Dispensationalism

Is Jesus King?

/ Lee A. Robinson / Leave a comment

One of the defining teachings of classic dispensationalism is the belief that Jesus came to Israel offering the promised kingdom, but because Israel rejected Him, the kingdom was postponed until a future time. This idea has been taught clearly and consistently by many of the most influential dispensational theologians and advocates. C. I. Scofield stated in his notes on Matthew 11:20 that “the kingdom of heaven was announced as ‘at hand’… but it was rejected by the Jews, and the kingdom was therefore postponed.” Lewis Sperry Chafer likewise wrote in his Systematic Theology that “the kingdom was offered to Israel at the first advent of Christ, but was rejected. It therefore awaits establishment at the second advent.” John F. Walvoord echoed this position when he said in The Millennial Kingdom that “the kingdom in its mediatorial, Davidic form was offered to Israel, but because of their rejection of Christ, the kingdom was postponed until His second coming.” Charles Ryrie summarized the view succinctly when he said, “The kingdom was genuinely offered to Israel, but because it was rejected, it was postponed.”

Traditional dispensationalists have clearly articulated their position, but what does Scripture teach? Did Jesus postpone His kingdom because the Jews rejected Him? Or did He inaugurate His kingdom anyway? We will look at the narrative of the New Testament to demonstrate that Jesus, the King of Israel, did indeed establish His kingdom on time and as planned. We will then conclude with remarks about why this matters.

The King Has Come

The advent accounts of Christ are marked potently by references to Jesus not merely as the Savior of the world, but as the King of the Jews. He is called “the Christ,” “the Messiah”—both explicit ways of saying that He is the anointed One of God, God’s chosen King. Has He been anointed yet? Was His anointing delayed? No.

Jesus has eternally been recognized by God as King (Psalm 2). At His baptism, the Holy Spirit—like the anointing oil of old—descended upon Jesus publicly installing Him as King. Acts 10:38 says, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power.” How unbiblical would it sound to say, “Jesus will be the Christ,” or “Jesus will be King one day”?

When Jesus was born, the angel Gabriel announced to Mary in Luke 1:32–33 that her Son would receive the throne of His father David and reign over the house of Jacob forever. There is no hint of delay or contingency. Isaiah 9:6–7 speaks similarly: “For unto us a child is born… and the government shall be upon His shoulder… of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David.” The government would be established with the birth of the child and would increase endlessly. No postponement. No gap.

In Matthew 2:2, the magi ask, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?” Jesus did not come to offer to become King. He was born King. The same is true at the crucifixion. Though rejected by Israel’s leaders, the sign above His head providentially declared the truth: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” Human rejection did not negate divine reality.

Jesus’ Own Testimony

Jesus Himself clearly believed He came to inaugurate the kingdom. In Mark 1:14–15 He announces, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” This is not conditional language. It is declarative. The time is fulfilled. If this was not the intended moment for the kingdom, then Jesus Himself misunderstood the divine timetable.

In Matthew 12:28, Jesus states, “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” The kingdom is not postponed; it is present and active, overthrowing the dominion of darkness.

Later, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey, intentionally fulfilling Zechariah 9:9: “Behold, your king is coming to you.” Whether the people received Him or not is beside the point. He is the King.

Even the crucifixion does not negate His kingship but reveals its nature. The cross is not the cancellation of the kingdom; it is the means by which the King is enthroned. God, not Israel’s leaders, determines when and how He installs His King.

The Apostolic Interpretation

Peter’s sermon at Pentecost is decisive:

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins… he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne… Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus… both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:30–36)

Peter explicitly identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of the Davidic promise and places His enthronement at the resurrection. Jesus is reigning now, seated on David’s throne, until every enemy is subdued.

Paul preaches the same message in Acts 13:32–34, declaring that God fulfilled His promises to the fathers by raising Jesus from the dead.

