Douglas Wilson on Dispensationalism, Israel, and the End Times

DOUGLAS WILSON

Dispensationalism and Its Hermeneutic

Dispensationalism is the predominant theological system among evangelicals in North America. I am not a dispensationalist — not even a little bit — but it will be my goal here to give them as fair a shake as I can.

Dispensationalists, like all conservative Christians, believe the Bible and accept it as God’s holy word. The difference between them and other groups is that they have a distinctive hermeneutic — that is, a distinctive approach to the interpretation of scripture. Charles Ryrie, a leading dispensational theologian, characterized it as: literal, and less absurd. When other conservative Christians interpret a passage typologically, metaphorically, or spiritually, the dispensationalist tends to view this as a dangerous form of explaining away the text — what they call spiritualizing.

To be fair to them, dispensationalism rose to prominence in America during those decades when theological liberals were actively explaining everything away. So the dispensationalists actually had a point, and their stubbornness over it is one of the reasons why there are still millions of evangelical believers in America. I would rather have millions of evangelical believers in the Bible — even if their theology includes some odd takes from the book of Revelation — than 15 or 16 believers whose theology was, as Mary Poppins would say, spit spot.

With this literalist hermeneutic, it was natural that dispensationalists would interpret the many Old Testament passages prophesying a glorious future for Israel as referring to the literal nation of physical Israel. Thus, when Israel was reestablished as a nation in 1948, it was a cause of great excitement in dispensational circles. One very popular dispensational writer — Hal Lindsey in his book The Late Great Planet Earth — concluded that a biblical generation is 40 years and that the Lord was therefore going to return in 1988. That did not happen, but the system has proven somewhat flexible when it comes to adjusting dates. This is one of the central reasons why evangelicals tend to have a default setting of support for the modern state of Israel. However the world ends, Israel is going to be right in the middle of it.

A Collider of Competing Theologies

It is getting to the point where you cannot tell the players without a scorecard. There are so many things going on simultaneously, and various theologies are woven in and out of them, with the internet circulating all of these items at high speed — a sort of a particle collider, if you will.

Consider a few items currently in motion. The Iranian regime is governed by Shia theology — specifically a subset of it. Most Muslim countries are Sunni, but this Shia state is distinguished by its teaching that after Muhammad there were twelve imams in succession, the last of whom was born in the ninth century AD and was spirited away by God and remains alive somewhere. His name is Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and he will come back at the end of days alongside Jesus Christ, leading up to the Day of Judgment.

Meanwhile, several dozen members of Congress have asked the Department of Defense to investigate whether any troops were being told by their leaders that Donald Trump had been commissioned by God to light the Armageddon fuse. Additionally, various administration officials have indicated that they believe the very existence of the state of Israel is grounded in the promise of land God gave to Abraham in Genesis 15. And an older video shows a senior official discussing the building of a third temple — which would have to go on the site currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock, a Muslim holy site. Any attempt to demolish that structure to make room for the temple would be sure to get a great many Muslims talking excitedly. Instead of these arcane religious motivations, the congressmen filing their complaint appear to want America’s wars fought in the secular manner to which we have all become accustomed — which is when everybody goes off to die for no particular reason, either that or gas prices.

Conquered, Not Stolen

Some of the more provocative voices have recently been arguing that Israel does not actually have a right to exist. The argument is that they can keep what they can defend, but that they have no a priori right to exist. This is fair enough — but only if we apply it across the board. Israel does not have a right to exist in the same way that white people do not, and America does not, and the Confederate States of America did not. Progressives like to say that no one is illegal on stolen land, but if borders are just a social construct, there is no such thing as stolen land. In response, conservatives have recently taken to saying: conquered, not stolen.

In the First World War, the Ottoman Turks — who had ruled the Middle East for centuries — bet on the wrong horse by siding with Germany. In the course of the war, the English and the French made deals with various groups: help us in the war and we will repay you with land. Having won, the Allies wound up controlling the Middle East. Lawrence of Arabia had made deals with the Arabs, and the British kept their bargain with them after the war. Winston Churchill brokered a comparable deal with the Jews. The territories dispersed to these different groups were spoils of war. Since that time Israel’s territory has grown as they have repelled various attacks and taken more land in wars of self-defense. Conquered, not stolen. I understand all of these things in the light of a biblical worldview — which is not the same thing as believing that the war in Gaza is a fulfillment of prophecy.

