CHAPTER I<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
The issue of Israel is one of the major points of division in evangelical theology today. This is true both among Arminians and Calvinists. An evangelical theologian\u2019s view of Israel will determine whether he is a Covenant Theologian or a Dispensationalist. It will also determine what kind of Covenant Theologian he is: postmillennial, amillennial, or premillennial. The question of Israel is central for a proper Systematic Theology. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, which contains the first Systematic Theology in Church history, expounds on Israel in the center of his epistle devoting three full chapters (9\u201311) out of sixteen to this topic. Yet, while there are many Systematic Theologies today which have systematized all areas of biblical truth, none thus far have developed an Israelology as part of their system. This work is an attempt to fill that gap.<\/p>\n
A. The Purpose<\/p>\n
The primary purpose of this study is to identify and systematize the doctrine of Israel through four Protestant conservative\/evangelical Systematic Theologies. This purpose includes identifying and defining the four systems of theology and the Systematic Theology upon which they are based; showing where Israelology fits into the framework of a total Systematic Theology; and, determining how a theological system may lead to anti-Semitism, pro-Semitism, or indifference to the issue. The secondary purpose of this study is to develop and systematize a theology of Israel within and consistent with the Systematic Theology which this writer has adopted: Dispensationalism.
\nThe two purposes will incorporate the following:<\/p>\n
1. To systematize Pre-, Post-, and Amillennial Covenant Theology in relation to Israelology as far as the sources allow;<\/p>\n
2. To systematize Dispensationalism in relation to Israelology as far as the sources allow;<\/p>\n
3. To develop Israelology on the basis of dispensational principles in those areas where the sources have failed to do so, and it is this point which the writer hopes will make a major contribution to that school of thought; and,<\/p>\n
4. To determine how a theological system may lead to anti-Semitism, pro-Semitism, or indifference to the issue.<\/p>\n
B. Definition of Terms<\/p>\n
There are key terms which are used throughout this study that should be defined as part of the introduction. The definitions given in this chapter will be the working definitions in all of the subsequent chapters.<\/p>\n
1. Systematic Theology<\/p>\n
A science which follows a humanly devised scheme or order of doctrinal development and which purports to incorporate into its system all the truth about God and His universe from any and every source.\u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026 Systematic Theology may be defined as the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting, and defending of all facts from any and every source concerning God and His works.<\/p>\n
2. Israelology<\/p>\n
This term refers to a subdivision of Systematic Theology incorporating all theological doctrines concerning the people of Israel.<\/p>\n
3. Israel<\/p>\n
As used in this work, the term Israel is viewed theologically as referring to all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, also known as the Jews, the Jewish people, Israelites, Hebrews, etc. The term is not limited to the present political and national state in the Middle East, which is merely a part of the whole; nor is it limited to those who adhere to the religion of Judaism only.<\/p>\n
4. Hermeneutics<\/p>\n
Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation.<\/p>\n
Hermeneutics is the science that teaches us the principles, laws, and methods of interpretation.<\/p>\n
5. Dispensationalism<\/p>\n
Dispensationalism is that system of theology which:<\/p>\n
\u2026 views the world as a household run by God. In this household-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the process of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these economies are the dispensations.<\/p>\n
In this system there are usually, but not always, seven such dispensations.<\/p>\n
6. Covenant Theology<\/p>\n
Covenant Theology is that system of theology which \u201crepresents the whole of Scripture as being covered by covenants: (1) the covenant of works; and, (2) the covenant of grace.\u201d<\/p>\n
Covenant theology, then, is a system of theology based upon the two covenants of works and of grace as governing categories for the understanding of the entire Bible.<\/p>\n
7. The Millennium or the Millennial Kingdom<\/p>\n
The word millennium means thousand years.\u2026 this period of one thousand years is often identified with the many promises of the Old Testament of a coming kingdom of righteousness and peace on the earth in which the Jews would be leaders and in which all the nations would have great blessing both spiritual and economic.<\/p>\n
In this work, the Millennium will also be referred to as the Messianic Kingdom.<\/p>\n
8. Premillennialism<\/p>\n
Premillennialism is that system of theology \u201cwhich holds the doctrine that the second coming of Christ precedes the millennium.\u201d Premillennialism \u201cis the teaching that Christ will reign on earth for one thousand years following His second advent. Premillennialism as a term derives its meaning from the belief that the second coming of Christ will be before this millennium and therefore pre-millennial.\u201d All Dispensationalists are premillennial, whereas only a segment of Covenant Theologians are.<\/p>\n
9. Postmillennialism<\/p>\n
Postmillennialism is that system of theology which \u201cteaches that the Second Coming of Christ will follow the thousand years of peace and righteousness.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2026 postmillennialism holds that the present age will end with a period of great spiritual blessing corresponding to the millennial promises accomplished through preaching the gospel. The whole world will be Christianized and brought to submission to the gospel before the return of Christ. The name is derived from the fact that in this theory Christ returns after the millennium (hence, post millennium).<\/p>\n
This view is held by a segment of Covenant Theologians.<\/p>\n
10. Amillennialism<\/p>\n
Amillennialism (or No-Millennium) is that system of theology \u201cwhich rejects the idea of any period of a thousand years either before or after the return of Christ.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is the teaching that the only visible coming of Christ to this earth which the Church is to expect will be for judgment and will be followed by the final state. It is \u2026 a-millennial, because it rejects the doctrine \u2026 of a thousand years.<\/p>\n
The major segment of Covenant Theology today is amillennial.<\/p>\n
C. The Significance and Importance of this Study<\/p>\n
In one form or another, proponents of all four systems of theology have wrestled with the question of Israel. All recognize the Jewish origins and roots of the Christian faith, and some kind of an official attitude towards the \u201cPeople of the Book\u201d has been displayed. In some, Israelology plays no vital role in their theology, whereas in others it is central.
\nOften it is the Israelology of a system that distinguishes one from another. Ryrie, a Dispensationalist, writes:<\/p>\n
What, then, is the sine qua non of dispensationalism?\u2026 A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct.\u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026 This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive.<\/p>\n
A key factor, then, that distinguishes Dispensationalism from all other theologies is its Israelology.<\/p>\n
Chafer, another Dispensationalist, writes:<\/p>\n
Israel has never been the Church, is not the Church now, nor will she ever be the Church. A form of Covenant Theology which would thread all of Jehovah\u2019s purposes and undertakings upon His one attribute of grace could hardly avoid confusion of mind in matters related to His varied objectives. Covenant Theology, in consistency with its man-made premise, asserts its inventions respecting an Old Testament church, which, it is claimed, is an integral part of the New Testament Church and on the ground that, since God\u2019s grace is one unchanging attribute, its accomplishments must be the realization of one standardized ideal. The Covenant theory does retain Israel as such to the time of Christ\u2019s death. The Church is thought to be a spiritual remnant within Israel to whom all Old Testament blessings are granted and the nation as such is allowed to inherit the cursings.<\/p>\n
Again, it is Israelology that is the main distinguishing characteristic between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, the latter being subdivided into Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism.
\nThe degree of importance of Israelology to Dispensationalism is stated by Chafer:<\/p>\n
The Jewish nation is the center of all things related to the earth.\u2026 This great statement places Israel as the center of all divine purposes for the earth. Jehovah may chasten His people and even use the nations to that end, but invariably judgment falls on those who afflict Israel and simply because they do it maliciously nonetheless.<\/p>\n
Walvoord, another leading Dispensationalist, writes along the same vein:<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the study of the future of Israel has been obscured by controversy in other areas of Biblical theology. Liberal or neo-orthodox theologians, who do not accept the infallibility of the Scriptures, tend to ignore what the Bible teaches about Israel. Among conservatives there is a radical division concerning the meaning of Biblical revelation in relation to Israel. Some contemporary amillenarians deny any future to Israel as such and consider the promises to Israel as being fulfilled in the church in the present age. Others believe that there will be a spiritual restoration of Israel, but tend to disregard the geographic and political aspects of Israel\u2019s promises.<\/p>\n
The fact that Israelology is what distinguishes Dispensationalism from Covenant Theology is not merely attested to by Dispensationalists, but it is also affirmed by Covenant Theologians. Allis, a Covenant Theologian of the amillennial school, writes:<\/p>\n
For in saying this he has placed his finger on the sore point in Dispensational teaching, the exaltation of the Jew per se. in their glorification of the Jew and the rosy future they assign to him, Dispensationalists vie with Zionists. The future belongs to the Jew!<\/p>\n
Ladd, a Covenant Theologian from the premillennial school, writes:<\/p>\n
The concept that the Scriptures which refer to the Great Tribulation have to do only with Israel and not with the Church is an arbitrary method of interpreting the Word which, if carried out consistently, would make havoc of Biblical interpretation. We have found that dispensationalists themselves do not apply this method of \u201cdividing the Word\u201d in a consistent manner.<\/p>\n
Both Allis and Ladd criticize Dispensationalism over the issue of Israelology, yet Ladd wishes to distinguish his Covenant Premillennialism from Allis\u2019 Amillennialism. He does this by means of his own Israelology:<\/p>\n
There is therefore but one people of God. This is not to say that the Old Testament saints belonged to the Church and that we must speak of the Church in the Old Testament.\u2026 The Church properly speaking had its birthday on the day of Pentecost, for the Church is composed of all those who by one Spirit have been baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), and this baptizing work of the Spirit began on the day of Pentecost.<\/p>\n
While we must therefore speak of Israel and the Church, we must speak of only one people of God.<\/p>\n
All sides agree, then, that the factor of Israel is a distinguishing feature of the different theologies. Yet in spite of this admitted fact, Israelology as a separate segment of Systematic Theology has never been systematized. This lack has been recognized by only one of the Systematic Theologies, that of Chafer:<\/p>\n
The works of Systematic Theology generally have recognized the redeemed people of this age, but only as a supposed sequence or continuation in the progress of the divine purpose in Israel. They refer to \u201cthe Old Testament Church\u201d and to \u201cthe New Testament Church\u201d as together constituting component parts of one divine project, thus failing to recognize those distinctions between Israel and the Church which, being so radical in character, serve to indicate the widest possible difference between them\u2014difference in origin, difference in character and responsibility, and difference in destiny.<\/p>\n
Although Chafer points out the lack of most Systematic Theologies and has a great deal to say about the theology of Israel\u2014more than all the others\u2014he also fails to systematize the doctrine of Israel. His Israelology is scattered throughout his eight-volume Systematic Theology, and the index is of little help in this area. There is no separate section of \u201cIsraelology\u201d in the one work where it was expected, yet Chafer is the most complete.
\nHerein lies the significance of this study. The writer wishes to systematize the Israelology of the four theologies and present a positive demonstration of Dispensational Israelology. The writer wishes to do for Israelology what has already been done for the other major fields of Systematic Theology, for in the area of Israelology there is a great vacancy.<\/p>\n
D. The Place of Israelology in Systematic Theology<\/p>\n
The major divisions of Systematic Theology as given in logical sequence and found in all Systematic Theologies are as follows:<\/p>\n
Bibliology\u2014The doctrine of the Bible;<\/p>\n
Theology Proper\u2014The doctrine of God, the Trinity, the Father;<\/p>\n
Christology\u2014The doctrine of the Son;<\/p>\n
Pneumatology\u2014The doctrine of the Holy Spirit;<\/p>\n
Angelology\u2014The doctrine of angels;<\/p>\n
Satanology\u2014The doctrine of Satan;<\/p>\n
Demonology\u2014The doctrine of demons;<\/p>\n
Anthropology\u2014The doctrine of man;<\/p>\n
Hamartiology\u2014The doctrine of sin;<\/p>\n
Soteriology\u2014The doctrine of salvation;<\/p>\n
Ecclesiology\u2014The doctrine of the Church; and<\/p>\n
Eschatology\u2014The doctrine of last things.<\/p>\n
All these elements will be found in every work of Systematic Theology, and every element will be fully developed and systematized (though not always in the above order); but Israelology will be found missing as a major division. In all Systematic Theologies, what exists of Israelology will only be partially developed. In Covenant Theology, the development will be minimal. In Dispensationalism, Israelology is only fully developed in its future aspect, not in its past and present aspects.
\nLogically, Israelology must come just prior to Ecclesiology and follow the same development. Both are a people of God but, historically, Israel precedes the Church. As Ecclesiology has been developed in its past, present, and future aspects, so must Israelology be. Only then will Systematic Theology be truly complete.
\nHence, the significance, need, and title for this study: Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology.<\/p>\n
E. Procedure<\/p>\n
As this work is primarily theological, it will be based on the theological method of investigation, also known as the inductive method. As Chafer has put it:<\/p>\n
Of the two methods of dealing with the truth of God\u2019s Word\u2014deduction, by which a theme is expanded into its details of expression, a method belonging largely to the sermonic field, and induction, by which various declarations upon a subject are reduced to one harmonious and all-inclusive statement\u2014induction is distinctly the theological method.<\/p>\n
Among the Systematic Theologies there is substantial agreement as to what constitutes the theological method. These are best summarized by the two Systematic Theologies of Hodge and Strong. The writer will submit all material to the theological method as outlined by Hodge and Strong. The method includes:<\/p>\n
1. The theologian approaches the subject with certain assumptions:<\/p>\n
a. The Scriptures are the written Word of God;<\/p>\n
b. They contain all the facts of theology; and<\/p>\n
c. They are a storehouse of facts which can be discovered by a finite mind.<\/p>\n
2. The theologian is to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning Himself and man\u2019s relation to Him:<\/p>\n
a. These facts are all in the Bible; and<\/p>\n
b. Everything revealed in nature and in the constitution of man concerning God and man\u2019s relation to Him, is contained and authenticated in the Scriptures.<\/p>\n
3. From the facts thus ascertained and classified, the theologian deduces the theological principles by which they are determined:<\/p>\n
a. This collection must be made with diligence and care; and<\/p>\n
b. This collection of facts must also be comprehensive, and, if possible, exhaustive.<\/p>\n
4. These principles are to be derived from the facts and not imposed on them.<\/p>\n
After listing the methods of theology, Hodge concludes:<\/p>\n
The true method of theology is, therefore, the inductive, which assumes that the Bible contains all the facts or truths which form the contents of theology, just as the facts of nature are the contents of the natural sciences. It is also assumed that the relation of these Biblical facts to each other, the principles involved in them, the laws which determine them, are in the facts themselves, and are to be deduced from them, just as the laws of nature are deduced from the facts of nature. In neither case are the principles derived from the mind and imposed upon the facts, but equally in both departments, the principles or laws are deduced from the facts and recognized by the mind.<\/p>\n
These principles of the theological method will, of necessity, be limited to the field of Israelology. In those sections where the writer is systematizing what has already been said by the schools of theology, he will point out consistencies or inconsistencies of the school of thought with the theological method. In those sections where the writer is developing a Dispensational Israelology, he will be guided by the above-stated principles.
\nBoth primary and secondary sources will be used. The primary sources are the Systematic Theologies of the four schools of thought. At least one Systematic Theology for each school of thought will be utilized. Secondary sources are to be found in published works by recognized authorities which generally further expound the viewpoints of the Systematic Theologies.
\nThe order of treatment in the following chapters will be:<\/p>\n
Covenant Postmillennialism
\nThe Israelology of Covenant Postmillennialism
\nCovenant Amillennialism
\nThe Israelology of Covenant Amillennialism
\nCovenant Premillennialism
\nThe Israelology of Covenant Premillennialism
\nDispensationalism
\nThe Israelology of Dispensational
\nA Dispensational Israelology<\/p>\n
F. The Translation Used<\/p>\n
Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are from the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER II<\/p>\n
COVENANT POSTMILLENNIALISM DEFINITION AND BASIC TENETS<\/p>\n
This chapter will serve as background to chapter III, which deals with the thesis at hand: the Israelology of Covenant Postmillennialism. It will help to better understand how Postmillennialists arrive at their Israelology if their own position is defined and their basic tenets are explained. Except for the summary, the sources used here will be exclusively those of Postmillennialists.
\nJ. Marcellus Kik defines his Postmillennialism in terms of their future hope:<\/p>\n
The postmil looks for a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of a glorious age of the church upon earth through the preaching of the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit. He looks forward to all nations becoming Christian and living in peace one with another. He relates all prophecies to history and time. After the triumph of Christianity throughout the earth he looks for the second coming of the Lord. There are, of course, differences of opinion concerning details among the posts as among other schools of thought.<\/p>\n
The Postmillennialist, like the Premillennialist, looks forward to a future Millennium during which period there will be a fulfillment of many unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies. Contrary to Dispensationalists, the Postmillennialist sees those prophecies being fulfilled as \u201ca glorious age of the church upon earth through the preaching of the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit\u201d rather than being fulfilled by Israel in the Messianic Kingdom. In Postmillennialism, the gospel will \u201ctriumph\u201d and all nations will become \u201cChristian.\u201d They will live in peace with each other. It is the Church through the preaching of the gospel that will bring in the Millennium. Only after the Millennium is established will Christ return, hence the term \u201cpostmillennial.\u201d
\nPostmillennialists distinguish between the Messianic or Millennial Kingdom and the consummate kingdom. The consummate kingdom is the eternal state, but the Messianic or Millennial Kingdom is fulfilled in time, not eternity, and will cease to exist at a certain point in time.
\nAs to the timing of the Millennium, Kik states:<\/p>\n
So when we speak of the kingdom of God, the millennial kingdom, and even the kingdom (Christ\u2019s) of glory, we refer to the kingdom that God has given exclusively to the God-man for a definite period of time. The millennium, in other words, is the period of the gospel dispensation, the Messianic kingdom, the new heavens and new earth, the regeneration, etc. The millennium commenced either with the ascension of Christ or with the day of Pentecost and will remain until the second coming of Christ. There was a period of time when Jesus received the kingdom and there will be a period of time when He will surrender it to the Father.<\/p>\n
Postmillennialists, then, believe that the \u201cMillennium\u201d began with the first coming and will terminate with the second coming. It is not limited to a literal one thousand years, but is the entire \u201cperiod of the gospel dispensation,\u201d including the time of the proclamation of the gospel, the time that the gospel conquers all nations, and the period when peace has run its full course.
\nThe key Scriptures that Kik uses to defend his position are Genesis 3:14\u201315; 13; Psalm 2:8; 22:27\u201328; 45:17; 47; 66:4; 72; 110; Isaiah 2:2\u20134; 9:6\u20137; 11; 40:4\u20135; 52:10; 54; 60; 62; and 66. These passages speak of Israel, but Kik identifies the Israel of every one of these passages with the Church. In the New Testament, he cites the following passages to support Postmillennialism: Luke 10; Romans 4:13; 11; 16:20; 2 Corinthians 2:14; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8; and Revelation 12:9, 11. It is not the purpose of this work to evaluate the correctness of the exegesis of these passages by the postmillennial view; but it should be emphasized that the postmillennial position heavily depends upon the identification of Israel with the Church.
\nCrucial to all millennial views is the interpretation of Revelation 20 where the \u201cone thousand years\u201d is mentioned six times. Kik\u2019s position is:<\/p>\n
In dealing with Revelation Twenty we are limiting our study chiefly to verses 4 and 5, which, if not the heart of the chapter, are certainly the heart of the controversy regarding this chapter. The thousand years mentioned in verse three make up the gospel dispensation from the first coming of Christ till that brief period of apostasy expressed in the words: \u201cand after that he must be loosed a little season.\u201d The binding of Satan is, as is stated in verse 3, in regard to deceiving the nations. During that period Satan will not be able to control the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ.<\/p>\n
Kik identifies the \u201cone thousand years\u201d with \u201cthe gospel dispensation,\u201d from the first coming to just before the second coming. After giving a postmillennial exegesis of Revelation 20:4, Kik concludes:<\/p>\n
It is our contention that Revelation 20:4 speaks of the gospel dispensation. It reveals the victorious reign of the saints upon earth regardless of martyrdom and suffering, in all these things they are more than conquerors.<\/p>\n
Kik\u2019s conclusion is that Revelation 20:4 is speaking of \u201cthe victorious reign of the saints upon earth.\u201d He rejects both the amillennial view (\u201c\u2026 how difficult it is to apply it to the intermediate state of the believer\u2019s soul\u201d) and the premillennial view (\u201c\u2026 to relate this verse to a kingdom to be established after the second coming \u2026\u201d).
\nLoraine Boettner defines Postmillennialism in the following terms:<\/p>\n
Postmillennialism is that view of the last things which holds that the Kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the Gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit, that the word eventually will be Christianized, and that the return of Christ will occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace commonly called the Millennium.<\/p>\n
This is the essence of Postmillennialism. First, through the preaching of the gospel, \u201cthe word eventually will be Christianized.\u201d Second, there will be \u201ca long period of righteousness and peace.\u201d Third, after all this will be \u201cthe return of Christ.\u201d
\nLater in his work, Boettner gives a far more extensive definition and elaboration of Postmillennialism. Repeating his earlier definition, Boettner then gives some ramifications of the doctrine. First, there will come a \u201cgolden age of spiritual prosperity \u2026 during the Church age.\u201d Second, this golden age, or \u201cMillennium,\u201d will last an indefinite and long period of time, \u201cperhaps much longer than a literal one thousand years.\u201d Third, this will be attained by the preaching of the gospel. Fourth, while this will not include every individual in the world, the number of unbelievers will be \u201cnegligible.\u201d
\nThere is a difference between the Postmillennialism of Kik and that of Boettner. Kik applies the term \u201cMillennium\u201d to the entire gospel age which includes the period of its propagation and the period of the golden age. Boettner, however, applies the term only to the golden age, so this age will eventually lead into the golden age or the \u201cMillennium.\u201d
\nBoettner provides the following description of the Millennium as he views it:<\/p>\n
The Postmillennialist looks for a golden age that will not be essentially different from our own so far as the basic facts of life are concerned. This age gradually merges into the millennial age as an increasingly larger proportion of the world\u2019s inhabitants are converted to Christianity. Marriage and the home will continue, and new members will enter the human race through the natural process of birth as at present. Sin will not be eliminated but will be reduced to a minimum as the moral and spiritual environment of the earth becomes predominantly Christian. Social, economic and educational problems will remain, but with their unpleasant features greatly eliminated and their desirable features heightened. Christian principles of belief and conduct will be the accepted standards. Life during the Millennium will compare with life in the world today in much the same way that life in a Christian community compares with that in a pagan or irreligious community. The Church, much more zealous in her testimony to the truth and much more influential in the lives of the people, will continue to be then as now the outward and visible manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth. And the Millennium will close with the second coming of Christ, the resurrection and final judgment. In short, Postmillennialists set forth a spiritual Kingdom in the hearts of men.<\/p>\n
Some basic tenets of Postmillennialism, as Boettner sees it, are: that there will be a redeemed world with \u201cthe salvation of an incredibly large number of the race of mankind;\u201d that the number of the redeemed will be vast and perhaps may even outnumber those who are lost; that the world is growing better; that the Millennium is not a perfect or sinless state; and that man will arrive into the Millennium Age by imperceptible degrees.
\nIn another work, Boettner states:<\/p>\n
Postmillennialism places a strong emphasis on the universality of Christ\u2019s work of redemption. Hope is held out for the salvation of an incredibly large number of the race of mankind. Since it was the world, or the race, which fell in Adam, it was the world, or the race, which was the object of Christ\u2019s redemption. This does not mean that every individual will be saved but that the race, as a race, will be saved.\u2026<\/p>\n
God has chosen to redeem untold millions of the human race. Just what proportion has been included in his purposes of mercy, we have not been informed; but in view of the future days of prosperity which are promised to the church, it may be inferred that the great majority will eventually be found among that number. Assuming that those who die in infancy are saved, as most churches have taught and as most theologians have believed, already the larger proportion of the human race has been saved.<\/p>\n
On the question of Revelation 20, the thousand years are taken as purely symbolic:<\/p>\n
The \u201cthousand years\u201d is quite clearly not to be understood as an exact measure of time but rather as a symbolical number. Strict arithmetic has no place here. The term is a figurative expression, indicating an indefinitely long period of time, a complete, perfect number of yeas, probably not less than a literal one thousand years, in a probability very much longer. It is, however, a definitely limited period, during which certain events happen, and after which certain other events are to follow.<\/p>\n
The thousand years is \u201ca symbolical number\u201d or \u201ca figurative expression\u201d for \u201can indefinitely long period of time\u201d that will probably be \u201cnot less than a literal one thousand years, in all probability very much longer.\u201d However, it is a limited period of time that will come to an end.
\nThe approach to unfulfilled prophecy is also taken figuratively but to a lesser extent than the Covenant Amillennialists. Massive amounts of Old Testament prophecies speaking of Israel are taken to refer to the Church. Only one example of many is in the following paragraph:<\/p>\n
Isaiah says: \u201cHe shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked\u201d (11:4). Similar language is found in Revelation 19:11\u201321, where Christ is pictured as the rider on the white horse, who slays His enemies with a sharp sword that proceeds \u201cout of his mouth,\u201d that is, by the spoken word, the Gospel which is preached by His followers all over the world, and by which He makes a thorough conquest of His enemies. Isaiah says: \u201cThey shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks\u201d (2:4)\u2014fulfilled in the gradual elimination of wars as the world is Christianized and the energies and resources of the people are devoted to peaceful purposes. Again, he says: \u201cAnd the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them \u2026 And the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder\u2019s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea\u201d (11:6\u20139)\u2014that is, forces naturally antagonistic and at enmity with each other shall be gradually subdued and reconciled with each other in a new relationship so that they cooperate harmoniously in Messiah\u2019s Kingdom. A fitting example of the wolf dwelling with the lamb is seen in the change that came over the vicious persecutor Saul of Tarsus, who was a wolf ravening and destroying, but who was so transformed by the Gospel of Christ that he became a lamb. After his conversion he lost his hatred for the Christians, and became instead their humble friend, confidant defender. The lion eats straw like the ox when men who formerly were strong and cruel and wild by nature are so changed by the Gospel that they become gentle, meek, humble, and feed on the word of life along with those who are members of Christ\u2019s Church. (Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n
The above is typical of the postmillennial approach to unfulfilled prophecy.
\nIain Murray, in his historical defense of Postmillennialism, also insists on the necessity of an allegorical interpretation of prophecy. On Revelation 20 he states:<\/p>\n
The truth is that Revelation 20 contains what has been called \u201cthe darkest passage in all the Bible\u201d; widely differing meanings have been given to it by those who share a common faith in the inerrancy of Scripture, and it is better to admit that our view of that difficult chapter is uncertain rather than to commit ourselves to an interpretation which can only be harmonized with the remainder of Scripture by introducing confusion into the meaning of many passages otherwise clear.<\/p>\n
Revelation 20 is relegated as being \u201cthe darkest passage in all the Bible\u201d and obscure; therefore, it is not a passage to use to develop a millennial doctrine.
\nOn unfulfilled prophecy, which is not so obscure, Murray first rejects the premillennial approach to unfulfilled prophecy and then the amillennial view. Murray then proceeds to present a postmillennial approach to unfulfilled prophecy:<\/p>\n
We have already noted that predictions of Christ\u2019s kingdom in Isaiah and in Jeremiah were considered applicable by the New Testament writers to the Church in the apostolic age. Paul\u2019s use of the same prophets in Romans 11:26, 27 now shows that the fulfillment was only initial and by no means exhaustive. A larger fulfillment still awaits the Church, when the same covenant faithfulness of God which has already brought gospel blessings to the Gentile word will be the cause of the removal of Israel\u2019s sins. Gentile and Jew are thus both contained in the same Old Testament predictions, and because these predictions admit of successive fulfillments and speak of the same salvation there is nothing to prevent what has already been referred to New Testament converts being applied to the future conversion of Israel. Jeremiah 31:34 has both been fulfilled (Heb. 8:8) and is yet to be fulfilled in a day of greater gospel blessing (Rom. 11:27).<\/p>\n
In the end, Murray ends up with a partial allegory using less than Amillennialism but more than both schools of Premillennialism.
\nA very aggressive contemporary Postmillennialist is Rousas John Rushdoony, who says of his system:<\/p>\n
Turning now to postmillennialism, we must say that very definitely, because it sees salvation as victory and health in time and eternity, it sees therefore a responsibility of the man of God for the whole of life. Postmillennialism holds that the prophecies of Isaiah and of all Scripture shall be fulfilled. Scripture is not divided, it is not made irrelevant to history. There shall be, as Genesis 3:15, Romans 16:20, and Revelation 12:9, 11 declare, victory over Satan, and, as Genesis 13, Genesis 28:14, Romans 4:13 and the whole of Scripture proclaims, all the families of the earth shall be blest. People out of every tongue, tribe, and nation shall be converted, and the word of God shall prevail and rule in every part of the earth. There is therefore a necessity for action, and an assurance of victory.<\/p>\n
Here, Rushdoony affirms some basic tenets of Postmillennialism: the prophecies of the Old Testament will be fulfilled; and the gospel will succeed and \u201cprevail and rule in every part of the earth.\u201d Rushdoony feels that Postmillennialism is a far better system, \u201cbecause it sees salvation as victory and health in time and eternity,\u201d and he views \u201cthe man of God\u201d as being responsible \u201cfor the whole of life.\u201d
\nRushdoony later elaborates. As with other Postmillennialists, his basic view is the same: the Church will conquer the world with the gospel \u201cfrom pole to pole\u201d; that will result in \u201ca long and glorious reign of peace\u201d during which time the government of the world will be ruled by the law of God; and, after all this, Christ will return. Rushdoony then enumerates four ramifications of Postmillennialism. First, there is only one way of salvation. Furthermore, the law of God applies to all men. Second, Christians must exercise the law of God in every facet of society. Third, that law of God is both a way of sanctification and a plan for the conquest of the world. This is the means of achieving the Millennium for Postmillennialists. Fourth, the lordship of Christ is not only true for the Church but for human governments as well, and this is true in both time and eternity. The Postmillennialist looks forward to the time when this will be exercised.
\nAs Rushdoony\u2019s Postmillennialism teaches the Church is to achieve the Millennium, a course of action in a seven point program is then outlined:<\/p>\n
FIRST of all, we must begin with ourselves and our families. The family must be strengthened in its religious and economic life, and in its responsibilities towards every member. Children have a duty to support and care for their parents, and to maintain a strong religious and economic tie with them.<\/p>\n
SECOND, the church, before it is an institution and a legal corporation, is the family of God. This means the necessity of caring for one another. The diaconate, and the office of widows, needs to be revived in order to minister to the needs of Christ\u2019s people, materially and spiritually. There is not a congregation without elderly members who need someone to do their shopping, clean their home, look after various duties, and much more.\u2026 The church should minister to the spiritual and material hunger and thirst of its members.<\/p>\n
THIRD, Christian schools, colleges, institutes, and training centers are an urgent necessity. For a church or for parents to have no regard for the fact that their children are receiving a godless education is a mark of apostasy.<\/p>\n
FOURTH, Christian political action is necessary, towards making the state again a Christian state, and its actions conform with the law of God.<\/p>\n
FIFTH, Christian professional organizations are urgently needed. Christian doctors, lawyers, and others must create their own professional agencies to further, not a pietistic, but a theologically sound view of their profession. This will also mean Christian hospitals, rest homes, old folks\u2019 homes for those without families, and much, much more.<\/p>\n
It means, SIXTH, studying every kind of calling from the perspective of Biblical faith and law. What constitutes a Christian farmer? How are salesmen, shopkeepers, men involved in real estate, manufacturing, or anything else, important for godly reconstruction?<\/p>\n
It means, SEVENTH, that the sciences are to be seen, as everything else, as an area of calling in which knowledge and dominion under God must be furthered.<\/p>\n
Much more can be said. Suffice it to say that basic to all these activities, health, education, welfare, politics, economics, the family, the church, our vocations, and so on, is the necessity to TITHE, so that the work of reconstruction may be expedited. The tithe is to the Lord, not to the church as such, and can go to whatever agency is working to further the Lord\u2019s dominion and to bring every area of thought and life into captivity to Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
Rushdoony also defines what he calls \u201cthe heart of post-millennialism\u201d:<\/p>\n
The heart of post-millennialism is the faith that Christ will through His people accomplish and put into force the glorious prophecies of Isaiah and all the Scriptures, that He shall overcome all His enemies through His covenant people, and that He shall exercise His power and Kingdom in all the world and over all men and nations, so that, whether in faith or in defeat, every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue shall confess God (Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11).<\/p>\n
The \u201cheart\u201d is that the golden age of the kingdom will be accomplished by the Church\u2019s action in preaching the gospel and the application of the law of God in society by the people of God. For that reason, the above course of action must be put into effect.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
To summarize Postmillennialism, it is the belief that the second coming will be \u201cpost\u201d or after the Millennium. As to their method of interpretation:<\/p>\n
Postmillenarians hold to a symbolic interpretation of Scripture text. The Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel and the Kingdom, for instance, are spiritually realized and fulfilled in the Church of the New Testament. The symbolic method of interpreting is held to be legitimate because:<\/p>\n
1. Figurative language is used in the Scriptures \u2026 (Isa. 55:12).<\/p>\n
2. Old Testament prophecies are spiritually understood in the New Testament \u2026 (Gal. 3:29) \u2026 (Rom. 2:28, 29) \u2026 (Phil. 3:3).<\/p>\n
3. Scripture itself contains allegories: Galatians 4:21\u201331.<\/p>\n
As to the nature of the Millennium and its relationship to world history, Postmillennialists believe that the Millennium is a long period of peace and righteousness that will precede the second coming, but it will not necessarily be a literal one thousand years. This period will be characterized by universal peace and prosperity with a universal preaching and reception of the gospel. The nature of the kingdom is:<\/p>\n
Postmillenarians believe that the kingdom of God is a state of society in which the will of God is done in the hearts of \u201cborn-again\u201d believers. This kingdom is spiritual since Christ Himself said that His kingdom is not of this world or His servants would fight for it (John 18:36) and that the condition of entrance is the new birth (John 3:3, 5; Matt. 18:3; Col. 1:13, 14). The kingdom of God is a state of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). No distinction is made between the kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God, kingdom of Christ, and the body of Christ; they all refer to the same rule of Christ in the hearts of believers.<\/p>\n
Concerning the establishment and the growth of the kingdom:<\/p>\n
Postmillenarians hold that the Kingdom of God has been in existence from the beginning of the world. Christ came to reveal it more clearly and to extend it throughout the world \u2026<\/p>\n
The kingdom is extended by the preaching of the Gospel, by the use of the church\u2019s ordinances of baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper, and by other agencies of the organized church which are energized by the Holy Spirit.\u2026<\/p>\n
The growth of the kingdom will be mixed, as illustrated by the parable of the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:24\u201330). It will be extensive, as illustrated by the parables of the leaven and of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31\u201333). It will be long and slow (Matt. 25:19; 2 Peter 3:8, 9). It will be attended with great crises, yet these will never break the principle of continuity (John 16:33).<\/p>\n
In its final form in history, the kingdom will be as follows:<\/p>\n
Postmillenarians affirm that this growth will continue until the world is practically Christianized. Evil will not be wholly eradicated from the world even at the height of this period, nor will the world under the preaching of the gospel be converted down to the very last man, but the world will become a great field of good grain, though mingled with some tares of evil. At the very end of this period there will be a reactionary outbreak of wickedness known as the period of the Great Tribulation.<\/p>\n
The postmillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 can be summarized as:<\/p>\n
This is exclusively a martyr scene. John had seen the souls of the martyrs under the altar in Revelation 6. Now he sees them on thrones reigning with Christ during the millennial period.\u2026<\/p>\n
Postmillenarians affirm that a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1\u20136 would exclude all the righteous from the great white throne judgment. This, they say, cannot be since \u201cthe book of life\u201d is opened at the great white throne judgment. The first resurrection, therefore, is spiritual in nature; it is the regeneration of the soul into eternal life.\u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026 The second resurrection is of the body. This is the general resurrection in which all the dead participate. It happens immediately before the great white throne judgment.<\/p>\n
Toward the end of the Millennium, there will be a short revolt against God\u2019s authority in the kingdom:<\/p>\n
At the end of this millennial period and just before the second coming of Christ, \u2026 Satan will be loosed for a little season. There will be a brief period of apostasy and violent conflict between the kingdoms of light and darkness.<\/p>\n
The Millennium is not eternal, and it will end in the following way:<\/p>\n
Postmillenarians hold that Christ will return at the close of this millennial period after a brief period of tribulation. At His coming there will be a general resurrection.\u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026 Christ will also deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and the \u201crighteous ones will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father\u201d (Matt. 13:43). The wicked will also be resurrected and will be judged together with the righteous at the second coming.\u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026 The present earth and heaven will be dissolved by fire, giving way to a new heaven and a new earth which will be characterized by righteousness, unalloyed by any evil.<\/p>\n
With this brief survey of Covenant Postmillennialism, we can now proceed to a more detailed study of the Israelology of Covenant Postmillennialism.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER III<\/p>\n
THE ISRAELOLOGY OF COVENANT POSTMILLENNIALISM<\/p>\n
A. Israel Past<\/p>\n
1. Israel the Chosen People<\/p>\n
Charles Hodge\u2019s Systematic Theology, first published in the nineteenth century, has become the classic for both Covenant Theology and for Postmillennialism. Speaking on the sovereignty of God, Hodge affirmed that the Jews are the chosen people: \u201cGod chose the Jews from among all the families of the earth to be the recipients of his oracles and of the divinely instituted ordinances of religion.\u201d
\nThe Jews were chosen to receive the oracles of God and, as a result, they were in an advantageous position; however, this did not mean or guarantee the spiritual salvation of every individual Jew or that the nation could not someday be cast off. In fact, Hodge believed that at some point Israel was \u201ccast off\u201d and the blessings were extended to the Gentiles.
\nRushdoony, perhaps the most prolific postmillennial writer today, also affirms that in history Israel was the chosen people but nevertheless was destined to be bypassed: \u201cDaniel makes clear that God by-passed His chosen people in favor of four great monarchies, \u2026 and then called forth a Fifth Monarchy which is by no means identified with Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. The Church in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
The affirmation of the Jews as the people of God is tempered and colored by the Covenant Theology of Postmillennialism. This theology insists that it is the Church that is the people of God, and in the Old Testament the Church and Israel were the same. This is crucial to Covenant Theology. Their concept of the covenant of grace, the key foundation to Covenant Theology, with only one way of salvation with only one content of faith, requires them to hold to only one people of God. Since the Bible calls Israel the people of God and the Church the people of God, and if there can be only one people of God, it follows that Israel and the Church must be one and the same. Hodge defends the thesis that Israel and the Church are the same as follows:<\/p>\n
(1.) It is so called in Scripture. (Acts 7:38.) (2.) The Hebrews were called out from all the nations of the earth to be the peculiar people of God. They constituted his kingdom. (3.) To them were committed the oracles of God. They were Israelites; to them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service, and the promises. (Rom. 9:4.) Nothing more can be said of the Church under the new dispensation. They were selected for a Church purpose, namely, to be witnesses for God in the world in behalf of the true religion; to celebrate his worship; and to observe his ordinances. Their religious officers, prophets, and priests, were appointed by God and were his ministers. No man could become a member of the Commonwealth of Israel, who did not profess the true religion; promise obedience to the law of God as revealed in his Word; and submit to the rite of circumcision as the seal of the covenant. There is no authorized definition of the Church, which does not include the people of God under the Mosaic law.<\/p>\n
This is as strong as the evidence gets in identifying Israel and the Church as being one and the same. Yet, Hodge and other Covenant Theologians must believe in this identification, because their whole theological system is based on the covenant of grace. However, do these three points really prove Hodge\u2019s assertion?
\nThe first evidence is based on the fact that Acts 7:38 refers to Israel as the church in the wilderness. It should be noted that this translation is found in the King James Version. Most other translations have more correctly translated this verse to read, the congregation in the wilderness, or the assembly in the wilderness. The Greek term ekklesia is not only used in the technical sense of the New Testament Church, but it is also used in the Septuagint as the translation of the Hebrew kahal, meaning \u201ccongregation.\u201d That was the obvious intent of Acts 7:38. Furthermore, in the Book of Acts itself, ekklesia is used in the non-technical sense of \u201cassembly,\u201d for it is used to describe an assembly of townspeople who were neither Jews nor Christians but Gentile pagans:<\/p>\n
Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly (ekklesia) was in confusion; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together. (Acts 19:32)<\/p>\n
And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly (ekklesia). (Acts 19:41)<\/p>\n
Certainly, Hodge would never consider this assembly of Gentile pagans who were yelling, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, (v. 28) as being the Church. The mere use of ekklesia in Acts 7:38 no more proves that Israel is the Church than its use in Acts 19:32 and 41 proves that the pagan Ephesians constituted the Church.
\nHodge\u2019s second evidence is that the Jews were called out of the nations to be a peculiar people. They also constituted the Kingdom of God. According to Hodge, the same is true of the Church and, therefore, the two are the same. Even granting that the same thing may be true of the Church, by itself it does not prove the point. Similarity does not prove sameness. The fact that the Church is called out to be a peculiar people no more proves that the Church is Israel than does the fact that two individuals who have the same occupational skills would prove that the two individuals are really one and the same. While Hodge has already asserted that the Church is the Kingdom of God, he has never proven the point by any clear statement of Scripture. Even when discussing the Kingdom of God, Hodge has to admit a difference in the form of the kingdom as it was with Israel as over against its present form as the visible Kingdom of Christ. Again, even if it is true that both Israel and the Church are part of the kingdom program of God, it still does not prove that they are one and the same.
\nHodge\u2019s third evidence is perhaps the weakest: to Israel were committed the oracles of God with all the benefits listed in Romans 9:4. The same is true of the Church today, and this is \u201ca Church purpose.\u201d Hodge\u2019s logic is that since Israel was \u201cselected for a Church purpose,\u201d it means that Israel is the Church. Hodge engages in a great deal of presuppositionalism which he feels no compulsion to prove. To merely decree that the reasons for Israel\u2019s national election are Church functions does not make it so. Even if what God asked of the Church is similar to what He asked of Israel, it still does not prove that the two are one and the same. Hodge\u2019s final statement is a bold one: \u201cThere is no authorized definition of the Church, which does not include the people of God under the Mosaic law.\u201d Who determines what an \u201cauthorized definition\u201d is, and by what definition? What about biblical definitions such as the body of Christ and the bride of Christ? These are true \u201cauthorized definitions\u201d of the Church, for they come from the New Testament itself. It would require the reading of the New Testament back into the Old to prove that these definitions \u201cinclude the people of God under the Mosaic law.\u201d To declare that these definitions apply to Israel is to presuppose one\u2019s theology and is not evidence of it. Hodge\u2019s real dilemma is that he does not have any single verse which makes Israel and the Church one and the same.
\nHodge later states that another major evidence of this identification is the Abrahamic Covenant: \u201cIt is founded on the same covenant, the covenant God made with Abraham.\u201d However, that covenant contained both physical and spiritual promises and benefits. Israel received both the physical and spiritual, but the Church receives only the spiritual. Hodge asserts that \u201cthe promise is the same\u201d and as \u201cthe promise is the same, so also the condition is the same.\u201d Hodge has reduced the Abrahamic Covenant to only one promise, the promise of justification by faith. The logic, then, is that since the same promise was given to Israel as was given to the Church, they are therefore the same. However, the Abrahamic Covenant contained many more promises than just this one. Included in that covenant was the land of Canaan with definite borders. No such promise was ever given to the Church which instead is composed of many nationalities and is not limited to one geographical portion of the earth. Merely pulling out one promise that applies to both Israel and the Church while ignoring many other promises will not prove Hodge\u2019s contention that Israel and the Church are the same. Hodge\u2019s problem is that he never proved the existence of the covenant of grace but now insists that the Abrahamic Covenant is really \u201cthe covenant of grace under which we now live, and upon which the Church is now founded.\u201d Since the covenant of grace centers around the salvation of the elect, Hodge has no choice but to reduce the Abrahamic Covenant to only the promise of justification by faith. Since the covenant of grace allows for only one people of God, the elect, Hodge cannot allow for a distinction between Israel and the Church but must assert that \u201cGod has ever had but one Church in the world.\u201d All these conclusions are based on Hodge\u2019s unproven premise of the existence of the covenant of grace. According to Hodge, \u201cthe Church now rests on the Abrahamic covenant.\u201d Since this covenant is the covenant of grace, it is \u201cthe plan of salvation revealed in the Gospel\u201d which was the same that \u201cwas revealed to Abraham and to the other Old Testament saints,\u201d which is \u201cthat they were saved just as men since the advent of Christ are saved, by faith in the promised seed.\u201d In Hodge\u2019s conclusion that Israel and the Church are the same and that the Abrahamic Covenant and the covenant of grace are the same, he again postulates that the content of faith has always been the same, \u201cfaith in the promised seed.\u201d
\nBoettner, a prominent modern Postmillennialist, follows Hodge in teaching that the Church is Israel. To arrive at that conclusion, Boettner engages heavily in the use of the allegorical interpretation:<\/p>\n
When God says, \u201cThey shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain,\u201d let not the reader absurdly imagine that He had in mind only that insignificant elevation called Zion, in the southeast corner of the city of Jerusalem. \u201cGod\u2019s holy mountain,\u201d which at that time was the site of the temple and the center of the true religion, is the familiar and endeared name for the Church or Kingdom in the present Messianic age.<\/p>\n
When we are told that God will \u201ccreate Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy\u201d (Is. 65:18), Jerusalem, the center of the theocracy and symbol of Old Testament Israel, is used to represent the New Testament Church. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews spiritualizes these passages and shows that their true fulfillment is found in the Christian Church \u2026 Paul, too, spiritualizes the term Jerusalem when he says that, \u201cThe Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother\u201d (Gal. 4:26).<\/p>\n
For his view to hold, it is necessary for Boettner to engage in an allegorical rather than a literal interpretation of prophecy. Boettner insists that the \u201choly mountain,\u201d which to a Jew would mean the temple mount (Mount Moriah), is a name of endearment for the Church. Like Hodge, Boettner equates Israel, the Church, and the kingdom as all being one and the same. \u201cJerusalem\u201d is a \u201csymbol of Old Testament Israel,\u201d which in turn is a symbol of \u201cthe New Testament Church.\u201d To think otherwise is to use absurd imagination.
\nHis main evidence for such an allegorical approach to the Old Testament is to give a partial citation from Hebrews 12:22, and then insist that Hebrews 12:22 is speaking of the Church. However, this pontificates a meaning that simply is not there. In its entirety, Hebrews 12:22\u201324 reads:<\/p>\n
\u2026 but ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel.<\/p>\n
Yes, the writer is using \u201cmount Zion\u201d symbolically here; however, he does not equate it with the Church but rather with the \u201cheavenly Jerusalem.\u201d Neither is the heavenly Jerusalem equated with the Church. In listing the residents of this heavenly Jerusalem, the Church is mentioned as one of several and not as the total package. It is hard to believe that Boettner was unaware of the rest of this passage; one can only guess at his motivation in quoting only one phrase from it. It is obvious that Boettner chooses to interpret Old Testament prophecy on the basis of his pre-formed theology rather than vice versa.
\nConcerning the Abrahamic Covenant, Boettner states:<\/p>\n
The Covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1\u20133).\u2026 Abraham and his family are set aside as a definitely marked body of believers, with the promise that in him and his seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This has been called by some \u201cthe beginning of an institutional Church.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rather than seeing the obvious, that the Abrahamic Covenant was the basis by which God was going to bring a new nation into being through Abraham (the Jewish nation), Boettner chooses to see this as \u201cthe beginning of an institutional Church.\u201d
\nBoettner\u2019s identification of the Church and Israel as being one and the same leads him to a denial that any earthly kingdom was ever promised to the Jews, but that the Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy:<\/p>\n
Yet the New Testament doctrine regarding the Church was latent in His teaching about the Kingdom. As He proclaimed a spiritual Kingdom which was in many ways the antithesis of the earthly kingdom that the Jews were expecting, He was in reality describing the Church which would be founded on the finished work of His redemption.<\/p>\n
Our position is that the true or invisible Church is the whole body of the elect of all ages. The visible manifestation of this body in Old Testament times was the nation of Israel, and in New Testament times it is the Christian Church in all its various denominations and branches which truly look to Christ as Saviour. Old Testament Israel, as the congregation of God\u2019s people set aside from the Gentiles, was the forerunner of and developed into the Christian Church in which the earthly distinction between Jew and Gentile disappears never to be re-instituted.<\/p>\n
Boettner himself seems to be inconsistent when on one hand he states that the Church would \u201cbe founded on the finished work\u201d of Christ, but then states that the Church \u201cis the whole body of the elect of all ages.\u201d Christ \u201cfinished\u201d his work only in A.D. 30, so the Church could only have begun then (a dispensational position). Yet to be consistent with his Covenant Theology, he then asserts that the Church always existed, and the nation of Israel was simply \u201cthe visible manifestation\u201d of the Church in the Old Testament.
\nLike Hodge, Boettner tries to prove that Israel and the Church are one and the same by the Greek word ekklesia:<\/p>\n
From the time of Abraham on God has had a continuing group of believers. Stephen speaks of \u201cthe church in the wilderness\u201d (Acts 7:38), by which he certainly says that this same group existed in early Old Testament times. Dr. Hodge expresses it well when he says: \u201cThere is no authorized definition of the Church which does not include the people of God under the Mosaic Law.\u201d<\/p>\n
Like Hodge, Boettner also ignores the fact that ekklesia is used in the New Testament of a group that is neither Israel nor the Church. The refutation of this position has been given earlier in this chapter.<\/p>\n
3. The Law of Moses<\/p>\n
Important to Israelology is the role of the Law of Moses, especially as to how it relates to Israel and\/or the Church. There are two crucial questions. First, to whom was it given? Second, how long was it to remain in effect? How one answers these questions will go a long way in determining one\u2019s Israelology. Hodge\u2019s view of the law is:<\/p>\n
First, it was a national covenant with the Hebrew people. In this view the parties were God and the people of Israel; the promise was national security and prosperity; the condition was the obedience of the people as a nation to the Mosaic law; and the mediator was Moses. In this aspect it was a legal covenant. It said, \u201cDo this and live.\u201d Secondly, it contained, as does also the New Testament, a renewed proclamation of the original covenant of works.<\/p>\n
Boettner\u2019s view is:<\/p>\n
The Sinaitic Covenant. This was a national covenant, made with all of the descendants of Jacob who had come out of Egypt. Church and State were so closely linked that they could not be separated. Membership in the one automatically meant membership in the other. An elaborate body of moral, civil and religious laws was given.\u2026 While there were many legal aspects to this covenant, it was definitely not a \u201ccovenant of works\u201d through which Israel might merit life by keeping the law.\u2026 God\u2019s purpose, however, was not that Israel should merit salvation by keeping the law. That had become impossible since the fall. Rather it showed the Israelites their inability to keep the law as God had demanded.<\/p>\n
Like Hodge, Boettner claims that with this covenant, Church and state (Israel) were united so that to be a member of the state was to be a member of the Church. Unlike Hodge, Boettner denies that the law had anything to do with the covenant of works.<\/p>\n
4. The Way of Salvation<\/p>\n
One of the key teachings of Covenant Theology is that the plan of salvation was always the same. All agree that salvation was always by grace through faith. However, Covenant Theology teaches that even the content of faith was always the same. Hodge expressed this as follows:<\/p>\n
From the Scriptures, therefore, as a whole, from the New Testament, and from the Old as interpreted by infallible authority in the New, we learn that the plan of salvation has always been one and the same; having the same promise, the same Saviour, the same condition, and the same salvation.<\/p>\n
The problem with this view is that it reads New Testament knowledge back into the Old. Did the people in the Old Testament really have such knowledge? On the basis of the Old Testament, taken by itself, the answer would appear to be no; but Hodge tries to get around this problem:<\/p>\n
In determining the degree of knowledge possessed by the ancient people of God, we are not to be governed by our own capacity of discovering from the Old Testament Scriptures the doctrine of grace. What amount of supplementary instruction the people received from the prophets, or what degree of divine illumination was granted to them we cannot tell. It is, however, clear from the writings of the New Testament that the knowledge of the plan of salvation current among the Jews at the time of the advent was much greater than we should deem possible from the mere perusal of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
Hodge obviously realized that his assertion, that the content of faith was always the same, would be hard to support. The first prophet to actually connect the Messiah\u2019s death with salvation is Isaiah, and a great deal of Jewish history preceded Isaiah. Hodge must postulate other sources for the knowledge of the way of salvation and resorts to speculation and guesswork. The problem, however, remains: in the written record, it is never stated in the Old Testament that men were saved by faith in the coming of the Messiah, or that they knew (before Isaiah, at least) that the Messiah was going to die for their sins. Hodge insists that they had supplementary knowledge beyond that which is found in the written record; but is it reasonable to believe that something as crucial as the content of faith, being Christ\u2019s death, would be excluded from the written record? It is far more logical to believe that something as crucial as this would be mentioned from the outset, in Genesis.
\nBased upon the assumption that the Old Testament saints were saved by placing their faith in the coming Messiah because they had knowledge beyond that which the written record shows, Hodge continues to draw some other conclusions based upon that assumption:<\/p>\n
As the same promise was made to those who lived before the advent which is now made to us in the gospel, as the same Redeemer was revealed to them who is presented as the object of faith to us, it of necessity follows that the condition, or terms of salvation, was the same then as now. If was not mere faith or trust in God, or simply piety, which was required, but faith in the promised Redeemer, or faith in the promise of redemption through the Messiah.<\/p>\n
The issue is not that salvation was always by grace through faith. Dispensationalists do not disagree with Covenant Theologians on this issue. The point of sharp disagreement concerns the content of faith: what is it that the Old Testament saint had to believe in order to be saved? Hodge insists that it was \u201cnot mere faith or trust in God\u201d by which they were saved, but actual \u201cfaith in the promised Redeemer, or faith in the promise of redemption through the Messiah.\u201d However, there is no Old Testament passage that teaches this before Isaiah. Even after Isaiah, it is not totally clear if Isaiah\u2019s contemporaries understood the full import of what Isaiah prophesied. Hodge is forced to assume that New Testament knowledge was available to the Old Testament saint, and that \u201cthe same Redeemer was revealed to them who is presented as the object of faith to us.\u201d His conclusion is \u201cthat the condition, or terms of salvation, was the same then as now.\u201d A faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion, and his faulty premise falsifies his own claim that the written Scriptures are the primary and final source for determining all matters of faith. Hodge\u2019s conclusion, in practice, ignores the principles of progressive revelation.
\nHodge further states:<\/p>\n
Not only, therefore, from these explicit declarations that faith in the promised Redeemer was required from the beginning, but from the admitted fact that the Old Testament is full of the doctrine of redemption by the Messiah, it follows that those who received the religion of the Old Testament received that doctrine, and exercised faith in the promise of God concerning his Son.\u2026 To deny, therefore, that the faith of the Old Testament saints was a faith in the Messiah and his redemption, is to deny that they had any knowledge of the import of the revelations and promises of which they were the recipients.<\/p>\n
Here Hodge engages in full-scale dogmatism, all based on his assumption that his theory is proven fact. He claims that the Scriptures teach by \u201cexplicit declarations, that faith in the promised Redeemer was required from the beginning.\u201d Actually, all that the Scriptures claim is that salvation was by grace through faith from the beginning. It never states that the content of faith was the Redeemer from the beginning. It is true that \u201cthe Old Testament is full of the doctrine of redemption by the Messiah,\u201d but most of it comes quite late in progressive revelation. There is no Old Testament passage that clearly states: \u201cBelieve in the coming Messiah as a redeemer and thou shaft be saved.\u201d There is no verse corresponding to John 3:16 or Acts 16:31 in the Old Testament. Yet this is exactly what Hodge needs to prove his point. Not having it, Hodge is forced to engage in speculation and guesswork. He then insists that his assumptions have been proven and freely draws his conclusions.
\nThe real problem for Hodge, as for all Covenant Theologians, is the confusion of Israel and the Church. Covenant Theologians of all stripes at some point make the two to be one and the same, and, therefore, must insist that the Church always existed. The fact that the Church is first mentioned in Matthew 16:18, and even then in the future tense, is ignored. Hodge tries to prove that the Church always existed, and his evidence is not Scripture, but the assumptions he made earlier concerning the content of faith being always the same:<\/p>\n
The covenant of grace, or plan of salvation, being the same in all its elements from the beginning, it follows, first, in opposition to the Anabaptists, that the people of God before Christ constituted a Church, and that the Church has been one and the same under all dispensations. It has always had the same promise, the same Redeemer, and the same condition of membership, namely, faith in the Son of God as the Saviour of the world.<\/p>\n
Again, Hodge makes some dogmatic assertions. Since the content of faith was always the same, it follows, according to Hodge, that the Church was always the same. Not only has there been the same promise and the same Redeemer (on these two points Dispensationalism agrees), but there \u201calways\u201d was \u201cthe same condition of membership, namely, faith in the Son of God as the Saviour of the world.\u201d Hodge is forced to insist that everyone who was ever saved was saved because he believed that the Son of God was the Saviour of the world, but there is no Scripture that states this. Hodge would insist that Abraham was saved because he believed that the Son of God was the Saviour of the world; but Genesis 15:6 states:<\/p>\n
And he (Abraham) believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.<\/p>\n
The object of Abraham\u2019s faith was God. The content of Abraham\u2019s faith, according to verses 1\u20135, was the promise of God, especially the promise that Abraham would sire a son. Hodge seems to be trying to prove a presupposed theological position by eisegesis rather than developing his theology by exegesis from the Scriptures.
\nHodge, indeed, recognized the fact of progressive revelation. But even here, Hodge implies that Israel and the Church are one and the same. Hodge states that God chose \u201cthe descendants of Abraham to be the peculiar people of God\u201d (the Jews), and with those physical descendants God made a covenant. Then Hodge claims that these are called the \u201cChurch.\u201d This \u201cChurch\u201d is the \u201cpeculiar people\u201d distinguished from the Gentiles by circumcision.
\nLater, Hodge again affirms progressive revelation. In the end, however, Hodge again falls back on the premise that nothing really new was revealed, but was always the same from the beginning:<\/p>\n
When viewed according to its true import and design as a preparatory dispensation of the covenant of grace, it is spoken of as teaching the same gospel, the same method of salvation as that which the Apostles themselves preached.<\/p>\n
The Mosaic Law taught the \u201csame gospel, the same method of salvation\u201d which the apostles were preaching in the Book of Acts.
\nTo summarize Hodge\u2019s way of salvation: not only is the means of salvation always by grace through faith, but the content of faith is also always the same. That content is the belief in the Messiah as the Saviour of the world. Since the content of faith is always the same, it follows that the Church was always the same and existed from the beginning.<\/p>\n
5. The Kingdom of God<\/p>\n
All Covenant Theologians, to some degree, identify the Church with the Kingdom of God. For some, the Church is virtually the whole of the Kingdom of God, and for others, a portion of it. This is one of the areas in which the three schools of Covenant Theology can be distinguished from one another. Hodge, a good example of Covenant Postmillennialism, makes the Church and the Kingdom of God synonymous. Like the Church, the kingdom has existed since Adam. Like the Church, it is composed of all true believers of all time. From Adam until Abraham it had no visible organization but was composed of families, and the head of the household was the household priest. It took on a visible organizational form only with Abraham, and it was rendered visible by the covenant made with Abraham. The descendants of Abraham through Isaac (and presumably through Jacob) comprised this visible kingdom and were the recipients of divine revelation. With Moses, the visible kingdom took on a theocratic form. At this point, Hodge combines into one the concepts of Israel, the Church, and the Kingdom of God. This entity has always been \u201cthe light and life of the world,\u201d and today it is \u201cthe salt by which it is preserved.\u201d Hodge\u2019s Postmillennialism is revealed in that he believes this Israel-Church-Kingdom \u201cis the leaven by which it is ultimately to be pervaded.\u201d This entity is the means by which the world will eventually be converted and the Millennium brought in.
\nRushdoony makes the same identification. To Postmillennialist Rushdoony, the Kingdom of God is the Church on earth. The premillennial belief that Christ will set up a literal kingdom on this earth is nothing more than a \u201cJewish fable.\u201d<\/p>\n
B. Israel Present<\/p>\n
1. Israel and the Church<\/p>\n
If it is possible to summarize Covenant Postmillennialism on this issue, it would be; the Jews have been cast off, and the Church, the New Israel, is now the people of God. As has been shown, Hodge believed that the Church was already founded in the Old Testament and now has continued into the New, Obviously, something changed with the coming of Christ, and Hodge had to address himself to this change. The key change, according to Hodge, was that \u201cunder the old dispensation\u201d the Church was a nation, the Church was a state; this is no longer true. Hodge notes four distinctions between the Church in the Old Testament and the Church in the New. First, the Church and state could no longer be unified into a single theocracy, because \u201cthe Church was to embrace all nations.\u201d Second, the Church is now a body independent of the state with its own ruling body and its own condition for membership. Third, the Church is to be universal, existing under all types of human government. Fourth, while the Church before Christ is identical with the Church after Christ, it is \u201cdifferent in its organization, in its officers, and in its mode of worship.\u201d
\nThese are rather radical changes, so radical that one would normally conclude that two different entities are in view. Yet, Hodge still insists that \u201cthe Church, since the advent is identical with the Church which existed before the advent.\u201d His enslavement to the covenant of grace keeps him from developing a true and distinct Israelology.
\nThe sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was circumcision. For Hodge, this has been replaced by infant baptism. The basis for this belief is the identification of Israel and the Church. The Abrahamic Covenant is the basis for the national existence of the Jewish people. The sign of the covenant was circumcision, so circumcision was a sign of Jewishness; it was a sign of a Jewish national identity. However, Hodge denies this, and his arguments are based upon his identification of Israel with the Church. His argument is that, \u201cunder the old economy, the Church and State were identical,\u201d This contention is never proven by Hodge, but now he uses it to further develop his theology, Having made this identification of Israel with the Church, Hodge contends: \u201cIf, therefore, circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew nation, it was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew Church,\u201d Israel, therefore, was \u201ca Church in the form of a nation.\u201d
\nThe root of this entire identification is again the covenant of grace, and this can be seen by Hodge\u2019s claim that \u201cthe great promise \u2026 was the promise of the redemption of the world by the Messiah. To this everything else was subordinate.\u201d That the promise of redemption was the great promise, most will agree; but Hodge continues: \u201cThe main design of the constitution of the Hebrews as a distinct nation, and of their separation from all other people, was to keep alive the knowledge of that promise.\u201d Typical of Covenant Theology, the main purpose is soteriological. The promise of redemption through the Messiah is, indeed, the great promise; but it is not very prominent in the history of the Old Testament. Virtually nothing of this promise is found in the books of Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, or I and II Chronicles. A great deal more is made of the physical promises of the Abrahamic Covenant than the spiritual ones. It is true that \u201cto the Hebrews as a people were committed the \u2018oracles of God\u2019 \u201d; but these oracles were not limited \u201cto the great work of redemption,\u201d rather they included all of God\u2019s revelation about many things of which the program of redemption was but one.
\nHodge\u2019s identification of the Church (which is supposed to be composed of those redeemed by faith in the promised Redeemer and their children) with the Jewish nation leads to a faulty definition of Jewishness: \u201cTo suppose a man to be a Jew, and not at least a professed believer in those promises and predictions, is a contradiction.\u201d The Bible defines Jewishness in national terms, and Jews are Jews no matter what they believe. The term \u201cJew\u201d is applied both to those who believe and those who do not. Hodge\u2019s identification of the Church with Israel forces him to define Jewishness in religious terms, for \u201ca man, therefore, was a member of the Jewish commonwealth, only in virtue of his being a member of the Jewish Church.\u201d A simple reading of the Old Testament will show otherwise. There were many members of the Jewish nation who were not believers and who were even guilty of gross idolatry. They were indeed members of the Jewish nation, but hardly members of Hodge\u2019s \u201cChurch.\u201d
\nHodge\u2019s faulty definition of Jewishness also leads him to the following conclusion on circumcision:<\/p>\n
Consequently, every child who was circumcised in evidence that he was one of the chosen people, was thereby sealed as a member of the Church of God as it then existed.<\/p>\n
Hodge\u2019s claim that circumcision was not merely a national identification but also a sign of his membership in the Church sets the stage for his defense of the practice of infant baptism:<\/p>\n
When God determined to organize Abraham and his descendants into a visible church, to be the depository of the truth and the treasure-house of his gifts, he appointed circumcision to be the sign of the covenant arid the badge of membership in the commonwealth of Israel \u2026 Circumcision did not make a man a Jew. It gave him neither the knowledge nor the grace necessary to his being one of the true children of Israel. It was the appointed means of avowing that he was a Jew; it was the sign of his being included among the worshippers of the true God; and it secured for him the privileges of the theocracy. In like manner, baptism does not make a man a Christian.\u2026 it is the badge of his Christian profession before men, it secures for him the privileges of membership in the visible Church, and it is a pledge on the part of God that, if sincere and faithful, he shall partake of all the benefits of the redemption of Christ.<\/p>\n
Hodge, because he makes Israel and the Church the same thing, is forced to do the same concerning circumcision and baptism. There is no debate that both circumcision and baptism are signs and seals, but that by itself does not prove that they both are a sign and seal of the same covenant and of membership in the same \u201cChurch.\u201d
\nHodge states that circumcision \u201cwas the appointed means of avowing that he was a Jew; it was the sign of his being included among the worshippers of the true God; and it secured for him the privileges of the theocracy.\u201d Earlier, Hodge asserted that a Jew was one who believed in the promise of the covenant, for one who did not was not a Jew. However, circumcision took place at the age of eight days, and at that age, the child affirms nothing. Circumcision only makes sense as a mark of national identity and not of religious beliefs. Hodge is correct when he states that circumcision was \u201cthe sign of the covenant and the badge of membership in the commonwealth of Israel,\u201d but incorrect when he claims that circumcision \u201cwas a sign of his being included among the worshippers of the true God.\u201d
\nWhile circumcision is a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, baptism is not; it is a sign of the New Covenant. Baptism is not a national sign of identity but a religious one. Hodge is correct when he states that baptism \u201cis the badge of his Christian profession before men.\u201d This makes sense if the candidate for baptism is old enough to state his \u201cprofession\u201d; but Hodge believed in infant baptism, which is well before any \u201cChristian profession\u201d is made. Hodge admits that there is no example of infant baptism and is forced to defend the practice on the basis of infant circumcision. Here Israelology is being used to defend and support a particular theological position that cannot be supported on its own, that cannot stand on its own.
\nBoettner follows Hodge closely on this point. Based on his understanding of the covenant of grace (like other Covenant Theologians, Boettner nowhere in his work even tries to prove that such a covenant exists), he decrees that \u201cthe distinction between Jew and Gentile has been broken down.\u201d Although it is unclear, the implication is that this distinction has been erased in every area. Furthermore, this distinction will never \u201cbe re-established since the condition which prompted that distinction in the first place is never to be re-established.\u201d Boettner indeed bases a great deal of theology upon a covenant whose existence is never established. Its assumed existence greatly affects Boettner\u2019s Israelology.
\nBoettner\u2019s identification of the Church and Israel as being the same leads him to a denial that any earthly kingdom was ever promised to the Jews, but that the Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy:<\/p>\n
In opposition to all of this we shall undertake to prove that no earthly kingdom was offered to the Jews, that nothing in the Divine plan was postponed, and that the Christian Church is the fulfillment of that to which the Old Testament prophets, and indeed the entire Old Testament economy, looked forward.<\/p>\n
As Boettner continues along the same vein, he states:<\/p>\n
Our position is that the true or invisible Church is the whole body of the elect of all ages. The visible manifestation of this body in Old Testament times was the nation of Israel, and in New Testament times it is the Christian Church in all its various denominations and branches which truly look to Christ as Saviour. Old Testament Israel, as the congregation of God\u2019s people set aside from the Gentiles, was the forerunner of and developed into the Christian Church in which the earthly distinction between Jew and Gentile disappears never to be re-instituted. To re-instate the old distinction between Jew and Gentile after the New Testament era has dawned would be to reverse the forward march of the Kingdom, and would be as illogical and useless as to go back to candle or lamp light after the sun has risen.<\/p>\n
When the Messiah did come, He did not come to offer a literal Messianic Kingdom, but only to describe \u201cthe Church that would be founded on the finished work of His redemption.\u201d Now that there has been this new manifestation of the Church, the distinction between Jews and Gentiles has been removed and is never to be reinstituted, for that would be a reversal of the kingdom program. Boettner, far more than Hodge, insists on a total elimination of any distinction between Jews and Gentiles now and forever, and ha keeps coming back to it.
\nDenying that any distinction now exists, Boettner insists that today there are only two kinds of peoples, believers and unbelievers. He emphasizes that in the Old Testament there was only a twofold division in the world: Israel and non-Israel or Gentile. He then asserts that in the New Testament there is also only a twofold division: the Church and the unbelieving world. This obviously goes along with his oft-repeated statements that there is no longer any distinction between Jews and Gentiles; but he has ignored 1 Corinthians 10:32: Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God. Clearly, the New Testament visualizes three classes of people: Jews, Gentiles, and the Church. Paul frequently spoke of Jews, Gentiles, and the Church, too often to reduce them to what Boettner wishes: Church and unbelievers. Jews are Jews nationally, and Paul did not view their nationality as having ceased with the birth of the Church, The Gentiles are non-Jews. The Church is comprised of Jewish and Gentile believers (Eph. 2:11\u201316). Boettner, as other Covenant Theologians, glorifies his theological system over Dispensationalism because it purports to be simpler. Simpler it may be (and this claim is open to debate), but making something simple does not make it true. In this case, Boettner may be guilty of over-simplification.
\nPart of Boettner\u2019s over-simplification is to claim that Israel was chosen so it could be the means by which God would reveal Himself, the means by which the Scriptures were to be recorded, and through whom God\u2019s plan of salvation would be revealed and worked out by the coming and death of the Messiah. Having limited Israel\u2019s national calling to this purpose, Boettner can then decree that once this purpose was accomplished, there would be no need for a continued existence of Israel, either now or in the future. Of course, all the promises, taken literally, include much more than a revelation of the plan of salvation; but Boettner has already allegorized all those promises away and spiritualized them into the Church. As is generally true with Covenant Theology, Boettner reduces everything in the plan of God to the plan of salvation. The ultimate purpose of God is soteriological, though Covenant Theology gives lip service to its being doxological. It is this limited purpose for Israel\u2019s national calling that becomes the basis for the claim that the divine purpose for Israel\u2019s existence has been fulfilled, so the Jew no longer has any special relationship to God. Since there is now no further need for a separate people nor a need for such in the future, there is no need for a separate Jewish existence, according to Boettner.
\nBoettner still allows for Jewish individual salvation, but would prefer that they would disappear as a separate people, preferably by assimilation. Because the Jews have stubbornly refused to assimilate, they have brought upon themselves anti-Semitism, and upon others strife and antagonism and are guilty of maintaining a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. According to Boettner, the Jews are totally to blame for their history of persecution. The problem is not with the Gentiles\u2019 attitude toward the Jews, but with the Jews\u2019 failure to disappear. The solution is that the Jews should cease to be Jews, and by doing so will make a great contribution to the world. It is the Jewish failure to assimilate that has produced tragic results, both for the Jews and \u201cfor the world at large.\u201d This is theological anti-Semitism with a vengeance! Needless to say, Boettner\u2019s reading of Jewish history and the history of the State of Israel is very selective, and very faulty.
\nBased upon his limited view of the purpose of Israel\u2019s calling, Boettner asserts that \u201cGod is through with the Jews\u201d:<\/p>\n
It may seem harsh to say that, \u201cGod is through with the Jews.\u201d But the fact of the matter is that He is through with them as a unified national group having anything more to do with the evangelization of the world. That mission has been taken from them and given to the Christian Church (Matt. 21:43). For the past nineteen centuries the Church has been the trustee of the Gospel, preserving, studying, and purifying its text, and proclaiming its message to the world by means of the printed page and through the preaching of its ministers and missionaries.<\/p>\n
Since God has called the Church to evangelize the world, then obviously, according to Boettner\u2019s logic, God must be finished with the Jews as a \u201cunified national group.\u201d
\nYet, It is on the issue of Jewishness that Boettner tries to prove his contention that the New Testament Church is a continuation of Old Testament Israel:<\/p>\n
It should be remembered that the Church as established by Christ was wholly Jewish and is proved by that very fact to be the continuation and successor of the Old Testament Church. It was not until some time later that it was officially opened to the Gentiles, when Peter was sent to preach to the Roman centurion Cornelius (Acts, chapter 10) and Gentiles began to come into the Church; and it was not until several decades later that the Church became predominantly Gentile. The Gentile branches were grafted into the good olive tree that they might enjoy its fatness and fullness of blessing (Rom. 11:17). As Gentiles came into the church and acknowledged the God of Israel as their God, they became New Testament Israelites, just as the ancient proselytes became Old Testament Israelites. Thus Christian believers originally were and continue to be New Testament Israelites, and the New Covenant relates exclusively to them.<\/p>\n
The early Church was totally Jewish, and this is the proof that the Church is \u201cthe continuation and successor of the Old Testament Church.\u201d Boettner\u2019s logic is faulty. True, the early Church was totally Jewish; but God can start a new entity such as the Church with a group that is totally Jewish without this group being a continuation or a successor of a group that existed previously. Boettner continues to point out that eventually \u201cthe Church became predominantly Gentile,\u201d and this fact can be used to prove that the reverse is true (using the same logic): that the Church is a brand new entity, composed of Jews and Gentiles with the latter being in the majority. The real issue is: what do the Scriptures actually say? They never state that the Church is the continuation of or a successor to Israel. Rather, they emphasize that the Church is a brand new entity which is distinct from Israel (Eph. 2:11\u20133:13). It is true that Gentile Christians were grafted into the olive tree in order that they might enjoy the \u201cfullness of blessing\u201d and that, as a result, they are enjoying Jewish spiritual blessings (Paul\u2019s point in Eph. 2:11\u201316); but these Gentile believers are never called \u201cNew Testament Israelites\u201d as Boettner refers to them. This is reading one\u2019s theology back into the text, as is the statement: \u201cThus Christian believers originally were and continue to be New Testament Israelites, and the New Covenant relates exclusively to them.\u201d The evidence simply does not warrant such a dramatic conclusion, and the passages he cites do not prove his point. The fact that Gentile believers are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:7) does not make them spiritual Israelites anymore than the fact that Arabs being physical descendants of Abraham means that they are physical Israelites. When Galatians 3:28\u201329 states that there can be neither Jew nor Greek, it is stating it in a context of salvation. The only point it makes is that there is no difference in the way Jews and Gentiles are saved, for both are saved in the same way: by grace through faith. Paul said the same thing is true regarding male and female, and Boettner would never contend that all distinctions between men and woman have been erased. Again, there is nothing in the passage that even hints that the Gentile believer is a New Testament Israelite. As for Ephesians 2:14\u201316, yes, the middle wall of partition has been broken down; but in context, all Paul wished to say was that now Gentiles as Gentiles by faith, rather than as proselytes to Judaism, can enjoy Jewish spiritual blessings just as the Gentile branches are enjoying the fatness of the olive tree in Romans 11. Paul says nothing in this passage about these Gentiles becoming spiritual Israelites. In fact, this context states that what God is now doing is creating of the two (Jews and Gentiles) one new man. Paul did not view the Church as a continuation of Old Testament Israel, but rather a new entity altogether. Finally, Galatians 6:16 does not refer to all New Testament believers as the Israel of God, but only to the Jewish believers who are the believing remnant.
\nBoettner asks, \u201cHow could you declare more positively than he does here that the old distinction between Jew and Gentile has been wiped out?\u201d If Boettner would limit the erasing of the distinction to where Paul limited it, to the way of salvation, then there would be no argument; but Boettner goes far beyond Paul and claims that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in all areas have been erased, to the point that Jews do not have any right to even exist as Jews anymore. Using the same passage, one could ask Boettner, \u201cHow can you declare more positively than he does here that the old distinction between male and female has been wiped out?\u201d There is no question that Boettner would begin to fudge on the issue and would not allow the role of women in the Church to be the same as that of men.
\nBoettner says, \u201cIn the Church there are no promises or privileges given to any one group or nationality which do not apply equally to all others.\u201d This is all very true, and no Dispensationalist would disagree with this statement; but that is not the issue that separates Covenant Theology from Dispensationalism. The issue is: what about the unconditional promises God made to Israel exclusively? No Dispensationalist wishes to rob the Church of any of its promises, but no Dispensationalist wishes to rob Israel of any of its promises either. This is what Covenant Theology seems to do.
\nSo badly does Boettner wish for the Jews to disappear that he denies that those who are called \u201cJews\u201d today really are:<\/p>\n
We should point out further that those who today popularly are called \u201cJews\u201d are in reality not Jews at all. Legitimate Judaism as it existed in the Old Testament era was of divine origin and had a very definite content of religious and civil laws, priesthood, ritual, sacrifices, temple, sabbath, etc. But with the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the people in A.D. 70, that system was effectively destroyed. It has since not been practiced anywhere in the world.<\/p>\n
It is obvious that Boettner does not know the difference between Jews as a nationality and Judaism as a religion. It is not necessary to adhere to Judaism to be a Jew. Boettner\u2019s logic here is as follows: Old Testament Judaism was the basis of Jewishness; Old Testament Judaism is no longer being practiced; therefore, there are no more Jews. Yet Paul ceased to practice Old Testament Judaism and still never ceased to call himself a Jew. Again, Boettner fails to distinguish between Jewishness as a nationality and Judaism as a religion. Even if Jews no longer practice Old Testament Judaism, they are still descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
\nKik, another contemporary Covenant Postmillennialist, also believes that the Jews, as a nation, have been \u201ccast out.\u201d Kik states his difference with Dispensationalism as represented by Scofield. Dispensationalism emphasizes that Israel rejected the Messiah. Covenant Postmillennialism emphasizes that God rejected the Jewish nation. It is because God rejected the Jewish nation as a nation that now \u201cbelieving Gentiles were to inherit the covenant blessings promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.\u201d Furthermore, \u201cthe Kingdom was to be given to believing Gentiles while the Jews were to be cast into outer darkness.\u201d
\nThe identification of the Church with Israel comes out boldly in Kik\u2019s interpretation of Matthew 19:28:<\/p>\n
Coming back to Matthew 19:28 we read that in the regeneration the apostles will sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Without going too much in detail, the meaning of this is that the apostles through their teachings rule the Church of God. This is just another way of stating that the Church is \u201cbuilt upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets\u201d as stated in Ephesians 2:20. It is stated in still another way in Revelation 21:14, \u201cAnd the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles.\u201d<\/p>\n
In this dispensation the apostles are still ruling the Church through their teachings.<\/p>\n
Typical of Covenant Theology, Kik resorts to heavy allegorical interpretation. Dispensationalists interpret this passage \u201cas it is written,\u201d that a day will come (the Messianic Kingdom when the Messiah will sit on His throne of glory), when the twelve apostles will rule over the twelve tribes of Israel. Covenant Theologians are not able to understand it this simply, and their theology requires them to interpret this verse in a way that is different from what obviously appears. In Kik\u2019s postmillennial approach, the reign of Christ described here refers to the present age when the gospel is being proclaimed. The \u201cregeneration\u201d is interpreted to represent the Kingdom of God which in this view is the Church. The twelve tribes, like Israel, represent the Church, so this verse is fulfilled by the apostolic rule in the Church. This prophecy is still being fulfilled by the fact that it is the teachings of the apostles that are still the rule in the Church. Just as Moses ruled the \u201cold Israel\u201d through his teachings, by the same token the teachings of the apostles rule the \u201cnew Israel.\u201d While it might be difficult for many to see how by \u201ctwelve tribes of Israel\u201d Jewish apostles would have understood this in any other way than the twelve Jewish tribes of Old Testament history, most Covenant Theologians and Postmillennialists insist that this was the case. Jesus, using common Jewish terminology, is saying something here that is radically different from what would have generally been understood in the Jewish world of that day, and that without any explanation on his part! One can only ask if this is truly using the historical grammatical interpretation of Scripture that Covenant Theologians affirm using.
\nRushdoony also claims that Israel has been set aside and bases his contention on his interpretation of Daniel 12. The simple reading of the text merely states that Daniel was grieved over what was predicted to fall upon his people, the Jewish people. However, Rushdoony sees Daniel as grieving over the fact that Israel as a nation is to be set aside in favor of \u201ca new non-racial Israel to be the people of God.\u201d Rushdoony claims that this truth \u201ccomes into especially sharp focus\u201d in Daniel 12:1; but one must approach Daniel 12:1 with a covenant postmillennial bias for it to be so clearly seen. When taken at face value, the verse says no such thing. Rushdoony interprets Daniel\u2019s prophecy as having been fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and this catastrophe marked \u201cthe public rejection of physical Israel as the chosen people of God.\u201d The Jews, then, as a people are no longer the chosen people. The fall of Jerusalem was also \u201cthe deliverance of the true people of God, the church of Christ, the elect, out of the bondage to Israel and Jerusalem.\u201d It is now the Church which is the chosen people. This chosen-people Church is the elect of all nations who are now a remnant, and it will eventually become \u201cthe overwhelming majority.\u201d This is good postmillennial theology! Rather than seeing Daniel 12 as speaking of a distinction between righteous and unrighteous Israelites, Rushdoony\u2019s theology forces him to make a general distinction between believers and unbelievers.
\nRushdoony, like most Covenant Theologians, does not teach that everywhere Israel is mentioned it refers to \u201cspiritual Israel\u201d or when Jews are mentioned it refers to \u201cspiritual Jews.\u201d They are very selective just when \u201cIsrael\u201d means the Church and when \u201cJews\u201d means the spiritual Jews. Unfortunately, this selective identification is based on the content of the passage or text. If God says something positive about Israel or the Jews, this is often applied to the Church; but if it is a negative statement, it is too often applied to physical Israel and literal Jews.
\nThat Rushdoony seems to have a problem with the Jews as Jews and therefore interprets Scripture accordingly comes out again in his comments on Revelation four:<\/p>\n
A further heresy clouds premillennial interpretations of Scripture\u2014their exaltation of racism into a divine principle. Every attempt to bring the Jew back into prophecy as a Jew is to give race and works (for racial descent is a human work) a priority over grace and Christ\u2019s work and is nothing more or less than paganism. It is significant that premillennialism is almost invariably associated with Arminianism, i.e., the introduction of race into prophetic perspectives is accompanied by, and part and parcel of, the introduction of works into the order of salvation. This is the essence after all, of the Phariseeism which crucified Christ and which masqueraded, as it still does, as the epitome of godliness. There can be no compromise with this vicious heresy.<\/p>\n
This is strong language indeed, and it is clear that Rushdoony harbors very negative attitudes towards the Jews, as Boettner did. Premillennialists who see a future for Israel are classed by Rushdoony with paganism and are guilty of giving priority to race over grace. Therefore, Premillennialists are accused of teaching salvation by works. To claim that \u201cpremillennialism is almost invariably associated with Arminianism\u201d is a pathetic overstatement. One will find Arminian theology in both Amillennialism and Postmillennialism, as well as Premillennialism. Further, all Covenant Premillennialists are Calvinists. In addition, all the leading dispensational seminaries are Calvinistic. The paragraph reflects an emotional frame of mind rather than a scholarly one based on the facts of the case.
