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.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 366 views
Alex:
- You’re right, I’m not sure why that point, above, was put in bold!
Paul:
- I have been pondering studying for and preaching a series on the covenants throughout Scripture, essentially using the covenants to sketch the Biblical storyline. I am becoming more and more convinced they may be a better framework than a rigid adherence to the “dispensations.” The end result will be the same. I
- It is odd to me that, unless I’m mistaken, dispensationalism hasn’t produced any major, systematic works beyond the second generation of Dallas scholars (e.g. Walvoord, Ryrie, Pentecost and McClain [I know he was from Grace] ). There have been excellent supporting works, but nothing I am aware of that has advanced the system as a whole in a very long time.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler, see Blaising, Bock, and Saucy. It is an advance as an upgrade.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I knew I’d stick my foot in my mouth on that one! I was referring to traditional dispensationalism.
- Admission of Guilt:
- I don’t remember a whole lot about progressive dispensationalism from Seminary, other than Maranatha is strongly against it.
- That doesn’t mean Maranatha didn’t cover PD; it just means I don’t remember much! I’ll take a look at Ryrie’s critique next week; I know he addressed it in his book.
In what way do you feel that PD addresses some of the problems Dr. Henebury brings up in his article? Or, do you feel it advances dispensationalism in a different sort of way? How is it an improvement on the original system? Do you feel PD has gone some way towards developing a fully-orbed BT, or is it mired in ecclesiology and eschatology?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Paul hinted that a previous writer in Bib Sac did a good job on the covenants, and he happened to lean toward PD.
PD sees more continuity than the traditional DT of Chafer/Scofield and also more than the revised DT of Ryrie/Walvoord/Pentecost. It recognizes that the NC has indeed begun and that there is only one people of God. If those were the only improvements, then that would be enough.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I have noticed, almost to my horror, that Chafer emphasizes discontinuity so much in his Christology and Ecclesiology that he repeatedly refers to the Mosaic Covenant as a “merit system.” This is, no doubt, why earlier dispensationalism is open to the charge of positing multiple ways of salvation. Chafer certainly did not teach this, (I’ve read his entire soteriology), but he makes numerous careless statements.
If I remember rightly, there is a major rift between DT and PD over the nature of the Kingdom.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Jim and I jested about this subject earlier, but what are the essentials that need to be held to make one acceptable among dispensationalists? Is holding to a grammatico-historical method of interpretation of the Scripture, a difference between the nation of Israel and the Church, and premillenialism enough? I remember when strict adherence to Scofield’s notes and Larkin’s charts was required. I also recall the necessity of holding to the exact 7 dispensations (I’ve seen 5, 6, and 8 variations), of redeemed people of other ages not being part of the Body of Christ, of no Gospel message in the Old Testament, not to mention various intricacies of eschatology too numerous to mention.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean]Jim and I jested about this subject earlier, but what are the essentials that need to be held to make one acceptable among dispensationalists? Is holding to a grammatico-historical method of interpretation of the Scripture, a difference between the nation of Israel and the Church, and premillenialism enough? I remember when strict adherence to Scofield’s notes and Larkin’s charts was required. I also recall the necessity of holding to the exact 7 dispensations (I’ve seen 5, 6, and 8 variations), of redeemed people of other ages not being part of the Body of Christ, of no Gospel message in the Old Testament, not to mention various intricacies of eschatology too numerous to mention.
I found Michael Vlach’s Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths most helpful.
Re Larkin and his charts …. I love ‘em but he went way weird with the Great Pyramid,
Sample:
The “Grand Gallery” is supposed to represent the Dispensation from the Birth of Christ to the Rapture of the Church. Measured in Pyramid inches the length of the Grand Gallery is 1882 inches, and if each inch stood for a year, that would make this Dispensation 1882 years long. But it is already 1920+ years long, and this shows us that we have not yet discovered the unit of measurement if we are going to use the measurements of the interior passageways and chambers to set dates. There are, however, several striking things connected with the “Grand Gallery.” If the commencement of the “Grand Gallery” indicates the Birth of Christ, we have to measure but about 30 inches before we come to the mouth of an open well, that leads downward by a serpentine passage to the chamber “H.” At “S” this well opens into a wide cavern.
