The Dispensational Lens

As a millennial who grew up in broad evangelicalism, I don’t remember my pastor or teachers using the label "Dispensationalism." But it shaped the way many Christians were taught to read the Bible. The prophets were read with an eye toward modern-day Israel. The book of Revelation was treated as a timeline for future world events. News from the Middle East carried prophetic significance, and the founding of Israel as a nation state in 1948 was celebrated as a dramatic fulfillment of prophecy. Popular fiction like the Left Behind series, fueled the imagination with biblical-sounding plausibility. Whether people realized it or not, a theological framework was informing how the Bible and headlines were understood.

Dispensationalism has been one of the most influential theological systems in American evangelicalism making inroads through the Plymouth Brethern. At the same time, it’s not monolithic. For more than a century it has developed along a spectrum. Classical Dispensationalism, associated with J.N. Darby and C.I. Scofield, drew a very sharp distinctions in redemptive history, affecting their view on the people of God and even salvation. While this classic form exists at the popular level, it has largely been discredited by biblical scholarship.

Later revisions softened some of the features that originally distinguished the system. Vern Poythress wrote, “Many contemporary dispensationalist scholars have now modified considerably the classic form” (Understanding Dispensationalists, p. 12). For example, Progressive Dispensationalism has tried to emphasize greater continuity in the unfolding biblical story while maintaining core commitments. An in-depth explanation or engagement needs to acknowledge these real differences. But within the various expressions, and I know this is painting with very broad strokes, there’s some defining convictions central to the system. Dispensationalists tend to see through a certain lens – a literal interpretation of the Bible, a distinction between Israel and the church, and the millennial reign of Jesus Christ.

First, Dispensationalism, in greater or lesser degrees, relies on a fairly wooden literalism in its interpretation of the Old Testament. As Poythress observed, “In a sense nearly all the problems associated with the dispensationalist-nondispensationalist conflict are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation” (p. 78). Dispensationalists may explain this approach by appealing to the “normal” or “plain” reading of Scripture.

For example, prophecies about Israel are taken to refer to the ethnic nation of Israel. Promises about land refer to a specific geographical territory. Predictions about a temple or sacrificial system are understood as pointing to the future physical restoration of those institutions. Straying from such a plain reading is sometimes brushed off as a figurative or spiritual interpretation of the Bible.

At first glance, this kind of literalism can be appealing because it appears simple and straightforward. The difficulty, however, is that the New Testament itself interprets the Old Testament prophecies and promises in ways that go beyond a strict literal reading. Take, for instance, the Apostolic use of Amos 9 and the raising up of the “booth of David.” A literal reading might expect restoration of the David kingdom with Israel ruling nations. But in Acts 15 this prophecy is cited as applying to the Gentiles being brought into the church — this restoration is fulfilled in the gathering of nations into the church.

Helpfully, OT Allis argued, “In the light of the New Testament fulfillment, a deeper and far more wonderful meaning in the words of many an Old Testament passage than, taken in their Old Testament context and connection, they seem to contain” (Prophecy and the Church, p. 18). In other words, the promises are fulfilled in ways that reach beyond their historical setting and find realization in Christ and his people. The temple is Christ’s body and the dwelling place of the Spirit. Even the land promise stretches to something larger than the borders of ancient Israel.

A biblical way of reading the Bible is to let the New Testament give fuller light, clarifying and deepening what is contained in the Old Testament.

Second, Dispensationalism maintains a distinction between Israel and the church. John Gerstner, who was unsparing in his criticisms, wrote, “Perhaps the central doctrine of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the church. Dispensationalism sees Israel as an earthly people with earthly promises, and the church as a heavenly people with heavenly promises.” (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth).

This is most drastic in classical dispensational thought, which treats the New Testament church like a parenthetical interruption to God’s plan for Israel. God’s promises to ethnic Israel are temporarily postponed while the dispensation of the church runs its course. This culminates in the pretribulational rapture of the Gentile church, after which the promises to Israel will be fulfilled in the future national restoration of Israel. Citing Daniel Fuller approvingly, Charles Ryrie said the “basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity” (Dispensationalism).

This distinction becomes especially important when interpreting promises of the Old Testament. According to a dispensational framework, promises made to Israel belong to Israel, and will be ultimately fulfilled in Israel as a nation. The church may share in certain spiritual blessings but it doesn’t inherit Israel’s identity or promises. In this way, Israel and the church remain two distinct peoples within the plan of God.

The difficulty of maintaining this distinction has been recognized within Dispensationalism itself, and modified forms have altered this significantly. Progressive Dispensationalism, for example, wouldn’t see Israel and the church “as different arrangements between God and the human race,” but rather “as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption” (RL Thomas “Progressive Dispensationalism”). That’s a step in the right direction.

The church isn’t an interruption to the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Biblically, there’s a vital connection between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church. In Titus 2:14 Paul speaks of the church as “a people for his own possession” (see also 1 Pt. 2:9). This designation is clearly taken from Israel and applied to the church (see Ex. 19:5 and Deut. 7:6). This is consistent in the New Testament. The history, names, calling, and dignity of the people of God in the Old Testament comes to define the church in the New. There is only one people of God — an olive tree into which the Gentiles have been grafted by faith in Christ. Unbelieving Israel has been cut off, yet they too may be grafted in again through faith (Rom. 11:17-24).

Third, Dispensationalism expects the fulfillment of biblical promises in a future earthly millennial kingdom. Premillennialism teaches that the thousand-year reign mentioned in Revelation 20:1-6 is a future earthly kingdom that follows the second coming of Jesus — Christ will return before the millennium and establish a literal thousand-year reign.

In classical dispensational thought the reign of Christ is entirely future, while more recent modified forms acknowledge his reign has begun in some sense. Nevertheless, all forms of Dispensationalism still require a future earthly kingdom in which Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in a national restoration. This accounts, at least in part, for the fervency with which many evangelicals regard the nation state of Israel and why many feel obligated as Christians to support the nation state.

In the standard dispensational timeline, the present age ends with the rapture of the church, followed by seven years of tribulation. After this period Christ will return visibly, and that event begins the millennial kingdom. During that time Christ will rule from Jerusalem, Israel’s national promises will be fulfilled, and many expect the temple to be rebuilt and sacrifices restored. At the end of the millennium Satan will be released, a final rebellion will occur, and Christ will defeat it.

The theological framework on which Dispensational Premillennialism depends is built on the first two points of this article: a literal interpretation of biblical promises and prophecies, and the distinction between Israel and the church in God’s redemptive plan. While different eschatological systems have been accepted within the Reformed tradition (historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism), they all reject the idea that the restoration of Israel as a nation, the reestablishment of geographic boundaries, or the rebuilding of a temple are fulfillments of biblical promises expected in Christ.

It’s not surprising that Dispensationalism has shaped the imagination and reading of so many Christians in the evangelical world in which I grew up. Its framework is clear, its literalism seems straightforward, and — especially classical dispensationalism — is quite internally consistent. But the unity of Scripture points us in a different direction that rejects the dispensational system. The promises of God converge in Jesus Christ, in whom all the promises are “Yes and Amen,” and through him to all united to him by faith. In him the people of God are gathered from every tribe, language, and nation and the kingdom promised has already begun its advance until the day when Christ returns and brings it to its final consummation.