Dispensationalism Part 3

This post became rather long, so it will be broken up into two parts.

For many committed Christians, Isaiah’s prophecies of the coming Messiah culminate in Jesus Christ who fulfilled Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah. For the dispensationalists, however, they view many Messianic Old Testament prophecies as yet unfulfilled because of the literal approach to Israel as separate from the church.

“When Jesus said, ‘Salvation is of the Jews,’ John 4:22, did He simply mean that from them should come the Savior of the world – Jesus? Or did He mean when He said, ‘Ye are the Salt of the Earth,’ that the Jewish Race were to be the means of preventing the Moral Putrefaction of the world, and that if they became extinct as a nation, that God would destroy all mankind from off the earth, as He destroyed the Antediluvians when Noah and his family were safely shut in the Ark, or as He destroyed the ‘Cities of the Plain,’ Sodom and Gomorrah, when Lot had escaped them? A careful study of Peter’s speech, as quoted by James, at the First Church Council, and the words of Paul in his letter to the Romans clearly show that Christ meant the latter. That is, the Salvation of the Nations, morally and physically, and the preservation of the human race on the earth depends on the Preservation and Continuation of the Jews as a Race.” Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, 1920, page 59.

Larkin’s question reminds me of another question concerning the meaning of Scripture and the authority of God. “Has God said…?” Genesis 3:1 This was the question concerning God’s words raised by the serpent to Eve in the Garden of Eden. When we question the plain reading of Scripture and the authority of God, we’re sure to get off track. Any number of potential interpretations can appear to be supported by Scripture if we just begin by questioning God.

Clarence Larkin continues at page 74 that the church “is not a continuation of the ‘Jewish Dispensation’ under another name. As we have seen in the chapter on the Jews, the Jews have been shunted to a sidetrack that the ‘Main Line’ may be clear for the passage of the Church.”

The dispensationalist rejects Messianic prophecies such as those in Isaiah 2, 9, 42 and 53. In today’s post, we will deal with just one example in Isaiah 2:1-5, as we do not have time to cover every reference in Isaiah and other prophetic books. These verses are viewed as a promise that Judah and Jerusalem will yet be the glory of God in the last days. This is consistent with a dispensationalist view of Romans 11:26, in which Paul seemingly foretells that “all Israel will be saved” (more on this later). This interpretation also feeds into a pre-millennial rapture at which time Christ is said to establish a literal, physical kingdom on earth at Jerusalem for 1,000 years (again, more on this later).

One of the reasons that I am writing this series of posts is that commentaries, sermons, books, and articles after 1830 are more likely to be impacted by John Nelson Darby’s views as expressed among the dispensationalists. The concept that Israel and the Jews will literally exist parallel to the church after the resurrection of the Christ was foreign to mainstream writers (Christian and Jew) before Darby. The idea that there would be a literal millennial reign was also foreign to mainstream writers before Darby.

That very few theologians shared these views before Darby highlights the danger of dispensationalism. For example, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jacob Arminius, John Lightfoot, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, George Haydock, Matthew Poole, John Wesley, and Joseph Benson, to name a few, all hold a different view from the dispensational idea. In Biblical Illustrator, it is stated, “The days of the Messiah were regarded by the ancient Church as ‘the last days,’ because in them all the great purposes of God were to be developed and completed.”

These theologians and commentators all approach the subject with the understanding that the Messiah, reign of Christ, and the church are all in view in Isaiah 2:1-5. All of these theologians and commentators understood that the prophetic vision is figurative, not literal. The “last days” described the days leading up to the destruction of the temple and the commencement of Christ’s heavenly kingdom. These were the last days for the sacrificial system and worship of God in the physical temple. There is no further need for sacrifices or a physical temple because Christ is our sacrifice, and we worship God in spirit and in truth. John 4:24, 1 Corinthians 6:19

Joseph Benson (1748-1821), in his commentary, stated, “The Jews, it must be observed, divided the times or succession of the world into three ages or periods: the first, before the law; the second, under the law; the third, under the Messiah: which they justly considered as the last dispensation, designed of God to remain till the consummation of all things.”

Between 1830 and 1850, John Nelson Darby introduced, among other things, a literal view of Isaiah 2:15, and his ideas were popularized by C.I. Scofield, H.A. Ironside, Charles Ryrie, and others. As illustrative of this teaching on Isaiah 2:1-5, David Jeremiah writes in the Jeremiah Study Bible (2013, NKJV), “In the latter days refers to a time in the future when God would visit the earth to bring judgment and salvation. From the perspective of the NT, this takes place at the second coming of Christ. This will mean salvation and blessing not only for Israel but for people from all the nations who will learn God’s ways and worship Him.”

One could easily infer that David Jeremiah is teaching universalism, which the church rejects. It is also obvious that (1) salvation did not come with Christ’s death on the cross because David Jeremiah refers to it as yet being future, and (2) Christ is not in view or is completely bypassed. The problems with this interpretation of Isaiah 2:1-5 continue throughout Isaiah. Because the dispensationalist framework is that there must be a literal Israel, neither Christ nor the church have any connection to references in Isaiah to Israel, Jews, Jerusalem and Judah. They hold that all such prophecies are yet unfulfilled.

In other words, the dispensationalist does not believe the major Messianic prophecies in Isaiah point to Christ at all, but instead look past Him to a yet future event. They believe none of the Isaiah prophecies have been fulfilled because Israel and the church remain separate and distinct to this day (see, e.g., the Larkin quotes above).

So, where does that leave the gospels, the cross, the death of Christ, and His resurrection? After reading Larkin and David Jeremiah alone, not to mention other dispensationalists, I come away with the feeling that Christ’s finished work on the cross is of no value to us today.

Stay tuned for the next post when this thought is continued.