Paul’s epistles reinforce this repeatedly. Romans opens by linking Jesus’ Davidic lineage, resurrection, and lordship into a single, present reality (Romans 1:1–4). In 1 Corinthians 15:25, Paul says Jesus “must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” Reigning “until” implies present reign. Colossians 1:13 says believers have already been transferred into the kingdom of God’s Son.

Theological Consequences of Postponement

Understanding that Jesus is already reigning matters deeply—not only doctrinally, but practically and ethically.

One unintended consequence of postponing Christ’s reign into the future is a subtle tendency toward Jewish supremacy. When the Davidic kingdom is framed as an exclusively future, ethnically-centered reality, ethnic Israel can be viewed as permanently superior in God’s redemptive hierarchy. This can lead to Jews being regarded as inherently closer to God’s ultimate purposes than The Church. While Scripture honors the nation of Israel’s role in redemptive history, it is equally clear that in Christ there is “one new man” (Ephesians 2), and that there is neither Jew nor Greek in terms of covenant standing (Galatians 3:28). Any theology that subtly reintroduces a two-tiered church undermines the unity Christ achieved by His cross. The center of gravity for God’s work and plan in the world is not the state of Israel, or the Jewish people, but is only and fully Jesus Christ! If you want to know what God is up to, look to Christ and those who follow him. 

Postponement theology also diminishes the present authority of Jesus, especially in the public and political realm. If Christ is not reigning now, then His lordship becomes largely internal, private or relegated to being “spiritualized,” while earthly powers are treated as the true governors of history. This weakens Christian confidence in proclaiming Jesus as Lord of nations, rulers, and laws. Yet the New Testament insists that Jesus already possesses “all authority in heaven and on earth.” Jesus is the Savior of the world, but he is also the King of Kings. Individuals ought to obey Jesus, but so should every organization, institution, state and nation. 

If the kingdom was postponed, the cross risks becoming a contingency plan rather than the centerpiece of God’s eternal purpose. Yet Acts 2:23 tells us Jesus was delivered up according to God’s definite plan. Nothing caught heaven off guard.

If Jesus is not reigning now, the church is merely waiting for victory in the future. But if He is reigning now, then evangelism is the announcement of a victory already won, obedience is joyful allegiance to a present King, and suffering is participation in an unshakable kingdom.

God’s King & Kingdom (Jesus) did not arrive early. He did not arrive late. He did not arrive almost successfully. He came exactly on time. He fulfilled the promises made to Abraham and to David. And He reigns now.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

The King is on the throne—and He will be forever. Amen.

*This article was compiled partially with research and grammatical assistance from chat gpt. 

Misunderstanding Replacement Theology

/ Lee A. Robinson / 2 Comments

There are many voices out there right now speaking against “Replacement Theology.” I have noticed many misunderstandings and errors in these talks and thought it would be helpful to clarify a few of the major ones. My main concern in posting this is to urge for understanding, which will hopefully lead to more unity in the Body of Christ. Make sure you know exactly what INDIVIDUALS believe by asking THEM, instead of assuming what they believe based on a broad category someone else lumped them into.  

