Dispensationalism Then & Now, Part 1

Dr. McCune…..Thx for the quick overview of the stages of dispensationalism. Always a delight to hear or read your thoughts. Looking forward to more of the same…..in the present dispensation! :)

Straight Ahead!

jt

Also appreciate the history!

I was reading Scofield’s now infamous note on John 1:17 (Wikipedia helpfully includes an image of the page… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible). He definitely fed some confusion on law and grace. It’s quite clear in both Romans and Galatians that the law was never intended as a path to righteousness, nor was it intended to replace Abrahamic faith and the grace of God in response to that faith.

Further, though Scofield sees stark differences between “law” and “grace” in terms of how blessings relate to good works, he doesn’t seem to notice that the blessings themselves are completely different. The Mosaic system is entirely temporal and geo-political. The Abrahamic blessings go way beyond that, as the blessings of grace in response to faith do in every dispensation.

Ga 3:7–9 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Ga 3:19–22 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the [Abrahamic] promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

He goes on to the famous “schoolmaster” statement.

The “law” in the Mosaic sense, was an add on for strictly temporal purposes and it never offered more than earthly blessings. You might occasionally see “righteous” associated with it in the OT as shorthand for “both believing and complying with the terms of the covenant.” But “righteous”/”justified” in the sense of accepted as righteous by God…. it’s always been faith.

When Paul says Christ is “the end of the law for righteousnss” in Rom. 10:4, he means Christ shatters the then-popular delusion that law can be a path to justification before God, not that Christ signals a change in God’s program from law to grace.

As for John 1:17, there is nothing in Jesus’ statement that indicates chronological boundaries… as in, law for was for this period and now grace is for this period. It was always grace, but—for a while, with one group of people—with law added on for earthly purposes.

Although most of us prefer clear cut distinctions between Law and Grace or the application of OT prophecies, what if a student of Scripture becomes convinced that the New Testament authors themselves are not so clear cut? Do we force them to fit our firm and straightforward boundaries, or do we adjust our system so that the actual use of the Old Testament in the New sets the pattern?

Of course not everybody agrees that this is the case. But if you hold that Christians are — in some way (any way) — under the New Covenant promised to Israel — you have confessed (at least in this instance) that the walls (while real) also allow for some seepage. That seepage — if it exists — is Progressive Dispensationalism of some sort.

Ed,

Other than my view of the kingdom (which is not Ladd but does allow for a present aspect of a future kingdom)……I’m just about as classic as you get when it comes to Israel/Church, Law/Grace, 7 dispensations, pre-mill, pre-trib….etc. Now I don’t have a “tude” about my brothers who are more progressive and frankly I even have a good relationship with many who are reformed in their hermeneutic.

Consider my short response to your last post. If I remember correctly the way classic dispensationalists who wrestled with the dynamic you speak of, there were two different approaches. The first group (largely impacted by old Dallas Seminary - attempted to) solve the challenge you present here by saying there were two “new covenants”…..one for the church and one for Israel. What’s funny to me is these are the same guys who in every other way struggle with “sensus plenior”…..that’s interesting. Guys like me fall into the second group (impacted more by Grace Seminary and schools connected to it’s lineage….which DBTS is/was….this view I think is more in the main today). We see a single new covenant shared in application to both Israel and the Church. Israel receives an eschatological fulfillment (which is the ultimate fulfillment) of the new covenant (we classics say “in the future”…..the progressives says “both now and in the future”)……while the church participates presently in a salvific application (again Hebrews…..all over the place…..chapters 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, etc….). I would say that in the new covenant…..this is one place where there is indeed Israel and the Church…….Law and Grace…..Old and New Covenants…….come together (to some degree). For me I’ve always seen the Law of Mosis as a kind of mediator (not a perfect one aka Hebrews) of the future Kingdom in the OT……the Church (aided of course by the Holy Spirit) as the mediator of the future Kingdom in the NT…….Jesus himself as the mediator of the future Kingdom ruling the world from Jerusalem (vis-a-vis from Heaven).

To me I’ve seen too much Scripture even from the Old Testament that points to a non-Mosaic New Covenant. Of course one must quote Jeremiah (31:31-32, “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt”). There are numbers of other passages you of course are familiar with (Ezekiel, Hosea, Isaiah, et al.).