\nRevelation seven speaks of believers. Without entering into the eschatology of this chapter, this much is obvious. Verses 1\u20138 speak of the twelve tribes of Israel. John even lists them and states that 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes, for a total of 144,000, are sealed by God. Verses 9\u201317 speak of unnumbered Gentiles from every nation in the world. At face value the chapter makes a distinction between Jews (vv. 1\u20138) and Gentiles (vv. 9\u201317). Rushdoony cannot allow such a simple meaning to stand:<\/p>\n
Revelation 7 gives us a picture of the sealed church in its ultimate victory. In Revelation 21 we are shown Jerusalem, symbolically portrayed as a perfect cube, the symbol of perfection. Jerusalem has twelve gates, twelve foundations, the walls are 144 cubits in height, and the population numbers 144,000. That this is a symbolic figure 7:9 makes clear. The twelve tribes of Israel give us a type of the whole church.<\/p>\n
\u2026 As Romans 2:29 stated it, \u201cBut he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart.\u201d This is \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d (Gal. 6:16), the true church, the body of Christ, who is \u201cAbraham\u2019s seed,\u201d and whose members are \u201cheirs according to the promise\u201d (Gal. 3:29), i.e., are the true Israel of God.<\/p>\n
Rushdoony totally ignores the distinction between Jews and Gentiles as found in Revelation seven and simply interprets the whole chapter as being \u201ca picture of the sealed church in its ultimate victory.\u201d As for the twelve tribes of Israel, they are merely \u201ca type of the whole church.\u201d (If the Jews of verses 1\u20138 are \u201cthe whole church,\u201d who are the Gentiles of verses 9\u201317? Rushdoony is not concerned with such details. He simply makes the two groups one and the same.) This Israel of Revelation seven \u201cis the true church.\u201d This \u201ctrue church\u201d is also \u201cAbraham\u2019s seed.\u201d Therefore, it is indeed \u201cthe true Israel of God.\u201d This is the \u201ctrue and chosen people of God.\u201d What then was the purpose of listing the tribes separately if it did not refer to literal Israel? Rushdoony says that the \u201ctribes are named to indicate that the true Israel now exists as the church.\u201d He does not try to prove his exegesis here or elsewhere in his work. He simply pontificates what a passage means, based on Covenant Postmillennialism, and for him that settles the issue.
\nRevelation 12 speaks of a woman arrayed with the sun, moon, and twelve stars. Even Rushdoony agrees that the Old Testament background is Joseph\u2019s dream in Genesis 37 from which it is obvious that the sun represents Jacob, the moon Rachel, and the twelve stars the twelve sons of Jacob, who in turn fathered the twelve tribes of Israel. With this much Rushdoony would agree. The normal thing, then, would be to interpret this \u201cwoman\u201d as representing the people of Israel, but Rushdoony does not:<\/p>\n
We are given a picture of a woman clothed with the sun, clearly a cosmic figure. She is the true Church of God in every age, cosmic in its government and therefore in its scope, because Chris is the head of the Church. The Church is described in symbols denoting sovereignty under God, with images derived from Joseph\u2019s dream (sun, moon, and stars, Gen. 37:9). Through the true people of God, Christ originally came into the world, and through them He continues to come to the world.<\/p>\n
The \u201cwoman\u201d is interpreted as the Church; but this would seem to be anachronistic, for it is Christ who founded the Church, and here the woman gives birth to Christ. Rushdoony gets around this problem by interpreting the \u201cwoman\u201d to represent \u201cthe true people of God,\u201d and \u201cthrough the true people of God, Christ originally came into the world.\u201d Then to force the passage into a postmillennial mold, he interprets the whole passage as the Church\u2019s anguish as she tries to present Christ to the world. A lot of Postmillennialism must be previously developed in one\u2019s mind before one can derive all this by an allegorical approach to Revelation 12!
\nThough historically most Covenant Theologians interpret Babylon to represent either Rome or any false religious system, Rushdoony again reflects his attitude toward the Jews by interpreting \u201cBabylon the Great\u201d as referring to \u201cearthly Jerusalem.\u201d According to Rushdoony, Israel rejected Jesus because he wanted to \u201cinaugurate the kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of Israel.\u201d Rushdoony denies that the Jews had any right or basis from the Old Testament to expect that Messiah\u2019s kingdom would be Jewish in any way, or a kingdom of Israel.<\/p>\n
2. The Kingdom of God<\/p>\n
Not only is the Church identified as the New Israel, Covenant Postmillennialists also identify the Church as the Kingdom of God today.
\nHodge describes the kingdom\u2019s state since the coming of Christ:<\/p>\n
As religion is essentially spiritual, an inward state, the kingdom of Christ as consisting of the truly regenerated, is not a visible body, except so far as goodness renders itself visible by its outward manifestations. Nevertheless as Christ has enjoined upon his people duties which render it necessary that they should organize themselves in an external society, it follows that there is and must be a visible kingdom of Christ in the world. Christians are required to associate for public worship, for the admission and exclusion of members, for the administration of the sacraments, for the maintenance and propagation of the truth. They therefore form themselves into churches, and collectively constitute the visible kingdom of Christ on earth, consisting of all who profess the true religion, together with their children.<\/p>\n
The visibility of the kingdom today is to be seen in the organized visible Church. The visible kingdom today is composed of all who profess the true religion, together with their children. (Hodge was a Presbyterian; in Baptist Postmillennialism, children who could not exercise their own faith would not be included.) The nature of this visible Kingdom of Christ today, according to Hodge, is fourfold:<\/p>\n
First, it is spiritual. That is, it is not of this world.\u2026<\/p>\n
Secondly, this kingdom of Christ is catholic or universal. It embraces all who profess the true religion.\u2026<\/p>\n
Thirdly, this form of Christ\u2019s kingdom is temporary. It is to be merged into a higher form when He shall come the second time without sin unto salvation. As an external organization it is designed to answer certain ends, and will cease when those ends are accomplished.<\/p>\n
Fourthly, the kingdom of Christ is not a democracy, nor an aristocracy, but truly a kingdom of which Christ is absolute sovereign.<\/p>\n
What Hodge describes to be the nature of the Kingdom of Christ today is what he would also describe the Church to be today, for in Hodge\u2019s mind the two are one and the same. In fact, towards the end of his discussion on the Kingdom of God, he states: \u201cThe development of these several points belongs to the department of Ecclesiology\u201d (i.e., the doctrine of the Church.)
\nA key thing to note that will affect postmillennial Israelology is the claim that this present form of the kingdom is temporary and it is destined to merge \u201cinto a higher form\u201d at the second coming. It is here now in order to accomplish \u201ccertain ends, and will cease when those ends are accomplished.\u201d For Postmillennialists, these \u201cends\u201d include the conquest of the world by means of the gospel.
\nBoettner teaches that with the coming of Christ, the Kingdom of God has been transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles. To prove his contention, he first cites Matthew 21:43. The \u201cnation\u201d of this verse would be identified by Boettner as the Church; but if the Church is the \u201cnation,\u201d then it contradicts Paul\u2019s statement in Romans 10:19 that God would provoke the Jews with a \u201cno-nation,\u201d and the Church is just that: a no-nation, an entity comprised of individuals of all nationalities. Matthew 21:43 would be better understood to mean a different generation of Israel. The Jewish generation of Jesus\u2019 day had rejected the kingdom; so it will be offered to a later Jewish generation that will accept it.
\nBoettner\u2019s citation of Luke 21:24 is hardly applicable, since it merely prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem by Gentile hands (fulfilled in A.D. 70). It says nothing about a transfer of the Kingdom of God from Jewish to Gentile hands.
\nHis citation of Romans 11:25\u201326 also is beside the point, for it, too, states nothing of a transfer of the Kingdom of God from Jewish to Gentile control, but only that a blindness in part has befallen Israel for a temporary duration of time, i.e., until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
\nRushdoony also defines the Kingdom of God as being the Church on earth.<\/p>\n
3. The Law of Moses<\/p>\n
A common element of Postmillennialism is that the Law of Moses is still in effect. Hodge states that, \u201cThe law of God is immutable. It can neither be abrogated nor dispensed with.\u201d This forces them to wrestle with two questions. First, to whom was the law actually given? Second, just how does the law apply today?
\nOne of the confusing elements in Covenant Theology is that there is often a failure to distinguish between the law of God in general, which most will agree is always mandatory, and from the specific Law of Moses, which all would agree is not fully mandatory in all of its commandments, statutes and precepts, though there is disagreement over which, if any, are and which are not. Hodge appears to be speaking of the eternal law of God, that which is mandatory for all men. However, the Scriptures he quotes come from the Law of Moses and speak specifically of the 613 commandments of that law. Not even Hodge believed that all 613 were still mandatory. The Law of Moses was made specifically with Israel and not with the Gentiles. Those who were actually freed from the law are those who were under it, and these were Jews, not Gentiles. Hodge\u2019s insistence on identifying Israel with the Church creates confusion between the eternal law of God and the Law of Moses and, in turn, over who it was that was freed from the Law of Moses. Because of this confusion, in some sense, the entire Law of Moses is still in effect for the unbeliever; for \u201cthe law of God is immutable,\u201d for there is no \u201cabrogation\u201d of the law of God. Yet later Hodge appears to contradict his own assertions.
\nThis same confusion comes out again when Hodge discusses the meaning of redemption from the law. Which \u201claw\u201d does Hodge mean here? He implies it is the eternal law of God, for \u201cno man since the fall is able to fulfil these demands, yet he must fulfil them or perish.\u201d However, the verses he quotes are from the Law of Moses and refer to the Law of Moses. The \u201call things which are written in the book of the law to do them\u201d concerns the 613 commandments of the Law of Moses; yet Hodge did not claim that they were all mandatory today. This is typical of the confusion among Covenant Theologians about the law. The reason for this confusion is their failure to distinguish between Israel and the Church. This failure leads to a confusion between the law of God in general, and the specific Law of Moses; confusion as to who is under which law; and, who it was that was actually freed from the law. it also leads to another major confusion, and that is: If the Law of Moses is still partially in effect, to what degree is it still in effect? Which commandments of the Law of Moses still apply, and which do not? Is there an objective way to determine which do and which do not?
\nThese are the issues that Hodge wrestles with in his chapter entitled, \u201cThe Law,\u201d under the heading, \u201cHow far may the Laws contained in the Bible be dispensed with?\u201d It is evident that Hodge did not see the Law of Moses as a single unit or a \u201cpackage deal.\u201d Some of the commandments of the Law of Moses have ceased to be in effect with the coming of Christ while others are still in effect. Hodge\u2019s criteria for determining which are and which are not are based on two premises. First, if the commandment is rooted in the basis of God\u2019s relationship to Israel as a theocracy, then those laws have been abolished. As examples, Hodge mentions circumcision, keeping the Feasts of Passover or Tabernacles, going up to Jerusalem three times a year, or punishing on the basis of \u201can eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth.\u201d Second, if the commandment is rooted in the basis of permanent or continuous human relations, then that commandment is still in effect. As examples, Hodge mentions the laws of property, marriage, and obedience to parents.
\nTo a great degree, determining which commandments are still in effect and which are not becomes a subjective judgment. Hodge wrote well before 1948, when Israel became a state. Would he say today that the commandments of the first category do apply again? Modern-day Postmillennialists say no. If Hodge were living today, he would probably concur since he taught that the commandments of the first category have been \u201cabolished by the introduction of the new dispensation.\u201d Hodge mentions that \u201cto exact an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth\u201d was a commandment of the first category and was, therefore, abolished; but could not that phrase be interpreted as a matter of judicial judgment where the punishment must fit the crime? If so, would it not then belong to the second category of commandments which concern permanent human relationship? If that is so, would it not still be in effect?
\nThe failure by Covenant Theologians of all stripes to recognize the unity of the Law of Moses leads to very subjective determinations as to which commandments are to be followed and which are not. This confusion is, in turn, reflected in Covenant Theologians\u2019 confusion between Israel and the Church.
\nThis type of subjectivity and confusion is reflected in Hodge\u2019s lengthy discussion on the commandment, \u201cremember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.\u201d Under the heading, \u201cThe Fourth Commandment,\u201d Hodge devotes a total of 28 pages trying to show that this commandment is still in effect, but it no longer applies to the seventh day of the week (Saturday), rather to the first (Sunday).
\nHodge claims that \u201cthe Sabbath was instituted from the Beginning, and is of Perpetual Obligation.\u201d He then tried to prove this with four points. First, he states that the commandment concerning the Sabbath belongs to the second criterion by which one can know if a commandment is perpetual or not.
\nLater, Hodge continues his argument for the perpetuity of the Sabbath by quoting Genesis 2:3 which mentions the Sabbath, well before the days of Moses, therefore making it obligatory apart from the Law of Moses. However, all that Genesis 2:2\u20133 says about the Sabbath is:<\/p>\n
And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made.<\/p>\n
Hodge ignores three things. First, the specific day of the week which is the Sabbath day is the seventh day, not the first. Second, those verses contain no commandment to observe the Sabbath and no instructions as to how the Sabbath was to be observed, if it was. Third, from Adam to Moses, there is no record of anyone observing the Sabbath.
\nFurthermore, when the Sabbath law is finally given by Moses, it is rooted in God\u2019s relationship to Israel as a theocracy and, therefore, belongs to Hodge\u2019s first criterion and not the second. For example, Exodus 31:13\u201317 states:<\/p>\n
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily ye shall keep my sabbaths: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am Jehovah who sanctifieth you \u2026 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.<\/p>\n
According to these words, the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel and not humanity in general. It is a sign that God has sanctified Israel, or set Israel apart from all other nations. It was typical for biblical covenants to have signs unique to each covenant. For example, the rainbow is the sign of the Noahic Covenant (Gen. 9:12\u201317) and circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:9\u201314). The Sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic Covenant made with Israel in the Sinai. On the basis of this covenant, Israel was chosen to be God\u2019s peculiar people (Exod. 19:4\u20136). The Sabbath is the sign of that relationship. it obviously belongs to Hodge\u2019s first category and not the second.
\nLater in the Law of Moses, in Deuteronomy 5:15, a similar point is made:<\/p>\n
And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.<\/p>\n
According to this verse, the Sabbath is to be observed because God brought Israel out of Egypt. It was on that basis that the Mosaic Covenant was made (Exod. 19:4\u20136), and the Sabbath is a sign of that covenant (Exod. 31:13, 17). Once again, the observance of the Sabbath is rooted in God\u2019s special relationship to Israel.
\nIn the prophets, the same point is made in Ezekiel 20:12 and 20:<\/p>\n
Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am Jehovah that sanctifieth them.\u2026 and hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God.<\/p>\n
Ezekiel also stated that the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, and it is a sign of two things: that God is Israel\u2019s Sanctifier, and that Jehovah is Israel\u2019s God. The Sabbath does not qualify for perpetuity, even on the basis of Hodge\u2019s subjective criteria.
\nHodge\u2019s second evidence of the perpetuity of the Sabbath commandment is that since the original obligation to keep the Sabbath as given in Genesis 2:2\u20133 was also given in the Ten Commandments, it means that it is a perpetual obligation for all. The problem is that Genesis 2:2\u20133 makes no such obligation, nor is there any evidence of anyone having kept the Sabbath before Moses.
\nHodge\u2019s third argument for the perpetuity of the Sabbath commandment is on the basis that the penalty for violating this commandment was death. Hodge\u2019s logic here is hard to follow. In what way does the fact of capital punishment for violating the Sabbath under the Law of Moses prove the perpetuity of the Sabbath? Hodge seems to overreach himself to prove a weak point. Furthermore, while Hodge argues for the perpetuity of the commandment itself, he does not do so for the punishment and does not teach that those who violate the Sabbath today (which for Hodge is Sunday) should be put to death.
\nIn his final argument, Hodge tries to support the perpetuity of the Sabbath with two statements which, by themselves, are true. First, the keeping of the Sabbath was a \u201cdelight.\u201d Second, the Sabbath will be mandatory in the Millennium. The problem is that this does not prove that the Sabbath is mandatory for the Church under the Law of Christ. Here again, Hodge\u2019s logic is faulty.
\nFollowing these four arguments, Hodge concludes:<\/p>\n
These considerations, apart from historical evidence or the direct assertion of the Scriptures, are enough to create a strong, if not an invincible presumption, that the Sabbath was instituted from the beginning, and was designed to be of universal and permanent obligation. Whatever law had a temporary ground or reason for its enactment, was temporary in its obligation. Where the reason of the law is permanent the law itself is permanent.<\/p>\n
Hodge engages in wishful thinking by declaring his contention for the perpetuity of the Sabbath as proved and his assertions as \u201cinvincible.\u201d Hodge produces no evidence from the New Testament that the Sabbath was mandatory for the Church. What evidence he does produce is contextually concerned with Israel. As a Covenant Theologian, Hodge confuses Israel and the Church and, therefore, also confuses which commandments apply to Israel and which apply to the Church.
\nOn what grounds does Hodge insist that Sunday is now the Sabbath? Hodge claims that it is not the day of the week itself that is vital, but what is commanded is only that one out of seven days be set aside. However, both Genesis 2:2\u20133 and the Law of Moses emphasize the seventh day of the week. Hodge uses the fact of capital punishment as evidence for the perpetuity of the Sabbath; but that very death penalty would have been applied to someone who failed to keep the seventh day. Anyone under the Law of Moses who claimed that he was choosing to keep the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth day would have been executed for not keeping the seventh day. It is simply not true that \u201cthe day of the week is not essential.\u201d If it is true that we are \u201cbound to keep one day in seven holy unto the Lord,\u201d then the specific day of the week is essential, for all of the Scriptures cited by Hodge deal with the seventh day. Again, Hodge never proves his original claim: that to set aside one day of the week is essential and mandatory. It is inconsistent to insist on Sabbath-keeping on the basis of the Law of Moses and then ignore the exact day of the week that the Law of Moses required.
\nHodge also states that \u201cit is not necessary that it should be observed with special reference to the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt; nor are the details as to the things to be done or avoided, or as to the penalty for transgression obligatory on us.\u201d Hodge wishes to pull the commandment out of the Law of Moses and make it mandatory, but then he totally ignores both the basis for the command (deliverance from Egypt) and the obligations of that day (things to be done or avoided). This is highly subjective and inconsistent.
\nOn what basis is the Sabbath changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week? Hodge defends the change by saying, \u201cIf made for sufficient reason and by competent authority, the change is obligatory.\u201d This clearly contradicts one of Hodge\u2019s earlier contentions, that \u201cnone but God can free men from the obligation of any divine law, which He has imposed upon them.\u201d This criterion that Hodge gives appears to be an attempt to justify a pre-supposition rather than one derived by exegesis. Hodge\u2019s \u201csufficient reason\u201d is the Sunday resurrection; but this is a subjective judgment. The death of Jesus by which the atonement was made, a major centerpiece of Covenant Theology, took place on a Friday. Would that not also be a \u201csufficient reason\u201d to impose a Friday Sabbath? Hodge\u2019s \u201ccompetent authority\u201d is \u201cthe Christians of the apostolic age\u201d who \u201cceased to observe the seventh, and did observe the first day of the week as the day for religious worship.\u201d Hodge\u2019s reading of first century Church history is debatable. Even if he is correct, that by itself does not prove \u201ccompetent authority.\u201d As early as the apostolic period, various churches began departing from the teachings of the apostles (i.e., 1 Corinthians, Galatians). Furthermore, not a single one of the New Testament writings refers to Sunday as a Sabbath, but only as \u201cthe first day of the week\u201d (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). On the basis of his own subjective criterion, Hodge concludes, \u201cIt is hard to conceive of a stronger argument than this for the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath as a divine institution.\u201d But is it?
\nHodge\u2019s real dilemma remain that not only is Sunday never called a Sabbath, but there is no New Testament command for the Church to observe the Sabbath. Hodge\u2019s response to this point is:<\/p>\n
No such command was needed. The New Testament has no decalogue. That code having been once announced, and never repealed, remains in force. Its in injunctions are not so much categorically repeated, as assumed as still obligatory.<\/p>\n
True, the New Testament does not have a decalogue, but nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the Law of Christ, and the one exception is the Sabbath commandment. The real question raised here is whether or not the Law of Moses is a single unit and whether it has, as a unit, been repeated. This issue is best discussed in the chapter on Dispensationalism.
\nHodge\u2019s subjectivity on this issue can also be seen in the following quotation:<\/p>\n
There are two rules by which we are to be guide in determining how the Sabbath is to be observed, or in deciding what is, and what is not lawful on that holy day. The first is, the design of the commandment. What is consistent with that design is lawful; what is inconsistent with it, is unlawful. The second rule is to be found in the precepts and example of our Lord and of his Apostles.<\/p>\n
Having affirmed that the Sabbath commandment is still mandatory, but having dismissed the specific rules and regulations as being no longer binding, Hodge is forced to innovate a new standard in order to determine just how the Church is to observe the sabbath. The two guiding rules are: what was the design of the commandment?; and, what are the precepts and examples of Jesus and the apostles? Both are subjectively determined. What is ignored is that the Sabbath observed by Jesus and the apostles was the seventh day of the week; but that \u201cexample\u201d discarded as not applicable. Once again, Hodge\u2019s failure to recognize the unity of the Law of Moses leads him to erect a subjective criterion as to what part of the law applies and what part does not.
\nIt is on the basis of such subjectivity that Hodge decrees that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, although the New Testament never calls Sunday the Sabbath. Every New Testament reference to the Sabbath is always to the seventh day of the week. The lack of such scriptural warrant does not seem to bother Hodge. Had Hodge left the matter there it would be one thing; but he went further. He favored civil governments making it mandatory that all observe the Christian Sabbath, including other Christians who would not agree with Hodge\u2019s subjective conclusions, and those who were not Christians at all! Hodge then proceeds with a lengthy defense that the United States is not only a Christian nation, but that it is a Protestant Christian nation. He then concludes:<\/p>\n
We are bound, therefore, to insist upon the maintenance and faithful execution of the laws enacted for the protection of the Christian Sabbath. Christianity does not teach that men can be made religious by law; nor does it demand that men should be required by the civil authority to profess any particular form of religious doctrine, or to attend upon religious services; but it does enjoin that men should abstain from all unnecessary worldly avocations on the Lord\u2019s Day. This civil Sabbath, this cessation from worldly business, is what the civil government in Christian countries is called upon to enforce.<\/p>\n
Hodge\u2019s faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion, and he insists that all must follow that faulty conclusion by civil law!
\nTo summarize Hodge\u2019s view of the Law of Moses: the law is not a single unit that is either all in effect or all rendered inoperative; parts of the law have been rendered inoperative, but parts are still in effect; how to determine which are and which are not is not totally clear, but there is a criterion though it is largely subjective; while a specific command of the law may be in effect (i.e., the Sabbath), the specific rules and regulations surrounding the command are not and may be changed; the principle used to determine these changes is also subjective. It is obvious that the foundation for all of the above is the fusing, to some degree, of Israel and the Church. For the same reason, there is confusion between the eternal law of God in general and the specific Law of Moses and to whom that law did and\/or does apply.<\/p>\n
4. The State of Israel Today<\/p>\n
In his day, Charles Hodge did not have to contend with an existing State of Israel; but Loraine Boettner does and is forced to wrestle with the issue. After dealing in a scattered way with Israelology in the first three hundred pages, Boettner devotes a whole chapter to the subject in chapter XV entitled, \u201cThe Jews and Palestine.\u201d
\nIn his opening paragraph, he denounces the belief that a restoration of the Jews to the land is part of God\u2019s divine program. Boettner is not very happy with the re-establishment of the Jewish state. Boettner not only blames the Jews for their own problems in the Diaspora, but he also blames them for the problems in the Middle East. While admitting that the Arabs are not perfect, he still puts the majority of the blame on the Jews. In harsh terminology Boettner denies that the Jews have any right whatsoever to their own land. In fact, he claims that the Jews do not belong anywhere: \u201cThe mere fact that these people are Jews does not in itself give them any more moral or legal right to Palestine than to the United States or any other part of the world.\u201d So, the Jews don\u2019t belong anywhere! The Jews do, however, exist to this day, and this fact seems to be an embarrassment to Boettner. The continued existence of the Jews does not sit well with his form of Postmillennialism. What would Boettner do with the Jews? He wants them to disappear but, fortunately, does not resort to Hitler\u2019s approach. Rather, he chooses assimilation. To Boettner\u2019s dismay, the Jews have re-established their own country. He must therefore deny that this is in any way related to Bible prophecy or that the Jews are still a covenanted people of God.
\nBoettner\u2019s work was published in 1957 when Israel was quite small. Apparently, he feared that Israel might expand even to the biblical borders and so issued a disclaimer in advance:<\/p>\n
It may be that in years to come the Jews will possess a larger part, or even all, of Palestine. We do not know. But if they do they will secure it as other nations secure property, through negotiation, or purchase, or conquest, not by virtue of any as yet unfulfilled prophecies or promises. There are no such prophecies or promises.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the State of Israel is a work of men and not God:<\/p>\n
As these things bear upon the re-establishment of the State of Israel, we must say that this project, carried out almost exclusively by unbelieving Jews, is not of God in the sense that it was foretold by His prophets or that His blessing is upon it. Rather it is a humanistic project, which in all probability is headed for increasingly serious trouble. Although the Jewish people have a consuming zeal for the land of Palestine, their real need is not Palestine, but Christ. And never will they find real peace, individually or as a nation, until they turn in faith to Him.<\/p>\n
5. Romans 9:1\u201311:24 and the Olive Tree<\/p>\n
Crucial to any study of Israelology are chapters 9 through 11 of Paul\u2019s epistle to the Romans where the apostle details God\u2019s relationship to Israel in light of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiah. These three chapters touch on both Israel past and Israel future, but most of it deals with Israel present. In this section, we will look at the postmillennial view of Romans 9:1\u201311:24. The remaining segment of Romans 11 will be discussed under \u201cIsrael Future.\u201d Three postmillennial commentators will be utilized, two from the nineteenth century (Charles Hodge and William G. T. Shedd), and one from the twentieth century (John Murray).
\nIn Romans 9:1\u20135, Paul introduced his discussion of Israel by pointing out his own sorrow over Israel\u2019s unbelief in light of Israel\u2019s privileged position. Commenting on verse two, Hodge\u2019s reason for Paul\u2019s sorrow was that the unique national position Israel enjoyed is now to be removed because Israel had \u201cwickedly rejected\u201d it. Nationally speaking, Israel was now \u201cwithout hope, either for this world or the next.\u201d Important to Hodge\u2019s Postmillennialism is that, nationally speaking, Israel has been rejected by God and will have no future distinct national privilege. Although there will be a future national conversion, this conversion will not lead to a national restoration with national privileges, but will simply be an amalgamation of the saved nation into the Church. Both Shedd and Murray concur.
\nIn verses 4\u20135 Paul listed the privileges Israel had. When Paul said his subject was Israelite, Hodge takes this to be the physical nation of the Jews and interprets the term to mean, \u201cthe peculiar people of God.\u201d Hodge accepts the belief that the Jews as a people were the chosen ones in the Old Testament: \u201cAs it (i.e., the name Israel) was given to Jacob as an expression of God\u2019s peculiar favour, \u2026 its application to his descendants implied that they too were the favorites of God.\u201d
\nMurray states that there are actually two Israels, identifying one as \u201cethnic Israel.\u201d However, he holds off identifying the second Israel until his commentary on 9:6. Nevertheless, there is an advantage of belonging to ethnic Israel.
\nThe first privilege that Paul listed was the adoption. Hodge reaffirms his belief that the Jews as a people were the chosen people of God during the whole period of the theocracy. Hodge goes on to declare that this national sonship of Israel to God was a type of the believer\u2019s sonship to God in every dispensation.
\nThe second privilege was the glory, which Hodge interprets to mean the Shechinah Glory, or the presence of God. He writes: \u201cIt is probable, therefore, that Paul intended by this word to refer to the fact that God dwelt in a peculiar manner among the Jews, and in various ways manifested his presence, as one of their peculiar privileges.\u201d
\nThe third privilege was the covenants. Hodge comments: \u201cThe plural is used because God at various times entered into covenant with the Jews and their forefathers; by which he secured to them innumerable blessings and privileges.\u201d Murray identifies these as the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants. Dispensationalists would agree with this identification, but would add the Palestinian and New Covenants to the list.
\nThe fourth privilege is the giving of the law which Hodge interprets to be the Law of Moses and states: \u201c\u2026 the possession of the law was the grand distinction of the Jews, and one on which they peculiarly relied.\u201d
\nThe fifth privilege was the service of God which Hodge interprets to be \u201cthe whole ritual, the pompous and impressive religious service of the tabernacle and temple.\u201d
\nThe sixth privilege was the promises which Hodge says were \u201c\u2026 the promises of Christ and his kingdom. This was the great inheritance of the nation. This was the constant subject of gratulation and object of hope.\u201d
\nThe seventh privilege was the fathers on which Hodge states: \u201cThe descent of the Jews from men so highly favoured of God as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was justly regarded as a great distinction.\u201d
\nThe eighth and last privilege was of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came. The point is that Jesus was a Jew, and Hodge comments: \u201cThis was the great honour of the Jewish race. For this they were separated as a peculiar people, and preserved amidst all their afflictions.\u201d
\nIn Romans 9:6\u201324, Paul deals with the doctrine of salvation and predestination, emphasizing that salvation never was and never is on the basis of merit, but on the basis of sovereign grace. The issue in Israelology concerns the role of Israel as a nation as over against Jewish and Gentile individuals in this plan of salvation, and what is the place of Israel as a nation at the present time. In no uncertain terms, Hodge views these verses as teaching that God has \u201crejected the Jews,\u201d has \u201ccast off his ancient covenant people,\u201d and has now extended \u201cthe call of the gospel indiscriminately to all men.\u201d The Jews as a people or a nation have been rejected, and God is now calling the Gentiles.
\nThere is no argument that in this section Paul speaks of salvation going out to the Gentiles, nor any denial that this section points out that Israel as a nation has rejected the Messiahship of Jesus; but does Paul actually state that the Jews as a nation have been rejected by God? It would appear that all Paul is saying is that national privileges by themselves do not provide individual spiritual salvation since that is attained only by grace through faith. The national privileges themselves still belong to the Jews, and Paul used the Greek present tense when he discussed those privileges in verses 1\u20135. Even Hodge admits that Paul never stated that God rejected the Jews in order to call the Gentiles, but then labors to prove that this is Paul\u2019s teaching and concludes that the Jews \u201cwere no longer the peculiar people of God.\u201d
\nCrucial to Israelology is Paul\u2019s statement in verse 6b: For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel. Here, Paul distinguishes two Israels. All agree that one of these Israels is a reference to physical Israel, meaning all Jews who are physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The disagreement is over the second Israel. Covenant Theologians generally (but not exclusively) interpret the second Israel as being the Church. Dispensationalists take it as a reference to believing Jews within the nation as a whole. Hodge, a Covenant Theologian, takes it to be believers in general. He paraphrases the statement as \u201call who are in the (visible) Church do not belong to the true Church.\u201d
\nShedd, in keeping with his Covenant Theology, reduces the covenant promises God made to Israel to \u201cgratuitous justification,\u201d or \u201cthe promise of salvation through the Messiah.\u201d Israel did not believe and, therefore, nationally did not receive this justification; but this does not mean that \u201cGod\u2019s covenant with their fathers was a total failure.\u201d Actually, these promises were made to spiritual and not physical Israel. Shedd refers to this spiritual Israel as \u201cspiritual descendants of Jacob,\u201d something the Bible itself never does. Both Jewish and Gentile believers are referred to as a spiritual seed of Abraham, but not Jacob\u2014an important distinction within Israelology. Even the passage Shedd cites does not use the name Jacob, but Abraham. Jewishness is determined by Jacob rather than by Abraham alone. Since Covenant Theology teaches that all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, are spiritual Jews, or spiritual Israel, perhaps for that reason Shedd inserts \u201cspiritual seed of Jacob.\u201d By doing so, he has gone beyond the biblical text.
\nMurray states that \u201cit is not necessary to identify \u2018Israel\u2019 here as Jacob specifically.\u201d He differs from Shedd and is more in keeping with the text since the \u201cspiritual seed\u201d is never identified with Jacob, but with Abraham. In this verse, however, Paul speaks of two Israels, one of which has already been identified as physical or \u201cethnic Israel.\u201d Those are \u201cthe natural descendants of the patriarchs,\u201d meaning all three: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Physical descent from Abraham alone was not enough, for even Arabs can make that claim even though they are not Jews. The second Israel is an Israel \u201cwithin ethnic Israel\u201d; that is, they are Jews who believe. Murray recognizes something that the vast majority of Covenant Theologians of all stripes have failed to see, and his position on Romans 9:6 is something that is usually only shared by Dispensationalists. Instead of following the usual Covenant Theology approach, which is to make the second Israel the Church composed of both Jews and Gentiles, Murray sees Paul as making a different distinction. This is not a general distinction between believers and unbelievers, but a specific distinction between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. The former is spiritual Israel, and the latter is of Israel or \u201cethnic Israel\u201d; but the former is within the latter: \u201cThere is an \u2018Israel\u2019 within ethnic Israel.\u201d This other Israel is the \u201ctrue Israel.\u201d this \u201ctrue Israel,\u201d however, is still of Israel or part of national or ethnic Israel. This should be understood in the same way that Jesus addressed Nathanael as \u201ctruly an Israelite.\u201d He was a believing Jew and, therefore, a \u201ctrue Israelite\u201d and part of national or ethnic Israel. Murray points out that the purpose of making a distinction between Israel the whole and the true Israel is to show that \u201cGod\u2019s covenant purpose and promise\u201d has not failed. While Israel the whole did reject and disbelieve, the true Israel did not.
\nDispensationalists can mostly agree with Murray\u2019s interpretation of Romans 9:6, but they will take exception concerning his comment on Galatians 6:16 that the \u201cIsrael of God\u201d includes \u201cthe people of God of all nations.\u201d Dispensationalists would see the same distinction in Galatians 6:16 tat Murray sees in Romans 9:6, but Murray is clearly trying to determine what Paul is saying by exegeting the text for what it does and does not say, while Hodge, Shedd, and Boettner try to read their theology back into the text. Perhaps for that reason his exposition often ends up being the same as that of a Dispensationalist.
\nAlso crucial to Israelology is Paul\u2019s statement in verse seven: \u2026 neither, because they are Abraham\u2019s seed, are they all children. Paul not only distinguishes between two Israels, but he also distinguishes between two seeds or descendants of Abraham. All would agree that one seed refers to physical descendants of Abraham and the other to spiritual descendants of Abraham. It would also be agreed that the spiritual seed of Abraham includes both Jewish and Gentile believers. The disagreement between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians is whether the spiritual Israel and the spiritual seed of Abraham are always one and the same. Generally, Dispensationalists would keep the two distinct and Covenant Theologians would not. Hodge\u2019s interpretation is consistent with his Covenant Theology.
\nIt is agreed by all groups that insofar as salvation is concerned, the promise of salvation is given to believers only, regardless of physical descent, and there is no salvation for unbelievers, regardless of physical descent. Salvation is only for the spiritual seed of Abraham, both Jews and Gentiles. The issue, however, remains: Does this mean that God has \u201ccast off Israel\u201d and \u201crejected Israel\u201d so that there is no longer any hope in this world or the next? To answer the question positively goes beyond what Paul actually stated, yet Hodge concludes: \u201cAs he rejected Ishmael notwithstanding his natural descent from Abraham, so he may reject the Jews, although they also had Abraham as a father.\u201d
\nMurray\u2019s comments on 9:7 follow the same pattern as his comments on 9:6. For Murray, Abraham\u2019s seed is the same as of Israel or ethnic Israel in 9:6. The children are the same as the true Israel of 9:6.
\nIn his comments on 9:8, Shedd, like Hodge, affirms that in history Israel was the chosen people in a national sense. The Jews are the \u201cpeople of God\u201d because \u201cthey have been selected from other nations.\u201d However, this did not guarantee their spiritual salvation, for only those who have \u201ca second election\u201d will be spiritually saved. This second election includes both Jews and Gentiles. All Jews are \u201cof Israel\u201d but are not \u201cIsrael\u201d (i.e., spiritual Israel for Shedd). All Jews are \u201cthe seed of Abraham,\u201d but not all are the \u201cchildren of the promise.\u201d The covenant promises, according to Shedd, were made to the spiritual and not the physical descendants; this being fulfilled, so God\u2019s plan has not failed. Furthermore, although the elect nation has not believed, members of that nation are part of the \u201csecond election\u201d and so are \u201csubjects of his special grace.\u201d
\nShedd makes a similar point in his comments on 9:9. The Abrahamic Covenant did not apply to all lineal descendants of Abraham, but only to such Jews who believed or had the same faith as Abraham, along with Gentiles who had the same faith. Dispensationalists would agree that insofar as salvation is concerned, it is only applied to Jewish and Gentile believers, and together these do comprise the spiritual seed of Abraham (but not the spiritual Israel). Dispensationalists would not reduce the Abrahamic Covenant to contain a promise of salvation only.
\nMurray\u2019s comments on 9:8\u20139 follow his view of verses 6\u20137 concerning the meaning of the two Israels.
\nLater, in commenting on 9:10\u201313, while defending his position that Romans nine is not only speaking of a national election but an individual one as well, Murray once again makes a distinction between Israel and true Israel, children and true children, seed and true seed, and never identifies the true Israel, children, or seed as being the same as the Church. As a Covenant Theologian he would include them as being part of the Church; but in this context, Murray limits the meaning to the text and still sees the distinction as being between believing and unbelieving Israel. His point is that it is only those within elect Israel who have had another election that receive salvation. Shedd\u2019s terminology would be the \u201csecond election,\u201d Murray prefers a different terminology for the distinction: \u201cthe elect of Israel and elect Israel\u201d. On this very point Murray further states that the remnant of Israel is that part of ethnic Israel which has \u201cobtained the righteousness of faith.\u201d Israel\u2019s national election did not guarantee the salvation of every individual Jew, for that was achieved only by grace through faith and by God\u2019s individual election.
\nIn Romans 9:25\u201333, Paul elaborated and proved his concluding statement of the previous section in verse 24: \u2026 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles. It is the spiritual seed of Abraham, comprised of both individual Jews and Gentiles, that have received salvation on the basis of grace through faith. That this would someday be the case was already predicted by the Old Testament prophets, and this is what Paul set out to show in verses 25\u201333.
\nHodge again goes beyond what Paul actually wrote. Paul\u2019s point has been that salvation is not on the basis of either merit or national descent, but only on the basis of sovereign grace. No Jew will be granted salvation simply on the basis of his Jewishness, but he, like the Gentile, must exercise faith. If Hodge simply meant that \u201cthe Jews, as Jews are rejected,\u201d in the realm of salvation on the basis of Jewishness, all would agree; but where Hodge goes further and overstates the statements of Paul is when he claims that the Jews as a nation have been rejected and no longer have a privileged national destiny.
\nShedd\u2019s comments on 9:24 also identify spiritual Israel as the elect that includes both Jews and Gentiles. In his comments on 9:30\u201331, Shedd asserts that the Jews as a nation have been rejected and are now \u201cthe objects of God\u2019s spiritual reprobation.\u201d Now it is the Gentiles who are \u201cthe objects of God\u2019s spiritual election.\u201d Of course, not every individual Gentile has been elected, and not every individual Jew has been rejected; but generally this is true, for the Gentiles were believing \u201cin multitudes\u201d and Jews were rejected \u201cin multitudes.\u201d Though Shedd uses different language than Hodge did, their conclusions are the same.
\nMurray still limits the true Israel, the true children, and the true seed to the Jews, though admittedly the promises contained in the Abrahamic Covenant had a broader scope to include Gentiles. While \u201cthe covenant promise\u201d was to include believing Gentiles, Murray did not include these Gentiles as belonging to the \u201ctrue Israel\u201d that Paul was speaking of in Romans. This is indeed a major departure from Covenant Theology in general, including Covenant Postmillennialism. It is a view Dispensationalists could agree with. That same theme continues in his comments on 9:27\u201329. The covenant promise did not \u201cguarantee the salvation of all ethnic Israel,\u201d but only of the remnant that believed. Later, Murray repeats: \u201cThis scripture demonstrates that God\u2019s promises do not pertain to the mass of Israel but are fulfilled in the remnant.\u201d
\nIn Romans ten, Paul continues his discussion on Israel. In chapter nine, he pointed out that Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus did not catch God by surprise, but was very much part of the divine plan. Furthermore, regardless of special national calling and privilege, salvation itself was never on that basis. Now, in chapter ten, Paul emphasizes that salvation is freely offered to all men, Jews and Gentiles, and every individual who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (v. 13). In Romans 10:1\u201310, Paul points out that it was Israel\u2019s failure to submit to God\u2019s way of salvation that led to their rejection of the salvation through Jesus the Messiah.
\nImportant to Israelology is Paul\u2019s statement in Romans 10:4: For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth. The Greek word translated end may mean two things: that the Messiah was the \u201cgoal\u201d of the law, i.e., the intent of the law was to point the Jew to the Messiah; or, it may also mean \u201ctermination,\u201d i.e., that with Messiah\u2019s death, the law was terminated for some reason or in some way. As with Dispensationalists, Hodge states that Christ terminated the law by fulfilling it; but here the agreement stops. Hodge does not limit the \u201claw\u201d of verse four to the Mosaic Law but expands it to mean \u201cthe whole rule of duty prescribed to man\u201d of which the Law of Moses was only a part. Yet in this context where Paul is concerned with Jewish issues and the Pharisaic viewpoint of the law, it seems more true to the text to make the law of verse four the Law of Moses. Furthermore, Hodge makes this law the covenant of works, which in Covenant Theology is \u201ca rule of justification,\u201d so it was the covenant of works which was abolished and not the Law of Moses. With this, too, the Dispensationalists would take issue. Hodge states that the \u201claw is abolished by Christ, not as a rule of life, but as a covenant prescribing the condition of life.\u201d Dispensationalists, however, would maintain that the law of verse four is the Law of Moses, which was given to Israel as a rule of life and never as a means of justification, and that the rule of life prescribed by the Law of Moses has been abolished by Christ. Hodge, however, is correct when he states that the law of verse four was abolished, not by destroying it, but by fulfilling it. However, to say that the law as a covenant of works was a way of salvation, as Hodge here implies, borders dangerously on the concept of more than one way of salvation. The law was not abolished \u201cin order that all who believe may be justified,\u201d for justification by faith was achieved by all believers before the law was terminated by Christ. Even under the law there was no justification apart from faith. The Law of Moses was the rule of life for the Old Testament saint, and it was abolished by Christ\u2019s fulfillment of it so that it is no longer the rule of life for the New Testament saint. As in his Systematic Theology, Hodge still remains unclear as to the place of the Law of Moses in relationship to Israel and in relationship to the Church.
\nHodge takes the position that Christ was the end of the law in the sense of \u201ctermination,\u201d that is, with Christ the law came to an end. Shedd, while not dismissing Hodge\u2019s view nor the view that sees the end as the \u201caim\u201d of the law, prefers a third option: end in the sense of \u201cfulfillment,\u201d in that Christ did fulfill all the requirements of the law.
\nMurray begins his discussion on this verse by stating his objection to one common interpretation, that end means purpose (i.e., that the purpose of the law was fulfilled in Christ) and gives four reasons for it. Murray opts for the meaning \u201ctermination,\u201d that Christ is the termination of the law, and this is the view of most Dispensationalists. However, Murray maintains that the law mentioned here is not the Law of Moses, but \u201cthe most general sense of law-righteousness,\u201d and of law as a commandment that is \u201cdemanding obedience.\u201d Dispensationalists would insist that this is specifically the Law of Moses that has been terminated. Since the context is dealing with Israel, it is only logical that when Paul says \u201claw\u201d without any qualifications, then the meaning to a Jewish mind would be that of the Law of Moses.
\nImportant to Israelology is Paul\u2019s statement in verse 12: For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek \u2026 Many have quoted this verse to teach that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have been erased in this age of grace. This has been true among both Covenant Theologians and Dispensationalists, though this concept is a contradiction of the latter\u2019s basic premise. In this context, the specific area where there is no difference is in the area of salvation. This is as far as Hodge carries it as well. Murray, very careful to stick with the text and context, limits the \u201cno distinction\u201d to the way of salvation: that both Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. There is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles as far as \u201csin and condemnation\u201d is concerned, and as far as \u201copportunity of salvation\u201d is concerned. \u201cGod justifies Jews and Gentiles through faith.\u201d Murray goes no further, for the text goes no further. As far as Murray did go, Dispensationalists can agree with him.
\nAlthough the way of salvation is the same for both Jews and Gentiles without distinction, Israel as a nation rejected this way according to 10:16 on which Murray comments:<\/p>\n
At verse 16 the apostle returns to that subject which permeates this section of the epistle, the unbelief of Israel \u2026 Although stated in a way that would hold true if only a minority had been disobedient, yet the mass of Israel is viewed as in this category.<\/p>\n
As a result, according to 10:19, the Gentiles received the gospel to provoke the Jews to jealousy. Important to Israelology is the identification of the \u201cno nation\u201d with whom God will provoke Israel. Murray does not identify this group with any individual nation, but says it is a group composed of \u201call peoples\u201d and \u201cstrangers and aliens.\u201d Though Murray does not say so specifically, there is little doubt that he would identify this group as the Church. With this, Dispensationalists would also agree.
\nNot even once in this chapter did Paul say that God has forever \u201ccast off\u201d or \u201crejected\u201d Israel. Yet Hodge still insists that this is the case as his comments on verse 19 show. Hodge is again guilty of reading more into Paul\u2019s statement than what Paul actually wrote. To say that God would someday provoke the Jews to jealousy with a \u201cno people\u201d does not by itself intimate \u201cthat the Jews were in no such sense the people of God,\u201d and so were \u201ccast off\u201d while others were called. All that this verse states is that God will provoke the Jews to jealousy with a \u201cno nation\u201d comprised of Gentiles who have found the way of salvation. The goal of this provoking to jealousy is spelled out by Paul in chapter 11; but to conclude from this statement that God has rejected and cast off the Jewish people goes beyond the simple words of the verse.
\nHodge concludes his discussion on chapter ten by commenting on verse 21 that Israel a no longer the people of God. One would agree that according to this chapter the Jews were no longer the exclusive people of God, and the way of salvation was open to all, both Jews and Gentiles; but this is all that can be concluded from Paul\u2019s words. God\u2019s outstretched hand to Israel is evidence that God may still have a future for the Jewish nation as a nation.
\nIn his comments on 10:20\u201321, Murray states that in spite of Israel\u2019s rejection, God loves Israel still. Israel has indeed failed, but this is not \u201cthe terminus of God\u2019s lovingkindness to Israel.\u201d
\nIn Romans 11:1\u201310, Paul points out that although the majority of the Jews have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, not all did: a segment of the Jewish people, a remnant, have and do believe. In the first verse, Paul clearly contradicts what Hodge has been claiming: I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. As clearly as it can be stated, Paul claims that the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah (as brought out in chapters nine and ten) in no way indicates, implies, or means that God, in turn, rejected or cast off the Jewish people. Hodge\u2019s comments on Paul\u2019s statement are still insistent that God has rejected the Jews as a nation. He obviously approaches the passage with his theology intact and must fore Paul\u2019s wording to fit that preconceived theology. Yes, Hodge insists, God really did cast off his people as a nation! So how does Hodge deal with the text? By claiming that the national promises of Israel were never made to Israel as a nation, but only to the spiritual Israel. In his Systematic Theology, Hodge claimed that the spiritual Israel is the Church. God, indeed then, has not cast off his people. The \u201cpeople\u201d here are not the Jews as a nation, but the spiritual Israel which is the Church. This is good Covenant Theology, but poor exegesis. Surely, a Jew writing his people would have in mind the Jewish people as a whole and not the Church. Kept in context with chapters nine and ten, it is obvious that Paul must mean the Jewish people as his people. Paul\u2019s obvious point is that in spite of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiah, God has not rejected Israel, for they are still his people. Yet Hodge reads into this statement that \u201cthe rejection of the Jews as a nation, was consistent with all that God had promised to their fathers.\u201d Hodge only allows Paul to say that God has not rejected the Jews totally, for there are Jews who affirm the Messiahship of Jesus. God did not reject \u201call Israel,\u201d but he did reject Israel as a nation. Hodge\u2019s statement that the \u201cpromises did not secure the salvation of all Jews, or of the Jews as a nation\u201d is true; but this truth is not evidence that God has rejected the Jews as a nation.
\nAs with Hodge, Shedd affirms that Israel\u2019s rejection is not total, for some Jews are \u201celected and saved.\u201d Like Hodge, Shedd also points out that the rejection of the Jaws is not final, but has a twofold goal: the salvation of the Gentiles, and a national salvation of Israel thereafter. This is good traditional Postmillennialism. What Hodge refers to as \u201cthe rejection of the Jews,\u201d Shedd refers to as \u201cthe reprobation of the Jews.\u201d Commenting on 11:1, Shedd reaffirms that while God did reject the Jews as a nation, he did not \u201cthrust (them) out entirely\u201d so as to allow for no exceptions so that \u201cJews were now entirely alienated from the kingdom of God.\u201d While the verse seems to say that God did not cast off his people, both Hodge and Shedd reach the opposite conclusion: that God really did cast off his people, but only the majority and not in totality. Both Hodge and Shedd fail to distinguish between Israel\u2019s national rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus as over against God\u2019s national rejection of Israel. The first point is affirmed by Scripture, but the second is not. In fact, it is denied by Paul\u2019s words in 11:1.
\nMurray\u2019s interpretation follows the same line of thinking as other Postmillennialists. He interprets this verse to mean that God has not totally cast off his people, though he has cast them off as a nation.
\nIn verse two, Paul reaffirms what he said in verse 1: God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. A simple reading of this sentence would reaffirm that God has not cast off the Jewish people. After admitting that his people might mean \u201cthe Jewish nation,\u201d Hodge chooses to go another way, for his own theology forces him to do so. Hodge declares that \u201cGod has indeed rejected his external people, the Jewish nation as such, but he has not cast away his people whom he foreknew.\u201d Since his people is not the Jewish nation, then they must be \u201cthe elect, his spiritual people, or the true Israel.\u201d In other words, as Hodge has already shown elsewhere, it is the Church. God\u2019s promises were not unfulfilled, for they really concerned the true Israel, i.e., the Church. External Israel has, indeed, been rejected; but what Paul actually means in verses 1\u20132 is that the spiritual Israel has not been rejected! Hodge has already admitted that Paul never stated that God has cast off the nation of Israel, but he claims that this is what Paul implied in the two previous chapters. Now building on a mere implication, Hodge is literally forced to make the text say the exact opposite of what is clearly stated.
\nShedd\u2019s claim that God did cast off Israel as a nation, but not entirely, is repeated in his commentary on 11:2. Shedd interprets his people as referring to physical Israel. The verse then states that God has not cast off his people. Yet Shedd states that God really did do so, and that the point of this verse is that the Jews were not cast off entirely. Rather, the very fact that the Jews were his people nationally clearly implies that God would still elect, call, and save some Jews.
\nThe same point is made by Murray in his comments on 11:2, where he also deals with the meaning of his people. Hodge\u2019s view is that his people refers only to the believing remnant and not to Israel as a whole. Murray points out that to make his people mean one thing in the first verse and another in verse two is inconsistent exegesis. If the his people of verse one means \u201cIsrael as a whole,\u201d then this must also be its meaning in verse two. Murray, differing from Hodge, takes his people in both verses to mean the whole of Israel, not just the believing remnant. In fact, Paul\u2019s point is that \u201cit is the election of a remnant from Israel that offers proof that God had not cast off Israel as a people.\u201d This statement by Murray seems to contradict his earlier assertion that God did cast off his people as a nation. However, Murray later qualifies his statement by saying: \u201cSo in the present instance the election of grace is the demonstration that Israel as a people had not been completely cast off by God\u201d (italics added). The issue is that Israel has not been \u201ccompletely\u201d cut off. Nevertheless, for a Dispensationalist, Murray\u2019s exegesis is more acceptable than that of Hodge.
\nMurray makes another interesting statement in his comments on 11:4:<\/p>\n
This example is adduced to prove that God had not cast off Israel as his chosen and beloved people. The import, therefore, is that the salvation of a small remnant from the total mass is sufficient proof that the people as a nation had not been cast off.<\/p>\n
Murray vacillates between Israel being cast off or not cast off, and he does not always emphasize that the issue is one of totality, though that is his position as stated earlier in his commentary. It is not always stated clearly, and the above quote by itself would imply that Murray does not believe that Israel has been cast off as a nation. However, based on his earlier comments, Murray probably means to say that they have not been cast off \u201ccompletely,\u201d to the point that no Jews can be saved. What Murray does affirm is that the Jews as a nation are still the chosen people.
\nIn verse five, Paul points out that even today, as in Elijah\u2019s day, there is a believing Jewish remnant: Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Hodge does make the remnant here a Jewish remnant and not the Church as a whole, and this is consistent with the context; but he still insists that this remnant only means that \u201cthe rejection of the Jews was not total.\u201d Insofar as the nation is concerned, \u201camidst the general defection of the Jews, and the consequent rejection as a people, there is a remnant \u2026 that is, graciously chosen.\u201d Paul used the evidence of the existence of a Jewish remnant to prove that God did not cast off the nation. Hodge does the exact opposite. The existence of the remnant is the evidence that God did cast off Israel as a nation and by grace chose to save a few. The existence of a believing Jewish remnant is Paul\u2019s evidence that God has not cast off His people.
\nShedd also sees this as evidence that God has not cast off His people totally; but as a nation, God has cast them off.
\nCommenting on 11:5\u20136, Murray states that God did reject his people, but he did not do so \u201cutterly,\u201d as evidenced by the existence of a remnant. Also important to Israelology is that among the Jews, there will always be a believing remnant no matter how \u201cwidespread may be Israel\u2019s unbelief and apostasy.\u201d In fact, according to Murray, the existence of such a remnant is a \u201cnecessity\u201d because of the fact of Israel\u2019s national election, \u201cthat Israel God had loved and elected.\u201d The very fact that Israel as a nation is his people guarantees that there will never be a total casting off. As a people, there has been a \u201crejection on God\u2019s part,\u201d except for this remnant. Because Israel as a nation is his people, there will always be a believing remnant. The seven thousand non-Baal worshippers constituted this remnant in Elijah\u2019s day. The Hebrew Christians, or Jewish believers in the Messiahship of Jesus, constituted the remnant in Paul\u2019s day. Such a remnant will always exist. Furthermore, consistent with his previous exegesis, Murray does not make this remnant the Church as such (though he would certainly believe that they are part of the Church), but the segment of Israel the whole that believes, or in Murray\u2019s terms, \u201cthe distinctive segment of Israel defined by the election of grace.\u201d
\nIn his comments on 11:7, Shedd correctly delineates between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. Other Covenant Theologians distinguish between unbelieving Jews and the elect as a whole (as Shedd did in chapter 9); but here he is more true to the text in that the distinction is between Israel the whole as over against Israel the remnant, i.e., that portion of Israel the whole that believes.
\nMurray simply reaffirms that Israel has been cast off because of unbelief, but not totally, for there is a remnant that does believe.
\nIn Romans 11:11\u201336, Paul concludes his discussion on Israel by pointing out that there was a divine reason why the plan of God included the rejection by Israel of the Messiah: Gentile salvation. Furthermore, a day will come when all the Jews will believe and be saved.
\nIf there is to be a future conversion of Israel as a nation, then why was Israel rejected? According to Hodge, the reason it was necessary for God to reject Israel as a nation was to facilitate the preaching of the gospel. A more natural interpretation of this verse is that, as a result of the national rejection by Israel of the Messiahship of Jesus, the gospel is now to go out to the Gentiles. There is no reason to infer a rejection of Israel to accomplish this divine purpose.
\nThe purpose of Gentile salvation, according to verse 11, is to provoke the Jews to jealousy so they, too, can be saved. Hodge sees this primarily as being in the future when, according to verse 26, all Israel will be saved. In the immediate context, however, it is better understood as a present goal rather than a future one. In verses 1\u201310, Paul taught that even today there is a believing Jewish remnant. The means by which Jews become part of that remnant is by being provoked to jealousy by Gentile believers in Jesus; but this is not to deny a future purpose as well.
\nAccording to Shedd, the divine purpose was that \u201cthe rejection of the gospel by the Jews led to its acceptance by the Gentiles,\u201d and \u201cthe rejection of the gospel by the Jews facilitated its progress in the Gentile world.\u201d As to how the rejection of the Jews improved the spread of the gospel, Shedd lists the same two reasons that Hodge did in his commentary.
\nMurray understood Paul as having taught that Israel did stumble and fall. Murray interprets this verse to mean that Israel did not stumble and fall just for the sake of falling, or falling as an end in itself. Rather, the purpose of Israel\u2019s stumbling and fall, according to Murray, is for the purpose of promoting Gentile salvation. This was \u201cthe overriding and overruling design of God in the stumbling and fall of Israel.\u201d Furthermore, Murray maintains that this Gentile salvation is itself a subordinate purpose to yet another one, which is to provoke the Jews to jealousy. The first purpose is \u201crepresented as subserving the saving interests of Israel.\u201d Murray derives several other conclusions which he enumerates, and all are important to Israelology. First, there is still an ethnic distinction between Jews and Gentiles so that not all distinctions between the two groups have been erased. This is a point that other Covenant Theologians would debate, but Dispensationalists would agree. Murray\u2019s basis is the statement, to provoke them to jealousy, which he sees as viewing \u201cthe salvation of Israel \u2026 in their distinct racial identity.\u201d Therefore, \u201cGod\u2019s saving design\u201d does \u201cembrace Israel as a racial entity.\u201d Murray agrees that there are no distinctions between Jews and Gentiles as far as spiritual privileges are concerned, and as far as receiving the benefits of Christ\u2019s resurrection are concerned; but he does not go so far as other Covenant Theologians by claiming that all distinctions have been erased. Second, the real ultimate purpose of Israel\u2019s stumbling and fall is not Gentile salvation, which is a subordinate purpose, but \u201cthe restoration of Israel\u2019s faith\u201d or Israel\u2019s national salvation. Third, the subordinate purpose of Gentile salvation is \u201cto provoke [the Jews] to jealousy\u201d in order that they may turn to faith in the Messiah Jesus. Fourth, Israel\u2019s unbelief was for the purpose of promoting \u201cthe salvation of the Gentiles\u201d; but this is not to prejudice \u201cIsrael\u2019s salvation; it is to promote the same.\u201d
\nAccording to verse 12, Israel\u2019s failure to believe has resulted in blessings for the Gentiles. Hodge would make this to mean that the rejection of Israel by God has resulted in blessings for the Gentiles. Hodge, a believer in Israel\u2019s future conversion, affirms that when the national salvation comes, it will bring even more blessedness:<\/p>\n
Now, if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness? Although there is considerable difficulty in fixing the precise sense of the several clauses of this verse, its general meaning seems sufficiently obvious. \u2018If the rejection of the Jews has been the occasion of so much good to the world, how much more may be expected from their restoration?\u2019 In this view it bears directly upon the apostle\u2019s object, which, in the first place, is to show that the restoration of the Jews is a probable and desirable event. There is in the verse a twofold annunciation of the same idea. In the first, the sentence is incomplete. \u2018If the fall of them be the riches of the world, how much more their recovery? if their diminishing, how much more their fulness?\u2019<\/p>\n
In his comments on 11:12, Shedd again reaffirms his belief in a future salvation of Israel:<\/p>\n
The Gentile world is enriched, indirectly, by the falling away of the Jews \u2026 If the rejection of the Jews has proved to be such a blessing to the Gentiles, then much more their future restoration will be a blessing to them.<\/p>\n
According to Murray, not only has Jewish unbelief promoted Gentile salvation, Jewish belief will someday lead to the riches of the Gentiles, which Murray takes to mean the same as the riches of the world, defined as \u201cthe salvation that has come to the Gentiles.\u201d The kingdom of God has been taken from the Jews; this is the loss of this verse. Murray also insists that their fulness must be Israel\u2019s fulness, since it applies to the same people whose was the stumbling, fall, trespass, and loss. He then defines the fulness as Israel \u201ccharacterized by the faith of Christ.\u201d Hence, what Paul contemplated in this verse is \u201cnothing less than a restoration of Israel as a people to faith, privilege, and blessing.\u201d That this would definitely occur was the firm faith of Murray\u2019s Postmillennialism. When this comes, it will mean \u201cfor the Gentiles a much greater enjoyment of gospel blessing than that occasioned by Israel\u2019s unbelief.\u201d Gentiles will enjoy this blessing \u201cin their distinctive identity as such,\u201d that is, as Gentiles. Murray is still careful to maintain a distinction between Jews and Gentiles where Paul maintained it. As for Israel\u2019s national salvation, \u201cthe conversion of Israel\u201d will be \u201con a scale commensurate with that of their earlier disobedience,\u201d meaning, the majority of the Jews will believe. As for what the \u201cgreater blessing\u201d will be in that day, Murray states that \u201cthe enlarged blessing would be the expansion of the success attending the gospel and of the kingdom of God.\u201d This is good Postmillennialism.
\nHodge\u2019s comments on verses 13\u201314 further elaborate his position that Gentile salvation is to lead to Israel\u2019s salvation.
\nIn his comments on 11:13\u201314, Shedd points out that Paul never stopped being interested in Jewish evangelism:<\/p>\n
Ver. 13, and 14, guard the Gentiles against a false inference from the foregoing, viz.: that the apostle felt no interest in the Jews \u2026 \u201cI magnify my office, indeed, but I wish to stimulate my brethren.\u2026 if so be that:\u201d he is not absolutely certain, yet is hopeful that the more he urged the evangelization of the Gentile, the more he should savingly benefit the Jews.<\/p>\n
Murray again reaffirms that while \u201cthe salvation of the Gentiles is thus the theme,\u201d this does not \u201cconflict with the interests of Israel\u201d; for the ultimate is \u201cIsrael\u2019s conversion.\u201d For that reason, Gentile salvation and Jewish salvation are interrelated, since the more that Gentile salvation \u201cis crowned with success,\u201d the more this furthers \u201cthe cause of Israel\u2019s salvation.\u201d Paul\u2019s massive work among the Gentiles still had the purpose of saving \u201csome\u201d Jews then and ultimately \u201ca mass restoration of Israel\u201d in the future. So far, Dispensationalists can agree: Gentile salvation is a means God has chosen for the restoration of the Jews; but what is the end of this restoration? On this point, Covenant Theologians and Dispensationalists part company.
\nWhen he comes to 11:15, Hodge, a Postmillennialist, interprets the last phrase to mean nothing more than a \u201cjoyful and desirable event.\u201d Premillennialists, both Covenant Theologians and Dispensationalists, would make this refer to Israel\u2019s restoration to her land and the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom.
\nThe relationship of Jewish reprobation to Gentile salvation and Gentile salvation to Jewish salvation is discussed in Shedd\u2019s comments on 11:15. The rejection of the Jews, or \u201cJewish reprobation,\u201d resulted in \u201cGentile reconciliation.\u201d Even so, \u201cthe conversion of the Jews\u201d will result in the fulness of the Gentiles. That, in turn, cannot help but \u201cresult in the greatest possible blessing to the Jews themselves.\u201d More than once, in keeping with traditional Covenant Postmillennialism, Shedd affirms that a day will come which will see a national salvation of Israel.
\nThe argument and line of reasoning that Murray developed from verses 11\u201314 are now concluded with his comments on 11:15. Again, the purpose of Gentile salvation is \u201cthe fulness of Israel.\u201d This was Paul\u2019s goal and why he labored so strenuously among the Gentiles. Murray reiterates what the theme of this section is: \u201cThe thesis in this section \u2026 is that the apostasy of Israel is not final.\u201d A day will come for Israel\u2019s fulness. For that reason, Paul pursued \u201chis ministry to the Gentiles and to glory in that office,\u201d for the more successful the ministry among the Gentiles, \u201cthe more Israel\u2019s salvation is promoted\u201d; and the salvation of Israel will mean a \u201cmore abundant blessing of the Gentiles.\u201d
\nIt is in this verse that Paul uses for the first time the expression \u201ccasting away\u201d in relationship to Israel. When Paul wrote, if the casting away of them \u2026, he obviously meant the Jews, but in a way that would not contradict the opposite statement in verses 1\u20132. Murray takes this casting away to mean a \u201crejection\u201d of \u201cthe mass of Israel,\u201d for the \u201ckingdom of God was taken from them.\u201d Murray has already explained the contradiction, that Paul\u2019s point in verses 1\u20132 is that God has not cast Israel off \u201ccompletely,\u201d though, as this verse states, he has cast them off. Hodge and Shedd believed that Israel was cast off to the point that Israel was no longer the people of God or the chosen people. Murray has consistently refused to do so thus far and has taken the casting off to apply mostly to the masses who are not recipients of election. In other words, those who are now the majority of believers are no longer Jews, but Gentiles. The way that God has cast off his people is that \u201cthe stumbling and trespass refer to the mass of Israel.\u201d The taking away of the kingdom of God and the giving of it to the Gentiles is the riches of the Gentiles. The casting away of Israel did not mean that Israel had ceased to be God\u2019s people, but it meant \u201cthe salvation of the Gentiles, the riches of the world, and the riches of the Gentiles.\u201d The casting away means \u201crejection from the favor and blessing of God and reflects therefore on the attitude of God to Israel and the relation he sustains to them.\u201d The emphasis of the casting away is \u201cupon God\u2019s attitude and action there.\u201d According to Murray, then, Israel has been cast off from the place of blessing and not from their position as his people. In light of what follows in this chapter (the Olive Tree), Murray\u2019s explanation as to what constitutes the casting away is consistent with the context. In keeping with his definition of the casting away, Murray defines the receiving to mean \u201cthe reception of Israel again into the favour and blessing of God,\u201d and the emphasis is \u201con the changed attitude of God to the mass of Israel.\u201d Israel\u2019s fulness is to be restored back to the place of blessing, not to become his people again since they never left that position.
\nIn verse 16, Paul begins to use illustrations to picture his teaching. His first illustration is a comparison of the firstfruits and the lump, the root, and the branches. To Hodge, this first illustration also points to a future salvation of the nation of Israel.
\nIn commenting on 11:16, Shedd reaffirms that the Jews were the chosen people of God. The reason a national salvation of Israel is to be expected is because \u201cthe Jews were the chosen people of God.\u201d The firstfruits are identified by Shedd as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were \u201cJewish patriarchs and their descendants (who) all stood in the same covenant relation to God, as the chosen people.\u201d It is because of \u201cthis original relation\u201d that it can be anticipated that Israel as a nation will be saved. This national salvation, however, will not result in a restoration of Israel as a saved nation in the land, but it will result in \u201ctheir admission into the Christian Church.\u201d It is the fact of Israel\u2019s outward or external calling that justifies the expectation of a future inward calling of Israel. As Shedd put it earlier, their first election is a good reason to believe in their second election.
\nAccording to Murray, the first illustration is interpreted to represent the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is with these that the Abrahamic Covenant was made. Jews are descendants of these three men. For Murray, that is another reason that there \u201ccannot be irremediable rejection of Israel\u201d and why there must be an \u201cultimate recovery of Israel.\u201d
\nIn verses 17\u201324, Paul gives a second illustration of the Olive Tree with roots, natural branches, and wild olive branches grafted in. The proper identification of what these things symbolize is crucial to Israelology.
\nBoettner identifies the Olive Tree as being Israel in the Old Testament, and the Church in the New Testament. He concludes that there is only one people of God, for \u201cIsrael and the Christian Church are not two distinct olive trees, but one.\u201d True, there is only one Olive Tree; but it can be seriously questioned that this Olive Tree represents Israel and the Church equaling one people of God, and Boettner never proves this identification. Furthermore, he fails to make the clear distinction that Paul did between natural branches (Jews) and wild olive branches (Gentiles). His closing statement is: \u201cA clearer illustration of the continuity of the Old Testament Israel into the New Testament Church could hardly be imagined.\u201d A great deal of unproven assumptions have gone into that very statement, and Boettner is guilty of using his own imagination in making his identification so certain. It is true that Gentile Christians were grafted into the Olive Tree in order that they might enjoy the \u201cfullness of blessing\u201d and that, as a result, they are enjoying Jewish spiritual blessings (Paul\u2019s point in Eph. 2:11\u201316); but these Gentile believers are never called \u201cNew Testament Israelites\u201d as Boettner refers to them. This is reading one\u2019s theology back into the text, as is the statement: \u201cThus Christian believers originally were and continue to be New Testament Israelites, and the New Covenant relates exclusively to them.\u201d The evidence simply does not warrant such a dramatic conclusion.
\nHodge interprets the tree to represent the Church, and here Dispensationalists will part company. In his comments on verse 17, Hodge identifies the root to be the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. With this, Dispensationalists would agree, but would take issue with Hodge that \u201cthe ancient theocracy was merged in the kingdom of Christ\u201d or that \u201cthe latter is but an enlargement and elevation of the former,\u201d for to Hodge this is the Church. This identification of the Olive Tree with the Church arises out of Hodge\u2019s Covenant Theology which only allows for one people of God, or as Hodge states: \u201cThere has, therefore, never been other than one family of God on earth.\u201d Hodge\u2019s commentary on verse 18 identifies the natural branches as Jews and the wild olive branches as Gentiles. He views the natural branches as being Jews as a people that have been cut off, and the wild branches as being Gentiles as a people who may also be cut off. Others interpret these branches as Jewish and Gentile individuals. Jews who believe are in the Olive Tree, and Gentiles who believe are in the Olive Tree; but Jewish and Gentile individuals who do not believe are then \u201ccut off\u201d. Even if they are taken to refer to two classes of people, being \u201ccut off\u201d from the Olive Tree is not the same as being rejected by God \u201cwithout hope in this world or the next.\u201d Crucial is the issue of what exactly the Olive Tree itself represents. Hodge\u2019s comments on verse 23 again identify the Olive Tree as representing the Church. His exposition on verse 24 concludes that there will be a future conversion of the Jews as a nation. He reiterates his belief that there will be a restoration of the Jews to the Olive Tree, but sees it as being a restoration \u201cto the blessings of the church of God.\u201d
\nShedd interprets the Olive Tree as being the place of blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than the Church as such. Here he would depart from Hodge and other Postmillennialists, but it is an interpretation that many Dispensationalists would feel comfortable with. In his comments on 11:20, Shedd points out that not only can Jews be removed from the place of blessing, but so could Gentiles in the same way\u2014by unbelief. Since \u201cunbelief was the reason for this rejection of a part of the Jews,\u201d therefore \u201cthere is no security for the Gentile\u201d; for on the basis of unbelief, they, too, can be removed. Shedd says even more along this same vein in his commentary on 11:21.
\nMurray identifies the Olive Tree as representing Israel, but he identifies the broken natural branches as being Israel as well. It would seem better to distinguish the two. It might be wiser to follow the interpretation of Shedd and see the Olive Tree as being the place of blessing from which Jewish natural branches are broken off. Murray inexplicably makes the two the same. The wild olive branches are identified as Gentile believers. When Murray comments more specifically on 11:17\u201321, he comes close to seeing the Olive Tree as representing the place of blessing. He says the place into which the Gentile wild olive branches were grafted is a place of \u201cprivilege.\u201d They have been grafted among them, meaning believing Jews who have retained their place in the tree. This is \u201cthe remnant according to the election of grace.\u201d The place of privilege that the Gentiles are now enjoying is one of \u201cintimate association with Jews.\u201d Murray\u2019s comments that \u201cGentiles are reminded that they draw all the grace they enjoy from the tree whose root is Israel\u2019s patriarchs,\u201d and that \u201cGentiles and Jews partake together of the privilege that stems from the same root,\u201d bring him very close to reinterpreting the Olive Tree as being the place of blessing rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant rather than being Israel as such. On 11:18 he again speaks of the Olive Tree as \u201cthe place of privilege and honour.\u201d Furthermore, these Gentiles occupy their place \u201cin the kingdom of God by the displacement of Israel\u201d; but any boasting or arrogance on the part of the Gentiles is condemned. Furthermore, the Gentiles can also be removed from the Olive Tree, and the broken Jewish branches can be grafted back in. On this, Murray elaborates in his comments on 11:23\u201324. He emphasizes the regrafting of the Jewish natural branches into \u201cthe privileged position\u201d that mostly Gentiles now occupy. He teaches that those Gentiles who think that Israel, once cut off, cannot be grafted back, do not understand the power of God. However, it is only natural that this should occur, since it is their own olive tree; that is, the Olive Tree belongs to the Jews.<\/p>\n
C. Israel Future<\/p>\n
1. Eschatology and the Prophecies of Israel\u2019s Restoration<\/p>\n
The Postmillennialist equation of the Church with Israel is the presupposition by which prophetic passages in both testaments are interpreted. On that basis, Postmillennialists deny that there is to be a final restoration of Israel into the land. Many prophetic passages that speak of the Jews or Israel are interpreted as being, or will be, fulfilled in the Church. Hodge presents six arguments why there can be no final restoration of Israel to the land.
\nHodge\u2019s first argument is to state that the \u201cliteral interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies relating to the restoration of Israel and the future kingdom of Christ, cannot by possibility be carried out.\u201d It should be pointed out that Hodge did insist on a literal interpretation of the prophecies that concern the national salvation of Israel, but resorts to an allegorical approach concerning the restoration prophecies. Hodge\u2019s main reason for this is that the same passages which speak of a restoration to the land also speak of the re-establishment of the Mosaic-Levitical sacrificial system. Since the New Testament teaches that the Mosaic system has come to an end and will not be reinstituted, it is, therefore, necessary to take the prophecies on the restoration of the sacrifices as allegorical and also the prophecies concerning the restoration to the land. If that is true, then why not take the prophecies of the national salvation allegorically as well? This is exactly what the Amillennialist does. In this regard, he is more consistent than the Postmillennialist. Furthermore, Hodge\u2019s reasons are not convincing. It is true that the prophecies spoke of a restoration of a sacrificial system, but it is not true that that system is the Mosaic-Levitical system. Most commentators on the Book of Ezekiel point out that there are some major differences between what is described of the sacrificial system in the kingdom as over against the Mosaic-Levitical system. There are enough differences to show that the two systems are not the same. It is possible to agree with Hodge that the Mosaic-Levitical system has come to an end and will never be restored, but still insist on a literal interpretation of the prophecies of the restoration and of a sacrificial system. It is simply not true that the \u201cliteral interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies relating to the restoration of Israel and the future kingdom of Christ, cannot by possibility be carried out \u2026\u201d
\nHodge\u2019s second argument is based on his assumption that the Bible frequently uses allegories, and since these are allegorical or symbolic, so are the prophecies of the final restoration of the land. What Hodge lists as \u201csymbols\u201d are not necessarily so, and Hodge fails to prove that they are. He claims that the \u201cMessiah is often called David,\u201d and \u201cDavid\u201d here is a symbol of the Messiah. Yet these prophecies are better understood as a reference to the literal David. He claims that the Church is called Israel; but here Hodge is presupposing his theology, for he has failed to prove this contention. According to Hodge, the \u201cchurch is called Jerusalem, and Zion.\u201d This, too, is an unproven assumption. The few times that these terms are used symbolically, they refer to the New Jerusalem in heaven and not to the Church. In fact, the Church is listed as only one resident of several in the New Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22\u201324). it is simply not true that to the Jewish Christians of the early Church, \u201cZion and Jerusalem are the Church.\u201d That was not indelibly impressed on the minds of Jewish Christians of the first century, but upon Gentile Christians\u2019 minds of the Covenant Theology persuasion in subsequent centuries. Therefore, when Hodge reads \u201cZion\u201d or \u201cJerusalem,\u201d he thinks \u201cChurch.\u201d To accuse those who think of these terms as mostly a reference to an earthly Jerusalem of transmitting \u201cChristianity into the corrupt Judaism of the apostolic age\u201d borders on anti-Semitism.
\nHodge\u2019s third argument is based on what he perceives as constituting the true Israel: the Church. No one will debate that the New Testament teaches \u201cdidactically, in simple, unmistakable prose, that believers are the seed of Abraham\u201d; but Hodge\u2019s identification of this spiritual seed of Abraham as constituting the true or spiritual Israel is questionable. Not even the New Testament equates the seed of Abraham with Israel. Not all physical descendants of Abraham are Jews; most of them today are Arabs. Hodge operates from a faulty definition of what is a Jew. Jewishness was determined by descendency from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with Jacob being the most crucial. It was his name that was changed to \u201cIsrael.\u201d The New Testament never refers to believers as \u201cthe seed of Jacob\u201d which is what Hodge needs to prove his point. Yes, the Scriptures do speak of a spiritual Israel, but they do not equate the spiritual Israel with the spiritual seed of Abraham. All believers are the spiritual seed of Abraham, but that does not make them all \u201cspiritual Jews\u201d or \u201cspiritual Israel,\u201d any more than all physical members of the physical seed of Abraham are physical Jews or physical Israel. The \u201cspiritual Israel\u201d is not the Church as such, but as it is used in the New Testament, it speaks of Jews who believe. Jewish believers are the spiritual Israel of the New Testament. Hodge\u2019s claim that it \u201cwould turn the Gospel upside down \u2026 if what the Bible says of Israel should be understood of the natural descendants of Abraham to the exclusion of his spiritual children\u201d is simply not true. Hodge is building on a premise he nowhere proves, that the spiritual seed of Abraham or the Church is the same as spiritual Israel. Again, it is agreed that all believers constitute the spiritual seed of Abraham and that, in this age at least, this equals the Church; but it is not agreed that this is the same as the spiritual Israel of the New Testament, and Hodge fails to show that they are the same. It will not destroy Paul\u2019s argument or cause \u201chis whole system\u201d to collapse if it is maintained that the spiritual Israel constitutes Jewish believers, that the spiritual Israel is the believing remnant of Israel the whole. Rather, this is more in keeping with Paul\u2019s argument and statements. The evidence of this will be dealt with in the chapter on \u201cA Dispensational Israelology.\u201d
\nHodge\u2019s fourth argument is also based on a denial of the distinction between Israel and the Church. Here, Hodge confuses unity with uniformity. The fact that Jews and Gentiles are united into one body does not mean that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have been erased, Furthermore, Galatians 3:27\u201329, cited by Hodge, contextually concerns the way of salvation which is the same for both Jews and Gentiles. The same passage also teaches the same thing about male and female, and yet Hodge would hardly maintain that all distinctions between men and women are erased! The way of salvation is the same for both in this sense: there are no distinctions, for Jews, Gentiles, men and women are all saved the same way. Hence, Hodge\u2019s deduction that there \u201ccould not be a more distinct assertion that all difference between the Jew and Gentiles has been done away within the pale of the Christian Church\u201d goes well beyond the context of this text. Furthermore, Hodge\u2019s opening statement that the belief in a restoration of the Jews to their own<\/p>\n
means that they will constitute \u201ca distinct nation in the Christian Church\u201d presupposes the position of Postmillennialism. Those who believe in a final restoration of the Jews to the land, even those of the Covenant Theology persuasion, do not necessarily imply or believe that this restored Israel will constitute a distinct nation within the Christian Church. All Dispensationalists will deny it.
\nHodge\u2019s fifth argument reads:<\/p>\n
The Apostles uniformly acted on this principle. They recognize no future for the Jews in which the Gentile Christians are not to participate. As under the old dispensation proselytes from the heathen were incorporated with the Jewish people and all distinction between them and those who were Jews by birth, was lost, so it was under the Gospel. Gentiles and Jews were united in undistinguished and undistinguishable membership in the same Church. And so it has continued to the present day; the two streams, Jewish and Gentile, united in the Apostolic Church, having flowed on as one great river through all ages. As this was by divine ordinance, it is not to be believed that they are to be separated in the future.<\/p>\n
These are all pontifical statements that Hodge never tries to prove and for which he cites no texts. Divine ordinances do change; the sacrificial system was a divine ordinance, and Hodge did believe that that ordinance changed with the death of Christ. What may be true during one period of God\u2019s economy may not be true during another. Furthermore, the apostle Paul himself makes that separation in Romans 11:25\u201327 where he points out that after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, then all Israel shall be saved. Nothing is stated that they are then amalgamated into the Church and disappear as Jews.
\nHodge\u2019s sixth argument is based on a misunderstanding as to what those who believe in a literal restoration actually teach. Perhaps there were some in Hodge\u2019s day who taught that the restoration of Israel meant a position of pre-eminence over \u201cthe Church of the future,\u201d but that is not the position of mainline Premillennialism in either Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism. True, Israel will be \u201cthe head and not the tail\u201d over the Gentile nations, but this is not saying the same thing as being head over the Church. Hodge recognizes that the belief in a final restoration of Israel is very much a part of Premillennialism, but he objects to this on the grounds that there is no authority for this belief \u201cin the didactic portions of the New Testament.\u201d Hodge apparently would not consider Revelation 20:1\u201310 as being part of the \u201cdidactic\u201d portion of the New Testament, but Revelation 20 cannot be so easily dismissed. Nor can the Old Testament be Ignored where Moses and the prophets didactically taught the final restoration of Israel into all of the borders of the Promised Land. If the Old Testament is part of the canon of Scripture (and Hodge believed this), then a doctrine cannot be dismissed simply because it is found only in the Old Testament and not \u201cin the didactic portions of the New Testament.\u201d To claim that the apostles \u201cdid not exhort believers to look forward to a reign of wealth and power\u201d is to ignore clear New Testament statements to the contrary (e.g., Matt. 19:27\u201328; Rev. 2:26). To claim that Israel\u2019s pre-eminence in the kingdom is \u201copposed to the spirit of the Gospel\u201d is purely a subjective evaluation.
\nBoettner also interprets prophecy on the basis that the Church is Israel. Also, like Hodge, Boettner denies that there will ever be a literal restoration of the Jews to their land:<\/p>\n
When Ezekiel says that Israel is to be restored to her land forever (37:24\u201328), he indicates clearly that those words are not to be taken literally. He says: \u201cAnd my servant David shall be king over them \u2026 David my servant shall be their prince for ever\u201d (vv. 24, 25). Jeremiah likewise says that David is to be their king (30:9). If we take that literally, then David must be raised from the dead to be the millennial king in Palestine,\u2014David, and not Christ. The literalists say that David is here used as a symbol for Christ. But that is not what the Bible says. To take David as a symbol for Christ would be to \u201cspiritualize\u201d the prophecy away. If the other parts of the prophecy are literal this must be too.<\/p>\n
The way Boettner tries to escape the obvious meaning of Ezekiel\u2019s words is to point out that Ezekiel said two things: first, that the Jews would be restored to the land; and, second, that David would rule over them. According to Boettner, the second statement proves that the first is not literal; but how does it prove that? Boettner assumes that the second statement is symbolic, and, therefore, the first must be also. By itself that does not always follow. Furthermore, there is no reason to take the second statement allegorically since the literal makes good sense and the topic of resurrection had been spoken of earlier in the context. Boettner states that \u201cliteralists say that David is here used as a symbol for Christ.\u201d That blanket statement, however, is not true, and many literalists claim that David here is the resurrected David (e.g., Dr. Dwight J. Pentecost in Things to Come).
