rudiments of dispensationalism in the ante-nicene...

Rudiments of Dispensationalism in the Ante-Nicene Period

Part 1 (of 2 parts): Israel and the Church in the Ante-Nicene Fathers

Larry V. Crutchfield Bible Instructor, Baumholder Military Community,

Baumholder, West Germany

Bibiliotheca SacraVol. 144, page 254

July / September 1987

Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 144 (Jul 87), p. 254

The Fundamental Issue

One of the charges commonly leveled against dispensationalists is that theirs is an entirely new doctrine having no historical antecedents before the Plymouth Brethren leader John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). "No dispensational writer," declares Clarence B. Bass, "has ever been able to offer... a single point of continuity between what is today known as dispensationalism and the historic premillennial view." [1] Not only is it claimed that there is no point of continuity, but as Millard J. Erickson asserts, "No trace of this theology can be found in the early history of the church." [2]

However, dispensationalists like Charles C. Ryrie and Arnold D. Ehlert maintain that "features" or rudimentary concepts of dispensational theology were held by the Fathers of the early


church and later by certain individuals after the Reformation.[3] While they readily admit that modern, systematized dispensationalism must be traced to Darby,[4] they nonetheless insist that there are historical and theological antecedents for this system of theology to be found as early as the patristic era, especially before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

This is not to suggest that in the church's early history her leaders were dispensationalists in the modern sense of the word. Principles of hermeneutics, for example, were inconsistently applied and the science of biblical interpretation was in a state of flux throughout this period. In addition to this, the doctrine of eschatology has been one of the last doctrines to come to the fore as a topic for theological discussion. [5] In light of the relative recency of systematized eschatology, it is not surprising to find confusion on the subject in the early church. However, many of the Fathers set forth principles that later evolved into dispensationalism.

Four elementary features of dispensationalism are found in the early church: (1) the year-day, or sex-/septa-millennial tradition; [6] (2) belief in God's dispensational arrangements with mankind throughout salvation history; (3) the premillennial return of Christ; and (4) a return of Christ believed to be imminent. [7]


(See the Appendix for a listing with documentation of the Fathers who held these views.) In addition to these rudimentary elements of dispensationalism, several of the early Fathers also held to a practical distinction between Israel and the church. This teaching in the early church--especially in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus--is the subject of the present study. The second article in this series, will deal with the early Fathers' concept of the doctrine of ages and dispensations.

The Early Concept of Israel and the Church

Of the dispensational concepts found in the writings of the Fathers, none is of greater importance than that of the relationship between Israel and the church. It is a relationship, as will be seen, cast primarily in terms of Abraham's seed and faith in Christ. The basic premise held by the early premillenarian Fathers is that because of Israel's disobedience and idolatry in the Old Testament and her rejection and crucifixion of Christ in the New, God had permanently cut that nation off as His people. The faithful then of the church age were to become the "new Israel" of God. As such, church-age believers, together with saints of all previous ages, will inherit the promises given to national (or natural) Israel, and this will occur in the millennial kingdom to come at the end of the world.

The contemporary dispensational position on the relationship between Israel and the church is succinctly stated by Walvoord as follows:

As related to premillennial interpretation, normative dispensationalism tends to emphasize certain important distinctives. One of the most significant is the contrast provided between God's program for Israel and God's present program for the church. The church composed of Jew and Gentile is considered a separate program of God which does not advance nor fulfill any of the promises given to Israel.


The present age is regarded as a period in which Israel is temporarily set aside as to its national program. When the church is trans-lated, however, Israel's program will then proceed to its consummation. [8]

A superficial reading of the Fathers on this point has led many to conclude that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between their position and that of modern dispensationalists. However, a close examination of the matter proves that this is not the case. In practice, if not always in theory, these Fathers were much closer to the dispensational teaching on Israel and the church than it may appear at first.

Perhaps the single most important point in the Fathers relative to this subject is that they maintained distinctions among the people of God throughout the ages. While they certainly held that people in every age are justified by faith through the blood of Christ (and in that sense there is a type of soteriological unity among all the faithful who have ever lived), they did maintain a working concept of "peoples of God," not "a people of God." In Barnabas and especially in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, as well as others after them, there was the understanding that the distinctions among the people of God include (1) the righteous who lived before Abraham (a spiritual seed of Abraham?); (2) the righteous physical descendants of Abraham (a spiritual seed of Abraham); and (3) those of the church age who are justified by faith after the fashion of Abraham (the spiritual seed of Abraham). [9] In addition to these three divisions of the faithful, there are, of course, (4) the unbelieving physical descendants of Abraham who comprise disinherited national Israel.

In this, the Fathers are in complete disagreement with covenant amillennialists and certain covenant (or "historic") premillennialists. The church is never confused with national Israel nor is it assumed to have existed in the Old Testament. [10] The


church, according to the Fathers, began after the first advent of Christ, not with Adam or Abraham. [11]

The first seeds of teaching on the relationship between Israel and the church are found in the Epistle of Barnabas.

Epistle Of Barnabas (ca. A.D. 70-100 Or 117-138)

The highly allegorical nature of this epistle with the unmistakable imprint of Philo on it has led most scholars to believe that Barnabas was a Jew from Alexandria. [12] The epistle is divided into two parts. In the first 17 chapters, the author attempted to "Christianize" the Old Testament through an allegorical reinterpretation. His purpose was evidently to replace what he perceived to be the incorrect literal interpretation of the Jews with an interpretation that would bring a "full and firm grasp of... spiritual knowledge" to his readers. [13] The remaining four chapters, like the Didache, set forth the "the two ways of doctrine and authority, the one of light, and the other of darkness." [14]

In light of Barnabas' position that the Old Testament belongs to Christians, not the Jews, it is not surprising that he held that the church is the true Israel of God and as such the inheritor of covenant promise. In this, Barnabas set a precedent for those who followed. It is the church, he wrote, "whom [the Lord] has led into the good land." The stony-hearted Jews have been replaced


by those within whom He has "put hearts of flesh" (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). Barnabas' assertion here is based (faulty exegesis of the Ezekiel passages aside) on an allegorical interpretation of Exodus 33:3. The meaning of the milk and honey, he explained, is "that as the infant is kept alive first by honey, and then by milk, so also we, being quickened and kept alive by the faith of the promise and by the word, shall live ruling over the earth." While this ruling is not a present reality, observed Barnabas, it will become so "when we ourselves also have been made perfect [so as] to become heirs of the covenant of the Lord." [15]

Chapters 13 through 16 are replete with examples of this type of allegorical interpretation and the

attendant conclusion. Barnabas began chapter 13, "But let us see if this people [Christians] is the heir, or the former [Jews], and if the covenant belongs to us or to them." He then expounded what became a common theme in proof of the supplanting of Israel by the church, namely, the elevation of Jacob over the firstborn Esau [16] (Gen. 25), and Jacob's blessing of Ephraim over the firstborn Manasseh (48:18-19). Thus it is, he concluded, "that this people [Christians] should be first, and heirs of the covenant." He also concluded that Abraham is shown to be the father of "those nations who believe in the Lord while in [a state of] uncircumcision" (Gen. 15:6; 17:5; Rom. 4:3). [17]

Barnabas stated how Israel, because of her idolatry and preference for the temple over God Himself, has given over her inheritance to this new people. While on the one hand, "the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be given up," on the other, this new people of God in "the last days" has become His habitation and "spiritual temple." [18] And how are these things known to be true? As the new people of God, the spiritual descendants of Abraham, suggested Barnabas, people in the church age have received circumcision of their ears and hearts. [19]


Furthermore Christ Himself is the pledge of the coming fulfillment of covenant promise. [20]

Though the early Fathers identified the church as the spiritual seed of Abraham and thus heirs to the covenant promises to him and to David, they nevertheless expected literal fulfillment of these promises in the earthly kingdom to come. Barnabas wrote, "For we ought to perceive that to govern implies authority, so that one should command and rule. If, therefore, this does not exist at present, yet still he has promised it to us. When? When we ourselves also have been made perfect [so as] to become heirs of the covenant of the Lord." [21] And when is this perfection to take place? Barnabas maintained that it will occur at Christ's second coming when the sabbath rest begins. [22]

Barnabas seems to have made a distinction between church-age believers who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, and the pre-church age righteous. For example he wrote of the "testament which [the Lord] swore to the fathers that he would give to the people." But because of their sins, they did not receive it. "Moses, as a servant," however, "received it [see Heb. 3:5]; but the Lord himself, having suffered in our behalf, hath given it to us, that we should be the people of inheritance" (chap. 14).

What, it may be asked, is the nature of the relationship of Abraham and Moses to the inheritance in the kingdom? Typical of the Fathers who followed him, Barnabas gave almost complete attention to the saints of the church age with scarcely a mention of the place of the Old Testament righteous in the order to come. That there are distinctions among the saints of the different ages is implied, but the practical implications of such distinctions are not disclosed. In Justin, while details of the interrelationships among the groups of believers are still lacking, at least the parameters of their existence stand out in somewhat bolder relief.

Justin Martyr (ca. A. D. 100-165)

Without question the most important figure among the early Christian leaders known as Apologists is Justin Martyr. Born in Flavia Neapolis in Samaria in A.D. 100, Justin was a trained,


professional philosopher. He was a prolific writer, but only three of his works have survived. These include two Apologies, composed at Rome and directed to Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161), and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. The latter is "the oldest Christian apology against the Jews which is extant." [23] A number of spurious works have been ascribed to Justin, but only fragments of other genuine writings remain.

In his explanation of the promises of earthly blessing through the seed of Isaac (Gen. 26:4) and then Jacob (28:14), Justin maintained that there is a twofold division in that seed. On the one hand are those physically descended from Jacob "through Judah, and Phares, and Jesse, and David," who would also "be found children of Abraham, and found, too, in the lot of Christ." On the other hand are those who, while the physical descendants of Abraham also, "would be like the sand on the sea-shore,

barren and fruitless... imbibing doctrines of bitterness and godlessness, but spurning the word of God." [24]

This twofold division of the physical seed of Abraham is further supported by an interesting discussion between Justin and Trypho over the relationship between faith in Christ and keeping the Law. Justin explained to Trypho that some weak-minded people may believe there is some virtue in observing the Mosaic legislation and who may thus wish to keep that Law while exercising faith in Christ. These, according to Justin, are saved individuals and therefore should be fellowshiped with. The references to circumcision, the Sabbath, and other observances, and the prohibition against efforts to draw Gentiles into this dual observance of Law and faith in Christ, make it clear Jews are spoken of here. But Justin added that those Jews who confess faith in Christ and then turn back completely to the "legal dispensation," and "those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the Law" and "do anathematize this very Christ in the synagogues," are totally without hope of salvation.[25] In Justin's total discussion, it is a question of the believing physical descendants of Abraham being saved on the one hand, and of the unbelieving physical descendants of Abraham being lost on the other.


