The writings of Paul, the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, contribute to the student the most information about dispensations. The emphasis is on Paul, since he has written more than others in the collection of writings, sincerely misnamed, The New Testament. This published and printed name, New Testament, is man made. Likewise, the designation, The Old Testament is of the same origin, a sincere, man made effort to name or rename that collection of writings. Too many think these names or designations are from God. Such is not the case. The King James ‘Bible’ , likewise, does not carry any Divine imprimatur with the uninspired statement, “The Authorized Version”. It neither adds nor detracts to this Bible’s value, but may give false impressions to the new student, who may think God included these additions as part of the Scriptures.
An emphasis should also be seen in his distinct apostleship. All that Paul teaches is second hand. He originates nothing. He is a sent one by the Lord Jesus Christ. To take Jesus seriously, we need to take seriously the contents of all that he has spoken through the Apostle Paul. Many Bibles and “New Testaments” are called Red Letter Editions, which generally means, the words of Christ are printed in red. If we are to take Jesus Christ seriously, Paul’s epistles should be in red, also. In Paul’s writings we have the teachings of Christ, just as valuable, just as precious as those recorded in the four Gospels. Paul reveals Christ’s mind since his ascension into Glory. Let’s get serious, as we would take Jesus seriously. This emphasis is not some twist or turn of Scripture, creating a choice between Jesus and Paul. Rather, there is the fact that the Lord Jesus spoke many things in the Gospel records and He spoke many more things through Paul, another Apostle, distinct from the twelve, with a distinctive, new message, progressively revealed through those same writings.
A reading of the old Scofield Bible note on page 1189, would be a worthwhile effort. Then, a reading and comparison with the New Scofield Bibles’ note on page 1209, would also be enlightening. The ‘old’ note has been rewritten by the new editors into a sincere, but dumbed down version of the old notes.. We might say that the views of Dr. Scofield have been revised since his death. In the old notes, Paul’s writings “ have a very distinctive character “. In the New Scofield, we find Paul’s epistles “have a distinctive character “. To the new editors, Paul’s epistles are no longer to be considered to have a very distinctive character. Also, Paul’s distinct and unique contribution to ecclesiology is down played, in this writer’s opinion. Those truths concerning that body of teaching called ‘mysteries’ has been diminished. The old Scofield notes recognized Paul’s writings as a fresh revelation of new truth by using the phrases, “through Paul alone” and “through him alone” which are found three times in the third paragraph on page 1189.
Many critics condemn the adding of the Scofield notes to or into the Bible because they could/might become almost or more important as the text itself. But explanatory notes, commentary and reference ‘helps’ are part and parcel of acceptable Study Bibles. The maturing student must distinguish a difference. Even the critics of the Scofield Bible now have their own Bibles with their own notes.
[ The MacArthur Study Bible, by the author and general editor, John MacArthur might be an example. This Bible has many, many study notes, but hardly a blip about identified, dispensational matters or methods in Bible study. But this Bible also teaches many, many truths that could be identified as ‘dispensational truths’, without using the term.]
Paul has written more and therefore, has more to contribute for a better understanding concerning the whole Bible, as Dispensational teachers make an effort to bring these distinctive truths to the attention of sincere followers of Christ. While not all followers of Christ are dispensational in their approach to a better understanding of the Bible, dispensational teachers believe strongly that their approach unfolds a better understanding than all other attempts to see the true teachings of the Bible. And, why not? Why settle for anything else, when the dispensational approach serves better than the others in their eyes and opinions. This is the challenge for today. Dispensational teachers need not beat their breasts to bring attention to their methods of Bible teaching. They only need to teach the Bible.
Romans 5:12-14, can be a starting point. Here is recognized the time when sin was not in the world of Adam and Eve, and then the very time when sin did enter the world through Adam. Sin brought death and death came upon all men. In 5:13, Paul teaches that there was a period when there was no Law of God, as given by Moses. This period is called, from Adam to Moses (5:14).
