Biblical & Theological Issues

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 11 No. 2 – Extreme Eschatology)

by Donald E. Hartley

Nothing quite affects one’s view of eschatology like the doctrine of the church. Non-dispensational views generally hold to a continuity of the people of God throughout all dispensations. Dispensationalism is different. It may be divided into early, mid-, or late-Acts varieties depending on where it locates the church’s origin.¹ Traditional dispensationalism identifies this point as Acts 2. Another variety, designated ultra- or hyper–dispensationalism, locates the beginnings to mid- (Acts 9, 13) or late-Acts (Acts 28).² Traditional dispensationalists oppose ultra-dispensationalists, indeed, some of the harsher criticism arises from within this camp although by no means is restricted to it.³ In many respects, especially in terms of eschatology, the traditional and ultra-dispensational forms share much in common.

When it comes to understanding the eschatology of ultra-dispensationalism, one must first appreciate its ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) and then soteriology (doctrine of salvation). Proper assessment requires a broad outline of dispensationalism, a narrower look at ultra-dispensationalism in its various forms, and then a focused examination of its theology leading to its eschatology. The goal is to make some observations regarding its place in evangelicalism. The issue is not simply what is taught by ultra-dispensationalism about the future but what is its future in evangelical thought.

DISPENSATIONS, DISPENSATIONALISM, AND ULTRA-DISPENSATIONALISM

At the outset, it is essential to define some key terms.

DISPENSATIONS⁴

What is a dispensation and how is it related to dispensationalism? In the NT, there are three terms directly related to dispensation:

• 1. One who is a manage The Greek word comes from a noun standing for the “manager” of an estate or a “steward.” The Septuagint (LXX) uses it to translate the phrase signifying one who is “over the house.”⁵ The Hebrew expression is widely used outside the canonical OT including in Hebrew inscriptions,⁶ northwest Semitic inscriptions,⁷ Qumran literature,⁸ and the Mishnah.⁹ Three senses assigned to the Greek term include, “manager of a household or estate, (house) steward, manager,” a “public treasurer, treasurer” or “one who is entrusted with management in connection with transcendent matters, administrator.“¹⁰ Generally in the NT, this term refers to a person assigned specific management responsibilities spanning a designated time.
• 2. One involved in managing The second Greek word is a verb signifying “to manage.” It only occurs once in the canonical LXX (Ps. 111 :5) and its Hebrew equivalent signifies, “to provide” justice in terms of conducting one’s business.¹¹ The term is generally used in the sense of “to manage a household, manage, administer, abs., hold the office of… manager “¹² The NT usage simply refers to the activity associated with justly carrying out the duties of an administration (Luke 16:2b). One “manages” his administration. Thus this term is used to designate the carrying out of specific management responsibilities spanning a designated time.

• 3. A management or dispensation. A final Greek term designates “management, plan” and is the word from which dispensation is directly derived. This word occurs only twice in the OT (Isa. 22:19, 21). Its Hebrew equivalents include that lying behind “office” and another signifying “dominion.”¹³ Three senses govern this term including “management of a household,” “state of being arranged, arrangement, order, plan,” and a “program of instruction, training.“¹⁴ As used in the NT, it designates the program or management spanning a designated time that one is assigned to carry out.

A dispensation, then, may be defined as a designated responsibility consisting of a program or management that operates under specific rules of order within a circumscribed period of time.¹⁵ Every Bible believing Christian believes in dispensations and thus every believer is a “dispensationalist” in the broad sense.

DISPENSATIONALISM¹⁶

When theologians use the term “dispensationalism,” the “ism” signifies that they are not simply identifying those who acknowledge the biblical term or believe in dispensations in general, but rather those who have a specific doctrinal construal of dispensations normally associated with John Nelson Darby,¹⁷ C. I. Scofield,¹⁸ Lewis Sperry Chafer,¹⁹ Charles Ryrie, and others.²⁰ Although the dispensations outlined by dispensationalists vary in number, two things are essential or the sine qua non of the system: a distinction between Israel and the church, on the one hand, and a “literal” interpretation of Scripture (esp. prophecy), on the other.²¹ For these reasons, dispensationalism is usually contrasted with covenanttheology.²² Traditional dispensationalists hold that Israel rejected the kingdom, the church began in Acts 2, that it will be raptured prior to Daniel’s seventieth week or the great tribulation, that God will turn his prophetic attention back to ethnic Israel, and that there will be an establishment of a literal millennial kingdom on earth. At the end of this millennium, Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations and then defeated by the King of Kings and bound forever in the lake of fire. The church represents the parenthesis between the prophetic disruption of God’s program, marked by the Jewish rejection of the earthly kingdom, and its reestablishment on earth after the rapture.

ULTRA-DISPENSATIONALISM

Ryrie defines ultra-dispensationalism as “the school of interpretation that places more than one dispensation between Pentecost and the end of the church age.”²³ Ultra-dispensationalists locate the church’s beginnings either mid-Acts (Acts 9 or Acts 13) or post-Acts (post-Acts 28). The former group Ryrie calls moderate ultra-dispensationalists and the latter as extreme ultra-dispensationalists.²⁴ Besides the soteriological implications-implicit in traditional as well, namely, dividing the one people of  God-this ecclesiology affects the relevant canon of Scripture and the ordinances/sacraments of the church. In the extreme form, only epistles of Paul written during or subsequent to his imprisonment in Acts 28 are applicable to the church. Since epistles written before this time apply only to the Jewish “church,” neither ordinance/sacrament is applicable for the present age. However, the more moderate version regards the epistles of Paul written subsequent to Acts 9 or Acts 13 as appropriate to the church age. In terms of ordinances/sacraments only the Lord’s Supper is relevant, not baptism.²⁵ Before delving into the assessment of these views and application for eschatology, it may be helpful to show in chart form these various schemes.

