Is Dispensationalism A Problem? A Response To The Article Rightly Dividing The Word? Prophetic Misreading And The Celebration of Violence
Pastor Leslie Chua
“Paul said, “I ask then: Did God reject his people?
By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham,
from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people,
whom he foreknew.””
Recently, a church member sent me an article titled “Rightly Dividing the Word? A Prophetic Misreading and the Celebration of Violence.” It was written by Dr Roland Chia, published by the Ethos Institute, and reprinted on the Methodist denomination’s website.
The author’s theological position on Israel alarms this church member, who asked me to comment on the article. In a nutshell, it advances Replacement Theology, which holds that the church has replaced Israel. In other words, the Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and the church, and Israel no longer features in God’s redemptive purposes.
I hold a different theological position, and I write this reflection as a response to the article. Before you read my arguments, you can read the article by clicking on this link.
First, let me summarise the original article in 5 points.
1. The War is Being Theologically Weaponised
The article notes that some evangelical Christians, particularly Christian Zionists, are responding to the US-Israel war against Iran with excitement, interpreting it as a fulfilment of biblical prophecy.
John Hagee (a prominent pro-Israel American preacher) and an unnamed US combat unit commander are cited as examples of Christians misusing biblical prophecies to justify war and to stir up sentiment against Iran.
The article claims that biblical prophecies have been weaponised to promote war and violence.
2. Dispensationalism is the Root Theology
The article traces this irrational enthusiasm to Dispensationalism: “The theology undergirding this view of the war in Iran and the Christian Zionism that accompanies it is shaped by a relatively new and novel approach to reading the Bible called Dispensationalism.”
It further notes that Dispensationalism is a 19th-century theological system originating with John Nelson Darby and popularised by the Scofield Reference Bible.
Broadly speaking, Dispensationalism’s core doctrines include: 7 historical dispensations, a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, a pre-Tribulation rapture, and a literal 1,000-year earthly reign of Christ centred on Jerusalem.
The article takes issue with the literal interpretation of predictive prophecy, which is surprising. For example, it wrongly claims that “historic Christianity does not teach that Christ will come secretly for the Church. Neither does it present the peculiar idea that Christ will reign with Israel during the millennium.”
3. Dispensationalism is Theologically Novel and Unorthodox
The article also makes some over-the-top assertions, such as “classical Dispensationalism is a radical departure from 2,000 years of orthodox Christian teaching – from the Church Fathers through the Reformers – which consistently taught that the church is the 'new Israel' or 'spiritual Israel.’”
It also claims that Dispensationalist eschatology is “a novel, idiosyncratic and distorting reading of the Bible.”
Read together, Dispensationalism is not only novel but also unorthodox, and it has no place in mainstream Christian theology. It is a strong, loaded, and sweeping assertion that gives laypeople the false impression that this is a widely accepted view.
4. The Israel-Church Distinction is Problematic
Dispensationalists hold that Old Testament promises to Israel apply strictly to ethnic and national Israel, not to the Church. In his article, Dr Chia rejects this reading, arguing that it “weakens the unity of the people in Jesus Christ” and “is deeply problematic from the standpoint of orthodoxy.”
The article unapologetically maintains that the Church in the New Testament has replaced Israel; it is the “new Israel” or “spiritual Israel.” Essentially, it argues that God has rejected Israel.
5. Christian Zionism Follows from Dispensationalism
The article contends that although distinct, Dispensationalist theology strongly influences Christian Zionism. If God’s covenantal purpose for Israel remains intact, Old Testament prophecies demand Israel’s restoration (which had already occurred in 1948). Given that, Dispensationalists logically conclude that Christians must unconditionally and uncritically support Israel.
The article also expresses concern that Christians who view eschatological prophecies through a Dispensationalist lens may have distorted moral judgment and applaud violence against Israel’s enemies.
My Response
Here is my response to the article in 6 points.
