In a previous post, we discussed some of the central tenets of Dispensationalism as a theological framework in the modern era. As a short review, those tenets are, primarily, a literal interpretation of scripture and a hard delineation between Israel and the church.
So what exactly is wrong with a Dispensational theological view?
Indeed, at first glance, it seems that at least some of the deeply held principles of dispensationalism are rather healthy and sought after principles that are often lacking in more liberal theological camps. In contrast to a group like the Jesus Seminar, in which the supernatural works and character of Christ are discredited, Dispensationalism is a revelation. Hoekema details a number of worthwhile areas of agreement between dispensationalists and other orthodox schools of thought. Dispensationalists hold to the verbal inspiration and infallibility of the Bible. They certainly expect a visible, personal return of Christ that is spoken of throughout the New Testament. Though the exact views of the eras of human history, or dispensations, may differ, dispensationalists are consistent in insisting that throughout every age salvation is through grace alone, by the works of Christ, not of man. And though the exact nature and state of a future kingdom may differ between different eschatological schools, dispensationalists nevertheless agree that such a future earthly kingdom will exist.
In many of these similarities, dispensationalists are found to be in alignment with a definition of orthodoxy and “mere Christianity”, if you will, so we would do well to maintain fellowship with those that espouse it. Nevertheless, I would split the problems with dispensationalism along two lines: the problems with dispensational tenets themselves and, perhaps classically more controversial and well known, the problems with conclusions drawn as a result of those tenets. For now, I seek to critique the tenets themselves, to show that the sort of literal interpretation that is espoused by dispensationalists is neither required nor preferable on its own, and that the strict theological separation between the church and Israel is untenable and not Biblical.
Strict Literalism
We have noted a number of times now that approaching the interpretation of scripture in a literal way is, at least in part, a favorable approach to take. It is actually one of at least three important presuppositions that we ought to use when reading scripture: to read the Bible literally, contextually, and progressively. So, if the literal interpretation of scripture is indeed important, the more important question to ask ourselves is, is it possible to read scripture too literally?
As Stephen Sizer notes, “to interpret the Bible literally is to interpret it as literature of various kinds — that is, according to the usual rules of grammar, speech, syntax, context, and genre…The goal of interpretation is to understand the meaning of the text that the Biblical writers intended to communicate.”
To begin, take, for instance, Scofield’s insistence on a wooden literalism as he sums up a bit of his approach in the Scofield Reference Bible:
“Not one instance exists of a ‘spiritual’ or figurative fulfillment of prophecy. Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion … Prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal.”
Our question should therefore be, does this indeed bear itself out in scripture? Especially in the cases of prophetic statements, does the Bible, the infallible word of God, seem to use language in such an inflexible way?
There are most certainly common instances where otherwise clear language with an otherwise literal implication cannot be interpreted literally, especially in light of further revelation. For instance, words like ‘everlasting’ are sometimes used to show emphasis rather than to communicate an eternal state. Genesis 17:3 describes the Abrahamic covenant and circumcision in particular as an “everlasting covenant.” Given the clear pronouncements in the New Testament against the need or value of circumcision in Christ, this certainly cannot be literally extended to the gentiles or the church age. But to insist so would be to deviate, even slightly, from the otherwise literal meaning of the passage. In Psalm 74:3, the temple is described as being in a state of “[everlasting, perpetual]” ruins. Another classic comparison is between Psalm 89 and John 18. While Psalm 89:35 proclaims, “Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His offspring shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before me.”, John 18:36 tells us, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” As well, there are numerous examples from Jesus’ own life that show that one cannot approach Biblical language in such an ultra-literal manner, predominantly because those that did so were often rebuked for it. Take, for example, Jesus’ proclamation of “Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days”, his response to Nicodemus that he must be born again, or His instruction that His followers must eat His body and drink His blood.
But the true difficulties amongst many dispensationalist claims expose themselves when dealing with apocalyptic or prophetic literature. It is here where the previous good intentions of dispensational hermeneutics are quickly “Left Behind” (Get it?) Sizer lists five common mistakes in literalism that are often seen in Dispensational work. The first is transient literalism, or a case where writers interpret contemporary events in the light of prophecy. For instance, in The Late Great Planet Earth, first published in 1970, Hal Lindsey focuses on the Soviet Union and its rise to power as a fulfillment of scripture while by the 2000s, that role had shifted to Russia, Syria, and Iran. “Babylon the Great”, spoken of in Revelation 14:8 and 17:5, has been interpreted as the Roman Empire, the Vatican, or the European Union in the past. But, as we saw earlier, would not ‘Babylon’ be best understood literally as ‘Babylon’ and not any other actor? Obviously, the attempt to look for a fitting fulfillment of apocalyptic events is not in itself a wrong thing to do. But the inability to consistently hold to literalism while doing so and the utterly poor track record of many prominent dispensationalists should be alarming.
The second is speculative literalism. Many of us have experienced this from hearing stories of how John in Revelation had to use first century language to describe twenty-first century phenomena. Locusts become helicopters, crowns of gold, helmets, or volcanic eruptions as nuclear explosions. Obviously, the principle of literalism could give way to symbolism here but to do so demands a consistent reason for doing so and an equally consistent reason for not doing so in other contested areas of scripture. The third, contradictory literalism, illustrates that between various dispensational authors, vastly different conclusions are drawn that cannot both be true. One example is Revelation 9 and its description of an army of 200 million soldiers which has been explained as anything from an army of demons to Red Chinese soldiers. Indeed, choosing a consistent interpretation in these cases can be difficult but what is often lacking in these explanations is an acceptance of this difficulty and the inherent humility required with a lack of perfect knowledge. Other types include enhanced literalism, in which dispensational writers will often add notes and assumptions to scripture to guide the reader to similar conclusions, and arbitrary literalism, such as substituting America into Revelation 12:14-17 related to passages that speak of a “great eagle.”
