Cory M. Marsh, PhD
Cory M. Marsh is Professor of New Testament at Southern California Seminary and Scholar in Residence, Revolve Bible Church in San Juan Capistrano, CA

The goal of JBTS is to provide the highest level of scholarship in a manner that is accessible to students and learned lay people. In the last couple of decades there has been significant academic work done in the area of what is called theological systems or biblical-theological systems. Here we have opted for the latter because each system is seeking to be both biblical and theological, and the most recent articulations of each system have been impacted by growth in the field of biblical theology. Because of the proliferation of scholarship in this area we thought that it was important to offer a more accessible work, that answers some basic questions, but that also highlights the best scholarship in each of the major biblical-theological systems. There have been several works advocating for or arguing against a particular theological system.[1] Other works have focused on a particular biblical or theological theme like Israel and the church, the Promised Land, or temple from the perspective of a theological system.[2] There have been yet other works that have surveyed a spectrum of systems. Two significant contributions in the latter category are Discontinuity to Continuity: A Survey of Dispensational & Covenantal Systems by Benjamin L. Merkle and Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture edited by Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas.[3]  Merkle surveys six theological systems whereas Parker and Lucas edit contributions from four different views. Both of these provide helpful surveys of different theological systems that would serve almost any reader well. Our hope is that this volume of JBTS will provide an entry point into this discussion. Students can then move from this volume to these other works to gain even more understanding of the intricate issues involved in each biblical-theological system. No single volume could cover all of the complex biblical, theological, and hermeneutical issues involved in a study of biblical-theological systems completely. Our hope is that this volume both summarizes and complements the already existing scholarship in this field.

            This journal issue is comprised of three sections. The first section provides articles from four points along the spectrum of biblical-theological systems: Traditional Dispensationalism (TD), Progressive Dispensationalism (PD), Progressive Covenantalism (PC), and Covenant Theology (CT). Each article is authored by adherent of the biblical-theological that he is defending. Each contributor was asked to address four primary issues by answering the following question:

1. Distinctives and Assumptions: What is distinct about your system? What are the assumptions of your theological system?
2. Hermeneutics: What is the hermeneutical/interpretive methodology of your system? Does your system employ a particular hermeneutic?
3. Continuity and Discontinuity: What are the areas of continuity and discontinuity that your system sees between the Old Testament and the New Testament?
4. Theological Commitments and Themes: What are the important theological themes or theological commitments in your system?

            The second part of this issue provides biblical-theological soundings from the perspective of some of these systems. Here the student is introduced to work being done within a system rather than a discussion about that system. The third section of this issue contains the edited proceedings of a session at the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Denver, Colorado. This session was moderated by Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas and was a follow up discussion between the contributors of their earlier published edited work.[4]

Once a dominating force in academic evangelical theology, dispensationalism is now viewed as a relic by some and a pariah by others. Sill holding a strong foothold in local church life, it seems that gone are the days of mainline dispensationalists being published in academic venues that introduced the world to scholars like John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Alva McClain, and J. Dwight Pentecost. Today, arguments for a distinction between Israel and the church or a pretribulational position are often mocked and mischaracterizations of dispensationalism envelope academic conversations. It is almost always older forms of dispensational thought that bear the brunt of the mockery (and fringe voices at that), while current developments made by dispensational thinkers tend to get overlooked. The scholarship of PD is an example of the latter set of voices that are often forgotten in discussions critical of dispensationalism. It is not uncommon for dispensational theology to be reduced as merely an eschatological doctrine, promulgated by an ongoing stream of critics always sure to include some variation of “end of the world” in their published titles.[5]

Choosing to focus on dispelling dispensational eschatology is often the default method of critics who rarely interact with the system as a whole. Doing so overlooks sophisticated dispensational positions on bibliology, Israelology, ecclesiology, hermeneutics, and other subjects. The reduction gets boiled down further by offering critiques of a popularized form of dispensational eschatology along with the tired mantra “Left Behind” rather than engaging arguments offered by the best or most recent first-hand scholarship. Many are surprised to learn that dispensational scholars have published tomes on all doctrines customary to systematic theology or on the advancements dispensational thought has made on all five solas of the Reformation.[6] However, these works continue to be overlooked, dismissed, or ignored by academics more interested in blaming dispensationalism for a burned-over evangelicalism.

