As a system of theology, dispensationalism and its varieties are relatively new on the scene of church history as it was first advanced by the British Plymouth Brethern leader, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882).
1Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, dispensationalism became a popular millennialist movement,
particularly in the United States, as dispensational teachings were disseminated through the Niagara Bible Conference (1883-1897) and the well-known and popular Scofield Reference Bible (first published in 1909), which contained the annotations of C. I. Scofield
1For an overview of dispensationalism with particular attention on Darby, see Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1960), 7, 17, 48-63. For a historical survey of dispensationalism, see Michael J. Svigel, “The History of Dispensationalism in Seven Eras,” in Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption: A Developing and Diverse Tradition, ed. D. Jeffrey Bingham and Glenn R. Kreider (Chicago: Moody, 2015), 69-100. For the rise of dispensational premillennialism, see Timothy P. Weber, “Dispensational and Historic Premillennialism as Popular Millennialist Movements,” in A Case for Historic Premillennialism:
An Alternative to ‘Left Behind’ Eschatology, ed. Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2009), 1-22. Many dispensationalists acknowledge John Nelson Darby as the originator or key figure in formulating dispensational thought, so Craig A. Blaising, “Doctrinal Development in Orthodoxy: Part 1 of Developing Dispensationalism,” BibSac 145 (1988): 133-40; Robert Saucy, “Contemporary Dispensational Thought,” TSF Bulletin 7 (1984): 10; Herbert W. Bateman IV, “Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today,”
in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 21, 45n5; cf. Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 93; and Larry R. Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2008), 99-102. Still, many dispensationalists would probably agree with Charles C. Ryrie’s assertion, in Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 77 (cf. 70-76), that Darby “had much to do with [the] systematizing and promoting of dispensationalism. But neither Darby nor the Brethern originated the concepts involved in the system.” See, for example, Larry V. Crutchfield,
“The Early Church Fathers and the Foundations of Dispensationalism,” in An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation, ed. Mal Couch (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000), 87-94; and Ron J. Bigalke, Jr., and Thomas D. Ice, “History of Dispensationalism,” in Progressive Dispensationalism: An Analysis of the Movement and Defense of Traditional Dispensationalism, ed. Ron J. Bigalke, Jr. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005), xvii-xlii, esp. xix-xxii.
(1843-1921) and currently remains in publication as the New Scofield Reference Bible.
2In the post-World War I era, dispensationalism “enjoyed its greatest success among the Baptists, the Reformed Episcopalians, and especially the Presbyterians” as well as among the newly formed Pentecostal denominations that adopted dispensationalism except the common dispensational view of the cessation of charismatic gifts.
3To this day,
dispensationalism continues to be a popular and evangelical movement in the United States as dispensational seminaries and schools have thrived and the emphasis on prophecies, the nation of Israel, the rapture, and the millennium continue to receive attention through books, movies, and other media.
The name “dispensationalism” is derived from the noun “dispensation,” a translation of the Greek word οἰκονομία (Eph 1:10; 3:2; 1 Cor 9:17; Col 1:25; 1 Tim 1:4) meaning administration, stewardship, or the management of a household.
4Although dispensationalism cannot be defined based on the term or concept of dispensation,
52For a historical overview of the Niagara Bible Conference and the Scofield Reference Bible, see Craig A. Blaising, “Dispensationalism: The Search for Definition,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 16-23; Charles C. Ryrie, “Update on Dispensationalism,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 18-19; cf. Weber, “Dispensational and Historic Premillennialism,” 11-17. Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, 102-3, also observes that the founder and president of Dallas Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1951), was instrumental in spreading
dispensationalism, particularly at a more academic level with the publication of his eight volume systematic theology.
3Weber, “Dispensational and Historic Premillennialism,” 16-17.
4Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 27-36, esp. 30-33; Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 11, 106-11; Glenn R. Kreider, “What Is Dispensationalism?
A Proposal,” in Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption, 20-27; Stanley D. Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 82-84; Elliott E. Johnson, “Hermeneutics and Dispensationalism,” in Walvoord, 240-42; Mal Couch,
“Dispensational Hermeneutics and the Doctrine of Ecclesiology,” in A Biblical Theology of the Church, ed.
Mal Couch (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 18-19; Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1993), 318-23; cf. Grenz, The Millennial Maze, 94.
5See John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988), 68-69. Michael Vlach, “What Is Dispensationalism Not?” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer, ed. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue (Chicago: Moody, 2012), 52, agrees with
dispensations as distinguishable economies or periods of time during which God dispenses or administers his plan of redemption differently from other eras is important to
dispensationalists and their system as a whole.
6According to Ron Bigalke and Mal Couch,
“[d]ispensationalism is that biblical system of theology which views the Word of God as unfolding distinguishable economies in the outworking of the divine purposes for the nation of Israel in a distinct and separate manner from His purpose for the church.”
7For covenant theologians the role of covenant is paramount for structuring the unity of the Bible, but
unlike covenantalists, [dispensationalists] do not believe that the “covenant”
establishes the framework of the biblical story. This does not mean that
dispensationalists deny the importance of covenants . . . but that they believe that covenants are subsidiary to another structural construction.
8Feinberg that “acknowledging the word oikonomia does not make one a dispensationalist, nor does defining this term reveal the essence of dispensationalism.”
6Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 34-35; Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism,” 82- 83; Kreider, “What Is Dispensationalism?,” 21; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 14;
T. Maurice Pugh, “Dispensationalism and Views of Redemptive History,” in Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption, 232-33; and Christopher Cone, “Dispensational Definition & Division Revisted,” in Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie, ed.
Christopher Cone (Fort Worth, TX: Tyndale Seminary, 2008), 145-63.