Justin marked off two groups of people: (1) the physical seed of Abraham who are believers in Christ, and (2) the physical seed of Abraham who are rejectors of Christ. But elsewhere, in his analysis of "the seed out of Jacob" spoken of in Isaiah 65:9-12, Justin makes a further, emphatic distinction between the physical and spiritual seed of Jacob. He wrote,

The seed of Jacob now referred to is something else, and not... spoken of your people. For it is not possible for the seed of Jacob to leave an entrance for the descendants of Jacob, or for [God] to have accepted the very same persons whom He had reproached with unfitness for the inheritance, and promise it to them again... even so it is necessary for us here to observe that there are two seeds of Judah, and two races, as there are two houses of Jacob: the one begotten by blood and flesh, the other by faith and the Spirit. [26]

At this point Justin has introduced a third group of people into the discussion--a nonphysical (i.e., Gentile), spiritual seed of Judah (or race of Jacob). It is these "who have been quarried out of the bowels of Christ," says Justin, "[who] are the true Israelitic race." [27] Justin had earlier declared to Trypho that God has blessed this people, called them Israel, and made them His inheritance. Justin maintained further that Christ, in parable form, was called Jacob and Israel in Isaiah 62:1-4, and thus believers "are called and are the true sons of God." [28]

Justin's conclusion, then, was that the nation Israel--the non-believing physical descendants of Abraham and Jacob--had been cut off. The Jews are no longer the recipients of covenant promise. They have no inheritance to look forward to. Speaking to Trypho of the hope of the Jews, he said,

You deceive yourselves while you fancy that, because you are the seed of Abraham after the flesh, therefore you shall fully inherit the good things announced to be bestowed by God through Christ. For no one, not even of them [Abraham's seed], has anything to look for, but only those who in mind are assimilated to the faith of Abraham... .So that it becomes you to eradicate this hope from your souls, and hasten to know in what way forgiveness of sins, and a hope of inheriting the promised good things, shall be yours.[29]


If national Israel has been disinherited, then to whom will the inheritance go? At one point, when questioned by Trypho as to who shall have an inheritance on the holy mountain of God, Justin informed him that

the Gentiles, who have believed on [Christ], and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even though they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly, they shall receive the holy inheritance of God.[30]

Thus those deemed worthy of such an honor, Justin maintained, shall be raised "to the everlasting kingdom along with the holy patriarchs and prophets," [31] and just as Abraham left his home for a new land which God would show him, Christians too have left the old way of living for the new. So,

continued Justin, along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land when we shall receive the inheritance for an endless eternity, being children, of Abraham through the like faith... Accordingly, He promises to him a nation of similar faith, God-fearing, righteous, and delighting the Father; but it is not you [the Jews], "in whom is no faith." [32]

Speaking further about the inheritance of the land, Justin disclosed the meaning of what he called "another mystery" predicted in Noah's time. He interpreted Genesis 9:24-27, in which Noah pronounced blessings on Shem and Japheth and a curse on Canaan following the episode of Noah's drunken nakedness, as predictive of the possession of the land of Canaan (and


domination of the Canaanites) first by the Semites and then by the Japhethites. He concluded the matter by saying that Christ has come and

has promised... that there shall be a future possession for all the saints in this same land. And hence all men everywhere, whether bond or free, who believe in Christ, and recognize the truth in His own words and those of His prophets, know that they shall be with Him in that land, and inherit everlasting and incorruptible good. [33]

What emerges from all this is that Justin firmly believed in the literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants in the coming kingdom age, and that this fulfillment would come through Christ, the promised Seed. While Justin made it clear that those who are justified by faith and not national Israel will receive the covenant promises, he nowhere confused the church and national Israel. He maintained a distinct separation between the two throughout his writings.

What also emerges from this discussion is that Justin maintained a separation of peoples within the framework of inheritance and covenant promise. Those identified as inheritors are believers of the church age--the spiritual, nonphysical descendants of Abraham. And believing Jews, who are of course his physical descendants, are presumably a spiritual seed of Abraham. And while it is never expressly stated, one may safely assume that the pre-Abrahamic righteous who were circumcised of heart,[34] in Justin's estimation, are also included as recipients of covenant promises to be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom. They may perhaps be called a spiritual seed of Abraham in a prototypical sense as foreshadowing Abraham's faith. In the Fathers, the first group receives most attention; the second much less in its role as the spiritual prototype of the first; and the third group receives substantially less attention than even the second. Beyond the assertion that all believers will reign with Christ, the details and practical outworking of the relationship among the various groups of saints in the kingdom itself is not discussed by the Fathers.

For Justin and others to follow, national Israel through faithlessness and rejection of Christ has been permanently cut off. Thus,


believers of the church age now constitute the new Israel in a figurative sense as God's chosen people. And according to Justin, as the redeemed of God and the true spiritual seed of Abraham, they, along with saints of other ages, are heirs of promise.

One final point should be emphasized here. It is evident from what has been said that the kingdom for which Justin and others looked was not merely spiritual in nature. The church therefore could not be said in any respect to be the recipient of the covenant promises in some spiritual sense at the present time. While the early Fathers recognized that Christ's coming kingdom had a spiritual dimension, they believed in a literal fulfillment of the covenants made with Abraham and David in a literal earthly kingdom yet future.[35] Peters is correct in saying that

the early Church spoke in strict accordance with unbounded Faith in covenant promise. The prevailing modern notions, which make the covenants mean something else, were then unknown; for all the churches established East and West, North and South, both Jewish and Gentile, held to this inheritance as we now receive it.[36]

Peters adds the following:

This is seen by their Chiliastic attitude and looking for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic-Davidic covenant at the speedy Advent of Jesus. They all held that Christ is become the surety or pledge of the Abrahamic covenant; that He will fulfill it in connection with the Davidic, with which it is incorporated; and that they would, through Christ, inherit the promises under that covenant. The decided and impressive testimony of these early Fathers... --that they were living under this renewed Abrahamic covenant as the seed of Abraham, which the death and exaltation of Jesus ensured to them of finally realizing in the inheriting of the land with Abraham-- this cannot be set aside as a departure from the truth, or as "carnal," without undermining the foundations of Christianity itself.[37]


It is Peters' conviction that to the degree that the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are "upheld and exalted" as written, to that degree there is a natural and necessary belief in chiliasm or millennialism. Church history shows conclusively, he maintains, that this is so, "and just as the Origenistic, Popish, and Mystical interpretation extended so were these covenants ignored as nonessential, or else spiritualized so as to make them scarcely recognizable." [38] The non-spiritualizing approach to the fulfillment of covenant promises is most definitely brought out in Irenaeus.

Irenaeus (A. D. 120-202)

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp (A.D. 70-155/60), bishop of Smyrna, who was in turn a disciple of the Apostle John.[39] After his education in Asia Minor under Polycarp and others, at some point, the reason for which is unknown, Irenaeus set up residence in the Gallican city of Lyons and in A.D. 177 succeeded Pothinus as bishop of that see.[40] Of the several works ascribed to Irenaeus by Eusebius [41]

and Jerome,[42] only two survive. But these two are highly valuable. The first of these works, Against Heresies, is in five books. On the one hand it is a detailed statement and refutation of the many forms of Gnostic heresies prevalent in Irenaeus' day. But at the same time it sets forth a statement and defense of what was considered to be the true catholic and orthodox faith of the church. The second extant work by Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, survives only in an Armenian version. It is essentially apologetic in nature and presents the basics of the Christian faith.

Irenaeus' position on the relationship between Israel and the church is essentially the same as that found in Justin. God's chosen people Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham, have


been permanently cut off because of their idolatry and rejection of Christ. In the Old Testament, he said, they had chosen Baal over God, and in the New, Barabbas and Caesar over Christ. For this cause, concluded Irenaeus, "God was pleased to grant His inheritance to the foolish Gentiles, and... has restored again in us Abraham's faith in Him." [43]

As with Justin, for Irenaeus church-age believers are the seed of Abraham and as such are the new inheritors of covenant promise. The church has completely supplanted national Israel. Irenaeus' line of reasoning is as follows. Contrary to the teachings of Marcion and his followers, God did indeed promise Abraham an inheritance in which he himself would personally participate in the coming kingdom (Rom. 4:3; Matt. 8:11).[44] This inheritance, according to Irenaeus, would involve the literal possession of the Promised Land. After affirming that "the promise of God, which he gave to Abraham remains stedfast," Irenaeus quoted Genesis 13:13-14, 17 and 15:13 in support of this belief, and as giving the boundaries of the Promised Land.[45]

Irenaeus advanced his argument by saying that the promise was not fulfilled in Abraham's lifetime. He remained a pilgrim and stranger in the land, forced even to purchase a burial site for Sarah (Gen. 23:13). So if Abraham did not receive the promised inheritance of the land, Irenaeus continued, "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." [46]

Here Irenaeus identified Abraham's seed as "those who fear God and believe in Him." A little further on in the same paragraph, he included as Abraham's seed, "those who are justified by faith." [47] This terminology obviously leaves the way open for the


inclusion of all the faithful from Abraham to the coming kingdom within the category "seed of Abraham." However, in the same place, Irenaeus pointedly wrote that "his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord." And in support of this position, he quoted Luke 3:8 and Galatians 3:6-9, 16; 4:28.[48]

Did Irenaeus then believe that the church began with Abraham, as covenant theologians suggest? No, for elsewhere he unquestionably affirmed that the church was "founded and built up" by "the blessed apostles." [49] While Irenaeus was less precise than Justin in his discussion of this subject, Irenaeus did make a distinction between the spiritual seed of Abraham (the church), and a spiritual seed of Abraham (believing physical descendants of Abraham). Precisely how the pre-Abrahamic righteous are to be classified is no clearer than it is in Justin. But certainly they are among "those who fear[ed] God and believe[d] in Him." So they must be in some sense, as looking forward, a (prototypical) spiritual seed of Abraham, "justified by faith." [50] Irenaeus recognized the unbelieving physical seed of Abraham, and this he identified as rejected, national Israel.

Like Justin, Irenaeus in his zeal for the church made the mistake of essentially ignoring those saints who lived between Adam and Abraham, and between Abraham and Christ. While there are veiled references to them in expressions like "those who fear God and believe in Him," and "those who are justified by faith," details concerning their relationship to the church and the coming kingdom are totally lacking. With almost complete focus on Abraham and the church, one is left only to make assumptions about the lot of pre-church-age saints.

Concerning the church itself, however, the position is clear. As Moses wrote in Deuteronomy, said Irenaeus, "the Gentiles [the church] are to become the head, and an unbelieving people [Israel] the tail." [51] This "holy people," prophesied by Hosea (2:23; cf. Rom. 9:25-26) and affirmed by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:9),


having rejected idol worship in favor of belief in Christ, "have become sons of Abraham" and thus subjects of his inheritance.[52] In this way, according to Irenaeus, God has fulfilled His promise to Abraham to make his seed like the stars of heaven. Christ, descended from Abraham and born of a virgin, has "justifi[ed] the Gentiles through the same faith with Abraham." For as Abraham was justified by faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:13), so too are we justified [53] by the same faith that was "prefigured in Abraham... the patriarch of our faith and as it were the prophet of it [Gal. 3:5-9; Gen. 12:3]." [54]

For which [reasons the apostle] declared that this man was not only the prophet of faith, but also the father of those who from among the Gentiles believe in Jesus Christ, because his faith and ours are one and the same: for he believed in things future, as if they were already accomplished, because of the promise of God; and in like manner do we also, because of the promise of God, behold through faith that inheritance [laid up for us] in the [future] kingdom.[55]

Irenaeus saw in Isaac's twin sons a type of the two nations or two peoples of God to come. But it would be the latter people (the Gentile church), typified by Jacob, who would supplant and "snatch away the blessings of the former" people (Israel), identified with Esau.[56]

The Contemporary Correlation

If this is an accurate portrayal of the position of the ante-Nicene, pre-millenarian Fathers on the relationship between Israel and the church, what is its correlation to the contemporary dispensational position on the subject? The main difficulty with the Fathers is not their concept of the origin of the church and whether or not it is distinct from Israel. There is little question that Israel and the church were viewed as separate organic entities. The chief problem has to do rather with their concept of the church as one of the principal beneficiaries of covenant


promises formerly intended for national Israel. This certainly seems to be in direct contradiction to

modern dispensational teaching.[57]

It is not surprising that the Fathers were so insistent that national Israel was cut off for her faithlessness and that the church was brought in as her replacement. These early leaders found it necessary to contend regularly with a hostile Judaism, the proponents of which had crucified the Redeemer. How could these Christ-rejectors and opponents of the true faith expect anything of God? asked the Fathers. This belief coupled with the lack of exegetical sophistication indigenous to the times, led to the erroneous conclusion that the church had supplanted Israel as the heir of Abraham.

