Traditional Dispensationalism
James I. Fazio
James I. Fazio (PhD, Queen’s University Belfast) is academic dean and Professor of Biblical Studies at Southern California Seminary in El Cajon, CA
Dispensationalists are supremely suited to address both the continuity as well as the discontinuity that exists throughout Scripture. While fully embracing the continuity of Scripture, as revealed through the nature of God, the sinfulness of humanity, the need for salvation, and the ultimate goal of God’s plan for humanity, the dispensationalist emphasizes that God has dealt with humanity in different ways at different times, across the dispensations.
Introduction
Dispensationalism is a biblical-theological framework for understanding God’s various dealings with mankind throughout history. Sometimes referred to as a philosophy of history,[1] dispensationalism maintains that God has dealt with humanity on the basis of differing divinely expressed stewardships or administrations also called dispensations. As such, dispensationalists are known for framing their understanding of Scripture around those identifiable elements which serve to distinguish one dispensation from another. In particular, Traditional Dispensationalism (TD), perhaps more than other forms, maintains an emphasis on the distinctions expressed in the pages of the biblical text. While Christians throughout the history of the church have recognized each of the distinctions that characterize dispensational theology, the dispensational framework is nevertheless frequently traced back to John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), who has been widely touted as the founder of dispensationalism.[2]
However, dispensationalism is not the product of one man, such as is typical of many theological systems and (or) denominations, like Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism, Wesleyanism, and so on.[3] Because of this, dispensationalism is not singularly defined. As one dispensational writer has put it, “Dispensationalism is not monolithic but it is a diverse and developing tradition.”[4] Like other theological systems, there is a spectrum of dispensational thought. Therefore, due to the range of variations that exist within the dispensational tradition, the designation “traditional dispensationalism” is being used here to describe the particular expression that spread across North America in the majority of the twentieth century.
Some have also referred to this same tradition as “classical dispensationalism,”[5] while others have preferred a more nuanced distinction. A refinement is helpful, referring to earlier iterations prevalent around the turn of the century as “classical,” and labeling the midtwentieth century variation common to Charles C. Ryrie, John F. Walvoord, and J. Dwight Pentecost, as “revised.”[6] At times, some of these latter scholars favored the term “normative” to describe this traditional or revised form of dispensationalism.[7] However, one difference that all theologians have recognized is between TD and the variation that arose in the late 1980s, popularized by Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, and Robert Saucy, known as “progressive dispensationalism.”[8] This essential distinction is maintained due to the fact that progressive dispensationalism blurs some of the cardinal tenets of traditional dispensational theology, including the differentiation between the Davidic Kingdom and the Kingdom of Heaven.[9] Moreover, progressive dispensationalism has exchanged the traditional hallmarks of the dispensational arrangement of history around the themes of responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment, with a reductionistic schema consisting of three to four successive epochs.[10]
Nevertheless, across today’s evangelical landscape—to say nothing of the broader Christian spectrum—dispensationalism, of any variety, has become an object of derision, or as one scholar has put it, a theological bogeyman.[11] This is no recent turn of events. Over the past several decades the winds of change have shifted and dispensationalism has been overtly scorned by the academy.[12] At the end of the last century, Ryrie opened his classic book Dispensationalism with a chapter titled “Dispensationalism —Help or Heresy?”[13] More than a sensationalized title or click-bait headline, the title reflects a real concern with which well-meaning theologians have genuinely grappled.[14] Though it is worth noting, several of the criticisms that have been leveled against dispensationalism have arisen from distortions perpetuated by its detractors. A prime example of this can be found in the oft-repeated error that dispensationalism teaches differing modes of salvation across the dispensations.[15] Nevertheless, such mischaracterizations persist, not because critics have intentionally endeavored to misrepresent this theological perspective but because of a tendency within the academy to marginalize the traditional dispensational voice and avoid giving its adherents a “seat at the table.” In light of this tendency, I am especially grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion and will endeavor, by God’s grace, to offer a succinct, yet comprehensive representation of the Protestant evangelical theological framework known as traditional dispensationalism.
Distinctives and Assumptions
The foremost assumption of TD relates to its hermeneutical method. Dispensationalists are committed to a consistent application of the normal grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture. It is from this principal conviction that all other distinctives of dispensationalism are derived. Included among these distinctives are (1) the arrangement of biblical history according to divinely arranged stewardships or “dispensations,” (2) a clear distinction between the peoples of God (particularly, Israel and the Church), and (3) a robust pretribulation eschatological expectation that anticipates the restoration of Israel to God and the establishment of a literal earthly millennial kingdom. Consequently, traditional dispensationalism can be understood as a form of Christian fundamentalism, inasmuch as each of its convictions result from a prima facie, or “literal” interpretation of Scripture. Below, I will address the distinct convictions enumerated above, which result from a natural reading of Scripture. Afterwards, I will circle back to the hermeneutical method from which these three distinctives are derived.
