I had intended to move on to other topics after publishing a pair of articles on dispensationalism and covenantalism. But I’ve received a fair amount of feedback from those articles, which revealed that not everyone has the same idea of what constitutes dispensationalism. So I decided to write another article outlining some basic features just to clarify what I mean by the term when I use it.
Both within and outside dispensationalism, there are different ideas of what “dispensationalism” means. Those who disagree with the view are often responding to fringe aspects of the view, not to the core ideas. That’s not to say they would all agree if they understood these core ideas, but rather that much of the criticism is aimed at the fringes. On the other hand, many dispensationalists (a broad label, to be sure) lobby hard for ideas which are tangential to dispensationalism while missing the ideas which are essential to it. In my opinion, this means we have some work to do to clarify what it actually means.
As I alluded to in a previous article, we at The Sword and Trumpet are working on a statement outlining our view, which will be published in a future issue. We hope it will be helpful for dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists alike.
I anticipate that some will think we are redefining dispensationalism. On the one hand, I admit that there are differences between my view as expressed here and some dispensationalists. On the other hand, it is consistent with more recent dispensationalist scholars, especially the ones whom I think are following the text of Scripture most closely. I’m more than happy to recommend some books and resources for readers who want to learn more.
What is Dispensationalism?
Before discussing some of the core tenets of dispensationalism, we need to understand what it is. What is the purpose of a system like dispensationalism?
As described a couple articles ago, it is a “whole-Bible theology,” a way of understanding how the storyline of Scripture fits together. It can be described as a meta-framework, a summary of the high-points of redemptive history. It recognizes that God’s redemptive purposes are consistent throughout the Bible, but that He has related at different times according to different rules.[1] These are not different gospels or different ways of salvation but different principles which govern how mankind should live under God’s governance. For example, the 10 Commandments were binding on the children of Israel in a way they were not on the people who lived before them (because they were not yet given) or on the New Testament people (because they are fulfilled in Christ).
Dispensationalism is primarily a system for understanding the overall storyline of Scripture. It is therefore not primarily an eschatological (end-times) system, though it does require a certain eschatology because of how it differentiates between Israel and the New Testament church (more on this later). Dispensationalism has often been associated with complicated eschatological timelines, date-setting, fear-mongering, and so forth, but none of these represent the heart of dispensational theology. Rather, its purpose is to help us trace how the various stages of redemptive history build toward Christ and are fulfilled in Him.
Core Beliefs
Passage Priority
At the heart of dispensationalism is a certain approach to interpreting Scripture. Simply put, we are committed to a straight-forward interpretation of Scripture, with proper emphasis on the respective audiences of both Old and New Testaments. We emphasize that the Bible should be understood according to its grammatical meaning (the meaning of the words in context) and within its historical context (as it would have been understood by its original recipients).
While dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists agree generally on these two points, we dispensationalists mean something by the second distinction that non-dispensationalists do not, namely passage priority.[2] We emphasize that Old Testament prophecies regarding a restored Israel (including descriptions of particular events, people, and places) ought to retain their original meaning and not be reinterpreted through the New Testament. If God made specific promises to ethnic Israel, we should expect them to be fulfilled in ethnic Israel.
A Distinction between Israel and the Church
Because of this approach to the Bible (and subsequent interpretations), we hold to an ongoing distinction between Israel and the church. “Distinction” is the right word, and not “separation.” It’s not that the church is disconnected from Israel. Jesus is a Jew, after all, and the New Testament authors constantly and carefully link the church to the Old Testament promises to the Jews. But there are aspects of God’s promises to Israel that remain unfulfilled, and we expect them to be fulfilled in the future. The nature of the Old Testament prophecies and covenants leads us to think that there’s more to come than we’ve seen to this point in history.
To this point, it’s significant that Jews and Gentiles continue to be distinguished throughout the New Testament. One place often cited by non-dispensationals regarding the nature of Israel is Romans 9, where Paul says that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” and “those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” Paul is making clear here that there’s more to being within God’s covenant than merely being descended from Abraham. There is a true Israel within Israel. Some take this (and related passages) to mean that the Old Testament Israel is replaced by (or fulfilled in) a new entity — the church — which is composed of those who believe in Christ.
I agree that Paul intends to teach that Abraham’s true children are those who believe in Jesus. But he continues to distinguish between the Jews and the Gentiles through the next several chapters. I believe this is because there are aspects of God’s Old Testament promises that continue to be specifically for the Jews. This seems to be more than a distinction between Jews and Gentiles as 1st century ethnicities. This distinction continues to have significance in the redemptive storyline. I say that because in Romans 11 Paul says that “blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved.” And then he cites Isaiah who describes a Deliverer from Zion who will “turn ungodliness from Jacob.”
What’s the point? That Paul thinks it is necessary to distinguish between what is happening now among the Gentiles and what will happen in the future among the Jews. Put bluntly, he doesn’t seem to think that the Gentile inclusion in the Jewish promises erases the distinction between the Gentiles and the Jews, so much so that he can speak of a future revival among the Jews after the Gentile age has passed. Expanding some of the promises to include the Gentiles does not nullify other aspects intended for the Jews, nor does restricting the nature of true Israel to those who believe in Jesus eliminate the significance of God’s promises to the Jews.
