A key underpinning of dispensationalism is a literal interpretation of the Bible such that Israel always means Israel and the church always means the church. With such a literal interpretation, dispensationalists hold the view that the church does not fulfill any of the Old Testament teachings with respect to Israel and that the church is always entirely distinct and separate from Israel.
In this literal approach, the law of Moses is not abolished. For the dispensationalist, there is yet a future return to sacrificial law. We’ll discuss the problems with a literal interpretation of Scripture in today’s post. We should also be aware that foretelling a future return to sacrificial law rejects the notion that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is sufficient for salvation from sin. This is one of the most glaring problems with dispensationalism.
We should not impose such a hard literal interpretation upon Scripture. Literal interpretations are very difficult to maintain throughout Scripture. Prophetic literature in the Old Testament, Daniel, the parables of Jesus in the gospels, and Revelation are all understood to have figurative meaning. Thus, it is inappropriate and impossible to always hold to a literal interpretation or to take one concept literally and impose a literal view of it throughout Scripture.
For example, the church for centuries has rejected a literal reading of John 6:53-56, in which Jesus says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Thus, the church rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which insists that the communion elements of bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Christ. We understand that the communion elements are figurative and symbolic, not literal.
Switching back and forth between literal and figurative interpretation also causes a great deal of difficulty and confusion. For example, the dispensationalist holds to a literal interpretation of references to Israel in the Old Testament, but then holds to a figurative view of Daniel’s prophecy in chapter 9 (the seventy weeks). They refuse to accept a literal understanding of seventy consecutive time periods. Thus, attempting to keep up with the many switcheroos of the dispensationalist is rather difficult, and it exposes the fallacies of their teachings. When we cannot accept the plain teaching of Scripture because it disrupts our own ideas about God, we quickly find ourselves in trouble.
The most serious problem with a literal understanding of Israel throughout Scripture is that it weakens the office of Jesus Christ. The law of God was given to us through Moses and is codified in Scripture as the Mosaic law or the law of Moses. At the core of the Mosaic law is the blood sacrifice and substitutionary sacrifice. The Mosaic law had in view its ultimate fulfillment through Jesus Christ, who would become the final blood sacrifice for sin.
In Matthew 5:17, Jesus plainly stated, “Do not think I came to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” In this verse, we learn several important teachings. The first is that Jesus Christ did not abolish the Mosaic law. In other words, the requirement of a blood sacrifice remains the law of God even to this day. Hebrews 9:22 However, Jesus Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection from the grave fulfilled (but did not abolish) the requirements of Mosaic law. There is no salvation in anyone (or anything) else. Acts 4:12, Romans 5:15-21, 10:4. If there was to be a future salvation in animal sacrifices yet again and Jesus Christ would retire from His office as our priest, this would be plainly explained in Scripture. Instead, we find the opposite teaching – that Christ is the final sacrifice for sin, and there is salvation in no one and nothing else. There is no salvation by works, no salvation through idolatry, and no salvation through a return to animal sacrifice. This cannot be more clear in Scripture.
Notwithstanding, the dispensationalists believe there will yet be sacrifices offered on the temple altar, and that for this reason there must be a reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem. See, for example, page 94 of Dispensational Truth by Clarence Larkin, 1920, where he states, “As we have seen, the Temple or Sanctuary will be located in the centre of the ‘Holy Oblation.’ A full description is given in Ezekiel 40:1 – 44:31. No such building as Ezekiel so minutely describes has ever yet been built, and so the prophecy cannot refer to either Zerubbabel’s or Herod’s Temple, and as there is to be no Temple in the New Jerusalem, it must be a description of the Temple that is to be on the earth during the Millenium…”
This idea stems from Israel continuing to exist literally alongside the church. The problem with this is Scripture itself. Sacrifices were ended in Jesus Christ. Daniel 9:27, 12:11, 1 Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 10:1-18 If a further sacrifice is necessary, as the dispensationalists teach, then Christ is insufficient, and a host of verses in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are rendered untrue. Such a teaching amounts to blasphemy!
Further, the sanctuary Moses constructed was a copy of what is in heaven (also known as the New Jerusalem – Revelation 21:2, which occurs after the destruction of earth). Exodus 25:9, Hebrews 9:24 If the earthly temple is patterned after the heavenly temple, when and how was the heavenly temple rendered obsolete and destroyed? The heavenly temple obviously existed from eternity, and there is every reason to believe it will continue. Revelation 21:22 The temple is, after all, where we worship God, and Exodus 25:9, Hebrews 9:24, and Revelation 21:22 lead us to believe that all of heaven is a temple. To say there is no further need for a temple in heaven demonstrates the deepest of error and a woeful misunderstanding of God and of His revelation through Scripture. If anything, the image of the temple aids in our understanding that God is to be worshipped, first and foremost. The dispensationalist risks weakening the worship of God that He demands from us.
Further, in Romans chapters 9 through 11, culminating in Romans 11:23, Paul makes a clear argument for the requirement of belief in Christ even among Israel to be saved through Christ. We will discuss this in greater detail in another post. For now, we should understand the basic meaning of Romans 9-11. The culmination of the Old Testament is in Christ, and only those who believe in Christ will receive forgiveness of sin (salvation). If Israel continues as a separate, literal entity apart from the church but is saved at the end of time or in the rapture, such a teaching deviates from Scripture. Israel is required to believe in Christ just as the Gentiles were. John 3:16 This is the core teaching of Romans 9-11.
John Calvin taught that salvation is of the Jews. John 4:22 By this, Calvin understood that Old Testament Israel had an obligation to be a light to the Gentiles. Isaiah 42:6,49:6, Acts 13:47 When Christ came, everyone had an obligation to believe, for Christ is the only way to salvation. John 14:6 Once salvation came to the Gentiles, Christ gave the obligation of evangelism to all the church. Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8, Acts 13:47 The instructions which were specific to Israel in the Old Testament are now given to all believers, regardless of ethnicity or nationality. But the most fundamental of these is belief in Christ to obtain salvation.
[Refer at this point to part two of my study on John the Baptist. We are all baptized into a holy priesthood. We are all priests. A return to a physical temple complete with animal sacrifices and a tribe of priests deviates from and destroys this very clear teaching in Scripture.]
The purposes of the Old Testament are several. The most important is the introduction of Christ. Secondly, God is revealing Himself to us through Scripture. In so doing, the Old Testament represents physical object lessons to help us understand the spiritual realm. Once the spiritual realm arrives in the New Testament, the manifestations in the physical are no longer necessary. They were there only as an aid to faith, understanding and belief. The physical representations were intended to help us understand who God is and what He expects from us in worship and obedience. Now that we have received the spiritual kingdom of heaven, what need do we yet have to return to the physical representations?
Like this post? Subscribe to stay up to date on new posts.