The objective of this limited discussion is to provide a brief definitive study of dispensationalism, to analyze its interpretative principles and schools of thought, and relate it as such to premillennialism. Obviously a defense of the doctrine cannot be undertaken here.
In the last decade, dispensationalism has attracted increasing attention as a major factor in theological interpretation. Though the distinctives of its system are not new, the contemporary theological scene seems to call for discussion of them. Most of the comment has been critical. Liberals have opposed dispensationalism because it is fundamentalist in approach. Amillenarians attack it because it is premillennial. Some premillenarians, under criticism anyway, have sought to escape opposition by disavowing dispensationalism.
Dispensationalists themselves, embarrassed by extremists in their ranks, have had difficulty clarifying the situation. Unfortunately, the critical literature produced has sought in too many cases to win an argument rather than present an objective study. The result is one of the most confusing spectacles found in contemporary theology.
Definitions
Premillennialism is generally recognized as the proper name for that system of biblical interpretation which places the second advent of Christ as preceding and introducing his future reign on earth for one thousand years. The relation of dispensationalism to premillennialism, however, is an area of some disagreement. A normative definition generally accepted by dispensationalists is that furnished by C. I. Scofield in the Scofield Reference edition of the Bible: “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God” (p. 5).
As used in Scripture, the word dispensation is a translation of the noun oikonomia and is found in the following passages: Luke 16:2–4; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2, 9; Colossians 1:2, 25; and 1 Timothy 1:4. It is variously translated dispensation or stewardship. The verb form oikonomeo is found in Luke 16:2 and the noun form referring to a person, oikonomos, is found in Luke 12:42; 16:1, 3, 8; Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 4:1, 2; Galatians 4:2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 4:10. In most of these instances it is translated steward. In its biblical usage, the concept is not explicitly a time period and for this reason the Scofield definition has been questioned.
Objections to the definition of a dispensation as a time period are based on partial truth. The time element is a consequence rather than an explicit meaning of the word. Webster’s New International Dictionary defines dispensation as “a system of principles, promises, and rules ordained and administered; schemes; economy; as the patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations.” As the definition indicates, a dispensation is not a time period, but is in the nature of a stewardship, the responsibility involved has a beginning in time and an ending in time and the period between is the period of stewardship. The Winston Dictionary defines dispensation in its theological meaning as “a system of principles and rules ascribed to divine inspiration in operation during a specific period.”
Though its biblical use embodies principally the idea of stewardship, theologians for generations have been using the word dispensation as a time period even though it is not a dispensation in the modern sense. The definition of dispensation as a time period in which a specific stewardship obtains is by no means a recent development (Cf. John Edwards, A Compleat Survey of all the Dispensations, 790 pp., published 1699). All theologians have some sort of a dispensational division if no more than to divide the Old and New Testaments. The principles involved in such divisions and their significance have caused the rise of modern dispensationalism in the post-Reformation period.
The principles involved in dispensationalism are as old as the history of biblical interpretation. Of these the most important is literal interpretation of prophecy which is, rightly considered, the guiding principle of dispensational premillennialism. Unlike Augustine who advocated a separate hermeneutics for prophetic interpretation, namely, the spiritual or figurative method, dispensationalists follow the more literal interpretation. The charge that dispensationalism demands that all Scripture be interpreted literally is false, however. All schools of interpretation necessarily regard some Scripture as not subject to literal interpretation. Premillennial dispensationalism, however, follows the principle that prophecy is not a special case and is to be treated like other forms of Scripture revelation, that is, that the literal interpretation should be followed unless the context indicates otherwise.
The second major principle is derived from the definition of dispensationalism itself. A dispensation is considered a divinely-given stewardship based on a particular rule of life revealed in the progressive unfolding of divine truth in Scripture. Each new major deposit of truth had its own demand for faith and obedience. Generally speaking, a dispensation is created by the revelation of a major system of truth sufficient to constitute a new rule of life and is often marked off from the preceding period by some spiritual crisis in the history of God’s people. Dispensationalism does not deny that revealed truth is cumulative and that new revelation is obviously built upon the old even though to some extent it replaces a former situation.
