What is a "Dispensationalist" Theology?

Image

A Dispensationalist is a Christian who sees in Scripture certain clear divisions in the progress of revelation in which God governs history. At its best this is done on the basis of the covenants revealed in the Bible. A “dispensation” (Greek, oikonomia) is an administration or economy, wherein, within a certain period of time (known to God, but afterwards revealed to man), God pursues His plan through the lives of men. The term oikonomia is made up of two other words: oikos, meaning house, and nemo, meaning to administer, manage, or dispense. Literally, an oikonomia is a house-management or household administration. In its theological usage it is well suited to describe what we might call a divine economy. This is much the way the word is used in Ephesians 1:10; 3:2, 9; Colossians 1:25-26, and 1 Timothy 1:4. These passages also show that Paul held to the reality of certain dispensations in the broad sense given above.

Not unsurprisingly therefore, even Covenant theologians often speak of dispensations. For example, both Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof employ the term much like Dispensationalists do. Willem VanGemeren speaks of “epochs.” The number of these administrations is open to debate. Though commonly held, the seven dispensations articulated by C. I. Scofield are not the requisite number in order to be admitted into the ranks of Dispensationalist thinkers. The present writer, for instance, questions the theological value of some of these “economies” except perhaps as markers helping one trace the flow of God’s acts in biblical history.

Plain-Sense Interpretation

A characteristic of Dispensational theology is the consistent use of what is called the “grammatico-historical” method of interpretation. Here ‘consistent’ applies in principle, although not always in practice. Whether dealing with biblical narrative, or poetry, or prophetic literature, the Dispensationalist applies the same hermeneutics to each genre. This certainly does not mean that the genre is ignored; clearly, for example, so-called apocalyptic literature is not the same as historical writing or wisdom literature. But Dispensational scholars do not believe that one needs to change hermeneutical horses midstream when one passes, say, from Matthew 23, (Gospel narrative), to Matthew 24-25, (which many scholars would describe as apocalyptic or at least prophetic). They believe that exploring the grammatical sense of a passage within its context, and throwing whatever historical light they can upon a text, will yield the intended meaning. To drift away from this is to get caught up in the currents of the academic fads of the day; whatever is or is not in vogue should not dictate biblical interpretation.

The supposition of the Dispensationalist includes a belief in the full inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, together with a belief that the propositional nature of Scripture. Propositionalism is best adapted when a statement indicates a “literal” or plain sense. Thus, Dispensationalists are adherents of propositional revelation—a position that is being affirmed less and less within the conservative community, as scholars make biblical interpretation more the province of the specialist than the “common man.”

The Importance of the Covenants of Scripture

Essential to the theology of all classic Dispensationalists are the Covenants of Scripture. These are the explicit and clearly recognizable covenants defined in the pages of the Bible. They include the Noahic Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant; the Land Covenant; the Mosaic Covenant (which has been terminated); the Priestly Covenant; the Davidic Covenant; and the New Covenant. The principal biblical covenant for most Dispensationalists is the Abrahamic, out of which come those which follow. Because most of these are unilateral in nature (i.e. they were promises made solely by God and given to men) they cannot be rescinded or altered, since God can always be counted on to do just what He promises. Still, they may, like treaties generally, be supplemented by additional though never contradictory statements. An example of this would be the additional clarifications of the Abrahamic Covenant that one notices when reading Genesis 15 through Genesis 22.

The consistent application of the grammatico-historical method to these biblical contracts made by God with men leads to certain specific and undeniable expectations. Among these expectations is the one which, perhaps more than any other, distinguishes Dispensationalism from its main evangelical alternative, Covenant Theology. This distinguishing feature is the belief that there remains a set of incontrovertible promises given to the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (“the Fathers,” Rom. 11:26-29).

These promises, confirmed as they were by irrevocable Divine Covenant (see especially Gen. 15 and Jer. 33:15-26), must be brought to a literal fulfillment; a fulfillment which includes a physical land, and a king on a literal throne in earthly Jerusalem. As far as Israel’s inheritance of these promises is concerned, any future restoration of Israel to their land will not be apart from the new birth (Ezek. 36:21-28; Rom. 11:5, 25-29). But the Divine favor for this “remnant” of ethnic Israel is based on God’s gracious unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob mediated through Christ via the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34).

The Name “Dispensationalism”

It is because of the significance of these biblical Covenants that “Dispensationalism” is a rather unfortunate name. If it were not for the fact that it might cause some confusion with what is called “Covenant Theology” Dispensationalism would be more accurately identified as “Biblical Covenantalism.” Indeed, pursuing that idea and its ramifications has been a preoccupation of the present writer for several years.

