normative and progressive dispensationalism (see the next section), there is enough of a family resemblance to observe common dispensational features, or as Michael Svigel concludes, “Though we can speak in terms of dispensationalism as a definable and distinguishable theological movement, we must in some ways also speak of
dispensationalisms as distinct varieties within a larger species.”
16Exploring the different expressions or forms of dispensationalism indicates that the Israel-church distinction is at the heart of dispensationalism. This commonality in dispensationalism is demonstrated by how dispensationalists have characterized their system of theology, even though many other features are offered.
Key spokesmen in dispensational scholarship have sought to define or describe the main characteristics of dispensationalism. Probably the most recognized description of the essentials, or the sine qua non, was offered by Charles Ryrie. He lists three marks to the system: the distinction between Israel and the church, an approach to hermeneutics where the Bible is interpreted in a consistently literal or plain manner, and that the underlying purpose of God in the world is his glory.
17John Feinberg, a well-known
213-39, finds that it is questionable to call progressive dispensationalism part of the dispensational tradition.
Cautions toward progressive dispensationalism are also voiced by Ryrie, “Update on Dispensationalism,”
20-26; Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 193-210; and Robert L. Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” MSJ 6 (1995): 79-95.
16Svigel, “The History of Dispensationalism,” 93, emphasis original; cf. also 87-89. Also, in his conclusion, Herbert W. Bateman IV, “Dispensationalism Tomorrow,” in Three Central Issues, 309, finds that in lieu of the discussion within Three Central Issues, there is “hope we can put to rest the charge that progressive dispensationalists are not dispensationalists.”
17Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 46-48. Ryrie, “Update on Dispensationalism,” 21-22, complains that progressive dispensationalism reduces Israel and the church to a mere “distinction” instead of a “clear distinction” and thus a rejection of the sine qua non of traditional dispensationalism. However, while it seems progressives have modified their views of the kingdom of God by incorporating inaugurated eschatology (some progressives more than others) and have a more unified view of eternal salvation, the dispensations, and the covenants, they still affirm a strong distinction between Israel and the church as well as a future restoration of ethnic Israel in fulfillment of OT prophecies. See Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 267-70; Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 28-29, 187-218; Robert L.
Saucy, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 239-59; Robert L. Saucy, “A Rationale for the Future of Israel,” JETS 28 (1985): 433-42; Robert L. Saucy, “The Crucial Issue between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Systems,” CTR 1 (1986): 163-65; Gregg R. Allison,
systematic theologian, presents six core principles he believes are common to all forms of dispensationalism: (1) a belief that there are multiple senses to terms like “Jew” and “seed of Abraham;” (2) a literal hermeneutic whereby OT teachings or prophecies are taken on the their own terms and are still in force unless the NT explicitly or implicitly cancels these prior promises; (3) an understanding of the covenants and their unconditional promises that required a future fulfillment to national Israel; (4) a distinct future for ethnic Israel as a nation; (5) a belief that the church is a distinct organism in the NT era; and (6) a philosophy of history that emphasizes both the soteriological or spiritual aspects and the social, economic, and political implications of God’s kingdom work.
18Progressive dispensationalists Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock provide a list of features that are the common strands of the tradition: (1) authority of Scripture; (2) dispensations; (3)
uniqueness of the church; (4) practical significance of the universal church; (5) significance of biblical prophecy; (6) futurist premillennialism; (7) imminent return of Christ; and (8) a national future for Israel.
19Other proposals for the core beliefs of dispensationalism have also been offered.
20Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 87-89, esp. 88n57.
18See Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 71-85. These six distinctives are also summarized in John S. Feinberg, “Dispensationalism and Support for the State of Israel,” in The Land Cries Out:
Theology of the Land in the Israeli-Palestinian Context, ed. Salim J. Munayer and Lisa Loden (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 109-12; cf. Michael Vlach, “What Is Dispensationalism?,” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans, 20-21.
19Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 13-21. See also their definition and characteristics of progressive dispensationalism in Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, “Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: Assessment and Dialogue,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, 378-84.
Cf. Vlach, “What Is Dispensationalism?,” 21.
