Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel

The Spurgeon Archive ^ | 2000 | Dennis M. Swanson

[DoorGunner]

Spurgeon held that literal interpretation was the manner in which the Scripture was to be interpreted. He told his students that, "The first sense of the passage must never be drowned in the outflow of your imagination; it must be distinctly declared and allowed to hold the first rank; your accommodation of it must never thrust out the original and native meaning, or even push it into the background.[50] Spurgeon, while not known as an "expositional preacher" and one who never attended college, nevertheless was an exacting exegete. One visitor to Spurgeon's study commented:

I was at first surprised to find Mr. Spurgeon consulting both the Hebrew and Greek texts. "They say," he said, "that I am ignorant and unlearned. Well let them say it; and in everything, by my ignorance, and by my knowledge, let God be glorified." His exegesis was seldom wrong. He spared no pains to be sure of the exact meaning of the text.[51]

Delivered at the Metropolitan Tabernacle on June 16, 1864, Spurgeon preached on "The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews" and stated:

There will be a native government again; there will again be the form of a body politic; a state shall be incorporated, and a king shall reign. Israel has now become alienated from her own land. Her sons, though they can never forget the sacred dust of Palestine, yet die at a hopeless distance from her consecrated shores. But it shall not be so for ever, for her sons shall again rejoice in her: her land shall be called Beulah, for as a young man marrieth a virgin so shall her sons marry her. "I will place you in your own land," is God's promise to them

[DoorGunner]

This is a small excerpt from a large article. It was written from an anti-dispensational perspective.

There is much more of value in the whole article, so please read.

I do not, by publishing this excerpt agree or disagree with any of the positions presented herein.

DG

[TFMcGuire]

Spurgeon never wrote from an, “anti-dispensationalist,” view.

It is interesting to me that two other of the best Bible-exegetes and interpreters of Scripture are without college degree: A. W. Tozer and H. A. Ironside.

Is Spurgeon without a college degree or only absent a post graduate degree?

He certainly has a graduate degree from the New Jerusalem. :)

At any rate, God bless these three giants of Scriptural faith and practice and all who aspire to know the Word and live it as well as they!

[DoorGunner]

>>”Spurgeon never wrote from an, “anti-dispensationalist,” view.”

I was referring to the writer of the article. I think he believes that Spurgeon did not agree with Darby’s theology regarding “dispensations.”

I, personally, have always thought that “dispensations” were merely a means of talking about different periods of time described in the Bible. Apparently, whether the Church and Israel are “the same” or “separate,” is at issue.

No doubt, THAT difference of opinion is more important than it seems.

DG

[topcat54]

Spurgeon never wrote from an, “anti-dispensationalist,” view. <

Spurgeon rejected any notion which separated the people of God into separate camps, as taught by Darby and dispensational teaching. In a clear reference to the teaching of Dispensationalists on this point, he clearly rejected this notion in a sermon when he said:

Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God!We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. These who saw Christ's day before it came, had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body. Israel in the covenant of grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages.Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way —they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall310 [emphasis ours].

That Spurgeon sees the Church and Israel united "spiritually", there can be no mistake.

Spurgeon and Dispensational Premillennialism

[topcat54]

Spurgeon was also preterist to a degree:

But all that time, —the most awful time, perhaps that any nation ever endured,— the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ were altogether unharmed. It is recorded that they fled to the little city of Pella, were quiet according to their Lord's command, and that not a hair on their head perished.321

Spurgeon and Dispensational Premillennialism

[DoorGunner]

From the original article (of the thread):

As this writer has noted in two other works[9] adherents of virtually every eschatological nuance have sought to demonstrate that Spurgeon was "in their camp."

...

