A Note

I am neither a historian nor a theologian. My understanding of the matters of Covenant and Dispensational Theology are largely based on my own reading rather than academic study and are far from complete. Any inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the following are, therefore, likely my own.

Preface

In the Preface, Morris gives a short account of how and why he wrote this book and delivers a brief diatribe against both the claim that Dispensationalism is new as well as looking to the past to support a system of teaching. There isn’t much to comment on here other than to say I find it strange to start a book by condemning the very thing that book seeks to do. But this is apparently not a foreign concept among Dispensational writers –

Among dispensationalists we find conflicting answers to that question [does it matter that dispensationalism is a recent doctrinal development]. Sometimes conflicting opinions appear in the writings of a single author.

In his book The Basis of the Premillenial Faith, Charles Ryrie says that the historical argument is of the “utmost importance.” However, in Dispensationalism Today, he vehemently criticizes those who use the historical argument as if it were “partly valid.”

(1)

Introduction

In the introduction, Morris lays some ground work for the rest of the book. He gives a definition of Dispensationalism so that we will “recognize Dispensational doctrine when we see it.” He then mentions the “literal interpretation” which is necessary for Dispensationalism, briefly discusses how this hermeneutic gives rise to a distinction between Israel and Church, the insertion of a gap in the weeks of Daniel’s vision, and the doctrine of a pre-tribulational rapture. He ends with a “word of caution” in which he explains that, though the writers he will quote taught (what he believes to be) “central concepts of Dispensationalism,” none of them were Dispensationalists and taught things that are incompatible with Dispensationalism.

Unfortunately for Morris’ goal with this book, the definition he gives of Dispensationalism, “the doctrine that from time to time, God changes the way He relates to mankind,” (2) is completely inadequate. Several Dispensational writers and theologians have defined Dispensationalism or given lists of the essentials of Dispensationalism and in none of them that I have consulted is Morris’ definition even a point. (3) This, in conjunction with the fact that Covenant Theology also believes that, via the various covenants, God has altered the administration of the relationship between God and man, means that Morris’ definition is inadequate and cannot be used as determinative of what is and is not a Dispensational concept. This failure to properly distinguish the Dispensational distinctions will lead Morris to improperly label as “Dispensational” doctrines that are not unique to Dispensational thought.

Chapter 1

Morris’ first chapter is dedicated to showing instances of early writers who used the word “dispensation” to refer to “the various ages in which God dealt with mankind in different ways.” Morris quotes from Irenaeus, The Shepherd of Hermas, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and John Crysostem. He makes much of the fact that, in these quotations, the writers refer to different “ages” or times periods. Some even refer to a future dispensation.

But the use of the word “dispensation” is not unique to Dispensationalism. For instance, the Westminster Confession of Faith refers to different dispensations –

There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

(4)

The Second London Confession of Faith/1689 Confession also uses the word –

The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully binds, and otherwise orders and governs, in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends…

(5)

The use of the word to refer to “ages” or periods of time also does not distinguish a Dispensational conception of the idea. Poythress points out that

Virtually all branches of the church, and all ages of the church, have believed that there are distinctive epochs or “dispensations” in God’s government of the world–though sometimes the consciousness of such distinctions has grown dim.

(6)

And Keith Mathison states that

[Defining Dispensationalism as recognizing different dispensations or administrations] omits anything that is unique to dispensationalism. Virtually every system of Christian theology recognizes various administrations or economies within God’s plan…

(7)

So the use of the word or idea, or even using “dispensation” to refer to an age or difference of administration is not unique to Dispensational thought and is not evidence of Dispensational teaching. Morris fails to show that any of his chosen quotations use “dispensation” in a way that is incompatible with a non-Dispensational system.

Chapter 2

In this chapter, Morris documents several instances of early writers defending or preferring a “literal” interpretation of prophecy. He quotes from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Augustin, and Jerome. Morris stresses literal as opposed to symbolical interpretation. But he does not define either “literal” or “symbolical” which immediately produces problems.

The first evidence he presents is by Justin Martyr and states, in part,

“since, then, we prove that all things which have already happened had been predicted by the prophets before they came to pass, we must necessarily believe also that those things which are in like manner predicted, but are yet to come to pass, shall certainly happen.“

(8)

But notice that Martyr is not arguing for the literalness of fulfilled prophecy but that what was prophesied came to pass and therefore what prophecies remain unfulfilled are sure to be fulfilled. No one who holds to an orthodox position has any disagreement with Martyr here.

