The fundamental presupposition of dispensationalism is the utter separation of Israel and the church. A literal hermeneutic is not fundamental. A literal hermeneutic is the great boast of the dispensationalist, but it is not really the foundation. The great proof of this comes when listening to a dispensationalist author unpack what they mean by “literal” as opposed to “spiritual” or “allegorical” or “figurative.”

Literal interpretation, Ryrie said, “means interpretation which gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.” So far, so good. And, in fairness, he anticipates the objection: “It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech.”1 This literalism leans heavily on the grammatical-historical method. For instance, Walvoord wrote,

“The premillennial position is that the Bible should be interpreted in its ordinary grammatical and historical meaning in all areas of theology unless contextual or theological reasons make it clear that this was not intended by the writer.”2

All of this simply begs the question as to whether what the reader regards as “most plain” is what the immediate author himself regarded as plain, let alone other biblical authors who may have weighed in on it.

Not surprisingly, when Ryrie offers his case study for good literal interpretation, the example is how one treats the words “Israel” and “church,” so that,

“The dispensationalist studies the words in the New Testament, finds that they are kept distinct, and therefore concludes that when the Church was introduced God did not abrogate His promises to Israel nor enmesh them into the Church.”3

Putting to Rest the “Literal Starting Point” of the Dispensationalist

Two questions immediately come to mind for Ryrie:

Question 1. Are we only doing a word-study or a concept study? If the former, how exactly do the words alone tell us what the words mean? If the latter, what all would we need to know to discover whether Israel and the church share common predicates?

Question 2. Since Ryrie himself is clearly “concluding” things about Israel that go beyond the mere words being studied, exactly what texts count (and which do not) as those that would tell us which predicates Israel and the church have in common?

Beyond that, notice how Ryrie sets up his straw man—The dispensationalist, in fact, “discovers” two things, the opposite of which the covenant theologian does not hold in the first place. I mean that bit about “abrogating” and “enmeshing” the promises. If one begins with ethnic Israel as logically coextensive with the Israel of promise, then this determines a concept of “literal” that can only mean an ethnic, national, and material fulfillment, even if other clear Bible passages define the promises and boundaries of the people differently.

This concept of literalism is either inconsistent or else incoherent. Remember—the rule was to interpret all passages literally unless otherwise directed by the text itself. But which text(s)?

What I am going to argue is that this concept of literalism issues forth into a twin tendency that I would call a (i.) fracturing and (ii.) flattening the Bible—that is, splitting it apart into divergent narratives or ends (fracturing) and exalting the temporal and material as “more literal” or “more real” (flattening)—and  these can both be pressed to the extremes. The “fracturing” part comes from the notion of dispensations that so presses each different dealing between God and man that the unity of the biblical narrative is diminished, a subject I have introduced elsewhere. For the “flattening” tendency, we must press forward in the Israel-church division that treats the physical dimensions of the Jews and their land as ultimate.

Biblical Theology: The Promises to Israel

At this foundational of dispensationalism, there is a strong insistence (often against a straw man of one kind or another) that the promises to Israel were literal, material, national, and unconditional. We can view this in the original promises made to Abraham. These must be literal and therefore still future, and these are to the literal seed of Abraham. We can summarize those promises in this way:

1. A great nation (Gen. 12:2).

2. Blessed to be a blessing (Gen. 12:2-3).

3. Your name great (Gen. 12:2).

4. The land (Gen. 13:15).

5. Innumerable offspring (Gen. 13:16, 15:5, 17:5-6).

6. Kings from his line (Gen. 17:6).

7. An everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7, 13).

By the time we get to the Prophets, we see the same forward direction. The Prophets speak of a day of restoration beyond the judgments.

“I will heal their apostasy; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them. I will be like the dew to Israel” (Hos. 14:4-5).

These include physical return from all exiles.

“In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth” (Isa. 11:11-12).

These include promises royal and political.

“You have said, ‘I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn to David my servant: ‘I will establish your offspring forever, and build your throne for all generations” (Ps. 89:3-4).