\nProphecy after prophecy is relegated as being fulfilled by the Church. The Church is now the whole program of God, as far as Boettner is concerned, for it is the Church that has been \u201cthe instrument of God in all ages.\u201d If there are unfulfilled promises to Israel, then one of two things has happened to those promises: they have either lapsed and will never be fulfilled, or they are being fulfilled through the Church. The Church \u201cis the true and legal successor to Israel,\u201d and Israel\u2019s promises will be fulfilled \u201con a higher and spiritual plane.\u201d Boettner\u2019s view is that Israel has \u201cceased to be a nation.\u201d He states dogmatically that there is \u201cno Old Testament prophecy or promise\u201d that remains to be fulfilled \u201ceither to a future Jewish nation or to the Jewish people as such.\u201d This is Covenant Theology with a vengeance!
\nIn another work Boettner makes a confession:<\/p>\n
This disagreement arises primarily because of the different methods of interpretation. It is generally agreed that if the prophecies are taken literally, they do foretell a restoration of the nation of Israel in the land of Palestine with the Jews having a prominent place in that kingdom and ruling over the other nations.<\/p>\n
His admission is that if one reads the Bible and accepts the literal meaning of the words, then the Dispensationalist is correct. He insists, however, that the Bible cannot be taken this way. To prove it, he claims that the Old Covenant, which is the Old Testament, has no bearing on the Church, and the Church can only teach what is taught in the New Testament:<\/p>\n
The old order died when Christ died. No requirements from the Old Covenant are binding on the Christian except the moral principles that are repeated in the New Covenant. The Old Testament is our history book. It is not our law book.<\/p>\n
Dispensationalism would limit this to the Mosaic Covenant, but Boettner applies it to the whole Old Testament. It is interesting to note that on this point, Boettner sounds like a Hyperdispensationalist! The main reason is that he wishes to avoid what the Old Testament prophets wrote about the Jews in the Messianic Kingdom. Boettner will not allow any teachings on Eschatology to come out of the Old Testament:<\/p>\n
For information concerning the first coming of Christ, we go to the Old Testament. He came exactly as predicted, and all of those prophecies were fulfilled or were forfeited through disobedience. But for information concerning his Second Coming and what future developments will be, we go only to the New Testament.<\/p>\n
It is Boettner\u2019s theology that forces him to limit any teaching on the second coming to the New Testament, because he is very uncomfortable with the clear Old Testament teaching on both a national salvation and a national restoration of the Jews. The New Testament never negated these Old Testament prophecies and promises. In fact, it assumed its truthfulness and future fulfillment (Acts 1:6\u20138) and emphasized instead the Church\u2019s mission for this age without restating what the Old Testament already taught. It is the silence in the New Testament that Boettner uses as evidence for his position. To maintain this position he must pontificate that \u201cfor information concerning his Second Coming and what future developments will be, we go only to the New Testament.\u201d
\nKik follows the same system of interpretation. The worldwide regathering prophecies, then, do not refer to literal Israel, but to the spiritual Israel which is composed of all the elect from all the nations in the world; for there is now \u201ca new Israel composed of the elect from all nations of the world.\u201d All those prophecies that speak of a regathering of the Jews to their land actually mean that \u201cthe elect would henceforth be gathered from the four winds, from one end of the heaven to the other.\u201d The obvious presupposition to all this is the standard Covenant Theology view which identifies Israel and the Church as being one and the same.
\nRushdoony provides many examples of how the actual words of Scripture are ignored and reinterpreted on the basis of Covenant Theology and the Church-equals-Israel hypothesis. His interpretation of the Book of Revelation provides many examples as was already shown with his interpretation of Revelation 7 and 12. In his comments on Revelation 20, he insists that any millennial hope is merely a revival of a false Jewish hope. Rushdoony admits there was Premillennialism taught in the early Church but dismisses it as \u201ca result of Judaizing influences,\u201d though it may have just as easily and perhaps more likely resulted from seeking to read the Scriptures normally and to interpret them literally. To follow Rushdoony\u2019s argument, every time Premillennialism arose in the Church, it was the fault of the Jews! The reason there was Premillennialism in the Reformation was because the Protestant clergy studied Hebrew with rabbis and were taught millennialism by them. (Perhaps a better explanation is that by learning Hebrew, they had a better understanding of the Hebrew Bible and, as a result, believed in a literal Millennium.) Becoming emotional again, Rushdoony attacks Dispensationalism for reviving the concept of a millennial Jewish kingdom and accuses Dispensationalism of teaching that \u201cthe atonement on the cross\u201d was \u201ca second-best plan for salvation,\u201d practically denying \u201cthe Christian faith,\u201d reviving Pharisaism, and offending the Saviour. This is not scholarship, but emotionalism coming from the pen of the leading exponent of Postmillennialism today. One can only ask if Rushdoony\u2019s theology is based on his negative attitude toward Jews, or if his theology led him to this negative attitude. Since most historical Postmillennialists reflect an attitude of love and concern for the Jews and pray for their national salvation, it can hardly be the latter. More likely, Rushdoony\u2019s negativism toward Jews has, to some degree, formed his theology.<\/p>\n
2. The National Salvation of Israel and Romans 11:25\u201333<\/p>\n
While denying a national restoration of Israel, Postmillennialists have generally believed in a national salvation of Israel. Kik and lain Murray have amassed documentation from many parts of Church history showing this to be the traditional view of the Church. Proponents of Postmillennialism believe in the national salvation of the Jews before the second coming of Christ. In Hodge\u2019s own words: \u201cIn Romans 11:25, Paul teaches that the national conversion of the Jews is not to take place \u2018until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.\u2019 \u201d The Covenant Premillennialist also believes in a national salvation of Israel but would not agree on its relationship to the establishment of the kingdom.
\nIn Covenant Postmillennialism the salvation of Israel is a necessary prerequisite to the second coming: \u201cThe second great event, which, according to the common faith of the Church, is to precede the second advent of Christ, is the national conversion of the Jews.\u201d Hodge first agrees that there will be a national salvation of the Jews and defends his thesis in four points. His four arguments for Israel\u2019s national salvation can be summarized as follows. First, previous prophecies concerning the Jews have been literally fulfilled, so it is natural to expect that the future prophecy of Israel\u2019s national salvation will also be literally fulfilled. Second, there has been a continuous cycle in which Israel disobeys God, is punished for disobedience, which leads to Israel\u2019s repentance, and that, in turn, brings restoration. Israel\u2019s present dispersion and suffering is a punishment for rejecting the Messiah. This last cycle will only be completed by Israel\u2019s national salvation and restoration to the Lord. Third, there are clear prophecies in the Old Testament that predict a national salvation, such as Zechariah 12:10\u201313:1. Fourth, it is also the teaching of the New Testament in Romans 11. Hodge concludes: \u201cThere is, therefore, to be a national conversion of the Jews.\u201d On this point Covenant Premillennialists and Dispensationalists will largely agree with Hodge; however, Covenant Amillennialists will not.
\nHodge also argues that this national salvation will occur before the second coming. Here, too, Covenant Premillennialists and Dispensationalists will agree, but Covenant Amillennialists will not. Furthermore, even when Covenant Premillennialists and Dispensationalists agree that Israel\u2019s national salvation must precede the second coming, they will not agree with Hodge as to the timing of these events in relationship to the Millennium. For Covenant Premillennialists and Dispensationalists, the national salvation and the second coming are in preparation for the Millennium. For Hodge, as for all Postmillennialists, this will only be after the Millennium.
\nThe one main passage which is the foundation for the belief in a national salvation of Israel in Postmillennialism is Romans 11:25\u201333, especially verses 25\u201327. Kik, for example, interprets these verses as speaking of a literal Israel, and, therefore, of the \u201cconversion of Israel after the flesh.\u201d This national conversion of Israel will take place after the mass conversion of the Gentiles, and it will result in riches for the Gentiles. Iain Murray shows that this passage was the basis for the Puritan hope for a national salvation and defends that position with his own exegesis.
\nTurning to the three postmillennial commentaries, they all support the traditional postmillennial view of Romans 11:25\u201333. Verses 25\u201326 are especially relevant to Israelology in general, and important for postmillennial Israelology. In verse 25, Paul wrote: For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Hodge takes this verse to mean:<\/p>\n
\u2026 a great and general conversion of the Jewish people, which should take place when the fulness of the Gentiles had been brought in, and that then, and not till then, those prophecies should be fully accomplished which speak of the salvation of Israel.<\/p>\n
While affirming a future conversion of the Jews as a nation, Hodge did not believe that this would include every individual Jew. Covenant Premillennialists and Dispensationalists agree with Hodge that there will be a future conversion of Israel as a nation, though there might be disagreement as to whether or not it will include all Jews living at that time; but both groups do not agree as to the timing of this conversion. The key issue here is the meaning of Paul\u2019s phrase, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. True to his Postmillennialism, Hodge interprets the phrase to refer to a mass conversion of Gentiles in the last days. Hodge\u2019s outline of the future is simple. First, Israel\u2019s blindness will continue until there is a mass turning of Gentiles to Christ. Second, after this mass turning of Gentiles, Israel\u2019s blindness will be removed and she will be saved as a nation.
\nWhen Shedd comes to Romans 11:25\u201327, he closely follows Hodge and other Postmillennialists by interpreting it as speaking of Israel\u2019s national salvation. On verse 25 Shedd, in keeping with his Covenant Theology, views this verse as speaking of \u201cthe future of the church, as composed both of Jews and Gentiles.\u201d While Postmillennialism believes in a national salvation of Israel, it does not teach a national restoration, only an amalgamation of saved Israel into the Church. The fact that \u201cthe reprobate are only a part of the Jews implies a time when the present apostasy and rejection of the mass of the Jews will cease,\u201d and Shedd interprets this verse as teaching that it will, indeed. Just as the fulness of the Gentiles implies a great number, the same must hold true for the Jews. As to the time of Israel\u2019s national salvation, this will follow, in keeping with Postmillennialism, \u201cthe Christianization of the globe.\u201d Following a mass conversion of Gentiles will come \u201cthe Christianization of the Jews.\u201d
\nThe understanding and interpretation of this verse and the next is especially crucial in delineating the Israelology of Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Premillennialism. For this reason, John Murray deals with it at length. First of all, he shows the importance of what Paul is about to say by emphasizing the \u201cmystery\u201d aspect of it. It is this aspect of the truth that makes what follows a great and precious truth. Second, the content of this mystery which has been hidden in the mind of God but now revealed is that a \u2026 hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in \u2026 (v. 25). Murray points out the two things which he has felt is the point of Romans 11 all along: first, the \u201chardening of Israel is partial not total\u201d; and, second, it is \u201ctemporary not final.\u201d The end product will be the salvation of Israel, already implied several times earlier. Third, Israel\u2019s \u201cpartial hardening \u2026 will have a terminus,\u201d and this terminus is when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. Fourth, the \u201cfulness of the Gentiles\u201d involves two things. First, it involves \u201cenlarged blessings for the Gentiles,\u201d Second, since be come in, according to Murray, means \u201centering into the kingdom of God and life,\u201d it speaks of \u201cGentiles entering into the kingdom of God\u201d; the \u201cfullness\u201d includes the concept of a mass of Gentiles entering into this kingdom still future to Paul\u2019s day.
\nMurray gives three reasons the amillennial understanding of verse 25, that the fulness of the Gentiles simply means the full complement of elect from among the Gentiles past, present, and future, is incorrect. Murray\u2019s first argument is based on the usage of fulness earlier in the chapter. Israel\u2019s fulness in verse 12 could not mean \u201cthe total elect of Israel,\u201d because in that verse fulness is contrasted with \u201cIsrael\u2019s trespass and loss.\u201d The fulness must, therefore, refer to the \u201cfaith and repentance of Israel.\u201d To interpret fulness merely as the \u201ctotal number of the elect of Israel or the number necessary to make up this total would not provide this contrast nor express the restoration which the passage requires.\u201d The usage of fulness in verse 12 is a contrast between \u201ca saved remnant\u201d and a \u201csaved mass.\u201d The amillennial interpretation fails to take this into account. Murray concludes: \u201cThe evidence is decidedly against it.\u201d Murray\u2019s second argument is that the very expression be come in is envisioned as something future. The amillennial approach would include those who have already come in, and Paul\u2019s future perspective rules out this view. Even if an alternative amillennial position is taken into account, that the fulness does not mean all elect Gentiles of all time but all elect Gentiles yet to be added, this too fails to account for the analogy of verse 12, which \u201cintimates a proportion such as supplies contrast with what goes before.\u201d Therefore, the issue is not merely an added number of Gentiles, but \u201ca greatly increased influx of Gentiles into God\u2019s kingdom.\u201d The amillennial approach simply does not take this into account. Murray\u2019s third argument is that the fulness of the Gentiles of verse 25 must be consonant with the fulness of Israel in verse 12. According to verse 12, Israel\u2019s fulness would result in \u201cthe greater expansion of the blessing \u2026 as the riches of the world and of the Gentiles.\u201d To merely interpret the fulness of the Gentiles as \u201cthe full tale of the elect of Gentiles\u201d would mean that \u201cthe fulness of Israel would terminate any further expansion among the Gentiles of the kind of blessing which verse 12 suggests.\u201d
\nMurray responds to objections to his postmillennial view of verse 25. His postmillennial interpretation would be flawed, says he, if the fulness of the Gentiles was interpreted to mean \u201cthe consummation of blessing for the Gentiles and leaves room for no further expansion of gospel blessing.\u201d This is the amillennial view of this verse, and if it were the correct meaning of the fulness of the Gentiles, then that would be a valid criticism; but Murray contends that this is not the proper understanding of the fulness of the Gentiles. This expression does denote \u201cunprecedented blessing\u201d for the Gentiles, but it does not exclude \u201ceven greater blessings to follow.\u201d From that perspective, the postmillennial understanding does not bring \u201cincoherence into Paul\u2019s teaching.\u201d
\nIn verse 26, Paul writes, and so all Israel shall be saved. Hodge\u2019s interpretation here is the same as in the previous verse:<\/p>\n
Israel, here, from the context, must mean the Jewish people, and all Israel, the whole nation. The Jews, as a people, are now rejected; as a people, they are to be restored. As their rejection, although national, did not include the rejection of every individual; so their restoration, although in like manner national, need not be assumed to include the salvation of every individual Jew. (All Israel) is not therefore to be here understood to mean, all the true people of God, as Augustin, Calvin, and many others explain it; nor all the elect Jews, i.e., all that part of the nation which constitute \u201cthe remnant according to the election of grace;\u201d but the whole nation, as a nation.<\/p>\n
Contrary to Covenant Amillennialism, Hodge interprets all Israel to be literal Israel and not the Church as such, though Hodge would say that once all Israel is saved, they will be amalgamated into the Church.
\nShedd rejects two other common interpretations of the meaning of all Israel and follows the traditional postmillennial view that it refers to literal Israel. For Shedd, as for Hodge, this verse refers to \u201cthe great mass or body of the nation, who are to be converted after the evangelization of the Gentile world.\u201d There is to be a reversal of the present condition. In the present state, the majority of the Jews \u201care blinded,\u201d \u201conly a remnant of them are among the spiritually elect,\u201d and \u201cthe nation as a whole is reprobate.\u201d \u201cWhen the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come into the church,\u201d then \u201cthe nation as a whole will then be spiritually elect and \u2018saved,\u2019 and only a fraction spiritually rejected.\u201d According to Shedd, then, the deliverance of verse 26 is not \u201cthe small fraction\u201d spoken of earlier, but \u201crefers to the future conversion of the nation as a whole.\u201d
\nThe amillennial interpretation of the Israel of this verse is that it is the Church, or the entire body of the elect. Murray rejects this interpretation as \u201cexegetically impossible.\u201d Since throughout the chapter Paul has been making a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, it would contradict the context to make the Israel of this verse anything other than \u201cethnic Israel.\u201d Therefore, the Israel here \u201ccould not possibly include Gentiles,\u201d for that reduces the preceding verse to an \u201cabsurdity.\u201d Murray also refutes an alternate amillennial view of all Israel, which is that it means only \u201cthe elect of Israel\u201d or \u201cthe true Israel in contrast with Israel after the flesh.\u201d The first reason is that it is too obvious that \u201call the elect of Israel, the true Israel, will be saved,\u201d so to assert this truth at this point \u201cwould have no particular relevance\u201d to what Paul is actually saying. Furthermore, the fact that the elect are going to be saved is a clearly revealed truth that would not qualify as a \u201cmystery,\u201d but the salvation of all Israel as ethnic Israel would. The second reason is that this interpretation implies \u201cno more than the salvation of a remnant of Israel in all generations\u201d; but this verse \u201cbrings to a climax\u201d something Paul has been leading up to, and this is not that all the elect of Israel will be saved. Rather, he is dealing with \u201cthe climactic developments for Jew and Gentile\u201d in \u201cGod\u2019s plan of salvation.\u201d The third reason is based on the sequential relationship between verses 25 and 26. The point of verse 25 is that \u201cthe hardening of Israel is to terminate and that Israel is to be restored.\u201d The point of verse 26 is to positively state the fact of Israel\u2019s national salvation. This is Israel\u2019s fulness, Israel\u2019s receiving, and Israel\u2019s \u201cgrafting in again.\u201d To make the Israel of verse 26 mean anything other than a reference to Israel\u2019s national salvation is \u201cexegetical violence.\u201d In a footnote on this verse, Murray points out further why trying to interpret Romans 11:25\u201326 by Galatians 6:16 (the Israel of God) is untenable:<\/p>\n
It is impossible to entertain an exegesis which takes \u2018Israel\u2019 here in a different sense from \u2018Israel\u2019 in verse 25\u201d \u2026 It is of no avail to appeal, as Calvin does, to Gal. 6:16. In the present passage there is the sustained contrast between Israel and the Gentiles. There is no such contrast in the context of Gal. 6:16.\u2026 Besides, how anticlimactic in this context would be the general truth implicit in all of Paul\u2019s teaching that all the elect will be saved!<\/p>\n
Murray did understand the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16 to include both Jews and Gentiles. The last section of this work will try to show that such an identification of the Israel of God is not necessary. Nevertheless, Murray\u2019s point is well taken. The Israel of Romans 11:26 cannot be interpreted by the Israel of Galatians 6:16 since the contexts of the two passages are different. Furthermore, regardless of the meaning of the Israel of God of Galatians, in Romans 11 \u201cthere is the sustained contrast between Israel and the Gentiles,\u201d so including the Gentiles as part of the Israel of verse 26 renders the contrast meaningless.
\nMurray then proceeds to give his interpretation as to the meaning of all Israel. The expression all Israel shall be saved is interpreted by Murray to be the national salvation of Israel, or in Murray\u2019s words, \u201cthe fulness, the receiving, the ingrafting of Israel as a people, the restoration of Israel to gospel favour and blessing and the correlative turning of Israel from unbelief to faith and repentance.\u201d However, Murray does not interpret all to mean every Jew living after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. His reasoning is that \u201cthe salvation of Israel must be conceived of on a scale that is commensurate with their trespass, their loss, their casting away, their breaking off, and their hardening, commensurate, of course, in the opposite direction.\u201d In other words, when God cast off Israel, He did not include every individual Jew, for there was a remnant according to the election of grace. It did include the majority of the Jews, however. By the same token, all Israel means that the majority will be saved, but a minority will persist in unbelief. It is the \u201cmass of Israel\u201d that will be saved. What Murray does not take into consideration is the fact that the term all was not used with casting away. Paul never said \u201cthe casting away of all of them.\u201d He consistently maintained that (1) God has not cast away His people; (2) the majority have not believed in the Messiahship of Jesus; and, (3) a minority or a remnant have believed. In light of the absence of a \u201ccasting all away,\u201d it might very well mean that all Jews of that time will be saved. Furthermore, Paul has been making another contrast besides that of Jews and Gentiles. The second contrast has been between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. As this contrast was developed, it included the concept that during this time only \u201csome\u201d Jews believe; but in the future \u201call\u201d Jews will believe. Murray\u2019s final point on the issue of all Israel will be saved is that this phrase cannot be interpreted as merely \u201cthe relative proportion of saved Jews in the final accounting of God\u2019s judgment,\u201d an amillennial interpretation. This event is a future one. With this, both Covenant Premillennialists and Dispensationalists would agree while Amillennialists would not.
\nOn 11:27, Shedd repeats his view of the chronology of future events: first, there must be the conversion of the Gentile world as a whole; and, second, then will come the conversion of the Jews as a whole. He also emphasizes that there is no specific timing for these events. Obviously, if the first event must precede the second, and the second event must precede the second coming, then the Millennium is a long, long way off.
\nWhen Murray comes to 11:27, he shows what the basis of Israel\u2019s national salvation is. The reason that there must be a national salvation of Israel is because of the nation\u2019s covenantal relationship with God. \u201cThe future restoration of Israel is certified by nothing less than the certainty belonging to covenantal institution.\u201d Once again, Murray affirms that Israel is still the people of God, and its covenantal relationship to God still holds. Because it does, the future national salvation is assured.
\nHaving stated things about the future of Israel in verses 25\u201327, Paul returns to the present situation in verses 28\u201332. Because of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus, Paul in verse 28 states that Israel has become the enemy of the gospel, but nevertheless is still beloved by God. Hodge\u2019s covenantalism forces him to make an unnatural disjunction of the two phrases. Paul, speaking of the same single entity, says they are both enemies and beloved; but Hodge, to be consistent in his view, makes the first part a reference to the present Israel, presently rejected by God. The beloved election is the future Israel that will be saved.
\nIn his interpretation of 11:28, Shedd states that the basis for this future national salvation is the Abrahamic Covenant. For Shedd, this is a summary \u201cconcerning the temporary rejection and final election of the Jews.\u201d The rejection was in order to facilitate and hasten \u201cthe entrance of the Gentiles into the church\u201d; but because \u201cGod still remembers his covenant with Abraham,\u201d he intends \u201cto bring into the church the great body of his descendants.\u201d Again, Israel\u2019s national salvation will result in her amalgamation into the Church.
\nIn his comments on 11:28, Murray explains in what way the Jews have become enemies. Murray softens what initially appears to be a harsh statement about Jews. To say that the Jews \u201care enemies\u201d is not to be understood as subjective hatred of either Jews toward Gentiles or Gentiles toward Jews. This enmity is a positional one: \u201cthe alienation from God\u2019s favour and blessing.\u201d According to Murray, enemies means the same thing as the casting away. Enemies means the same thing as the \u201crejection of Israel.\u201d By the same token, they are beloved for the fathers\u2019 sake, that is, they are beloved by God because God\u2019s covenant was made with the fathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and this status is also a positional one. The above explanation would mean that Israel is both rejected by God and beloved by God at the same time. Murray states that Israel as a nation is \u201cboth \u2018enemies\u2019 and \u2018beloved\u2019 at the same time.\u201d They are enemies in relationship to the gospel, but they are beloved in relationship to the election. Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus means that \u201cthey have been cast away\u201d and so have become \u201cenemies.\u201d The result of this is that \u201cthe gospel had been given to the Gentiles.\u201d Their relationship to the patriarchs means that \u201cthey were beloved.\u201d This means, according to Murray, \u201cthat God has not suspended or rescinded his relation to Israel as his chosen people in terms of the covenants made with their fathers.\u201d Murray points out that the election of this verse is not an individual election, but the national election. Furthermore, this election is not only to the Remnant of Israel spoken of earlier, but \u201cIsrael as a whole.\u201d This election then \u201cis the election of Israel as a people.\u201d The point Murray is making is that positionally Israel is still the chosen people of God. There is no problem for Murray that Israel is both enemies and beloved at the same time. Because of Israel\u2019s unbelief, Israel has \u201cbeen broken off\u201d and are \u201cenemies\u201d in that sense; but because they are still the chosen people, \u201cGod still sustains his peculiar relation of love to them, a relation that will be demonstrated and vindicated in the restoration.\u201d Only an Amillennialist who teaches that Israel is no longer the chosen people would have a problem with \u201cenemies\u201d and \u201cbeloved\u201d being contemporaneous. Postmillennialists like Murray (but unlike Boettner) and Premillennialists of both stripes have no such problem and see this as the proper teaching of this text.
\nThe reason Israel is still around, according to verse 29, is: For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of. It would seem that since the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance, then God never rejected the Jewish nation and the real problem is Jewish unbelief; but Hodge maintains otherwise. He clearly sees this to be a reference to Jews as a nation and not to Jews as individuals. He applies the truth to Israel past and future while insisting that Israel present is cut off and rejected.
\nMurray sees this verse as once again affirming what the previous verse taught: that Israel is still the people of God. \u201cThe adoption, the covenants, and the promises in their application to Israel have not been abrogated.\u201d Israel is still the \u201ccovenantal\u201d people in spite of their unbelief.
\nShedd\u2019s comments on 11:32 summarize much of what he has already said:<\/p>\n
As the Gentiles, viewed as a whole, obtained the benefits of redemption, instrumentally, through the unbelief of the Jews, so the Jews, viewed as a whole, will hereafter obtain the benefits of redemption, instrumentally, through the belief of the Gentiles.<\/p>\n
Murray interprets 11:30\u201331 as simply restating several points made earlier. The points repeated are that: (1) Gentiles have become partakers of God\u2019s mercy, and their salvation was promoted by the disobedience of Israel; and, (2) it is by the mercy and salvation of the Gentiles that Israel\u2019s conversion is realized.
\nThe above discussion shows that Postmillennialism generally held to the belief in a national salvation of Israel. However, Boettner, a contemporary Postmillennialist, disputes this very cardinal point of mainline Postmillennialism. In his discussion on Romans 11:25\u201326, Boettner breaks with the Postmillennialism of Charles Hodge and with traditional Postmillennialism. Traditional Postmillennialism, as followed by the Puritans and as found in the writings of Charles Hodge, strongly taught a national regeneration of the Jewish people. While that might not have meant every individual Jew, this national salvation would at least include the majority of the Jewish people. Boettner deviates from this normal Postmillennialism and never mentions a national regeneration or salvation of Israel. Whereas Hodge and other Postmillennialists interpret the all Israel to refer to the Jews as a nation, Boettner rejects this view. He has already disallowed any distinction between the Jews and Gentiles and has already claimed that the Jews as a nation have ceased to exist. The all Israel is not a reference to a future conversion of Israel, but is \u201cthe sum total of the elect, God\u2019s people composed of both Jews and Gentiles.\u201d On this point, Boettner is closer to Amillennialism than to traditional Postmillennialism. Finally, Boettner identifies the all Israel or all the elect with the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16. He ignores the fact that Paul distinguished between two different groups in that verse: the them and the Israel of God. The them are the Gentile Christians who have followed Paul\u2019s admonition concerning salvation by grace through faith apart from works. The Israel of God refers to Jewish believers who follow that same rule. While affirming the possibility of salvation of individual Jews, Boettner denies that there will be any national salvation of the Jews at the end of the age. He challenges Covenant Premillennialism on its teaching that there will be a national salvation of Israel, though this was also a teaching of traditional Postmillennialism. Boettner concludes: \u201cWe see no special mission in the future for the Jews, other than that they individually, like those of all other nationalities, be converted to Christianity as the church progresses throughout the world.\u201d Boettner denies a future national salvation of Israel:<\/p>\n
That leaves no space for a future nationalistic conversion. In accordance with this the entire system of Judaism has been abrogated, finished, brought to an end; and the church has taken its place. The New Covenant is now the authoritative instrument for God\u2019s dealings with his people. This biblical doctrine of the covenants, in my opinion, renders impossible both the historic premillennial and the dispensational premillennial position. It is compatible with either the amillennial or the postmillennial position.<\/p>\n
D. Summary and Conclusions on the Israelology of Covenant Postmillennialism<\/p>\n
The Israelology of Covenant Postmillennialism is based on Covenant Theology, and that very fact limits its development of a complete Israelology. The covenant of grace, upon which Covenant Theology is based, allows for only one people of God, and this one group is the Church. Hence, all Jews who have ever believed, regardless of what point in history, before or after Christ, are part of the Church. All Jews who now believe are part of the Church. All Jews who will believe in the future, including the time of the national salvation of Israel, will be part of the Church. In fact, the Church is \u201cspiritual Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n
1. SUMMARY<\/p>\n
Israel Past<\/p>\n
The Church, being composed of all believers of all times, would have begun with Adam. With the call of Abraham and the development from him of a theocratic nation, the Church in its outward form became identified with the nation of Israel. The covenant God made with Abraham was an extension of the covenant of grace. The covenant of Sinai, containing the Law of Moses, was a rule of life for the Church and, as such, much of it still applies to the Church today. However, some things, like the Sabbath, require modifications and adjustments. From Moses until Christ the Church in its outward visible form was the nation of Israel, for Israel was the people of God, especially since most of the elect during this period were Jews.<\/p>\n
Israel Present<\/p>\n
The national relationship of Israel to the Church changed with the coming of Christ. When Israel rejected the Messiahship of Jesus, God in turn rejected Israel and cast them off. This rejection is not a total one, for there is a remnant of Jews coming to saving faith. The Jews as a nation or people, however, have been cast off. Positionally they are still God\u2019s people, but experientially they are not, for they have been cast away from the place of blessing. The invisible Church now takes its outward form, not in any national identity such as Israel, but in the visible churches. The majority of the elect are no longer Jews but Gentiles because of the divine rejection and casting away. As for individual Jews today, they can become part of the Church by exercising faith; but there are no special privileges or obligations for the Jewish believer that are not also true for the Gentile believer. It was this very Jewish unbelief and God\u2019s rejection and casting away of the Jews that made possible a widespread propagation of the gospel among the Gentiles which should, in turn, provoke Jews to jealousy so that they too will believe. An effort in a special way should be made to evangelize the Jews. This should be consistently prayed for both as to their present salvation, but especially for the future salvation of the Jews as a nation. Jews should be respected, and anti-Semitism should be avoided and condemned.<\/p>\n
Israel Future<\/p>\n
The preaching of the gospel will have a steady growth, but at some point it will produce a massive revival among the Gentiles, resulting in the majority of the Gentiles being saved. This is the fullness of the Gentiles. When that fullness comes, a similar mass revival will occur among the Jews, resulting in the majority of the Jews being saved. In that way, all Israel will be saved. This will not result in a restoration of Israel to the land but in Israel\u2019s amalgamation into the Church. The fullness of the Gentiles and the saving of all Israel will result in a long period of peace and prosperity. It will last for a very long time, though not necessarily one thousand years. At the end of this long period will come a great apostasy and rebellion that will terminate with the second coming, a general resurrection, a general judgment, and the eternal state.<\/p>\n
2. CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n
The Covenant Postmillennialist\u2019s acceptance of a national salvation of ethnic Israel allows for a greater development of Israelology than Covenant Amillennialism, but its denial of a literal restoration to the land results in a lesser development than Covenant Premillennialism or Dispensationalism. Its identification of Israel with the Church (less than the Covenant Amillennialist, but more than the Covenant Premillennialist) does not allow for a full-scale Israelology to develop to the extent that Dispensationalism does. The following are some specific areas.<\/p>\n
Israel Past<\/p>\n
Covenant Postmillennialism fails to adequately deal with three main subjects.
\nFirst, it fails to take into account all that was entailed in the Jewish covenants such as the Abrahamic, Sinaitic or Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic and New Covenants. There is a tendency to mesh them all together as part of the outworking of the covenant of grace. Furthermore, there is a great emphasis on the spiritual facets and promises of these covenants, but a clear de-emphasis on its physical and material facets and promises. These covenants are not expounded on their own merit in the context in which they were given, but the tendency is to read New Testament truth back into the Old, assuming more knowledge than the Old Testament saint could have had.
\nSecond, there is the issue of Israel\u2019s unique entity. Again, Covenant Theology does not allow for two peoples of God but only one. This one is the elect, it is the Church, it is the spiritual Israel. Physical or ethnic Israel sometimes is this Church, but sometimes it is not. This view leads to the concept that not only was the way and the means of salvation always the same, but the content of faith was always the same. Here, too, a great deal of New Testament knowledge must be imputed to the Old Testament saint which is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Too much at the center is the elect, and how Israel fits into all this is not as clear as it should be. The only-one-people concept puts the emphasis on the Church and not Israel, though clearly the Old Testament only speaks of Israel and not the Church. Covenant Postmillennialism, because of its Covenant Theology, simply refuses to recognize this. As a result, Israel as a distinct entity to whom both spiritual and physical privileges and promises belong fails to appear as such.
\nThird, there is the issue of the Law of Moses. This law is viewed as perpetual, and Postmillennialists insist that it did not terminate with the death of Christ. Yet it is obvious that many specific commandments can no longer be carried out. Some commandments are dismissed on the basis that they are ceremonial, and the death of Christ did terminate them. Others are dismissed on the basis of being connected with Israel as a theocratic state; since the Church is no longer connected with theocratic Israel, these commandments no longer apply. Still others are modified, such as the Sabbath being switched to Sunday. There is a failure to see the law as a unit or its purposes in relationship to Israel.<\/p>\n
Israel Present<\/p>\n
There are two failings of Covenant Postmillennialism in this area; however, not every individual Postmillennialist shares each failing, since they are not uniform in their thinking.
\nThe first concerns the question, Does Israel now stand rejected by God? All agree that Israel has not been totally rejected, but there is confusion among them as to the nature of this rejection. Are the Jews no longer the chosen people in any sense? (Boettner) Is Israel still the chosen people but no longer in the place of blessing? (Murray) The failure here is to recognize what Paul said: that God has not cast away his people. The problem is not that God rejected Israel, but that Israel rejected the Messiahship of Jesus, which has led to the loss of blessing. The Covenant Postmillennialists have placed the rejection in the wrong place.
\nThe second problem concerns the role of the Jewish believers today. Covenant Postmillennialism clearly sees the remnant as being part of ethnic Israel as well as part of the Church, but it never deals with the issue of its practical ramifications. Do Jewish believers have a right to continue as Jews and practice their Jewishness? Can a Jewish Christian reach back to the Law of Moses to observe the Passover, as Hodge does to practice the Sabbath? There is no clear discussion in Covenant Postmillennialism on the role of the Jewish believers as part of the ethnic Israel or as part of the Church.<\/p>\n
Israel Future<\/p>\n
Covenant Postmillennialism differs little from Covenant Amillennialism and Covenant Premillennialism on the issues of Israel\u2019s past and present. Where the Postmillennialist\u2019s Israelology differs from that of his Covenant Theologian friends is in Israel\u2019s future\u2014the Postmillennialist\u2019s belief in a national salvation of Israel separates him from Covenant Amillennialism. His rejection of a national restoration to the land separates him from Covenant Premillennialism.
\nIt is the latter that is the problem. It requires a great deal of spiritualization of unfulfilled prophecy (but not as much spiritualization as Amillennialism requires) to arrive at a denial of Israel\u2019s national restoration. The problem is one of partial allegorization. Because Covenant Postmillennialists believe in some type of Millennium with world peace and prosperity, they do see a degree of literal fulfillment well beyond that of the Amillennialist. However, it is not literal enough, so there is a denial of a national restoration of Israel during that Millennium. This requires a great deal of subjective allegorization of unfulfilled prophecy.
\nToo often, the tendency is to approach a prophetic passage with a covenant postmillennial bias and then interpret accordingly; so, the woman of Revelation 12 giving birth to the man-child represents the Church struggling to present Christ to the world. However, such an interpretation does not arise naturally from the text. The tendency is to ignore the Old Testament background and to proceed with a postmillennial interpretation which ignores the obvious and simple meaning of the text. Eschatological messages, such as Matthew 24, are interpreted as fulfilled in Jewish history while ignoring that same history. According to Matthew 24, what Israel will suffer in the period described by the passage will be the worst ever, both past and future (24:21). Covenant. Postmillennialism insists this is a reference to A.D. 70. While that was certainly bad, it was hardly the worst when compared with subsequent persecutions, such as the Nazi Holocaust. Not only does Covenant Theology resort to allegorization of unfulfilled prophecy, it also ignores Jewish history.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER IV<\/p>\n
COVENANT AMILLENNIALISM DEFINITION AND BASIC TENETS<\/p>\n
This chapter will serve as background to chapter V, which will discuss the Israelology of Covenant Amillennialism. As with the introduction to Covenant Postmillennialism, except for the summary, all sources used in this chapter will be exclusively those of Covenant Amillennialists.
\nWilliam E. Cox, an Amillenarian, accepts the following definition of Amillennialism, though it was penned by a Dispensationalist:<\/p>\n
A good definition of amillennialism comes from the pen of one of its severest critics. \u201cIts most general character is that of denial of a literal reign of Christ upon the earth. Satan is conceived as bound at the first coming of Christ. The present age between the first and second comings is the fulfillment of the millennium. Its adherents are divided on whether the millennium is being fulfilled now on the earth (Augustine) or whether it is being fulfilled by the saints in heaven (Kliefoth). It may be summed up in the idea that there will be no more millennium than there is now, and that the eternal stale immediately follows the second coming of Christ. As they freely recognize that their concept of the millennium is quite foreign to the premillennial view they have been given the title amillennial by most writers\u201d (John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 6).<\/p>\n
Amillennialism is \u201ca-\u201d or \u201cno millennium.\u201d By this they mean there will be no literal kingdom on this earth. As Cox points out, \u201camillenarians do not deny the existence of a millennium.\u201d The problem is that \u201ca more suitable term has not been found to describe amillennialism so as to distinguish it from premillennialism and postmillennialism.\u201d What they believe is that the Millennium exists now in this present age. They differ among themselves as to where this Millennium now is. Some believe it is now in the Church on earth. Others believe it is now in heaven. For this reason, some Amillennialists prefer the term \u201crealized millennialism.\u201d
\nCox distinguishes Amillennialism from the other two schools as follows:<\/p>\n
As Walvoord correctly states, amillenarians are opposed to the type of millennium taught by the premillennialist. They do not deny that Christ will reign over his saints on the earth. Rather, as Walvoord points out, they deny a literal (materialistic) reign. They also place this reign, as correctly pointed out by Walvoord, in a different point of time than does the premillenarian. They are also opposed to the type of millennium taught by the postmillennialist. They also place it at a different time in history than does the postmillenarian.<\/p>\n
The term amillennial is a good descriptive term when used to describe an attitude toward the millennium put forth by the premillenarian or by the postmillenarian. For amillenarians admittedly do not believe in any such millennium. It is a misunderstood and unfortunate term, however, when applied to the teachings of the twentieth chapter of Revelation. For amillenarians do definitely believe in a biblical millennium.<\/p>\n
The above definition of Amillennialism also provides its major basic tenet:<\/p>\n
What do amillenarians believe? Negatively speaking, they believe there will be no millennium as it is commonly described by premillenarians and postmillenarians. In this sense they are non-millennial and gladly accept the title assigned to them. However, this is the only sense in which amillennialism can rightly be classed as a negative teaching. They have very positive beliefs about every doctrine plainly taught in the Scriptures\u2014including a biblical millennium.<\/p>\n
Negatively, there will be no Millennium on earth as described by either Premillennialists or Postmillennialists. Positively, whatever Millennium there will be must be placed before the second coming:<\/p>\n
Although beliefs vary among amillenarians as to the exact time or place of the millennium, all are agreed that the New Testament places it before the second advent \u2026 For the most part amillenarians could be divided into two main schools. One group would teach that the millennium refers to the intermediate state and is therefore enjoyed only by departed saints. Kliefoth brought forth this view about 1874. The other group, which would seem to be the larger group, believes the millennium began with the first advent of Christ and will end with his second coming. This latter group believes all saints, living and dead, reign with Christ in the on-going millennium.<\/p>\n
In agreement with Postmillennialism, Revelation 20 is interpreted allegorically, but with different results:<\/p>\n
Amillenarians look on the Bible as a unit which contains no contradictions. They therefore believe that the book of Revelation says, symbolically, what the rest of the New Testament says in clear language. And the twentieth chapter of this symbolic book can be no exception. The one thousand year period is mentioned only in that chapter. Amillenarians take Revelation 20:1\u20136 as a symbolic picture of the interadvent period. They believe the expression \u201ca thousand years\u201d denotes a complete period of time, the length of which is known only by God. They believe that, in this twentieth chapter, John recapitulates what he has already covered, rather than dealing with a completely new period of time. In the entire book of Revelation John records seven visions dealing with the entire inter-advent period and closes out, in chapters 21 and 22, with the eternal state. This is why amillenarians find no scriptural basis for an interregnum between the second advent and the eternal state.<\/p>\n
The allegorical interpretation by Postmillennialists leads to the conclusion that there will be a long reign by the Church over the world. In Postmillennialism, the Millennium either applies to the entire gospel age (Kik), or just to the golden age (Boettner). Either way, the Millennium falls between the first and second comings. The allegorical interpretation by the Amillennialist also places the Millennium between the first and second comings; but he does not see the period ending with a golden age prior to the return of Christ. In fact, the exact opposite will be true:<\/p>\n
Is the world getting better or worse? Postmillenarians say it is getting better, and that the preaching of the gospel will eventually see most of the world converted, thus ushering in an earthly millennium before the second coming. Premillenarians believe the world is growing increasingly worse, and that it will be at its very worst when Jesus returns. Amillenarians agree with the premillenarians on this point. Although we believe the kingdom of God began as a small mustard seed and grows steadily larger, we also believe that evil grows proportionately faster. Good and evil will exist side by side until the very harvest, which Jesus said will be the end of the world (Matt. 13:39). We believe this growth will culminate with the appearance of the antichrist, which Paul called the man of sin, and which John referred to as Satan being loosed for a little season. This loosing will take place in the very endtime of the present historical church age.<\/p>\n
As far as the world is concerned, it will get worse and not better, for the Millennium will not be a golden age inaugurated by the Church (Postmillennialism), or by the second coming (Premillennialism). The Millennium is an \u201con-going millennium\u201d that now exists either in the Church on earth or with the saints now in heaven. Either way, \u201camillenarians believe that every person who is genuinely born again immediately becomes a child of the King and immediately begins an eternal reign with that King, and that the present phase of that reign is a mere foretaste of what lies beyond the second coming and the ushering in of the eternal state.\u201d Only the eternal state follows the second coming, not a Millennium:<\/p>\n
When it looks as though the man of sin actually will overcome God\u2019s followers, Christ will come on the scene and the devil will be cast eternally into the lake of fire. At this second coming of Christ\u2014which will be a literal, visible, bodily coming\u2014a number of scriptures will be fulfilled almost simultaneously. All the graves will be opened; all saints living at that time, along with all who have died in the Lord, will be given new spiritual bodies; all saints will be raptured together to meet the Lord in the air for the purpose of escorting their King to the earth; this general resurrection then will be followed by a general judgment, in which the saints will take part because of their standing in Christ; the earth will be cleansed of all sin; and the eternal state will be ushered in. At the sound of the trumpet which signals the second coming of Christ, all destinies are eternally sealed, the day of salvation closes, and every person who has rejected Christ until that point in time (be he Jew or Gentile) will spend eternity in hell while every believer of every generation will enjoy eternity as a member of the one body of Christ.<\/p>\n
Later in his work, Cox spells out the basic tenets of amillennial Eschatology:<\/p>\n
We believe essentially the following order of events constitutes New Testament eschatological teaching: (1) At his first advent our Lord met Satan on his own ground and, \u2026 defeated Satan. Satan now lives on probation until the second coming. In the meantime his power is definitely limited, especially in regards to God\u2019s people. (2) Having bound Satan, our Lord ushered in the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20. This millennium commenced at the first advent and will end at the second coming, being replaced by the eternal state. (3) Though God presently reigns in the hearts of his people (spiritual Israel), the church was forewarned by her Lord that she would face tribulation so long as she remains on the earth. This tribulation will grow progressively worse until it finally culminates in the appearance of the antichrist.\u2026 (4) Satan, who is now bound in one aspect of his power, will be restored to complete power for a short period of time. This loosing of Satan will come near the end of the present millennium, and he will be put down by the second coming of Christ. (5) The Lord will appear the second time in a literal bodily manner.\u2026 At this second coming, Satan will be cast into hell. (6) At the second coming there will be a general resurrection of all the dead of all time. (7) This will be followed immediately by a general judgment, resulting in the final separation of the righteous and the wicked.\u2026 (8) The earth will be cleansed and purified by fire. (9) The eternal state pictured in Revelation 21 and 22 will become a reality, and will last forever. (10) All saints of all time will reign in this eternal state, glorifying God, throughout eternity. The wicked will spend eternity in hell. Briefly stated, this is the amillennial belief on eschatology.<\/p>\n
With the first coming, Satan was \u201cbound,\u201d which means he is on \u201cprobation\u201d until the second coming and is limited in what he can do to believers. The Millennium actually began with the first coming and will continue to the second coming, which in turn will be followed by the eternal state. Christ\u2019s millennial reign is now \u201cin the hearts of his people (spiritual Israel),\u201d though these people will suffer tribulation in this earth, which will grow in severity as the second coming approaches. Satan will be loosed again just before the second coming, to be put away after the second coming. The second coming itself will be a literal bodily event which will be followed by a general resurrection of all the dead, both righteous and unrighteous, and a general judgment of all righteous and unrighteous. The earth will then be purified by fire and the eternal state brought in.
\nAccording to Cox, to interpret Revelation 20 any other way than figuratively is not just literalism, but hyperliteralism:<\/p>\n
Amillennialism literally means \u201cno millennium.\u201d This is an unfortunate term, however, since amillenarians definitely do believe in a millennium based on Revelation 20:1\u201310. They simply rebel against the hyperliteralism placed on this passage by the millennialists. Amillenarians interpret Revelation 20:1\u201310 as representing the period of time between the two advents of our Lord, that is, as going on at the present time and ending when our Lord returns. They equate the millennium with the church age. In other words, whereas other millennialists place a literal interpretation upon Revelation 20:1\u201310, thus gaining an earthly, material kingdom, amillenarians interpret this passage in a spiritual manner, believing it to be figurative language describing the spiritual reign of Christ in the hearts of his people, which already is going on. Amillenarians would be like the postmillenarian in that both believe the millennium precedes the second coming of Christ. They would be like the premillenarian in that both believe good and evil will exist side by side until the end of the world.<\/p>\n
The Millennium is to be equated \u201cwith the church age,\u201d and Messiah\u2019s rule with \u201cthe spiritual reign of Christ in the hearts of his people, which already is going on.\u201d Any other view is \u201chyperliteralism.\u201d Cox accuses Millennialists of beginning their theological base on this passage, and so \u201cbuild the main basis of all their teachings on this one obscure passage.\u201d The Amillennialists \u201crefuse to let this one obscure passage govern the entire Bible.\u201d Cox dogmatically states that \u201cno clear passage of Scripture anywhere speaks of an earthly, materialistic millennium like the one put forth by the millenarians.\u201d According to Cox, \u201cthe dispensationalist builds his entire millennial thesis on Revelation 20:1\u201310, just as if the rest of that chapter did not exist.\u201d
\nThe last statement is a cherished concept among Amillennialists and needs to be criticized. Dispensationalists have written frequently and prolifically on the basis of Dispensational Premillennialism. They have shown in their theologies that the belief in a Messianic Kingdom is not based on Revelation 20 as such, nor have they built their \u201centire millennial thesis on Revelation 20:1\u201310.\u201d Three major works on this point were published and widely spread before Cox\u2019s work: Things to Come by Dwight Pentecost; The Basis of the Premillennial Faith by Charles Ryrie; and Dispensationalism Today by Charles Ryrie. Although Cox uses the title format from the work by Ryrie, he never cites it or the other two works, nor does he list them in his bibliography. This is intellectually dishonest. It appears that Cox did not want to give up his cherished false assumption, and ignored works that disprove that assertion.
\nAnthony A. Hoekema defines Amillennialism and the use of the term as follows:<\/p>\n
A word should first be said about terminology. The term amillennialism is not a happy one. It suggests that amillennialists either do not believe in any millennium or that they simply ignore the first six verses of Revelation 20, which speak of a millennial reign. Neither of these two statements is true. Though it is true that amillennialists do not believe in a literal thousand-year earthly reign which will follow the return of Christ, the term amillennialism is not an accurate description of their view. Professor Jay E. Adams of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia has suggested that the term amillennialism be replaced by the expression realized millennialism. The latter term, to be sure, describes the \u201camillennial\u201d position more accurately than the usual term, since \u201camillennialists\u201d believe that the millennium of Revelation 20 is not exclusively future but is now in process of realization. The expression realized millennialism, however, is a rather clumsy one, replacing a simple prefix with a three-syllable word. Despite the disadvantages and limitations of the word, therefore, I shall continue to use the shorter and more common term, amillennialism.<\/p>\n
This is the essence of Amillennialism. First, it rejects a literal one-thousand-year earthly reign of Christ. Second, it affirms that the Millennium of Revelation 20 is now in process. On the question of Revelation 20, Hoekema states:<\/p>\n
To see the background for the amillennial view of the millennium, we should first of all concern ourselves with the question of the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Let us assume, for example, that the book of Revelation is to be interpreted in an exclusively futuristic sense, referring only to events that are to happen around or at the time of Christ\u2019s Second Coming, Let us further assume that what is presented in Revelation 20 must necessarily follow, in chronological order, what was described in chapter 19. We are then virtually compelled to believe that the thousand-year reign depicted in 20:4 must come after the return of Christ described in 19:11. But if we see Revelation 20:1\u20136 as describing what takes place during the entire history of the church, beginning with the first coming of Christ, we will have an understanding of the millennium of Revelation 20 which is quite different from the one just mentioned.<\/p>\n
Hoekema admits that taking the Book of Revelation as is and in chronological sequence results in the Millennium following the second coming; but Hoekema insists that Revelation 20 describes \u201cwhat takes place during the entire history of the church.\u201d The \u201cthousand years\u201d is interpreted by Hoekema as follows:<\/p>\n
The book of Revelation is full of symbolic numbers. Obviously the number \u201cthousand\u201d which is used here must not be interpreted in a literal sense. Since the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression \u201ca thousand years\u201d as standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length \u2026 we may conclude that this thousand-year period extends from Christ\u2019s first coming to just before his Second Coming.<\/p>\n
The thousand years, then, is a symbolic figure, \u201ca complete period,\u201d and \u201ca very long period\u201d of time that \u201cextends from Christ\u2019s first coming to just before his second coming.\u201d The basis is again an allegorical approach to Scripture. According to Hoekema, the \u201cmillennium\u201d of Revelation 20 is not an earthly one but a heavenly one, for with verses 4\u20136 \u201cthe locale of John\u2019s vision has now shifted to heaven.\u201d \u201cThere is no indication in these verses that John is describing an earthly millennial reign. The scene, as we saw, is set in heaven.\u201d Hoekema concludes:<\/p>\n
So understood, the passage says nothing about an earthly reign of Christ over a primarily Jewish kingdom. Rather, it describes the reigning with Christ in heaven of the souls of believers who have died. They reign during the time between their death and Christ\u2019s Second Coming.<\/p>\n
Whereas Cox interpreted the Millennium as Christ\u2019s rule in the hearts of believers of the Church on earth, Hoekema sees it as believers reigning with Christ in heaven. While both amillennial views interpret the time of the Millennium as falling between the two comings of Christ, there is a radical difference as to the place of the Millennium.
\nThe allegorical approach to Revelation 20 is also applied to Old Testament prophecy:<\/p>\n
Amillennialists, on the other hand, believe that though many Old Testament prophecies are indeed to be interpreted literally, many others are to be interpreted in a nonliteral way \u2026 The difference between an amillennial and a premillennial interpreter comes out when each tries to indicate which prophecies must be interpreted literally and which prophecies are to be interpreted in a nonliteral sense. On this question there would be wide divergence of opinion.<\/p>\n
Later, Hoekema presents some details of amillennial Eschatology which he summarizes in two divisions. The first section is \u201cinaugurated eschatology,\u201d meaning \u201cthat aspect of eschatology which is already present now, during the gospel era.\u201d These include: (1) Christ has won the decisive victory over sin, death, and Satan; (2) the Kingdom of God is both present and future; (3) though the last day is still future, we are in the last days now; and (4) as far as the thousand years of Revelation 20 are concerned, we are in the Millennium now.
\nThe second division is \u201cfuture eschatology,\u201d which refers to \u201cother eschatological occurrences\u201d that \u201cstill lie in the future.\u201d These include: (1) the \u201csigns of the times\u201d have both present and future relevance; (2) the second coming of Christ will be a single event; (3) at the time of Christ\u2019s return, there will be a general resurrection, both of believers and unbelievers; (4) after the resurrection, believers who are then still alive shall suddenly be transformed and glorified; (5) the \u201crapture\u201d of all believers now takes place; (6) now follows the final judgment; and, (7) after the judgment the final state is ushered in.
\nOswald T. Allis defines Amillennialism mostly in negative terms:<\/p>\n
This is the teaching that the only visible coming of Christ to this earth which the Church is to expect will be for judgment and will be followed by the final state. It is anti-chiliastic or a-millennial, because it rejects the doctrine that there are to be two resurrections with an interval of a thousand years (the millennial reign of Christ with His saints on earth) between them.<\/p>\n
According to Allis, Amillennialism is amillennial because it is anti-millennial. There will be only one general resurrection following the second coming, and the final stage follows it. Allis also admits that there are two major types of Amillennialists. The first form is the Augustinian view:<\/p>\n
He taught that the millennium is to be interpreted spiritually as fulfilled in the Christian Church. He held that the binding of Satan took place during the earthly ministry of our Lord (Lk. 10:18), that the first resurrection is the new birth of the believer (Jn. 5:25), and that the millennium must correspond, therefore, to the inter-advental period or Church age.<\/p>\n
This view sees the fulfillment of the Millennium in the Christian Church on earth. The second view, which sees the Millennium as being fulfilled in heaven, is known as Kliefoth\u2019s view. In this view the one thousand years is not \u201ca period of time at all, but simply describes in terms of completeness or ecumenicity the blessed state of the saints in heaven.\u201d
\nAllis then summarizes the two views:<\/p>\n
One point is especially to be stressed in this connection, for the reason that it is of fundamental importance to the problems to be discussed in this volume. All Amillennialists of today, whether they hold with Augustine or with Kliefoth, are in a position to maintain that the coming of the Lord is \u201cimminent\u201d; and some of them take that pessimistic view of the future of the Church on earth\u2014that the love of many will grow cold, and that evil men will grow worse and worse\u2014which is characteristic of the premillennial view.<\/p>\n
Amillennialism, like Premillennialism, allows for a belief in the imminency of Christ\u2019s return, which Postmillennialism does not. Later, Allis reaffirms:<\/p>\n
And it is important to keep in mind that the view of those Amillennialists, who believe in a spiritual millennium which is past or nearly past, and of those Amillennialists who do not believe in any earthly millennium at all, may approximate very closely to that of Premillennialists regarding the imminence of the coming.<\/p>\n
Allis\u2019 book is over three hundred pages devoted almost exclusively to an attack on Dispensationalism. While he attacks the dispensational interpretation of Revelation 20, he never provides an exegesis of his own on this passage. No doubt, he would follow a typically amillennial interpretation, which is allegorical. The specific amillennial school which he follows is Augustinian.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
In summary, Amillennialism resembles Postmillennialism in that both hold to the belief that the second coming will be after the millennial period. However, Amillennialism differs by believing in \u201ca\u201d or \u201cnon\u201d or \u201cno\u201d Millennium, by which it is meant that there will be no literal Millennium on earth. Yet Amillennialists are millennial in the sense that they do believe in a spiritual Millennium before the second coming. Some believe that this Millennium is in the Church on earth, while others believe it is now in heaven. Either way, the Millennium is now.
\nAs to their method of interpretation:<\/p>\n
Amillenarians follow three basic principles of interpretation:<\/p>\n
1. Spiritualization of the Scriptures \u2026
\n2. Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Church.
\n3. The millennium is nowhere found in the Bible except in Revelation 20, which being in a book of signs and symbols, is to be interpreted symbolically.<\/p>\n
Regarding the nature of the Millennium and its relationship to world history, Amillennialists believe that the Millennium is the long period of time between the first and second comings of Christ. Christ is indeed reigning today, both in the hearts of the believers on earth, and over the souls in heaven.<\/p>\n
During this time Christ is reigning on His throne in a spiritual kingdom with the disembodied spirits in heaven \u2026 They interpret the first resurrection (Rev. 20) to be the new birth of the believer. The believer in accepting Christ begins to reign with Him on earth in a spiritual sense \u2026 At death, the believer continues to reign with Christ during this present age as a disembodied spirit in heaven.<\/p>\n
The nature of this kingdom is:<\/p>\n
The kingdom is spiritual and heavenly, not political and earthly.<\/p>\n
a. Repentance and the new birth are necessary for entrance into this spiritual kingdom \u2026
\nb. Forgiveness, meekness, humility, unselfishness, etc., characterize the kingdom. (Sermon on the Mount)
\nc. Christ\u2019s kingdom is in heaven, not in the earthly Jerusalem.\u2026
\nd. Kingdom prophecies of the Old Testament given to Israel are fulfilled in the Church as the true Israel, since national birth for an Israelite does not guarantee spiritual blessings.<\/p>\n
Concerning the establishment of the kingdom:<\/p>\n
The kingdom began at Christ\u2019s first coming, since Christ said that the kingdom was already present in His time \u2026 The kingdom is present and universal, established in the hearts of believers (Matt. 11:12; Luke 17:21).<\/p>\n
a. Jesus and John the Baptist: announced the kingdom as \u201cat hand.\u201d \u2026
\nb. Jesus announced a world-wide kingdom (John 1:19\u20134:45) \u2026
\nc. The kingdom was offered to Gentiles as well as to Jews \u2026<\/p>\n
As for the growth and the final form of the kingdom in history:<\/p>\n
Amillenarians interpret the parable of wheat and tares as describing the condition of the kingdom in the world during this present age. Good and evil, represented by the wheat and tares, will grow together until the judgment. The tares are the unbelieving children of the devil; the wheat is the invisible believing church, or members of His spiritual kingdom. Evil will grow progressively worse, violating and persecuting the good. At the end of this present age evil will climax in a super political, economic, and religious force under the Antichrist who will persecute and kill great numbers of believers in a time of great tribulation.<\/p>\n
At the second coming of Christ the wicked will be gathered \u201cout of the kingdom.\u201d Then \u201cshall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father,\u201d that is, in the eternal kingdom of God (Matt. 13:14).<\/p>\n
The Amillennialist interpretation of Revelation 20 can be summarized as:<\/p>\n
Amillenarians assert this passage to describe the souls of the saints in heaven between the first and second coming of Christ. The \u201cfirst resurrection\u201d is the new birth of the believer. The other resurrection is the general bodily resurrection at Christ\u2019s return. Believers begin to reign with Christ at the time of their regeneration in a spiritual sense \u2026<\/p>\n
Believers continue to reign with Christ at their death as disembodied spirits in heaven.<\/p>\n
Because they interpret the Millennium of Revelation 20 as spiritually existing in the present time, Amillennialists also believe that Satan has been bound during this present time. While he is still free to roam, he is on a form of probation and is limited as to what he can do to believers.
\nToward the end of this spiritual Millennium, and just preceding the second coming, there will be a short revolt against God\u2019s authority:<\/p>\n
Immediately preceding the second coming of Christ, Satan will be loosed for a little season to deceive the nations once again. Satan will cause the preaching of the Gospel to cease and will persuade the nations to believe a lie. He will gather the nations under Antichrist to war against the saints. When Satan and his hosts arrive almost at the point of victory in the battle of Armageddon, Christ will come the second time to judge the earth and Satan, destroying the Antichrist at His appearance.<\/p>\n
This spiritual Millennium is not eternal, and it will end in the following way:<\/p>\n
Amillenarians hold that at the close of the thousand years of Revelation 20, that is, at the end of this present age, Christ will return to earth. There will be a general resurrection of all the dead \u2026<\/p>\n
The living saints will be transfigured and raptured to meet the Lord in the air \u2026<\/p>\n
After the rapture Christ and His Church either return to earth or remain in heaven for the judgment of the great white throne. The wicked will be judged and consigned to everlasting punishment \u2026<\/p>\n
The old heaven and the old earth will pass away, and the eternal kingdom of God will be established in a new heaven and on a new earth, which will be characterized by righteousness, and God shall be all and in all (1 Cor. 15:24\u201328).<\/p>\n
Cox\u2019s claim that Amillenarians \u201cpresent a united front with reference to eschatology\u201d is wishful thinking. Though there may be no difference among them as to when the Millennium occurs (between the first and second comings), the same is true among Postmillennialists and Premillennialists. However, there is a difference among Amillennialists as to where the Millennium is now. Is it on earth in the hearts of believers (Augustine) or is it in heaven with the disembodied saints (Kliefoth)? This is no minor point if we are now in the Millennium! Most Amillennialists follow Augustine\u2019s lead and say that the Millennium is now in the Church. Unlike Augustine, however, these same Amillennialists believe the Millennium will continue until the second coming. Augustine believed this spiritual Millennium would end in A.D. 650. Others viewed this amillennial Millennium as dating from Pentecost until the fall of Rome in A.D. 476. Amillennial Eschatology is not as monolithic as Cox would make it appear.
\nWith this brief survey of Covenant Amillennialism, we can now proceed to a more detailed study of the Israelology of Covenant Amillennialism.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER V<\/p>\n
THE ISRAELOLOGY OF COVENANT AMILLENNIALISM<\/p>\n
A. Israel Past<\/p>\n
1. The Covenant of Grace<\/p>\n
The way this relates to Israelology is that, in this school of thought, the covenant of grace becomes the all-pervasive covenant. All other \u201ccovenants\u201d are merely facets or outworkings of this one covenant. All three time zones of Israelology\u2014past, present, future\u2014are determined on the basis of the covenant of grace.
\nBerkhof defines this covenant as follows:<\/p>\n
The covenant of grace may be defined as that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience.<\/p>\n
Hendriksen\u2019s definition, while emphasizing different facets, is almost the same:<\/p>\n
We are now ready for a definition of the covenant of grace. It is that arrangement between the Triune God and his people whereby God promises his friendship, hence full and free salvation, to his people, upon the basis of the vicarious atonement of Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, and they, out of gratitude, promise to live for him.<\/p>\n
This covenant is made with the elect who, in turn, become the only people of God. Because of this presupposition, this system cannot allow two peoples of God such as Israel and the Church. While in the Old Testament this elect group was largely limited to the Jews, \u201cthe New Testament dispensation of the covenant may be called universal in the sense that in it the covenant is extended to all nations, and is no more limited to the Jews, as it was in the old dispensation.\u201d Having said this, Berkhof proceeds to affirm that this is the one pervasive covenant controlling the entire history of God\u2019s relationship to man.
\nWhile many Covenant Theologians begin the covenant with Adam, Hendriksen represents those who begin the covenant with Abraham. Although Hendriksen does begin the covenant of grace with Abraham, he still sees the Noahic Covenant as \u201cpreparatory\u201d to it and Genesis 3:15 (where others begin the covenant of grace) as containing the \u201cessence\u201d of it. So, practically speaking, there is no significant difference from the other view. The covenant of grace is crucial to the system of Covenant Amillennialism and largely determines its Israelology.
\nCovenant Amillennialism does recognize that changes have taken place and they must think in terms of \u201cdispensations\u201d to some degree. Berkhof holds to only two dispensations:<\/p>\n
On the basis of all that has been said it is preferable to follow the traditional lines by distinguishing just two dispensations or administrations, namely, that of the Old, and that of the New Testament; and to subdivide the former into several periods or stages in the revelation of the covenant of grace.<\/p>\n
This is typical of Covenant Amillennialists. There are only two dispensations: the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament dispensation can itself be subdivided into various time periods based upon the revelation of that one covenant of grace. These different revelations or administrations of the covenant of grace are: the revelation in Genesis 3:15, the covenant with Noah, the covenant with Abraham, and the Sinaitic covenant.
\nCovenant Amillennialists in the works cited in this study never try to prove the existence of such a covenant. They merely assume its existence and go from there.
\nClosely interconnected in covenant amillennial thinking are three other facets: the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses, and the way of salvation. Each of these will be covered under its own heading.<\/p>\n
2. The Abrahamic Covenant<\/p>\n
It must be kept in mind that Covenant Amillennialists do not see this or the other covenants of Scripture as being separate and distinct. They only see it as a facet of the outworking of the covenant of grace. Berkhof is typical of those who build a large superstructure on a covenant he never proves exists. Berkhof believes in only one covenant, and so with \u201cAbraham we enter upon a new epoch in the Old Testament revelation of the covenant of grace.\u201d According to Berkhof, the covenant with Abraham began the \u201cinstitutional Church.\u201d Before Abraham, what existed was \u201cthe church in the house.\u201d A simple reading of this covenant actually shows that what begins is a new nation or people: Israel the nation or the Jewish people. Berkhof\u2019s Covenant Theology just cannot allow for two separate entities such as Israel and the Church, because in accordance with the covenant of grace, only the elect are God\u2019s people. Then what began with Abraham was the \u201cinstitutional Church.\u201d It would appear that one would have to approach the covenant with Abraham with a theological bias to arrive at Berkhof\u2019s conclusion. Simply read, what God is promising Abraham is a physical seed and a nation, not to become the father of the \u201cinstitutional Church.\u201d
\nAs for circumcision, which was part of the covenant with Abraham, Berkhof interprets it as \u201ca sealing ordinance, a badge of membership, and a seal of the righteousness of faith.\u201d Dispensationalists would agree that circumcision is a sign and seal of the Abrahamic Covenant. They would also agree that circumcision is a \u201cbadge of membership,\u201d not of the \u201cinstitutional Church,\u201d but rather of the people of Israel, the Jewish people. Also, they would not agree that it is \u201ca seal of the righteousness of faith.\u201d Here, Berkhof again presupposes the existence of the covenant of grace.
\nAccording to Berkhof, the importance of the covenant with Abraham was its emphasis that man \u201cmust respond to the promises of God by faith.\u201d The \u201cgreat central fact \u2026 is that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.\u201d As stated, Dispensationalists would agree. However, Berkhof would contend that the content of faith for Abraham was the death of the Messiah which, according to Berkhof, can be deduced from Genesis 3:15. The verse which declares that \u201cAbraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness\u201d is in Genesis 15:6. Yes, Abraham did believe the promises of God; but the content of that promise in that context is in Genesis 15:1\u20135, and it is obvious that it refers to Abraham\u2019s future son, Isaac. Yes, Abraham was saved by grace through faith. Yes, the content of Abraham\u2019s faith is the promise of God. The issue becomes: What was the content of the promises?
\nThis is exactly the issue that Berkhof tackles next. He contends that in the covenant of Abraham, the \u201cspiritual blessings of the covenant of grace become far more apparent \u2026 than they were before.\u201d Furthermore, the spiritual blessings now become paramount. However, if a complete list were made of the physical promises and set side by side with the spiritual promises, the former would greatly outnumber the latter. Berkhof tries to prove his contention by citing Romans 3\u20134 and Galatians 3, claiming that these are the \u201cbest Scriptural exposition of the Abrahamic covenant.\u201d This may be true, but these New Testament expositions do not discount the physical promises in favor of the spiritual ones, nor are they trying to show what is or is not paramount. Paul\u2019s emphasis in both passages is that salvation was always by grace through faith and apart from the works of the law. Paul is not trying to give a full \u201cexposition of the Abrahamic covenant.\u201d At the most, he is only expounding on one facet of the Abrahamic Covenant which deals with the issue of salvation and the means of salvation.
\nBerkhof later admits that the covenant with Abraham had both \u201ctemporal blessings\u201d and \u201cspiritual blessings,\u201d but he pontifically decides that the \u201cformer were \u2026 subordinate to the latter.\u201d While it is unlikely that the spiritual blessings would be subordinate to the physical blessings, they could have been co-equal. At any rate, the content of the Abrahamic Covenant does not declare that the physical is subordinate to the spiritual. Berkhof also dogmatically asserts that the \u201ctemporal blessings \u2026 served to symbolize and typify spiritual and heavenly things.\u201d Certainly this is a true statement if left there; but for Berkhof, this becomes a basis for doing away with the physical promises entirely, and that is why Dispensationalists are not comfortable with Berkhof\u2019s typology. More true to the text is that the physical and spiritual promises were co-equal in the Abrahamic Covenant. The physical promises were limited to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The spiritual promises were to extend to all believers, both Jews and Gentiles alike.
\nA very important aspect of dispensational theology is the unconditionality of the Abrahamic Covenant. This does not mean that the content of a covenant has no rules to be obeyed or conditions God may expect people to meet. By \u201cunconditional\u201d it is meant that God\u2019s promises in the covenant will be fulfilled unconditionally\u2014that the covenant promises will be fulfilled in spite of man\u2019s success or failure to keep whatever conditions or commandments may be contained in the covenant. Fulfillment is dependent upon God and not man. While enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant may be conditioned upon obedience, the fulfillment of the promises is not.
\nCovenant Amillennialism, however, cannot accept the Abrahamic Covenant as being unconditional and so Allis tries to prove the conditional nature of that covenant. He admits that as far as \u201cthe express terms of the covenant with Abraham, obedience is not stated as a condition.\u201d An Amillennialist cannot live with this and so tries to prove that it was conditional in other ways. His first argument is that \u201cobedience is the precondition of blessing under all circumstances.\u201d Allis cites Psalm 68:6 as evidence of this, but it hardly proves his point since the verse does not say that \u201cobedience is the precondition of blessing under all circumstances.\u201d It is also beside the point since the issue is not whether obedience is a \u201cprecondition of blessing,\u201d but whether God\u2019s promises to fulfill the covenant are themselves conditional. The second evidence is \u201cthat in the case of Abraham the duty of obedience is particularly stressed.\u201d This is highly questionable, especially in light of the fact that \u201cin the express terms of the covenant with Abraham, obedience is not stated as a condition.\u201d This, too, is beside the point since the issue is not whether Abraham had commandments to obey, but whether his obedience was the basis by which God would fulfill His promises. Certainly Abraham\u2019s faith lapsed on three occasions: twice when he lied about Sarah being his sister only (Gen. 12:16\u201320; 20:1\u201318) and when he took Hagar as a concubine to produce a seed (Gen. 16:1\u201316). Yet these acts of disobedience did not cancel out God\u2019s promise that Sarah would have a son, and indeed she did. Abraham may not have been experiencing God\u2019s blessing while in disobedience, but God\u2019s promise remained sure. This is what Dispensationalists mean when they call a covenant \u201cunconditional.\u201d The evidences Allis brings forth simply do not prove his case.
\nAllis later tries to further his case by citing Genesis 26:5 and claiming \u201cthat the promise was repeated to his son \u2026\u201d Even granting his contention that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant was conditioned by Abraham\u2019s obedience, the very verse Allis cites states that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. If the fulfillment of the Abraham Covenant was conditioned upon Abraham\u2019s obedience, then Abraham obviously fulfilled the condition; if Abraham fulfilled his, then God is obligated to fulfill His. This in turn renders the covenant unconditional since Abrahamic has fulfilled his conditions.
\nAnother way Allis tries to prove the conditional nature of the Abrahamic Covenant is based on the requirement of circumcision. According to Allis, the command of circumcision shows that \u201cobedience was vitally connected with the Abrahamic covenant.\u201d The penalty for failure was being cut off \u201cfrom the covenant people.\u201d It is, of course, true that circumcision was required by the Abrahamic Covenant, but it was not a condition for God to fulfill His promises. Although the Jews failed to practice circumcision during the forty years of wilderness wanderings, God, in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, brought the Jews into the land anyway. Circumcision was finally resumed only after the Jews were inside the Promised Land. The penalty for failure was to be cut off from his people. Allis\u2019 interpretation of this phrase is that one is cut off from \u201cthe covenant people.\u201d This is a reflection of his Covenant Theology where his people is identified as the Church; however, the phrase normally means execution. Failure to obey would result in the death penalty. Again, the requirement of circumcision did not render the covenant itself as conditional, but provided a command within the covenant. Yet God always fulfilled His part, even when the command and the penalty were disobeyed.
\nEven weaker is Allis\u2019 contention that the \u201cDispensationalists do not regard the Abrahamic covenant as wholly unconditional,\u201d and his evidence is that \u201cwe never hear them speak of the restoration of Esau to the land of Canaan and to full blessing under the Abrahamic covenant.\u201d Either Allis is ignorant of what Dispensationalists teach about the Abrahamic Covenant, or he is deliberately distorting their position. Either way, it is inexcusable for someone who wrote a major work on the supposed errors of Dispensationalism. The Abrahamic Covenant was not made with all of Abraham\u2019s seed, but only with the seed that was to come through only one of Abraham\u2019s eight sons: Isaac. Furthermore, the covenant was sustained through only one of Isaac\u2019s sons: Jacob. The content of the Abrahamic Covenant clearly excluded all others except for Isaac and Jacob. Only after Jacob was the covenant sustained for all descendants of Jacob. Allis\u2019 proof is no proof at all. When Allis asks, \u201cWhy is Esau excluded from the blessings of the covenant? He was a son of Isaac as much as Jacob was,\u201d the answer is simple: being a son of Isaac was not enough to be part of the covenant. The issue was God\u2019s choice. Allis\u2019 other question, \u201cHow could his disobedience deprive his descendants of the blessings of the covenant, if the covenant did not require obedience?\u201d, is irrelevant. Esau\u2019s exclusion was not based on disobedience, but on God\u2019s choice. (Allis, a Calvinist, should have recognized this.) Jacob\u2019s inclusion was not based on obedience, but on God\u2019s choice.<\/p>\n
3. The Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses<\/p>\n
For Covenant Amillennialists, the Mosaic Covenant is also merely an outworking of the covenant of grace. Berkhof, in his discussion on the Abrahamic Covenant, tries to show how it relates to the Sinaitic Covenant. The Abrahamic form of the covenant of grace \u201cis normative for us in the New Testament dispensation.\u201d The covenant made at Sinai is \u201can interlude\u201d which tended to obscure \u201cthe real character of the covenant of grace\u201d by \u201call kinds of external ceremonies and forms.\u201d Actually, the covenant of grace was \u201cfree and gracious.\u201d Dispensationalists view the Mosaic Covenant (as they prefer to call it) as a separate, distinct covenant, but Berkhof sees it as another administration of the one covenant of grace which in turn \u201ceclipsed\u201d the Abrahamic administration.
\nBerkhof then proceeds to discuss the Sinaitic Covenant and still insists that it is the same as all others. Because there can be only one covenant of grace, Berkhof is forced to insist that the covenant with Abraham and the covenant made at Sinai \u201cwas essentially the same.\u201d This must be maintained in spite of the radical differences found in the content of the two covenants. This must also be maintained in spite of the fact that the New Testament consistently contrasts the two covenants. Berkhof\u2019s way out of the latter is to claim that Paul \u201cdoes not contrast with the covenant with Abraham the Sinaitic covenant as a whole, but only the law as it functioned in this covenant \u2026\u201d However, the content of the Sinaitic Covenant is the law, and the law was the whole of that covenant. To contrast the covenant of Abraham with the law is to contrast it with the covenant itself. It appears that having accepted the existence of the covenant of grace and all that it theologically entails, Berkhof must now avoid the obvious and insist that the two covenants are \u201cessentially the same.\u201d He newer even tries to tackle the differences in the content of the two covenants.
\nOf course, even Berkhof must admit there are some differences, but he chooses to view them as merely \u201ccharacteristic features\u201d of a new administration:<\/p>\n
But though the covenant with Abraham and the Sinaitic covenant were essentially the same, yet the covenant of Sinai had certain characteristic features.<\/p>\n
At Sinai the covenant became a truly national covenant. The civil life of Israel was linked up with the covenant in such a way that the two could not be separated. In a large measure Church and State became one. To be in the Church was to be in the nation, and vice versa; and to leave the Church was to leave the nation. There was no spiritual excommunication; the ban meant cutting off by death.<\/p>\n
Because it is all one covenant, Berkhof only sees one people of God, the elect, who in turn are the Church. With this new administration of the covenant of grace, the \u201cChurch and State become one.\u201d To be in the Church was to be in the state, and to be in the state was to be in the Church. This, in turn, leads to the Church being Israel, and Israel the Church. Another thing that Berkhof states about the Sinaitic Covenant that has bearing on Israelology is:<\/p>\n
The law in the Sinaitic covenant also served Israel as a rule of life, so that the one law of God assumed three different aspects, designated as the moral, the civil, and the ceremonial or religious law. The civil law is simply the application of the principles of the moral law to the social and civic life of the people in all its ramifications. Even the social and civil relations in which the people stood to each other had to reflect the covenant relation in which they stood.<\/p>\n
Berkhof divides the law into three divisions: moral, civil, and ceremonial. Dispensationalism agrees that the law \u201cserved Israel as a rule of life\u201d and was not the means of salvation (though Berkhof accuses them of this). Many Dispensationalists also agree with Berkhof\u2019s threefold division of the law. However, the law itself never divides itself in these three ways. The law is always viewed as a unit and not divided. The danger of a tripartite division not supported by the law itself is that the unity of the law is broken. This, in turn, allows for the teaching that parts of the law are no longer in effect while others still are. For Covenant Theologians of all three varieties, this division is essential. For Dispensationalists, such a threefold division is inconsistent.
\nTypical of Covenant Theologians, Allis sees no real difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. What difference there may be is \u201cnot one of kind but of degree.\u201d What the law of Moses did was to make \u201cthe will of God more plain.\u201d In stating his case, Allis again misconstrues what Dispensationalists believe. He states that the \u201cdifference between the law and the promise does not, therefore, consist in this, that under the promise men were saved without obedience and under the law they are saved because of obedience.\u201d This is not the teaching of mainstream Dispensationalism which holds to the belief that salvation in every dispensation was by grace through faith, and the difference is only in the content of faith. Neither under the Abrahamic nor under the Mosaic Covenants was obedience the condition of salvation. Dispensationalists do not view the Mosaic Covenant as conditional because under it people were \u201csaved because of obedience.\u201d Far from it. It was conditional because God\u2019s fulfillment of its promise was conditioned by obedience which was not true with the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet Allis\u2019 Covenant Theology does not allow him to make the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants separate and distinct covenants, for both are outworkings of the covenant of grace. No Dispensationalist would disagree with Allis\u2019 comment that the \u201cgreat teaching of the Levitical law is that, \u2018without the shedding of blood there is no remission.\u2019 \u201d
\nAllis affirms that the Law of Moses \u201cmade the way of salvation and the necessity for it the more evident.\u201d If by \u201cthe way of salvation\u201d Allis means the necessity of the blood, all Dispensationalists can agree; but if he means that the content of faith was the substitutionary death of Christ, Allis would be hard pressed to prove this from the Mosaic Law alone. Here he would be forced to read the New Testament back into the Old, ignoring that the Jew in the Old Testament had no such privilege.<\/p>\n
4. The Way of Salvation<\/p>\n
With four arguments, Berkhof connects the covenant of grace with the way of salvation, and so this for him is the only way of salvation. In this he is contradicted by Dispensationalists, but not in the way he implies. Dispensationalists will challenge the existence of any such covenant of grace. Dispensationalists do \u201cdistinguish several different covenants and insist on the necessity of keeping them distinct.\u201d However, they do not make these covenants different ways of salvation. Berkhof insists that there is only one covenant which has been \u201cthe same in all dispensations.\u201d The various other covenants mentioned are not separate covenants, but different administrations of the same covenant.
\nThe evidence he produces for this conclusion is based first of all on the fact that for each covenant, God says, \u201cI will be your God\u201d; but if God made each individual covenant, that would naturally be the case anyway. Mere similar wording would hardly make the covenants all the same, especially if the content is very different. The many dis-similarities between the \u201ccovenant with Abraham, \u2026 the Sinaitic covenant, \u2026 the covenant of the Plains of Moab, \u2026 the Davidic covenant \u2026 and of the new covenant\u201d are too different in content to all be the same covenant with only different administrations.
\nThe second argument is that there is only one single gospel by which men are saved. Since the gospel is \u201cnothing but the revelation of the covenant of grace,\u201d then there can only be one covenant. Here Berkhof tries to prove a conclusion based on two presuppositions he has not tried to prove. The first is that there is only one gospel by which men are saved. If by this Berkhof means that the means of salvation is always the same, by grace through faith, then Dispensationalists could agree; but Berkhof means more than this, for he also believes the content of faith is always the same. Here Dispensationalists would all disagree, and Berkhof has not proven this. The passages he cites in no way show his contention. His second presupposition is that the gospel simply renews the covenant of grace, which again shows that for Berkhof this covenant is the way of salvation. The Bible nowhere speaks of a covenant of grace as defined by Berkhof himself. With two unproven, presuppositions, his conclusion that there is only one covenant is unwarranted.
\nHis third argument is based on Paul\u2019s argument in Romans and Galatians: that Abraham was saved the same way as New Testament believers are saved. This is certainly true in that Abraham was saved by grace through faith and apart from works, which is Paul\u2019s argument in Romans and Galatians. This is far from saying that the content of Abraham\u2019s faith was the same. Be that as it may, it again does not prove that there is only one covenant. It is agreed that \u201cthe covenant with Abraham is still in force,\u201d and that in \u201cnone other is there salvation.\u201d This is all true, but hardly proves that there is only one covenant.
\nHis fourth argument, that the way of salvation is the same, is also true because salvation was always by grace through faith. If by \u201cidentical conditions\u201d Berkhof means faith, Dispensationalists all agree; but if he means the content of faith is always the same, this is questionable. Even so, it does not prove that there is only one covenant. The very fact that there are \u201csacraments \u2026 differing in form\u201d would argue against there being only one.
