The OT, not the NT, is the Interlude

Bavinck makes a fascinating point in arguing against dispensationalism (what he called 'chiliasm'). He argues that the historical interlude is not the New Testament period, as dispensationalism teaches, but the Old Testament period. Israel's special calling as God's people is the means to the calling of the nations. God called Adam and Eve to fill and subdue the earth; he called Abraham and Israel; then Christ came as the fulfillment. Ethnic Israel here fills the middle spot, and not, as dispensationalism teaches, the front and then the end, between which the Church age is bracketed. I had never thought of it like that but I think he's right and this bears reflection.

[T]he New Testament is not an intermezzo or interlude, neither a detour nor a departure from the line of the old covenant, but the long-aimed-for goal, the direct continuation and the genuine fulfillment of the Old Testament. (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:662).