You missed the most enlightening part of Larkin’s dissertation on the pyramid:
The Great Pyramid is built on the solid rock. The rock was leveled around the base lines, and cornerstones (X), sunk 8 inches in the rock, were placed in position. The cubit of measurement is the Hebrew cubit of 25 - 025 inches. The length of each side of the base is 365-367 cubits, the exact number of days in the SOLAR year, including the extra day every 4 years, and also allowing for the periodical dropping of a leap year at intervals. The slope of the sides of the Pyramid is of such an angle that they meet at the apex at the predetermined height of 232 - 52 cubits. Why this fraction of a cubit? So that if twice the length of a side at the base, be divided by the height of the Pyramid, we shall have the figures 3 - 14159, (365 - 242X 2 232 - 52=3 - 14159), which, when multiplied by the diameter of a circle, gives its circumference. Now the perimeter of the base of the Pyramid (365 - 242X 4=14609 - 68) is exactly equal to the circumference of a circle whose diameter is twice the height of the Pyramid (232 - 52X 2X 3 - 1416=14609 - 68). So we see in the equality of these figures the solution of the mathematical problem of how to SQUARE THE CIRCLE.
And now, for the best part:
Whence came it? It must have come from some source not Egyptian. Why? Because there was a purpose in its building. It was built to record mathematical, astronomical, and Scriptural knowledge, that should bear witness to the inspiration of the Scriptures in these last days. That accounts for its peculiar architectural shape, and the character of its interior construction. To that end it was scaled up that in the closing days of this Dispensation it might disclose its message to an unbelieving world.
Yikes.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
http://www.ifca.org/site/cpage.asp?sec_id=140006911&cpage_id=140032338
Dispensationalism
We believe that the Scriptures interpreted in their natural, literal sense reveal divinely determined dispensations or rules of life which define man’s responsibilities in successive ages. These dispensations are not ways of salvation, but rather divinely ordered stewardships by which God directs man according to His purpose. Three of these — the age of law, the age of the Church, and the age of the millennial kingdom — are the subjects of detailed revelation in Scripture (John 1:17; 1 Corinthians 9:17; 2 Corinthians 3:9-18; Galatians 3:13-25;Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:24,25; Hebrews 7:19; Revelation 20:2-6).
I think Dallas’ statement captures the essence very well:
- We believe that the dispensations are stewardships by which God administers His purpose on the earth through man under varying responsibilities. We believe that the changes in the dispensational dealings of God with man depend on changed conditions or situations in which man is successively found with relation to God, and that these changes are the result of the failures of man and the judgments of God. We believe that different administrative responsibilities of this character are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entire history of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under the respective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive.
- We believe that the dispensations are not ways of salvation nor different methods of administering the so-called Covenant of Grace. They are not in themselves dependent on covenant relationships but are ways of life and responsibility to God which test the submission of man to His revealed will during a particular time. We believe that if man does trust in his own efforts to gain the favor of God or salvation under any dispensational test, because of inherent sin his failure to satisfy fully the just requirements of God is inevitable and his condemnation sure.
- We believe that according to the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always “by grace through faith,” and rests upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 3:9, asv; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4, asv).
- We believe that it has always been true that “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6), and that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. We believe also that they did not understand the redemptive significance of the prophecies or types concerning the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 1:10–12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God was manifested in other ways as is shown by the long record in Hebrews 11:1–40. We believe further that their faith thus manifested was counted unto them for righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:3 with Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5–8; Heb. 11:7).
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Paul Henebury]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!
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
It posted without me!
Anyway, what I wanted to say in response to Paul Henebury: If a covenant is defined in the bible by an oath from God, and it seems to be valid, then the statement: “In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die” functions as an oath. Romans 5 spells out in strategic terms Christ’s redemptive work towards humanity’s need.
It is a glorious message indeed that Christ fulfilled the need for righteousness and it can be applied to the lost sinner’s account to have peace with God.
Another problem I see with slicing and dicing the ages is for some to view the O.T. as something outdated and only focus on a narrow set of self-defined responsibilities for themselves and not learn from the O.T. The writers of the N.T. wrote with the O.T. in mind.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[alex o.]It posted without me!
Anyway, what I wanted to say in response to Paul Henebury: If a covenant is defined in the bible by an oath from God, and it seems to be valid, then the statement: “In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die” functions as an oath. Romans 5 spells out in strategic terms Christ’s redemptive work towards humanity’s need.
It is a glorious message indeed that Christ fulfilled the need for righteousness and it can be applied to the lost sinner’s account to have peace with God.