\nCox, in a more positive presentation of Amillennialism than the work by Allis, also insists that the way of salvation was always the same:<\/p>\n
Amillenarians hold\u2014as did the church fathers and the Protestant reformers\u2014that there has always been only one plan of salvation. Every person who has ever graced, or who ever will grace, the portals of heaven will have one thing in common with all other citizens of heaven. Each one will have come there only through a childlike faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. There is only one plan of salvation. Yea, and there has never been another plan. Nor will there ever be a different plan.<\/p>\n
Dispensationalists can agree that the basis of salvation was always the same: the death of the Messiah. They can also agree that the means of salvation was always faith. The parting of the ways comes over the issue of the content of faith: what did one have to believe? There is no disagreement that with the New Testament the content of faith is the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah. However, was that the content of faith for the Old Testament saint? Cox and Covenant Theologians say yes, for everyone who is saved from Adam on is saved because of \u201ca childlike faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.\u201d Cox assumes that the Old Testament saint had the same knowledge about Christ as the New Testament saint. This is, of course, impossible to prove from the Old Testament alone. Cox is forced to read the New Testament back into the Old, also ignoring that the saints of the Old Testament had no such privilege. The following is one example:<\/p>\n
Let us look at the saints of the Old Testament. How were they saved? Was the plan under which they were saved any different from God\u2019s plan of salvation for today? Let us look, through the eyes of that great theologian, Paul, at Abraham\u2019s salvation, Paul took painstaking care in showing that Abraham\u2019s salvation was exactly like that being accepted by Gentiles of Paul\u2019s day. Paul contended that, indeed, all men of all time are saved in the exact same manner. Men of the Old Testament looked forward and accepted the propitiation through Christ on faith while those of the New Testament era accept the finished sacrifice. In the eyes of God, however, all are saved through the same propitiation.<\/p>\n
Cox falls back on Paul\u2019s discussion of Abraham\u2019s salvation in Romans four, but this fails to prove Cox\u2019s contention. All Paul is Staying is that the means of salvation for Abraham was faith apart from works. Paul nowhere says that Abraham believed that Christ would die for his sins. In the many revelations of God to Abraham in the Book of Genesis, such a concept is not stated even once. Still Cox concludes:<\/p>\n
Men today are saved by hearing and believing the kerygma (the good news of Christ\u2019s death, burial, and resurrection). Abraham was saved through faith in that same gospel. This was the same gospel which was preached by John the Baptist, by our Lord himself, and by all of the apostles. This gospel was preached, in advance, to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) so that he might be the father of all the righteous (Rom. 4:11).<\/p>\n
Cox insists that \u201cAbraham was saved through faith in that same gospel.\u201d As evidence he quotes Galatians 3:6\u20139 which, in turn, quotes Genesis 15:6; but all Paul is saying is that Abraham\u2019s faith was the means of salvation. Paul does not say that the content of Abraham\u2019s faith was the substitutionary death of Christ. Furthermore, Genesis 15:6 states that Abraham was reckoned righteous because he believed in Jehovah. Obviously, the means of salvation was faith; but what is it that Abraham believed? Neither in the immediate context nor in the wider context of the story of Abraham in Genesis is it ever said that Abraham believed that the Messiah would come and die for Abraham\u2019s sin; but it does say that Abraham believed the promises of God which primarily had to do with the land and the seed. In the majority of the cases, the seed referred to an immediate son: Isaac. The content of Abraham\u2019s faith was the promises of God. These promises were many, but not one of them was that the Messiah would die for his sins. As Cox makes clear, Covenant Amillenarians believe that faith in Jesus Christ was always the means of salvation for all saints of all times:<\/p>\n
On these distinctives there is complete agreement among amillenarians: God has always had but one plan of salvation, that plan rests only on the finished work of Christ, all men stand in need of salvation, and all who are saved are saved in the exact same way, i.e., only through faith in Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
5. The Church in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
Because in Covenant Theology the Church has always existed, at least since Abraham, Berkhof must seek to find it and its form in different periods of time. Under the title, \u201cThe Church in the Different Dispensations,\u201d Berkhof, as an Amillennialist, sees three dispensations for the history of the Church. (Hodge and Covenant Postmillennialists have four dispensations. Earlier Berkhof claimed that there are only two dispensations.)
\nThe first dispensation was the patriarchal period. From Adam to Moses, the Church was largely composed of \u201cpious households\u201d and the fathers were the priests. Among these pious households were the households of Noah and Abraham. With Abraham, the Church developed as part of a peoplehood, and by means of circumcision it was separated from the world. It is here that Israel and the Church become identified as the same.
\nThe second dispensation was the Mosaic period. With this dispensation the identification of Israel with the Church is complete. At Sinai, the people of Israel became both \u201ca nation\u201d and \u201cthe Church of God\u201d. The Church now \u201chad its institutional existence in the national life of Israel\u201d. What came into being in this dispensation was the \u201cChurch-State.\u201d It was now \u201cthe whole nation\u201d that \u201cconstituted the Church,\u201d and \u201cthe Church was limited to the one nation of Israel.\u201d With this presupposition, it becomes relatively easy to turn so many promises and prophecies made to and of Israel to really speak of the Church. What is unclear is a seeming inconsistency. If, indeed, \u201cthe whole nation\u201d was the Church, did that include the unbelievers who were more often than not the majority? Yet Berkhof makes the kingdom and the Church the same, and regeneration is the means of entering this kingdom-Church. If so, how could the Church now be \u201cthe whole nation\u201d of Israel? This identification leads to some inconsistency in covenant amillennial theology.
\nThe third dispensation is the New Testament period. This will be discussed under Israel Present.<\/p>\n
B. Israel Present<\/p>\n
1. The New Covenant<\/p>\n
Because they only recognize one covenant, the covenant of grace, Covenant Amillenarians not only refuse to recognize the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants to be distinct, but they also fail to recognize the New Covenant as being distinct. Berkhof refuses to see any major differences of the various administrations of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament dispensation. He also fails to see any real difference between the Old Testament dispensation and the New Testament dispensation. Because he insists on only one covenant of grace, Berkhof cannot admit, any essential difference between the Old Testament dispensation and the New Testament dispensation. The fact that the New Testament speaks of a new covenant is dismissed as meaning that \u201cits administration differs in several particulars from that of the Old Testament.\u201d That is also true between the administrations of the covenant with Noah, the covenant with Abraham, and the covenant at Sinai. For Berkhof, the New Covenant is \u201cnew\u201d not because it is another covenant, but because \u201cits administration differs in several particulars.\u201d
\nThe first of these is that it \u201cextends to all nations.\u201d It is now \u201cuniversal\u201d and no longer limited to the Jewish people or to Israel as a nation. Insofar as the spiritual blessing of salvation is concerned, however, is this really so new? Berkhof admits that even \u201cduring \u2026 the law it was possible for Gentiles \u2026 to share in the blessings of the covenant.\u201d Salvation was always available to Gentiles by grace through faith, So what is really new? What is \u201cnew\u201d for Berkhof is that Church and state are no longer united. The Church is now separated from physical Israel. That means that physical Israel is no longer entitled to the blessings of the covenant, either physical or spiritual. In this way, Covenant Amillennialism can claim that all promises are now being fulfilled in the Church, the spiritual Israel, and never will be fulfilled for physical Israel. By making the New Covenant nothing more than a new administration of the covenant of grace, there can be only one people of God who are the recipients of all covenant blessings, and that will be the Church.
\nThe second way it is a \u201cnew\u201d covenant is that there is a \u201cgreater emphasis on the gracious character of the covenant.\u201d This is not to deny that there were \u201cgracious promises during the period of the law.\u201d As much as Covenant Theologians try to deny it. Dispensationalists have been saying the same thing. To call a period of time the Dispensation of Law does not deny that there was grace, anymore than calling a period of time the Dispensation of Grace denies that there is law during that period. The difference is that Dispensationalists base this point on the fact that two separate and distinct covenants are involved, the Mosaic and the New Covenants, and not merely two administrations of the same covenant of grace. The Dispensationalist at least does not have to either ignore or explain the obvious differences between the two.
\nCox follows the same logic. As a Covenant Theologian, he holds that there is only one covenant operative today, and that is the covenant of grace. It is obvious, however, that the Scriptures speak of a number of covenants which are separate and distinct from one another, and even distinguishes the \u201cold\u201d covenant from the \u201cnew\u201d one. Cox\u2019s explanation is:<\/p>\n
It would seem that when the Bible speaks of \u201cold\u201d covenant and \u201cnew\u201d covenant, it is a matter of accommodation. That is to say that God is accommodating his language to the understanding of finite man. For, to be sure, God is all-knowing, and in his mind there has always been but one plan for the salvation of man.\u2026<\/p>\n
Every inspired writer who spoke in the Scriptures of old and new covenants could well have added the words of Paul, \u201cI speak after the manner of men \u2026\u201d (Rom. 6:19). For in God\u2019s sight there has always been but one eternal plan, which he has unfolded through a progressive revelation to man.\u2026<\/p>\n
However, from man\u2019s perspective, that plan has been unfolded in sections as he was able to grasp it, and these integral parts of God\u2019s eternal whole have been referred to (by accommodation) as the covenant of Abraham, the Mosaic Covenant, the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31), and so forth.<\/p>\n
In other words, when the Bible speaks of different covenants, it does not really mean different covenants. Such language was necessary for the purpose of \u201caccommodation\u201d so that man can understand what is happening. These separate covenants, like the Abrahamic, Mosaic, New, etc., are all merely facets of the same covenant, the one covenant of grace. Otherwise, man would not have been able to understand God\u2019s revelation. But was ancient man really that ignorant? Certainly if a biblical writer said that there was only one covenant to be revealed in stages, it would have easily been understood. Cox is trying to fit that which the Bible reveals into this theology and has to explain away the plurality of the covenants.<\/p>\n
2. The Abrahamic Covenant<\/p>\n
If there is only one covenant, the covenant of grace, then obviously there can be no distinctively Jewish covenants. In dealing with the Abrahamic Covenant, Cox states:<\/p>\n
First of all, the covenant with Abraham was not given to a Jew, nor was it given exclusively for Jews. This may come as a shock to many who have been reared on cliches and \u201cJewish theology.\u201d Abraham had been called out of Ur of the Chaldees and had received the covenant long before Israel as a nation came into existence. Let us bear in mind that Israel as we know it today originated with Jacob, who lived two generations after Abraham: \u2026<\/p>\n
What the spirit of the Old Testament teaches is that the old covenant people was made up primarily (but not entirely) of Israelites. God arbitrarily chose that nation to be an example to the world. He gave them special training and insight in order that they might be a \u201cpeculiar people\u201d and evangelize the entire world. But this we need to learn (the futurists ignore it), Israel failed God! (see Rom. 9:31, 32; 10:21). Since the covenant was conditional, the contract is broken, and God is not bound to Israel as a nation. His covenant now is with the faithful remnant, and with the Gentile believers; these two groups constitute the Christian church, which today is the Israel of God. (Gal. 6:16).<\/p>\n
These statements are made in opposition to the obvious emphasis in the Abrahamic Covenant on a singular nation that will physically descend from Abraham (Jews, Israel) and the emphasis that both Abraham and his descendants will inherit the land of Canaan. Cox makes a strong effort to deny the Jewish nature of the covenant so that he can reach his conclusion (1) that God is not bound to Israel as a nation, (2) that His covenant is with the Church, and, (3) that this Church is the Israel of God.
\nWhen Cox turns to the New Covenant, the same line of thinking is evident:<\/p>\n
A whole host of New Testament scriptures show conclusively that the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah (31:31\u201334) was established with the church made up of both Jews and Gentiles without distinction \u2026<\/p>\n
Although the covenant was made with Judah and Israel of the Old Testament, it was fulfilled in the spiritual Israel of the New Testament, that is, the church.<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 31:31 clearly predicts that the New Covenant is made with both houses of Israel which is as clear as the Bible can say that it is made with national Israel. This Cox admits; but he then insists that in actuality, the covenant was not made with the house of Judah and with the house of Israel, but with the Church, which Cox claims is \u201cthe spiritual Israel of the New Testament.\u201d This is repeated by Cox later:<\/p>\n
Although the covenant was made with Judah and Israel of the Old Testament, it was fulfilled in the spiritual Israel of the New Testament, that is, the church. Even this, however, was prophesied in scriptures such as Zechariah 2:11.<\/p>\n
Again admitting that the New Covenant was made \u201cwith Judah and Israel in the Old Testament,\u201d he still insists that it was only \u201cfulfilled in the spiritual Israel of the New Testament,\u201d which of course is \u201cthe church.\u201d As further evidence, he cites Zechariah 2:11; but all this verse is saying is that in the future, many nations (Gentiles) will believe in the God of Israel and will also become God\u2019s people. That is not enough to prove Cox\u2019s contention that the New Covenant is therefore made with the Church. Cox is again presupposing his theology when he reads Zechariah 2:11. After all, he can allow for only one covenant, the covenant of grace, and that covenant is made with only one group, the Church.
\nHendriksen also denies the essential Jewish nature of the covenant:<\/p>\n
What may well be the clearest of all passages to show that the covenant with Abraham applies to all believers today, irrespective of nationality, is the one in which Paul roundly declares that in Christ there simply are no longer any Jews or Greeks (Gentiles). There is no longer any room for that former distinction; all are now one. All that matters is whether a person belongs to Christ: \u201cIf you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham\u2019s seed, heirs according to promise\u201d (Gal. 3:28, 29). Clearer language is impossible.<\/p>\n
Hendriksen uses Galatians 3:28\u201329 to prove that the Abrahamic Covenant applies to all believers since all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have now been erased. For Hendriksen, the Abrahamic Covenant is the same as the theological covenant of grace. While it is true that \u201cclearer language is impossible,\u201d Hendriksen should be careful not to go beyond what Paul actually said. The Abrahamic Covenant included both physical and spiritual promises. The physical promises were limited to the Jewish people, but the spiritual promises were predicted to extend to the Gentiles (Gen. 12:3). In the New Testament, those Gentiles who believe in Jesus become the recipients of these spiritual promises. Here in Galatians, Paul\u2019s point is that Gentiles receive their salvation by grace through faith apart from the works of the Law of Moses, which is the greatest spiritual blessing of them all; but that is all Paul is saying here. Paul is not cancelling out the physical promises for Israel, nor is he denying the Jewish nature of the covenant. He is only saying that Gentile believers have become participants in the salvation promised by the Abrahamic Covenant. Hendriksen is trying to force the Abrahamic Covenant into the mold of his covenant of grace and, therefore, does not allow either the Abrahamic Covenant or Paul to speak for themselves. The physical promises of the Abrahamic Covenant are all made to disappear with only the spiritual promises remaining, so the covenant as a whole now \u201capplies to all believers.\u201d Paul is made to declare that \u201cin Christ there simply are no longer any Jews or Greeks (Gentiles)\u201d as a blanket statement, when in reality Paul\u2019s point is only that, insofar as salvation is concerned, there are no distinctions since both Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way: by grace through faith apart from the Law of Moses.
\nIt is on the basis that the Abrahamic Covenant was made with the Church and not with the Jews that Berkhof tries to defend infant baptism and does so in four points. He has the honesty to admit that the Bible nowhere commands the baptism of children, nor is there \u201ca single instance\u201d in the New Testament where children were baptized. Berkhof\u2019s denomination, the Christian Reformed Church (part of the Dutch Reformed movement), practices infant baptism, and so he must defend it in some way. He defends it on the basis of Covenant Theology, and in so doing touches on the subject of Israelology.
\nHis first defense is that the \u201ccovenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant,\u201d and \u201cof this spiritual covenant circumcision was a sign and seal.\u201d His basis for this statement is \u201cthe manner in which its promises are interpreted in the New Testament.\u201d As for the physical act of circumcision, this too \u201chad spiritual significance.\u201d Three things are being ignored by Berkhof. First, if a list is made of the physical and spiritual promises contained in the Abrahamic Covenant, the physical promises would greatly outnumber those in the spiritual column. If this means anything, it negates Berkhof\u2019s insistence that this covenant was \u201cprimarily\u201d a spiritual covenant. There are spiritual promises contained in the covenant, but they are far from the majority. Second, it is true that the New Testament greatly elaborates on the spiritual promises (without ignoring the physical promises), but this does not prove that the covenant was \u201cprimarily\u201d spiritual. It only shows what the main interest was in relation to the first coming of the Messiah. If an American author chooses to write a dissertation on one amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it would hardly mean that the amendment is the \u201cprimary\u201d facet of the Constitution. It is not enough to point to how the New Testament develops a facet of the Abrahamic Covenant and then decree that this facet is \u201cprimary.\u201d This original context and content of the Abrahamic Covenant must not be ignored. Third, there can be no doubt that physical circumcision had \u201cspiritual significance\u201d; but in the very passages Berkhof cites, this \u201cspiritual significance\u201d is the circumcision of the heart (not baptism). Furthermore, the circumcision of the heart was not to replace the circumcision of the flesh, for both the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant required both.
\nBerkhof\u2019s second defense is that the covenant with Abraham \u201cis still in force and is essentially identical with the \u2018new covenant\u2019 of the present dispensation.\u201d Dispensationalists all agree that the Abrahamic Covenant \u201cis still in force,\u201d but they deny that it is \u201cidentical\u201d with the New Covenant. Again, such an identification is made on the basis that Covenant Theology is true and that the covenant of grace exists. His theology can only allow for one covenant, the covenant of grace, and all the individual covenants become merely outworkings of the covenant of grace. They all become \u201cessentially identical,\u201d the major differences between them notwithstanding. Berkhof gives three evidences for this. His first evidence for making the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant \u201cessentially identical\u201d is \u201cthe fact that the Mediator is the same.\u201d This is true, but it does not prove the point since one mediator can make more than one covenant, and each covenant can be different from the others. His second evidence is that \u201cthe condition is the same, namely, faith.\u201d That is true for entering the New Covenant, but not the Abrahamic. All born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were in that covenant and received circumcision at the age of eight days. At that age they did not exercise any faith. However, to enter the New Covenant, faith was a prerequisite, and baptism followed, which is why infants were not baptized anywhere in the New Testament. The condition for entering each covenant was not the same though the condition for salvation was: by grace through faith. Even if the condition for entering each covenant was the same, it would not prove the sameness of the covenants themselves. The difference in the condition points to a difference in the covenants themselves. Berkhof\u2019s third evidence is based on the fact that \u201cthe blessings are the same.\u201d Again, the sameness of the blessings does not prove the sameness of the covenants. Furthermore, while many of the spiritual blessings are the same, the physical blessings are not. For that reason, Berkhof is forced to deny the relevance of the physical blessings and to spiritualize them all since he insists on the sameness of the covenants. Other evidence that Berkhof raises only proves the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and not that it is the same as the New Covenant.
\nHaving tried to show that the covenant with Abraham was \u201cprimarily\u201d spiritual and that it is still in effect and \u201cessentially identical\u201d with the New Covenant, Berkhof moves to his third defense which depends on the truth of the first two defenses for its validity. In the third defense, Berkhof engages in presuppositionalism. He begins with a very true statement that \u201cinfants shared in the benefits of the covenant, and therefore received circumcision as a sign and seal.\u201d It is indeed a fact that infants were part of the Abrahamic Covenant and were born into it, and for this reason they received circumcision. What Berkhof builds on this is based purely on his Covenant Theology. His next statement is that there is \u201ca people or nation of God\u201d which is \u201cconstituted by families.\u201d To Berkhof this people of God was the Church in the Old Testament; but then he asserts that this \u201cnational idea \u2026 did not disappear when the nation of Israel had served its purpose. It was spiritualized and thus carried over into the New Testament, so that the New Testament people of God are also represented as a nation.\u201d Here Berkhof dispenses with the Jewish nation, although it was with that nation that the covenant was made. For Berkhof, the Church is the new nation of God. To make the Church a \u201cnation\u201d is essential for Berkhof to establish his defense for the practice of infant baptism. Yet the references he cites never prove this point. Matthew 21:43 has already been discussed. Romans 9:25\u201326, which quotes Hosea 2:23, never refers to the Church as a nation, but only points out that believing Gentiles are also now the people of God. Berkhof conveniently ignores Romans 10:19 where the Church is referred to as no nation. 2 Corinthians 6:16 refers to the Church (as individual believers) as the temple of the living God and as my people, but not as a nation. Titus 2:14 refers to believers as a people for his own possession, but not as a nation. 1 Peter 2:9 does speak of a holy nation, but the first two verses of this epistle make it clear that Peter was addressing Jewish believers specifically and not the Church as a whole. This makes sense since Peter was the apostle to the circumcision. The Jewish believers constituted the present Remnant of Israel or the Israel of God. They are the holy nation. The point Peter makes is that while the nation as a whole has failed to fulfill its calling of Exodus 19:5\u20136, the Jewish believing remnant has not. Berkhof totally fails to prove his contention that the Church in the New Testament is \u201crepresented as a nation.\u201d However, having presupposed it, he continues to build his case. He points out that infants \u201cwere considered during the old dispensation as an integral part of Israel as the people of God,\u201d and as a result had certain privileges. This is all true under the Abrahamic Covenant. But then Berkhof resorts to suppositional theology when he asserts, \u201c\u2026 we would hardly expect the privileges of such children to be reduced in the new dispensation, and certainly would not look for their exclusion from any standing in the Church.\u201d What Berkhof says here can only be true if Israel arid the Church are the same, and the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are the same. This Berkhof fails to establish. If the Church is both new and created, and if the New Covenant is not \u201cessentially identical\u201d with the Abrahamic, then the standing of infants has not been \u201creduced\u201d since there was no standing to be \u201creduced.\u201d Since faith is a condition for entering the New Covenant, it would certainly exclude infants. Berkhof again cites passages that do not prove his point. Matthew 19:14 does not speak of infants, but of children who were obviously old enough to come to Jesus (v. 13). Acts 2:39 makes a reference to \u201cchildren,\u201d but not to infants. Furthermore, these children were old enough to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (v. 38), and not even Berkhof believes that, this is possible for infants. 1 Corinthians 7:14 only affirms that children of believers are set apart or sanctified, but that does not give them membership in the Church. Furthermore, none of these three passages even deals with the subject of infant baptism. Berkhof has built a whole case on the basis of Covenant Theology rather than exegesis, since exegetically he has to admit that Infant baptism is non-existent in the New Testament. In the end, Berkhof is forced to resort to an argument from silence: \u201cSuch an exclusion would seem to require a very explicit statement to that effect.\u201d This is a poor way for an evangelical theologian to develop a practice for the Church when all should be based on the principle of sola scriptura. What is not needed is an \u201cexplicit statement\u201d of exclusion. To establish his point, Berkhof needs an \u201cexplicit statement\u201d of inclusion. In his introductory statement he has admitted that this is not possible.
\nBerkhof\u2019s fourth defense is his conclusion to the first three. This defense begins with a very dogmatic assertion that in \u201cthe new dispensation baptism is by divine authority substituted for circumcision as the initiatory sign and seal of the covenant of grace.\u201d The first problem is the assumption that a covenant of grace even exists, and Berkhof has not even shown this to be true. He gave a clear definition of what this covenant of grace is, but never produced a passage of Scripture which speaks of a covenant of grace as defined by Berkhof. The second problem is the assertion that circumcision has been substituted by baptism by \u201cdivine authority.\u201d This dogmatic statement is not supported by Scripture anywhere either, but Berkhof tries by citing Scripture which he claims \u201cstrongly insists on it that circumcision can no more serve as such,\u201d i.e., as an \u201cinitiatory sign and seal.\u201d if what Berkhof says is true, then circumcision is invalid for all Jews, both Christian and non-Christian. In fact, it would be wrong. The very passages Berkhof cites in no way teach what he wants them to. Acts 15:1\u20132 only negates circumcision for Gentile believers and circumcision as a necessity for salvation. It says nothing about baptism or that baptism replaces circumcision. It is extremely odd that Berkhof cites Acts 21:21, for this goes very far to disprove his contention. The context cites some false rumors that have been spread about Paul by his enemies, one of which is that Paul was teaching the Jews of the Dispersion not to circumcise their children. The point of the context is that these accusations against Paul were false. Paul takes a public vow to show that these accusations are false (vv. 23\u201324) and all shall know that there is no truth in the things where of they have been informed concerning thee. The very fact that Paul took the vow shows that he did not teach against Jewish circumcision, though he did teach against Gentile circumcision. It is a strange passage for Berkhof to cite. Galatians 2:3\u20135 only argues against Gentile circumcision. Galatians 5:1\u20136 argues against circumcision for the purpose of either justification or sanctification. Galatians 6:12\u201313 and 15 argue against circumcision for salvation, or that it in any way avails towards salvation. Not a single one of these passages negates the practice of circumcision for Jews, nor do they mention baptism as a replacement for circumcision. Yet Berkhof insists that if \u201cbaptism did not take its place, then the New Testament has no initiatory rite.\u201d It is hard to follow Berkhof\u2019s logic here. Why cannot baptism, as an initiatory rite, co-exist with circumcision? Why does one have to replace the other? Probably because the presuppositions of Covenant Theology have colored Berkhof\u2019s thinking. Since there is in reality only one covenant, the covenant of grace, there can be only one initiatory rite for any dispensation. For Berkhof\u2019s Mosaic dispensation, it was circumcision. For the New Testament dispensation, it is baptism. However, if the Abrahamic and New Covenants are separate and distinct, then circumcision can still be an initiatory rite for the Abrahamic Covenant, and all Jews may still be required to be circumcised. Baptism is an initiatory rite under the New Covenant, and so obligatory for all believers, both Jews and Gentiles.
\nBerkhof\u2019s problem is that he is trying to prove two things that are not substantiated by Scripture. The first is that baptism has been substituted for circumcision and, second, that in light of the first, infant baptism is valid. For that reason, Berkhof is forced to believe that if baptism did not replace circumcision, then the \u201cNew Testament has no initiatory rite.\u201d Berkhof goes on to insist that \u201cChrist clearly substituted it as such,\u201d citing Matthew 28:19\u201320 and Mark 16:15\u201316 as evidence; but he reads too much into these verses. All they teach is that baptism is to be practiced by the Church. It is those who believe the gospel who are to be baptized. They do not even hint that baptism replaces circumcision and they say nothing about infant baptism. Berkhof continues to try, stating that baptism \u201ccorresponds with circumcision in spiritual meaning.\u201d Without either affirming or denying Berkhof\u2019s explanation of the spiritual significance of the two rites, it is enough to point out that even if the spiritual meaning of the two rites was exactly the same, it would still fail to prove that one is a replacement for the other. Berkhof cites Colossians 2:11\u201312 and interprets it to teach \u201cthat the Christ-circumcision, that is, circumcision of the heart, signified by circumcision in the flesh, was accomplished by baptism, that is, by that which baptism signifies.\u201d This is not totally so. The passage is in a context where Paul deals with the believer\u2019s position in Christ. Verse 11 teaches that the believer has been spiritually circumcised of which physical circumcision was a type. It symbolizes the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh. Verse 12 deals with the subject of baptism, but it is debatable whether it speaks of water baptism or Spirit baptism. The evidence from the context is that Paul is speaking of Spirit baptism and not the rite of water baptism. Just as in verse 11, he was speaking of spiritual circumcision and not the rite of the circumcision of the flesh. Furthermore, the means by which a believer attains his position of being in Christ is by Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13). Spirit baptism also signifies the believer\u2019s spiritual resurrection (v. 13) of which water baptism is a type. The very fact that the spiritual meanings are not the same as Berkhof earlier affirmed negates his contention and theory of replacement. This would still be true even if verse 12 was speaking of water baptism. Furthermore, even if it is speaking of water baptism, it does not teach that it replaces physical circumcision. In the end, Berkhof must again resort to presuppositionalism and an argument from silence. The presupposition is that \u201cif children received the sign and seal of the covenant in the old dispensation, the presumption is that they surely have a right to receive it in the new.\u201d This again presupposes that there is only one covenant, the covenant of grace, and therefore the Abrahamic and New Covenants are one and the same. It also presupposes that the spiritual meaning of the two rites are the same. Basically, it presupposes Covenant Theology. The argument from silence is that exclusion of infants from the rite of baptism \u201cwould require a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect.\u201d Again, however, the opposite is true. What Berkhof needs is an \u201cunequivocal statement\u201d to practice infant baptism, and this he does not have. Once again, a system of theology is used to defend a practice and a belief when there is no clear Scriptural support. It leads to inconsistency, for only male infants are circumcised, but both male and female infants are baptized. Furthermore, it is all at the expense of Israelology, for \u201cthe nation of Israel had served its purpose,\u201d and therefore has no future; and all things, such as circumcision, are somehow transferred to the Church.
\nLater, Berkhof tries to answer objections to infant baptism, one of which is its absence in Scripture:<\/p>\n
There is no explicit command that children must be baptized. This is perfectly true, but does not disprove the validity of infant baptisms \u2026 May not the silence of Scripture be construed for, rather than against, infant baptism? For twenty centuries children had been formally initiated into the Church, and the New Testament does not say that this must now cease, though it does teach that circumcision can no more serve for this purpose \u2026 Does the Bible anywhere command the exclusion of children from baptism?<\/p>\n
Berkhof tries to turn the argument from silence to his favor, but once again falls into a faulty Israelology. There is presuppositionalism when he says that for \u201ctwenty centuries children had been formally initiated into the Church, arid the New Testament does not say that this must now cease, though it does teach that circumcision can no more serve for this purpose.\u201d Berkhof again presupposes that the Church is Israel, which has continued into the New Testament as essentially the same. If infants were initiated by the rite of circumcision in the old dispensation, they therefore have the right to be initiated by the rite of baptism. (Why are girls included in the second when they were not in the first?) Berkhof again insists that circumcision has been cancelled out as an initiatory rite, but this he has not proved. Berkhof\u2019s question, \u201cDoes the Bible anywhere command the exclusion of children from baptism?\u201d is the wrong question to ask. The question should be: Does the Bible anywhere command the inclusion of infants for baptism? Berkhof has already admitted that there is none, and so to prove it, he must develop a very faulty Israelology.
\nThis becomes apparent one more time when Berkhof tries to defend the basis of infant baptism as found in various confessions. Here, Berkhof clearly admits that the Covenant Theologians\u2019 basis for infant baptism is based in \u201cthe last analysis\u201d on the command for circumcision. Then, on this very shallow basis, a whole theology is built such as \u201cinfants of believing parents are baptized,\u201d and \u201cthey are children of the covenant.\u201d Furthermore, with this baptism the infants become \u201cheirs of the \u2026 covenant-promises of God which include \u2026 the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.\u201d If they later fall to believe, then they are to be regarded as \u201ccovenant breakers.\u201d This seems to be unfair since this covenant was forced on them by their parents! But again, all this is a lot of theology based on a weak premise.<\/p>\n
3. The Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses<\/p>\n
Covenant Amillennialists insist on the continuity of the Law of Moses, though they have to make some major adjustments. Allis not only fails to see the Mosaic Covenant as a distinct covenant from the Abrahamic, but also fails to view it as a single unit. This is necessary for him to retain part of it and do away with other parts. Allis claims that the law contained \u201csome elements which were permanent and unchanging and others that were temporary.\u201d No one who has taken this position, including Allis, has ever made a list of the 613 commandments and listed which are temporary and which are permanent. Allis tries to do so only in a categorical way. He includes the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments as being permanent; but even here he is inconsistent, for he would fudge on the issue of the Sabbath. Even what he would class as \u201cpermanent\u201d he would feel free to change, such as shifting the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.
\nDispensationalists would claim that with the death of Christ the entire law was rendered inoperative. Allis, however, in keeping with his Covenant Theology, claims that Christ, by \u201cHis perfect keeping of the law of God He both reaffirmed it in all its perfection and discarded that which was ephemeral and purely national.\u201d There is no way of knowing from Allis which commandments were \u201cdiscarded\u201d and which were not. This is largely a subjective judgment on his part, and what remains and what does not is not based on any clear statement of Scripture to that effect, but on the theology already adopted. For example, commandments which were \u201cpurely national\u201d have been done away, and this is in keeping with a theology that claims that God is finished with Israel as a nation. The Dispensationalist has the advantage of not finding himself in a position where he must subjectively choose which of the 613 commandments are still in effect and which are not.
\nWhen Allis deals with Paul\u2019s treatment of the law and its relationship to the Abrahamic Covenant, he admits that Paul speaks of \u201ctwo covenants\u201d; but Allis cannot allow for this since there can be only one covenant, the covenant of grace. Allis in essence states that Paul did not really mean that, but was \u201cspeaking of the law only as a system of works-righteousness.\u201d This is an example of how much effort a theologian will exercise to force the biblical text to a preconceived theology. In essence, what Allis claims is that the law of Moses, which differs only in \u201cdegree\u201d from the Abrahamic Covenant, is still in force with only certain commandments \u201cdiscarded.\u201d
\nIn dealing with the present age, Allis claims that the \u201cgospel age is the age of the new covenant.\u201d This age \u201cis not marked by freedom from the law.\u201d Yet the New Testament clearly affirms the opposite (Gal. 4:5), so this is a remarkable statement for Allis to make. Furthermore, Dispensationalists do not believe that the new age is a \u201creturn to a dispensation of promise.\u201d On the contrary, it is a new dispensation in which the Law of Moses is not operative, but the Law of Christ is. It is this law that is operative today, and, to use Allis\u2019 own words, \u201cnot as the means of salvation, but as the fruit of a life that is hid with Christ in God!\u201d The approach Allis takes with the Law of Moses is simply too subjective.
\nLater, Allis has more to say about the Ten Commandments. He faults Dispensationalists for teaching that the Ten Commandments were \u201cnot intended for the Church.\u201d This is true, but it is not based on what Allis accuses Dispensationalists of: \u201cthe desire of Dispensationalists to eliminate everything that savors of obedience from the dispensations of promise and of grace \u2026\u201d It is based on the fact that the Ten Commandments are part of the Law of Moses, and the Dispensationalist believes that the New Testament teaches that the law is a single unit and as such has been rendered inoperative. This teaching is a problem for Allis since he so badly wants to retain it as part of his system, but then he is forced to change the meaning of the Sabbath in order to accomplish it. Allis first tries to show that keeping the Sabbath was always mandatory, and the obligation preceded the law at Sinai. Nehemiah 9:14 clearly states that the command to observe the Sabbath was given by Moses. Allis tries to get around this by saying that Nehemiah 9:14 only shows when it \u201cwas imposed on Israel\u201d and not when it \u201cwas imposed on man,\u201d but this is a contradiction. If the Sabbath was imposed on man from the very beginning, then that imposition would have already been in effect by the time of Moses. Why was it necessary for Moses to impose the Sabbath law on Israel since such a law had already been imposed upon all? Allis does not explain.
\nFor Allis, the law of the Sabbath begins in Genesis 2:1\u20133, but there is no command to keep the Sabbath in this passage. While several commandments were given to Adam, the keeping of the Sabbath was not one of them. Nor is there any mention of the Sabbath or any record of anyone keeping the Sabbath between Adam and Moses. It is obvious that Sabbath observance began with Moses. Allis tries to prove that the Sabbath requirement began with Genesis 2:1\u20133 by simply stating that the \u201cstatement that God rested on the seventh day, blessed and hallowed it \u2026, would lose much of its meaning and most of its importance for the Christian, if it had to be regarded as nothing more than the basis for one of the requirements of an exclusively Jewish decalogue.\u201d If this is a clinching argument for Allis, it is rather poor, for it is based on Church tradition rather than the clear statement of Scripture. To declare that the \u201cTen Commandments are an important part of all the great Protestant catechisms\u201d is beside the point.
\nEven if it is granted (and it is not) that the observance of the Sabbath is a creation ordinance rather than a Mosaic one, Allis still makes a tremendous leap in theological logic. He declares that \u201cthe obligation to keep holy the first day of the week is greatly weakened if the connection with the Old Testament sabbath is all but completely destroyed.\u201d But both in Genesis 2:1\u20133 and in the Decalogue the emphasis is on the seventh day of the week. The same is true everywhere else that the Sabbath is mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments. When there was any obligation stated, it was always on Israel and not on humanity in general; but with a quick sweep of the pen, Allis suddenly invents an obligation to keep holy the first day of the week. Where did any such obligation originate? How did the holy and hallowed seventh day become the holy and hallowed first day? There is no scriptural warrant for this, and Allis does not even try to cite any. The keeping holy of \u201cthe first day of the week\u201d is supposedly to be in \u201cconnection with the Old Testament sabbath,\u201d but that very \u201cconnection\u201d does not allow the Sabbath to fall on the first day of the week. Allis\u2019 exegesis is faulty, as is his logic.
\nCox\u2019s treatment of the same topic is somewhat confusing. He tries to show that the concept of eternity has two distinct meanings. In relationship to Israel, it is \u201caccommodated\u201d eternalness which ends up being temporary. In relationship to the Church, it is a \u201cliteral\u201d eternalness, meaning just that. It is hard to conceive of a more blatant example of prejudicial theology. The issue here is not whether certain Hebrew or Greek words actually mean \u201ceternity.\u201d The issue here is that when applied to Israel, it has one meaning, but when applied to the Church, it has another. An example of this principle is Cox\u2019s discussion on circumcision:<\/p>\n
Circumcision had an accommodated eternalness, which was in force until Christ instituted, by his death, the \u201ccircumcision of the heart.\u201d The literalist would have a difficult time proving that physical circumcision (as a rite) did not come to an end with the birth of the church at Pentecost. And yet, according to the type of reasoning the literalist uses with reference to the promises concerning Israel, how could physical circumcision have come to an end, seeing as how it was given as an everlasting covenant?\u2026<\/p>\n
Circumcision also has a literal eternalness, which includes all believers in God\u2019s covenant, Old Testament believers as well as believers of the New Testament dispensation. These are the circumcised in heart (Deut. 30:6; Col. 2:11; Rom. 2:28, 29; Phil. 3:3). This spiritual circumcision shall never end.<\/p>\n
What Cox affirms is that physical circumcision came to an end with the death of Christ who then \u201cinstituted\u201d the circumcision of the heart. However, the circumcision of the heart was already found in the Old Testament and was mandatory in both Moses and the prophets. It was not something new with the New Testament. Spiritual circumcision was contemporary with physical circumcision. Cox further claims that the \u201cliteralist would have a difficult time proving that physical circumcision (as a rite) did not come to an end with the birth of the church at Pentecost.\u201d In reality, the reverse is true. Circumcision was prescribed under two covenants. First was the Abrahamic Covenant by which it was mandatory for Jews only. It was also prescribed under the Mosaic Covenant where it was mandatory for both Jews and Gentiles. The Dispensationalist believes that the Mosaic Covenant has come to an end with the death of Christ, so circumcision is no longer mandatory for either Jews or Gentiles as far as it being based on the Mosaic Law. The Abrahamic Covenant is eternal and so it still mandates circumcision, but for Jews only. When Paul argued against circumcision in the Book of Galatians, it was against Gentile circumcision on the basis of the Mosaic Law. For that reason, he would not allow Titus, a Gentile, to be circumcised. But was that the case with Jews? It is Cox who would have a difficult time proving that circumcision ended with the birthday of the Church, since Paul himself had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:1\u20133) because of his Jewish roots, and Timothy was already a believer. Furthermore, the Jewish believers of the Church of Jerusalem, the mother church, practiced circumcision, and Paul took a public vow to show that he did not teach that Jewish believers should not practice circumcision (Acts 21:20\u201324), though he certainly did teach against it for Gentiles. There is no need to conclude that for Jews circumcision had \u201can accommodated eternalness.\u201d Of course, spiritual circumcision is mandatory for all, both Jews and Gentiles. This was already true in the Old Testament and did not originate with the New Testament; nor was it only initiated with Pentecost.
\nCox tries to make the same distinction in relationship to the Law:<\/p>\n
Law had an accommodated eternalness, which was in force until the death of Christ instituted the \u201claw of Christ,\u201d and brought to an end (for all believers) the old law (Rom. 10:4). Let us be reminded again that this law of which Jesus became the end was instituted as an eternal or everlasting law. Will any hyperliteralists deny that Jesus did replace this law in the hearts of his followers after Calvary? Paul said to the Christians at Rome (a mixed congregation, which, all scholars agree, included Jews), \u201c\u2026 for ye are not under law, but under grace\u201d (Rom. 6:14).<\/p>\n
Law also has a literal eternalness in that God\u2019s commands, both those of the Old Testament and of the New, are ever binding upon the circumcised in heart.<\/p>\n
What Cox maintains here is a bit confusing. He obviously states that the Law of Moses came to an end and that now the Law of Christ has come into effect, but that is exactly the position of Dispensationalism. However, Dispensationalists do not make this an \u201caccommodated eternalness\u201d since they never believed that the Law of Moses was eternal in the first place. In relationship to the Church, law is a \u201cliteral eternalness,\u201d and here Cox does not limit it to the Law of Christ but includes the commands of God \u201cboth those of the Old Testament and of the New.\u201d If those of the Old \u201care ever binding,\u201d then how is it that they have ended with Christ? How is it that they were only \u201cin force until the death of Christ instituted \u2018the law of Christ\u2019 \u201d? Cox is both confusing and contradictory here. Furthermore, since many of the commandments of the Law of Moses are the exact opposite of the commandments of the Law of Christ, how could both possibly be binding on the New Testament believer? Either all meats are clean (Law of Christ) or they are not (Law of Moses). Cox ignores such details, and because he does, he arrives at some faulty conclusions.
\nCox next tries to apply the distinction of accommodated and literal eternalness to the people of Israel:<\/p>\n
Israel, as the people of God, had an accommodated eternalness, which bound the believing remnant of Israel to God until the death of Christ tore down the middle wall of partition and caused Israel to include believing Gentiles (Eph. 2:14\u201316) \u2026<\/p>\n
Israel also has a literal eternalness, which includes all the Israel of God, of both the Old and New Testament, both Jew and Gentile (Gal. 6:16). This spiritual Israel will reign forever.<\/p>\n
The background to Cox\u2019s statements is that God can have only one people, the elect. The elect in the Old Testament were the Remnant of Israel. For that reason, the people of Israel had an \u201caccommodated eternalness\u201d by which the \u201cbelieving remnant of Israel\u201d bound them to God. With Christ, the Remnant of Israel was separated from the nation, and national Israel is no longer eternal, for the \u201cliteral eternalness\u201d now applies only to the \u201cIsrael of God,\u201d or the \u201cspiritual Israel\u201d which is the Church. These things do not come out of a natural exegesis of the Scriptures. This distinction between \u201caccommodated\u201d and \u201cliteral\u201d eternalness can only be derived out of an imposed theology that simply refuses to allow a future role for Israel.<\/p>\n
4. Israel and the Church<\/p>\n
Covenant Amillennialism maintains that the Church is Israel, and that the Church of the Old Testament and the Church of the New Testament are basically the same. This is brought out clearly in Berkhof\u2019s discussion of the Church in its third dispensation, the New Testament period. Because in Covenant Theology there can only be one people of God, the elect, Berkhof declares that the \u201cNew Testament Church is essentially one with the Church of the old dispensation.\u201d The Church of the previous dispensation, consisting of the whole nation of Israel, is \u201cessentially\u201d the same as the New Testament Church. In discussing the \u201cessential nature\u201d of the two, he states, \u201cthey both consist of true believers, and of true believers only.\u201d This is an odd statement if the Church in the \u201cold dispensation\u201d consisted of the \u201cwhole nation of Israel.\u201d Berkhof must either believe that all members of Israel were believers or that the Israel of the Old Testament included only believers, or there is a major inconsistency in Berkhof\u2019s covenant amillennial theology. Although Berkhof insists that the Church of the Old Testament is \u201cessentially one with the Church of the old dispensation,\u201d even he recognizes some major differences between the two. This difference, according to Berkhof, consists in the fact that the \u201cChurch was divorced from the national life of Israel and obtained an independent organization.\u201d The Church and Israel were one and the same, but now \u201cthe national boundaries of the Church were swept away.\u201d Furthermore, what was once \u201ca national Church now assumed a universal character.\u201d It would seem from these statements that with the New Testament the Church and Israel are no longer the same, but have been separated; but Berkhof only allows this insofar as the \u201cnational life of Israel\u201d is concerned. Berkhof would still insist that the true believing Israel is the Church today, and in that sense the Church is indeed the new Israel. The reason for making this identification is based on how Berkhof defines the Church: \u201cThe Church is essentially \u2026 the community of believers, and this community existed from the beginning of the old dispensation right down to the present time and will continue to exist on earth until the end of the world.\u201d This identification is simply made on the basis of Covenant Theology that can only allow for one people of God, the elect, which in turn is the Church. Since the elect existed for all human history, so does the Church. Since the spiritual Israel is the elect, it is therefore also the Church. While the Church has separated from the national life of Israel, it is nevertheless still the true Israel. Berkhof insists that this is true because the Church is called the \u201cTemple of God,\u201d \u201cJerusalem,\u201d and because the qahal of Israel is translated ekklesia by the Septuagint. According to Berkhof, \u201cthe fact remains that in the Old Testament as well as in the New the original word denotes a congregation or an assembly of the people of God, and as such serves to designate the essence of the Church.\u201d To these arguments, Berkhof adds the fact that Jesus spoke of the Church as an \u201cexisting institution\u201d in Matthew 18:17; that Stephen spoke of \u201cthe Church in the wilderness\u201d in Acts 7:38; and that Paul affirmed \u201cthe spiritual unity of Israel and the Church\u201d in Romans 11:17\u201321 and Ephesians 2:11\u201316. Having felt he proved his point, Berkhof concludes that in \u201cessence Israel constituted the Church of God in the Old Testament, though its external institution differed vastly from that of the Church in the New Testament.\u201d
\nThis identification is faulty and not really supported. It is true that the Church is called the \u201cTemple of God,\u201d but that is poor evidence that Israel is the Church. First of all, Israel as a nation is never called the \u201cTemple of God.\u201d Second, that term as used in the Old Testament refers to a physical building on Mount Moriah (Mount Zion). To say that this name has \u201can Old Testament flavor\u201d does not prove his point. It is highly questionable that the term \u201cJerusalem\u201d is applied to the Church per se in light of Hebrews 12:22, which was discussed earlier. Even if this point is conceded, this alone will still fail to prove his contention. Galatians 4:26, cited by Berkhof, speaks of two Jerusalems, one heavenly and one earthly. The earthly one is certainly the Jewish capital which is distinguished from the heavenly one. The Church is related to the heavenly one and not the earthly one. Whether the Church is the heavenly one or merely resident in it, it is in either case distinguished from Israel Even if it is granted (and it is not) that the Church is the New Jerusalem, it still fails to prove the identification of Israel with the Church. As for the argument that the qahal of Israel is called ekklesia, this is weaker still. This argument has already been discussed in detail under Covenant Postmillennialism. Suffice it to say that the term ekklesia does not mean \u201can assembly of the people of God\u201d as Berkhof maintains and as no Greek lexicon would support. It is a word that merely means \u201cassembly,\u201d and even in the New Testament it is used of an assembly of pagans (Acts 19:32, 39). In classical Greek, the word meant only an \u201cassembly\u201d without any implication of it being \u201can assembly of the people of God.\u201d The use of the word in the Septuagint reflects the classical usage of the word, and not its technical New Testament usage. The truth is that the Septuagint used ekklesia not to teach that Israel and the Church are the same, but because it is the best Greek word to translate the Hebrew qahal, emphasizing the congregation of Israel or the assembly of Israel. This is not enough to insist that the New Testament Church is the same as the Old Testament Israel. Berkhof\u2019s contention becomes weaker still when it is noted that the word qahal was used of the assembly of Israel when it was comprised of a majority of unbelievers. The Septuagint used ekklesia to describe the same thing. Yet Berkhof has in the same paragraph defined the Church as \u201cthe community of believers,\u201d past, present, and future. It becomes highly inconsistent for Berkhof to use this argument to support this thesis. As for Stephen\u2019s statement in Acts 7:38, the church in the wilderness, this is based on the King James Version. Other translations have more accurately rendered this to read, \u201cthe assembly in the wilderness,\u201d or \u201cthe congregation in the wilderness.\u201d Ekklesia does not always mean \u201cChurch,\u201d and Stephen is obviously reflecting on the Septuagint usage of the term. Furthermore, the ekklesia of Acts 7:38 was an unbelieving ekklesia (v. 39) which is not the way Berkhof had defined the ekklesia earlier. Berkhof admits that in Matthew 16:18 Christ spoke of the Church as something still future, but then resorts to Matthew 18:17 to try to prove that the Church was \u201can already existing institution.\u201d However, that is not the way that Matthew 18:17 is to be interpreted. Christ had already introduced the concept of the Church (ekklesia) in Matthew 16:18 and, in that introduction, it was still future. The statement in Matthew 18:17 is not stating that the Church was already here. It is simply explaining what one of the functions of the Church will be, that of Church discipline.
\nFinally, Berkhof cites Romans 11:17\u201321 and Ephesians 2:11\u201316 as evidence that \u201cPaul clearly testifies to the spiritual unity of Israel and the Church.\u201d However, these passages do not teach that Israel and the Church are the same. The Romans passage speaks of spiritual blessings, and the Olive Tree represents the place of blessing as contained in the Jewish covenants. That the tree does not represent Israel itself is obvious, for that is what the natural branches represent. The Gentiles are represented by the wild olive branches. At no point in the passage is it stated that the Olive Tree represents either Israel or the Church, and so Berkhof tries to draw too much from this passage. The Ephesians passage (2:11\u201316) does speak of the Church, but never identifies it with Israel. In fact, this passage says the exact opposite. It mentions the commonwealth of Israel, and it mentions ye, the Gentiles. Paul then points out that Jewish and Gentile believers have been united into one body; but this body is distinct from the commonwealth of Israel. In fact, Paul goes even further and states that what Christ came to do was to create in himself of the two one new man (v. 15). Two words in this sentence negate Berkhof\u2019s teaching of the continuity of the Old Testament Church with the New Testament Church. The first is create, which certainly implies to bring something into existence that was not there before. The second is new, which implies something in contrast with the old and different from the old. This new and created (v. 15) element is the body (v. 16) of Christ, the household of God (v. 19), a holy temple in the Lord (v. 21), and a habitation of God in the Spirit (v. 22). All of these are descriptive titles for the Church, but \u201cIsrael\u201d is not one of them. Furthermore, this Church is being built on the foundation of the New Testament apostles and prophets with Jesus being the chief cornerstone (v. 20), which also implies that what is now being built did not pre-exist Christ and the apostles. Berkhof\u2019s conclusion that \u201cIsrael constituted the Church of God in the Old Testament\u201d and that the Church always existed is both faulty and unwarranted. Berkhof, in this context, says he \u201ccannot agree with those Premillenarians who, under the influence of a divisive dispensationalism, claim that the Church is exclusively a New Testament institution.\u201d Yet some of the very passages he cites support the view he rejects, and none of them in any way support his position of the Church and Israel being one and the same, nor his view of the Church\u2019s continuous existence through all human history.
\nThe points Allis makes are: (1) there is only one true Church; (2) it consists of the elect which is comprised of those who believe in Christ; (3) in one sense this Church was founded at Pentecost; (4) but in another sense it is both a continuation and a successor of the Old Testament Church; (5) the evidence for this is that at the beginning the New Testament Church was wholly Jewish, though shortly the Gentiles became the majority; (6) there is a vital oneness of the New Testament Church with the Old Testament Church; (7) this Church is the Olive Tree of Romans 11 in which the Gentiles have become spiritual heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant.
\nWhere Dispensationalists part company is over points (4), (6), and (7). On point (4), Allis obviously sees that something different began at Pentecost according to his point (3), but he still insists that it is both a continuation and a successor. He refuses to see it as something totally new. Point (6) is simply an elaboration to buttress the same. As for point (7), Paul never identifies the Olive Tree and the Church to be one and the same.
\nCox presents the standard Covenant Theology definition of the universal church:<\/p>\n
Ekklesia (church) has two New Testament usages, i.e., two aspects of the one true church: (1) the elect of all ages, both in heaven and on earth; and (2) distinct local congregations (churches). The first of these is called, by theologians, the invisible church while the latter is referred to as the visible church.<\/p>\n
Dispensationalists agree with every point Cox makes with one crucial exception. For Cox, the invisible Church comprises \u201cthe elect of all ages.\u201d This is the view of all three schools of Covenant Theology. However, Dispensationalism limits the invisible Church to the elect of the period between Pentecost and the Rapture. Such a difference might appear to be a minor issue on the surface, but it has major consequences in one\u2019s Israelology. For example:<\/p>\n
The Old Testament records two kinds of promises which God made to national Israel: national promises and spiritual promises. The spiritual promises encompassed every spiritual descendant of Abraham, and were not restricted to national Israel (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; Romans 2:28, 29; 4:17; Eph. 2:11\u201316; 3:6\u20139; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11). The spiritual promises still are being fulfilled through the church today. Israel\u2019s national promises all have been either fulfilled or invalidated because of unbelief.<\/p>\n
This is standard Covenant Amillennialism. The spiritual promises made to Israel \u201care being fulfilled through the church today.\u201d The implication is that these spiritual promises are no longer to or through Israel. Dispensationalists do not argue that the spiritual promises were not to extend to the Gentiles, but they do deny that the Church has taken them over. When the New Testament speaks of the relationship of the Gentiles to the spiritual blessing of the Jewish covenants, it speaks in terms of the Gentiles being \u201cgrafted\u201d into a Jewish olive tree, and of becoming \u201cpartakers\u201d with the Jews of these Jewish spiritual blessings, but not taker-overs of these blessings. As for the national promises made to Israel, they have \u201call\u201d either been \u201cfulfilled\u201d or \u201cinvalidated.\u201d This being the case, there obviously can be no future for Israel. Later, Cox adds:<\/p>\n
We come now to study the biblical relationship between national Israel and the Christian church. The historic Christian teaching holds that national Israel was a type or forerunner of the church, and that the church replaced Israel on the Day of Pentecost. This view holds that God made two sets of promises to national Israel\u2014national promises, and spiritual promises. All earthly promises to Israel have been either fulfilled or invalidated because of disobedience. All spiritual promises are being fulfilled through the church, which is made up of Jews and Gentiles alike. The first advent of Christ completed Israel\u2019s redemption, and manifested the Israel of God (the church) referred to in Galatians 6:16.<\/p>\n
What Cox affirms here is: (1) Israel was a type or forerunner of the Church; (2) the Church has replaced Israel as of Acts two; (3) all earthly promises to Israel have either already been fulfilled or cancelled: (4) all spiritual promises made to Israel are now being fulfilled through the Church; and, (5) the Church is the Israel of God of Galatians 6:16. The only new point here is identifying the Church as the Israel of God of Galatians 6:16. This is purely an assumption since Paul does not say this in so many words. In that verse, Paul makes a distinction between two groups, both of whom are believers. First are the them, which refers to the Gentile believers Paul has been writing to and about. The second group is the Israel of God who in contrast to the Gentile believers are Jewish believers or the Remnant of Israel. Identifying the Church with Israel or the Israel of God is an assumption all Covenant Theologians make, and they build their Israelology on that assumption. They seldom try to prove that assumption by exegesis.
\nThere are several unproven assumptions made by Cox as he continues to state his amillennial position on Israel and the Church. First, he again asserts that \u201cGod has but one plan of salvation,\u201d and for Cox this means that all saints of all times consciously believed in the substitutionary death of the Messiah, either with a forward look (Old Testament saints) or a backward look (New Testament saints). Second, there is \u201conly one body of God,\u201d by which Cox means to deny that God has two peoples: Israel and the Church. Third, this one \u201cbody\u201d is made up of all believers from all times; since all had the same content of faith, all are part of the Church. Fourth, since the \u201cIsrael of the Old Testament is the same as the \u2018Church\u2019 of the New Testament,\u201d they are really one and the same.
\nHe then makes the claim that \u201cas a matter of scriptural fact, these terms are used interchangeably.\u201d This seems to imply that the terms are so used throughout Scripture, but they are not so used \u201cas a matter of scriptural fact.\u201d The few verses Cox cites as evidence require him to presuppose his position and read his theology into those verses. One verse he cites again is Galatians 6:16, but this verse does not say that Israel is the Church, nor is it contextually being used interchangeably with the Church. As for Acts 7:38, it has already been shown that Stephen used the Septuagint concept of the word ekklesia in reference to the congregation of Israel and not the technical term of the New Testament Church. The Book of Acts uses that same term of a pagan assembly in Ephesus in Acts 19. As for Hebrews 2:12, it is quoting the Septuagint version of Psalm 22:22 which used ekklesia for the Hebrew qahal (congregation). The author\u2019s point is that the Messiah would come of the seed of Abraham (a Jew) and so would be a member of the congregation of Israel. The verse does not say that Israel is the Church in its New Testament sense or, even less, use the two terms interchangeably. These three passages are all the evidence that Cox presents, and they hardly warrant his claim that \u201cas a matter of scriptural fact, these terms are used interchangeably.\u201d This is a rash overstatement at best. His treatment of the three passages is to read his theology into them rather than to exegete them honestly.
\nStill later Cox presents further evidence as to why the Christian Church replaced Israel. The evidence for Cox\u2019s contention is that the same terminology given to Israel in Exodus 19:6 and Hosea 1:10 is given to the Church in 1 Peter 2:9\u201310. As has already been shown, however, Peter is not addressing the Church as a whole and never even uses the word in this epistle. Peter is speaking specifically to and of Jewish believers. Cox, like Allis, ignores Peter\u2019s opening words when he spells out to whom he is writing. Yet, based on this flimsy evidence, Cox concludes that \u201cthe Christian church replaced Israel.\u201d
\nThere is one problem that Covenant Theologians face in their contention that the Church has existed since Adam. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, I will build my church, using a future tense and implying that the Church was not yet in existence. Furthermore, it is very evident that something brand new started at Pentecost in Acts two. Cox\u2019s solution is to reaffirm his contention that the Church has existed since Adam, for \u201cit came into being in the Garden of Eden.\u201d What happened at Pentecost? The Church always existed, but under other names such as \u201cIsrael,\u201d \u201cthe commonwealth of Israel,\u201d or \u201cthe people of God.\u201d When Jesus said He would build His Church, He merely meant that He would reconstruct \u201cthe old Israel before establishing his church upon the faith of the remnant in him.\u201d it is difficult to understand what Cox is saying here and to reconcile it with his previous statements. If we understand Cox correctly, he is saying that what is new with Pentecost is that now Christ established the Church on a new basis, and this basis is \u201cthe faith of the remnant in him.\u201d Yet Cox had earlier contended that all were saved by faith in Christ already. Cox, in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, is getting very confused and renders the statement of Jesus meaningless. Cox apparently realizes that there is a clear contradiction between Christ\u2019s words and his covenant amillennial view of the pre-existence of the Church, but he resorts to the following explanation:<\/p>\n
Here is divine paradox\u2014that the church could have existed throughout the Old Testament and yet be spoken of by our Lord in a future tense: \u201cI will build my church\u201d \u2026 In referring to the future church our Lord no doubt had in mind the church as it would be after he had returned to the Father, there to intercede for the church while seated on the throne of heaven as the exalted head of the church. The future church which our Lord prophesied would look back\u2014as the church indeed does look back today\u2014upon the finished work of Christ on the cross, upon his death, burial, triumph over death, and ascension to the right hand of the Father. This phase of the church so far outshines the church in the wilderness under Moses that it is for all intents and purposes a \u201cnew\u201d church.<\/p>\n
What Cox calls a \u201cdivine paradox\u201d is really a contradiction. If the Church was still future as of Matthew 16:18, then it did not exist \u201cthroughout the Old Testament.\u201d The most simple solution is to admit that the Church did not exist in the Old Testament, but only began at Pentecost. This would require a distinction between Israel and the Church which Cox\u2019s covenantalism does not allow, so he tries a further explanation of Christ\u2019s future tense statement. Cox claims that Jesus, when He made the statement, \u201cno doubt had in mind\u201d the state of the Church after He returned to heaven where He will be able to intercede for the Church. It is amazing that Cox knows exactly what Jesus \u201chad in mind\u201d when He said what He did, and this Cox knows with \u201cno doubt.\u201d One can only be amazed at the degree to which a theologian will go to retain his theology in spite of the evidence. Cox renders the words of Jesus meaningless and, furthermore, claims to know what Jesus was thinking when He declared that He will build His Church. Since Cox cannot believe that the Church was a future entity as of Matthew 16:18, he must insist that Jesus was thinking in a covenant amillennial frame of reference when the statement was made, Cox concludes: \u201cJesus\u2019 actual presence, and his finished work on Calvary, built a new church. Yet, it was new only in the sense of being completely renewed arid improved. For God has but one body.\u201d
\nHow does Cox know that the Church is the new Israel? He explains:<\/p>\n
Throughout the New Testament, the church\u2014or Christians\u2014is referred to in Old Testament terminology, which up to that time was used only with reference to national Israel. Although both James and Peter begin their epistles with Jewish terminology, there can be no doubt that both were writing to members of the Christian church. These inspired men addressed first century Christians\u2014Jew and Gentile\u2014as Israelites. In the church they recognized the \u201cfaithful remnant,\u201d that is, the \u201cIsrael of God.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cox claims that \u201cthroughout the New Testament\u201d the terminology used of Israel is also used of the Church. This is simply not true. The two examples Cox makes reference to are the epistles of James and I Peter. Cox ignores that both epistles clearly state that they are being written to Jewish believers and not, as Cox claims, to both Jews and Gentiles of the Church. The only thing that can be proved from both epistles is that it is the Jewish believers, the Remnant of Israel, who now comprise the Israel of God. Cox fails to produce a single clear and obvious example where the Church is called \u201cIsrael.\u201d Cox admits that \u201cboth James and Peter begin their epistles with Jewish terminology\u201d and should have taken that observation to heart. While it is true \u201cthat both were writing to members of the Christian church,\u201d they themselves specified they were writing to the Jewish wing of the Church and were addressing them as comprising the Remnant of Israel today and not to the Church universal.
\nHendriksen gives an exposition of two verses: Galatians 6:16 and Romans 11:26a. There is a short discussion on the former and a lengthy one on the latter, and both verses are crucial to Israelology. The Romans passage will be discussed under Israel Future. Galatians 6:16 mentions the Israel of God. The issue here is: Is this the Church as a whole, or is it the believing Jewish remnant? Consistent with Covenant Amillennialism, Hendriksen concludes it is the Church as a whole. Galatian 6:16 obviously mentions two groups: the them and the Israel of God. The two are joined by a Greek connection kai. The primary meaning of kai is \u201cand.\u201d Normally, one resorts to a secondary meaning, such as \u201ceven,\u201d only when the primary meaning makes no sense; here, however, the primary meaning of \u201cand\u201d makes perfect sense. If it is allowed to stand, then the them refers to the Gentile believers to whom and about whom Galatians was written. Peace and blessing go to those Gentiles who follow this rule, which is that salvation is by grace through faith apart from the works of the law. Peace and blessing also go to the Israel of God who are the Jewish believers who follow the same rule, in contrast to the Judaizers mentioned in Galatians who tried to inflict circumcision upon the Gentile believers of Galatia. To translate kai as \u201cand\u201d and to use its primary meaning fits in well with the context and makes sense for the verse itself. That means there are two groups and, if so, the Covenant Theologian loses his favored proof-text that Israel is the Church. Hendriksen is forced to fall back on the secondary meaning of \u201ceven,\u201d which is not textually demanded (only theologically) nor is it necessary. Another option Hendriksen offers is to leave the word untranslated altogether so that he can get the same effect; but it is all too obvious that his translation is based on his Covenant Theology, for without it there is no need to leave kai untranslated or to resort to its secondary meaning.
\nHendriksen then sets out to prove that the Church is the new Israel. His key evidence is to show that the term \u201cIsrael\u201d is used in a figurative sense as well as a physical sense. This can be granted without necessarily agreeing that every verse the author cites is being used that way. No Dispensationalist argues this fact either. Proving that the term is used figuratively is one thing; however, proving that the figurative use refers to the Church is quite another. Hendriksen has certainly proven the former point, but then he assumes that the latter is automatically proven when it is not. The latter point does not automatically follow from the former. The author assumes this because he only allows for two options: literal national Israel or Israel as the Church. If these two were the only options, his conclusions would be valid; but they are not the only options. The distinction the Scriptures makes is between Israel the whole and the believing Jewish remnant within Israel the whole. When the term \u201cIsrael\u201d is used figuratively, if is a reference to the believing remnant. There is no example of \u201cIsrael\u201d being used of the Church, or indicating Gentiles are included in the figurative use of the term. Not one of the passages cited by the author state that spiritual Israel is the Church. Though he again cites Galatians 6:16, it has already been shown that Hendriksen is forced to fall back on a secondary meaning of the Greek word kai, and even wishes the word would remain untranslated. Yet, based on his faulty treatment of Galatians 6:16, he dogmatically asserts that \u201cfor Paul the church \u2026 is indeed Israel,\u201d However, clear evidence for such a claim is never produced. It is true that \u201cthe dividing wall between Jews and non-Jews has been broken down,\u201d but this is beside the point. Believing in a future for Israel or even in a distinctive Jewish remnant today is not to \u201crebuild the dividing wall,\u201d for they in no way limit Gentile access to the spiritual blessings, which was the reason the wall was broken down in the first place. The Gentile believer is still a \u201cpartaker.\u201d \u201cIsrael\u201d is still Israel whether it is applied to the nation as a whole or to the believing remnant within Israel the whole. Israel can still have a national future without Gentile believers losing any of the things God promised them.
\nThe preceding is an example of drawing a false conclusion (the Church is Israel) from a correct premise (\u201cIsrael\u201d is used figuratively). This is a result of assuming that the only two options are national Israel or the Church. The same logical leap is seen again in the following statement:<\/p>\n
According to Paul not all the descendants of Israel (Jacob) are truly Israel (Rom. 9:6; cf. 1 Cor. 10:18). Not all are included in \u201call Israel,\u201d \u2026 Not all who are named Jews, after Judah, are true to the implication of that name (Rom. 2:28, 29, with a play on the name Jew; cf. John 5:41\u201344). Not all are those whose praise is from God.<\/p>\n
The correct premise is that not all members of Israel the whole are the believing Israel. Not all Jews live up to the name (the praise of God). The faulty conclusion is that \u201ctruly Israel\u201d is the Church or that Gentile believers are spiritual Jews. There is another option: that the true Israel or true Jews are Jews who believe.
\nSo while Hendriksen\u2019s answer to the first question (What is meant by \u201cIsrael\u201d?) is that spiritual Israel is the Church, he never proves his point. By simply asserting a true premise, he assumes his case and conclusion are proved. The conclusion that Israel is the Church then becomes the basis of his answer to the second question, \u201cIs it true that the blessings promised to Israel are for the Jews, not the Church?\u201d His answer is:<\/p>\n
Now if, therefore, the unqualified statement, \u201cThe church is not Israel,\u201d is an error, then it is also wrong to affirm, without qualification, that the blessings promised to Israel are not for the church, only for the Jews. The view that blessings formerly promised to the Jewish people are now given to \u201cthe Israel of God,\u201d namely, to the church of Jew and Gentile, is in harmony with Christ\u2019s own teaching. He taught that the privileges which once belonged to the ancient covenant people have been transferred to this new nation.<\/p>\n
In other words, when a prophecy is destined to be fulfilled in the new dispensation it is fulfilled according to the spirit of that new era. Hence, these Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in the Spirit-filled church, and there is not the slightest indication anywhere in the Old or New Testament that at some future time the clock will be turned back.<\/p>\n
His previous false conclusion now becomes his new premise. Since the Church is Israel (the new premise), then the blessings promised for Israel are really for the Church. Thus, the \u201cblessings formerly promised to the Jewish people are now given to \u2018the Israel of God,\u2019 namely, to the church \u2026,\u201d and \u201cthe privileges which once belonged to the ancient covenant people have been transferred to this new nation\u201d (i.e., the Israel of God or the Church). Hendriksen sees nothing unethical or immoral on God\u2019s part if He makes a promise to one people but then keeps it by transferring it to another people. The author gets around this problem by asserting that \u201cwhen a prophecy is destined to be fulfilled in the new dispensation, it is fulfilled according to the spirit of that new era.\u201d This is hermeneutical wishful thinking, but it does allow Hendriksen to draw his conclusion that the \u201cOld Testament prophecies are fulfilled in the Spirit-filled church \u2026\u201d However, if a father makes a promise to one child and then keeps that promise to a different child, the father will never convince the first child, or any other observer, that the action was moral or ethical. The father will not be able to absolve or justify himself until the promise is kept with the first child to whom it was made, regardless of whether he will or will not do the same for the second child. Regardless of how much of the promise is being kept with the Church, God must still fulfill His promise to Israel. If this requires a future for Israel, so be it. This does not mean that \u201cat some future time the clock will be turned back.\u201d On the contrary, it will show that the clock is still moving forward.
\nHoekema deals more extensively with the subject of Israel and the Church. One of his purposes is:<\/p>\n
We must first of all challenge the statement that when the Bible talks about Israel it never means the church, and that when it talks about the church it always intends to exclude Israel. As a matter of fact, the New Testament itself often interprets expressions relating to Israel in such a way as to apply them to the New Testament church, which includes both Jews and Gentiles.<\/p>\n
In order to prove that in the New Testament the Church is the new Israel, he provides four lines of evidence. The first evidence is based on Galatians 6:15\u201316. When Hoekema declares that \u201cthere is at least one New Testament passage where the term Israel is used as inclusive of Gentiles,\u201d the implication is that there are others; but Galatians 6:16 is the only example he and others of his persuasion ever provide, and so their claim stands or falls on this one verse alone. Though he criticizes the dispensational view, at least the Dispensationalist falls back on the primary meaning of kai, which is \u201cand.\u201d The majority of English translations have followed the primary meaning of kai. Like Hendriksen, Hoekema is forced to resort to a secondary meaning of kai. It should not be missed that this is the only verse that this camp has in trying to prove that the New Testament applies the term \u201cIsrael\u201d to the Church. Their entire view stands or falls on the proper interpretation of this one verse. It is a very shallow base on which to build a doctrine that so radically determines their Israelology. It should again be pointed out how a correct premise is used to try to prove an incorrect conclusion. When Hoekema asks the question, \u201cWho are meant by \u2018all who follow this rule\u2019?\u201d he gives the correct answer: it is \u201call true believers, both Jews and Gentiles.\u201d This correct answer then becomes a correct premise for an incorrect conclusion that since all who follow this rule include both Jewish and Gentile believers, the remainder of the verse cannot be speaking of two groups, but one. That conclusion is not logically derived from the premise, for after Paul pronounced his peace and blessing on all who follow this rule, he points out two groups who follow that rule: the Gentile believers (them) and the Jewish believers (the Israel of God). This is consistent with the book as a whole where the Jewish-Gentile issue is the very point of the epistle. The above critique should help show how unwarranted Hoekema\u2019s two conclusions are: (1) that \u201cPaul clearly identifies the church as the true Israel\u201d; and, (2) that \u201cpromises which had been made to Israel during Old Testament times are fulfilled in the New Testament Church.\u201d These very radical and dogmatic conclusions of Covenant Amillennialism are based on a secondary meaning of one Greek word.
\nThe second evidence Hoekema produces to try to prove that Israel is the Church is based on 1 Peter 2:9. The usage of 1 Peter 2:9 is different than Galatians 6:16. The latter is used to try to show that \u201cIsrael\u201d is used of the Church. The former is used to try to show that terminology applied to Israel in the Old Testament is applied to the Church in the New Testament. As Galatians 6:16 is the only example cited for the latter, 1 Peter 2:9 is the only example cited for the former. It, too, is based on very shallow evidence using, once again, a correct premise in order to reach a false conclusion. The following are the true statements that Hoekema makes: (1) that Peter was writing to people who are believers; and, (2) that the majority of the believers living in the provinces cited were Gentile believers. From these two correct premises, he reaches a number of wrong conclusions. The question is: To whom was Peter writing? Peter (1:1) states that he is writing to the sojourners of the Dispersion. In other words, Peter is writing to Jews living outside the land. It is true that \u201cPeter was writing to Christians,\u201d but from his terminology it is clear he is writing to Jewish Christians. It is true that the majority of the believers in the provinces mentioned were Gentile believers, but Peter is addressing himself to the Jewish believers only. For that reason, Peter does not use Paul\u2019s formula of \u201cto the church (or churches) of \u2026,\u201d which would have been the case if he was addressing the Church as a whole. He specifically states that he is writing to the sojourners of the Dispersion. This was and is a very Jewish way of speaking of Jews living outside the land of Israel. Peter is writing as a Jew to Jews. This is not a way a Jew writes if he is addressing an audience of primarily Gentiles. Hoekema is forced to twist a clear meaning of a verse in order to try to reach his conclusion, which in this case is that terms used of Israel in the Old Testament are applied to the Church in the New Testament. The author\u2019s statement, \u201cPeter is therefore addressing members of the New Testament church\u201d in general has no textual support and is totally unwarranted. It is not true that the word dispersion is \u201coften applied to Jews\u201d; rather, it is always applied to Jews when used technically by Jewish writers, which Peter was. Allowing Peter to speak for himself, he is addressing Jewish believers specifically. This being the case, what Peter is saying is that the calling of Israel in Exodus 19:5\u20136 and Isaiah 43:20 is true of the Jewish believers. While Israel the whole has failed to fulfill its calling, Israel the remnant has not. It is not true \u201cthat Peter is here applying to the New Testament church expressions which are used in the Old Testament to describe Israel.\u201d He is using these terms to describe the believing Jewish remnant of Israel. So it is not the Church which is a chosen race, but the Jewish believers. Rather, the Church, which is not a \u201crace\u201d anyway, is comprised of believers from all races. The Church is also not a holy nation, but is comprised of believers from all nations. In fact, when Paul speaks of the Church, he calls it a no nation (Rom. 10:19). God\u2019s own people or a people for his own possession (singular) is not the Church as it is comprised of believers from all peoples (plural). While the Church is a priesthood, this cannot be proven from this passage. This is only provable from Revelation 1:6 and 5:10. Terms such as people, nation, and race are not applicable to the Church, but make perfect sense if applied to Jews and, in this case, Jewish believers. Hoekema\u2019s conclusions that \u201cPeter is therefore saying here in the plainest of words that what the Old Testament said about Israel can now be said about the church,\u201d or that \u201cthe Jewish-Gentile church is now God\u2019s chosen race,\u201d or that the Jews are no longer \u201cGod\u2019s holy nation\u2014the entire church must now be so called,\u201d are totally unwarranted for three obvious reasons. First, Peter never said precisely in so many words that this is speaking of the Church as a whole. Second, what Peter does say is that he is writing specifically to Jewish believers. Third, it should be noted that Peter does not even use the word \u201cchurch\u201d a single time, giving Hoekema\u2019s claim that Peter is addressing the Church even less credence. Again, this is the only passage Covenant Amillennialists provide to try to prove their contention that the terms used for Israel in the Old Testament are applied to the Church in the New Testament. It has been shown how weak this contention is from this passage. Hoekema\u2019s concluding question, \u201cIs it not abundantly clear from the passage just dealt with that the New Testament church is now the true Israel, in whom and through whom the promises made to Old Testament Israel are being fulfilled?\u201d must be answered in the negative: it is far from abundantly clear.
\nHoekema\u2019s third evidence rests on the usage of the expression, the seed of Abraham. Here again is a true premise followed by a false conclusion. There is no question that the \u201cseed of Abraham\u201d in its spiritual sense applies to all believers, both Jews and Gentiles. That is a correct premise. The faulty conclusion is that this proves that \u201cthe New Testament church\u201d is \u201cthe true Israel.\u201d The assumption Hoekema makes is that the \u201cseed of Abraham\u201d equals Israel. This is not even true in the physical sense. Not all physical descendants of Abraham are Jews, or Israel, for the Arabs are also of the physical seed of Abraham, but they are not Jews or Israel. By the same token, it is not enough to be of the spiritual seed of Abraham in order to be \u201cspiritual Israel.\u201d In fact, the New Testament never equates the spiritual seed of Abraham with either Israel or \u201cspiritual Israel.\u201d What actually constitutes physical Jewishness and physical Israel is descendancy from Jacob. Not all physical descendants of Abraham or Abraham and Isaac comprise Israel, but all physical descendants of Jacob are Jewish and comprise Israel. For this reason, when the Bible speaks of Israel, it is of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for all three patriarchs are essential to determine Jewishness and physical Israel. The key issue is the seed of Jacob. What Hoekema needs to prove his point is a New Testament passage that speaks of all believers being of the seed of Jacob, and this he does not have. What he has proved is that all believers are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. Dispensationalists believe the same thing. What he has not proved is that the seed of Abraham equals Israel or spiritual Israel.
\nHoekema\u2019s fourth line of evidence is the fact that the terms \u201cZion\u201d and \u201cJerusalem\u201d are used in a figurative way. Once again, there is a correct premise followed by a wrong conclusion. The correct premise is that the terms \u201cZion\u201d and \u201cJerusalem\u201d are used in a figurative way, but the wrong conclusion is that these terms, therefore, refer to the Church. The \u201cZion\u201d and \u201cJerusalem\u201d that the passages speak of have several residents: (1) innumerable angels (who can hardly be part of the redeemed Church since these angles never fell and never needed redemption); (2) the Church of the firstborn; (3) God the judge of all men; (4) spirits of just men made perfect; and, (5) Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant. The point is that these passages in Hebrews and Revelation do not equate this \u201cheavenly Jerusalem\u201d with the Church, but make the Church only one of several residents of this Jerusalem. In fact, while \u201cZion\u201d and \u201cJerusalem\u201d are used figuratively many times, they are never used of the Church. It would, therefore, be far wiser to make the \u201cheavenly Jerusalem\u201d of this Hebrews passage just that: heavenly. While Hoekema criticizes the \u201cdispensationslist contention that when the Bible talks about Israel it never means the church \u2026,\u201d he has not proved otherwise.<\/p>\n
5. The Kingdom of God and the Church<\/p>\n
In Covenant Amillennialism, the Kingdom of God and the Church are closely unified and barely kept distinct. Berkhof does not believe in a literal kingdom, so Christ\u2019s office of kingship must be exercised in some other way. There are two facets to Christ\u2019s kingship: \u201cthe spiritual kingship of Christ\u201d and \u201cthe Kingship of Christ over the universe.\u201d It is the former that most affects Israelology. In discussing the nature of the spiritual kingship of Christ, Berkhof defines the spiritual kingship of Christ as Christ\u2019s \u201croyal rule\u201d over \u201cHis people\u201d which in turn is defined as \u201cthe Church.\u201d This is consistent with Covenant Theology. The amillennial factor is revealed by Berkhof\u2019s statement that Christ\u2019s rule \u201cis established in the hearts and lives of believers.\u201d Since Amillennialism denies any literal kingdom on earth over Israel or the world, Christ\u2019s kingship must be \u201cspiritual\u201d and \u201cHis people\u201d must refer to the elect, or the Church, and not Israel. Also, because in Covenant Theology the major purpose of God is soteriological, even the kingship is related \u201con a spiritual end, the salvation of His people.\u201d Berkhof claims that Christ\u2019s kingship and kingdom, as he has defined them, are found \u201cin many places\u201d in the Bible. The passages he cites, especially those of the Old Testament, hardly prove his contention. Berkhof\u2019s conclusions are not a result of exegesis of these passages, for as they read, and if taken literally, they obviously speak of Messiah\u2019s rule over Israel on earth. Berkhof must presuppose his theology and then impose it on these passages.
\nThe problem Amillennialism faces is that while the Bible portrays the relationship between Christ and the Church in various metaphors (head and body, groom and bride, vine and branches, foundation and stones of the building, etc.), king and kingdom is not one of them. However, Amillennialism must have it and so, rather than find a clear statement in Scripture to support it, must prove it some other way. Berkhof tries to prove it in two other ways. First is the assumption that the prophecies that speak of Messiah\u2019s rule over Israel really mean Christ\u2019s spiritual rule in the \u201chearts and lives of believers.\u201d The weakness of this approach is that the conclusion is forced on the passages and is not a product of simple exegesis. Berkhof\u2019s second approach is to make headship the same as kingship: \u201cThe spiritual nature of this kingship is indicated, among others, by the fact that Christ is repeatedly called the Head of the Church,\u201d and, according to Berkhof, this \u201cterm, as applied to Christ, is in some cases practically equivalent to \u2018King.\u2019 \u201d However, to claim that headship equals kingship is pure presuppositionalism. The context of one of the passages Berkhof cites, 1 Corinthians 11:3, not only speaks of Christ\u2019s headship of the male (not the Church), but also of the husband\u2019s headship over the wife. It is correct to surmise that headship means that one is \u201cclothed with authority,\u201d but that is as far as the figurative meaning of headship can be carried. To claim that it equals kingship is an unwarranted leap of exegetical logic. The husband is referred to as the head of the wife, but never her king. Christ is indeed referred to as the head of the Church, but never its king. Berkhof presupposes too much and is forced to do so by his theology. Even if it can be proved that Christ is the \u201cking\u201d of the Church, this is still not the same as proving that the Church is the totality of the Kingdom of God. Berkhof then goes on to attack Premillenarians for something that is simply not true. According to Berkhof, when Premillennialists deny the kingship of Christ over the Church, they automatically deny that Christ is \u201cthe authoritative Ruler of the Church, and that the officers of the Church do not represent Him in the government of the Church.\u201d This is a rather absurd charge! It is possible to be \u201cclothed with authority\u201d without being a king. The elders of the church are in a position of authority over the local church but are hardly kings! Headship alone carries authority without also requiring kingship (i.e., the husband\u2019s headship over the wife). Before accusing Premillennialists of the charge of denying Christ\u2019s rule over the Church, Berkhof must first prove that headship equals kingship, and this he has failed to do. To dogmatically assert that headship is \u201cpractically equivalent\u201d to kingship goes beyond the evidence.