Many of these mistakes overlap in some respect but the result is the same; that they often do not, indeed sometimes cannot, represent the literalism that dispensationalists claim. It is clear that literal interpretation of scripture, as a rule, is a valuable principle, but only when it is tempered with a consistent understanding of context and the progressive nature of revelation. It is also clear that dispensationalism does not and cannot fully adhere to this principle consistently. We should therefore not be afraid to both espouse the merits of literal interpretation of scripture and deny the exclusivist claims that many in the dispensational camp often make.
A Pause
We pause for a moment for a relevant point regarding the dispensational system itself. One of the risks in separating the continuum of God’s history with humankind and His work in their redemption into separate dispensations of grace is that one may undermine the inherent unity throughout each of those eras. These dispensations are defined as “period[s] of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God”. And we have already noted that dispensationalists do claim that these dispensations do not differ in their proposed way of salvation. But this begs the question that if in each era man requires salvation by grace, and that man is consistently unable to save himself, why must he be tested anew in each and every dispensation? What we certainly find in the Bible is an original fall, a promise of a Redeemer through which man can be saved, and a history of God’s working out the deliverance of that redemption through Jesus Christ. As Hoekema concludes,
“Despite differences in administration, there is only one covenant of grace which God makes with his people. The Old Testament deals with the period of shadows and types, and the New Testament describes the period of fulfillment, but the covenant of grace in both of these eras is one.”
It is worthwhile to note, then, that if one draws unnecessary distinctions within that continual history, one may fail to recognize the progress made along that continuum.
Israel/Church Distinction
Consistent with some lack of acknowledgment of the continual, progressive history of redemption, dispensationalists hold to a deep and abiding belief in the clear distinction between the relationship and purposes of Israel with God and that of the gentiles or the New Testament church with God. And many of their theological outworkings are driven from this belief. If Israel and the church must always be kept separate, then when the Bible talks about Israel, it does not mean the church, and vice versa. But, since there are many Old Testament promises to Israel which have not yet been fulfilled, then these promises must be fulfilled in the future.
But, does this distinction hold in light of scripture? One important section of scripture that is often mentioned when discussing this issue is Galatians 6:15-16:
“For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”
Much of Galatians involves analyzing the role of the law post-Christ so this sort of declaration is certainly consistent with the overall context and theme of the book. For those critical of dispensationalism, the point that is being made here is that the circumcised and uncircumcised, Israel and the gentiles, are now one creation, and that those who would walk according to this new rule are declared the “Israel” of God, that they are now the chosen of God together and not separate. The classic disputation of this verse revolves primarily around a single word, the Greek “kai”, and whether it should be interpreted as “and” or “even”. As such, personally, it can be difficult to defend at a layman level, though it is often a centerpiece of dispensational critique and considered by many to be a very persuasive point. In my estimation, it would be best to use as part of a cumulative set of scriptural and theological points and not as a proof text. Nevertheless, a non-dispensationalist interpretation is certainly possible and perfectly consistent with Galatians in particular and much of the message of the New Testament in general.
Perhaps a better passage to point to would be Acts 13:32-34, 38-39, the primary relevant portion reading: “And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus…he spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’” This passage would seem to show, quite directly, that the promises made to previous figures of Israel have been fulfilled in Christ, the blessings of which are given to all, not just Israel themselves. Another is I Peter 2:9, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” From clues within the epistle, we can gather that it was addressed to Christians in the region and, thus, Peter is using the same terms previously used to describe Israel in the Old Testament, namely in Isaiah 43:20, Exodus 19:6, and Exodus 19:5.
Another key expression and verse that brings into question the separation of Israel and the church is that of the “seed of Abraham.” While it is used in some cases to designate the actual physical descendants of Abraham, it is broadened in the New Testament in Galatians 3:28-29: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” This is also echoed in Romans 4:11, where “the purpose was to make [Abraham] the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well.” For me, this is perhaps the most impressive passage and the most damaging to the previous declarations of Dispensational hermeneutics. Paul clearly removes the physical distinctions that could be made within the human race in relation to God and unites them all in Christ, further declaring them heirs to the promises made to Abraham’s descendants.
Perhaps equally devastating, and equally beautiful, is Ephesians 2:14-16 and on, “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.”
In response to some of these passages, it will sometimes be pointed out that the New Testament also does contain many references to Israel to the exclusion of the church. But the presence of any distinction bears no direct relevance to the points that have been made. To not speak of Israel distinct from the gentiles at all would be to make any statements of God’s reconciling the two pointless. The question is not whether the New Testament speaks of the two groups in one, consistent way or the other, but rather what does the New Testament seem to say regarding the work of Christ and God’s purposes with them.
Obviously, this is a greatly abridged set of criticisms from the fullness of what could be said regarding the validity of dispensational beliefs. My hope is that you have found them useful and trustworthy enough to consider learning them and using them in discussions with others on this topic. Going forward, we will look at other claims and commonly held conclusions that dispensational theology has popularized and continues to hold. Whatever the current popularity of dispensationalism as a formal worldview, my experience is that popular Christian opinion is a mess of different views and opinions from many sources and, particularly in America, these sources often include dispensational influences. And it is my hope that you and others like you will be equipped to meet these influences head on with confidence.