“And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety” (Hos. 2:18).

We can also examine what seem to be supporting texts in the New Testament:

“But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28-29).

“For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Mat. 23:39).

“Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 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” (Acts 3:19-21).

As to the "unconditional” element of the promises, Ryrie positions the premillennial position against the amillennial position in this way; namely, that “amillennialists allege that there were in fact conditions attached to the fulfillment of the covenant.”4 However, this is a very truncated version of the “amillennial” view. In fact, all of historic covnenant theology would recognize conditions even back in the Abrahamic phase of the covenant of grace; yet the conditions properly fix on typological Israel and its relationship to other types, most notably the land and the throne.

Systematic Theology: These Promises Are Not Yet, and the Church is Not Israel

How much this principle functions as a conclusion or as a premise, one must read for themselves in the dispensational authors. Ryrie wrote,

“In no sense have these promises made to Israel been abrogated or fulfilled by the Church, which is a distinct body in this age having promises and a destiny different from Israel’s.”5

It is a short step from saying that the promises have not been fulfilled or transfered, to conclude that the literal interpretation of the Old Testament equals premillennialism. How so? Walvoord adds that,

“All the major prophets and practically all the minor prophets have Messianic sections picturing the restoration and glory of Israel in this future kingdom. This is so clear to competent students of the Old Testament that it is conceded by practically all parties that the Old Testament presents premillennial doctrine if interpreted literally.”6

In fact, it is said that the prophets knew nothing of the church, so that a fulfillment that applies to or for both Jew and Gentile cannot be read into any Old Testament prophecy. Paul’s language in Ephesians 3 may seem a potential proof text, as the inclusion of the Gentiles is called “the mystery,” but in that same passage, what else do we see?

“When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ,  which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3:4-6).

Nevertheless, the dispensationalist persists with the premise—Israel is not the church and the church is not Israel. Two peoples means two distinct programs of God. J. Dwight Pentecost put it clearly how important this is to their system: “Scripture is unintelligible until one can distinguish clearly between God’s program for his earthly people, Israel, and that for the church.”7

With this doctrine comes two accusations leveled against the traditional view. It comes specifically to the Reformed, but the more honest dispensationalist accuser must make the charge against the whole Christian tradition with the exception of the handful of church fathers that are alleged to have been precursors to their view. The charges are these.

Spiritualization. The first charge is that the historic view “spiritualizes away” the future promises. What does this mean? If we go back to the original promises in Genesis 12, we see that God promised Abraham offspring, nation, land, protection, and other blessings all applying to that ethnic people. As such, the Dispensationalist cannot accept that those promises are fundamentally fulfilled in Christ for the whole church, as an inheritance of all things. Again, the Dispensationalist is committed to a view of a “literal” promise as one that has only material reference.

Supersessionism. The second alleged error of the traditional view is that it “replaces” or “supercedes” Israel with the church. It is not uncommon to even hear Dispensationalists slander covenant theology as “anti-semitic.” This will often come in the form of a label that adherents to covenant theology are expected to answer: “Do you believe in Replacement Theology?” Here we see the not so subtle suggestion is that an ultimate fulfillment in Christ and the church is somehow a downgrade for the Jews.

Evaluating the Premises and Answering the Charges

First, both Old and New Testaments divide fulfillments between literal for the typological people in the Old and (just as literal) for the ultimate people in the New.

Take for example the land promises to Abraham and his offspring. This had an immediate fulfillment and an ultimate fulfillment. Its ultimate fulfillment is really the whole world of the new creation. Paul speaks in this way: “the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13). But there was also a more immediate, literal fulfillment of the land promises, for example:

“Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass” (Joshua 21:43-45).

DISPENSATIONALIST REPLY: They did not possess that land forever, and the covenant is characterized by being everlasting. 

OUR COUNTER-REPLY: Just as the interpretation of the Davidic promise by Acts 2, so the interpretation of the Abrahamic by Romans 4. When Paul says “the promise to Abraham,” you’ve got two choices. You can either make that the whole of the covenant, or a part. Either way, your view sinks. If it’s only a part, then it is the part Paul is presently focused on, which is the land.

