Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist, Pt. 2: The Historical Record

Sorry this has been an extra day or two in the making. It was a slightly more turbulent weekend than expected, to say the least.

Confessions of a Recovering Dispensationalist: Intro

For the first real entry in my this little series on dispensationalism, I’d like to look at the history of dispensationalism. I suppose I should start by answering two objections to this methodology. First, some of my conservative friends would object to starting here instead of with Scripture. Secondly, some people might completely object to worrying about history–after all, history can be wrong.

In response, I say that I’ve come to realize how greatly history influences our theology and our reading of the Bible. While history is most certainly not infallible, it is great at illuminating and influencing theology and Scripture. Sometimes this is good and sometimes bad. Oftentimes, we are unaware of the influence it has on us. So, to ignore history is simply ignorant. And, to begin with history can help shed light on a subject, whatever it may be. Additionally, while a “new” doctrine may not necessarily be wrong, there should be a tremendously strong reason for going with a “new” doctrine over an “old” doctrine.

That being said, the historical case for dispensationalism is not favorable. Some proponents of dispensationalism claim a few early Church fathers as their predecessors–Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, even Augustine. Unfortunately, just because a writer from antiquity drops the “d-word” once doesn’t mean they had in mind anything close to the system that is dispensationalism. The Church fathers also held a clear belief in the imminence of Christ’s return, akin to what is found in the Scriptures, say in Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. Again, this talk of imminence is nothing like dispensationalism. To insist that they were referring to a system like Darby’s is tantamount to saying baseball and basketball are the same thing because they both use a ball.

To be fair, Justin Martyr did speak of the end times with the 1000 year reign after the first resurrection. But, his explanation looks more like a postribulation, premillennial eschatology, and there is still none of the underlying dispensational theology in relating the covenants, prophecy, etc. However, he also claims that his understanding was one of many held by devoted followers of Christ.

Anyway, most proponents of dispensationalism will admit that the system doesn’t really come about until John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). As I mentioned in my first post, the system is later propagated through the likes of Dwight L. Moody, C.I. Scofield and his Bible, Dallas Theological Seminary, Bob Jones University, Charles Ryrie, Tim LaHaye, and other.

All of this is to say that the underpinnings of dispensationalism were unheard of for the overwhelming majority of the history of Christianity. Furthermore, the so-called traces that are sometimes pointed to in the patristic era are desperate attempts to find validation.

Anyone familiar with early Christian writings would easily recognize that the strictly literal interpretation of dispensationalism was unheard of. In fact, the earliest Christians have often been accused by many modern scholars of allegorizing the Old Testament to death. The reason for the modern criticism of their allegorical interpretation is because dispensationalism has influenced modern scholarship into believing that the Scriptures must only be interpreted literally.

It isn’t really until the Reformation that a more literal interpretation of the Old Testament begins to take place. Even still, while there was a focus on literal interpretation, there was no vast distinction between the Testaments as the Reformers are considered to be covenant theologians. I think it’s safe to say that the move toward a less allegorical hermeneutic paved the way for the evolution into dispenationalism. Of course, there are many who would balk at the idea that a purely literal hermeneutic is a bad thing, but again, that is only because of the prevailing influence of the dispensational hermeneutic in our churches.

The one thing I haven’t been able to figure out is the societal influences at large that influenced dispensationalism. What I mean is this. If you look at different understandings of church government, it seems that the secular government influenced ecclesiastical government. A strong ecclesiastical hierarchy comes to be during imperial Rome. Presbyterian government comes to be when republican secular government is becoming more popular in Europe. Congregational government comes into play when democracy is on the rise. The same applies if you look at the theology of the Reformation. So much of the theology is law related–especially in regards to sin and the atonement–all the while, law was so popular then.

So, I’m offering this to anyone who might know a little more about 19th century history. What made these theologians go against the grain of 1800 years of church history? Did growing antisemitism cause a reaction of loving Christians to feel a strong need to find a place for ethnic Israel? Was there an overall escapist attitude that makes a pretrib, premil rapture sound more enticing? What other influences might have caused this?

Let me conclude before I get anymore long-winded. History is no infallible interpreter. But, if you want to go against the grain of history, you need to have a very good and sure reason. We will explore theological and scriptural issues with dispensationalism in the next few days. But for now, I think it’s fair to say that the radical separation of ethnic Israel as God’s primary plan of salvation and the Church as a parenthesis, as well as a “rapture” had no place in the life of the Church for 1800+ years. Questions that need to be answered by proponents of dispensationalism are: “how could the Church have been so blind for so long?” and “how come from the absolute earliest Christian writers (some of whom were disciples of the Apostles) is there no dispensationalist teaching?” and lastly, the question I will turn to in the next day or two, “is the biblical evidence strong enough to break from the Church’s traditions on this subject?”