Scholastic irony resonates from C. S. Lewis’s unforgettable descriptor “chronological snobbery” when applied to academic conversations about the recency of dispensationalism, often traced to the mid 19^th c. Anglican, John Nelson Darby.[7] While it is common for academics to label dispensationalism as novel, even a “theological latecomer” and “outsider,”[8] similar sentiments are never given to much newer theological systems and approaches hardly decades old, such as PC or the TIS movement. Indeed, the negative charge of recency seems only to be pinned on dispensationalism all the while overlooking the historical fact that CT did not exist before the 17^th century nor even Protestantism until the 16^th century.

All these sentiments raise several questions. Why all the fuss—what exactly is dispensationalism? How did it begin? Is there one form of it or multiple variations? What can be learned from this theological system that has clearly been so influential within modern Christianity, especially American evangelicalism?

Rather than consulting critics for the answers, it is more helpful to go directly to the horse’s mouth, as it were, and glean from first-hand dispensational thinkers themselves. Doing so helps ensure an accurate representation without any fabrications that always seem to vie for more attention. The following articles on dispensationalism are aimed at just that. They are each written by first-rate dispensational scholars and should serve the reader well for introductions into some of the more significant expressions of dispensational thought. Though various traditions of dispensationalism do exist, the most enduring in both the church and the academy are  two: Traditional Dispensationalism (TD) and Progressive Dispensationalism (PD).

The first, TD, goes by a constellation of nomenclature, including “revised,” “normative,” and by some accounts, “classic[al] dispensationalism.” While no label will ever encapsulate every nuance of a theological tradition, in this JBTS issue the term Traditional Dispensationalism is preferred for the expression of dispensational thought usually associated with the mid- to late-twentieth century giants of Dallas Theological Seminary and Grace Theological Seminary. Doing so places earlier “classical” thinkers such as C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer outside the “traditional” circle as they promoted ideas refined by later dispensationalists, which included corrections for less dogmatic typological readings and a promotion of two “new covenants,” one for Israel and one for the church.[9] Representing the continuing TD tradition is Dr. James I. Fazio, Academic Dean and Professor of Biblical Studies at Southern California Seminary, who is also a contributor to and co-editor of Discovering Dispensationalism: Tracing the Development of Dispensational Thought from the First to the Twenty-First Century (SCS Press, 2023) and Forged from Reformation: How Dispensational Thought Advances the Reformed Legacy (SCS Press, 2017).

Fazio argues that contrary to systems formed by theological abstractions, inherent to TD is a biblical-theological framework derived from the pages of Scripture itself. Emphasizing an inductive flow to biblical history, TD maintains that God has governed humanity on the basis of differing divinely expressed stewardships or administrations, also called “dispensations.” With this comes an understanding that sees more “discontinuity” between the Old and New Testaments. Essential to TD is a consistent literal interpretive approach to Scripture which yields a view of Israel and the church as being two distinct households. Also customary to TD is the eschatological expectation that that the church will be translated to Jesus’s presence prior to a future seven-year tribulation period, followed by a national restoration of repentant Israel at Christ’s second coming and thousand-year reign in Jerusalem. Thus, TD is not merely premillennial vis-à-vis Christ’s return but also pretribulational vis-à-vis to the appearance of a future anti-Christ.

The second, PD, was birthed in academic discussions during the last few decades of the twentieth century. Scholarly strides were made by a new class of dispensational thinkers, which included refinements to the traditional appropriation of literal hermeneutics, the church’s relationship to the covenants, and Jesus’s kingdom reign.[10] There are, however, differing views on each of these matters by those who identify as progressive dispensationalists, further demonstrating that dispensational thought is anything but monolithic. Representing PD is Dr. Michael J. Vlach, Professor of Theology at Shepherds Theological Seminary and author of Has the Church Replaced Israel (B&H Academic, 2010) and He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God (Lampion, 2017).

Vlach, who identifies more as a hybrid dispensationalist (“revised-progressive”) argues for a PD that has much in common with Fazio’s TD. This includes a grammatical-historical hermeneutic that emphasizes passage priority for contextual meaning, a distinction between Israel and the church, and a future restoration for national Israel. Yet, a difference can be detected in how the two models view the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Whereas TD views the relationship in terms of “discontinuity,” PD stresses “continuity” arguing for direct correspondence between Old Testament expectations and New Testament fulfillments. Moreover, PD understands biblical history less from the tracing of various dispensations (as in TD), and more from the unfolding of the biblical covenants in history. Primarily, “kingdom” is PD’s most prominent theme and central to its model, even over individual redemption from sin. With this, PD’s view on the relationship between kingdom and covenant finds more affinity with PC than does TD. Vlach argues thata kingdom of God over creation is the overarching theme that ties the Bible’s storyline together, the means of which are the biblical covenants unfolding kingdom purposes and are progressively fulfilled throughout history. Ultimately, Vlach contends that PD is a comprehensive theology that harmonizes God’s aim for creation, kingdom, and covenant in all their magnitude from Genesis through Revelation.