The Theology of Ultra-Dispensationalism

ECCLESSIOLOGY²⁶

The distinction between and location of the commencing of the “body church” as opposed to the Jewish church is a governing doctrine for ultra-dispensationalism.²⁷ The extreme form argues that the body church began with Paul’s prison epistles and is concurrent with the revelation to Paul of God’s “secret mystery” (Eph. 3:9).²⁸ The moderate form holds that the body church began with the same revelation of the mystery, subsequent to Acts 2, but antecedent to Paul’s epistles. Some moderate proponents, following O’Hair, hold that this revelation to Paul and initiation of the church is in Acts 13:46.²⁹ Here Paul turns to the Gentiles after the Jews reject his gospel which was comprised, at that time, of the offering to the Jews the earthly kingdom.³⁰ Others of the moderate view, following Stam, link the “body church” with the revelation to Paul and his conversion in Acts 9.³¹ He states that Paul “did not have the ‘keys’ to the body as Peter did to the kingdom, nor was he given authority to remit sins. Indeed, since baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ had been set aside in favor of justification by faith, without works, he could have no part in remitting sins except indirectly by proclaiming the glad news.”³² The insistence upon differing dispensations with two entirely different peoples of God naturally requires two different gospels.³³ Four questions may be posed for helping to decide when the church began.

1. Does knowledge of the church mark its beginning? In criticizing both forms of ultra­ dispensationalism, Ryrie posits a question regarding the nature of a dispensation. “Is something distinguishably different being done since Paul came on the scene that was not being done from Pentecost to the time of Paul?”³⁴ To state the question more broadly, Is an ecclesiological economic change from Jewish church to “body church” initiated precisely when Paul comes to know of the mystery? Or, could the commencement of the “body church” have taken place ontologically prior to God’s revelation and Paul’s epistemological knowledge of it? Specifically, is there anything in Scripture that necessitates an ontological commencement that is simultaneous either with God’s revelation or Paul’s awareness? Ryrie’s point is that God’s dispensation of the church or any dispensation is not dependent upon or necessitated by knowledge of how it operates. The proposed link of causality with Paul’s knowledge to God’s operation seems absurd prima facie. And this, Ryrie argues, is the fallacy operating behind ultra-dispensationalism, namely, it assumes that Paul’s knowledge of the mystery marks the terminus a quo of the “body church.” Ryrie correctly surmises, “The question that decides the beginning of this dispensation is, When did God begin to do this? Not, When did man understand it?”³⁵ Ryrie concludes that something different occurred at Pentecost as evidenced by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He further argues that because there are ethnic Jews in the present “body church” that this proves that the distinction between Jewish and Gentile church is fallacious.
2. Does “in Christ” salvation mark the church’s beginning? But did something entirely new take place at Pentecost as Ryrie suggests? Another approach to answering this and the previous question on when the church began may be taken by examining the phrases “in Christ” or “in Christ Jesus,” or “in the Lord.” If the search is restricted to the Hauptbriefe (the “chief epistles” of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians), one will see that the extreme form of ultra-dispensationalism is ruled out immediately because these phrases are perennial throughout and therefore imply a “body church” in existence (1 Cor. 12:12-31; Rom. 12:4-21). But other passages rule out moderate ultra-dispensationalism as well. For example, Paul states in Romans 16:7 that saints like Andronicus and Junia were “in Christ” before him.³⁶ How can they be “in Christ” before Paul if Paul comprises the initiation of or traditional dispensationalism shares similar difficulties. For example, Paul says that it is only “in Christ” where justification takes place (Rom. 3:24; Gal. 2:17). But did not justification take place in the OT (cf. Rom 4:1-6) or did Abraham possess justification without being “in Christ?” And is it possible to be justified without being “in Christ?” Eternal life is “in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:23). Did not anyone in the OT have eternal life or is eternal life apart from being “in Christ Jesus?” There is no condemnation for those “in Christ” (Rom. 8:1). But did not David lay claim to no condemnation in Psalm 32:1-2 (Rom. 4:6-7) or are there those not “in Christ” without condemnation as well? Only those “in Christ” are new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17). Does this not imply that anyone outside of Christ in the OT where the “body church” putatively does not exist is not a new creature? The hope of the resurrection is connected to being “in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:19, 22). Does this mean that no OT saint will be resurrected to eternal life? Or does it suggest one may be outside of Christ and still be resurrected to eternal life? And how is this possible when the only alternative to being “in Christ” is being “in Adam” and in whom all die and suffer eternal damnation?³⁷
3. Can one be saved in any dispensation outside of Christ? Additional aspects of one’s salvation are intrinsically linked to being “in Christ” or “in the Lord” as well. In terms of predestination, the grace of God is given “in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:4) where election to salvation has occurred (Rom. 16:13; 1 Cor. 1:30) and by which the love of Christ of Christ comes to fruition (Rom. 8:39). Regarding regeneration, one is made alive to God “in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:11), depicted as effectual calling “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:22), and by which “in Christ” the veil of congenital blindness is taken away (2 Cor. 3:14).³⁸ Respecting adoption it is here that only by faith one is a child of God (Gal. 3:26), and sanctification where the power of the regenerate life is “in Christ” (Rom. 8:2) and includes holiness (1 Cor. 1:2). Corollaries to these truths are that believers are part of one body (Rom. 12:5) and approved of God (Rom. 16:10; 2 Cor. 5:19) where they have freedom (Gal. 2:4) and equal access, whether Jew or Greek, to the blessings of Abraham (Gal. 3:14, 28). Circumcision and uncircumcision are consequently relegated to the non-essential adiaphora (Gal. 5:6). It appears that all of salvation is wrapped up “in Christ.”
4.  Does Pentecost really mark the Church’s beginning? The question may now be posed to the traditional dispensationalist. Did anything take place at Pentecost that was not taking place prior to it that would constitute the beginning of the church? Specifically, can the grace of God be given apart from “in Christ?” How about election to salvation? Could the “love of Christ” be given to the elect who are not “in Christ?” Is there any such thing as elect apart from being in Christ? Could one be regenerate or “made alive” apart from being “in Christ Jesus?” Can one be effectually called, in other words, and have the congenital veil removed from their hearts without being “in Christ?” Can one experience the power of sanctification without being “in Christ?” Inside of Pauline writings the answer to each question is “no.” And outside of Paul’s writings it is apparent that OT saints did in fact evidence these benefits (Heb. 11).,³⁹ A synthesis of these passages seems to suggest that not only did the “body church” not commence in Acts 28 (extreme ultra-dispensationalism) or Acts 9, 13 (moderate ultra-dispensationalism) or even Acts 2 (historical or normative dispensationalism), but rather from the earliest documentation of salvation in the OT. In addition, if the “in Christ/ Lord” theology outside the prison epistles (and here limited to the Hauptbriefe) is trans­-testamental, then there is no reason why all Paul’s epistles including the prison epistles are not also applicable.⁴⁰ Ryrie’s question may be rephrased as follows. When did God begin to do any of these salvific aspects and could these be implemented apart from being “in Christ?” Simply put, how can one be saved by Christ without being “in Christ?”⁴¹ The real question in determining whether the church began at Pentecost is not simply to ask whether God began something new at that time but whether this newness, even if it does initiate a new dispensation, marked the commencing of the church.
   

