Two Lips
by Mark Dewey, a friend and God willing, ace reliever of the Pittsburgh Pirates

Though I use the NASB for personal reading and study, I have used the KJV to quote the Scripture verse from Second Timothy. I have done so because it is the wording found in the KJV, "rightly dividing the word of truth," that has so often been used by dispensationalists as a proof text for their hermeneutic of dividing the Bible into various dispensations. For instance, in the Scofield Study Bible there are seven dispensations listed: Innocence (see note at Gen. 1:28), Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 3:7), Human Government (Gen. 8:15), Promise (Gen. 12:1), Law (Ex. 19:1), Church (Acts 2:1), and Kingdom (Rev. 20:4).

The problem with dispensationalism is not that it asserts that God has worked through various dispensations or economies, nor that it divides biblical history into different dispensations. As a matter of fact, you will often read the Reformers and Puritans discussing the various dispensations of God. Historically, the problem with dispensationalism is how it has understood these dispensations and God's work through biblical history. Instead of rightly dividing the word of truth, it wrongly and dangerously severs God's Word and God's people.

First, the hermeneutic of dispensationalism has not resulted in rightly dividing God's Word, rather it has ended in an unbiblical discontinuity in God's Word. In applying his hermeneutic the dispensationalist, in varying degrees, finds little relevance for the Old Testament (and the various dispensations found therein) in the life of the New Testament believer (specifically, those of us living in the dispensation of the Church). One example of this is the approach of dispensationalists to the law of God.

They have taught that we rightly divide the word of truth when we presume that no Old Testament command remains valid for us today unless it has been explicitly repeated in the New Testament. I readily admit that one of the most difficult aspects of biblical interpretation is properly discerning the continuity and fulfillment of God's law, or the similarities and differences between the Old and New Covenant. I also admit that this is a subject much deeper than can be addressed in this article. However, I believe that in addressing this point the dispensationalist can be refuted in one word -- bestiality. This is clearly forbidden in the Old Testament (Lev. 18:23 & 20:15,16), but is nowhere explicitly repeated in the New Testament. Therefore, by the hermeneutic and reasoning of dispensationalism bestiality is no longer a sin. I am not implying that any dispensationalist would draw such a conclusion, I am only showing that such a conclusion is the result of consistently applying a dispensational understanding of God's law. As I think of the words of Thomas Watson, "The two Testaments are the two lips by which God has spoken to us," I also conjure up the disfigured picture of the dispensationalist listening to God speak to him with only one lip (or maybe more accurately, part of one lip).

Second, dispensationalism has wrongly severed the people of God. According to Charles Ryrie, "the essence of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church." Once again, the problem lies not in distinguishing between Israel and the New Testament Church, but in separating what God has joined together. For the dispensationalist Israel and the Church are two separate and distinct peoples of God and the two shall never meet (if not literally, at least in their ecclessiology).

Ultimately this is the heart and soul of the system of theology known as dispensationalism. All the leading proponents of dispensationalism (such as: L.S. Chafer, John Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and Charles C. Ryrie) have understood this to be the essence of their system. Keith Mathison, in his excellent book, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?, summarizes the essential points of this system. He gives seven propositions made by dispensationalism: 1) God has two distinct programs in history, one for Israel and one for the church. 2) The church does not fulfill or take over any of Israel's promises or purposes. 3) The church age is a "mystery," and thus no Old Testament prophecies foresaw it. 4) The present church age is a "parenthesis" or "intercalation" during which God has temporarily suspended
His primary purpose with Israel. 5) The church age began at Pentecost and will end at the pretribulation rapture of the church before Christ's second coming. 6) The church, or body of Christ, consists only of those believers saved between Pentecost and the rapture. 7) The church as the body of Christ, therefore, does not include Old Testament believers.

It is not my desire to be either simplistic or arrogant, but I honestly believe that if a person reads the Bible trying to apply the seven propositions listed above, he will have to do one of two things. He will either give up the foundation of dispensationalism, or he will give up the foundation of Scripture. A good place to begin this endeavor is in Romans 11:17-24. Though there are many branches, some natural and some wild, they are broken off and grafted in to one tree. As Gentiles we have "become partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree" (v.17). After completing your study, go ahead and sing: "Father Abraham had many sons, many sons had Father Abraham; I am one of them, and so are you; so let's just praise the Lord!" (cf. Galatians 3:6-9).

Thankfully, many that once embraced dispensationalism and tried to consistently apply its hermeneutic have opted to give up the foundation of their system rather than the foundation of God's Word. In other words, they have truly heeded Paul's admonition to Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth (or, as the NASB translates, "accurately handling the word of truth"). For this they need not be ashamed. With Augustine they now understand that, "the New [Testament] is prefigured in the Old, and the Old is unveiled in the New."