It is often assumed that dispensationalists invented the idea of a gap in Daniel’s seventy weeks in order to support their eschatological system. In reality, dispensational and non-dispensational interpreters have substantial textual and historical reasons for rejecting the view that the seventieth week was fulfilled by AD 40. The following are some of the strongest arguments supporting a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks.
Excellent work has been done in identifying the fourfold sense of Abraham’s seed. I first encountered this framework in John G. Reisinger’s book Abraham’s Four Seeds: A Biblical Examination of the Presuppositions of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism (1998), which was extremely helpful in clarifying how Scripture speaks of the various “seeds” of Abraham. The concept was later further developed by Stephen J. Wellum and Peter J. Gentry in Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (2012). Dispensational scholars have also made use of similar categories; for example, see Michael Riccardi’s study, The Seed of Abraham: A Theological Analysis of Galatians 3 and Its Implications for Israel, Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (2001) and John S. Feinberg in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (1988).
I likewise find the fourfold distinction of Abraham’s seed to be a helpful framework for bringing together the full biblical data on this important subject. My primary disagreement with Reisinger, Wellum, and Gentry, however, is that their redemptive-historical model tends to downplay two of the four seeds, despite the significant emphasis Scripture itself places upon them. When a theological model highlights one element within a predefined interpretive framework, it often results—intentionally or not—in the marginalization of elements that do not fit neatly within that framework.
Dispensationalists, by contrast, have sought to account for the totality of the biblical witness without minimizing particular strands of revelation due to prior theological commitments.
After years of dialogue with non-dispensationalists over this passage, I have repeatedly encountered the same interpretive problems surrounding these nine chapters of Scripture. At the core of many of these disagreements is what has been termed a “New Testament Priority Presupposition.” This approach grants the New Testament interpretive primacy when reading the Bible, often described as viewing the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament. In this case the book of Hebrews is given interpretive priority over Ezekiel and is used to interpret the book of Ezekiel.
The New Covenant (NC) is far more comprehensive than we often acknowledge. If one reduces the NC merely to the spiritual blessings the church enjoys in Christ, while neglecting its physical and national dimensions, the result is an essentially Platonic reading of the promises. What is needed is a balanced and objective assessment that gives full weight to all relevant biblical data. Moreover, a strictly redemptive-historical hermeneutic can create additional tension, as it often tends to emphasize the spiritual aspects of the covenant while minimizing or reinterpreting its physical and territorial components.
It is often argued that Calvinism and Dispensationalism are incompatible in passages such as Romans 9:1–13, and that only Calvinistic Covenant Theology can adequately account for Paul’s argument. I contend, however, that the real tension lies not between Calvinism and Dispensationalism, but between both Arminian Dispensationalism and Calvinistic Covenant Theology.
An Arminian view of conditional individual or corporate salvific election sits uneasily alongside a dispensational commitment to God’s unconditional election of Israel. Dispensationalism rightly affirms a twofold election grounded in God’s unilateral promises. For that reason, only Calvinistic Dispensationalism maintains internal consistency.
Why? Because Calvinistic Dispensationalists understand Romans 9 to uphold the unconditional covenant God established with Abraham and Israel, together with the unconditional blessings that flow from God’s sovereign election of individuals. By contrast, Covenant Theology typically maintains that Israel, as a distinct covenant people, has been set aside and that the promises have been transferred to the Church.
Arminian Dispensationalists affirm that Israel remains bound to an unconditional covenant and that the promises have not been given to the Church. Yet they inconsistently deny that the same passage teaches unconditional election at the individual level.
Calvinistic Dispensationalists, however, affirm both realities: Israel remains the recipient of God’s unconditional covenant promises, and God sovereignly and unilaterally chooses individuals for salvation.
The purpose of this document is to defend the coherence and validity of these claims.
John Calvin “I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part, I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. . . . for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions.” 1
G.C. Berkouwer “Another question is whether the term “Mother of God” is the most acceptable term for the expression of this truth. There is room for a difference of opinion on this point and some may judge that in a given historical situation the term may create misunderstanding. This was the case when in later periods Mary’s halo grew and became brighter, and the term “Mother of God” became an integral part of Mariological adoration. It is our conviction that in one’s use of terms also one is responsible for the life of the whole church and that one does not do anyone any good by using this term (however well intended by the councils in their polemic with Nestorianism) apart from its subsequent development; it is no longer obvious that the term implies a rejection of a dualism in Christology. We know that attempts have been made to break the aversion to “theotokos” and to settle this for good but, since the term may create the impression of elevating Mary and does not add anything to the confession of the church of all ages, it is subject to serious objections.”2
Wyatt Graham “Nestorius did not want to use the term theotokos since it was not a biblical term, and, he thought, it could lead to misunderstandings. His concern is a valid one.” 3
Theotokos is the standard title for Mary in Eastern Orthodoxy (EO) and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO), which means that she is recognized as the “Mother of God.” The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) also uses the term “Mother of God” and the Catechism of the Catholic Church officially affirms the title Theotokos as dogmatic truth.4 In Protestantism, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists officially accept the title as part of the Nicene Creed and the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), though it is less common in everyday speech compared to “Mary” or “Mother of Jesus.” Where then does the Evangelical find himself amongst these groups?
As an Evangelical—who understands the implications of the 5th century debate—it is clear why so many have accepted the term “Mary the Mother of God.” It was meant to be a theological firewall against dividing Christ’s nature. However, the landscape and discussion has shifted greatly since the 5th century, and it is widely accepted now that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) and is one person (hypostasis). This is especially true within the broad Evangelical landscape. With that said, I want to look at concerns with the language, and then move to a slight reformulation of the terminology.
Have you ever had difficulties trying to explain the deity of Christ to unbelievers or even believers? Well, I have good news! Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski in their work Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ have come up with a very helpful acronym: HANDS. Become familiar with this friends.
As they note on pg. 23 of their work, “This acronym is not a gimmick. It is a tested and proven device enabling people of different backgrounds to remember and explain the biblical evidence for identifying Jesus as God. . . . The biblical teaching about Jesus found in his HANDS constitutes a powerful cumulative case for regarding Jesus as our Lord and God.“
John Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 11:26 (“and so all Israel will be saved”)—understanding “all Israel as the complete people of God (the spiritual Israel comprising believing Jews and Gentiles throughout history, forming the church)—was highly influential in early Reformed theology. He extended “Israel” to encompass the whole elect body gathered from both groups which he believe was grounded in his understanding of Galatians 6:16.
At the outset, it should be acknowledged that it is nearly impossible to capture every variation within dispensational theology with precision. Any attempt at classification will inevitably invite calls for further nuance or other forms of categorizations. With that said, my aim here has been to be both fair and faithful to the ongoing discussion, while also attempting to introduce greater clarity where I believe some ambiguity has persisted.
The primary motivation for constructing this table is personal. I have found the existing categorizations of dispensationalism increasingly overwhelming and, at times, unclear. Most of the current framing has been reduced to a discussion between traditional vs. progressive dispensationalism. While there are many overlapping components among the various positions, there are also crucial theological and hermeneutical distinctions that are frequently flattened or obscured by broad labels.
For well over a decade I have called myself a “revised/progressive” dispensationalist, however, over time I have found that language to be too ambiguous to be genuinely helpful. What I have been seeking is a way to identify a theological “sweet spot” between what is commonly called traditional (or revised, using Blaising’s earlier terminology) dispensationalism and what is now more fully developed as progressive dispensationalism.
This blog post attempts to establish a foundational overview examining how Scripture distinguishes Israel and the Church, tracing their origins, identities, and roles within God’s unfolding redemptive plan.