Our final article representing dispensationalism is a special offering by Dr. Kyle Dunham, Associate Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and author of The Pious Sage in Job: Eliphaz in the Context of Wisdom Theodicy (Wipf & Stock, 2016) and contributor to the Lexham Context Commentary: Old Testament (Lexham Press, 2020). Grappling with the relationship between the church and the kingdom, Dunham argues for a unique TD position that views the kingdom of God theme developing in the New Testament as a two-stage eschatological kingdom. The current kingship of Christ consists of Melchizedekian kingship, in which Christ reigns over the church as a royal priest, while His Davidic kingly rule still awaits a future fulfillment. By recognizing these distinct stages, TD offers an alternative to Covenant Theology, Progressive Covenantalism, and Progressive Dispensationalism, not only in its view of the nature of the kingdom of God, but also in its efforts to correlate New Testament teaching concerning Christ’s present rule over the church.

PC seeks to be a mediating position between the discontinuity of the dispensational systems and the strong continuity of CT. Wellum and Parker note that the name progressive covenantalism is used “to distinguish it from various alternatives. Progressive seeks to underscore the unfolding nature of God’s revelation over time, while covenantalism emphasizes that God’s plan unfolds through the covenants and that all of the covenants find their fulfillment, telos, and terminus in Christ.”[11] With this description Wellum and Parker succinctly lay out the foundational ideas of the PC system. It seeks to mediate between the dispensational systems and CT. PC also traces the storyline of the Bible and God’s one plan of redemption through the biblical covenants and to their fulfillment in Christ. While there are a lot of important themes they all find their yes in Christ (2 Cor. 1:30).

            In this issue Stephen J. Wellum advocates for the PC system. Wellum is professor of Christian theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Wellum is one of the, if not the, most notable spokespersons for PC in scholarship today. He co-authored a massive defense of this view with Peter J. Gentry, titled Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, which is now in its second edition.[12] He also co-edited and contributed to Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies.[13] He has written numerous other books and articles that directly and indirectly relate to PC.

            Wellum starts his article noting the common ground that Christians have in their understanding that covenants are fundamental to the biblical storyline, but he notes that Christians disagree as to how the covenants fit together. Wellum argues that the Bible presents multiple covenants that progressively reveal God’s one redemptive plan for his one people. The focus is on God’s unified plan that is fulfilled in Christ. He argues that the covenants are not simply a unifying theme, but serve as the backbone of the biblical storyline. He specifically discusses how the covenants address the topic of the one people of God. When discussing hermeneutics Wellum establishes three basic points. First, that Scripture is to be interpreted by its own claim to be the Word of God that is written by human authors carried by the Holy Spirit. Second, Scripture should be interpreted according to its textual, epochal, and canonical contexts. He elaborates on each of these while also describing the importance of typology within PC. Then, Wellum devotes the most space in his article to a positive articulation of how God’s unified plan unfolds through the covenants from the beginning of the Bible to the end. Like the title of his book, he describes this a kingdom through covenant. Here Wellum discusses issues of continuity and discontinuity. His article ends by showing how all of the Old Testament covenants find their fulfillment in Christ and insists that the center of God’s plan is Christ Jesus.

            Also representing a PC model are the articles in the second section of the journal by Joshua M. Greever and Matthew H. Emadi. Greever’s article examines the text of Revelation 11:3-13 and its connection to the prophesies in Zechariah 4. Greever focuses on the identity of the two witnesses and how this text shows the regenerate nature of the new covenant community (in distinction to the mixed new covenant community of CT). Emadi’s article focuses on the theme of land in the book of Hebrews and provides a critique of the understanding of land present in dispensational theologies. He argues that a typological understanding of land is present in Hebrews. Both of these articles display the features of the hermeneutical principles that Wellum outlines in his article in the first section of the journal.

