It has been over a month since I wrote my post Blogging the System of Scripture, starting off my examination of dispensationalism vs covenant theology. Three things have slowed me down. First, I’m busy. Second, I’m a slow reader. Third, I’m still not entirely sure of the best way to blog through my study. I will probably do more of what I am doing here: the occasional short (or not so short) post addressing things I’ve come across. To start things off I’ve been making my way through Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism and I have a few thoughts.

First on the book itself. On the whole I appreciate Ryrie’s tone. I believe he is trying to be fair when he discusses covenant theology. I’ve already come across too much writing on both sides that seems to distort and slander rather than disagree fairly and with respect.

That said, Ryrie does one thing I hoped he wouldn’t do. He is spending far too much time talking about covenant theology. I expect him to address places where he thinks covenant theology is wrong and dispensationalism is right, but so far the amount of material devoted to covenant theology has been excessive and somewhat repetitive. He could say what he does with fewer words, but I’d prefer it if he said less about why covenant theology is wrong and more about why dispensationalism is right.

He does talk mostly about dispensationalism, of course, so I have some things to discuss.

One item that has come up several times is that dispensationalism always interprets the Bible literally while covenant theology does not. Ryrie acknowledges that those in the covenant theology camp may have a generally literal approach to the Bible but he says there are times when they must spiritualize passages in order to remain covenant theologians. He says the dispensationalist “admits that the nondispensationalist is a literalist in much of his interpretation of the Scriptures but charges him with allegorizing or spiritualizing when it comes to the interpretation of prophecy.” (93) Later he adds “Classic dispensationalism is a result of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this.” (97)

By way of example he mentions the Old Testament prophecies which speak of the establishment, prosperity, and security of the nation of Israel. Covenant theologians “are saying that these promises have been inaugurated and begun to be fulfilled now in the church age and will be consummated in the new heavens and new earth (the already/not yet concept)” while dispensationalists believe the promises will be fulfilled during the millennial reign of Christ. (100)

He stresses that all of the Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted literally, by which he means at face value. But there are some passages that it seems would be difficult to interpret from a dispensationalist perspective. I will mention two. The first is Isaiah 53:10 and the second is Ezekiel 37:26-28.

The face value meaning of this passage is that the person spoken of in Isaiah 53 will have physical children.

How can this be taken at face value rather than recognizing that this is fulfilled in a spiritual sense? Would the dispensationalist argue on the side of Dan Brown that Jesus had children? Or, since the dispensationalist sees the fulfillment of many of these prophecies coming during the millennial kingdom, will Jesus have physical offspring during that time?

The passage must be understood as referring to spiritual offspring. Because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are able to be the children of God. This is not immediately obvious in the text, and probably was not how the Old Testament saints understood the passage, but it becomes clear in the New Testament. Ryrie argues in favor of progressive revelation but nonetheless frowns on the idea that New Testament passages reveal spiritual interpretations to Old Testament promises.

Ryrie says that dispensationalists believe the Old Testament promises regarding Israel will be fulfilled during the millenial kingdom (I will have another post soon dealing briefly with the dispensationalist view of the significance of the millennial kingdom). The dispensationalist, taking this passage at face value and placing its fulfillment in the millennial kingdom, is faced with an immediate problem. The millennial kingdom is millennial, it lasts 1000 years. Ezekiel tells us about a promise for the future of Israel that is eternal. There is no temporal limitation on the promise in this passage. This is not an oddity: many of the Old Testament promises regarding Israel are eternal in scope.

If we accept the dispensationalist view of a literal, face value reading of Scripture and we agree that these prophecies are positioned in the millennial kingdom then we have the odd condition of an eternal promise somehow fitting in a literal 1000 year period.

I think it is more fitting to avoid Ryrie’s distinction between a literal interpretation and a spiritual interpretation. The distinction is rather between different kinds of literal interpretation. The dispensationalist wants to interpret these passages in an isolated, face value fashion. I want to interpret them while including understanding from other parts of Scripture. Part of the dispensationalist error here is believing the Bible separates into different economies or dispensations and that the promises in one do not necessarily fit into another. There is a distinction made between physical Israel and the spiritual people of God so the promises of the New Testament do not help us when trying to understand the promises made specifically to Israel. I think this does a disservice to Scripture as an unfolding whole. As I mentioned before, Ryrie defends the notion of progressive revelation, but I don’t think he does it justice when one part of the Bible is in a sense cut off from another. He argues that dispensationalism does a better job of showing the unity of Scripture but theirs is a strange unity.

In that last paragraph I’m summarizing a number of other arguments made in the book. This post is already long enough so I won’t examine those arguments in detail. Perhaps that will come another time. Next in this series will be a brief look at the significance of the millennium.