This covenantal aspect of Dispensational theology can lend to it a powerful eschatological and teleological force, but this has not always been placed under the correct theological or hermeneutical controls. One example of this is the popular success of writers like Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, authors who concentrate only on a populist approach to eschatology and who do not do justice to the whole discipline which is (or at least could be) Dispensational systematic theology.

Sad to relate, but much of Dispensationalism over the past fifty years has been held captive to this type of non-technical eschatological treatment. This has meant that serious development of Dispensational theology at the levels of exegesis, theological method, and philosophical explication has suffered greatly. Perhaps the most detrimental outcome of all this in terms of the thinking of many Dispensationalists has been the lack of exploration of the worldview implications of a full-orbed Dispensational systematic theology. This will be treated in another post.

Discussion

[Rolland McCune]

I would recommend the argument and conclusions of Dr. Roy Beacham of Central Seminary on this topic. One may or may not agree with Dr. Beacham, but his work should be considered on what constitutes a covenant ratification and its bearing on the subject of the church and the NC.

Rolland D. McCune

Greetings to you. I hope you and yours are doing well. greet Kevin for me, I got to know him a little while in Carlson Society at Pillsbury, I always thought of him as a good guy (as well as you, though we might not agree in everything).

I always thought of your statement of why The NC is not in effect because it was never made with the two Houses of Israel. The solution to that I believe could be what I mentioned about the second Israel Feast where all male Israelites were to present themselves before the Lord. So possibly, in my thinking, it is a solution. It was a Jewish Community after all, the early Church.

I know you don’t want to just repeat Dr. Beacham’s conclusions but I would appreciate your thoughts along with referring to his article. I don’t have the Galaxy subscription so it limits my understanding of his position. I take it, from reading the abstract, that he will say that what happened in the first century doesn’t reach the threshold for enacting a covenant. But shouldn’t we look firstly to God how He makes covenants instead of looking Human covenants and requiring that God live up to a corrupted pattern?

For some of the other posters here (not you Dr Henebury, you explain yourself and give links), I ask you please discuss and not tell us where to go read.

I can look in late tonight or tomorrow for discussion.

Alex O. Krause

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Here is Dr. Beacham’s article on ANE Covenants and the NC. I buried it in the depths of my church website so I can link it. I can’t figure out how to attach a PDF file to a SI post. Hope it helps.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Thanks for linking to the Beacham piece Tyler. I have the pdf - somewhere! The article is informative and helpful, but, I think, flawed. To insist that one “must” go outside the Bible to know about ANE covenants is to threaten the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible interprets itself. It defines its own terms. The first clear covenant anyone knows of is the Noachic Covenant. Pagan covenants come after that time. Looking to ANE covenants for instruction of how to interpret the biblical covenants is like looking at ANE creation myths to help interpret Genesis. Not a smart move (unless, of course, one has a certain agenda).

Such pivotal things as Divine Covenants cannot hang on the thin thread of historical cum archeological contingency (knowledge of ANE covenants is recent and the details still disputed). C. H. H. Scobie advised that scholars should derive their understanding of the Bible’s covenants from the Bible itself and not so much from the surrounding cultures. See his, The Ways of Our God, 474-475.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

I seem to be out of compliance with this site and will end my time here with this post.

We all know the Hosea passage about Adam breaking the covenant and Ro. 5 on the first and last Adam. So, it seems the prohibition to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a covenant. I have not read Dr. Beacham’s article yet but will.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Paul,

Don’t you go outside of Scripture to actually determine what the accepted Word of God is? (i.e. canon)

KML

It seems no one is looking to ban me just yet, so I am open to your peppering me.

Dr. Beacham’s article offered an overview of ANE covenants and was useful to me. I do not see how it supports the position that The New Covenant is not in effect. I probably need to read some of the articles from the conference. Certainly, the conference didn’t prove conclusive or else someone would appeal to the arguments that were made.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

No brother, I believe the Scripture is self-attesting and the canon is “imposed” as Warfield put it.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Paul,

Thanks for the conversation.

For His glory,

KML

You wrote:

I see continuity through the past ages not a slice and dice packaging of them.

I am a dispensationalist, and I see marvelous continuity of purpose on God’s part throughout the entire march of Biblical history! I know the issue is sometimes presented as continuity vs. discontinuity, and a good volume has been put out with that precise title, but I believe the truth lies somewhere in-between. There is discontinuity, in that Goid has altered man’s worship responsibilities periodically throughout the Scriptures. There is also amazing continuity, because all of Scripture is marching towards an identifiable goal.