All that to say, I think you can see some dual aspect of the application of the new cov’t that applies to both the church and Israel and not loose your classic dispensational membership card. Then again…….perhaps some of my brothers would say I’m on the slippery slope……Of course I don’t know that I’m sliding anywhere because my view hasn’t changed in over 20 years of study.

Always a pleasure “Midrash Ed”…….

Straight Ahead!

jt

Joel, thanks for your good response.

Joel wrote: We see a single new covenant shared in application to both Israel and the Church. Israel receives an eschatological fulfillment (which is the ultimate fulfillment) of the new covenant (we classics say “in the future”…..the progressives says “both now and in the future”)……while the church participates presently in a salvific application (again Hebrews…..all over the place…..chapters 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, etc….).

As a Saucy-type Progressive, I see it just as you do. The point of PD is not that there is EQUAL application to the church, but SOME application to church, even if only a bit. Any bit of application means the wall leaks. Once you have even a tiny bit of application or itsy bitsy grain of fulfillment (of prophecies directed toward Israel) directed to the church, you are, in principle, some sort of PD, IIMO.

I am saying that the general paradigm of Dispensationalism is correct, but there is sometimes significant seepage through those walls, and Paul and others are cozy with that. We should become cozy with that, too.

Also, I think there is also a distinction between the Law and Israel. The “Israel of God,” in my view, refers to solid Messianic Jews who are unlike the Judaizer Jews. The “Israel of God” is not under the Law as a system of relationship to God, but they are part of the nation of Israel.

Just as we have extreme (hyper/ultra) dispensationalism, and just as Darby’s or Scofield’s is different from Ryrie’s version, so PD has its various perspectives. Like Saucy, some of us are just over the line. We are quite moderate. Cases like the New Covenant or the fulfillment (in some sort of way) of Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2 are the real line of demarcation, IMO, although most TD’s will not admit this. From a Darby/Scofield perspective, modern TD’s have definitely moved in the direction of PD, to say the least.

100 years ago, the modern TD may have been considered a PD, if the term had been invented!

I think many TD’s are afraid PD’s will slide into Covenant or Replacement Theology. I share the concern that there is a movement in that direction in general, but, IMO, PD fixes the weak spots of TD and fits what we actually see in the NT.

Ed,

Cool……”we have an accord!”

Straight Ahead my man!

jt

ps - I recognize that not all classic are identical….I also can see not all progressive’s are equally “progressive”…….Thx for the interaction…….

The Covenant folks also have a modified system recently defined by Kingdom through Covenant. I have only read harsh reviews of this work and not read it myself.

Another system (which I have not fully explored either unfortunately) is Walter Kaiser’s The Promise Plan of God. John Sailhamer in The Meaning of the Pentateuch takes Kaiser to task on some points but I feel he does so unfairly in large measure (but only from what I know of Kaiser’s work).

Biblical Theology is the area that interests me the most since it seeks to understand the Testaments in a coherent manner. I need to finish Kaiser and reread Sailhamer (though some other parts of his book I disagree with also, never the less I need to *master his thought* to understand his perspective). I wish some of you more scholarly folks would review these two authors.

I greatly resonate with Mark Dever (message about sermon prep. at The Spurgeon Center) that the first approach should be going to the primary source: the bible. Its best, I believe, to read it like it was written and not chop it up so much (a verse here and there). In other words, read whole books or major sections. Read the bible at least once a year also, more if possible.

Biblical Theology involves seeing the forest as an entity. Detailed exegesis often only focuses on an individual tree. Obviously we need both in understanding the bible and Christian walk. To understand the whole however, a technique needs to be used that keeps all the individual parts *in cache* to see in *plan view* (from above).

The theme verse of the bible is Gen. 3.15. This verse is much more than a “first gospel.” This recognition is what is lacking in many approaches that seek coherence. For instance, When Jesus said to His mother: “woman” at those several times recorded in the gospels He was both telling His mother to remember the significance of Gen. 3.15 for her own assurance and also signaling to us the readers the fulfillment of this promise (the pierced heal).

Another area unrecognized (at least in general) is Gal. 4.4. “Born of a woman” does mean that Jesus was fully human. Also, it means much more since Paul is arguing for a fulfillment here.

Also, at the temptation of Christ the devil was trying to ascertain whether Jesus was “The Trampler” (Ps. 91.12-13).

