Intellectual Defenestration

Notes on pre-millennialism part 2: classic and progressive dispensationalism

My notes for tomorrow morning's Sunday School:

Welcome back to the second part of the discussion on premillennialism. Last week we covered historic premillennialism and started on classic dispensationalism. This week we'll continue with classic dispensationalism and then briefly cover what is known as "progressive dispensationalism."

First, a quick review. Historic premillennialism is the understanding of eschatology that, in brief, places the second coming of Jesus before the millennial reign. It believes that Jesus brought in the kingdom of God with his first coming, that that kingdom will preserve until his second coming, but that there will be a great apostasy and tribulation just before his second coming. Jesus will then come and establish the millennial reign. At the end of his earthly reign, there will be a final rebellion. Jesus will defeat the rebellion, and then there will be the resurrection and last judgment.

To a point, classic dispensationalism takes the essential framework of this structure. However, if you'll remember, classic dispensationalists have two presuppositions that shape their own theology: literal interpretation and the difference between the Church & Israel within God's plan. To quote Charles Ryrie, one of the more prominent dispensational theologians:

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalists' consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well. (quoted in Mathison 5)

Today we'll cover the historical development of dispensationalism and some of the more prominent particulars of dispensationalism.

The first prominent dispensationalist was an Irish preacher by the name of John Nelson Darby, a member of the Brethren movement in the early 19th c. He and his Brethren contemporaries published a massive amount of literature detailing and defending his theology. While it did not have much of a lasting impact in Great Britain and the Continent, the Brethren in the US were able to bring this theology to develop in America through the use of things such as the Bible Conference Movement of the 1870's. Two particular American theologians that were heavily influenced by the writings of Darby were D. L. Moody and C. I. Scofield.

Darby's theology was rooted in his own personal walk with God. He related in his letters how he underwent a personal transformation due to an injury.

During my solitude, conflicting thoughts increased, but much exercise of soul had the effect of causing the scriptures to gain complete ascendancy over me. I had already owned them to be the word of God.

When I came to understand that I was united to Christ in heaven, and that, consequently, my place before God was represented by His own, I was forced to the conclusion that it was no longer a question with God of the wretched "I", which had wearied me during six or seven years, in presence of the requirements of the law.

It then became clear to me that the church of God, as He considers it, was composed only of those who were so united to Christ, whereas Christendom, as seen externally, was really the world, and could not be considered as the "church." (quoted in Poythress, 14-15)

Briefly, several features of this are worth noting. First, Darby's theology came out of his own sense of union with Christ and a greater appreciation of grace received. Second, he saw his union with Christ as being "heavenly"; this would later work itself out in the theology of the Church as the heavenly bride and Israel as the earthly bride. Third, and last, there is a strong distrust of the organized church; this would have much influence on the later American church.

The next foundational dispensationalist was C. I. Scofield, perhaps the most influential dispensationalist in the US. He worked out Darby's views as a set of notes on the Bible, later published as the Scofield Bible, which became widely read in the US.

Along with the Scofield Bible, Scofield is also credited with influencing Lewis Sperry Chafer, who went on to found what we now know as Dallas Theological Seminary. DTS over the course of the 20th c. trained and educated most of the major dispensationalist theologians, including men such as John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, and J. Dwight Pentecost.

Today, of course, the most famous proponents of dispensationalism are perhaps Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins, authors of the Left Behind series.

This is, in a nutshell, a brief history of dispensationalism. But what exactly is dispensationalism?

First, what is a "dispensation"? Generally, this is defined as different ways that God works in history. This definition is not as helpful as it might be, however, since Reformed theologians are more than willing to identify different ways that God works in history. The difference between the two perspectives, though, is the amount of continuity seen between the different ways that God works. Reformed folks see all of God's works, from Adam after the fall to Abraham to Moses to David to Jesus as part of one overarching plan. Dispensationalists, however, see each dispensation as unique and entirely separate from the others; God has his own plan within each dispensation.

What are these different plans? Scofield identified 7 unique dispensations in history:

1. Innocence (Eden to Fall)
2. Conscience (Fall to Flood)
3. Human Government (Noah to Babel)
4. Promise (Abraham to Egypt)
5. Law (Moses to John the Baptist)
6. Grace (Church Age)
7. Kingdom (Millennium)

It should be noted that this particular schematic is not universally agreed upon within dispensationalism. Different theologians will identify different dispensations, each marked off at different time periods. The crucial, fundamental difference, though, is the difference between Israel and the Church. Whereas covenantal theologians see the Church as the fulfillment of Israel, so that now Jews and Gentiles participate in the same covenantal relationship with God, dispensationalists see Israel and the Church as two different peoples of God. Scofield, for example, referred to the Church and Israel as two separate brides: "Israel is, then; to be the restored and forgiven wife of Jehovah, the Church the virgin wife of the Lamb (John 3.29; Rev 19.6-8); Israel Jehovah's earthly wife (Hos. 2.23); the Church the Lamb's heavenly bride (Rev. 19.7);"

Keith Mathison in his book, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? Identifies 7 key points of this doctrine that help to clarify this belief:

1. God has two distinct programs in history, one for Israel and one for the church.
2. The church does not fulfill or take over any of Israel's promises or purposes.
3. The church age is a "mystery," and thus no OT prophecies foresaw it
4. The present church age is a "parenthesis" or "intercalation" during which God has temporarily suspended His primary purposes with Israel
5. The church age began at Pentecost and will end at the pretribulation rapture of the church before Christ's second coming
6. The church, or body of Christ, consists only of those believers saved between Pentecost and the rapture
7. The church as the body of Christ, therefore, does not include Old Testament believers

Different dispensationalists have stressed this differentiation differently, with some making the distinction more distinct than others, but the basic idea is the same: at the least, God has two plans for two different peoples.