The third principle in dispensationalism is the time element. As indicated in the definition, a dispensation is, strictly speaking, a divine deposit of truth, not an age in itself. A stewardship by its nature, however, has a beginning and ending with the idea of a dispensation as an age coming into view. Hence, most theologians refer to a dispensation as a time period, even if they do not accept some dispensational distinctions.
The fourth principle is that a dispensation is specifically a rule of life, rather than a way of salvation. The frequent charge that dispensationalists teach more than one way of salvation is not sustained by their literature and is actually foreign to the true system. Though dispensationalists find faith manifested in obedience to a particular divine revelation in every dispensation, the way of salvation is always faith, the principle of salvation is always grace, and the ground of salvation is always the death of Christ, even if imperfectly understood prior to the full revelation in the New Testament.
A wide divergence of belief is found within the general designation of dispensationalism. This has frequently tended to confuse the issue as opponents of dispensationalism have resorted to citation of the most extreme statements they could find instead of trying to discover the normative position. In general, four attitudes exist in relation to dispensationalism:
Nondispensational view. This includes all points of view which oppose dispensationalism by emphasizing a central divine plan and purpose for human history as excluding any division into dispensations. This unity of purpose is usually supplied by making the salvation of the elect the central purpose of God, and if dispensations are included at all, they are regarded as successive phases of this one plan. Nondispensationalists usually regard Israel and the Church essentially as one, and kingdom truth is considered to be soteriological, or related to salvation, rather than culminating in an earthly political kingdom such as is normal in premillennialism.
Normative dispensationalism. Within this classification, the great majority of dispensationalists are properly placed. Characteristic of this school of thought is the view as illustrated in Scofield that there are seven dispensations revealed in Scripture: innocence, conscience, human government, promise, law, grace, and millennial kingdom. Each of these dispensations constituted a test of faith and obedience according to the rule of life provided, and under each dispensation man fails and is saved only by divine grace. This school of thought does not dispense with grace.
Major Dispensations
Some variations exists in the statement of these seven dispensations, but it is generally agreed that three major dispensations are the subject of extensive revelation in the Bible, namely, the dispensation of the law, the dispensation of grace, and the dispensation of the millennial kingdom. The law began with Moses and was the rule of life for Israel from Moses to the Church. The dispensation of grace, or the church period, was introduced by Christ, began at Pentecost, and will close with the translation of the Church. The millennium will begin with the second advent of Christ and the judgment of the world and will conclude with the creation of the eternal state. While dispensationalists regard the major dispensations as bound together by many common doctrines, such as the way of salvation, doctrine of God, and inspiration of Scripture, dispensationalism necessarily insists that as rules of life the three major dispensations differ extensively with each other and that each replaces the former dispensation.
Bullingerism. Numerically small but quiet vocal are those who go beyond the Scofield system. Most extreme is the position of E. W. Bullinger who found two dispensations within the church period, the first being the period of the Jewish church extending through Acts 28 and the second being the dispensation of the Gentile church as the body of Christ beginning after Acts. He rejected both water baptism and the Lord’s Supper. True followers of Bullinger, however, are almost extinct and practically all dispensationalists today deny that they are followers of his position.
Church as exclusively Pauline. Less extreme than the view of Bullinger, but considered ultradispensational by followers of Scofield, is the view of dispensationalism expressed by the Grace Gospel Fellowship and defined in the volume by Cornelius R. Stam, The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism. The key to their system is the belief that the truth of the Church as the body of Christ is exclusively taught in the epistles of Paul and that therefore the Church could not begin until Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 or later. In contrast to Bullinger who rejected both the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper and water baptism, the more moderate position excludes only water baptism which they regard as a Jewish rite not intended for the church today. The great majority of dispensationalists, however, consider this as an extreme view and insist that the Church as both the body and bride of Christ began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost when 3000 souls were saved.
