If the significant number of both non-dispensational and anti-dispensational teachers and influencers I’ve seen attempting to explain dispensationalism while simultaneously debunking it are any indication, it’s pretty clear to me that the majority of people have no actual idea what dispensationalism even is. I’ve seen a lot of faulty attempts to define it, a lot of outright false definitions, SO MANY strawman arguments against it, and blatant slander against its supposed originators (which is easily debunked, which indicates a disturbing lack of concern about either being a Berean or about bearing false witness against fellow believers).
I’ve been itching for a long time now to tackle this topic. Not so much to convince anyone that dispensationalism is correct (although I believe it is, or at least is really close to the mark), but so that even if you don’t agree, you’ll have a better understanding of what it is you’re disagreeing with, and more solid ground for reasoning why you disagree.
First, let’s clear up a common misconception: dispensationalism does not equal pre-trib rapture doctrine. Yes, dispensationalists largely believe in a pre-trib rapture, but this doesn’t define dispensationalism. And lots of pre-tribbers are not dispensationalists. So just because some shadowy historical figure taught a pre-trib rapture, that does not mean this figure understood, agreed with or “invented” dispensationalism. But more on that later.
So then. What IS dispensationalism?
Dispensationalism is a framework for Bible interpretation based on the following principles:
A grammatical-historical hermeneutic -- that’s a fancy way of saying a literal interpretation, but it’s more accurate to say a plain reading of the text of scripture that stresses reading things in context and allowing scripture to interpret scripture. This hermeneutic recognizes when the authors of scripture were using metaphorical or poetic language, but it takes the Bible at face value and doesn’t allegorize or spiritualize passages that aren’t plainly meant to be allegorical or metaphorical. Basically, it’s the assumption that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. And also, details matter.
Careful exegesis — that is, drawing out what scripture says and letting that inform your theology and worldview — as opposed to eisegesis — imposing your theological framework, tradition or worldview onto scripture and reading things into it.
The logical assumption that, because past prophecies were fulfilled literally, down to the smallest detail, then unfulfilled prophecies will likewise be fulfilled at a future time in the same manner--we don’t need to invent a “spiritual” fulfillment for them so that we can then feel free to ignore them.
The assumption that, considering such a large percentage of scripture IS prophecy, and that the Bible tells us that ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable for sound doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness, the study of prophecy MATTERS. It matters to God, and it matters for us.
The recognition that, at different times and stages throughout history, God has dealt with humanity and related to us in different ways. These stages — or dispensations — are marked out by the following (per Charles Ryrie in Dispensationalism):
A change in God’s governmental relationship with man
A resultant change in man’s responsibility
Corresponding revelation [of God’s overall plan and purpose, to the extent] necessary to effect the change
Or as Darrel Bock and Craig Blaising stated in Progressive Dispensationalism, a dispensation “refers to a particular arrangement by which God regulates the way human beings relate to Him.”
Why are they called dispensations? In his epistles, Paul uses the Greek word oikonomia, which means administration or stewardship. In the Latin Vulgate this was translated to dispensatio, which became dispensation in King James English.
Kind of like how the Greek word harpazo became “rapture” via the Latin translation to rapturo. But I digress.
This is a good place to point out that dispensationalists are not a monolith. There’s a spectrum that ranges from hyper-dispensationalism, which sees as many as 10 dispensations marked out, to Classical dispensationalism with its seven dispensations presented by Scofield, to Revised Classical as represented by such scholars as Charles Ryrie and J. Dwight Pentecost, to the Progressive Dispensationalism of Darrel Bock, which attempts to bridge the gap between dispensationalism and covenant theology by being more willing to take certain aspects of prophecy as metaphorical. And there are a lot of folks who fall at “in between” points on the spectrum.
That said, when applying the above principles to Bible interpretation, here are the primary doctrines that most dispensationalists can agree on, as quoted from Peter Goeman’s blog (and this is where non-dispensationalists get mad, especially if they think the Church is the new Israel):
that the Old Testament must be interpreted within its own context.
there is a marked distinction between Israel and the Church.
there is yet still a future plan of deliverance for ethnic Israel.
that the promises made to ethnic Israel will have a literal, future fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom.
I would add that most dispensationalists also believe that the Church age is a parenthetical stage in God’s timeline that falls within the gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy, and that the Church age MUST end with the pre-tribulational catching up of the Church in order for the 70th week to begin, during which God will resume his dealings with ethnic Israel to bring about their salvation and prepare them for that final fulfillment of his promises to them.
So that’s dispensationalism in a nutshell. I hope that clears up some confusion, but if not, feel free to leave your questions in the comments.
In future letters, Lord willing, I’ll address some common arguments against dispensationalism, and against the pre-trib rapture view.
Until then,
Jean