In reality, however, the remnant of Israel still exists, according to the Fathers, though they did not call it that. This is seen in the concept of the seed of Abraham. According to the Fathers the church is a distinct entity and heir of covenant promise. But in almost every reference to the recipients of inheritance in the millennial kingdom, the church is reckoned as only a co-inheritor "together with" the righteous physical descendants of Abraham and with the righteous who lived before the calling out of Israel.

There is no doubt that the position of the Fathers on the relationship between Israel and the church has problems. But certain elements in their thought place them close to though not altogether within the dispensational camp. That the church is never called national Israel nor national Israel the church is certain. The church is called the "new Israel" only in the sense that believers follow the analogy of Abraham's faith and are his spiritual offspring, and therefore are the people of God in the new dispensation. That these Fathers maintained distinctions among the peoples of God in various ages is also evident in their treatment of Abraham's seed and the recipients of the inheritance in the millennial kingdom. That these Fathers also held to the literal fulfillment of covenant promises in this coming kingdom, contrary to the covenant amillennial position, is beyond dispute. As Mason rightly observes,

The millennial hope, undeniably prominent in the early church centuries, is based upon a true interpretation of the covenants of God with Abraham, affecting a land and a seed, and with David, affecting


a kingly house in perpetuity. These are at once the core principles of interpretation for both premillennialism and dispensationalism. [58]

The Fathers (1) distinguished between the church and national Israel, (2) recognized distinctions among the differing peoples of God throughout biblical history, and (3) believed in the literal fulfillment of covenant promises in the earthly kingdom. It is most unfortunate, however, that the ante-Nicene Fathers relegated believers between Jacob and Pentecost to the sidelines in the drama of redemption and especially in its final glorious earthly act, the millennial kingdom. Obviously the Fathers did not include them in the church age, but neither did they classify them as believing Israel.

The early Fathers overlooked the many Scripture references that unmistakably speak of the faithful remnant of Israel and that require the restoration of that nation so that the promises to Abraham might be fulfilled. While the church will indeed share in the blessings of covenant promise as a seed, but not the seed of Abraham, the primary recipients of promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, on the basis of careful exegesis of Scripture, can only be the restored believing remnant of Israel--a remnant that has existed throughout Israel's history. 59 The contemporary dispensational position on Israel and the church is primarily a refinement and not a contradiction of the position of the ante-Nicene church.

Appendix Dispensational Features in the Patristic Period

Church Fathers Dispensational Features

Tradition Distinctions Sex-/Septa-millennial Dispensational Premillennialism Imminency

Clement of Rome - (fl. ca. 90-100) x? [1] x [2] Ignatius of Antioch - (d. ca. 98/117) x? [3]† x [4] Polycarp - (70-155/60) x? [5] Papias - (ca. 60-130/155) x [6] The Didache - (before end of 1st cent.) x? [7]† x [8] The Epistle of Barnabas - (ca. 70-100 or 117-138) x [9] x [10] The Shepherd of Hermas - (ca. 96 or ca. 140-150) x? [11] x [12]‡Justin Martyr - (ca. 100-165) x [13] x [14] x [15]† Melito of Sardis - (2d. cent.) x? [16] Theophilus of Antioch - (115-181) x [17] Apollinaris of Hierapolis - (ca. 175) x? [18] Irenaeus - (ca. 120-202) x [19] x [20] x [21]† x [22]‡ Hippolytus - (d. ca. 236) x [23] x [24]* x [25] Clement of Alexandria - (ca. 150-220) x? [26] x? [27] Tertullian - (150-225) x? [28] x [29] x [30]† x [31] Julius Africanus - (d. ca. 240) x [32] Cyprian - (ca. 200-258) x [33] x [34] x [35] Nepos - (fl. ca. 230-250) x [36] Coracion - (ca. 230-280) x [37]* Commodian - (ca. 200-ca. 275) x [38] x [39]† Victorinus of Pettau - (d. ca. 304) x [40] x [41] x [42]

Methodius - (d. 311) x [43] x [44] x [45] Lactantius - (ca. 240-320) x [46] x [47]‡ Hilary - (ca. 300-367) x? [48] Apollinarius of Laodicea - (ca. 310-ca. 390) x [49] Jerome - (ca. 340-420) x? [50] anti-mill. [51] Augustine - (354-430) x [52] x [53] x [54]* Ambrosiaster - (fl. 366-384) x [55] Theodoret - (ca. 390-457) x? [56] anti-mill. [57] Cassiodorus - (ca. 477-ca. 570) x? [58] Gregory the Great - (ca. 546-604 ) x? [59] Isidore of Seville - (d. 636) x? [60] Andrew of Crete - (ca. 660-740) x? [61] John of Damascus - (700-754) x [62]

x = View held ? = Position questioned, not based on primary sources * = View later retracted † = Belief in double resurrection ‡ = Possible pretribulational reference

Appendix Footnotes [1] The First Epistle of Clement, chaps. 22-37. According to Jesse Forrest Silver, Clement's premillennialism is evident in these chapters by his "repeated exhortations 'in view of the second coming of Christ'" (The Lord's Return [New York: Fleming H. Revell, Co., 1914], p. 51). Clement's supposed premillennialism is usually based on his association with the apostles, especially Paul (Phil. 4:3), and their eschatological teachings. See George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1957), 1:494-95; Daniel T. Taylor, The Reign of Christ on Earth (Boston: Scriptural Tract Repository, 1882), p. 51; and J. A. Seiss, The Last Times (Baltimore: T. Newton Kurtz, 1859), pp. 238-39.

[2] The First Epistle of Clement, chap. 23.

[3] Premillennialism: Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 11 (refs. to "last times"). This evidence is set forth by Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1:495, and Taylor, The Reign of Christ on Earth, p. 54, and quoted with approval by Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), p. 21. First resurrection (not explicitly so-called): Epistle to the Romans, chap. 4; quoted by Taylor, p. 54, and Richard Cunningham Shimeall, Christ's Second Coming (New York: John F. Trow and Richard Brinkerhoff, 1865), pp. 63-64. The evidence cited for Ignatius on both premillennialism and the first resurrection is not altogether compelling.

[4] Epistle to Polycarp, chaps. 1, 3.

[5] Epistle to the Philippians, chap. 5. Position based on Polycarp's association with the Apostle John and with pre-millenarians like Papias (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5. 33. 4; Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1:495; Taylor, The Reign of Christ on Earth, pp. 54-55; Shimeall, Christ's Second Coming, p. 64; Silver, The Lord's Return, p. 60; and John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1959], p. 39).

[6] Fragments 4 and 6.

[7] The Didache, chap. 16, secs. 6-7. The position here is based primarily on the belief in a double resurrection (see Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pp. 19-20).

[8] Ibid., secs. 1-3.

[9] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 15.

[10] Ibid., chap. 21.

[11] The Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 3 and 4. Almost everyone, it is said, concedes that Hermas was premillennial (cf. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1:495; Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 119; and Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 20). The evidence, however, falls short of being conclusive.

[12] The Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 4 and 11. Is this a reference to the pretribulation rapture? See also Similitude 9, 7, where the Master is expected to "come suddenly" to examine the tower. This seems to be a reference to rapture out of the midst of on-going tribulation (i.e., Roman persecution), or a type of imminent intratribulationism rather than pre-tribulationism.

[13] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 81; frag. 15. (Cf. Taylor, The Reign of Christ on Earth, p. 59, quote credited to Justin.)

[14] Ibid., chaps. 27-29, 43, 45-47, 80-81 et al.

[15] Premillennialism: Dialogue with Trypho, chaps. 80-81 (esp. 81). Double resurrection: Dialogue with Trypho, chaps. 80-81, 113 ("the holy resurrection").

[16] See Taylor, p. 66; Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1:495; Silver, The Lord's Return, p. 66 (based on Jerome, Comm. on Ezek. 36; Gennadius, De Dogm. Eccl., chap. 52).

[17] Theophilus to Autolycus 3. 28. (See Silver, The Lord's Return, p. 62.)

[18] Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chap. 18. (Cf. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1:496.)

[19] Against Heresies, 5. 23. 2; 5. 28. 2-3; 5. 29. 2.

[20] Ibid., 3. 10. 2; 3. 11. 8; 3. 16. 8.

[21] Premillennialism: Against Heresies, 5. 33-36; Proof of Apostolic Preaching, 57 and 61. Double resurrection: Against Heresies, 5. 35. 1-2 ("resurrection of the just" versus "the general resurrection").

[22] Against Heresies, 5. 29. 1. While this citation seems to teach pre-tribulationism, elsewhere (5. 35. 1) Irenaeus placed the resurrection of the just after the coming of Antichrist.

[23] Fragments from Commentaries, On Daniel, 2. 4-6.

[24] Fragments from Commentaries, On Daniel, 2. 4, 40.

[25] Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 5 ("the sudden appearing of the Lord").

[26] See Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1:498, and Seiss, The Last Times, p. 242; The Stromata, 4. 24.

[27] Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.), 2:476, Elucidation 3.

[28] A Treatise on the Soul, chap. 37 (possible weak reference to year-day theory).

[29] An Answer to the Jews, chaps. 2-6 (esp. chap. 2).

[30] Premillennialism: Against Marcion, 3. 25. Double resurrection: A Treatise on the Soul, chap. 55; Against Marcion, 3. 25.

[31] Apology chap. 21 (the Second Advent "impends over the world, now near its close"); The Shows chap. 30 ("that fast approaching advent of our Lord").

[32] Fragments of Chronography of Julius Africanus 1. 18. 4. See Johannes Quasten, Patrology, 3 vols. (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1983), 2:138.

[33] Treatise XI, "On the Exhortation to Martyrdom," 11.

[34] Treatise IV, "On the Lord's Supper," 13; Treatise VII, "On the Mortality," 18.

[35] Treatise I, "On the Unity of the Church," 27.

[36] Eusebius Church History 7. 24; Jerome Lives of Illustrious Men chap. 69.

[37] Eusebius Church History 7. 24 .

[38] The Instructions of Commodianus 80.

[39] Premillennialism: Instructions 43-44, 80. Double resurrection: Instructions 33, 41, 80.

[40] On the Creation of the World (short, no divisions).

[41] Ibid., ("four generations of people").

[42] Ibid., (Christ to reign with the elect in the seventh millennium); Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John chap. 5. 8-9; Jerome Lives of Illustrious Men chap. 18.

[43] The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 9, chaps. 1, 5; Fragments 9.

[44] Ibid., discourse 7, chaps. 5-7; discourse 10, chaps. 2-4.

[45] Ibid., discourse 9, chaps. 1, 5.

[46] The Divine Institutes 7. 14, 25-26; The Epitome of the Divine Institutes chap. 70.

[47] Premillennialism: The Divine Institutes 7. 14, 24-26; The Epitome of the Divine Institutes chap. 72. Double resurrection: The Divine Institutes 7. 22-23, 26; The Epitome of the Divine Institutes chap. 72.

[48] Taylor, The Reign of Christ on Earth, p. 94.

[49] Epiphanius Medicine Box against Heresies 77. 36-38; Basil Letter 263. 4.

[50] Taylor, p. 96.

[51] In Isaiam proph. lib. 18; in Hieremiam proph. lib. 4; ad Jer. 19:10f.

