THE RELATIONSHIP OF DISPENSATIONS

THE NAME GAME

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" (Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet" [2:2:43]).

Despite Shakespeare names are important. They serve as labels to help quickly identify someone or something. When used of systems of thought, names should highlight a crucial feature of that system being named. For instance, by their very church names, Baptist churches emphasize RITUAL baptism as a distinctive element of their religious tenants. Presbyterians (Gk: presbuteros, elder) emphasize their form of church government (i.e., by elders). Seventh-day Adventists mark out their insistence on Saturday worship.

Consequently, we expect dispensationalists to emphasize their unique division of history into "dispensations" in that their system is called "dispensationalism."

But what is a dispensation? According to revised dispensationalists (Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost-era dispensationalism), a "dispensation" is "a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose. If one were describing a dispensation he would include other things, such as the ideas of distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment" (Ryrie, D2, p. 28). Ryrie adds: "The distinguishable yet progressive character of dispensational distinctions prohibits that they should be intermingled or confused as they are chronologically successive" (D2, p. 37).

A dispensation, then, is a specific, distinguishable, God-ordained, revelation-defined period of time in the outworking of God's plan in history. Ryrie insists: "Dispensational theology [recognizes] definite and distinguishable distinctions" (D2, p. 32). In showing the difference between the dispensation of law and that of grace, Ryrie notes: "Here is unquestionably a distinguishable and different way of running the affairs of the world" (D2, p. 34). Each dispensation by the very nature of the case should have a distinctive character. And according to Ryrie that distinguishing character should be determined by a certain set of principles, especially: "(1) the different governing relationship with the world into which God enters in each economy; and (2) the resulting responsibility on mankind in each of these different relationships" (D2, p. 33).

INDISTINGUISHABLE DISTINCTIONS

Strangely, though, despite their own self-designation (their theological label) and the definition of the system, dispensationalists do not emphasize dispensations! Not even the older varieties of dispensationalism.

For instance, Ryrie writes: "Is the essence of dispensationalism in the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system" (D2, p. 38). Later he observes: "Most dispensationalists see seven dispensations in God's plan (though throughout the history of dispensationalism they have not always been the same seven). Occasionally a dispensationalist may hold as few as four, and some hold as many as eight. The doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary (Article V) mentions only three by name" (D2, p. 46).

When one considers the name of the dispensational system ("dispensationalism") and the definition of that name (involving distinguishable economies), it surely is quite surprising that the dispensations are not universally agreed upon by dispensational scholars, that they are fluid in theological history, and that they may be numbered anywhere from as few as three or four up to as many as eight! That would seem to be on the order of a Trinitarian declaring that there may be two or there may be five persons in the ontological Trinity. Progressive dispensationalists hold to four dispensations (Blaising and Bock, PD, p. 271).

Especially are we prompted to wonder about these variations among "distinct" and "distinguishable" economies when Ryrie admits: "The Bible does name two dispensations in the same way that dispensationalist do (and implies a third). Granted it does not name seven, but, since it does name two, perhaps there is something to this teaching called dispensationalism" (D2, p. 27). Why does not the Bible clearly name all of them?

This is remarkable in that since a dispensation is a "distinguishable economy" it would seem that it should DISTINGUISHABLE. And if distinguishable, why then do we discover several different enumerations of the dispensations in the system known as "dispensationalism"? The word "distinguishable" is defined in the Webster's New Twentieth-Century Unabridged Dictionary as follows: "capable of being distinguished; that may be separated, perceived, known, or made known, by points of difference; as, a tree at a distance is distinguishable from a shrub."

Ryrie defines his own use of "distinguishable": "the word 'distinguishable' in the definition points out that some features are distinctive to each dispensation and marked off from each other as different dispensations.... The distinguishing features are introduced by God" (D2, p. 29). Ryrie is surely correct: the very character of dispensationalism demands that the dispensations be "distinguishable." Why then are they not? Why is there variation between dispensational scholars?

Ryrie admits there is a disagreement in this area among some dispensational scholars. Leading dispensationalists are not able confidently to "distinguish" the dispensations. Perhaps some of the distinguishable economies are not so distinguishable after all. The dispensational label maker has jammed!