   SOTERIOLOGY

   Whereas traditional dispensationalism maintains that the Jews rejected the kingdom prior to Acts 2, ultra-dispensationalism holds that this final Jewish rejection was either sometime between Acts 2-13 or subsequent to Acts 28. The Jewish rejection instigates the shift from Jews to the Gentiles not with the kingdom message but with the gospel of the grace of God.⁴² It is the Jewish people (traditional) or Jewish church (ultra-) who putatively receive the gospel of the kingdom preached initially by Jesus (traditional) and/or Peter (ultra-) and possibly the early Paul while the Gentile or “body church” receive the gospel of the “mystery” of the grace of God as taught exclusively by Paul. When the age of grace is fulfilled, God will reinstitute the earlier program of the kingdom message to the kingdom people about the kingdom to come.,⁴³ But does this indicate two gospels? And does the preaching of the mystery mark the ontological commencing of its subject?

   1.  Does kingdom and grace distinguish two gospels? This setting aside of Israel or exclusive focus on the body church or interruption of the kingdom program is referred to as the great parenthesis. Outside the parenthesis is the kingdom (of heaven) message that comprises physical healing, observance of the Law, repudiation of riches, and no requirement of an epistemological awareness of the death of Christ. By contrast, the gospel of grace is distinguished by not being “under the Law” which is defined as not being under its obligations. Faith replaces the Law for salvation. Repentance is confined to the “gospel of the kingdom” and is therefore unnecessary for this dispensation.⁴⁴ These claims by ultra-dispensationalism appear to make Paul’s references to the kingdom and repentance superfluous.⁴⁵ Indeed, Paul seems to make no distinction between the kingdom and grace.

2. When did Paul preach the mystery? Any evidence that Paul preached the mystery prior to his Roman imprisonment would contradict ultra-dispensationalism. Romans 16:25-27 provides such a text. Here Paul declares that his gospel to the Romans is “according to the revelation of the mystery” (v. 25). Moreover, he states that this mystery was not new to him but disclosed “through the prophetic Scriptures” (v. 26). By “Scriptures” Paul is referring to the OT. Thus, Paul was given insight into the OT Scriptures about the “mystery” of Jewish and Gentile unity and equality. This is further confirmed by his words in Romans 1:1-2 where Paul states he was set apart for “God’s gospel” that was promised beforehand by the prophets in the holy Scriptures.⁴⁶ This interpretation suggests not only that the mystery was already written and known about prior to Paul but also Paul received his insight into the mystery. Paul’s “revelation” about this mystery involves not the disclosing for the first time the idea of Jewish and Gentile equality or the notion of salvation by grace alone, but rather fully disclosing or making explicit what has been disclosed or revealed (yet not entirely understood but nevertheless manifestly operative) since the fall. The question may again be posed, Did this “mystery” commence with Paul’s understanding here in Romans, when it was revealed in the OT, or prior to its writing in the OT? This reveals a fundamental assumption and similar orientation of both ultra- as well as traditional dispensational schemes. Both link an epistemological awareness of grace to its commencement, that is, they confuse the order of knowing with the order of being. A simpler explanation is that the same grace is operative throughout all dispensations with or without man’s knowledge and that it has been, is, and always will be by Christ, for Christ, and in Christ.

ESCHATOLOGY
The doctrine of eschatology (last things) is the result of combining the objects and the means with the time of final salvation. Thus it involves the effectual outworking of both ecclesiology and soteriology. To whom does Christ come back to receive unto himself? Does this in any way affect how many times he returns?