Divinely Arranged Dispensations
First off, dispensationalism is characterized for its understanding of biblical history around the motif of divinely arranged dispensations. This element of TD too often gets overlooked, but it is an important link of the system. These dispensations, for which the system is named, serve to delineate man’s various responsibilities toward God. Typically, TD has enumerated seven such arrangements. The most broadly recognized dispensational scheme includes: (1) Innocence—from creation week to the fall, (2) Conscience—from the fall to the flood, (3) Human Government—from the flood to the call of Abraham, (4) Promise—from the call of Abraham to Mt. Sinai, (5) Law—from Mt. Sinai through Christ, (6) Grace—from Pentecost to the rapture, and (7) Kingdom—from Christ’s Return through the Millennium.[16] However, traditional dispensationalists have been quick to point out that the number of dispensations one perceives in the biblical text is not what defines a dispensationalist.[17] Nevertheless, the number seven does tend to carry significance for many dispensationalists.
Regardless of what variations may exist between dispensational arrangements leading up to the present,[18] there is overwhelming consensus as far as the present and future dispensations are concerned. Traditional dispensationalists maintain that the church era is the penultimate dispensation, and that all previous dispensations will culminate in the future millennial kingdom. While this might suffice to elucidate the dispensationalist’s arrangement of history on the basis of successive dispensations, there remains a point that bears clarifying: dispensationalists adhere to the notion that over the span of human history God has operated in a variety of ways with respect to each of his distinct households. The very use of the term “household,” as a framework for understanding God’s relationship to mankind, begs the question of differing stewardships, administrations, or economies. This is because the Greek word oikonomia, from which the English word “dispensation” is derived, conveys the idea of household management.[19] Among its various appearances throughout the New Testament, Jesus used it with the greatest frequency, while Paul applied it theologically in the sense of “the dispensation of the grace of God” (Eph 3:2) and “the dispensation of the fullness of times” (Eph 1:10).[20] In accordance with the apostolic usage, dispensationalists have framed their understanding of biblical history around these divinely appointed stewardships, rather than around a covenantal motif as conceived by the Protestant Reformers.
This is not to say that dispensationalists do not regard the biblical covenants. In fact, the covenants of Scripture feature more prominently in the dispensationalist’s philosophy of history than in the covenantalist’s.[21] Nevertheless, dispensationalists perceive biblical history—past and future—according to divinely arranged economies, which are, at least in part, punctuated by the biblical covenants. The emphasis here is on the explicitly revealed covenants of the Bible, as opposed to the implied theological covenants that are often considered by the covenant theologian. Nevertheless, the Reformed theological covenants are not necessarily antithetical to a dispensational arrangement of history. In fact, some early dispensationalists made efforts to reconcile the theological covenants with the dispensations.[22] However, the traditional dispensational philosophy of history is one which is characterized by God’s interaction with his various households on the basis of successive stewardships or dispensations. As such, it precludes the abstraction of a covenantal motif that defines God’s dealings with humanity.
Distinction of Households
This leads to the second feature that characterizes traditional dispensationalism: the identification of Israel and the Church as two distinct households. Dispensationalists maintain that God has one program for Israel and another for the Church—in fact, they also perceive a third distinct program for the Gentiles.[23] Moreover, traditional dispensationalists regard the Church as a kind of “parenthesis” in God’s program for Israel. Daniel’s Seventy Week Prophecy (Dan 9:24–27) bears particular relevance in shaping the dispensationalist’s understanding in this regard. The present dispensation of the Church is understood to occur in the interval between thesixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel’s prophetic timetable. This is supported by God’s disclosure that seventy periods of seven years were determined for the people of Israel (Dan 9:24), the final seven of which are anticipated to resolve in the tribulation week (Dan 9:27; Rev 6–16). This still-future event is also known to the Old Testament prophets as “the time of Jacob’s troubles” (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1).
Pre-Tribulational Premillennialism
This bleeds into the third distinct feature of traditional dispensationalism, namely the eschatological expectation that that the Church will be raptured prior to the seven-year tribulation, after which Israel will be restored to God when Christ returns to Jerusalem with his resurrected saints to establish his Messianic Kingdom. TD is so wedded to pretribulation eschatology, that the view is commonly known as “dispensational-premillennialism,” as opposed to other premillennial views with differing expectations regarding the timing of the rapture relative to the tribulation. It is here, with regard to the clear-cut significance of the pretribulational rapture of the Church, where Darby’s influence is most prominently realized. Darby’s exegetical efforts provided dispensationalists the theological scaffolding upon which a multitude of dispensational convictions converge. Without introducing anything new, Darby codified a distinctly dispensational framework that is known for (1) a philosophy of history that recognizes God’s divinely appointed dispensations, (2) a clear recognition of the distinct peoples of God, and (3) a dispensational-premillennial eschatological expectation that anticipates the rapture of the Church prior to the tribulation, the restoration of Israel, and the establishment of a literal earthly millennial kingdom. For these reasons, Darby has been often labeled the father of modern dispensationalism.