The entire arc of Scripture is God setting right what was ruined, of restoring a creation that has fallen. Each way God has worked with man throughout the Biblical record is an integral stage in that goal. We learn something about man’s sinfulness and God’s grace from the failures in each:

  • Adam, in an untested state of holiness, chose rebellion and autonomy over God
  • The generations after the Fall chose, despite having knowledge of both good and evil, also choose rebellion over worship of God with a pure heart
  • The post-flood generations likewise rebelled, ignoring God’s command to scatter and multiply. They built themselves a city for self-glorification and ignored God.
  • The election of Abraham shows us God’s grace. He now began to work through a specific people group, an intermediary, rather than with all of humanity indiscriminately.
    • The promise of salvation in Christ is here (Gen 12:1-3; Mt 1:1), not just for Jews but for all who have the faith of Abraham (Gal 3:9).
    • There are also inviolate promises to physical descendants of Abraham for both a land and a nation of their own.
  • This culminated with the establishment of the nation at Sinai, and Israel’s agreement with her covenant responsibilities.
    • Her subsequent failure, despite ironclad guarantees of blessing, prosperity and protection in exchange for loving obedience to the Law, shows us the depths of man’s sin.
    • The fact that built into the Law itself were provisions for atonement and forgiveness for sin, shows us that man will always choose light over darkness
    • Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
  • Christ’s ministry fulfilled all the Law, in that He was the final, definitive, perfect sacrifice for sin. Now, with the most clear revelation of God to men (Jn 1:18), all mankind is without excuse and has no cloak for their sin:
    • John 15:22-34 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
    • Yet, men still love darkness rather than light (Jn 1:5) and the days will wax worse and worse (2 Tim 3:13)
  • In the Millennium, despite the binding of Satan and the personal, bodily rule of Christ for 1000 years, men will still choose to rebel and join Satan when he is loosed! This, above all things, shows us how sinful we are. When faced with a choice between the personal rule of Christ and that of Satan, men will choose Satan!
  • In the eternal state, all things will be created new, and sin will be vanquished. What was ruined in the beginning has been restored.

Throughout this admittedly brief and very superficial sketch, there is both continuity and discontinuity. God has changed man’s obligations for proper worship periodically, but (1) salvation has always been by faith, (2) there has always been provision and atonement for sin, and (3) men have always chosen darkness over light, and consistently rejected God in any age. And yet, God has bothered with us anyway!

Habakkuk figuratively asked God why He bothered to show His power and glory to men:

Hab 3:8 Was the LORD displeased against the rivers? was thine anger against the rivers? was thy wrath against the sea, that thou didst ride upon thine horses and thy chariots of salvation?

He answered his own question:

Hab 3:12a Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed

I’m not sure why you feel the dispensationalist framework doesn’t present continuity.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[TylerR]

You wrote:

I see continuity through the past ages not a slice and dice packaging of them.

I am a dispensationalist, and I see marvelous continuity of purpose on God’s part throughout the entire march of Biblical history! I know the issue is sometimes presented as continuity vs. discontinuity, and a good volume has been put out with that precise title, but I believe the truth lies somewhere in-between. There is discontinuity, in that Goid has altered man’s worship responsibilities periodically throughout the Scriptures. There is also amazing continuity, because all of Scripture is marching towards an identifiable goal.

The entire arc of Scripture is God setting right what was ruined, of restoring a creation that has fallen. Each way God has worked with man throughout the Biblical record is an integral stage in that goal. We learn something about man’s sinfulness and God’s grace from the failures in each:

  • Adam, in an untested state of holiness, chose rebellion and autonomy over God
  • The generations after the Fall chose, despite having knowledge of both good and evil, also choose rebellion over worship of God with a pure heart
  • The post-flood generations likewise rebelled, ignoring God’s command to scatter and multiply. They built themselves a city for self-glorification and ignored God.
  • The election of Abraham shows us God’s grace. He now began to work through a specific people group, an intermediary, rather than with all of humanity indiscriminately.
    • The promise of salvation in Christ is here (Gen 12:1-3; Mt 1:1), not just for Jews but for all who have the faith of Abraham (Gal 3:9).
    • There are also inviolate promises to physical descendants of Abraham for both a land and a nation of their own.
  • This culminated with the establishment of the nation at Sinai, and Israel’s agreement with her covenant responsibilities.
    • Her subsequent failure, despite ironclad guarantees of blessing, prosperity and protection in exchange for loving obedience to the Law, shows us the depths of man’s sin.
    • The fact that built into the Law itself were provisions for atonement and forgiveness for sin, shows us that man will always choose light over darkness
    • Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
  • Christ’s ministry fulfilled all the Law, in that He was the final, definitive, perfect sacrifice for sin. Now, with the most clear revelation of God to men (Jn 1:18), all mankind is without excuse and has no cloak for their sin:
    • John 15:22-34 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
    • Yet, men still love darkness rather than light (Jn 1:5) and the days will wax worse and worse (2 Tim 3:13)
  • In the Millennium, despite the binding of Satan and the personal, bodily rule of Christ for 1000 years, men will still choose to rebel and join Satan when he is loosed! This, above all things, shows us how sinful we are. When faced with a choice between the personal rule of Christ and that of Satan, men will choose Satan!
  • In the eternal state, all things will be created new, and sin will be vanquished. What was ruined in the beginning has been restored.