[52] On the Catechising of the Uninstructed chap. 17. 28; Sermons on New Testament Lessons Sermon 75, sect. 4; On the Gospel of St. John Tractate 15, secs. 6 and 9; Tractate 9, sec. 6; On the Psalms, Psalm. 6. 1.

[53] Ibid.

[54] The City of God 20. 7.

[55] In 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9; in 1 Corinthians 15:52.

[56] Arnold D. Ehlert, A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), p. 29.

[57] Compendium of Heretics' Fables 5. 21.

[58] Ehlert, A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism, pp. 18-19.

[59] Thomas Burnet, Sacred Theory of the Earth (London: J. McGowan, n.d.), p. 260.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ehlert, p. 18.

[62] Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2. 1.

Article Footnotes [1] Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 14.

[2] Millard J. Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 111.

[3] For statements of their respective positions see Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), pp. 65-85; Arnold D. Ehlert, A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), pp. 5-30.

[4] For a full discussion of Darby's dispensational theology and its relationship to that of C. I. Scofield, see this writer's "The Doctrine of Ages and Dispensations as Found in the Published Works of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)" (PhD diss., Drew University, 1985).

[5] James Orr, The Progress of Dogma (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.), pp. 24-30.

[6] Ehlert believes this tradition to be closely related to the doctrine of dispensations proper and necessary to an understanding of its roots. Briefly stated, the tradition held that the world was to endure for 6,000 years and would then be followed by a 1,000-year millennial or sabbath rest (see Heb. 3:11; 4:1). The doctrine was based on the six days of creation with the seventh day of rest of Gen. 2:2, and the belief (based on 2 Pet. 3:8 and Ps. 90:4) that each day was to be reckoned as representative of a thousand years. For the background of this tradition see Ehlert, A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism, pp. 8-22, and Thomas Burnet, The Sacred Theory of the Earth (London: J. McGowan, n.d.), p. 260.

[7] As Henry C. Theissen correctly observes, "It is clear... that the Fathers held not only the premillennial view of Christ's coming, but also regarded that coming as imminent. The Lord had taught them to expect His return at any moment, and so they looked for Him to come in their day" (Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949], p. 477). Walvoord identifies imminency as the central feature of pre-tribulationism (John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979], p. 51). The actual position of the earliest Fathers is what may best be described as "imminent intratribulationism." They generally viewed all tribulation within the context of the current persecution under Rome. This, the Fathers believed, was the present reality into which Antichrist would appear and Christ would come (compare the Thessalonian error, 2 Thess. 2).

[8] John F. Walvoord, "Dispensational Premillennialism," Christianity Today , September 15, 1958, p. 13.

[9] It is evident from this that the Fathers are in disagreement with Daniel P. Fuller's belief that there is but a single physical seed of Abraham which includes the church (Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980], pp. 130-34).

[10] See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941), p. 570-71. Here Berkhof says, "The Church existed in the old dispensation as well as in the new, and was essentially the same in both, in spite of acknowledged institutional and administrative differences" (p. 571). Covenant premillennialist J. Barton Payne also sees the church in the Old Testament, which he assumes began with Abraham (see J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962], p. 91).

[11] When Justin said, "We, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ are the true Israelitic race" ( Dialogue chap. 135), and Irenaeus observed that "the Church is the Seed of Abraham" ( Against Heresies 5. 34. 1; 5. 32. 2), they can only mean that the church, by virtue of justification by faith in Christ, is to be included in the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Irenaeus understood the foundations of the church to have been laid by the apostles and thus it began with them, not Abraham ( Against Heresies 3. 1. 1; 3. 3. 2-3; cf. Tertullian On Prescription against Heretics chap. 20; and Cyprian Epistles of Cyprian Ep. 69. 3; Ep. 72. 7; Treatises of Cyprian Treat. 2. 10; and Treat. 9. 9).

[12] Johannes Quasten, Patrology , 3 vols. (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1983), 1:89.

[13] Epistle of Barnabas chap. 10. Unless otherwise stated, all quotations from and references to the Fathers in this study are from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers , 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.).

[14] Epistle of Barnabas chap. 18; cf. Didache chaps. 1-6 with Barnabas chaps. 18-20.

[15] Epistle of Barnabas chap. 6.

[16] For other references to the two peoples, or two nations, represented by Jacob and Esau, see Irenaeus Against Heresies 4. 21. 2-3 and Tertullian An Answer to the Jews chap. 1; Against Marcion 3. 25.

[17] Epistle of Barnabas chap. 13.

[18] Ibid., chaps. 14 and 16.

[19] Ibid., chaps. 9 and 10 (last sentence).

[20] Ibid., chap. 16.

[21] Ibid., chap. 6.

[22] Ibid., chap. 15.

[23] Quasten, Patrology , 1:202.

[24] Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho chap. 120.

[25] Ibid., chap. 47.

[26] Ibid., chap. 135 (italics added).

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., chap. 123.

[29] Ibid., chap. 44.

[30] Ibid., chaps. 25-26. Tertullian also made a distinction between the parties who shall receive the inheritance of God in the kingdom. In one place, having just spoken of Christ as "the Pontiff of the priesthood of the uncircumcision [the Gentiles]... by whom He was to be more fully received," Tertullian added that "at His last coming He will favour with His acceptance and blessing the circumcision also, even the race of Abraham, which by and by is to acknowledge Him" (Against Marcion, 5. 9). Elsewhere Tertullian identified these two groups as "the chosen of God" (Gentiles of Luke 21:24), and "the remnant of Israel" (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chap. 22). For Tertullian, is it "the remnant of Israel" to which the saints between Abraham and Pentecost belong? Cyprian, in speaking of the "Judge and Avenger" for whom believers wait, wrote that He "shall equally avenge with Himself the congregation of His Church and the number of all the righteous from the beginning of the world" (Treatise 9,"On the Advantage of Patience," 24; italics added). For Cyprian, the church clearly does not include all saints of all ages.



[33] Ibid., chap. 139.

[34] Ibid., chaps. 27-28.

[35] Thus Tertullian could both speak of "God's kingdom in an everlasting and heavenly possession" and yet "confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth" (Against Marcion, 3. 25). And Cyprian could write that "we do well in seeking the kingdom of God, that is, the heavenly kingdom, because there is also an earthly kingdom" (Treatise 4,"On the Lord's Supper," 13).

[36] George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing House, 1958), 1:304 (italics his).

[37] Ibid., 1:324 (italics his). Peters seems to concur with the Fathers in their mistaken notion that the church is the heir of Israel's promises by virtue of the New Covenant. He fails to see, as they did, that while the New Covenant does have application for the church in the present age as it relates to the Lord's Supper, it is nevertheless directed distinctly in the Old Testament and substantially in the New to national Israel, and therefore in no way abrogates the promises made to Abraham's physical descendants but rather reinforces them. For helpful discussions of the New Covenant see John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), pp. 208-20, and Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), pp. 105-25.

[38] Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1:326.

[39] Eusebius, Church History, 5. 20. 5-7.

[40] Ibid., 5. 5. 8.

[41] Ibid., 4. 21 (see note 9 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series); 5. 26.

[42] Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chap. 35.

[43] Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, chap. 95. The edition of the Proof cited in this article is Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, eds., Ancient Christian Writers: St. Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching , trans. Joseph P. Smith (New York; Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, 1946). For additional references to Abraham's faith as the prototype for church-age believers, see Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4. 34; 5. 3; A Treatise on the Soul chap. 21; and Cyprian Treatise 9, On the Advantage of Patience, 10.

[44] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4. 8. 1.

[45] Ibid., 5. 32. 2.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid.; see also 4. 8. 1, for the statement, "his seed, that is, the Church."

[49] Ibid., 3. 3. 3; see also 3. 1. 1 and 3. 3. 2, for references to Peter and Paul as "laying the foundations of the Church."


[51] Irenaeus, Proof, chap. 95.

[52] Ibid., chaps. 91 and 93; cf. Against Heresies 4. 8. 1.

[53] Ibid., chap. 35.


[55] Ibid.

[56] Ibid., 4. 21. 2-3.

[57] See the quotation from Walvoord on pages 256-57 of this article.

[58] Clarence E. Mason, "A Review of 'Dispensationalism' by John Wick Bowman," Bibliotheca Sacra 114 (January-March 1957):15.

[59] For valuable treatments of themes related to Israel, (e.g., her status as a nation, her future restoration, her covenant promises, etc.) see John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom ; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958); and Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith.

Bibliotheca Sacra / July-September 1987, Vol. 144, p. 377

Rudiments of Dispensationalism in the Ante-Nicene PeriodPart 2 (of 2 parts): Ages and Dispensations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers

Larry V. Crutchfield Bible Instructor, Baumholder Military Community, Baumholder, West Germany

It is possible to find in the writings of the Fathers divisions of human history based on God's dealings with mankind. These are systems based not on an arbitrary division of human existence into predetermined chronological ages, as C. Norman Kraus charges,[1] but on God's program for humanity within the context of salvation. The early church fathers recognized that at various times the method of God's dealings with men and the content of the divine revelation to them had undergone change to counteract the creature's failure and to facilitate his approach in obedience to God. Yet these Fathers saw but one basis throughout human history for man's justification before God: faith in Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross.

Among those whose doctrine of ages and dispensations has survived from the ante-Nicene period are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and to a minor degree Victorinus of Petau. This study will focus on Justin and Irenaeus, with occasional


references to Tertullian and Methodius as appropriate. The dispensational outline found in Victorinus of Petau is similar to the others (see Appendix A), but the absence of detail in his scheme makes meaningful evaluation of it virtually impossible.

The Early Concept of Ages and Dispensations

Barnabas' year-day tradition is the earliest budding of the dispensational understanding of God's dealings with man. Barnabas indicated that boundaries have been set for the times of man, the kingdom rest, and the beginning of eternity.[2] Furthermore within the time of man's allotted 6,000 years, God has had His special people Israel, who failed. Therefore He established a new people with whom He deals on the basis of newly revealed principles. While sacrifices, burnt offerings, and oblations were the acceptable means of approach to God in the old era, according to Barnabas, Christ Himself is the "human oblation" in the present age.[3] This latter age, suggested Ignatius, is "a dispensation founded on faith in [Jesus Christ] and love for Him, on His Passion and Resurrection." [4] It is distinct from what Clement terms "every age that has passed," [5] and as Hermas implies, from "the age that is to come, in which the elect of God will dwell." [6]

Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 100-165)

The data by which to reconstruct Justin Martyr's doctrine of dispensations is abundant though it is not presented systematically. The stage for a dispensational system was set with his reply to a question on whether God always taught the same righteousness. Justin remarked,


For if one should wish to ask you why, since Enoch, Noah with his sons, and all others in similar circumstances, who neither were circumcised nor kept the Sabbath, pleased God, God demanded by other leaders, and by the giving of the law after the lapse of so many generations, that those who lived between the times of Abraham and of Moses be justified by circumcision, and that those who lived after Moses be justified by circumcision and the other ordinances--to wit, the Sabbath, and sacrifices, and libations, and offerings.[7]

Elsewhere Justin made three things clear in this regard: (1) God is always the same; (2) the righteous

actions (righteousness) that He expects are always the same; [8] but that (3) the manner in which they are expressed or that man is to respond to God changes from dispensation to dispensation, and that change is precipitated by man's sin and failure. Justin warned of

fall[ing] into foolish opinions, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances; or that God has not wished each race of mankind continually to perform the same righteous actions [obedience to the will of God]: to admit which, seems to be ridiculous and absurd. Therefore we must confess that He, who is ever the same, has commanded these and such like institutions on account of sinful men.[9]


Justin set forth four distinct phases [10] through which the human race passes in God's progressive, revelatory program of salvation: the first, from Adam to Abraham; the second, from Abraham to Moses; the third, from Moses to Christ; and the fourth, from Christ presumably to the eternal state. Each phase has one or more chief representatives, distinct characteristics marking it off from all others, a specific reason for which change is instituted, and a clear basis on which salvation rests (see Appendix B).