In one of his most direct statements regarding eschatology Spurgeon stated:

If I read the word aright, and it is honest to admit that there is much room for difference of opinion here, the day will come, when the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the trump of the archangel and the voice of God. Some think that this descent of the Lord will be post-millennial—that is, after the thousand years of his reign. I cannot think so. I conceive that the advent will be pre-millennial; that he will come first; and then will come the millennium as the result of his personal reign upon earth.[12]

He further stated:

Paul does not paint the future with rose-colour: he is no smooth-tongued prophet of a golden age, into which this dull earth may be imagined to be glowing. There are sanguine brethren who are looking forward to everything growing better and better and better, until, at the last this present age ripens into a millennium. They will not be able to sustain their hopes, for Scripture give them no solid basis to rest upon. We who believe that there will be no millennial reign without the King, and who expect no rule of righteousness except from the appearing of the righteous Lord, are nearer the mark. Apart from the second Advent of our Lord, the world is more likely to sink into pandemonium than to rise into a millennium. A divine interposition seems to me the hope set before us in Scripture, and, indeed, to be the only hope adequate to the situation. We look to the darkening down of things; the state of mankind, however improved politically, may yet grow worse and worse spiritually.[13]

[DoorGunner]

Speaking of A.W. Tozer, here is a quote from one of his sermons:

The Second Coming of Jesus Christ, (which, remember is to be in two stages! His Coming to the Air for the Saints and His Coming to the Earth with his Saints.) is the vital issue of today. More and more people who call themselves Christians are disavowing any exceptions of The Second Coming. For example, liberal theologians long ago gave up their belief in the literal Return of Christ. Some of them simply Spiritualise all the Prophetic Scriptures, claiming the only "Second Coming" of Christ occurs as he is received into individual hearts.

Others go even further, treating the Apostles’ Hope of Christ’s return as a myth and a false expectation, essentially rejecting the biblical promise of the second coming and taking their place with the scoffers (2 Peter 3 v 3-4). That kind of error is precisely what we might expect from those who start with such a low view of Scripture, as theological liberals do.

But lately even some traditional conservative, professedly "Bible Believing" Christians have attacked the doctrine of Christ’s literal bodily return. A view fast gaining notoriety is hyper-preterism, sometimes called full preterism or "realised eschatology" by its advocates.

Hyper-preterists build their whole theology on a misunderstanding of Christ’s words in Matthew 24 v 34. "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place". They insist that this means that every last detail of Bible Prophecy had to have been completed before the death of those people living at the time he spoke, and actually was fulfilled in A.D.70, during the turmoil and political upheaval that ensued when Jerusalem was sacked by Rome and most of its inhabitants were slaughtered.

Now that is highly dangerous doctrine!

http://www.treasuredtruthtoday.org/article/khsa/prophetic_series/ps-005.php

[DoorGunner]

And H.A. Ironside wrote:

But the other term, "the fulness of the Gentiles," has to do with God's present work of grace. When He has taken out from among the Gentiles a people for His Name, when the last soul who is to be saved in this age has come to Christ, the Church will be completed and "the fulness of the Gentiles" will have come in. Then that Church will be caught up to be with the Lord before the seventieth week of Daniel begins. God will then take up Israel, and after the terrible time of tribulation spoken of specifically as "the time of Jacob's trouble," out of which Israel is to be saved, shall come to an end, the remainder of the nation will be brought into blessing. The apostate part of Israel will be destroyed as a result of the terrible experiences of the Great Tribulation. The remnant will be looked upon by God as the nation. And so says the Apostle in verse 26:

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

http://bartimaeus.us/pub_dom/the_great_parenthesis.html

[topcat54]

When He has taken out from among the Gentiles a people for His Name, when the last soul who is to be saved in this age has come to Christ, the Church will be completed and "the fulness of the Gentiles" will have come in.

Ironside could make up stories with the best of them.

The apostate part of Israel will be destroyed as a result of the terrible experiences of the Great Tribulation. The remnant will be looked upon by God as the nation. And so says the Apostle in verse 26:

So, even for Ironside the phrase “all Israel” does not mean all Israel.

[topcat54]

As this writer has noted in two other works[9] adherents of virtually every eschatological nuance have sought to demonstrate that Spurgeon was "in their camp."