This Israel-church distinction is a core belief of dispensationalism. It is an effect of passage priority hermeneutics, and it marks the hard line between dispensationalism and other views. To put it differently, dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists agree on many things, including many aspects of hermeneutics. But the dispensational commitment to the meaning of the text in its original context leads to certain interpretations, which lead to certain views concerning Israel and the church. If we reduce dispensationalism to its basic features, Bible interpretation and the ongoing significance of Israel as a people distinct from the church are the primary tenets. The various views within dispensationalism are essentially extrapolations of these tenets, the exact flavor being determined by how far a person pursues the implications of these core beliefs.
Other Features of Dispensationalism
From here I will offer thoughts on a few ideas that are generally associated with dispensationalism and attempt to address some common misconceptions.
Dispensationalism believes in one way of salvation
It is often thought that dispensationalists believe in two ways of salvation, one for the Jews and another for the church. This is not true. It is true, unfortunately, that some self-proclaimed dispensationalists have taught that Jews were saved by keeping the law and that Christians are saved by grace, but this is manifestly contrary to the teaching of Scripture. There is only one way of salvation — faith in Christ as Savior and Lord.
This also means that there will be one people of God in eternity-future. There will be differences through the tribulation and millennium, but after the final judgment, when the new heaven and new earth come, those present in God’s city are simply “those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life” (Rev. 21:27). Heaven will not be sub-divided between the Jews and the Gentiles, but all will be united in God’s presence.
Dispensationalism affirms that the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ
We believe in a yet-future fulfillment of some of God’s promises to Israel. This doesn’t mean, however, that we believe that some of the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ and other parts are fulfilled other ways. The Old Testament — with all of its covenants and prophecies — is truly fulfilled in Christ. But we believe that there are aspects of Christ’s work that await His second coming. He came in His first coming as a suffering Messiah, atoning for our sins and establishing the New Covenant. It is significant that He never self-identifies as “King of the Jews” or “Son of David” in the New Testament. That’s not to say that He isn’t either of those things. Rather, it underlines that His first coming was focused on His atoning work. In His second coming He will be the conquering King, striking the nations with a sharp sword, ruling them with a rod of iron, and executing judgment as He treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God (cf. Rev. 19:15-16). He will reign as David’s true Son.[3]
Dispensationalism recognizes aspects of continuity between the Old and New Testaments
While the Israel-church distinction is fundamental to dispensationalism, we do not believe in a total separation between the two entities. It’s not that God started from scratch with the church, but rather that the church is allowed to participate in some of the covenant blessings originally promised to Israel. Most significantly, salvation from sin through the blood of the Messiah. The Old Testament covenants and promises pointed to Christ and are fulfilled in Him, and Gentiles are grafted into Christ by faith. Dispensationalists do not shy away from saying that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled in Christ or He fulfills the Old Testament. The church, as His bride, participates in the blessings promised to Israel in the Old Testament.
Dispensationalism requires a premillennial eschatology with the expectation of a pre-tribulational rapture
Because we distinguish between Israel and the church, we understand Revelation to describe different experiences for each group through the eschaton. The church will be raptured before the great tribulation, but Israel will go through it. This is not rooted primarily in a desire to escape the great tribulation, but rather in a careful study of Revelation as guided by a dispensational understanding of the rest of the Bible.
This is not the place for a full-orbed defense of pre-tribulational premillennialism, but I’ll give a few bullet points in defense of each aspect here. These lists are by no means exhaustive, but they represent some of the essential points.
Reasons for believing in a literal millennium:
- The Old Testament speaks often of a future restoration of Israel under one king, in fulfillment of God’s Old Testament covenants. Nothing that has happened to this point in history matches the descriptions given, nor has anything happened that fulfills every aspect of God’s covenants with Abraham and David. This encourages us to look for a period yet-future where these prophecies and promises will be fulfilled.
- Revelation 20 speaks six times about a period of 1000 years, which we call the millennium, during which Satan will be bound, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up, and sealed, and Jesus will reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This matches what we expect based on the Old Testament prophecies.
- The details surrounding this period indicate that this is a time-and-space event, not merely an allegory of the church age. For example, it is said that Jesus will reign in the millennium with those who were beheaded for their witness to Jesus during the great tribulation. This indicates that the tribulation is a separate period than the millennium. Those who were killed for their witness to Jesus during the tribulation are resurrected at the beginning of the millennium to reign with Him through that second, subsequent period.
Reasons for believing in a pre-tribulational rapture:
- The nature of the great tribulation. It is portrayed in Revelation as a period of the “wrath of the Lamb” whereby He judges the unbelieving world and cleanses it in preparation for His millennial reign. Put simply, the great tribulation is a period of divine judgment, and therefore it makes sense that God would remove His people from the earth before this period.
