***Zionism*** (political nationalism) certainly was not begun by Dispensationalists; and the occurrence of the Halocaust did give impetus to it. But Dispensationalist have strongly embraced it. And Zionist Dispensationalists often quote the Genesis 12 verse, ***God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel*** to justify their support, spiritually, financially, and militarily, for the nation of modern Israel. >I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse, and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:3) This is even though the majority of the Jews in Israel are either ***secular, or anti-Christian***. And are seen to persecute Christians living there. (Statements by King of Jordon, and news reports on TBN network who reluctantly received his report until they saw videos themselves of Jews disrupting Christian rites). And ***Christian Palestinians*** are not even on their radar screen! So how do ***protestant orthodox Christian scholars*** deal with this seminal verse about blessing Israel in contrast to the Dispensational interpretation? Which other scriptures do non-Disp. Christians appeal to, that causes them to treat ***all nation equally***, with love and mercy, without referring to any particular nation or political entity?

One of the defining characteristics of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel, meaning the Jewish people, was given specific promises regarding the land of Israel, which are not applicable to the Church in any way but to the Jews only. As I understand it, Dispensationalists believe these will be fulfilled during the Millennium. I am still trying to wrap my head around the Dispensationalist idea of Israelology, by which they mean the study of the Biblical concept of "Israel." They would define it as an ethnic/genetic category, as the descendants of Israel, a.k.a. Jacob. In Orthodox Judaism, one is considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish or if you are a Halahically valid convert to Judaism, i.e. it is both matrilineal and by conversion. My understanding is that Dispensationalism, at least in its classical form, would exclude converts to Judaism from their definition of "Israel" (see for instance this article ). **What is unclear to me is whether physical descent is defined (by Dispensationalists) matrilineally or patrilineally or some mixture. For instance, if my maternal grandfather and/or paternal grandmother are part of Israel, am I?** I have not been able to find a source that gives a well-defined answer to this question. ChatGPT told me that the Dispensationalist theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum, head of Ariel Ministries argued in his book *Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology* for a patrilineal-only definition of Israel, but without having a copy of that book, I haven't been able to track down any explicit statement to that effect. The quote from Jon Mark Ruthven cited in this article suggests that Ruthven might include either matrilineal or patrilineal descent: > The tradition of identifying a Jew as one whose mother was Jew may represent an attempt to preserve the genetic identity of Jews in the Diaspora. Before that, Jews were those whose fathers were Jews. During the dispersion, oppression of the Jews made it difficult to know who someone’s father was, due to the frequent rape of Jewish women by their oppressors, in times of war and peace. Conversions to Judaism, of course, complicate this purely genetic model somewhat. But the children of these concerts will marry Jews and raise their children to do the same. So Jewish genes soon predominate. However, the quote doesn't define what "Jewish genes" means. It surely does not imply that a genetic Jew is someone whose genetic material is mostly derived from the patriarchs, as that would almost certainly not be applicable to anyone at all who is separated from them by more than two generations. He also does not say whether the shift from patrilineal to matrilineal was legitimate as regards the covenants. To be clear, I am asking about the full Israelite identity, as Dispensationalists often separate partaking fully in the covenants verses spiritual blessings only. I am asking about those who are full partakers in the OT covenants -- is it common among Dispensationalists to believe that this is exclusively for those who are patrilineally descended from Jacob? How is this Israelite identity determined?

According to dispensationalist theology, sin is not directly caused by Satan - though he plays a significant role in temptation and deception - but rather originates from humanity's free will. However, if Adam and Eve were created with free will and declared "very good" by God (Genesis 1:31), does this imply an inherent flaw in their design that free will itself be a vessel for sin? If so, how does Dispensationalism reconcile God's perfect creation with the capacity for rebellion embedded in it?

