Dispensationalism is the school of thought that results from a plain grammatical-historical reading of Scriptures. Ryrie’s threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism includes grammatical-historical hermeneutics, doxological centrality of Scripture, and the distinction between Israel and the church,[1] but these latter two points are merely the result of the first. The doctrine that dispensationalism is most famous for is the pre-tribulational rapture, but this too is just the result of the consistent literal reading of Scripture. Even critics of dispensationalism recognize that grammatical-historicism results in dispensationalist conclusions. Since the legitimacy of dispensationalism stands or falls on the legitimacy of grammatical-historical hermeneutics, a discussion of dispensationalism’s strengths should focus on its hermeneutics.
The biblical standard of hermeneutics
In the case of grammatical-historical hermeneutics, the strengths are built into the biblical text itself. Dispensationalism begins with the conservative assumption that the Bible is right in everything that it affirms, which means that the Bible is right in what it affirms about itself. Granted, this assumption is under attack within evangelicalism today, but that is another discussion. This paper will focus on three facts that are evident from the biblical text: the divine origin of language, the use of language in revelation, and the intertextual use of language in revelation.
The Bible says that language has its origins with God. Before God created man, He used language in creation (Gen. 1:1–27). When He created man, He gave him language and used language to communicate with him (Gen. 1:28–30; 2:16–17). He gave man instructions and held him accountable to the plain interpretation of those instructions (Gen. 3:17). Sin marred man’s relationship with God, but it did not change the nature of communication. Even when God confused the languages at Babel, He did not change the nature of literal communication. God still means what He says. Alternative views see language as the result of natural evolution, such that the beginning of Genesis is a myth. Mythological hermeneutics diminishes the authority of God’s Word and by extension inflicts damage on the doctrine of God, but dispensationalism holds both God and His Word in high esteem.
Among the languages that humans speak, God chose three for written revelation: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If an alien was to visit Earth and study all of the human languages, nothing would stand out about these three. They are each human languages that convey plain meanings. Each may have unique vocabulary and grammatical rules, but linguistic conventions are all considerations within the realm of plain speech. Alternative views believe that biblical languages are holy languages that have mystical meanings behind the shapes and numerical values of their letters. On the surface, mystical hermeneutics seems to hold God and His Word in high esteem, but if a mystic can assign foreign meanings to the text, then he is elevated to an authoritative guru role, which can only occur at the cost of God’s authority. Dispensationalism allows God alone to dictate the meaning of the text and so all authority rests with God Himself.
Through the course of progressive revelation, the biblical authors interacted with each other’s texts. As Abner Chou put it, “As opposed to being random or subjective, the apostles’ logic is textually defined… their logic is expressed by and builds upon text after text of the Old Testament. We just need to read the entire conversation.”[2] The vast majority of cases of intertextuality are uncontested as being examples of an author expressing the single grammatical-historical meaning of a previously revealed text. There are a handful of difficult texts, but these can be taken on a case-by-case basis to show that each is written with grammatical-historical intent. Alternative views lean toward liberalism on the one hand or mysticism on the other. The liberal tendencies see the biblical authors getting the meaning wrong, while the mystic tendencies see the biblical authors revealing hidden meanings behind the text. Dispensationalism reads the Bible the same way that the biblical authors did, for the single grammatical-historical meaning of each text.[3]
Why does this matter for eschatology?
There are several additional advantages of dispensationalism, for example, its consistent stance against anti-Semitism,[4] its contributions to soteriology,[5] and its contributions to science and apologetics,[6] but where dispensational theology becomes most evident is in eschatology.
When reading the Bible plainly, “one witnesses a series of promises, given in plain language, repeated over thousands of years to different people with no contradiction, resulting in one conclusion: a physical kingdom in a physical territory promised to a specific, physical nation.”[7] Alternative approaches to the Bible often redefine God’s promises to Israel from a future literal kingdom to a current spiritual experience. The same hermeneutics that holds God accountable to establishing a future kingdom also sees a future seven-year tribulation leading up to the tribulation (Dan. 9:24–27). A purpose of this tribulation period is to drive Israel to repentance. Since the tribulation is Israel-centric, God will remove His church first (2 Thess. 2:1–3; cf. 1 Thess. 4:13–18). These are the sorts of topics that a dispensationalist has in mind when he talks about the distinction between Israel and the church.
Conclusion
There is an unfortunate stigma that comes with being a dispensationalist. Most of the stigma boils down to the straw-man arguments that everyone has heard: dispensationalists are date-setters, dispensationalists believe in multiple modes of salvation, dispensationalism is new, and so on ad nauseam. Those are the misguided opinions of men, but what does the Bible say? A Christian should choose the approval of God over the approval of men. Since the Bible has grammatical-historical hermeneutics built into it, dispensationalism is the right choice.
Bibliography
Chou, Abner. The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2018.
Cone, Christopher. Priority in Biblical Hermeneutics and Theological Method. Raymore, MO: Exegetica Publishing, 2018.
Goepfrich, Daniel. “The Nature of the Coming Messianic Kingdom as Found in Its Covenants.” Journal of Dispensational Theology 18:55 (Winter, 2014), 209–223.
Melnick, Olivier. “What Should We Think About The New Anti-Semitism?.” In What Should We Think About Israel? Separating Fact from Fiction in the Middle East Conflict, Edited by Price, J. Randall. Pp. 161–171. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2019.
Morris, Henry III. The Book of Beginnings: A Practical Guide to Understanding Genesis. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2016.
Ryrie, Charles. Dispensationalism. Revised and Expanded Edition. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.
[1] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, pp. 38–41.
[2] Abner Chou, The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers, 176–177
[3] For clarity it is worth mentioning that while each text has a single meaning, any given passage can have multiple applications or implications.
[4] Olivier Melnick, “What Should We Think About The New Anti-Semitism?,” pp. 161–171.
[5] Christopher Cone, Priority in Biblical Hermeneutics and Theological Method, 149–158.
[6] Henry Morris III, The Book of Beginnings, pp. 13–31.
[7] Daniel Goepfrich, “The Nature of the Coming Messianic Kingdom,” pg. 222.