  1. Most proponents of “Replacement Theology” do not think that the Church has replaced Israel. They don’t think that God disinherited Israel, took away the promises pertaining to them and gave them to the Church. Rather, they think that God indeed fulfilled his promises to Israel in Jesus the Jewish Messiah and in the remnant believers of the congregation (assembly/church) of Israel. Joseph, Mary, Peter, John, Paul were all Jews. They were also the charter members of the New Testament Church. The faithful of ethnic, political Israel became the Church, the true, eternal spiritual Israel. The promises of God flowed like a single river from Abraham to Jesus, but when Jesus came the river burst out into many branches and spread around the world. There is only one river of God’s promises. There is only one People of God, not two. There is only one Olive Tree, not two. There is only one Congregation (Church), not two. There is only one New Covenant, not two. Therefore, “Replacement Theologians” prefer titles like “Fulfillment Theology” or “Expansion Theology,” which emphasize God truly keeping his promises to Israel and to a cohesion between Israel and the Church, rather than a severe division between the two.     
  1. Barely any “Replacement Theologians” are anti-semitic. You probably wouldn’t get that impression from most of these talks against “Replacement Theology.”  There are extremes in every theological camp, so yes anti-semitism does exist out there amongst them. However, among those who gladly claim to be Bible-Believing, Evangelical, Born Again Christians, I haven’t heard any anti-Jewishness, rather only love for Jews and gratitude for the special place they hold in Redemptive history. It is granted that those who hold to what is called “Replacement Theology” typically do not support Jews or the state of Israel unconditionally. They would say that if a Jew is being evil or the nation of Israel is engaging in unjust activities it should be called out and not supported. Basically, we should treat Jews and the nation of Israel with the same level of respect and accountability that we would to any other people or nation. This is contrasted to a Dispensationalists approach, which tends to favorably support Jews and the nation of Israel regardless of their actions. The motto tends to lean more in the direction of “I Stand With Israel…No Matter What.” Whereas most “Replacement Theologians” would think something more like, “I Stand With Israel…So Long As They Stand On The Side Of God.”  
  1. Most “Replacement Theologians” are staunch supporters of Biblical Inerrancy and the Literal approach to Bible Interpretation. It is a misrepresentation to say that “Replacement Theologians” interpret the Bible allegorically and Dispensationalists literally. Both do both, it’s just a matter of degree. Dispensationalists do not think Jesus is literally a wooden door, but take that as symbolic language. “Replacement Theologians” take the apostles literally when they say things like, “a Jew is not one outwardly in the flesh but inwardly in the spirit (Rom. 2)” meaning: being truly Jewish is not an ethnic reality, but a spiritual reality; or “If you belong to Christ then you are a child of Abraham and heir of the promise (Gal. 3)” or “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel (Rom. 9)” etc. Just because someone has a different understanding than yourself of certain passages doesn’t mean they are Bible deniers, unless you believe that all of your interpretations are infallible. 

Just as there are different forms (and cases of extremes) of every theology there are different forms of what is called “Replacement Theology.” Ask individuals what they believe. Then make sure to place the identity of Israel in it’s proper place of importance in the grand scheme of things. 

I hope this article was helpful to you. Please feel free to interact in the comments. Thank you for reading, Lee

Dispensationalism: New Covenant Not For Christians  

/ Lee A. Robinson / Leave a comment

For Audio: https://youtube.com/live/KhXORdyg13w?feature=share

Leading dispensationalists teach that the New Covenant is an agreement established only between God and the nation of Israel (ethnic & political Israel) and that the New Covenant has not yet been actualized. For example: J. Dwight Pentecost writes, “…the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation of Israel and not by the Church…the covenant stands as yet unfulfilled and awaits a future, literal fulfillment. (emphasis mine)” This position advances that individual Christians (Jewish or Gentile believers in Christ) and the Church as a whole are not members of the New Covenant – does this seem like a problem to you? In this article I will provide quotes from leading dispensationalist scholars on this subject; I will remind everyone that the New Testament does in fact unquestionably teach that Christians are members of the New Covenant; and will conclude with a plea for Christian unity over these issues. 

John Walvoord (long time president of the Dallas Theological Seminary) wrote, “…the new covenant is with Israel and the fulfillment in the millennial kingdom after the second coming of Christ.”8 Charles Ryrie (editor of the Ryrie Study Bible) said, “The following provisions for Israel, the people of the new covenant, to be fulfilled in the millennium, the period of the new covenant…the covenant was made with the Jewish people. Its period of fulfillment is yet future beginning when the Deliverer shall come.” Notice Ryrie clearly says here that the “people of the new covenant” is Israel (meaning ethnically Jewish people) and that the “period of the new covenant” is yet future (the Millennial Reign of Christ). J.Dwight Pentecost is in agreement when he says, “…this covenant (the New Covenant) was made with Israel, the physical seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and with them alone.” 

