It should be obvious that three answers to this question are possible. The first is an absolute Yes. Believers are under all aspects of the Law accept that which Jesus fulfilled according to Hebrews. This position is held by Christian Reconstructionists, for example. The second option is the opposite end of the spectrum: absolutely not. A third option that has been set forth is that believers are obligated to keep the portions of the Law which Jesus taught and that are recorded in the Gospels.

Two words before we move further. First, none of the people advocating for any of these answers are dealing with the doctrine of salvation. All would agree that salvation is the same in all of these situations. The question is how is the believer to live his Christian life in the world. Secondly, if one advocates that the believer is not under the law it does not necessarily follow that he is advocating for some kind of antinomianism.

McClain, in his short treatise, Law and Grace, answers the question of the relationship between the Law and the believer. He begins by stating this premise: The Old Testament Law cannot be divided. That is, some would break the law in to Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral categories. Then, they say that when Christ fulfilled the Law, he fulfilled the Ceremonial laws, while the Civil laws only pertain to national Israel. Thus, the believer is under the Moral laws, namely, the Ten Commandments given in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

McClain concludes, albeit briefly, that the Law is undivisible. If it is indeed indivisible, then it is impossible that the believer today is under any aspect of the Law. Being “under the Law” as McClain explains, is that the believer is required in some way to obey the commandments of it, and if the believer fails, to receive the penalty of the Law. The Apostle Paul makes a clear distinction in 2 Corinthians between the Ten Commandments and the Christian life during the dispensation of the Church. The letter is not written with ink, but with the Holy Spirit. It is not written on stone tablets, but on the heart. The letter of the Law kills, while the Spirit gives life. From this passage alone, it seems clear that the believer is not under any part of the Law, including the Ten Commandments.

Though his tone demonstrates a little too much frustration at times, McClain presents a well-written and clear presentation, albeit it brief. It is definitely worth reading as part of a conversation pertaining either to dispensationalism or the Christian life.

Renald Showers, a dispensationalist, authored such a comparison in 1990. His goal is to compare Covenant Theology and dispensationalism as systems of thought which seek to answer the question of the meaning of life. The starting point of his evaluation is the subject of the philosophy of history because, he believes, it is in the philosophy of history that one finds the answers to the question of the meaning of life. He views both systems as an outworking of a philosophy of history, and he seeks to determine which exposition is biblical.

Speaking apologetically, he does not say much that is new on behalf of dispensationalism. He simply states the position in positive terms. In fact, he assumes dispensationalism is correct for the sake of the argument.  Thus, his own bias is quite strong in the book. It really is not as even-handed a treatment of the differences as he purports to be demonstrating. Although this author disagrees with many of Showers’ conclusions, these disagreements are not the primary criticism I make of this book.

Athough Showers attempts to represent honestly the teaching of Covenant Theology, Covenant theologians will take issue with his presentation. He often quotes from primary sources in order to allow them to speak for themselves. This method might be honorable, yet it is not enough. The method this author object to is that he does not explain how they reach their conclusions. By not demonstrating the arguments behind the conclusions, he portrays Covenant theologians as biased and illogical.

The clearest example of this method is when Showers writes about methods of interpretation. He states that the only way Covenant Theology can work is to employ a “double system of interpretation.” He explains that the double system includes the historical, grammatical method on the one hand (which Showers employs). He adds, “Covenant Theology also recognizes that the employment of another method of interpretation could lead to disaster when seeking the meaning of a passage.” Showers does not explain what that method is, how it is used, or why Covenant theologians use it. The question is not which method is used. The question is can the Covenant theologians apply their own method consistently while doing justice to the text of Scripture. That same question applies to dispensationalists. Can dispensationalists consistently apply their method while doing justice to the text of Scripture?

In sum, Showers’ goals and objectives are certainly worth while and worth the effort put forth. His congeniality is a reprieve from many of the books, written from both sides of the fence, that amount to nothing more than mud slinging. I appreciate Showers’ work and thought in this regard. Unfortunately, it is not a book I would recommend anyone to read, especially someone who is new to the conversation.

