Dispensationalism
In talking with Pastor Matt about the book of Revelation, he impressed upon me, among other things, his desire to make his sermons in Revelation as theologically educational as possible. Recognizing the real difficulties in interpreting Revelation, as well as the conflicting views by theologians of all denominations, Matt – as always, but particularly in such a challenging and hotly debated book – is committed to communicating his messages in a consistent way that is as theologically clear as possible. Matt believes by establishing and maintaining this well-defined theological perspective, we will all benefit most from the time we’re in this uniquely rewarding last book in the Bible. Consequently, he has asked me to write a series of blogs on the various theological positions that are argued by theological commentators of all serious persuasions as valid. The purpose of these (not necessarily weekly) writings will be to supplement Matt’s sermons, which are understandably restricted by the time he has on Sunday morning. This is the first in that proposed series.
“Theology” is a familiar word to most Christians, but in my experience it is an ambiguous word that is rarely understood by both speaker and listener. Take my first paragraph for example: I am assuming a general knowledge on the part of the reader that may not exist. Nothing against anyone’s intelligence, it’s just the broad, imprecise nature of the word In the simplest, most universal definition of theology, the word means what a person believes about God. In this respect, everyone has a theology. The point of contention is, of course, is that theology in accordance with the Bible? If what you know and believe about God is in conflict with the Bible, your theology, regardless of how long you have had it, where it came from, or how passionately you defend it, is wrong.
The way I used “theology” above is in reference to the systematized theology as revealed in the pages of Scripture. “Systematic theology” may accurately be defined as a rational and systematic study of the Bible, as well as the influences of religious truth on the individual and his or her relation with God. I think you can see how these theological definitions can easily get out of hand at the expense of simplicity and clarity.
Because of the complexities (I have mentioned but few) involved in the definitions of Dispensationalism, I wanted to write this blog as simply yet comprehensively as I could. No easy task. As I worked or I to pull this off, I came across a brief summary I had written years ago for a special class I took at the seminary called “Issues in Dispensationalism.” I read it and decided to use it. I hope it helps you get a hold on this most important doctrine.
Thomas A. Rohm
ISSUES IN DISPENSATIONALISM – TH-508X
Dr. John Master, Instructor
J-Term 2002
FINAL EXAM January 11, 2002
QUESTION 1: Define and discuss the theological system known as Dispensationalism.
Rather than attempt a succinct, all-encompassing defining statement of dispensationalism, I would respectfully prefer to attempt a composite definition by offering the following contributory statements.
Dispensationalism, first off, is a doctrine of Scripture. One arrives at the truth of this statement through the honest following of a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. Dispensationalism deals theologically and practically with the correct and God-pleasing application of biblical principles as those principles are properly interpreted.
Dispensationalism is a system of interpreting the Scriptures on the basis of making distinctions in God’s dealings with mankind. Some balk at terming dispensationalism a system of interpretation, seeing it mainly as a doctrine. While I wholeheartedly agree that dispensationalism is a legitimate – and perhaps necessary – doctrine of the Scripture, I respectfully argue that it is a system of interpretation of Scripture as well. Employing the structure and methodology of dispensationalism enables one to rightly divide the Word of God by recognizing the critical distinctives in God’s relationship with man. Dispensationalism has the capacity to enable the believer to determine how the Bible is to be understood and applied.
In the interest of clarity, maybe another word should be said about dispensationalism being a system of interpretation. As an example of this dimension of dispensationalism, as well as support for its importance, a dispensationalist is able to determine the answers to many fundamental questions the reader faces. For example, Israel and the church: what is the difference? Or, is there a difference? Is it a valid practice to apply biblical situations to one’s own without regard to contextual situations? That is, can one living under the influence of the New Testament legitimately apply information from the Old Testament? What about the Sermon on the Mount? By applying the tenets of dispensationalism to one’s hermeneutic, one is able to intelligently answer these significant questions.
Dispensationalism is not a method or vehicle of salvation. Nothing about the tenets of dispensationalism is salvific. A dispensation, whether it be defined as a relationship, stewardship, or method of interpretation, doers not teach one how to be saved. Dispensationalism, rather, has the capacity within its proper understanding to instruct one in the successful living of the Christian life. It is about sanctification rather than justification. In this confined respect, it may be accurately said that dispensationalism is not about saving grace but living grace. The primary area with which dispensationalist deals is the Christian life, the believer’s daily walk with the Lord Jesus Christ in submission to the Spirit and in obedience to His Word.