Justin identified Enoch and Noah as the chief representatives of the first dispensation extending from Adam to Abraham. He wrote of "Enoch, Noah with his sons, and all others in similar circumstances" [11]

and of "Enoch and those like him." [12] Elsewhere Justin named Adam, Abel, Lot, and Melchizedek as also belonging to this dispensation,[13] which included all those "righteous and pleasing to Him, who lived before Moses and Abraham." He distinctly marked the next dispensation when he wrote, "After them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses" [14] and spoke of "those who lived between the times of Abraham and of Moses." [15]


Justin identified the chief dispensational characteristic during this first period as the nonobservance of rites. He said, "All these righteous men already mentioned," [16] "neither were circumcised, nor kept the Sabbath,"[17] "nor any other rites." [18] Yet the means of their salvation, as is the case in all dispensations, by Justin's reckoning, is the individual righteousness that comes through faith in God, as evidenced by the keeping of His commands. Those from Adam to Noah, though observing no rites, were declared righteous and pleasing to God [19] because of their possession of true circumcision--the circumcision of the heart. "Though a man be a Scythian or a Persian, if he has the knowledge of God and of his Christ, and keeps the everlasting righteous decrees, he is circumcised with the good and useful circumcision, and is a friend of God, and God rejoices in his gifts and offerings." [20] And again, "We, who have approached God through Him [Christ], have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed... .and all men may equally obtain it." [21]


This dispensation of nonobservance of rites, however, came to an end. But since Justin's focus was on Israel as the people of God, he said nothing directly here about the personal failure of those between Adam and Abraham. He wrote only in general terms of the need for new "institutions on account of sinful men" [22] and "the hardness of your people's heart." [23] This he said with reference to the two dispensations to follow. Failure in each of these periods was presented by Justin primarily in terms of God's chosen people, the Jews, while the Gentiles and those who preceded Abraham were mainly ignored. As was the custom of these early Fathers, the canvas of theological debate is covered only by the broad strokes of apologetic or polemic necessity with little attention given to non-expedient detail.

In the second dispensation, from Abraham to Moses, Abraham was the chief representative. Since "circumcision began with Abraham," [24] Abraham was representative of those who followed him, until the time of Moses.[25]

The primary identifying mark of this dispensation is the rite of circumcision. Justin explained to Trypho that this rite was unnecessary before Abraham's time, but because of the foreseen sin of Israel it became a necessary sign.[26] It would seem that, according to Justin, as a type of the true circumcision

to come, circumcision of the flesh also served as the means of approach to God and as a symbol of Abraham's obedience in faith.[27]


Justin explained the reason for the change in dispensational arrangement in the following way. On the basis of God's foreknowledge of Israel's sin, the rite of circumcision ("of the flesh") was given as a sign.[28] This sign was given so that Israel might be distinguished from all other nations "and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer." [29] He maintained further that "these things [various sufferings of the Jews] have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him; and now you reject those who hope in Him, and in Him who sent Him... cursing in your synagogues those that believe on Christ." [30] But in another place Justin suggested that this circumcision of the flesh "was a type of the true circumcision by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath [namely, through] our Lord Jesus Christ." [31]

As in all dispensations justification in this period between Abraham and Moses was by faith. And faith results in individual righteousness which is manifested by obedience to the revealed will of God. "For when Abraham himself was in uncircumcision," wrote Justin, "he was justified and blessed by reason of the faith


which he reposed in God, as the Scripture tells." [32] And again he said, "For Abraham was declared by God to be righteous, not on account of circumcision, but on account of faith [Gen. 15:6]." [33]

The chief representative of the third dispensation, that from Moses to Christ, was Moses himself. This is the "legal dispensation," [34] the dispensation of Law. Again, as Justin explained, certain rites "were enjoined on account of the hardness of [the] people's heart." [35] The rites that characterized this dispensation included the continuation of circumcision, with the addition of Sabbaths, sacrifices, offerings, libations (or ashes), and feasts.[36]

As was true with circumcision, Justin maintained that these new rites were given as signs and not for a work of righteousness. At the same time, however, he viewed the rites as a means of approach to God, as a prod toward piety and away from idolatry. On the significance of the rites as signs, Justin wrote, "Moreover, that God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and impose on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness, and that of your fathers--as He declares that for the sake of the nations, lest His name be profaned among them, therefore He permitted some of you to remain alive." [37]

But while Justin claimed that these rites were given as signs because of Israel's hardness of heart, he also insisted that they were given to lead the Jews into obedience to God and away from idolatry. With regard to sacrifices, for example, he said that "it was for the sins of your own nation, for their idolatries, and not because there was any necessity for such sacrifices, that they were


likewise enjoined." [38] He quoted Amos 5:18-6:7; Jeremiah 7:21-22; and Psalm 1 in support. Then he added, "For indeed the temple... in Jerusalem, He admitted to be His house or court, not as though He needed it, but in order that you, in this view of it, giving yourselves to Him, might not worship idols." [39]

Commenting on the same theme elsewhere, Justin wrote, "You were commanded to observe the Sabbath, and to present offerings, and that the Lord submitted to have a place called by the name of God, in order that, as has been said, you might not become impious and godless by worshiping idols and forgetting God, as indeed you do always appear to have been." [40] The Sabbath itself was to serve as "a memorial of God." [41]

Justin also stated that the Jews had indeed forgotten God and once again demonstrated their disobedience, despite God's efforts to encourage them in righteous conduct. Justin maintained that under Moses, all those descended from Abraham "appeared unrighteous and ungrateful to God,

making a calf in the wilderness: wherefore God, accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols. Which precept, however, you have not observed." [42] Justin indicted Israel further: "You were commanded to abstain from certain kinds of food, in order that you might keep God before your eyes while you ate and drank, seeing that you were prone and very ready to depart from His knowledge." [43]

Those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation were saved as others are: by individual righteousness through faith in God on the basis of Christ's atoning work. Trypho had asked Justin, "Tell me, then, shall those who lived according to the law given by Moses, live in the same manner with Jacob, Enoch, and Noah, in the resurrection of the dead, or not?" Justin replied,


each one... shall be saved by his own righteousness... .those who regulated their lives by the law of Moses would in like manner be saved. For what in the law of Moses is naturally good, and pious, and righteous, and has been prescribed to be done by those who obey it; and what was appointed to be performed by reason of the hardness of the people's hearts; was similarly recorded, and done also by those who were under the law. Since those who did that which is universally, naturally, and eternally good are pleasing to God, they shall be saved through this Christ in the resurrection equally with those righteous men who were before them, namely Noah, and Enoch, and Jacob, and who ever else there be, along with those who have known this Christ, Son of God. [44]

The fourth dispensation in Justin's outline of human history is the period from Christ to presumably the eternal state. While it is certain that Justin looked for a distinct 1,000-year millennial reign of Christ on earth, he did not discuss it in dispensational terms. He seemed rather to include it under the dispensation of Christ. [45]

However, Justin did speak pointedly about the end of the dispensation under Moses and the beginning of that under Christ. Because of Israel's sin, "it was necessary, in accordance with the Father's will, that they [all rites] should have an end in Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David; in Christ the Son of God." [46] In response to Trypho's questioning, Justin admitted that Christ "was both circumcised, and observed the other legal ceremonies ordained by Moses," but he hastened to add that "He endured all these not as


if He were justified by them, but completing the dispensation which His Father... wished Him [to complete]." [47] Obviously Christ is the chief Representative of the present dispensation.

Justin characterized this dispensation under Christ as one in which the rite of circumcision instituted with Abraham, and the rites of Sabbath-keeping, sacrifices, offerings, and feasts, which came in under Moses, have ceased. [48] Now God provides spiritual circumcision of heart [49] and gifts of the Holy Spirit. [50] The prophets of old received "some one or two powers from God," by which they were enabled to speak what has been set down in Scripture. After citing several instances of this as evidence, he said,

Accordingly [the Holy Spirit] rested, i.e., ceased, when He [Christ] came, after whom, in the times of this dispensation wrought out by Him amongst men, it was requisite that such gifts should cease from you; and having received their rest in Him, should again, as had been predicted, become gifts which, from the grace of His Spirit's power, He imparts to those who believe in Him, according as He deems each man worthy thereof. [51]

The reason given by Justin for the change in God's governmental arrangement of things with men is that with the advent of the sinless Christ there is no longer any need for the former rites. [52] The blood of that former circumcision, asserted Justin, is obsolete. For now "we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion. Jesus Christ circumcises all who will... with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace." [53] In Christ believers have "the everlasting law and the everlasting covenant." [54]


Concerning the promised New Covenant and its relation to the old, Justin made a significant statement about God's methods of dealing with mankind. To Trypho, Justin said,

did not the Scriptures predict that God promised to dispense a new covenant besides that which [was dispensed] in the mountain Horeb?... Was not the old covenant laid on your fathers with fear and trembling, so that they could not give ear to God?... God promised that there would be another covenant, not like that old one, and said that it would be laid on them without fear, and trembling, and lightnings, and that it would be such as to show what kind of commands and deeds God knows to be eternal and suited to every nation, and what commandments He has given, suiting them to the hardness of your people's hearts, as He exclaims also by the prophets. [55]

The means of salvation in this dispensation, as in the previous ones, according to Justin, is individual righteousness. In every instance obedience to the decrees of God results in salvation through Christ. [56] Those who have approached God in this dispensation, Justin maintained, have received the same spiritual circumcision received by Enoch and others like him. "And we have received it through baptism," said Justin, "since we were sinners, by God's mercy; and all men may equally obtain it." [57]

While his terminology is not always consistent and his presentation of the subject is not systematic, it is nevertheless clear that Justin is in essential agreement with Ryrie's statement that "the basis of salvation is always the death of Christ; the means is always faith; the object is always God... but the content of faith depends on the particular revelation God was pleased to give at a certain time." [58]


Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120-202)

Like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus saw human history not merely as parcels of time patterned after the six plus one days of creation, but in terms of the dispensational arrangements of God. Even though Irenaeus' presentation of the dispensations is not as full as Justin's, he did make some interesting statements about and arguments for God's ordered program for man's salvation. Irenaeus' four dispensations are (1) Creation to the Deluge (or Adam to Noah), (2) Deluge to the Law (or Noah to Moses), (3) the Law to the Gospel (or Moses to Christ), (4) the gospel to presumably the Eternal State (or Christ to the Eternal State).

The method by which Irenaeus arrived at the number of dispensations is interesting as it is based on quadriplex prototypes, both in nature and in Scripture.[59] He reasoned that the Gospels can be neither greater nor fewer than four in number because of the analogy of the quadriform structure of creation. Irenaeus maintained that there are four zones of the world inhabited by mankind and four principal winds. He concluded, therefore, that

while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" [1 Tim. 3:15] of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars [1 Tim. 3:15], breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. [60]

Irenaeus developed this reference to Christ sitting on the cherubim (Ps. 80:1) in conjunction with the "four living creatures" of Revelation 4:7. Observing that the cherubim were four-faced,


Irenaeus contended that "their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God." As seen in the following summary of Irenaeus' position, [61] he saw the dispensational arrangements of God culminating in the final dispensation brought in by Christ. [62]

1 . First living creature: like a lion = "His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power" (characterized by the Gospel of John ). "And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory" (reference to the first and second dispensations).