1. Who is the bride of Christ? Dispensationalism in general holds that the church is the “bride of Christ” while ethnic Israel is the “wife of Jehovah.” Baker, a moderate ultra-dispensationalist, and Welch, an extreme ultra-dispensationalist, both understand the bride of Christ to be the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev. 21:9-10) and not the church.⁴⁷ The church is the body rather than the bride.⁴⁸ By distinguishing the people of God into two rather than exclusively as those “in Christ,” the blessings are distributed into two areas. The earthly blessings are divvied to ethnic Israel while the spiritual or heavenly blessings to the church.⁴⁹ In addition to this, there is an everlasting distinction between the church and Israel. Baker writes that these distinctions “will continue on into eternity” and “concern the different companies of the redeemed, which will undoubtedly maintain their identity.”⁵⁰ And it is at this juncture that traditional and ultra­ dispensational forms are united.

2. Will the afterlife be perpetually segregated? This is a question that arises from the previous discussion. This division among the saved is the primary reason that the rapture deals exclusively with the church while the second coming deals primarily with Israel. The postponing of the kingdom on earth through the Davidic rule-interrupted by Israel’s rejection and subsequent creation of the church-is putatively reinstated after the rapture of the church and Daniel’s seventieth week-also called the Great Tribulation. As for the new heavens and the new earth, the bride or church in traditional and ultra-dispensationalism will serve as priests in the New Jerusalem (bridegroom) that hovers above its satellite, the earth. Ethnic Israel, on the other hand, will serve God on earth and make visits to the New Jerusalem in a way reminiscent to the tabernacle in the wilderness. But in this scenario,

The bride occupies the closer place to God in eternity She is the bride, and she has come up from the wilderness which is the present world. But the twelve tribes of Israel will then come up to the celestial city to worship, three tribes coming up on each of the four sides. They will then return back to the earth after a period of worship, but the bride will dwell in the New Jerusalem.⁵¹

Beyond the church and Israel is yet another group comprised of the nations of the earth. These nations too will regularly make visits to the New Jerusalem not to offer sacrifices but to worship the Lamb. Thus ethnic Israel and redeemed gentile nations will occupy the earth for eternity in distinction to the church that occupies the heavenly Jerusalem. Although these Jews and Gentiles may enjoy the benefits of visiting the New Jerusalem, their home is earth. In addition, the bodies of these earth-dwellers are dissimilar to the bodies of individuals comprising the church who are in the likeness of Christ. This unlikeness means earth-dwellers will need “renewing from time to time.”⁵² On these eschatological points, little distinguishes the dispensational schemes.⁵³ However, most theologians regard these fine distinctions as mere metaphors of the same reality.⁵⁴

THE FUTURE OF ULTRA-DISPENSATIONALISM

Although perhaps overstated, what Witherington wrote of the historical origins of dispensationalism, absent its popularity, may surely be applied to ultra-dispensationalism.

Despite the ever-growing popularity of this theology with laypeople…this theology did not have any scholarly grounding or basis. It did not arise out of
detailed exegetical study of the biblical text in its original languages Indeed it was dependent in many ways on the King James translation of the Bible. This was a lay theology formed and promulgated by preachers and laypersons.⁵⁵

What shall one conclude about the future of ultra-dispensationalism within evangelicalism? It is not so much its eschatology that is troubling-although it is troubling in several respects-but rather the doctrines underlying its eschatology that tend towards the unorthodox that are most troubling. It is precisely that the age of grace is depicted as commencing at a particular time sequential to other dispensations and not concurrent and exercised in the same way within every dispensation that gives rise to other gospels, multiple faiths, distinct destinies, and alternate means of salvation other than being “in Christ.”⁵⁶

The only viable future of ultra- dispensationalism, in this writer’s opinion, is the dissolution of the two peoples of God into one in Christ. Progressive dispensationalism may provide the only meaningful alternative to both the traditional and ultra-dispensational forms. On a hermeneutical level, unless and until ultra-dispensationalism drops its guiding presuppositions regarding the connection of knowledge with an ontological commencement in terms of the church’s origin, its failure to distinguish between true Israel and merely ethnic Israel, its distinction between ethnic Israel and the church as two peoples of God, and its rigid literalism when it comes to prophecy, it will continue to represent only a minority of professing Christians within a minority of professing Christians and at the very least a truncated if not a largely spurious gospel.

Donald E. Hartley (Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor of Bible and Theology at Southeastern Bible College, Birmingham, Alabama.