So, their position is clear: The New Covenant is an agreement between God and the ethnic Jewish people alone, and it is yet a future agreement from now. The reason dispensationalists make these restrictions on the New Covenant is because the promise of the New Covenant from Jeremiah states that the recipients are “Israel” and “Judah.” “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31). You would think this would be an open-and-shut case, except for one major problem – – – The New Testament. For it is the N.T. that interprets and applies these verses from Jeremiah as having reference to and being fulfilled in the New Testament (or New Covenant) Christian Church. 

Jesus made reference to this New Covenant during the Last Supper: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament (new covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mat. 26:26-28) Covenants in Scripture are established and ratified with the shedding and sprinkling of blood. The Old Covenant that God made with Israel was established after the Exodus with the giving of the Law, which was also ratified with blood and the sprinkling of all the Tabernacle with the blood of appropriate sacrifices. When Jesus was celebrating the Passover with His disciples, these very events of the Exodus and the establishment of The Old Covenant is what was in process of being remembered (Passover). There, in that very moment, is when Jesus revealed that he was instituting the New Covenant. This New Covenant is not made official by the blood of animals, but with His own blood that he was about to give on the Cross. If the blood of Jesus has been shed and is applied, then the New Covenant is currently in force and has been since the first century. 

Additionally, when the apostle Paul gave instructions to the Corinthian Church about the Lord’s Supper, he repeated these instruction from the Lord, “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament (or New Covenant) in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” This is important because now we are talking about a church made up of primarily gentile believers in a land outside of Israel. The point – The New Covenant was already well underway in the first century, and by Gentile and Jewish believers alike. 

The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah is also very clearly said to be in force by the writer of the book of Hebrews. “But ye are (not will be) come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24) This passage contrasts the establishment of the Old Covenant with Israel at Sinai with the establishment of the New Covenant with the Church. Anyone with a basic familiarity with the book of Hebrews knows that the whole point is showing that the old covenant was passing away and that the new covenant had come. The old were the pictures, but now the person in the pictures had come, so we put away the pictures and embrace the Person. 

Hebrews 8, 9 & 10 make it abundantly clear that the New Covenant has indeed come, that it is already in force, and that this is the same faith of all of the other apostolic churches in the New Testament. In other words, the covenant is not only with ethnic Jews, but also with gentile believers in Messiah, starting in the first century. 

The only possible way you can attempt to get around these Scriptures is to somehow manufacture at least two different “new covenants,” which would be as difficult biblically as trying to successfully pull out a whole pack of chewed gum out of a girl’s long hair – the best course of action is just to cut it out!  

This distressing difficulty is felt by Renald Showers in his book “There Really is a Difference.” Dr. Showers is unsure about the relationship between the Church and the New Covenant. He ponders, “In spite of the Old Testaments’ silence concerning the relationship of the Church to the new covenant, the New Testament seems to indicate that the Church is related somehow to it.” “God had only promised one new covenant, it seems evident Jesus was referring to the new covenant.” “It seems obvious that Jesus was stating that the communion cup represents the New Covenant which God promised to Israel in the Old Testament. The very fact that the Church partakes of the communion cup which represents the New Covenant promised by God to Israel seems to indicate that the Church partakes of that New Covenant.” I can see Dr. Showers scratching his head saying, “The New Covenant is only with ethnic Jews, period. However, the New Testament clearly shows the New Covenant being established with the Church. Hmm… It seems like it, but it can’t be…” It seems like Dr. Showers is more committed to cleaving to the presuppositions of dispensationalism than letting the Bible plainly speak for itself. 

There should be absolutely no uncertainty about the relationship between the Church and the New Covenant. The irrefutable and obvious fact that the New Covenant is the agreement between God and the New Testament Church is as clear as the water that issues forth from the throne of God. The Foundation of the entire Christian Church is the “New Testament (Covenant)” Scriptures! Are the writings of the Gospel writers and the apostolic epistles only for Jewish people in the future? It sounds silly to even have to point this out. The apostle Paul said that he was “an able minister of the new testament (covenant); not of the letter, but of the spirit…” (2 Corinthians 3:6) Do gentile believers in Jesus have access to Paul? Does the Church have anything to do with the ministry of Paul? Was not Paul the apostle to the gentiles?! Are ethnic Jews included in the New Covenant? Yes, absolutely, but only those Jews who turn in repentance to God and faith in Jesus Christ. 