Still, it bears repeating that these beliefs have been the subject of much debate and derision, particularly in recent years. Critics argue that TD is too literalistic in its interpretation of the Bible, and that its strict separation between Israel and the Church is not supported by the biblical text. Others have challenged the idea of a pretribulation rapture or a future literal kingdom of God. Nevertheless, dispensationalists firmly cling to these beliefs, being fully convinced of them from a fundamentalist reading of Scripture. An unfortunate result is the derision and marginalization, largely from the academy, that comes from identifying with such convictions. However, a growing number of biblical interpreters who employ the dispensationalist’s approach to Scripture will shy away from the label “dispensational” while no less adhering to most of, if not all, of these same principles. Therefore, TD continues to maintain a strong presence in many evangelical circles, even if not overtly named.
Hermeneutics
As mentioned above, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation is the lynchpin for dispensational thought. While this Protestant hermeneutic is in no way exclusive to the traditional dispensationalist, the consistency with which it is applied to all of Scripture remains a hallmark of the dispensationalist’s hermeneutic. The idiomatic phrase “if the plain sense makes perfect sense seek no other sense” has been the mantra of many dispensational interpreters. While this colloquialism risks being overly simplistic, it captures the essence of the dispensationalist’s hermeneutical approach. Like their evangelical counterparts, dispensationalists look to Scripture to interpret Scripture—or what is sometimes referred to as the analogy of faith—where clear texts and repeated expressions are used to elucidate the more obscure. However, the most nuanced point to make concerning the dispensational approach to hermeneutics is that the dispensationalist pays special heed to the concept of progressive revelation; namely, that God has spoken at different times and in diverse ways (Heb 1:1), and that this speaking has been progressively revealed over time from Genesis through Revelation. It is helpful to unpack this hermeneutical method before proceeding to the implications that arise from this notion of progressive revelation.
Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic
Traditional dispensationalists adhere to the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation which sets out to discover the original meaning and intent of the biblical author. This discovery is done by inductively analyzing the grammatical structure and historical context of the text in question. Included in the process is exegesis of the grammar and syntax of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, in order to discern the meaning of individual words and phrases as they were employed at the time when the text was written, while taking into account the literary style and structure of the text. Moreover, this approach pays careful attention to the historical milieu at the time when the text was written—including the social, cultural, and political context—in addition to the author’s intended audience and purpose for writing. All of these factors inform the dispensationalist’s pursuit of discovering the original author’s intended meaning. The traditional dispensationalist’s understanding of Scripture is, therefore, deeply anchored on a Protestant grammatical-historical hermeneutic.
While it may be expedient to label the traditional dispensationalist’s interpretative method with the term “literal,” it risks leading to mischaracterization of the methodology in question. What traditional dispensationalists do not adhere to is a strict wooden literalism that fails to take into account literary genres and figures of speech used throughout the Bible.[24] Rather, they consistently apply the grammatical-historical hermeneutic to all of Scripture’s diverse genres—from Genesis through Revelation. Consequently, the dispensationalist will read the creation narrative of Genesis 1–3 and understand Adam and Eve to have been two literal people, created by God on the sixth day of creation week, who fell to the serpent’s temptation which brought death upon the human race. However pedantic this reading may seem to more erudite readers, the dispensationalist feels no compulsion to capitulate to an alternative understanding simply because a seminar of learned skeptics may have convened and reached a consensus. This is not to say that dispensationalists cling solely to their KJVs to derive meaning from the biblical text.[25] To the contrary, rigorous exegesis in the original languages of Scripture is what principally informs the dispensationalist’s understanding of Scripture. Neither does this mean that dispensationalists are ignorant of current trends in biblical scholarship. Instead, they simply follow a principle of biblical prioritization, where the plain language of Scripture prevails over the consensus of human councils, whether past or present.
Prioritization of the Biblical Text
For the dispensationalists, this biblical prioritization expresses itself in several different ways. First, the most perspicuous meaning of Scripture should be preferred over church tradition or ecclesiastical commitments. Consequently, dispensationalists tend to be noncreedal, nonconfessional, and nondenominational. Second, the language of Scripture is important and reflects deliberate verbal expressions of the divine mind, to which readers should give the most earnest attention. Therefore, the dispensational tendency is to prefer using actual biblical terms according to how they appear in the biblical text rather than how they are used in liturgical or popular parlance. Because of this, the dispensationalist’s notion of covenants will tend to be limited only to those which are expressly identified in Scripture. Similarly, the dispensationalist is prone to consider matters of soteriology from texts such as Romans 3:28 and 8:28–30 directly rather than appealing to the Protestant Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin. In this manner, the dispensationalist principally appeals to Scripture, while ecclesiastical tradition is relegated to a more diminished status than adherents of other Reformed traditions might feel comfortable granting.
Since the original release of Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today (1965), TD has been largely characterized by the sine qua non that he offered therein. The three indispensable points, which he perceived as both fundamental and determinative for dispensationalism, include (1) the distinction between Israel and the church, (2) the consistent application of a literal hermeneutic, and (3) the recognition that God’s glory serves as his underlying purpose for history.