NOTES
1 G. R. Lewis, “Ultra dispensationalism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids; Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Baker; Paternoster, 2001), 1225-26.
2 Traditional Dispensationalism has its critics ranging from the charge of heresy on the one end to merely a novelty in the interpretive history of the church on the other. See Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, House Divided: The Break­ up of Dispensational Theology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997); C. Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America: Its Rise and Development (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1958), 131-36; Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism and
the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-Century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-First Century
(Tucson, AZ: Fenestra Books, 2003). “Traditional Dispensationalism is still a house built on presuppositions rather than exegesis” (ibid., 193). “Moreover, it must be remembered that their strong point was in logical harmony and contemporary application rather than in grammatical-historical interpretation” (Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 2d ed. [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1994], §17)_ See also Arthur W. Pink, “The Application of the Scriptures: A Biblical Refutation of Dispensationalism,” Studies in the Scriptures (1952): in 5 parts; John H. Gerstner, “A Primer on Dispensationalism,” in Primitive Theology: The Collected Primers of John H. Gerstner, ed. Don Kistler (Morgan, PA: Soli Dea Gloria, 1996), 443-83 (esp. 62-80); idem, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, 2d ed. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 2000); Dale Sumner DeWitt, Dispensational Theology in America during the Twentieth Century: Theological Development and Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College, 2002), 27- 52; Ben Witherington, The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 91-168. For a traditional dispensational rejoinder see Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 13-26. For a specific defense of traditional dispensationalism against progressive dispensationalism see Ron J. Bigalke, ed. Progressive Dispensationalism: An Analysis of the Movement and Defense of Traditional Dispensationalism (New York: University Press of America, 2005).
3 See H. A. Ironside, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: Ultra-Dispensationalism Examined in the Light of Holy Scripture, 3d ed., Treasury of Truth (Oakland, CA: Western Book & Tract, 1938). He refers to the Bullingerism type of ultra-dispensationalism as “a Satanic perversion of the truth” (ibid., 11); Roy L. Aldrich, “An Outline Study on Dispensationalism,” B Sac 118, no. (1961): 133-41; Ryrie, 229-41. Ryrie
says the difference between dispensationalism and ultra-dispensationalism is primarily this: “Dispensationalists say that the church began at
Pentecost, while ultra dispensationalists believe that it began with Paul sometime later” (ibid., 229). There is a tacit assumption and agreement by both traditional dispensationalists and ultra­ dispensationalists that the church was not in the Old Testament.
4 For a similar summary see Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993), 106-27.
5 In the canonical OT the Hebrew phrase occurs 95 times, not all having this sense however. The Greek term occurs 12 times in the canonical LXX and refers to a supervisor of the King’s palace like Ahishar (1 Kgs. 4:6), Azra 1 Kgs. 16:9), Obadiah (1 Kgs. 18:3), Eliakim (2 Kgs. 18:18, 37; 19:2; Isa. 36:3, 22; 37:2), or supervisors of the King in general (1 Chr. 29:6; Esth. 1:8; 8:9). In the OT apocrypha it is used for a treasurer among the King’s entourage (1 Esd. 4:47, 49) or generally for attendants of the King (1 Esd. 8:67). In the OT pseudepigrapha it refers to the household of the Memphian woman (T. Jos. 12:3) or a guardian/ steward of the faith (4 Bar. 7:2). In Josephus it is used of various administrators of the King (Ant. 8:164, 308; 9:47; 11:138, 272; 12:199-200, 205).
Philo utilizes it to refer to the ruling of one’s house in contrast to the affairs of the state or politikos (Rewards 1:113). By this term Polycarp designates the leaders of the church under the rule of the Bishop (Pol. Phil. 6:1).
6 Lachish 4:5; Silwan 2:1; Seals 1:2; 403:2; 404:2;
405:2; 406:2.
7 KAl215 1:7; KAl222 A3:7.
8 CD 7:11; 13:23; lQpHab 5:9; 1Q20 20:28; 4Q156 f2:4; 4Q223-224 f2v:31; 4Q410 fl:9; 4Q505 f125:2; 4Q550 f7+7a:6; 4Q551 fl:4; 11Q19 25:16; 32:11; 11Q20 9:2.
9 Ber. 1:3; Sabb. 1:4; Pesah. 10:5; Meg. 4:8; Yebam. 10:2; B. Bat. 3:7; 6:4; Sanh. 1:5; 2:4; 6:1; 11:1-2; Ed. 8:4; Hor. l :5; Tamid 4:2; Neg. 13:6; Tehar. 4:5; Miqw. 4:1; Ned. 7:5-8:1; Zabim 4:7.
10 Walter Bauer and others, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 698 (hereafter BDAG). In the NT it refers to one put in charge of a rich man’s household (Luke 12:42) who may be called to give an account of his stewardship (Luke 16:1, 3, 8), a treasurer (Rom. 16:23), servants of Christ of the mysteries (1 Car. 4:1; Titus 1:7) where again accountability will be demanded (1 Cor 4:2), instructors of one’s sons (Gal. 4:2), and to all believers who are responsible for specific gifts received from God (1 Pet. 4:10).
11 The two other occurrences are in the apocrypha (2 Mace. 3:14; 3 Mace. 3:2). In the Letter of Aristeas it refers to a just and responsible
discharging of one’s duties (Let. Aris. 24) or to God’s providential governing of all things (Let. Aris. 143). Josephus uses it to depict the conducting of one’s life according to the Law (Ant. 1:19), to the administration of a king (Ant. 12:34; 18:238), to a conspiracy to elevate a son above his brothers (Ant. 16.79), to improper stewardship of inherited privileges (Ant. 16.382), and to the liturgical order of a religious service (Ag. Ap. 2.188). Philo uses it to refer to proper political management of the governed (Creation 11), the inherent regulation of the stars (Creation 54; Abr. 69), the designs of fate (Joseph 192), to God’s providence over all things (Decal. 53), and to the final cause of teeth, namely, for eating (Spec. Laws 3.198). One text in the Apostolic Fathers uses it to refer to a joint plan (decree) in the minds of both parent (God) and child (Jesus) encapsulating all dispensations (Diogn. 9:1). In the apocryphal Acts of Pilate, it refers to the carrying out of the plan of Satan to crucify Jesus (Acts Pi!. 23:1).
