This past Sunday (11.13.05) we looked at Ephesians 3:1-13 and how Paul viewed God’s specific plan for his life. In the teaching guide, under the extended teaching notes, I sought to give a very basic explanation of what a “dispensation” is. I thought it would be helpful to begin a dialogue regarding the merits and demerits of this system by starting with rationale for the system and, then, a conceptual definition.
Paul viewed himself as having a unique place in the unfolding of God’s Kingdom. In Ephesians 3:2, Paul uses the word “administration” (or “stewardship” – ESV) in reference to the responsibility he had to promote the “mystery” (see 3:6) that God was making one body out of two groups of people – Jew and Gentile (2:16-22), through the blood of Jesus Christ(2:13). It is that idea of a unique “administration” gave rise to the development of what is called “dispensationalism.” With the backdrop of God “changing” to aim now at Gentiles as well as Israel, it is reasonable to consider how God could do this. On a practical level, God has changed the way He has dealt with mankind throughout the Bible. For example, Abraham lived prior to the giving of the Law so he operated on a different set of responsibilities than David – who did have the Law. Today, we do not have the ceremony of the Law, but we have Christ and His Spirit; something Old Testament saints did not have in the same way. How do you reconcile the differences in God’s differing ways and yet retain a cohesive, unchanging view that God is faithful and will not change on you in the future? Dispensationalism has sought to explain this exactly.
Consider this, every four years we elect a Preseident to lead our country through a specific “administration.” This administration has policies and procedures unique to that four year time period. Each Presidential administration is like a “dispensation” and occurs over a certain time moving toward a planned outcome. Each administration has a unique characteristics in order to uphold a greater purpose. Every time period has as it’s overarching purpose to spread God’s fame or bring God glory, but how that happens in unique time periods is called, by some, a dispensation.
Questions/Comments?
Dan,
What is the difference between your definition of dispensationalism and the idea of progressive revelation?
Most biblical theologians would see that there is a progressive revelation where God displayed more of his plan over time, leading to different ways of dealing with people.
However this is quite different from the theological system of dispensationalism which uses a very literal grammatical historical hermeneutic. This is most clearly seen in their interpretation of Revelation and in their interpretation of Old Testament prophecies. Most of the prophecies of the Old Testament must be literally fulfilled rather than having a fuller (though sometimes more figurative) fulfillment in the Church and the eschatological new kingdom.
I agree with Matt. As a dispensationalist, do you view the church and Israel as distinct entities with different destinies? One other question I have for dispensationalism is the percieved changing in how God deals with man. Some of the reading I have done on it make it seem as if God actually had to adjust or change course when the whole Israel thing didn’t work out, rather than that being a part of His eternal plan. How would a Dispentastionalist respond to that?
Matt’s question:
“What is the difference between your definition of dispensationalism and the idea of progressive revelation?” is a good one since the issue of definition or, better, a distinguishable definition, has been a troublesome for classic dispensationalists for quite some time. Let me clarify my point of view prior to the discussion regarding my hermeneutic values.
A classic dispensationalist would say that a dispensation is: “…a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose” (Dispensationalism Today, page 29). I would agree with this definition, as would any person who would ascribe to covenant theology although a strict covenant ststem reduces its “system” to only 2 “economies”.
However, a classical dispensationalist would drive these economies to create a distinction between Israel and the Church in the formation of two distinct out-workings in the latter days expressed in Jew and Gentile. It is at this point I would diverge from classic dispensationalism. I see a distinction in regard to Israel as an ethnic people, yet affirm that Israel and Gentile are equal, in Christ, spiritually (c.f. Eph. 2). While there is a people of God called Israel, there is one people of God spiritually of which Gentile and Jew belong if they have trusted in Jesus as Savior. In the future, there may be functional differences in the eternal Kingdom, but there are neither two unique places nor select times in which God reserves to deal with one over or in place of another.
Make sense?
