What is Dispensationalism?

I see myself as a dispensationalist, but what does that mean? Can all dispensationalists be lumped together? Are they dangerous? And does that mean I meet other people’s expectations? Why does it work? This discussion attempts to clarify a few things from a personal perspective.

As a theology, dispensationalism is an attempt to interpret Scripture coherently. References from the Scriptures are used for this purpose.

• Jesus said, for example, that He was sent exclusively to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt 15:24). He speaks in the spirit of Jewish expectation and confirms the promises that were once made to the fathers of Israel (Romans 15:8). Anyone trying to understand Jesus’ mission in the Gospels, for example, will find concrete clues in these verses.
• In a circular letter that later became known as the letter to the Ephesians, Paul speaks of a commission that he received specifically for the non-Jewish peoples (Eph 3:1-10; cf. Rom 11:13). You don’t read that in any of the 12 apostles.
• In his Pentecost sermon, Peter explicitly speaks to Jews and proselytes from all over the world (Acts 2:5; Acts 2:10) and therefore addresses “the whole house of Israel” (Acts 2:36). This should make it clear that this was not the beginning of today’s church, but merely the continuation of the proclamation of Israel’s expectation, for which Peter is known to have received the keys (Mt 16:18-19).
• James speaks explicitly to the 12 tribes in the dispersion (James 1:1). All clear?

Dispensationalism tracks such statements and examines whether these statements are helpful in context and for understanding. Where is it about Israel, where is today’s church from all nations addressed? Statements for one target group do not necessarily have to be the same as statements for another target group. Different statements are therefore not a priori labeled as “contradictory”, but rather an attempt is made to interpret the statements in their own context.

Dispensationalism is a broad term. There are many different trends. They go to different lengths in their interpretation and sometimes say very different things. This is no different from other theological currents. What they have in common is the idea that although God is always the same, he acts differently at different times. One time He acts as Creator, another time He takes special care of the people of Israel or today He calls people from all nations to faith. The approach of dispensationalism is simply this: everything has a place, but what is it?

Approach or lessons learned?

Personally, I make a distinction between the dispensationalist approach and the teachings that came out of it. The approach is the ability to differentiate. This is a tool. The lessons are then the conclusions that are drawn from the application. While I welcome the approach, I also clearly distance myself from some of the views and teachings typically emphasized by dispensationalists. I make this distinction because I find the approach helpful, but some views counterproductive. I also find the difference helpful in a critical discussion because some dismiss “dispensationalism” when in fact they are only describing doctrines that emerge from dispensationalism. I mean, you don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The seduction of dispensationalism

I find the approach of dispensationalism helpful. However, all that glitters is not gold. There are several problematic pages:

• System infatuation and schematization
  A concrete danger with dispensationalism is the infatuation with the system that can occur. The theological building looks so beautiful – so it must be true. The system is valued more highly than the statements of the Bible itself. Dispensationalism lends itself particularly well to schematic and graphic representations. These can create the illusion of a connection where this does not exist. That is a seduction of this view. It has more to do with the people who misuse the view, which is why wisdom of faith is needed in the community so that this does not happen.
• Considering differences as absolute
  There are different statements. It is the merit of dispensationalism to perceive these and to think of them in a meaningful context. This is a concrete help for thinking of the Bible in different but coherent parts. This follows Paul’s call to Timothy to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). However, this request can also degenerate into drawing “absolute” dividing lines. People forget that transitions are usually accompanied by many questions and only occur gradually. Think, for example, of the questions that led to the Apostles’ Convention (Acts 15).
  • The book of Acts as a whole could be described as a “book of transition”, a transition from Peter to Paul and from Israel to the nations. There are clear differences between the message of the 12 apostles on the one hand and Paul’s message on the other. This was mutually recognized (Gal 2:6-9).
  • A testimony from Peter describes how he did not understand everything about Paul, but clearly regarded him as a brother (2Pet 3:15-16). From this you can see that there was good contact. Even if you recognize differences, this does not have to lead to absolute separation. There was unity in diversity. However, this is something different from the supposed conformity that is often thought (according to the motto: “wherever it says Jesus on it, there is today’s church in it”).