1. The Article Attacks a Caricature of Dispensationalism
It is important to note that Dr Chia’s attack focuses entirely on “classical and popular” Dispensationalism of the Darby-Scofield variety. He briefly mentions “revised and progressive forms” in a single sentence before setting them aside.
By dismissing the evolved versions, Dr Chia constructs a straw man. He attacks a caricature of Dispensationalism, highlighting only the most extreme and underdeveloped beliefs within the system. It is as good as saying that Christianity cannot be taken seriously because of some bad hats. Using such an approach to undermine Dispensationalism is disingenuous.
This approach is flawed and lacks credibility because Dispensationalist theology has evolved since the 19th century. Few people today embrace the full spectrum of classical Dispensationalism. Most modern Dispensationalists adhere to progressive Dispensationalism, which differs markedly from the original.
For example, consider these 3 differences between classical and progressive Dispensationalism.
First, classical Dispensationalism sometimes implies that Old Testament people were saved by obedience to the Law. By contrast, progressive Dispensationalists hold that salvation is always by grace through faith.
Second, classical Dispensationalism maintains an absolute distinction between Israel and the Church, with 2 entirely different destinies. Israel will live on the restored earth, whereas the Church will live in heaven. Progressive Dispensationalists, on the other hand, believe that both share the same destiny and will eventually dwell in the new earth.
Third, classical Dispensationalism regards the church as a parenthesis. Progressive Dispensationalists offer a fuller explanation, clarifying that the church is neither an afterthought nor a contingency plan of God, but a vital part of God’s redemptive purposes.
My point is that no fair-minded theologian should attack a doctrinal belief by targeting its earliest form and weakest points, especially when it has been revised. That is tantamount to intentional misrepresentation. By not engaging with later developments, the article effectively creates a straw man.
2. Novel Does Not Mean Wrong
The article repeatedly argues that Dispensationalism is novel, emerging only in the 19th century. This is a genetic fallacy: the origin of an idea does not determine whether it is true or false, but rather its content. The question to ask is not whether it is new, but whether it is biblical: is it supported by the Bible?
Consider the doctrine of the Trinity. It was formally adopted only centuries after the apostles' time, at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Yet it is considered orthodox.
2 points to note here.
First, to refute Dispensationalism, Dr Chia should consider biblical passages such as Romans 9-11, Ezekiel 36-39, Zechariah 12-14, Luke 21:24, and Acts 1:6-7.
Consider Romans 11:1-2 as an example. Paul asks, “I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.”
It is irrefutable that Paul is referring to ethnic and national Israel. In plain language, the apostle asserts that God has not rejected Israel or the Jews.
Second, the article labels Dispensationalism as a novel 19th-century invention. That is not true. While Dispensationalism was codified only in the 19th century, its core beliefs – such as a literal future for national Israel and premillennialism – were widely held by many Church Fathers in the first few centuries of the Church. Covenant Theology – the view held by Dr Chia – became the dominant view only after Augustine, in the 4th and 5th centuries AD.
Given these 2 points, I am surprised that the article repeatedly insists that Dispensationalism is not part of orthodox, historic Christianity. This is at best naive and at worst disingenuous.
3. The View of the Church Replacing Israel is Contested
Dr Chia presents the Reformed Covenant Theology position that the Church is the “new Israel” or “spiritual Israel” as orthodox Christianity, while characterising the Dispensationalist distinction between Israel and the Church as heterodox. He ought to know better, as this is a highly disputed area.
Paul writes in Romans 11:26 that “all Israel will be saved.” A plain reading of this verse in its context clearly implies a future national restoration for Israel: Dispensationalists and many scholars, including N.T. Wright and John Stott take this point very seriously.
The Reformed Covenant Theology position, that the Church has replaced Israel – also known as supersessionism – has been widely criticised for its exegetical selectivity. In other words, it selectively focuses on certain biblical passages while ignoring others, such as Romans 11 and Jeremiah 31:35-37. It is not only disingenuous but, at its worst, has historically contributed to anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiments.
4. Literal Interpretation is Not Wrong
In his article, Dr Chia argues that a “literalistic hermeneutic” is inherently problematic. He takes issue with a literal reading of the Bible, which is surprising.