This diversity of opinion among dispensational schools is all the more intriguing in light of Ryrie's confident declaration: "Nevertheless, on the basis of the definition of a dispensation as a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose, it is not difficult to deduce how many dispensations are revealed in Scripture." (D2, p. 46). If it is "not difficult," then what is the problem among dispensationalists? If they can't figure out their "not difficult" system based on their own "plain interpretation" hermeneutic, how can they expect non-dispensationalists to be persuaded of the validity of the system?

BLAISING SADDLES

What is more, the newer dispensationalism — represented by Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, and Robert Saucy — distinguishes itself (no pun intended) from classic and revised dispensationalism by re-interpreting the nature and inter-relationship of the dispensations. In fact, Ryrie says of the public presence of Progressive Dispensationalism since 1986: "In the overall historical picture of dispensational theology, this new movement inaugurates an era clearly distinguished [there's that term again!] from previous eras of dispensational thought" (D2, p. 162). Tragic irony: Dispensational theology itself is entering into a new "dispensation"!

A frustration that non-dispensationalists have with dispensationalism is its a priori character. In a later newsletter I will comment on the a priori character of the literalism hermeneutic: In dispensationalism, literalism is determined prior to opening the Scripture (though this is not the hermeneutic of the newer, progressive dispensationalism). At this juncture, though, I will note that Ryrie effectively argues you must be committed to dispensationalism before you can understand the dispensations: "The understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies" (D2, p. 29). This is viciously circular reasoning. Fortunately, the newer form of dispensationalism is not as overtly circular in their argumentation. And remember: This circular statement survived the editorial process in the publishing of the second edition of Ryrie's book (it appeared in the earlier edition on page 31).

Progressive dispensationalists, to Ryrie's chagrin, alter the very character and function of the dispensations. Ryrie cites Blaising and Bock: He notes that they understand "the dispensations not simply as different arrangements between God and humankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption" (D2, p. 31). This is a major development within the dispensational system. A development that goes against one of dispensationalists favorite shibboleths: "Rightly dividing the word of truth."

Dispensationalism's popularity among laymen derives from several factors, three of which are: its alleged "plain" interpretation of Scripture; its excitement and "relevance" generated out of the conviction that we are now living just before the rapture, at the very end of contemporary history; and its sorting out Scriptural revelation into nice, neat compartments. But now the new form of dispensationalism has shaken the system by unraveling all of its neat packaging. And it is vitally important to note that the new dispensationalism is altering the system right at the definitional level. And this alarms Ryrie — despite his assertion that the number of dispensations is not determinative or crucial. They most certainly should be, if his definition of "dispensation" is correct.

What is more, Ryrie posits as his first sine qua non for dispensationalism: "A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct." This to Ryrie is "probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist" (D2, p. 39). Yet the new brand of dispensationalism clouds the picture here, too.

The very adjective "progressive" placed before "dispensationalism" loudly declares an important system change. Whereas previous forms of dispensationalism urged a hermetically- sealed series of dispensations (a zip-locked theology), progressives do not. Blaising comments: "Progressive dispensationalism offers a more unified view of the biblical covenants than earlier dispensationalism.... The present inauguration and future fullness of new covenant fulfillments reveal another aspect in which the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are being fulfilled today." (PC, p. 53).

A few pages earlier in Blaising's chapter, the reader was braced for this statement regarding these changes: "Progressive dispensationalist understand the dispensations not simply as different arrangements between God and humankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption. The plan of redemption has different aspects to it. One dispensation may emphasize one aspect more than another, for example the emphasis on divinely directed political affairs in the past dispensation and the emphasis on multiethnic spiritual identity in Christ in the present dispensation. But all these dispensations point to a future culmination in which God will both politically administer Israel and Gentile nations and indwell all of them equally (without ethnic distinctions) by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the dispensations progress by revealing different aspects of the final unified redemption" (PD, p. 48).

The progressives still have a place for the concept of dispensations, altered though they be. Though moving toward more unity in the plan of God, Bock notes that "each dispensation draws from and builds on promises made in the previous era(s). Each is a distinct administrative period and should not be confused with other periods in God's plan. So, for example, Israel should not be called the church in the Old Testament, nor should the church now be viewed as simply replacing Israel in the plan of God" (Bock, CD, p. 29). Nevertheless, "alongside the discontinuities of the plan stand strong links of continuity. These notes of continuity make this form of dispensationalism more like other evangelical theological traditions" (CD, p. 29).