20See Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, 13-47. Dale S. DeWitt, Dispensational Theology in America during the Twentieth Century: Theological Development and Cultural Context (Grand Rapids:
Grace Bible College, 2002), 44-52; esp. 52; cf. 53-76, argues that the essentials—the configuration of ideas which give theology its character—of dispensationalism, rather than distinctives, are (1) the literal
interpretation of all Scripture; (2) progressive revelation; (3) dispensations as the eras of salvation history;
(4) the church as a Pauline revelation; (5) distinctions between historic Israel, the church, and the future kingdom; (6) the church as free from the law under grace; and (7) the pretribulational rapture of the
Some of the characteristics of dispensationalism offered by these important representatives are not unique to the system. Ryrie’s list includes the glory of God, but this has been questioned by not just whether this was a distinctive within the historical consciousness of the dispensational tradition, but the claim is also undermined by the fact that covenant theologians and other non-dispensationalists affirm the doxological theme of Scripture.
21Further, acknowledging dispensations cannot be part of the essence of dispensationalism as was noted, nor can the authority of Scripture as non-dispensational evangelicals also affirm a high view of Scripture.
There is also much discussion on the role of hermeneutics and Ryrie’s principle of a consistent literal interpretation as a distinctive of dispensationalism. On the one hand, Blaising questions whether a literal interpretation characterized earlier dispensationalists, such as Darby and Scofield.
22In addition, Blaising and others have noted the development of hermeneutics in the past few decades as the historical-grammatical exegesis has benefitted from biblical theology and historical-literary studies, and they have also observed that the reduction of the differences in systems of theology to literal versus
church. DeWitt recognizes, for example, that dispensations are not unique to dispensationalism, but it is the particular concept of dispensations that is essential to its theology.
21Bateman, “Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today,” 36. See also Craig A. Blaising,
“Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists: Part 2 of Developing
Dispensationalism,” BibSac 145 (1988): 267-69; Blaising, “Dispensationalism,” 27; cf. Saucy, “The Crucial Issue,” 156. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 84-85, disagrees with Ryrie’s distinctive but also offers a qualifier in finding that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists do have different emphases in what God is doing with history. However, Cone, “Dispensational Definition,” 148-50, argues that God’s doxological purpose is a dispensational distinctive. Note also Mike Stallard, “Prophetic Hope in the Writings of Arno C. Gaebelein: A Possible Demonstration of the Doxological Purpose of Biblical History,”
JMT 2 (1998): 190-210, esp. 203-10.
22Blaising, “Dispensationalism,” 26; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 37;
cf. Bateman, “Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today,” 37. Mike Stallard, “Literal Interpretation, Theological Method, and the Essence of Dispensationalism,” JMT 1 (1997): 7-12, challenges Blaising on this point. He traces the interpretative method of some early dispensationalists and finds that “literal interpretation of prophecy is kept intact among these kinds of dispensationalists, a point that may be lost among those who downplay the role of literal interpretation in the current debate.” Stallard, “Literal Interpretation,” 11, emphasis original.
spiritual interpretation is misleading.
23Furthermore, non-dispensationalists utilize the historical-grammatical hermeneutic and therefore also employ, depending on definition, a literal hermeneutic.
24Thus, Blaising concludes that a “consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism.”
25On the other hand, some dispensationalists are not willing to abandon a consistent literal hermeneutic as an essential feature as they find the hermeneutic of progressive dispensationalism
problematic.
26Recently, without seeking to mediate a resolution, Nathan Holsteen observes that Blaising’s and Bock’s grammatical-historical-literary-theological approach is not the same as Ryrie’s, but nevertheless, “the unifying factor in dispensationalism is
23Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism,” 269-71; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 35-37, 51-53; Bateman, “Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today,” 37. Cf. David L.
Turner, “The Continuity of Scripture and Eschatology: Key Hermeneutical Issues,” GTJ 6 (1985): 275-78.
24For discussion of the issue of literal interpretation and the confusion of dispensational understandings of literal interpretation, see Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 82-96, and Donaldson, The Last Days of Dispensationalism, 7-17. See also Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 74.
Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 20, writes, “An analysis of non-dispensational systems, however, reveals that their less-than-literal approach to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies does not really arise from an a priori spiritualistic or metaphorical hermeneutic. Rather, it is the result of their interpretation of the New Testament using the same grammatico-historical hermeneutic as that of dispensationalists.” Similarly, Paul S. Karleen, “Understanding Covenant Theologians: A Study in
Presuppositions,” GTJ 10 (1989): 131, finds that “it is not simply the case that the dispensationalist holds to literal interpretation of the prophets and the covenant theologian does not. That is not the distinguishing feature. The distinguishing feature is why the covenant theologian does not and the dispensationalist does”
(emphasis original). George Eldon Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium:
Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 18-29, raises concerns over Ryrie’s literal hermeneutic in how the NT uses the OT. Donaldson, The Last Days of Dispensationalism, 17-21, and Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ:
P & R, 1995), 6-8, contend that dispensationalists themselves do not entirely interpret the Bible in a consistently literal way.
25Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism,” 272; cf. Blaising, “Dispensationalism,” 30- 33. See also Darrell L. Bock, “Why I am a Dispensationalist with a Small ‘d,’” JETS 41 (1998): 388-90.
26Thomas D. Ice, “Dispensational Hermeneutics,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, 29-49;
Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” 82-84. Radmacher, “The Current Status of Dispensationalism,” 171, states, “Literal interpretation, then, is the ‘bottom-line’ of dispensationalism.”
Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 100, finds progressives “distancing themselves from the consistent literal hermeneutics of normative dispensationalism by introducing ‘complementary hermeneutics.’” Cf. Elliott E.
Johnson, “A Traditional Dispensational Hermeneutic,” in Three Central Issues, 63-84.
indeed a systemic commitment to literal interpretation.”
27Holsteen’s claim is that the variations within dispensationalism are unified by the pursuit of a literal hermeneutic, but that the diversity of approaches arises as to when, where, how, and why dispensationalists adapt literalism.
28Nevertheless, many non-dispensational evangelicals are committed to the sensus literalis and interpret the Bible accordingly. Dispensationalists such as Feinberg, Bateman, Vlach, and Blaising are more on target in their conclusions that the key issue is not a literal hermeneutic or the question of consistency.
29More germane to the
hermeneutical differences between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists are the presuppositions in interpretation and particularly how interpreters prioritize one testament over the other, understand the NT use of the OT and typology, and more generally how interpreters comprehend the progress of revelation and integrate the relationship between earlier and later texts at the canonical level.
3027Nathan D. Holsteen, “The Hermeneutic of Dispensationalism,” in Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption, 112-16, quote from p. 113. Holsteen defines a literal hermeneutic as “an approach to Scripture that finds the meaning of the text in the plain or normal sense of the text in its context.” Ibid., 113. For the importance of literal interpretation to dispensationalism, see DeWitt, Dispensational Theology in America, 54-56, 77-100.
28Holsteen, “The Hermeneutic of Dispensationalism,” 115.
29Stallard, “Literal Interpretation,” 18, helpfully observes, “To prove that the definition of dispensationalism is tied to literal hermeneutics in some way requires the dispensationalist to prove either that the nondispensationalist is incorrect in asserting his use of the method or that there is some particular way in which the literal hermeneutic is used that is unique to dispensationalism. . . . Therefore, it remains to be seen if there is a particular way in which a dispensationalist uses the literal hermeneutic in principle which can be distinguished from the nondispensationalist’s methods” (emphasis original).
30See Bateman, “ Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today,” 37-38; Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 73-79; Vlach, “What Is Dispensationalism?,” 22-24; Blaising, “Development of
Dispensationalism,” 271-72; Craig A. Blaising, “Israel and Hermeneutics,” in The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel: Israel and the Jewish People in the Plan of God, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014), 152-58; Craig Blaising, “Biblical Hermeneutics: How Are We to Interpret the Relation Between the Tanak and the New Testament on This Question?,” in The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2016), 79-105, esp 81-83; Stallard, “Literal Interpretation,” 13-26; and Hal Harless, How Firm a Foundation: The Dispensations in the Light of the Divine Covenants, Studies in Biblical Literature, vol.