Morris then quotes Irenaeus as also teaching in favor of a literal interpretation –

“If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of any kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question].

(9)

“In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned… It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three and subject the remained to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight.

(10)

Morris seems to equate “allegorical” with “symbolic.” However, Irenaeus does not argue against a symbolic interpretation of prophecy, but against an allegorical interpretation. He then proceeds to interpret the woman of Revelation 12 as “the Church,” an interpretation that is certainly not literal and would be strongly argued against by most Dispensationalists (including, presumably, Morris).

The remainder of the quotations are likewise not arguments for an exclusively literal interpretation, or even a “grammatical-historical” method as many dispensationalists prefer to call their hermeneutic. Tertullian, though arguing against an exclusively allegorical interpretation, leaves room for a partially allegorical method, stating

“the allegorical style is not used in all parts of the prophetic record, although it occasionally occurs in certain portions of it.“

(11)

Morris quotes one instance of Hippolytus giving a literal interpretation of a portion of Daniel’s vision. But the issue in question is not if an ancient writer ever interpreted literally but if one or more taught a literal-only interpretation.

Augustine’s one appearance here is from his argument showing how to determine if a passage is literal or metaphorical. While this would be rather close to the “grammatical-historical” method, it certainly is not anything in support of a literal-only method but rather an argument against it. It also does not address any of the alternative methods, even the allegorical method, except to say that Augustine would have opposed a one-method only (e.g. solely allegorical) interpretative system.

The final quotation from Jerome argues that the commonly given interpretation of a portion of Daniel’s vision (which was interpreted in a manner that Morris labels as “literal”) is correct. Morris assumes that this quotation refers to all interpretation of prophecy but it does not; it refers to the referenced verse, Daniel 7:8, and perhaps parts of Revelation, but Jerome nowhere applies his reference to the traditional interpretation to anything other than the specific events he is referencing. As before, one instance of a method of interpretation is not proof that the person quoted supported solely that method of interpretation in every instance.

So we find that this chapter also fails to show any form of distinctly Dispensational teaching, but rather is more indicative that the quoted authors would have disagreed with Morris’ stated (literal only) hermeneutic.

Chapter 3

Morris opted to split the next section into two chapters; chapter 3, dealing with material teaching Israel’s return to Palestine, and chapter 4, documenting writings that teach Israel’s spiritual restoration. Here, he quotes from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and finally Hilary of Poitiers. As I will show, Morris again sees what he wants to in the quoted sections rather than what is actually being said.

First, Morris quotes Irenaeus on the activities of the Antichrist. Irenaeus states that Antichrist will sit in the temple in Jerusalem in an attempt to usurp Christ’s position. He includes Christ’s warning to those “in Judea” to flee when they see the abomination of desolation. Morris is careful to include and point out that Irenaeus is clear that all this will happen in the earthly Jerusalem, in “the temple of God” which is in Jerusalem. It should be pointed out first, that nowhere here does Irenaeus say that the Jews will be regathered to Palestine or Jerusalem; it might be argued that it is natural to assume a regathering is what Irenaeus had in mind but it is not explicit. Second, Morris does not include what Irenaeus says happens afterwards.

If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said…

(12)

Ireneaus then quotes several passages of scripture showing that the Church, through Christ, is the seed of Abraham. So then, Irenaeus is clear that it is not the Old Covenant form of national Israel that inherits the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, but the New Covenant form of Israel, the Church. Whoever may have been inhabiting Jerusalem under the Antichrist’s rule does not matter because, under Christ, the Church inherits the promises.

Next, Morris points to a rebuttal by Tertullian of someone who apparently taught that the Jews would be restored to their nation and Palestine. There is little to work with as Tertullian only devotes one sentence to detailing specifics of the teaching he was rebutting. It does appear that a return and restoration of national, ethnic-only Israel is view here. But this is a strange friend for Dispensationalism as the teaching in question came from Marcion of Sinope, the 2nd century Gnostic heretic. Marcion taught, among other heresies, that Yahweh was a tyrannical, lesser god who had a physical body and was not omniscient, that Jesus was sent by the Heavenly Father (not Yahweh), and that He did not have a physical body (therefore He was not born and did not die or resurrect). (13) In short, Morris found an example of Gnostic doctrine.

