« Everything you never wanted to know (about me) |
Main
| Show Me Some ID »
Poking into Dispensationalism
All you “League of Reformed Blogger” types and other online covenant theologians are probably experiencing knee pain now as the sight of the foul term “dispensationalism” causes your knees to jerk upward and hit the top of your desk. Please, save your knees, relax, even take up TM if it helps you (just kidding).
For I am here to take a few jabs that the wooden literalism that dispensationalism can promote, especially in the interpretation of prophecy.
I used to go through mental contortions every time I realized that my tradition, my teachers had—gasp—flaws, mistakes, errors, and even inconsistencies in their thinking. Instead of moping and mourning, I’ve decided to indulge a certain sado-masochistic delight in jabbing myself and those in my camp. This is therapeutic for me. And much cheaper than psychotropic medications.
Yes, I am a dispensationalist, at this time. I got my undergrad degree in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. Many of my professors there graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary back in the day when it was a strongly classical/reformed dispensationalist school. So I was steeped in reformed dispensationalist thinking during my impressionable youth. (Note: Now that I am a student at DTS, I find the school itself and the dispensationalist theology it helped popularize have changed from the old days of Walfoord and Pentecost)
I warn you: don’t believe everything people say about dispensationalism. I would align myself with Darrell Bock's Progressive Dispensationalism, not with the classical or reformed variety. With that said, I sometimes find myself frustrated with my fellow dispys and I need to work out my frustration a little.
I was frustrated with the prophecy section in Roy B. Zuck’s book Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth. Zuck says, “We should begin with the assumption that words are to be taken in their normal sense unless a figure of speech or symbol is indicated” (page 242). I used to think this was a great assumption. No longer.
Why? Because this statement presuppose that the normal (i.e. literal) sense is ALWAYS the default. I disagree. I myself make statements that could be taken literally but which shouldn’t be. How do we distinguish the difference? I’m not sure it is so easy in prophetic literature. And I don’t think that saying that the Biblical authors used language in a human sense threatens the inerrancy of the Scripture at all.
In the same section, Zuck says, “Figurative language is present if the statement taken in it’s normal sense would be impossible or illogical. . . . Therefore the star referred to in verse 10 [of Revelation 8] which ‘fell from the sky on a third of the rivers,’ probably was not a literal star, since it is known that all stars are larger than the earth” (page 244). But just before that, he also says, “And when John wrote. . . that ‘a third of the earth was burned up, and all the green grass was burned up,” again there is nothing in the immediate context to indicate that those words should not be taken in their ordinary literal sense” (page 244).
In my mind, it is just as improbable to imagine real blood falling from the sky as it is to imagine real stars falling from the sky. There has to be a better hermeneutic than this.
IMHO, God could conceivably do and even predict that he would do an action that is “impossible or illogical” from our perspective. Thus, we can’t automatically move everything that is impossible or illogical from our standpoint to the figurative category. On the other hand, not all language that COULD be taken literally MUST be taken literally. Not to mention that it is not easy to arbitrate what is impossible or illogical. What seems impossible to you, may seem well within the realm of possibility to me.
I am also frustrated with the view which sees absolutely no continuity between Israel and the Church. Zuck says, “Accepting the terms Israel and the church in their normal, literal sense results in keeping them distinct entities. Israel always means ethnic Israel and is never switched with the term church, nor it the term church ever used in Scripture interchangeably with or as a synonym of Israel.”
But Mr. Zuck, sometimes it is! At least, there is room for debate. There is room for debate on John 8, Galatians 3:7,29. Both Romans 11 (the wild olive branches being grafted in) and Ephesians 2:11-22 could be interpreted as the Gentiles being joined with Israel. And it does seem that the blessings of the New Covenant prophesied to Israel by Jeremiah are applied to the church in the New Testament.
In fact, I wrote a paper on the intertestamental background of the New Covenant in Luke 22. Just thinking about it, makes my head hurt. I'm not sure this post even makes sense anymore. I better go and eat some chocolate.
Hannah,
You are not far from the Kingdom of God. (Double entendre intended.) :)
I like your specific questions; they were mine as I began to challenge the implicit dispensationalist view that I received as a new Christian via the campus ministry I was a part of and the Bible church most of us attended. Dispensationalism was and still is "the air we breathe" in most of conservative Protestantism and thus my views were shaped accordingly.
But your questions and others began to challenge my abilty to hold on to this system. The prophets often employ sensational language and yet I read accounts of and by Ryrie, Darby, et. al. to say that these fantastic passages must be treated literally, and if that caused harmonization problems with historical passages, well, those were to be fuzzed to fit the literal interpretation of the prophecies.