Progressive Revelation
Third, while this serves to distinguish the dispensationalist’s orientation toward Scripture, the most nuanced feature of the dispensationalist’s hermeneutic concerns the way God has gradually disclosed himself to humanity. In keeping with the idea that God has revealed different aspects of his plan for humanity across the various dispensations, progressive revelation maintains that God has incrementally revealed his truth to mankind over time, culminating in the ultimate revelation of Jesus Christ. Just as each dispensation bears unique characteristics and requirements for how humans are to relate to God and live according to his will, so also has God’s revelation of his plan for humanity progressed over time, with each dispensation building on the former. For example, the Law was given to the nation of Israel through Moses in the former dispensation while the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ is the focus of the present dispensation (see Roman 9:4; compare with 3:21–22). Thus, the Mosaic Law served as a preliminary introduction to Christ, similar to how a tutor would use rudimentary principals to guide a juvenile into mature understanding (Gal 3:23–25). While this faith has been preliminarily experienced by the Church—being a unique people, neither Jew nor Gentile, but a new creation (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11–15)—it will be realized by Israel in the next dispensation, when at last the wild branches that have been grafted into the stock have been broken off and the natural branches that had been removed are grafted back in. According to Paul, this is so that “when the full number of the Gentiles has come in … all of Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25–26).
On account of this concept of progressive revelation, the traditional dispensationalist will apply the principal of interpreting Scripture based on the essential understanding that the New Testament builds upon the foundation laid by the Old Testament. This serves as a critical distinction in the dispensational hermeneutic. Rather than reinterpret the Old Testament based on a developed understanding of the New Testament, the traditional dispensationalist will interpret later revelation on the basis of what was previously disclosed through earlier revelation. In this way, later revelation can offer new insight and deeper understanding of earlier revelation, but it does not overwrite or change the meaning of what God divulged to prior generations. This hermeneutical nuance of reading the New Testament in light of the Old Testament stands in stark contrast to the practice of reading the New Testament into the Old. In common parlance dispensationalists have expressed this principal by saying “a text can never mean what it never meant.” Another way of saying this is that a text cannot violate the meaning it was assigned at its original reception. This does mean that a text cannot have an expanded or fuller meaning, or what hermeneuticians have referred to as sensus plenior. Indeed, a text can have an expanded meaning, but it cannot violate the original meaning. Therefore, the dispensationalist maintains that God’s promise of the land to Israel, for instance, cannot be satisfied in any other way than by granting said land, which boundaries God expressly demarked, to those whom he promised would receive it. Thus, knowing that Israel never occupied that land and that it is impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18), the dispensationalist has every reassurance that God will fulfill his word exactly as he delivered it to Israel.
Summary
From all that has been said, it may be concluded that consistent application of the Protestant grammatical-historical hermeneutic is what anchors dispensational thought. Moreover, the dispensationalist’s reliance upon Scripture to interpret Scripture, rather than upon confessions, creeds, or denominational traditions, serves as a distinguishing feature of traditional dispensationalism. However, the most definitive feature of the dispensationalist’s understanding of Scripture, stems from the recognition that God has progressively disclosed himself to humanity resulting in the expectation that the New Testament builds upon the foundation laid by the Old Testament, and not vice versa.
Continuity and Discontinuity
The issue of continuity and discontinuity underscores the distinctions between covenantal and dispensational theologians. The traditional dispensational perspective recognizes both continuity and discontinuity in Scripture; however, its emphasis on discontinuity is what sets it apart. The continuity of Scripture is expressed through the following ways: (1) with respect to God’s immutable nature, his glory serves as the major overarching theme which spans from Genesis through Revelation; (2) with respect to man’s failure, God’s grace is revealed as an underlying theme evidenced across all of the dispensations; (3) with respect to the dispensations, God’s sovereignty demands that humanity respond in faith and walk in conformity to his righteous requirements. Therefore, the dispensationalist is uniquely suited to adequately address matters of discontinuity that appear throughout Scripture. The traditional dispensationalist understands this discontinuity on the basis of the various expressions of the “rule of life” God has given man to follow in each dispensation. This last point serves as a defining feature of the dispensationalist view of continuity and discontinuity, not because it overrides the continuity otherwise expressed, but because others stop short of adequately acknowledging this.
Continuity: God’s Glory
First, as far as God is concerned, Scripture reveals his nature to be immutable throughout all of biblical history. This is important because changes in dispensations do not reflect a change in God, but rather a development in God’s relationship with man. The illustration of the changes that occur in a relationship between a father and child, from cradle through adulthood, may be help to clarify this point. Developments in the filial relationship are not because changes have occurred in the father, but rather result from differing stages in the maturation of the child (Gal 3:23–25; 1 Cor 13:11). In addition to God’s immutable nature, traditional dispensationalists have emphatically pointed to God’s glory as an essential theme or axiom that spans all the dispensations. Thus, dispensationalists typically view God’s doxological purpose as a unifying theme of Scripture rather than regarding mankind’s redemption as the center of God’s purpose for the ages. This view is not intended to trivialize man’s failure and need for salvation, as that is essential to the dispensational understanding of biblical history, but it merely regards the fact that God’s glory is no less achieved through the condemnation of the wicked as it is through the redemption of the elect in addition to his relationship to the heavenly hosts.