In just these three verses, we find three major happenings : There was a time when Adam and Eve were without sin. Next, that sin and death came into the world through Adam and his transgression. Then, there is mentioned how the Law of Moses, the Law of God, given to and through Moses, entered into the world. There is no grid here. There is just a clear, simple unfolding of what happened in the writings of Moses, a part of a collection of books, that included the writings of the Prophets and the portion just called the Writings. These books were the ‘Bible’ of Paul’s day. There were more happenings between Adam’s time and the giving of the Law from God through Moses, to the recipients of that Law, the people of Israel. We can read about these in Genesis. We can see and read that the flood is a major happening. The call of Abraham is a major happening. This was the beginning of the nation of Israel, Those readers of Moses gain insight into their roots.
Paul brings the story of Abraham to the attention of the Galatian churches and the saints at Rome in his epistles (Romans and Galatians) to those churches, in order to give a proper perspective of how Abraham has a relationship to these believers in Paul’s day.
Among the reasons Paul dwells on Abraham and the Law of Moses in these two epistles, is due in part with his teaching ministry to these groups concerning the enemies of Paul, his message and the impact of these enemies’ teaching upon these very churches. These enemies were teaching erroneous doctrine. Paul’s arguments state that Abraham came into a right relationship with God, before the Law was given and before circumcision was given ( Romans 4). This relationship came about by faith (Gal. 3:6). In Galatians 3:17, Paul shows that the Law came 430 years after the promise given to Abraham. When the Law came, it did not annul the promise, that the promise would be reckoned as useless and thus replaced as it were, by the Law. In Gal. 3:19, Paul shows how the Law, rather than replace the promise, was actually added to the promise of Abraham. This verse also teaches that the Law of God and Moses, was never intended to last on and on and on, in a permanent fashion. The dispensation of the Law was a temporary arrangement. [ There was/is no eternal, universal Sabbath to be observed in our day.]
The entire Law as a unit, was not to be considered an eternal existing unit. The Law was temporary, to last ‘…till the seed should come…’ Paul mentions in Romans 5:20, “Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound.” The word ‘entered’, has with it the idea that, the Law entered alongside (of the promise), and thus did not replace it.
Paul continues in Gal.3 22-25, speaking about how scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise of faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (3:22) Then, Paul speaks about ‘faith’ in a detailed and distinct fashion. Take notice here !. He says, ‘Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. ( 3:23 ) I know many critics believe and teach that Dispensationalists are guilty of teaching two ways of salvation. They do not. In this context, notice, there are three important phrases, “ before faith came “ , “the faith which should afterwards be revealed” and “But after that faith is come” (3:23, 25). Did Paul teach or believe that the Old Testament people of God knew nothing of faith ? Hardly ! He is making a contrast to the time of Law and the coming of Grace. He is showing how God progressively unfolds new knowledge/revelation. No one can believe in this knowledge or revelation until God reveals it.
J. Gresham Machen, in his book, The Origin of Paul’s Religion , a respected Reformed theologian, has stated twice in his book, a classical statement in this writer’s opinion. He makes flawed statements as if he too, believes in two methods or plans of salvation in the Bible. How plain is his English to you ? Here are the words of Machen:
“It must be remembered that Paul, according to his Epistles did not demand that Jewish Christians should give up keeping the Law, but only required them not to force the keeping of the Law upon Gentiles. No doubt the observance of the Law on the part of Jewish Christians was to be very different in spirit from their pre- Christian legalism; they were no longer to regard the Law as a means of salvation.” ( pp 92-93)
“Inwardly, it is true, the early disciples were not simply devout Jews; they were really trusting for their salvation no longer to their observance of the Law but to Jesus their Saviour.” ( p 127) (underlining mine)
Another respected theologian, Oswald T. Allis, is quoted by John F. MacArthur, Jr. in his book, The Gospel According To Jesus, to support MacArthur’s position as a defender against ‘cheap grace’ and ‘easy-believism’, which he ( MacArthur ) can, seemingly, only find fault among the followers of Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary. But, as I see it, it looks like here in the quote, MacArthur and Allis have misfired and both are shot in the foot, as it were. Read for yourself :
“The fact that he is not under the law as a basis of a works-salvation does not set before the Christian a lower standard than that of the Mosaic Law, but a far higher one..” (p.235) (underlining mine)
One of the reasons for injecting these two respected theologians of Reformed Theological background and their seemingly shaky, contradictory statements, is to give critics, (many are of the Reformed tradition, that is, Covenant Theology ) opportunity to also take seriously Jesus, and start dealing with the beams in these Reformed brethren’s theological eye, before they start on the Dispensationalist’s theological eye. We can all use this advice.