Now, on to the issue of a: “very literal grammatical historical hermeneutic.” I would employ a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic defined as the language used by the prophet “literalitically” through the terms and phraseology he knows and uses (see E.F. Kevan, “The Covenants and the Interpretation of the Old Testament” page 24). The expressions and symbolic representation used by the writers should not find themselves so weighed down with our strict interpretive values (Greek and Jewish define “literal” differently). There are places that the literal, physical, fulfillment did occur, however, there are also places where it has not as of yet. However, the Jewish symbolism that the object represented could be seen as being literally fulfilled in Christ spiritually. This may sound like I am wiggling off the stick, but it seems very consistent with Jewish writing. For example, the people of Israel were to have faith in God to inherit the literal land (land was often symbolic of God’s blessing, see “Dominion and Dynasty” by Stephen Dempster); today we are called to have faith in Christ to “inherit” the spiritual blessings coming from Christ. Therefore, I can see the literal land representing the literal yet spiritual blessings we have in Christ. In this way, I feel the writer in the O.T. using the objects and phraseology he knows (e.g. land) while conveying the fuller treatment given in the N.T. of faith in the work of Christ.
Thoughts?
Pat did that help or was there a way I could be clearer in regard to your question?
Pat, you asked: “As a dispensationalist, do you view the church and Israel as distinct entities with different destinies?
We must remember that the test of any belief or system must be the Bible. Now, does the Bible view the church as a distinct entity? The answer is yes. Paul in Ephesians 1:22-23 says that the church is His body and that he is the head (see Col. 1:18). In I Cor. 12:27, Paul says that we are the body of Christ. Paul makes the Church distinct from Israel, but not to the exclusion of Israel since all that trust in Christ – Jew or Gentile are in Christ, or, better, the Church. God has grafted both groups together. Both reformed and dispensational students would recognize and affirm this reality. It is to the degree and exclusivity that would mark a clear distinction between the two.
In relation to your other question:
… the perceived changing in how God deals with man. Some of the reading I have done on it make it seem as if God actually had to adjust or change course when the whole Israel thing didn’t work out, rather than that being a part of His eternal plan. How would a Dispentastionalist respond to that?
There can be many who do not understand one or the other position and pound their chest as if to have trumped the other side with a fatal error. Dispensationalists would never say that God changed out of compulsion any more than a person from the covenant camp. Both sides would affirm that God dealt with mankind in various ways as history unfolded, but the goal has always been the Glory of God. While there are sharp distinctions between covenant and dispensationlism there is this central tenet. There may be some on both sides who have fringe examples of some who would not say this, but they would be the exception and not the rule.
Dispensationalism, what? Are you sure you should be using such a long and complicated word? Are you sure you didn?t make it up? Oh, now I remember, you learned about dispensationalism while attending that crazy tribal school in upstate New York. Didn?t you get in trouble for taking some campers hostage at that place? Anyway, that doesn?t matter. However, I thought you longed abandoned such ideas. Ryrie and LaHaye would be very proud of your steadfastness.
Okay, enough of the funny business, let?s be serious. Although, you present Ephesians 3 as the grounds for understanding that God worked differently during different periods of time throughout redemptive history, you do not explain in detail how God worked differently or how dispensationalists actually determine one dispensation from another.
I think most would concur that God worked differently to some degree during different periods of time, but the extent to which He worked differently is up to debate. Furthermore, the difficulty with traditional dispensationalism is that it has created its own criteria for determining one dispensation from another. In accordance with this set criteria, dispensationalists are primarily focused on the differences within the storyline of the Bible It is based on these differences that the criteria is met and one dispensation is separated from another. Because of this, its final structure or breaking up of redemptive history is one that emphasizes the discontinuity between the dispensations or periods of time.
We need an approach that will enable us to recognize both the discontinuity and the continuity throughout redemptive history. Now, while covenant theology tends to see too much continuity because of the system or grid it uses for interpreting Scripture, it does rightly see the covenants as the means by which we ought to structure redemptive history. The biblical text does not give us any other criteria for distinguishing one period of time from another.