We then read multiple selections from Hippolytus (and passages which are of uncertain origin but generally credited to Hippolytus) in which he asserts that the kingdom of the Jews will be restored along with the temple in Jerusalem. It is clear from these passages that Hippolytus did teach the Jewish nation would be restored with a rebuilt temple. This teaching is echoed by Morris’ next selections from Cyril of Jerusalem. But Hippolytus’ and Cryil’s doctrine here bears little to no resemblance to the Dispensational doctrine of a future restoration of Israel because (this also applies to Irenaeus’ teaching), in every instance, it is Antichrist who restores Israel, Antichrist who rebuilds the temple. This is clearly no regenerate nation of Israel inheriting the nation and land of the Abrahamic Covenant but an anti-type of the promises of that covenant, a rebellious nation that still refuses to acknowledge that Christ is Lord. Crucially, in none of the quoted selections is Israel regathered under Christ; there is nothing here resembling a Dispensational understanding of a 1,000 year Messianic kingdom.

Finally, we come to the last quotation given in this chapter, attributed to Hilary of Poitiers. Morris quotes –

Remember, God the Father set the day within His authority, that it might not come to the knowledge of man, and the Son, when asked before, replied that He did not know, but now, no longer denying His knowledge, replies that it is theirs not to know, for the Father has set the times not in His own knowledge, but in His own authority. The day and the moment are included in the word ‘times’: can it be, then, that He, Who was to restore Israel to its kingdom, did not Himself know the day and the moment of that restoration? He instructs us to see an evidence of His birth in this exclusive prerogative of the Father, yet He does not deny that He knows: and while He proclaims that the possession of this knowledge is withheld from ourselves, He asserts that it belongs to the mystery of the Father’s authority.

(14)

This at first appears to be strong evidence of exactly that doctrine Morris has spent the entire chapter looking for. But yet again, by examining what else Hilary has to say regarding Israel, we find that he is no friend to Dispensational teaching. Hilary is clear as to who he means by “Israel” –

Abraham confessed Him, you deny Him, to be God. What hope is there for you, in your blasphemy, of the blessings promised to Abraham? He is Father of the Gentiles, but not for you; you cannot go forth from your regeneration to join the household of his seed, through the blessings given to his faith. You are no son, raised up to Abraham from the stones; you are a generation of vipers, an adversary of his belief. You are not the Israel of God, the heir of Abraham, justified by faith; for you have disbelieved God, while Abraham was justified and appointed to be the Father of the Gentiles through that faith wherein he worshipped the God Whose word he trusted.

(15)

Hilary is speaking to a generic heretic (presumably Jewish) who denies the Trinity. Whether or not this person is supposed to be Jewish is inconsequential for our purposes because the point is not who Hilary says is not the “Israel of God” and “heir of Abraham,” but who he says is, namely the faithful Gentiles. But Hilary goes further –

[The Lord] proceeds, For you shall leave your name for a rejoicing unto My chosen, but the Lord shall slay you. These words, dealing with a future time, are addressed to the carnal Israel, which is taunted with the prospect of having to surrender its name to the chosen of God. What is this name? Israel, of course; for to Israel the prophecy was addressed. And now I ask, What is Israel today? The Apostle gives the answer:— They who are in the spirit, not in the letter, they who walk in the Law of Christ, are the Israel of God Romans 2:29 .[sic]

(16)

Hilary clearly teaches that “carnal Israel” gives its name to God’s elect, those who are Christ’s, the church. (It should be noted that Hilary acknowledges saved Jews who are part of the church, just as modern day Covenant Theology acknowledges there were, and are, and will be many saved Jews. But this is very different from the Dispensational stance that God will re-erect the dividing wall between Jew & Gentile at the end of time.) So even in this last quotation Morris gives, there is no room for a Dispensational understanding of a regathering of national Israel into an ethnically Jewish kingdom during the end times. Morris has managed to find one instance of such a teaching in the early church and that is Gnostic doctrine.

