Postscript--1993

Since the original publication of Understanding Dispensationalists in 1987, we have seen further articulation of modified dispensationalism and one-people-of-God dispensationalism, such as I described them in chapter 3. In particular, we may examine the most recent developments in Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992).¹ These developments strengthen the directions that my book mapped out and was intended to promote. They harmonize with what I saw taking place in a smaller way in 1987. Hence, in substance my book is still as relevant now as in 1987.

A physical kingdom

However, now that I have received some responses from dispensationalist readers, I wish to clarify and strengthen three points. The first concerns the expectation of a future "physical kingdom on earth for Israel," as expounded by Paul S. Karleen.² Many dispensationalists, even of a modified sort, think that this expectation of a physical kingdom constitutes a major bone of contention and an irreducible line of division separating them from covenant theologians.

But let us be careful to define and understand what sort of "physical kingdom on earth" we envision. I agree with Anthony A. Hoekema in emphasizing that the consummation includes a new earth as well as a new heaven (Rev 21:1).³ Moreover, I understand this new earth to be a transfiguration and renewal of the old earth, just as the resurrection body will be a transfiguration of the old body (Phil 3:21). This new earth will be physical and material, just as Jesus' resurrection body is palpable, flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

The transfigured body will indeed be "Spiritual" in the sense of 1 Cor 15:44-46. But this "Spiritual" character of the new involves being filled with the Holy Spirit and structured and empowered by him. Spiritual does not mean ethereal, in contrast to material, but rather eschatological in contrast to the "natural" order, the preeschatological order. The new earth, then, will be physical and material in nature. In this new earth all of redeemed Israel will enjoy kingdom dominion. As Rev 5:10 says, "and they will reign on the earth." And Matt 5:5 promises, "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." In short, I do believe in a future "physical kingdom on earth," and I think that it is a weighty mistake to believe otherwise.

Doubtless dispensationalists would still not be satisfied with my view. What they have in mind is a millennial kingdom for Israel, a kingdom on this old earth, not the new earth. Many (but not all)⁴ of them think that a radical distinction must be made at this point, because they still envision the new earth of the consummation as entirely other than and unrelated to this present earth. Only the millennial earth remains in substantial continuity with this present earth. But here miscommunication is a real danger. Their "new earth" is not the same as my new earth. Instead, my new earth is practically indistinguishable from their millennial earth. In fact, I think that it is even better than they imagine. All evil is gone.

The future role of Jewish believers

The second major point at issue concerns the fact that this future kingdom is "for Israel." Here if anywhere is the place where even modified dispensationalists and progressive dispensationalists endeavor to make a distinction between themselves and nondispensational premillennialists.

What does it mean that the kingdom is "for Israel"? Along with most covenant theologians, I think that believing Jews and believing Gentiles together inherit the promises made to Abraham and to David. Dispensationalists, on the other hand, are concerned to maintain that faithful Jews, as a distinctive ethnic group and a nation, have a distinctive role in the millennial kingdom. Then what type of distinctive role belongs to faithful Jews in the kingdom, after the Second Coming of Christ?

Once again, we must be careful to understand what various people actually have in mind. Within a covenantal position such as mine, it is possible vigorously to assert the ethnic diversity of people groups within the kingdom of God. Within the church today there are various ethnic groups: Jewish, Gypsy, Polish, Lithuanian, Quechuan, Chinese, Burmese, Bantu, Comanche, and so on. In New Testament times, Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians each retained distinctive customs and ethnic practices. Gentiles were not required to become Jews, nor were Jews required to become Gentiles (they could, for instance, continue to circumcise their children and observe Mosaic customs, Acts 21:21).

There is, then, every reason to believe that this wonderful diversity displays something of the glory of the body of Christ. As such, it continues to appear in transfigured form after the Second Coming (Rev 21:24). Ethnic, social, and even geographical diversity among peoples are quite compatible with the spiritual unity of the body of Christ.

Thus, within covenantal theology, emphasis on the unity of one people of God in Christ is quite compatible with a recognition of ethnic diversity. Conversely, almost all dispensationalists nowadays freely acknowledge that there is only one way of salvation in Christ. By virtue of union with Christ, Jews and Gentiles alike enjoy equal spiritual privileges in Christ.

Thus the present-day differences between covenant theologians and dispensationalists are not necessarily so great as they might seem. Covenantal theologians are able to acknowledge some of the significant ethnic distinctiveness of Jewish believers; dispensationalists are able to acknowledge some of the significant privileges common to all groups.

Nevertheless, important differences do remain. Dispensationalists believe in a future distinctive religious status and role for believing ethnic Jews as a group; covenant theologians do not. To move forward we must, I think, focus the discussion clearly on this issue.

