Dispensationalism has fallen on hard times. What was the dominant eschatological view of twentieth-century Evangelicals, dispensationalism today is overshadowed by the resurgence of postmillennial eschatology and the ever-stalwart amillennial position. This article offers a brief critique of dispensationalism.

My remarks about dispensationalism come from a charitable perspective. I was raised in a dispensational church, I attended a dispensational college, and I studied at a dispensational seminary. I have many family members and friends who are dispensational. My critique of theological system is not personal. I have great affection for many of my dispensational pastors and professors, and I learned much from them. My critique simply addresses the biblical and theological issues.

There are three broad categories of dispensationalism. Classical dispensationalism of John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, and others was the most prominent version in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and is still advocated by some dispensationalists today, though not many. A “revised” or “essentialist” version of dispensationalism was presented by Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and others in the middle of the twentieth century and continues to be the position of some dispensationalists. Progressive dispensationalism of Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, and others came to prominence in the late twentieth century and is the most common form of dispensationalism today. There is much variance between these three categories of dispensationalism and even within each category. For example, some theologians who fit in the large category of “revised” dispensationalism, such as John MacArthur, hold views much different than those held by Ryrie and Walvoord. That multiple significant theological positions fall under the banner of dispensationalism makes addressing dispensationalism as a whole difficult. Characteristics of one form of dispensationalism might not be characteristics of another. I will, therefore, keep my critique of dispensationalism as general as possible.

My focus is one aspect of dispensationalism: the essential distinction between Israel and the church. All dispensationalists believe that Israel and the church remain distinct in this age and in the future millennial kingdom, when national Israel is restored. Some dispensationalists believe that Israel and the church will remain distinct even in the age to come. Darrell Bock, a progressive dispensationalist, explains, “Israel in the OT was a nation of people looking for Messiah in hope. The church is a transnational structure, with the Messiah having come but not yet having brought all things to fulfillment.”¹ Classical and “revised” dispensationalists believe that Israel and the church are two separate peoples of God. Charles Ryrie stated, “The fact that God saved people from among the Israelites and today saves people from among the Gentiles does not make the church equal to Israel or make the church the fulfillment of Israel’s purposes and promises.”² Progressive dispensationalists differ from classical and “revised” dispensationalists in their affirmation of one people of God, but they do maintain a distinction between Israel and the church.

In contrast to dispensationalism, Reformed theology affirms the unity of all the elect in Christ, in every time and place. The key to this unity is the one covenant of grace. In Adam’s fall into sin, he acquired legal guilt and the internal corruption of sin. In addition, due to the fact that Adam acted as covenant head for all his posterity, Adam’s guilt was imputed to all his posterity, and the internal corruption of sin was transmitted. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). God could have left Adam and all his posterity in this hopeless condition. God in his goodness, however, entered into the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all his elect as his seed (Westminster Larger Catechism 31). We see this in Genesis 3:15. God, speaking to the serpent, says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” This is the first appearance of the gospel of Jesus Christ in all of Scripture.

All the elect in Christ are in the covenant of grace and have Christ as their covenant head. There is a distinction, though, in the administrations of the covenant of grace. Prior to Christ’s first advent, the covenant was administered in the time of law. The covenant included “promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal Lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come” (Westminster Confession of Faith 7.5). These types and ordinances pointed ahead to the Messiah to come. Contrary to classical dispensationalism, no one was saved through the sacrificial system itself. All were saved by faith in the coming Messiah: “And he [Abraham] believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). “For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Rom 4:3). All the elect in every period of redemption history are saved by faith in Christ, either looking ahead to Christ or back to Christ as Savior. “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). John Calvin said, “The same church existed among them [OT Israel], but as yet in its childhood.”³ Contrast this to Charles Ryrie’s statement:

In Paul’s thought the church is built on the Resurrection and Ascension, and that means it is distinctive to this age. Concerning the completion of the church, when saints will be translated and resurrected, Paul uses the phrase “dead in Christ” (1 Thess 4:16). This clearly distinguishes those who have died “in Christ” in this age from believers who died before Christ’s first advent, thus marking the church off as distinct to this age and a mystery hidden and unrevealed in Old Testament times.”⁴

Reformed Theology affirms one people of God, the church, in every age, whereas dispensationalism affirms a distinction between believing Jews and gentiles in every age, or even two peoples of God.

In the covenant of grace administered in the time of law, the old covenant, most elect in Christ were also citizens of the nation of Israel, although some gentiles were saved (Naaman, Ruth, et al). Within the covenant community of national Israel, there were elect and non-elect. Descending from Abraham physically had no saving consequence. Only those descending from Abraham spiritually were saved. The Bible presents a clear distinction between national Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham, and the true Israel, the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Some physical descendants of Abraham are also his spiritual descendants, but not all. “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named’” (Rom 9:6–7). Paul states that not all the physical descendants of Abraham are his spiritual descendants.

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” (Gal 3:7–9)

Reformed theology thus acknowledges the distinction between the institutions of the nation of Israel and the New Testament church, but there is no distinction between the elect in the nation of Israel and in the church.

When the Messiah came, in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4), the covenant of grace was administered differently. John Calvin explained the organic development of the covenant of grace:

At the beginning when the first promise of salvation was given to Adam (Genesis 3:15) it glowed like a feeble spark. Then, as it was added to, the light grew in fullness breaking forth increasingly and shedding its radiance more widely. At last—when all the clouds were dispersed—Christ the Sun of Righteousness fully illumined the whole earth.”⁵

The types and shadows of the old covenant gave way to their fulfillment in Christ in the new covenant. The covenant of grace began to be administrated in the preaching of the gospel and in the sacraments instituted by Christ, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. National Israel went out of existence and the church of Jesus Christ became home to the covenant community. The church does not replace national Israel; the covenant community is simply expanded beyond the borders of the nation of Israel. Paul explains this in Romans 11:17–24,

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

In the old covenant, the covenant community was contained within national Israel. Some were elect and some were not. Paul represents the covenant community as a tree. In the new covenant, the non-elect branches of that tree are broken off and gentiles are grafted in. The covenant community under both the old and new covenants is one tree because there is one covenant of grace. Westminster Confession of Faith 7.6 says, “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” [We Reformed recognize dispensations, just not those advocated by dispensationalists.]