So what do dispensationalists actually believe about eschatology? Dispensationalist see the general sequence of history as follows: Jesus first came to fulfill the Davidic covenant and inaugurate the kingdom of God at Israel. Israel, however, rejected Christ and condemned him to die upon the cross. This led to a delay in the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and promises to Israel. Instead, the Holy Spirit established the present Church age at Pentecost. This is the great "mystery" that Paul speaks of. It should be noted that dispensationalists emphatically believe that Jesus is not reigning right now because he has not ascended to the David throne.

The transition from the Church age to the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant happens at the Great Tribulation spoken of in Revelation 4 to 19. The tribulation will be preceded by the rapture of the church, when the church will then be taken to reign in heaven (although some allow for a mid-tribulation rapture). The tribulation will last 7 years, during which the Antichrist will make a covenant with the new nation of Israel, but then turn on the Jews sometime in the middle of the tribulation. At the end of the tribulation there will be the great battle of Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. At the sight of Christ descending to earth, the Jewish nation will convert and turn back to Israel.

To show how this understanding of history relates to dispensationalists' understanding of the people of God, it is worth pointing out that the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church is a doctrine inferred from the rest of the system. Dispensationalists will acknowledge that it is not something clearly stated in Scripture, but must flow from assumptions about the people of God. Walvoord, for example, states that (quoted in Mathison 116):

If the term church includes saints of all ages, then it is self-evident that the church will go through the Tribulation, as all agree that there will be saints in this time of trouble. If, however, the term church applies only to a certain body of saints, namely, the saints of this present dispensation, then the possibility of the translation of the church before the Tribulation is possible and even probable.

According to Walvoord, then, if one took a covenantal approach to understanding the Church, then one would end up at a post-tribulation rapture, or historic premillennialism.

Following the tribulation is the millennial reign of Christ with Israel at Jerusalem. During this time all of the original promises to Israel in the prophets will be fulfilled. At the end will be the final apostasy and the battle of Gog and Magog. Christ will defeat his final enemies and then the final judgment will occur.

There is, of course, much more that could be said on this topic, including a further discussion of the kingdom of God, the visions of Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, and more details on the interpretation of Revelation. Dispensationalism, after all, is a complete and complex system of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and history as well as a particular eschatological belief. Hopefully, though, this will at least give a basic introduction to the primary tenets of this system.

In the time that we have left, I'd like to cover a new form of dispensationalism that has been developing in the last 20 years. Known as "progressive dispensationalism," this doctrine began to be formulated in the 80's primarily through the work of theologians Craig Blaising and Darrel Bock and is still being developed today. This system takes some of the basic tenets of dispensationalism and rejects others.

With classic dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism does hold to a premillennial return of Christ, a pre-tribulation rapture, and a final restoration of Israel. Progressive dispensationalism, however, does not hold to a strictly "literal" interpretation of God and a belief in the two peoples of God.

Against the strictly literal interpretation of Revelation and other apocalyptic writings, progressives speak of the "already/not yet" fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies. There is a sense, they argue, in which many of the things spoken of in Revelation, Daniel and, the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in A.D. 70 and even today. The final fulfillment of those prophecies, however, waits until the second coming of Christ, the Great Tribulation, and the millennial reign of Christ.

C. Marvin Pate (Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 136), for example, writes that "with the first coming of Jesus Christ the age to come already dawned, but it is not yet complete; it awaits the Parousia for its consummation." In contrast to classic dispensationalism, progressives do believe that Jesus is reigning on David's throne and that the kingdom has been established. The kingdom, however, is still primarily in heaven and waits for Christ's return to be finally revealed.

This also leads to an understanding of Revelation that is different that classic dispensationalism. Whereas classic dispensationalism sees almost the fulfillment of almost all of Revelation as still future, progressives will argue that some of it is past (ch.s 2-3 [7 churches] & 4-5 [death & resurrection of Jesus]), some is present (ch.s 6-18 [time between this age and the millennial reign]), and some is future (19-22). Progressives will also agree that chapters 4-18 had partial fulfillment in A.D. 70, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the persecution of the church in John's time.

The second tenet of classic dispensationalism that progressive dispensationalism rejects is the two peoples of God theory. To quote Pate (175) again, "progressives believe that already the Gentiles have been included into the one people of God, by faith in Christ; but God is not yet finished with Israel, for one day he will restore that nation to himself and Jesus Messiah." This is also an outworking of the already/not yet eschatology; the gentiles have already been grafted in to the people of God, but Israel has not yet returned.

Progressives will recognize a distinct role for Israel (although it is not always clear what that role is), but they reject the dichotomy that classic dispensationalism has made. They will argue, for example, that the covenant promises are being fulfilled in the church and that there is no such thing as a "Great Parenthesis."

As I understand it, this has caused quite a controversy within dispensationalism. Both covenant and dispensational theologians have argued that progressive dispensationalism rejects too many of the tenets of dispensationalism to even be called dispensationalism. Since this is still new, it will be interesting to see what will happen with this doctrine.

August 28, 2004 09:36 PM