According to Charles Ryrie, there are three indispensable elements to dispensational premillennialism: (1) the literal hermeneutic; (2) the distinction between Israel and the church; and (3) the doxological approach to understanding the overall purpose of God in human history. 1 First and foremost is a commitment to a consistently applied literal hermeneutic. Dwight Pentecost writes: “No question facing the student of Eschatology is more important than the question of the method to be employed in the interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures.” 2 As opposed to the allegorical method which tends to seek a “more spiritual” meaning “behind” the text, the literal hermeneutic “is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.” 3 The literal method is also known as grammatical-historical , normal , or plain interpretation and in no way ignores the reality of symbolic language or figures of speech. 4 Ryrie defends the literal hermeneutic on three basic principles. First, as God is the originator of language, it follows that the plain language of Scripture should be viewed as “sufficient in scope and normative in use to accomplish that purpose for which God originated it.” 5 Second, the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning the first advent of Messiah argues strongly for a literal approach to prophecies concerning His second advent. 6 Third, if normal interpretation is abandoned, then the range of interpretive possibilities is limited only by the imagination of the interpreter. 7 In other words, if the interpreter is not restrained by the text itself, then the potential for objectivity is lost. Most conservative scholars would agree with this basic interpretive philosophy. But as Ryrie explains, “the difference lies in the dispensationalist’s claim to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible.” 8 Namely, the dispensationalist disputes the tendency of many interpreters, including conservatives, to apply the literal hermeneutic to all areas of revelation except prophecy.
As friends and foes both admit, the consistent application of the literal hermeneutic leads to understanding Israel and the church as two distinct groups within the redemptive purposes of God. 9 In other words, the dispensationalist roundly rejects the idea that the church has somehow replaced Israel and co-opted her promised blessings. The distinction between Israel and the church has great bearing on three other areas of eschatological significance: the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church, the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and the expectancy of a yet-future messianic kingdom on earth.
The dispensationalist understands the end-times tribulation period to be the seventieth week of Daniel (Dan. 9:24-27), and the “time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7). Since the Old Testament predicts a future tribulation for Israel and the New Testament insists that the church will escape the coming wrath of God (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10), the dispensationalist concludes that the church will be removed from the earth just prior to the tribulation period (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51). It is during this seven-year tribulation that Israel will finally come to repentance and receive Jesus as her Messiah.
Furthermore, the dispensationalist contends that many of the Old Testament prophecies which specifically concern Israel have never been fulfilled, especially those rooted in the Abrahamic covenant. 10 Interpreters wrestle with two major issues concerning the Abrahamic covenant. First, should it be viewed as conditional or unconditional? Second, are its promises to be understood literally or figuratively? Or, could the promises of the Abrahamic covenant be assumed by and fulfilled by the church in a figurative sense? Given these two major considerations, it follows that there are four possible ways of interpreting the covenant: (1) conditional and literal; (2) conditional and figurative; (3) unconditional and figurative; (4) unconditional and literal. Dispensationalists, on the basis of the consistent application of the literal hermeneutic, contend that only the fourth possibility does any justice to the text. 11The Abrahamic covenant must be understood to be unconditional , that is, based upon the immutable promises of God, and literal , that is, fulfilled in the nation of Israel.
The implications of an unconditional/literal approach are far-reaching and lead to a third area of eschatological significance: the expectancy of a literal and earthly messianic reign in which Israel will dwell securely in her land, with David on the throne, and Christ Himself ruling the nations with a rod of iron (Ez. 37:1-28; Rev. 2:26-27). To wit, dispensationalists are not alone in their expectancy of a literal millennium on earth. But, as Ryrie points out, dispensationalists are alone in seeing the millennium not as a mere addendum to their theology, but rather as an integral part of it. 12
The third sine qua non of dispensationalism is the view that the overall purpose of God in human history is not soteriological but doxological. 13 While it is only fair to point out that other theological systems place a strong emphasis on the glory of God, such an emphasis is utterly basic to dispensationalism. Thus, while salvation is obviously one of the central features of the Bible, the Scriptures were not given solely to the end that man might be saved. Rather, so says the dispensationalist, Scripture was given for the grander purpose that God may be known “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). Dispensationalism, therefore, understands the unfolding program of revelation as the manifestation of the glory of God in and through human history, culminating in the glorious reign of Messiah who will subdue the enemies of God and deliver the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:20-28).
