Where is the world headed? What will be the high point of the history of the world? Estimates of the age of the universe vary, anywhere from 6,000 years to 15 billion years or so. Whatever the case, in that time God has done many, many amazing acts. Creation, protection, overthrowing mighty rulers, raising the dead, walking on water, healing the sick, talking donkeys, saving people from sin and death, etc etc. The history of the world is absolutely packed with the wonders of God’s glory and grace. What will be the high point?

I would say there isn’t really a high point, that it all just keeps growing greater and greater. At some point the history of creation will come to an end (sort of, not really – it will all be made new) but our experience will not end. I believe our enjoyment of God will only grow throughout eternity and thus the glory God receives from us will grow. There will be no high point, just newer and newer heights of delight and glory.

Having that in my mind I am a bit astonished at what Ryrie sees as the high point of history. It is possible he is drawing a line between temporal history and eternal history, drawing out the high point of creation history before the end of all things, but I don’t think he makes this distinction. Nonetheless, if the question is limited to temporal history, I would say the high point has already passed, that it took place at the cross. In all of human history, in the time before God finally closes his work on earth, the cross is the moment when God was most glorified.

So, in the span of eternity there is no high point, in the span of world history the cross was the high point.

Ryrie says the high point of history is found in the millennial kingdom. The significance of the millennium is it stands as the climax of all that has happened: “The entire program culminates, not in eternity but in history, in the millennial kingdom of the Lord Christ. This millennial culmination is the climax of history and the great goal of God’s program for the ages.” (108)

The presence of the comma before the second clause causes some confusion. Is Ryrie specifying that the high point of history, not including any consideration about eternity, is found in the millennial reign, or is he saying that the high point is found in history, not in eternity, and it is the millennial reign? I believe he is saying the latter. Earlier in the book Ryrie makes this statement: “Concerning the goal of history, dispensationalists find it in the establishment of the millennial kingdom on earth, whereas the covenant theologian regards it as the eternal state.” (21) There he makes a clear distinction between the dispensationalist view of temporal history and the covenant theology view of the eternal. He goes on to say that the dispensationalist does not minimize the importance of eternity but he never really says what he thinks God is doing in eternity. Perhaps that will come later.

It seems very strange to me to see all that God has done in history, all his mighty acts including the infinite value of the gift of the precious Son of God, finding their culmination, their goal, their end in a period that will only last 1000 years. This greatly undervalues the importance and majesty of God’s work. It may well be that I am missing something, I’m still new to the details of dispensationalism and still have a lot of reading to do, but I believe I have presented Ryrie accurately.

That ends the main part of my post, what follows is me following out loud a train of thought. Jump in if my reasoning is faulty somewhere.

Here is another question/observation. Dispensationalists distinguish God’s work with Israel from God’s work with the church. The rapture would separate the church so that most (not all, assuming some people are saved after the rapture) Christians are not (physically?) present during the millennial reign. The millennium fulfills God’s promises to Israel, bringing about the powerful, secure, mighty nation of Israel with God on the throne. So what does the cross have to do with the millennium? Does the death of Jesus Christ have a specific purpose for the millennial kingdom? If God’s purposes for the church and for Israel are distinct, and the church is made up of those who have become the children of God through the death of Christ, I’m not sure what role the cross would play in the millennial kingdom. That would make Ryrie’s claim all the more astounding since he would be saying the goal of history involves something that has nothing to do with the cross. Am I making any sense?

I do want to note that Ryrie is clear that dispensationalists believe there is only one way of salvation. There is not one way for Jews to be saved and another for Christians. All who are saved receive salvation only through Jesus Christ by faith, so even those Jews who experience salvation do so only because of Jesus.

Whatever the case, this whole notion strikes me as very odd and it reduces the significance of God’s work. The kingdom of God is eternal, not temporal, and entrance into the kingdom is through the cross. Those in the kingdom will be in it forever and will forever grow in their delight of God, giving him increasing measures of glory.

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.

[esvbible format="inline" reference="Isaiah 53:10"]Isaiah 53:10[/esvbible]

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.

[esvbible format="inline" reference="Ezekiel 37:26-28"]Ezekiel 37:26-28[/esvbible]

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.