The word ultimate may be a better adjective than spiritual when first trying to understand this concept. The impression can be given that a “spiritual” fulfillment is somehow less real than a physical (i.e. “literal”) fulfillment. In addition to begging the question about whether the thing has really been interpreted according to the literal intent of the author, this also subtly gravitates toward a naturalistic worldview. At any rate, considering the quite physical and literal reality of the promises of the new heavens and new earth, both the immediate fulfillment to Old Testament Israel and the ultimate, final fulfillment for the whole church, involves an even greater physicality in every case. So the “literal” versus “ultimate” dichotomy could actually not be more incorrect.

Second, the New Testament clearly teaches that Jew and Gentile are brought into one body, immediately, by Christ’s work.

A few crucial passages may be considered.

“remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:12-19) 

“For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” (Rom. 2:28-29).

“But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother … And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal. 4:26, 6:16).

How else should we read these? Paul is not merely treating of words interchangeably. He is flatly saying that the Gentiles have been brought into the same substantial entity, that is, the ultimate entity.

Key extended passages: Romans 4:9-17, 9:1-11:36, 1 Corinthians 10:1-10, and Galatians 3:6-29, and Hebrews 8:6-13.

Now, as far as the charge of “replacement theology,” first off, no one in the Reformed camp is so dense as to think that Israel and the church are logically coextensive terms. Obviously the old covenant people are not the same people as “all believers in Christ.” Indeed that is one of the clearest claims of the covenant theologian—i.e. that “not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring” (Rom. 9:6). Not a single believing Jew is being “replaced” by the union of Jew and Gentile into one body. But they are made one body in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:12-19), sharing in one way of salvation and one new heavens and new earth.

Finally, as to whether a covenantal view must have no place left for ethnic Jews in the end, it must be said that interpretations of “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26) are mixed. Having said that, many among the Reformed have historically seen the ingathering of Jews in the end to be one of the signs of the end. For example, Martin Bucer believed that in Romans 11, there was the clear promise of a mass conversion of Jews to Christ before the Second Coming. It tends to be one of those “optimistic” elements of the Postmillennial view. Question 191 of the Westminster Larger Catechism holds as one of the essential promises of the coming kingdom, simply “the Jews called.” More importantly, as a matter of logical necessity, there is absolutely nothing about the classical Reformed eschatology that excludes a mass salvation of ethnic Jews at the end. What we do deny is that they can be saved by any other way but faith in Jesus Christ.

Third, the unity of Scripture and gospel are undermined by such a sharp division.

Any system that draws too sharp a division between Old and New is also bound to make the same division between law and grace. And since this system makes that same division between the Jews and the Gentiles, it is only a hop, skip, and a jump to envision Israel as being saved by the law and Christians saved by grace. One infamous note in the Scofield Reference Bible is a case in point,

“As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ.”8

Lest anyone think this is taken out of context, three similar statements come from Lewis Sperry Chafer:

“With the call of Abraham and the giving of the Law and all that has followed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might come into the favor of God.”9

“Under grace the fruit of the Spirit is, which indicates the present possession of the blessing through pure grace; while under the kingdom the blessings shall be such as merit it by their own works.”10

“In this age, God is dealing with men on the ground of His grace as it is in Christ. His dealings with men in the coming age are based on a very different relationship. At that time, the King will rule with a rod of iron. There is no word of the cross or of grace in the kingdom teachings.”11

Entire portions of the canon will apply accordingly—the Old Testament and the Gospels to Israel, and the Acts and Epistles to the Church. This creates two different ethics as well.

_________________

1. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 86, 87.

2. John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH: Dunham Publishing Co., 1959), 128.

3. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 97.

4. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987), 455.

5. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc. 1953), 12.

6. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, 114.

7. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1958), 259. 

8. C. I. Scofield, ed., Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), 1115.

9. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Dispensationalism,” Bibliothecha Sacra 93 (October 1936), 440.

10. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume IV (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 219.

11. Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV:222.