12 BDAG 697.
13 Elsewhere in the OT pseudepigrapha it refers to the plan for the Lord and God to become incarnate (Sib. Or. 0: 17), to Job’s duties (T. Job 1:2), to an outreach to help the poor (T. Job 11:5), to a calling Abraham obeyed (T. Ab. B 7:17), and to a plan for Jeremiah’s ministry (4 Bar. 9:29) including his life terminated by death (4 Bar. 9:31). In Josephus it designates charge over a household (Ant. 2:57), particular programs of an administration (Ant. 2:89; Ag. Ap. 2:177), may include an extended plan of deception (Ant. 7:32), or simply presents the way things are or will be (Ant. 7:391; J. W. 1:15; Ag. Ap. 1:28). In Philo it is a trait attributed to the wise man (Drunkenness 92; Dreams l :205), designates the management of a household or nation (Joseph 38; Good Person 83), identifies the lesser dominion of women in contrast to that domain of men (Spec. Laws 3:170-71), describes physical characteristics (Virtues 208), or signifies a life-plan derived from one’s inheritance (4QGen 4:61-62). In the Apostolic Fathers it may designate the duties of a Bishop over God’s church (lgn. Eph. 6:1) or human guardianship over mere mysteries (Diogn. 7:1). It may stand for God’s decree in terms of the virgin conception (lgn. Eph. 18:2) or his set pattern of seasonal changes (Diogn. 4:5). It can represent the entire salvation story (lgn. Eph. 20:1) or the make-up of the human body (Mart. Pol. 2:2).
14 BDAG 697-98. In the NT it refers to a temporary administration supervised by a manager (Luke 16:2-4), to Paul’s apostolic preaching ministry (1 Cor. 9:16; Eph. 3:2), to the headship of Christ over all things (Eph. 1:10) or God’s overall redemptive plan (1 Tim. 1:4), and specifically to the equality of Jews and Gentiles in Christ (Eph. 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25). That it occurs nine times in the NT has no significance despite the words of Welch to the contrary (Charles H. Welch, Dispensational Truth: or, The Place of Israel and the Church Which Is His Body in the Purpose of the Ages, 3d ed. [London: Berean Publishing Trust, 1959; reprint, 2008], 23-24, 30-33).
15 Certainly Ryrie’s definition as, “a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose” is in line with this general definition (Ryrie, 234; Roy
L. Aldrich, “An Apologetic for Dispensationalism,” BSac 112 [1955]: 47). It is not so much the definition but rather the application regarding the commencing of these “dispensations” that is the point of contention between covenant theology and varying forms of dispensationalism.
16 Because progressive dispensationalism has no genealogical link with ultra-dispensationalism, it will be omitted. On progressive dispensationalism see Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Oispensationa/ism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
17 J. N. Darby, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, 34 vols. (London: Morrish, 1867).
18 See C. I. Scofield and others, eds., The New Scofield Study Bible: New International Version: New Scofield Study System with Introductions, Annotations, and Subject Chain References, New International ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
19 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1967), esp. vol. 4.
20The debt to Darby cannot be minimized even though there are many differences among dispensational interpreters. See Larry V. Crutchfield, The Origins of Dispensationalism: The Darby Factor (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991), 165-203, 205-09; Clarence
B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 48-63, 128-40;
Ryrie, 69-88.
21 Ryrie, 45-48. For helpful charts on “Representative Dispensational Schemes (17th-19th Centuries)” as well as “Dispensations in the Dispensational Tradition,” see Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 118-19. For a critique of classic dispensationalism’s two peoples of God see Keith
A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995). For an appraisal of classical dispensationalism’s “literal interpretation” see Poythress, §§24-30.
22For a concise and fair comparison of covenant and dispensational theology see Richard P. Belcher, A Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1986).
23 Ryrie, 233. I am indebted to Ryrie’s fine discussion and simplicity of format for initially understanding ultra-dispensational ism.
24 Even Stam, a moderate ultra-dispensationalist, refers to the Acts 28 form as extreme (Cornelius
R. Stam, Things That Differ: The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism [Germantown, WI: Berean Bible Society, 1985], 157-58, 168).
25 Baptism is regarded as part of the great commission (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16: 15-18;
Luke 24:45-49; John 20:21-23; 21:15-17) and
is therefore not essential to the present grace dispensation. It along with miraculous signs are past (ibid., 152-56). Stam regards “baptism” as a work that brought forgiveness of sins in contrast to this dispensation that requires no works for salvation. There are several assumptions of Stam including textual (the ending of Mark) and exegetical (what does the Greek phrase underlying the translation, “for the forgiveness of our sins,” in Acts 2:38 mean?). The textual and exegetical support underlying both assertions is extremely tenuous.
26 Ryrie, 233-34.
27 Essential to understanding dispensationalism in general and ultra-dispensationalism in particular is the doctrine of the church. See Ernest Pickering, “Distinctive Teaching of Ultra-Dispensationalism,” Central Bible Quarterly 4, no. 4 (1961): 40. He sums up ultra-dispensational distinctives (mainly mid­ Acts) in a fivefold division: (1) The great commission of Matt 28:19-20 does not apply to this age of grace. (2) That the ministry of the Twelve was essentially different than that of Paul. (3) That the day of Pentecost was not the inauguration of the church age (non-dispensationalists would agree but put it previously in the OT). (4) That the truth of the mystery of the body of Christ was unknown until revealed to Paul.
28 Welch, 25-26.
29 For a short summary and critical appraisal of his views see W. A. Haggai, O’Hairism under the Searchlight of the Word or Is Water Baptism for This Dispensation?, 4th ed. (Binghamton, NY: Calvary Baptist Church, n.d). Although at times the distinction between O’Hair and Bullinger is not strictly maintained. For a more detailed tome from this perspective see Charles F. Baker, A Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Grace, 1971).