How then are we supposed to read the Bible? The Scripture must always be read literally unless a particular passage is clearly figurative or typological, as in parables, the Song of Songs, and certain prophetic passages.
Here is my Dispensationalist counterargument to Dr Chia’s view that God’s promises to Israel in the Old Testament must not be taken literally. If the prophecies regarding Jesus’ First Coming – the virgin birth, His birthplace, His death, His crucifixion, and His resurrection – were fulfilled literally, why should His Second Coming and Israel-related prophecies be interpreted non-literally? That is inconsistent and does not make sense.
We cannot interpret the Scriptures arbitrarily, applying one mode to certain prophecies and another to others. Consistency is critical. In this respect, I argue that the Dispensationalists’ approach is consistent and more faithful to the text.
Here is another point to note. Dispensationalists do not interpret prophecies literally alone but also accept typology and symbolism where required. For example, Jesus fulfilled the Davidic kingship. However, such spiritual fulfilment does not mean that all specific prophecies to ethnic and national Israel are replaced. These are not mutually exclusive.
5. Conflating Bad Actors with Dispensationalism
Dr Chia’s article opens by citing John Hagee (a prominent pro-Israel American megachurch pastor) and an unnamed US Army unit commander, both of whom invoked biblical prophecies to justify the war against Iran. He further accused them of celebrating violence. Some statements may be presumptuous, such as the commander’s claim that President Donald Trump has been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark His return to Earth.”
Dr Chia then points his finger squarely at Dispensationalism, claiming it stirs religious fervour among those who believe they are fulfilling biblical prophecies.
It is incorrect and unfair to condemn all of Dispensationalist theology on the basis of a few extreme examples. Such an approach is tantamount to guilt by association.
Dispensationalists like me strongly reject such a characterisation for 2 reasons.
First, our excitement stems not from the violence and suffering caused by the war, but from the fulfilment of ancient prophecies pointing to Christ’s soon return. Having said that, I have to disagree with the unit commander’s direct link between Trump and Armageddon.
Second, most Dispensationalists would mourn the suffering and deaths caused by wars yet maintain that God’s promises to Israel remain intact and active. This means that God will fight on Israel’s behalf to defend it against its enemies, as we read in the Old Testament and in the eschatological passages of Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation.
6. Christian Zionism Does Not Mean Uncritical Support for Israel
The article implies that Dispensationalist Christian Zionism inevitably leads to uncritical support for the Israeli government and its military actions. This is not true.
On the contrary, at its best, Christian Zionism means supporting Israel's existence and security, not endorsing every policy decision or every military action without moral scrutiny.
Many Christian Zionists have expressed deep grief over civilian casualties in recent wars. Supporting Israel’s right to exist and its right to nuclear deterrence does not require celebrating war.
Even if you were to remove the Dispensationalist lens, I believe many Christians who understand the Bible and history would support Israel against those calling for its destruction on moral grounds.
Conclusion
In recent years, anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiments have been on the rise. While I am not surprised, I am concerned not only for Israel, the chosen nation and the apple of God’s eye, but also for Christians holding such views. These believers are going against the will of God, as revealed explicitly in God’s Word.
Both the Old and New Testaments are clear that God will never reject Israel. Yet Replacement Theology, in its many forms, keeps rearing its ugly head. The article I am referring to is one such example. Coming from a theologian and endorsed by a mainstream denomination, it is unhelpful at best and destructive at worst.
The article’s claim that the Church has replaced Israel as an orthodox belief and as representative of historic Christianity is dogmatic, misplaced and disingenuous. This claim is false and must be refuted.
Finally, I assert that Replacement theology no longer makes sense since 1948, when Israel was reconstituted as a sovereign state after nearly 2,600 years. This second Exodus of Jews from many nations to their Promised Land proves that God has kept His promise to Israel. This is a miracle. The next miracle awaits: the spiritual restoration of Israel. As the apostle Paul says: All Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26).