\nIn discussing the Kingdom of God over which Christ now rules as king, Berkhof insists that it has four characteristics. The first characteristic again brings out the tendency to see God\u2019s entire program as being soteriological: \u201cIt is grounded in the work of redemption.\u201d
\nThe second characteristic is: \u201cIt is a spiritual Kingdom.\u201d This characteristic also reflects Berkhof\u2019s Covenant Theology and Amillennialism. While admitting that in the Old Testament this kingdom over which Christ is king was \u201cadumbrated in the theocratic kingdom of Israel,\u201d this is no longer true. Even at that time, \u201cthe reality of this kingdom was found only in the inner life of believers\u201d and not with Israel as a whole. This must be so if the kingdom is purely spiritual. This kingdom which was once \u201cadumbrated in the theocratic kingdom of Israel\u201d \u201cwas only a symbol, and a shadow and type of that glorious reality, especially as it was destined to appear in the days of the New Testament.\u201d The kingdom was always spiritual, and this spiritual kingdom was contained within \u201cthe theocratic kingdom of Israel.\u201d However, with \u201cthe coming of the new dispensation,\u201d the theocratic kingdom was done away with and along with it \u201cthe Old Testament shadows.\u201d Now, \u201cout of the womb of Israel the spiritual reality of the kingdom came forth and assumed an existence independent of the Old Testament theocracy.\u201d As long as the kingdom was within the theocratic kingdom, the spiritual nature of it was obscured; but now it is outside \u201cthe womb of Israel,\u201d and so \u201cthe spiritual character of the kingdom stands forth far more clearly in the New Testament than it does in the Old.\u201d
\nTo maintain the exclusive spiritual nature of the kingdom, Berkhof contends that this kingdom \u201cis not an external and natural kingdom of the Jews.\u201d This he tries to prove by citing four Scriptures, none of which actually denies a literal earthly kingdom. Matthew 8:11\u201312 states that a day will come when many will come from all parts of the world to sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The point is that many Gentiles will be in that kingdom while many Jews will not. This does not deny a real earthly kingdom that will be both Jewish and Messianic. Matthew 21:43 only states that: The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. To conclude from this that the kingdom is \u201cnot an external and natural kingdom of the Jews\u201d is to conclude too much. To begin with, to what nation is the kingdom to be given? The Church is not a nation but is composed of believing individuals of all nations. Contextually the verse can simply be interpreted as meaning the Jewish generation of Jesus\u2019 day will not see the kingdom established in their day, but it will be offered to a later Jewish generation. While this view is not without its problems, it is more consistent with the word nation, which cannot be the Church. At any rate, it in no way denies the possibility of an earthly kingdom. As for John 18:36, Berkhof rests his case on Christ\u2019s statement, My kingdom is not of this world. Amillennialists interpret the statement not of this world to mean that Christ\u2019s kingdom will not be in this world. A denial of the kingdom being of this world is for them a denial of the kingdom being in this world. That this cannot be so is clear by a comparison with the previous chapter. In John 17:11 Jesus said that His disciples are in the world. Yet in John 17:14 and 16, the disciples are not of the world. Speaking of Himself, Jesus said, I am not of the world (17:14, 16); but several times He did say that He was in the world (17:11, 12, 13). Obviously, from the context of the Gospel of John alone it is possible to be in the world without being of the world. Not to be of the world means the believer is no longer of this world\u2019s nature, though he may very well be in the world still. By the same token, Christ\u2019s Messianic Kingdom may be in the world, but will not be of this world\u2019s nature. Berkhof uses Luke 17:21 to prove two things: that the kingdom \u201cis not an external and natural kingdom of the Jews\u201d and that \u201cit is in the hearts of people.\u201d This is not the place to discuss all that is involved in God\u2019s kingdom program and just where Luke 17:21 fits. This will be discussed at length later. However, Berkhof\u2019s interpretation cannot be contextually true. Berkhof himself had earlier insisted that this kingdom in which Christ rules in the hearts of men is true of believers only. Under the first characteristic, Berkhof claimed that \u201cno one is a citizen of this kingdom in virtue of his humanity. Only the redeemed have that honor and privilege.\u201d Yet, when Jesus said the kingdom is within you, He was speaking to unbelieving Pharisees (v. 20). If the Kingdom of God was in the hearts of these Pharisees, then were they members of the kingdom because of their humanity, or because of their Jewishness? Berkhof\u2019s answer would be negative. Since they were unbelievers, it was not possible for this kingdom to be \u201cin the hearts\u201d of these Pharisees. Luke 17:21 does not support Berkhof\u2019s contention on either count. Having failed to prove his contention that the kingdom is spiritual only, Berkhof concludes that the \u201cspiritual nature of the Kingdom should be stressed over against all those who deny the present reality of the mediatorial kingdom of God and hold that it will take the form of a re-established theocracy at the return of Jesus Christ.\u201d Premillennialists from the ranks of either Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism do not deny the spiritual nature of the Millennial Kingdom. They simply deny that a spiritual kingdom rules out an earthly one. Christ was certainly spiritual while on the earth. The believers are also to be spiritual while in the world. It need not be an either\/or proposition.
\nConcerning the third characteristic, Berkhof states: \u201cIt is a kingdom that is both present and future.\u201d Here, Berkhof is forced to admit at least two facets of the Kingdom of God program, a present one and a future one. In keeping with his Amillennialism, he insists that both aspects consist \u201cin the rule of God established and acknowledged in the hearts of men.\u201d Premillennialists do not deny that there is a facet of God\u2019s kingdom program that is a present reality. Among Dispensationalists this is known as the Mystery Kingdom. Berkhof\u2019s remark that this \u201cmust be maintained over against the great majority of present day Premillenarians\u201d is unwarranted. Premillennialists would also agree that \u201cthe future kingdom will be ushered in by great cataclysmic changes\u201d; but what will come into being is not merely more of the same where the kingdom is nothing more than Christ\u2019s rule \u201cin the hearts of men,\u201d but a literal earthly kingdom in which the Messiah will rule over the nations in general and Israel in particular. Most Premillennialists agree that the kingdom is \u201cboth present and future\u201d but would disagree with Berkhof to some degree as to the nature of the present kingdom, and totally as to the nature of the future kingdom. When Berkhof states, \u201cIt is a mistake, however, to assume that the present kingdom will develop almost imperceptibly into the kingdom of the future,\u201d he is arguing against Postmillennialism.
\nThe fourth characteristic, according to Berkhof is: \u201cIt is closely related to the Church, though not altogether identical with it.\u201d Dispensationalists can agree with the statement as it is, if taken at face value. The Dispensationalist\u2019s Mystery Kingdom views the Church\u2019s relationship to that kingdom in much the same way. When Berkhof claims that \u201cIsrael was the Church of the Old Testament and in its spiritual essence constitutes a unity with the Church of the New Testament,\u201d Dispensationalists sharply disagree. Berkhof never substantiates identifying Israel with the Church or the Church with Israel.
\nIn a chapter on the \u201cNature of the Church,\u201d Berkhof discusses the relationship of the Church and the Kingdom of God. After reaffirming the basic principles of Amillennialism, that the \u201cprimary idea of the Kingdom of God in Scripture is that of the rule of God established and acknowledged in the hearts of sinners,\u201d and rejecting the belief in \u201ca restored theocratic kingdom of God in Christ\u2014which is essentially a kingdom of Israel,\u201d Berkhof explains the relationship of the Kingdom of God and the invisible Church. In essence, Berkhof sees the Kingdom of God and the Church as being one and the same rather than viewing the Church as an aspect of it. Whatever distinction there is, is only one of viewpoint and not of reality. To be in one is automatically to be in the other, and both are entered by regeneration. In fact, it is \u201cimpossible\u201d to be in one without being in the other. In reality, they are \u201cidentical.\u201d Yet Berkhof also insists that the two must \u201cbe carefully distinguished\u201d; but this distinction is nothing more than semantical. The elect are the kingdom because Christ is their Ruler, and they are a Church because of their separation from the world. Dispensationalists would agree that the Kingdom of God and the Church must \u201cbe carefully distinguished,\u201d but this distinction is far greater than semantical or one of viewpoint.
\nAs for the relationship of the Kingdom of God and the visible Church, while the kingdom and the invisible Church are identical, the visible Church belongs to the kingdom, it is a \u201cpart\u201d of the kingdom, and it is the \u201cvisible embodiment of the forces of the kingdom.\u201d To Covenant Amillennialism, the Kingdom of God and the Church are so closely identified that they become virtually synonymous. Israel is virtually excluded and the Church, both visible and invisible, is that kingdom or almost that kingdom.
\nAllis makes the identification more exact by saying that \u201cin most respects\u201d the two terms are \u201cat least equivalent, and that the two institutions are co-existent and largely co-extensive.\u201d Allis is trying very hard to say that the Kingdom of God and the Church are one and the same without actually saying it, but he tries to get as close to it as he can. The reason for this reluctance is that it is evident even to Allis that the two are not the same. Allis admits that \u201cthe kingdom is a broader conception than the Church.\u201d Here he draws some type of distinction between the Church and the Kingdom of God but tries to keep the distinction as limited as possible. He concludes that they \u201care institutions which are both present in the world today; and they are so closely related, so nearly identical, that it is impossible to be in the one and not in the other.\u201d
\nSince this is now the Millennium, then the kingdom is also here and now. Cox states:<\/p>\n
The kingdom\u2014in its present phase\u2014and the millennium are practically, if not altogether, synonymous terms. The same people make up both, i.e., those Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) in whose hearts God is presently reigning; both are going on at the present time, both having been inaugurated by the first advent of our Lord. If there be any difference, it is this: the millennium will be concluded at the second coming of Christ to earth, whereas the kingdom will be perfected at that time and will continue on into the eternal state. Even here one has to split theological hairs in order to distinguish between kingdom and millennium.<\/p>\n
While Cox does not equate the Millennium with the Kingdom of God, he says they are so much the same that \u201cin its present phase\u201d the two \u201care practically \u2026 synonymous terms.\u201d They will be differentiated again only at the second coming when the Millennium will terminate while the kingdom continues into the eternal state. Cox\u2019s Amillennialism makes the Millennium, the kingdom, and the Church all the same thing today.
\nConcerning the timing aspect of the Kingdom of God, Hoekema contends that it is both present and future:<\/p>\n
Summing up, then, we may say that the kingdom of God both in the teaching of Jesus and in that of the Apostle Paul is a present as well as a future reality. Our understanding of the kingdom must therefore do full justice to both of these aspects.<\/p>\n
Both aspects, however, are related to the Church rather than to Israel; for God no longer has a special future for Israel, but only for the Church. Insofar as Israel is concerned, the people proved to be unbelieving in the past and will remain so until the end.
\nThere is so much confusion in all this that no matter how carefully one reads Allis and the other Covenant Amillennialists, it is very difficult to discern what they are trying to say about this relationship between the Church and the Kingdom of God. They do make some type of distinction, but then try to make them very much the same. Whatever the distinction is, it is never fully made clear. The reason it is so terribly blurred is that their theology requires them to make the two very much the same, but exegetically some distinction must be made. The Dispensationalist who is not enslaved to a theology that requires such identification has no such problem. The Kingdom of God, that is, God\u2019s rule, has always been around, and there are various aspects and facets of God\u2019s kingdom program. The Church, which began with the Book of Acts, is one aspect of that kingdom program.<\/p>\n
6. Israel Today<\/p>\n
Covenant Amillennialists deny that Israel today has any biblical right to the land. Allis raises the issue in his preface. It is important to note that his work was first published in 1945, soon after the Nazi Holocaust, but before Israel became a state in 1948. Allis allows his covenant amillennial theology to determine his view of a national home for the Jews. Because the idea of a national restoration of Israel is foreign to this theology, Allis is opposed to this on any grounds: religious, political, or social. Branding the Jew as a \u201cworld problem,\u201d Allis denies that the solution to the problem is a national home for the Jews. For Allis, the problem is not the lack of a national Jewish homeland, but because \u201che rejected the Messiah promised to his race.\u201d Because of this rejection, the Jew was \u201c \u2018scattered among the nations\u2019 as a punishment for his sin.\u201d According to Allis, the reason the Jew remains a \u201cworld problem\u201d is because \u201che still continues in unbelief and yet still regards himself as a \u2018peculiar people,\u2019 whose destiny is to rule the earth under a Messiah who is yet to come.\u201d Allis either ignores or is ignorant that even in 1946 most Jews were no longer Orthodox and had given up the belief in a Messiah yet to come. For the most part, the Jews were not concerned with ruling the earth, but escaping murderous persecution like the one in which six million had only recently died. From another perspective, the \u201cJewish problem\u201d was not with the Jews, but with the Gentiles who refused to leave the Jews alone and, more often than not, \u201cin Jesus\u2019 name.\u201d
\nAllis\u2019 solution is that in place of a Jewish national home, \u201cthe hope of the Jew\u201d is \u201cto be found in the acceptance by him of the gospel of the grace of God which the Church has been commanded to proclaim to all nations, that gospel of the Cross \u2026,\u201d for the Jew has no future independent of the Church. The \u201csupreme need\u201d of the Jew is the \u201cheavenly salvation\u201d which is found only in the Christian Church. This salvation, however, will not solve the problem, since the antagonism against the Jews in this century was hardly based on a lack of belief in the Messiahship of Jesus. This was not the basis of the Nazi persecution. In fact, thousands of the Jews killed by the Nazis were Jewish Christians. Even if in 1945 all Jews had become believers, how would that solve the problem of persecution against the Jews often done on the basis of social, political or national issues rather than religious issues? What would Allis do with the thousands of stateless Jews then classed as Displaced Persons which few countries wished to accept? Allis\u2019 solution is no solution at all.
\nBecause of his amillennial approach, Allis sets up an either\/or proposition that need not be so. The option is that the \u201cChristian statesman and the Christian churchman\u201d must either support Zionism, or \u201coffer the Jew salvation within her fold.\u201d This either\/or proposition is a result of Amillennialism, for Dispensationalism can allow for both options at the same time. Allis is a good example of someone whose theology definitely colors his thinking about the Jewish question. Allis is correct when he states that the \u201canswer given by the churchman will determine his conception of the duty of the Church toward the Jew,\u201d and that the \u201canswer given by Christian statesmen will determine their attitude toward Zionism and the political and national aspirations which it fosters and hopes to realize.\u201d How one responds to these issues will differ if he is amillennial or if he is dispensational.
\nThe preface sets the tone for the way Allis treats Israelology throughout his work, especially rejecting the dispensational approach to the same topic. His Israelology is sometimes tinged with anti-Semitism.
\nIn a chapter entitled, \u201cThe Jewish Remnant,\u201d Allis reveals clearly what he dislikes about Dispensationalism:<\/p>\n
For in saying this he has placed his finger on the sore point in Dispensational teaching, the exaltation of the Jew per se. In their glorification of the Jew and the rosy future they assign to him, Dispensationalists vie with Zionists. The future belongs to the Jew!<\/p>\n
For Allis, the dispensational position on a future for Israel, the Jewish people, is \u201cthe sore point.\u201d This is not the first time that Allis has linked Dispensationalism with Zionism in a negative way. Again, it is hard to escape the feeling that Allis is anti-Semitic which, to a large extent, helped determine his theology.<\/p>\n
7. The Olive Tree of Romans 11<\/p>\n
A major factor in Israelology is the interpretation of the meaning of the Olive Tree of Romans 11. Allis\u2019 interpretation of the Olive Tree is: (1) the new branches represent Gentile Christians; (2) these Gentiles entering the Christian Church become members of a body; (3) this new body has its roots in the Abrahamic Covenant; (4) this Olive Tree represents the true Israel; and, (5) this true Israel is also the Church, which is also a theocracy. Points (1) and (3) are clearly stated by this text. Point (2) is not stated by this text under discussion, but is true on the basis of other texts. Points (4) and (5) are forced conclusions based on his preconceived theology rather than on an exegesis of this or any other text. Nowhere does Paul state that this Olive Tree symbolizes the new or true Israel. Paul\u2019s picture of the Olive Tree is to represent it as the place of spiritual blessings which are rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, now being enjoyed by Jewish and Gentile believers. Allis must read into this text that the Olive Tree represents the \u201ctrue Israel,\u201d for his amillennial theology requires him to do just that. The same is true when he identifies the Olive Tree and the true Israel with the Church and a theocracy.
\nHis two inferences appear to be a contradiction of his own theological persuasion. As a Covenant Theologian, Allis is a five-point Calvinist who believes in predestination and the eternal security of the believer. Those who comprise the Church, the true Israel according to Allis, have been predestined to be there and, once there, are eternally secure and cannot lose their salvation. To Allis, to be in the Olive Tree means salvation, not merely in the place of blessing. His first inference is that \u201cunbelief caused the breaking off of some of the natural branches,\u201d and that \u201cbranches of the new graft owe their present status \u2026 solely to faith.\u201d If \u201cthey become unbelieving, they will be cut off.\u201d Obviously, if either Jewish or Gentile branches are cut off, it means they were previously in this tree. If the tree is the Church, the true Israel, the elect, then because of unbelief, they have been cut off from all this. Have they then lost their salvation? To say this contradicts his own theological position. Allis does not seem to catch his own inconsistency here, a contradiction which arises out of his forced interpretation as to the meaning of the Olive Tree. As for the second inference, since the natural branches were originally in the tree, then broken off (did they then lose their salvation?), but now by the grace of God can be grafted back in, does this imply that those who previously lost their salvation now get this salvation back? All this goes totally contrary to Covenant Theology. Yet, based on Allis\u2019 interpretation of the Olive Tree itself, is it not what Allis seems to be saying? The point is that his interpretation forces him into this inconsistency and self-contradiction. Allis\u2019 very basic problem is his clear attempt to make Israel and the Church one and the same rather than keeping them distinct.
\nAllis then engages in some wishful thinking. He claims, \u201cIt is only to be expected that such a passage as this would cause Dispensationalists great difficulty. Their easiest course is to ignore it.\u201d The simple truth is that Dispensationalists have not ignored it, and such a charge is inexcusable. Furthermore, what Paul states here fits in well with Dispensationalism, for it is obvious that throughout Romans 9\u201311, Paul has been dealing with Jews and Gentiles as nationalities, with distinctions between Jews and Gentiles, between Israel and the Church, and between believing Israel and unbelieving Israel. Not once has he declared that the Church is Israel. Allis claims that Paul is ignoring these distinctions in Romans 9\u201311; however, Paul is obviously not ignoring them and is actually making them. This fact has even been seen by other Covenant Theologians in their commentaries on this passage. This was already shown in the section on Covenant Postmillennialism and will be seen again in the next section on Covenant Premillennialism. To claim, as Allis does, that \u201cspiritual blessings promised to Israel are to be secured only by faith, and are the common possession of all believers, both Jew and Gentile,\u201d and that Paul\u2019s \u201cproclamation of the gospel \u2026 made no distinction between Jew and Gentile\u201d is all true; but it is also beside the point. By themselves they do not prove his point that there is no distinction between Israel and the Church, or that there is no future for Israel as a nation. He draws too many sweeping conclusions from what is true in one specific area. There are no distinctions in how one is saved. There are no distinctions in the basis for the enjoyment of spiritual blessings; but this is not the totality of God\u2019s program.
\nIn his discussion on the Olive Tree in Romans 11:17\u201324, Hoekema states several correct premises, but then he derives a faulty conclusion. True, there is only one Olive Tree. True, both Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same way. True, both become members of the same Olive Tree. True, both Jewish and Gentile branches are grafted in simultaneously. These are all true statements that all Dispensationalists can agree with, because they are all obviously found in the text. However, the author then draws conclusions which are not in the text, but which are necessary to his theology. His first conclusion is that \u201cevery thought of a separate future\u201d for Israel \u201cis here excluded.\u201d There is no \u201cseparate program for Jews.\u201d Here the author resorts to a straw man argument. He defines the \u201cseparate program\u201d as \u201ca separate kind of salvation.\u201d If this were the case, he would have a very valid point, but that is not the issue. The issue is: Will there be a<\/p>\n
national salvation of Israel? Those who answer in the affirmative do not say that it will be a different kind of salvation, for when it does happen, it will be by grace through faith. Believing in a total restoration of Israel to the land does recognize a separate program, but not a separate salvation. Hoekema draws faulty conclusions because his premise allows for only two options, one of which is not a national future for Israel. While the author did not say that the Olive Tree is the Church, he is obviously working on that basis. That is the background and basis for his interpretation of the Olive Tree.
\nCox identifies the Remnant of Israel with the Church and also as being the Olive Tree of Romans 11:<\/p>\n
Beginning with the faithful remnant out of national Israel, God added to the church all who were saved through the earthly ministry of Jesus. The New Testament aspect of the church started out as a Jewish body. In fact, Cornelius would seem to have been the first Gentile convert to be added to the church in Jerusalem. Then God raised up the apostle Paul as a missionary to the Gentiles; and many Gentile believers were added to the one olive tree which constituted the one body of God.<\/p>\n
C. Israel Future<\/p>\n
1. No Future for Israel<\/p>\n
Amillennialists deny both a national salvation and a national restoration of Israel. There is no future for national Israel, only a future for the Church.
\nAccording to Berkhof, four events must come to pass before the second coming: the calling of the Gentiles; the conversion of the pleroma of Israel; the great apostasy and the Great Tribulation; and the coming revelation of the Antichrist. it is only the second point that directly concerns Israelology. In this context, Berkhof denies a national restoration of Israel and claims that it \u201cis very doubtful, however, whether Scripture warrants the expectation that Israel will finally be re-established as a nation, and will as a nation turn to the Lord.\u201d So what does Berkhof do with all those Old Testament prophecies that do speak of a national restoration? Berkhof admits that some Old Testament prophecies seem to predict this, but then dismisses them by saying that \u201cthese should be read in light of the New Testament.\u201d The implication is that the New Testament discounts any such national restoration; but the New Testament nowhere cancels out the hope of a national restoration. Berkhof\u2019s question, \u201cDoes the New Testament justify the expectation of a future restoration and conversion of Israel as a nation?\u201d is not totally fair, for the Old Testament is as much a part of divine revelation as is the New. In fact, as has been shown, Berkhof bases his doctrine of infant baptism solely on the Old Testament practice of circumcision since the New Testament provides no such basis, as Berkhof has admitted. The fair way to ask the question is: Does the Bible justify the expectation of a future restoration and conversion of Israel as a nation? All these Old Testament prophecies of a national restoration are not to an Amillennialist\u2019s liking, so he hides behind the New Testament only, and implies it does not \u201cjustify the expectation of a future restoration and conversion of Israel as a nation.\u201d However, not only does the New Testament not cancel out a restoration, it affirms it. Berkhof is familiar with these passages but claims that a national restoration \u201cis not taught nor even necessarily implied\u201d in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 21:24. These verses cannot be so easily dismissed by a dogmatic statement that they do not even imply a national restoration. The Matthew passage states that the twelve apostles are destined to sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Taken at face value, it clearly states that Israel is destined to be restored in its twelve tribal divisions, and each tribe will be under the authority of a specific apostle. That, at least, implies a national restoration in the New Testament. In fact, it is a very positive statement toward that belief. If the Old Testament prophecies must \u201cbe read in the light of the New Testament,\u201d then the New Testament does teach a national restoration. As for the Luke passage, it states that Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. The very word until means that the Gentile trampling of Jerusalem is temporary. At the very least, this implies a Jewish control of Jerusalem after the times of the Gentiles. The Matthew account goes even further than mere implication and affirms it. In spite of verses such as Matthew 19:28 (which Christ repeats on a different occasion, in Luke 22:29\u201330), Berkhof insists that Jesus does not even \u201chint at any prospective restoration and conversion of the Jewish people,\u201d and he finds this \u201csilence of Jesus is very significant.\u201d There are two fallacies in Berkhof\u2019s logic. First, Jesus was not totally silent as Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:29\u201330 illustrates. Second, even if Jesus had been totally silent, that would not disprove a national restoration. It may simply mean that there was nothing to add to what was already revealed about the topic. A major Old Testament doctrine such as the national restoration of Israel cannot be dismissed simply on the basis of an argument from silence. (As has been shown, Jesus was not silent.)
\nBerkhof also touches the crux of the matter which distinguishes Amillennialism from Premillennialism of both stripes: the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. A literal interpretation of those prophecies that speak \u201cof the future of Israel\u201d is to Berkhof \u201centirely untenable.\u201d However, this is purely an a priori statement based on covenant amillennial theology. Even Berkhof would admit that at least most of the first coming prophecies were literally fulfilled, so why is the expectation of a literal fulfillment of the prophecies of \u201cthe future of Israel \u2026 entirely untenable\u201d? Berkhof defends his position on the basis that \u201cthe books of the prophets themselves contain indications that point to a spiritual fulfilment.\u201d He then cites several passages which he feels contain these \u201cindications,\u201d but none of them do. Isaiah 54:13 says, And all thy children shall be taught of Jehovah; and great shall be the peace of thy children. What in this verse forbids a literal interpretation? What in this verse implies a spiritual fulfillment? Isaiah 61:6 prophesies, But ye shall be named the priests of Jehovah; men shall call you the ministers of our God: ye shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves. What in this verse forbids a literal fulfillment? What in this verse implies a spiritual interpretation? Jeremiah 3:16 states that after Israel is restored in the land, they will not rebuild the ark of the covenant; but nothing in this verse forbids a literal interpretation or even implies a spiritual fulfillment. Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 is the main Old Testament prophecy on the New Covenant. Again, nothing forbids a literal interpretation or implies a spiritual fulfillment. Certainly there are spiritual elements within the covenant as there are with all covenants God made. In this covenant the spiritual elements include regeneration and the forgiveness of sins, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the passage forbids a literal interpretation of this as a reference to the Jewish nation. There is nothing in this passage that forbids an interpretation that speaks of a national salvation of Israel. Verse 31 states that it is made with the two houses of Israel and Judah, and it is impossible to believe that Jeremiah was thinking of the Church. Verse 32 points out that the New Covenant will be made with the very same nation with whom the Mosaic Covenant was made. Berkhof would insist that it was the Church that was brought out of Egypt, but he has also defined the Church as being comprised of all believers who have the rule of God in their hearts. This can hardly be said to be true of all those, or even the majority of those, who experienced the Exodus. Furthermore, if it was made with the Church, then the Church is guilty of breaking the covenant. Hosea 14:2 states: Take with you words, and return unto Jehovah: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and accept that which is good: so will we render as bullocks the offering of our lips. What in this verse forbids a literal interpretation or requires a spiritual fulfillment? The removal of the sacrificial system was literal indeed. Micah 6:6\u20138 spells out what God requires, but nothing in the passage either forbids a literal interpretation or implies a spiritual fulfillment. Berkhof\u2019s insistence that these passages \u201ccontain indications\u201d of a \u201cspiritual fulfilment\u201d of prophecies of a future for Israel are simply not true.
\nBerkhof next argues against the \u201ccontention that the names \u2018Zion\u2019 and \u2018Jerusalem\u2019 are never used by the prophets in any other than a literal sense \u2026 is clearly contrary to fact.\u201d This is true, but it would be an extremely rare Premillennialist who would believe that. Virtually all Premillennialists, both covenant, and dispensational, believe that these terms are used both literally and spiritually. It is the content of the \u201cspiritual\u201d use of these terms that is the real point of disagreement. Berkhof claims that there are \u201cpassages in which both names are employed to designate Israel, the Old Testament Church of God.\u201d Berkhof claims that the terms \u201cZion\u201d and \u201cJerusalem\u201d are used spiritually of the Church already in existence in the Old Testament. He cites three passages from Isaiah which he claims support his \u201cspiritual\u201d identification, but they do not unless one presupposes the existence of the Church and reads it into the text. Isaiah 49:14 states: But Zion said, Jehovah hath forsaken me, and the Lord hath forgotten me. There is no reason to make \u201cZion\u201d in this passage anything but Jerusalem or the people of Israel. There is nothing in this verse or its context that requires it to be a reference to the Church. Isaiah 51:3 promises that God will comfort Zion and her waste places will be made like Eden and her desert like the garden of Jehovah. There is no reason either to spiritualize this verse away or make it a reference to the Church. Berkhof engages in a great deal of presuppositionalism and reads a great deal into the verse based on covenant amillennial theology. This is eisegesis and not exegesis. As for Isaiah 52:1\u20132, these verses proclaim the deliverance of Zion and Jerusalem from all uncleanness (v. 1) and bondage (v. 2). As it reads, nothing forbids a literal interpretation or requires a spiritual fulfillment. If Berkhof insists that the \u201cZion\u201d and \u201cJerusalem\u201d of these verses refer to the Church, he is caught up in an inconsistency, for he would then be forced to interpret the uncircumcised and the unclean as unbelievers. The verse states that they will no more come into Zion and Jerusalem though in the past they had. Yet at one time \u201cuncircumcised\u201d and \u201cunclean\u201d were there in Zion. If \u201cZion\u201d is the Church, Berkhof has a problem, for he has defined \u201cChurch\u201d as being comprised of believers only. How is it possible to expel from the Church that which was never there to begin with? Again, the real issue is not whether \u201cZion\u201d and \u201cJerusalem\u201d are used symbolically. Berkhof is correct when he denies that \u201cZion\u201d always refers to a mountain and \u201cJerusalem\u201d always refers to the literal city. These terms are used symbolically; but when they are, it is never the Church. When used symbolically it speaks of Israel as a nation or the Jewish people.
\nBerkhof next claims that the very same symbolic use of the terms \u201cZion\u201d and \u201cJerusalem\u201d is passed \u201cright over into the New Testament\u201d and again cites passages that do not say what he wants them to say. Galatians 4:26 only distinguishes the heavenly Jerusalem from the earthly one but does not identify the heavenly Jerusalem as the Church. (Is not the Church also on earth? Yet Paul only speaks of a Jerusalem that is above.) The symbolic use of Jerusalem in this verse is heaven and not the Church. Hebrews 12:22 speaks of the same thing. It identifies the symbolic \u201cMount Zion\u201d with \u201cthe heavenly Jerusalem.\u201d In verse 23, the Church is among the residents of the heavenly Jerusalem along with God the Father, Jesus, and the angels, but it is not the same as \u201cMount Zion\u201d or the \u201cheavenly Jerusalem.\u201d Revelation 3:12 promises that those of the Church who overcome will have the name of the new Jerusalem written upon them, but that is far from saying that the Church is the \u201cNew Jerusalem.\u201d The absurdity of this interpretation becomes evident if one reads what else is in the same verse. The same verse promises that the overcomer will also have the name of my God written upon him. Does this mean that the Church is God? Berkhof would shrink from such an identification. The verse also states that the overcomers will have mine own new name written upon him. Does this mean that the Church is Jesus? Again, Berkhof would deny any such identification. By the same token, because the overcomer has the new name of Jerusalem written upon him, it cannot mean that the Church is the New Jerusalem. As for Revelation 21:9, it mentions that John sees the Bride of Christ, but it does not make her the New Jerusalem. What John describes beginning in verse ten is the eternal abode of the Bride or the Church which will be the New Jerusalem. This passage (21:10\u201322:5) is an expansion of Hebrews 12:22\u201323 in which the Church is one of several residents of the New Jerusalem.
\nHaving made several dogmatic assertions and failing to prove them, Berkhof proceeds to claim that it \u201cis remarkable that the New Testament, which is the fulfilment of the Old, contains no indication whatsoever of the re-establishment of the Old Testament theocracy by Jesus, nor a single undisputed positive prediction of its restoration, while it does contain abundant indications of the spiritual fulfilment of the promises given to Israel.\u201d Here, Berkhof engages in wishful thinking as well as a prejudicial stacking of his case. It has already been shown that the New Testament does speak of a restoration of Israel in the very passages Berkhof cited as negative. To claim that the New Testament contains \u201cno indication\u201d of a re-establishment of Israel is contrary to fact. Once again, Berkhof has wrongly and unfairly stated the case. The issue is, does the Bible (not just one particular portion of it) teach a final restoration? The answer is affirmative if the Bible is allowed to mean what it says. To say there is \u201cnot a single undisputed positive prediction of its restoration\u201d is a meaningless statement. Just because Berkhof and other Amillennialists wish to dispute the meaning of a \u201cpositive prediction\u201d by Jesus (as in Matthew 19:28) does not negate that it is a \u201cpositive prediction,\u201d Berkhof\u2019s own interpretation would be disputed by other schools of thought. The issue is much more foundational than that.
\nFinally, Berkhof contends that the New Testament \u201cdoes contain abundant indications of the spiritual fulfilment of the promises given to Israel\u201d and then cites several New Testament passages. Matthew 21:43 has been discussed earlier and does not support Berkhof\u2019s contention of a \u201cspiritual fulfilment of the promises given to Israel.\u201d Acts 2:29\u201336 points out that Psalm 16:10 could not be a reference to David who has seen corruption but spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah. Peter also quoted Psalm 110:1, pointing out that it speaks of the Messiah\u2019s present position at the right hand of God the Father. It is very strange that Berkhof even cites this passage for two reasons. First, it does not even refer to Old Testament prophecies of the future of Israel at all and so has nothing to do with a spiritual fulfillment to the Church \u201cof the promises given to Israel.\u201d Second, this passage cites two Old Testament prophecies which were literally fulfilled: the resurrection of the Messiah and the present position of the Messiah. Surely Berkhof is grasping at straws if he feels this passage supports his view, and this is among his \u201cabundant indications\u201d of the spiritual fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. Acts 15:14\u201318 quotes Amos 9:11\u201312 as evidence that part of God\u2019s program included the calling of the Gentiles. This was a literal prophecy and it was then being literally fulfilled. There are no \u201cindications\u201d of a spiritual fulfillment to the Church of promises made to Israel. Romans 9:25\u201326 quotes Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 as an application. Just as Israel in history went from the status of \u201cmy people\u201d to \u201cnot my people\u201d and are destined to become \u201cmy people\u201d again, even so the Gentiles who had the status of \u201cnot my people\u201d become \u201cmy people\u201d when they believe. This verse is far from saying that the promises God made to Israel are to be fulfilled spiritually only. Hebrews 8:8\u201313 quotes the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334, but does not make the point Berkhof wants it to, that is, that the promises made to Israel are to be spiritually fulfilled in the Church. The main point is clearly made in verse 13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. The very fact that Jeremiah announced the coming of a \u201cnew\u201d covenant made the Mosaic Covenant the \u201cold\u201d one, and that which is \u201cold\u201d is nigh unto vanishing away. It certainly teaches that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are not the same as many Covenant Theologians claim. It also teaches that the Mosaic Covenant was already destined to be done away with in the days of Jeremiah. It does not teach that \u201cthe promises given to Israel\u201d are to be spiritually fulfilled. First Peter 2:9 was discussed earlier. The point is that the Jewish believers today are fulfilling the calling of the nation as a whole. There is nothing in this to indicate a spiritual fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. It is important not to ignore the first two verses which point out that Peter was writing to Jewish Christians and not the Church as a whole. It is not saying that the promises given to Israel are to be spiritually fulfilled in the Church. There are no New Testament passages cited by Berkhof which prove the point he wants to make, that the New Testament \u201cdoes contain abundant indications of the spiritual fulfilment of the promises given to Israel.\u201d
\nBerkhof\u2019s conclusion that the \u201cNew Testament certainly does not favor the literalism of the Premillenarians\u201d is totally unwarranted. In dealing with the fulfillment of first coming prophecies, the New Testament takes a very literal approach. There is no reason not to expect other prophecies to be fulfilled in the same way. Nor have any of the examples cited by Berkhof shown that the \u201cNew Testament certainly does not favor the literalism of the Premillenarians.\u201d
\nThe amillennial view concerning prophecy states that whatever has been promised to national Israel has already been fulfilled. Concerning the Abrahamic Covenant, Allis points out that this covenant contains three main features: the seed, the land, and the nations. Allis sees the first two facets as having already been fulfilled even before the first coming, while the third facet is in progress. As to the \u201cseed aspect,\u201d Allis claims that this has already been fulfilled based on the language of 1 Kings 4:20, 1 Chronicles 27:23, 2 Chronicles 1:9 and Hebrews 11:12. However, the original promise was never limited to a short period of time such as \u201cthe golden age of the Monarchy,\u201d but was viewed as something that would be continually true. As to the \u201cland\u201d aspect, Allis also claims that this has already been fulfilled in the days of the Monarchy, because \u201cthe dominion of David and of Solomon extended from the Euphrates to the River of Egypt.\u201d He cites 1 Kings 4:21 as evidence. The verse itself does not mention the River of Egypt, but even if it did, it would not prove Allis\u2019 contention since what was promised about the land included more than mere military occupation, which was the case under David and Solomon. The promise was actual settlement of the land throughout the territory, and this has not occurred. Furthermore, both settlement and ownership of the land was not limited to the descendants of the Patriarchs only but promised to them personally. God promised ownership of the land to Abraham (Gen. 13:15), to Isaac (Gen. 26:3) and to Jacob (Gen. 28:13). Yet in their lifetimes the most they possessed of the Promised Land was one burial cave (bought at a highly inflated price) and several wells. Their descendants have owned much more, but have never settled in all of it. For God\u2019s promises to be fulfilled, the Patriarchs will have to be resurrected and there must be a final restoration of Israel in the land in all of its promised borders. It should be noted that when Allis tries to prove a fulfillment of the seed and land aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant, he is forced to resort to a literal interpretation of those prophecies and to a literal interpretation of those verses where he finds a fulfillment. One could only wish that Allis had done so more consistently. As to the \u201cnations\u201d aspect, Allis states that \u201cit can hardly be said that the fulfillment had more than begun.\u201d According to Allis, the \u201cnote of world-wide blessing is sounded prophetically in the Old Testament,\u201d but as to any historical fulfillment, \u201cit hardly appears in the pages of Old Testament history.\u201d This is true, and again it should be noted how Allis interprets all this literally. Had he been consistent in his usage of the literal hermeneutic, he would not have arrived at his faulty conclusion concerning the Abrahamic Covenant:<\/p>\n
Consequently, we may say that, in the respects in which the Abrahamic covenant particularly concerned Israel, it can be regarded as having been fulfilled centuries before the first advent, while in its universal aspect, in which it concerned all the nations of the earth, it was scarcely fulfilled at all during the Old Testament period.<\/p>\n
Allis admits that Dispensationalism is derived from a simple literal interpretation of the Scriptures. He tries to dismiss such an understanding of Scripture with the following claim:<\/p>\n
It is significant that practically all the texts upon which the claim is based that the Jews are to return to their own land and enjoy special privileges, are taken from the Old Testament. Even more significant is the fact that while Paul devotes a considerable part of Romans (chaps. 9\u201311) to the discussion of the future of the Jews, he has nothing to say about their restoration to their own land or of their enjoying special rights and privileges. He longs most intensely for their conversion, for their re-engrafting into the olive tree. But he does not connect this with restoration to the land of Canaan. This fact is especially noteworthy, because this passage in Romans would seem to be exactly the place for Paul to point out the difference between the heavenly mystery and the earthly promises to Israel, and to explain, if such was really the case, that the fulfillment of these kingdom promises to Israel was to take place literally, after the rapture of the Church. But Paul, who was a profound student of the Old Testament, has nothing to say on this subject, which Zionists and Dispensationalists regard as so vitally important.<\/p>\n
It is true that most (but not all) of the textual evidence upon which the restoration of Israel is based is found in the Old Testament, That is hardly insufficient, because the Old Testament is a valid source of theological truth. As to why Paul makes no reference to such a restoration in Romans 9\u201311, the answer is simple: in light of all the information already available in the Old Testament, there was no need to. Furthermore, that was not the issue Paul was dealing with in those chapters. His primary concern was Jewish unbelief in his day and not what was still future. Finally, Paul did not totally ignore the issue of Israel\u2019s restoration as Allis contends. In Romans 11:26, Paul does speak of a national salvation of Israel, and so all Israel shall be saved. Paul even quotes Isaiah 59:20\u201321 and 27:9 which he obviously takes quite literally in speaking of Israel\u2019s salvation. Furthermore, in Romans 11:29, Paul states that the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of, and certainly this includes the promises of restoration of the Old Testament. To dismiss the Old Testament evidence as Allis does is to ignore a massive amount of Scripture.
\nConcerning the dispensational view of the millennium, Allis states:<\/p>\n
\u2026 if the millennium represents the future kingdom age, the entire picture of that age must be obtained from the Old Testament. This obvious fact makes the question of the interpretation of these kingdom prophecies a matter of the utmost importance. For the more literally these prophecies are construed, the more thoroughly and pervasively Jewish will be the millennium to which the Millenarian will look forward with keen anticipation.<\/p>\n
The claim that the doctrine of the Millennium can only be deduced from the Old Testament is simply not true. Most of what we know about the Messianic Kingdom does come from the Old Testament, but not all. Even if this claim was true, it would not make it invalid, since the Old Testament is a valid source for theological truth. Allis would not disagree with the last statement. So what is really bothering him? The reason he objects to a literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecies is because \u201cthe more literally these prophecies are construed, the more thoroughly and pervasively Jewish will be the millennium \u2026\u201d It is the Jewish factor that Allis dislikes. It appears that, once again, Allis has allowed anti-Semitism to determine his theology and the way he intends to interpret Scripture.
\nThe real basis for his rejection of Dispensationalism and the literal interpretation on which Dispensationalism is based comes out again later. Allis reveals once more why he is opposed to literal interpretation, a hallmark of Dispensationalism. If literal interpretation is the correct approach to Scripture, then \u201cIsrael must mean Israel,\u201d and \u201cit cannot mean the Church.\u201d The prophecies of the Old Testament would have to speak of a future glorious state for Israel, and this is something Allis cannot allow. If there is a Millennium, it \u201cwill concern a Jewish or Israelitish age.\u201d A literal interpretation of the prophecies demands this, and Allis admits it. The only way to avoid its becoming a Jewish age is to interpret the prophecies allegorically. Allis then makes almost an emotional defense of his allegorical approach by citing Isaiah 60:21: Thy people also shall be all righteous. He points out that \u201cChristians of every age of the Church have claimed this promise. They have regarded these words as including themselves.\u201d This may be true, but it is beside the point. The issue is: What does Isaiah 60:21 mean in its context? Taken literally, Isaiah is speaking of Israel and, in the same context, contrasts the future of Israel with that of the Gentiles. Regardless of how Christians may have understood the verse throughout history, Dispensationalists feel no obligation to continue in a tradition if that tradition is in error. Failing back on how Christians may have understood the meaning of thy people is not enough to substantiate it. The Dispensationalist has every right to demand that this verse, like every verse, be interpreted in context. If this violates a cherished belief, so be it. The obligation of theology is to determine what the Scriptures do teach, regardless of where this may lead or what sacred cows may need to be sacrificed. Finally, Allis claims that the only way a literal interpretation can be reconciled with Paul\u2019s teaching \u201cthat all distinctions between Jew and Gentiles have been broken down by the Gospel\u201d is if \u201cthe millennial age will follow the Church age and be quite distinct from it.\u201d That is exactly what the Dispensationalist believes is the case. Furthermore, Paul does not teach that all distinctions have been erased. He only teaches that insofar as salvation is concerned, there are no distinctions, for both are saved in the same way.
\nThat Allis objects to the dispensational view of the kingdom precisely because of its Jewish nature comes out again later:<\/p>\n
Dispensationalists vie with those of the circumcision in proclaiming the greatness and glory that is in store for the Jews as an earthly people on this earth. And salvation for all the inhabitants of the earth for all ages to come will literally be \u201cof the Jews.\u201d This Judaizes human history to an appalling degree. And in so doing it sadly disparages the Christian Church.<\/p>\n
As far as Cox is concerned, the promises concerning the possession of the Promised Land were totally fulfilled by Joshua, and he cites Joshua 11:23 as evidence. If that is where Joshua stopped, that would indeed seem to be the case; but Cox ignores the wider context of the Book of Joshua itself. In Joshua 13:1\u20137, he lists a great part of the Promised Land that still needed to be taken, including Philistia, Phonicia (Lebanon), etc. To claim that the Jews possessed all of the Promised Land under Joshua is not biblically, historically or archaeologically true. Joshua 11:23 must be understood in light of Joshua 13:1\u20137. In other words, Joshua is saying that at that point in history, God gave to Israel all of the Promised Land with the following exceptions. The exceptions cover such a vast amount of territory that it is obvious Israel did not possess and settle in all of the Promised Land. Later in Joshua (23:4\u20137), shortly before his death, he still mentioned territory to be taken over. Following the death of Joshua, the Book of Judges, especially the first chapter, deals with territory of the Promised Land that still needed to be taken, of which some was and some was not. Some cities, like Jerusalem, did not fall into Jewish hands until David, and Gezer until Solomon. Other places, such as Phonicia and Philistia, never became part of Israel\u2019s settlement in ancient history. To claim, as Cox does, that all of the land promises were fulfilled in the days of Joshua, all on the basis of Joshua 11:23, is to ignore what else Joshua himself had to say, as well as other parts of Scripture. It shows a sad lack of knowledge of the history of Israel in the Middle East in ancient history. The only other option for Cox to take, if the promises were not fulfilled, is to declare them as \u201cinvalidated\u201d since he refuses to see a future for Israel.
\nCox claims that Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiah meant a permanent end to a future for Israel. The result of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus caused God to \u201cwithdraw his presence from Israel as a nation.\u201d Thus far, Dispensationalism agrees; but Cox goes further and states that this also means that \u201cnational Israel\u201d will never again \u201cbe a fruitful nation.\u201d Here Dispensationalism disagrees. Cox\u2019s only evidence provided is the cursing of the fig tree and Christ\u2019s declaration that it will never bear fruit again. Granting that the fig tree represents Israel, does it mean it will never bear fruit forever? The Greek text literally means \u201cunto an age\u201d or \u201cfor an age.\u201d The words do not carry the concept of eternity that Cox is trying to impose on them. They hardly require the concept that \u201cnational Israel \u2026 would never again bear fruit.\u201d
\nThe reason Dispensationalism and Amillennialism arrive at such different conclusions about Eschatology in general and Israelology in particular is that the former takes the prophecies literally, while the latter resorts to allegorical interpretation. Cox admits this to be true. Cox cautions his readers to understand the Old Testament in its spirit and not the letter of it:<\/p>\n
One premise held by futurists and dispensationalists is that all promises to national Israel were unconditional, and that they are binding upon God regardless of the actions of the nation Israel. Here especially the student of the Bible needs to search out the spirit of the Old Testament and not to become enmeshed in the letter.<\/p>\n
This is surely an unnatural distinction between \u201cspirit\u201d and \u201cletter.\u201d If the \u201cspirit\u201d of the Old Testament is to be understood, it must be derived from the \u201cletter,\u201d or the meaning of the words it uses. To try to derive the meaning of the \u201cspirit\u201d while ignoring the \u201cletter\u201d will result in subjective conclusions.
\nAs Cox moves towards discovering the \u201cspirit\u201d of the Old Testament, he claims that all physical promises made to Israel either have been fulfilled or nullified. Cox\u2019s thesis is threefold: (1) every Christian is a spiritual Israelite; (2) Christians are, therefore, subject to all unfulfilled promises; and, (3) nothing future will happen apart from the Church. The second point is a logical deduction from the first, and the third from the second. The first is a presupposition which Cox never proves, for he never does show one passage where the Church is called the new or true or spiritual Israel, thus rendering every Christian a \u201cspiritual Israelite.\u201d The application for Israelology, then, is that \u201cthe only future for believing Jews is within the church.\u201d
\nHe then insists that those who believe in \u201ca separate plan for national Israel\u201d create more problems than they solve. One problem is how only one \u201cpart of the body of Christ is raptured while the other part remains on earth.\u201d This is a problem only for Cox who believes that there can be only one people of God. While Dispensationalists do believe that there are two peoples of God, they do not say that there are two bodies of God. The concept of \u201cbody\u201d requires a more vital organic union with the head than the concept of \u201cpeople\u201d does. There is only one body of Christ, the Church. This entire body will be raptured in total, and not just part of the body. It is the Church, one of the peoples of God, that is the body, and that entire body will be raptured. That body is comprised of all believers between Pentecost and the Rapture. The Dispensationalist is not confined to making all saints Church saints. The saints before Pentecost are not Church saints. Those who become believers after the Rapture need not be Church saints either. If all Israel is saved after the Rapture, they constitute a separate entity from the Church and can have their own distinctive future apart from the Church. The Dispensationalist is not stuck with only the two options Cox allows: partial rapture or two bodies. This is not a problem for Dispensationalists. For Cox, it is a supposed problem he wishes Dispensationalists to have, which they do not. The problem is really Cox\u2019s Amillennialism.
\nThe second problem Cox presents is that Dispensationalism requires God to have two wives, and this is supposed \u201cto do violence to the teachings of God concerning the sacredness of marriage.\u201d But is it? God Himself pictures Himself as having two wives, two sisters no less, in Ezekiel 23. In this chapter, the two sisters are Israel and Judah, but Cox objects to the idea that God can have two wives if the two are Israel and the Church, for this would apparently mean that God is a bigamist. That need not be so. Israel is pictured as the Wife of Jehovah which may refer to the Triune God as a whole or, more specifically, to God the Father. The Church is pictured as the Bride and Wife of Christ and is only related this way to one person of the Trinity, God the Son. Since Cox is a trinitarian and believes in three distinct persons in the Godhead, then there can be two wives, each married to a different member of the Godhead without there being bigamy. Cox, however, insists that since Israel is referred to as being married to God in the Old Testament and the Church is the Bride of Christ in the New, then they must be one and the same. The only point of similarity between the two is that both are somehow related to God in marriage. Here the similarity clearly ends. Cox ignores totally the radically different description found between the two women, a point that will be developed in chapter X. There is no way of reconciling the two portrayals to make them both one and the same woman. This is not a problem for Dispensationalists, but it is for Cox who makes no attempt to reconcile the two contradictory descriptions. It is enough for him that both are called \u201cwife\u201d to be one and the same. If this is what Cox means by determining the \u201cspirit\u201d of the Old Testament rather than the \u201cletter,\u201d it is a shallow treatment of the Scriptures indeed.
\nCox chooses to ignore such details in order to conclude that there simply is no separate future for Israel. What future Israel has will have to be in the Church. To further prove this point, he refers to the Olive Tree of Romans 11 but assumes his conclusion: the Olive Tree is the Church. Without ever proving textually or exegetically that the Olive Tree is the Church (\u201cthis can only be the Christian Church\u201d), he concludes that \u201cthe destination of all believers is the same,\u201d and this \u201ccompletely explodes the theory that God has separate future plans for national Israel and the Church.\u201d Hardly! From unproven assumptions, he draws significant conclusions, but as has been seen, he fails to prove some assumptions and does not even try with others.
\nCox also discusses Matthew 24:21. Dispensationalists see this verse and its context as speaking of the seven years of Tribulation preceding the second coming when the Jews will suffer like they never have before. Such an interpretation is too futuristic for Cox, and his interpretation is that this passage was fulfilled in A.D. 70. There is no question that this was a very severe time for the Jews. It may well be said that the slaughter of A.D. 70 was the worst the Jews had suffered up to that time; but can it really be said to be the worst ever? The Jews have suffered worse things since. What happened in A.D. 70 cannot compare with the Holocaust of World War II. Since Cox wrote his book well after those events, such ignorance of Jewish history is inexcusable. Cox will only allow greater tribulation for the Church rather than for Israel in spite of Jewish history since A.D. 70. His theology even forces him to turn a blind eye to Jewish history.
\nAccording to Hendriksen, the prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel have been fulfilled with the return from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities inasfar as they were intended to be fulfilled in a literal sense. There is no literal fulfillment to be expected beyond that point. Furthermore, the real intent was not literal fulfillment, but spiritual fulfillment. These are now being \u201cfulfilled in Christ\u201d and in all believers \u201cwhether Jew or Gentile.\u201d Even when some literal fulfillment is allowed, the Covenant Amillennialists are so enslaved to allegorization that even then they do \u201cnot exhaust their meaning.\u201d For this school of thought, only spiritual fulfillment in the Church can do that.
\nHoekema reveals how a Covenant Amillennialist can take a passage of Scripture which obviously speaks of Jews and make it to speak of the Church:<\/p>\n
Though the tribulation, persecution, suffering, and trials here predicted are described in terms which concern Palestine and the Jews, they must not be interpreted as having to do only with the Jews. Jesus was describing future events in terms which would be understandable to his hearers, in terms which had local ethnic and geographic color. We are not warranted, however, in applying these predictions only to the Jews, or in restricting their occurrence only to Palestine.<\/p>\n
This is a good example of the hermeneutical leap that Covenant Theologians are forced to make to reach their conclusions. He admits that the prophecies, as they are written, concern the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. Claiming that Jesus was forced to say what He did to make Himself \u201cunderstandable to his hearers,\u201d he insists that the terms must not be limited to what they say. In his words, \u201cWe are not warranted\u201d to limit the prophecies to the people or the land of which they speak. However, the real issue here is: How is Hoekema \u201cwarranted\u201d to go beyond the things which are written? The author states further:<\/p>\n
There is no indication in Jesus\u2019 words that the great tribulation which he predicts will be restricted to the Jews, and that Gentile Christians, or the church in distinction from the Jews, will not have to go through it. This view, commonly taught by dispensationalists, has no basis in Scripture. For if tribulation, as we have just seen, is to be suffered by Christians throughout this entire age, what reason is there for restricting the final tribulation to the Jews? What reason is there for restricting the elect for whose sake the days of that final tribulation will be shortened (Matt. 24:22) to the elect among the Jews? Does not Jesus\u2019 later reference to the gathering of the elect \u201cfrom the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other\u201d (v. 31) imply that he is thinking here of all of God\u2019s true people, and not just of the elect Jews?<\/p>\n
The author\u2019s challenging questions lose their force if they are reversed, because then they will be seen for what they are: arguments from silence. Hoekema asserts that \u201cthere is no indication\u201d that the predictions are \u201crestricted to the Jews\u201d and do not include the Gentile Christians or the Church. However, the contrary is true. There is no indication that the Church is included. The very fact that only the Jews and the Land of Israel are mentioned is the indication that it is they who are meant and not Gentile Christians or the Church. The author asks, \u201cWhat reason is there for restricting the final tribulation to the Jews?\u201d The question should be, \u201cWhat reason is there for including the Church as being in the final tribulation?\u201d In passing, it might be pointed out that Dispensationalists do not limit the final tribulation to Jews only, though they do exclude the Church from it; but the answer is that while the Bible does speak of Jews and Gentiles as being in the final tribulation, it never mentions the Church as being in it. As to why the elect of Matthew 24:22 should be restricted to the elect among the Jews, the answer is that the context requires it, for in the preceding context (vv. 15\u201321), Jesus is obviously speaking of Jews and of Israel (as Hoekema himself admitted earlier). As for the gathering of the elect of verse 31, the same context still limits the elect to Jewish elect. Furthermore, the Old Testament background to Matthew 24:31 is Deuteronomy 30:3\u20134 which is also an obvious reference to the Jews and their land. Hoekema argues from silence by asking questions which just as easily can be reversed. His \u201cwhy exclude\u201d questions can be reversed to \u201cwhy include,\u201d especially since the Bible does not include those that Hoekema wishes to include. He is drawing his conclusions from his theology rather than from exegesis.
\nConcerning the prophecies of the restoration of Israel, Hoekema sees all such prophecies as already fulfilled in history:<\/p>\n
Prophecies of this sort may be fulfilled literally. As we have just seen, all the prophecies quoted about the restoration of Israel to its land have been literally fulfilled, either in the return from Babylonian captivity under Zerubbabel and Joshua (in 536 B.C.), or in a later return under Ezra (in 458 B.C.).<\/p>\n
However, it is all too obvious that the return from Babylon could not exhaust all that those prophecies intended, for they looked to a far more glorious future than the return from Babylon achieved. The Dispensationalist sees that future as a reference to the Millennium, but Hoekema\u2019s solution is to see the fulfillment as taking place in the eternal state spoken of in Revelation 21\u201322. To arrive at this conclusion, Hoekema must resort to allegorical interpretation which he insists the New Testament validates, though he has not nor does he prove it. So, all that the prophets mean by \u201cIsrael\u201d is \u201cthe people of God,\u201d and the \u201cland of Canaan\u201d becomes nothing more than heaven. The only reason God spoke \u201cin such narrow terms about a restoration of Israel to its land\u201d was that this was the only way God could make these prophecies \u201cmeaningful to the Israelites of those days.\u201d If God did not mean what he said when he used those terms, then do they not lose their meaning? The Covenant Amillennialist leaves God open to the charge of unethical conduct.
\nHoekema insists that those who believe in a \u201cliteral fulfillment for Israel\u201d of these prophecies are guilty of two things: (1) reverting back to \u201cJewish nationalism\u201d; and, (2) failing \u201cto see God\u2019s purpose for all his redeemed people.\u201d Failure to let the Bible mean what it says seems to point out the fact that the Covenant Amillennialist fails to see God\u2019s purposes in relationship to the very people that these prophecies were spoken to or of.<\/p>\n
2. Romans 11:25\u201332 and \u201cAll Israel Shall Be Saved\u201d<\/p>\n
When Berkhof approaches Romans 9\u201311, he states, \u201cit may be thought that Romans 11:11\u201332 certainly teaches the future conversion of the nation of Israel.\u2026 but even its correctness is subject to considerable doubt.\u201d For both Postmillennialism and Premillennialism this passage does teach a national regeneration of Israel; but Berkhof\u2019s Amillennialism cannot allow for this, so he must decree that this interpretation of Romans 11:26 is \u201csubject to considerable doubt.\u201d To reach such a conclusion that seems to contradict the plain meaning of the text, Berkhof tries to prove it by the context. He interprets chapters 9\u201310 as teaching that the promises of God did not apply \u201cto Israel according to the flesh, but to the spiritual Israel.\u201d To some extent this is true (though not totally); the real problem is the identification of the \u201cspiritual Israel.\u201d Berkhof identifies it with the Church rather than with the believing Jewish remnant within Israel. If context is truly determinative, the distinction Paul is making is between Jews who believe and Jews who do not. Spiritual Israel is never said to be the Church, but this identification is crucial for Berkhof and for Amillennialism. When he comes to Romans 11:1\u201310, Berkhof interprets it as God still having \u201cHis elect among Israel.\u201d This is a correct interpretation, but Berkhof does not limit the term \u201cspiritual Israel\u201d to that believing \u201celect among Israel.\u201d
\nIt is with this background that Berkhof arrives at his interpretation of Romans 11:11\u201332. Berkhof interprets these verses to teach that \u201cthe hardening of the greater part of Israel is not God\u2019s final end, but rather a means in His hand to bring salvation to the Gentiles,\u201d which in turn \u201cmay provoke Israel to jealousy.\u201d Berkhof also affirms that this section teaches that \u201cthe hardening of Israel will always be only partial, for through all succeeding centuries there will always be some who accept the Lord.\u201d So far, both Postmillennialists and Premillennialists can agree. The parting of the ways comes with Berkhof\u2019s treatment of verses 25\u201326, which is understood by both Postmillennialists and Premillennialists as speaking of Israel\u2019s national salvation after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, though they disagree over the relationship that this event has to the second coming. Berkhof, however, denies that it teaches the national salvation of Israel after \u201cthe fullness of the Gentiles.\u201d Berkhof\u2019s interpretation is that \u201cGod will continue to gather His elect remnant out of the Jews during the entire new dispensation until the fulness (pleroma, that is, the number of the elect) of the Gentiles be come in, and so (in this manner) all Israel (its pleroma, that is, the full number of true Israelites) shall be saved.\u201d Based on Covenant Theology presupposition, the pleroma is defined as \u201cthe number of the elect.\u201d \u201cThe fulness of the Gentiles\u201d is the number of elect Gentiles. That is acceptable. The way all Israel is defined is not. According to Berkhof, all Israel is not \u201ca designation \u2026 of the whole nation,\u201d but only \u201cthe whole number of the elect out of the ancient covenant people.\u201d The all Israel is not all Jews living after \u201cthe fullness of the Gentiles be come in,\u201d but only all the elect from the Jewish people in the new dispensation. As Berkhof notes, \u201cPremillanarians take the 26th verse to mean that, after God has completed His purpose with the Gentiles, the nation of Israel will be saved.\u201d That would appear to be the simple meaning of the verse; but Berkhof rejects this on the basis that earlier Paul taught \u201cthat the promises were for spiritual Israel\u201d and therefore verse 26 cannot be a reference to physical or national Israel, for that \u201cwould come as a surprise.\u201d However, spiritual Israel in Romans 9\u201311 refers not to the Church as a whole, nor to believing Gentiles, but to believing Jews. To them the promises are made; but if the whole nation is saved at some future point, then the whole physical national Israel also becomes spiritual Israel and can therefore obtain the promises. There is nothing in either the immediate context or the wider context that would negate this. Berkhof\u2019s attempt to do so is not based on exegesis but on his Covenant Theology.
\nIn order to get around the timing element implied by these verses, that only after the fullness of the Gentiles be come in is all Israel saved, Berkhof defines the Greek word to mean \u201cin this manner.\u201d No translation has followed Berkhof on this. What the text provides is a logical and chronological order. First, a partial blindness has fallen on Israel. Second, this partial blindness is temporary until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. Third, when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, then all Israel will be saved. There is a contrast between now and then. Now, only a portion of Israel is saved according to the election of grace. Then, all Israel will be saved. It is not as Berkhof concludes that with \u201cthe fullness of the Gentiles the fullness of Israel will also come in,\u201d but with the fullness of the Gentiles, all Israel will be saved.
\nCox insists that if the verse is teaching that \u201cevery Jew living when Christ returns \u2026 is to have Paul contradicting himself.\u201d However, Cox fails to show just where Paul would be contradicting himself. On the contrary, this interpretation fits the context well. For now, only some Jews are coming to saving faith (11:1\u201324), but then all Jews will come to saving faith (11:25\u201332). There is no contradiction with either what Paul wrote before or elsewhere in his writings.
\nCox admits that the \u201ccontext clearly indicates that Paul is referring to national Jews,\u201d but insists it refers only to the present remnant of Israel and not a future national turning. \u201cAll Israel\u201d only refers to the whole remnant of Israel; but it is this that seems to contradict Paul, for he is making a contrast between the remnant now (11:5) as over against all Israel then (11:26). Again, Cox is forcing his theology upon the text. God \u201cpermitted a part of Israel to be blinded to the gospel, in order that the full number of elected Gentiles would be saved.\u201d It is also true that \u201cin the same manner all the elect of Israel \u2026 are also being saved.\u201d The point of 11:26 is to refer to an event that will occur once the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and that is the fact that all Israel shall be saved. The fact is that throughout Romans 11, Paul has been making distinctions between Jews and Gentiles, and between the remnant, or partial Israel, with all Israel. It is inconsistent exegesis to make the Israel of 11:1\u201310 national Israel, and the Israel of 11:25\u201326 the Church. This Cox does not do, though many other Covenant Theologians do. Cox does limit the all Israel to be only the remnant, destroying Paul\u2019s own contrast already begun in chapter nine between Israel the whole and Israel the remnant. To keep this contrast intact then, 11:26 does refer to a future national salvation of Israel in contrast to the present partial salvation of Israel. Cox also admits that if \u201ctaken literally at face value,\u201d 11:26 teaches that every Israelite is assured salvation; but he is wrong in saying that the verse would require the salvation of every Jew \u201cpast, present, and future.\u201d If this were the case, then it would be an \u201cunbiblical teaching\u201d as Cox states. This salvation of all Israel is only after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, so it only includes all Jews living at that time and not all Jews of all time. Here Cox is trying to dismiss the argument by overstating it, but taken \u201cliterally at face value,\u201d it does predict a time when indeed all Israel shall be saved. Cox claims that to accept any interpretation other than his is to do \u201cviolence to Paul as well as to the entire New Testament.\u201d On the contrary, allowing the passage to speak \u201cliterally at face value\u201d is to agree with Paul and the entire Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments.
\nHendriksen deals with three different interpretations of this verse, two of which he rejects. The first is: \u201c \u2018All Israel\u2019 indicates the entire people of God: the total number of the elect out of both Jews and Gentiles; that is, the church.\u201d The first view is that the Israel of Romans 11:26 is the Church as a whole. This was the view of John Calvin and is the view of many Covenant Amillennialists. They use Galatians 6:16 as corollary evidence of this view; but Hendriksen rejects this position, primarily for contextual reasons. Throughout Romans 9\u201311, Israel is consistently used for Jews in contrast to Gentiles. This interpretation would require this verse to be the exception. Hendriksen feels that Israel here must also be the Jews.
\nThe second view is: \u201c \u2018All Israel\u2019 refers to the Jews as a people or collectively.\u201d The second view is that this refers to a national salvation sometime after the fulness of the Gentiles. There are two variations to this position. There are those who view it to mean that sometime in the future there will be a mass turning of the Jews to Jesus that will include the majority of the people. This is the view of Covenant Postmillennialists, Covenant Premillennialists, and some Dispensationalists. The second variation is that it will include all the Jews. This is the view of many, if not most, Dispensationalists. Hendriksen also rejects this view, for it requires an eschatological future that Covenant Amillennialism denies. As he has already stated, whatever is future is in the Church alone.
\nThe third view is: \u201c \u2018All Israel\u2019 indicates the full number of the elect from among the Jews; in other words, the remnant.\u201d<\/p>\n
What, then, does Rom. 11:26a actually mean, and what is meant here by \u201call Israel\u201d?\u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026 After what has already been said little evidence needs to be added to prove that the term refers to the full number of elect Jews whom it pleases God to bring into the kingdom throughout the ages until the very day when also the full number of the Gentiles shall have been brought in. \u201cAll Israel\u201d is \u201cthe remnant according to the election of grace\u201d (11:5).<\/p>\n
The third view is that all Israel is the entire Jewish remnant being saved between the first and second comings. This is now in the process of being fulfilled, and it is not a future eschaton. In this way, Hendriksen can remain consistent with the context in which Israel obviously refers to Jews in contrast with Gentiles and still deny a future national salvation of Israel, and so deny any future for national Israel. His main defense is contextual, for he points out that throughout Romans 9\u201311 Paul has been dealing, with the remnant. This is true, but he misses Paul\u2019s contrast. During the period of Gentile salvation, only part of Israel is being saved; but once the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, thus bringing the period of Gentile salvation to an end, then it will not be a part of Israel that will be saved, but all Israel shall be saved. This is the natural flow of the context, but his Amillennialism will not allow him to see this.
\nWhat will this view do to God\u2019s promises to Israel? Hendriksen states:<\/p>\n
It might seem to some that God had completely rejected his ancient covenant people. This, however, raised a problem: Was it true, then, that God had become unfaithful to his promises to Israel? \u201cNo,\u201d says Paul, as it were, \u201cbut you must remember that even during the old dispensation these promises were intended to be realized only in the lives of true believers. The rest were hardened. But there was always \u2018a remnant according to the election of grace.\u2019 At the present time there is also (see 11:5) a remnant. The hardening is not complete, though it might at times seem to be. But it is not (11:25). In fact, throughout this entire dispensation, until the very time when the full number of elect Gentiles shall have been gathered into the church, elect Jews will be saved. \u2018And so all Israel shall be saved.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
Here Hendriksen paraphrases Paul, but in so doing, he puts words in Paul\u2019s mouth that he never said. Hendriksen is reading his own theology into Paul\u2019s rather than allowing Paul to speak for himself. What Paul is saying is that while the majority of Israel did not believe, a minority, the remnant, did and do believe. Nor is this unusual, for throughout Old Testament history it was always a minority who believed. What Paul did not say was that the promises of God \u201cwere intended to be realized only in the lives of true believers.\u201d Hendriksen puts these words into Paul\u2019s mouth so that he can reach the conclusion he is after: that at the same time \u201cthe full number of elect Gentiles shall have been gathered into the church, elect Jews will be saved.\u201d In this way all Israel is reduced to partial Israel, still with no distinct future of its own. in Hendriksen\u2019s own words: \u201cThe apostle does not say that Israel shall be saved on a very large scale; but he says that \u2018all\u2019 Israel shall be saved. This \u2018all\u2019 clearly indicates the total number of elect Jews, without a single exception: all the elect.\u201d Because he obviously ignores the contrast between the partial and the whole, this is a strained conclusion. For this reason, the premillennial and postmillennial Covenant Theologians have not followed the Covenant Amillennialists on this text.
\nIn his concluding paragraph, the author shows that Israel as a nation or a people has no special place in the plan of God:<\/p>\n
It has become very clear, therefore, that the proposition, \u201cGod is finished with the Jews,\u201d is an error. God has his elect people among the Africans, the Indian tribes, the French, the Dutch, the Mexicans, the Argentinians, the Australians, and so forth, and so forth; and certainly also, he has his elect among the Jews!<\/p>\n
Like Hendriksen, Hoekema also recognizes three views as to what Paul is actually saying. The first view is that it refers to a national salvation of Israel following \u201cthe fulness of the Gentiles.\u201d This view, held by Covenant Postmillennialists, Covenant Premillennialists, and Dispensationalists, is rejected by the author. The second view is that it refers to \u201cthe salvation of all the elect,\u201d both Jews and Gentiles. This is held by many Covenant Amillennialists but is also rejected by Hoekema. The third view is that it refers to the \u201csalvation throughout history of the total number of the elect from among the Jews.\u201d This is the view Hoekema accepts. This view affirms two things:<\/p>\n
This view agrees \u2026 in understanding the words \u201call Israel\u201d as not designating the nation of Israel as a totality to be saved in the end-time, but as referring to the number of the elect to be saved throughout history. It differs from the second interpretation, however, in restricting the meaning of the word Israel to the Jews.<\/p>\n
Hoekema\u2019s interpretation is as follows: (1) Israel has been partially blinded; (2) because it is only partial, Jews will always be coming to Christ right up to the second coming; (3) at the same time, the fullness of the Gentiles is being brought in and this too will continue until the Parousia; and (4) at the Parousia, by which time all the eject of Israel will be saved, thus all Israel will be saved. This is the same view as Hendriksen\u2019s. Hoekema\u2019s solution to the obvious contrast between the partial of Romans 11:5 and the all Israel of 11:26 is to claim that 11:5 speaks of the remnant of one particular generation, while 11:26 speaks of \u201cthe sum total of all the remnants throughout history.\u201d While other Amillennialists totally ignore Paul\u2019s contrast between the partial and all Israel, Hoekema does not; but his solution will not satisfy the other schools of thought, because it results in something that is still partial.
\nCombining his view of the Olive Tree and the meaning of all Israel shall be saved, he argues against the view that there will be a national salvation of Israel in the future with two objections. The first is to say that \u201cthe way in which Jews are now being saved, \u2026 must not be separated from the way in which Gentiles are saved, since God now clears with both groups together.\u201d This objection misses the point. No one is saying that there is any difference in \u201cthe way\u201d Jews are saved, either now or then. The way of salvation for Jews as with the Gentiles will be by grace through faith. The second objection is that to interpret verse 26 as referring to \u201ca time of salvation for Jews which will be separated from \u2026 the time when Gentiles are saved is to go contrary to the main thrust of the chapter.\u201d This objection is faulty because the author fails to understand Paul\u2019s real contrast between the partial and the \u201call.\u201d Insofar as partial Israel is concerned, they are being saved during the same time the Gentiles are being saved. The all Israel is not just the sum total of all remnants, but all Israel is in contrast to partial Israel, and so refers to a national salvation following the fulness of the Gentiles. Believing in a future national salvation does not \u201cgo contrary to the main thrust of the chapter,\u201d since it also affirms remnant salvation at the same time the Gentiles are being saved today.
\nHoekema does not deny the possibility of a future mass turning of the Jews to Jesus. However, while the other three major theological groups feel that Romans 11:25\u201326 requires a mass national turning, Hoekema is non-committal and states that the passage neither demands one nor disallows for it. If it does happen, it will be contemporary with and not subsequent to the fullness of the Gentiles.
\nThe last thing Hoekema states about Romans 11:26 is to relate it to Jewish evangelism:<\/p>\n
The sign of the salvation of the fulness of Israel, \u2026 tells us that Jews will continue to be converted to Christianity throughout the entire era between the first and second comings of Christ, as the full number of the Gentiles is being gathered in. In such Jewish conversions, therefore, we are to see a sign of the certainty of Christ\u2019s return. In the meantime, this sign should bind on our hearts the urgency of the church\u2019s mission to the Jews. In a world in which there is still a great deal of anti-Semitism, let us never forget that God has not rejected his ancient covenant people, and that he still has his purpose with Israel.<\/p>\n
His conclusion is that Jews will always be coming to Christ and this should be a spur to Jewish evangelism. This is \u201cthe urgency of the church\u2019s mission to the Jews.\u201d God \u201cstill has his purpose with Israel,\u201d but for Hoekema, this purpose neither includes a national salvation nor a national restoration, only a remnant salvation. Even with the sum total of all remnants, it is still partial.<\/p>\n
D. Summary and Conclusions of the Israelology of Covenant Amillennialism<\/p>\n
Three other works deserve mention for their contribution to the discussion of Covenant Amillennial Israelology: (1) Church and Kingdom; (2) The Kingdom of God and the Church; and (3) Israel Today: A Fulfillment of Prophecy? However, they do not present any new arguments to the issues involved and repeat what has been discussed by the others cited in this chapter.
\nIn addition to the above, two works by Richard DeRidder deserve special mention: (1) My Heart\u2019s Desire for Israel, and (2) Discipling the Nations. The author, a professor at Calvin Theological Seminary, does not differ in any essential way from standard Covenant Amillennialism; however, he allows for a much greater significance to the role of Israel today. His first book does emphasize a special role for Jewish evangelism and an allowance for the Jewish believer to maintain his Jewishness. While emphasizing that there is only one people of God and that today the gospel is to be proclaimed to all, both books still point out that the Jews have priority in that the gospel is to the Jew first. This emphasis is lacking in all the other amillennial writings cited in this chapter.
\nCox gives a good summary of his Israelology as it relates to Israel and the Church:<\/p>\n
1. God has always had but one spiritual people, represented by the remnant in every generation.<\/p>\n
2. God\u2019s promises to Israel were conditional.<\/p>\n
3. All earthly promises to Israel have been either fulfilled or invalidated through disobedience and unbelief.<\/p>\n
4. Israel was a type of the church and was superseded by the church.<\/p>\n
5. The church was prophesied in the Old Testament, in Old Testament language.<\/p>\n
6. Christ was, and is, the only Hope of Israel. And Israelites (Jews) will be saved only if they accept him during this age.<\/p>\n
7. The first advent of Christ completed Israel\u2019s redemption, and manifested the Israel of God (the church) referred to in Galatians 6:16.<\/p>\n
8. Christ instituted a Jewish-Gentile church.<\/p>\n
9. All unfulfilled spiritual promises to Israel are being fulfilled through the Christian church.<\/p>\n
10. This does not represent a change in God\u2019s plan, but evidences progressive revelation.<\/p>\n
The Israelology of Covenant Amillennialism is based on Covenant Theology, which by its very nature limits the development of a complete Israelology. The covenant of grace, upon which Covenant Theology is based, allows for only one people of God, and this one people is the Church. Covenant Amillennialism has an even less developed Israelology than Covenant Postmillennialism because it uses the allegorical method of interpretation, especially in the area of Israel and prophecy, to a greater extent than Covenant Postmillennialism does. For both, the Church is the \u201cspiritual Israel,\u201d and so for both, all Jews who have ever believed (before and after Christ), do believe, or will believe are part of the Church.<\/p>\n
1. SUMMARY<\/p>\n
Israel Past<\/p>\n
Some from this school of theology believe that the covenant of grace began with Adam, while others believe it began with Abraham. Even the latter believe that the essence of the covenant of grace is already found in Genesis 3:15 in the Adamic context. From the time of its beginning, the covenant had a primary application only to the elect. Obviously, for the duration of the Old Testament, the vast majority of the elect were Jewish elect; but it is only to the elect that the promises of the covenant applied.
\nThere were physical promises made by the prophets to the nation as a whole, but one of two things has happened concerning these physical promises. First, all the prophecies which were intended for a literal fulfilment have already been fulfilled with the return from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. All others have been cancelled because of Israel\u2019s unbelief. Now, only the spiritual promises have been left for fulfillment.
\nAs for the covenants God made with Israel in the past, there is only one covenant, the covenant of grace. All the other covenants are considered as essentially the same and are, therefore, not to be viewed as separate covenants, but merely further revelations of the covenant of grace. All those facets of the one covenant of grace are related to the Church and not to Israel nationally, though during the Old Testament period the Church did move from a home phase, to an institutional phase. However, even this national phase concerned the elect of Israel and not national Israel as such.
\nAs for the Law of Moses, this was meant as a rule of life for the national Church. This law had elements which were permanent and elements which were temporary.<\/p>\n
Israel Present<\/p>\n
At the present time, there is no distinctive plan for Israel. National Israel today is not the people of God, it is not the chosen nation. It is the Church that is the people of God, the holy nation, and the chosen race. The Church is the spiritual Israel, the seed of Abraham, the heavenly Zion and Jerusalem, and the Olive Tree of Romans 11. It is the Kingdom of God.
\nGod has not cast away his people, for there is an elect remnant from among the Jews that have, do, and will believe and become part of the Church. In fact, Jews will continue to believe in Christ right up to the Parousia or the second coming. This is happening contemporaneously with the fulness of the Gentiles. For this reason, Jewish evangelism must still be a mission of the Church. A few would even say that the Jews have a priority in this since the gospel is still to the Jew first.
\nThere are no remaining unfulfilled promises to the Jews. All promises are spiritual and are now being fulfilled in and through the Church.
\nBecause Israel and the Church are the same, the history of Israel is now the history of the Church. With the New Testament phase of this history, the Church has separated from the national life of Israel and become an independent organization. Furthermore, baptism has now replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Many of the commandments of the Law of Moses were terminated. All commandments which were purely national have been discarded since God is now through with Israel as a nation. Otherwise, the Law of Moses is still in effect. Now all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have been erased and that forever.
\nThe Remnant of Israel is now to be viewed as being part of the Church, and not a distinct entity within Israel.<\/p>\n
Israel Future<\/p>\n
It is here more than in Israel Past and Israel Present that the Covenant Amillennialists differ from the Covenant Postmillennialists. In the amillennial scheme, the present age (their Millennium) will terminate with the second coming, which will be followed by the eternal state with no Millennium in between.
\nThere will be no future national salvation of Israel. The expression all Israel shall be saved means only the sum total of all the elect, or of all Jewish remnants between Abraham and the Parousia. This happens at the same time as the fulness of the Gentiles and not subsequent to it. The fulness of the Gentiles and all Israel shall be saved terminate with the second coming. There will be no national salvation either preceding or following the second coming. Instead, the second coming will result in judgment for national Israel for their unbelief.
\nThere will also be no future national restoration of Israel. Such prophecies are to be interpreted spiritually as a gathering into the Church, and the glorious future is that of the eternal state. The hope of Israel is salvation in the Church. The future of believing Israel is exactly the same as believing Gentiles: salvation and ultimate glorification through faith in Christ.<\/p>\n
2. CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n
Covenant Amillennialism allows for the least development of Israelology when compared with the other two schools of Covenant Theology. Covenant Postmillennialism allows for further development because it does believe in a national salvation of Israel, which Amillennialism does not. Covenant Premillennialism can go even further, because it believes in a Millennium after the second coming, which Amillennialism does not. Because of its basis in Covenant Theology, it is limited in how much of an Israelology it can develop. For that reason, it shares many of the same weaknesses as Postmillennialism does and then some.<\/p>\n
Israel Past<\/p>\n
Covenant Amillennialism fails to adequately deal with three main subjects, the same three as with Covenant Postmillennialism.
\nFirst, like Postmillennialism, it fails to take into account all that was entailed in the Jewish covenants. Whereas Postmillennialism deemphasizes the physical and material facets and promises of the Jewish covenants, Amillennialism totally ignores and denies them.
\nSecond, like Postmillennialism, Amillennialism fails to see and recognize Israel\u2019s unique entity, and for the same reason claims there can only be one and not two peoples of God.
\nThird, it shares the same failings as Postmillennialism on the issue of the Law of Moses.<\/p>\n
Israel Present<\/p>\n
There are two failings of Covenant Amillennialism in this area.
\nFirst, Amillennialists all agree that God has not rejected Israel, but they limit this \u201cIsrael\u201d to the elect or remnant Israel only. While Postmillennialists are split over the issue of whether the Jews are the chosen people, Amillennialists are not. They all agree that national Israel is not, but only the Church is. They have no place whatsoever left in their scheme for Israel today, and they see no theological significance to Jewish history in general or the State of Israel in particular.
\nSecond, while Postmillennialism sees the remnant of Israel as being part of both the Church and ethnic Israel, Amillennialism only affirms the former but not the latter. With rare exception, Amillennialists see no validity in Jewish believers practicing their Jewishness.<\/p>\n
Israel Future<\/p>\n
It is here that Covenant Amillennialism differs the most from its two sisters, Covenant Postmillennialism and Covenant Premillennialism. Its denial of a national salvation of Israel separates it from Covenant Postmillennialism and Premillennialism. Its rejection of a national restoration to the land separates it even further from Covenant Premillennialism. To arrive at their conclusion, they must resort to spiritualization and allegorization of unfulfilled prophecy to a greater degree than the other two schools. The conclusion is that the future of national Israel is one of judgment, but for the Church it is the glorious future of the eternal state.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER VI<\/p>\n
COVENANT PREMILLENNIALISM DEFINITION AND BASIC TENETS<\/p>\n
This chapter will serve as background to chapter VII, which will discuss the Israelology of Covenant Premillennialism. Except for the summary, all sources used in this chapter will be exclusively those of Covenant Premillennialists.
\nGeorge Eldon Ladd of Fuller Theological Seminary is one of the most prolific writers among Covenant Premillennialists today. Several of his works will be dealt with in the next chapter. He, like many Covenant Premillennialists, prefers to call his view \u201cHistoric Premillennialism.\u201d He defines this position as follows:<\/p>\n
Premillennialism is the doctrine stating that after the Second Coming of Christ, he will reign for a thousand years over the earth before the final consummation of God\u2019s redemptive purpose in the new heavens and the new earth of the Age to Come. This is the natural reading of Revelation 20:1\u20136.<\/p>\n
This definition does not differ from Dispensational Premillennialism, and at this point the two views agree. They would also agree that the passage cited, Revelation 20:1\u20136, supports the premillennial view: that Christ will return first and then set up the kingdom. However, for Covenant Premillennialists, Revelation 20 is virtually the only evidence of a millennium, and their belief in a literal kingdom on this earth stands or falls on this passage. For the Dispensationalist, Revelation 20 is only supportive evidence. Dispensationalists derive their view of Premillennialism on other bases, such as Old Testament prophecies interpreted literally, which will be discussed in chapters VIII and IX. Ladd admits that this is a major distinction between Covenant Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism:<\/p>\n
Dispensational theory insists that many of the Old Testament prophecies predict the millennium and must be drawn in to construct the picture of Messiah\u2019s millennial reign. This view is based upon the hermeneutic that the Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted literally.\u2026<\/p>\n
The first sine qua non of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the church.\u2026 This conclusion rests upon a second principle: that of a literal system of biblical interpretation. This, however, has primary application to the Old Testament. The Old Testament promises that Israel will be God\u2019s people forever, that they will inherit the land of Palestine forever, that they will form God\u2019s theocratic kingdom forever. These predictions will be fulfilled in the millennium.<\/p>\n
The opposite to a literal hermeneutic of the Old Testament is a \u201cspiritualizing\u201d hermeneutic, that is, a hermeneutic which finds the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the Christian church.<\/p>\n
Ladd, as a Covenant Theologian, cannot accept a millennium for Israel based on Old Testament prophecy because he does not, like the Dispensationalist, keep Israel and the Church distinct. He writes: \u201cRyrie correctly identified myself as a nondispensationalist because I do not keep Israel and the church distinct throughout God\u2019s program; \u2026\u201d
\nWhile Ladd does not fuse the two entities as much as Postmillennialism and Amillennialism, there is enough fusion to put him outside of Dispensationalism. The degree to which Ladd identifies Israel and the Church is what makes him a Covenant Premillennialist, so for him, as for all Covenant Theologians, Old Testament prophecy does not speak of Israel but of the Church. Ladd goes so far as to state that Isaiah 53 was not a prophecy of the Messiah, but was only reinterpreted as such by the New Testament. That is why, for Ladd, Old Testament prophecy is no basis for believing in a millennium. In fact, Ladd is simply not sure what to do about Old Testament prophecy:<\/p>\n
Here is the basic watershed between a dispensational and a nondispensational theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that it cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end are to be fulfilled, for (a) the first coming of Christ was accomplished in terms not foreseen by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, and (b) there are unavoidable indications that the Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Christian church.<\/p>\n
Because Ladd is not sure how the prophecies of the Old Testament will ultimately be fulfilled, he cannot use them to substantiate the belief in a millennium. However, Ladd does believe in a millennium, but only on the basis of the New Testament. Yet there are only two passages in all of the New Testament that Ladd feels support his Premillennialism. The first is Romans 11:26: And so all Israel shall be saved. The second is, of course, Revelation 20. His discussion on this passage is introduced as follows: \u201c\u2026 a millennial doctrine cannot be based on Old Testament prophecies but should be based on the New Testament alone.\u201d
\nHis covenantalism will not allow a literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy, and so that is totally dismissed as evidence. His premillennialism requires him to support the doctrine of a millennium and for this he comes to Revelation 20: \u201cThe only place in the Bible that speaks of an actual millennium is the passage in Revelation 20:1\u20136. Any millennial doctrine must be based upon the most natural exegesis of this passage.\u201d
\nFor Ladd, Romans 11:26 offers only partial evidence of a millennium, but Revelation 20 is proof positive. For Covenant Premillennialists this is virtually all the evidence that exists. Ladd admits that his view of Old Testament prophecy is the same as that of Amillennialists: \u201cThe alert reader will say, \u2018This sounds like amillennialism.\u2019 And so it does. I suspect that the amillennial writer will heartily agree with all that has been said thus far.\u201d
\nHis view of Revelation 20 is the same as that of the Dispensationalist except that for him it is the only basis for a millennium. This opens him to criticism by Amillennialists, and Ladd responds: \u201cTherefore, the fact that the New Testament in only one place teaches an interim kingdom, between this age and the Age to Come is no reason for rejecting it.
