:26). The
Dispensation of the Mosaic Law is the second longest of the seven dispensations
(only to Grace) but perhaps establishes the coming of the Messiah more than any
other dispensation. Following the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ, the
Mosaic Law Dispensation ends with the scattering of Israel (70 AD) to establish
Christ’s body on earth: the church. O. Palmer Robertson contends that the
Law provides a sobering awareness of the “distinction between God’s dealings
with man in innocence and with man in sin.” Some
scholars suggest that the Law was considered foundational in defining the
relation of Israel to God during the time between the Abrahamic Covenant and
the coming of Jesus.
The next dispensation is the Dispensation of Grace, which
begins with Shavuot (Acts 2:1) and ends with the Tribulation (Rev 19:21). Since
the Rapture is such a crucial piece to dispensationalism, this era focuses
heavily on the church and is often referred to as the Church Age.
Dispensational theology views the church as a parentheses prior to God
accomplishing his promise in Israel, but the church is still not the
replacement of Israel or a modification of God’s promise with Israel in
dispensational theology.
The final dispensation is the Kingdom Reign or Millennial
Reign, which is the one-thousand years when Christ reigns over heaven and earth
(Rev 20:1-10). In holding true to a literal interpretation of Scripture, the
dispensational framework views this one-thousand years as an unembroidered
millennial reign centered around Jerusalem without any figurative or
metaphorical interpretation.
While interpretations on the various
dispensations vary only in nuances, these seven are broadly the most commonly
believed among dispensationalists. Rather than viewing the story of God and his
people through the lens of an overarching covenant (as covenant theology would
employ), the dispensational framework clings to a compartmentalized view of
God’s work throughout history. Crucial to understanding dispensationalism,
therefore, one must understand a divisional approach to God’s work in the lives
of his people throughout history.
Notable Dispensationalists
John Nelson Darby (1800-1882 AD) developed dispensationalism
as a system and is considered by many to be the father of dispensationalism.
Darby’s concept was derived when he concluded a requirement a future
fulfillment and realization of Israel’s kingdom. James Inglis (1813-1872 AD) is
then responsible for introducing dispensationalism to North America in his
publication in the magazine, Waymarks in the Wilderness (published
between 1854 and 1872). Inglis
introduced dispensationalism to a small and influential group of evangelicals
in 1866. Over the next several
decades, dispensationalism, overtook the American evangelical landscape with
its premillennial view. Other prominent dispensationalists that contributed to
its nineteenth-century growth are Reuben Archer Torrey (1856-1928 AD), James M.
Gray (1851-1925 AD), William J. Erdman (1833-1923 AD), A.C. Dixon (1854-1925
AD), A.J. Gordon (1836-1895 AD), and William Eugene Blackstone (1841-1935 AD).
A significant twentieth-century contributor to the growth of
dispensationalism in the United States was Dallas Theological Seminary. Men
such as Charles Feinberg, J. Dwight Pentecost, Herman Hoyt, Charles Ryrie, and
John Walvoord promoted dispensationalism and subsequently were instrumental in
its growth and popularity during the twentieth century. The
popular movement of dispensationalism in local evangelical churches became
almost ubiquitous with evangelical teaching and gave rise to the formation of
pop prophecy with the publication of books such as the Left Behind
series in the late twentieth century. Films even arose out of such teaching as
dispensationalism was often taught as fact rather than perspective.
The late twentieth century saw the
continuation of the dispensational framework with teachers and pastors like
Jerry Falwell, Chuck Swindoll, David Jeremiah, Roberrt Jeffress, Tony Evans,
and Andy Stanley.
While not every segment of American Christianity agreed with the tenets of
dispensational theology, the framework was certainly tied to evangelical
subculture in a stalwart manner.
Theological
Dissentions
Perhaps, the most-stark contrast to the dispensational
framework is covenant theology. The theological dissentions that persist
between covenant theology and dispensationalism are vast and manifold. This
paper, therefore, will offer dissentions with dispensational theology from a
covenant theology perspective. Within such dialogues, five primary distinctions
subsist:
1.
one overarching covenant of grace between God and his people
(covenant theology) rather than different dispensations that determine how God
interacts with his people (dispensationalism),
2.
one metanarrative of God’s story rather than a
compartmentalized version of history,
3.
metaphor is significant to interpretation,
4.
the church is the continued fulfillment of Israel, and
5.
the point of reference in covenant theology is the cross.
Surveying these primary differences between
covenant theology and dispensationalism should clarify why such differences
exist as well as offer a foundation for thinking critically about
dispensationalism and its core teachings.
