Okay, okay . . . so I said I wasn’t going to do anymore posts on dispensationalism, but I have changed my mind. My friend, Jordan Hillebert has a recent series of posts on this very topic here, here, & here. Jordan is providing, by and large, the historical situation behind dispensationalism (and in its “classic” form). I thought I would, at least (if not more, I mean I might write some new ones) put two more posts here on this topic. The posts I have are brief sketches of what Ryrie’s dispensationalism (which can be called “Revised” since he somewhat mitigates the hard lined distinction between Israel and the Church, even though it’s still present in Ryrie — nevertheless it was Ryrie’s move which gave way to what has been called Progressive Dispensationalism today — and this to Ryrie’s chagrin, I heard him say so personally as he came to my alma mater to present the commencement speech for graduation one year, he gave a few special classroom presentations during his time there) looks like (well the first one). And then the second post will contrast that with Progressive Dispensationalism. I wrote these posts when I first started blogging 6 years ago, and they have been sitting on a defunct blog of mine for that amount of time. So I’m dusting them off, and reposting them here. I may or may not post further on this issue, and try to provide an even more constructive reading from my current point of development (when I wrote these posts I would have claimed to be a straight up Progressive Dispensationalist). Here we go.

Dispensationalism is a theological construct based upon a “literal” interpretation of scripture. It emphasizes a distinction between the nation of Israel and the Church, as two entities of God’s work in salvation-history. Notice Charles Ryrie, as he reflects upon the dispensational position:

“Literal hermeneutics. Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. . . . Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. (Charles Ryrie, “Dispensationalism,” 80)

We see here a clear example of the hermeneutical philosophy driving dispensationalism. We also see, in the quote above, Ryrie defending his position against the claim that Dispensationalism does not recognize figures of speech and symbolic language within their system (i.e. “literal interpretation”). Ryrie believes that if one follows the literal interpretation, they will naturally come to the dispensational framework that he articulates.

All in all, classical dispensationalism sees a distinction between Israel and the church; and that there is in fact a future hope for the nation of Israel. They believe that Israel will indeed be fully restored to the “land” (Israel), under the ruler-ship of Jesus Christ—during His one thousand year “Messianic Age” reign on the earth. Dispensationalism presents a major discontinuous view between different ages (so dispensation/economies of men—i.e. Mosaic Cov./Law; New Covenant/Church Age, etc.)

Notice Ryries understanding of the “opposite” perspective from his, he calls it generically, “the nondispensational position” (he means—the amillenial position):

“One of the key features of non-dispensational hermeneutics is to interpret prophecy and some times nonprophetic portions of Scripture figuratively. This, often called a “spiritual” hermeneutic, allows for a symbolic meaning of a passage. In criticizing literal hermeneutics Louis Berkhof says, ‘The theory [of premillennialism] is based on a literal interpretation of Israel and of the Kingdom of God, which is entirely untenable.’ To support his spiritual hermeneutic he states that the New Testament ‘does contain abundant indications of the spiritual fulfillment of the promises given to Israel.’ This approach has led nondispensationalists to equate, or at least to merge, Israel and the church, which in turn has resulted in spiritualizing the yet unfulfilled blessings promised to Israel by having them fulfilled presently by the church.” (Charles Ryrie, “Dispensationalism,” 85-6)

I would say this is a fairly good characterization of the “non-dispensational” position. You see how it varies from the classical dispensational approach above, as it emphasizes continuity between Israel and the church. In this framework there is no such thing as a future earthly “Messianic Age” (so pre-millenial dispensationalism). This position believes that we are currently living in the “Messianic Age,” and the kingdom is established through the proclamation of the gospel. All of the promises made to the nation of Israel (i.e. land covenant/Gen. 15, 17, etc.) have been fulfilled in the coming of Christ. This theological position often is labeled “realized eschatology,” because they believe we are currently “realizing” the kingdom of God right now; and the only thing yet future is the second coming of Christ—thus initiating the “eternal state” (i.e. no earthly kingdom a la dispensational thinking).

Anyway, I am only briefly broaching some of the primary distinctions between two important hermeneutical constructs. There are many more nuances that could be discussed, but hopefully you see some of the differences between the two systems. My point in bringing this discussion up, is really to present another position, that I believe mediates nicely (although not neatly—always) between these disparate positions. This “other” position has been labeled “Progressive Dispensationalism” (which I subscribe to). I won’t get into the details of that position right now, I will do that in the next post.

*I look forward to comments. Make sure they are on point please.