\nThe basic order of events in Covenant Premillennialism according to Ladd can be summarized as follows: (1) the second coming; (2) the destruction of the Antichrist and his armies; (3) Satan will be bound for a thousand years; (4) the first resurrection, the resurrection of saints to rule for a thousand years; (5) the millennial reign of Christ; (6) Satan loosed; (7) the last revolt; (8) Satan cast into the lake of fire; (9) the second resurrection, that of unbelievers; (10) the great white throne judgment; (11) all unbelievers cast into the lake of fire; and, (12) the eternal state.
\nMillard J. Erickson, formerly of Wheaton College but now at Bethel Theological Seminary, defines Covenant Premillennialism as follows:<\/p>\n
The first major feature of the premillennial system is an earthly reign of Christ that is established by His second coming. In common with postmillennialism, premillennialism asserts that there will be a period in which the will of God is done on earth, a period in which Christ\u2019s reign is an actuality among men. This reign means that there will be complete peace, righteousness, and justice among men. Some premillennialists would make this a literal period of exactly one thousand years. Others would be less literal, making it simply an extended period of time. The essential point, however, is that this reign will be on earth and Jesus Christ will be bodily present.<\/p>\n
The primary feature of both premillennial schools is that Christ will set up an earthly kingdom upon his return. He will rule bodily on earth. All Dispensational Premillennialists would insist that this millennium is just that, a millennium, exactly one thousand years. Not all Covenant Premillennialists do this. Some believe it will be exactly one thousand years, while others in the covenant premillennial camp believe it will be \u201csimply an extended period of time.\u201d Erickson explains the difference between Postmillennialism and Premillennialism as follows:<\/p>\n
Further, this earthly millennium will not come into reality through a gradual process of progressive growth or development. Rather, it will be dramatically or cataclysmically inaugurated by the second coming. While the millennium expected by post millennialists may begin so gradually that its beginning will be virtually imperceptible, there will be no doubt about the beginning of the millennium as premillennialists envision it. The return of Christ will be similar to His departure\u2014dramatic and external, readily observable by anyone, and consequently unmistakable.<\/p>\n
Erickson also points out that what distinguishes the Covenant Premillennialist from the Dispensational Premillennialist is the latter\u2019s Israelology: \u201cPretribulationists, who generally are dispensationalists, frequently have a more Jewish tone to their millennium, their eschatology, and their entire theology \u2026\u201d
\nFor Erickson, this is a negative aspect of Dispensational Premillennialism:<\/p>\n
Finally, premillennialism\u2019s (especially dispensationalism\u2019s) tendency to give the millennium a Jewish flavor has been criticized for centuries, \u2026 The premillennialist must be on guard lest literal Israel retain such a significant place in God\u2019s plan and program that it virtually displaces the church as the primary object of God\u2019s working. He must also beware of interpreting the New Testament with the Old, thereby nullifying progressive revelation.<\/p>\n
Because for Erickson, the Church is \u201cthe primary object of God\u2019s working\u201d a major role for \u201cliteral Israel\u201d makes him uncomfortable. He cautions, as Ladd would, against \u201cinterpreting the New Testament with the Old,\u201d and, like Ladd, he fails to explain why this is wrong to do, since the Old did come first and should be understood on its own merit. After all, Covenant Premillennialist does not try to avoid reading the New Testament back into the Old.
\nErickson points out, as Ladd did, that the major basis for the millennium is Revelation 20, especially the two resurrections being literal resurrections and that one thousand years intervenes between the two. However, he also uses as supporting evidence Philippians 3:11, Luke 14:14, 20:35, 1 Corinthians 15:23, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Daniel 12:2, and John 5:29.
\nIn describing the nature of the millennium, Erickson lists several aspects that reflect the beliefs of Covenant Premillennialism. First, \u201c\u2026 during this period Jesus Christ will possess absolute control.\u201d By that time, Satan will have been bound while the Antichrist and the False Prophet \u201cwill have been destroyed by Christ at His second coming.\u201d Furthermore, those \u201c\u2026 who are alive during this period will submit to the rule of the Messiah.\u201d Second, this \u201cwill be a period of righteous rule\u201d and the standard of life will be that of the Sermon on the Mount. Third, there will be political peace. Fourth, there will \u201cbe harmony within the creation\u201d for \u201chostility among creatures will cease\u201d and the \u201cdestructive forces of nature such as storms, earthquakes, and volcanoes will be stilled.\u201d Fifth, \u201cthe saints will reign together with Christ.\u201d
\nSo far, all Dispensational Premillennialists can agree with this scenario. The point of departure is the place of Israel in all this. Erickson states:<\/p>\n
On the other hand, a historical premillennialist like Ladd places considerably less emphasis upon national Israel than do the dispensationalists. He believes that the church has become the spiritual Israel and that many of the prophecies and promises relating to Israel are now fulfilled in the church. The Old Testament sacrificial system has forever passed away because Christ, the reality, has come. Nonetheless, he believes that literal or national Israel is yet to be saved. He bases this primarily upon Romans 11:15\u201316.\u2026 Not every single Israelite will be converted, but the nation as a whole will be. Through the agency of Israel, God will bless the whole world, and presumably this will occur during the millennium.<\/p>\n
The covenantalism of Covenant Theology requires the belief that the Church is spiritual Israel. In agreement with the other two schools of Covenant Theology, the Covenant Premillennialist \u201cbelieves that the church has become the spiritual Israel and that many of the prophecies and promises relating to Israel are now fulfilled in the church.\u201d This in turn forces him to have \u201cless emphasis upon national Israel than do the dispensationalists.\u201d He does believe in a national salvation of Israel, but this is based on his understanding of Romans 11:15\u201316 and not on Old Testament prophecies that say the same thing. For the same reason, he believes that through Israel, \u201cGod will bless the whole world.\u201d The Old Testament declares that this will happen in the millennium; but this is not evidence for the Covenant Premillennialist, nor does Romans 11 clearly state that this will occur during the millennium. The best the Covenant Premillennialist can conclude is that \u201cpresumably this will occur during the millennium.\u201d Regardless, Israel will not have a special rote in the kingdom, but will be absorbed into the Church.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
To summarize Covenant Premillennialism, it has similarities with the other two schools of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Like Postmillennialism and Amillennialism, it spiritualizes the prophecies of the Old Testament and sees the Church as the new or spiritual Israel. Like Dispensationalism, it does believe in an earthly literal kingdom on this earth, set up by Christ after the second coming. The second coming is \u201cpre\u201d or before the Millennium. Some believe this will be exactly one thousand years, while others believe only that it will be a long period of time.
\nAs to their method of interpretation, Covenant Premillennialists view the Old Testament promises as being fulfilled in the Church, and so these prophecies provide no basis for believing in a Millennium. These are to be interpreted figuratively or spiritually. If there is a Millennium, it must be based on the New Testament only. The only passage that teaches a Millennium is Revelation 20, which is to be interpreted literally. Except for possible supporting evidence in Romans 11, also to be interpreted literally, there is no other passage in the New Testament to support the doctrine of the Millennium.
\nAs to the nature of the Millennium and its relationship to world history, Covenant Premillennialists believe that it will come after the second coming, and it may be a literal one thousand years, or it may simply be a very long time. \u201cPremillenarians hold the thousand years to be the duration of a personal reign of Christ from Jerusalem over the nations of the world immediately following His second coming.\u201d
\nThe nature of the kingdom is:<\/p>\n
a. A universal theocracy \u2026
\nb. An era of universal peace and righteousness to all nations \u2026
\nc. The restoration of all nature.<\/p>\n
The establishment, growth, and final form of the kingdom is viewed as follows:<\/p>\n
Concerning the kingdom, Christ taught in the parable of the pounds that He would return \u201chaving received the kingdom\u201d (Luke 19:15). This cannot refer to the end of the world, for at that time Christ will deliver up the kingdom of God the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). Hence, these passages teach that the kingdom must be established between Christ\u2019s second coming and the \u201cend\u201d when He delivers up the kingdom to God the Father. This is the clear teaching also of Revelation 20 when interpreted literally.\u2026<\/p>\n
Some present-day premillenarians hold, however, that Christ had no intention of setting up an earthly political kingdom at His first coming, but that He came the first time to offer salvation to Jew and Gentile alike, and to become the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. At His second coming Christ will establish an earthly, political kingdom.\u2026 Christ will then reign in His kingdom with those who have followed Him in regeneration (Matt. 19:28; 2 Tim. 2:12). Those who hold this view affirm that the Scriptures teach the following:<\/p>\n
a. The present state of the kingdom of God is a state of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17).
\nb. John the Baptist, Christ and His disciples at His first coming, preached repentance as necessary for entrance into the kingdom (Matt. 3:2; John 3:3, 5).
\nc. This kingdom of salvation was offered to all, being proclaimed to Israel first since they were Christ\u2019s own kindred in the flesh and bearers of the promises (Luke 2:30\u201332; Matt. 10:5\u20137; John 4:39\u201342; 10:16; Rom. 9:4, 5; 10:11\u201314; Isa. 49:6).
\nd. The terms \u201ckingdom of heaven\u201d and \u201ckingdom of God\u201d are used interchangeably (Matt. 19:23, 24; 13:24; 4:17; Mark 1:14).
\ne. This kingdom will be realized in an earthly, political sense at the second coming of Christ (Matt. 25:31; Luke 19:12\u201315; 21:31; 2 Tim. 4:1).<\/p>\n
The covenant premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20, can be summarized thusly:<\/p>\n
At the beginning of the millennium Satan and his hosts will be bound and cast into the bottomless pit for the thousand years. Satan will no longer deceive the nations (Rev. 20:1\u201311; cf. Isa. 24:21, 22; 27:1; Rev. 20:1\u201311).<\/p>\n
At the end of the thousand years, however, Satan will be loosed for a little season and will deceive the nations once again. He will organize Gog and Magog to besiege the camp of the saints and Jerusalem. Fire will come down out of heaven and destroy them (Rev. 20:7\u20139). Then Satan will be judged and cast into the lake of fire and brimstone to be tormented day and night forever.<\/p>\n
Some interpret the passage literally in its entirety, and so the Millennium will last one thousand years. Others interpret the passage almost literally, in that they take everything as it reads with the possible exception of the thousand years, which may only mean a long period of time. It is a period that begins with the binding of Satan and ends with the loosing of Satan.
\nThe relationship of the Millennium to the two resurrections, vital to their belief in a Millennium since they reject Old Testament evidence, can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n
When Christ comes to establish the millennial kingdom, the first resurrection will take place, which includes the martyred saints and those over whom \u201cthe second death hath no power\u201d (Rev. 20:6). All living believers will be transfigured and raptured to meet the Lord in the air \u2026<\/p>\n
The second resurrection, of the wicked dead, does not occur until after the millennium when they shall be judged at the great white throne.<\/p>\n
At the end of the Millennium, there will be a short revolt against God\u2019s authority, which will fail. The Millennium will then end in the following way:<\/p>\n
At the end of the thousand years a new heaven and a new earth will be established. The old heaven and the old earth will be destroyed by fire (2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 20:11; 21:1). At that time Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to God the Father. Then the Son also will be subject to God, who made Christ rule, and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:24, 28).<\/p>\n
In connection with the Great Tribulation, Covenant Premillennialism is divided into three schools of thought. Covenant Postmillennialism and Covenant Amillennialism are consistently post-tribulational, which is consistent with their systems. Dispensational Premillennialism is consistently pre-tribulational. Because Covenant Premillennialism is less consistent in its method of interpretation of prophecy (spiritualizing the Old Testament, yet literalizing many parts of the Book of Revelation), there are three separate schools within Covenant Premillennialism. A minority are pre-tribulational, and they are represented by Faith Theological Seminary. Another minority are mid-tribulational, and they are represented by Covenant Theological Seminary. The majority are post-tribulational, and they are represented by Fuller Theological Seminary.
\nWith this brief survey of Covenant Premillennialism, we can now proceed to a more detailed study of the Israel of Covenant Premillennialism.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER VII<\/p>\n
THE ISRAELOLOGY OF COVENANT PREMILLENNIALISM<\/p>\n
A. Israel Past<\/p>\n
1. Israel the Chosen People<\/p>\n
The most prolific spokesman for the view of Covenant Premillennialism is George Eldon Ladd. Unlike Covenant Theologians of the postmillennial and amillennial persuasion, Ladd\u2019s Covenant Premillennialism does recognize discontinuity between the two testaments in that they \u201chave very different themes for their subject matter.\u201d The Old Testament deals with Israel both historically and prophetically. Historically, the Old Testament traces the history of the Jews from Abraham to the return of the exiles from the Babylonian captivity. During this period, Israel was God\u2019s \u201cpeculiar people.\u201d Prophetically, the prophets proclaimed both the judgment of Israel and their restoration, for the apostasy of Israel \u201cwas not final and irremedial,\u201d because in the prophetic future \u201cGod would bring about a revival among the people so that they would turn in repentance and obedience to him.\u201d This national salvation of Israel will in turn lead to a national restoration \u201cin peace and prosperity to inherit the land.\u201d Ladd strongly affirms two things. First, in the Old Testament \u201cthe eschatological salvation is always pictured in terms of the national theocratic fate of the people of Israel.\u201d The Gentiles\u2019 future in relationship to Israel is that they will either be \u201csubdued by Israel and compelled to serve Israel,\u201d or they will be converted \u201cto the faith of Israel so as to serve Israel\u2019s God.\u201d In the eschatological future, \u201cIsrael remains the people of God, and the future salvation is first of all Israel\u2019s salvation.\u201d This is something all Dispensationalists affirm, but not all Covenant Theologians. Second, and emphatically, Ladd affirms that \u201cthere are no clear prophecies of the Christian church as such in the Old Testament.\u201d This too is something Dispensationalists have always affirmed but most Covenant Theologians deny, including some Covenant Premillennialists.<\/p>\n
2. The Abrahamic Covenant<\/p>\n
Concerning how God dealt with Israel in the Old Testament, Ladd states:<\/p>\n
In the Old Testament dispensation, God had dealt with Israel primarily as a family and a nation and had given to His people both earthly and religious blessings. When God made a covenant with Abraham, Abraham took all the male members of his household and circumcised them, thus bringing them within the terms and blessings of the covenant (Gen. 17:22\u201327). Although we find in the prophets a growing emphasis upon the individual, the terms of the Old Covenant were primarily with Israel as a nation; and Gentiles could share the spiritual blessings of the Covenant only by becoming part of the nation.<\/p>\n
In this statement, Ladd\u2019s \u201cOld Covenant\u201d is equated with the Abrahamic Covenant.
\nWilliam LaSor\u2019s work is as close to a systematized Covenant Premillennial Israelology as has been produced. It contains four chapters. The third chapter is entitled \u201cIsrael in Prophecy.\u201d In this chapter LaSor touches on the subject of Israelology by dealing with the Abrahamic Covenant. LaSor sees three things in the Abrahamic Covenant. First was the fact of election, in that God chose Abraham and his descendants. The purpose of this election was that Abraham and his seed could be the channel of God\u2019s blessing to \u201call the families of the earth.\u201d From LaSor\u2019s viewpoint the position of Abraham or Abraham\u2019s seed could never change for there is no indication that \u201cthis agreement or covenant will be abrogated,\u201d and, furthermore, it is called \u201can everlasting covenant.\u201d Second, the covenant emphasized the seed aspect. Abraham\u2019s seed was destined to become a great nation and to become \u201cas innumerable as the stars of heaven or the sand of the seashore.\u201d Third, the covenant promised a specific land and this land was the real estate known as Israel.
\nThus far, every Dispensationalist can easily agree. However, later in the same chapter LaSor gives his interpretation of the three facets of the Abrahamic Covenant. After reviewing the three facets, LaSor raises several questions that he does not answer until the last chapter, but he does give some hints as to where he is going. The questions concerning the identity of Abraham\u2019s seed as being more than merely the physical descendants of Abraham are clearly stated (to which Dispensationalists agree), but at this point LaSor does not claim that it is the Church. The questions concerning the relationship of the Kingdom of God to the physical land of Israel are left unanswered at this point; but it is clear that as a Covenant Premillennialist, LaSor rejects the amillennial view that \u201cthe old Israel is dead and gone, that all the promises of God concerning Israel are taken up in the church of Christ, and that all efforts to understand literally the Old Testament prophecies about Israel are doomed to failure,\u201d On the contrary, LaSor insists that: \u201cThere are countless prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Israel and the land of promise which have not been fulfilled in the Christian church, and, in (his) opinion, can never be fulfilled in the church. They can be fulfilled only in Israel \u2026\u201d Herein lies the crucial difference between Covenant Amillennialism and Covenant Premillennialism.<\/p>\n
3. The Church in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
From the viewpoint of Systematic Theology, the leading exponent of this position is J. Oliver Buswell. Buswell touches on the subject of Israelology under the heading, \u201cThe Church in the Old Testament.\u201d Typical of Covenant Theologians of all stripes, Buswell treats as fact that the Church already existed in the Old Testament, and that the Church was the true Israel. Even Buswell sees that some things changed with the New Testament. This change was perceived as mostly organizational as the Church moved from being a \u201cnational entity\u201d which was Israel, to an entity distinct from nationhood. He does claim that the term \u201cnation\u201d is used twice of the Church in a figurative way; but the two passages he cites lend themselves to other interpretations already dealt with earlier in this work. Buswell\u2019s conclusion is that the \u201cchurch today is not a nation in any literal sense of the word, but it was a nation prior to the time of Christ.\u201d This conclusion is largely assumed to be true as no real evidence is provided. As has already been shown, the term ekklesia, even in the New Testament, is not limited to what constituted the New Testament Church. In common with all Covenant Theologians, Buswell fails to distinguish between Israel and the Church. Israel is the Church of the Old Testament, and the Church is the true Israel of the New Testament.<\/p>\n
B. Israel Present<\/p>\n
1. Israel and the Church<\/p>\n
LaSor has stated the position of Covenant Premillennialism as clearly as anyone. In his second chapter, LaSor discusses \u201cIsrael in History.\u201d LaSor admits that most of the Bible in general and the Old Testament in particular deals with Israel, but he quickly betrays his Covenant Theology bias by claiming that \u201cthe Bible presents Israel as something to which we all belong.\u201d What happens to Israel happens to us by which LaSor means the Church. Israel\u2019s status of being \u201cchosen\u201d is the Church\u2019s status. Pointing out that Israel was called for the purpose of receiving divine revelation, LaSor adds: \u201cInsofar as every servant of God belongs to Israel, Israel never ceased to exist.\u201d This statement clearly identifies the Church as Israel. It should be noted that LaSor admits that this is his \u201cpremise that will determine somewhat the direction of our discussion.\u201d One would think that LaSor should first prove this premise before he allows himself to use it to interpret Scripture, but he waits until the last chapter of his book to prove his premise. Meanwhile, he will use it to \u201cdetermine somewhat the direction of our discussion.\u201d The concept of the Church being the new Israel is so ingrained in Covenant Theology that it is very often used as a base to interpret the meaning of Scripture. LaSor declares: \u201cFor it is through Israel\u2014and, I believe, only through Israel\u2014that God makes known what he has been doing and what he plans to do with this world.\u201d The New Testament affirms that some of these things are also true of the Church. For LaSor\u2019s statement to be true, then, the Church must needs be Israel. How well LaSor proves this premise remains to be seen.
\nThe fourth chapter is the real key to LaSor\u2019s Israelology and is appropriately entitled, \u201cThe Church as Israel.\u201d The chapter begins with a brief description of the dispensational and amillennial views of Israel and then LaSor concludes:<\/p>\n
Now the problem is complicated, and that is, at least in part, because there is both truth and error in each view. In order to work our way through the problem, we must recognize at the outset that there is only one plan of salvation. It has been God\u2019s purpose ever since the creation of man to bring all men to himself, to bring about, on earth, the perfect harmony of all men, so that his will is done on earth even as it is done in heaven. There was only one Adam, not a Jewish Adam and a Gentile Adam. There is only one human race. The ultimate goal of God\u2019s redeeming love was to create in himself one new man, neither Jew nor Gentile (Eph. 2:13\u201316).<\/p>\n
It is true that we read in the prophets about the time when the \u201cnations\u201d would come to Jerusalem to learn about the God of Israel. We know that the word \u201cnations\u201d is exactly the same as the word \u201cGentiles,\u201d both in Hebrew and in Greek, so we might draw the conclusion that Israel will continue to exist as distinct from the Gentiles. But what we have forgotten to include in our reasoning is a very simple fact: God, at the very outset of his electing Abraham, promised to make him a \u201cgreat goy\u201d\u2014a great Gentile! (Gen. 12:2). God declared to Abraham, \u201cYou shall be the father of a multitude of goyim\u201d\u2014a multitude of Gentiles (Gen. 17:5). The implication seems clear: in the fulfilled plan of God, the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles would cease. One redeemed human family would remain.<\/p>\n
LaSor states that both views have truth and error in them. To try to resolve the problem, he insists that the starting point is \u201cthat there is only one plan of salvation.\u201d What is not clear is what LaSor means by \u201conly one plan of salvation.\u201d If he means that salvation was always by grace through faith, then no Dispensationalist would dispute it. However, if he means that the content of faith was always the same, the other schools of Covenant Theology would agree with him, but Dispensationalists would not. LaSor is typical of Covenant Theology in general in that he tries to reduce the problem to the issue of salvation. For Covenant Theology, the whole goal of God tends to be soteriological. Therefore, rather than thinking in terms of Jews and Gentiles, one must think in terms of \u201conly one human race.\u201d The \u201cultimate goal of God\u2019s redeeming love was to create in himself one new man, neither Jew nor Gentile,\u201d He cites Ephesians 2:13\u201316 as evidence; however, it is LaSor\u2019s interpretation that contains \u201cboth truth and error,\u201d Surely it was God\u2019s goal to create \u201cone new man,\u201d but to make it the \u201cultimate goal\u201d goes beyond the evidence of the passage and would require a rather shallow reading of the Scriptures. Furthermore, the Ephesians passage does not say that this \u201cone new man\u201d is \u201cneither Jew nor Gentile,\u201d but it states \u201cthat he might create of the two one new man.\u201d In other words, the one new man is to consist of both Jews and Gentiles. This is not merely a semantical difference. Paul\u2019s wording in Ephesians allows for a continuous Jewish and Gentile distinctive, LaSor\u2019s phraseology does not.<\/p>\n
This is precisely LaSor\u2019s conclusion: \u201cThe implication seems clear: in the fulfilled plan of God, the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles would cease. One redeemed human family would remain.\u201d The way he arrives at this conclusion is somewhat confusing. It is based on the Hebrew word goy (goyim being the plural). It is true that this word, most of the time, is used of Gentiles and\/or Gentile nations. The word can mean either \u201cGentile\u201d or \u201cnation\u201d; however, in a minority of the cases it is used of Israel as in the passage LaSor cites, Genesis 12:2. When it is used of Israel, it carries the meaning of \u201cnation.\u201d Genesis 12:2 does not mean that God will make of Abraham \u201ca great Gentile,\u201d as LaSor contends, but \u201ca great nation,\u201d as all English translations have recognized. Surely LaSor, a Hebrew scholar, knows this; but he has allowed his theology to color his thinking and to read his conclusion into the text rather than deducting it from the text. To conclude that the use of goy in reference to Israel is an implication that \u201cthe distinction between Israel and the Gentiles would cease\u201d is to read far too much into that one word.<\/p>\n
LaSor earlier rejected Dispensationalism because it always maintains a distinction between Israel and the Church. He also rejected Amillennialism because it totally obliterates any distinction, allowing no future for Israel apart from the Church. LaSor next gives his view of the relation of Israel and the Church. In contrast to Amillennialism, LaSor maintains that there is a distinction to some degree:<\/p>\n
There is a sense in which the church is not Israel. Most obvious, of course, is the simple chronological fact that the church exists this side of Calvary, and Israel in the Old Testament was on the other side, before Calvary was a historical event. We who claim to belong to Christ\u2019s church live in the faith that Christ has already died for our sins, has risen for our justification, and has promised to come again. The idea that the Servant of the Lord would bear their sins was only a promise to Israel of old.<\/p>\n
The key reason the Church is not Israel is a chronological one. LaSor, like Ladd, believes that the Church began after the cross, probably at Acts two. Since the Church did not exist prior to Calvary while Israel did, obviously in some sense the Church is not Israel.
\nLaSor then points out some parallels between Israel and the Church. Both are a \u201cpeople called out of the \u2018nations\u2019 by God.\u201d Both were \u201c \u2018redeemed\u2019 by God\u2019s work of redemption.\u201d Both \u201creceived the law\u201d and the only difference is that for Israel \u201cit was carried on tablets of stone\u201d while for the Church \u201cit was given by the Spirit of God in the heart.\u201d Both were given a future hope of a day when sin would be removed and righteousness will reign. For both, this future hope was connected with the \u201cson of David.\u201d Amillennialists use these similarities to show that the Church has totally incorporated the promises to Israel, and so the Church is Israel totally. LaSor, a Covenant Premillennialist, does not go that far. On the contrary, LaSor then concludes: \u201cBut in spite of the similarities, Israel in the Old Testament, as we have seen, is not the Church.\u201d
\nIn contrast to Dispensationalism, LaSor then maintains that the Church is Israel and presents six evidences to prove it. His covenantalism comes out in the opening statement: \u201cThere is a sense in which the church is Israel\u201d; but LaSor\u2019s evidences for this statement will not stand up to close scrutiny.
\nThe first evidence LaSor presents is based on the fact that what Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 state of Israel, Paul applies to the Gentiles in Romans 9:24\u201325. This is true, but this is only an application of an Old Testament text on a New Testament situation because of one point of similarity. The point of similarity is that the group that was \u201cnot my people\u201d becomes \u201cmy people,\u201d This was true of Hosea\u2019s Israel in the Old Testament, and it is also true of the Gentile believers in the New Testament. This does not mean that Paul \u201cunderstood Hosea to be referring to Gentiles,\u201d for Paul certainly knew the original context. Knowing that original context and now seeing a similarity, Paul quotes Hosea as an application. It is even a further departure from the text to claim that this passage teaches that the Church is Israel. The term \u201cIsrael\u201d is not being used nor applied either to the Church in general or to Gentile believers in particular.
\nHis second evidence is that both Israel and the Church are called \u201ca Kingdom of priests.\u201d This is true, but both could be a kingdom of priests without being one and the same entity. Similarity does not mean sameness, as LaSor himself clearly admitted earlier.
\nThe third evidence is based on the word \u201cChrist.\u201d LaSor points out correctly that the Greek word for \u201cChrist\u201d is christos, which means \u201canointed.\u201d The Greek word is a translation of the Hebrew mashiach, which is the origin of the English word \u201cMessiah.\u201d In Paul\u2019s letters to the Gentile churches he refers to Jesus as christos, showing that \u201cJesus is the Messiah for the Gentiles as well as for Israel.\u201d All this is true, but the inference LaSor wants to draw from it goes beyond the evidence at hand. The fact that Jesus is the Messiah for the Gentiles in the Church hardly justifies the conclusion that the Church is Israel.
\nLaSor\u2019s fourth evidence is based on Galatians 6:15\u201316. He points out that the term \u201cIsrael\u201d is used in the New Testament a total of sixty-eight times. He admits that sixty-five times it speaks of literal Israel, the \u201cIsrael of the Old Testament,\u201d but he claims that three times the term refers to the Church. The Galatians passage is his first example; but like all Covenant Theologians, he ignores that there are two groups mentioned in the passage; the them and the Israel of God. As has been shown before, there is no textual or contextual reason to depart from the primary meaning of kai, which means \u201cand,\u201d or to resort to a secondary meaning of \u201ceven.\u201d The them refers to the Gentile believers to and of whom Paul had been writing throughout the epistle. The Israel of God refers to Jewish believers specifically and not to the Church at large. There is no exegetical reason to make the Israel here a reference to the Church.
\nHis fifth evidence is Ephesians 2:11\u201319 where the term Israel is used. However, there is nothing in the text to suggest that the commonwealth of Israel is a reference to the Church. In fact, the passage clearly mentions three groups: Israel, the Gentiles, and the one new man which is the Church. Paul states in no uncertain terms that the new man is composed of believers from the commonwealth of Israel and from the Gentiles. What Paul does not do is apply the term Israel to the one new man. LaSor\u2019s statement that \u201cit begins to be clear that the term \u2018Israel\u2019 is not to be confined to the blood descendants of Abraham,\u201d is not all that \u201cclear.\u201d On the contrary, even the examples cited by LaSor refer to physical descendants of Abraham. It is indeed true that Paul uses the term Israel in two senses: of Jews as a whole and of Jews who believe; but in both cases they are physical descendants of Abraham.
\nThis is especially true with LaSor\u2019s sixth evidence, which is based on Romans 9:4\u20138, the third passage he claims uses the term Israel for the Church. According to LaSor, in this passage Paul distinguishes between physical and spiritual Israel. This is true, but what is not true is that Paul identifies spiritual Israel as the Church. As even other Covenant Theologians have noted, in this passage the distinction is not between unbelieving Jews and the Church, but between Jews who believe and Jews who do not. LaSor seems to admit this when he states: \u201cThis passage may sound if we ignore the rest of what Paul has written in Romans 9\u201311, as though he has completely identified the church, particularly the gentile portion of the church, with Israel. We have already seen, however, that he maintains a clear-cut distinction in Romans 11.\u201d However, LaSor limits Paul\u2019s use of the two \u201cIsraels\u201d to the two types of Jews in Romans 11. In Romans nine, LaSor insists that Paul does use the term Israel of the Gentile portion of the Church; but there is no exegetical basis for this. Since Romans 9\u201311 is a single unit, it is better to see Paul using the term Israel in a consistent manner. Yes, there are two Israels; one comprises all Jews and the other only those Jews who believe; but nowhere does Paul use the term Israel of the Church. All three passages that LaSor claims speak of the Church as Israel do not do so. Left to themselves, these three usages are like the other sixty-five usages in the New Testament. They speak of Israel in reference to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
\nLaSor\u2019s conclusion that \u201cthe church, then, is in a sense properly called Israel\u201d goes beyond any evidence that he has presented. \u201cIsrael\u201d was more than just a \u201cconcept of a people called by God to be his servants in his great redemptive work.\u201d \u201cIsrael\u201d was a peoplehood and a national entity who were what they were because of physical descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The fact that the Church is also a people called by God to be His servant and the fact that other \u201celements of this concept of Israel can be applied to the church\u201d is not enough to identify the Church as Israel, since the key ingredient, physical descent, is not what the Church lays claim to. LaSor\u2019s conclusion that \u201cthe church cars properly be identified with the concept of \u2018Israel\u2019 \u201d is unwarranted. Again, similarity does not mean sameness. LaSor fails to produce a single clear passage where the Church is called Israel. The three passages he did use could only be understood that way by presupposing one\u2019s conclusion.
\nLadd admits that there is a discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. The theme of the Old Testament is Israel past, present and future. Ladd states that there is no clear prophecy of the Church in the Old Testament, but he then points out that the theme changed with the New Testament where \u201cwe meet a very different situation.\u201d Jesus came to Israel and \u201coffered himself to Israel as her Messiah,\u201d but He was rejected. At that point the Kingdom of God was taken away from Israel. \u201cHowever, a remnant of the people did respond to his message and became his disciples.\u201d The Book of Acts then \u201ctells the story of the birthday of the church at Pentecost.\u201d This is a departure from mainstream Covenant Theology but is affirmed by Dispensationalists. Concerning the Church, Ladd declares that it was \u201cradically different from Israel.\u201d For example, the Church was not a nation but \u201can open fellowship of people who believed that Jesus was the Messiah.\u201d The Church was primarily Jewish at the beginning, but by the end of the history of the Church in the Book of Acts, the Church had a Gentile majority. The eschatology of the New Testament \u201cdeals largely with the destiny of the church.\u201d Ladd admits that between the Old and New Testaments there are \u201ctwo different stories: the story of the nation Israel and the story of the church,\u201d and for Ladd this is a \u201cdilemma.\u201d The Dispensationalist does not view it as such but accepts the two entities of Israel and the Church to be just that: two separate entities for which God has a separate plan. Since Ladd has difficulty accepting this, it becomes for him a \u201cdilemma,\u201d and he asks, \u201cWhat are we to make of this apparent dilemma?\u201d He then points out that there are two basic answers.
\nThe first is Dispensationalism, which recognizes \u201cthat God has two different programs: one for Israel and one for the Church.\u201d Israel not only was, but still remains the people of God. The prophecies of the Old Testament are to be literally fulfilled to the nation of Israel. Ladd correctly portrays the main tenet of Dispensationalism. It is not the recognition that there exists \u201ca series of dispensations or time periods in which God deals in different ways with his people.\u201d Other Covenant Theologians have criticized Dispensationalism for this very thing, but Ladd does not. As he admits, this must be the case, and if \u201cjudged by this norm, every Bible student must be a Dispensationalist.\u201d Most Covenant Theologians have refused to recognize this obvious truth and keep insisting that everything has always been the same. Ladd, however, recognizes at least four dispensations: (1) promise after Abraham; (2) law under Moses; (3) grace under Christ; and, (4) the Kingdom of God in the future. It is interesting to note that Ladd, in describing these four eras, uses the same terms as the Dispensationalist. He clearly recognizes that \u201cthe main tenet of Dispensationalism\u201d is the distinction between Israel and the Church, though the descriptive terminology that Ladd uses is not exactly right. He is correct in that Dispensationalism sees Israel and the Church as \u201ctwo peoples of God,\u201d and that God has \u201ctwo different programs\u201d for them; but it is not totally true to say that Dispensationalists believe that the two have different \u201cdestinies.\u201d While this is true to some degree at this time and in the Messianic Kingdom, it is not true in the Eternal State where Israel and the Church will share the same destiny. It is also wrong to classify all Dispensationalists as believing that the distinction between Israel and the Church is that the former is the earthly people and the latter is the heavenly people, or that the destiny for Israel is \u201ctheocratic and earthly\u201d while the destiny for the Church is \u201cspiritual and heavenly.\u201d It is true that some Dispensationalists have used these kinds of terms in distinguishing Israel and the Church, but many other Dispensationalists do not do so, as they recognize that both Israel and the Church each have earthly and heavenly destinies. Still, the bottom line is that Dispensationalists are what they are because they do make a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church. This is the Dispensationalist\u2019s simple answer to Ladd\u2019s \u201cdilemma,\u201d and it is based on a straight and normal reading of the Scriptures. For Dispensationalists, there is no \u201cdilemma.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ladd\u2019s second answer to his \u201cdilemma\u201d is Covenant Theology, which he espouses. He states that the Old Testament prophecies must be understood in two ways. The first is \u201cto recognize progressive revelation.\u201d However, Dispensationalists also believe in progressive revelation which is a major reason why they are Dispensationalists. The second is \u201cto Interpret the Old Testament by the New Testament.\u201d Dispensationalists can agree to this as far as it goes; however, Covenant Theology fails to distinguish when the New Testament is actually interpreting the God and when it is merely applying an Old Testament passage to a New Testament event because of a similar situation. This failure leads many Covenant Theologians to ignore the original Old Testament text in its context, and to ignore its original meaning. It makes the New Testament guilty of actually changing the original Old Testament meaning. It is the use of that system which enables Ladd to reach the conclusion that there is only one people of God today, and that is the Church; but this method will not allow the Old Testament to stand on its own.<\/p>\n
In keeping with this line of reasoning, Ladd concludes:<\/p>\n
We trust that this excursion into Christology has proved the point we wish to make, namely, that the Old Testament prophets must be interpreted in light of their fulfillment in the person and mission of Jesus. We have seen that this involves reinterpretation. Sometimes the fulfillment is different from what we would expect from the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
In other words, the final word in doctrine, whether in Christology or eschatology, must be found in the New Testament.<\/p>\n
Ignoring the fact that the New Testament often cites the Old Testament purely as an application and not as an interpretation, Ladd basically says that the Old Testament context must be set aside and ignored. As he admits, \u201cthis involves reinterpretation\u201d of the Old Testament. This cannot help but lead to the questioning of the validity of the original prophecy. Ladd goes so far as to say: \u201cSometimes the fulfillment is different from what we would expect from the Old Testament.\u201d This would render the Old Testament useless since the original cannot be understood in its own context. This is no different than the Mormon claim that the New Testament must be understood by the Book of Mormon; but for Ladd, the Book of Mormon\u2019s contradiction (reinterpretation?) of the New Testament would render the Book of Mormon invalid. Ladd fails to see that if the New Testament actually changes the meaning of the Old Testament, then either one or the other is invalid. The Old Testament cannot stand on its own for \u201cthe final word in doctrine \u2026 must be found in the New Testament.\u201d This is the approach Ladd is forced to take to solve his \u201cdilemma.\u201d It is this approach to the Old Testament by which Ladd develops his Israelology.
\nIn discussing the New Covenant, Ladd states:<\/p>\n
Here we have again the phenomenon we have already encountered. It is very difficult to believe there are two new covenants: the one made by Christ with the church through his shed blood, and a future new covenant to be made with Israel, which according to Dispensationalists is largely a renewal of the Mosaic covenant. To be sure, we have already found in Romans 9\u201311 that Paul teaches that literal Israel is yet to be brought within the new covenant; but it is the same new covenant made through the cross with the church. It is not a different covenant. Hebrews 8 applies a promise made through Jeremiah to the new covenant made by Christ with his church.<\/p>\n
This is made doubly clear in a second passage. Hebrews 10:11\u201317 speaks of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for sins, his subsequent session at the right hand of God, \u201cthen to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified\u201d (Heb. 10:13\u201314). These words make it indisputable that Hebrews is talking about the covenant made by Christ with his church.\u2026<\/p>\n
It is difficult to see how anyone can deny that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is the new covenant made by Christ with his church.<\/p>\n
Some Dispensationalists have taught that there were two new covenants, but few hold that view today. Regardless of whether Dispensationalists held to a two-new-covenant view, or a one-new-covenant view with two aspects or some other explanation, they have not viewed the New Covenant as \u201clargely a renewal of the Mosaic covenant.\u201d They have always viewed it exactly as its name implies: a totally new covenant, the New Covenant.
\nThe real issue between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians is not whether there are one or two new covenants, or the nature of the covenant, but with whom the New Covenant was made. As Ladd has made clear, Covenant Theology holds to the position that the New Covenant, was made with the Church. Dispensationalists hold that the New Covenant was made with Israel. This is based on a literal understanding of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 which clearly states that God was going to make the New Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Ladd, however, believes that the New Testament has \u201creinterpreted\u201d this passage as a reference to the Church. It is now the Church\u2019s covenant and not Israel\u2019s. His view of Romans 9\u201311 causes him to conclude that \u201cliteral Israel is yet to be brought within the new covenant,\u201d but it is not Israel\u2019s New Covenant. It is \u201cthe new covenant made by Christ with his church.\u201d
\nLadd\u2019s evidence for such a reinterpretation is the two citations of the New Covenant of Jeremiah in the Book of Hebrews. The issue is: does the Book of Hebrews actually say that the New Covenant was made with the Church and so reinterpret what Jeremiah actually said? The first citation is Hebrews eight, but strictly speaking, Hebrews eight never states that the New Covenant has been made with the Church. The writer\u2019s reason for quoting Jeremiah is explained in verses 7 and 13:<\/p>\n
Verse 7: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second.<\/p>\n
Verse 13: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.<\/p>\n
The verses in between verses 7 and 13 (vv. 8\u201312) are a quotation of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334. Verse seven points out that if the first covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, was perfect, there would have been no need for a second covenant, the New Covenant. It is then that the writer quotes Jeremiah to show that a new covenant was predicted, thereby showing that the Mosaic Covenant was imperfect and temporary. In verse 13, the writer points out that calling the second covenant a \u201cnew covenant\u201d renders the first covenant as the \u201cold\u201d covenant. Furthermore, that which is old is in the process of vanishing away, emphasizing again that the first covenant was temporary. Hebrews eight never states or implies that the New Covenant is nor has been made with the Church, or that it will not be made with Israel. It is also worthwhile to note that the Book of Hebrews, as its title implies, was written to Jewish believers who, therefore, were members of the Remnant of Israel.
\nThe second citation is in Hebrews 10:11\u201317. According to Ladd, this passage makes it \u201cdoubly clear\u201d that the New Covenant was made with the Church. Using this passage, he concludes: \u201cIt is difficult to see how anyone can deny that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is the new covenant made by Christ with his church.\u201d However, nowhere in this passage does it state that the New Covenant was made with the Church or that it will not be made with Israel. The only point the passage makes is that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant, so the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Covenant is no longer valid. Ladd fails to prove his point. There is no evidence that the Book of Hebrews has reinterpreted the meaning of Jeremiah.
\nBuswell uses the Church-is-Israel equation to defend the practice of infant baptism. After admitting that there is no clear example or command for infant baptism in the New Testament, he tries to defend the practice anyway. In doing so, he ventures into Israelology by using the practice of circumcision:<\/p>\n
But the silence is not to be exaggerated. We have clear implication in the Scripture that infant baptism was taught and practiced from the very beginning of the Christian church. In Colossians 2:11, 12, Paul writes explicitly, \u201cYou were circumcised \u2026 by being buried with Him in baptism.\u201d \u2026 It makes no difference whether the baptism here referred to was intended figuratively or literally. The comparison of baptism with circumcision is absolutely inescapable.<\/p>\n
The comparison of baptism with circumcision is, of course, an instance of the familiar figure of speech called synecdoche or taking the part for the whole.\u2026 Similarly, when we say, \u201cWe have been circumcised figuratively by being baptized,\u201d we do not refer to circumcision only, but to that entire complex of initiatory rites set forth in the twelfth chapter of Leviticus, the complex of rites which included the blood offering for all the children as well as the circumcision of the males.<\/p>\n
Colossians 2:11\u201312 is the one and only passage which Covenant Theologians use to try to prove that circumcision has been replaced by baptism, and since circumcision was practiced on infants, so should baptism be. For that reason, \u201cthe silence\u201d concerning infant baptism in the New Testament \u201cis not to be exaggerated.\u201d It is the way Buswell quotes the passage, \u201cYou were circumcised \u2026 by being buried with Him in baptism,\u201d that seems to support his contention. However, in its entirety, the passage reads as follows:<\/p>\n
(2:11) \u2026 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;<\/p>\n
(2:12) having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.<\/p>\n
Taken in its entirety, the passage does not support Buswell\u2019s contention. Paul did not say that the believer was circumcised \u201cby being buried with him in baptism.\u201d It does not state that baptism is either the antitype or fulfillment of circumcision. Verse 11 speaks of spiritual circumcision, a circumcision of the heart, which is a common concept in both the Old and New Testaments. It is in keeping with the frequent teaching that the antitype to circumcision of the flesh is the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28\u201329; Phil. 3:3). This is regeneration which precedes baptism. Then in verse 12, Paul explains the spiritual meaning of baptism which is the believer\u2019s identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Paul taught the same thing in Romans 6:1\u20134. The circumcision of the heart points to regeneration by which one is born anew. Baptism pictures the work of Christ which provided salvation: the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which is also the content of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1\u20134). This passage does not say that baptism replaces circumcision and, therefore, does not provide any evidence for infant baptism. Buswell tries to read too much into the passage. The \u201csilence\u201d of Scripture on infant baptism should not be ignored. In fact, based on the order in which Paul mentioned the two rites, baptism follows the circumcision of the heart.
\nBuswell pursues the subject further under the heading, \u201cThe Significance of Circumcision.\u201d Much of his argument simply presupposes that Covenant Theology is true. There is no question that circumcision was \u201cthe sign of the covenant,\u201d but what covenant was this and with whom was this covenant made? A simple reading of Genesis reveals that this was the Abrahamic Covenant, and it was made with Abraham and his descendants, the Jewish people, or Israel. This is the view of Dispensationalists. Buswell, a Covenant Theologian, cannot allow for this. For him, this is the covenant of grace, and it was made with the Church. He then builds his edifice of that foundation, and the validity of his conclusion is determined by the correctness on that premise, a premise Buswell never tries to prove. He insists that \u201ccircumcision was the sign of the covenant relationship between God and the godly family and the godly people\u201d who constituted the church; but both the Abrahamic Covenant and the Law of Moses made circumcision a requirement whether they were \u201cgodly\u201d or not. Furthermore, it was commanded to the nation of Israel. Circumcision under the Abrahamic Covenant was a sign of Jewishness, not \u201ca sign of membership in a godly family and in a godly people.\u201d The Mosaic Law did provide a means of entry for Gentiles, and these Gentiles were circumcised; but in Paul\u2019s words, this made them members of the commonwealth of Israel and not the Church (Eph. 2:11\u201312). Buswell\u2019s edifice is built on the premise that circumcision was a sign of God\u2019s covenant relationship with the Church, and it was practiced on infants. He then argues in favor of infant baptism \u201cfrom the analogy of circumcision.\u201d His argument is as follows:<\/p>\n
1. There is only one God;<\/p>\n
2. There is only one race, fallen humanity;<\/p>\n
3. There is only one covenant, the covenant of grace;<\/p>\n
4. There is only one relationship of parents and children within the covenant of grace;<\/p>\n
5. God did command the initiatory rite of circumcision to be performed upon children of godly parents in the Old Testament;<\/p>\n
6. Therefore, since there is only one God, one race, one covenant of grace, one parent-child relationship, it \u201cfollows by inexorable implication \u2026 that baptism be applied to those to whom the initiatory rites were applied in the Old Testament\u201d (italics added), meaning infants.<\/p>\n
This is the way Buswell builds his case for infant baptism since he has no New Testament statement or example to support a doctrine of this magnitude.
\nBuswell\u2019s line of reasoning is flawed in several areas. True, there is only one God, but as God He is not limited to doing everything in the same way at all times, which Buswell himself admitted when he discussed the issues of the Sabbath and dietary laws. True, there is only one race of fallen humanity, but God Himself made distinctions within humanity: Jews, Gentiles and the Church of God (1 Cor. 10:32). It is not true that there is only one covenant of grace. The \u201ccovenant of grace,\u201d as defined by Covenant Theologians, is never even seen to exist in the Scriptures. A straight reading of Scripture shows that God made several covenants. These were not always made with the same people (e.g., the Noahic Covenant with Gentiles, the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants with Jews), nor did they have the same provisions. In fact, sometimes the provisions were contradictory (e.g., all foods were permissible under the Noahic, but not under the Mosaic). True, God did command the rite of circumcision to be performed upon children, but not because they were children of godly parents, or because they were members of the Church, but because they were members of the peoplehood of Israel, i.e., because they were Jews. It does not follow \u201cby inexorable implication\u201d that baptism is to be performed on infants. For this, Buswell needs a clear statement or example from Scripture, which he doss not have. Furthermore, even the analogy itself breaks down on one point. Circumcision was performed on males only; however, Buswell does not limit infant baptism to males, but extends it to females.
\nMost Covenant Theologians practice infant baptism, and all tend to argue for it along the same two lines: the analogy with circumcision, and on the basis of the covenant of grace. However, there are Baptist Covenant Theologians who, while accepting the existence of the covenant of grace, reject these arguments in favor of infant baptism.
\nBuswell\u2019s statement, \u201cChristian baptism takes the place of circumcision,\u201d presupposes Covenant Theology, for the Scriptures do not make baptism the antitype of circumcision. Rather, the antitype of circumcision of the flesh is the circumcision of the heart. Buswell does not explain Paul\u2019s action in having Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:1\u20133), nor does he deal with Acts 21:20\u201326 where Paul took a public vow to show that he did not teach that Jews should not circumcise their sons. Paul limited their prohibition to Gentile converts only.<\/p>\n
2. The Kingdom of God<\/p>\n
Closely related and to some degree overlapping the issue of Israel and the Church in Covenant Premillennialism is their view of the Kingdom of God. Ladd has written more on this than any other. In his first book on the subject his thesis is that the Kingdom of God is both present and future. Clearly, Ladd sees at least these two facets as God\u2019s kingdom program. Pointing out that the Greek word for \u201ckingdom,\u201d basileia, means \u201creign\u201d rather than \u201crealm\u201d or \u201cpeople,\u201d he then defines \u201cthe kingdom of God\u201d as follows:<\/p>\n
\u2026 the kingdom of God is the sovereign rule of God, manifested in the person and work of Christ, creating a people over whom he reigns, and issuing in a realm or realms in which the power of his reign is realized.<\/p>\n
The kingdom of God then is God\u2019s reign, the activity of God\u2019s sovereign and kingly authority.<\/p>\n
For Ladd, the \u201ckingdom of God is therefore primarily a soteriological concept.\u201d Ladd\u2019s concept of the Kingdom of God allows for \u201ca number of mediatorial stages \u2026 before the perfect fulfillment in the age to come.\u201d In keeping with a Covenant Theologian\u2019s special emphasis on Soteriology, the history of the kingdom is \u201cthe history of redemption.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Ladd, the New Testament speaks of \u201cat least three realms\u201d preceding the Eternal State \u201cwhen God\u2019s reign is perfectly realized.\u201d The first is \u201cthe kingdom in the person of Christ,\u201d for \u201cthe kingly power of God was manifested in a new way among men in the person and messianic activity of Jesus.\u201d The second is \u201cthe kingdom of salvation,\u201d for as a result of Christ\u2019s mission, \u201cthere ensued the realm of salvation in which men may now enjoy in a new way the powers and the blessings of the kingdom.\u201d The third is the Millennium, for at the second coming, \u201cChrist will bring a further manifestation of the kingdom during which he will continue his mediatorial ministry of subduing every enemy. Then, and only then, when every enemy is subdued will the fullness of God\u2019s kingdom be realized, and the eternal kingdom have come.\u201d
\nIn a later work, Ladd expanded on his definition:<\/p>\n
The primary meaning of both the Hebrew word malkuth in the Old Testament and of the Greek word basileia in the New Testament is the rank, authority and sovereignty exercised by a king.\u2026 First of all, a kingdom is the authority to rule, the sovereignty of the king.<\/p>\n
When the word refers to God\u2019s Kingdom, it always refers to His reign, His rule, His sovereignty, and not to the realm in which it is exercised.<\/p>\n
While the word itself means \u201crule,\u201d \u201creign,\u201d or \u201csovereignty,\u201d it does not totally exclude the concept of \u201crealm\u201d:<\/p>\n
However, a reign without a realm in which it is exercised is meaningless. Thus we find that the Kingdom of God is also the realm in which God\u2019s reign may be experienced.<\/p>\n
Ladd, like Dispensationalists, recognizes that the Bible speaks of the Kingdom of God in more than one way. In fact, he sees three different ways in which the Scriptures speak of God\u2019s kingdom. First, the Kingdom of God is His universal rule over His creation. Second, the Kingdom of God is a present reality. Third, the kingdom is also future, to be revealed in a unique way at the second coming. It is this last point that makes Ladd a Premillennialist. As will be shown in the next two chapters, Dispensationalists also believe in several facets of God\u2019s kingdom program.
\nLadd\u2019s recognition of these different ways by which the Bible speaks of the Kingdom of God leads him to the following conclusion:<\/p>\n
The Kingdom of God is basically the rule of God. It is God\u2019s reign, the divine sovereignty in action. God\u2019s reign, however, is manifested in several realms, and the Gospels speak of entering into the Kingdom of God both today and tomorrow. God\u2019s reign manifests itself both in the future and in the present and thereby creates both a future realm and a present realm in which men may experience the blessings of His reign.<\/p>\n
For Ladd, the kingdom is both today and tomorrow, for it is both present and yet still future. This is what distinguishes a Covenant Premillennialist from a Covenant Amillennialist. The same point with further refinements is made in a later work as well.
\nWhile admitting that \u201cthe Old Testament frequently promised the coming of a time when the kingdom would be restored to Israel,\u201d he denies that this is the kingdom that Christ offered to Israel at His first coming:<\/p>\n
\u2026 Jesus did not offer to the Jews the earthly kingdom any more than he offered himself to them as their glorious, earthly King.<\/p>\n
Instead, what Christ did offer was the kingdom of salvation:<\/p>\n
What was the meaning of Jesus\u2019 offer of the kingdom to Israel? Jesus offered to Israel the same kingdom which he now offers to both Jew and Gentile.<\/p>\n
Later, Ladd explains in more detail. Again, \u201cthat future earthly realm was not what Jesus offered to Israel.\u201d What Jesus did offer was the kingdom of salvation, that is, individual salvation by which Christ reigns in the heart of the believer. Those who believe now \u201cwill enter the future kingdom when it comes,\u201d both in its millennial form and its form \u201cin the age to come,\u201d or the Eternal State. In keeping with his definition of \u201ckingdom\u201d as \u201creign,\u201d Ladd asserts that both the \u201cpresent spiritual kingdom\u201d and the \u201cfuture glorious kingdom\u201d are \u201cone and the same kingdom, the rule of the one sovereign God.\u201d
\nMost Dispensationalists (but not all) believe that Jesus did offer the Davidic or messianic or earthly kingdom to Israel. When Israel rejected the offer, the kingdom offer was rescinded (some Dispensationalists use the term \u201cpostponed\u201d) for that generation of Israel to be reoffered to a later Jewish generation that will accept it, the Jewish generation of the Great Tribulation. Ladd responds to this concept and again rejects that Christ offered to Israel a literal, earthly kingdom. The only thing Christ offered to Israel was the spiritual kingdom which is \u201ca present, spiritual reality.\u201d This requires \u201ca new people.\u201d Those who accept this spiritual kingdom \u201cexperience the reign of God\u201d in their hearts, they experience \u201cthe kingdom of God, here and now.\u201d It is this kingdom that Israel rejected, and so this spiritual kingdom \u201cwas taken from them\u201d and \u201cwas given to a people who would receive it.\u201d That \u201cpeople,\u201d according to Ladd, \u201cis the Church, the body of those who have accepted the Christ and so submitted themselves to the reign of God.\u201d
\nWhat Ladd does not explain is, if Christ only offered an intangible spiritual kingdom which was God\u2019s reign in the heart, how could such a thing be \u201ctaken away\u201d from Israel and given to the Church? Such a spiritual reign of God in the heart of the believer was always true, even before Christ came, so what was so new about Christ\u2019s offer? Furthermore, it was always a minority of those in Israel who believed and so had the rule of God in their hearts. If the spiritual kingdom was \u201ctaken away,\u201d it presupposes that it was Israel\u2019s in the first place. Otherwise, it could not be taken away; but while it was Israel\u2019s, only a minority in Israel actually experienced it. Was it this kind of a kingdom that Israel rejected? Many did believe and it was a minority again, but it was a very sizable minority. Since many did believe, why was it \u201ctaken away\u201d from Israel and given to the Church? After all, there is still a Remnant of Israel (Rom. 11:10). The relationship of Israel to the spiritual kingdom has not changed: there was a remnant before Christ, and there is a remnant after Christ. What was really unique with Christ\u2019s offer that Israel rejected so that the kingdom was taken away? It appears that whatever it was, it had to be more than just a spiritual kingdom by which God reigns in the heart of the believer. That type of reign is still true among many Jews. To say it was taken away because the majority rejected it does not explain why it was taken away then, for that ratio was always true. Something far more tangible and unique had to be offered to Israel to cause such a decisive act of taking the kingdom away from Israel.
\nIn a later work Ladd affirms that: (1) Jesus did offer the kingdom to Israel; (2) the Jews are \u201cthe sons of the Kingdom\u201d; (3) God had chosen Israel; (4) God promised the blessings of the kingdom to Israel; and (5) the kingdom was Israel\u2019s by right of election, history and heritage. However, Israel rejected the offer and so the blessings which belonged to Israel \u201cwere given to those who would accept them.\u201d As Ladd\u2019s earlier works clearly show, he does not believe that it was the Messianic or Millennial Kingdom that was offered to Israel, but only the spiritual kingdom. This is based on Ladd\u2019s definition of the \u201cKingdom of God\u201d as \u201cGod\u2019s reign redemptively at work among men.\u201d Because \u201cthat generation of Israel would not respond to the work of God\u2019s Kingdom,\u201d now \u201conly judgment is in store for that generation.\u201d What Israel rejected was the spiritual kingdom, for \u201cOur Lord\u2019s offer of the Kingdom of God was not the offer of a political kingdom, nor did it involve national and material blessings.\u201d Except for how Ladd defines the kingdom which Christ offered, Dispensationalists largely agree with what he wrote.
\nIn yet a later work, Ladd spells out his central thesis concerning the Kingdom of God:<\/p>\n
The central thesis of this book is that the Kingdom of God is the redemptive reign of God dynamically active to establish his rule among men, and that this Kingdom, which will appear as an apocalyptic act at the end of the age, has already come into human history in the person and mission of Jesus to overcome evil, to deliver men from its power, and to bring them into the blessings of God\u2019s reign. The Kingdom of God involves two great moments: fulfillment within history, and consummation at the end of history.<\/p>\n
To put it more simply, Ladd\u2019s thesis is: (1) the Kingdom of God is God\u2019s redemptive reign; (2) its goal is to establish God\u2019s rule among men; (3) the Kingdom of God came in a unique way into human history with Jesus; (4) the Kingdom of God remains a present reality through the Church; (5) the Kingdom of God is even now overcoming evil, delivering men from the power of both evil and Satan; and, (6) it will appear as \u201can apocalyptic act at the end of the age\u201d with the second coming when Christ returns to set up His millennial rule. It is important to understand this, for it is the basis of Ladd\u2019s Israelology.
\nLater, Ladd discusses the nature of the kingdom which Christ offered to Israel. He affirms the Jewishness of Jesus and the fact that He lived a very Jewish lifestyle. Ladd also affirms that the messianic mission of Jesus was to the Jews and that He instructed His disciples to do the same. From these facts, Ladd deduces that \u201cIsrael was the people of God,\u201d and that to the Jews \u201cbelonged the promise of the Kingdom.\u201d For these reasons, Jesus and His disciples largely limited their ministry to Israel for \u201cIsrael was the chosen people of God.\u201d The kingdom \u201cwas offered not to the world at large but to the sons of the covenant.\u201d
\nIt should be noted how Ladd views Israel prior to Israel\u2019s rejection of the kingdom: (1) the people to whom the covenant and the promises had been given; (2) the sons of the kingdom; (3) to whom the promise of the kingdom belongs; (4) the people of God; (5) the chosen people of God; and, (6) the sons of the covenant.
\nHaving said this, Ladd then gives three ramifications about the kingdom that Christ virtually exclusively offered to Israel. First, \u201cJesus did not appeal to Israel in terms of national solidarity but in terms of a personal relationship,\u201d by which he means that \u201cwhile Jesus\u2019 mission was directed to the people as a whole, his appeal cut through external national relationships and demanded an individual response to his own person\u201d (italics added). This is, of course, true, but Ladd seems to want to use it in order to play down the Jewishness of those who did respond. Second, \u201c\u2026 Israel as a whole rejected both Jesus and his message about the Kingdom.\u201d However, he defines this kingdom as \u201ca kingdom of morality and righteousness which would have led the Jewish people to a moral conquest over Rome.\u201d Israel\u2019s rejection of this \u201ckingdom of morality and righteousness,\u201d led to Christ\u2019s \u201crejection of Israel\u201d and this meant that \u201cIsrael will cease to exist as the people of God.\u201d Ladd insists that \u201cthe Jewish nation which has rejected the offer of the Kingdom of God has therefore been set aside as the people of God and is to be replaced by a new people.\u201d As a result, Israel is no longer all those things she was before the rejection. One can only ask if the kingdom which Christ offered to Israel as defined by Ladd is all that the Old Testament predicted would be the kingdom the Messiah would offer. Third, \u201cwhile Israel as a whole, including both leaders and people, refused to accept Jesus\u2019 offer of the Kingdom, a substantial group did respond in faith.\u201d
\nWhat about the Jews who did believe? Ladd explains:<\/p>\n
The Jews as a whole refused this new relationship. There were some, however, who responded and who became disciples of our Lord and thus true sons of the Kingdom of God. These formed the nucleus of what became the Church.<\/p>\n
Unlike the majority of his Covenant Theology brethren, Ladd sees the Church as beginning in the New Testament. Concerning this new entity, Ladd elaborates:<\/p>\n
The sixteenth chapter of Matthew relates our Lord\u2019s purpose in the formation of the new people of God, the Church. It is significant that Jesus could say nothing about His redemptive purpose to bring into existence this new people of God until the disciples had realized that He was indeed the Messiah.<\/p>\n
Once they had realized that He was the Messiah, even though in a new and unexpected role, Jesus instructed them as to His further purpose. His purpose was not that of a national restoration of Israel. On the contrary, He would create a new people.<\/p>\n
The purpose of the first coming then \u201cwas not that of a national restoration of Israel.\u201d His purpose was to \u201ccreate a new people\u201d of God, and this new people of God is the Church. Dispensationalists would agree that the purpose of the first corning was not to restore Israel; however, they do, for the most part, believe that Jesus did offer the Messianic Kingdom, knowing very well that it would be rejected, for this was predicted in the Old Testament. It was still a legitimate offer. Ladd, being a Calvinist, should have no problem with this concept. He does believe that Christ died for the elect and only the elect will be saved. However, the offer of the gospel is to be made to all men, although it is already known that only the elect will accept it. Yet even though only the elect will believe, it is still a legitimate offer to the non-elect. By the same token, although it was known that Israel would respond with rejection, it was still a legitimate offer. Dispensationalists would also say that the purpose of the first coming was for Christ to die for sin rather than \u201cthe formation of the new people of God, the Church.\u201d While no Dispensationalist would exclude this as a purpose of the first coming, he would not give it the emphasis that Ladd seems to give. Instead, the formation of the Church is viewed as a consequence of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus.
\nElsewhere Ladd states:<\/p>\n
It follows that if Jesus proclaimed the messianic salvation, if he offered to Israel the fulfillment of her true destiny, then this destiny was actually accomplished in those who received his message. The recipients of the messianic salvation became the true Israel, representatives of the nation as a whole. While it is true that the word \u201cIsrael\u201d is never applied to Jesus\u2019 disciples, the idea is present, if not the term. Jesus\u2019 disciples are the recipients of the messianic salvation, the people of the Kingdom, the true Israel.<\/p>\n
Ladd claims that it is those who did accept who have fulfilled Israel\u2019s destiny. There is a leap in Ladd\u2019s logic which is a little hard to follow. He claims that if Jesus \u201cproclaimed the messianic salvation,\u201d and if Jesus \u201coffered to Israel the fulfillment of her true destiny,\u201d then it follows that \u201cthis destiny was actually accomplished in those who received his message.\u201d The questions that must be asked are: Why? Does this really follow? Is this an inescapable conclusion? There are other possible answers. It could just as easily \u201cfollow\u201d that the offer of the kingdom was rescinded with Israel\u2019s rejection to be reoffered to a later Jewish generation which will accept it and, in turn, bring in the establishment of the kingdom. At any rate, Ladd\u2019s conclusion does not necessarily follow from his premise. He has his agenda, and this is an important step for him in order to get to his goal, which is to identify the Church as the new Israel. The \u201crecipients of the messianic salvation became the true Israel.\u201d Furthermore, this new group consists of \u201cthe people of the Kingdom, the true Israel.\u201d Ladd makes two admissions and then quickly discounts them. First, he admits that the term \u201cIsrael\u201d is never applied to this new group but insists that the idea is present. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Ladd is again presupposing his theology. Second, he admits that the \u201crecipients of the messianic salvation\u201d were \u201crepresentatives of the nation as a whole.\u201d However, Ladd fails to see it as a Jewish Remnant of Israel. He desires to both play down the Jewish aspect and to identify the Church as the new people of God which has displaced the old Israel.
\nNot only does Ladd insist that the purpose of the first coming was to form a new people of God, he further states that the Church replaces Israel:<\/p>\n
In any case, our Lord indicates His purpose to build His Church. The particular form of this phrase is important. The Greek word, ekklesia, is the word most commonly used in the Greek Old Testament to refer to Israel as the people of God. The very use of this word suggests that our Lord purposed to bring into existence a new people who would take the place of the old Israel who rejected both His claim to Messiahship and His offer of the Kingdom of God. The fulfilment of this promise began at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out baptizing those who were followers of Jesus into the body of Christ and thus historically giving birth to the Church (1. Cor. 12:13).<\/p>\n
Two important things should be noted here. First, the Church, the new people, are to \u201ctake the place of the old Israel.\u201d The reason Ladd gives for this assertion is based on the use of the term ekklesia. This is the term the Septuagint uses for the \u201ccongregation\u201d of Israel. The simple reason is that it is the best Greek word to use to translate the Hebrew equivalent; but the Septuagint is not inspired. The New Testament only uses this word once in relationship to Israel, and even then only to the Israel of the Old Testament (Acts 7:28). It also uses ekklesia in reference to a pagan gathering (Acts 19). In the New Testament, a distinction is made between synagogue (synogogeis) and church (ekklesia). The use of the word itself in no way proves that Christ\u2019s purpose was to bring into existence a new people who would take the place of the old Israel. That is simply not the way the New Testament uses the term. True, the term is being used of a new entity: the Church; but to say that the term also includes the concept of replacing old Israel is to read too much into that term. The concept itself may be true, but if it is, there will need to be clear statements to that effect in the Scriptures. Applying this concept to the Kingdom of God, Ladd states:<\/p>\n
No longer is the Kingdom of God active in the world through Israel; it works rather through the Church.<\/p>\n
This key of knowledge which in the Old Testament dispensation had been entrusted to Israel is now entrusted by our Lord to the apostles and to the Church.<\/p>\n
Israel had been the possessors of the Kingdom of God. This means that until the time of the coming of Christ in the flesh, God\u2019s redemptive activity in history had been channelled through the nation Israel and the blessings of the divine rule had been bestowed upon this people. The children of Israel were indeed the sons of the Kingdom. Gentiles could share these blessings only by entering into relationship with Israel. However, when the time came that God manifested His redemptive activity in a new and wonderful way and the Kingdom of God visited men in the person of God\u2019s Son bringing to them a fuller measure of the blessings of the divine rule, Israel rejected both the Kingdom and the Bearer of the Kingdom. Therefore, the Kingdom in its new manifestation was taken away from Israel and given to a new people.<\/p>\n
This new people is the Church.<\/p>\n
The second important thing to note is the timing of the birth of the Church. According to Ladd, the Church was born in Acts two \u201cwhen the Holy Spirit was poured out baptizing those who were followers of Jesus into the body of Christ.\u201d This is what gave birth to the Church, and this happened only as of Acts two. On this point Ladd departs from the majority of Covenant Theologians, including other premillennial Covenant Theologians, and agrees with Dispensationalists. Like other Covenant Theologians, Ladd applies 1 Peter 2:9, ignoring Peter\u2019s opening statement that he was writing to Jewish believers specifically and not to the Church as a whole. Peter clearly has Exodus 19:1\u20136 in mind as he is writing, and his point is that while Israel the whole has failed in its calling, the Israel of God, the Jewish believers, have not. Jewish believers are a race, the race of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jewish believers are a nation, the Israel of God.
\nIn another work, Ladd falls back on the remnant motif of the Old Testament, and, indeed, that remnant was \u201cthe true people of God.\u201d However, Ladd fails to note that this remnant was always a Jewish remnant, and it was always the remnant of Israel. It was never separated from Israel the whole but was always a remnant within Israel. The Old Testament motif can be used to support the fact that there is a believing remnant within Israel today which is exactly what Paul does in Romans 11. Ladd is trying to go beyond that to show a transference from Israel to the Church. For Ladd, the Church is the remnant. This is in spite of his own admission that: \u201cIt is true that Jesus makes no explicit use of the remnant concept.\u201d This admission is quickly dismissed, however, by his claim that the choosing of the twelve disciples was \u201ca symbolic act setting forth the continuity between his disciples and Israel,\u201d and that \u201cthe twelve were meant to constitute the nucleus of the true Israel.\u201d Furthermore, by the choosing of the twelve, \u201cJesus taught that he was raising up a new congregation to displace the nation which was rejecting his message.\u201d Instead of seeing the continuity of the Remnant of Israel motif from the Old to the New Testament with the remnant today being both part of Israel and part of the Church, Ladd sees the new entity as displacing national Israel altogether.
\nContinuing this line of reasoning under the heading \u201cThe Meaning of Discipleship,\u201d Ladd continues his attempt to develop the Church-is-Israel equation. His insistence that \u201cit is difficult therefore to avoid the conclusion\u201d that \u201cIsrael\u2019s true destiny\u201d is fulfilled \u201cin the circle of his disciples\u201d need not be taken too seriously. Such a conclusion is quite easy to avoid if one does not presuppose Ladd\u2019s theology. The conclusion would be valid if it was limited to the Remnant of Israel, which is indeed fulfilling Israel\u2019s destiny; but as has been shown, Ladd is trying to prove that it is the Church that is fulfilling Israel\u2019s destiny. If left where the Bible leaves it, with the Remnant of Israel, then many of Ladd\u2019s statements are true. It is the Jewish remnant that is \u201cthat portion of Israel which did receive the messianic salvation,\u201d and it is through them that \u201cthe true mission and destiny of Israel as the people of God attained fulfillment.\u201d It is also true that as the believing remnant of that day, the disciples \u201cdid not constitute a separate synagogue,\u201d for the Remnant of Israel is always within the nation and not apart from it. For the very same reason, they were \u201cnot a new Israel but the true Israel, not a new church but the true people of God.\u201d They were the \u201csons of the Kingdom.\u201d All of these statements are indeed true of the believing remnant of Israel and, if left there, Dispensationalists can agree; but as has been pointed out, Ladd tries to go beyond this to play down the Jewishness aspect and to make the Church the one and only true people of God.
\nLadd provides his own best summary of his position:<\/p>\n
It is now time to summarize the results of our study thus far and to deal more directly with the relationship between Jesus\u2019 disciples, the church, and the Kingdom. Jesus came to bring to Israel the promised messianic fulfillment. He offered the promised salvation to Israel not because Israel had a claim upon the Kingdom but because God had a claim on Israel. Acceptance of the Kingdom of God would have meant the realization of the true destiny and the divine purpose in the call of Israel. This purpose was fulfilled only in those who responded to God\u2019s call. These constituted neither a new Israel nor a separate synagogue nor a closed fellowship nor an organized church, but the believing remnant within the unbelieving nation, the ecclesiola in ecclesia. They were in a twofold sense an eschatological community; they had received the present Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus and were therefore destined to inherit the Kingdom in its eschatological consummation.<\/p>\n
Again, as stated, Dispensationalists could largely agree, with a few exceptions. Dispensationalists would not limit the kingdom that Jesus offered to Israel to salvation only, for certainly the \u201cpromised messianic fulfillment\u201d of the Old Testament included much more than that. Nor is it totally true that Israel had no \u201cclaim upon the Kingdom.\u201d Since the kingdom was promised to Israel, it follows that Israel does have a claim to that kingdom, though it is also true that God does have a claim on Israel as well. Since Ladd does not believe that Christ offered the \u201ceschatological\u201d kingdom, then it is also doubtful that if Israel had accepted Jesus, it \u201cwould have meant the realization of the true destiny and the divine purpose in the call of Israel,\u201d since part of that \u201cdestiny\u201d did include that very kingdom. Again, Ladd says what he does in order to reach his goal of identifying the Church as the new Israel, which his next subdivision entitled \u201cMatthew 16:18\u201319\u201d clearly shows. His point is that when Jesus said He would build His ekklesia, He was showing continuity with the Old Testament people of God.
\nStill building on all he said earlier, Ladd makes his identification specific: the new people of God is the Church. What he said earlier of Israel is now applied to the Church: (1) the Church is now the sons of the kingdom; (2) the Church is the true Israel; and, (3) the Church is the true people of God. The Church is now \u201cto take the place of the rebellious nation as the true Israel.\u201d Ladd has gone to great lengths to reach this conclusion, but there remains a missing link in his chain of argumentation, and that is the crucial term \u201cIsrael.\u201d That term is used of the believing Remnant of Israel, a Jewish remnant, but it is never used of the Church. Ladd has been trying to show that the Remnant of Israel constitutes the Church, which in turn becomes \u201cthe true Israel\u201d and \u201cthe true people of God.\u201d He even claims that \u201cit is difficult to avoid\u201d this conclusion, but that is not the case. Until Ladd shows a clear statement in Scripture where the Church is called Israel, that conclusion is not difficult to avoid at all.
\nWhat exactly is the relationship of the Church and the Kingdom of God? Ladd explains in a previous work, which presents the crux of Ladd\u2019s Israelology. He begins by summarizing the meaning of the Kingdom of God in that it is both God\u2019s \u201credemptive rule\u201d now \u201cmanifested in Christ,\u201d and it is also \u201cthe realm or sphere in which the blessings of the divine rule may be experienced.\u201d Because the Kingdom of God is \u201cthe redemptive activity and rule of God in Christ,\u201d the Kingdom of God \u201ccreated the Church and works through the Church in the world.\u201d Obviously, Ladd does not equate the Kingdom of God and the Church as being one and the same. The Kingdom of God has always existed, but the Church has not. However, the Kingdom of God program now works itself out through the Church. The Kingdom of God was at work through the person of Christ and also through His disciples. Today the Kingdom of God is at work through the Church. The \u201credemptive activity and power of God\u201d which is the essence of the Kingdom of God \u201cis working in the world today through the Church of Jesus Christ.\u201d The Church itself is comprised of believers who \u201care dedicated to the task of preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom in the world.\u201d Those who believe the message enter into the present facet of the Kingdom of God \u201cbecause they receive its blessings,\u201d but they are also destined to enter the future facet of the Kingdom of God \u201cwhen Christ comes in glory.\u201d The Kingdom of God \u201cis entrusted to \u2026 and works through redeemed men who have given themselves to the rule of God through Christ.\u201d Today this is the Church.
\nLadd admits that \u201cthere are very few verses in the New Testament which equate the Kingdom with the Church,\u201d but he feels they are enough to support his conclusions. He first cites Revelation 5:9\u201310 which speaks of redeemed men comprising a \u201ckingdom.\u201d Ladd then asks: \u201cDo we now therefore have the Scriptural precedent to identify the Church with the Kingdom of God?\u201d He answers affirmatively, but only in one sense: that the redeemed are destined to \u201creign upon the earth\u201d in the future facet of the Kingdom of God. The Church is not a kingdom because it is a people \u201cover whom Christ exercises His reign.\u201d Nor is the Church a kingdom because it is a \u201crealm in which the blessings of the redemptive reign are to be experienced.\u201d The Church is a kingdom only because \u201cit shares Christ\u2019s rule.\u201d They will some day exercise this rule in the future kingdom. The second passage Ladd cites is Revelation 1:6 which refers to the redeemed as being priests and kings. The reason they are kings is because they have been \u201cgranted the right to rule with Christ,\u201d a right to be exercised in the future kingdom. These are the only passages which Ladd cites. If this is all there is, then indeed \u201cthere are very few verses\u201d which equate the kingdom with the Church.
\nLadd\u2019s conclusion is that \u201cthe Church therefore is not the Kingdom of God,\u201d but it was the Kingdom of God that created the Church and now \u201cworks in the world through the Church.\u201d Because the Church is not the Kingdom of God, they can build the Church but cannot \u201ctherefore build the Kingdom of God.\u201d They can only \u201cpreach it and proclaim it.\u201d He concludes with a reaffirmation of the concept of replacement: \u201cThe Kingdom of God which in the Old Testament dispensation was manifested in Israel is now working in the world through the Church.\u201d
\nElsewhere, Ladd builds on his earlier developments, especially his definition of the \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d Based on that definition, he denies that the Church can be equated with the Kingdom of God. The Church is \u201cthe community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself.\u201d Ladd then develops \u201cthe specific relationship between the Kingdom and the church\u201d in five propositions.
\nThe first is that \u201cthe New Testament does not equate believers with the Kingdom,\u201d for \u201cthe church is the people of the Kingdom, not the Kingdom.\u201d Ladd goes so far as to say that the Church should not be considered as \u201cpart of the Kingdom\u201d or that in the future \u201cthe church and Kingdom become synonymous.\u201d
\nSecond, \u201cthe Kingdom creates the church.\u201d This is based on Ladd\u2019s previous contention that the Church has replaced Israel:<\/p>\n
The presence of the Kingdom meant the fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic hope promised to Israel; but when the nation as a whole rejected the offer, those who accepted it were constituted the new people of God, the sons of the Kingdom, the true Israel, the incipient church. \u201cThe church is but the result of the coming of God\u2019s Kingdom into the world by the mission of Jesus Christ.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ladd\u2019s point is that the kingdom of God came to Israel with Christ. When Israel rejected the kingdom offer, the kingdom brought the Church into being. This Church is again identified as: (1) the new people of God; (2) the sons of the Kingdom; and, (3) the true Israel. Israel\u2019s rejection of \u201cthe offer\u201d caused the Church to come into being, which \u201cis but the result of the coming of God\u2019s Kingdom.\u201d
\nThird, \u201cit is the church\u2019s mission to witness to the Kingdom.\u201d To do this Jesus had one group of twelve disciples and another group of seventy. In the figures \u201ctwelve\u201d and \u201cseventy\u201d Ladd sees symbolic significance. For Ladd, the fact that there were twelve apostles symbolizes two things. First, they represent \u201cthe nucleus of the true Israel\u201d; and, second, they show that the message of Jesus is \u201cfor the whole of Israel.\u201d The fact that there were seventy disciples symbolizes that the message of Jesus is also for \u201call men.\u201d While Ladd can try to base the former on the Old Testament (i.e., the twelve tribes of Israel), there is no basis in the Old Testament for his symbolic interpretation of the seventy. Ladd resorts to the rabbinic tradition about the Law of Moses being offered to the seventy nations of Genesis 10. This is the extent to which Ladd must go to reach his equation. He continues his assertions that Israel was declared by Jesus to \u201cno longer be the people of God\u2019s rule but that their place would be taken by others,\u201d and that \u201cIsrael will not longer be the people of God\u2019s vineyard but will be replaced by another people who will receive the message of the Kingdom.\u201d For the same reason, \u201cIsrael is no longer the witness to God\u2019s Kingdom; the Church has taken her place \u2026 the history of the Kingdom of God has become the history of Christian missions.\u201d
\nFourth, \u201cthe church is the instrument of the Kingdom.\u201d By this Ladd means that \u201cthe works of the Kingdom are now performed through the Church.\u201d
\nFifth, \u201cthe church is the custodian of the Kingdom.\u201d Ladd explains this as follows. He begins the history of the Kingdom of God on earth with Abraham. Later, the Kingdom of God \u201cwas committed to Israel through the Law\u201d and in that way, Israel was \u201cthe custodian of the Kingdom of God,\u201d since \u201cIsrael was the custodian of the law.\u201d Until the time of Christ, \u201cGod\u2019s rule was mediated to the Gentiles through Israel,\u201d for until then \u201cthey alone were the \u2018sons of the Kingdom.\u2019 \u201d This changed, however, with the coming of Jesus. When the \u201cnation as a whole rejected the proclamation\u201d of the kingdom, it was the minority who accepted it that became \u201cthe true sons of the Kingdom.\u201d It is these believers who now became the custodians of the kingdom \u201crather than the nation Israel.\u201d \u201cThe Kingdom is taken from Israel and given to others,\u201d and these others, according to Ladd, are the Church. For that reason, the Church is the custodian of the kingdom. Ladd again pushes his transference theology.
\nLadd concludes with the following statement:<\/p>\n
In summary, while there is an inseparable relationship between the Kingdom and the church, they are not to be identified. The Kingdom takes its point of departure from God, the church from men. The Kingdom is God\u2019s reign and the realm in which the blessings of his reign are experienced; the church is the fellowship of those who have experienced God\u2019s reign and entered into the enjoyment of its blessings. The Kingdom creates the church, works through the church, and is proclaimed in the world by the church. There can be no Kingdom without a church\u2014those who have acknowledged God\u2019s rule\u2014and there can be no church without God\u2019s Kingdom; but they remain two distinguishable concepts: the rule of God and the fellowship of men.<\/p>\n
It is not that Dispensationalists disagree with everything that Ladd says about the kingdom. Many things Ladd states can be easily agreed to with some exceptions, such as the claim that there \u201ccan be no Kingdom without a church,\u201d since the Kingdom of God has been able to exist for centuries without the Church. What is objected to is Ladd\u2019s replacement theology which makes the Church the total taker-over of Israel\u2019s position. Since there can be only one people of God, the Church is that people and not Israel. Whatever may be the present aspect of God\u2019s kingdom program, it does not in any way relate to Israel, but to the Church. Ladd\u2019s problem lies in his failure to see the distinctive position of the Remnant of Israel in relationship to Israel as a whole and to the Church, So often what the Bible attributes to the Remnant of Israel, Ladd attributes to the Church, for to him the two become one and the same, He has no problem seeing the Church and the kingdom as \u201ctwo distinguishable concepts,\u201d but he fails to see the remnant and the Church as two distinguishable concepts, although there is an \u201cinseparable relationship\u201d between the two.