A dispensation is, I believe, essentially a relationship, a relationship between God and groups of men and women. In this relationship is involved various stewardship responsibilities or requirements imposed upon man by God.
A dispensation is not a period of time, as some theologians either directly say or indirectly imply.
There are two essential distinctives of dispensationalism, without such no definition could be intelligently considered complete. These distinctives are (1) the consistent application of a literal or normal hermeneutic to the Scripture, and (2) the clear and absolute difference of Israel and the church. This last distinctive might be accurately said another way: the clear and absolute distinctive of law and grace as it pertains to the believer’s living of the Christian life.
Dispensation translates the Greek word οἰκονομία (oi-kah-nah-mee-ah). Stewardship, management, and administration are correct connotations. The Greek verb οἰκονομέω (oi-kah-vah-mee-o) means to be a steward, to manage a household. While these words are used relatively sparingly in the New Testament (primarily in Luke 16 and several times in the writings of Paul [of particular importance is Ephesians 3]), the cultural relevancy was significant. People in Bible times knew what a steward and a stewardship, read dispensation, were. Therefore the use of the terms by the New Testament writers had immediate impact and universal understanding.
Concerning the cultural significance of the term, there are four essential elements involved that when properly understood offer significant understanding on dispensationalism. These cultural elements are (1) an owner or head of the household, (2) a steward, manager, or administrator, (3) a household, and (4) property and/or goods. All biblical dispensations contain these four cultural elements. For example, in what is commonly called “the dispensation of grace,” within our present time, God would be the owner, Paul the steward, the church the household, and grace the goods. This arrangement or relationship is reflected in Paul’s words in Ephesians 3.
Dispensationalists are invariably premillennialist. The early church was premillennial in its understanding of Scripture (e.g., Romans 9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4-5).
Dispensationalism holds the glory of God as the doctrine of purpose subsuming all other biblical truths (compared to the Covenantalists’ master theology of salvation). The Kingdom is overreaching theological doctrine of dispensationalism under which all dispensations are aligned.
QUESTION 2: Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this system.
Strengths
The primary strength of dispensationalism is that it offers a consistent, provable (from Scripture), and, I think, natural way of both interpreting and applying the Bible. The
reader does not have to impose a structure upon Scripture (such as Covenantalists do) in order to understand its writings, but rather understanding and structure arise from a normal reading of the Bible.
For me, this strength has had a profound impact on my Christian life. Investigating and them embracing the doctrine of dispensationalism enabled me to rightly align my theology (a theology previously comprised of a bit dispensationalism, more than a little covenantalism, and a whole lot of subjective traditionalism). Dispensationalism does not solve all the problems of Scripture, but it comes close. Of all the systems of interpretation, only dispensationalism does justice to the biblical reality of progressive revelation (in comparison, covenant theology is very rigid in its approach to Scripture).
Covenantalism (amillennialism, Reformed, etc.) follows, at least in part, an allegorical hermeneutic which allows for practically unlimited subjectivity. Once this spiritualizing methodology has been accepted, there becomes no limits to the amount of private interpretation. Dispensationalism and its literal hermeneutic prevents the interpretational floodgates from being opened.
On final point I believe is germane to this section (though it may be considered a variation of a statement made above dealing with dispensationalism being a logical outcome of normal interpretation): When properly and honestly considered, dispensationalism simply makes common sense to every thinking believer because every Christian today is a dispensationalist. To at least a limited degree, any Christian trusting in Christ (grace) rather than bringing an animal sacrifice to a Jewish temple (works), is a dispensationalist.
Weaknesses
As a grace believer living in the New Testament era, I personally struggle at times with the fact that employing a dispensational hermeneutic seems to diminish the relevancy of certain parts of the Bible. For example, parts of Isaiah and Jeremiah (two books I particularly love), and the Sermon on the Mount and much of the Synoptics.
Confessedly, I think dispensationalism, because of its very strengths of consistency and reliability can often lead to pride. One can come to a position of thinking he knows everything. Too many of us dispensationalists, I am sad to say, exercise subtle (or not so subtle) scorn for others in the Body of Christ who are not dispensationalists. To take a verse somewhat out of context, “Knowledge puffeth up.”