Those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture often claim that it is clearly taught by the Scriptures, and the only possible interpretation for those who take the Bible at face value seriously. However, the arguments used to prove a pre-trib rapture are extremely complex and difficult for me to follow. Proponents generally acknowledge that no passage of Scripture teaches it plainly, but rather that it is an inference from a collage of different passages. Fair enough; I don't want to go into a full discussion of the arguments for/against here. Rather, I was struck while reading *Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model* by Matt Waymeyer by this argument he presents rebutting a particular amillennialist argument regarding the meanings of "first" and "second" within Rev.20: > The third difficulty with this argument relates to the **perspicuity of Scripture.** Simply stated, it is difficult to imagine that any interpreter would ever have taken this approach...prior to its discovery in the second half of the 20th century. How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? Why would the apostle John use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process?...As Harold Hoehner observes, "The complexity of this view makes it suspect." > > (*Amillennialism and the Age to Come* page 221, emph. added) (*Note: this is not Waymeyer's argument against Amillennialism as a whole, nor any key part of it, but rather against a particular interpretation of the words "first" and "second" used in Rev. 20:5-6*.) Waymeyer is himself a dispensationalist and a believer in a pre-trib rapture. But I cannot see how his argument here does not apply equally to the pre-trib rapture. I am wondering how he might respond to his own argument: - It is difficult to imagine anyone taking this approach prior to its discovery in the 1800s. - How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? - Why would Jesus and the apostles use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process? - The complexity of this view makes it suspect. To be clear, **I am not asking about the correctness of the pre-trib rapture**. Rather, I am asking **how adherents reconcile this belief with the doctrine of perspicuity of Scripture**, when it is the conclusion of an extremely complex reasoning process, and there is little-to-no evidence that anyone took this view prior to modern times. ---- *Update in response to comments:* The comments have suggested two possible reconciliations: either the perspicuity of Scripture is false or the pre-trib rapture theory is not an important enough issue for perspicuity to be relevant (as perspicuity properly only applies to central doctrines). Both of these would resolve the issue, but I do not think many who believe in a pre-trib rapture would take either option. Waymeyer certainly would not, as he uses perspicuity as an argument against a minute detail in the whole amillennialist argument, demonstrating both that he believes in perspicuity of Scripture and that he thinks it may be applied to issues not of central importance.

It seems like the overwhelming majority of Dispensationalist theologians today are Young Earth Creationists. However, this has not been the case historically as there have been many famous Old Earth Creationists in the Dispensationalist camp, including C.I. Scofield, author of the *Scofield Reference Bible*, who believed in the gap theory himself but expressly allowed for the day-age theory as a legitimate interpretation in the Reference Bible. More recently, I know that Norman Geisler was dispensationalist and Old Earth Creationist while opposing theistic evolution. **I am wondering whether there are any notable Dispensational theologians, pastors, or apologists, who would embrace theistic evolution instead of YEC or OEC.** I have not been able to find any. This makes sense given modern dispensationalism's emphasis on the plain reading of Scripture, but given that this wasn't always a principle of dispensationalism, it isn't categorically impossible for a dispensationalist to be a theistic evolutionist.

Not rightly dividing the word of truth is a major source of confusion in Christianity today.

How do scholars differentiate between a Covenantal and Dispensational view of Biblical understanding? Covenant people criticize Dispensationalists for cutting up the Bible narrative into distinct parts, for saying God deals with his people in different ways in different times. They prefer to use the word "Covenant" instead of Dispensation, but isn't this the same thing using a different word? Covenantal people divide the Bible into different covenants, explaining how God deals with his people in different ways in different times. What would help me make up my mind concerning this dilemma?