\nHaving defined the relationship of the Church and the Kingdom of God, Ladd next tries to tackle the relationship of Israel and the Kingdom of God. His starling point is that there can be only one people of God:<\/p>\n
There is therefore but one people of God. This is not to say that the Old Testament saints belonged to the Church and that we must speak of the Church in the Old Testament. Acts 7:28 does indeed speak of the \u201cchurch in the wilderness\u201d; but the word here does not bear its New Testament connotation but designates only the \u201ccongregation\u201d in the wilderness. The Church properly speaking had its birthday on the day of Pentecost, for the Church is composed of all of those who by one Spirit have been baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), and this baptizing work of the Spirit began on the day of Pentecost.<\/p>\n
Ladd\u2019s therefore is based on his previous discussion of the relationship of the Church to the Kingdom of God, but it is hardly valid to conclude that \u201cthere is therefore but one people of God.\u201d He is forced to this conclusion because his Covenant Theology requires him to do so. This in turn forces him to certain conclusions concerning Israel\u2019s relationship to the Kingdom of God; however, he does make several concessions that separate him from other Covenant Theologians and place him in agreement with Dispensationalists. First, the Old Testament saints do not belong to the Church. Second, there is no need to \u201cspeak of the Church in the Old Testament.\u201d Third, the use of ekklesia in Acts 7:28 does not carry its New Testament theological meaning. Fourthly, the Church was born on the Feast of Pentecost in Acts two. Dispensationalists agree with all four points. They do not agree with Ladd\u2019s premise that there can be \u201cbut one people of God,\u201d which was Israel then and is now the Church. Dispensationalists agree that the Church is a people of God, but Israel still is as well.<\/p>\n
3. The Law of Moses<\/p>\n
All Covenant Theologians feel that the Law of Moses is still in effect. Ladd discusses the issue under the heading \u201cThe Ethics of the Kingdom.\u201d It is not easy to fully understand Ladd\u2019s view of the Law of Moses except that in some way the Law of Moses is still in effect, but with some major modifications. Ladd makes Christ\u2019s relationship to the law \u201canalogous\u201d to his relationship to Israel, but the analogy is not easy to discern from Ladd\u2019s statement. At any rate, he reasserts the same point he had been making so many times over as if repetition makes it true. This point is that Jesus \u201coffered to Israel the fulfillment of the promised messianic salvation,\u201d but when Israel rejected the kingdom offer, then Jesus \u201cfound in his own disciples the true people of God in whom was fulfilled the Old Testament hope.\u201d However, was \u201cthe Old Testament hope\u201d limited to salvation? If not, then it could hardly be said to be \u201cfulfilled\u201d only in the disciples. Exactly how this is \u201canalogous\u201d to Christ\u2019s relationship to the Law of Moses is not clear at all.
\nThe following can be gleaned about Ladd\u2019s view of Christ and the law. First, Ladd sees \u201celements of both continuity and discontinuity in Jesus\u2019 attitude towards the Law of Moses.\u201d This means that part of the law has been discontinued while other parts of the law have continued. This is typical of all Covenant Theologians. Also typical is a lack of criteria by which one can determine what part is discontinued and what part continues. Second, Jesus \u201cregarded the Old Testament as the inspired word of God and the law as the divinely given rule of life.\u201d At least during the period until Christ came, the Law of Moses was the rule of life for Israel in general, and the believer in particular. Third, Jesus Himself \u201cobeyed the injunctions of the law.\u201d Fourth, the mission of Jesus \u201caccomplishes the fulfillment of the true intent of the law.\u201d Fifth, based on the preceding, Ladd declares that the \u201cOld Testament therefore is of permanent validity.\u201d However, from the passage Ladd cites (Matt. 5:17\u201318), he really means that the Law of Moses has \u201cpermanent validity.\u201d While Ladd believes this theologically, he does not believe it practically, because he is forced to make many adjustments. In the end, only a small part remains as having \u201cpermanent validity.\u201d
\nAfter drawing the above conclusion, Ladd begins making his adjustments. The coming of Christ \u201crequires a new definition of the role of the law.\u201d What this means is that man\u2019s relationship to God is no longer \u201cmediated through the law but through the person of Jesus himself.\u201d This would imply that the Law of Moses is no longer the rule of life for the believer. This is the position of the Dispensationalist; but this is not Ladd\u2019s position, because for him the law has \u201cpermanent validity.\u201d It is not clear just what Ladd means by a man\u2019s relationship to God is no longer mediated through the law. Among the adjustments of the law that Ladd makes is doing away with the entire dietary law and annulling \u201cthe entire tradition of ceremonial observance,\u201d that is, the ceremonial law. These alone are major adjustments, and these are not the only ones Ladd would make. Where is his claim that the law has \u201cpermanent validity\u201d? This common Covenant Theology claim never works out in practice. Even after all of this, it is difficult to determine where the analogy is between Christ\u2019s relationship to Israel and His relationship to the law.
\nIn the context of his \u201cThe Church as Israel\u201d argument, LaSor discusses his view of the Law of Moses. LaSor declares that the \u201claw was not abolished for Christians\u201d; however, he never substantiates that the law was given to Christians. His defense for this presupposition is his claim that \u201cevery point of the law in the Old Testament is reiterated somewhere in the New Testament.\u201d This is an overstatement to the extreme. The law contained a total of 613 commandments and a small minority of these are mentioned in the New Testament. Even if by the \u201claw\u201d LaSor means only the Ten Commandments, it would still not be true, since only nine of the ten are mentioned in the New Testament (the Sabbath commandment was excluded). However, the Law of Moses was not given to the Church in the first place. LaSor\u2019s way around this is to fall back to the root meaning of the Hebrew word for law, torah, which is \u201cinstruction.\u201d The Church was also given instruction in the New Covenant; but LaSor feels it is the same law and the only difference is that this time the law was \u201cwritten upon their hearts.\u201d Even so, the law was not given as a means of salvation, but it was the rule of life for the one who was already saved. The law was given \u201cafter the deliverance of the people \u2026 It was given to those who had been redeemed.\u201d The purpose of the law was to \u201cspell out the way God\u2019s people were supposed to live because they had been redeemed.\u201d Because the law was a rule of life for the believer, the law is still in effect; so \u201cthe law was not abolished for Christians.\u201d For Israelology it is important to note that LaSor feels that the Law of Moses, while given to Israel at Mount Sinai, still applies to the Church today as a rule of life.
\nAlso in the same context, LaSor describes what the means of salvation really was. There is some theological ambiguity in what LaSor says. That faith was certainly involved in salvation of both Old Testament and New Testament saints is not debatable; but the issue is: was the content of faith the same for both? LaSor is ambiguous here though this is a crucial difference between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians. The closest LaSor comes to any possible answer is: \u201cThe faith of Israel in the Old Testament is remarkably similar to the faith of the church in the New Testament.\u201d However, LaSor nowhere explains where the similarity lies, so one must suppose that he follows the traditional Covenant Theology position on this.
\nOne specialized area of the Law of Moses is the commandment to observe the Sabbath. Under a heading entitled \u201cThe Sabbath After the Resurrection,\u201d Buswell spells out in detail his view on the Sabbath. Buswell makes several dogmatic assertions which he does not prove exegetically but presupposes his Covenant Theology. The main assertion of this section is that Sunday is now the official Sabbath. He actually calls Sunday \u201cSabbath\u201d and refers to it as \u201cthe Lord\u2019s Day.\u201d However, he fails to cite a single passage where Sunday is called the Sabbath. Furthermore, the only place that the expression \u201cthe Lord\u2019s Day\u201d is found is Revelation 1:10, and there is no contextual or exegetical evidence that it refers to Sunday. As such, Revelation 1:10 may refer to any day of the week, including Saturday. The word \u201clord\u201d in the Greek text is not a noun but an adjective, and can be translated as \u201clordy\u201d day. It merely describes John\u2019s state on that day, for he also says that he was \u201cin the Spirit\u201d on that day. It was a day that God took over his perceptive faculties so that John could receive the divine revelation found in the Book of Revelation. For him, it was a \u201clordy\u201d day. As such, it says nothing about which day of the week it was. Buswell is assuming his theology as he approaches Revelation 1:10. He thus concludes that Sunday is the \u201cChristian Sabbath.\u201d In the final segment of this work, it will be shown that the concept of a \u201cChristian Sabbath\u201d is just as wrong as a \u201cJewish Sunday.\u201d Buswell\u2019s citation of the Westminster Confession and the Church Fathers only proves what the Church later believed. That is a far cry from proving that this is the teaching of the New Testament.
\nAs evidence of his contention, Buswell cites Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:1\u20132 to show that the first century Church did meet on the first day of the week, but this is beside the point. The issue is not: when did the Church meet for corporate worship? but rather: was the Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday? That the Church chose Sunday as a day of corporate worship is historically evident even in the New Testament, but what the New Testament never does is refer to this day as the Sabbath. In the very two texts Buswell quotes, Sunday is called \u201cthe first day of the week\u201d and not \u201cSabbath.\u201d The same is true every time Sunday is referred to in the New Testament.
\nBuswell declares that Sunday \u201ccame to have the spiritual and practical significance of the Old Testament Sabbath as a \u2018holy day,\u2019 a day of rest and worship.\u201d This short sentence contains a measure of both truth and error. It is true that the Sabbath under the law was a holy day and a day of rest; however, it was not a day of corporate worship, a common misconception. Nor were the Mosaic laws of the Sabbath ever applied to the first day of the week by the New Testament. That was only the day that the Church met for corporate worship. To claim that God appointed the first day of the week to be the Christian Sabbath to continue to the end of the world goes far beyond the New Testament evidence, the Westminster Confession notwithstanding.
\nBuswell, of course, realizes that not a single New Testament passage refers to Sunday as a Sabbath, nor treats it as such. A simple search of a concordance will show that even though the term \u201cSabbath\u201d is used in the New Testament, it is always in reference to the seventh and not the first day of the week. Buswell\u2019s attempt to get around this is that the \u201creason for lack of emphasis on the Christian Sabbath in the New Testament is similar to Paul\u2019s lack of emphasis upon baptism \u2026\u201d and then proceeds to blame this \u201clack of emphasis\u201d on Jewish legalism. The comparison is very weak. The New Testament, including Paul\u2019s writings, do talk about baptism, and the Book of Acts shows that Paul practiced baptism himself. His point in 1 Corinthians 1:14\u201317 is not to de-emphasize baptism, but to point out that baptism is secondary to the preaching of the gospel. Baptism does play a major role in Paul\u2019s ministry and in the New Testament as a whole, but nowhere in the New Testament is the first day of the week called or treated as a Sabbath. This is not merely a \u201clack of emphasis\u201d; this is total absence.
\nBuswell tries to derive further evidence for the change of days from the seventh day \u2026 to the first day from the fact that the Old Testament rituals were a shadow of things to come. This is true. The New Testament goes into great detail showing how the Old Testament rituals went from shadow to substance (e.g., the Book of Hebrews). Yet one thing it does not state is that the seventh day is the shadow while the first day is the substance. What it does say is that the Sabbath is the shadow while salvation-rest today and heavenly-rest in the future is the substance (Heb. 4:1\u201310). Buswell\u2019s conclusion that \u201cthe Lord\u2019s Day takes the place and has all the value of the Old Testament Sabbath\u201d is simply not supported by the evidence.
\nBuswell gets into further difficulty when he attempts to make an application of his conclusion. He correctly points out that the Book of Hebrews treats the Sabbath typologically as salvation rest, \u201cthe new life, into which we enter by faith in Christ.\u201d Then he dogmatically asserts that Romans 6:4 \u201cteaches that this \u2018rest\u2019 is based upon and guaranteed by the fact that Christ arose from the dead.\u201d All that Romans 6:4 speaks about is the resurrection, and this is certainly connected with salvation in some way, though the primary emphasis in the New Testament is that salvation was provided by the death of Christ. Romans 6:4 does not in any way connect salvation with Sabbath rest, and even less so with the resurrection of Jesus, Buswell reads into the passage much more than the passage allows. Then, after making this unwarranted connection, Buswell further asserts that the \u201cOld Testament Sabbath anticipated the resurrection of Christ. The Christian Sabbath celebrates the resurrection as an accomplished fact.\u201d This is a radical deduction that is not supported by the evidence Buswell cites. He appears to be trying hard to establish a preconceived theology. Having drawn this unwarranted conclusion, he goes on to make his application. Just as to continue to sacrifice would \u201clogically imply a denial that the atonement has already been accomplished in history,\u201d by the same token to continue \u201cthe keeping a seventh day sabbath logically implies the denial of the resurrection of Christ from the dead as an established historical fact.\u201d For the second time, Buswell makes a faulty comparison. The New Testament clearly affirms the fact that Christ is the final sacrifice for sin and that to continue to sacrifice was to deny the atonement (Heb. 10:18); but this is not so for the Sabbath, Neither testament taught that the Sabbath prefigured the resurrection, just salvation rest. Furthermore, this salvation was accomplished by the death and not the resurrection of Christ. The New Testament never states that Sunday is the Sabbath. While it allows corporate worship on Sunday, it never requires it. Those who choose corporate worship on Saturday in no way imply that they are denying the resurrection.
\nAs with the other two schools of Covenant Theology, Buswell wishes to maintain the Law of Moses as still obligatory; but to maintain this position, he has to make major changes when he comes to details. Concerning the Sabbath, Buswell states: \u201cChrist and Paul do not abrogate the law of the Sabbath, they give it its true meaning.\u201d Part of this \u201ctrue meaning\u201d includes the concept that Sunday is now the Sabbath; however, observing a Sunday Sabbath is actually a violation of the Law of Moses which in no uncertain terms made the Sabbath the seventh day of the week. Buswell is caught in a paradox. He insists that the Mosaic Law still applies because his Covenant Theology insists that the law was given to the Church. Yet he cannot maintain that many of the commandments are to be obeyed in the very manner that Moses prescribed. He is forced to resort to the use of a \u201ctrue meaning\u201d interpretation to get around it. Yes, God commanded the observance of the Sabbath, and according to Buswell this rule still applies. However, that same body of law decreed that the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. By use of a \u201ctrue meaning\u201d hermeneutic, Buswell insists that now the Sabbath laws apply to Sunday.
\nLater, Buswell applies the same hermeneutic to the dietary laws. The Law of Moses clearly forbade the eating of certain types of meat, fowl, fish and insects, but the New Testament clearly permits the eating of all these things. The most obvious conclusion is that the Mosaic commandments have been changed and no longer apply. This is the conclusion of a Dispensationalist, but Buswell, a Covenant Theologian, cannot allow for that. He insists that this \u201cshould not be understood as a basic change of rule \u2026\u201d; however, a simple comparison without a theological bias seems to say the opposite. If the Law of Moses forbade the eating of pork, then having a ham sandwich would violate the law. If eating a ham sandwich today is not a sin, how can Buswell maintain that the dietary laws of Moses are still true? Here he again resorts to his use of the \u201ctrue meaning\u201d hermeneutic. The \u201ctrue meaning\u201d is the principle that any kind of food known to be bad for you \u201cunder any given circumstances of climate, cooking conditions, or other factors, should be avoided by God-fearing men.\u201d This is simply not true to the text, for the Law of Moses was much more specific and actually listed what could or could not be eaten. The Law of Moses would not have allowed the eating of ham, lobster or shrimp under any circumstances. The wording of the Law of Moses cannot be reduced to Buswell\u2019s principle: \u201cIf we today eat that which we know is harmful to our bodies, we are violating the basic principle of the Old Testament dietary laws.\u201d Buswell\u2019s \u201ctrue meaning\u201d approach to the Law of Moses allows him to insist that this law still applies and at the same time to ignore the details of the law. Orthodox Judaism would simply state that Buswell is failing to uphold the law and his specific actions actually violate it.<\/p>\n
4. Israel Today<\/p>\n
It is Ladd who raises the issue of the modern State of Israel:<\/p>\n
What does this have to do with the present Israeli question? Three things: First, God has preserved this people. Israel remains a \u201choly\u201d people (Rom. 11:16), set apart and destined to carry out the divine purpose. Second, all Israel is yet to be saved. One modern scholar has suggested that in the millennium history may witness for the first time a truly Christian nation. Third, the salvation of Israel must be through the new covenant made in the blood of Christ already established with the church, not through a rebuilt Jewish temple with a revival of the Mosaic sacrificial system, Hebrews flatly affirms that the whole Mosaic system is obsolete and about to pass away. Therefore the popular Dispensational position that Israel is the \u201cclock of prophecy\u201d is misguided. Possibly the modern return of Israel to Palestine is a part of God\u2019s purpose for Israel, but the New Testament sheds no light on this problem. However, the preservation of Israel as a people through the centuries is a sign that God has not cast off his people Israel.<\/p>\n
Ladd\u2019s Covenant Premillennialism does not allow him to have a definite theology on Israel today, but he is able to see three things about the Jewish State. First, it is evidence that \u201cGod has preserved his people.\u201d It is also evidence that \u201cIsrael remains a \u2018holy\u2019 people\u201d in the sense that it is \u201cset apart and destined to carry out the divine purpose.\u201d Is it a slip that Ladd refers to the Jews or literal Israel as \u201chis people,\u201d meaning God\u2019s people? As has been shown, Ladd has argued many times that literal Israel is no longer the people of God, but here he reaffirms that literal Israel still has a future purpose in the plan of God.
\nSecond, Ladd reaffirms that \u201call Israel is yet to be saved.\u201d In the Millennium Israel is destined to become \u201ca truly Christian nation.\u201d
\nThird, whenever the salvation of Israel comes, it \u201cmust be through the new covenant made in the blood of Christ already established with the church,\u201d Israel\u2019s salvation will not come \u201cthrough a rebuilt Jewish temple with a revival of the Mosaic sacrificial system.\u201d It is at this point that Ladd states: \u201cTherefore the popular Dispensational position that Israel is the \u2018clock of prophecy\u2019 is misguided.\u201d The implication of this statement is that Dispensationalists do believe that Israel\u2019s national salvation will come through a rebuilt Jewish temple and a revival of the Mosaic sacrificial system, but Dispensationalists believe no such thing. It is Ladd\u2019s accusation that is \u201cmisguided.\u201d Dispensationalists do believe that during the Tribulation there will indeed be a rebuilt Jewish temple and the Mosaic sacrificial system will be reinstituted by the Jewish community; but they do not believe that this will be sanctioned by God or that Israel\u2019s salvation will be achieved through it. Dispensationalists also believe that another temple will be built in the Millennium and that there will be a sacrificial system which will not be the same as the Mosaic system. As far as Israel\u2019s salvation is concerned, Dispensationalists also believe that it will be achieved \u201cthrough the new covenant made in the blood of Christ.\u201d They still insist that it is Israel\u2019s covenant. Ladd\u2019s implications and accusations are simply unfair.
\nHaving made these three observations, Ladd still has said nothing about the modern State of Israel. Finally he does, but the best he can do is to say that \u201cpossibly the modern return of Israel to Palestine is a part of God\u2019s purpose for Israel\u201d but Ladd is not sure. The reason he is not sure is because \u201cthe New Testament sheds no light on this problem.\u201d This statement again reflects a dismal view of the Old Testament. Unless it is found in the New Testament, Ladd will not affirm it. Old Testament evidence is insufficient because of Ladd\u2019s principle of \u201creinterpretation.\u201d His Covenant Premillennialism has nothing definite to say about Israel today. At best, it is only further evidence that \u201cthe preservation of Israel as a people through the centuries is a sign that God has not cast off his people Israel.\u201d Ladd does believe in a future salvation and restoration of Israel for this much the New Testament reveals; but his theology and hermeneutics do not allow him to say anything about Israel today.<\/p>\n
5. Romans 9\u201311 and the Olive Tree<\/p>\n
Except for a passing reference in which he states that the Jewish believers are the firstfruits of Romans 11:11, Buswell does not deal with this passage. As for LaSor, he only provides some hints of his viewpoint. Concerning the Olive Tree, LaSor does identify the natural branches as Jews and the wild olive branches as Gentiles, but he does not say what the Olive Tree itself represents. He does conclude that Paul teaches that \u201cGod has not rejected Israel\u201d and the future of the Jews is one of \u201crestoration.\u201d It is the restoration of Israel that cannot be \u201cfulfilled in the Christian church\u201d but can be fulfilled only in Israel\u2014the Israel that Paul is talking about in these chapters\u2014as distinct from the Gentiles in the Church.
\nLadd deals with this subject in some detail. In an early work, as he sets out to develop his view of the relationship of Israel and the Kingdom of God, he reveals his view of the Olive Tree of Romans 11. Ladd does distinguish Israel and the Church to some degree, but he insists that \u201cwe must speak of only one people of God.\u201d For this to be the case, Israel was the people of God in the Old Testament, but the Church became the people of God in the New Testament, at least as of Acts two. The reason Ladd \u201cmust\u201d speak of only one people of God is because his Covenant Theology will not allow him to speak of two peoples of God. For his evidence he goes to the Olive Tree of Romans 11, which he claims will make his contention \u201cvividly clear.\u201d He interprets the Olive Tree as representing the people of God. Since there is only one Olive Tree, there is therefore only one people of God. Ladd feels no necessity to try to prove that this is the meaning of the Olive Tree. He merely asserts it dogmatically and goes on from there; however, this is not the only possible way of interpreting the symbol of the Olive Tree.
\nNevertheless, having assumed this position, Ladd then builds his case. This Olive Tree has many branches. During the Old Testament period, \u201cthe branches of the tree were Israel.\u201d Now, \u201cbecause of unbelief, some of the natural branches were broken off and no longer belong to the tree.\u201d However, some of the branches were not broken off because \u201csome Jews accepted the Messiah and His message of the Gospel of the Kingdom,\u201d and these \u201ccame into the Church.\u201d There is some confusion in what Ladd is saying. Initially, the distinction he makes is between Israel and the Church. The natural branches are identified with Israel. If so, then both the natural branches which were broken off and those that were not are both Israel. This would mean that part of Israel has been broken off and part of Israel has remained in the tree. Logically, the wild olive branches would comprise the Church, but Ladd is not consistent in his identification. It is more correct to speak of the natural branches as being Jews and the wild olive branches as being Gentiles, which is exactly the identification that Ladd does make later. The reason there is some confusion in Ladd\u2019s development is that he fails to distinguish the Olive Tree as a whole from its two types of branches. He identifies the wild olive branches as Gentiles, but he identifies the natural branches as Israel rather than as Jews in contrast to Gentiles. As far as Ladd goes with it, for him the Olive Tree represents the people of God. The natural branches are Israel, and the wild olive branches are Gentiles; but if there are still natural branches in the tree and these natural branches are Israel, then obviously part of Israel is the people of God and part of the Gentiles are the people of God. Logically, this is what Ladd appears to say, but obviously it is not what he wants to say. Ultimately, the confusion lies in the fact that Ladd has interpreted the Olive Tree as being the people of God without offering any exegetical evidence of this identification.
\nIn the end, Ladd summarizes his view of the Olive Tree as being \u201cone people of God, which consisted first of Israelites and then of believing Gentiles and Jews.\u201d Only in this concluding statement do the natural branches cease to be national Israel and become individual Jews. Ladd then concludes that \u201cit is impossible to think of two peoples of God through whom God is carrying out two different redemptive purposes without doing violence to Romans 11.\u201d This statement would be valid if it was clearly proven that the Olive Tree does represent only one people of God. This Ladd has not even tried to prove. He assumes it to be true, and his assumption is in turn based on the validity of Covenant Theology. In the following chapters, it will be shown that it is exegetically possible to take a different view of the meaning of the Olive Tree, and that allowing for two peoples of God need not \u201cdo violence\u201d to Romans 11.
\nLadd never clearly states that the Olive Tree is now the Church, but he implies it. When speaking of the natural branches, he declares they are Jewish believers who \u201ccame into the Church.\u201d Furthermore, it is a necessary logical conclusion for Ladd. He insists that there can be only one people of God. He also insists that the Church is the people of God and that the Olive Tree is the people of God. Therefore, the Olive Tree is the Church today.
\nIn a later work, Ladd is more explicit. He points out that there are two Israels: physical and spiritual. This is true, but while all Jews are part of physical Israel, only believing Jews are part of spiritual Israel. Both groups consist only of Jews, so it is not totally true that \u201cnot all Jews \u2026 can call themselves \u2018Israel\u2019 \u2026,\u201d for Paul uses that term for physical Israel as Ladd himself admits. However, not all Jews could claim to be a part of spiritual Israel. This is the \u201ctrue Israel\u201d; but it is the Remnant of Israel, not the Church.
\nConcerning Paul\u2019s discussion of the issue of election in Romans nine, Ladd interprets the passage as speaking of literal Israel guilty of rebellion and apostasy, but \u201cGod has been patient with the unbelief of literal Israel that through it he might show mercy upon true Israel.\u201d Furthermore, God had \u201ca purpose in Israel\u2019s stumbling and unbelief,\u201d which was \u201cto bring salvation to the Gentiles\u201d; unbelieving Israel became \u201cvessels of wrath.\u201d To replace these, God made \u201cvessels of mercy,\u201d which \u201care a mixed company consisting of both Jews and Gentiles.\u201d At this point, Ladd notes that Paul cited two passages from Hosea which \u201cin their Old Testament context refer to Israel and applies them to the Christian church which consists largely of Gentiles.\u201d Ladd sees this as evidence of reinterpretation of the Old Testament by the New. He interprets this to mean that Paul cited these verses from Hosea \u201cto prove that the Old Testament foresees the Gentile church\u201d; but can the New Testament so unilaterally change or reinterpret the meaning of the Old? If so, this calls into real question the inspiration and validity of one or the other or both. However, the validity of both can be maintained by recognizing the quotation for what it is: an application. Hosea\u2019s prophecy will be fulfilled to Israel. Because of one point of similarity, the passage is applied to a New Testament event. The one point of similarity is that the Gentiles at one time were not my people but now have become my people. Paul neither changes nor reinterprets the meaning of the Old Testament. He merely makes an application.
\nAlong the same line, Ladd discusses Paul\u2019s quotations of Hosea the prophet and concludes:<\/p>\n
Here, in two separate places, prophecies which in their Old Testament refer to literal Israel are in the New Testament applied to the (Gentile) church. In other words, Paul sees the spiritual fulfillment of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in the church. It follows inescapably that the salvation of the Gentile church is the fulfillment of prophecies made to Israel. Such facts as this are what compel some Bible students, including the present writer, to speak of the church as the New Israel, the true Israel, the spiritual Israel.<\/p>\n
Ladd admits that the \u201crejection of Israel is not final or irremediable.\u201d He also understands that in the original context, Hosea was speaking of \u201cthe future salvation of Israel in the Kingdom of God.\u201d However, he then claims that the prophecy of Hosea was \u201cradically reinterpreted and given an unforeseen application\u201d by the New Testament. The reason is that what \u201cthe Old Testament applies to literal Israel,\u201d the New Testament \u201capplies to the church.\u201d The New Testament does not really reinterpret the Old Testament prophecy, for the New Testament does not deny that these prophecies will be fulfilled to Israel. What is true is that there is \u201can unforeseen application\u201d to a New Testament event, but application is not reinterpretation. It is true that \u201cprophecies which in their Old Testament context refer to literal Israel are in the New Testament applied to the (Gentile) church\u201d; but this is only application and not reinterpretation. The original Old Testament prophecy is neither changed nor cancelled. Ladd goes beyond the evidence by claiming that these prophecies have a \u201cspiritual fulfillment\u201d in the Church. Ladd\u2019s contention that \u201cit follows inescapably that the salvation of the Gentile church is the fulfillment of prophecies made to Israel\u201d again raises serious questions of both inspiration and validity. If a prophecy given by Hosea speaks of Israel and only of Israel (as Ladd agrees), but the New Testament claims that it really speaks of the Church, then there is a clear contradiction. Either the original context is wrong or the New Testament is wrong. The \u201creinterpretation\u201d concept allows for no other option. Staying within the concept of \u201capplication\u201d there is no contradiction, and both testaments can maintain their validity. The prophecy of Hosea will be fulfilled exactly as \u201cit is written.\u201d In the New Testament, the passage is simply applied to a similar situation. The New Testament does not claim that the original prophecy to Israel will never be fulfilled to Israel. Ladd goes beyond the statements of the New Testament to claim that \u201cthe salvation of the Gentile church is the fulfillment of prophecies made to Israel.\u201d Thus, it is on this basis that he feels it is biblically correct \u201cto speak of the church as the New Israel, the true Israel, the spiritual Israel.\u201d Yet the New Testament never actually uses the term \u201cIsrael\u201d of the Church, even by application. This too goes beyond the evidence; in this case, well beyond.
\nTo support the above contention, Ladd\u2019s basic argument is that since the New Testament teaches that all believers become the children of Abraham, then that means they, the Church, constitute \u201cthe true spiritual Israel.\u201d This conclusion, Ladd claims, \u201cfollows inescapably.\u201d However, descent from Abraham, physically or spiritually, did not constitute Israel. Not all physical descendants of Abraham were physical Israel, for the Arabs are also Abraham\u2019s physical descendants. Physical Israel is not determined by descent from Abraham alone but from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Only descendants of Jacob constitute physical Israel. The same is true of spiritual Israel. While all believers are said to be of the seed of Abraham, they are never said to be of the seed of Jacob, which is exactly what Ladd needs to prove his point. Neither the Church nor Gentile believers are ever classed as the seed of Jacob, nor is the term \u201cIsrael\u201d ever used of the Church. It is only used of Jews as a whole or used of Jewish believers who constitute the Remnant of Israel. Both Israel the whole and the Remnant of Israel are made up of Jews only. It is true that \u201creal Jews are those who have been circumcised inwardly\u201d; but the passage on which this is based, Romans 2:28\u201329, contextually (Rom. 2:17\u20133:20) is being addressed to the Jews (Rom. 2:17) and not to Gentiles or the Church. It too deals with the Remnant of Israel which has both a physical and spiritual circumcision in contrast to Israel the whole which only has physical circumcision.<\/p>\n
C. Israel Future<\/p>\n
1. The Rapture of the Church<\/p>\n
There are a minority of Covenant Theologians who are pretribulational and a minority of others, like Buswell, who are midtribulational; but the majority are posttribulational. To some degree, it is a Covenant Theologian\u2019s Israelology that determines whether he is postmillennial, amillennial, or premillennial. In a similar way, among Covenant Premillennialists, one\u2019s Israelology also determines whether he is Pretribulationist, Midtribulationist (as was Buswell), or Posttribulationist (which is Ladd\u2019s position). Another work by Ladd, not cited heretofore, is a defense of Posttribulationism and an attack on Pretribulationism as well as Dispensationalism, since the two are closely associated.
\nOne of the problems that Posttribulationists face is that the term \u201cchurch\u201d is not actually found in any Tribulation context, including the Book of Revelation. This Ladd admits, so he must resort to removing the distinction between Israel and the Church. One example is his discussion on the wife and the bride. Here Ladd misconstrues the dispensational position. The distinction that Dispensationalists make is not between the terms \u201cwife\u201d and \u201cbride,\u201d but between the concepts of \u201cthe Wife of Jehovah\u201d and \u201cthe Bride of Christ,\u201d with Israel being the former and the Church the latter. Israel could also be the \u201cbride\u201d of Jehovah as well as the \u201cwife.\u201d The Church can be the \u201cwife\u201d of Christ as well as the \u201cbride.\u201d When Revelation 19:7 uses the term \u201cwife\u201d for the Church, it presents no problem for the Pretribulationist or Dispensationalist. Since the verse is speaking of a marriage to Christ, the Dispensationalist has no problem identifying this \u201cwife\u201d as the Church. The marriage of the Church to Christ is still future. Israel\u2019s marriage to Jehovah is history. Furthermore, contrary to Ladd\u2019s statement, Dispensationalists do believe that the marriage feast comes after \u201cthe return of Christ in glory,\u201d and many believe that it is with this feast that the Millennium begins. Ladd resorts to a \u201cstraw man\u201d approach. He finds it necessary to erase such distinctions between Israel and the Church in order to prove his posttribulational position: that the Church (the true or spiritual Israel) will go through the Tribulation.
\nIn a chapter entitled \u201cRightly Dividing the Word,\u201d Ladd tries hard to show that prophecies concerning Israel in the Tribulation also concern the Church. His method is to show that certain prophecies addressed to Israel were also applied to the Church. His two examples are that Joel two is applied to the Church in Acts two, and Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 is applied to the Church in Hebrews 8:7\u201313. His point is:<\/p>\n
To this line of reasoning, we must raise the question: Where does the Word of God say that the Great Tribulation is exclusively Jewish? Dispensationalists say this, but does the Word of God really assert this to be true? Is this an inference, or is it the express declaration of Scripture? There is very strong evidence which suggests that the Great Tribulation applies to the Church as well as to Israel.<\/p>\n
There appears to be no valid reason, therefore,\u2014no assertion of Scripture which would require or even suggest that we must apply the prophecies about the Tribulation to a restored Jewish nation rather than to the redeemed of the New Testament, the Church. On the contrary, we have ample reason to apply the prophecies about the Great Tribulation both to Israel and to the Church.<\/p>\n
Ladd is here arguing from inference. Just because the above prophecies to Israel were also somehow applied to the Church does not automatically mean the same is true of the Tribulation prophecies. All Ladd needs to do is produce one example where this is true, and his case is proven; but he has no Scripture which puts the Church in the Tribulation, nor does he have an example where a Tribulation prophecy addressed to Israel is applied to the Church. In light of this, Ladd\u2019s question, \u201cwhere does the Word of God say that the Great Tribulation is exclusively Jewish?\u201d loses its force. No, the Bible does not say that the Tribulation is \u201cexclusively\u201d Jewish, but it is true that no passage on the Tribulation ever mentions the Church, though it does mention Israel and the Gentile nations. Ladd\u2019s assertion that there is \u201cvery strong evidence which suggests that the Great Tribulation applies to the Church as well as to Israel,\u201d is wishful thinking, and none of this \u201cvery strong evidence\u201d is produced. The same is true of his statement that there is \u201cample reason to apply the prophecies about the Great Tribulation both to Israel and to the Church.\u201d
\nFinally, in his \u201cConclusion,\u201d Ladd makes this rather frank admission:<\/p>\n
With the exception of one passage, the author will grant that the Scripture nowhere explicitly states that the Church will go through the Great Tribulation. God\u2019s people are seen in the Tribulation, but they are not called the Church but the elect or the saints. Nor does the Word explicitly place the Rapture at the end of the Tribulation. Most of the references to these final events lack chronological indications. Perhaps God wishes us to be certain about the great verities of Christ\u2019s return, the Rapture and the Resurrection, but has deliberately refrained from answering all of our questions as to the order of events. However, in one passage, Revelation 20, the Resurrection is placed at the return of Christ in glory. This is more than an inference. Furthermore, even apart from the clear teaching of Revelation, if we were left only to inference, our study has suggested that a single indivisible return of Christ, which requires a posttribulation view, is the inference which is more naturally suggested than that of two comings of Christ with a pretribulation rapture.<\/p>\n
After arguing for Posttribulationism for 164 of the 167 pages in this book, Ladd admits, in the end, \u201cthat the Scripture nowhere explicitly states that the Church will go through the Great Tribulation.\u201d He makes one exception, Revelation 20, but this chapter does not deal with the Rapture, only with the resurrection of the Tribulation saints; and Ladd has not proven that these saints are Church saints. In fact, he also admits that while the Bible speaks of saints in the Tribulation, \u201cthey are not called the Church.\u201d A further admission is that the Bible does not \u201cexplicitly place the Rapture at the end of the Tribulation.\u201d Ultimately, he admits that Posttribulationism is only an \u201cinference,\u201d at best, \u201cmore than an inference.\u201d Why, then, does he believe so strongly in it as to write a defense for it? The bottom line is that it is his Israelology that requires it. As a Covenant Theologian, he believes that the Church is the true Israel. As a Covenant Premillennialist, he does believe in a national salvation of Israel, but then Israel simply becomes part of the true Israel, the Church. To remove the Church before the Tribulation and then to return the Church after the Tribulation would require those saved during the Tribulation to be a saved entity that is not the Church. His covenantalism will simply not allow for this since all who are saved in all times are part of the Church. His theology, his Israelology, forces Ladd to keep the Church in the Tribulation. The logic is this: the Church is Israel; Israel is in the Tribulation; therefore, the Church is in the Tribulation. It is this presupposition rather than exegesis that leads a Covenant Theologian who is a Covenant Premillennialist to Posttribulationism.<\/p>\n
2. The 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14<\/p>\n
Buswell takes Revelation seven quite literally and views the 144,000 as Jews who will become believers in the Great Tribulation. He sees this as \u201cpicture of Jewish evangelism.\u201d Except for his timing on the Rapture, Dispensationalism agrees with this view. As with Revelation seven, Buswell sees the 144,000 in Revelation 14 as being literal Jews from all twelve tribes who will be saved during the Tribulation.
\nLadd, however, attempts to remove the Jewishness of the 144,000. When Ladd asserts \u201cthat these twelve tribes nowhere appear in the Old Testament in any of the listings of the twelve tribes of Israel,\u201d he almost gives the impression that this is true of the entire list of names; however, it is only true of one name: Dan. The fact that John went to the trouble of listing the names would clearly imply that he is speaking of literal Jews. Ladd\u2019s question, \u201cHow then can these twelve tribes be literal Jews since they are not the literal twelve tribes of Israel?\u201d can be answered rather simply: they are the literal twelve tribes of Israel, and the absence of Dan does not disqualify the other names from being the literal tribes of Israel. God simply chose not to select 12,000 from the Tribe of Dan for His purpose concerning the 144,000. Using such flimsy grounds, Ladd is forced to make these 144,000 symbolize \u201cthe true Israel, the true people of God,\u201d which for Ladd means the Church. Again, not having any clear statement that Israel is the Church, Ladd is forced to use this back door approach: the 144,000 are the Church; the 144,000 are in the Tribulation; therefore, the Church is in the Tribulation.
\nLadd presents his view of the 144,000 in more detail in a later work, but because of his Covenant Premillennialism and Posttribulationism, he engages in some sloppy exegesis of Revelation seven. A simple reading of the passage would obviously make these 144,000 to be Jews, but Ladd declares that \u201cit is impossible for these to be literally Jews.\u201d This is pure presupposition at best or pontification at worst. The text clearly states that these 144,000 come from the twelve tribes of Israel, and the tribes listed are the common Jewish names from the Old Testament. The natural reading of the passage would make these Jews; however, Ladd tries to prove that they are not. His statement that \u201cthe twelve tribes listed are simply not the twelve tribes of Israel\u201d is far too sweeping. In fact, every tribe listed in Revelation seven is found among the twelve tribes of Israel. True, the Tribe of Dan is missing, but that is hardly sufficient to claim that all the others listed are \u201csimply not the twelve tribes.\u201d It is not true that the Tribe of Ephraim is omitted. The name is simply substituted by his father\u2019s name, Joseph. Nor is there any reason to assume that \u201cthe Tribe of Manasseh is included twice.\u201d The Tribe of Joseph stands for the Tribe of Ephraim while the Tribe of Manasseh stands for itself. Even if Manasseh is included twice, it does not negate them from being literal Jews. Again, this is careless exegesis. Ladd is trying hard to push his posttribulational theology into the text. Revelation 7:4 clearly states that these 144,000 came from every tribe of the children of Israel, yet Ladd states that they \u201care simply not the twelve tribes of Israel.\u201d Who, then, should the reader believe: John who wrote the book or Ladd? The names that John does list are: Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. Are these not the familiar Jewish names from the Old Testament that speak of the tribes of Israel? Ladd declares that \u201cthe twelve tribes listed are simply not the twelve tribes of Israel,\u201d but with only one exception (Dan), they are those very tribes of Israel. The fact that the Tribe of Dan is missing is hardly exegetical evidence to dismiss all those mentioned from being Jewish.+<\/p>\n
the Jewishness of the 144,000. Only because of the exclusion of Dan, Ladd insists that these are not literal Jews but the Church. For him \u201cthe 144,000 are the church on the threshold of the Great Tribulation.\u201d Ladd, a Posttribulationist, does not have a single verse that actually puts the Church into the Tribulation, so he must use a back door approach; this is one such back door. The 144,000 are clearly in the Tribulation. By making the 144,000 the Church, Ladd is able to put the Church in the Tribulation.
\nFurthermore, having one tribe missing is not peculiar to the Book of Revelation. In Deuteronomy 33, Moses addressed the tribes one by one. Every tribe is named but one: Simeon. Not even Ladd would claim that such an \u201cirregular listing\u201d by Moses means they were not literal Jews but the Church.
\nAfter writing about the 144,000 in Revelation 7:1\u20138, John then talks about another multitude in Revelation 7:9\u201317 which no man could number, and which came out of every nation and language group. A simple reading of the text would make these two different groups distinguished from each other in two ways. The first group is Jewish, but the second is Gentile. The first group is numbered at exactly 144,000 with 12,000 coming from twelve tribes. The second group is a huge multitude that no man could number. Letting the text stand as it reads, this is the simple meaning; but this Ladd cannot do. He claims that the figure 144,000 \u201cis a symbolic number, representing completeness.\u201d However, as most theologians agree, the symbolic number for completeness is seven. Having dismissed the figure 144,000 as having any literal significance, he then identifies the innumerable multitude from every nation as being the same group as the 144,000 in spite of the two contradictory descriptions of the two: Israel and nations (Gentiles); and, numbered and innumerable. This is not exegesis. This is forcing one\u2019s theology on the text. In this case, it is Ladd\u2019s insistence that both groups constitute the Church that forces him to ignore the details. It is Ladd\u2019s presupposition that the Church is the New Israel that leads to such casual handling of the text. Ladd not only feels that the New Testament \u201creinterpreted\u201d the Old Testament, but he also uses his Covenant Theology to reinterpret the New Testament.<\/p>\n
3. The Woman of Revelation 12<\/p>\n
Buswell, in contrast to Ladd, took the 144,000 literally as speaking of Jews, but he departs from a Jewish identification when he comes to Revelation 12:<\/p>\n
It has been suggested by competent Bible students that the child should be understood as representing the true church. That being assumed, the child\u2019s being caught up to God and to His throne corresponds with the rapture of the true church. The woman, then, represents the visible or organized church, which, though having lost the truly born-again individuals, still has the Christian forms, the Bible, and much of the Christian tradition. This suggestion is further borne out by the reference to \u201cthe remnant of her children, who cherish the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus,\u201d in verse 17 of the same chapter.<\/p>\n
The Woman of Revelation 12 is connected with the sun, the moon, and the twelve stars. The Old Testament background is Joseph\u2019s dream in Genesis 37:9\u201310 which makes it evident that the sun represents Jacob, the moon Rachel, and the twelve stars the twelve sons of Jacob who fathered the twelve tribes of Israel. The Woman in this chapter represents the nation of Israel, who produced the man child, who is Jesus the Messiah. The rest of her seed who have the testimony of Jesus are the Jewish believers such as the 144,000. Buswell, however, follows an interpretation more consistent with his Covenant Theology. The Woman is \u201cthe visible or organized church\u201d while the Child is \u201cthe true church\u201d as is \u201cthe rest of her seed.\u201d However, to arrive at this conclusion, Buswell must ignore how the Old Testament uses and interprets the symbols found in the Revelation. Later, under the heading, \u201cThe Remnant,\u201d Buswell continues along the same line of thought. He does not see \u201cthe remnant\u201d of the Woman as being uniquely Jewish Christians, but only Christians in general, \u201cthe elect of God.\u201d<\/p>\n
4. Romans 11:25\u201327 and Israel\u2019s National Salvation<\/p>\n
Buswell, along with Dispensationalists and some Covenant Postmillennialists, does believe in a national salvation of Israel. He takes Paul\u2019s statement in Romans 11:25\u201332 quite literally; but in keeping with his Covenant Theology, he sees this as a new form of the Church. The Rapture will bring to a completion \u201cthe Gentile church,\u201d and Israel\u2019s salvation will once again bring in a Jewish Church. Like all Covenant Theologians, Buswell views Israel as merely being amalgamated into the Church. Finally, the national salvation of Israel comes at the second coming while the final restoration will follow the second coming. Covenant Amillennialism denies both. Covenant Postmillennialism affirms the first but denies the second.
\nIn his discussion on Romans 11, Ladd deals with the statement that all Israel shall be saved. As a Covenant Premillennialist, Ladd does believe in the national salvation of Israel. While Israel has indeed been hardened, this is \u201conly partial and temporary.\u201d Eventually when \u201cthe full number of Gentiles has come in,\u201d Israel will then \u201cbelieve and be grafted again into the people of God.\u201d Ladd rejects that all Israel means the Church in contradistinction with Covenant Amillennialists and some Covenant Postmillennialists. Yet in keeping with Covenant Theology, he still insists that in \u201ca very real sense \u2026 the Church is Israel.\u201d To what degree, of course, is based on his Israelology. What is not clear is Israel\u2019s national status when she is grafted back into the Olive Tree. Does she maintain a separate identity, or is she merely assimilated into the Church since the Church, like the Olive Tree, is the people of God? Ladd rejects the concept \u201cthat God has for ever cast off Israel after the flesh.\u201d This cannot be for two reasons. First there is a spiritual remnant today which is the \u201cnatural branches which were not broken off because they received Christ.\u201d Second, in the future, \u201cIsrael as a whole\u201d will also be saved.
\nLadd also finds support for a national salvation of Israel in the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:37\u201339 and Luke 21:24. Ladd affirms that there will be a national salvation of Israel when all Israel will be saved. This will happen \u201cwhen Israel will recognize Christ as her Messiah.\u201d Because of the emphasis on Jerusalem as a city, Ladd also affirms that there will be a national restoration of Israel which is in keeping with his Premillennialism.
\nLater, Ladd draws the following conclusion:<\/p>\n
One fact, however, is very important: so far as the New Testament is concerned, the salvation of Israel is an essential part of God\u2019s single redemptive purpose. The work of God\u2019s Spirit in the formation of the Church and the future divine visitation of Israel by which the natural branches are regrafted into the olive tree ought not to be seen as two separate and unrelated purposes but as two stages of the single redemptive purpose of God through His Kingdom. There is a single olive tree, and there is one Kingdom of God. The final stages of the reign of God in Christ by which He will put all His enemies under His feet (1 Cor. 15:25) will include the salvation of Israel after the flesh. The people of God through whom the Kingdom of God is working in This Age is the Church which consists largely of Gentiles; but the people of God in whom the Kingdom will come to its consummation will include Israel (Rom. 11:12). But there is one Kingdom and there is one people.<\/p>\n
Ladd affirms again a national salvation of Israel and sees this as \u201can essential part of God\u2019s single redemptive purpose.\u201d He then proceeds to make some ramifications as his Covenant Theology would indeed require. Israel\u2019s national salvation and her being grafted back into the Olive Tree must not be viewed \u201cas two separate and unrelated purposes but as two stages of the single redemptive purpose of God.\u201d What Ladd is again trying to do is avoid two peoples of God even with a national salvation and restoration of Israel. He reaffirms that \u201cthere is a single olive tree\u201d by which he concludes that there can only be one people of God, since he insists that that is the meaning of the Olive Tree. He also reaffirms that there is only \u201cone Kingdom of God,\u201d though he clearly recognizes that there are at least two different facets to God\u2019s kingdom program. God\u2019s kingdom program \u201cwill include the salvation of Israel after the flesh,\u201d but Ladd is again very vague as to Israel\u2019s status when this occurs. He clearly states that the people of God \u201cin this Age is the Church.\u201d He also clearly states that the people of God in the future \u201cwill include Israel\u201d; but what does this mean? Does the saved national Israel merely assimilate into the Church? Ladd does not say this in so many words, but that is the logical conclusion since \u201cthere is one Kingdom and there is one people of God.\u201d
\nHaving declared the Church as \u201cthe true spiritual Israel,\u201d what then is the future of literal Israel? To answer this question. Ladd gives his interpretation of the Olive Tree. He interprets the Olive Tree to be \u201cthe people of God, seen in its entirety.\u201d The natural branches are the Jews and the wild olive branches are the Gentiles. While Israel did stumble, it was \u201cnot that she should forever fall.\u201d At this point, Ladd reaffirms that there will be a national salvation of Israel. This is interpreted to mean \u201cthe vast majority of living Jews, will be saved.\u201d However, Ladd\u2019s belief in a national salvation is not based on the Old Testament prophecies since, because they have been \u201creinterpreted,\u201d one cannot be sure if they really refer to Israel or to the Church. For Ladd, the only basis for believing in a national salvation of Israel is the New Testament.
\nConcerning Israel\u2019s salvation, Ladd further states:<\/p>\n
We could wish that Paul had written more about the way in which Israel will be saved. The words \u201cthe Deliverer will come from Zion\u201d may well refer to the Second Coming of Christ. One of the purposes of his return will be to redeem Israel as well as to take the church unto himself.<\/p>\n
However, two things are clear. Israel must be saved in the same way as the church\u2014by turning in faith to Jesus as their Messiah (Rom. 11:23), and the blessings which Israel will experience are blessings in Christ\u2014the same blessings which the church has experienced.<\/p>\n
Ladd\u2019s wish that Paul had said much more about Israel\u2019s salvation is not really necessary. All the details are available in the Old Testament, and Paul is simply drawing on some of them. Because of his position that any such belief must be based on the New Testament, Ladd will not use the Old Testament to fill in the gaps.
\nIsrael will indeed be saved in the same way the Church is, by grace through faith. Israel will certainly experience \u201cthe same blessings which the church has experienced,\u201d but if the Old Testament is allowed to mean what it says, there is also much more in store for Israel. As he continues, what the Old Testament said is dismissed by Ladd. When he raises the question, \u201cWhat then of the detailed promises in the Old Testament of a restored temple?\u201d, this is dismissed on the basis that the Book of Hebrews refers to the sacrificial system as a \u201cshadow\u201d which Christ fulfilled, and \u201cit is inconceivable that God\u2019s redemptive plan will revert to the age of shadows.\u201d In the end, those \u201cdetailed promises in the Old Testament\u201d are rendered meaningless. However, does the Book of Hebrews really reinterpret the prophecy of Ezekiel? The Book of Hebrews only states that the Levitical system has ended in Christ. It says nothing about the future sacrificial system in the Millennium spoken of by Ezekiel and other prophets. Hebrews never declares that the prophecies of these prophets will never be fulfilled. What is \u201cinconceivable\u201d to Ladd need not be to others who are willing to let the Old Testament, as well as the New, speak for itself.<\/p>\n
5. The Messianic Kingdom<\/p>\n
Buswell believes in a literal future earthly kingdom, and it is here where he differs most with Covenant Postmillennialism and Covenant Amillennialism. He would agree with Dispensationalism that there will be a literal Millennium on earth. In a chapter entitled, \u201cThe Future Kingdom of Christ,\u201d under the heading, \u201cChrist on David\u2019s Throne,\u201d Buswell states:<\/p>\n
That the future kingdom of Christ is in a real sense Jewish and Davidic should be clear to every student of the Bible. The Old Testament prophecies are explicit.\u2026 The angel of the annunciation declared, \u201c\u2026 the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever: and of His kingdom there shall be no end.\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n
To this fact objection is often raised. \u201cJewish eschatology\u201d has been used as a term expressing scorn.<\/p>\n
But we have no other Gospel but a Jewish Gospel (Galatians 3:29). We have no other standing as Christians except as grafted into the \u201croot\u201d of Abraham\u2019s faith (Romans 11, passim, etc.).<\/p>\n
The Davidic kingship of Christ is not a matter of favoritism to one people above another, but \u201cthey were entrusted with the oracles of God\u201d (Romans 3:2). Just so the future kingdom of Christ is to have historical continuity with the chief channel of revelation (See Romans 9:6; Romans 11:25\u201336).<\/p>\n
Both of the other schools of Covenant Theology object to the concept of a literal kingdom on the earth on the basis that it is a view that is \u201ctoo Jewish.\u201d Buswell\u2019s response is that \u201cwe have no other Gospel but a Jewish Gospel.\u201d To this Dispensationalists can readily agree. Buswell sees the future kingdom as both Jewish and Davidic. He makes the same point when discussing \u201cThe Triumphal Entry\u201d into Jerusalem:<\/p>\n
It is thus abundantly clear that all four gospels regard the triumphal entry of Christ into the city of Jerusalem as a manifestation of His kingship. This kingship is stated as Israelitish and Davidic in specifically prophetic terms.<\/p>\n
Ladd, on the other hand, does his best to play down the Jewishness of the kingdom. He correctly reads the Old Testament prophets as speaking of a future salvation and restoration of national Israel, but he reemphasizes several times that this is not because they are Jews; rather, it is because they are or will become a regenerate people. He restates this point several times:<\/p>\n
This however is not really \u201cparticularism,\u201d for participation in the Kingdom is grounded on moral and religious principles and not upon the fact of Israelitic descent.\u2026 No man would be a recipient of God\u2019s blessing because he was a member of the chosen people.<\/p>\n
However, this promise is not extended to Israel as such but only to a regenerated people.\u2026 Salvation is come to Judah (14:23), but only to a Judah which has become a righteous nation \u2026<\/p>\n
These statements are true as far as they go. Certainly, the prophets, when viewing a national restoration of Israel, also coupled it with a national salvation of Israel. The Israel that is restored will be a regenerate, saved nation. It is also true that when they are saved, it will not be because they are Jews, but because of their faith. However, this is only one side of the coin. Ladd tries too hard to play down the national aspect and to remove the Jewishness of it all. The fact is that the reason God will bring salvation to the nation is because they are the Jewish nation, and it is with them that God has a covenant. It is the Jewish nation that God promised to bring to repentance and salvation. No, they are not saved because they are Jews; but God will bring the nation to saving faith because He promised to do so, and thus will do so because they are the Jewish nation. This is the other side of the coin that Ladd ignores.
\nLadd then moves on to a discussion of the remnant. Continuing with the same motif, Ladd emphasizes that it is the believing remnant that actually enters \u201cthe eschatological kingdom of God.\u201d He again emphasizes only one side of the coin:<\/p>\n
\u2026 it will not be Israel as such that enters into the eschatological Kingdom of God but only a believing, purified remnant.<\/p>\n
The Israel of the restoration which will experience the final salvation will be only a fragment or remnant of the nation as a whole.<\/p>\n
This future Israel will consist of a believing and faithful remnant<\/p>\n
The redeemed of the future will experience the eschatological salvation not because they are Israelites but because they are faithful, holy, righteous.<\/p>\n
Ladd again tries to play down the issue of Jewishness. True, the remnant is saved because of their faith, but it is a Jewish remnant. This is the balance to the picture the prophets painted. While it is true that at the present time the believing remnant is only a small part of Israel the whole, at the time of the eschatological kingdom, all Israel and the remnant of Israel become the same (Mic. 2:12), because all Israel shall be saved (Rom. 11:26). This too is part of the picture. When Ladd states that \u201cthe Israel of the restoration which will experience the final salvation will only be a fragment or remnant of the nation as a whole,\u201d he is contradicting his earlier work where he declared that Israel as a whole will be saved. Regardless of the size of this remnant, it is still a Jewish remnant. It is true that this remnant of the future will not experience \u201cthe eschatological salvation\u201d simply \u201cbecause they are Israelites but because they are faithful, holy, righteous\u201d; however, God will bring them to this point because they are Jews.
\nDiscussing the interpretation of Revelation 20, Ladd states:<\/p>\n
The theology that is built on this passage is called millennialism or chiliasm, for it anticipates a reign of Christ over the earth in history for a thousand years before the Age to Come is inaugurated. People who hold this view are called \u201cpremillennialists\u201d because they believe that Christ will return before his thousand year reign. This is the most natural interpretation of the passage, and it is the view of the present author. One thing must be granted: this is the only place in Scripture which teaches a thousand year reign of Christ. But this should be no objection to the view. After all, no prophet in the later Old Testament period foresaw the church age.<\/p>\n
Ladd believes that there will be a Millennium because that \u201cis the most natural interpretation\u201d of Revelation 20. This is correct, but he was not so willing to let Revelation seven stand on the same basis. Furthermore, this passage is the only reason Ladd believes in a Millennium, since he does not believe that it is possible to base such a teaching on the Old Testament alone. Ladd concedes to the Amillennialist that \u201cthis is the only place in Scripture which teaches a thousand year reign of Christ.\u201d This is true insofar as the length of the Messianic Kingdom is concerned, but the fact of such a kingdom is a major teaching of the Old Testament. His refusal to allow the Old Testament to speak on its own merit limits his support for a Millennium to one New Testament passage. He does admit again that \u201cno prophet in the later Old Testament period foresaw the church age,\u201d but only spoke of \u201cIsrael\u2019s role.\u201d Because of the principle of \u201creinterpretation,\u201d Ladd cannot use it as evidence. Dispensationalists have no such limitations.
\nIn the same chapter, Ladd turns his attention to Dispensationalism. His description of what Dispensationalists believe is essentially correct with two exceptions. First, Dispensationalists do not believe that in the Millennium there will be a reinstitution of \u201cthe Old Testament sacrificial system,\u201d since the very nature of Dispensationalism forbids it. It is the Dispensationalist who believes that the Law of Moses has forever been rendered inoperative and will not be reinstituted in the Millennium. What Dispensationalists do believe is that in the Messianic Kingdom, the sacrificial system described in such detail by Ezekiel the Prophet will be instituted. While this system has many similarities with the Mosaic, it also has many dissimilarities, showing it is not the same system. Second, not all Dispensationalists should be characterized as believing that \u201cGod\u2019s program for Israel is theocratic and earthly; God\u2019s purpose for the church is universal and spiritual.\u201d Many Dispensationalists view the future for both groups as being earthly and heavenly. What is germane is that Dispensationalists do insist on a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, They do believe that \u201call of the Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled literally.\u201d
\nLadd argues against the Premillennialism of Dispensationalism on two counts. First, he claims that Hebrews eight teaches that \u201cthe Old Testament cultic system\u2014has been abolished,\u201d but Dispensationalists believe the same thing. Furthermore, nothing in Hebrews eight negates the literal fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies to Israel. Second, Ladd resorts to Romans 11 which \u201csays clearly that Israel as a people are to be saved, but in the same terms of faith in Christ as the church.\u201d Again, Dispensationalists believe the very same thing. Furthermore, nothing in Romans 11 negates the literal fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies to Israel. Neither New Testament passage removes Israel\u2019s central role in the Millennium as is so clearly spoken of in the Old Testament. Ladd\u2019s conclusion that \u201cit is impossible to view the millennium as primarily Jewish in character,\u201d goes beyond the facts and statements of both Hebrews eight and Romans 11. This is consistent with Ladd\u2019s continued attempt to play down Jewishness. Finally, as has been shown, neither Hebrews eight nor Romans 11 gives any warrant to call the Church \u201cspiritual Israel\u201d or \u201cthe true Israel of God.\u201d These terms are only valid of the Remnant of Israel.<\/p>\n
D. Summary and Conclusions of the Israelology of Covenant Premillennialism<\/p>\n
Another work should be mentioned in passing: Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum by Daniel P. Fuller. Fuller has, until this work, always claimed to be a Covenant Premillennialist, but in this work he rejects both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. His criticisms of Dispensationalism are largely the same as those of Covenant Theologians, and he misconstrues the key point of Dispensationalism. According to Fuller, it is the contrast of law and grace. Actually, it is the contrast of Israel and the Church. Since Fuller denies being a Covenant Theologian now, the evaluation of his work goes beyond the scope of this work.
\nThe Israelology of Covenant Premillennialism is based on Covenant Theology, which in turn limits the development of a complete Israelology. The covenant of grace, upon which Covenant Theology is based, allows for only one people of God, and this one people is the Church. However, the Premillennialism of Covenant Premillennialism allows for a far greater development of Israelology than either Covenant Postmillennialism or Covenant Amillennialism. It uses the allegorical method of interpretation in a much lesser degree than the other two schools of Covenant Theology. While it too believes the Church to be \u201cspiritual Israel,\u201d it only affirms it for the present and the future. It is not so sure about Israel in the past.<\/p>\n
1. SUMMARY<\/p>\n
Israel Past<\/p>\n
Covenant Premillennialists are divided on the issue of the Church in the Old Testament. Some, like Buswell, follow the traditional covenantal viewpoint and assert that the Church existed in the Old Testament and the Church was the true Israel even then. Ladd and LaSor, however, see the Church as having its beginning in Acts two with LaSor strongly asserting that the Church is not the Israel of the Old Testament. Ladd insists that the Church was not foreseen in the Old Testament. What they all agree is that there is only one people of God. Buswell would say that the one people of God was always the Church. Ladd and LaSor would say that Israel was the people of God in the Old Testament, but the Church is the people of God in the New Testament. Most see the Old Testament as largely a history of Israel.
\nBuswell also follows the traditional covenantal viewpoint on the covenant of grace. This covenant was made with the Church. It is on this basis that Buswell defends the practice of infant baptism, insisting that infant baptism has replaced infant circumcision as the token of the covenant. On this same basis Buswell maintains that Sunday has replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Ladd would probably largely follow Buswell\u2019s lead. LaSor, however, sees the Jewish facets of the Abrahamic Covenant more clearly.
\nAs for the Law of Moses, this was the rule of life for a redeemed people. It was given to the people of God under the covenant of grace whether this people of God was Israel (Ladd, LaSor) or the Church (Buswell).
\nAs for the Kingdom of God, Covenant Premillennialists do not equate it with the Church, but it was the Kingdom of God that created the Church.
\nIsrael in the past was the people of God, the sons of the kingdom, the sons of the covenant, and the chosen people.<\/p>\n
Israel Present<\/p>\n
The turning point came with the coming of Jesus. Jesus offered to Israel the Kingdom of God; however, the kingdom that Jesus offered was not a literal earthly kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom, the kingdom of salvation. Israel rejected this kingdom, and when they did so, their status changed. They ceased to be the people of God, and now the Church is the people of God. It is the Church today that is the people of God, the holy nation, and the chosen race. The Church today is the spiritual Israel.
\nThe Law of Moses is still in effect and the Church is under it. Obviously, the coming of Christ brought with it a number of changes, such as infant baptism replacing circumcision, and Sunday replacing Saturday as the Sabbath. The Law of Moses is still obligatory, but with many ramifications arrived at by a \u201ctrue meaning\u201d hermeneutic. It has \u201cpermanent validity,\u201d though some major modifications are required in light of Christ\u2019s Coming; but the law has not been abolished for Christians.
\nConcerning the Israel of Romans 9\u201311, this passage speaks of two Israels. There is a literal Israel which is the national Israel that rejected the Messiah and lost its special privilege. There is also a spiritual Israel which is comprised of all Jewish and Gentile believers. This spiritual Israel is the Church. Today, the Church is the true Israel, and it is the chosen people, the people of God, the sons of the kingdom, and the sons of the covenant.
\nConcerning the Olive Tree, there is disagreement as to its meaning. One view is that it represents Abraham\u2019s faith (Buswell), while the other view is that it represents the one people of God (Ladd) which now is the Church. The Remnant of Israel is now to be viewed as part of the Church and not a distinct entity. The Church is the present form of the kingdom, for the kingdom was taken away from Israel and given to the Church. The Kingdom of God is active in the world today, but it is only active through the Church. The kingdom does not in any way relate to Israel today. There is only one Olive Tree, so there is only one people of God. Originally the Olive Tree people of old consisted of Israelites, but now it consists of believing Jews and Gentiles.
\nConcerning the New Covenant, this covenant was made with the Church. This view is based on the fact that the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament. As a result, the New Covenant is the Church\u2019s and not Israel\u2019s.
\nGod has not \u201ccast away His people,\u201d however, and there is a remnant among the Jews today. Jews who become believers today become part of the Church. The re-establishment of Israel as a nation is evidence that God has not cast away His people; however, this is as far as Covenant Premillennialists are willing to go to give any theological significance to the Jewish State. It is possible that the rebirth of Israel is part of God\u2019s purpose, but on this they are not sure. They are sure that not every promise made to Israel could be fulfilled by the Church, but the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles has ceased. Such a distinction was intended by God to be purely temporary.<\/p>\n
Israel Future<\/p>\n
Covenant Premillennialists can give this area its greatest development, well beyond Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Amillennialists, because of their belief in a future literal kingdom. There are, however, significant and sharp differences among them so that on the question of the Rapture or the Tribulation, they are divided into three major schools of thought: some are Pretribulationists; others are Midtribulationists; but the majority are Posttribulationists. Israelology is a major reason for this division.
\nWhile all of them believe in a national salvation and restoration of Israel, there is no consensus among them as to the basis for believing in this. They also lack a consensus as to how Jewish the Millennium will be. Covenant Premillennialism believes in both a national salvation and a national restoration of Israel. Postmillennialism believes in a national salvation, but not a national restoration of Israel. Amillennialism rejects both.
\nThe lack of consensus is seen in a number of areas. One example is the interpretation of the 144,000 of Revelation seven. Buswell takes it literally in that it speaks of Jews and Jewish evangelism in the Tribulation. Ladd, however, interprets it allegorically as speaking of the Church and uses it as evidence of Posttribulationism. A second example concerns the nature of the Millennium. Buswell has no problem viewing it as a Jewish kingdom, since there is no other gospel than a Jewish gospel. Ladd, however, totally rejects the Jewish nature of the Millennium altogether. A third example is the basis for believing in a Millennium in the first place. Ladd sees no evidence at all for it in the Old Testament, and the only evidence is found in the New Testament, primarily Revelation 20. Buswell and LaSor, however, are not ready to dismiss the Old Testament evidence and do use Old Testament prophecy as a valid source for believing in a Millennium and in a restoration of Israel.
\nThe Covenant Premillennialist who is also a Postribulationist believes that the Church will go through the Tribulation. The evidence is based on the fact that the Scriptures clearly teach that Israel will go through the Tribulation; and since they identify Israel with the Church, they conclude that the Church will go through the Tribulation.
\nEven these Covenant Premillennialists who do base their beliefs of a future restoration of Israel on Old Testament prophecies do not necessarily interpret all prophecy literally. For example, they reject a literal view of the Millennial Temple and sacrificial system of Ezekiel 40\u201348; however, they do believe in a national salvation of Israel, though this does not necessarily mean every individual Jew. It does mean, however, the vast majority of Jews. When Israel is saved as a nation, Israel will be assimilated into the Church.<\/p>\n
2. CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n
The Covenant Premillennialist\u2019s acceptance of both a national salvation and a national restoration of Israel allows for the greater development of Israelology when compared with the other two schools of Covenant Theology, but it still falls short of Dispensationalism. Its identification of Israel with the Church, though less so than Postmillennialism or Amillennialism, does not allow for a full-scale Israelology to develop to the extent that Dispensationalism does. To some degree it shares some of the same weaknesses of Covenant Postmillennialism and Covenant Amillennialism. The following are some specific areas.<\/p>\n
Israel Past<\/p>\n
Covenant Premillennialism fails to adequately deal with the same three areas as the other two schools of Covenant Theology.
\nFirst, it too fails to take into account all that is entailed in the Jewish covenants. It is less guilty of this than the other two schools, since some Covenant Premillennialists do see these as Jewish covenants and admit that the Church is not found in the Old Testament. Others in the very same school do not. This lack of consensus on such a crucial question is a problem in itself. All of them still tend to allegorize some of the details of these covenants. Furthermore, the covenant of grace idea still plays a major role in their thinking and interpretation of Moses and the prophets.
\nSecond, along with the other two schools, Covenant Premillennialism fails to see and recognize Israel\u2019s unique entity. Here too this school is less guilty of this than the other two schools, since it does recognize Israel\u2019s unique standing in the Old Testament; but they now insist that all this has been lost, taken away from Israel, and given to the Church. It also denies that there can be two peoples of God and believes that there is only one people of God. In the Old Testament it was Israel; now it is the Church, and so it will remain to all eternity. This, in turn, leads to the acceptance of some prophecies of Israel\u2019s future as being literal, but many others as not. Members of the same school disagree on which are literal and which are not. Still, the only-one-people concept puts the emphasis on the Church and not Israel. Somewhere along the line Israel as a distinct entity is assimilated into the Church and loses its own special calling.
\nThird, it shares all the same failings as the other two schools on the issue of the Law of Moses. In addition to using the same approach as the other two schools, Covenant Premillennialists have developed two unique hermeneutical principles to defend their position. The first is the \u201ctrue meaning\u201d principle used by Buswell, and the \u201creinterpretation of the Old Testament\u201d principle used by Ladd. Clearly, they both fail to see the law as a unit or its purpose in relationship to Israel.<\/p>\n
Israel Present<\/p>\n
There are two failings of Covenant Premillennialism in this area:
\nFirst, while they affirm that God has not cast away His people, they also insist that Israel is no longer the people of God, for this is only true of the Church. There is no place in their scheme for Israel today. While they remain open to the possibility that the State of Israel may be part of God\u2019s prophetic program, they have very little to say about it theologically.
\nThe second problem concerns the role of the Jewish believers today. They do see the Remnant of Israel as belonging to the Church but are unclear as to the remnant\u2019s position in relationship to Israel. For the most part, they view the remnant only in terms of the Church. They deny that the Israel of God is a Jewish remnant and insist it is the Church. They have nothing to say as to whether Jewish believers can continue practicing their Jewishness. There is no clear discussion in Covenant Premillennialism on the role of the Jewish believer as part of ethnic Israel or as part of the Church.<\/p>\n
Israel Future<\/p>\n
It is here that Covenant Premillennialism differs most from its two sisters in Covenant Theology. Its belief in a national salvation of Israel separates it from Covenant Amillennialism. Its belief in a national restoration of Israel separates it from Covenant Postmillennialism. However, its strong reluctance to base it on the prophecies of the Old Testament is very problematic. This requires a great deal of allegorizing of the prophecies of the Old Testament. Even Ladd admits at one point that his view of the Old Testament certainly sounds like Amillennialism. To base a theology of Israel\u2019s future only on Revelation 20 and a few scattered New Testament references leaves a lot to be desired. Ignoring such a wealth of Old Testament information leads to a shallow Eschatology in general, and a shallow Israelology in particular.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER VIII<\/p>\n
DISPENSATIONALISM DEFINITION AND BASIC TENETS<\/p>\n
This chapter will serve as background to chapter IX, which will discuss the Israelology of Dispensationalism. All sources used in this chapter will be exclusively those of Dispensationalists.
\nTo understand what Dispensationalism is, one must define the term \u201cdispensation\u201d as used by Dispensationalists. Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Dean of the Philadelphia College of the Bible, defines it as follows:<\/p>\n
The word dispensation means literally a stewardship or administration or economy. Therefore, in its biblical usage, a dispensation is a divinely established stewardship of a particular revelation of God\u2019s mind and will which is instituted in the first instance with a new age, and which brings added responsibility to the whole race of men or that portion of the race to whom the revelation is particularly given by God.<\/p>\n
Associated with the revelation, on the one hand, are promises of reward or blessing for those responding in the obedience of faith while on the other hand there are warnings of judgment upon those who do not respond in the obedience of faith to that particular revelation.<\/p>\n
However, though the time period (age) ends, certain principles of the revelation (dispensation or stewardship) are often carried over into succeeding ages, because God\u2019s truth does not cease to be truth, and these principles become part of the cumulative body of truth for which man is responsible in the progressive unfolding revelation of God\u2019s redemptive purpose. Some of these principles are carried over intact (as, e.g. conscience, human government, Abrahamic covenant) and some are passed on adjusted (law, church) to the age(s) which follow(s).<\/p>\n
Though often confused with the concept of time, a dispensation itself is not so much an age or time period as it is a \u201cstewardship or administration or economy.\u201d A dispensation is the administration of a specific revelation that God has given. The revelation of God carries with it a responsibility on the part of man to respond with \u201cthe obedience of faith.\u201d Those who do are promised blessing, but those who do not are under divine judgment.
\nThe timing element is not in the word itself but in the fact that God\u2019s revelation was progressive, and He revealed different things at different times. The introduction of a new revelation often required new responsibilities. Sometimes these were of an abiding nature, but sometimes they were temporary. When a new revelation brought one dispensation to an end and a new one began, the concept of time entered in; but in Dispensationalism, the concept of time or age is not based on the meaning of the word, but on the fact of progressive revelation.
\nThe major spokesman for Dispensationalism in the first half of this century was Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of the Dallas Theological Seminary. His definition of a dispensation is as follows:<\/p>\n
The word dispensation is twofold in its import: (1) it may refer to a dispensing or an administration or (2) to an abrogation of standards or existing laws\u2014such are the dispensations practiced by the Church of Rome. It is obvious that the controversy among theologians is concerned only with the former. The word dispensation is Latin in its origin, being derived from dispensation\u2014economical management or superintendence\u2014and has its equivalent in the Greek oikonomia, meaning, in this specific usage, \u2018stewardship\u2019 or \u2018economy\u2019 as to special features of divine government in the various ages. To quote the Century Dictionary bearing on the theological import of the word: \u201c(a) The method or scheme by which God has at different times developed his purpose, and revealed himself to man; or the body of privileges bestowed, and duties and responsibilities enjoined, in connection with that scheme or method of revelation: as the Old or Jewish dispensation; the New Gospel dispensation. (b) A period marked by a particular development of the divine purpose and revelation: as the patriarchal dispensation (lasting from Adam to Moses); the Mosaic dispensation (from Moses to Christ); the Christian dispensation.\u201d \u2026 In the light of this material, the definition advanced by the late Dr. C. I. Scofield (Scofield Reference Bible, p. 5), namely, \u201cA dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God,\u201d is hardly entitled to the criticism which is aimed against it.<\/p>\n
Chafer also affirms that a dispensation is a \u201cstewardship,\u201d \u201ceconomy,\u201d or \u201cadministration.\u201d This is based on the meaning of the Greek term, oikonomia. Again, the word itself does not carry the element of time; but the concept of time is included in that what is being dispensed or administered is a specific revelation of God which came at different times in human history. Hence, Scofield\u2019s definition is \u201ca period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.\u201d
\nCovenant Theologians have criticized this definition on the basis that oikonomia does not mean \u201ca period of time.\u201d This is true; however, Scofield\u2019s unguarded definition was not so much based on the meaning of the word, but on the fact of history: that a new administration came into being resulting from a new revelation, and God\u2019s revelation came progressively through human history. It is this facet that Scofield was trying to emphasize; \u201cobedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.\u201d For this reason, Chafer states that Scofield\u2019s statement \u201cis hardly entitled to the criticism which is aimed against it.\u201d
\nPerhaps the leading spokesman for Dispensationalism since Chafer is Charles Caldwell Ryrie, a student of Chafer\u2019s and a graduate and former professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. After doing a word study of the Greek term oikonomia. and concluding that \u201cthe central idea in the word dispensation is that of managing or administering the affairs of a household,\u201d Ryrie gives the following definition:<\/p>\n
As far as the use of the word in Scripture is concerned, a dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, oversight or management of others\u2019 property. As we have seen, this involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward.<\/p>\n
The theological definition of the word is based on the Biblical usage and characteristics.\u2026<\/p>\n
A concise definition of a dispensation is this: A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God\u2019s purpose. If one were describing a dispensation he would include other things, such as the ideas of distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment. But we are seeking a definition, not a description. In using the word economy as the core of the definition, the emphasis is put on the Biblical meaning of the word itself. Economy also suggests the fact that certain features of different dispensations might be the same or similar.\u2026 However, the word distinguishable in the definition points out the fact that there are some features which are distinctive to each dispensation and which mark them off from each other as different dispensations. These are contained in the particular revelation distinctive to each dispensation.<\/p>\n
Again, the meaning of the Greek word is \u201ca stewardship, administration, oversight, or management of others\u2019 property.\u201d Ryrie\u2019s definition of a dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God\u2019s purpose. This is a good working definition. Ryrie makes it clear that the word does not carry the idea of time, and \u201cAge and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning.\u201d A dispensation is \u201ca stewardship arrangement and not a period of time,\u201d and it is \u201cthe arrangement involved, not the time involved.\u201d Since this \u201carrangement\u201d does work itself out in time and history and \u201cmay exactly coincide in the historical outworking,\u201d therefore \u201cthere is no reason for great alarm if a definition does ascribe time to a dispensation!\u201d Ryrie also points out that the usage of the word oikonomia involves three things: \u201cresponsibility, accountability, and faithfulness.\u201d A description of a dispensation would include other concepts, such as \u201cdistinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment.\u201d Furthermore, there are two key words in this definition. The first is \u201ceconomy,\u201d which emphasizes \u201cthat certain features of different dispensations might be the same or similar.\u201d The second is \u201cdistinguishable,\u201d which emphasizes \u201cthat there are some features which are distinctive to each dispensation and which mark them off from each other as different dispensations.\u201d
\nExactly when a new dispensation becomes \u201cdistinguishable\u201d is based on progressive revelation, the recognition that God did not give His entire revelation at one time but in stages through human history. Dispensationalism refuses to read the New Testament back into the Old, a major principle in Covenant Theology. They, therefore, assume knowledge on the part of the Old Testament saint that he could not have had, as examples in previous chapters have shown. The Dispensationalist does not give mere lip service to progressive revelation but takes it seriously and applies it to his theology. Ryrie summarizes the relationship of Dispensationalism and progressive revelation as follows:<\/p>\n
To summarize: Progressive revelation views the Bible not as a textbook on theology but as the continually unfolding revelation of God given by various means throughout the successive ages. In this unfolding there are distinguishable stages of revelation when God introduces new things for which man becomes responsible. These stages are the economies, stewardships, or dispensations in the unfolding of His purpose. Dispensationalism, therefore, recognizes both the unity of His purpose and the diversity in the unfolding of it. Covenant theology emphasizes the unity only to the point of forcing unwarranted, inconsistent, and contradictory interpretation of the Scriptures. Only dispensationalism can maintain the unity and diversity at the same time and offer a consistent, cohesive, and complementary system of interpretation.<\/p>\n
Ryrie\u2019s definition of a dispensation allows for a differentiation of viewpoints as to what a dispensation is: \u201cA dispensation is from God\u2019s viewpoint an economy; from man\u2019s, a responsibility; and in relation to progressive revelation, a stage in it.\u201d
\nHaving clearly defined what a dispensation is, Ryrie then summarizes what Dispensationalism is:<\/p>\n
To summarize: Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In this household-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the process of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these economies are the dispensations. The understanding of God\u2019s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.<\/p>\n
A dispensation has both primary and secondary characteristics. There are two primary characteristics. The first is \u201cthe different governing relationships into which God enters with the world in each economy.\u201d The second is \u201cthe resulting responsibility on mankind in each of these different relationships.\u201d The distinguishing characteristics of different dispensations are:<\/p>\n
\u2026 (1) a change in God\u2019s governmental relationship with man (though a dispensation does not have to be composed entirely of completely new features), (2) a resultant change in man\u2019s responsibility, and (3) corresponding revelation necessary to effect the change (which new revelation is a stage in the progress of revelation through the Bible).<\/p>\n
Secondary characteristics are a test, failure, and judgment, but these are not essential to Dispensationalism as are the primary characteristics. They are not germane to Dispensationalism, and the system survives without them. As Ryrie puts it: \u201cThe presence of a test, failure, and judgment is not the sine qua non of a dispensational government of the world.\u201d
\nWhat, then, is the sine qua non of a Dispensationalist? What is it that makes one a Dispensationalist? Ryrie points out that it is not the fact that there are dispensations, for even Covenant Theologians like Hodge (postmillennial) and Berkhof (amillennial) have recognized this. Ladd (covenant premillennial) also admitted to this. Nor is it the fact of seven dispensations, for there are Dispensationalists who hold to both more and less. Nor is it the fact of Premillennialism, for there are Covenant Premillennialists who are not Dispensationalists. These are all negative answers. The positive answer is:<\/p>\n
What, then, is the sine qua non of dispensationalism? The answer is threefold.<\/p>\n
(1) a dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct.\u2026<\/p>\n
This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. A man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does, will.
\n(2) This distinction between Israel and the Church is born out of a system of hermeneutics which is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of plain hermeneutics. The word literal is perhaps not so good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation does. The spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach. Consistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures. And it is this very consistency\u2014the strength of dispensational interpretation\u2014that irks the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule.
\n(3) A third aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism \u2026 concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world. The covenant theologian in practice makes this purpose salvation, and the dispensationalist says the purpose is broader than that, namely, the glory of God. To the dispensationalist the soteriological or saving program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself. Scripture is not man-centered as though salvation were the main theme, but it is God-centered because His glory is the center. The Bible itself clearly teaches that salvation, important and wonderful as it is, is not an end in itself but is rather a means to the end of glorifying God.<\/p>\n
There are three marks of a Dispensationalist. The first is a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church. This is the key. It is this, more than anything else, that distinguishes Dispensationalism from all three schools of Covenant Theology. As Ryrie states, \u201cA man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and one who does, will.\u201d It is this point that allows Dispensationalism to develop a full-blown Israelology while the others cannot.
\nThe second mark of a Dispensationalist is a consistent usage of a literal hermeneutic. This means letting the Scriptures mean what they say unless there is something in the context that indicates that it cannot be taken that way. While this does not rule out the usage of figures of speech and symbols, it does rule out allegorizing or spiritualizing the text when the passage does not call for it. It is this approach to the Scriptures that leads the Dispensationalist to make a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, for when the text says Israel, it means Israel; and when the text says the Church, it means the Church.
\nThe third mark concerns the issue: What is the ultimate purpose of God? The dispensational answer is: the glory of God. Though Covenant Theologians claim the same thing, as Ryrie points out, \u201cin practice [he] makes this purpose salvation \u2026\u201d This has become quite evident in our own investigation of the three schools of Covenant Theology. For the Dispensationalist, God\u2019s plan of salvation is only one of several plans by which God intends to glorify Himself.
\nRyrie\u2019s summary of the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is:<\/p>\n
The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalist\u2019s consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.<\/p>\n
In the realm of salvation, it has been shown that Covenant Theologians have insisted that the way of salvation was always the same, to the point that even the content of faith was always the same. They often accuse Dispensationalists of believing in two or more ways of salvation. Ryrie responds that such a charge is patently false. However, the Dispensationalist refuses to read the New Testament back into the Old Testament, and so insists that the content of faith was not always the same. Ryrie explains salvation in Dispensationalism as follows:<\/p>\n
The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, which distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation.<\/p>\n
The Dispensationalist refuses to assume that the Old Testament saint had the same knowledge as the New Testament saint. While salvation was always by grace through faith in every dispensation, the content of faith changed, and the change was based on progressive revelation.
\nIn the field of Eschatology, Ryrie points out that the salient features of Dispensational Premillennialism are: a literal hermeneutic; the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies; a clear distinction between Israel and the Church; a pre-tribulational Rapture; and a literal Millennial Kingdom. Both Dispensationalists and Covenant Premillennialists believe in a literal kingdom on the earth; however, there is a sharp difference as to how the two groups arrive at their conclusions:<\/p>\n
The covenant premillennialist holds to the concept of the covenant of grace and the central soteriological purpose of God. He retains the idea of the millennial kingdom, though he finds little support for it in the Old Testament prophecies since he generally assigns them to the Church. The kingdom in his view is markedly different from that which is taught by dispensationalists since it loses much of its Jewish character due to the slighting of the Old Testament promises concerning the kingdom. Many covenant premillennialists are also posttribulationalists, and this is doubtless a logical accompaniment of the nondispensational approach. At any rate, being a premillennialist does not necessarily make one a dispensationalist. (However, the reverse is true\u2014being a dispensationalist makes one a premillennialist)<\/p>\n
As has been shown in the chapters on Covenant Premillennialism, the adherents base their case almost exclusively on Revelation 20, being highly reluctant to resort to Old Testament prophecy, since they tend to view these as being fulfilled in the Church. The Dispensationalist, willing to let the Old Testament speak for itself, has no such problem.