My question became: so the bizarre prophetic passages I MUST see literally, and if in a few spots that causes disharmony with the straightforward historical narrative passages, the historical passages must be fuzzed to make them fit? That is completely backwards! Why would Darby's starting point be prophetic books and then make all else harmonize with literal interpretations of those books? Why START with prophetic books and work out from there?
Then Israel vs. Church distinctions, as you highlight, increasingly seemed hard to maintain. Hardest of all, once I had read some of the great biblical studies scholars of the last century (liberal and conservative), was to say that the Kingdom of God in NO WAY had come with Jesus. I no longer could hold that. The Servant King inaugurated the Kingdom, and as He cast out demons by the finger of God, the Kingdom of God had come upon them. The Covenant perspective became increasingly attractive.
Uff, eschatology is one of those gaping holes in my swiss cheese theology. I have no idea how to even begin studying it, anyway, so I've left it alone apart from a middle school stint with Left Behind... I'm glad to know you're poking into it.
Laura - glad to know I'm not the only person here who has set eschatology aside for awhile. I guess I'm saving the best for last ;)
Laura and Sarah, I'm riding that eschatological procastination bandwagon with you.
But during my brief episode of poking around, the thing that most interested me was the covenant aspect--probably because I'm Jewish. While I do see quite a bit of continuity between Israel and the Church, I also see distinctions. Thus the quick and dirty view (if I can say that) that fits me best is John MacArthur's "leaky dispensationalism."
In a nutshell, it leaves behind Left Behind but retains God's promises to literal Israel. Here's a little more from MacArthur himself:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-15-12.htm
Here are my results to the eschatology quiz (link included) and some interesting comments:
http://www.marlaswoffer.com/blog/2005/07/my_uneschatolog.html
The night that I started this poking around and wondering about the covenant, I randomly opened my Bible (I know, I know) before I went to sleep, and got this passage:
“When you father children and children's children, and have grown old in the land, if you act corruptly by making a carved image in the form of anything, and by doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, so as to provoke him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess. You will not live long in it, but will be utterly destroyed. And the Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the Lord will drive you. And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of human hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, you will return to the Lord your God and obey his voice. For the Lord your God is a merciful God. He will not leave you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers that he swore to them." ~Deuteronomy 4:25-31
"Instead of moping and mourning, I’ve decided to indulge a certain sado-masochistic delight in jabbing myself and those in my camp."
That seems the best route to take in circumstances like this. :)
In light of the usage of the word for dispensation in the New Testament, the term dispensation as it relates to Dispensational Theology could be defined as a particular way of God's administering His rule over the world as He progressively works out His purpose for world history.
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. The understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.
Not being a theology student (and never having been one) - I find some jargon difficult (that word is not negatively charged in this context). So I often find myself in discussions where everyone seems to know the issue but me. I love it.
I found the two definitions of dispensationalism above. Is this what you mean? If it is, considering the flow of the Bible - how can it be argued against? Marla seemed to contrast a covenant view with a dispensational view. Doesn't God just handle His dispensations through covenant relationships with His people?
Finally, given all the verses - how can it not be argued that we are "adopted" into the family of Abraham? However, since God changed His dispensation and His Covenant at the Cross, isn't Judaism (not Jews) attempting to operate under a dispensation and Covenant that has been cancelled (or abrogated by Isreal and replaced by God actually) - is there some issue here I am missing?
50 words or less will be fine (lol)
My question is (wasnt clear):
Are not Christians children of Abraham (adopted and natural) who are operating under a dispensation (method of administration) from God under a new covenant (legal agreement between the administrator and those administered) which was signed in Christ's blood at the Cross?
Ooer... It's early morning here and I'm only on my first cup of coffee...
Hannah I really enjoyed this. My best thought under the circumstances (slow-brain morning) is that the most quoted NT passage on election is addressing Israel - yet we take it as for the church. I think you might have referred to it. I've always wondered about that. Reformed and Arminian commentaries agree on interpretation so it pokes a hole in Zuck I think.
With the churches I was raised in, there was never a question of dispensationalism - it was always taught as a given that there would be a Tribulation and a Rapture and a Second Coming of Christ, although there was room for debate over whether the Rapture would occur before, after, or sometime during the Tribulation.
I always liked Mike Warnke's quip that he was a "pan-tribulationist" - he felt it would all pan out in the end.
I've been applying that attitude to the whole concept of eschatology. I have heard several different points of view, and I really don't know how to interpret the scriptures when it comes to the end times. My feeling is, I should live my own life like Jesus could return at any moment (like the pre-trib dispensationalist view I always heard), but work to establish His kingdom on earth. Whatever He will do, He will do. I can only control what I do.
I don't have any answers but I do have a suggestion: Literary style matters.