The writer of this paper affirms that Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount has relevance, application and teaching value in this ‘dispensation’, this ‘age’ and/or this ‘time’, Matt. 7:1-5; II Tim 3:16 A rule of Bible study states : There is one interpretation for a particular passage of Scripture, many applications of this very same passage. A second rule states : Be consistent, don’t confuse interpretation with application, don’t confuse your listeners/readers, don’t switch ‘interpretation’ and ‘application’ around, using one for the other. The one interpretation is directed to the listeners, first and foremost, in this case, to the listeners of the Lord Jesus in the text of Matthew 5-7 The first and foremost application is to and for the listeners. This is the first and direct application. There can be and are many other “applications”. But the interpretation and first primary application must be concerning the teacher and the taught. All other applications are not exegesis of the text, but deductions from the preacher/teacher. These secondary ‘applications’ must be tested as to whether they actually ‘apply’ This is where the following statement has value : Don’t accept this because I said it, check it out for yourself.
Returning to Paul, he shows us a progression from being under law (3:23) to a place where we are no longer under the Law of Moses. The law was a schoolmaster for that period of time, unto Christ (3:24). [“to bring us” is a theological translation, additive to help understand what Paul is saying, but, unfortunately, it hinders more than helps.] Paul is basically, repeating himself, and saying the same thing differently. ( 3:23, 24, 25) Paul alone, in his writings gives us truth by revelation concerning the fact that we are, FREE FROM THE LAW. Keep in mind, these are NOT Paul’s self originating teachings. As an Apostle and servant, he preaches and teaches revelation received from his Lord.
Paul teaches about five ‘comings’ in the larger context in Galatians. Notice these passages: Gal. 3:17, Gal. 3:19; Gal. 3:22-23; Gal. 3:24-25 and Gal. 4:1-5.
Gal. 3:17 shows us that the ‘coming’ of the Law of God and Moses was 430 after the promise that was given to Abraham. This ‘law’ had limitations. This Law did NOT replace the promise. This Law did not void the promise.
Gal. 3:19 teaches the Law is temporary. It begins with Moses, the Law-giver. It will last “till the seed should come”. But this ‘coming’ does not refer to the ‘seed’s birth, the seed’s baptism with water or the seed’s death baptism on the cross. Read on……..
Gal. 3:22-23 makes these statements: There was a point ( in time ) described as being “under sin” contrasted with ‘the promise of faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe’.(3:22) The next verse (3:23), repeats 3:22, saying the same thing, using different words. The phrase of 3:22, “to them that believe” is now “the belief” as found in the first part of 3:23 and “the faith” or “the belief” in the last part of the verse. The phrase, “under sin” of 3:22 is now, “under law” in 3:23.
To be ‘under law’, was to be in a time “before faith came’. To be “under law” was to last until a time when this, ‘the faith’, should afterwards be revealed. The ‘coming’ of this faith, was by revelation. Paul uses the idea of being “kept under law” to describe conditions “before faith” came. Paul uses this expression, “shut up unto the faith” as the same as being “under law” and staying there until a release comes through a revelation of this ‘faith’ Paul is speaking about a content of knowledge that would be revealed which is to be believed, to be trusted, to be accepted as true by faith..
Gal. 3:24-25 continues with this line of demarcation, ‘under law’ and ‘not under law’. Paul now calls the law a schoolmaster-trainer. The contrast here is ‘under the schoolmaster’ and the point at/after ‘unto Christ’, along with the idea of being justified by faith. Here we need to understand that this statement “that we might be justified by faith” concerns that “faith which should afterwards be revealed” ( Gal. 3:23b) There would come a revelation whose contents will be a body of teaching/doctrine that when believed will be accounted as justification by God. Then in 3:25, he continues, when this faith (this particular body of truth, when believed, justifies) comes, then we are no longer ‘under the law/schoolmaster’ as a way of life.
