Before one can understand how dispensational premillennialism differs from historic premillennialism, or from other views, one must understand that the whole system of premillennialism is just that: a system. It does not start from any particular text on eschatology, but from a very different way of viewing the whole of the Scriptures than had been held by earlier traditions. It has often been framed in the context of the question: Is the Bible structured by covenants or by dispensations? Some are likely to think that this is a false dilemma. After all, the dispensationalist believes in biblical covenants and Reformed tradition often used the word “dispensation,” even to refer to aspects of the covenants. We must begin, then, with the very conception of a dispensation.

Dispensation Defined

As I said, the Reformed tradition freely used the word “dispensation,” so that the word itself is not problematic. It is a very biblical word. The Greek oikonomia, often translated by that word, is also by the words “administration,” “economy,” or “stewardship.” It is easy enough to see what these all have in common and where they might differ. Something of an arrangement—in this case, between God and man—has been established and revealed. The Scofield Bible is content to describe a dispensation as

“a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”1

Ryrie laments that this concise summary is often used as a “scapegoat” by critics. The idea is more than that of a time period, or even the testing aspect. There is also the progress of revelation which Ryrie likened to a biblical “philosophy of history.”2 He then offers a more suitable concise definition: “A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose.”3

The upshot is that each dispensation is marked by “(1) a change in God’s governmental relationship with man … (2) a resultant change in man’s responsibility, and (3) corresponding revelation necessary to effect the change (which new revelation is a stage in the progress of revelation through the Bible).”4

But it is more complex than that. After all, this word functions as an “ism,” that is, the lens through which the whole system is viewed.

The Basic Elements of the System

To come right to it, dispensationalism divides the Bible into seven basic “dispensations” or periods of God dealing differently with man, based on how man performed in the previous era.

These are (1) innocence, (2) conscience, (3) human government, (4) promise, (5) law, (6) grace, and (7) the kingdom age.

Accordingly, each dispensation has several defining characteristics that explains why there are several rather than just one. Richard Belcher lists these as: “1. a distinctive idea of God’s revelation; 2. a specific test for obedience in relation to that divine revelation; 3. a failure of man under that economy to the divine revelation; 4. a judgment of God for the failure; 5. the beginning of a new dispensation.”5

It seems to me that this summary by Dr. Belcher fairly represented the words already quoted by Ryrie here. Something of human failure is in the driver’s seat of history.

Now what about those covenants? For the dispensationalist, the covenant promises were not for the Gentiles (hence, not for the church), but for the Jews alone. Dispensationalists may be split on New Covenant applications to the church; but even this is principally for Israel.

Brief Evaluation

Two problems should immediately be clear.

The first is that the very nature of these qualities undermines elements of continuity—e.g. the immutability of God’s righteous requirement, the integrity of God’s original creation purposes, the unity of the way of salvation being by grace alone, through faith alone, in the merits of Christ alone.

Secondly, the real hinge on each progress of such a revelation is man’s performance rather than God’s promise. Dispensationalists like Ryrie may have disputed this, but there is little coincidence in the symbiotic relationship between the Arminian and Dispensational systems.

In that second problem a third arises. Mathison explains that according to dispensationalism,

“each redemptive era or ‘dispensation’ ends in utter failure. The problem with this notion is its application to the present age. Jesus Christ has been given all authority over everything. In other words, the outcome of this present age is His responsibility. Are we to believe that Christ will fail to carry out His mission to bring the world into submission during His present reign?”6

There are moderate and extreme forms of dispensationalism. Although we may want to observe this distinction in all charity, the fact of the matter is that all that is extreme in “extreme” varieties are only carrying the rationale of the original to its logical conclusions. An “ultra-dispensationalism” can be traced to Ethelbert Bullinger (1837-1913), who made an even more radical Israel-church division than Darby had done. This Bullinger was a descendant of the Swiss reformer, Heinrich Bullinger, but was an Anglican minister.

A most moderate position is called Progressive Dispensationalism—championed by Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, and Robert Saucy.7 However much this view wants to re-enter the concept of the covenants and their continuity, Israel still retains the basic inheritance in a way that the church does not.8

_________________

1. The Scofield Reference Bible, quoted in Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), 22.

2. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 16-20.

3. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 29.

4. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 37-38.

5. Richard P. Belcher, A Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Columbia, SC: Richbarry Press, 1986), 9.

6. Mathison, Postmillennialism, 167

7. cf. Craig A. Blaising & Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000); Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

8. cf. Storms, Kingdom Come, 67-69.