Some would characterize Revelation as apocalyptic literature, but others make a strong case that it is actually a unique example of “a prophecy cast in an apocalyptic mold and written down in a letter form.” 14 These distinctions may seem trivial to some, but in reality genre identification is highly significant as it relates to interpretive methodology. 15 A recent trend in hermeneutics has been to categorize writings as certain genres, then interpret them according to rules allegedly commensurate with that particular genre. To those who adhere to this trend, genre characterization precedes and even controls interpretation. However, the illogic of such a methodology must be admitted as one cannot possibly know the genre of a particular piece of literature until one has interpreted it. It follows, then, that interpretation is more basic than genre identification, though once the latter is discovered it might legitimately influence the former. The main point is this: one should not interpret the book of Revelation based upon an a priori commitment to viewing it as apocalyptic literature. Rather, the same literal hermeneutic that one uses in discovering the meaning of any text should likewise be used in discovering the meaning of this book. That is not to rule out incidences of highly symbolic language that should be understood as such. Rather, the book of Revelation should be approached with the same axiom basic to all biblical interpretation: only if the plain sense makes no sense should one seek some other sense. To do otherwise will more often than not lead one into nonsense.
The key verse unlocking the structure of Revelation is found in Christ’s dictation to John to “write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things” (1:19). John Walvoord argues that “simplistic as this statement is, it provides an inspired outline of the Book of Revelation. . . . Confusion in the interpretation of Revelation stems almost entirely from a failure to observe this divine outline.” 16 The book, at least from the perspective of the apostle John, divides into past, present, and future: (1) The past: John’s vision of the glorified Christ in 1:9-20; (2) The present: Christ’s instructions to the seven churches in chapters two and three; (3) The future: the events subsequent to the contemporary situation described in the letters to the churches.
If 1:19 unlocks the structure of the book, it is in the interpretation of 4:1 that the major schools of thought part ways. The text is unmistakably clear that the events described in 4:1ff will occur in the future as they relate to John and his audience. The question at hand, however, is the occurrence of those events as they relate to the contemporary interpreter. At least among those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, there are only three logical possibilities. Either the events have happened (preterism), are happening (historicism and spiritualism), or will yet happen in the future (futurism). Walvoord explains why the dispensationalist holds to a futurist interpretation: “The events described, either in symbolic or other ways, find no literal fulfillment in the history of the church. The historical school of interpretation which regards the Book of Revelation as being fulfilled in history has been unable to provide any consensus on its interpretation and offers only confusion.” 17 In other words, if one is consistent in applying a literal hermeneutic, it seems clear that the events of chapters 4-18 are both global in extent and ultimate in purpose. History mocks the notion that anything of the sort has yet to take place on earth. It only makes sense, therefore, to understand chapters 4-18 as a description of a yet-future tribulation period. Accordingly, a general chronology of the yet-future events of Revelation would be as follows:
(1) the rapture of the church (possibly implied in 4:1 – 5:14)
(2) the seven-year tribulation (6:1 – 18:24)
(3) the second coming of Christ (19:1-21)
(4) the millennial reign of Christ (20:1-6)
(5) the final rebellion (20:7-10)
(6) the final judgment (20:11-15)
(7) the eternal state (21:1 – 22:9)
It has already been noted how the consistently-applied literal hermeneutic influences the interpretation of Revelation. But what about the other dispensational distinctives? Admittedly, the dispensationalist’s expectancy of a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies should not forced upon the text such that a strained interpretation yields the desired results. On the other hand, the one who understands Israel and the church to be distinct and holds to an unconditional/literal view of the Abrahamic covenant is not the least bit surprised at the resolutions he discovers in Revelation.
For starters, because the dispensationalist consistently understands Israel to be Israel and the church to be the church, he is able to make sense of the curious absence of the church from all of chapters 4-18, which futurists understand as describing the tribulation. Walvoord observes that this absence “is highly significant because ordinarily the church would be in the center of the activities. Rather, Jews and Gentiles are spoken of separately as individuals who are saved or unsaved.” 18 Such an abrupt vocabulary change is easily explained by the pre-tribulational rapture. The rapture event may or may not be alluded to in 4:1, but at the very least, is must be considered a significant feature of the text that the very group which dominated the content of chapters 1-3 is not mentioned by name again until 22:16. Granted, there are several references to “the saints” throughout the book. But significantly, whereas mention of the church ends with 3:22, reference to “the saints” does not begin until 5:8. It is quite reasonable to explain this non-overlap in what seems to be the most natural way, namely, that John is referring to two distinct groups of redeemed individuals.
Following from the distinction of Israel and the church and the likelihood that the literary absence of the church in 4-18 is representative of her actual absence during the time of those events, dispensationalists argue that 4-18 is an expanded description of what is referred to in the Old Testament as “the day of the Lord” (e.g., Is. 13:6-8; Joel 1:15, 2:1, 3:14; Zeph. 1:7, 14), or more specifically, “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7). In other words, while tribulation in general is guaranteed the church, thetribulation of 4-18 is specifically focused on the judgment of the nations and the salvation of Israel and has nothing whatever to do with the church. 19
Rather, Revelation 4-18 is the New Testament expansion on the prophecy of Daniel 12:1: “At that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book.” It is through Israel’s violent enmity with the nations, her persecution at the hands of the evil one, and the faithful chastening of her covenant God that “Daniel’s people” at last are persuaded to respond to Messiah in repentance and faith.
