When I was a teenager, I went with some kids in my youth group to an experience in LaGrange, GA, called Judgment Journey. We went in October, the time of year when kids dressed up for Halloween. It was something like a Christian haunted house, intended to be a dramatic portrayal of what happens in the end times. Aspects of the event were universal to what all Christians teach and believe–Jesus will return, there will be a final judgment, and people will be sorted into eternal reward or punishment. However, I remember one part of the experience showed crashed cars and planes, the drivers having been whisked away to go be with the Lord while passengers were left behind in a bloody, painful mess. I now know this depiction was of a pretribulation rapture, which is part of a larger theological system called dispensationalism, the subject of this post.
When it comes to understanding the future and what Scripture says about the end times, I must confess that this isn't my favorite topic. When wading into these issues, you can end up having battles on several fronts. Further, the debates in the church over different views of the millennium or how to understand God fulfilling prophecy do not usually strike at the heart of Christian belief and practice. I have seen some people approach end-time theology with such fervor that it becomes their main obsession. They preoccupy themselves over elaborate end-time theories while neglecting more important things like making disciples of Jesus, prayer, serving others, and the fruit of the Holy Spirit. But I’ve been reminded lately that there also is danger in neglect. Seeing what is going on in terms of the modern day nation-state of Israel and what large swaths of the church believe about it has encouraged me to do a deeper dive on this. I share my musings below, and I welcome your correction if I’m mistaken.
In preparation for this post, I’ve consulted the following books:
- Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, edited by Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas. Contributors to the book are Michael Horton (of Westminster Seminary California, representing Covenant Theology), Stephen Wellum (of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, representing Progressive Covenantalism), Darrell Bock (of Dallas Theological Seminary, representing Progressive Dispensationalism), and Mark Snoeberger (of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, representing Traditional Dispensationalism)
- A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger
- A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology edited by Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung
- The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Wesleyanism, and Pentecostalism by Ben Witherington III.
It is helpful here to lay out three common ways Christians throughout church history have understood the end times. All of these theologies have “millennial” in their name because they relate to how a person interprets Revelation 20:1-10, which speaks of a thousand year binding of Satan as well as a thousand year reign of Christ that he shares with people who “come to life” and experience the “first resurrection.” Premillennialists believe Jesus returns before the millennium and then institutes a literal 1,000 year period of time involving a literal resurrection of the righteous, and after the 1,000 years, wickedness will finally be defeated and God will judge the world. Amillennialists view the 1,000 years as a symbol for the present age of the church instead of a literal period of time, the binding of Satan as the defeat of Satan through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the first resurrection as either A.) someone’s conversion to Christianity or B.) a blessed life after death for the righteous. Some amilliennialists still maintain that there will be a future large-scale defection from Christianity and a mass alignment of wickedness against Christianity (Rev. 20:7-10) before the return of Christ. I’ll give you a quote for defining Postmillennialism:
Postmillennialism takes this thousand-year period, or millennium, as the final period of time during this present era, in which believers, yielded to the power of the Holy Spirit, facilitate a Christianizing of the earth to an unprecedented extent, thereby creating the idyllic earthly conditions described in Revelation 20 and in numerous Old Testament passages (particularly in the closing chapters of a number of the Prophets). In this scheme, Christ then comes back after the millennium (Blomberg & Chung, A Case for Historic Premillennialism, pp. xii-xiii).
Dispensationalism originated in the 19th century and is a particular form of premillennialism. The name comes from the idea that “God had divided all of history into seven distinct Dispensations or ages. In each of these Dispensations God dealt with people differently, and according to different rules” (Ben Witherington III, The Problem with Evangelical Theology, p. 111). It adds some other beliefs in addition to Jesus returning to institute a 1,000 year reign:
- A belief that Old Testament prophecies must be fulfilled literally. Even if New Testament (NT) passages expand on the initial meaning of an Old Testament (OT) text in how they report that text being fulfilled, this does not negate a literal, plain-sense fulfillment of that OT prophetic text. (More on this below.)
- The belief that God is still very involved with ethnic, political, territorial Israel, and that there are OT promises made to Israel that have not yet been fulfilled. These involve the land promised to Israel in the OT being restored to the Jews, the monarchy of David having an earthly manifestation in this age (this is often said to happen during the millennial reign of Christ of Rev. 20), and a third temple being built in Jerusalem where animal sacrifices will be reinstituted. The people of Israel are to dwell in the boundaries of the promised land as specified in the OT for all eternity in the new creation. Dispensationalists would heavily criticize the notion that the church is now the true Israel as “replacement theology” or “supersessionism” (Parker & Lucas, eds., Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, p. 13). While there is unity between Gentile and Jewish Christians in Christ, God still has a distinct plan for Israel, and OT promises made to Israel should not be spiritualized or exclusively applied to the church or to Christ. Often Christians who are very supportive of the modern nation-state of Israel are dispensationalists, believing modern Israel is blessed by God to accomplish his end-time purposes.
- A pretribulation rapture (or “seizing up”) of the church, where the church is removed from earth to go be with Jesus for seven years while those remaining on earth experience an intense seven year period of tribulation and suffering. This view separates the rapture from the second-coming of Christ, making them two different events. It’s important to note that no one in church history believed in a pretribulation rapture before John Nelson Darby comes on the scene in the 1800s.