Continuity: Man’s Failure, Judgment, and Need for Deliverance
Second, with respect to mankind, issues such as humanity’s failure, judgment, and need for deliverance serve as unifying features across all the dispensations. However, there is more in view here than merely man’s need for redemption through Christ’s substitutionary death and resurrection, though that is undeniably an overriding theme expressed in various ways throughout the Old and New Testaments. The provision of divine grace, despite humankind’s failure to live up to the standard of God’s expressed household rule—whether it be Adam’s transgression, the wickedness that prevailed on the earth in the days of Noah, Israel’s characteristic unfaithfulness, or the church’s apostasy—is manifest throughout all dispensations. The message of continuity that runs across all of Scripture is that where humanity’s failure abounds, God’s grace abounds all the more (Rom 5:20).
Discontinuity: Man’s Rule of Life
Third, with respect to the dispensations, God has disclosed a variety of righteous demands by which man is to walk in conformity to God’s expressed will. Both continuity and discontinuity are expressed in this third point. The continuity is expressed in the fact that in each dispensation, God has provided man with a rule of life. However, the manifold expressions of God’s demands underscores the discontinuity, which nondispensationalists find themselves ill-suited to address. Examples here might include the various dietary restrictions God prescribed to man across the various dispensations: (1) To Adam and Eve, God clearly required a strictly vegan diet consisting of no animal products or by-products (Gen 1:29); (2) To Noah, God permitted an omnivorous diet (Gen 9:3); (3) To Israel, God prescribed a restricted diet that prohibited the eating of unclean animals (Lev 11); (4) to Peter, and by extension the Church, God withdrew all dietary restrictions, expressly commanding “What God has cleansed, you must not call common” (Acts 10:15).
The traditional dispensationalist’s readiness to engage the areas of discontinuity between God’s manifold workings with all of humanity, or a subset thereof, stands out as a unique and defining characteristic. Subsequently, adherents of a covenantal framework, who tend to view all of history under the sweeping arc of a theological covenant of grace will often point out that dispensationalists are fixated on the discontinuity expressed throughout Scripture. There is admittedly something to this accusation, as this is at least comparatively so. Indeed, some dispensationalists have been guilty of parsing out nuances ad nauseum, and finding distinctions where none should properly be found, including dissecting the Kingdom of Heaven from the Kingdom of God or making inferences from whether the name Jesus precedes the title Christ or vice versa.[26] Along this vein, there have been some whose abstractions of biblical distinctions have landed them on the outer fringes of the dispensational umbrella, earning them the pejorative designation “hyper-” or “ultra-” dispensationalist. Such adherents have been known to reject the ordinance of water baptism or the Lord’s Table as elements of a former dispensation.[27] However, those who subscribe to such beliefs are outliers and do not properly reflect traditional dispensationalism.
Summary
Dispensationalists are supremely suited to address both the continuity as well as the discontinuity that exists throughout Scripture. While fully embracing the continuity of Scripture, as revealed through the nature of God, the sinfulness of humanity, the need for salvation, and the ultimate goal of God’s plan for humanity, the dispensationalist emphasizes that God has dealt with humanity in different ways at different times, across the dispensations. From this perspective, there are noticeable discontinuities between the different dispensations, as God’s expressed rule of life governs how humanity is to carry-out their responsibility toward God. Thus, the TD perspective on the continuity and discontinuity of Scripture emphasizes the importance of reading the Bible in light of the different dispensations in order to bring harmony to the diverse ways in which God has revealed himself across the Old and New Testaments.
Theological Commitments and Themes
Since the original release of Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today (1965), TD has been largely characterized by the sine qua non that he offered therein. The three indispensable points, which he perceived as both fundamental and determinative for dispensationalism, include (1) the distinction between Israel and the church, (2) the consistent application of a literal hermeneutic, and (3) the recognition that God’s glory serves as his underlying purpose for history.[28] The widespread acceptance of these three points has been a matter of debate among dispensationalists, with the most ardent opposition coming from progressive dispensationalists who have offered alternative tenets.[29] Their contention over the suitability of Ryrie’s sine qua non to define dispensationalism’s essential theological commitments is not without merit, as such distinctive features as God’s governance of humanity on the basis of divinely determined economies are conspicuously absent, as is any clear expression of a futurist expectation of the millennium with the adjoining expectation of the pretribulational rapture of the church. Ryrie was not altogether unaware of these objections, as he included some engagement with these concerns in his revised and expanded edition (1995).[30] As these issues have already been addressed in previous sections, there is no need to revisit them here. Nevertheless, I have determined to address two points besides Ryrie’s sine qua non, in order to bring attention to contrastive features between traditional and progressive dispensationalism. These two additional theological commitments or themes will engage the traditional dispensationalist’s understanding of the Davidic Kingdom and the New Covenant.
