Dispensationalism In a Nutshell

Dispensationalism, dispensational, dispensation, Dispensationalists... what are these things, and what are they doing in my soup?

"We believe that God does different things in different ways to different peoples with a different content of salvation as revealed in the Scriptures. We are careful not to interpret Scripture dispensational-ly but to interpret it literally. We believe that Dispensationalism is the logical product of literal interpretation."

This is a quote from a real Dispensationalist (I will henceforth abbreviate all occurrences of "Dispensationalist" as "D"). Whether this person is a spokesman for the entire movement, or just an honest appraiser of his belief system, I don’t know, but I agree that this sentence pretty well sums up the viewpoint of all D’s. Dear reader, you may not know that you are a D, but if you agree with the above quote, and you live in the 21^st century, then you probably are one.

The classic D breaks down history (and the future) into epochs concerned with God moving in different ways upon different people. We all, even those of us who don’t buy into various methods of salvation ("content" as he calls it) , know that God moves in different ways upon different people. This does not mean anything other than we were half awake during history class. But when we start breaking down history (and the future) into dispensational epochs, we are D’s and it doesn’t matter if we ever heard of the term D. If we are a D, then we believe that God has different plans for salvation for different ages, most likely seven dispensations to be exact. This has not been classic Christianity until recently, but is now rampant throughout the churches.

Let us look at the phrase, "literal interpretation." Sounds nice and theological. But before we do, here’s another nice-sounding phrase from one of the classical works of Dispensationalism, The Late Great Planet Earth: "These men [D’s] used what may be called the golden rule of interpretation which the Biblical record of fulfilled prophecy indicates is correct. ‘When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.’" Hal Lindsey then gives credit to David L. Cooper for writing this. I give Hal credit for making this saying axiomatic for the Late Great Christian Religion.

Hal Lindsey didn’t make this up. Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind series didn’t make this up. Who made this up? Paul the apostle didn’t develop anything along this line. Neither did Peter. John wrote Revelation, which D’s really love to get their hands on, but he never taught anything about literal interpretation, either. About the closest we come to anybody saying anything about how to interpret the Bible is Peter, who said, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20). In contrast to this, we see D’s holding up "common sense" as the key to interpreting scripture.

So who got this whole "literal interpretation" thing rolling? I don’t have the foggiest notion. Well, we know that Darby was successful at disseminating these ideas. Then Scofield made it big. But instead of tracing the lineage of this flavor of Bible interpretation, and before we investigate the meaning of it, I will just ask the question: What made this movement so big? I suggest that what made Dispensationalism so widespread was the "Jesus People" movement in the 1960's and 70's. Without going in to proving that, let’s just say that Calvary Chapel is a main promulgator of the doctrine. Because the movement is so well-funded and well-promoted, it is hard to go to any church nowadays that doesn’t have its devotees of Tribulation Force, or whatever. There are books out there that criticize Dispensationalism, and if you have the time, go ahead and read them. But instead of leaping into classical Dispensationalism by examining whether or not world events fit into the pigeonholes presented by Scofield, Darby, Hal Lindsey and others, let us look at the quote "… Dispensationalism is the logical product of literal interpretation." Therein lies the crux of this system, and therein lies the problem.

Literal interpretation sounds like a good way to interpret anything. If the stop sign ahead says STOP, then one should literally stop. Many traffic tickets have proven the literal interpretation of highway patrolmen in this matter. One could argue that the interpretation of the HP is one of tradition, but one must pay the ticket anyway. As they often say, "We don’t write the laws, lady, we just enforce them."

But to interpret the Bible literally could mean anything. Jesus said, "Pluck out your right eye," didn’t he? We don’t see many D’s taking this literally. I will go on. Jesus said, "Go and sell all that you have and give the money to the poor and come, follow me." Any takers? There are quite a few others. Now, the D will tell us that we cannot take those passages literally, even though they are quite clear and not in any special passages about future events or other prophetic verse. They will say "the context clearly indicates otherwise" and they’re through. However, the meaning of these scriptures are well-attested to in other parts of the Bible, Old Testament included. Luke, the gospel writer, is so bold as to even quote the very Lord Himself without editorializing. When Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife…" etc., Luke does not apologize nor interpret (he leaves that up to modern theologians). He just accurately transcribes what Jesus said over and over again: You must bear a cross to go on with Me.

So, with disregard to the literalness of these passages, these same D’s will assure us that poetic and prophetic passages in the Old Testament are to be taken literally (not understanding the power of the Scriptures dealing with the Church and the Holy Spirit).

