Who believes in dispensations? by Charles Ryrie

THE NUMBER OF DISPENSATIONS

The Importance of the Question

In the previous chapter we have seen that covenant theologians (such as Hodge and Berkhof) list four and five dispensations in their concept of the outworking of the covenant of grace. This points to the fact that recognizing dispensations does not automatically make a person a dispensationalist. The essence of dispensationalism is (1) the recognition of a consistent distinction between Israel and the church, (2) a consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation, and (3) a basic and primary conception of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.

On the basis of these statements and conclusions, it would follow that the number of dispensations in a dispensational scheme and even the names of the dispensations are relatively minor matters. Presumably one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a consistent dispensationalist as long as the scheme is true to the three essentials of dispensationalism. Some opponents of dispensationalism recognize that these matters of number and name are relatively minor. Daniel Fuller, for instance, admits that “the number or names of the dispensations to which one holds is not essential to Dispensationalism.”1 Others, like J. W. Bowman, use numbers to imply that the system is wrong because it teaches seven dispensations when the Bible connects only two with the word itself.2 Seven is generally the number of dispensations most hold to, but that does not make the system five-sevenths wrong if Bowman’s implications be allowed. Suppose there were a dispensationalist who held to three dispensations. Then by Bowman’s inference he would be two-thirds right.

However, in general, it seems to make very little difference to opponents of dispensationalism how many dispensations the dispensationalist has in his system after he goes beyond two. Two is the dividing line, for most covenant theologians hold to two at least and usually object to more. And yet even the covenant theologians are not quite sure what the two are. They may on occasion ridicule the fact that dispensationalists cannot agree on the number in their scheme, but they should realize that they are not united themselves. As has been pointed out, Berkhof equates the two basic dispensations with the Old and New Testaments. (Incidentally, such designations as “Old Dispensation” and “New Dispensation” are not scriptural names!) Ernest F. Kevan, when principal of London (England) Bible College, was just as sure that the two dispensations are the Mosaic Law and Grace. Both of these he sees as the outworking of the single covenant of grace:

God’s covenanted purpose with sinful man has ever been one of grace; but the covenant of grace was based on a double plan, or to use scriptural terminology, was revealed in two dispensations. The first of these was the Mosaic dispensation, sometimes called the “Old Covenant,” and the second is the Christian dispensation, usually called the “New Covenant.” Strictly the covenant (q.v.) is one and the same covenant of grace.3

Two—whatever they are called—is the limit for covenant theologians (though the Old is usually subdivided further by covenant theologians), and when a dispensationalist goes beyond two, it makes little difference even to the covenant theologian how many more he has.

Source: Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995), 51–52.

1 Daniel P. Fuller, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” (ThD. diss., Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1957), 23.

2 John Wick Bowman, “The Bible and Modern Religions: II. Dispensationalism,” Interpretation 10 (April 1956): 175.

3 Ernest F. Kevan, “Dispensation,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), 168.