Throughout this admittedly brief and very superficial sketch, there is both continuity and discontinuity. God has changed man’s obligations for proper worship periodically, but (1) salvation has always been by faith, (2) there has always been provision and atonement for sin, and (3) men have always chosen darkness over light, and consistently rejected God in any age. And yet, God has bothered with us anyway!

Habakkuk figuratively asked God why He bothered to show His power and glory to men:

Hab 3:8 Was the LORD displeased against the rivers? was thine anger against the rivers? was thy wrath against the sea, that thou didst ride upon thine horses and thy chariots of salvation?

He answered his own question:

Hab 3:12a Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed

I’m not sure why you feel the dispensationalist framework doesn’t present continuity.

The emphasized part you misspoke, I believe.

Essentially, Tyler, I agree with all you said. I think there is a Covenant of Works and Grace also. I think the Hab. passage might even portray the Covenant of Grace. I am not convinced that a D. framework is needed as I have seen it too radically applied while ignoring the continuity.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

You wrote:

Essentially, Tyler, I agree with all you said. I think there is a Covenant of Works and Grace also.

Here is the rub:

  • The Covenant of Grace is not found in Scripture - it is an inference
  • The Covenant of Works is not found in Scripture - it is an inference.

On the other hand:

  • The fact that God has changed His program throughout the ages is clearly in Scriptures.
  • The lessons I briefly sketched from these changes are drawn from the Scriptures
  • The fact that God made literal, ironclad, unconditional promises to Israel are clearly taught in the Scriptures
    • The fact that the original audience took them literally is clearly taught in Scripture
    • The fact that God keeps His promises is clearly taught in Scriptures

You say your problem with DT is that you have “seen it too radically applied while ignoring the continuity.” Is that a reason to eschew something? I’m a Baptist, but I haven’t dropped the label because of the excesses of Landmark Baptists! We already agree on the continuity aspect; surely you must admit there is some discontinuity, as well? As Dr. Henebury has said, you can junk the dispensations themselves as a framework and use the covenants themselves - you’ll still end up with a dispensationalist framework!

I’ll close with an analogy from Michael Vlach (Has the Church Replaced Israel? :[Nashville, TN: B&H, 2010] , 99):

… the supercessionist view is best illustrated by the following: In order to celebrate the good work of his son who is going to college, the father promises his son some wheels. On the son’s birthday, the father reveals the presence of a recently adopted son to whom a $200,000 Ferrari is given. The father turns to the first son and declares, ‘I am sorry, but my true son is this adopted son who represents everything our family name stands for.’ The first son says, ‘But Father, you made a promise to me! I don’t mind if our of your wealth you give great gifts to this new adopted member of the family, but giving blessings to this new son does not mean you fulfilled what you promised me.

This is a good comparison to what replacement theology offers. It just doesn’t do justice to God’s promises, which were made to a specific people at a specific point in time, and were understood literally by them and their descendants, all the way until after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:6).

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

I lost a post as I got disconnected or something. Anyway I will not re-type it as I am too busy.

Ethnic Israel, I believe, will again be dealt with, I am not so much a replacement guy.

I need to post another reply in this thread and then I will look in Monday. I have much on my plate so to speak.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Yesterday I posted too soon after reading Roy Beacham’s article. I usually need some time to mull over what was said. If I understand him, he needs an explicit oath for the covenant and since he sees none at from either party in the 1st century, therefore The New Covenant is not in force.

The oath was given in Jeremiah’s time is my thinking when the promise was made. There doesn’t need to be such an overt and concrete statement at the time of enactment of this covenant. I’ll look in again Monday.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Of course, it’s hard to argue that there is no covenant of works and no covenant of grace when many dispensationalists hold to “Adamic” and “Edenic” covenants (e.g. Scofield, Fruchtenbaum). One of the problems here is trying to read some ill-defined idea of “covenant” back into passages which do not themselves speak of covenants. When that is done the content of the supposed covenant can be manipulated to fit a theological agenda. Eisegesis follows eisegesis. It’s no good running to a hotly disputed verse like Hos. 6:7 because the exegetical case for a covenant with the man Adam is so tortuous. What we need is biblical warrant for a covenant, including its content!

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.