I agree with you when you say that "I don’t think that saying that the Biblical authors used language in a human sense threatens the inerrancy of the Scripture at all." After all, since the Holy Spirit is speaking to humans, I don't see how He can avoid using language "in a human sense." But how humans use language varies with circumstances and (in this case) with the literary style used. Think about the differences in style and form in poetry and prose, or between an IRS regulation and Dante's Inferno.
I am inclined to see literary style as a set of understood rules for how ideas are expressed and words and phrases used. In a sense, it is a contract between the writer and reader where the writer agrees to stick reasonably closely to the conventions of the genera and the reader agrees to use those conventions in interpreting what is written.
The reason we have such trouble understanding the prophets (or rather, one of the reasons) is because they (with the arguable exception of Malachi) are written in a literary style completely foreign to modern ears. To understand what they are talking about requires getting a feel for how they used language to express their ideas. Probably the best way to do this is to this is to start in the places where the prophets explicitly state who or what they are talking about.
Glenn, Ha, ha! I like your joke. If anyone didn't get it, well, traditional dispys don't believe that the kingdom of God was inaugurated with the coming of Christ.
It is interesting to hear about your journey. I still have more studying to do and I have to confess I haven't studied covenent theology (expect for hearing negative things about it from other dispensationalists). But I've found that progressive dispensationalism is more balanced. Bock does believe that the kingdom of God arrived with Christ, though he teaches that the full manifestation of the kingdom will appear at Christ's second coming. He also sees more continuity between Israel and the Church, but not complete sameness.
Laura and Sarah, Eschatology is hard, and I doubt that anyone out there has a full grasp of it.
Marla, I would probably be closer to your view. I see a lot of continuity between Israel and the Church, but I do believe that God has a special purpose for ethnic Israel and that he will keep the promises he made to Her in the OT. The verse you quoted from Deuteronomy is one good example.
I'll come back and answer other comments later this afternoon! I've got to finish another paper and submit it.
Hannah, you make perfect sense, and I'm with you.
I agree with StudentToo that literary style matters. It's somewhat analogous to music -- I am a classical musician, which means that I interpret musical notation that somebody else (a composer) wrote down. Musical interpretation can get rather complicated, and no two interpretations will ever be exactly the same though they must still follow essentials of proper execution. There is an inherent musical sense that must be obeyed; otherwise, the music doesn't "work."
I also like what jchfleetguy said about a progression of covenants. I'm not sure that ethnicity is recognized any longer under the new covenant in Christ, though I am not a theological scholar :-). I thought the promises to Israel were "transferred" to any and all who would receive them through Christ. (But then, maybe I've heard the childrens' song, "Father Abraham Had Many Sons" too many times :-D ). Am very interested to hear what more you have to say on the subject!
"Eschatology is hard, and I doubt that anyone out there has a full grasp of it."
My view has always been that God will sort it out in the end when he comes back and we should always live as if God is about to sort it out...
Worrying about the details never seemed productive. After all, the Jews thought they had the whole messiah thing worked out, and look where that got them.
So why hold tight to any particular view?
Hannah,
You write "Eschatology is hard, and I doubt that anyone out there has a full grasp of it."
I agree and love your statement of epistemological humility. Would that all of us lived in that humility about all sorts of issues. Part of why I enjoy this site is that you're really bright people who hold convictions with humility. That's a sublime combination. :)
Jchfleetguy, The definitions you found are both fine definitions of dispensationalism, and I would describe myself as a dispy more or less according to those definitions. But like all human endeavors, disp-ism has gathered some doctrinal moss as it has rolled along. Some dispys are passionately attached to particular interpretations of Scriptures, such as a pre-mill rapture of the church and a 1,000 year millenial reign of Christ. Older dispys see a radical discontinuity between the church and Israel to the point that they believe that the kingdom of God did not come with Christ because the nation of Israel rejected him. Thus, the Church (in their view) is kind of a parenthesis in God's plan, a "Plan B."
As far a covenents, dispys do recognize they exist, of course, as far as the Bible specifically outlines particular covenents, like Mosaic or Abrahamic, but they don't see a "covenent of law" and "covenent of grace" governing all of salvation history in a continuous sweep. They see more (or less) discontinuity between the different dispensations of God's rule.
As for the children of Abraham part, well, yes, Christian are in one sense children of Abraham. But does that mean that all the promises that God made to Israel that the land of Palestine would be their eternal possesion are nullified? Dispys say no. Covenent theologians say yes. That's an oversimplification, but basically accurate.
Catez, That is an interesting point. I guess you are referring to Romans 9-11 in which Paul discusses how God elected Israel. That is still a very hard sections of Scripture for me to even begin to interpret.
Songstress7, I do think we should live our lives as though Jesus could return at any moment--even if he doesn't, we could die at any moment, right?