30 The problem is that Paul consistently refers to his ministry to the Gentiles while still going to the Jews (Acts 9:15; 13:46-48; 14:27; 15:3, 7, 12,
17, 19; 18:6; 21:19, 21, 25; 22:21; 26:17, 20,23; 28:28). Four things may be said in addition. First, Gentiles were being incorporated prior to Paul (Acts 10:22, 35; 11:1, 18; 15:14). Second, not all Gentiles accepted the gospel but rejected it just like many Jews did (Acts 14:1·5; 19:34). Third, many Jews did accept Paul’s message (Acts 4:27; 13:43; 14:1; 16:1, 3, 20; 17:17; 18:2, 4-5, 24; 19:10, 17; 20:21; 21:20, 39; 22:3, 12-15; 24:24; 26:4; 28:24). Finally, even at the end of Acts, Paul is still preaching about the kingdom of God to Jews with no hint that it is a different message to the Gentiles (Other Apostles: Acts 1:3, 6; 8:12; Paul: Acts 14:20-23; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). And if
Paul’s epistles may be consulted, these also make liberal mention of the kingdom to both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 14:17; 1 Car. 4:20; 6:9-10; 15:24,
50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 1:13; 4:11; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18). Thus it is illegitimate to suggest two gospels, one consisting of the kingdom and the other of grace-never mind the suggestion that these may be different or even opposing gospels (cf. Stam, 165 where he denies that Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom).
31 lbid., 61-65.
32 Ibid., 111. It should be noted here that the Pauline shorthand, “without works,” is taken by Stam as longhand and thus he completely misses the Pauline meaning. The phrase “without works” or “by works” (Rom. 4:2; 9:12, 32; 11:6; Eph. 2:9; Titus 3:5) is shorthand for “without the works of the Law” (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:l6tris; 3:2, 5, 10). “Works of the Law” are works prescribed by the Law that are performed by man and function as a meritorious basis of justification. The only man who performed these perfectly and for one’s justification is Jesus-often referred to by theologians or in theology as his active obedience (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 379-82). Paul is not forfeiting necessary works for salvation but merely denying to sinful man the possibility of meritorious works (Eph. 2:10; 4:12; Jas. 2:21, 24, 25). Misunderstanding this fundamental issue, Stam and others like him fall into antinomianism. A similar misunderstanding lies with the phrase “under the Law” (Rom. 3:21; 6:14-15; 1 Car. 9:20; Gal. 3:23; 4:4-5, 21; 5:18; Jas. 2:9) as pitted against the expression “under grace” (Rom. 6:14- 15) as if they contrast two dispensations (Welch, 20). Rather, they contrast two types of individuals, lost versus saved, under every dispensation. See C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton, ICC, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 319-20. Cranfield argues persuasively that “under the Law” refers to condemnation while “under grace” to divine favor. All men, both Jews and Gentiles, are “under the Law” prior to justification and all are “under grace” subsequent to it. The only dispensations in mind are the individual’s before and after Christ. Neither Abraham nor David were “under the Law” subsequent to justification.
33 Joel Finck, The Mystery: The Key to the Bible (Rapid City, SD: Grace Bible Church, 1997), 39-48.
34 Ryrie, 234.
35 Ibid., 235.
36 This seems to make sense of passages like Gal. 1:13, 22-23, 1 Car. 15:9, and Phil 3:6 where Paul says he persecuted the church and the faith, that he now preaches, prior to his conversion. Ryrie says, “The natural understanding of these three references to the church is that it was the same church to which he and the converts won through his preaching were joined” (ibid., 236). Other similar passages in Acts prior to Paul’s conversion are problematic as well (Acts 5:11; 11:24). But Ryrie also asserts from other passages (John 10:16; 14:20; Col. 1:27) with John 14: 17 that this reality commenced at Pentecost. However, it may be argued to the contrary that it is not the ontological “you in me” relationship that is new but rather the epistemological “knowing” about it that is (John 14:20). Jesus does not say, “In that day I will for the first time be in my Father and you wi11 for the first time be in me.” But rather, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father and I am in you.” Could one seriously entertain the possibility that the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son (doctrine of perichoresis) commenced on Pentecost rather than in eternity? Although the timing of traditional dispensationalism is different than ultra-dispensationalism, the presupposition is the same, namely, the connecting of the knowledge of the mystery with its commencing. The association of John 14:17 “indwelling” (“will be in” or “is in you”) with Pentecost is problematic as well as the identification of the “baptism of the Spirit” in Acts with that in 1 Corinthians 12:13 (ibid., 238-40).
37 This is especially relevant in light of Rom. 5:12- 21 where “in Adam” defines all lost humanity and “in Christ” all saved humanity. How can any part of saved humanity be distinct from the latter?
38 For a fuller explanation see Donald E. Hartley, “2 Corinthians 4:4: A Case for Yahweh as the ‘God of this Age’,” Apologetics Journal l (2005) found here at http://rdtwot.fi1es.wordpress. com/2007 /10/2cor-44.pdf.
39 For this and other reasons, it is simplistic to say, “The simplest refutation of nondispensationalism is that the Bible is divided into Old Testament and New” (Aldrich, “An Outline Study on Dispensationalism,” 134).
40 0n my count there are 51 ti mes in the Prison Epistles (Eph., Col., Phil., Phlm.) where the phrase “in Christ/Lord” (the preposition for “in” followed by within 3 words either “Christ” or “Lord”) appears.
41 Should the “church” be identified by the revelation of the mystery, Pentecost, or on the basis of salvation (“in Christ”)? “If the Old Testament people of God had no union with Christ, they were not saved by Him. If they were saved by Christ, dispensationalists have to admit that the Israel of the Old Testament and the church of the New are one and the same body of people, all of them in union with Jesus Christ, and, as such, the true sons of Abraham”
(Gerstner, “A Primer on Dispensationalism,” 454).