Distinction Between Israel and the Church
Perhaps no treatment of TD written in the past half-century can avoid some discussion of Ryrie’s sine qua non. Although many have questioned the ordering of Ryrie’s three points, with some giving logical prioritization of the second point over the first (that is, hermeneutics precedes inductions derived from the biblical text), none have questioned the significance of the distinction between Israel and the church.[31] Concerning this first point of the sine qua non, Stanley Toussaint has said, “Of these three, undoubtedly the most important is the distinction between Israel and the church.”[32] The reason for this is because, as Ryrie aptly observed, this single point serves as perhaps the most practical and conclusive test of whether one observes dispensational distinctions, “One who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.”[33]
Consistent Originalist Hermeneutic
The second point in Ryrie’s sine qua non is the consistent application of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, or what Snoeberger has termed an originalist hermeneutic, which “holds that interpretation of texts be carried out with ‘strict intentionalism’ that ‘accords binding authority’ on the ‘intentions’ of a given document’s authors.”[34] Snoeberger has preferred this language to describe Ryrie’s principle in an effort to sidestep the misunderstanding that has persisted over the use of the terms “literal,” “normal,” or “plain”[35]—all of which have been susceptible to misconstrual by dispensationalism’s critics. The dispensationalist’s hermeneutic has already been discussed and does not require restatement. However, for amplification, the point may be reinforced that all contributors to the current conversation apply this hermeneutical method to some extent. Nevertheless, the traditional dispensationalist attempts to apply this hermeneutic consistently to all of Scripture, rejecting the covenantalist’s occasional “typological” or “spiritualizing” method as well as the progressive dispensationalist’s “complementary approach.”[36] Moreover, the traditional dispensationalist will avoid both the covenantal tendency to give the New Testament prioritization in determining the meaning of the OT, but will also avoid the complementary reading or transactional interchange between the Testaments that characterizes the progressive dispensationalist’s reading of Scripture.
The Doxological Principle
The third theme that Ryrie’s sine qua non engages is the traditional dispensational concept of God’s glory as his underlying purpose throughout history. This concept is sometimes referred to as the doxological principle.[37] This theme distinguishes traditional dispensational thought from both covenantal and progressive dispensational theologies, and yet it is at least partly for this very reason that it has stirred up so much controversy from within and without dispensational camps.[38] Although to some extent, virtually all Christians recognize God’s glory as a significant theme expressed throughout Scripture, Snoeberger, representing TD, has been careful to point out, “In the main, both covenant theology and progressive covenantalism view Scripture as a history of redemption … dispensational theology, on the other hand, views Scripture as a history of the rule of God.”[39] In contrast to this, Craig Blaising has stated, “For progressive dispensationalism, the kingdom of God is the unifying theme of the history of divine revelation.”[40] However, the traditional dispensationalist is keen to point out that while the Bible shines a spotlight on the redemption theme, as well as on God’s eternal Kingdom, the overriding principle under which all others are subsumed—including the suffering of the righteous (1 Pet 4:12–16) and the condemnation of the wicked (Rom 9:22–24)—is that in all things God would be glorified. Paul’s doxology captures this idea best: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36, emphasis added).
The Kingdom of God and the Davidic Kingdom
Besides Ryrie’s sine qua non, there are several additional themes that serve to set TD apart from both covenantal theologies as well as progressive dispensationalism. Some of TD’s most distinctive theological commitments include the relationship between the Davidic Kingdom and the Kingdom of God, the extent to which the Christian participates in the New Covenant, and a view of the Church as a parenthesis in God’s dealing with the household of Israel. Concerning the first theme, the traditional dispensational approach is to differentiate between the Davidic Kingdom and the Kingdom of God. The Davidic Kingdom is understood as the promised earthly, political kingdom established by God through King David and his descendants in 2 Samuel 7:12–16 and is anticipated to have a literal, future fulfillment when Christ returns to exercise his dominion over all the kingdoms of this earth from David’s throne in Jerusalem (Ps 22:27–29; Rev 19:11–20:6).
Conversely, the Kingdom of God is perceived as a broader concept that encompasses God’s eternal rule and reign over all creation, encompassing both earthly and heavenly realms. The general traditional dispensational understanding of the Kingdom of God is one that regards it as a spiritual and universal kingdom without beginning or end (Psa 103:19; Dan 4:3; 2 Pet 1:11). Thus, they regard it as irresponsible to merely gloss over the apparent distinctions between the differences in time and scope between the temporal earthly Davidic Kingdom and the eternal heavenly Kingdom of God. In debates over this point, TDs and their progressive counterparts have spilled much ink.
Relationship of the Church to the New Covenant
The next theological commitment to consider here involves the New Covenant. Recognizing Israel and the Church as two distinct households has direct implications on the extent of the Christian’s involvement in the New Covenant. Since Scripture expressly states that the New Covenant is designated for the “house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31–34; Heb 8:8–13), traditional dispensationalists are not comfortable subsuming those promises in the Church. Rather, they deem it necessary to regard this covenant as principally related to Israel’s national restoration and future blessing in the Messianic [Davidic] Kingdom. It is important to point out that this is one of those areas where dispensationalists maintain a range of views vis-à-vis the extent to which the Christian participates to some degree—if any—in Israel’s covenant. However, they tend to be consistent in their understanding that the promises and covenants expressed throughout the Old Testament should be principally applied to national Israel, not appropriated by the Church (Rom 9:3–5).