The Third Temple Problem

Observant Jews have been praying for the restoration of the temple for thousands of years. Solomon built the first around 3,000 years ago; it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile under Ezra and Nehemiah, they rebuilt it — a rather pitiful affair compared to the first. Centuries later, Herod the Great conducted a massive remodel of this second temple, producing the structure that is the New Testament centerpiece. Jesus predicted that not one stone would be left on another, and that this would all happen within one generation. It came to pass in 70 AD when the Romans sacked the city and destroyed the temple.

Since that time the Jews have been wandering exiles. Their sacred texts presupposed a functioning temple, but they had been without one for 2,000 years and had to make significant adjustments to how they interpreted and applied their scriptures. Christians have the same sacred texts in what we call the Old Testament. But we believe the temple was replaced by the Christian church — the temple of the Holy Spirit — and that because Jesus was the final and complete sacrifice, there is no longer any need for the blood sacrifices that would be offered in a renewed temple.

Dispensationalists share this conviction with other Christians. But that means that when the prophesied angular bit about a rebuilt temple actually happens, they are going to have trouble fitting it in with the rest of their theology. A rebuilt temple prayed for by the Jews and predicted numerous times in prophecy seminars by dispensationalists would actually be a huge embarrassment for everyone if it ever came to pass. The temple as an unrealized ideal is one thing, but an actual temple would require the restoration of the priesthood and a resumption of animal sacrifices. For the Jews this would be awkward because Talmudic Judaism has developed into something that does not require a temple. It would also require the recovery of accurate genealogies for priests and Levites, the recovery of the Urim and Thummim, and so on. And dispensationalists would face the challenge of fitting the whole apparatus into the book of Hebrews. The issue for them would not be whether the sacrifices are happening but whether God is accepting them. If they say no, then what is the point? If they say yes, then did Christ not die once for all?

Chesterton’s Fence and the Two Kinds of Supersessionism

Chesterton spoke of the reforming zealot who comes along and says: I do not see the use of this fence; let us tear it down. Chesterton’s rejoinder is that he will not let the reformer tear it down until the reformer does see the use of it. Revolutions are destabilizing things, and there have been many occasions of exuberant demolition when everyone discovered to their dismay what all those fences had been for. Now we have to deal with cows all over the road.

Dispensationalism is the majority report in North American evangelicalism and it has a peculiar carveout for the Jews. Covenant theology, broadly speaking, is the alternative to dispensationalism, and covenant theology is supersessionist — meaning we believe that the church is the true Israel. But there are two kinds of supersessionists: hard and soft. All of them believe the church is Israel now. The soft supersessionists — who represent the strong majority of covenant theologians — also have a carveout for the Jews. It is a very different carveout than the dispensationalists have, but we do have one. It amounts to the belief that God still has a providential plan for the Jews according to the flesh, a plan laid out for us in Romans 11.

Hard supersessionists believe the Jews are now just another tribe of men with no particular promises concerning them at all. Hard supersessionism does tear down some fences. I do not believe it is heresy, but it does tear down some fences. And because of this, no one should act surprised when we turn around to find anti-Semitic cows all over the road, each of them with a podcast. Responsible hard supersessionists — and there are many — have a special responsibility to help us deal with the consequences of the missing fences.

The Broader Political Threat

What we are dealing with is an attempt to replace the evangelical base of the Republican Party with a very different base — one describing itself as considerably more based. But this new base is an alien import, not native. It is what happens when you have theological open borders. Catholic integralism is radically distinct from the Protestant consensus that shaped America. As evangelicals start to wake up to this threat — and it is a threat — they need to take care that they do not react to it in a slapdash fashion, calling anything a form of integralism if it varies from John Hagee’s blood moon handwaving. Life is more complicated than that.

And as we watch events unfold in the Middle East, one of the certainties in a time filled with uncertainties ought to be this: Donald Trump is not going to inaugurate a fiery Armageddon. There will be more on this as events warrant.