2. Second living creature: like a calf = "[His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order" (characterized by the

Gospel of Luke). "But for those under the Law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service" (reference to the third dispensation).

3. Third living creature: like a man = "His advent as a human being" (characterized by the Gospel of Matthew). "Afterwards, being made man for us" (reference to the fourth dispensation).

4. Fourth living creature: like a flying eagle = "Pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the church" (characterized by the Gospel of Mark). "He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings" (reference again to the fourth dispensation).

Irenaeus advanced his thesis by saying that just as the living creatures and the gospel are quadriform so also is "the course followed by the Lord." He contended that this is the reason God gave four principal covenants to mankind. It should be kept in mind that Irenaeus often employed the term "covenant" in a broad sense to refer to some specific economy in God's program of salvation. Thus in some contexts the terms "covenant" and "dispensation" signify essentially the same thing. Since there is some variation in the dispensational system of Irenaeus in the Latin and Greek versions of the text under consideration, both are presented below in parallel and summary fashion. [63]

1. First, "prior to the deluge, under Adam."


Greek version: "first covenant as having been given to Noah, at the deluge, under the sign of the rainbow."

2. Second, "that after the deluge, under Noah."

Greek version: "the second as that given to Abraham, under the sign of circumcision."

3. Third, "the giving of the Law, under Moses."

Greek version: "the third, as being the giving of the Law, under Moses."

4. Fourth, "that which renovates man [under Christ], and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom."

Greek version: "the fourth, as that of the Gospel, through our Lord Jesus Christ."

In the Greek version, the least authoritative of the two, [64] the outline is exactly the same as that found in Justin Martyr.

Irenaeus held firmly to the belief that the divine program of salvation for mankind is worked out in an orderly fashion by the Triune God. And this orderly system he cast in dispensational terms. Irenaeus spoke of the various gifts, "adapted to the times," which have been bestowed on the human race by the "prophetic Spirit." "Thus, therefore," he concluded, "was God revealed; for God the Father is shown forth through all these [operations], the Spirit indeed working, and the Son ministering, while the Father was approving, and man's salvation being accomplished." [65] For Irenaeus, Christ is especially prominent in this dispensational drama. It is the eternal Son, he said,


who did also show to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of gifts, and His own ministrations, and the glory of the Father, in regular order and connection, at the fitting time for the benefit [of mankind]. For where there is a regular succession, there is also fixedness; and where fixedness, there suitability to the period; and where suitability, there also utility. And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of men,... revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, falling away from God altogether, should cease to exist. [66]

Irenaeus gave relatively little information on the first two dispensations, Creation to the Deluge, and the Deluge to the Law. But the information he did include is redolent of Justin's teaching on the subject. Irenaeus explained that circumcision (Gen. 17:9-11) and Sabbath observance (Exod. 31:13; Ezek. 20:12) were both given as signs. The former was given so that the "race of Abraham might continue recognizable." But he explained further that these signs had symbolic meaning and real purpose beyond the sign. Physical circumcision, for example, was a type of the circumcision of the heart performed by the Holy Spirit (Col. 2:11; Deut. 10:16, LXX). Sabbath observance, on the other hand,

taught continual service to God. It spoke too of the millennial rest to come, after the type of the seventh day of rest following the creation. [67]

Like Justin, Irenaeus insisted that no man was justified by these rites. For proof of this he mentioned Abraham, Lot, Noah, and Enoch, all of whom were uncircumcised yet pleased God. Also "all the rest of the multitude of those righteous men who lived before Abraham, and of those patriarchs who preceded Moses, were justified independently of the things above mentioned, and without the law of Moses." Here Irenaeus obviously followed the Greek version of the dispensational system outlined earlier, and was in agreement with Justin's dispensational arrangement. [68]


Irenaeus asked, "Why, then, did the Lord not form the covenant [Law given to Moses] for the fathers?" His answer was to the effect that the fathers prior to Moses had the Law (meaning here primarily the Decalogue) written in their hearts and the righteousness of the Law in their souls, and they lived by it. [69] Therefore there was no need for an external Law written on stone. However, said Irenaeus,

when this righteousness and love to God had passed into oblivion, and became extinct in Egypt, God did necessarily, because of His great goodwill to men, reveal Himself by a voice, and led the people with power out of Egypt, in order that man might again become the disciple and follower of God... .And it [the Decalogue] enjoined love to God, and taught just dealing towards our neighbour, that we should neither be unjust nor unworthy of God.[70]

This passage suggests the principle of a new dispensation precipitated by failure. The principle is also set down that with the new dispensation is an attendant new revelation, the purpose of which is to assist man in gaining justification before God.

In another place, on the theme of failure and differing covenants, Irenaeus pointed out that one person may, more accurately than another, be able to explain

the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that [by] one and the same God... more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants. [71]

Irenaeus blamed the error of Simon Magus, Marcion, Valentinus, and others on their "ignorance of the Scriptures and of the dispensation of God." He, on the other hand, promised in the progress of his treatise to address the cause of the differences between covenants and to touch on their unity and harmony. For


those were perfected, he maintained, "who knew one and the same God, who from beginning to end was present with mankind in the various dispensations." [72]

In speaking of the various covenants, especially that under Moses (the legal dispensation) and that under Christ (the gospel dispensation), Irenaeus emphasized the fact that throughout history there is but one God and one means of salvation. But at the same time he believed in the progressive nature of both revelation and the precepts by which salvation is understood and God approached. "The Lord is the good man of the house, who rules the entire house of His Father." [73] It is He, according to Irenaeus, who delivers what is suited to man in each dispensation. For example the old covenant was suited to those who were slaves and undisciplined. But the same householder brought forth a New Covenant, the gospel, as fitting for free men, justified by faith. This, he said, is "the new dispensation of liberty, the covenant, through the advent of His Son." [74]

The former covenant, the legal dispensation, [75] resulted in bondage, whereas the latter, the greater of the two dispensations, brought forth liberty and multiplied grace. [76] This New Covenant and He who was to carry it out, Irenaeus continued, were both preached by the prophets and revealed to men as it pleased God. This was done in order that "they might always make progress through believing in Him, and by means of the [successive] covenants, should gradually attain to perfect salvation. For there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts which form the man


are numerous, and the steps which lead man to God are not a few." [77]

As failure was the reason the Mosaic or legal dispensation was substituted for that under Abraham, Irenaeus believed that here too failure resulted in mankind

enter[ing] upon a new phase, the Word arranging after a new manner the advent in the flesh, that He might win back to God that human nature (hominem) which had departed from God; and therefore men were taught to worship God after a new fashion, but not another god [contra Gnostic teaching], because in truth there is but "one God, who justifieth the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith" [Rom. 3:30]. [78]

Irenaeus employed the imagery of a vineyard to explain the reason for the transfer from the former dispensation to the present. After explaining that the God who called those of the former dispensation of Law (which involves bondage) also called those of the latter dispensation (by means of adoption), he added, "For God planted the vineyard of the human race when at the first He formed Adam and chose the fathers; then He let it out to husbandmen when He established the Mosaic dispensation." Irenaeus observed that God then "hedged it round about" (i.e., gave special instructions for worship), "built a tower" (i.e., chose Jerusalem), and "digged a winepress" (i.e., prepared a medium for the prophetic Spirit). God sent the prophets to seek the fruits of righteousness and then He sent His own Son. But the wicked husbandmen killed His Son and cast Him out of the vineyard. Thus God, having justly rejected these evil men, has unhedged the vineyard, throwing it open to husbandmen (i.e., Gentiles) throughout the world. Now the beautiful "elect tower," the church, is being raised everywhere and the winepress is being digged everywhere, for everywhere there are those who are receiving the Spirit. [79]


This last dispensation, the "dispensation of His coming," was clearly announced by Moses (Num. 24:17) as being from Jacob and from among the Jews. [80] There are some, he pointed out elsewhere, who "despise the coming of the Son of God and the dispensation of His incarnation, which the apostles have transmitted to us." [81] And further, "certain persons, because of the disobedient and ruined Israelites, do assert that the giver... of the law was limited in power, they will find in our dispensation that 'many are called, but few chosen' " [Matt. 22:14]. Nevertheless "those who have believed on Him should be honoured with immortality." [82]

A Word about the Number of Dispensations

While it is true that the number of dispensations to which one holds is not a decisive issue, it is nevertheless an important one. The claim made by Kraus, that for the Fathers "there is only one basic dispensational division," [83] is inaccurate. It was of course true then as now that the basic division between the Old and New Testaments--God's programs before and after Christ--was recognized. But it is also true, as has been demonstrated, that several of the Fathers held to a multi-staged (or dispensational) dealing of God with man based generally on a cycle of failure and the consequent need for new revelation to aid mankind in his endeavor to please God in obedient faith. Though some Fathers set forth only four such dispensations, others came very close to making nearly the same divisions modern dispensationalists do. In Irenaeus, Victorinus of Petau, and Methodius the number of dispensations is artificially restricted to four because of the quadriplex types adduced from both nature and Scripture which seemed to require it. Without such an artificially self-imposed constraint, the result is more like that found in Tertullian. [84]


While it makes little essential difference whether the Fathers held to four or more dispensations, it is nevertheless instructive to determine how they arrived at the number of dispensations to which they held. It is also of interest to observe how their dispensations relate to those held by contemporary dispensationalists. The dispensations are most often spoken of in the early Fathers in terms of the prominent persons--Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Christ--with whom God dealt individually, and

to whom He imparted new revelation for the collective good of His people. Often the name of Abel is associated with that of Adam, while Enoch is often connected with Noah. Dispensational divisions were customarily made along the boundaries of these five men's lives and times.

If a church father held to only four dispensations, there is frequently confusion as to where to draw the boundaries for the first two dispensations. The Fathers recognized the distinctive part that Adam, Noah, and Abraham played in God's dispensational arrangements. But if there can be only four dispensations and the Law under Moses and the gospel under Christ are assumed, [85] the first two economies must be manipulated to fit the predetermined number. The result is that, depending on which fourfold system one examines, one patriarch (usually Adam or Abraham) was absorbed into one of the others when the actual divisions were set forth. In general discussions of God's economies, however, the fivefold division continued to be observed. And these five are roughly equivalent to Scofield's dispensations of Innocence (Adam), Government (Noah), Promise (Abraham), Law (Moses), and Grace (Christ). [86]

But how did the Fathers deal with what modern dispensationalists call the dispensation of conscience (from the Fall to the Flood) and the millennial dispensation (the second coming of Christ to the eternal state)? Since the Fathers tended to think of


the dispensations in terms of prominent men, it is easy to see how Abel and Enoch (two of the prominent men of the dispensation of conscience) [87] could be absorbed into the economies under their more illustrious contemporaries (Abel under Adam and Enoch under Noah), men to whom greater portions of the biblical narrative are devoted. In the case of the millennium the Fathers alternated between calling it a "new" dispensation and the "future" dispensation, [88] and simply regarding the whole period from the Incarnation to the eternal state under Christ, the prominent figure throughout. Regardless of the number of economies to which the Fathers held, the fact remains that they set forth what can only be considered a doctrine of ages and dispensations which foreshadows dispensationalism as it is held today. Their views were certainly less well defined and less sophisticated. But it is evident that the early Fathers viewed God's dealings with His people in dispensational terms.

Conclusion

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was the first to give systematic form to the doctrine of ages and dispensations. But he was by no means the first to recognize and employ the basic principles on which this doctrine stands. Ehlert's valuable work, A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism, [89] shows that this doctrine has a history almost as old as the church itself. In every major area of importance in the early church one finds rudimentary features of dispensationalism that bear a striking resemblance to their contemporary offspring. But this doctrine does not depend on the historical consensus of human opinion--devout or otherwise--for its existence. We have one authority, and one authority only.