Another problem I see with slicing and dicing the ages is for some to view the O.T. as something outdated and only focus on a narrow set of self-defined responsibilities for themselves and not learn from the O.T. The writers of the N.T. wrote with the O.T. in mind.
Alex, this is like a Burning Man series or something with the size of this pyre.
Adam was not promised anything. He was only warned of consequences for failure. There was no benefit except to keep what he was already given. If that is a covenant, it isn’t a covenant of works, but a covenant of death.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[alex o.]It posted without me!
Anyway, what I wanted to say in response to Paul Henebury: If a covenant is defined in the bible by an oath from God, and it seems to be valid, then the statement: “In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die” functions as an oath. Romans 5 spells out in strategic terms Christ’s redemptive work towards humanity’s need.
It is a glorious message indeed that Christ fulfilled the need for righteousness and it can be applied to the lost sinner’s account to have peace with God.
Another problem I see with slicing and dicing the ages is for some to view the O.T. as something outdated and only focus on a narrow set of self-defined responsibilities for themselves and not learn from the O.T. The writers of the N.T. wrote with the O.T. in mind.
Alex, I’m sorry but it assuredly not the case that ‘a covenant is defined in the Bible by an oath from God.’ A covenant is sealed by an oath, but an oath does not necessarily imply a covenant. To give one human example, in 2 Cor. 1:23 Paul makes an oath concerning his intentions towards the Corinthians, but he makes no covenant. In an associated thread a Divine promise does not necessarily indicate a covenant. Just look at what God says concerning Ishmael in Genesis 17. He makes promises concerning him, but it is crystal clear that God’s covenant is not with Ishmael but Isaac.
Next, what ‘seems to be valid’ often depends on the assumptions one brings to the table. In truth, the only measure of validity is exegetical, and the exegetical case for a specific and definitive covenant before Genesis 6 is scant and often question-begging. N.B. If an oath is needed to insure a covenant then the case for covenants in Genesis 2 & 3 is further reduced.
But there arises a more pertinent issue, and that has to do with the verbal content of a covenant. I alluded to this above but you did not join it. If the Bible provides no propositional content to fill out a pre-flood covenant with then it will be painted the color each proponent prefers. Dispensationalists who hold to such things say they mean one thing. Covenant theologians say they mean something else. In truth, both are reading their own theological preferences into the passages. Eisegesis follows eisegesis.
Finally, as for the OT being outdated, it is covenant theology which essentially reinterprets the OT by the NT. John Sailhamer speaks to this tendency of CT in The Meaning of the Pentateuch.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
It is better in my view to come to the scriptures humbly and without unwarranted constructs of how God deals in covenants. You seem to need concrete propositions for a covenant and I don’t (at this stage).
God promised eternal life to mortal humans before the ages began (Ti. 1.2). Where is the explication of this? In my mind it is implicit in the tree of life. I would contend some things are not concretely stated propositionally and yet true and very significant. After all, God doesn’t owe us a thing in His disclosure. The call for the necessity of “definitive and specific” or rejection seems too philosophically Greek to me. I have seem too much bibliolitry (worship of naked explication) to insist on clear propositions when dealing with biblical covenants.
Why were fig leafs not enough for Adam and Eve? Why the animal skins? I do not want to build too much on this, but it is intriguing. How did Abel know to bring a firstborn? Again, we should be cautious but not everything that happened has been fully explicated for us to build unnecessary theologies upon what has been written. I am wary of over-systemizing the revelation. Its a matter of degree and not about having systems or not.
The rebuke of Jesus toward the two at Emmaus (fools and slow to believe) about Christ is to be taken to heart by the church today. Jesus began with the prophet Moses (probably starting with Gen. 3.15) and explained the suffering and subsequent glory revealed about the Christ in the O.T.
Colin Kruse (Romans) does not know whose genealogy it is in Luke 3 (Mary’s). Doug Moo (Galatians) thinks Gal. 4.4 speaks of merely a natural birth (born of a woman) instead of rightly, I believe, linking the statement to “the seed of the woman.”
The NT explains the OT not reinterprets it.
You may have a good point in thinking that Jesus was the New Covenant. It seems to fit in the whole scheme of redemption to me also but I need to read more and see if it integrates more fully in my mind. The verse in Isaiah you gave in the other thread I had not thought about in relation to the NC.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Featured Resource
Discussion