From this answer it is stated "Peter, James, John (the twelve) were followers of Christ's earthly ministry to Israel (the circumcision)." and from a comment there given for clarity, "The gospels were directly to Israel regarding the coming kingdom of heaven and 'prophecy' that was revealed to Israel's prophets "since the world began" (Luke 1:70).". The answer states that, while all of the New Testament is profitable for those in the Church it is the Apostle Paul's writings that are specifically to and for the Church with the rest (especially the Gospels) specifically to and for the nation of Israel. The twelve Apostles were Christ's ministers to Israel and Paul was Christ's minister to Gentiles. The Dispensationalist view seems to be that Jesus is building His Church now and **some Jews** believe and are added to the Church. At some point the Church will be removed from earth and then **lots of Jews** will believe but they will not be part of the Church (because the Church age is over). > And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. - John 10:16 (KJV) In this passage John records Jesus saying **to the Jews** that there is one sheepfold of His sheep into which "other sheep" will be brought. The natural reading of this seems to be that Jesus' sheep are the believing Jews and the "other sheep" who are not of this fold that will be brought in are the Gentiles. This appears on the surface to be the exact opposite of dispensational thought wherein Jews believe in Jesus and are added to the Church and where there are two "sheepfolds", Israel and the Church. Parenthetic: A similar difficulty arises in Romans 11:11-24 where the wild olive branches (Gentiles) are grafted into the good olive tree (Israel) so that there will be just one olive tree. My question for Dispensationalists regarding John 10:16 is: How is the plain reading of this passage overcome?

As I understand it, a key part of dispensationalist theology is a separation between Jews (Israel) and the Church as two separate entities with distinct purposes in God's plan. In discussions with them, I find that they often assert that some passages of the Bible are for Israel while others are for the Church; the process of distinguishing them is sometimes called "rightly dividing the Word of God." However, I often fail to see how they can tell which is which. In a discussion with a dispensationalist pastor I had recently, he seemed to believe that every other paragraph in Galatians is directed at Israel or directed at the Church, and I found myself totally at a loss to be able to follow. I am wondering, **what methodology do Dispensationalists use to determine which passages are directed at which group**?

There are two major frameworks of Biblical Theology in Protestant Christianity: Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Simplistically, Dispensationaliam says there is a big discontinuity between Israel and the Church, while Covenant Theology says there is a great continuity between Israel and the Church. While the Southern Baptist Covention has a mix of Calvinist and Arminian congregations, my understanding is that the seminaries tend to the Calvinist side. Neither Dispensationaliam nor Covenant Theology would sit well with Reformed Baptists, so I was wondering what these seminaries teach. New Covenant Theology is a more recent framework that tries to chart a middle path between Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Do any of the SBC seminaries teach NCT? Or do they teach their own framework that similarly tries to chart a path between the two, but differs in the details? Or do they teach traditional Dispensationaliam or Covenant Theology? The SBC seminaries may not all teach the same framework, but as there are only six, it shouldn't be too hard to summarise what they do.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding, Dispensationalism suggests that there is a distinct and sharp contrast between Israel and the Church. It holds to the notion that God has a separate plan and purpose for each throughout redemptive history, even into the eschatological future. For example, the 70th week of Daniel is often understood in dispensationalist thought as the Great Tribulation, a period where God deals specifically with Israel, with the Church being raptured prior to this time. Now, my question is not regarding the application of the dispensationalist view of Israel vs. the Church but rather the defense of such a view. As I’ve studied the relationship between Israel and the Church, Scripture seems to continually point to something other than a distinct differentiation between the two and instead highlights their unity and cohesion. For instance, we see verses like **1 Peter 2:9-10**: > *“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”* In this passage, Peter seems to be directly using the exact verbiage used throughout the Old Testament to describe the nation of Israel in **Exodus**, **Leviticus**, and **Deuteronomy**. Additionally, in **Galatians 3:28-29**, Paul states: > *“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”* Here, Paul emphasizes that believers in Christ—regardless of ethnic background—are Abraham’s seed and heirs of the promise, which is a foundational identity tied to Israel in the Old Testament. Another example is found in **Ephesians 2:14-16**, which reads: > *“For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”* And further in **Ephesians 3:6**, Paul elaborates on this unity, stating: > *“That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”* This passage seems to underscore the idea that Gentiles are now fellow heirs with Israel, sharing in the same body and the promises originally given to Israel. Additionally, in **Acts 15:9**, during the Jerusalem Council, the apostles and elders discuss the issue of whether Gentile believers must follow the Jewish law, particularly circumcision, to be saved. Peter, addressing the council, says: > *“And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.”* This statement is particularly significant because the Council ultimately concludes that Gentiles are not required to observe the Jewish law, recognizing that there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ. Furthermore, the council affirms that even Jewish believers are no longer bound to the law for salvation. This moment seems to suggest a deep unity between Jewish and Gentile believers, challenging the idea of a permanent, God-ordained distinction between Israel and the Church. How do dispensationalists interpret such passages to maintain their framework of a distinct differentiation between Israel and the Church? Are there common principles or hermeneutical approaches they use to address these kinds of verses? Thank you for helping me understand this perspective better. All verses are from KJV. God bless!

