Last night, I was welcomed as a guest on a panel for the Spirit of Prophecy Podcast. The purpose of the show was essentially to put dispensationalism on trial. Our host, Tommy McMurtry, did an excellent job moderating the discussion, asking questions, and allowing us to have an opportunity to explain our position. While there were certainly a few points where the conversation had the potential to become heated, everyone involved conducted themselves as a Christian gentleman.
Throughout the episode, one of the anchors I continually tried to maintain for our dispensational beliefs was the literal interpretation of Scripture. Essentially, we take the text for what it says. That does not mean that we deny figures of speech, symbols, types, parables, or other literary devices found throughout the Bible. Literal interpretation recognizes those things precisely because the text indicates that they are there. Rather, it means that we begin with the normal, grammatical, historical meaning of the words God chose to use. We do not begin by asking what hidden spiritual meaning we might impose upon the passage. We begin by asking a much simpler question: What does the Bible actually say?
This is important because one of the most common criticisms leveled against dispensationalism is that it is relatively new. Critics frequently point to John Nelson Darby in the nineteenth century, or later to C. I. Scofield and the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible, and argue that because dispensationalism was not fully systematized until comparatively recently, it must therefore be a theological innovation. But that argument confuses the systematization of a doctrine with the origin of its foundation. No serious dispensationalist needs to pretend that the apostles carried Scofield Reference Bibles or that Christians in the second century possessed elaborate dispensational charts. Rather, the foundation upon which dispensationalism rests is far older than Ruckman, Larkin, or Darby. That foundation is the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Dr. David L. Cooper famously expressed what has often been called the Golden Rule of Interpretation: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” That principle gets to the heart of dispensational interpretation. Dispensationalism begins with the conviction that God means what He says. Words have meaning. Grammar matters. Context matters. History matters. When God makes a promise to Israel, we do not have the liberty to transfer that promise to somebody else simply because doing so fits our theological system better. When God promises a kingdom, we expect a kingdom. When He promises land, we expect land. When He distinguishes Israel from the Gentiles and from the church, we respect those distinctions. In that sense, dispensationalism is not primarily a chart that we impose upon the Bible. It is what naturally develops when we allow the Bible to maintain the distinctions that God placed within it.
The historic debate between Antioch and Alexandria was about more than manuscripts or textual history. It represented two different mentalities toward the interpretation of Scripture. The Antiochian tradition became particularly associated with attention to the historical and grammatical sense of the text, while the Alexandrian tradition became famous for its willingness to seek allegorical and spiritual meanings beyond the ordinary sense of the words. Those tendencies were not absolute, history is rarely quite that neat, but the contrast is nevertheless important. Antioch emphasized what the text said in its historical and grammatical setting, while Alexandria became associated with an allegorical method that could move beyond the plain meaning of the passage. Dispensationalism resists the allegorical approach. Literal interpretation places a restraint upon the interpreter. It forces us to submit our theology to the words of Scripture rather than the inverse.
This is why the claim that nobody taught modern dispensationalism in the second century largely misses the point. The question is not whether a second-century Christian could have drawn Larkin’s charts or explained every distinction recognized by dispensationalists today. The question is whether the foundational method of interpretation existed. It did. From the earliest centuries of Christianity, there were believers who understood Christ’s future return and reign, the resurrection, and the coming Kingdom according to the ordinary sense of those promises.
This should not surprise us. Throughout church history, doctrines have often been believed before they were formally systematized. The development of theological terminology does not necessarily represent the invention of theological truth. Often, terminology becomes more precise because controversy forces believers to articulate exactly what the Scriptures teach. Systematization does not create truth; it organizes truths already present in the Bible. Even if someone could demonstrate that Darby was the first man to arrange certain biblical distinctions into the precise framework now commonly called dispensationalism, that would not prove those distinctions false. The real question is not, “Who systematized it first?” The real question is, “Does the Bible make these distinctions?”
Paul commanded Timothy, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). The Bible itself demands that distinctions be made. There is an Old Testament and a New Testament. There is law and grace. There is prophecy and mystery. There is Israel and the church which is Christ’s Body. There is the first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ. There is the present ministry of Christ in heaven and His future reign upon the earth. These distinctions were not invented by 19th century dispensationalists, they are found in Scripture. Dispensationalism simply refuses to erase them.
Ultimately, no doctrine should be accepted merely because it is old, and no doctrine should be rejected merely because its systematic formulation is comparatively recent. The authority of Christianity is not antiquity, church councils, creeds, theological traditions, or the consensus of scholars. Our authority is the word of God.
That brings us back to the Golden Rule. When God speaks literally, literally believe Him.
Want to Learn More?
If you would like to learn more about dispensationalism and how rightly dividing the word of truth helps you understand the Bible, click HERE to purchase Simply Dispensationalism, a straightforward introduction to dispensational thought and the literal interpretation of Scripture.
For those interested in a more structured study of the Scriptures, click HERE to learn more about Asheville Baptist Institute, our Bible institute dedicated to equipping students with a sound, practical, and Bible-believing education.
About The Author
“ Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense.” William Tyndale
Excellent
Thank you