Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths: Revised and Updated

by Michael J. Vlach

Many of the beliefs of dispensationalism reach deeply into church history. But the system of theology known as dispensationalism began in the mid-nineteenth century.

Gerstner and Mathison tied dispensationalism with erroneous views regarding salvation, when in reality dispensationalism is primarily about other matters such as hermeneutics, the church, and end times.

Vern Poythress’s book, Understanding Dispensationalists, is an example of a work that is critical of dispensationalism but does so in a respectful manner that focuses on real issues.

This brief book is an attempt to identify the foundational issues of dispensationalism and expose common myths about this theology. Or to put it another way—my aim is to discuss what dispensationalism is and what it is not.

Purpose of book

Not all dispensationalists believe the same thing on every issue. Debated issues include how to define the church, the relationship of the church to the new covenant, and Jesus’ relationship to David’s throne. Some believe these differences are minor while others hold that they are more serious.

I consider myself between revised and progressive dispensationalism. Yet even as I say that I have a healthy respect for traditional dispensationalism and own much of what traditional dispensationalism affirms.

Most critiques of dispensationalism from non-dispensationalists do not accurately portray what dispensationalism is. There are exceptions to this but unfortunately those who criticize dispensationalism often focus on wrong things or show a lack of understanding about this theology.

I did not grow up in a dispensational environment. I grew up Roman Catholic. When I became a Christian at age 14 I attended churches that held to dispensational beliefs.

In my life I have come out of other theological traditions that I found to be unscriptural and I would do so for dispensationalism if I thought it were unbiblical. But I have not found this to be the case. I have, however, made modifications within my dispensational understanding. As my knowledge of God’s Word grows, I find myself making adjustments to line up with what God has revealed.

the perception that dispensationalism leads to date-setting for the return of Jesus is way overblown and mostly a straw man characterization.

As a theological system that offers detailed explanations of ecclesiology (church) and eschatology (end times), dispensationalism is a relatively new theology, beginning in the early-middle nineteenth century. Like its rival, covenant theology, which is an early seventeenth century development,7 dispensationalism is a post-Reformation system, although many of its ideas have links to the early church.

key ideas associated with dispensationalism, such as premillennialism, hope for a national restoration of Israel, and even pre-tribulationism, were held in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

When dispensationalism comes on the scene it is riding the wave of strong expectations concerning the nation Israel that other theologians were promoting.

Darby certainly was not the first to hold many of the ideas he promoted.

The distinction between Israel and the church as different groups will continue throughout eternity even though both groups inherit the millennial kingdom and the eternal state.

For Revised dispensationalists

The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.17 Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).”18 With progressive dispensationalism, there is real fulfillment of the covenants of promise in this age. This applies mostly to the spiritual aspects of the new covenant including the indwelling Holy Spirit and Gentile inclusion in the people of God.

According to Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock the church is not a distinct people group in contrast to Israel and Gentiles, but redeemed humanity in this current dispensation:

many dispensationalists seem to hold to elements of both revised and progressive dispensationalism.

There is a growing belief that spiritual aspects of the Abrahamic and new covenants are being fulfilled today, thus real covenant fulfillment is occurring in this present age. This is consistent with a progressive view. Yet many who hold this do not see enough support for the idea that Jesus is currently sitting upon and reigning from David’s throne. Progressive dispensationalists have struggled in convincing other dispensationalists concerning the Davidic throne and reign issue. Most dispensationalists still believe Jesus’ session at the right hand of the Father according to Psalm 110:1 concerns the throne of deity, not David’s throne. The Davidic throne assumption and reign awaits Jesus’ second coming (Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Rev. 3:21).

In 1988, with his important chapter, “Systems of Discontinuity,” John Feinberg offered six “Essentials of Dispensationalism”: (1) belief that the Bible refers to multiple senses of terms like “Jew” and “seed of Abraham”; (2) an approach to hermeneutics that emphasizes that the Old Testament be taken on its own terms and not reinterpreted in light of the New Testament; (3) belief that Old Testament promises will be fulfilled with national Israel; (4) belief in a distinctive future for ethnic Israel; (5) belief that the church is a distinctive organism; and (6) a philosophy of history that emphasizes not just soteriological and spiritual issues but social, economic, and political issues as well.21

Although not giving a list of “essentials,” Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock offered a list of “common features” of dispensationalism in their 1993 book, Progressive Dispensationalism. These features included: (1) the 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.22

Dispensationalists emphasize the complete and literal fulfillment of both the spiritual and physical promises of the biblical covenants.24 They do not see physical and national promises as inferior types that must be spiritualized or fulfilled nonliterally. In this sense dispensationalists are more holistic in their understanding of God’s kingdom purposes than many non-dispensationalists.