CT has a rich history within Protestant and Evangelical Theology and has seen several recent scholarly contributions. Harrison Perkins introduces Reformed CT in the first section. Perkins is pastor at Oakland Hills Community Church and is Senior Research Fellow at the Craig Center for Study of the Westminster Standards and an online faculty member at Westminster Theological Seminary. Perkins has authored multiple recent books espousing the views of CT including, Reformed Covenant Theology: A Systematic Introduction.[14]

            Perkins introduces the main themes and core principles of what he refers to as traditional Reformed covenant theology. CT prioritizes the authority of God’s written Word, which explains the full scope of salvation that is accomplished by the Triune God by grace alone, through faith alone, and in Christ alone. He begins his article with a discussion of locating covenants and situates this task within the realm of systematic theology rather than the focus on biblical theology in PC. He identifies three theological covenants: the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. Perkins spends significant time explaining each of these theological covenants and provides the reader ample footnotes for further reading on each. Next, Perkins advocates an eclectic appropriation of hermeneutical methods. He argues that the Bible should be read from the posture of someone in covenant with God, as God’s revelatory discourse, and as though it were written to his covenantal people. He argues that CT balances continuity within some spiritual realities and tempers this with the discontinuity found in redemptive history. In the areas of continuity and discontinuity Perkins focuses on the themes of law and gospel and substance and administration. CT focuses on the gospel as the central message of the Bible and argues for the preeminence of Christ throughout the whole Bible.

As you read, compare, and evaluate each of these biblical-theological systems our hope is that you will grow in your love of God, the gospel, and the Word. While each of these biblical-theological systems contain distinct perspectives on hermeneutics, themes, and many other issues, each system also holds to the centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ. While there may be differences on some things, we have the core of the gospel in common. May God be glorified.

---

[1] A few recent edited works advocating for a certain theological system are Cory M. Marsh and James I. Fazio, eds., Discovering Dispensationalism: Tracing the Development of Dispensational Thought From the First to Twenty-First Century (El Cajon, CA: SCS Press, 2023); Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000); Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker, Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016); Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid and John R. Muether, eds., Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).

[2] There are too many individual volumes published on themes to survey here, but there have also been edited volumes with contributors on each side of a particular issue or theme like Andrew Naselli and Jared Compton, eds., Three Views on Israel and the Church: Perspectives on Romans 9-11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019); Chad Brand, ed., Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015).

[3] Benjamin L. Merkle, Discontinuity to Continuity: A Survey of Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020); Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, eds., Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022).

[4] Parker and Lucas, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies.

[5] Most recently, Matthew L. Halstead, The End of the World as You Know It: What the Bible Really Says about the End Times (And Why It’s Good News) (Bellingham: Lexham, 2024); Brian P. Irwin with Tim Perry, After Dispensationalism: Reading the Bible for the End of the World (Bellingham: Lexham, 2023); Daniel G. Hummel, The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle Over End Times Shaped a Nation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2023).

[6] Noteworthy examples include, Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vols.1–3 (Allen Park: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009–2010); and, Christopher Cone and James I. Fazio, eds. Forged from Reformation: How Dispensational Thought Advances the Reformed Legacy (El Cajon: SCS Press, 2017).

[7] Contra William C. Watson, Dispensationalism Before Darby: Seventeenth Century and Eighteenth-Century English Apocalypticism (Silverton: Lampion, 2015). The most recent scholarly argument demonstrating the ancient historicity of dispensational ideas can be found in Marsh and Fazio, eds., Discovering Dispensationalism.

[8] Irwin, After Dispensationalism, 35.

[9] Scofield applied typology in multiple places unwarranted by the text, though he held to one New Covenant with dual fulfillments both for Israel and the church. Conversely, Walvoord and Ryrie restricted typology to texts explicitly revealed as such and originally held to a two New Covenant theory in their early years based on what they felt was a consistent literal hermeneutic. However, they each refined their positions and became strong advocates of a single New Covenant for Israel, with the church adopting some of its spiritual benefits.

[10] See Darrell L. Bock, “Progressive Movement (1980–Present),” Discovering Dispensationalism, 333–351.

[11] Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker, “Introduction,” in Progressive Covenantalism, 2, emphasis original.

[12] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2^nd edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018). The first edition was published in 2012.

[13] Wellum and Parker, Progressive Covenantalism.

[14] Harrison Perkins, Reformed Covenant Theology: A Systematic Introduction (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2024).