63 (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 58-61. Cf. Turner, “The Continuity of Scripture and Eschatology,” 276- 78, as he agrees with Greg Bahnsen that the differences are to be resolved in the exegesis of specific texts and will not be resolved with “vague generalities about theoretical hermeneutics.” However, Turner also
Therefore, while a consistent literal hermeneutic is not a distinctive feature of dispensationalism, hermeneutical presuppositions factor significantly in the dispensational system as they do in any biblical or systematic theology. These hermeneutical
commitments, particularly in what dispensationalists describe as a literal interpretation of the OT promises and prophecies, impinge upon the other sine qua non that Ryrie identifies and which is clearly a distinctive of all varieties of dispensationalism.
31The crucial mark of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the church such that OT
promises and prophecies to Israel must be fulfilled during the millennial reign of Christ (Rev 20:4-6).
32OT prophecies and promises, such as the possession of the promised land as described in the Abrahamic covenant, must come to pass as God will fulfill national Israel’s hopes and blessings materially in a future age that logically occurs during the millennium. This hallmark of the Israel-church distinction is not only recognized as such by the dispensational spokesmen described, but that it is an essential tenet of
dispensationalism is confirmed by the vast volume of literature by dispensationalists on the topic of Israel and the church.
33Israel will be restored as a national entity in the future
or the NT (279-81). Stallard, “Literal Interpretation,” 27-36, points out that refinement in exegesis may cause rapproachment, but more foundational is theological method, how biblical theology is understood, and how biblical theology leads to systematic theological formulations. While Stallard is correct to emphasize theological method, his reduction of the non-dispensational theological method with the prioritization of the NT over the OT is eclipsed by the fact that some non-dispensational theologians seek to demonstrate from the OT itself, employing a literal interpretation, the flaws of dispensationalism. So Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012). Further, as Wellum demonstrates, it is evident that dispensationalists do prioritize the NT over the OT on certain matters. Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 111-12.
31Stallard, “Literal Interpretation,” 34, offers the following as a replacement to Ryrie’s sine qua non of a consistent literal hermeneutic: “The preservation of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament at all points of theologizing in the light of progressive revelation.”
32Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 91, describes the “primary tenet of dispensationalism” as being “the final fulfillment of the prophetic hope including the restoration of national Israel.” Cf. Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism,” 273; Pugh, “Dispensationalism,” 233-34.
33On the importance of the Israel-church distinction for dispensationalism, see Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 46-47, 148-50, 172; cf. Saucy, “The Crucial Issue,” 155-56. The literature on the Israel- church relationship by dispensationalists is massive. For progressive dispensationalist treatments, see n17 in this chap., and Robert L. Saucy, “The Progressive Dispensational View,” in Perspectives on Israel and
under the reign of Jesus Christ as the Davidic king and thereby exercise her mediatorial role to the nations in the promised land.
34The emphasis between Israel and the church is clearly one of discontinuity, for even in the affirmation of one people of God, the church and Israel still have distinct purposes and roles in the outworking of the kingdom of God for all forms of dispensationalism, even as the details may differ depending on the variation of dispensationalism in question. Distinguishing Israel and the church
consistently with the future existence of national, political, and ethnic Israel “is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”
35the Church: 4 Views, ed. Chad O. Brand (Nashville: B & H, 2015), 155-208; Mark R. Saucy, “Israel as a Necessary Theme in Biblical Theology,” in The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel, 169-81; J.
Lanier Burns, “The Future of Ethnic Israel in Romans 11,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, 188-229; J. Lanier Burns, “Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist,” in Three Central Issues, 263-303. For more traditional dispensationalists on the subject of the distinctive role and future of national Israel, see John F. Walvoord, “Is the Church the Israel of God?” BibSac 101 (1944): 403-16; John F.