A Brief History of Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism has its origins in the nineteenth century, and it was first taught by J. Nelson Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren in Scotland in 1830, with claims that he took it from a 15 year old girl named Margaret MacDonald who said she had a vision about two returns of Christ. Darby expounded on this notion and spread it. Dispensationalism has been and continues to be a Protestant phenomenon–I’m not aware of it gaining traction among Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Darby’s teachings did not meet with much success in the British Isles, but he made several evangelistic trips to America and won many converts to his theology and thinking there. The influential evangelist Dwight L. Moody became a proponent of Darby’s theology, preaching it in America and the UK, and dispensational theology became entrenched for some time at Moody Bible Institute as well as Moody Press. Then came Cyrus I. Scofield in 1909. The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was replete with maps, charts, notes, and headings that espoused dispensational theology, made it seem like these teachings were obvious inferences coming from the text of Scripture itself. The Scofield Bible was massively popular and ended up selling millions of copies, spreading dispensational thought widely in America. (Interestingly, Scofield himself was something of a scoundrel, with allegations of him being an embezzler, abandoning his first wife and children, and later refusing to provide financially for his children.) Then came the founding of Dallas Theological Seminary by Lewis Chafer in 1924, which became a bastion of dispensational theology and biblical exegesis (Witherington, Problem, pp. 110-112). Today there is some diversity within dispensational thought. Some adhere to a more traditional form of dispensationalism that maintains a more rigid, historically-bound hermeneutic for interpreting prophecy, denying that Jesus has fulfilled some prophecies in the present age (which is often labeled as realized or inaugurated eschatology). Others espouse progressive dispensationalism, demonstrating more of a “both/and” approach and maintaining that we should still look for the the original, literal, historically-bound meaning of prophecies to be fulfilled while also embracing unexpected, expanded fulfillments brought about in Christ. Proponents of progressive dispensationalism are much more persuasive in their argumentation than their traditionalist counterparts, with Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, and Robert Saucy being some of the ablest representatives of progressive dispensationalism. We'll explore this a bit more below.
In terms of contemporary influence, however, few have achieved the massive impact enjoyed by Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and Jerry Jenkins. Hal Lindsey was a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and wrote The Late Great Planet Earth, which was “…the best-selling work of nonfiction (or so it was classified) throughout this country in the entire decade of the 1970s (and I am not just referring to sales of Christian works)” (Blomberg, Historic Premillennialism, p. 63). LaHaye and Jenkins (Jenkins spent time at Moody Bible Institute) are authors of the Left Behind series, which has sold over 65 million copies in the adult book series alone, and about 10 million copies in the children’s book series. That’s a lot of exposure! Some other more recent and prominent names of people in the dispensationalist camp are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, John MacArthur, David Jeremiah, and Max Lucado. Interestingly enough, a lot of Messianic Jews embrace dispensational views as well.
My question is, does dispensationalism make sense? Is it the best reading of Scripture? Does it stand up to scrutiny? Let’s explore below.
How Is Prophecy Fulfilled?
One of the key contentions in dispensational theology is that all prophecies from the OT must be fulfilled literally. If prophecies are made about a new temple being constructed according to certain measurements and the tribes of Israel being restored to the promised land according to certain boundaries (as in Ezekiel chapters 40-48), then that is a literal promise that we should expect to be fulfilled in the future. Dispensationalists argue that other end-time views too often resort to a “spiritualizing” interpretation of passages that allows too much foreign meaning to be downloaded into the text, seemingly going against the plain, original sense of the text. Critics would fire back that dispensationalists are not paying attention to how the NT writers themselves are interpreting prophecy. If Jesus and the apostles take more of a spiritual, not-totally-literal interpretation on the fulfillment of certain OT prophecies, then that’s the right way to go, since Jesus is preeminent. This leads to an interesting interpretive conflict. Kim Riddlebarger quotes Richard Gaffin as to the nature of the dispute:
Is the New Testament to be allowed to interpret the Old as the best, most reliable interpretive tradition in the history of the church (and certainly the Reformed tradition) has always insisted? Does the New Testament as a whole–as the God-breathed record of the end point of the history of special revelation–provide the controlling vantage point for properly understanding the entire Old Testament, including its prophecies? Or alternatively, will the Old Testament… become the hermeneutical fulcrum? (Kim Riddlebarger quoting Richard Gaffin, A Case for Amillennialism, p. 50).
I know this sounds esoteric, so here’s an example to illustrate it. Riddlebarger writes of how James the brother of Jesus quotes from Amos 9:11-12 at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 to show how the NT writers saw that prophecy from Amos as being fulfilled:
In Acts 15, the church in Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas to report to the Jerusalem council regarding the salvation of the Gentiles and to seek help in resolving the question that had been troubling the church as a result. Should Gentile converts be circumcised in order to be saved? Once in the city, Paul and Barnabas reported to the elders and apostles on all the things God was doing among the Gentiles (v. 4). When certain converted Pharisees declared that Gentiles must be circumcised to obey the law of Moses (v. 5), Peter refuted their arguments by pointing out that it was God who had given these Gentiles the Holy Spirit: “We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (v. 11). Then James, the leader of the church, spoke (vv. 13ff.): “God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written,” and James cited a passage from Amos 9:11-12: “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ that have been known for ages.” James saw the prophecy as fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection and exaltation and in the reconstitution of his disciples as the new Israel. The presence of both Jew and Gentile in the church was proof that the prophecy of Amos had been fulfilled. David’s fallen tent had been rebuilt by Christ. In Amos’s prophecy, “after this” indicated that the prophecy referred to what God would do for Israel after the exile. When James applied this prophecy to the church, was he spiritualizing an Old Testament text? Or was James reading the Old Testament through a Christ-centered lens typical of the greater light of the messianic age? This question lies at the heart of the debate between amillenarians [along with historic premillennialists and postmillennialists] and dispensationalists. The famous notes of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) say that from a dispensational perspective James’s speech is the most important in the New Testament. According to Scofield, James is describing what will happen after the church age concludes (“after this”), i.e., in the millennium, when God will reestablish a Davidic ruler over Israel. If this is true, when Paul and Barnabas sought guidance for a concern that was immediate to them (Should Gentile converts be circumcised?), James responded by pointing to a future millennium thousands of years distant. Here is one instance in which dispensational presuppositions get in the way of the plain sense of the text. Scofield interprets the text literalistically, not literally (Riddlebarger, Amillennialism, pp. 52-53).