Relation To Premillennialism
Contrast between Israel and the Church. As related to premillennial interpretation, normative dispensationalism tends to emphasize certain important distinctives. One of the most significant is the contrast provided between God’s program for Israel and God’s present program for the church. The church composed of Jew and Gentile is considered a separate program of God which does not advance nor fulfill any of the promises given to Israel. The present age is regarded as a period in which Israel is temporarily set aside as to its national program. When the Church is translated however, Israel’s program will then proceed to its consummation. Though dispensationaists have tended to contrast Israel and the church, it is false that they alone make this distinction, as is frequently alleged. Postmillenarians like Charles Hodge and amillenarians like William Hendriksen, though not dispensationalists, also believe that Israel has special promises that belong only to those who are in the racial seed of Jacob, and do not equate Israel and the Church.
The offer of the kingdom at the first advent. Dispensationalists usually consider that Christ at his first coming offered himself to Israel as their Messiah and King. His subsequent crucifixion was the occasion of their rejection of him. The hypothetical question as to what would have eventuated if Israel had accepted Christ as their king has led to the charge, which is entirely unjustified, that dispensational teaching tends to minimize the cross or declare it unnecessary.
Pretribulation rapture. The tendency to contrast Israel and the Church and to interpret prophecy literally has led most dispensationalists to accept a pretribulational rapture of the Church. Their point of view is that predictions of a future time of tribulation in both the Old and New Testaments are related to the divine program for Israel and for Gentiles, but that the Church is never explicitly in view. Though this relationship of dispensationalism to pretribulationism is indirect, it is significant that posttribulationists are seldom dispensationalists.
Reign On Earth
Literal earthly millennium. Dispensational premillennialism tends to emphasize the governmental and political character of the millennium itself. Christ will reign on the throne of David on earth over restored Israel as well as the Gentile world. Spiritual qualities such as righteousness and peace, spiritual power, and the visible glory of God will be evident. It will fulfill literally the glowing expectation of Old Testament prophets for a kingdom of God on earth embracing all nations. Satan will be bound and inactive. The curse upon the earth will be lifted and the desert will blossom. All will know the Lord from the least to the greatest. This final dispensation before the creation of the new heavens and new earth will in many respects be climactic in blessing and a demonstration of divine sovereignty and glory. Christ’s reign on earth will gloriously fulfill Old Testament prophecy.
Agree With Other Conservatives
On all major doctrines of Scripture, dispensationalists are in hearty agreement with other conservatives. Their distinctive doctrines result from the attempt to interpret prophecy with the same literal method as is used for other Scripture. This leads to sharper contrasts between the dispensation of law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom following the second advent. Separate prophetic programs are traced in Scripture for Israel, for the Church, and for the Gentiles. These distinctives, however, are balanced by agreement that many unifying factors bind all dispensations together. The unity of Scripture is strongly maintained by those who hold the dispensational viewpoint.
Dispensationalists do not deny the unity of the divine plan of salvation as progressively revealed in Scripture and do not teach two ways of salvation. Every dispensation as a rule of life reveals failure on the part of man, but at the same time Scripture reaffirms unfailing faithfulness and grace on the part of God. Dispensationalism is a matter of degree. Lewis Sperry Chafer was wont to say: “Anyone is a dispensationalist who no longer offers lambs on brazen altars or who does not observe Saturday as the day of rest.” Modern usage indicates a more restricted meaning, but dispensationalism deserves more objective treatment, more normative definition than has characterized most contemporary discussion.
John F. Walvoord is President of Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. He holds the A.B. degree from Wheaton College, A.M. from Texas Christian University, Th.B., Th.M. and Th.D. from the Seminary he now serves. His published works include The Return of the Lord and The Rapture Question. In this series of articles on “The Christian Hope and the Millennium,” he represents the premillennial dispensational viewpoint. Articles from other points of view are as follow.