42 See Stam, 67-77, 128-46. He clearly sees Paul’s gospel as different from the Twelve and
limits Paul’s curse of “another gospel” (Gal. 1:8-9) to “any who preach to the Gentiles any other gospel that which he had preached” (ibid., 78). This leaves open the preaching of another gospel to the Jews. Stam identifies five different gospels throughout time including the kingdom, circumcision, uncircumcision, reconciliation, and the mystery (ibid., 131). Welch, an extreme ultra­ dispensationalists, does likewise and argues that Gal. 2:7 identifies two different gospels, one “of the uncircumcision” and the other “of the circumcision” (Welch, 17). This is a serious mishandling of the genitive phrases. The genitive phrases are of destination and thus rightly translated by the NET as “gospel to the uncircumcision” and gospel “to the circumcised” with no equivocation on the term “gospel.” That there are different legitimate gospels existing either successively or concurrently depending on differing representatives, recipients, or dispensations finds absolutely no support in Paul or anywhere else in the NT. In fact, the charging of Paul with another gospel different than that of the Jerusalem Apostles would have played right into the hands of Paul’s enemies at Galatia, a charge he was explicitly refuting in chapter two of his epistle to them. Welch also distinguishes between the gospel of the kingdom of heaven pertaining to the Jews versus the gospel of the kingdom of God with reference to the church (ibid., 34-35).
43 Finck, 40.
44 Ibid., 43-48.
45 Paul’s reference to the kingdom include Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:8, 20; 6:9-10; 15:24-25, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 1:13; 4:11; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2
Thess. 1:5; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18. His references to repentance are also detrimental to this view (Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:9-10; 12:21; 2 Tim. 2:25). These two lines of evidence function as counter-arguments that (1) there is such a thing as either the “gospel of the kingdom” versus the “gospel of grace” or (2) that repentance is at variance with the gospel of grace or faith alone for justification.
46 See Rom. 1:1-2; 3:21; 15:8-9; 16:25; 11:17;
15:27. However one takes the genitive “of God” in the phrase, “gospel of God,’ it is apparent that this “gospel” is not distinct from any other “gospel” in the NT except “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-7; 2 Cor. 11:4) that Paul condemns. Thus in Paul God’s gospel(Rom. 1:1; Rom. 15:16; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8, 9; 1 Tim. 1:8) is the gospel (Rom. 1:9, 16; 11:28 1 Cor. 4:15; 9:14, 18, 23; 15:1; 2 Cor. 8:18; Gal. 1:11; 2:2, 5, 7, 14; Eph. 1:13; 3:6; 6:15, 19; Phil. 1:5, 7, 12, 16; 2:22; 4:3; Col. 1:5, 23; 1 Thess. 2:4; 2 Tim. 1:10; Phlm. 13), or the gospel of Christ (Rom. 15:19; 1 Car. 9:12; 2 Cor. 2:12; 2 Car. 4:4; 9:13; 10:14; Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 3:2), or Lord Jesus (2 Thess. 1:8), or Paul’s gospel (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; Phil. 4:15; 2 Tim. 2:8), or our gospel (2 Cor. 4:3; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:14), and one preached by Isaiah (Rom. 10:16).
47 8aker, 627. Although he subsequently says it may be a mistake to limit it to Israel but includes the great city, the holy Jerusalem (ibid., 628). See also Welch, 83.
48 0bviously one thinks of Eph. 5:22-33 which clearly speaks of the church as the bride or wife of Christ.
49 Gerstner, “A Primer on Dispensationalism,” 451-52. “This alone would be a total liability in dispensational theology. It is impossible everlastingly to divide the one people of God. The Church is one in all ages” (ibid., 478).
50 Baker, 625.
51 J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, vol. 5: 1 Corinthians through Revelation (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1983), 1069; Baker, 625-26.
52 McGee, 1076.
53 For an example of the similar eschatology of extreme ultra-dispensationalists see Welch, 41-50.
54″We are not to think of a new creation into which the new Jerusalem comes, thus melding the two images. Rather, John is simply changing the metaphor; apocalyptic literature happily piles disparate metaphors on top on one another. The point is that the ultimate state can be thought of as a new heaven and a new earth, or it can be thought of as a new city, the new Jerusalem. The change enables readers to glimpse different facets of the same reality” (D. A. Carson, The God Who Is There: Finding Your Place in God’s Story [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 217).
55 Witherington, 95. An example of the melding of mid-Acts d1spensationalism with radical KJV. only advocacy may be seen in Terence D. McLean,
Basics of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism (Alpha, OH: Discerning the Times, 2006). However, it is unfair to label the original or later dispensational writers of both traditional and ultra-dispensational varieties as committed to the KJV. Bullinger certainly did not depend on the KJV for he had his own version and his successor Welch often cited the Hebrew and Greek texts.
56 The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism contain several statements about “dispensation(s)” but in no wise reflect the views of dispensationalists (WCF 7.6; 8.8; WLC 74). The later 1689 London Baptist Confession does similarly (5.4; 8.8) as well as the 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith (5.4; 8.8). Several confessions like Augsburg (1530), Belgic (1561), Heidelberg (1563), and Dort (1618-19) make no mention of dispensation(s). Neither do the Apostles’, Athanasian, Chalcedon, nor Nicene creeds make any mention of dispensation(s).