What Is Dispensationalism?

It is a common phenomena in a world as knowledge-rich and complex as the one of today that most people have a decent understanding of what they believe without knowing why. For instance, we may know that 2+2=4 without having studied algebraic theory or the proofs that show how and why such a statement is true. Most of us simply do not have the time or interest to study every subject at that level and the opportunity cost is simply too high.

This phenomena is no less true in the church and culture more broadly. Many have a set of beliefs they hold about God, creation, and the future without having compared them against a systematic theology or having checked them against science or scripture. We may even have fundamental beliefs through which we filter other ideas without having a name to attribute to them. And there are few such influential beliefs in the American church and popular psyche as those related to dispensationalism. It is my hope that this series will leave you with a foundational understanding of both the merits, history, and the great dangers that dispensational theology poses for the church and its influence that extends to US politics and international relations every day.

And it is important to note that, even if you are not concerned with theology or doctrine proper or are perhaps not a follower of Jesus, understanding the history, character, and influence of dispensational theology is of primary importance in understanding much of the current political climate between the US and entities in the Middle East.

Definitions
As with any category of thought, definitions are important, but that is not the easiest task with dispensationalism. The origin of the term in general refers to the idea that God has tested humanity in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God in the continuum of human history and that these ages can be seen as distinct “dispensations”. This idea, in theory, is not all that controversial. One familiar with the broad scope of Christian history can easily see ages like pre-fall humanity, humanity before the flood, the giving of the Mosaic Covenant, and the post-Christ church as being somewhat distinct. Unfortunately, not all dispensational frameworks agree on the nature and number of ages but the primary set which has had the most acceptance and influence is that put forth by Cyrus Scofield (Remember this name as there are a common few that will reoccur throughout the history of dispensational thought in the 19th-20th centuries). Those ages consist of:

1. Innocency
2. Conscience
3. Human government
4. Promise
5. Law
6. Grace
7. Kingdom

It can be argued whether these categories aptly describe the full extent of God’s relationship with mankind but they nevertheless fit within the broad flow of scripture.

But the dispensations themselves are not enough to describe what dispensationalists actually believe. To do that, we must look at the key tenets of dispensational thought. The two primary tenets are a literal interpretation of scripture and a strict understanding of Israel being distinct from the church.

Literal Interpretation
It has been said that “nearly all the problems associated with the dispensationalist/non-dispensationalist conflict are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation.” At first glance, this again does not seem to be too controversial of an assertion, though it is a very determined one. Dispensationalists often pride themselves on a consistent literal interpretation of scripture and one can easily see how this can cause issues when discussing matters between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists. If one is convinced that literal interpretation at all times is a sound hermeneutical principle, and that one’s theological conclusions naturally follow from this principle, then for another to contradict any particular conclusion would be to deny the veracity of scripture itself. A prominent dispensational scholar puts it in very strong terms,

“the original and accepted method of interpretation was the literal method, which was used by the Lord, the greatest interpreter, and any other method was introduced to promote heterodoxy. Therefore the literal method must be accepted as the basic method for right interpretation in any field of doctrine today.” – Pentecost

These are quite strong and serious words. I have witnessed this type of reasoning personally and it can indeed feel like arguing in a circle. Naturally, this principle extends especially into matters of Biblical prophecy. One must approach each prophecy in a strictly literal fashion. And given the number of prophetic passages that involve Israel in the Old Testament, it is no surprise that the second tenet follows accordingly.

Strict Israel-Church Distinction
Charles Ryrie, one of the fathers of dispensationalism regards the principle that Israel and the church must be kept distinct from each other as the “most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.” Again, at first glance, many Christians may be willing to accept this assertion at face value. However, the conclusions and ramifications of taking such a perspective will be very comfortable for some and repulsive for others. Considering this view across the whole of scripture and prophecy prior to the New Testament, Ryrie again sums up the outworking of this view:

“God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” – Ryrie

When applied this way, I believe many Christians will begin to feel more skeptical towards this principle.

Dispensationalists see many prophecies that are given to Israel or at the time of Israel’s primacy as therefore needing to be fulfilled by Israel. And, given that Israel ceased to exist in any meaningful way after 70 A.D., if these prophecies were not fulfilled beforehand, then they are still yet to be fulfilled. And, because these prophecies must be fulfilled by Israel and not another entity, like the church, then they must be literally fulfilled by a literal state of Israel at some point in the future. This concept became much more feasible after the reformation of the state of Israel in 1948 and, since then, dispensationalism began to thrive in ways that it had not before.

In fact, some dispensationalists take this approach so far as to say such things as, “the Old Testament prophets knew nothing of the church age.”, and that instead of the church age representing an end state for all mankind, it is not much more than a “Great Parenthesis” in God’s ultimate plan for Israel.

I hope this has been helpful for those who are interested in church history and theology and for laypeople who simply seek to understand more about how some Christians view Israel today. In the next installments, we will discuss issues with the dispensational hermeneutic, the historic figures and evolution of dispensationalism over the past two centuries, particularly problematic prophecies, and more.