According to Feinberg, the difference between dispensational and non-dispensational hermeneutics is found in three areas: (1) the relation of the progress of revelation to the priority of one Testament over the other; (2) the understanding and implications of the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament; and (3) the understanding and implications of typology.29

The main difference between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists on the matter of hermeneutics is how each camp views the relationship between the testaments. As Herbert Bateman puts it, the central issue is “testament priority.”30 Testament priority is “a presuppositional preference of one testament over the other that determines a person’s literal historical-grammatical hermeneutical starting point.” 31

Feinberg explains the difference: Nondispensationalists begin with NT teaching as having priority and then go back to the OT. Dispensationalists often begin with the OT, but wherever they begin they demand that the OT be taken on its own terms rather than reinterpreted in the light of the NT.32

non-dispensationalists believe the New Testament sanctions less than literal understandings of Old Testament passages, especially prophetic texts about Israel.

for non-dispensationalists, the New Testament allegedly sanctions a non-literal understanding of some Old Testament passages, especially those regarding Israel. This occurs through reinterpretation and spiritualization. Dispensationalists do not believe this. They do not hold that God has to reinterpret or transcend His previous revelation. They affirm that the meaning of Old Testament passages lies in those passages and that the New Testament harmonizes with them and builds upon them. There is no need for one passage to have priority over others since all Scripture is inspired by God and makes its own contribution. All Bible passages complement and harmonize with each other, but no passage overrides the meaning of another passage.

I offer six essential beliefs of dispensationalism. By “essential” I mean foundational beliefs that are central to dispensationalism, beliefs upon which the system stands or falls. These are also beliefs that if denied, would probably make one a non-dispensationalist.

1. The primary meaning of any Bible passage is found in that passage. The New Testament does not reinterpret or transcend Old Testament passages in a way that overrides or cancels the original authorial intent of the Old Testament writers.

The New Testament at times adds additional information, offers commentary on, draws principles from, and shows how Christ fulfills the Mosaic Law. But the New Testament writers do not reinterpret or transcend the original intent of the Old Testament writers. The teachings and themes of the Old Testament are found in the New Testament without reinterpretation.

Hebrews 8:8–13, which quotes the original new covenant passage of Jeremiah 31:31–34, includes the church in the spiritual blessings of the new covenant, but since the new covenant was originally promised to Israel, the covenant must eventually involve national Israel. Paul makes this connection in Romans 11:26–27 when he quotes the new covenant passage of Isaiah 59 to support his claim that “all Israel” will be saved (see Isa. 59:20–21). Believing Gentiles experience salvation benefits of the new covenant in this age, but the New Testament does not exclude national Israel from the covenant. In fact, it speaks of national Israel’s inclusion. Thus, the new covenant has a “both/and” element to it—both Israel and the church. The church consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles in this age is related to the new covenant now (Heb. 8:8–13), and Israel will be related to the new covenant at the second coming of Christ (see Rom. 11:25–27).

With Hebrews 8 including the Church in the New Covenant, isn’t it possible that an expansion is happening to God’s original promise to Israel: now Gentiles are included and now all those who by faith belong to God and are His people (both Jew and Gentile) inherit not just the original land promised to Israel but the whole earth. Would such an understanding of expansion really contradict the original promises to Israel? Wouldn’t such an understanding cut though the Dispensational / Covenant Theology divide?

Bock states that, “The additional inclusion of some in the promise does not mean the original recipients are thereby excluded. The expansion of promise need not mean the cancellation of earlier commitments God has made. The realization of new covenant hope today for Gentiles does not mean that the promise made to Israel in Jeremiah 31 has been jettisoned.”40

maintaining the integrity of the original authorial intent of Old Testament texts has great importance to the eternal and unconditional covenants given to Israel in the Old Testament (Abrahamic, Davidic, New). John Feinberg has argued that God’s unconditional covenants with Israel guarantee that the New Testament would not indicate these would not be fulfilled with Israel. God cannot contradict himself.

If an OT prophecy or promise is made unconditionally to a given people and is still unfulfilled to them even in the NT era, then the prophecy must still be fulfilled to them. While a prophecy given unconditionally to Israel has a fulfillment for the church if the NT applies it to the church, it must also be fulfilled to Israel. Progress of revelation cannot cancel unconditional promises.43

the non-dispensational understanding brings into question God’s faithfulness to Israel:

“New revelation cannot mean contradictory revelation. Later revelation on a subject does not make the earlier revelation mean something different.”48 “If this were so,” according to Ryrie, “God would have to be conceived of as deceiving the Old Testament prophets when He revealed to them a nationalistic kingdom, since He would have known all the time that He would completely reverse the concept in later revelation.” 49

What if the NT doesn’t change the meaning, but rather clarifies the original meaning? Many OT texts are difficult to interpret. The NT authors are inspired interpreters of OT texts. Doesn’t it make sense to trust their view over ours? Furthermore, we see that the coming of Christ significantly surprised the Jews. He did not meet their expectations. Perhaps their understanding of certain OT texts was wrong all along. Jesus and the apostles clarify what God originally meant in OT texts.

the concept of progressive revelation can be likened to a building in progress: “The superstructure does not replace the foundation.” 50

2. Types exist but national Israel is not an inferior type that is superseded by the church.

Typology involves God-intended correspondences between Old Testament persons, places, things, events, and greater New Testament realities that correspond to these matters.