Having spent my youth and early Christian life in ministries where Scofield’s Dispensationalism was considered a fundamental and test for fellowship, I tend to have an aversion to anything labeled “dispensationalism”. I used to be able to draw Larkin’s Chart from memory.

I hold to pre-millenial eschatology, a difference between Israel and the Church but see no division between Old and New Testament saints. (I don’t think Abraham is going to have to wait until I’ve finished enjoying my heavenly feast.)

It is sad when an imperfect execution of a good idea spoils it for some. But for my part…. I find it hard to not appreciate Scofield’s building of a rickety bridge at a time when most were not building one at all.

As for those who turned every detail into a litmus test… I can’t pretend to have any understanding of why anyone would do that. I guess some folks just don’t have any sense of degrees of certainty and what the relative uncertainty of this or that idea must imply? … but I think I’ll go read some quantum physics and contemplate Schrodinger’s cat or something… seems easier to understand than people sometimes, right?!

From my reading, the date of 1830 has generally been considered the beginning of dispensationalism through the teaching of John Nelson Darby. (See, e.g., J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Michigan 1958), at p. 391). I would be interested in a more detailed development of the statement “there were unsystematized principles of a dispensational nature long before him [Darby].”

There was also the ultra- or hyper-dispensationalism of Ethelbert W. Bullinger (1837-1913), an Anglican clergyman, although its relationship to “mainstream” dispensationalism is debated.

Non-dispensational premillennialism certainly was “historic” at least in the sense of having existed long before dispensational premillennialism. Also known as covenant premillennialism or chialism, this view, that the church would go through the great tribulation before the Second Coming of Christ to rule on earth for a millennium, existed from early church history. The teaching of a pretribulational rapture of the church did not arise until the early 19th Century.

Although Charles Ryrie laid down three essentials of dispensationalism, I would submit that there is really only one, as he basically conceded: “The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.” (Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Moody Press: Chicago 1965), at p. 47). Many non-dispensationalists would deny that they use other than a plain hermeneutic or that the unifying theme of the glory of God is unique to dispensationalism (or that this concept is even meaningful as a unifying theme of Scripture).

[J. Baillet]

Although Charles Ryrie laid down three essentials of dispensationalism, I would submit that there is really only one, as he basically conceded: “The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.” (Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Moody Press: Chicago 1965), at p. 47). Many non-dispensationalists would deny that they use other than a plain hermeneutic or that the unifying theme of the glory of God is unique to dispensationalism (or that this concept is even meaningful as a unifying theme of Scripture).

Acts 1:6 is the earliest case of dispensationalism using this “essence of dispensationalism” approach, with which, by the way, I STRONGLY agree. The early Messianic Jews would therefore be examples of this approach. Although our knowledge is limited, here is a quotation from Wikipedia about the Nazarites in the 4th century:

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220, Against Marcion, 4:8) records that the Jews called Christians “Nazarenes” from Jesus being a man of Nazareth, though he also makes the connection with Nazarites in Lamentations 4:7…

In the 4th century, Jerome also refers to Nazarenes as those “who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law.” In his Epistle 79, to Augustine, he said:

What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians? To-day there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called ‘Nasarenes’; they believe that Christ, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither.[22]

Jerome viewed a distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites, a different Jewish sect, but does not comment on whether Nazarene Jews considered themselves to be “Christian” or not or how they viewed themselves as fitting into the descriptions he uses.

I don’t see Messianic Jews as demonstrating the “essence of dispensationalism.” They would see themselves as authentically Jews who have recognized that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and that they are a continuation of true Judaism. They would not see “the distinction between Israel and the Church.” If you are saying that there is Messianic Judaism and the Church co-existing today, and that that is the distinction, I would say that “there no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” (Romans 10:12). “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.” (Ephesians 2:14).

When the apostles asked Jesus, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?,” he answered them, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:6-8). A plain reading of Jesus’ answer to their question would be that the kingdom was to be inaugurated, not at a time to be revealed to them beforehand, but at the event when the Holy Spirit would come upon them. Even if Jesus were not answering the question, the question itself assumed that Jesus, as Messiah, would be furthering true Judaism by restoring Israel as an independent, glorious, political nation.

Therefore, both Messianic Judaism and Acts 1:6 suggest unity and continuity rather than distinction.

Though for sure Amillenial Jews exist, I believe most are Premillenial. At least the several distinct groups with which I am familiar. I don’t know how many would be Dispensational though, I suspect very few.