Their sort of "literal" interpretation goes against the writers of the New Testament anyway. The writers of the New Testament were used by God to explain the nature and meaning of the Old Testament writings in light of the advent of Jesus Christ. If Hal Lindsey and his cadre of prophet-interpreters can outdo Paul and Peter, then we have new apostles on the scene and we should pay closer attention to them. But I am assured that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles and he can more than clear up end times prophecies for us. But today, we have many who feel bold to do one better than Paul himself. Or Peter, or John.

Paul evidently had problems interpreting the scriptures literally. In one passage, he takes a very literal law and adapts it to an issue on which the Lord himself spoke: "For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘you shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.’ Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope… Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel" (from 1 Corinthians 9). That’s quite a stretch for a D. Am I quoting Paul out of context? I think not. In 1 Corinthians 10 (I believe it’s the same Paul writing to the same church), Paul says, "Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." What things is he talking about? And then he goes on to interpret those things in context of the gospel, as usual. When will Paul give in to the authority of the modern church?

What the D’s do is take arguable prophetic passages and make them "literal," even if it goes against Paul himself. To them, these passages are perfectly clear when taken literally. For instance, they say if we look at Ezekiel 39, we see that Gog is Russia and they are going to attack Jewish Palestine and that the remaining Jews will use their weapons as fuel for seven years. Thus saith Hal Lindsey. How does this go against Paul? Paul said, "the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but spiritual…" He seemed totally unconcerned about Gog and Magog, weapons made of wood or even weapons made in the USA; he seemed to think that the Old Testament passages had to do with spiritual warfare.

Let us test the passages in light of the gospel. If we read Ezekiel "literally," then we find that Jesus is the Prince who is going to come, and that he and the rest of Palestine will be killing small sheep to make atonement for sin for a thousand years. During this time, he and his fellow Jews will be keeping Sabbaths and New Moons (read it for yourself in Ezekiel 45:17 in context, meaning include Ezekiel 39 while you’re at it).

Paul would be repulsed by such a turn against the gospel. But Dispensationalism does away with Paul’s interpretation. What good old sword-swinging oath-taking Hebrews did in the Old Testament by means of the flesh, God now accomplishes by loving Christians watching Bruce Wilkensen videos or reading his Prayer of Jabez. But that’s this dispensation. Wait until we get Gentile believers out of the way and put in some real Jews! Then there will be literal blood! Same God, different salvation plans. So this allows the Christians living in this dispensation (meaning D’s) to adapt the Old Testament writings whenever convenient to their means, as long as a literal Israel has a literal blowout with a literal Gog, leaving raptured D’s up in the air to contemplate their interpretation of Jesus’ second coming.

The D’s try to reinterpret plain New Testament writings by subjecting them to "literal" Old Testament writings. Thus they put the Old Testament in a superior position. The Jews of Jesus’ time fell into this error. Even though there was no New Testament, Jesus still upbraided them for not being able to discern the truth of the Messiah from their own writings. John 5:39. They would not, could not, come to Jesus because their hearts were hardened, read as they may of the future messianic kingdom of the Prince in Ezekiel 40-48. Darby took this whole passage literal and actually has a map of the future kingdom showing precisely where everything will be.

In the D’s mind there are two Israels: one literal; one spiritual. Literal, or real, Israel, is the chosen race of God. Spiritual, or symbolic, Israel, is what? Not real? Not genuine? Not the very chosen of God? The D puts real significance on the transitory nature of this age and tries to make the flesh the fulcrum of God’s purpose. The non-D just accepts the fact that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the real realm of interpretation, which is the spirit. Flying against all logic and literalism, Paul says, "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." Romans 2:28-29.

And there is only one plan, one method or one "content" of salvation, whether in the Garden of Eden, before the flood, after the flood before Abraham, before Moses, before Christ, before the end of the world, until the end of the world. "Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things that now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven – things that angels desire to look into." 1 Peter 1:10-12.

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water." 1 Peter 3:18.

"They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this reason the Gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Peter 4:5-6.

Some D will object: "But this book was written to the Jews scattered throughout the world and has only symbolic reference to us as Gentile believers." I say, read 1 Peter 2:10 and let the Bible interpret itself. If you insist on being "literal", I adjure you to read, once again, 2 Peter 1:20 "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation…" So, if you are a D or thinking of becoming one, know that even though you appear to be all-spiritual because you can correctly predict coming world events (ha!), you will severely hamper your spiritual growth, for our life is hidden with Christ in God and only the subtle mind of the Spirit can search this out.

- Chris Simonson

We encourage you to email the author to prove or disprove, from the Scriptures, the intent, meaning, purpose or doctrine of this piece. email Chris