The New Testament teaches that any physical differences, including ethnicity, among the elect in Christ are irrelevant. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:28–29). There is one people of God and there are no distinctions regarding physical characteristics. Paul makes clear in Ephesians 2:13–16,

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

The one covenant of grace transcends any physical distinctions between Jews and gentiles. Dispensationalists acknowledge that there is no wall of division between Jews and gentiles in the New Testament church, but they affirm that the wall of division will be rebuilt when national Israel is restored in the future millennial kingdom. If Paul says that we are one in Christ, “one new man in place of the two,” why would we return to two in the future millennial kingdom?

Biblical evidence suggests continuity between the covenant community in Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church. Scripture refers to both groups by the same word.⁶ The Greek word for “church” is ecclesia. Jesus says in Matthew 16:18, “On this rock I will build my church (ecclesia).” Jesus also says in Matthew 18:17, regarding church discipline, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (ecclesia).” This same word is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew word (qahal), the covenant community in Israel. There are many examples of this, but I will mention just a few. Deuteronomy 31:30: “Then Moses spoke the words of this song until they were finished, in the ears of all the assembly (ecclesia) of Israel.” Joshua reads the Book of the Law in Joshua 8:35, “There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly (ecclesia) of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them.” Psalm 22:22: “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation (ecclesia) I will praise you.” Hebrews 2:12 quotes this passage: “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation (ecclesia) I will sing your praise.”

The New Testament refers to the covenant community in Israel as an ecclesia. Acts 7:38: “This (Moses) is the one who was in the congregation (ecclesia) in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers.” We know from their quotations of the Old Testament that the Greek translation of the Old Testament was the primary Bible of the apostles. When they wrote the New Testament, their choice of ecclesia as the equivalent of the Hebrew word qahal signals a unity of the covenant community in the Old and New Testaments.

The New Testament also identifies the church as the temple of God. In Old Testament Israel, God made himself present in the temple (and tabernacle) in a unique way. We see the dedication of the temple in 2 Chronicles 5:13–14: “The house, the house of the Lord, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house of God.” The New Testament indicates that this special presence of God is now in the church. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 6:16, “For we are the temple of the living God.” Ephesians 2:21–22: “In whom [Christ] the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” 1 Peter 2:5: “You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” The spiritual house, the temple, is now the church. Also, 1 Corinthians 3:16–17 says, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” The identification by the New Testament writers of the church as the temple of God, the place of God’s unique presence, reveals the unity of the covenant community in both Old and New Testaments.

This unity is also displayed in the New Testament writers’ recognition of the church as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies related to the city of Jerusalem. The author of Hebrews addresses worshipers in the church in Hebrews 12:22: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” John describes his vision of the church in Revelation 21:2, “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” Contrary to the dispensational view that the new Jerusalem is a literal city, Paul makes clear that the church is the bride of Christ in Ephesians 5:25–27:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

The unity of believers in the Old and New Testaments is displayed in the fulfillment of these prophecies related to the city of Jerusalem in the church.

The final example of biblical evidence for the continuity between the covenant community in Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church is Paul’s statement to the church in Galatians 6:15–16, “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” Jews and gentiles in the Galatian church are the Israel of God. The physical characteristics of circumcision and uncircumcision are meaningless. The new creation belongs to all those redeemed by Christ, those in the covenant of grace in every time and place.

Despite Scripture’s teaching on all the elect in Christ belonging to the one covenant of grace and despite the evidence of the language of the Old and New Testaments demonstrating the unity of the elect in Christ, dispensationalists maintain a distinction between national Israel and the church. Some dispensationalists (classical and “revised”) even claim that there are two peoples of God. Many more critiques of dispensationalism could be offered: an inconsistent “literal” hermeneutic, a return to types and shadows in the rebuilding of the temple in the future millennial kingdom, residents of the restored nation of Israel in the future millennial kingdom committing sin and rebellion against Christ while he rules and reigns on the throne in Jerusalem, to name just a few. Reformed theology makes better sense of the biblical text and maintains the unity of the people of God. Scripture reveals that the gospel of Jesus Christ transcends every physical category of this present age: ethnicity, language, culture, gender, economic status, and so forth. We stand united with our brothers and sisters in Christ from all times and all places, beginning with Adam and continuing until the last one of the elect is brought into Christ’s kingdom. There is no distinction in Christ’s church—we are one in Christ.

Notes

1. Darrell Bock, “Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture (Lisle, IL: IVP Academic, 2022), 113.
2. Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 131.
3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 & 2, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), II.vi.2.
4. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 101.
5. Calvin, Institutes, II.x.20.
6. See Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, expanded ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House 2013), 135–36.

©Dan Borvan. All Rights Reserved.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• Browse the Heidelshop!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• Dan Borvan

  

  Dan was educated at Westminster Seminary California and Oxford University. He wrote an MA thesis on Faustus Socinus (2011) and a DPhil. thesis (Oxford, 2019) on Pierre Du Moulin, “Fighting For The Faith: Pierre Du Moulin’s Polemical Quest.” Dan is chairman of the Heidelberg Reformation Association and pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, CA.

  More by Dan Borvan ›