Thinking in time periods

Dispensationalism is a theological approach to understanding the relationships in the Bible. The word refers to the Latin translation of the Bible, wherein the Greek oikonomia is rendered with the Latin dispensatio. For example, in Ephesians:

“huius rei gratia ego Paulus vinctus Christi Iesu pro vobis gentibus si tamen audistis dispensationem gratiae Dei quae data est mihi in vobis”
Eph 3:1-2 Vulgate

“Therefore I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus, am for you, the nations – surely you have heard of the administration of God’s grace given to me in regard to you.”
Eph. 3:1-2 Rev. Elbf.

“Therefore I, Paul, am the bound of Christ Jesus for you who are of the Gentiles – for if you have heard of the administration of the grace of God given to me for you.”
Eph 3:1-2 KNT

Dispensationalism, because of this naming, is also described as “administrative doctrine,” namely, the doctrine of the various administrations of God, of which the administration of God’s grace just previously mentioned is an example. An administration is something like a period of time with a certain character. Dispensationalism distinguishes different times in the Bible, each distinguished by its own character. However, it would be premature to reduce the basic idea of dispensationalism to these “administrations.” There are many other time terms in the Bible that have their own meaning as well.

The core of dispensationalism is the ability to take seriously differences in the text from different times and to derive from them concrete questions about the understanding of the text. Paul wrote, “Surely you have heard of the administration of God’s grace given to me [Paulus] in regard to you?” Whether this is a statement or a question, are we familiar with the administration of God’s grace that Paul received for the gentiles? Dispensationalism explores these and other questions because they arise from the biblical text itself and speak of a special and distinct character of a time.

Can such references be helpful for understanding the Bible? Dispensationalism affirms this question and teaches us to read along with history, so to speak. The first question is always: What did the original listeners understand? What was known, what was not yet known? What is the context for the target group? Differences between various parts of the Bible should not be downplayed, but examined for relevance to biblical understanding.

What dispensationalism is particularly good at

Dispensationalism is an approach to understanding the Bible. One approach is to help better track the Bible itself. Dispensationalism shows why differences in the Bible are not contradictions, but have a clear and understandable meaning in their own context (in their own time).

For example, in the Garden of Eden, people were given a plant-based diet to eat:

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every seed-bearing herb that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree wherein is seed-bearing tree fruit: it shall be for your food.”
Gen 1:29

After the Flood, there was a change in the menu:

“Every thing that moveth, that liveth, shall be meat unto you: as the green herb will I give it all unto you.”
Gen 9:3

The dispensationalist recognizes: before the Flood there was a different diet than after the Flood. There were two different times (in terms of the menu). God first recommended a purely vegetable diet, but later explicitly stated an extension. The transition from one time to the other was marked by the event “Flood”. A different time began after that. So if someone were to come along and claim that God wants us all to be vegetarian (citing the pre-Flood statements), then this claim can be corrected with the post-Flood statements. These statements are not in conflict, but times have changed. They stand in a development one after the other, with the later one having extended the earlier one.

Dispensationalism helps to see these peculiarities more clearly, highlighting key passages in the Bible. When Paul says, “Surely you have heard of the administration of God’s grace given to me [Paulus] in regard to you?” it is obvious that no one has spoken of it before. With Paul, something new appears on the stage of biblical revelation. The apostle himself describes this as a mystery and speaks of the “unveiling of a mystery that was hidden in eonian times, but has now been revealed” (Rom 16:25-26). In the letter to the Ephesians, he speaks in similar terms about the fact that to him

“… This grace given [wurde], to proclaim to the nations the unspeakable riches of the Christ as a gospel, and to enlighten all concerning the administration of the mystery which had been hidden in God from the eons.”
Eph 3:8-9

Further, he asks the recipients of the letter to intercede,

“that when I open my mouth, I may be given the right expression to make known the mystery of the Gospel with frankness.”
Eph 6:19

So once this was secret, namely “unknown”, while Paul now reveals it anew. Only after that this secret was known (without going into detail). There is a difference between the two times. Different messages apply, and they are not easily interchangeable. The event marking the transition from one time to the other was the calling of the apostle Paul, and the successive setting apart for this special ministry (Rom 1:1 Acts 13:2). If we recognize these differences and become attentive to the words that are used, this can be a door opener for understanding the Bible. Differences between, say, the Gospels and the letters of the Twelve Apostles on the one hand and the letters of Paul on the other need not be harmonized by hook or by crook, but gain clarity through recognition of each’s own character.