Thankfully, progressive dispensationalists like Darrell Bock reject the strained traditional dispensational interpretation of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15. Instead, he argues for more of a “both/and” approach to prophetic fulfillment as mentioned above, affirming that the rebuilding of David’s dynasty and the inclusion of Gentiles is being fulfilled by Jesus, while still holding out hope that a more literal sense of an earthly Davidic kingdom will still yet be actualized (probably in the millennium, though he does not directly state that in his essay). Sometimes prophecy doesn’t have to be either-or in terms of being totally fulfilled or not fulfilled at all, but can be partially fulfilled and have multiple layers in terms of what it forecasts. Here’s Bock at some length on his understanding of prophecy:
I am arguing that what is taking place is not a change of meaning but making explicit what is implicit in these promises as they are connected in the progress of revelation as more is said about how those promises work. I contend there can be “more” in the promise as it is connected to other promises attached to it as revelation progresses but not at a loss of what has been affirmed originally. This is the idea of a complementary hermeneutic. In this way, meaning is both stable and also can be developed as revelation progresses because the anchor of the original sense is never lost in any expansion of scope (Bock, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, p. 119).
I think Bock’s both/and hermeneutic of prophetic fulfillment has merit and can be true in some instances, but I question some of the ways he applies it.
His method seems to fail in the test case of circumcision. Circumcision is part of God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17, and in 17:13, God says “My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.” So the literal, historically-bound teaching is that circumcision would be practiced in perpetuity, on into eternity. But when the NT comes around, circumcision is no longer required. It was a source of debate at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), but the church came to adopt Paul’s position as he articulates it in Galatians 5:6–“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” This is an invalidation of the original, historically-bound sense of the covenant of circumcision God made with Abraham in the OT. In the NT, the paradigm of circumcision has been transfigured and applied to baptism (Colossians 2:11-12), which is still a sacramental act done to the flesh, but not a fully literal application of Genesis 17:13. Paul also spiritualizes circumcision by speaking of circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 2:28-29, see also the putting off of the whole self per Col. 2:11). If the “both/and” paradigm of prophetic fulfillment were in play, we would expect something like the position of the Judaizers in Acts 15:1 to be affirmed, that people must be both circumcised and baptized in order to be saved and become part of God’s people, since God’s original promises cannot be altered. But the NT authors insisted that the original, literal requirement of the eternal covenant of circumcision has been fulfilled and modified in the coming of Christ and the Spirit, and a spiritualized and expanded notion of circumcision has been applied to baptism and conversion in the NT. The original sense has been modified. Here we have an example not of “both/and,” but of a cancellation of the literal sense and an appropriation of a spiritualized sense of circumcision. (I further find it interesting that the land promised to Abraham is in this very same chapter of Genesis 17 and is also called an eternal promise, but, as we’ll see below, I also believe it is no longer binding and has been transfigured by the coming of Jesus).
The critique of the dispensational view of prophecy is that it privileges literalistic interpretations of OT prophecies and texts over how the NT writers themselves actually interpret those texts, making a woodenly interpreted OT more authoritative than the NT. Putting the OT above the NT whenever there are tensions or divergences is never a great way to proceed as a Christian. What if a close reading of the NT actually points away from rigidly literalistic fulfillments of some prophecies? We’ll examine more areas below where these different approaches to interpretation and prophecy have relevance as we discuss questions of Israel’s identity, the promised land, the temple, the city of Jerusalem, and a pretribulation rapture.
Who Is Israel?
Dispensational theology understands God to still be at work in fulfilling prophecy through ethnic, territorial, political Israel. Recently there was an interview that made some headlines (see the relevant clip here) between Republican Senator Ted Cruz and right-wing media personality Tucker Carlson. Ted Cruz shared his beliefs as to why he supports the modern nation-state of Israel, citing that Scripture says that those who bless Israel are blessed by God, and those who curse Israel will be cursed by God (Gen. 12:3). Cruz’s beliefs are reflective of many people who hold to a dispensational theology concerning Israel. Carlson asks Cruz to do something very important, however: “Define Israel.” Cruz goes on to equate the modern nation-state of Israel with Abraham and his descendants who received that promise of blessing, multiplication, and land in Genesis. But it’s important for us to ask: is that correct? According to the NT, who is Israel?
One of the most challenging arguments Paul made to the Judaism of his day was that being a child of Abraham is defined by the faith of Abraham, not physical descent from Abraham. The faith of Abraham was a faith that God could bring life out of the dead reproductive potential of an elderly couple well beyond childbearing years, and this faith should now find its home in God bringing life from death in the crucified and resurrected Jesus (Rom. 4:18-25). Being a true child of Abraham is now marked by faith in Christ. This permits Paul to say that Jews and Gentiles together who put their faith in Jesus are now children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7-9; Rom. 4:9-17), and Paul calls Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus “Israel” in Gal. 6:16. Circumcision was a sign of membership in Israel back in the OT, and Paul writes in Philippians 3:3–“For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put not confidence in the flesh.” For Paul to say that we–Jews and Gentiles together who believe in Jesus–are the circumcision, amounts to Paul saying that the church is Israel. In Romans 2:28-29, Paul says true Jews aren't those who are merely Jewish outwardly (think circumcision, ethnicity, temple worship, etc.), but one is a true Jew inwardly when you've received and been transformed by the Holy Spirit. Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22 says that Gentiles were formerly excluded from “citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise” (v. 12), but now Gentiles who believe in Jesus (along with Christian Jews) are “no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household…” (v. 19). The church–Jews and Gentiles together who believe in Christ–are the people of God, citizens of Israel, and receivers of the covenant promises. In Galatians 3:27-29, Paul writes, “…for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” The church who belongs to Christ is truly the seed, the descendants, of Abraham. The church is Israel. The Apostles Peter and John say that the church is “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession” (1 Pet 2:9; see also Rev. 1:6; 5:9-10), which were designations given to the people of Israel in Exodus 19:4-6. All of these passages unite together in a cascading message: the church is Israel. Jews who reject Jesus, while loved by God and possessing knowledge and honor from their heritage (Rom. 9:3-5; 11:28-29), have missed God’s salvation in Jesus (Rom. 9:30-10:4), and are like branches that have been broken off from the olive tree of God’s people (Rom. 11:11-24). Though ethnically descended from Israel, they are not truly Israel in terms of being saved and empowered as God’s chosen community of blessing in the world, “for not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Rom. 9:6). This is why Paul as a Jew himself converted to Christianity, why he evangelized Jews in synagogues in his missionary journeys in Acts, and why he writes in Romans 10:1 that “my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.” For Paul, faith in Jesus now defines membership in Israel. Jesus defines who is truly “God’s people.”