As Charles L. Feinberg aptly puts it, "The final issue is, 'What saith the Scripture?'" [90]

Appendix A Comparison of Dispensational Systems of Fathers in the Ante-Nicene Age

Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165)

(Dialogue with Trypho)

Enoch/Noah

(Adam to Abraham)(Chap. 92; cf. chap. 27)

Abraham (Abraham to Moses)(Chap. 92; cf. chap. 19)

Moses (Moses to Christ)(Chap. 92; cf. chap. 43)

Christ (Christ to Eternal State?) (Chaps. 23, 43, 45)

Millennium (Seventh millenary of years)(Chap. 81; Frag. 15)

Irenaeus* (ca. 120–202)

(Against Heresies)

(3.11.8) Four Covenants (4.9.3)

Adam to Noah

(3.11.8; 4.16.2)

Noahto Moses

(3.11.8; 4.16.2)

Mosesto Christ

(3.11.8; 4.16.2-3)

Christ to Eternal State? (3.11.8-9; 4.9.1-3)

Millennium (Seventh millenary of years)(4.16.1; 5.30.4;5.33.2)

Tertullian (150–225)

(An Answerto the Jews)(Against Praxeas)

Adam (Adam and Eve;Paradise; Abel)

(Chaps. 2, 4, 5)(Chap. 16)

Noah(Noah and Enoch; Patriarchs)(Chaps. 2, 4)(Chap. 16)

Abraham(Lot, Jews;Melchizedek;Patriarchs)(Chaps. 2-6)(Chap. 16)

Moses(Jews; the Prophets)

(Chaps. 2-6)(Chap. 16)

Christ(“more faithful worshippers)

(Apology, chapter 21)(Against Marc.,3-4, 20)

“millennial interspace” prior to “eternal economy”(Apology, chapter 49)(On the Res.,59, 61)

Victorinus of Petau (d. ca. 304)

(On the Creation of the World)

Four Generations of People

Adam to Noah

Noah to Abraham

Abraham to Moses

Moses to Christ

Millennium(Seventh millenary of years)

Methodius (d. 311)

(Banquet of the Ten Virgins)

(Judg. 9:8–15) Four Trees/Laws (Disc. 10, chap. 2)

Adamto Noah(Fig tree)

(Disc. 10, chaps. 2–4; disc. 7, chaps. 4–5, 7)

Noahto Moses(Vine)

(Disc. 10, chaps. 2–4; disc. 7, chaps. 4–7)

Mosesto Christ(Olive tree)


Apostlesto Millennium(Bramble)


Millennium(Seventh millenary of years) = “new dispensation”(Disc. 4, chap. 5;disc. 7, chap. 3;disc. 8, chap. 11;disc. 9, chap. 2)

* Alternate system for Irenaeus (based on Greek text) = first covenant under Noah; second covenant under Abraham; third covenant (Law) under Moses; and fourth covenant (Gospel) under Christ.

(Roberts and Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:429, n. 3).

Appendix BThe Dispensations of Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165)

Old Covenant:Law (Dial., chap. 67)

New Covenant:Gospel (Dial., chap. 67)

I(Dial., chs. 27, 92)

II(Dial., chs. 19, 92)

III(Dial., chs. 43, 92)

IV(Dial., chs. 22, 42, 45)

Adam to Abraham

Abraham to Moses

Moses to Christ

Christ to Eternal State?

Representative(s)of Dispensation

1. Chief representatives: Enoch and Noah (Dial.,chaps. 43,92)

1. Chief representative: Abraham(Dial., chs. 23, 43, 92)

1. Chief representative: Moses(Dial.,chaps 23, 67, 92)

1. Chief representative:Christ(Dial.,chaps 23, 43)

Characteristic(s)of Dispensation

2. Chief dispensational characteristic:non-observance of rites, i.e., no circumcision, sabbaths, sacrifices, offerings, or feasts

(Dial., chs. 19, 23,27, 46, 92)

2. Chief dispensational characteristic:circumcision

(Dial., chs. 23, 43,46, 92)

2. Chief dispensational characteristic:circumcision plus sacrifices, feasts, sabbaths, and offerings (or oblations)

(Dial., chs. 23 ,43,92)

2. Chief dispensational characteristic:all former rites, i.e., circumcision, sacrifices, etc., ended; there is now circumcision of heart and gifts of the Holy Spirit(Dial., chs. 43, 87)

Reason for Change in Dispensation

3. new institutions were commanded because of sin/hardness of heart/failure

(Dial., chaps 16, 23,43, 67, 92)

3. circumcision given as sign for evil done to Christ, prophets, Christians; type of true circumcision

(Dial., chs. 16, 41)

3. sacrifices/oblations instituted to combat idolatry; sabbaths to be memorial to God

(Dial., chs. 19, 21–22, 92)

3. with advent of Christ, no further need for circumcision, sabbaths, etc.;new covenant promised(Dial., chs. 23, 43)

Means of Salvation in Dispensation

4. individual righteousness,i.e., they were circumcised of heart

(Dial., chs 27–28, 43)

4. individual righteousness,i.e., Abraham declared righteous/justified by faith, not circumcision

(Dial., chs. 23, 92)

4. individual righteousness,i.e., those who lived by the law shall be saved through Christ

(Dial., chs. 45, 47)

4. individual righteousness,i.e., spiritual circumcision of heart like Enoch, et al.;all may obtain it

(Dial., chs. 43, 45)

The means of salvation in every age is individual right-eousness, resulting from faith in God and through the death of Christ(Dial., ch. 45)

<---------------------------------------- 7,000 Years --------------------------------------->

(Dial., ch. 81; Frag. 15; Voice of the Church, p. 59)

Footnotes [1] C. Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1958), p. 25.

[2] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 15. Unless otherwise stated, all quotations from and references to the Fathers in this study are from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers , 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.) or Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.).

[3] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 2.

[4] Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 20, cited in Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, ed., Ancient Christian Writers: The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St . Ignatius of Antioch, trans. James A. Kleist (New York: Newman Press, 1946), p. 67.

[5] Clement of Rome / Clement, chap. 8.

[6] Shepherd of Hermas, Vision Fourth chap. 3.

[7] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 92. In Irenaeus Against Heresies, 4. 16. 1-2 and Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chaps. 2-6, these matters received further treatment within the context of God's dispensational dealings with mankind.

[8] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chaps. 23, 92; cf. chap. 67, for reference to "deeds God knows to be eternal and suited to every nation."

[9] Ibid., chap. 23. In Banquet of the Ten Virgins Methodius too set forth a clear fourfold dispensational division of human history with a fourfold giving of the law in succession to Adam, Noah, Moses, and the Apostles. These "laws" he explained as the means by which sinful men may "approach... God as suppliants, and ask His mercy, and that they may be governed by His pity and compassion" (Banquet, disc. 10, chap. 2). As with Justin, Methodius also cited humanity's failure as the reason for each new revelation of law. Of the failure under Noah, for example, he wrote, "Those men, having been thus rejected from the divine care, and the human race having again given themselves up to error, again God sent forth by Moses a law to rule them and recall them to righteousness. But these, thinking fit to bid a long farewell to this law, turned to idolatry" (Banquet, disc. 10, chap. 4; cf. chaps. 2-3). Methodius concluded that "when the first laws, which were established in the times of Adam and Noah and Moses, were unable to give salvation to man, the evangelical law alone has saved all" (Banquet, disc. 10, chap. 3). This "law" spoken of by Methodius was also referred to by Tertullian. It seems to signify that body of revelation necessary to enable man to approach God in righteous obedience. In speaking of the law as predating Moses, Tertullian wrote that God "gave to all nations the selfsame law, which at definite and stated times He enjoined should be observed, when He willed, and through whom He willed, and as He willed." He explained that the first law was given to Adam and Eve "that they were not to eat of the fruit of the tree planted in the midst of paradise; but that, if they did contrariwise, by death they were to die" (An Answer to the Jews, chap. 2). Tertullian maintained that this law given to Adam and Eve--which contained in embryonic form "all the precepts of God--(existing) first in paradise," was "subsequently re-formed for the patriarchs, and so again for the Jews, at definite periods." Tertullian cautioned, "And let us not annul this power which God has, which reforms the law's precepts answerably to the circumstances of the times, with a view to man's salvation" (An Answer to the Jews, chap. 2). Evidently both Methodius and Tertullian recognized the progressive nature of God's revelation of His message to man.

[10] For some of the ante-Nicene Fathers the number four had special significance. The dispensations were spoken of by Irenaeus, for example, as "four covenants" (Against Heresies, 3. 11. 8; 4. 9. 3); by Victorinus of Petau as "four generations of people" (On the Creation of the World, no divisions); and by Methodius as "four trees" or "four laws" (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, disc. 10, chap. 2); see Appendix A. As seen in Irenaeus, the reasons given for the fourfold division were many and diverse.

[11] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 92.

[12] Ibid., chap. 43. Methodius limited the first dispensation to "those before the flood," "those who had pleased God from the first-made man in succession to Noah" (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, disc. 7, chaps. 4-5).

[13] Ibid., chap. 19.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., chap. 92.

[16] Ibid., cf. chap. 27.

[17] Ibid., chap. 92; cf. chaps. 19, 23, 27.

[18] Ibid., chap. 23.

[19] Ibid., chaps. 19, 27, 46, 92.

[20] Ibid., chap. 28 (cf. chap. 46). Justin never spelled out what the "everlasting decrees" of God are. But he spoke of God's rejoicing in the "gifts and offerings" of the one who keeps them. Elsewhere he pointed out that though Abel and others were uncircumcised, God "had respect to the gifts of Abel," translated Enoch, "saved [Lot] from Sodom," and spared Noah and his family in the ark (chap. 19; cf. Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chap. 2). These seem to express the more positive aspects of the means of approach to God during this period. The keeping of the everlasting decrees seems to involve simple

obedience to the commands of God in the varied circumstances of life. Chapter 45 of the Dialogue with Trypho seems to place this within the context of the universal law of God which exists for all men. Here Justin spoke of what is "naturally good, and pious, and righteous" and of what "is universally, naturally, and eternally good" and thus "pleasing to God." (Tertullian referred to this when he said, "Before the Law of Moses, written in stone-tables, I contend that there was a law unwritten, which was habitually understood naturally, and by the fathers was habitually kept" [An Answer to the Jews, chap. 2].) In his discussion of the New Covenant brought in by Christ, as contrasted with the covenant under Moses, Justin said that "it would be such as to show what kind of commands and deeds God knows to be eternal and suited to every nation, and what commandments He has given, suiting them to the hardness of your people's heart" (Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 67).

[21] Justin Martyr ,Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 43. Here Justin's Christological focus is evident. All justification is by faith and thus the true or spiritual circumcision of the heart must point forward to the incarnate Christ, in whom all rites "have an end." For additional information on Justin's perception of the process of salvation from age to age, see note 58.

[22] Ibid., chap. 23.

[23] Ibid., chaps. 43 and 67; cf. chaps. 16 and 92.

[24] Ibid., chaps. 43 and 16; cf. chaps. 23 and 46.

[25] Ibid., chaps. 19 and 92. For Methodius the second dispensation involved "those who lived after the deluge." He said these "needed other instruction to ward off the evil, and to be their helper, since idolatry was already creeping in" (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, disc. 7, chaps. 4 and 6).

[26] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chaps. 23 and 43.