Chapter 4

This chapter is essentially a continuation of Chapter 3. Morris documents instances of teaching that, at the end, the Jews will experience a large-scale conversion and regeneration. In what is the shortest chapter of the book, he includes quotations from Justin Martyr and Augustin. I will include the highlighted portions of those quotations here –

And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet… And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thous made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has from us been turned to shame.

(17)

It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgement the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them. For not without reason do we hope that before the coming of our Judge and Saviour Elias shall come, because we have good reason to believe that he is now alive; for, as Scripture most distinctly informs us, he was taken up from this life in a chariot of fire. When, therefore, he is come, he shall give a spiritual explanation of the law which the Jews at present understand carnally, and shall thus ‘turn the heart of the father to the son,’ that is, the heart of fathers to their children; for the Septuagint translators have frequently put the singular for the plural number. And the meaning is, that the sons, that is, the Jews, shall understand the law as the fathers, that is, the prophets, and among them Moses himself, understood it…

the Jews also, who had previously hated, should then love the Son who is our Christ. For so far as regards the Jews, God has His heart turned away from our Christ, this being their conception about God and Christ. But in their case the heart of God shall be turned to the Son when they themselves shall turn in heart, and learn the love of the Father towards the Son.

(18)

For in that day the Jews—those of them, at least, who shall receive the spirit of grace and mercy—when they see Him coming in His majesty, and recognize that it is He whom they, in person of their parents, insulted when He came before in His humiliation, shall repent of insulting Him in His passion…

(19)

And at or in connection with that judgement the following events shall come to pass, as we have learned: Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jews shall believe; Antichrist shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise; the good and the wicked shall be separated; the world shall be burned and renewed. All these things, we believe, shall come to pass; but how, or in what order, human understanding cannot perfectly teach us, but only the experience of the events themselves. My opinion, however, is, that they will happen in the order in which I have related them.

(20)

Morris draws our attention to Augustin’s statement that this teaching was common among “the faithful” as evidence that this doctrine was not limited to Justin Martyr and Augustin but was “being commonly taught by the Christian writers of Augustin’s day.” (21)

I do not wish to dispute that a doctrine of a mass conversion of the Jewish people was a common doctrine in the early church. It is a common doctrine today among all the orthodox. Unlike what Morris seems to believe, this idea is not by any means limited to Dispensational thought. Though they differ on the order of events, Postmillenialists most certainly believe in a mass conversion of Jews (and all people groups) prior to the end. Historic Premillenialists and Amillenialists also have those within their ranks who hold to a large-scale conversion of Jews in conjunction (roughly) with Christ’s return.

On this subject, Samuel Waldron has this to say

Often we have the luxury of allowing a trusted theological tradition to guide us, when we consider difficult passages. Those from a Reformed theological tradition know, for instance, that Hebrews 6:1-8 does not teach that the truly saved can finally fall from grace. Rather it teaches the perseverance of the saints. In the case of Romans 11, however, even the normally trustworthy Reformed tradition is divided. John Murray and many other Reformed writers favor the view that Romans 11 teaches a future, national conversion of Israel.

(22)

So again, Morris has not uncovered anything distinct to Dispensational teaching or thought. A belief in a future for the Jewish people is not confined to Dispensationalism; the belief in a distinct future for them, apart from the church, is what is distinct in Dispensational doctrine and is not shown in the quotations he provides.

Summary

So far, Morris has failed to show us from early church writings any distinctly Dispensational uses of the word “dispensation,” any distinctly Dispensational teachings of a requirement for “literal” interpretation of all prophecy (or scripture in general), any but a single case of a distinctly Dispensational teaching of a restoration as a nation and to Palestine of ethnic Israel, which single case is from a rank heretic, and he has failed to show us a distinctly Dispensational doctrine of an end-time national conversion of the Jewish people.

In the interest of keeping these blog posts a somewhat reasonable length, I will split this response into two parts here and continue with the final two chapters in part 2.

Footnotes

(1) Mathison, Keith A. Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? P&R Publishing, 1995, p. 11.

(2) Morris, James C. Ancient Dispensational Truth. Dispensational Publishing House, Inc, 2018, p. 7.

(3) Charles Ryrie in Dispensationalism gives 3 criteria for something to qualify as Dispensational 1) it must “[keep] Israel and the church distinct,” 2) that “distinction… is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation,” and 3) must have “the glory of God” as the central or “underlying purpose of God in the world.” (Dispensationalism. Revised and Expanded ed., 1995, pp. 39-40.)