Romans 11:25-27 is sometimes roped in to these conversations, which reads:
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way [or “and so”] all Israel will be saved. As it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
Some interpreters interpret “all Israel” being saved as referring to the way in which God will save Israel as it has been redefined by Jesus–Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. Others see this passage as referring to a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews to Christianity, happening particularly before the return of Christ. However you interpret the passage, it does not say that we should look to ethnic, political, territorial, non-Christian Israel as a divinely blessed entity and source of what God is doing in the world today.
Others bring in the 144,000 sealed from the tribes of Israel in Revelation 7:1-8 as having relevance for what God will do with ethnic Israel in the future. Revelation 5 can give us a clue as to how to interpret the significance of the 144,000. Initially in Revelation 5, John is distraught that no one has authority to open seven seals so that a scroll in God’s hand can be read. In Revelation 5:5, one of the elders tells John that “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” When John looks to see this being who was just described as a triumphant Lion, however, he sees in 5:6 a slain Lamb. The description John heard and what he actually sees are radically different, and yet both are symbolic truths that are applicable to one person, Jesus, who is both a substitutionary sacrifice as our Lamb and a conquering king as our Lion.
Here’s Craig Blomberg, who sees the same technique being used in Revelation 7–
John hears the number of those God protects on earth during the tribulation, and it sounds very Jewish (the number of the twelve tribes times itself times a big round number), but when he looks to see the throng, he recognizes people from every ethnic group on earth [7:9]. This is the church of Jesus Christ, the ultimate fulfillment of many promises to Israel, symbolically depicted as Israel…(Blomberg, Premillennialism, pp. 76-77).
In essence, the 144,000 from the tribe of Israel that John hears about is also the great multitude from every tribe, tongue, and nation that John sees. The church is made up of a remnant of Jews who believe in Jesus along with a mass of Gentiles who believe in Jesus, similar to what Paul says in Romans 11.
It seems to me that dispensationalists fail to grasp how the New Testament writers view the church of Jesus as true and renewed Israel, the people through which God is carrying forward his work in the world and to whom he is fulfilling the promises he made to Israel in the OT through Christ. Non-Christian Jews are branches broken off from the olive tree of God’s people according to Romans 11. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:20 that all of God’s promises are yes and amen in Jesus, in essence that all of his promises must in some way involve and center on Jesus for their fulfillment. We shouldn’t be looking for God to fulfill his promises in a way that excludes Jesus, which I think some aspects of dispensationalism does in its focus on national Israel. I fear sometimes that dispensational theology’s teachings on Israel distracts from Christ rather than centralizing and magnifying him. How is the vastly non-Christian modern nation of Israel pointing people to Christ? How is it a demonstration of how God fulfills all of his promises in Christ? I don’t see God specially favoring the Jews over others in the NT or commanding Christians to support the political endeavors of Jews in the NT. In saying this, I certainly don’t want to condone antisemitism. From some college protests that devolved into hate speech and harassment toward Jews to the recent murder of two workers at the Israeli embassy in Washington DC in May of 2025, antisemitism is unfortunately alive and well. The church doesn't need to contribute to it any further. But I also want to be honest about what the Bible is saying.
I also see in dispensational teachings about Israel a subtle subversion of the unity and equality that Jewish and Gentile Christians enjoy in Christ. Can dispensationalists honestly say that God shows no favoritism in terms of Jew and Gentile (Rom. 2:5-11) when they maintain that there are certain rewards and promises than only apply to ethnically Jewish Christians and not Gentile Christians, like Jews eternally dwelling in the boundaries of the promised land? “…the text says nothing about national Israel receiving outstanding promises in the millennium (and eternal state) distinct or different from believing Gentiles. […] Instead, the Bible’s storyline teaches that all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ and his people, the church” (Stephen Wellum, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, p. 110). Do you get bumped up a few points in God’s eyes if you’re a Jewish Christian vs. if you’re a Gentile Christian? While not always saying it, this is sometimes the impression I get from some dispensational teachers. I see Paul teaching us that there’s parity and oneness that Jesus has brought between Jews and Gentiles in the church, and dispensational views of Israel at times seem to undermine this unity and equality.
Leaving Behind the Pretribulation Rapture
Another big tenet of dispensationalism is a pretribulation rapture. “The term rapture, of course, does not occur anywhere in the New Testament. It comes from the Latin word raptus/raptio which in turn is a translation of the Greek word arpadzo which means “caught up” (1 Thess 4:17) (Witherington, Problem, p. 110). In this section, I don’t mean to give the impression that I don’t believe in a rapture–I do. The seizing up and gathering of God’s people is biblical, as we’ll see from texts like 1 Thes. 4:13-18 and Mat. 24:31. Instead, I intend to offer a critique of the particular view dispensationalists have about the rapture, that it will occur before the second coming of Jesus and will remove the church from the earth for a period of seven years while a great tribulation afflicts the earth.