StudentToo and Bonnie, I agree that literary form is very important. For example, there are many extra-testamental (non-Biblical) apocolypic texts that need to be studies and compared to the book of Revelation to understood how the apocolypic genre was used and understood at that time.
Alan Grey, I don't think it is productive to worry about the details. There are some people who tend to delight more in the weird and wild side of prophecy than in the holiness the God who gives prophecy for his glory.
A few general comments directed to no one in particular before I go to bed. . .
I think that the study of eschatology can be just as profitable and glorifying to God as the study of other areas of theology as long a people recognize that it is not an end in itself. That is, we don't study prophecy so that we can know the future. We study it to know God better. If we learn more about the future, that is just a small bonus.
Also, I think that the study of eschatology is particularly hard because it presupposes that you have solid knowledge of the whole Scripture and of the cultures and languages of the Old and New Testaments; that you have worked out your hermeneutical principles; that you have worked through your view of more foundational areas of theology like Christology and soteriology; that you have the ability to compare and coalate many different verses. I'm not at that level yet.
Not sure if that explaination is really helpful or really confusing. And I think I keep misspelling "apocolypic."
Thanks Hannah
Since I obviously know little on this subject (other than having read the Bible while not trying to answer this question) this may seem overreaching: It strikes me that end times prophecy has little to do with dispensationalist vs covenant type arguments. The prophecies are there to read and TRY to understand regardless of whether one is dispensationalist or covenant - correct? Or do certain prophecies make one or the other of the positions untenable?
The pastor's remark that I liked is that he WANTED pre-trib to be true (because he didn't want to be here for the tribulation).
"Leaky dispensationalism" and "progressive dispensationalism" sound a lot more like my beliefs than what I know of either covenant theology or dispensationalism, at least as far as the Church and Israel are concerned. The Church is the new Israel, but the Jewish people - Israel according to the flesh - still have a special status and a special role to play in salvation history. But they are not radically distinct the way they seem to be in what I've read of dispensationalism - rather, these two Israels are distinguishable but ultimately in the same olive tree.
I read somewhere that some dispensationalists consider Jesus' earthly ministry to be part of the Law age and therefore His teachings are not applicable to Gentile Christians in the Church age. Can this possibly be true?
"Leaky dispensationalism" and "progressive dispensationalism" sound a lot more like my beliefs than what I know of either covenant theology or dispensationalism, at least as far as the Church and Israel are concerned. The Church is the new Israel, but the Jewish people - Israel according to the flesh - still have a special status and a special role to play in salvation history. But they are not radically distinct the way they seem to be in what I've read of dispensationalism - rather, these two Israels are distinguishable but ultimately in the same olive tree.
I read somewhere that some dispensationalists consider Jesus' earthly ministry to be part of the Law age and therefore His teachings are not applicable to Gentile Christians in the Church age. Can this possibly be true?
Thanks for the affirmation, Hannah.
Atlantic, I really like how you expressed that, especially the olive tree metaphor :)
I left behind dispensational theology (pun? why, yes!) when I learned that many dispensationalists believe that in the 'new' temple in the 'new' Jerusalem the practice of animal sacrifices would return.
WHATEVER FOR?!
Talk about an 'abomination that causes desolation'.
It took a lot of study on early church history to help me work through this also. Those who came before us left footprints (and bloodstains) in the sand.
Jchfleetguy, Actually, dispy and covenent theology have everything to do with end times theology. Why? Because the prophecies themselves have to be interpreted. Different school have radically different methods of interpreting prophecy. Older dispys see far fewer figures of speech in prophecy than do newer dispys and covenant theologians. All sides would argue that the prophecies and other parts of Scripture support their own side and make the other side untenable.
I have not read the covenant theologians for myself, but I have heard that the newer forms of covenant theology are in significant agreement with progressive dispensationalism. Take that statement with a grain of salt, since it is just what I have heard.
Atlantic, Classical dispensationalist do hold the view that Jesus' teaching were directed towards Israel and that his teaching was contingent upon Israel accepting him as king. Since they rejected him as king, the dispensation of the kingdom (that's not quite the right term but I can't think of a better one right now) has been postponed until the second coming of Christ. Thus the teachings of Christ are not applicable to the church directly but have indirect value, kind of like the Old Testament law. This is NOT what all dispensationalists believe, but some do.
Judy, Some dispensationalist do believe that. Most find it as problematic as you do, but they hold to it because their method of interpreting prophecy makes that conclusion necessary.
Random thought: Every attempt to systematize theology ends up with a few elbows sticking out in weird places. All of them have problems because when we take any method of interpretation or system of thought and carry it out to its logical extreme, there will be some weird results.
That is why it is helpful not to be a completely logical person!
I found this book extremely helpful - "Plowshares and Pruning Hooks" by D. Brent Sandy