Walvoord, “Does the Church Fulfill Israel’s Program?” BibSac 137 (1980): 17-31, 118-24, 212-22; Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come; Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., “The Future for Israel in God’s Plan,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dryer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 163-79;
H. Wayne House, “The Future of National Israel,” BibSac 166 (2009): 463-81; Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 766-819; Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Israel and the Church,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, 113-30; Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “The Role of Israel in Dispensational Theology,” in Dispensationalism Tomorrow &
Beyond, 117-42; Tuvya Zaretsky, “Israel the People,” in Israel, the Land and the People: An Evangelical Affirmation of God’s Promises, ed. H. Wayne House (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 35-59; A. Boyd Luter,
“Israel and the Nations in God’s Redemptive Plan,” in Israel, the Land and the People, 283-97; Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, 103-20. Note also Michael Vlach, “What about Israel?,” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans, 103-22; Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? A Theological Evaluation (Nashville: B & H, 2010); Michael Vlach, “The Eschatology of the Pauline Epistles,” in The Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B & H, 2011), 237-64; and John S. Feinberg, “Israel in the Land as an Eschatological Necessity?” in The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel, 183-94.
34For Israel’s mediation to the nations in the future, see Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 259, 306-23; Saucy, “The Progressive Dispensational View,” 170-74, 198. Not all dispensationalists would agree with the description of Israel having a mediatorial role to the nations in the millennium and beyond. Some prefer to describe Israel’s future restoration and role in terms of prominence or being a channel of blessing or having a functional role of service to the nations.
35Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 46. Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 267, observe that the NT never presents the inaugurated kingdom blessings “as a replacement of the specific hopes of Israel. Instead, they are argued as compatible or complementary to the hopes of Israel” (emphasis original).
Further, “[r]edeemed Jews and Gentiles will share equally in the completed blessings of the Spirit. The church in this dispensation testifies to this. . . . The same redeemed Jews and Gentiles will be directed and governed by Jesus Christ according to their different nationalities. The national identities and political
To summarize, all dispensationalists reject what they describe as
“supersessionism” or “replacement theology.” Although Christ may be identified with Israel, such a relationship does not transcend or remove the idea of national Israel.
36The church does not supersede the nation of Israel even as they share a similar identity as the people of God. The Israel/church distinction is the defining mark of dispensationalism.
Undergirding this essential tenet are hermeneutical presuppositions regarding the progress of revelation, typology, the NT use of the OT, and understanding OT covenant promises and prophecies to Israel unconditionally and “literally.”
37Probably the best treatment of what constitutes the foundational beliefs of dispensationalism is the one offered by Vlach.
After evaluating the core principles offered by Ryrie, Feinberg, and Blaising and Bock, Vlach adds clarity by elucidating six points that comprise the essence of dispensational theology:
1. Progressive revelation from the NT does not interpret OT passages in a way that cancels the original authorial intent of the OT writers as determined by historical- grammatical hermeneutics. . . .
2. Types exist, but national Israel is not a type that is superseded by the church. . . . 3. Israel and the church are distinct, thus the church cannot be identified as the new or true Israel. . . .
4. There is both spiritual unity in salvation between Jews and Gentiles and a future role for Israel as a nation. . . .
5. The nation Israel will be saved, restored with a unique identity, and function in a future millennial kingdom upon the earth. . . .
6. There are multiple senses of “seed of Abraham”; thus, the church’s identification as “seed of Abraham” does not cancel God’s promises to the believing Jewish “seed of Abraham.”
38promises of Israel and the Gentiles in the last dispensation testifies in turn to this aspect.” Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 50.
36Michael J. Vlach, “What Does Christ as ‘True Israel’ Mean for the Nation Israel?: A Critique of the Non-Dispensational Understanding,” MSJ 21 (2012): 43-54; Craig A. Blaising, “A Premillennial Response,” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 145-46; cf. Robert Saucy, “Is Christ the Fulfillment of National Israel’s Prophesies? Yes and No!”
(paper presented at the annual meeting of the national Evangelical Theological Society, Atlanta, November 18, 2010).
37See Paul D. Feinberg, “The Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 109-28, as he addresses these points from a dispensational perspective.
38