So let’s state it clearly – The New Covenant is the eternal agreement that God has made with His people who have faith in Jesus the Messiah. His blood was shed on Calvary for all (Jew and Gentile). When we receive Christ we are sprinkled by his blood and are made holy. We are set apart from the world and God becomes our God and we are His people. This is the New Covenant. It is universal for those in Christ and it is a present reality. 

So why do dispensationalists try to avoid this fact? The reason why is because they are committed to using the Old Testament as the ruler for interpreting the New, instead of using the New Testament as the guide for interpreting the Old. If Moses and the Apostles speak on a given topic, we should give preference to the Apostles. This is not to say that there are any contradictions between the two, but rather because the Apostles are looking at the thing with better glasses on. The Old Testament contained mysteries, which the Lord unlocked for His Apostles. One of those mysteries was the true identification of the People of God – that it was not only Jewish and locally Israelitish, but that it was also Gentile and Global, rather God’s People are a spiritual people in Messiah. There is only one True Israel. In the Old Testament it was mainly local and Jewish, but not completely, because we have included in the covenant people like Rahab and Ruth, etc. In the New Testament, Israel (The People of God, the people of the covenant) is comprised of Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus, from all around the world. Did God fail in his promises to the Jewish people? Absolutely NOT! Rather, the olive tree was more glorious than they thought, and it included Gentiles as brothers with the wall of separation between us broken down. Hallelujah!    

Calm Down on the Dispensational Dogmatics 

As we conclude, I would like to state that the reason for writing this article is that there are some believers out there who are so strongly dispensational, that they wholesale separate (or even condemn) believers who do not wholeheartedly embrace their doctrine. The main argument is usually along the lines of, “If you are not dispensational then you don’t believe the Bible anymore…” Really? Come on? Dispensationalism teaches that the New Testament Church isn’t part of the New Testament! That is a pretty glaring problem. The Scofield Reference Bible is not inspired. The apostles did not include dispensationalist maps and timelines to their epistles. In simple language – Dispensationalism has problems, there are holes in the system, so it is not wise to be so dogmatic about it. And even if it was completely biblical, not holding to it still does not put someone outside the realms of Christian Orthodoxy. What is waaaay more clear from Scripture is that we should be humble theologians and love our brothers and sisters in Christ. Receive them as Christ received you. Our understanding of Israel and the Church, or the New Covenant and the Church are important – they do make a difference – but they are by no means tenets of orthodoxy. They should in no way separate brethren or churches. A funny thing happened to me – someone decided to separate with me because I questioned dispensationalism, but they didn’t even know what dispensationalism was. That should tell you something. 

I was saved into a strongly dispensational, premillennial church, was mentored closely by the most Jewish loving person I have ever met, and graduated from a Bible college very committed to this position. I love all of those godly people, but from the beginning I always hesitated to wholeheartedly embrace dispensationalism, because of deep personal Bible Study. I am in no way saying that dispensationalists are not intelligent or are not Bible scholars, but rather to say that you can be a committed Bible student and come to a different position, and also that it is possible to come to hold to a system of doctrine with more loyalty than to Scripture alone – especially when your friendships or career are on the line. There are plenty of other faithful pastors and bible scholars who disagree with Dispensational Premillennialism. It is absolutely not THE mark of true orthodoxy. So, don’t be the person who makes other Christians walk the plank because they don’t swear by dispensationalism. And lastly, rejoice in the fact that if you are in Christ you are indeed in the New Covenant and a recipient of every good thing that is in Him. 2 Corinthians 1:20 “For ALL the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.”