I was speaking with a Dispensationalist pastor and he made the claim that "the Old Testament always defines Israel as genetic Israel". I mentioned Josh. 8:33 as a counterexample, but he said that that verse is talking about the "assembly of Israel" which should be distinguished from Israel proper, which he claims must be genetically defined. Notes from a friend of mine who attends his church similarly say that "Every time ‘Israel’ is read in the OT, it only ever means a genetic descendant of Jacob (and sometimes it means a subset of this group—northern 10 tribes) – ethnic Jews." This strikes me as particularly radical--even for Dispensationalists--since it would exclude converts to Judaism from Biblically defined "Israel". Is there any basis for these assertions? Unfortunately, I was unable to ask the pastor about where he got this idea from. It strikes me as incompatible with Josh. 8:33-35. Exodus 12:42-49 and Ruth 1:16 are also relevant. I know that Dispensationalists don't all emphasize *genetic* Israel the way this pastor did, since some of my dispy friends also were surprised by this claim. **Are there other Dispensationalist authorities that would make the claim that "Israel" in the Bible is always be defined genetically?** If so, what reasoning is used to justify it? If not, then what Dispensationalist doctrine might this pastor have been misinterpreting? ***Update:*** This article by Thomas Ice seems to also take this view, especially the quotations from Fruchtenbaum's book *Israelology: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology* and Ruthven's *The Prophecy That Is Shaping History: New Research on Ezekiel’s Vision of the End* seem promising. However, I'm not sure sure if these works emphasize the *genetic* aspect (i.e., excluding converts to Judaism). Do either of these works actually define "Israel" this way, and if so, how do they justify it?

What amongst the five Solas and the TULIP concepts are incompatible with Dispensationalism, which I simplisticly understand to mean that the Church has not replaced the literal land and nation of Israel, and the Jews, as the object of God's pronouncements recorded in the Old Testament? My understanding of the Bible and the Gospel would be described as Calvinism before I discovered what Calvinism was! To me it appeared to be the only coherent set of fundamentals, anchored in God's Sovereignty, for Christianity to be internally consistent. My view of Israel flowed from my own, similarly independent conclusions as to the reliability of Scripture, and that was that God would be "dealing" with Israel (the land, the nation, the Jews) per the Old Testament. I saw no inconsistency there whatsoever. Are there **fundamentals** that I don't appreciate in Calvinism and Dispensationalism that make it logically or at least epistemiologically incoherent to "agree" with both?

In an answer to another question , user SLM references an interpretive framework of Revelation from Hal Linsey that derives an interpretation of the overall structure of the book from 1:19. > > Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; Rev 1:19 > > **What was, what is, what will be.** This is the instruction about which to write. > > **What was** is chapter one wherein John describes what he sees. > > **What is** are the letters to the seven churches; that is, letters to the church age in chapters two and three. > > **What will be** is after the church age, since what is, is the church age. > > After this [literally after these things] I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. Rev 4:1 > > This is the rapture. > > After these things, the church age, the what is, ends at the rapture, the door in heaven open, a voice of the trumpet, calls to come up to heaven, to show what will be hereafter. Revelation now turns to the what will be, which is basically tribulation period. Churches are not mentioned again until the end at Rev. 22:16. This connects to a *futurist* reading of Revelation 4-21, which sees the prophecies as things to be fulfilled in the future. I have also heard the same argument (based on Rev.1:19) made by two different dispensationalist pastors, which they used to argue that the prophecies of Rev. 4-21 refer to future events, or even more strongly to argue that they are arranged in chronological order. I'm wondering how Revelation 12:1-5 fits into this framework, as I've only ever heard it interpreted as referring to the first coming of Christ (which especially makes sense because of the reference to Psalm 2 in Rev.12:5.). Obviously, that's an event which happened prior to the composition of the book, so it doesn't fit with a strictly futuristic reading of Rev.4-21. It also would demonstrate that the visions are *not* all in chronological order. So I am wondering whether: 1. There is an alternative, futurist interpretation of Rev.12:1-5 or 2. Futurists do not actually take *all* of Rev. 4-21 as future and/or do not take all of it as chronological.