First, a momentous difference between dispensational theology
and covenant theology is the proposal of one covenant of grace between God and
his people in covenant theology rather than different dispensations that
determine how God interacts with his people in dispensationalism. Both covenant
theology and dispensationalism are two competing frameworks that attempt to
explain broad continuity in the Bible.
While dispensationalism suggests various eras or dispensations in which God
interacts with his people in different ways, covenant theology holds the
perspective of an overarching covenant of grace between God and his people.
Rather than various dispensations, covenant theology holds to a singular
trajectory of God’s covenant accomplished in time. Even the various covenants
of the Bible (e.g., the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic
Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant) are
but manifestations of the same covenant of grace as John Calvin expresses.
Moreover, covenant theology also holds to the concept of not only a covenant of
grace but a covenant that exists between the three members of the Godhead prior
to the existence of time and space as to how the bequeathed people of God would
be redeemed.
The major difference between covenant theology and
dispensationalism then is an unchanging God who is faithful to his promises
throughout history, for in covenant theology, God does not change the way in
which he works in the lives of his people. The story of Scripture, therefore,
is one overarching metanarrative rather than a compartmentalized version of history.
Even from the beginning God tells the serpent his Messianic plan. He says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her
offspring; he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). Thus,
God’s plan is set: fourteen generations from Adam to Abraham, fourteen from
Abraham to David, fourteen from David to Babylon, and fourteen from Babylon to
the birth of the Messiah (Matt 1). Though Satan tried to thwart God’s plan
throughout redemptive history, God’s faithfulness to carry out his plan is
evident.
A third dissention with
dispensationalism is the concept of metaphor. Without completely negating a
literal interpretation of Scripture, covenant theology understands the
employment of metaphor in the Bible. Examples of incongruencies between
covenant theology and dispensationalism are a literal one-thousand-year reign
and a literal one-hundred forty-four thousand Jews (Rev 7:4). While not all who
support covenant theology hold to the same eschatological view, generally, in
covenant theology, there is no a separate Rapture even prior to the
Tribulation, as the church is viewed as a continuation of Israel and,
therefore, will face the same trials, ultimately being taken at the Second
Coming (i.e., the taking of the church and the Second Coming are one and the
same event). The view on the literal interpretation of Scripture has incredible
implications on distinguishing between dispensationalism and covenant theology.
Fourthly, covenant
theology sees the church as continued fulfillment of Israel. The Apostle Paul
teaches that the church has been grafted in among Israel (Rom 11:11-24). Here
it is implicit then that God has not abandoned his promise to Israel but rather
has continued it in another way or as covenant theology would suggest, the
original way (i.e., the cross was not a secondary plan). While
dispensationalism sees the church as a parenthesis on God’s redemptive plan,
covenant theology sees the church as the fulfillment of God’s original plan.
Lastly,
a crucial understanding of covenant theology includes the cross as the point of
reference. By faith (Heb 11), the people of God under the Old Covenant looked
to the cross; by faith, the people of God under the New Covenant look from the
cross. The cross is central to redemptive history. Rather than multiple
dispensations, covenant theology holds the perspective of a singular plan and a
singular covenant with the cross as the hinge on which God’s purpose of
salvation rests. These are the broad dissentions with dispensationalism from a
covenant theology perspective.
A Necessary Conversation
The popularity of
dispensationalism in American Evangelicalism demands critical thinking on the
issue. The core tenets of its framework have been highlighted in this paper and
rebutted from the perspective of covenant theology. Both theological frameworks
offer explanations of biblical continuity, with which believers must grapple.
While dispensationalism leaves little room for metaphor in biblical
interpretation, covenant theology realizes the necessity of figurative
interpretation in the biblical text. Moreover, covenant theology holds an issue
with dispensationalism in its treatment of Israel and the church, for biblical
evidence suggests that the church is the continuous plan of God in fulfilling
the promises of Israel—God’s people have been grafted and adopted into his
family and are recipients of the original promise as heirs. Additionally, while
dispensationalism takes the view of various periods or dispensations by which
God interacts in the lives of his people differently, covenant theology holds
the view that God’s workings are on a continuous timeline with the cross as the
point of reference.
These disparities must be
considered to think critically about dispensationalism. Any eschatological view
should include one’s analysis and conclusion. The biblical text provides
everything necessary to make righteous conclusions. While dispensationalism is
certainly a secondary issue (i.e., non-salvific), one’s view of end times will
surely impact his or her life in the present. Whether God’s millennial reign is
present and metaphorical or in the future and literal assuredly influences how
one operates in the present daily life. Therefore, the discussion of
dispensationalism and its framework is a necessary conversation that demands
thought, grace, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Righteousness Requires Worship (v. 5a)