Among the range of views related to Christian participation in the New Covenant, some will regard Christians as participating in blessings associated with this covenant, while others will go so far as to see the Church directly participating in this covenant. Still others go the opposite way and view the New Covenant, along with each of its attached blessings, as belonging solely to a future, restored national Israel.[41] However, one area of general agreement is that the New Covenant was given to the Household of Israel and will be fully realized by them in the next dispensation. Not only are these concerns peculiar to TD, but they are often a focal point for much in-house discussion within TD.
The Church as a Parenthesis
Finally, it must be understood that according to TD, the Church is regarded as a parenthesis in God’s dealing with Israel. This idea has nuances that go beyond simply seeing the Church as the next dispensation in God’s sequential dealings with different households. The parenthetical nature of the church speaks to the fact that God “interrupted”—from a human perspective—his program with Israel and inserted an intervening dispensation known as the Church. However, just as he seemingly abruptly paused his dealings with Israel, so will he also resume them, in order to conclude that dispensation. Daniel’s “70 Weeks” prophecy is relevant here (Dan 9:24-27), and particularly the perceived interval between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy.
Thus, TD views the Church as a temporary interruption or parenthetical period in God’s plan for Israel. It then follows that Christians are not explicitly named as recipients, and therefore, it must be determined to which extent, if any, they participate in the New Covenant. On the whole, traditional dispensationalists agree that the New Covenant will be fulfilled with Israel in the future, during the millennial reign of Christ. Some argue that even the promises of the New Covenant, such as the forgiveness of sins and the internal transformation by the Holy Spirit, are specifically for Israel and not for the Church. It bears repeating that while many traditional dispensationalists hold this perspective, there are variations and differing views within the broader dispensational framework. Some dispensationalists may even have more modified or nuanced positions on the relationship between the Church and the New Covenant that are not described above. Nevertheless, the point of agreement is that the New Covenant is not fulfilled in the Church but will be fulfilled in the coming dispensation.
Conclusion
As noted at the start, TD is a biblical-theological framework for understanding God’s various dealings with man throughout biblical history—from Genesis through Revelation. It is a framework derived from the pages of Scripture, as opposed to theological abstractions. It has also been observed that dispensationalism is a diverse and developing tradition. It is not prescripted by any extra-biblical creed or confession, nor is it singularly defined by the ideas of any individual. Perhaps its most defining feature is that TD arises from the recognition of biblical distinctions. It may well be for this very reason that such a strong aversion exists toward dispensationalism in general, and TD in particular.
The modern zeitgeist or spirit of the age is one that vigorously detests distinctions of any kind and seeks to eradicate them with extreme prejudice. Distinctions are, by definition, discriminatory. It is preferable to most—and a good deal easier—to lump together like things and treat them as synonymous. However, it is appropriate to ask whether in the case of divine revelation God has afforded the biblical exegete that prerogative. So long as students of Scripture engage the text with an eye to discerning what it declares and to define the boundaries of what it does not, the dispensational framework will persist. Moreover, the biblical-theological landscape will be richer for it.
[1] Renald E. Showers, There Really is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), 1–6.
[2] This attribution is grossly overstated as numerous theologians viewed biblical history on the basis of successive dispensations, usually numbering seven, for at least two centuries before Darby; William Watson, Dispensationalism Before Darby: Seventeenth-Century and Eighteenth Century English Apocalypticism (Silverton: Lampion Press, 2015). Moreover, proponents of the Millennial Day Theory correlated the days of creation week to the millennia that span human history, since the Apostolic Era, as evidenced in the pseudepigraphal Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 100). This subject is addressed extensively in Cory M. Marsh and James I. Fazio, eds., Discovering Dispensationalism: Tracing the Development of Dispensational Thought from the First through the Twenty-first Century (El Cajon: SCS Press, 2023).
[3] Glenn R. Kreider, “What is Dispensationalism?” in Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption, ed. D. Jeffrey Bingham and Glenn R. Kreider (Chicago: Moody, 2015), 17, 37.
[4] Kreider, “What is Dispensationalism,” 18.
[5] Arnold D. Ehlert pointed to 1825 as the dividing year between what he termed “the old and the new dispensationalism,” in his A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960); Norman C. Kraus similarly recognized the continuity of dispensational thought from the early nineteenth through the midtwentieth century as “contemporary dispensationalism” in Dispensationalism in America: Its Rise and Development (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1958), 24–25. Compare with Michael Williams, This World is Not My Home: The Origins and Development of Dispensationalism (Geanies House Fearn: Christian Focus, 2003), 12.
[6] Craig A. Blaising, “God’s Plan for History: The Consummation” in Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption, 202–9.
[7] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 243.
[8] The classic work representing this position is Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1993).
[9] Blaising and Bock, 232–83.
[10] Blaising and Bock, 48–56.
[11] Cory M. Marsh, “Correcting Age-Old Misconceptions” in Discovering Dispensationalism, 1.
[12] Mark A. Noll’s influential work The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 117–43, dedicated the better part of a chapter incriminating dispensationalism for the deterioration of the evangelical mind through its promotion of anti-intellectualism.