Within the pre-tribulational view of the rapture, the doctrine of imminence suggests that Christ’s return (specifically the rapture portion of His return) could occur at any moment, meaning that nothing else must take place, prophetically speaking, prior to the rapture. This doctrine is often supported by passages throughout the New Testament, where the apostles exhort the early church to live with the expectation that they are on the cusp of Christ’s return. Many modern proponents hold to this view, and one that is often pointed to is John MacArthur. MacArthur explicitly argues for imminence in his article *[“Is Christ’s Return Imminent?”](https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A368/is-christs-return-imminent)* , citing passages that he believes demonstrate the early church lived with this belief of an imminent return. He begins by quoting **James 5:7-9**, as evidence of such a notion: > “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receives the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” Given the likely early date of James’ epistle, MacArthur argues that imminence was a belief from the earliest years after Christ’s ascension. He then quotes **1 Peter 4:7**, suggesting that Peter likewise shared this belief: > “But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” This poses a problem, however, whether the Doctrine of Imminence, as MacArthur suggests, was true during Peter's own lifetime. ### The Foretelling of Peter’s Death In **John 21:18-19**, we find a prophecy from Jesus regarding Peter’s death: > “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.” Here, Jesus foretells that Peter would grow old and ultimately die a martyr’s death. As verse 19 explicitly states, this prophecy was a declaration of Peter’s future manner of death, which church tradition later identified as crucifixion. ### Question Regarding the Doctrine of Imminence With all of this being said, could the traditional Doctrine of Imminence—suggesting that Christ’s return has been possible at any moment since His ascension— have been true during the early portions of church history, especially during Peter's lifetime? This view, as held by John MacArthur and others, seems difficult to reconcile with the clear indication in the Gospel of John that Jesus prophesied Peter would grow old and die as a martyr. If Christ had returned during Peter’s lifetime before his death, it would have rendered Jesus’ prophecy false. I suspect that some variants of the doctrine suggest it began at the completion of the book of Revelation, but from my understanding, the more traditional view holds that Christ’s return could occur at any moment since His ascension, which is where this post is focused. I anticipate responses that might suggest that perhaps Peter (or others) did not fully grasp or remember this prophecy. It could also be argued that John, writing his Gospel much later in life and likely after Peter’s martyrdom, was the only one who *knew* and, consequently, recorded this detail. However, even if this were the case, it would only mean the early church *thought* Christ’s return was imminent—it would not make imminence a factual reality for the early church as many suggest. Scripture quotes are KJV, thank you in advance for any input. God bless.

I have heard of **the Historicist view** [see](https://www.gotquestions.org/historicism-historicist.html) and **the Futurist view** [see](https://www.gotquestions.org/futurist-Revelation.html) of interpreting the book of Revelation. As far as I know, the Historicist view follows a straight line of continuous fulfillment of prophecy which starts from the time of Daniel, through the time of the writing of the Book of Revelation, all the way to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Futurist view of interpreting Revelation is very popular today, particularly among dispensationalists. Those who hold this view generally believe that everything after Revelation 3 will be fulfilled in the future. Clarence Larkin, an American Baptist pastor, apparently claimed that the literal fulfilment of the Church in Laodicea (in Revelation chapter 3) happened in 1990. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Larkin) . Would that be an Historicist view, or a Futurist view? I would like to know if Clarence Larkin was the first minister to pin a date of 1990 to the start of the Laodicean church age, or if the commencement of the fulfilment of this particular church age happened earlier. P.S. Found some interesting and useful information here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104065/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-a-historicist-reading-of-the-seven-churches-in-re