When addressing the question of prophecy from a dispensational perspective, Bob Shelton’s short book, God’s Prophetic Blueprint is one of the better. It is written on the popular level with a conversional tone. Although it is not a textbook on end times, it touches on all of the major topics and passages.

This focus on end-time events tempts dispensationalists to look at modern events in world history as fulfillment of prophecies in the Bible. Shelton discourages this approach during his discussion of the Rapture from 1 Corinthians 15. First, the Rapture of the church is the next event on the prophetic timeline. This is the reason that we say that the Rapture is imminent—it may happen at any moment. Secondly, the Rapture is not signaled by an event. Instead, believers will hear a sound. The Bible calls it a trumpet, a shout, and a loud voice. On account of these two principles, then, dispensationalists need not be concerned about events in the news thinking that they point to the nearness of the Rapture. If those events were necessary or were fulfillment of biblical prophecy, the Rapture would not be imminent.

Unfortunately, after Shelton expresses this opinion so well, he detracts from it by quoting from news papers and world leaders in order to demonstrate the nearness of the Rapture. For example, he states that “One of the most significant prophetical developments of our day has been the return of the Jews from all over the world to the land of Israel… . I grant you they are returning, for the most part, in unbelief. That is, they are not aware of the truths of Ezekiel 37 and 38, nor are they willing to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah” (50). So, the reader is left with the question, “Is the return of the Jews a fulfillment of prophecy or not?”

Some would argue that the Jews have to be in the land in order for the Antichrist to make a covenant with them. That is true in so far as it goes. The problem is that the Jews can return to the land at any time. If they were overthrown by the Palestinians today, it changes nothing. In fact, it makes more sense that the Jews would not be in the land at the time of the Rapture. According to Ezekiel 37, the Lord will bring the people of Israel into the land and make a “covenant of peace” with them. If the Antichrist wanted to deceive the unbelieving Jews that he was the Messiah, what better way to do it. We know from Daniel 9 that he will make a covenant with them. Either way, part of the Jews being in part of the land is nowhere prophecied in Scripture, and therefore, it is not a fulfillment of prophecy. Moreover, it cannot honestly be called a prophetic development.

In conclusion, I enjoy very much the clear layout of Bible prophecy as Shelton describes it in this book. It saddens me, however, that he makes the same mistake that many dispensationalists do, that is, interpreting the Scripture according to current events. Other than that one point, the book is worth reading and worth owning.

Ryrie’s writings, and particularly Dispensationalism Today, and its second edition Dispensationalism, are certainly a place to start. The more I read them and think about them, the more I am apt to offer them up for the task. First of all, Ryrie is always accessible. What I mean by that word “accessible” is that he is understandable by just about everyone. Ryrie has always had a remarkable way of making complex issues in theology easy for the person in the pew to understand. Dispensationalism is no exception.

Another advantage is the way in which Ryrie approaches the topic of dispensationalism. He states in the preface that he has two goals in mind. Not only are these two goals clearly articulated, but they are both quite obvious when reading the book. The two goals are 1) to clarify misunderstandings by those who would oppose dispensationalism, and 2) to present the position positively, from the horses mouth as it were. Thus, Ryrie opens with a discussion of the definition of dispensations and a description of each. Then he moves through common points of discussion such as the doctrine of salvation and the unique nature of the church.

Yet, even with a book such as this, there are caveats to be given. Ryrie has spent a lifetime teaching and writing on dispensationalism. By the 1990s, he is not saying anything he has not already said at other times and in other venues. Thus, someone new to the conversation can easily get confused or lost along the way. Ryrie assumes a certain amount of knowledge on the part of the reader, enough so, that the reader who is lacking this knowledge will find that Ryrie is terse and not often explanatory. The reader thinks, “What is this? Why is this important?” It’s like walking into a room where a few friends have been having a good long conversation. It’s difficult to follow because you spend all of your energy trying to catch up.

