All men have a theology. Dispensationalism is the alternative system to Covenant
Theology that views all biblical history as divided into dispensations, or economies (programs),
based on a literal, grammatical-historical understanding of the Old and New Testament. Scholars
disagree on how many dispensations there are, but the consensus is that there are seven, in which
we are currently living in the sixth (the church dispensation), and the seventh is the millennial
kingdom (1,000 reign of Christ) which is still to come. This contrasts with the Covenant
theologian’s more simplistic understanding of “dispensation.” Dispensationalism is primarily
concerned with the doctrines of ecclesiology and eschatology, emphasizing a historical-
grammatical meaning of Old Testament prophetic passages and covenants, a distinction between
Israel and the church, and a future salvation and restoration of the nation of Israel in a future
millennial kingdom.
There are certainly strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages for
everything that we discuss regarding any topic that we discuss in theological field. That same
applies to the dispensationalism as well. Dispensationalism also holds strengths and weakness
but I would like to concentrate more on the weakness rather than the strengths.
There are many issues that comes into our mind about Dispensationalism in the means of
Christian eschatology such as, Whether you are a classical, modified, or progressive
dispensationalist, you will have different views as it regards Lordship salvation, Israel and the
church, the timing of the rapture, the exact number of dispensations, Calvinism and
Arminianism, the kingdom of God and the place of Jesus’ kingdom ethics such as the Sermon on
the Mount teachings, the definition of the kingdom of God, the definition of the church, and the
timing of the New Covenant and Davidic Covenant’s fulfillment. This division within
dispensationalism is a weakness because it demonstrates lack of unity and a plethora of
thoughts/theories that are not helpful when the whole system is supposed to be built on the
commitment to discovering the intended meaning of Scripture through grammatical-historical
hermeneutics.
Another weakness of dispensationalism is its lack of defined number of dispensations
(since there is disagreement as to the exact number in history), as well as the appropriateness of
certain names that describe the dispensation period. For example, the 1,000-year reign of Christ
following the period of the church age is generally described as the official “kingdom
dispensation.” It is not an issue of if there are four, six, or seven dispensations, but if the idea of
dispensational structures governing or interpreting the Bible is a man-made theory, as much as
Covenant Theology is in its own right, or based on solid Scriptural evidence?
Of course, the traditional definition of dispensation is the rigid dividing of the Bible into
seven dispensations, which has been the source of some criticism. If this were really the
definition, then skeptics would have reasonable doubt to question this system. Yet, I would
contend with this definition because it upholds believing in dispensations as the sole
distinguishing characteristic of dispensationalism. Whether one is a dispensationalist or not, all
Christians believe in dispensations. Is it just a matter of how many and of what kind? Pre-fall and
post-fall? Old covenant era and New Covenant era? Before Christ and after Christ?
Let us discuss some strengths as well. The first commendable and defining aspect of
dispensationalism is that they faithfully abide by some consistent grammatical-historical
hermeneutics, especially when it comes to prophetic passages. This has led to a interpretation of
ecclesiological and eschatological issues that has divided themselves from covenant theologians,
who view prophetic/apocalyptic books as overly allegorical and figurative in nature. Because
dispensationalism is based on a consistent and literal interpretation of Scripture, its clarity is
obvious, as are God’s plans. This means that the New Testament does not reinterpret the Old
Testament passages in a way that cancels the original authorial intent of the Old Testament
writers as determined by historical-grammatical hermeneutics. We don’t read New Testament
meaning into the Old Testament, but rather use the New Testament to inform our understanding
of the Old Testament. Whatever God meant to say to the OT writers and the audience is what He
meant to say and what He will set out to do before history is complete.
Another strength, and benefit, of dispensationalism is that the grammatical-historical
interpretation allows for the idea of a future millennial kingdom and a restored Zion, which
entails the reality of a vibrant political, social, and cultural life that will exist on earth. In other
words, dispensational theology strongly emphasizes the physical aspects of the kingdom and
does not spiritualize or allegorize everything into soteriological or spiritual issues. In contrast,
dispensational theology can faithfully accommodate soteriological and spiritual themes along
with social, economic, and political realities that characterize the New Creation Model,
portraying the future kingdom of God as not just a mystical concept, but a physical reality where
the good created things of this world can exist there, without sin.
As for postmillennialism, remember that both postmillenarian and millenarians hold in
common the idea that the millennial age precedes the return of Christ and the consummation. So,
the structural strengths and weaknesses of each will be similar. The essential difference between
postmillennialism and amillennialism is in how we understand the nature and character of the
millennial age. Postmillennialism’s greatest strength is the rhetorical stress upon optimism
regarding the kingdom of God and its ability to transform the nations of the earth before Christ
returns. Postmillenarian extend the kingdom of God beyond spiritual matters (word and
sacrament) to the transformation of culture–a point with which I would disagree. Postmillenarian
generally believe that Jesus returns to a saved earth, he does not return to save the earth (as
millenarians believe). This means that the biggest weakness of postmillennialism is the
determination of the beginning of the millennial age– “when do the thousand years begin?”
Some have seen this in the conversion of Israel, the overthrow of Antichrist (usually defined as
Romanism or Islam) and the conversion of the nations. Obviously, these things have not yet
happened. Therefore, the biggest weakness of postmillennialism is the denial of an imminent
return of Christ–which explains why so many postmillenarian are attracted to preterist, the
understanding Christ returned in judgment upon Israel in A.D. 70.
Conclusion:
We come back to the original statement made in the introduction that all men have a
theology. Others have little or no idea of what constitutes their theological system. Nonetheless,
they do have a system of theology.
Perhaps the discussion has left the student bewildered and confused. If great men of God
have disagreed and still do disagree on systems of theology (and it must be admitted that the two
systems we have discussed are not the only systems of theology), the student may wonder how
he or she could ever come to any definite conclusions concerning his own system of theology?
Cannot and should not someone give the student at this point some guidelines to follow in
developing a system of theology?