Bock points out that each distinct phase of redemptive history carries in it the "initial realization" of the following one. Progressive dispensationalists do not keep the dispensations hermetically sealed-for-your-protection. Rather they allow an initial realization prior to each formal beginning!

Such is fundamentally different from Ryrie's view cited above. It is in a different universe altogether from Chafer's Scofieldian (classic) dispensationalism. Note how strong a distinction Chafer could draw between dispensations:

"The Bible provides three complete and wholly independent rules for human conduct — one for the past age (there was no need of recording such rules as held good for people who lived before the Bible was written) which is known as the Mosaic Law and is crystallized in the Decalogue; one for the future age of the kingdom which is crystallized in the Sermon on the Mount; and one for the present age which appears in the Gospel by John, the Acts, and the Epistles of the New Testament." (Chafer, ST, 5:98).

One surprising aspect of this "initial realization" phenomenon among progressive dispensationalists is its allowing the presence of the Messianic kingdom now through initial realization: "In Jesus, the Messiah, comes the initial realization of promises made to David about one who would have authority to distribute the benefits of promised deliverance to God's people" (CD, p. 29).

This blending of dispensations causes something of an inter-mixing of Jew and Gentile (though still maintaining a distinction). Blaising comments on the relationship of Jew and Gentile in the millennium: "A Jew who becomes a Christian today does not lose his or her relationship to Israel's future promises. Jewish Christians will join the Old Testament remnant of faith in the inheritance of Israel" (PD, p. 50). This contravenes Ryrie's fundamental dispensational distinction.

THE WINDS OF CHANGE

In all of this we are seeing incredible changes within dispensationalism — in the direction of covenantal theology. Ryrie comments on covenant theologian Vern Poythress's notice of the blending of the millennium and eternity:

"Thus, the new dispensationalism sees eternity as a dispensation (as a minority of dispensationalists have in the past) and the Millennium 'as a step toward the final fulfillment of the everlasting promises.' With this placing of the Millennium and the new earth together in one overall dispensation, little wonder that one covenant theologian, Very Poythress...concludes that 'provided we are able to treat the question of Israel's relative distinctiveness in the Millennium as a minor [!] problem, no substantial areas of disagreement remain] between progressive dispensationalism and covenant theology.' A question to ponder: Does he make this statement because covenant theologians have now embraced a literal, present earth Millennium (no, they have not), or because he perceives revisionist dispensationalists as having given ground in their eschatological statements (yes, they have)?" (D2, p. 167).

I do not agree, however, with Poythress's sentiment that there are really only minor differences separating progressive dispensationalism and covenant theology. Large issues still hang in the balance. Large differences not unlike those separating pietistic Christianity from Reformed Christianity (see: Gary North, Crossed Fingers: How Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church). Covenantal Christians ought to rejoice at the influence of their theology on dispensationalism, but they should not assume the battle of worldviews is won.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, Ill.: BridgePoint, 1993). Abbreviation: PD.

Bock, Darrell L. "Charting Dispensationalism." Christianity Today. Sept. 12, 1994. Abbreviation: CD. Chafer, L. S. Systematic Theology. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948. Abbreviation: ST.

Ryrie, Charles C., Dispensationalism (2d. ed.: Chicago: Moody, 1995). Abbreviation: D2.

Ryrie, Charles C., Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965).
Abbreviation: DT.

SPECIAL NOTES

Christian Educational Materials

Make checks payable to and order from: Kenneth Gentry, 46 Main St., Conestee, SC 29636. Prices include shipping costs. For a complete catalog, send $1.00.

Set #51. "Israel and the New Covenant" (2 tapes: $10). (1) And Thus Shall Israel Be Saved. (2) He Has Made Both One.

Set #30. "Major Bible Prophecies" (5 tapes: $23). 1993 Sacramento Conference.
(1) The Millennium (Rev. 20). (2) Daniel's 70 Weeks (Dan. 9). (3) The Man of Sin (2 Thess. 2). (4) Heaven (John 14). (5) Unfulfilled Prophecies (contra hyper-preterism).

Set #11. "Postmillennialism and Preterism" (4 tapes: $20). 1992 Sacramento Eschatology Conference. (1) Postmillennialism: Wishful Thinking or Certain Hope? (2) The Identity of the Beast of Revelation. (3) The Resurrection of the Dead. (4) The Great Tribulation is Past.

"Righteous Writing." A directed study course on Christian research, writing, and publication. For details contact me at the address above.

END