Problematic lessons

Some recognize problematic doctrines that often emerge from dispensationalism, or are strongly cultivated there. They are therefore often mentioned in the same breath. Here are some examples:

• Verbal inspiration
  Although the doctrine of verbal inspiration has nothing directly to do with dispensationalism, it is often used as a justification for faithfulness to the Word. Because: Dispensationalism wants to be based on the Bible. Verbal inspiration is the doctrine that is often seen as the starting point for dispensationalism. Personally, I don’t think this is necessary. The reliability of Scripture is not dependent on a doctrine of verbal inspiration, which was not formulated until the 17th century. If you want to know more about this, you can search for “verbal inspiration” on this website and find various articles.
• End time
  Dispensationalism turned its attention to a number of topics that had previously received little attention in church teaching. This includes an interest in Israel as well as the end times. It can be said that many forms of dispensationalism are downright “in love with the end times”. This is expressed as follows, among other things:
  • The doctrine of the Rapture is central
  • The future is gloomy (great tribulation, God’s judgments, threat of hell, apocalypse, Gog and Magog)
  • The world is evil and it’s only getting worse
  • We must prepare ourselves for the kingdom of God and should not make any more efforts for a better world here
• Israel
  For centuries, the Church had regarded itself as the “true Israel”. Dispensationalists saw and still see this as mutiny against what the Bible says, because God should go his own way with Israel and the church has not replaced Israel. When Israel was rediscovered in the Bible, end-time love led to Israel being seen primarily as a sign of God’s action in the world. It was again an incapacitation, but this time not as a replacement theology, but rather as an end-time fantasy in which Israel is reduced to a “function”.

It is not uncommon for these doctrines or issues to be confused with dispensationalism. That is a misdiagnosis, because not all dispensationalists see it that way and not everyone who cares about these issues would put it that way.

Am I a dispensationalist?

Yes, I am a dispensationalist in my approach. She answered my questions best in a direct comparison of interpretations. This was not complete, but it was extremely well founded. A good start. But no, I am not a dispensationalist either when I hear the justified criticism of end-time infatuation or other aspects. What some say critically about dispensationalism I share, though I consider myself a dispensationalist.

When I categorize myself, I consider myself an ultra-dispensationalist. The New Testament sees this further development of dispensationalism as history in progress. Two points should be emphasized here:

1. Israel
   She asks, for example: If the Old Testament, the Tenach, and also Jesus and the apostles speak of a future of Israel, where do I read about it in the New Testament?
2. Today’s community
   I think today’s church is called by Paul. Other dispensationalists take a different view, who are more in line with the tradition that “wherever it says Jesus on it, today’s church is in it”. Ultradispensationalism sees the apostle Paul neither as superfluous nor as the founder of a new religion, but as an “apostle to the nations”, set apart for the gospel of God (Rom 1:1). His mission differed from that of the 12 apostles. He was entrusted with his own gospel (Rom 2:16). This was still hidden in earlier times, for example in the Gospels, but was revealed for the first time by Paul (Rom 16:25-27). Today’s church is therefore only called out by Paul, who is on his way as a “slave of Christ Jesus” (Romans 1:1). No Paul without Jesus. Without Paul, there would be no church today. This approach clarifies many contradictions.

For me, dispensationalism is not a conviction, but a tool. It helps me to take the Bible seriously. I see every apprenticeship as a crutch that should only help me to learn to walk. At best, it offers “ways into the Word”, but it is no substitute for the Bible. It helps to become aware of the task of theology. Doctrines and theologies remain insights and opinions that have an aura of human fallibility, not divine infallibility. But if I gain better access to Scripture through teaching, I can count that as my gain.

It is never about doctrine, but about what the Bible once had to say to us in its time and today.

Dispensationalism, more than any other theology, has helped me to let Scripture speak for itself. I am grateful for that. This is possible if you start not from the teaching, but from the help that is offered. It is a help to interpret the text in your own context, taking into account the basic text and approving everything that leads further in it. Understanding dispensationalism as a help has opened doors for me. However, it would be narrow-minded to think that there could be no other doors. A better understanding is often a process of differentiation, in which you learn to look at the text from new angles again and again. That is why other insights can also help, because it is never about doctrine, but about what the Bible once had to say to us in its time and today.

I hope that, in community with many other people, we will stumble courageously forward in understanding.

Deepening