Daniel 9:20-27
A crucial text for a seven year pretribulation rapture is Daniel 9:20-27, which leads to what they call the “great parenthesis” of the church age that stands between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. In this teaching, dispensationalists maintain that the people of Israel largely rejecting Jesus as their messiah put a pause on the 70 weeks timeline of Daniel 9, a pause/parenthesis that so far has lasted over 2,000 years. Here is Daniel 9:20-27 in full in the NIV:
While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill—while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision: Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place. Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”
Interpretation of Daniel 9:20-27 has been contested throughout history. For the purposes of this post, one thing to note is that a break occurring between the 69th and 70th week is nowhere to be found in this text. “The insertion of gap of at least two thousand years between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week is a self-contradictory violation of the dispensationlist’s professed literal hermeneutic. Where is the gap found in the text? Dispensationalists must insert it” (Riddlebarger, Amillennialism, p. 181). This text also says nothing about God's people being rescued from the earth during the last seven.
Gabriel never says that these “sevens” represent years, though that is how most interpreters have proceeded. Some take him to be referring to chronological years, which would be a 490 year period, while others think he is speaking more symbolically, without strict adherence to literal, measurable periods of time. John Goldingay gives a good survey of some variations you can run into when it comes to interpreting this passage in a chronological sense:
It might be more surprising that interpreters such as Julius, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Apollinaris, and Tertullian and their equivalents in the twenty-first century, who are in broad agreement over an interpretive starting point, disagree over whether (e.g.) to work back from Jesus’s birth or death, and/or whether to work back to Artaxerxes, Darius, or Cyrus, and/or over how many days to assume that there are in a year, and and/or over where one locates the final seven years. Their differences of understanding reflect some inevitable arbitrariness over the starting point, the finishing point, and the method of calculation (John Goldingay, Daniel (rev. ed.): Word Biblical Commentary, p. 484).
Some interpreters believe Daniel 9:24-27 refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanies in 165 BC, who murdered the Jewish high priest of the time, Onias III (who they take to be the “anointed one,” since priests were anointed as part of their ordination); Antiochus made a covenant with rebellious Jews (like in 1 Maccabees 1:11) and set up an idolatrous abomination in the temple (Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Daniel: The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. VII, p. 128). John Goldingay also believes the crisis caused by Antiochus in the 160s BC is what this prophecy is primarily referring to, though he adds that it can have a foreshadowing relationship to both the coming of Jesus and the end times (Goldingay, Daniel, pp. 496-498).
Joyce Baldwin pushes more firmly in a kaleidoscopic direction in her Daniel commentary, maintaining that the passage can have multiple applications: to Antiochus Epiphanies in 165 BC, to the first coming of Christ and his death, to the destruction of the temple in AD 70 by the Romans, as well as to an end-time set of events.
Commentators who argue that Antiochus Epiphanies fulfilled this prophecy are at a loss to account for the fact that he destroyed neither the Temple nor the city of Jerusalem [as 9:26 maintains], though undoubtedly much damage was done (1 Macc. 1:31, 38) (Baldwin, Daniel: Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, p. 171).
She further comments:
In the Gospels Jesus makes reference to the seventy weeks only in terms of ‘the abomination of desolation’ (Mt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14, AV, RV; ‘the desolating sacrilege’, RSV), which is to be the sign of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, fulfilled in AD 70. For Him the significance of the phrase was not exhausted by it applicability to the outrages of Antiochus Epiphanies. The book of Revelation takes up the symbolism of ‘half of the week’, expressed in 11:2 as forty-two months [3.5 years], during which the city is trampled underfoot, and in 13:5 the beast has authority for the same period. If this book was written, as most scholars claim it was, after the fall of Jerusalem, it makes a further application of our passage [beyond the destruction of the temple]… Thus the New Testament positively encourages the view that, while there are interim events that bear out the truth of the imagery, it points forward to a culmination at the end of history (Baldwin, Daniel, pp. 174-175).
However you interpret Daniel 9:24-27, the insertion of a gap between the 69th and 70th years, as well as the notion of a removal of God’s people from a seven year period of tribulation, is simply not in the text.
The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, & Luke 21)
Another key set of texts concerning a pretribulation rapture is the Olivet Discourse, a group of teachings Jesus gave on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24:3) in response to his disciples asking him about the end of the age. It is variously found in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. In this discourse, Jesus is teaching about both the destruction of the temple and the end of the age when he returns. Some of his comments pertain more to one of those topics than the other, but sometimes his comments refer to both at the same time. “Therefore, the events associated with the destruction of the temple in AD 70 become a prophetic foreshadowing of an [end time] fulfillment at the end of the age, when in the midst of the great apostasy, the antichrists (i.e., the beast and the man of sin) demand worship for themselves, profaning God’s temple, which is the church. This is a possibility that awaits final confirmation when the end itself comes upon us” (Riddlebarger, Amillennialism, p. 198).
The passage that is often referred to is Matthew 24:36-41, where in verses 39b-41, Jesus says, “That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken, and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken, the other left.” This is interpreted to refer to a pretribulation rapture, where God’s faithful servants are taken by him to be rescued from the tribulation coming on the earth, while the other people are left behind (which, by the way, is how LaHaye and Jenkins' popular book series got its name). However, when you read that passage in its wider context, you’ll see that Jesus says his return will be similar to the flood that happened in Noah’s days. In verses 38-39, Jesus says “For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” The flood background indicates the return of Jesus and his judgment will be sudden and surprising. People debate whether the ones “taken” in verses 39-41 are taken away to salvation (as Mat. 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 imply) or to judgment (as the more immediate context of Noah’s flood implies). In short, Jesus seems to be referring both to people being killed by Roman soldiers in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and to people being taken away to eternal judgment by God at the end of this age, since Jesus’ comments can have a dual-pronged application. There is no mention of a seven year pretribulation rapture here, and nothing in the Olivet Discourse indicates that we should expect such a thing.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Another passage of relevance is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, which I quote in full here:
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.