The second caveat is that throughout the book is a string of quotations from authors, both for and against dispensationalism. Someone again walking into the conversation may not understand why Ryrie is quoting them. In fact, if one does not know the reason he is quoting them, one might think it a matter of weak argumentation. This is not the case at all, however. The book is only striving to reach its two goals: 1) clarify the position against opponents who misrepresent it, and 2) present it. It doesn’t seek to defend, to argue, or to analyze at any great depth.

A word about hermeneutics is also in order. One of the sine qua non of dispensationalism that Ryrie lists is a consistent, literal hermeneutic. That is, the Bible should be interpreted with plain, normal principles for understanding any text, and that those principles should be applied consistantly throughout the Bible. Both of these things must be true. Both covenant theologians and progressive dispensationalists attempt to apply their hermeneutical principles consistently. But those principles are not the same as the dispensationalist’s. The hermeneutical question that Ryrie does not answer is that the New Testament authors (inspired writings just like the Old Testament) sometimes seem to have different interpretations than the plain meaning in the Old Testament. How does one deal with these differences?

Moreover, it must be stated that Ryrie does not seem to understand the current hermeneutical debate. He believes objectivity means coming to the Bible with a clean mind, with no presuppositions about the interpretation of a passage. Even if Ryrie is correct, he does not answer the contemporary criticisms of his modernist notion. In either case, due to brevity and the claim to objectivity, the chapter on Hermeneutics can become a hinderance to those students who have been introduced to these hermeneutical questions.

Nonetheless, Dispensationalism is a good place to start the conversation because Ryrie lays out the primary categories and defines the main terms. It presents the basic details of dispensationalism. The reader, then, needs to branch out and read through the other sources, keeping in mind that he needs to come back to Dispensationalism at some point. A second reading will grant him the understanding to see where Ryrie is coming from, and what he is accomplishing.

Author and Date

Most likely, Malachi was prophecying during the days of Nehemiah. Many of the issues that Malachi mentions, Nehemiah also mentions. Also, Malachi mentions a clearly Persian governor (1:7). Most date the message of Malachi about 430 B.C.

Outline

1. God’s Love (1:2-5)
2. God’s Honor (1:6-2:9)
3. God’s Covenant (2:10-16)
4. God’s Hope (2:17-3:6)
5. God’s Law (3:7-12)
6. Fear of God (3:13-4:3)
7. God’s Coming (4:4-6)

Theme(s)

The message of Malachi assumes a dialogue between the people and the Lord. The people seem to have an entire lack of spiritual understanding. The Law states that they must sacrifice, and they do, but they bring sick and blemished animals for sacrifice. The people were to go to the priest for instruction from the Law. Instead, the priests were telling them what they wanted to hear.

Another major question in this little book is who is Elijah mentioned in 4:6. Malachi adds to the information about the Day of the Lord by stating that Elijah will preach during the Day of the Lord and before the great and awesome day of the Lord.

Author and Date

Unlike Haggai, Zechariah lists his lineage, but that is all. He dates his visions and messages according to the Persian dating system because Judah does not have its own king. His ministry spans from about 525 to 520 B.C.

Outline

1. Eight Symbolic Visions (1-6)
2. Four Messages (7-8)
3. Two Oracles (9-14)

Theme(s)

Zechariah is unlike any of the other minor prophets because of his apocalyptic visions recorded in the first six chapters. The word apocalyptic literally means “to reveal.” The prophet may be revealing the unseen world in past, present, or the future. He may also be revealing the events which will take place during the last days. This latter usage became popular on account of John’s Revelation.

The four messages in chapters 7-8 demonstrate the continuity between the pre-exilic and post-exilic prophets. In chapter 7, the Lord indicts the people for similar issues: “do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart” (7:10). Chapter 8 records words of hope of a future restoration of Israel. The focal point of this future blessing is the time when all nations will worship the Lord (8:23).

Author and Date

The book begins with the governor, Zerubbabel, and the priest, Joshua. About Haggai’s lineage, the book is silent. The prophecy is dated according to the Persian dating system because Judah is technically under the governance of the Persians, about 525 B.C.