Gal. 4:1-5, continues, showing that those “under tutors/guardians” and “under stewards/dispensers” were there for a temporary length of time. This deals with a family situation, as an illustration, where the father decides when the heirs, the children are ‘under’ and ‘not under’. Gal. 4:3, then, compares this family situation with those ‘under the elements of the world’ which is another way of saying, “under law’, and Gal. 4:4 shows a change, from a former “time appointed of the father” with ‘when the fullness of time comes.’ At that time, God sends forth his son, made ‘under the law’ for the purpose of redeeming those ‘under the law’.
Let us consider this question : “If the law lasts ‘till the seed should come’, how do we know when that time really has come as far as the Bible is concerned, with a chapter and verse in mind ? There are several chapters and verses that come to mind, that have been used to show a possible ‘end’ for law and a ‘beginning’ of something different. Matthew 1:1, Mark 1:1 and Luke 16:16 certainly show changes in contrast to Genesis through Malachi. But these verses are generally noted to show prediction or promise versus fulfillment. Matthew 5:17-18 indicates that Jesus, at that time, with a ‘beginning’ of his ministry, was not starting something new, not removing but confirming, restoring and fulfilling things of the past, things foretold by the prophets and Moses.
But, in Romans 6:14-15, Paul indicates twice to the Romans, that Paul and the Romans were “not under the law, but under grace”. Paul states things another way in Romans 7:1-6, teaching that the law had dominion over a man only as long as he was living. Paul says that these Roman believers became dead to the Law through the death Christ died, with these believers identified as having Christ dying for them, then to be married to another, even the resurrected Christ. Paul also says that this is like being delivered or discharged from the Law (7:6) From all of these verses, so far, we have been taught that there was:
A time when man had no sin
A time when sin entered the world of mankind.
A time, then, when death entered the world of mankind.
A time when God made a promise to Abraham
A time when God gave the Law, 430 years after the Promise
A time when Paul and believers were not under Law, but under Grace.
These happenings, as listed above could be renamed as various dispensations where God deals with mankind in changing ways. Five of these times happened in the past. The sixth is for the present. Whatever may be the future, would be another development and change. From the perspective of Moses, the author of Genesis, one of his purposes was to show the people of Israel, their history and family tree. That of course, gives a special focus to Abraham, then Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons. The first eleven chapters of Genesis contain a condensed or abbreviated story of earlier history that did not have a weighted importance as the history of chapters 12-50 did. Thus there was less information given. This is an early ‘reader’s digest’ of past times, important enough to note, but not important enough for details, from Moses’ perspective.
A great many students of the Scriptures believe that at the cross, is where the Law ended. But, voting numbers alone do not make a convincing case. There are many facts that surround the death of the Lord. What is lacking is the interpreting of the facts. In I Cor. 15:1-4, we have the gospel according to Paul. He says, he preached it to these Corinthians, and they received it, they stand in it., by it they were saved.
So, Paul continues, “I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received ( Cf. Gal. 1:11-12) how that Christ died (the fact) for our sins ( revelation) according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:..” I Cor. 15:3 We can know nothing about what really happened at the cross, just by being there and looking. Reading the Gospel records only gives us an historical account, the facts. We need revelation to inform us and educate us about what God was doing there through Christ, not just what the Romans were doing.
Paul states in Ephesians 2:16, concerning the Lord, “that he might reconcile both ( Jew and Gentile) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. Many might say that this Scripture clearly shows that the reconciliation happened at the cross. Eph. 2:14-16 as a unity reveals to us that the middle wall of partition being broken down and the enmity contained in the law of commandments were abolished in his flesh on the cross and the reconciliation was by the cross.