Dispensationalists interpret this passage as referring to a “secret rapture” of the church, an event that is separate from the second coming of Christ. They teach that Jesus will snatch up the church as described here, and the church will go dwell with him in a heavenly, cloudy place for seven years while suffering afflicts the earth. For one, the description in 4:16 certainly doesn’t sound secretive; Jesus’ return is accompanied by "a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God.” Interestingly enough, Jesus referred to angels and a trumpet call in Mat. 24:31 in his teaching about when the end would come, which implies this passage is about the return of Christ and final judgment, not a secret rapture that occurs before the end. Further, this passage mentions nothing of a seven year period in which the church is preserved while tribulation afflicts the earth. Paul is saying that at the return of the Lord, those who are still alive will be joined with deceased brothers and sisters in the Lord who get resurrected from the dead. Those who have already died in the Lord have not missed God’s ultimate and final salvation, and those who remain will not have some kind of advantage over the dead. Those who are dead will be resurrected, and those who remain on earth will join them, be transformed, and get to enjoy eternal life with God too.
It’s important to note that meeting Jesus in the air doesn’t mean our final dwelling place will be in heaven or in the clouds, contrary to a lot of Renaissance art. The Greek of the passage indicates that we meet Jesus in the air to welcome him back down to earth, which comports more with Jesus healing the world and establishing a new heavens and new earth. Here’s Witherington at length on this passage:
But it was also the case that when there was a royal visit to a city, it would be announced by a herald (see Ps 24:7-10) and might well also be announced by a trumpet blast meant to alert those in the city that the king was coming. This imagery is pursued further in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 with the use of the term apantesin. Notice, for example, what Cicero says of Julius Caesar’s victory tour through Italy in 49 B.C.: “Just imagine what a meeting/royal welcome (apanteseis) he is receiving from the towns, what honors are paid to him” (Att. 8.16.2 and cf. 16.11.6 of Augustus–“the municipalities are showing the boy remarkable favor… Wonderful apantesis and encouragement”). This word then refers to the action of the greeting committee who goes forth from the city to meet the royal person or dignitary before he arrives at the city gate to pay an official visit. The greeting committee will then escort the dignitary back into town on the final part of his journey. “These analogies (especially in association with the term parousia) suggest the possibility that the Lord is pictured here as escorted on the remainder of his journey to earth by his people–both those newly raised from the dead and those remaining alive (Witherington, Problem, p. 133).
Revelation
There are several passages in Revelation that proponents say to point to a pretribulation rapture. John seeing people (7:9-10) and elders (4:4) in heaven who are worshipping Jesus is used as evidence that a rapture must have occurred to get them there, for how else could they be in heaven worshipping the Lord? Some interpreters view the elders as actually being angels (like Greg Beale in his Revelation commentary), while others view them as OT and NT saints who have made it into heaven by way of death, like the martyrs in 6:9-11. In both cases a rapture need not have occurred for people to be in heaven. The great multitude of every tribe tongue and nation who worship Jesus (7:9-10) is probably a future perspective of all who have come to believe in Jesus as viewed from the end of the age, at or after the return of Christ, as there are still some tribes and people groups who have not been reached with the gospel today, and there certainly were in John’s day. Revelation 7:14 speaks of a great multitude from the Jew/Gentile church having “come out of the great tribulation,” which implies that they were previously in the tribulation and didn’t get a free pass from it–“I do not normally say that I have come out of my house, for example, unless I have first been in it”–further, after doing a study of the forty-five occurrences of the Greek word thlipsis (tribulation), Blomberg found that the majority of them point to Christians dealing with suffering in the present, and Jesus’ Olivet discourse (covered above) does not say Christians get a free pass from tribulation (Blomberg, Premillennialism, pp. 70-76). This strikes against the church being rescued from all tribulation.
Some will argue that the word “church” is used multiple times in Revelation chapters 1-3, but it is not used at all in the heavenly visions and judgments of chapters 4-19, implying that the church is no longer on earth and has been raptured out of it. However, if use of the word “church” is your sole metric for determining if the church is present or not in Revelation 4-19, then Blomberg wittily comments that the word is not used in any of the heavenly scenes either, stating: “…by the same logic, [the church] should be absent from heaven as well” (Premillennialism, p. 82). It seems pretty clear that members of the church are present in both heaven (6:9-11; 7:9) and earth (the two witnesses of 11:1-13; the woman’s offspring in 12:17; those martyred by the beasts of 13:7,15; the martyrs slain by the harlot Babylon in 17:6) throughout Revelation 4-19.
Others will say that Jesus’ promise to the church in Philadelphia in 3:10 indicates a pretribulation rapture: “Since you have kept my command, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world.” For one, if this promise of keeping the Philadelphian church was referring to a pretribulation rapture, then this promise was not kept to those to whom it was initially made, since no such rapture happened during the lifespan of those in the church in Philadelphia. It seems more logical to interpret this promise as either A.) specific protection of the Philadelphians from some kind of widespread earthy trial that occurred during their lifetime, B.) a promise to all Christians that they are protected from God’s wrath, or C.) a promise of spiritual protection and preservation that God provides even in the midst of trials. Here are two commentators on Jesus’ promise in 3:10–
The expression “keep…from” appears only here in Revelation, but it occurs in one other New Testament instance, where John also records Jesus as speaking and where the meaning is clear: not removal from trial, but protection through it (John 17:15; cf. 1 John 5:18). […] In the Bible God generally delivers his people after they are already in testing (e.g., Ps. 34:19; 107:6; Jer. 30:7). […] Although saints are slaughtered throughout Revelation, they are also protected from God’s anger in 7:1-8, an activity that would fulfill the promise of 3:10 to Philadelphia and Christians like them (Craig Keener, Revelation: The NIV Application Commentary, p. 154).
Note that Christ is speaking here primarily of spiritual rather than physical protection, for nowhere in Revelation are believers promised immunity from physical suffering–indeed, as the letters already studied make clear, they are to expect it. […] In John 16:33, Jesus promises believers peace in the midst of certain tribulation. According to Jesus’ words, therefore, believers will endure physical suffering, but will be kept spiritually safe in the midst of it. Therefore, this verse does not speak of a physical rapture before the beginning of a coming “Great Tribulation.” Rather, it refers to Christ’s protection through the end-time tribulation, which had already started in the first century and would become worse as the final end neared (G. K. Beale, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary, p.86).