Possible to do, except for the dispensational camp.

[DoorGunner]

>>”Possible to do, except for the dispensational camp. “

Yeah! A pox on them dispies. Prolly no better than Funnymentalsts. Imagine! Believing the plain meaning of the Bible!

[raynearhood]

Beat me to it by, like, five hours.

Spurgeon rejected any notion which separated the people of God into separate camps, as taught by Darby and dispensational teaching.

All anyone had to do was read the whole article to which the OP was linked or the whole sermon quoted.

It's never been finally attributed to him any quote that stated "Dispensationalism - bad!" (though there is an article out there over which there is a dispute about his contribution), but Darby started teaching the dispensational model at the same time that Spurgeon was preaching. The system wasn't formalized or formally named until later. So, he spoke against what was being taught, not a named system.

As for Spurgeons eschatology: As far as I can tell he was mostly historic pre-millennial with some amillennial and post-millennial distinctives though he rejected both amillennialism and post-millennialism as a whole. But there is no doubt that he did not make the sharp distinction between Israel and the Church like classic dispensationalism. There is also no doubt he was covenantal. He did hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) which leaves no room for anything but a covenant outlook:

Ch.7 [emphasis mine]

2. Moreover, as man had brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace. In this covenant He freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring from them faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give to all who are appointed to eternal life His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe.

3. This covenant is revealed through the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by further steps until the full revelation of it became complete in the New Testament. The covenant of salvation rests upon an eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect. It is solely by the grace of this covenant that all the descendants of fallen Adam who have ever been saved have obtained life and blessed immortality, because man is now utterly incapable of gaining acceptance with God on the terms by which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

As I've said before, whether I agree with it or not, I have no issue with historic premillennialism as it does not divide the ekklesia. Same reason Spurgeon rejected Darby's teaching.

[raynearhood]

What are you trying to show with these quotes? That Spurgeon was pre-millennial? There is almost no doubt that he was. Now, if you would, re-read the part where he rejects any sharp distinction between Israel and the church.

topcat is right. Read much Spurgeon and you are bound to find bits and pieces of the big three covenant theology eschatologies (post-millennial, amillennial, and historic pre-millennial). What you will not find is dispensationalism.

Quoting pre-millennial distinctives does nothing for your point. Pre-millennialism is as old as the church. Dispensational Pre-millennialism, though, now that's another story. That is not our forefathers eschatology.

[raynearhood]

He had no formal seminary education. He began preaching as a teen and took over as the pastor of the church he pastored the rest of his life at age 20. He was exceptionally gifted. He wrote all of his sermons on the Saturday before delivering them. Having read a number of his sermons I can say that that is very exceptional. This man was blessed with an exceptional gift.

Here's an online bio.

[topcat54]

Yeah! A pox on them dispies. Prolly no better than Funnymentalsts. Imagine! Believing the plain meaning of the Bible!

That’s funny. I’ve had enough interactions with “dispies”, even in this forum, to know that their claim of “plain meaning of the Bible” and “literal interpretation” is a fantasy. I’ve witnessed them twist the Scripture to suit their preconceptions more often than not.

But, I know it’s not their fault. See my tagline.

[topcat54]

As I've said before, whether I agree with it or not, I have no issue with historic premillennialism as it does not divide the ekklesia. Same reason Spurgeon rejected Darby's teaching.

Amen. I would venture to guess that this is the main reason why so many Christians find classic dispensationalism so repugnant. It divides Christ’s body and causes Him to be sacrificed again.

[topcat54]

What are you trying to show with these quotes?

What I thought he was trying to show at first was Spurgeon’s view of future Israel; that he saw a future, corporate redemption for ethnic Israel.

This should not be surprising since many reformation protestants, particularly Calvinists, had a similar view. E.g., see The Restoration of the Jews by David Brown, a Scottish Presbyterian minister of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown fame.