- Descriptions of the church in Revelation: The church is mentioned in Revelation 1-3. In Revelation 4-5 we are taken to the throne room of heaven, where 24 elders are seated in God’s presence, indicating that the church is in heaven with God and not on the earth. There is no mention of the church in chapters 6-18.[4] This would seem to indicate that the church is not present in the great tribulation.
- The nature of the church: Since the church is seen as a separate entity from Israel (though within the same covenant stream), it is consistent to anticipate that the church would be removed before God returns to dealing with the Jews.
Dispensationalists affirm Christ’s sovereign reign now
Christ is king of heaven and earth, and His reign is not restricted to the future millennium. Sometimes because we want to emphasize Christ’s future millennial kingdom, we shy away from saying that Jesus is king now. We should not hesitate to say that He is king, even while realizing that His reign as King of Israel in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant awaits a future fulfillment in the millennium.
Dispensationalism does not require a certain view of the modern nation-state of Israel
While the current nation-state of Israel may indicate that the rapture is imminent, it is also quite possible that they will be destroyed and scattered again throughout the world. What happens to the current nation-state of Israel has little to do with whether or not God will ultimately accomplish what is prophesied in Revelation.
Put differently, the fact that Israel is currently reconstituted as a nation does not guarantee that the rapture is coming and that the tribulation is at hand. If Israel is destroyed, God will still accomplish His purposes in the end. According to His wisdom and His plan, He will cause revival among the Jews. The destruction of Israel (as a nation) will not thwart God’s plans.
On the flip side, it is entirely possible that the church will be raptured before Israel is established as a nation. The timeline of Revelation does not require Israel to be reconstituted prior to the rapture, only before the tribulation.
I am concerned when dispensationalists begin to think that God’s purposes rise and fall with the current nation of Israel. God’s ultimate aim for the church, the world, and Israel is not married to this nation. I am also concerned when people refer to the current nation as “God’s people” when they are living in abject rebellion to Him. They do not honor God, nor do they love Him. The nation as it exists does not match the Old Testament descriptions of a restored Israel, which talks about God’s law being written on their hearts alongside of their reestablishment as a nation under Christ (see Deut. 30:6, Jer. 30-33).
This is immensely practical. If we become convinced that we know the day and the hour of Christ’s return, we may become lazy in our service to Him. We should live as if Christ could come any minute, and that means giving ourselves to productive, missional work. If our eschatology causes us to be lax in the more fundamental and more urgent aspects of the Christian life, our priorities are jumbled.
Dispensationalism is not novel
Dispensationalism is frequently charged with being the invention of John Nelson Darby in the 19th century, which was then systematized and popularized by C. I. Scofield in his reference Bible. While there’s some truth to Darby’s significance, it is disingenuous to imply that the system was invented whole-cloth by one man. There’s good evidence that a number of dispensational distinctives have been present in the church since its inception.[5] I would not go so far as to argue that dispensationalism as we think of it today goes back to the early church, but many of the pieces are there.
From a historical standpoint, it would be hard to argue that dispensationalism has more warrant than classic covenantalism or progressive covenantalism, but I think it has just as much warrant. Classic covenantalism came to its own in the Reformation, and has been refined since then. Progressive covenantalism is newer than dispensationalism, and is a bit of a hybrid of other views. It is uncharitable and untrue to say that dispensationalism is newer or more novel than other views.[6]
I’ve observed that we all tend to think our own views are the oldest and best. We ought to be more honest (and humble) in recognizing that the church has held various views throughout her history. Alongside this we should remember that meta-systems like dispensationalism and covenantalism are relatively late developments in church history. We should be charitable toward those who put the pieces together differently than we do.
What really matters is what the Bible says. That doesn’t mean we disregard church history, but we shouldn’t think of church history as a trump card. It is generally true that the older views are more faithful to Scripture, but it is not universally true. We need to anchor ourselves to Scripture, even while allowing other voices from church history to help us get the meaning right.
Conclusion
This introduction is necessarily brief. There are plenty of good resources out there, so I don’t intend to do more on this subject at this point.[7] I know my readers hold various views, and I’m not necessarily trying to say that my view is the only acceptable view. I hope this helps foster more accurate (and more charitable) dialogue between dispensationalist and non-dispensationalists as we all pursue a better, clearer, fuller knowledge of Christ as He has been revealed in Scripture.
[1] The word “dispensations” is often used to translate the Greek oikonomia, which refers to the management of household affairs, or the rules of household management.
[2] For more on this, see “My Concerns with Covenant Theology” from the September issue.
[3] This is not to say that He was not the son of David during His first advent, but that He did not exercise that authority then.
[4] Those mentioned in chapter 6 came “out of the great tribulation.”
[5] See Discovering Dispensationalism by Cory M. Marsh and James I. Fazio.
[6] Dispensationalism is more complex than other views because it attempts to account for the details of biblical prophecy. Because of this, it is easier to trace a through-line for other views (which are simpler and therefore more broadly represented).
[7] Unless there’s overwhelming interest. Email me if you want to hear more on this.
Discover more from Theological Touchpoints
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.