Undoubtedly, the most contentious disagreements concerning Revelation are reserved for the various views concerning the millennium, as recorded in 20:1-10. Critics argue that this is the only place that Scripture speaks of a one thousand year reign. And, considering the book’s highly-symbolic language, they therefore assume that it is better understood figuratively, however that may be. In contrast, the dispensationalist, anchored to his literal hermeneutic, points out that had John intended to convey the idea of a non-literal millennium, it seems unlikely that he would have specifically referred to “one thousand years” with such blatant precision on six different occasions (20:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Further, it is simply contrary to fact that Revelation 20 is the only place that Scripture speaks of a millennium. While it may be the case that Revelation 20 is the only text that reveals the duration of the period, the Scriptures are replete with references to a future messianic age. 20 Once again, the interpreter who understands the prophecies of the Old Testament in their plain and normal sense is not surprised at all that the final book of the Bible provides the resolution to God’s desire to have a Man rule over His creation (Gen. 1:26; Ps. 8; Heb. 2:5-13). While apart from Revelation 20:1-7 there is, admittedly, no biblical reason to assert that the messianic age would have to last for a period of one thousand years, there is ample evidence to support the doctrine that an earthly messianic reign is necessary for any meaningful or ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants. It is incumbent upon the one who argues that no such messianic age is necessary, or that it is figuratively fulfilled by the church, to first justify the apparently inconsistent hermeneutic principle by which such a conclusion is reached.
Finally, the book of Revelation provides an exclamation point to the doxological purpose of God as He directs the course of human history. The book unequivocally declares the glory of God and His sovereignty over the affairs of men (e.g., 4:11; 5:9-10; 15:3-4; 16:5-7; 19:6-21). The doxological theme of Scripture is consummated in Revelation in a number of ways, including (1) the final judgment of the rebellious nations; (2) the final judgment of Babylon the harlot; (3) the triumphant return of Christ with the church prior to the inauguration of the messianic age; (4) the salvation of Israel; (5) the binding of Satan coincidental to the messianic age on the earth; (6) the release of Satan for the final rebellion; 21 (7) the final judgment; and (8) the eternal state in which God dwells with man on earth. Paradise lost in Genesis is Paradise restored in Revelation. Like a good musical score, a dispensational premillennial interpretation of Revelation provides resolution to the conflict and chaos of human history. This is only possible, says Ryrie, because “underlying it all is the very nature of God Himself in that what He has plainly spoken He will do, and what He has assuredly promised He will perform. This is the basis of the premillennial faith.” 22
Benware, Paul N. Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach . Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.
Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
Clouse, Robert G. ed. The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views . Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1979.
Gregg, Steve. ed. Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary . Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997.
House, H. Wayne. Chronological and Background Charts of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
________. Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
________. ed. Israel: The Land and the People . Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology . Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958.
Radmacher, Earl D. The Nature of the Church . Hayesville, North Carolina: Schoettle Publishing Company, 1996.
Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism . rev. and exp. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.
________. Basic Theology . Colorado Springs: Victor Books,
________. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, N.J.:Loizeaux Brothers, 1989.
Walvoord, John F. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook . Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, 1990.
________. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation . Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.
________. Jesus Christ our Lord . Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.
________. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.
FOOTNOTES
1:Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism , rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 38-41.
2:J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), 1.
3:Pentecost, 9.
4:Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 80-81.
5:Ibid., 81.
6:Ibid.
7:Ibid., 82.
8:Ibid.
9:Ibid., 39.
10:See Genesis 12-22. The basic provisions of the Abrahamic covenant were personal (land), national (seed; Davidic), and universal (new covenant). See Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 31-74.
11:Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith , reprint (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1989), 48-75.
12:Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 148.
13:Ibid., 40.
14:D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 479.
15:See Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 79-80.
16:John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1990), 542.
17:Ibid.
18:Ibid., 544.
19:On the basis of Matthew 16:18 (“I will build”), Ephesians 3:1-12, and other verses, dispensationalists conclude that Old Testament references to “the day of the Lord” could not have any immediate reference to the church. As a distinct entity, the church was not even revealed until the time of Christ and the apostles. See Earl D. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing, 1996), 115-76.
20:See Pentecost, 476-94.
21:For an explanation why Satan must be loosed at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:3), see Pentecost, 548-549, and John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 303.
22:Ryrie, Basis , 157.