Sadly, this historic view is far removed from the sensationalism of modern dispensationalism, which gets its ideas not so much from the Bible, but from every political and cultural wisp of change in the Middle East. Their eye is fixated on the Israel of the nation, not the Israel of God.

[DoorGunner]

#13 "What are you trying to show with these quotes? "

A reasonable question. I was annoyed that a large part of Biblical Christianity was being denigrated, nay demonized, by using old partial quotes, including one from Spurgeon. When I went looking for what he had actually said, the first document I looked at was the one cited in this article.

Since we are only allowed 300 words (in an excerpt) I chose a portion which seemed to disagree with the "anti-dispensationalist" position. It PROVES nothing, except that "using" Spurgeon in an attempt to put down a large and disparate group was not appropriate. Then, someone mentioned Tozer and Ironside, so I added a quote (fully sourced) from them; with the same intent as with the original article.

But what happened was that people attempted to "disprove" what they imagined had been intended with the following results:

#12 "...divide the ekklesia. Same reason Spurgeon rejected Darby's teaching. "

#13 "...Dispensational Pre-millennialism, though, now that's another story. That is not our forefathers eschatology. "

#15 "...know that their claim of “plain meaning of the Bible” and “literal interpretation” is a fantasy. I’ve witnessed them twist the Scripture to suit their preconceptions more often than not."

#16 "...find classic dispensationalism so repugnant. It divides Christ’s body and causes Him to be sacrificed again. "

#17 "...the sensationalism of modern dispensationalism, which gets its ideas not so much from the Bible, but from every political and cultural wisp of change in the Middle East. Their eye is fixated on the Israel of the nation, not the Israel of God. "

Slurs and accusations against a large group of people who undoubtedly have varying opinions about theology. I call that bigotry. I call that "dividing the ekklesia."

This is similar to the bigotry demonstrated by some against Fundamentalists. There was once an entire thread (on FR) where a couple of good Christians tried to uphold the absurd concept that fundamentalists are Gnostics, who are pretty much exact opposites!

So, I tried a little joke, for effect. Another obvious failure.

So. you folks keep on responding to arguments which were never made. I am on my way to have a third doctor (this time a Specialist!) tell me I have "kidney failure," whatever they mean by that. If I come back, we may have more conversations.

DG

[topcat54]

Slurs and accusations against a large group of people who undoubtedly have varying opinions about theology. I call that bigotry. I call that "dividing the ekklesia."

Slurs are not appropriate, but accusations, esp. substantiated accusations are quite appropriate. Confusing the two only paints your position in a worse light.

As for bigotry, I will admit I’m intolerant when it comes to the teaching of classic dispensationalism. I am a member of a church that is intolerant of the teachings of classic dispensationalism. I consider as my forefathers in the faith many who were intolerant of the teachings of classic dispensationalism.

That does not mean I hold any particular dispensationalists in disdain for their personal beliefs, simply because they hold to points of error. “Some of my best friends are dispensationalists.” And I love them all.

So, don’t take it personally when your system is attacked on theological grounds, or you will always be an unhappy camper.

If I come back, we may have more conversations.

Trusting God for your quick recovery.

[TFMcGuire]

Understood, Gunny.

Dispenstionalism, yes, as a means of God working different ways (to some extent) in different times.

Dispensationalism so hard it can cut through rock-—no. For most part I believe Darby hit the nail on the head. But all Scripturists are called to study the Canon for themselves. Many teachers like the three we discussed but the dear Pneuma our master teacher

The Church age and the 70th week of Daniel Different. and yet, Same in some respects.....

Maybe J. Barton Payne got it right in his book on the Theology of the Older Testament. He says our word should be “Sub-dispensations.” Because in the great matters, god’s methods of working don’t change.

And sorry to misunderstand what you were saying. you are my friend without question if you love and study the Scriptures.

I love to talk about these things and am never really upset nor are we all. I get excited talking about Jesus and the Bible with those of like precious faith.