From my understanding, the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine suggests that separate terms are used for the rapture event and Christ's complete arrival at the end of the tribulation. Specifically, proponents assert that *the Day of the Lord* refers to Christ's final arrival, while a term like *the Day of Christ* pertains to the rapture event. I believe John MacArthur and others have supported this perspective, stating that *the Day of Christ* refers specifically to the rapture. I am personally very persuaded of the opposite—that these various terms actually refer to the same event, each emphasizing different aspects of it. Regardless of the broader debate, focusing specifically on *the Day of Christ*: if this term indeed refers to the rapture event, how does one reconcile the belief that the rapture occurs prior to the onset of the great tribulation in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3? 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3 says: >"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition..." I find it difficult to see how one could justify the rapture occurring prior to the tribulation when considering passages like this. If *the Day of Christ* is distinct from *the Day of the Lord*, wouldn't this passage at least suggest a mid-tribulational view of the rapture, given that Paul explicitly states *the day of Christ* will not occur until a falling away happens and the man of sin is revealed? I suspect that those with a pre-tribulational view might point to the word *"revealed"* (ἀποκαλυφθῇ) as the key to their understanding. Perhaps the argument is that the man of sin being *"revealed"* is not the same event as him taking power or standing in the Holy Place? Do they interpret this as merely his coming to existence on earth, rather than his active rebellion or defilement of the temple? By no means am I am an expert in Biblical Greek, but I find this to be an unlikely interpretation of the term/phrase. Perhaps the argument instead interprets this passage as suggesting that the rapture occurs after the falling away but before the man of sin is revealed? In other words, they might propose that Paul is stating *the Day of Christ* occurs after the falling away and the revealing of the man of sin then follows. However, there seems to be no grammatical or contextual support for this view that, as I see it. Anyway, thank you in advance for any input.

Part of an answer to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101909/how-do-dispensationalists-tell-which-passages-are-for-jews-and-which-are-for-gen) has prompted me to ask a question about the **biblical basis for refuting a literal interpretation of the millennial reign of Christ Jesus. Here is a partial quote of the Dispensational Futurist Interpretation:** >In Revelation the thousand years are taken literally, assuming Israel on earth, and the church suspended above it in heaven for the entirety of this period. Old Testament priesthood, sacrifices, temple, and covenant figures are expected to be reinstituted beneath the heavenly suspension of the church for the duration, the Lord himself being, as is supposed, on earth reigning over Israel and the world. One reason for challenging the literal interpretation is based on what happened when the Son of God died on the cross. The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom by an unseen hand. See Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45. This signifies (to me) that the temple priesthood and animal sacrifices, and even the temple itself, had become redundant when the Son of God laid down his life as the final, the ultimate sacrifice. Why on earth would a literal temple, human priests, and animal sacrifices have to be reinstituted after Jesus cried out “It is finished!” (John 19:30) Rather than ask for the biblical basis for this dispensational literal view (because that question has already been asked and answered), I am looking specifically for New Testament verses where Jesus himself contradicts such an idea. I have already found some, but **I seek input from Christians who disagree with a literal temple, priesthood and animal sacrifices in the millennium.**

I've been learning about the various flavors of dispensational and covenant theology. Classic Dispensationalism (as taught by Darby, Scofield, Ryrie, etc) holds that God plans to bring literal fulfillment to Old Testament prophecies about the physical kingdom of Israel during the Millennium, and that the church does not share in these promises. (I do not agree with this view for various reasons, but am trying to understand it the best that I can.) One thing I have not understood, though: according to that system, do Israel and the church remain separate forever, or are they finally merged after the Millennium? What does Classic Dispensationalism say about the relationship between Israel and the church in the eternal state?

I'm not a fan of dispensational premillennialism, but I don't know of any denominations that specifically hold to it. I'm just fairly curious. I've met individual people that believe it, but never an entire denomination that supports it. Do any such denominations exist?