Many folks see a restored National, ethnic Israel in the future (the bible teaches it plainly) without the slightest inclination for a synthetic grid overlaying bible history. It is a false distinction and claim (if indeed the claim is made) that if one holds to a coming restoration of ethnic Israel, then that one is Dispensational.

Both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are synthetic and unnecessary. C.T. is probably more biblical but its problem is that it strays far afield and tries to apply by extension Covenant principles without warrant . D.T. restricts itself at least generally to directly derived ideas.

As for Acts 1.6, Jesus did not answer their question but redirected their attention to the next great event. (This is really the age of the Spirit in believers today which wasn’t the case under the Old Covenant.) It is the most natural way to read the text since National Israel had been without a kingdom for about 600 years. They had been under Persia, Greece, and Rome. They had no independent king either and yet this is what was promised in the O.T. in the later days. A Divine King would reign (“Messiah lasts forever” was their expectation). The disciples expected a restoration to what was Israel’s glory days but the gospel would go to mostly gentiles until their full number were saved.

An unfulfilled kingdom is the best way to read Rom. 11 also. One has to twist and turn to make it say that Jews saved today are restored Israel.

Clearly, Jesus did not answer their question in Acts 1.6.

Much is solved by retaining the distinction between an ethnic/geo-political people (which is, on the whole either unbelieving or believing) vs. a spiritual people (the church). They are two different categories, not simply two different peoples in the same category.

This is why, in the church, there is no Jew or Greek or male or female or slave or free. Gender is a diff., category; race is a diff. category; economic status/occupation is a diff. category… as is ethnicity.

Where nondispensational systems get into the most trouble is trying to get a spiritual people to fulfill promises made to an ethnic/geo-political people.

This is also why, in the present age, Paul says in Rom. 14:17,

for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Alex, I appreciated your fine thoughts.

My point in all this is this we have to refine our hermeneutics based upon what we see in Scripture, not coercing, stuffing, and damaging the Scripture to fit into our boxes, but creating a model that fits the entirety of Scripture (or as close as we can get). Both CT and Traditional Dispensationalism seem to have this problem, as you kind of suggested.

Most Messianic Jews embrace Olive Tree Theology (which is easily accommodated by Progressive Dispensationalism; I could also say that I pretty much embrace Olive Tree Theology). These paradigms are easily corrected by Scripture (as opposed to squeezing Scripture to fit a paradigm).

For example, Acts. 1:6 could not have been fulfilled at Pentecost because in Acts 3 (after Pentecost) Peter makes it clear that the OT promises given to Israel will be fulfilled IN THE FUTURE when the Jewish people repent as a nation; their repentance provokes the return of Jesus to set up His kingdom (that’s my take).

Acts 3:17-21 (ESV)

17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

There is a difference between male and female. In the church, only men can be elders, for example. When we say there is “no difference” we are talking about “in relationship to God.” It is true that a believing Jew and a believing Gentile are the same in their relationship to God. But Jews (Israelites) are still Jews in another sense that God recognizes, just as God recognizes the difference between male and female.

For example, in Acts 23:6, Paul calls himself a Pharisee. He does NOT say, “I used to be a Pharisee.” In Acts 28:17, Paul says he observed the Jewish customs. In Acts 21:21-24, he offers a sacrifice at the Temple and takes a Nazarite vow.

The hope of the Messiah ruling from and exalting Israel is referred to in Acts 28:20, “For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.”

Paul continued to identify with Israel in Romans 11:1.

Romans 11:25-29 and following refers to a time when “all Israel will be saved,” I believe this is a clear reference to the 1/3 of the nation that survives the Tribulation. They will all come to faith.

Zechariah 13:8-8

In the whole land, declares the Lord,

two thirds shall be cut off and perish,

and one third shall be left alive.

And I will put this third into the fire,

and refine them as one refines silver,

and test them as gold is tested.

They will call upon my name,

and I will answer them.

I will say, ‘They are my people’;

and they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’”

So all of the systems — CT and Dispensationalism — need to take all of these things into account and corrected based upon them, IMO. That is why Progressive Dispensationalism, to my way of thinking, is the most flexible and able to adjust to the contours of God’s Word. It is teachable and flexible to a point. But it does not accuse God of redefining the word “Israel” after He promises to what was originally understood by those promised as a genetic nation. Neither does it deny God’s continued interest and plan for Israel.