[13] This title was first published by Ryrie in 1965 under the title Dispensationalism Today. The work was revised and expanded in 1995 and the formatting was updated again in 2007.All the page numbers in this article refer to the 2007 edition. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 11.
[14] Compare with Philip A. F. Church, “Dispensational Christian Zionism: A Strange but Acceptable Aberration or a Deviant Heresy?” Westminster Theological Journal 71, no. 2 (2009): 375–98.
[15] This criticism has persisted, despite that every generation of dispensationalist has refuted this claim since it was first leveled against Darby, who unequivocally asserted “that a sinner, at all times since the fall, is saved in the same way, no Christian can doubt for a moment,” and “for every sinner in all ages, is saved as such, individually, by grace” Collected Writings, 10:12; 11:47. Compare with Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Editorial: Inventing Heretics through Misunderstanding,” Bibliotheca Sacra 102, no. 405 (January 1945): 1–2; Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 123; Glenn R. Kreider, “Sola Fide: Salvation is by Grace Through Faith Alone in Every Dispensation” in Forged from Reformation: How Dispensational Thought Advances the Reformed Legacy, ed. Christopher Cone and James I. Fazio (El Cajon: SCS Press, 2017), 423–61.
[16] This arrangement was typical of dispensational thinkers, which preceded Darby and was promulgated by both C. I. Scofield and Charles C. Ryrie after Darby, though it was not one which Darby accepted. For more on this distinction, see Larry V. Crutchfield, The Origins of Dispensationalism: The Darby Factor (Lanham: University Press of America, 1992), 23–140.
[17] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 51–52; Kreider, 27.
[18] Besides the traditional arrangement presented above, some dispensationalists have held to as few as one or two dispensations preceding Israel (sometimes summed up in the broad categories of Patriarchical or Antidiluvian–Patriarchical), while others have perceived as many as twelve; Compare with. Christopher Cone, “Dispensational Definition and Division Revisited” in Dispensationalism Tomorrow and Beyond: A Theological Collection of Essays in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie (Ft. Worth: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2008), 151–61.
[19] This Greek word appears in various forms twenty times in the New Testament. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “oikonomia,” 5:149–53. For more on how this term is used throughout the NT, see James I. Fazio, “New Testament Era (AD 30–100)” in Discovering Dispensationalism, 29–39.
[20] Compare with John K. Goodrich, Paul as an Administrator of God in 1 Corinthians, Society for the New Testament Studies Monograph Series 152 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
[21] J. Dwight Pentecost emphasized the study of the biblical covenants as a matter of primary importance in his definitive work Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964), 65.
[22] C. I. Scofield regarded both an Edenic and Adamic covenant, where covenantalists otherwise perceive a covenant of works and grace. Notes on Hebrews 8:8 in The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909). Similarly, L. S. Chafer appealed to these same covenants, as well as to the Covenant of Redemption, in his Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1967), I:42.
[23] Dispensationalists find support for this from Paul’s delineation of these three groups in the first Corinthian Epistle when he references “the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God” (1 Cor 10:32).
[24] The fact that the greatest work on figures of speech in Scripture was produced by what some have pejoratively called an ultradispensationalist, speaks volumes in this regard; E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898).
[25] It must be acknowledged that KJV-only advocates have found themselves in good company with dispensationalists, as there is not significant disagreement over the way these two groups engage the biblical text. The difference instead has more to do with which texts they are reading, as having been received by God, whether the 1611 English translation or the original autographs in Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek.
[26] Chafer, Systematic Theology, VII:223–225.
[27] Cornelius R. Stam, Things That Differ: The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism (Germantown: Berean Bible Society, 2008), 221–24; 258–61.
[28] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 45–48.
[29] Blaising and Bock, 9–56.
[30] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 45–46.
[31] For a full recent treatment on Ryrie’s sine qua non, I commend to the reader Mark A. Snoeberger’s excellent contribution, “Traditional Dispensationalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, ed. Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2022), 147–82. Incidentally, his arrangement of the three issues prioritizes the hermeneutic over against the other two points.
[32] Stanley Toussaint, “Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 227.
[33] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 46.
[34] Snoeberger, “Traditional Dispensationalism,” 153.
[35] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 91.
[36] For more on this approach I commend to the reader Darrell L. Bock, “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 85–118.
[37] Snoeberger has suggested the label “doxological center,” which offers a helpful distinction over it being merely “one among many” scriptural themes. Snoeberger, “Traditional Dispensationalism,”163.
[38] For a helpful article that summarizes the controversy, I commend to the reader Douglas Brown, “The Glory of God and Dispensationalism: Revisiting the Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 22, no. 1 (Spring 2018), 26–46.
[39] Snoeberger, “Traditional Dispensationalism,” 164.
[40] Craig A. Blaising, “Contemporary Dispensationalism,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 36, no. 2 (1994): 12.
[41] For each of these positions from different traditional dispensationalists, see Michael Stallard, ed., Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant: Three Views (Elgin: Regular Baptist Press, 2012); and Cory M. Marsh, “A Dynamic Relationship: Christ, the Covenants, and Israel,” Master’s Seminary Journal 30, no. 2 (Fall 2019): 257–75.