7Ron J. Bigalke, Jr., and Mal Couch, “The Relationship between Covenants and Dispensations,”
in Progressive Dispensationalism: An Analysis of the Movement, 18. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 34, summarizes the system of theology: “Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His household-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the
dispensations.” For a more expansive definition of dispensationalism, see Craig A. Blaising, “Contemporary Dispensationalism,” SWJT 36 (1994): 5-6.
8Kreider, “What Is Dispensationalism?,” 20. Interestingly, Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 16, state, “The dispensations are structured by various covenants God has made or promised.” They also describe dispensations relating to covenants or conceptually overlapping. Ibid., 127- 128. Bigalke and Couch, “The Relationship between Covenants and Dispensations,” 27-36, also argue that the dispensations and covenants collaborate. Robert Lightner, “Theonomy and Dispensationalism,” BibSac 143 (1986): 33, describes dispensationalism as a system of theology that “places primary emphasis on the major biblical covenants—Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, New—and sees the Bible as the unfolding of distinguishable economies.” Cf. Pugh, “Dispensationalism,” 232-36. For the differences between covenant theology and dispensationalism, see Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 213-27; and Robert Lightner, “Covenantism and Dispensationalism,” JMT 3 (1999): 62-74.
This epochal construction or dispensational framework varies among dispensational scholars depending on how the distinguishable stages within the progress of revelation are identified and understood to relate to each other.
9For traditional, classic
dispensationalists following Scofield, including many modern, revised dispensationalists, there are seven distinct dispensations: Innocency, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Mosaic, Grace, and Kingdom/Millennium.
10For contemporary progressive dispensationalists, the number of dispensations varies from two to four, to as many as seven.
11While the emphasis on progressive revelation and the distinguishable
dispensations within the Bible is not the primary characteristic of dispensationalism or unique to dispensationalism—dispensationalists themselves have acknowledged that other Christians and Christian traditions recognize distinct epochs or dispensations in God’s overall plan and control of the world—the content and meaning of each
9Alistair W. Donaldson, The Last Days of Dispensationalism: A Scholarly Critique of Popular Misconceptions (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 4, critiques dispensationalism on this point: “How can the dispensations be distinguishable and at the same time indistinguishable to the point of there being a multiplicity of views within dispensational scholarship regarding their number? It seems these definite and distinguishable dispensations must be really indefinite and indistinguishable” (emphasis original). Many scholars differ in how to identify the epochs or stages of redemption, however. See my discussion in chap.
1, n. 29.
10See the charts in Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 118-19 (cf. 24-26).
They show a variety of dispensational schemes for dispensational and non-dispensational theologians in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries; cf. Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, 106. The seven-fold scheme of Scofield is incorporated by some revised or modified dispensationalists, see Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 58- 65; Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism,” 85-90; J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come:
Tracing God’s Program and Covenant Promises throughout History (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995), 323;
Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 2006), 86-88. However, Cone, “Dispensational Definition,” 150-63, argues for twelve dispensations.
11Kenneth L. Barker, “The Scope and Center of Old and New Testament Theology and Hope,”
in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, 293-328, esp. 295, argues for two major dispensations: the old covenant era and the new covenant era. For Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 120-23, four primary dispensations appear in biblical history: patriarchal, mosaic, ecclesial, and zionic (millennial and eternal), while Kreider, “What Is Dispensationalism?,” 28-36, affirms seven: creation, fall, post-flood, Abraham, the exodus/law, the Spirit (coming of Jesus), and the new heavens and earth. For progressive dispensationalists, the dispensations are not understood “simply as different arrangements between God and humankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption.”
Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 48, emphasis original.
dispensation is important.
12Dispensationalism stresses more discontinuity than covenant theology does in regard to the relationship between Israel and the church and arrives at significantly different conclusions regarding eschatological issues, particularly the nature of the millennium, largely due to how they identify the dispensations and interpret the relationship between them in the progress of revelation.
13The above discussion is a brief historical and general overview of dispensationalism. In what follows, the essential aspects or core beliefs of
dispensationalism are offered, followed by a description of the recent expressions of dispensationalism. Next, the dispensational understanding of the essential covenants—
Abrahamic, Davidic, and new—are examined since their understanding of these covenants have direct bearing on the system’s ecclesiology and eschatology. Lastly, like the
examination of covenant theology in chapter 3, the dispensational hermeneutical approach to typology is examined with particular emphasis on how typology functions in relation to the nation of Israel.
12For discussion by dispensationalists on how non-dispensationalists, either past or present, recognize epochs or dispensations in the storyline of Scripture, see Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 45; Bateman,
“Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today,” 22-23; Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 69-70; Vlach,
“What Is Dispensationalism Not?,” 52; Cone, “Dispensational Definition,” 145-46; and Earl D. Radmacher,
“The Current Status of Dispensationalism and Its Eschatology,” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 163-64. See also Vern S.
Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1994), 9-13; Grenz, The Millennial Maze, 95; and Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, 16-17. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 9-10, rightly observes, “Virtually all ages of the church and all branches of the church have believed that there are distinctive dispensations in God’s government of the world. . . . The recognition of distinctions between different epochs is by no means unique to [dispensational theologians].”
13Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 20-23; cf. Charles C. Ryrie, “The Necessity of Dispensationalism,”
in Vital Prophetic Issues: Examining Promises and Problems in Eschatology, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995), 150-52. Ryrie argues that with the unifying principle of the covenant of grace, soteriology is the philosophy of history for covenant theologians. Instead, for dispensationalism the unifying principle is eschatological, theological, and doxological leading to what he argues is a broader philosophy of history. Also, covenant theology, because of the rigidity of the covenant of grace framework, does not adequately treat the progress of revelation. According to Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 22, “Only dispensationalism does justice to the proper concept of the progress of revelation.”