The covenants signify and spell out the relationship between God and His people. Moreover, they describe how God will work during a specific period of time. However, they also frequently describe how God will work throughout all of redemptive history. In other words, the covenants present both discontinuity and continuity between the different periods of redemptive history. By allowing the Biblical presentation of the covenants and not a theological system (ie. Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology) guide us in our understanding of the different periods of redemptive history, we are able to have a more biblical understanding regarding the structure of redemptive history and a more balanced approached regarding the discontinuity and continuity between the periods.
Finally, I agree with Matt. While dispensationalists may have named their system after the language used in Ephesians 3, the theological system of dispensationalism actually implies much more than that and carries with it a lot of extra baggage. This is also true with covenant theology. We need to be careful when ascribing to a specific system, especially if we do not agree with major components of it.
Ghost, I am sorry if the big words were difficult for you :). It seems that you believe that since I use the word – “dispensation,” that I must ascribe to the system of dispensationalism. Although I was exposed to a gamma-dose at the “tribal school” (of which I believe you also attended), I would differ substantially from its rigidity and categories. I owe my “liberation” to a large extent from being taught by Dr. Ryrie, but that is another story for another time.
I was simply using Ephesians 3 as a starting point to begin a discussion regarding how classic dispensationalists use the word “administration” as a basis for the interpretive scheme of dispensationalism. In relation to your comment: “I think most would concur that God worked differently to some degree during different periods of time, but the extent to which He worked differently is up to debate. Furthermore, the difficulty with traditional dispensationalism is that it has created its own criteria for determining one dispensation from another…” I would agree. Also, from your comment regarding continuity and discontinuity, it could be assumed that you draw loyalty to the Blaising/Bock/Ware progressive slant as stated in “Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church”?
I would tend to agree, but you must admit that the problem of definition also plagues progressive dispensationalists. Blaising desires to develop a more conprehesive approach without the rigidity of the classic approach, nor the loosness of a historic covenant approach. I would agree with Walter Kaiser when he says that we need: “a strong preference for biblical theology over philosophical categories and systematic organizations.”
Blaising and Bock both assert that, “continuity and discontinuity manifest themselves in the progress of dispensational change.” In other words, discontinuity over time rises and its remedy is revealed as God unfolds time. Continuity is expressed in the progress of salvation to the nations over time for the Glory of God. We see this related to the dispensation of Law as well as the Dispensation of the church, would we not? It seems the idea of discontinuity and continuity is often used as a pejorative while, in reality, it is a by-product of God’s unveiling plan under the canopy of glorifying Himself. Progressive dispensationist’s derive this title from the belief that the dispensations are linked together in a progressive way in succesion to one another. In a desire to satisfy this natural tension of progression we must guard ourselves from letting this tension steer us away, again, from a biblical theology. In other words, it is what it is.
Lastly, I would agree that both sides have sought to lock arms as wrestles as opposed to locking arms as co-heirs. In our desire to categorize thought via systems we must guard ourselves from the becoming unteachable as we seek to spread the fame of God to friends and family members still bound in sin while their is still time…
Thanks for the stimulating discussion. It helps me in my worshp of God. If some of you are feeling lost, feel free to ask questions, even if they seem unrelated. BTW. Ghost did not have a clue when I first met him…
Zoinks Scoob!
I am again in need of some duct tape as my head is going to explode from the intellectual prowess on this blog. 😉
I do pretty much understand this material and even studied dispensations as a teen and had the nice drawing of the dispensations on my bedroom wall with all the verses laying out “God’s plan for man” in this format.
The discussion can be stimulating for people on this level, but is way beyond your average “Joe Christian’s” brain capacity or even capacity to be interested.
Don’t get me wrong here. It is great to have these discussions from time to time. However it would be nice to find some ways to draw others from GF; new people and those that need to engage each other more into these blogs outside of the 5 or 6 people that regularly post here. And to do this without those people feeling intellectually inadequate or somehow inferior. We have got to find ways to get others engaged in our discussions here.
Maybe a specific blog for “Deep Thinking” and the rest on life application subjects and the previous week’s teachings?
Just my two cents as I am always willing to share my humble opinion.
I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving!