Dispensationalism:
Old Testament Salvation

by Grover Gunn
pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church
Jackson, Tennessee

---

According to dispensationalist Dr. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, the most frequent criticism of dispensationalism is that dispensationalism teaches different ways of salvation in different ages.¹ And the most probable basis for this criticism is the dispensational teachings on salvation in the Old Testament and the millennial kingdom. Certain dispensational writers have made statements that do sound like they were teaching that Old Testament salvation was and that millennial salvation will be a meritorious system of works. For example, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has said the following:

A distinction must be observed here between just men of the Old Testament and those justified according to the New Testament. According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaic Law. ... Men were therefore just because of their own works for God whereas New Testament justification is God's work for man in answer to faith (Rom. 5:1).²

The Law of Moses presents a covenant of works to be wrought in the energy of the flesh; the teachings of grace present a covenant of faith to be wrought in the energy of the Spirit.³

The law, being a covenant of works and providing no enablement, addressed itself to the limitations of the natural man. No more was expected or secured in return from its commands than the natural man in his environment could produce.⁴

It is to be concluded that the preaching of John the Baptist was wholly new, and was according to his mission as herald of the King; but that message is legalistic and not gracious. It is a covenant of works and not a covenant of faith. ... Into that kingdom, men are said to be "pressing in." "To crowd oneself in" is the literal meaning, and the word suggests intense human effort, and implies the need of merit for entrance into the kingdom.⁵

The Sermon on the Mount is the expansion of the full meaning of the personal righteousness which is required in the kingdom. The great words in this age are believe and grace. Not once do these words appear in connection with the kingdom teachings of Matthew 5-7.⁶

The kingdom teachings, like the Law of Moses, are based on a covenant of works. The teachings of grace, on the other hand, are based on a covenant of faith. In the one case, righteousness is demanded; in the other it is provided, both imputed and imparted, or inwrought. One is a blessing to be bestowed because of a perfect life, the other is a life to be lived because of a perfect blessing already received.⁷

Under grace, the fruit of the Spirit is, which indicates the present possession of the blessing through pure grace; while under the kingdom, the blessing shall be to such as merit it by their own works.⁸

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.⁹

It is strange, indeed, that men who have won honors as theologians of the first magnitude do not see the difference between the proclamation of an earthly kingdom addressed to one elect nation to be established on legal grounds, and the proclamation of a grace message which concerns only individuals with Jews and Gentiles, on an equal footing, under sin and offers in sovereign grace to the one who believes on Christ that he will be made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light.¹⁰

"The straight and narrow way" is an outworking of personal merit and righteousness and is far removed from salvation, which provides a perfect and eternal justification based on an acceptance in the Beloved. The Christian has been saved by an act of faith and not by relentless persevering in a narrow path. ... There is no rest here in the finished work of Christ (cf. Heb. 4:9); all is personal merit as the basis of hope for entrance into the kingdom of heaven.¹¹

Thus it may be concluded that the teachings of the law, the teachings of grace, and the teachings of the kingdom are separate and complete systems of divine rule which are perfectly adapted to the varied conditions of three great dispensations. The teachings of Moses and the teachings of the kingdom are purely legal, while the instructions to the believer of this dispensation are in conformity with pure grace.¹²

Dr. Chafer does appear to have taught different ways of salvation in different ages, and yet Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, who studied under Dr. Chafer, claims the following:

Neither the older nor the newer dispensationalists teach two ways of salvation, and it is not fair to attempt to make them so teach. ... Straw men are easy to create, but the huff and puff it takes to demolish them are only huff and puff.¹³

Such a claim in the light of such quotations demonstrates that the dispensational teachings on Old Testament salvation is a sensitive area for dispensationalists and an interesting area for study.

In this chapter, I will seek to examine the teachings on Old Testament salvation of the older and the newer dispensationalists, as Dr. Ryrie labels them, and to contrast these dispensational teachings with that of Reformed theology. I will first discuss a basic inherent weakness in the dispensational teaching on Old Testament salvation and then go on to examine the specifics of their teaching on this subject.

This basic inherent weakness results from the foundational dispensational assumption that there is a strong dichotomy between Israel and the church such that the Old Testament saints will not be in the Body and Bride of Christ in eternity. This means that the dispensational system contains a presuppositional prejudice against the Old Testament saints' being in Christ and under the covenant headship of Christ. The dispensational system imposes upon its consistent adherents the necessity of explaining Old Testament salvation in such a way that Old Testament salvation does not involve covenant membership in the Body of Christ. To be in covenant union with Christ is to be in the Body and Bride of Christ, and to be in the Body and Bride of Christ is to be in the church universal, and for the Old Testament saints to be in the church universal is to deny dispensationalism. According to Dr. Paul Lee Tan:

To see the church as the Body of Christ, an organism different from Old Testament Israel, is to read Scripture dispensationally and to qualify as a dispensational interpreter.¹⁴

According to Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost:

The marriage of the Lamb is an event which evidently involves only Christ and the church. ... While it would be impossible to eliminate these groups [Old Testament saints and tribulation saints] from the place of observers, they can not be in the position of participants in the event itself.¹⁵

According to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer:

There is probably no word of Scripture which more clearly defines the essential fact concerning the Christian than the phrase in Christ; and as the Christian is the most important fact of all creation, there has never been a word uttered which was so far-reaching in all its implication, or which is fraught with greater meaning to humanity than the phrase in Christ. ... Over against the emphasis which is given to this truth in the teachings of grace, is the corresponding fact that there is no hint of a possible position in Christ in any teaching of law or of the kingdom.¹⁶

Much of divine blessing is determined for Israel all of which is anticipated in her covenants and prophecies; but no covenant or prophecy brings that nation into heavenly citizenship or into marriage union with Christ.¹⁷

Dispensationalists recognize that if Old Testament saints are in Christ as Paul used that term, then Old Testament saints are in the church universal (1 Corinthians 12:13), and that would effectively destroy the dispensational dichotomy between Israel and the church. A salvifically unified people of God through the ages is a concept antithetical to the foundational presuppositions of dispensationalism. This fundamental dispensational bias against the salvific unity in Christ of the people of God through the ages is, I think, the most basic weakness in the dispensational teaching on Old Testament salvation.

Now that we have discussed this preliminary consideration, I will examine the specific details of the dispensational teachings on Old Testament salvation. Since dispensational teaching in this area has evolved over the years, I will first look at the older dispensational teaching as represented by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer and then at the newer dispensational teaching as represented by Drs. John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, and J. Dwight Pentecost.

The older dispensational teaching on Old Testament salvation is extensively explained in the fourth volume of Dr. Chafer's Systematic Theology, the primary source for my understanding on this subject. Fundamental to Dr. Chafer's system are his concepts of conditional and unconditional covenants. A conditional covenant, according to Dr. Chafer, is a covenant in which God agrees to do His part only upon the condition that man does his part. It is a meritorious, by-works, "be good, and I will bless you" proposition. In contrast, Dr. Chafer defines an unconditional covenant as a covenant in which God has bound Himself to do something regardless. There is no human responsibility involved. It is a gracious, by-faith, "I have blessed you, now be good" proposition.¹⁸

In Dr. Chafer's system, the nation Israel after Mount Sinai was under both a conditional and an unconditional covenant. The Abrahamic covenant with its land promise to Abraham and his Seed was Israel's unconditional covenant:

This [Abrahamic] covenant, being without human condition, simply declares the unchanging purpose of Jehovah. It will be achieved in pure grace, apart from every human factor, and its accomplishments are eternal.¹⁹

When the nation Israel was redeemed from Egypt, they were in an ideal position. They had been redeemed as a nation, and, on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, they had an unconditional right to the promised land which was contingent upon no human responsibilities. But then, according to Dr. Chafer, Israel made a foolish and rash mistake at Mount Sinai by accepting the meritorious Mosaic covenant.²⁰

Dr. Chafer regarded the Mosaic covenant as a meritorious covenant of works in which divine blessing was conditioned strictly upon human faithfulness.²¹ It was the antithesis of a covenant of grace.²² Its byword was "This do and thou shalt live." It was a legal relationship in which one entered into God's blessings by means of personal self-righteousness.²³ In a covenant of works like the Mosaic covenant, there is no divine enablement and man must depend on the energy of the flesh.²⁴

We now have the nation Israel under both the conditional, "Be good, and I will bless you," meritorious, by-works, and temporary Mosaic covenant and the unconditional, "I have blessed you, now be good," gracious, by-faith and eternal Abrahamic covenant. This, of course, seems logically impossible. How could the same people simultaneously be related to God through two such antithetical covenants? The dispensational solution is to posit a strong dichotomy between national and individual promises and blessings and hopes. According to Dr. Chafer,

What Jehovah has covenanted to His elect nation is one thing, and what He covenants to individuals within that nation is quite another thing. The national entity has been and will be preserved forever according to covenant promises (Isa. 66:22; Jer. 31:35-37; Gen. 17:7-8). The individual Israelite, on the other hand, was subject to a prescribed and regulated conduct which carried with it a penalty of individual judgment for every failure (Deut. 28:58-62; Ezek. 20:33-44; Matt. 24:51; 25:12,30).²⁵

Israel as a nation was secure in its national salvation under the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, but the individual Israelites had an unsure salvation under the conditional Mosaic covenant. Dr. Chafer contrasted this with the situation of the universal church in which both the corporate body and all the individuals in the corporate body are secure.²⁶

We now have the background necessary to examine Dr. Chafer's understanding of the way of salvation in the Old Testament. There are four elements in Dr. Chafer's explanation of Old Testament salvation.²⁷ The first element is physical birth into Judaism. According to Dr. Chafer,

Whatever may have been the divine method of dealing with individuals before the call of Abraham and the giving of the law of Moses, it is evident that, with the call of Abraham and the giving of the law and all that followed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might stand in favor of God, namely, (a) by physical birth into Judaism or (b) by spiritual birth into Christianity or the kingdom of God.²⁸

Distinction would also be made between the blessings and privileges within the covenants and the terms of admission into the covenants. In the case of the Israelite, entrance into the covenants was by physical birth; while in the case of the Christian it is by spiritual birth.²⁹

Israelites become what they are by physical birth. They are each one begotten of human parents and their inheritance is transmitted by human generation. Christians become what they are by spiritual birth. They are begotten directly by God and are therefore His legitimate offspring. Their inheritance is that each is a child of God.³⁰

Too much importance cannot be placed on the fact that an Israelite was physically born into an elect race, a redeemed nation, and made heir of the everlasting covenants. While an Israelite was inducted by his physical birth into all privileges of the chosen people, there was in the law an element of merit because its attending blessings for compliance and judgments for failure.³¹

The Jew, though under the legalistic Mosaic law, was still an heir by birth to the gracious and unconditional Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was a national covenant, and since a Jew became a member of the Jewish nation by birth, he became an heir of the promised national blessing at birth. Therefore, according to Dr. Chafer, the Jew became a member of God's earthly people through physical birth just as the Christian becomes a member of God's heavenly people through spiritual birth. This gracious admission into the covenant relationships through physical birth meant that Old Testament salvation was not entirely through the law.³² After all, the law did not make one a Jew. That was done by physical birth.

The second element in Dr. Chafer's system of Old Testament salvation is the sacrificial system. The Jew as an individual was under the meritorious covenant of law and he was responsible for keeping the law in full. That, however, was impossible. No one could keep the law fully, especially not in the power of the flesh with no divine enablement. The only reason salvation was possible for the Jew was because he had the sacrificial system as a means for obtaining forgiveness for his transgressions of the law. As Dr. Chafer explains it:

The final standing of any Jew before God was not based on law observance alone, but contemplated that Jew in the light of the sacrifices he had presented in his own behalf.³³

In case of failure to do the law, sacrifices were accepted as a means to restoration. As the Christian may be forgiven and cleansed on the ground of confession of his sin to God (1 John 1:9), so Israelites both individually and nationally were restored by sacrifices.³⁴

When looking back upon his experience in Judaism, the Apostle Paul could say that he had been, as 'touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless' (Phil. 3:6). This did not imply sinless perfection, but rather that he had always provided the requisite sacrifices. On that basis the faithful Jew lived and was accepted of God in the Mosaic system.³⁵

Old Testament salvation in Dr. Chafer's system involved forgiveness of sins through the sacrificial rituals and personal righteousness through keeping the law. Dr. Chafer stated that neither the by-faith principle of grace nor the imputed righteousness of Christ was a part of Old Testament salvation.³⁶ He taught that the Jews did not use the by-faith principle because they were ignorant of the possibility of a by-faith imputed righteousness in spite of the example of Abraham and David spoken of in Romans 4.³⁷ Dr. Chafer said that Abraham was "the pattern of a Christian under grace and not of a Jew under law."³⁸ He stated that "the by-faith principle which was announced in the Abrahamic covenant is brought again into force, through the death of Christ,"³⁹ and that the Mosaic law "was preceded (Ex. 19:4) and followed (John 1:17) by grace."⁴⁰ Concerning imputed righteousness in the Old Testament, Dr. Chafer said the following:

Israel, as a nation, is never seen in heaven, nor are they as a people, as is true of the Church, constituted righteous. Though termed "a holy nation," that holiness is relative rather than absolute.⁴¹

And Dr. Chafer said the following about imputed righteousness in the Sermon on the Mount and in the millennial kingdom:

No reference, here or elsewhere, in this sermon, is made to imputed righteousness. The kingdom saint's righteousness under Messiah's reign will exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Indeed, such personal quality and merit are demanded for entrance into that kingdom at all. Many Jews will be judged unworthy to enter the kingdom, and those who will be judged will include Jews of the past dispensation who are raised to this judgment (cf. Dan. 12:1-3) as well as the last generation living who will enter that judgment. A reminder at this point may be in order, which asserts again that the believer is provided in this age with righteousness which is a gift from God made possible through the sweet savor aspect of Christ's death and on the ground of the believer's position in Christ.⁴²

Old Testament salvation as explained by Dr. Chafer sounds like a legalistic system based on ritualistic and moral obedience. Dr. Chafer, however, argues that Old Testament salvation as he has explained it is a by grace system:

Since human faithfulness in whatever degree could never be the exact compensation or exchange for the values of eternal life or for unending blessings in the kingdom, there is a very large measure of divine grace to be seen in the salvation of the elect earthly people.⁴³

The third element in Dr. Chafer's system of Old Testament salvation is the teaching that a Jew could be disowned from the nation and thereby from the gracious Abrahamic covenant by neglecting to keep the law and to offer sacrifices. Dr. Chafer expressed it as follows:

The individual Jew might so fail in his conduct and so neglect the sacrifices as, in the end, to be disowned of God and cast out (Gen. 17:14; Deut. 28:58-61; Ezek. 3:18; Matt. 10:32-33; 24:50-51; 25:11-12,29-30).⁴⁴

Thus it is disclosed that the salvation of an Israelite, who lived in the Mosaic age, which age will be completed in the coming Tribulation, was guaranteed by covenant; yet the individual could, by failing to do God's revealed will as contained in the Mosaic Law, sacrifice his place in the coming Kingdom and be cut off from his people (cf. Lk. 10:25-28; 18:18-21; Matt. 8:11,12; 24:50,51; 25:29,30). Jehovah's salvation of Israel will be on the ground of Christ's death. The human terms, because of the covenant promise regarding their salvation, are not the same as that required by Abraham or an individual in this age, whether Jew or Gentile.⁴⁵

And Dr. Chafer also gave insight to his thinking on this point in his comments of the Sermon on the Mount:

Thus, also, great is the difference between those who are in danger of hell fire (Matt. 5:22,29-30) and those who are justified on a principle of perfect divine justice who have done no more than believe in Jesus -- even the ungodly (Rom. 3:26; 4:5). ... And, yet again, consideration must be given to a distinction between those who follow a course -- strait and narrow -- with the goal in view that they may find life at the end of that path (Matt. 7:14) and those to whom eternal life has been given as a present possession (John 3:36; Rom. 6:23; 1 John 5:11-12). Finally, far removed is the situation in which some hear the Lord say, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye who work iniquity" (Matt. 7:23) and an assurance that one trusting in Christ "shall never perish" (John 10:28; Rom. 8:1).⁴⁶

Of course, Reformed interpreters agree that the Old Testament Jew could be disinherited from the nation for unrepented, high-handed sin. The Reformed interpreter, however, does not make physical birth into Israel the Old Testament equivalent to new covenant regeneration. For the Reformed interpreter, this Old Testament pruning of the unfaithful from the olive tree of Israel is in the same category with New Testament church discipline and is not to be contrasted with new covenant security in Christ.

The last element in Dr. Chafer's system is the national salvation of the nation Israel. Dr. Chafer held that this national salvation was a main objective in Christ's death.⁴⁷ This national salvation is to take place during the futuristic dispensational seven-year tribulation period after the church has been raptured and in connection with the post-tribulational return of Christ. During the tribulation, Israel will be regathered to the land of Palestine and many Jews will turn to God through the renewed preaching of the kingdom gospel.⁴⁸ The kingdom gospel, according to Dr. Chafer, was what John the Baptist and Jesus had preached at the first advent before Jesus turned from Israel to the Gentiles. Dr. Chafer quoted the following definition of the kingdom gospel from the Scofield Reference Bible:

This is the good news that God purposes to set up on earth, in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:16 ...) a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs ...

Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jewish rejection of the King. The other is yet future (Matt. 24:14), during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory.⁴⁹

At the post-tribulational return of Christ, He is to deliver the nation of Israel from all her enemies and to save Israel as a nation from all her sins by applying the efficacy of His death to the many Jewish sins that for ages have been temporarily covered by animal sacrifices. There is to be a national judgment in which all the Old Testament Jews who were unfaithful to the Mosaic law will be cut off and purged from the people. Then the Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of the remaining faithful Jews, who then will be moved to accept in faith Christ's death for their national salvation. Thus, "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26).⁵⁰ As a result of the return of Christ and this national salvation, the Jews of every age except the parenthetical church age who were faithful to Judaism will inherit the land promised to Abraham.⁵¹ These Jews, together with the Gentile nations that treated Israel well during the tribulation period, will enter the earthly millennium and the church will remain in heaven. In the millennium, the Gentile nations will be inferior to Israel as Israel's servants.⁵² And Israel will have a millennial inheritance that is inferior to the church, which will reside in heaven and rule as Christ's consort.⁵³ Dr. Chafer expressed uncertainty about "the eternal estate of such patriarchs as Adam, Enoch, Noah, Job and Melchizedek."⁵⁴ I do not know if Dr. Chafer believed these would inherit the earth with Israel or heaven with the church.

At the end of the millennium, there will be the creation of the new heavens and the new earth. In this new creation, the separation between Israel and the church will continue throughout eternity. The new heavens will be the eternal inheritance of the heavenly people, the church, and the Judaistic new earth will be the eternal inheritance of the earthly people, Israel.⁵⁵

There are three obvious problems with Dr. Chafer's system. First, though he denied that he taught divergent ways of salvation in different ages,⁵⁶ he did make many statements that appeared to justify this criticism. Second, Dr. Chafer interpreted the phrase heaven and earth as referring to two separate spheres that are to remain eternally distinct. The phrase heaven and earth is a common Hebrew figure of speech (a merism) used to refer to all created reality.⁵⁷ And third, Dr. Chafer's teaching that the resurrected Old Testament saints would be on earth during the millennium and that resurrected church saints would not be on the new earth during eternity contradicts the New Testament teachings on the New Jerusalem.

This third point about the New Jerusalem needs some explanation. A close examination of Revelation 21 will show that the New Jerusalem does not come to planet earth until after the creation of the new heaven and the new earth (Rev. 21:1-2,9-10). As was demonstrated in Chapter Two, the teaching of Revelation 21, Hebrews 11:39-40 and Hebrews 12:22-23 indicates that the New Jerusalem is symbolic for the saints of all the ages. This New Testament teaching on the New Jerusalem contradicts two aspects of Dr. Chafer's system. Both the resurrected Old Testament saints and the resurrected church saints are in the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem has a heavenly location during the dispensational millennium but is on the new earth during eternity. This makes it impossible for the resurrected Old Testament saints to be on earth during a millennial age and for the resurrected church saints not to be on the new earth during eternity.

These three problem areas with Dr. Chafer's teaching are the areas in which the newer dispensationalists have departed from Dr. Chafer's system. The neo-dispensationalists have eliminated the first problem by clearly teaching an Old Testament by-faith salvation. Dr. Charles C. Ryrie explains this position as follows:

The basis for salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, which distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attested. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation. When Adam looked upon the coats of skins with which God had clothed him and his wife, he did not see what the believer today sees looking back on the cross of Calvary. And neither did other Old Testament saints see what we can see today.⁵⁸

Dr. Ryrie goes on to quote the Dallas Theological Seminary doctrinal statement, which goes on to say:

... we believe that it was historically impossible that [the Old Testament saints] should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. We believe also that they did not understand the redemptive significance of the prophecies or types concerning the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 1:10-12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God was manifest in other ways as it is shown by the long record in Hebrews 11:1-40. We believe further that their faith thus manifest was counted unto them for righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:3 with Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5-8; Heb. 11:7).⁵⁹

Since dispensationalists cannot allow the Old Testament saints to have a position in Christ, it seems consistent that they would deny that the Old Testament saint's faith was in the coming Christ.

Dr. Ryrie has stated that the object of faith in every age has been God and that the content of faith was different in the Old Testament. This statement allows great latitude in interpreting the content of faith in the Old Testament. For example, it would accommodate the following analysis of the faith of Abraham by Dr. Chafer:

Abraham believed God respecting a son whom he would himself generate. ...

... God imputes righteousness to those in this age who believe, which righteousness is the foremost feature of salvation, on the one demand that they believe; but this belief is not centered in a son which each individual might generate, as in the case of Abraham, but in the Son whom God has given to a lost world, who died for the world and whom God has raised from the dead to be a Savior of those who believe. In Romans 4:23,24 it is written, "Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." From this it will be seen that, though the specific object of faith -- Isaac in the case of Abraham and Jesus Christ in the case of Christians -- varies, both have a promise of God on which to rest and both believe God.⁶⁰

Christ, however, said that Abraham saw His day and was glad (John 8:56). Paul said that God preached the gospel to Abraham (Galatians 3:8). This is not to say that Abraham understood God's covenant promise as well as we do today. This is to say that the content of Abraham's faith went beyond the belief that he would have a son in his old age. This is to say that the object of Abraham's faith was a progressive revelation of the covenant promise which God began to reveal in the Seed-Redeemer promise of Genesis 3:15.

In regard to the object and content of faith, I would say that the object of saving faith for God's people has always been God as the giver of His covenant promise and that the covenant people's knowledge and understanding of God's covenant promise has progressively changed through the ages. Paul refers to the "covenants of promise" (Eph. 2:12), which implies that all the various covenants which God has administered throughout redemptive history are united by a common promise. Here we have the developmental diversity (many covenants) and the organic unity (one promise) of progressive revelation. God's covenant promise has never changed but man's knowledge and understanding of God's covenant promise has greatly progressed through the ages and will greatly progress in the future when all the saints see the risen and glorified Christ face to face at the second advent. That we today know and understand God's covenant promise better than did the Old Testament saints does not mean that the object of their faith was not the same covenant promise. The Christian today has faith in the Christ who has already historically come and manifested Himself through the first advent. Faith in the Christ who has come, however, is but faith in the promise of Genesis 3:15 with a progressed knowledge and understanding of the promise of Genesis 3:15. The object of Adam and Eve's faith was the Seed-Redeemer promise, and the ultimate referent of that promise was Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of the level of their understanding of the promise. The ultimate referent of the sacrificial system and much of the Mosaic ceremonial law was Christ. To have believed in these Old Testament promises and institutions was to have believed in the Messianic promise to the extent that it had been revealed. The content of saving faith has not changed through the ages; men's knowledge of and understanding of that content has progressively changed through the ages. This explanation of the content of Old Testament salvation is better adapted to the concept of progressive revelation since the very concept of progression implies an organic unity as well as diversity and developmental change.

In spite of Dr. Ryrie's teaching about the changing content of faith through the ages, Dr. Ryrie appears in his discussion of the Old Testament sacrificial system to teach that the dimly seen content of the Old Testament saint's faith was the coming Christ:

And yet the law contained the revelation which brought men to a realization that their faith must be placed in God the Saviour. How did it do this? Primarily through the worship which it instituted through the sacrificial system. The sacrifices were part of the law; the keeping of them did not save; and yet a man could respond to what they taught so as to effect eternal salvation.⁶¹

... there seemed to have been in the offerings that which could point a believing worshipper to a better sacrifice which would deal finally with the entire sin question. This might be called an ulterior efficacy in the sacrifices which did not belong to them as sacrifices but as prefigurations of a final dealing with sin. However, it cannot be implied that the Israelite understood what that final dealing was. ... Christ was not the conscious object of their faith, though they were saved by faith in God as He had revealed Himself principally through the sacrifices which He instituted as a part of the Mosaic law.⁶²

There is little difference between what Dr. Ryrie has here stated and the general Reformed position on the content of Old Testament faith. To distinguish himself from the Reformed position, Dr. Ryrie has to characterize the covenant theologian as presuppostionally inclined toward the teaching that the Old Testament saint understood Christ's work as typified in the sacrifices as clearly as does the New Testament saint:

The obvious fallacy in the covenant theologian's solution to this problem is that it is an a priori approach which has yielded artificial results. The assumption is that everything about salvation must be the same; therefore, the conscious object of the faith of old Testament saints must have been Christ. This is not to imply that covenant theologians do not recognize a limitation on the revelation of the Old Testament, but they do everything possible to obliterate the resulting effect that any limitation of revelation might have on the doctrine of Old Testament salvation.⁶³

The above may be a valid criticism of certain statements by individual Reformed interpreters,⁶⁵ but Dr. Ryrie should not accuse covenant theologians as a class with making this mistake. For example, examine the following statement by Reformed theologian Geerhardus Vos:

Even though the defective provisional efficacy of the ceremonies might be to some extent perceived, it was far more difficult to tell what was intended to take their place in the future. Here the type needed the aid of prophecy for their interpretation (cp. Isa. 53). We must not infer from our comparatively easy reading of the types that Israelites of old felt the same ease in interpreting them. It is unhistorical to carry back into the Old Testament mind our developed consciousness of these matters. The failure to understand, however, does not detract from the objective significance these types had in the intent of God.⁶⁵

Or examine the following statement by Patrick Fairbairn, a Reformed interpreter from a past age:

It was comparatively an easy thing for the Jewish worshipper to understand how, from time to time, he stood related to a visible sanctuary and an earthly inheritance, or to go through the process of an appointed purification by means of water and the blood of slain victims applied externally to his body, -- much more easy than for the Christian to apprehend distinctly his relation to a heavenly sanctuary and realize the cleansing of his conscience from all guilt by the inward application of the sacrifice of Christ and the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit. But for the Jewish worshipper to do both his own and the Christian's part, -- both to read the meaning of the symbol as expressive of what was already laid open to his eyes, and to descry its concealed reference to the yet undiscovered realities of a better dispensation, -- would have required a reach of discernment and a strength of faith far beyond what is now needed in the Christian.⁶⁶

A second area where neo-dispensationalists significantly differ from the older dispensationalism of Dr. Chafer is related to the concept of the New Jerusalem and to the interpretation of the new heavens and the new earth, the second and third problem points in Dr. Chafer's system. In the newer system as contained in the writings of Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost and Dr. John F. Walvoord, the church enters her eternal state in the heavenly Jerusalem at the rapture immediately before the beginning of a seven year tribulation period. During this tribulation period, God's program with Israel, which was interrupted by the church age, will be resumed. After this tribulation period, at the time of the second advent and the beginning of the dispensational millennium, the heavenly Jerusalem will descend to a hovering position over the land of Palestine.⁶⁷ This satellite city will have astonishing dimensions, being either a cube or a pyramid with a 1500 mile square base and a height of 1500 miles.⁶⁸ At the time of the second advent, the dead Old Testament saints will be resurrected and will enter their eternal state in the heavenly Jerusalem along with the resurrected church saints. The living Jewish saints who survived the tribulation period, however, will enter the millennium in unresurrected bodies on earth along with select Gentiles.⁶⁹ The resurrected saints of the heavenly city will be free to travel to and from the earth during the millennial period.⁷⁰ At the end of the millennium, the new heavens and the new earth will be created, the heavenly city will descend to Palestine on the new earth, and the redeemed of all the ages will enjoy eternity together on the new earth.

This newer system does not have the specific problems previously pointed out in Dr. Chafer's system. In this neo-dispensational system, there is one eternal destiny for the saints of all ages in accordance with a proper interpretation of the phrase heaven and earth. Also, this system does not contradict the New Testament's teaching on the New Jerusalem the way Dr. Chafer's system does. This new system, however, has generated new problems in its adjustments to compensate for the old problems in Dr. Chafer's system.

First, the newer system does not allow the Old Testament saints to inherit the land promised to Abraham and his seed. Neo-dispensationalist Dr. John F. Walvoord has said the following:

Much of the confusion that exists in regard to the millennium and the eternal state stems from a failure to distinguish between the promises that are given to the last generation of saints who are on the earth at the time of the second advent and the promises that are given resurrected or translated saints in both the Old and New Testaments. The prophecies of the Old Testament give adequate basis for the doctrine that Israel has an earthly hope. The prophets in Israel's darkest hours painted the most glowing picture of the coming earthly kingdom in which Israel would participate as a favored nation and possess their promised land under the reign of the Son of David. The promises given, however, clearly refer to those who were not resurrected and are directed to the nation of Israel as it is to be constituted at the time of the second advent, that is, the Israelites who will survive the great tribulation. They and their seed will inherit the promised land and fulfill the hundreds of prophecies that have to do with Israel's hope in the millennial kingdom. These promises are delineated in the Abrahamic, Davidic, Palestinian, and new covenants.⁷¹

Dr. Walvoord's explanation becomes obviously inadequate the moment one remembers that the Abrahamic covenant specifically stated that Abraham himself would inherit the land along with his seed. But Abraham, in this neo-dispensational scheme, will not be on earth during the millennium to inherit any land. He will be in the heavenly city. The speculation about the New Jerusalem's hovering over Palestine during the millennium and its inhabitants' being able to travel to and from planet earth may be meant to compensate for this flaw by at least giving the Old Testament saints such as Abraham access to the land they are supposed to inherit. In reality, this newer system does not allow Abraham to inherit any land during the millennium but instead makes him a millennial bond servant in the heavenly city.⁷²

A second problem with this newer system is that in this system the word forever no longer literally means forever but means a long duration or, to be specific, one thousand years. This is not consistent literalism, for God promised to give the land to Abraham and to his seed forever. That is why in Dr. Chafer's system the Jews continued throughout eternity on earth with a distinctive Jewish inheritance. As Dr. Chafer said,

Those earthly promises are confirmed by the oath of Jehovah and extend forever, else language ceases to be a dependable medium for the expression of truth.⁷³

If the dichotomy between the earthly people and the heavenly people is to be consistently maintained and if the Jewish covenants are eternal covenants, then the Jews must have a distinctively Jewish eternity separate from the church. But if the Jewish covenants find their complete fulfillment in eternity, as in Dr. Chafer's system, this de-emphasizes the millennium and makes it a mere addendum to the dispensational system. The dispensationalist's millennium is no longer mandatory and "an integral part of his entire scheme and interpretation of many Bible passages"⁷⁴ if the Jewish covenants find their final fulfillment in eternity, not in the millennium. Therefore, in neo-dispensational thought, these eternal covenants must find their basic fulfillment in the specifically Jewish millennium and not during the eternity on the new earth that will be shared with the church. Forever, therefore, means one thousand years.

A third problem with the neo-dispensational system is the significant new strain that it puts on the dispensational dichotomy between national and individual promises. In Dr. Chafer's system, all the individuals within the nation were to receive the same promises, though admittedly on a conditional basis, that the nation as a whole was to receive on an unconditional basis. All those individuals who remained members in good standing of the nation were heirs of the national land promise that was to be realized in a coming earthly kingdom. According to Dr. Chafer,

The glorious Messianic kingdom has been the hope of the Old Testament saints and in conformity to this hope they ordered their lives.⁷⁵

In neo-dispensationalism, none of the individuals who made up the nation in the Old Testament are to receive the promised national inheritance. The only individuals who will inherit land in this newer scheme are the living Jews of that future generation that will enter the millennium and their descendents. The individual hopes of all the individual Jews of the Old Testament era find their fulfillment not in the Jewish national inheritance but in the heavenly Jerusalem and in an eternity shared with the church.⁷⁶ Of what significance was a national promise to an Old Testament Jew if he as an individual were not to partake of it?

A fourth problem is that the neo-dispensationalist gives the Old Testament saint an eternal destiny in common with the church but without giving the Old Testament saint a salvation based upon covenant union with Christ. I see no justification for the Old Testament saint's having the same eternal destiny as the New Testament saint apart from the Old Testament saint's being in union with Christ in eternity. Not being in covenant union with Christ is not simply a quantitative difference in Old Testament salvation that allows the Old Testament saint to have the same inheritance as the church saint but with less honor. It is a qualitative difference that requires a separate inheritance altogether, assuming that any inheritance is possible apart from covenant union with Christ. A dispensationalist might argue that Abraham had an imputed righteousness, and that Abraham, an Old Testament saint who had not experienced the baptism of the Spirit, was not and is not in covenant union with Christ. Was he not? Paul uses Abraham's imputed righteousness as a proof that the Christian has an imputed righteousness (Rom. 4:22-25), and the Christian's imputed righteousness is an "in Christ" imputed righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). Did Abraham have an "out of Christ" imputed righteousness? That is not possible since the righteousness that is imputed in justification is the righteousness of Christ. And, assuming that there can be an "out of Christ" imputed righteousness, then it would be radically inferior to "in Christ" righteousness. And in correlation to this, the Old Testament saint must be given an eternal destiny that differs from the eternal destiny of the church like the earth differs from the heavens. This is how Dr. Chafer reasoned, and not without reason. To give the Old Testament saint an eternal destiny in accord with an "in Christ" righteousness is to put the Old Testament saint in the church, for the church consists of all those who are in Christ.

A fifth problem is that differences between the newer and the older dispensationalism evidence a less consistent use of the dispensational hermeneutic by the neo-dispensationalists. On the basis of their hermeneutic, dispensationalists have long insisted that the seed which is to inherit the land is the physical seed of Abraham. Dr. Chafer put more emphasis on the significance of physical birth in Old Testament salvation, making physical birth an integral part of Old Testament salvation and playing down the importance of proselyte salvation apart from physical lineage in the Old Testament.⁷⁷ The newer dispensational emphasis on by-faith salvation in the Old Testament could also be called a reading of the New Testament back into the Old Testament.

After examining the dispensational concept of Old Testament salvation, it must be concluded that the dispensational theories on this subject are inadequate and objectionable. Several questions can be raised to show further this inadequacy: Is the rent veil of the temple to be repaired for the millennium and eternity? Is worship again to be centered in Jerusalem (John 4:21)? Is the dividing wall that was destroyed by Christ to be rebuilt (Eph. 2:14)? Are all church saints going to be superior in eternity to Old Testament saints such as Abraham, Moses and David? It is true that Jesus said that the least in the kingdom of heaven would be greater than John the Baptist, but was he not referring to spiritual privileges enjoyed in this life and not to eternal destinies? Is Mary, the mother of our Lord, to be in a different eternal assembly from her husband Joseph simply because she lived a few years longer? Is the future to be a time of retrogression in God's program instead of a time of progression? These and other difficulties are the inevitable result of the dispensationalist's dogmatic dichotomy between Israel and the church as it is applied to Old Testament salvation.