Outline

1. Judgmental Call (1)
2. Prophetic Promise (2:1-9)
3. Priestly Decision (2:10-19)
4. Messianic Prophecy (2:20-23)

Theme(s)

The theme of Haggai, on one level, is clearly that Judah needs to rebuild the temple, and that rebuilding the temple is of primary importance. The people of Judah still do not grasp that the Lord is to receive first priority in all things. Only then will he bless them beyond measure and supply all of their needs. Instead, they try to take care of that which appears urgent, while the temple remains in shambles.

The book ends with a short prophecy directed toward Zerubbabel, the governor. In an unclear reference, the Lord says he has chosen Zerubbabel (2:23). Because he is mentioned in Matthew’s geneology of Jesus, some believe this promise is that the line to the Davidic throne passes through Zerubbabel even though he is not an actual king (Matt. 1:12).

Author and Date

Zephaniah is the only prophet who comes from a royal line. His royal lineage is given in the introduction, linking him to King Hezekiah. He preaches during the reign of Josiah while Judah is enjoying a time of peace (640-621 B.C.).

Outline

1. The Day of the Lord (1:1-3:8)
2. The Restoration of the Lord (3:9-20)

Theme(s)

The topic at hand is the day of the Lord. Like Joel, the phrase “day of the Lord” has both a general and specific application. Chapter 1, a general application of the phrase, stands alone describing the coming attack of Babylon. Unlike Joel, Zephaniah’s description is more ambiguous and more difficult to pinpoint. The chapter begins and ends with a universal statement about the entire earth. In the days of Noah, the Lord used the metaphor of washing a dish. Zephaniah uses a similar metaphor of sweeping a floor.

Zephaniah compares the coming destruction with the future Day of the Lord—a terrible time of judgment in an unknown future. A couple of events that Zephaniah adds to Joel’s timeline are 1) destruction of the nations, 2) gathering of Israel, 3) presentation of Israel, 4) re-unification of world languages, and 5) the nations will worship the Lord only (3:8, 9, 19-20).

Author and Date

Habakkuk, similar to Ezekiel, describes oracles or visions from the Lord instead of preaching to a segment of Israel’s population. The oracle pertains to the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem which dates Habakkuk’s oracle between 610 and 586 B.C. Like Jeremiah who watched the destruction of Jerusalem and wrote a song about it, so also does Habakkuk in chapter 3.

Outline

1. Dialogue with God (1:1-11)
2. Dirge from God (1:12-2:20)
3. Doxology to God (3:1-19)

Theme(s)

The three exchanges between Habakkuk and the Lord develop one train of thought. At the beginning, Habakkuk is lamenting the coming destruction of Jerusalem and Judah. He wants to know why it is necessary, and why the Lord has chosen not to deliver his people. The Lord’s answer is simply, “Watch this, Habakkuk.” At the end of the day, Habakkuk realizes that it is the Lord who acts in the world. It is more than a demonstration of God’s power. It is more than simply to get to the attention of his people. It is God who moves, and Habakkuk breaks out into a song adoring the Lord for his acts. As one author states, “The answer to Habakkuk’s ‘Why?’ is ‘Who!’”

Author and Date

Not much is known about Nahum the Prophet. Because the destruction of Thebes is mentioned (3:8), coupled with the fact that Ninevah has not yet fallen (652 B.C.), the prophecy is dated around 654 B.C.

Outline

1. The Certainty of God’s Judgment (1:1-15)
2. The Description of God’s Judgment (2:1-13)
3. The Reasons for God’s Judgment (3:1-19)

Theme(s)

The book of Nahum begins in the style of a psalm that exhalts God for his awesome power. His power is manifested both in his goodness and in his judgment. Assyria was the greatest nation on earth. Moreover, they were the most powerful nation in the Middle East for over 2,000 years. They struck fear in everyone’s heart. In spite of their greatness, however, they are nothing compared to the greatness of God.

The greatness of God’s power is truly awesome. Assyria’s power as a nation is nothing in reality when compared to the might of God. Ninevah found both abudance and refuge between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The Lord, however, if he chose, could not only dry up those two rivers, but the sea into which they run (1:4). Likewise, the Lord can do whatever he desires to the mighty Assyrian nation, “No more shall your name be perpetuated” (1:14).