From these few examples, the strengths of a dispensationalist view can be seen. Dispensationalism …

• Relates specifically to the biblical text
• Acknowledges differences in the biblical text
• Explains differences from their own context
• Recognizes that God is always the same, but does not always act the same way
• Helps to grasp biblical contexts more clearly because of the different imprints of the times
• Shows how God accomplishes a plan through different times
• Shows which message has special relevance today (and which does not).

Various administrations

If we stay with Ephesians 3, Paul mentions such an administration twice: the administration of God’s grace (Eph 3:2) and the administration of the mystery (Eph 3:9). Likewise, in Ephesians, the apostle speaks of an administration of the completion of the terms (Eph 1:10), an allusion to the completion of time. The Greek word oikonomia speaks of a house law (oikos = House, nomos = law) and Paul is, so to speak, the steward in relation to what has been entrusted to him (1Cor 9:17, cf. 1Cor 4:1-2, Tit 1:7) as Peter also states that the believers are stewards themselves and toward one another (1Pt 4:10).

These few references do not allow to conclude a complete list of administrations. For this purpose, these references were also not given. Reading the Scriptures, one can see the peculiarity of the times mentioned and deduce that possibly other times have their own imprint.

Of course, the approach is not to be confused with another interpretation. It is therefore not surprising that there are quite different schemes, depending on the knowledge of the Bible observer or teacher. Times are ordered according to different criteria, according to which there would be 3, 7, 8, 12 or 14 such administrations. What is really important, of course, is not the schemes, but the insights that underlie them. Some dispensationalist interpretation goes further than another. There is no such thing as “the” dispensationalism. This should be considered, because the differences are sometimes considerable. Here in this contribution it is about recognizing the character traits, understanding the possibilities of this view and perhaps taking something out of it for your own recognition with profit.

Contexts are important for a systematic theology. They shed light on how to understand the Bible as a whole, what the core message is, and how that message develops through time. Dispensationalism is one such approach to a systematic theology. It gives insight into the development and continuity of biblical history, the history of salvation, and thus also gives an understanding of today.

Time bars and divisions

Dispensationalism is characterized by epochs. They can be delineated and also sketched well. There are quite a lot of such graphic representations. If you would like to get a differentiated picture, you can easily find countless of these maps via Google Search. There are different opinions about the value of such cards. They are always – which is true for every theology – a reflection of the theologian’s understanding, nothing more. God has given us a living history in the Bible, not a time bar. The advantage of these schematic representations lies in their simplicity. With a few clues, a schematic representation can be used to convey an idea. As a graphic, an idea is often easier to grasp. The idea, however, should be tested.

I found the most helpful time bars and overviews at konkordanter-verlag.de and concordant.org. Here, different concepts of time are presented on a common outline, resulting in a fairly comprehensive account of biblical times.

German

• Small plan of the eons (PDF)
• God is King of the Eons (PDF)

English

• The Divine Calendar (JPG)
• Chart of the Eonian Times (PDF)

The speculative nature of overviews

Simplifying the history of salvation through a graphic representation has not only advantages, but also disadvantages. An infatuation with graphic images can lead one to accept them uncritically as “true.” A picture has the power to suggest a harmonic connection even where there is none. So one does well to use these theological approaches, but not to place their value above the Bible itself.