Still others see 4:1-2 as another indication of a rapture happening, particularly when Jesus says to John “Come up here and I will show you what must take place after this.” The “come up here” is understood to refer to the corporate rapture of the church. However, “…there is little basis for seeing the phrase ‘come up here’ in 4:1 and John’s spiritual rapture in v. 2 as symbolic of the church’s physical rapture before the tribulation as some commentators maintain” (Beale, Revelation, p. 100). The passage mentions nothing of a large-scale rapture of the church, and simply represents John being carried away in the Spirit to see more of the vision that Jesus has for him. Seeing this as pointing to a pretribulation rapture is reading a lot into the verse that simply isn’t there.
The notion of a seven year pretribulation rapture is assumed and then inserted into a lot of passages rather than being something that is straightforwardly demonstrated from the text of Scripture. The rapture happens at the second coming of Jesus at the end of the age; it will be a loud, public, unavoidable sort of thing, and it brings the resurrection of the dead and the end through final judgment (1 Cor. 15:23-24). While Jesus can and at times does protect the church in profound ways, the church does not always get a free pass when it comes to tribulation. John himself tells us he is our brother and partner in the tribulation in Revelation 1:9 at the beginning of the book. We as followers of Jesus are called to be faithful to him to the very end, even if suffering, persecution, and death come our way (Mat. 10:21-31). But if we persevere, there is a blessed reward in Christ on the other side.
If the pretribulation rapture can’t persuasively and straightforwardly be demonstrated from Scripture, might I suggest we “leave behind” the doctrine?
The Promised Land, Sacred Jerusalem, and a Third Temple
I have already written another blog post on how the land promises given to Israel in the Old Testament are handled in the New Testament. I’ll summarize that post below.
God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham for the first time in Genesis 13:14-17. Later in Genesis 17:3-8, the covenant with Abraham is called everlasting, and the land is said to be an everlasting possession for Abraham and his descendants after him. However, when you read passages like Gal. 4:21-31; Rom. 4:13; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 4:1-11; 11:8-16; 12:18-29; 1 Pet. 1:1; and Rev. 21:1-4, you notice that the OT land promises have been transfigured in Jesus, and the authors of the NT variously spiritualize, universalize, and futurize them. The benefits associated with the promised land and the city of Jerusalem–God dwelling with his people, fruitfulness, freedom from slavery, rest from oppression, and harmonious community–are present spiritual realities available through Christ and the Spirit to the church. Further, the land promises have been universalized to include not just the ancient boundaries of Canaan, but the entire world (Rom. 4:13 says God promised Abraham to be heir of the world, not just Canaan). And the promises of the land and the blessing of the city of Jerusalem are futurized to point to a glorious end-time hope: a heavenly city of Jerusalem that descends like a bride, a better country, an inheritance kept for us, a new heavens and a new earth, a place where God will dwell with and walk with his people, where we will be his people and he will be our God. Receiving these transfigured land promises is contingent on trusting in Jesus and persevering in love and faith in him. Nowhere does the NT tell followers of Jesus or Jews that they must relocate to the historic boundaries of the promised land to follow God’s purpose. I don’t see a New Testament reason to believe that there is a divine mandate for ethnic Jews to possess the historic boundaries of territorial Israel anymore. To insist otherwise is to revert back to the old covenant and not see how the NT is using those land promises.
Concerning the temple, dispensationalists believe that a third temple will be built during the millennial reign of Christ, and that sacrifices will be offered at this temple again. This idea is built on several passages from the Old Testament. Kim Riddlebarger gives a good summary of it in A Case for Amillennialism:
Let us consider the Old Testament expectations regarding the temple of the Lord. Both Isaiah 2:2-4 and Micah 4:1-5 speak of God’s future blessing on Israel in the last days when his people will go up to the temple on the mountain of the Lord and learn his ways. In Isaiah 56, we read of those who hold fast to God’s covenant (v. 4) and love the name of the Lord and keep his Sabbaths (vv. 6-8). God will bring them to the holy mountain and the temple, which will be a house of prayer for all nations (v. 7). A similar vision was given in Isaiah 66:20-21, which says that the Israelites will bring their grain offerings to God’s temple, and he will renew his priesthood. In Zechariah’s prophetic vision, we learn that one day Israel will once again offer sacrifices acceptable to God (14:16-19) (p. 92).
Combine these aforementioned Scriptures with the temple vision that Ezekiel has in Ezekiel chapters 40-47, which provides very specific dimensions when it comes to the size of the temple, similar to the description of the Tabernacle in Exodus 25-40 and Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 6-8 and 2 Chronicles 2-7. “In every comparable description in both the Bible and the ancient Near East, it was understood that the description of a temple for the gods was to be interpreted as providing a detailed essay about a real building. Thus both temple descriptions and prophetic texts within and outside Ezekiel point toward the expectation that a real building was intended” (Richard Hess, Premillennialism, pp. 31-32).
Interestingly, Jesus claimed to be the temple in John 2:19, 21. He further claimed to provide living water to the Samaritan woman at the well, water which would become an unceasing spring leading to eternal life in John 4:14, and in John 7:38 Jesus preached during the Festival of Tabernacles that whoever believes in him “as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” This connects with Ezekiel seeing a river flowing from the temple that turns saltwater into fresh water, brings life, and brings healing in Ezekiel 47:1-12. Further, the fact that the river in Ezekiel 47:1-12 has trees/a tree on both sides bearing fruit for healing is directly alluded to in Revelation 22:1-2. There the river flows from the throne of God and the Lamb (22:1), showing that John sees Jesus as the true temple from whom this healing, life-giving river flows and the fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48, and that we should not look for a literal, architectural third temple in this age or in the millennium. Paul and Peter also call the church God’s temple in passages like 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19-22; and 1 Peter 2:4-5, with the church being filled with God’s presence by the Spirit just like the tabernacle and temple were filled in Exodus 40:34 and 1 Kings 8:10-11. Another interesting temple connection is in Revelation 21:16, where the New Jerusalem is given the unparalleled size of being about 1,400 miles long, high, and wide. It’s cubic shape recalls the cubic shape of the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s temple of 1 Kings 6:20, implying the New Jerusalem itself is the special dwelling place of God with the whole city being sacralized.