But, there is a difference between the reconciliation happening at, by, or through the cross and the time of the revelation that this reconciliation happened through the cross. While not trying to build a case by an appeal to just a preposition, the case to be made, is to be based upon the time of the revelation of these truths. The Lord Jesus’ death is just another death, unless we are told what happened there. Paul was God’s man for this job. While not expecting to show that L. S. Chafer agrees with this writer, he does make a case for Paul having two distinct revelations: Paul’s Gospel ( Gal. 1:11-12) and the revelation of the divine purpose of this age. (Systematic Theology, vol. 4, pp.4-5, along with the note which Dr. Chafer quotes from the old Scofield, p. 1252.) This Scofield note closes with the sentence, “ In his writings alone we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the church.” The New Scofield drops the “alone’ and says the commitment was to Paul and his fellow ‘apostles and prophets by the Spirit (Eph. 3:5)”. This is certainly true. But, these other ‘apostles and prophets’ did not write any epistles. They were not given the ‘grace’ and privilege to pen these dispensational truths. Preach them, Yes ! Pen them, NO! The note should stand as it stands: In Paul’s writings alone…….
The argument is this: ‘In Paul’s writings alone, do we find the truth for today.’ Again, while William R. Newell does not take this writer’s position in this paper, this writer agrees with Mr. Newell in his paper, as follows. “Take Romans to Philemon out of the Bible and you are bereft of Christian doctrine. For instance, if you take Paul’s epistles out of the Bible, you cannot find anything about the Church, the Body of Christ, for no other apostle mentions the Body of Christ.” ( Paul vs. Peter or Remarks on Galatians I and II, p. 6 ) The purpose of Acts is the story of Israel, fading and falling. This is Israel’s second opportunity. Israel rejects Christ in the Gospels. Acts is the second chance, where they repeat their rejection.
Therefore, if no other apostles write of this truth concerning the Body of Christ, you can not know when the Law ended, unless you read Paul’s revelation, for only Paul writes of a change from Law to Grace and how the change came about. It was not AT THE CROSS, but at the revelation of what happened at the cross, that these truths became available to believe.
Many dispensationalists may think God begins this new dispensation on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and does not tell anybody about it until he converts Paul, and then has him fill in the blanks of everyone’s mind. Imagine, Christ ascending to Glory and not revealing his plans until they are revealed through Paul, years later and everyone else is in the dark, during those years.
This is the basic argument of Dr. Charles Ryrie in his book, Dispensationalism Today. “What the ultradispensationlist fails to recognize is that the distinguishableness of a dispensation is related to what God is doing, not necessarily to what He reveals at the time and least of all to what man understands of His purposes.” (page 198)
There is no failure here to understand what Dr. Ryrie is teaching, but disagreement. Dr. Ryrie has it backwards, in this writer’s opinion. How could God begin a new dispensation among men, if there are NO MEN around who are informed, that indeed, God has begun this new thing !!!!! Let us hear/read Dr. Ryrie again:
“The distinguishable feature of this economy is the formation of the Church which is Christ’s Body. This is the work of God; therefore, the question which decides the beginning of this dispensation is, When did God begin to do this? not, When did man understand it? Only by consulting the completed revelation can we understand that God began to do this work on the day of Pentecost ( Acts 1:5; 11:15-16; I Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:18), and therefore whether Peter and the others understood it then does not determine the beginning of the dispensation.” ( Page 199)
Again, there is no failure but disagreement with the above statements, and wonder if Dr. Ryrie disagrees with himself, because the above statements do not seem to agree with his earlier statements. In speaking earlier in chapter 2, Dr. Ryrie writes about the characteristics of a dispensation.
“Therefore, we conclude that a new dispensation was inaugurated., since the economy AND (emphasis mine) responsibility changed and new revelation was given.”
“Thus the distinguishing characteristics of a different dispensation are: (1) a change in God’s governmental relationship with man ( though a dispensation does not have to be composed entirely of completely new features), (2) a resulting change in man’s responsibility, and corresponding revelation necessary to effect the change ( which new revelation is a stage in the progress of revelation through the Bible).” (37-38)
To be responsible, then, in a new dispensation, a man MUST know (the facts), and UNDERSTAND (the facts) in order to conform and obey. Therefore, new revelation must be given to effect the change. Yet, Dr. Ryrie insists that when the Body of Christ, the church, began at Pentecost, there was no necessary ‘revelation’ given to effect a response by man in order to change. Then, Dr. Ryrie implies man didn’t need to know Read again the quote from page 199 above. Does your God operate like this?
This paper has made an effort to show how Paul gives a Scriptural unfolding of changes that we believe can be called dispensations. Tell us if we succeeded.