[27] Ibid., chaps. 41 and 92. Justin's position here is not completely clear. He certainly believed that men of all ages are justified by faith. He believed also that circumcision of the flesh was instituted on account of Israel's foreknown sin and failure. But he seemed to imply that all rites, while being brought in because of sin and being in and of themselves unable to bring justification to the individual, when observed, were nevertheless in some sense symbols of faith and obedience to God's everlasting decrees. In chapter 92 of the Dialogue Justin thus spoke of "those who lived between the times of Abraham and of Moses be[ing] justified by circumcision" and in chapter 41, of circumcision of the flesh as a type of the true circumcision to come. Nevertheless, Justin observed, even the difference in the sexual anatomy of men and women suggests that righteousness itself cannot be based merely on the physical act of circumcision. For while women cannot receive the physical sign, God has given them "the ability to observe all things which are righteous and virtuous." Thus, Justin concluded, "we know that neither of them [male or female] is righteous or unrighteous merely for this cause [circumcision], but [is considered righteous] by reason of piety and righteousness" (chap. 23). Something of an expression of this twofold nature of the rites is seen in chapter 44 of the Dialogue . "Some injunctions were laid on you in reference to the worship of God and practice of righteousness; but some injunctions and acts were likewise mentioned in reference to the mystery of Christ, on account of the hardness of your people's hearts." This twofold character of the rites, both as signs and as a means of approach in obedience to God, will be brought out in greater detail in the discussion of the dispensation under Moses.

[28] Ibid., chaps. 16, 23, 92; cf. chap. 28.

[29] Ibid., chaps. 16 and 19; cf. Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chap. 3.


[31] Ibid., chap. 41. For Tertullian the contrast is between the "carnal circumcision" of a disobedient people given for a "sign," and the "spiritual" circumcision of an obedient people given for "salvation" (An Answer to the Jews, chap. 3).


[33] Ibid., chap. 92. As will be shown, this is a faith which, according to Justin, must have its fulfillment in the coming Christ. Tertullian too was clear in his statement that throughout human existence, justification is only by faith. As Abraham was justified by faith, so also people today are justified by faith in Jesus Christ (Against Marcion, 5. 3).

[34] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 47. Here the term "legal dispensation" is used twice in the course of Justin's discussion with Trypho over the status of those who confess faith in Christ yet either choose to observe "the legal dispensation" or to deny Christ altogether and then go back to "the legal dispensation."

[35] Ibid., chap. 43; cf. chaps. 23, 44, 46, 67.

[36] Ibid., chaps. 43 and 92; cf. Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chaps. 4-5.

[37] Ibid., chap. 21.

[38] Ibid., chap. 22.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., chap. 92.

[41] Ibid., chap. 19. Tertullian viewed circumcision, Sabbath observance, sacrifices, and the giving of the Law to Moses as temporary, carnal prefigures of future spiritual counterparts to be found in the new dispensation or new law under Christ (An Answer to the Jews, chaps. 4-6).


[43] Ibid., chap. 20.

[44] Ibid., chap. 45. See chap. 97 for a discussion of the salvation of those who kept the Law but at the same time confessed faith in Christ.

[45] In chapter 45 of the Dialogue , in the context of successive arrangements of God among men, Justin spoke of the two advents of Christ as the means by which Satan and his angelic followers will be destroyed and death eliminated. He also wrote of final judgment and of the benefits and prospects of immortality for the faithful. All these events are rather compressed together: Incarnation-second coming-immortality (church age + millennium + eternal state = dispensation of Christ?). For Methodius the fourth dispensation is that composed of "those after Christ" (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, disc. 7, chap. 4). It is what Tertullian called "a nobler dispensation" during which God would "choose for Himself more faithful worshipers, upon whom He would bestow His grace, and that indeed in ampler measure" (Apology, chap. 21).

[46] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 43; cf. chap. 23. According to Methodius, the law given in the fourth dispensation is the last. He said, "There will be hereafter no other law or doctrine but judgment and fire" (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, disc. 10, chap. 4).


[48] Ibid., chaps. 23 and 43.

[49] Ibid., chap. 43.

[50] Ibid., chap. 87.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid., chap. 23. For Methodius the reason for change was the failure of God's people as evidenced by their idolatry. "Hence," said Methodius, "God gave them up to mutual slaughters, to exiles, and captivities, the law itself confessing, as it were, that it could not save them" (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, disc. 10, chap. 4).


[54] Ibid., chap. 43.

[55] Ibid., chap. 67; cf. Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chap. 6, for the "promised new law" versus the old.


[57] Ibid., chap. 43.

[58] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), p. 131, cf. p. 123. In chapter 45 of the Dialogue with Trypho it is clear from the context that when Justin wrote, "Each one... shall be saved by his own righteousness," he was speaking of those of all ages who demonstrate a faithful obedience to God which results in salvation "through this Christ." For Justin the process of salvation from Adam to the second advent is Christological throughout. He told Trypho that "only those who in mind are assimilated to the faith of Abraham" may expect an inheritance in the coming kingdom. And further, "there is no other (way [of salvation]) than this--to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins" (Dialogue, chap. 44).

[59] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3. 11. 8-9. In his discussion of "the reason of the truth why the fourth day is called the Tetras," Victorinus of Petau gives a disjointed little discourse on the quadriform nature of certain things. He cites the four elements of which the world is composed, four seasons, four living creatures before God's throne (Rev. 4:6), four Gospels, and four rivers flowing in paradise (Gen. 2:10). He then makes reference without elaboration to "four generations of people from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ the Lord, the Son of God" (On the Creation of the World .

[60] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3. 11. 8-9. Methodius, in following the figure of the four trees in Judges 9:8-15, maintained that "also four Gospels have been given, because God has four times given the Gospel [good news] to the human race and has instructed them by four laws, the times of which are clearly known by the diversity of the fruits" (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, disc. 10, chap. 2).

[61] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3. 11. 8. See portions of the entire paragraph.

[62] Irenaeus believed that all the dispensations culminate in Christ. "For those things which have been predicted by the Creator alike through all the prophets has Christ fulfilled in the end, ministering to His Father's will, and completing His dispensations with regard to the human race" (Against Heresies, 5. 26. 2).

[63] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3. 11. 8. The source for both versions is Roberts and Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:429 (for the Greek version see their note 3).

[64] "A portion of the Greek has been preserved here, but it differs materially from the old Latin version, which seems to represent the original with greater exactness, and has therefore been followed" (Roberts and Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:429, n. 3). This note goes on to give what "seem[s] the complete system" of Irenaeus. How the writers arrived at this is not stated, but it provides data for a fascinating comparison of Irenaeus' system with the sevenfold dispensational system taught by C. I. Scofield. (1) Paradise [Innocence]--"with the tree of life," (2) Adam [Conscience]--"with the Shechinah," (3) Noah [Government]--"with the rainbow," (4) Abraham [Promise]--"with circumcision," (5) Moses [Law]--"with the ark," (6) Messiah [Grace]--"with the sacraments," (7) Heaven [Kingdom]--"with the river of life." For Scofield's dispensations see Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (Fincastle, VA: Scripture Truth Book Co., n.d.), pp. 12-16, or The Scofield Reference Bible.

[65] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4. 20. 6. Irenaeus' reference to the various gifts, "adapted to the times... and man's salvation being accomplished," reminds one of Tertullian's statement that God "reforms the law's precepts answerably to the circumstances of the times, with a view to man's salvation" (An Answer to the Jews, chap. 2).

[66] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4. 20. 7. Compare Irenaeus' language here with that in Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chap. 16. With reference to the appearances of Christ (Christophanies) throughout the Old Testament, Tertullian wrote that "ever from the beginning" Christ was "laying the foundation of the course of His dispensations, which He meant to follow out to the very last." Elsewhere Tertullian said that "the name of Christ... does not arise from nature, but from dispensation [ex dispositione]" (Against Marcion, 3. 15). The editor's note appended here explains that " Ex dispositione... seems to mean what is implied in the phrases, 'Christian dispensation ,' 'Mosaic dispensation ,' etc." (Roberts and Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 6:429, n. 17, italics theirs).


[68] Ibid., 4. 16. 1-2 (italics added). Methodius maintained that those who lived before Noah (first dispensation) "had no need of precepts and laws for their salvation, the creation of the world in six days being still recent." He spoke of the "confidence Seth had towards God, and Abel, and Enos, and Enoch, and Methuselah, and Noah, the first lovers of righteousness" (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, disc. 7, chap. 5).

[69] See Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chap. 2 for essentially the same question and answer concerning the giving of the Law before Moses.


[71] Ibid., 1. 10. 3.

[72] Ibid., 3. 12. 12-13.

[73] Ibid., 4. 9. 1.

[74] Ibid., 3. 10. 4. For other references to the "covenant of liberty," see 3. 12. 14 and 4. 34. 3.

[75] For references to the "legal dispensation," or "dispensation of the Law," see Against Heresies ,3. 10. 2; 3. 10. 4; 3. 11. 7; 3. 12. 15; and 3. 15. 3.

[76] Ibid., 4. 9. 1-2. In another place, Irenaeus stated that "one and the same Lord granted, by means of His advent, a greater gift of grace to those of a later period, than what He had granted to those under the Old Testament dispensation" (cf. Tertullian, Apology, chap. 21). Irenaeus' reason for this is that Old Testament saints rejoiced and hoped in Christ's coming only in a limited sense while those of the New Testament period on the other hand could rejoice because of His actual arrival. As those who obtained liberty and partook of His gifts, they were the recipients of "a greater amount of grace, and higher degree of exultation" (Against Heresies, 4. 11. 3).

[77] Ibid., 4. 9. 3. Also see 4. 28. 2, in which Irenaeus discussed the one God/one salvation theme: "There is one, and the same God the Father, and His Word, who has been always present with the human race, by means indeed of various dispensations, and has wrought out many things, and saved from the beginning those who are saved (for these are they who love God, and follow the Word of God according to the class to which they belong)."

[78] Ibid., 3. 10. 2.

[79] Ibid., 4. 36. 2.

[80] Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, chap. 58. In a note appended to this chapter, the reader is told that the Armenian word tnawrenut'iwn is equivalent to the Greek oikonomia. See Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, ed., Ancient Christian Writers: St. Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, trans. Joseph P. Smith (New York: Newman Press, 1946), text on p. 86, and p. 194, n. 263.

[81] Irenaeus Proof of the Apostolic Preaching chap. 99.


[83] Kraus, Dispensationalism in America, p. 23.

[84] Refer to Appendix A. While the absence of this incentive for a fourfold dispensational system allows greater freedom for division along more naturally biblical lines, at least in Tertullian's case, it also results in a system with less well-defined boundaries than those found in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. As pointed out in note 64, Irenaeus developed a "complete system" (Roberts and Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers), a sevenfold system that closely approximates what is found in contemporary dispensationalism.

[85] Victorinus' scheme, with its lack of amplification, is the exception. How these divisions may have been treated elsewhere in his nonextant works is of course past finding out, but stirs interest nonetheless.

[86] See C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, pp. 12-16.

[87] Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today , p. 59. Ryrie includes Noah along with Abel and Enoch as the "heroes of faith" in the dispensation of conscience.

[88] Four times Methodius calls the millennium the "new" dispensation (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, disc. 4, chap. 5; disc. 7, chap. 3; disc. 8, chap. 11; disc. 9, chap. 1) and the "future age" (or dispensation) once ( Fragments , "On the History of Jonah" 2). Tertullian presented the interesting notion that time is to be reckoned as consisting of two portions, separated by

the millennium: creation to millennium ("millennial interspace") and "eternal economy" (Apology, chap. 68; cf. On the Resurrection of the Flesh chap. 59).

[89] Arnold D. Ehlert, A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966).

[90] Charles L. Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), p. 74.

rudiments of dispensationalism in the ante-nicene...

Documents