In Jeremiah 31:35–37 God links Israel’s perpetual existence as “a nation” with the sun, moon, stars, and foundations of the earth. With Romans 9:4–5 Paul explicitly affirms that the “covenants,” “promises,” and “temple service” still belong to national Israel, even when Israel as a whole was characterized by unbelief. The specific conditions and the people to whom the promises and covenants were originally made matter. God’s integrity is tied to this.

God’s electing purposes and calling of Israel are taken seriously by God. Thus, God’s promises cannot simply be transferred to another without this impugning God’s integrity. Paul said that when a covenant “has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it” (Gal. 3:15). One does not escape the problem by simply declaring the church is a “new Israel” who inherits the covenants to national Israel’s exclusion. The same entity of national Israel that experienced curses for disobedience is the nation that will be restored (see Deut. 30 and Lev. 26). To claim that the church gets the promises but national Israel does not is like making wonderful promises to your son and then adopting another son and then giving the latter son the blessings you promised the first. That is not how fulfillment of promises works. Israel as a national entity received trans-generational national promises (see Deut. 30:1–10; Lev. 26:40–45), and with national Israel God will fulfill these promises. No theory of typology can overturn this.

the salvation and restoration of Israel are reaffirmed in the New Testament (see Matt. 19:28; 23:39; Acts 1:6; 3:19–21; Rom. 11:26–27).

These verses do not prove the point, especially not the first three. Jesus' answer to the disciples after Acts 1:6 does not seem to affirm what they're asking about.

Are there typological connections between Jesus and Israel? Dispensationalists believe there are typological connections between Jesus and national Israel. In Matthew 2 we see that events in Israel’s history correspond to events in Jesus’ life to reveal that Jesus is the ultimate Israelite who can restore national Israel (see Matt. 2:15/Hos. 11:1). Isaiah 49:1–6 predicted that Jesus’ role as the true Servant of Israel allows Him to restore Israel and bring blessings to the Gentiles (Isa. 49:5–6). In regard to Jesus and Israel, typology exists to show corporate representation in which the Head (Jesus) restores the many (Israel) so the many can fulfill their mission of service to the nations and succeed where they once failed (see Isa. 2:2–4). So typological correspondences between Jesus and Israel affirm the restoration of national Israel, they do not make Israel non-significant nor do they redefine Israel.

there are correspondences between Israel and the church in that both are called the people of God (1 Pet. 2:9–10). The Old Testament prophets predicted that believing Gentiles would become the people of God alongside believing Israel, without becoming Israel (see Isa. 19:24–25). So the people of God expands to include Gentiles.

Unconditional promises are not shadows.

Dispensationalists take seriously that believing Gentiles have been brought near to Israel and the covenants of Israel (see Eph. 2:11–22), but they also point out that the New Testament distinguishes Israel and the church in such a way that rules out the idea that the church is now identified as Israel or that the church entirely inherits Israel’s promises and covenants to the exclusion of Israel.

If we eliminate the word "exclusion," could there be much agreement? Broadening and expansion; not elimination.

the New Testament still consistently refers to the nation Israel as “Israel” even after the establishment of the church. Israel is addressed as a nation in contrast to Gentiles after the church was established at Pentecost (Acts 3:12; 4:8, 10; 5:21, 31, 35; 21:28). As Ryrie points out, “In Paul’s prayer for natural Israel (Rom. 10:1) there is a clear reference to Israel as a national people distinct from and outside the church.”64 Ryrie argues that Paul’s linking of national Israel to the covenants and promises of the Old Testament, even while in a state of unbelief, is further proof that the church has not entirely absorbed Israel’s blessings:

As Saucy explains, “The church is not . . . identified with ‘Israel.’ They share a similar identity as the people of God enjoying equally, the blessings of the promised eschatological salvation. But this commonality does not eliminate all distinctions between them.”

Spiritual unity in salvation between Jews and Gentiles is compatible with a future functional role for Israel as a nation.

dispensationalists hold that spiritual unity between believing Jews and Gentiles in Jesus does not cancel God-ordained functional distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in the coming kingdom of Jesus. Both groups are saved the same way—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. In this sense there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. However, salvific unity between Jews and Gentiles does not erase ethnic or functional distinctions between the two groups.