Blomberg acknowledges the intricate detail given to the dimensions of the temple in Ezekiel 40-48, but still sees it as primarily an end-time reality pointing to something after the return of Christ:
The biggest obstacle to rejecting a literal “third” temple is the exquisite and seemingly superfluous detail of Ezek. 40-48 if all this is fulfilled in the new-Jerusalem community of the redeemed in the new heavens and the new earth. But with Ezek. 38-39 supplying the background for the imagery of the rebellion of Gog and Magog, paralleled at the end of the millennium in Rev. 20, it is hard to see how Ezek. 40-48 could be referring to anything before, rather than after, the end of the millennium (Blomberg, Premillennialism, p. 83).
Dispensational teaching maintains that animal sacrifices and other sacrifices would resume at the third temple. Hebrews clearly teaches that Jesus is our once-and-for-all sufficient sacrifice, and that animal or grain sacrifices are no longer necessary. Jesus is the reality that the Old Testament sacrificial system pointed toward. Though dispensationalists would be quick to qualify that renewed sacrifices performed at a third temple would be purely commemorative of the sacrifice Jesus rather than somehow contributing toward atonement, it seems like a misguided and unnecessary step. For one, we already have a commemorative sacrament whereby we remember and receive afresh the grace of Jesus’ sacrifice: Holy Communion. Wellum is good to quote at length here:
For example, Bock agrees that OT sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ but then to preserve the “literal” side of his hermeneutic, he argues that OT sacrifices will return in the future as a commemorative (along with perpetual Levites, Jer 33:18, but see Is 56:4-8). Bock even insists that the Lord’s Supper is one such commemorative sacrifice. However, the problem is that the Lord’s Supper is not a “sacrifice;” it is a meal that celebrates how Christ fulfills the old covenant Passover, achieves a greater exodus-redemption by paying for our sin, and how he terminates the entire sacrificial system. The only “sacrifice” we offer now is the “sacrifice of praise” (Heb. 13:15) [as well as our whole selves as living sacrifices per Rom. 12:1-2]. Bock’s view of Israel-church and corresponding complementary hermeneutic drives him to conclusions that the NT does not warrant. To argue that OT sacrifices return, even as commemorative, or that Levites return, fails to grasp that the old covenant was temporary and that Christ has brought all sacrifices and the role of the Levitical priests to their God-intended [end] (see Heb 7:11-12; 8:1-13) (Wellum, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, p. 217).
I can’t find anything in the NT that tells me I should expect the building of a literal, physical third temple. I do see the NT use temple language to help us understand the present realities of Jesus and the church, as well as anticipate the coming New Jerusalem and healing of the nations. The NT’s treatment of the temple seems to fit the spiritualizing and futurizing paradigm that was applied above to the promised land and the city of Jerusalem. At the very least, if people in Israel do rebuild a third temple, the NT leads me to think that Christians should not view such an occurrence as theologically significant.
Conclusion
How is prophecy fulfilled? It's fulfilled how Jesus, the apostles, and the authors of the New Testament say they are, with Christ being at the center of all God’s promises. Will the church be raptured out of suffering before the return of Christ and final judgment? While Jesus certainly can and at times does protect the church, we should be prepared to face suffering, even death, for his sake, until he returns to bring the end. We are to be faithful in the midst of tribulation and should not expect to be spared from it. Who is Israel? Jesus and the church are Israel. Who is the temple? Jesus and the church, who are both filled with the Holy Spirit just like God’s presence filled the tabernacle and the temple in the OT, and we will be a dwelling place for God for all eternity in the new creation. Who is the Son of David who has an eternal reign? Jesus. What about God’s promises made to Israel concerning a promised land and Jerusalem as a sacred city? Those have been transfigured, referring to present spiritual blessings found in Christ and futurized to point toward the hope we have for a new heavens and earth, a better country, a New Jerusalem descending from above. From a NT Christian perspective, there is no currently binding biblical mandate God has given to ethnic Jews when it comes to the possession of the historic promised land. The modern nation of Israel should come under the same scrutiny from the church that any other nation would receive. This is especially pertinent in a time when there is widespread outcry against Israel for disproportionately killing, harming, and starving civilians in their campaign against Gaza and Hamas. And for all that dispensationalism claims will happen during Christ’s reign in the millennium, I find it interesting that Revelation 20, the only passage in Scripture to mention the millennium, says nothing about Israel, the promised land, or a third temple at all. Hmmm….
I could be wrong, and please correct me if I've misrepresented or neglected anything here. Those who hold to dispensational teachings are certainly brothers and sisters in Christ. Still, the reasons above showcase some of my misgivings. In my view, the most persuasive end time positions are historic premillennialism and amillennialism. Historic premillennialism still holds to a literal millennial reign of Christ on earth, just without all the stuff about Israel, the pretribulation rapture, and the construction of a third temple thrown in. Many of the earliest church fathers held to this form of premillennialism. Amillennialism–which I am a bit more partial to at present, though again, I could be wrong–sees the millennium as a metaphor for the present age. There are those who claim that amillennialism held support from some of the earliest fathers, but after St. Augustine became a proponent of it, it became the dominant position for most of church history. Pragmatically speaking, whether you are historic premillennial or amillennial, there’s not much practical difference these two positions make in how you follow Jesus and anticipate his return.
To steal a line from Ben Witherington, is it time to dispense with dispensationalism (Problem, p. 107)? I think so, but you’ll have to be the judge of that. Regardless, we all should be ready for the coming of the Lord, and seek to be faithful as his church while we long for that day and seek to speed its coming in loving obedience and witness.
No comments:
Post a Comment