Renald Showers defines Dispensationalism as “a system of theology which attempts to develop the Bible’s philosophy of history on the basis of the sovereign rule of God.” (There Really Is A Difference! 2002, p. 27.)

Michael Vlach lists 6 “essential beliefs of dispensationalism;” namely 1) “the primary meaning of any Bible passage is found in that passage…,” 2) “types exist but national Israel is not an inferior type that is superseded by the church,” 3) “Israel and the church are distinct…,” 4) “spiritual unity in salvation between Jews and Gentiles is compatible with a future functional role for Israel as a nation,” 5) “the nation Israel will be both saved and restored with a unique functional role in a future earthly millennial kingdom,” and 6) “there are multiple senses of ‘seed of Abraham,’ thus the church’s identification as ‘seed of Abraham’ does not cancels God’s promises to the believing Jewish ‘seed of Abraham.'” (Dispensationalism: The Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. Revised and Updated ed., 2017, pp. 30-48.)

Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock give an 8-part list of Dispensational “common features” in Progressive Dispensationalism. Vlach summarized their list as “(1) the authority of Scripture; (2) dispensations; (3) uniqueness of the church; (4) practical significance of the universal church; (5) significance of biblical prophecy; (6) futurist premillenialism; (7) imminent return of Christ; and (8) a national future for Israel.” (quoted in Dispensationalism: The Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. Revised and Updated ed., 2017, p. 24.)

John Feinberg’s list of “Essentials of Dispensationalism” is summarized by Vlach as “(1) belief that the Bible refers to multiple senses of terms like ‘Jew’ and ‘seed of Abraham’; (2) an approach to hermeneutics that emphasizes that the Old Testament be taken on its own terms and not reinterpreted in light of the New Testament; (3) belief that Old Testament promises will be fulfilled with national Israel; (4) belief in a distinctive future for ethnic Israel; (5) belief that the church is a distinctive organism; and (6)a philosophy of history that emphasizes not just soteriological and spiritual issues but social, economic, and political issues as well.” (quoted in Dispensationalism: The Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. Revised and Updated ed., 2017, pp. 23-24.)

(4) Westminster Confession of Faith. 1646. p. 23, files1.wts.edu/uploads/pdf/about/WCF_30.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept. 2019.

(5) The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. 1689. Chapter 5, Paragraph 4. the1689confession.com/1689/chapter-5. Accessed 9 Sept. 2019

(6) Vern, Poythress. Understanding Dispensationalists. Westminster Theological Seminary, 1986. Chapter 1. frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists. Accessed 25 Sept. 2019.

(7) Mathison, Keith A. Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? P&R Publishing, 1995, p3

(8) Morris, James C. Ancient Dispensational Truth. Dispensational Publishing House, Inc, 2018, qtd. in Morris 37, emphasis in original

(9) Ibid. qtd. in Morris 38-39, emphasis and brackets in original

(10) Ibid. qtd. in Morris 39, emphasis and brackets in original

(11) Ibid. qtd. in Morris 43, emphasis and brackets in original

(12) Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book 5, Chapter 32, Paragraph 2. carm.org/irenaeus-heresies5-19-31 Accessed 27 Sept. 2019

(13) See here – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope#Teachings

(14) Morris, James C. Ancient Dispensational Truth. Dispensational Publishing House, Inc, 2018, qtd. in Morris 62, emphasis in original

(15) Hilary of Poitiers. On the Trinity. Book V, Paragraph 15. NewAdvent.org. Web. 28 Sept. 2019

(16) Ibid. Book V, Paragraph 28. NewAdvent.org. Web. 28 Sept. 2019

(17) Morris, James C. Ancient Dispensational Truth. Dispensational Publishing House, Inc, 2018, Justin Martyr qtd. in Morris 63, emphasis in original

(18) Ibid. Augustin qtd. in Morris 64-65, emphasis in original

(19) Ibid. Augustin qtd. in Morris 66, emphasis in original

(20) Ibid. Augustin qtd. in Morris 67, emphasis in original

(21) Ibid. p65

(22) Samuel Waldron. MacArthur’s Millenial Manifesto. Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2008. p131