We may further clarify what the key issue is by stating what it is not. We do not question whether believing Jews may retain their ethnic, social, geographical, or other colorful distinctives. Certainly they may, and such differences may even form a positive contribution to the diversity in the body of Christ. Second, we do not question whether believing Jews will inherit the land and the kingdom promises of the Old Testament. Certainly they will. In other words, we do not question whether the future "physical kingdom on earth" is "for Israel."⁵

The issue is whether it is for believing Gentiles also. Do believing Jews at some future point have some distinctive priestly privileges or religious blessings from which believing Gentiles are excluded? Does the phrase "for Israel" in actuality mean "for Israel and not for Gentiles"? Or does it mean, "for Israel and for believing Gentiles also, who inherit through union with Christ"? Classic dispensationalism insists on the former meaning. Covenant theology insists on the latter.

Hence, the discussion is not clarified when people merely ask whether Jews have some distinctive role in the future kingdom. It all depends on what kind of distinctive role is in view. Ethnic distinctiveness, yes; distinctive religious or priestly privileges or blessings from which others are excluded, no.

Dispensationalists find themselves in a dilemma at this point, as I indicated in chapter 13. They wish to affirm the unity of one way of salvation in Christ. But then they run up against the arguments of Paul in Galatians 3, where he shows how the reality of justification through faith in Christ leads inexorably to the conclusion that Gentiles have the same religious privileges as Jewish believers. Since Paul's argument is based on central realities concerning the way of salvation in Christ, it must hold for the future kingdom after the Second Coming. At that time believing Jews will indeed enjoy the priestly and kingly privileges of the kingdom of David. But there is no biblical basis for saying that believing Gentiles will not share equally in these privileges. Moreover, such exclusion of the Gentiles contradicts Galatians 3 and is therefore antigospel. Hence, Gentiles are included rather than excluded.

When the Gentiles are religiously included, however, the most important feature distinguishing dispensationalism from covenantal premillennialism disappears, and it is no longer meaningful to use the term dispensationalism to label the position so taken.⁶

No dispensationalist has shown a way to maneuver around the fundamental dilemma: the one way of salvation is salvation through union with Christ. Union with Christ leads to full enjoyment of all blessings, whether we are Jews or Gentiles. The future never undoes what Christ has accomplished. Such are the implications of Galatians 3. Thus Galatians 3 is a rock on which dispensationalist views of the future must break to pieces.

I have personal sympathy and appreciation for the search that progressive dispensationalists have undertaken as they have moved beyond certain features of classic dispensationalism. I am glad to see the moves that they are making, because they seem to me to be expressing biblical truth more faithfully than before. I am appreciative also for the irenic tone manifested in their work. However, their position is inherently unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible in the long run to create a safe haven theologically between classic dispensationalism and covenantal premillennialism. The forces that their own observations have set in motion will most likely lead to covenantal premillennialism after the pattern of George E. Ladd.

Symbolic depth

Finally, I remain convinced that the area of typology is particularly crucial (chapter 11). Appreciation of the symbolical depth inherent in Old Testament revelation⁷ breaks down literalistic (flat) assumptions about the nature of God's communication. Once these assumptions are disposed of, it can be seen that the faithfulness of God to his promises is in harmony with a flexibility about the exact form of fulfillment. The flexibility clears away our inhibitions about giving primacy to the New Testament's instruction about the form of fulfillment.

Let us be more specific about the implications. Theoretically, one might imagine a situation where, in the future kingdom, Jewish Christians live predominantly in the land of Palestine, whereas Gentile Christians live predominantly elsewhere. Such geographical distinctiveness does not in and of itself create a problem. However, dispensationalists want to find particular religious significance in one special land, the land of Palestine, as distinct from other lands. Canaan undeniably had such significance in the Old Testament period, because, I would argue, it typified the inheritance of the world in Christ (Rom 4:13; Heb 11:16). But suppose now that we postulate that in the future some space or land is peculiarly holy or peculiarly the fulfillment of God's promise. Then Gentiles must have equal participation in this inheritance, else we violate Galatians 3.

It will not do merely to say with classic dispensationalism that Gentile and Jewish Christians inherit heaven as distinct from earth. With this position one disinherits Jewish Christians from the earthly aspect of the blessing. One thus flies in the face of all the Old Testament promises that dispensationalists count most precious.

Nor will it do to say that Galatians is talking only about "spiritual" blessings in some narrow sense. For it would then still be true (according to a dispensationalist understanding) that Jewish Christians, but not Gentile Christians, would in the future inherit the material aspect of blessing. Now, the Gentiles should be zealous to obtain all the blessings of God that they can. If they are missing out, even on subordinate future "material" blessings, they have grounds to be circumcised and become full-fledged Jews in order not to lack these additional blessings. It is precisely this idea of an additional blessing that Paul resists with all his might.

The danger is not, as dispensationalists think, that covenantal unity automatically disinherits believing Israel (it does not), but rather that dispensationalists illegitimately exclude Gentiles from some of the full privileges that Jews will have in the future through Christ.