However, from another point of view, it is very helpful when we try to graphically represent the structure of texts, stories or even Bible books. This is something like the touchstone for whether we have actually grasped the text, the story or the Bible book. Because only what is well understood can be meaningfully summarized. Paul once summarized the entire history of the world in a single verse (Rom 11:36). He obviously understood and internalized this and was able to put it so succinctly. We should know what is given to us by God by grace (1 Cor. 2:12-13), likewise we should acknowledge that exact times and dates of salvation history are in God’s hands (Acts 1:7). It is not that we cannot know anything, but not everything is revealed. Even Paul does not know everything. But that does not stop him from seeing the entire course of world history firmly in God’s hands (Rom 11:33-36).

Dispensationalist books that have attempted to predict the return of the Messiah through calculations and interpretations of contemporary events (such as Hal Lindsey) have attracted negative attention. This is a speculative eschatology that has discredited the value of dispensationalism. None of these statements have come true. Nevertheless, the idea that we are in the end times is firmly anchored in the New Testament and the outlook is likewise contained in the Tenach. We may note that without committing ourselves to speculation.

Insofar as an end-time vision is evoked, this can also be an expression of a rapturous attitude. You feel God is close only because something is happening in the here and now. God becomes, so to speak, only perceptible through the end-time fantasies. Isn’t that something like a substitute faith? Is it not the natural man, the “flesh” that wants to bathe itself in feeling, sensing and special effects? This is a similar rapturous spirit than can spread among charismatic Christians. There, too, in my opinion, it is only a matter of making God visible and perceptible – through healings and prophecies – at any cost.

There are other aberrations, including a Christian Zionism, for which the people of Israel are the visible sign of God’s activity in this world. All these attitudes express in the last consequence that nothing is yet understood of this “administration of God’s grace” of which Paul speaks. The Bible knows no rapture and is sober in its anchoring of faith by grace alone. Those who seek signs and wonders obviously want to trace the context of the Gospels – but does this correspond to the situation of the church today?

All these aberrations are based on certain dispensationalist interpretations. But they can be corrected just as well by a dispensationalist view, because the presuppositions and conclusions cannot be found back in the Bible in this way. This may clarify that dispensationalism is not simply “right” or “wrong” but remains an aid to understanding. We ourselves are challenged to use this properly as a tool.

Find theological answers

The practical value of theological approaches can be quickly seen when we have concrete questions of faith:

• Is everyone healed today?
• What should I pray?
• How is God working in the world today?
• What is the task of the community?

More questions could be added to these. Those who are healthy in their faith can answer these questions in many ways. Dispensationalism, however, often offers a theological rationale for an answer and can weigh why one biblical passage emphasizes this but another has something quite different in mind. A vivid example of this is the difference between Paul and James in some statements:

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but has no works? Can faith save him?”
Jas 2:14

“But to him who does works,the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. On the other hand, to him who does not do works but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Rom 4:4-5

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Eph 2:8-9

Faith without works or faith with works? What is true here now? The difference once led Luther (in his preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews) to write of the Epistle of James as a “stroherne Epistel,” that is, a worthless letter. Faith and works are diametrically opposed in Paul, while in James works are essential for faith to save. Luther could not bring this together and decided in favor of the Epistle to the Romans and Paul’s statements.

Often, however, attempts are made to reconcile the two texts. This then results in “a little works” and “a little faith” remaining. A little of both, so to speak. But that also means that it is neither one thing nor the other, neither meat nor fish. Consequently, they are spiritualizations of concrete statements. But this does not lead to a good news, but to a mixed gospel, which Paul elsewhere clearly puts under ban (Gal 1:6). A dispensationalist approach, on the other hand, focuses on the fact that Paul was called to be an apostle to the nations (Rom 11:13, etc.), while James wrote to the Jews in the dispersion (Jas 1:1). They wrote to different groups and did so with different messages (see also Gal 2:7-9). Each of these messages is true in its own context, but it causes conflict when we try to harmonize them with each other.

Dispensationalism is one of the most influential theological currents of today. It won this position by providing answers that were close to the Bible. Believers and congregations do not always realize that their faith foundation is dispensationalist. This is the case for almost every Free Evangelical congregation and for many other groups. Premillenialism, postmillenialism, and many other subcurrents are all based on dispensationalist theology. Becoming aware of this background can help to gain a differentiated view.