\nErich Sauer, a German Dispensationalist, explains what happens when a shift takes place from one dispensation to another as follows:<\/p>\n
So epoch is distinguished from epoch, and each is in itself an inclusive whole. Thus a new period always begins only when from the side of God a change is introduced in the composition of the principles valid up to that time; that is, when from the side of God three things concur:<\/p>\n
1. A continuance of certain ordinances valid until then;
\n2. An annulment of other regulations until then valid;
\n3. A fresh introduction of new principles not before valid.<\/p>\n
A new revelation is not a new way of salvation, but it does provide a new rule of life for the believer. Some commandments in one dispensation are also found in the next dispensation. Others are done away with or rendered inoperative, but new ones are also inaugurated.
\nJohn F. Walvoord, who succeeded Chafer as President of Dallas Theological Seminary, provides the following description of Dispensational Premillennialism:<\/p>\n
Premillennialism \u2026 is the teaching that Christ will reign on earth for one thousand years following His second advent. Premillennialism as a term derives its meaning from the belief that the second coming of Christ will be before this millennium and therefore premillennial \u2026<\/p>\n
As a system of doctrine premillennialism is necessarily more literal in its interpretation of prophecy than the other viewpoints. It views the end of the present age as sudden and catastrophic, with great judgment upon the wicked and the rescue of the righteous. It is characteristic of premillennialism both ancient and modern to distinguish the dealings of God with Israel and with the church.\u2026<\/p>\n
Premillennialism generally holds to a revival of the Jewish nation and their repossession of their ancient land when Christ returns. Satan will be bound (Rev. 20:2) and a theocratic kingdom of righteousness, peace, and tranquillity will ensue. The righteous are raised from the dead before the millennium and participate in its blessings. The wicked dead are not raised until after the millennium. The eternal state will follow the judgment of the wicked. Premillennialism is obviously a viewpoint quite removed from either amillennialism or postmillennialism. It attempts to find a literal fulfillment for the prophecies in the Old and New Testament concerning a righteous kingdom of God on earth. Premillennialism assumes the authority and accuracy of the Scriptures and the hermeneutical principle of a literal interpretation wherever this is possible.<\/p>\n
Premillennialism, as its name implies, means that Christ will return before the Millennium, and by so doing will establish the kingdom. Christ will then literally reign on earth for one thousand years. In contradistinction with all three schools of Covenant Theology, including Covenant Premillennialism, Dispensational Premillennialism is characterized by a distinction of \u201cthe dealings of God with Israel and with the church.\u201d It believes in \u201ca revival of the Jewish nation and their repossession of the land when Christ returns.\u201d During the kingdom, Satan will be bound and the Messianic Kingdom will be \u201ca theocratic kingdom of righteousness, peace, and tranquillity.\u201d There will be two resurrections: that of the righteous before the Millennium, and that of the unbelievers after the Millennium. The Millennium will be followed by the Eternal State. Of course, the Covenant Premillennialist believes these things as well; but in contrast to Covenant Theology, the Dispensationalist \u201cattempts to find a literal fulfillment for the prophecies of the Old and New Testament concerning a righteous kingdom of God on earth\u201d and does not limit himself to Revelation 20.
\nHerman A. Hoyt, President of Grace Theological Seminary, makes the same point:<\/p>\n
The mediatorial kingdom will then be realized in all of its aspects. Little is said in the New Testament about the vast changes that will occur in this realm. These must be found in Old Testament prophecy.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
In summary, Dispensationalism resembles Covenant Premillennialism in that it believes in an earthly literal kingdom to be set up after the second coming. The second coming is \u201cpre\u201d or before the Millennium; but at this point the resemblance ends. In connection with the Rapture and the Great Tribulation, Dispensationalists are consistently pre-tribulational.
\nAs to their method of interpretation, Dispensationalists take the Old Testament prophecies literally and insist that they are not fulfilled in the Church, but will be fulfilled in and by Israel. They accept the \u201cplain\u201d or \u201cnormal\u201d meaning of all Scripture, including prophecy.
\nAs to the nature of the Millennium and its relationship to world history, Dispensationalists believe it will come after the second coming and will literally last one thousand years. It will be a literal kingdom with a government characterized by spirituality and righteousness, under the righteous rule of the Messiah. The saints will co-rule with Christ for a thousand years. While most of the above statements are also true of Covenant Premillennialism, the uniqueness of the Millennium in Dispensationalism is how it relates to Israel. Israel will be restored with full possession of all of the Promised Land. Israel will be a saved nation and the head of all the Gentile nations.
\nThe dispensational interpretation of Revelation 20 is a literal one, and the Millennium is taken to last exactly one thousand years. Furthermore, this is not the main textual evidence for the kingdom, since Dispensationalists take the Old Testament prophecies literally.
\nThe Millennium will end with the loosing of Satan, one last revolt against God, the resurrection of all unbelievers, the Great White Throne Judgment, the Lake of Fire, the destruction of the present heavens and earth and the creation of the new heaven and new earth. This, in turn, will be followed by the Eternal State.
\nWith this brief survey of Dispensationalism, we can now proceed to a more detailed study of the Israelology of Dispensationalism.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER IX<\/p>\n
THE ISRAELOLOGY OF DISPENSATIONALISM<\/p>\n
A. Israel Past<\/p>\n
1. Israel the Chosen People<\/p>\n
Lewis Sperry Chafer was the founder of the Dallas Theological Seminary which has become the stronghold of American Dispensationalism. In 1947, his eight-volume Systematic Theology was published which presented mainline dispensational thinking of his day. While discussing Bibliology, Chafer discusses the call of Abraham. Chafer views the call of Abraham not as the beginning of the Church, as many Covenant Theologians do, but as the origin of the Jewish people. With Abraham \u201ca new race or stock was begun,\u201d and to the Jewish people were given \u201cunalterable divine covenants and promises\u201d which \u201ccontinue(s) forever.\u201d The Jewish people are so \u201cdistinctive \u2026 that all other people are antipodal to them\u201d and \u201care classified as \u2018the Gentiles\u2019 or \u2018the nations\u2019 as in dissimilarity to the Jewish nation.\u201d Chafer affirms that God has \u201ca divine preference for Israel\u201d which can only be understood in light of His \u201ceternal purpose in them.\u201d How important the Jews are in God\u2019s sight is demonstrated in that \u201cfive-sixths of the Bible bears directly or indirectly upon them.\u201d God\u2019s distinctive purpose for Israel is seen in both history and prophecy with a destiny \u201ctraceable on into the millennium and the new earth which follows.\u201d
\nChafer elaborates on this call in a later volume. With the call of Abraham, God began something new: not the Church, but the Jewish nation. The Jews became \u201ca race so distinct in its individuality, that from the time of the Exodus to the end of the record of their history they are held as antipodal of all other nations combined.\u201d This nation that began with Abraham is the one that \u201csprang from him through Isaac and Jacob.\u201d Jewishness, then, is determined by descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Most of biblical history concerns itself with the period from Abraham to Jesus, and the subject \u201cconcerns the physical seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.\u201d The Bible concerns itself with the Gentiles only as they come in contact with Israel.
\nLater, when discussing election, Chafer distinguishes between two elections. While Covenant Theology tends to interpret every usage of \u201celect\u201d to be salvific and views it as a reference to the Church, Dispensationalists see the Bible as speaking of two elections. One is a national election which is the election of Israel. While a national election sets the Jewish nation apart from all others, this type of election does not guarantee the salvation of the individual Jew; it only guarantees the survival of the nation as a nation. Because of this election, \u201cJehovah selects, preserves, and defends this one people\u201d in a way that is not true of any other nation. It is because of this election that the Jews are the \u201cchosen people.\u201d Because of this election, the \u201cother nations must eventually take a subordinate place,\u201d and in the Messianic Kingdom all \u201cnations or peoples that will not serve Israel will perish.\u201d Chafer concludes that \u201cno true interpretation of the Old Testament is possible if the fact of Israel\u2019s national, sacred, eternal election be rejected.\u201d The other election is that of the Church, which is an individual election including both Jews and Gentiles. This is a salvific election, and everyone who is the object of this election will be saved. Chafer concludes that the term the elect is used of both Israel and the Church, and the context will determine how the term is used. There is no reason to make an a priori assumption that it must always refer to the Church.
\nLater, Chafer gives a concise summary of dispensational Israelology. Concerning Israel Past, Chafer states that Israel is an \u201celect, sacred, and everlasting nation\u201d composed of \u201cthe seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.\u201d With this nation God entered into several covenants which \u201care secured or sealed by the act of Jehovah.\u201d These covenants contained \u201cimmeasurable \u2026 promises.\u201d This election of Israel means \u201cIsrael stands alone in distinction from all other nations combined,\u201d hence, the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Jews are Jews \u201cbecause of the fact that they were born into covenant relations with God by a physical birth.\u201d
\nIn another work, Chafer elaborates on Abraham\u2019s call as a point in which humanity was divided. Concerning Israel Past, Israel\u2019s origin began with Abraham when \u201che was called of God.\u201d For the previous two thousand years \u201cthere was but one division of the human family on the earth,\u201d which were the Gentiles. With the call of Abraham came a second period of human history extending from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. At this point \u201cthere are two divisions of humanity on the earth,\u201d which are Jews and Gentiles. Israel was \u201cset apart as an elect nation\u201d with \u201cspecific divine favors.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. The Unconditional Covenants<\/p>\n
Dispensationalism believes that God made four covenants with Israel which are unconditional and eternal. These will be discussed one by one.<\/p>\n
a. The Abrahamic Covenant<\/p>\n
For Dispensationalism, this is the key covenant, as important to Dispensationalism as the covenant of grace is to Covenant Theology. The difference is that this is not merely a \u201ctheological covenant\u201d supposedly derived from scattered references in Scripture, but is a biblical covenant that is clearly spelled out in and defined by Scripture.
\nChafer discusses the Abrahamic Covenant in his section on Eschatology. Concerning the Abrahamic Covenant, Chafer points out that it is an unconditional covenant \u201cbeing that alone which Jehovah declares He will do for and through Abraham.\u201d it was not sustained through all of Abraham\u2019s descendants, but only through Isaac and Jacob and Jacob\u2019s descendants. Furthermore, it is an everlasting covenant which contains seven features, found in Genesis 12:1\u20133. First, I will make of thee a great nation which was fulfilled \u201cin the posterity of Ishmael, of Isaac, and in Abraham\u2019s spiritual seed.\u201d Second, I will bless thee; and Abraham received \u201cboth earthly and heavenly riches.\u201d Third, and make thy name great and \u201cno name is more honored, outside of Christ\u2019s, than Abraham\u2019s.\u201d Fourth, and be thou a blessing and this blessing \u201cextends to Abraham\u2019s physical seed through Isaac and Jacob and to the Gentiles.\u201d Fifth, I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse, which is \u201cthe divine principle in connection with Israel upon which God deals with the Gentile nations.\u201d Sixth, In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed, which is a reference to Gentile blessings through \u201cthe Seed, Christ.\u201d Seventh, unto thy seed will I give this land, which includes territory that \u201cfar exceeds that occupied by Israel when they came up out of Egypt (Gen. 15:18).\u201d
\nIn another work, Chafer discussed this covenant in more detail. The Abrahamic Covenant was made with Abraham and sustained through Isaac and Jacob. This covenant promised that blessing would \u201cextend to all the families of the earth.\u201d However, in particular, \u201cit provides for one great nation,\u201d the Jewish nation. To this nation, a land was promised. Because the content of the Abrahamic Covenant includes some long term prophecies which \u201ccould be executed only as Jehovah in sovereign power commands the destiny of all future generations of the human family,\u201d it is obvious that it is dependent upon God for its fulfillment. That is one reason this covenant is an unconditional covenant.
\nThis very point is frequently challenged by Covenant Theologians who insist that this covenant was a conditional covenant since it is obvious that conditions are found within it, such as the command to Abraham to leave the land of his birth to go to a new land. However, this misses the real issue and misconstrues exactly what Dispensationalists mean by an \u201cunconditional covenant.\u201d When Dispensationalists speak of an \u201cunconditional covenant,\u201d they do not mean that the content of the covenant contains no conditions, obligations, or commands. What they do mean is that God intends to fulfill the terms of the covenant regardless of whether man fulfills his obligations. Abraham may have had some obligations to fulfill, but even if Abraham failed to fulfill those obligations, God\u2019s promises to Abraham would have still been fulfilled. As a point of fact, Abraham lapsed on several occasions, but those lapses did not terminate the covenant. That is what is meant by \u201cunconditional covenant\u201d and the Abrahamic Covenant is such a covenant. A conditional covenant does require one to meet the conditions of the covenant in order to receive the blessings of the covenant, and the Mosaic Covenant is such a covenant. One reason Covenant Theologians insist that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional is the mere existence of conditions, which do not make the covenant itself a conditional one. Furthermore, even if it is conceded that \u201cthe Abrahamic Covenant was made conditional upon Abraham\u2019s faithfulness,\u201d God declared to Isaac in Genesis 26:5 that Abraham was faithful and obeyed God. The very fact that Abraham fulfilled his obligations now obligates God to fulfill His. With Abraham\u2019s fulfillment of his condition, he rendered the covenant unconditional since the obligation is now totally dependent upon God. However, Chafer and other Dispensationalists make no such concession. Chafer insists that the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional for two reasons: first, \u201cno human element appears in any feature of the Abrahamic Covenant\u201d; and, second, both \u201cAbraham\u2019s position\u201d in the covenant and \u201cAbraham\u2019s imputed righteousness\u201d were \u201csecured \u2026 apart from meritorious works.\u201d
\nRyrie discusses the Abrahamic Covenant under Eschatology. Ryrie divides the promises into three categories, but not each promise in each category is related to Israelology and only those that are will be noted here. The first category is, \u201cPersonal Promises to Abraham.\u201d Of the three promises personally made to Abraham, there is only one concerning Israelology: I will make of thee a great nation. This promise concerns the Jewish nation, \u201cthe descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.\u201d This is the biblical definition of Jewishness: descendancy from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The second category is, \u201cUniversal Promises.\u201d Both promises listed by Ryrie are relevant to Israelology. The first is, \u201cThe promise of divine blessing or cursing people on the basis of their treatment of Abraham.\u201d Due to the close relationship of Abraham to God, \u201cto bless or curse him was, in effect, to bless or curse God.\u201d Although Ryrie does not state this, the promise was later extended to the nation. The second is, \u201cThe promise that all the families of the earth would be blessed.\u201d Spiritual blessings were to extend to the Gentiles and this promise was made early in human history, with the very first Jewish covenant. This blessing was to come through Abraham\u2019s seed. As Ryrie states, the Hebrew word \u201cseed\u201d is singular, but it could be \u201cboth collective and individual.\u201d As a collective word, it refers to Israel; and as an individual word, it refers to the Messiah. It is through the latter \u201cseed\u201d that the Gentiles were to receive their blessings. That is why in Galatians 3:16 \u201cPaul makes it clear that Christ fulfilled this promise.\u201d As a result, Gentile believers today, because of their position in Christ, have become \u201cheirs of this particular promise of the Abrahamic Covenant.\u201d For most Covenant Theologians, this fact fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant, and the fulfillment is in the Church. Ryrie cautions his readers to note that Paul did not say \u201cthat the Church fulfills the entire covenant. He focuses only on this one promise concerning blessings in the seed \u2026\u201d Dispensationalism does not deny that a facet of the Abrahamic Covenant is now being fulfilled in the Church, that of spiritual blessings being extended to the Gentiles through Christ, but Dispensationalism denies that this was the totality of the Abrahamic Covenant. There were other promises besides this one, like those of the third category. The third category is, \u201cNational Promises\u201d and Ryrie lists two. First, \u201cthe promise that Abraham would father a great nation was both a personal and a national promise.\u201d Again, this is the Jewish nation. Second, \u201cthe promise to that nation of specific land as an inheritance.\u201d Dispensationalists take this literally while many in Covenant Theology symbolize this away either in terms of the Church or heaven. Taken literally, this land \u201cwas to be an everlasting possession\u201d with definite boundaries: \u201cfrom the river of Egypt to the Euphrates.\u201d It is because of promises like these that Dispensationalists refuse to see that the blessings in the Church are the entire fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Furthermore, neither has this promise already been fulfilled to Israel in history. As Ryrie concludes, \u201cIsrael has occupied at various times part of the larger area, but never the larger area, nor ever as an everlasting possession.\u201d
\nLater, while discussing \u201cThe Solemn Ratification of the Covenant,\u201d Ryrie shows why this covenant is unconditional:<\/p>\n
The ratification ceremony described in Genesis 15:9\u201317 when compared with near Eastern custom indicates that God alone obligated Himself to fulfill the terms of the covenant since only He walked between the pieces of the sacrificial animals. The significance of that is striking: it means that God swore fidelity to His promises and placed the obligation on their fulfillment on Himself alone. Abraham made no such oath; he was in a deep sleep, yet aware of what God promised.\u2026 Clearly the Abrahamic Covenant was not conditioned on anything Abraham would or would not do; its fulfillment in all its parts depends only on God\u2019s doings.<\/p>\n
Ryrie concludes the chapter by summarizing the dispensational view of the Abrahamic Covenant:<\/p>\n
Premillennialism insists that all the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant must be fulfilled since the covenant was made without conditions. Much of the covenant has already been fulfilled and fulfilled literally; therefore, what remains to be fulfilled will also be fulfilled literally. This brings the focus on the yet-unfulfilled land promise. Though the nation Israel occupied part of the territory promised in the covenant, she has never yet occupied all of it and certainly not eternally as the covenant promised. Therefore, there must be a time in the future when Israel will do so, and for the premillennialist this will be in the coming millennial kingdom. Thus the Abrahamic Covenant gives strong support for premillennial eschatology.<\/p>\n
In one of his other works, Ryrie discusses the Abrahamic Covenant in greater detail. Here, Ryrie spells out the importance of this covenant. First, if the covenant promised Israel \u201cpermanent existence as a nation,\u201d then there must be a future for Israel and \u201cthe Church is not fulfilling Israel\u2019s promises.\u201d Second, if the covenant promised Israel \u201cpermanent possession of the promised land,\u201d then in the future Israel must possess all of the Promised Land, \u201cfor she has never fully possessed it in her history,\u201d and it is not now being fulfilled in some spiritual way by the Church. Ryrie also points out that the above two issues also concern two other questions. First, \u201cis the covenant conditional?\u201d If the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional, then there is no guarantee of Israel\u2019s \u201cfuture national identity or possession of the land.\u201d Second, \u201cis the covenant unconditional?\u201d If so, then will it be \u201cfulfilled spiritually by the Church or literally by Israel?\u201d It is these issues that separate Dispensationalism from Covenant Amillennialism. Ryrie then proceeds to discuss \u201cThe Promises of the Covenant\u201d as based on Genesis 12:1\u20133. These are the same as those found in his Basic Theology discussed earlier. Later in the chapter, he discusses \u201cThe Unconditional Character of the Covenant\u201d and presents several reasons for this view. In his introduction, he spells out the importance of the issue:<\/p>\n
The unconditional character of the Abrahamic covenant is the crucial issue in making the Abrahamic covenant a basis for premillennialism. If the covenant is unconditional, then the national aspect of it must yet be fulfilled, and premillennialism is the only system of interpretation which makes a place for a national future for Israel in which she possesses her land.<\/p>\n
Walvoord also begins his discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant by pointing out its importance.<\/p>\n
It is recognized by all serious students of the Bible that the covenant of God with Abraham is one of the important and determinative revelations of Scripture. It furnishes the key to the entire Old Testament and reaches for its fulfillment into the New.<\/p>\n
The issue, in a word, is the question of whether Israel as a nation and as a race has a prophesied future. A literal interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant involves the permanent existence of Israel as a nation and the fulfillment of the promise that the land should be their everlasting possession.<\/p>\n
Walvoord points out that how one views the Abrahamic Covenant affects his view of much of the rest of Scripture. Walvoord then discusses the provisions of the covenant. Like Ryrie, Walvoord divides the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant into three categories. The first is \u201cthe promise to Abraham.\u201d The one provision important to Israelology is that Abraham \u201cwould be the father of a great nation \u2026 compared to the dust of the earth and the stars of the heaven.\u201d The second category is \u201cthe promise to Abraham\u2019s seed.\u201d In this case the \u201cseed\u201d is a national seed, the Jewish nation which is to become \u201cgreat \u2026 and innumerable\u201d and destined to possess a land with \u201cextensive boundaries.\u201d it is in connection with the land that the Abrahamic Covenant is called \u201ceverlasting\u201d and \u201cthe possession of the land is defined as \u2018an everlasting possession.\u2019 \u201d Walvoord points out that the Abrahamic Covenant \u201cguarantees both the everlasting continuance of the seed as a nation and its everlasting possession of the land.\u201d The \u201cseed\u201d in Genesis, Walvoord states, refers to Abraham\u2019s physical lineage, but it is narrowed down over the generations for \u201cnot all the physical descendants of Abraham qualify for the promises to the seed.\u201d It is through the seed of Abraham that \u201call the families of the earth are blessed\u201d and so Israel was to be a channel of blessing to the Gentiles. This aspect is particularly \u201cfulfilled in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d The third category is \u201cthe promise to the Gentiles.\u201d Again, the Abrahamic Covenant promised blessings to the Gentiles. Walvoord states that the text does not specify \u201cwhat this blessing shall be,\u201d but concludes that this is \u201ca general promise\u201d and so \u201cprobably intended to have a general fulfillment.\u201d Both Abraham and his seed, \u201cthe nation of Israel,\u201d have already been a great blessing \u201cas the channel of divine revelation.\u201d This blessing not only includes salvation, but other spiritual blessings as well. Also in relationship to the Gentiles is the principle of blessing them as they bless Israel, but cursing them as they curse Israel. Walvoord observes that throughout history right \u201cto modern times, the nation that has persecuted the Jew has paid dearly for it.\u201d
\nWalvoord also discusses the issue as to the conditionality of the Abrahamic Covenant. Dispensationalism insists that the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional. If there ever was a condition, it was the command for Abraham to leave the land of his birth and to enter a new land. Once Abraham obeyed this one imperative, it rendered the covenant unconditional for there were \u201cno further conditions laid upon Abraham\u201d but it was \u201cnow dependent upon divine veracity for its fulfillment.\u201d Walvoord then proceeds to give ten reasons why the Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant. Walvoord\u2019s treatment of the Abrahamic Covenant affirmed two things about Israel: her existence as a nation and her possession of the land.
\nIn another work, Walvoord presents an excellent summary of the dispensational view of the Abrahamic Covenant. God\u2019s program for Israel is \u201cone of the four major programs revealed in the Bible\u201d if the statements of Scripture are understood literally and not allegorically. The goal of all four programs is doxological, that is, these four programs are a means by which \u201cGod manifests \u2026 His own glory.\u201d The Abrahamic Covenant primarily deals with God\u2019s program with Israel and only secondarily with God\u2019s program for Gentiles and the Church. This covenant includes promises made to Abraham personally, to Israel as a nation and to the Gentile nations. Especially important are the promises made to the \u201cseed of Abraham,\u201d a seed limited \u201cto Isaac, and then to Jacob, and then the twelve sons of Jacob.\u201d In other words, in the Old Testament it was used of literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. With the addition of the New Testament, the expression \u201cseed of Abraham\u201d is used in three ways: first, it is used of all physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, meaning, all Jews; second, of those physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who are also believers, that is, the believing remnant who today are Jewish believers; and, third, of the spiritual seed of Abraham, that is, the Gentile believers who exercised the faith of Abraham. However, the physical promises made to the physical descendants will be fulfilled to and by the physical descendants, while the \u201cpromises given to the spiritual seed who are not physical descendants of Abraham inherit the promises given to Gentiles.\u201d The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant and so guarantees two things: first, \u201cIsrael will be a nation forever\u201d; and, second, Israel shall \u201cpossess the land forever.\u201d
\nTo date, the most comprehensive work on Dispensational Eschatology was authored by Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, a student of Lewis Sperry Chafer and a contemporary of both Charles C. Ryrie and John F. Walvoord. He is also on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, the recognized school of Dispensationalism in the United States. In his chapter on \u201cThe Abrahamic Covenant,\u201d he discusses \u201cThe Provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant.\u201d Pentecost points out that the Abrahamic Covenant \u201centitled certain basic promises,\u201d and these included \u201cindividual promises\u201d for Abraham, \u201cnational promises\u201d for Israel and \u201cuniversal blessings\u201d that were to extend to the Gentiles. Pentecost states that \u201cit is of utmost importance to keep the different areas in which promise was made\u201d distinct because \u201cif the things covenanted in one area are transferred to another area only confusion will result in the subsequent interpretation.\u201d Personal promises made to Abraham should not be transferred to the nation of Israel as a whole, nor should the national promises made to Israel be transferred to the Gentiles.
\nPentecost then turns to the subject of \u201cThe Character of the Abrahamic Covenant.\u201d The key point Pentecost makes, the same point all Dispensationalists make, is that the Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant. This point is vital to Israelology because this covenant \u201cdeals with Israel\u2019s title deed to the land of Palestine, her continuation as a nation to possess that land and her redemption so that she may enjoy the blessings in the land under her King.\u201d If the Abrahamic Covenant is \u201ca literal covenant to be fulfilled literally, then Israel must be preserved, converted and restored.\u201d
\nCovenant Theologians deny the unconditional character of the Abrahamic Covenant by pointing out that the covenant did contain conditions which Abraham was expected to obey. Pentecost addresses the issue of \u201cthe conditional element\u201d in the covenant program and draws a distinction between the basis of making the covenant and the basis of fulfilling the covenant. Initially God commanded Abraham to leave the land of his birth and \u201cmade certain specific promises to him that depended on this act of obedience.\u201d Whether or not \u201cGod would institute a covenant program with Abraham\u201d did depend \u201cupon Abraham\u2019s act of obedience in leaving the land\u201d; but when Abraham obeyed, then \u201cGod instituted an irrevocable, unconditional program.\u201d Once Abraham obeyed, \u201cthe covenant that was instituted depended, not upon Abraham\u2019s continued obedience, but on the promise of the One who instituted it.\u201d Pentecost concludes that the relationship of obedience to the Abrahamic Covenant is that the \u201cfact of the covenant depended upon obedience; the kind of covenant inaugurated was totally unrelated to the continuing obedience of either Abraham or his seed.\u201d
\nPentecost next presents some \u201carguments to support the unconditional character of the covenant.\u201d In the interactions between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, this issue is \u201cthe crux of the whole discussion of the problem relating to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.\u201d Pentecost proceeds to quote the evidences given by Walvoord, discussed previously. Pentecost\u2019s own contribution centers on the sealing of the covenant as recorded in Genesis 15. What God affirms in this chapter is that Abraham would have a son and reaffirms to Abraham what He said earlier \u201cconcerning the seed and the land.\u201d In keeping with the way covenants were made in that day, animal blood was shed and the bodies cut in half and lined up in two rows. The normal \u201ccustom demanded that the two who entered into a blood covenant should walk together between the parts of the sacrifice.\u201d This would make the covenant binding on both parties. However, if one party became guilty of violating any single term of the covenant, it would free the other party from the necessity of fulfilling his own promises contained in the covenant. In the case of Genesis 15, Abraham and God did not walk together between the pieces of the animals. God put Abraham to sleep and God alone walked between the pieces of the animals. This made the covenant binding on God alone. As for Abraham, this means that \u201che could not be a participant in the covenant, but could only be a recipient of a covenant to which he brought nothing in the way of obligations.\u201d What God did on that day was to bind Himself \u201cby a most solemn blood covenant to fulfill to Abraham, unconditionally, the promises concerning the seed and the land which were given to him.\u201d Pentecost concludes that it was impossible \u201cfor God to make it any clearer that what was promised to Abraham was given him without any conditions, to be fulfilled by the integrity of God alone.\u201d
\nAlva J. McClain, late President of Grace Theological Seminary, deals with this covenant primarily from how it relates to his kingdom concept, and from that perspective he points out four \u201cregal rights and privileges\u201d contained in this covenant: first, innumerable natural descendants; second, \u201chistorical continuity\u201d or preservation as a people; third, \u201can everlasting and irrevocable title\u201d to the Promised Land; and, fourth, \u201cfinal world supremacy.\u201d As to its character, this covenant is unconditional. What this means is that \u201cthe promises originated wholly in God and were not conditioned upon any meritorious acts on the part of Abraham.\u201d This does not guarantee that every individual Jew \u201cwill personally share in all the blessings promised under the covenant,\u201d but \u201cit does mean that the fulfillment of the promises \u2026 is in no sense dependent upon human character or action.\u201d It rests upon God alone and \u201ctherefore cannot fail.\u201d<\/p>\n
b. The Palestinian Covenant<\/p>\n
Chafer had very little to say about this covenant, but his students have written much on this one as on the others. Pentecost\u2019s introduction spells out the questions that this covenant was intended to answer:<\/p>\n
Is the land of Palestine still their possession? Did the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant, which all agree was conditional, set aside the unconditional Abrahamic covenant? Could Israel hope to enter into permanent possession of their land in the face of such opposition? To answer these important questions God stated again His covenant promise concerning Israel\u2019s possession of and inheritance in the land in Deuteronomy 30:1\u201310, which statement we call the Palestinian covenant, because it answers the question of Israel\u2019s relation to the land promises of the Abrahamic covenant.<\/p>\n
Pentecost then clarifies \u201cThe Importance of the Palestinian Covenant,\u201d which is threefold. First, \u201cit reaffirms to Israel \u2026 their title deed to the land of promise,\u201d and this title deed cannot change regardless of Israel\u2019s unbelief or disobedience. Second, it shows that the conditional Mosaic Covenant did not render the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant null and void. Third, it is an elaboration of the land aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant and reaffirms Israel\u2019s right to the land even after several acts of disobedience arising out of unbelief. While the enjoyment of the land may be conditioned by obedience, the ownership of the land is not.
\nPentecost next discussed \u201cThe Provisions of the Palestinian Covenant.\u201d The Palestinian Covenant is a prophetic one which outlines the future history of Israel. The nation is destined to be dispersed from the land because of disobedience. Eventually there will be a national repentance at which point the Messiah will return, restore Israel to her land, punish her enemies, and finally give to Israel her millennial blessings. The point of the Palestinian Covenant, which is reconfirmed later by Ezekiel 16, is to emphasize the importance of the land in relationship to Israel. Pentecost states that \u201cGod takes Israel\u2019s relation to the land as a matter of extreme importance.\u201d For this reason, God guarantees Israel\u2019s possession of the land and \u201cobligates Himself to judge and remove all Israel\u2019s enemies, give the nation a new heart, a conversion, prior to placing them in the land.\u201d In the Ezekiel passage, \u201cthe Lord reaffirms the Palestinian covenant and calls it an eternal covenant by which He is bound.\u201d
\nThis leads to Pentecost\u2019s discussion on \u201cThe Character of the Palestinian Covenant.\u201d As with the Abrahamic Covenant, the Palestinian Covenant must be viewed as an unconditional covenant, and Pentecost gives four reasons this must be so. First, the Ezekiel reconfirmation (16:60) called it \u201can eternal covenant,\u201d and this could only be true \u201cif its fulfillment were divorced from human responsibility\u201d and is dependent upon God alone. Second, it is an elaboration of the land aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant which is an unconditional covenant. Third, this covenant promises a national regeneration of Israel, an event that only God can do, and so its certainty is dependent upon \u201cHis integrity.\u201d Fourth, at least one provision of the covenant has already been fulfilled: the world-wide scattering of the Jewish people. This \u201cpartial fulfillment\u201d was literally fulfilled and this \u201cindicates a future literal fulfillment of the unfulfilled portions.\u201d This too implies that the covenant is unconditional. The only real conditional element in the covenant \u201cis the time element.\u201d Because the covenant is unconditional, the \u201cprogram is certain\u201d; but \u201cthe time when this program will be fulfilled depends upon the conversion of Israel.\u201d Although the time element is conditional, this does \u201cnot make the whole program conditional.\u201d<\/p>\n
c. The Davidic Covenant<\/p>\n
According to Chafer, this was both unconditional and eternal. It had four primary features. First, the House of David will never lack one with the right to rule from his throne. Divine discipline \u201cmay cause the throne itself to be unoccupied; but there shall never lack one whose right it is to sit on that throne.\u201d Second, this covenant \u201ccan never \u2026 be abrogated.\u201d Third, an eternal throne is guaranteed. Fourth, an eternal kingdom is promised.
\nIn a different work, Chafer discusses the nature of the covenant. Like the Abrahamic, the Davidic Covenant is an unconditional covenant and it did not impose \u201cthe slightest obligation upon David.\u201d It promised to David \u201cthe perpetuity of the Davidic house, the Davidic throne, and the Davidic kingdom.\u201d While God will certainly discipline the House of David, He gave \u201cthe express declaration that the covenant cannot be abrogated.\u201d The covenant is unconditional and will continue \u201cinto eternity to come.\u201d Furthermore, contrary to Covenant Amillennialism, there is no indication that \u201cthis kingdom and throne\u201d is to be \u201cestablished in heaven.\u201d It will be \u201cestablished on the earth\u201d when the Messiah returns.
\nRyrie divides the provisions into two categories, but not every provision within each category is relevant to Israelology. The first category is, \u201cPromises Related to David,\u201d which included \u201cDescendants\u201d and \u201cKingdom.\u201d The latter promised to David that his \u201chouse, throne, and kingdom would be established forever.\u201d The second category is, \u201cPromises Related to Solomon\u201d which included: a \u201cTemple\u201d in that Solomon, not David would build the Temple; a \u201cthrone,\u201d that the \u201cthrone of Solomon\u2019s kingdom would be established forever\u201d; and \u201cpunishment,\u201d in that God \u201creserved the right to chasten Solomon for his sins.\u201d It should be noted that it was not Solomon, nor Solomon\u2019s seed that \u201cwould be established forever,\u201d but only the \u201cthrone of Solomon\u2019s kingdom would be established forever.\u201d This is significant in that Christ came from David through Nathan rather than Solomon. Ryrie concludes that the promises of the Davidic Covenant \u201cwere made unconditionally.\u201d
\nTo those who claim that the covenant had to be conditional, Ryrie responds:<\/p>\n
Again it is important to remember that these promises were made unconditionally. Still some attempt to deny that it was unconditional, claiming that the covenant could be broken and citing the \u201cif\u201d (KJV) in 2 Samuel 7:14 and verses like 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:4\u20135; Isaiah 24:5 and Ezekiel 16:59. The resolution is simply this: \u201cThe \u2018breaking\u2019 or conditionality can only refer to personal and individual invalidation of the benefits of the covenant, but it cannot affect the transmission of the promise to the lineal descendants. This is why God would staunchly affirm His fidelity and the perpetuity of the covenant to David in spite of succeeding rascals who would appear in his lineage.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ryrie next discusses the \u201cOld Testament Confirmation of the Covenant\u201d and states:<\/p>\n
Actually all Old Testament passages which describe the Messiah as King and His coming kingdom confirm the promises of the Davidic Covenant.\u2026 Psalm 89:3\u20134, 19\u201337 provides strong confirmation of the immutability of the covenant. It seems almost as if God was anticipating the amillennial claim that the kingdom promise should be spiritualized into the church when He said that even though chastisement for sin would come, the covenant would not be broken or altered (vv. 32\u201334).<\/p>\n
Ryrie then turns to the \u201cNew Testament Confirmation of the Covenant.\u201d The issue is this: the Old Testament presents a concept of the kingdom as being a visible earthly kingdom over which a descendant of David will rule over Israel. Most Covenant Theologians even admit that if the Old Testament is taken at face value, that is the kind of kingdom which is clearly portrayed. However, Covenant Theology insists that Jesus changed that concept. While the Jews of that day expected a kingdom which was \u201cearthly,\u201d and therefore \u201con this earth\u201d; \u201cnational,\u201d and therefore \u201cspecifically related to the nation Israel\u201d; \u201cmessianic,\u201d and therefore \u201cruled on by the personal presence of Messiah\u201d; \u201cmoral,\u201d and therefore existing \u201cwith high, God-given standards\u201d; and, \u201cfuture,\u201d and therefore \u201cnot yet in existence,\u201d many Covenant Theologians insist that Jesus and the disciples negated such an interpretation of the Davidic Covenant and spiritualized the kingdom promise into the Church. Ryrie, therefore, raises the crucial question: \u201cDid the teachings of the Lord alter or change this conception?\u201d
\nRyrie first gives the example of the preaching of John the Baptist. He simply proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven is at hand without trying to explain the nature of the kingdom. If the nature was to be different from the common Jewish expectation, then certainly John should have made that plain. John simply expected his audience to know what he meant by the kingdom of heaven and, from the Old Testament, they did. All John emphasized was \u201crepentance and not on describing the kingdom.\u201d
\nThe second example is Gabriel\u2019s message to Mary: that her Son would sit upon the throne of His father David and will have \u201crulership over Israel forever.\u201d This is in keeping with a literal understanding of the Davidic Covenant and Gabriel made no effort to correct a supposed Jewish misunderstanding of the nature of the kingdom.
\nThe third example is the preaching of Jesus Himself. Like John the Baptist, He simply proclaimed the kingdom to be at hand without describing it or correcting a supposed Jewish misunderstanding of the nature of the kingdom. He obviously expected His Jewish audience to know what He was talking about, and they did. It is true that \u201cas His message continued to be rejected by the people, and especially by their leaders,\u201d Jesus then introduced a new facet of God\u2019s kingdom program, the Mystery Kingdom, describing \u201cwhat form the kingdom would take between the first and second advents of Christ.\u201d However, this does not validate the claim of so many Covenant Theologians that this new facet of the kingdom program replaces the Davidic Kingdom or that \u201cthe Davidic kingdom would take a new form with the church fulfilling the promise made to David.\u201d This is evident from the fact that Christ \u201ccontinued to speak of the Davidic kingdom to the end of his earthly life.\u201d Even after the resurrection, in answer to the Apostles\u2019 question about restoring the kingdom to Israel, Jesus \u201cdid not tell them that the kingdom had been changed to the church.\u201d He simply told them that the timing of that restoration is not for them to know. The introduction of the Mystery Kingdom in the present age did \u201cnot change or abrogate the promises of the Davidic Covenant concerning the future, earthly kingdom.\u201d Ryrie\u2019s conclusion is: \u201cthe teaching of the New Testament confirms the Davidic Covenant.\u201d
\nWalvoord begins his discussion on the Davidic Covenant by pointing out the \u201cImportance of Davidic Covenant\u201d:<\/p>\n
Next in importance to the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament doctrine of premillennialism stands the Davidic covenant\u2014the promises of God to David that his seed, throne, and kingdom would endure forever. This covenant has been obscured and ignored by most amillenarians and again and again statements are made that premillennialism rests solely upon the interpretations of Revelation 20.\u2026 In other words it is expressly denied that the Old Testament or the New provides any teaching at all on an earthly millennial kingdom.<\/p>\n
One of the reasons for such an unwarranted conclusion is the neglect of the Biblical covenants of the Old Testament of which the Davidic is prominent.\u2026 On the contrary, premillenarians believe these promises were intended to be interpreted literally as most certainly David understood them and as the Jews living in the time of Christ anticipated. A study of this covenant will afford another strong confirmation of premillennial doctrine.<\/p>\n
A major importance of the Davidic Covenant is that it is a basis for believing in a Messianic Kingdom and to counteract the claim of many Covenant Theologians that Revelation 20 is the only basis for such a belief. That claim not only denies the literal understanding of many Old Testament prophecies, but also ignores the content of the biblical covenants, especially the Davidic Covenant.
\nHaving stated the role of the Davidic Covenant in the present debate, Walvoord goes on to give an \u201cAnalysis of the Promise to David.\u201d Of the key items of the Davidic Covenant, the issue which concerns Israelology is the promise that the dynasty of David will never lose its right to rule over a kingdom of Israel. The \u201cline of David will always have the right to rule over Israel and will, in fact, exercise this privilege.\u201d Both Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Amillennialists deny that any such literal kingdom will exist while Dispensationalists affirm it.
\nWalvoord next shows that the Davidic Covenant later had \u201cOld Testament Confirmation\u201d:<\/p>\n
It should be clear to anyone who interprets the Old Testament prophecies literally that the entire theme of Messianic prophecy confirms the Davidic promises. The great kingdom promises of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel combine with the Minor Prophets in reiterating the theme of the coming Immanuel and His kingdom upon the earth.\u2026<\/p>\n
Not only are there many general kingdom promises but there is also specific confirmation of the Davidic covenant. Psalm 89 reiterates the content and makes the covenant immutable and sure even though Israel sins: \u2026<\/p>\n
This leads to Walvoord\u2019s next point, \u201cFulfillment at the First Advent of Christ.\u201d On the issue of who fulfills the Davidic Covenant, there is no disagreement between Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology in any of its stripes: \u201cJesus Christ is the one who fulfills the Davidic Covenant.\u201d This means that the \u201cpromises to David are, therefore, transferred to Jesus Christ and we do not need to look for another.\u201d The disagreement is over \u201cthe issue of how Christ fulfills the covenant and when He fulfills it.\u201d Those \u201cwho identify Israel and the church,\u201d that is, Covenant Theologians, \u201care apt to insist that Christ is fulfilling the Covenant by His present session\u201d in heaven. This is the position of Covenant Amillennialism. Dispensationalists, however, insist that Christ will fulfill the Davidic Covenant with \u201cHis return and righteous reign on earth during the millennium.\u201d
\nThis leads to Walvoord\u2019s next point, \u201cDoes the Davidic Covenant Require Literal Fulfillment?\u201d:<\/p>\n
The arguments in favor of literal interpretation are so massive in their construction and so difficult to waive that they are more commonly ignored by those who do not want to believe in literal fulfillment than answered by argument.<\/p>\n
Unless all of these weighty arguments be dismissed as utterly without foundation, it must be clear that there are good and important reasons for adopting a literal interpretation of the covenant promises. If a literal interpretation be adopted, the present session of Christ is not a fulfillment of the covenant, and it must be referred to the future. It is clear that at the present time Christ is not in any literal sense reigning over the kingdom of David. From the content and circumstances surrounding the Davidic covenant, it is evident that a literal fulfillment is anticipated.<\/p>\n
Later in the chapter, Walvoord discusses the question, \u201cIs Literal fulfillment in Harmony With Other Covenants?\u201d The point Walvoord makes is that just as other covenants, especially the Abrahamic Covenant, anticipated an earthly kingdom for Israel, this one continues to teach the same thing and \u201cfits perfectly into the picture.\u201d The covenant adds to previous revelation in that it provides \u201cthe covenant ground for the earthly rule of Christ\u201d and it will be under Messiah\u2019s rule that \u201cthe promises regarding the nation Israel\u201d and \u201cthe possession of the land\u201d will be fulfilled. Walvoord concludes that the \u201cliteral fulfillment of the Davidic covenant is in harmony with the larger covenant purpose of God.\u201d
\nIn another work, Walvoord gives a summary of the dispensational view of the Davidic Covenant. The Davidic Covenant \u201cassured to David that his political rule as well as his physical posterity would continue forever.\u201d Whatever interruptions there may be would be temporary. The Davidic Covenant received a major reconfirmation in Psalm 89 and it is also reconfirmed by the Old Testament prophets and New Testament statements, including \u201cthe climactic prophecy of Revelation 20.\u201d If the Davidic Covenant is interpreted literally, then \u201ca future program of Israel can be outlined.\u201d This includes suffering in the Great Tribulation and \u201cblessing in the millennial reign of Christ and ultimate enjoyment of the eternal state in the New Jerusalem.\u201d
\nPentecost explains the role of this covenant in the scheme of things in his introduction:<\/p>\n
In the next of Israel\u2019s great covenants, that made with David, God is enlarging and confirming the seed promises.<\/p>\n
The seed promise contained in the Abraharnic covenant is now made the center of the Davidic promise. The seed promises in general and the seed line of David, with his kingdom, house, and throne, are amplified.<\/p>\n
Pentecost then deals with \u201cthe Importance of the Davidic Covenant\u201d:<\/p>\n
Inherent in the Davidic covenant are many of the crucial issues facing the student of Eschatology. Will there be a literal millennium? Is the church the kingdom? What is God\u2019s kingdom? What is Christ\u2019s kingdom? Will the nation Israel be regathered and restored under her Messiah? Is the kingdom present or future? These and many more crucial issues can be decided only by a correct interpretation of that which was covenanted to David.<\/p>\n
In answer to some of these questions, Pentecost moves on to \u201cThe Provisions of the Davidic Covenant.\u201d Basically, the Davidic Covenant promised three eternal things: an eternal house or dynasty, an eternal kingdom, and an eternal throne. Pentecost shows that this covenant is reconfirmed by Psalm 89 and several of the prophets.
\nHe then spends most of the chapter discussing the \u201cCharacter of the Davidic Covenant.\u201d As with the Abrahamic and Palestinian Covenants, the key characteristic of this covenant is that it is unconditional. This is developed by Pentecost in four points.
\nFirst, \u201cthe Davidic covenant is unconditional in its character.\u201d There are three reasons given. First, it is called an \u201ceternal\u201d covenant, and the \u201conly way it can be called eternal is that it is unconditional and rests upon the faithfulness of God for its execution.\u201d Second, this covenant elaborates on the seed aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, which itself is an unconditional covenant. Third, this covenant is reconfirmed by the prophets even \u201cafter repeated acts of disobedience on the part of the nation,\u201d showing that the fulfillment of the covenant was not dependent upon Israel\u2019s obedience. The one conditional element in this covenant was \u201cwhether the descendants of David would continually occupy the throne or not.\u201d While unfaithfulness on the part of the House of David \u201cmight bring about chastening,\u201d it can \u201cnever abrogate the covenant.\u201d
\nSecond, \u201cthe Davidic covenant is to be interpreted literally.\u201d This is evidenced by four things. First, the portions of the covenant which have already \u201cbeen fulfilled have been fulfilled literally,\u201d and this shows that the unfulfilled portions will be fulfilled in the same way. Second, it is obvious from David\u2019s own exposition of the covenant in Psalm 89 that he anticipated a literal fulfillment. Third, throughout Israel\u2019s history, both biblical and post-biblical, the Jews have interpreted the terms of the covenant literally. Fourth, the New Testament interprets the covenant literally. The \u201cpreaching concerning the kingdom by John \u2026 by Christ \u2026 by the twelve \u2026 by the seventy \u2026 offered to Israel \u2026 an earthly literal kingdom.\u201d Not once did they try to explain that the kingdom they were offering was something different from that which was commonly expected by the Jewish population which was \u201ca literal earthly kingdom.\u201d Even after Israel rejected the offer, there were still prophecies of a future literal earthly kingdom. Furthermore, the \u201cNew Testament never relates the kingdom promised to David to Christ\u2019s present session.\u201d Finally, when Gabriel announced the birth of the Messiah to Mary, his \u201cmessage centers around the three key words of the original Davidic covenant, the throne, the house, the kingdom, all of which are here promised a fulfillment.\u201d Pentecost concludes that \u201cthroughout the New Testament, as well as the Old, the Davidic covenant is everywhere treated as literal.\u201d
\nThird, Pentecost deals with \u201cthe problems of literal fulfillment\u201d of which he mentions two. The first is \u201cthe relation of Christ to the covenant.\u201d The solution is based on the fact that \u201cthe Davidic covenant demands a literal fulfillment.\u201d Since Jesus is the eternal Seed of David, this means that \u201cChrist must reign on David\u2019s throne on the earth over David\u2019s people forever.\u201d The second problem is the relationship of the Davidic Covenant \u201cto the history of Israel since David\u2019s and Solomon\u2019s day\u201d since it is obvious that there has been an interruption in the rule of the House of David. The solution is to recognize that the \u201cinterruption of the kingdom did not mean that the whole program was set aside,\u201d The fact that the New Testament expected a literal fulfillment shows that the \u201cinterruption in the Davidic kingdom did not militate against the expectancy of a literal restoration of that same kingdom as far as the New Testament writers were concerned.\u201d
\nFourth, Pentecost raises the question, \u201cHas this covenant been fulfilled historically?\u201d Many Covenant Theologians answer positively but do so by sacrificing literal interpretation. Pentecost responds that since \u201cthis covenant has not been fulfilled literally in Israel\u2019s history, there must be a future literal fulfillment of the covenant because of its unconditional character.\u201d
\nIn keeping with the kingdom concept, McClain views the Davidic Covenant as \u201ca reaffirmation of the regal terms of the original Abrahamic covenant,\u201d with the addition that \u201cthese covenanted rights will now attach permanently to the historic house and succession of David.\u201d Although these regal rights might be \u201chistorically interrupted for a season,\u201d they will at some point \u201cin a future kingdom be restored to the nation in perpetuity with no further possibility of interruption.\u201d The character of this covenant is both \u201cunconditional and irrevocable,\u201d since it is \u201csimply a more detailed extension of certain features\u201d of the Abrahamic Covenant. Because of its unconditional nature, disobedience on the part of the descendants of David brought discipline, but the covenant itself stood sure.<\/p>\n
d. The New Covenant<\/p>\n
Chafer, and other early Dispensationalists, believed in two new covenants: one made with Israel and one with the Church. Concerning the New Covenant with the Church, the New Covenant is also unconditional and promises individual salvation to those who exercise faith. Just as Abraham \u201cdid not more than believe\u201d to receive salvation, that is \u201cthe norm or pattern of the saving grace of God for the believer of this age.\u201d Not all Dispensationalists would agree that there are two separate new covenants.
\nChafer then discusses the \u201cNew Covenant for Israel\u201d:<\/p>\n
A new covenant for Israel is anticipated in Jeremiah 31:31\u201340; Hebrews 8:8\u201313; 10:16\u201317. This is not to supersede the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants which continue forever, but is put over against that Mosaic Covenant which Jehovah declares that Israel \u201cbrake\u201d (Jer. 31:32) and in which they \u201ccontinued not\u201d (Heb. 8:9). The contrast is emphatic, and in no respect more so than in the fact that the Mosaic Covenant was subject to human conditions concerning which Israel failed, while the New Covenant for that people is declared in the most explicit terms to be unconditional.\u2026 No human condition can be forced into this great declaration of Jehovah\u2019s concerning what He will yet do for Israel, nor can it be demonstrated that such promises have ever been fulfilled for Israel, nor that they even remotely apply to the Church.<\/p>\n
The New Covenant for Israel, which Chafer distinguishes from the New Covenant with the Church, is an addition to the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants but a replacement of the Mosaic Covenant. This one is also an unconditional covenant and is to be made in the future in conjunction with the second coming. Chafer denies that the conditions and promises made in the covenant \u201chave ever been fulfilled for Israel\u201d and he also denies that these conditions and promises can \u201ceven remotely apply to the Church.\u201d Chafer does admit that there are parallels between the New Covenant for the Church and the New Covenant for Israel in that \u201call that is promised Israel is now vouchsafed to the Church and that the range of blessing for the Church far exceeds the restricted provisions for Israel.\u201d Chafer then proceeds to give four such parallels. For other Dispensationalists, these parallels show that there are not two new covenants but only one. Like the Abrahamic, the one New Covenant is made with Israel. Like the Abrahamic, the one New Covenant contains both physical and spiritual blessings. As with the Abrahamic, the physical promises are limited to Jews only but the spiritual blessings were to extend to the Gentiles. What the Church is now enjoying are the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic and New Covenants. These spiritual blessings include the very things that Chafer listed as parallels: the indwelling Spirit; the believer\u2019s position in Christ; the \u201cunion and communion with God the Father\u201d; and, having sins forgiven to the point of \u201cno condemnation.\u201d There is no good reason to postulate two new covenants.
\nRyrie brings out the importance of this covenant in relationship to the subject of Israelology:<\/p>\n
It is of utmost importance in treating this subject to compare the Old Testament and the New Testament teaching concerning the new covenant with Israel. If, as some claim, the New Testament alters the teaching of the Old Testament, then this promise may not, indeed need not, have a literal fulfillment. If it can be shown, on the other hand, that the New Testament passages which refer to the new covenant in no way abrogate the new covenant with Israel or in no way assign its fulfillment to the Church, then it must be concluded that the new covenant with Israel is yet to be fulfilled if God\u2019s Word is not to be broken. If this is true, the only period in which it can be fulfilled is the millennium, and, of course, the only system of interpretation which allows for a literal millennium is premillennialism.<\/p>\n
Ryrie next spells out \u201cThe Issues Involved,\u201d of which there are three with the first one being the most relevant to Israelology:<\/p>\n
First, are the promises given to Israel in the new covenant being fulfilled in this age? The answer to this question will either further justify or weaken premillennialism.<\/p>\n
Second, how does the New Testament use the term new covenant? The answer to this question will give additional confirmation to the first and will be a basis for other conclusions.<\/p>\n
Third, what is the explicit teaching of the New Testament concerning the new covenant? The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament the major passage on the new covenant and draws certain conclusions. What these are, and their relation to the doctrine as a whole, will in large measure determine the answer to the entire question.<\/p>\n
Later, Ryrie discusses the \u201cOld Testament Teaching on the New Covenant with Israel.\u201d Ryrie discusses what the Old Testament said about the New Covenant in three categories. First, \u201cthe people of the new covenant.\u201d His point is that the New Covenant is made with the Jewish people. This is evidenced in three ways. First, the wording of the covenant clearly states that it is made with the Houses of Judah and Israel. Second, the New Covenant is said to be made with the same people as the Mosaic Covenant. Since the Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses was made with the Jewish people, then obviously the New Covenant must be made with the Jewish people as well. Third, the New Covenant is frequently connected with the restoration of Israel to her land as a nation. The Church \u201cis never called a nation\u201d and has no land to be gathered into. Ryrie concludes \u201cthat for these three incontrovertible reasons, the very words of the text, the name itself, and the linking with the perpetuity of the nation, the new covenant according to the teaching of the Old Testament is for the people of Israel.\u201d
\nThe second category is \u201cthe period of the new covenant.\u201d As far as the Old Testament is concerned, \u201cthe new covenant is yet future.\u201d Because of Paul\u2019s quotation of Isaiah 59:20\u201321 in Romans 11:26\u201327, Ryrie concludes that \u201cthe period of the new covenant was still future at the time of the Apostle Paul.\u201d Furthermore, \u201cthe period of the new covenant is virtually linked with the restoration of Israel to her land,\u201d and this too will put it into the future. The prophetic sequence of events is: first, Israel is to \u201cbe regathered and restored to the land\u201d; and, second, only then will Israel \u201cexperience the blessings of the new covenant in the land.\u201d Before the New Covenant can be put into effect there must be a national salvation and restoration of all Israel, and the second coming. As for the modern State of Israel, it is \u201cdoubtless a forerunner of and a preparation for the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Israel as a nation in the future.\u201d Here, one can sense a pro-Zionist view. Finally, the period of the New Covenant is millennial for it is often connected with promises and blessings which are millennial promises and blessings.
\nThe third category is \u201cthe provisions of the new covenant\u201d and Ryrie lists eleven such provisions for Israel, \u201cthe people of the new covenant\u201d which are: it is an unconditional covenant; it is an everlasting covenant; regeneration; restoration to the favor and blessings of God; forgiveness of sin; the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit; material blessings in the land; the Millennial Temple; peace; and, \u201cthe blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation of all blessings of the new covenant.\u201d
\nRyrie\u2019s own summary is:<\/p>\n
By way of summary, if may be said that as far as the Old Testament teaching on the new covenant is concerned, the covenant was made with the Jewish people. Its period of fulfillment is yet future beginning when the Deliverer shall come and continuing throughout all eternity. Its provisions for the nation Israel are glorious, and they all rest and depend on the very Word of God.<\/p>\n
Ryrie then turns to the \u201cNew Testament Teaching on the New Covenant With Israel.\u201d The issue boils down to one key factor: since the Old Testament provisions of the New Covenant have not and are not being \u201cfulfilled in this present age\u201d to Israel, \u201cdoes the New Testament change all this?\u201d As has been shown, all three schools of Covenant Theology, to a lesser or greater degree, answer the question positively. However, Dispensationalism answers it negatively. Ryrie deals with the issue in two categories.
\nThe first category is \u201cthe use of the term in the New Testament.\u201d Ryrie points out that there are five actual mentions of the New Covenant (Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8; 9:15) and six other references to it (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Rom. 11:27; Heb. 8:10; 10:13; 12:24). Because some of these are \u201cin connection with the Lord\u2019s Supper,\u201d Ryrie concludes that \u201cthe new covenant as referred to in the New Testament is not entirely Jewish,\u201d and, therefore, \u201cthere must be a new covenant according to the teaching of the New Testament that is made with the Church\u201d and that \u201cthe scope of this new covenant must be different from the one revealed in the Old Testament.\u201d Ryrie concludes that there are two new covenants. One reason is that according to \u201cHebrews 9:15 \u2026 the Lord Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant\u201d and so the \u201cdeath of Christ is necessary to the assuring of the provisions of the new covenant which He makes in His death.\u201d Not all Dispensationalists would agree that there are two new covenants. It is true that \u201csimilarity is not fulfillment.\u201d However, the lack of any real dissimilarity is a bad reason to develop a concept of two new covenants. Ryrie\u2019s second reason for his two new covenants view is that \u201cif the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel\u2019s promise, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone.\u201d However, this need not be logically true. It is sufficient for now to point out that the Church is merely partaking of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant as she is partaking of the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. This much was already promised to the Gentiles in the Old Testament. This does not mean that the Church \u201cis fulfilling Israel\u2019s promises.\u201d Some promises were to be shared by the Gentiles and the Church is doing so. Other promises, however, promised exclusively to Israel, will be fulfilled to Israel alone.
\nThe second category is \u201cthe use of the Old Testament quotations of the new covenant in the New Testament.\u201d For Ryrie, this is further evidence that there are two new covenants for \u201cthe New Testament teaches that the new covenant with Israel is yet future and that the promises are in no way abrogated or assigned to the Church.\u201d His argument is based on three passages (Heb. 8:6\u201313; 10:16\u201317; Rom. 11:26\u201327) and he poses five questions. The first question is, \u201cWho are the people addressed?\u201d The passages from Hebrews are addressed to Jewish believers who \u201cwould expect to find a reference to Israel\u2019s covenants and in particular to the new covenant with Israel.\u201d The second question is, \u201cWhat is the proof intended?\u201d The answer is \u201cthat Christianity has a better covenant than Judaism\u201d and this is proven by contrasting the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant. The latter was temporal but the former is eternal and, therefore, better. The third question is, \u201cWhat is the purpose of the quotation?\u201d The answer is \u201cto show from the Old Testament Scriptures that the Mosaic covenant is not eternal.\u201d The purpose was not to show \u201cthat the covenant with Israel was fulfilled,\u201d but that \u201cthe Old Testament Scriptures promised that sins would be remembered no more.\u201d The fourth questions is, \u201cWhat people are concerned?\u201d The answer is \u201cthat the people in view are the Jewish people.\u201d So, \u201cthe New Testament does not disannul the promises of God to Israel as contained in the new covenant with Israel.\u201d On the contrary, \u201cthe New Testament verifies the Old Testament teaching that the people of the New Covenant are Israel, \u2026 and that the new covenant \u2026 belongs to the Jewish people and not to the Church.\u201d The fifth question is, \u201cWhat is the period of fulfilment?\u201d The eighth chapter of Hebrews does \u201cnot make any explicit statement concerning the time of fulfillment of the new covenant with Israel\u201d but it does \u201cimply that it is still unfulfilled.\u201d However, the Romans 11 passage teaches \u201cthat Israel will be restored at the Second Coming of Christ.\u201d Ryrie\u2019s conclusion is that \u201cthe New Testament, instead of assigning the new covenant a present fulfillment in the Church, teaches not only that it is yet unfulfilled but also that it will be fulfilled to Israel at the Second Coming of Christ.\u201d All of what Ryrie states concerning the five questions and answers are quite true. However, they are still insufficient to prove that there are two new covenants. One can agree with all that Ryrie has written and still believe in only one New Covenant, already ratified by the blood of the Messiah with present spiritual blessings now being enjoyed by the Church while Israel as a nation will enjoy them in the future along with the physical promises intended only for Israel.
\nRyrie\u2019s own conclusion to this chapter summarizes one dispensational view:<\/p>\n
In considering, first of all, the teaching of the Old Testament we have concluded that the new covenant is for Israel, and if language means anything at all, this means the natural descendants of Abraham through Jacob. Also the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is yet future, and by comparing millennial passages it is clear that the period of fulfillment is the millennium.<\/p>\n
The occurrences of the term new covenant in the New Testament show that there is a wider meaning than to Israel alone. Some of the blessings of the new covenant with Israel are blessings which we enjoy now as members of the body of Christ, and on this basis it was concluded that there is a new covenant with the Church. This is substantiated by the teaching of the New Testament, for the Scripture nowhere abrogates the new covenant with Israel or assigns its fulfillment to the Church. Indeed, the New Testament explicitly states that the new covenant with Israel will be fulfilled at the Second Coming of Christ. Hebrews 8 quotes the new covenant with Israel only to show that the Old Testament anticipated an end to the Mosaic covenant and that Christians have a better covenant, that is, the new covenant with the Church.<\/p>\n
Walvoord discusses the \u201cNew Covenant With Israel\u201d and begins with the citation of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 which he subtitles, \u201cThe Promises of the New Covenant With Israel.\u201d This is followed by a discussion of \u201cThe Problems of Interpretation.\u201d After presenting the view of Covenant Postmillennialism and Covenant Amillennialism, he proceeds to give the view of Dispensationalism. The key issue in interpreting the New Covenant is exactly how it relates to the Church. Among Dispensationalists, there are three different positions, the same three discussed under Ryrie\u2019s work: that there is only one covenant which has no application to the Church; that there is one covenant with two aspects; and, that there are two distinct and separate covenants both having the same name. Regardless of which view a Dispensationalist might take, they all agree that \u201cthe new covenant as revealed in the Old Testament concerns Israel and requires fulfillment in the millennial kingdom.\u201d
\nWalvoord then turns to the \u201cProvisions of the New Covenant.\u201d All seven provisions that Walvoord derives from the Jeremiah account of the New Covenant are directly related to Israelology. The same is true of the provisions derived from parallel passages in Isaiah 6:8\u20139, Jeremiah 32:37\u201340 and Ezekiel 37:21\u201328. However, this is true only if all of these provisions are understood literally. As Walvoord states, \u201cto spiritualize the passage to the extent of making Israel mean the church and to restrict the passage to a spiritualized fulfillment of the details of the covenant robs the covenant of its essential features.\u201d Understood this way, which is a very normal way of understanding things, then the \u201cpresent age of grace does not fulfill these provisions in many particulars.\u201d Not one of the seven features, nor the added ones from related passages, are now being fulfilled in Israel or for Israel or by Israel. To simply apply them to the Church requires that \u201cthese plain statements \u2026 be ignored or spiritualized\u201d to avoid the dispensational teaching \u201cthat the new covenant is designed for millennial conditions.\u201d On the other hand, if these provisions are \u201ctaken in their ordinary literal sense, the promise of the new covenant as contained in Old Testament prophecy corresponds precisely\u201d to the dispensational position.
\nHaving established that the Old Testament passages on the New Covenant were to be understood literally, Walvoord then summarizes the \u201cGeneral Teaching of the New Testament on the New Covenant.\u201d After citing the twelve New Testament passages on the New Covenant, Walvoord states that the \u201cgeneral teaching of New Testament passages bearing upon the New Covenant is that the new covenant has been made possible by the sacrifice of Christ\u201d for in the gospels it is connected with the Lord\u2019s Supper and in Hebrews 12:24 \u201cChrist is declared to be the Mediator of the new covenant.\u201d On this point, both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology agree. The point of division is over the issue of \u201cwhether the new covenant promised Israel is being fulfilled now, \u2026 or whether Israel\u2019s new covenant will be fulfilled after the second coming of Christ in the millennial kingdom.\u201d Covenant Theology believes in the former, but Dispensationalism in the latter. Dispensationalism \u201cwould agree that a new covenant has been provided for the church, but not the new covenant for Israel.\u201d Walvoord, like Chafer and Ryrie, believes that there are two separate new covenants.
\nThis leads to Walvoord\u2019s next section in which he deals with the \u201cNew Covenant for Israel in the New Testament.\u201d Walvoord develops his points on the basis of the two new covenants view: one for Israel and one for the Church, Looking at Romans 11:27, Walvoord points out that the New Covenant of this verse includes the \u201ctaking away of sin from Israel.\u201d In context, the timing of this event is the second coming and when all Israel shall he saved (Rom. 11:25). This verse is taken as referring to the New Covenant with Israel which is not now in force, but awaits the future. A favorite passage used by Covenant Theology is Hebrews eight which quotes the entire New Covenant as found in Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 which they claim proves the New Covenant is being fulfilled in the Church. Walvoord, however, denies that this is the point of Hebrews eight. On the contrary, what Hebrews eight is trying to prove is that the Mosaic Covenant was temporary and that \u201cChrist is the Mediator of a better covenant than Moses, established upon better promises.\u201d Since \u201cthe Mosaic covenant was not faultless,\u201d it was \u201cnever intended to be an everlasting covenant.\u201d The reason for the quotation of the Jeremiah passage was not to show that it was now being fulfilled, because the writer of Hebrews never states that this is the case. The purpose was to show \u201cthat the Old Testament itself anticipated the end of the Mosaic law in that a new covenant is predicted to supplant it.\u201d The only part of the Jeremiah prophecy that the writer of Hebrews applies is \u201cthe one word new and argues that this would automatically make the Mosaic covenant old.\u201d This is further affirmed by the two statements Hebrews makes: that the Law of Moses is becoming old and is nigh unto vanishing away. When Jeremiah announced the coming of a New Covenant, he \u201cautomatically declares the Mosaic covenant as a temporary, not an everlasting covenant.\u201d The argument of Hebrews eight is not to argue for \u201cthe introduction of the new covenant for Israel\u201d but only that \u201cthe Old Testament anticipates an end to the Mosaic covenant.\u201d The writer never states that the New Covenant for Israel is now being fulfilled. As for Hebrews 10:16\u201317, Walvoord interprets this passage as teaching \u201cthat the new covenant with Israel not only anticipated the abrogation of the law but also the end of the Mosaic sacrifices as a basis for forgiveness.\u201d This is true because God promised \u201cto remember their sin no more.\u201d This in turn required \u201ca sacrifice for sin which does not need to be repeated.\u201d This was accomplished by the death of Christ. As with the Hebrews eight passage, it does not claim that the New Covenant with Israel is now in force. As for Hebrews 12:24, the Greek word for new is neos rather than kainos as is the case in all the other references. The meaning of neos is \u201crecent\u201d and this New Covenant is now said to be in force. Based on this, Walvoord interprets this to be a reference \u201cto the covenant with the church and not to Israel\u2019s new covenant.\u201d As for Hebrews 9:15, the point of this passage is only that the Messiah is the Mediator of the New Covenant and this would be true \u201cboth for a covenant with the church and a covenant with Israel.\u201d
\nIt should again be noted that in Dispensationalism it is possible to believe in only one New Covenant, already ratified by the blood of the Messiah with the spiritual blessings available to Jewish and Gentile believers today, but with the national, material and spiritual blessings for Israel still awaiting a future fulfillment. As with the Abraham and Davidic Covenants, not all provisions of each covenant go immediately into effect upon ratification.
\nSince Walvoord believes in two new covenants, he concludes with a discussion on the \u201cNew Covenant with Believers of This Age.\u201d Walvoord again cites the three views among Dispensationalists as to how the New Covenant relates to believers today. Some believe that the Church does not relate to the New Covenant at all but \u201conly to the blood of the new covenant.\u201d Others believe that there is one New Covenant with two aspects, one for Israel and one for the Church. However, Walvoord opts for Chafer\u2019s view: that there are two distinct new covenants, the New Covenant for Israel and the New Covenant for the Church. The former will be fulfilled for the nation of Israel in the Messianic Kingdom and the latter is fulfilled for the Church at the present time. The passages Walvoord feels speak of the New Covenant for the Church are those which connect the New Covenant with the Lord\u2019s Supper. Walvoord had earlier argued against the Covenant Theology view of the kingdom by pointing out that when John and Jesus began preaching that the kingdom was at hand, they did not need to explain what they meant by that since the Jewish audience already knew from the Old Testament. If this was a total misconception, then certainly Jesus would have corrected it. The same logic could be applied to the two new covenants view. When Jesus at the Last Passover said, This is the cup of the New Covenant in my blood, the only New Covenant the apostles would have known about is the one mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 and related passages. The fact that Jesus did not explain that He meant a different New Covenant implies that no misconception existed. Thus there is a fourth option for Dispensationalism. There is only one New Covenant which is made with Israel. Like the Abrahamic Covenant, it contains both physical and spiritual promises. As with the Abrahamic Covenant, the physical promises are limited to Israel but the spiritual were promised to go out to the Gentiles. Gentile believers have become \u201cpartakers\u201d of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant as they are of the Abrahamic Covenant.
\nPentecost begins his discussion by explaining the \u201cImportance of the New Covenant.\u201d Two things stand out concerning the New Covenant: first, it promises a national regeneration of Israel; and, second, this is to be accomplished by the shedding of blood, ultimately, the blood of the Messiah. The bone of contention is the role of the Church in the New Covenant. Covenant Amillennialism insists that the Church is fulfilling this very covenant today, \u201cbecause the church today is redeemed by blood.\u201d It is obvious that if \u201cthe church fulfills this covenant, she may also fulfill the other covenants made with Israel and there is no need for an earthly millennium.\u201d Dispensationalism denies that the Church is fulfilling any of the Jewish covenants, though they do recognize that the Church is somehow related to the New Covenant. The proper interpretation of the New Covenant and how it relates to Israel and the Church is crucial in Dispensationalism.
\nPentecost next goes on to discuss the \u201cProvisions of the New Covenant.\u201d For the most part, Pentecost cites the provisions as listed by Ryrie and Walvoord quoted earlier in this chapter. Pointing out that this covenant is referred to as an everlasting covenant, Pentecost summarizes the provisions of the covenant as including Israel\u2019s national salvation which includes her \u201cregeneration, forgiveness and justification\u201d; a national outpouring of the Holy Spirit; a national regathering; and, a national \u201crestoration to the place of blessing.\u201d All of these provisions of the New Covenant are \u201cfounded on the blood of Jesus Christ.\u201d
\nPentecost then discusses the \u201cCharacter of the New Covenant.\u201d As with the preceding three covenants, the New Covenant is also viewed as \u201ca literal and unconditional covenant,\u201d and Pentecost presents three reasons for this view. First, it is called an \u201ceternal\u201d covenant, and for that to be true it must be unconditional. Second, the only condition spelled out is the \u201cI will\u201d of God, so the fulfillment is entirely dependent upon God and not man. Third, this covenant elaborates on the \u201cblessing\u201d aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, and that one is unconditional; therefore, \u201cthis covenant must be also.\u201d Fourth, this covenant is primarily concerned with the issue of salvation, which \u201cis solely the work of God.\u201d A covenant that \u201cguarantees salvation to the nation Israel must be apart from all human agency and therefore unconditional.\u201d
\nIt is at this point that Pentecost deals with the crucial issue of the \u201cFulfillment of the New Covenant.\u201d Pentecost discusses the issue in three categories. The first is \u201cthe nation with whom the covenant is made\u201d and he states that it \u201cshould be clear \u2026 that this covenant was made with Israel, the physical seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and with them alone.\u201d If interpreted literally, the covenant was made with the Jewish people.
\nThe second category concerns \u201cthe time of the fulfillment of the New Covenant\u201d and points out four things. First, when it was spoken of in the Old Testament, it was viewed as always being future. Second, the same is true today \u201cfor this covenant cannot be realized by Israel until God has effected her salvation and restoration to the land.\u201d Third, the covenant \u201cmust follow the return of Christ\u201d because of the order given in Romans 11:26\u201327 and because the \u201cblessings anticipated in the covenant will not be realized until Israel\u2019s salvation, and this salvation follows the return of the Deliverer.\u201d Fourth, the covenant \u201cwill be realized in the millennial age\u201d because the description of \u201cthe blessings to be experienced in the time of the fulfillment of the new covenant \u2026 will be realized by Israel in the millennial age.\u201d Pentecost concludes that \u201cthis covenant, which was future in the time of the prophets, and was future in the New Testament, can only be realized [by Israel] \u2026 in the millennial age.\u201d
\nThe third category is the crucial one, \u201cThe relation of the church to the new covenant.\u201d The issue concerns \u201cthe relationship of the believers of this present age to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334.\u201d Pentecost discusses this issue at length and makes four points.
\nFirst, he points out that there are three different dispensational views concerning this question. The first is a small minority which says there is only one New Covenant made with Israel which will be fulfilled in the future, \u201cto which the church bears no relationship whatsoever.\u201d Although \u201cthe blessing of that covenant comes to others beside Israel now, since the blood was \u2018shed for many,\u2019 \u201d the Church itself has nothing actually to do with this covenant. It awaits a future fulfillment in the millennium. Very few Dispensationalists hold to this first view today. The second view is that \u201cthere is one new covenant with a two-fold application; one to Israel in the future and one to the church now.\u201d As Pentecost states, this view \u201cplaces the church under the new covenant, and views the relationship as a partial fulfillment of the covenant.\u201d The third view is \u201cthe two-covenant view,\u201d the view of Chafer, Ryrie and Walvoord. This view believes that there are two separate and distinct new covenants, one for Israel to be made in the future and \u201cthe second made with the church in this age.\u201d This view takes all the references to the New Covenant in the New Testament and divides them into two groups: those which speak of the New Covenant for Israel and those which speak of the New Covenant for the Church. This view insists \u201cthat Israel\u2019s new covenant is to be fulfilled by Israel alone,\u201d and \u201cit would see the church as brought into relation to God by a new covenant that was established with them.\u201d These are three answers given by Dispensationalists as to the relationship of the Church to the New Covenant. Pentecost himself does not accept any of these three views but does point out that all Dispensationalists agree on one point: that \u201cthe new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation Israel and not by the church.\u201d Though there may be disagreement as to the \u201crelationship of the church to the blood required by that covenant,\u201d it \u201ccan not change the essential promises of God in the covenant itself.\u201d Regardless of \u201cany relationship of the church to this blood, the covenant stands as yet unfulfilled and awaits a future literal fulfillment.\u201d
\nSecond, before giving his own view of the relationship of the Church to the New Covenant, Pentecost expounds upon Hebrews eight which quotes Jeremiah 31:31\u201334, and which Covenant Theologians use to prove that the New Covenant of Jeremiah has already been introduced and is being fulfilled by and in the Church. Pentecost contends that \u201cno such statement or intimation is made in the passage.\u201d Why is Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 quoted in a letter written to believers? Pentecost shows that a careful reading of the author\u2019s own statements in Hebrews eight will reveal the real reason for the quotation: to show that the Old Testament itself viewed \u201cthe old covenant \u2026 as ineffectual and temporary and was ultimately to be superseded by an effectual covenant.\u201d Jeremiah was quoted \u201conly to prove that the old covenant, that is, the Mosaic, was temporary.\u201d The author of Hebrews never states that the New Covenant of Jeremiah was now being fulfilled in the Church. He quotes Jeremiah only to prove that even Jeremiah viewed the Mosaic Covenant to be temporary. Pentecost concludes that it is \u201ca misrepresentation of the thinking of the writer to the Hebrews to affirm that he teaches that Israel\u2019s new covenant is now operative with the church.\u201d
\nThird, Pentecost provides his own view as to how the church relates to the New Covenant, and while it has some similarities with the other three dispensational views, it is unique enough to be labeled as a fourth view and probably the best, since it is most consistent with the way the New Testament treats the New Covenant. Pentecost points out that when Jesus spoke of the New Covenant during the Last Passover, the disciples would have naturally \u201cunderstood Him to be referring to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31.\u201d Jesus did not explain that He meant anything different by the term than that which was normally understood. Pentecost then shows that in the way Jesus is quoted by Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, This is my blood of the covenant \u2026,\u201d the emphasis is \u201cupon the soteriological aspects of that covenant,\u201d for the \u201cblood that was being offered was that required by the promised new covenant and was for the purpose of giving remission of sins.\u201d The way Jesus is quoted by Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, the emphasis is on \u201cthe eschatological aspects of the new covenant, stating that the new covenant is instituted with His death.\u201d Again, the apostles \u201cwould certainly have understood any reference to the new covenant on that occasion as reference to Israel\u2019s anticipated covenant of Jeremiah.\u201d What Jesus was saying was \u201cthat that very covenant was being instituted with His death,\u201d though Israel \u201cwill not receive its fulfillment nor its blessings until it is confirmed and made actual to them at the second advent of Christ.\u201d Pentecost distinguishes between \u201cthe institution of the covenant and the realization of the benefits of it.\u201d This is not unique to the New Covenant. The Abrahamic, Palestinian, and Davidic Covenants were all instituted at a specific point of time, but often the benefits came years and\/or centuries later. The New Covenant was instituted by the death of Christ and the shedding of Messiah\u2019s blood; however, \u201cits benefits will not be received by Israel until the second advent.\u201d Pentecost\u2019s approach is the best in explaining how the Church relates to the New Covenant.
\nFourth, Pentecost concludes by giving four reasons \u201cthe church is not now fulfilling Israel\u2019s new covenant.\u201d First, the \u201cterm Israel is nowhere used in the Scriptures for any but the physical descendants of Abraham.\u201d The Church is never called Israel and cannot \u201cfulfill these promises made to the nation.\u201d Second, the New Covenant contained both physical and spiritual promises and blessings. While the Church is promised the spiritual blessings such as \u201csalvation, the forgiveness of sin, the ministry of the Holy Spirit,\u201d the Church is never promised the physical blessings such as \u201cinheritance in a land, material blessings on the earth, and rest from oppression, which were parts of the promise to Israel.\u201d The New Covenant did not limit its promises to Israel to salvation but also promised \u201ca new life on the millennial earth as all her covenants are realized.\u201d The Church is sharing in the spiritual aspects of the New Covenant, but the Church \u201ccertainly is not fulfilling the material portions of this covenant.\u201d Such belong to Israel alone. Third, this principle is not only true of the New Covenant but is true of the others as well. The Abrahamic Covenant also promised both physical and spiritual blessings. Just as the Church today \u201creceives blessings of the Abrahamic covenant \u2026 by faith without being under or fulfilling that covenant, so the church may receive blessings from the new covenant without being under or fulfilling that new covenant.\u201d Again, the Church only shares or partakes of the spiritual benefits but not the physical benefits. Fourth, the \u201ctime element contained within the covenant itself,\u201d in both testaments, \u201cprecludes the church from being the agent in which it is fulfilled.\u201d The New Covenant \u201ccan not be fulfilled and realized by Israel\u201d until after the Great Tribulation and the second coming. Pentecost concludes that since \u201cthe tribulation, second advent, and millennial age are yet future, the fulfillment of this promise must be yet future, and therefore the church can not now be fulfilling this covenant.\u201d
\nIn his discussion of the New Covenant, McClain points out six things. First, it is \u201cnew\u201d only in contrast with the Mosaic Covenant which it replaced. It is never set over against either the Abrahamic or Davidic Covenants, for it does not replace them. Second, the New Covenant \u201carises out of, and is based on, Jehovah\u2019s everlasting love and grace.\u201d Third, since \u201cthe regal benefits promised by the Mosaic covenant had been lost because the nation had broken it,\u201d the New Covenant \u201cwill secure these benefits by means which are no longer legally conditioned.\u201d This will result in \u201ca new manner of life.\u201d Fourth, the New Covenant is unconditional, and so reflects \u201cthe gracious spirit\u201d of the Abrahamic Covenant and not \u201cthe legalistic spirit\u201d of the Mosaic Covenant \u201cwhich it supplants.\u201d Even when the Mosaic Covenant predicted Israel\u2019s future salvation and restoration, this basis was not \u201cany surviving rights in the broken covenant of Sinai,\u201d but even the Law of Moses states the basis to be the Abrahamic Covenant in Leviticus 26:40\u201344. Fifth, the New Covenant is as sure as \u201cthe very order and stability of the created universe\u201d according to Jeremiah 31:35\u201337. This shows that it is unconditional and \u201crests on what God is and does.\u201d Sixth, \u201cthe New Covenant is solidly embedded in a historical context.\u201d What this means is that \u201cthe people involved is the Israel of history,\u201d the land involved is the Promised Land of history, and the city involved is \u201chistoric Jerusalem.\u201d It is in this city and in this land that \u201cthe chosen people will enjoy once more their historic blessings.\u201d<\/p>\n
e. Summary<\/p>\n
Chafer summarizes the teaching of the unconditional covenants by dealing with the seven features of these four covenants. Not all are related to Israelology, but those that are will be discussed. Before dealing with the seven features, Chafer points out his premise:<\/p>\n
Appeal is addressed to the student to observe the literal and physical character of these predictions, and how impossible it is within the bounds of reason to give these prophecies a spiritual interpretation. The first wrong turn in the road which traces Israel\u2019s coming glories is the willingness to misinterpret the meaning of the words employed, and beyond that error is the more pernicious method of ignoring these Scriptures altogether. The whole field of complexity has by many been found to disappear when terms are taken in their normal, grammatical, and natural meaning\u2014Israel is not the Church now, nor is the kingdom the Church; Zion is Jerusalem and not heaven; and the throne of David is precisely what David believed it to be, an earthly institution which has never been, nor will it ever be, in heaven.<\/p>\n
The first feature is \u201cA Nation Forever.\u201d Chafer points out that the clear teaching of Scripture is that Israel is an \u201celect nation\u201d and for this reason \u201cwill be preserved as such forever.\u201d For this reason Israel as a nation will continue to exist even beyond the Messianic Kingdom of one thousand years. They will continue to exist as Israel through all eternity. Since \u201ctheir covenants respecting the land are everlasting, it follows, also, that this people as a nation must inherit and inhabit the new earth that is to be.\u201d This is a teaching of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus also promised the \u201cpreservation of this nation throughout this age of her scattering.\u201d This nation \u201cwill be preserved forever.\u201d If this is not what the text means, then \u201clanguage fails to express thought.\u201d The election of Israel is on the basis of \u201cJehovah\u2019s love for that people\u201d and not on the basis of merit. This elective love is an everlasting love which \u201cincludes a love from all eternity past and extends on into eternity to come.\u201d For that reason Israel is \u201ca nation forever.\u201d
\nThe second feature is \u201cA Land Forever.\u201d That the land of Canaan is Israel\u2019s was promised by the Abrahamic Covenant, and it was reaffirmed by the Palestinian Covenant. Chafer then points out that there are seven facets of this feature of \u201ca land forever,\u201d all of which are based on the Palestinian Covenant of Deuteronomy 28\u201330. The first facet was the dispersion of Israel. There are a total of \u201cthree distinct dispossessions of the land \u2026 and three restorations.\u201d According to Chafer, the present dispersion is the third dispersion and the third restoration is still future, The second facet is a \u201cFuture Repentance of Israel,\u201d which will cause Israel to become \u201ca mourning people\u201d which will occur at the second coming \u201cwhen they recognize their true Messiah at the time of His return.\u201d The third facet is the \u201cReturn of the Messiah\u201d at which time Israel will gain \u201cthe final possession of the land.\u201d In fact, \u201cJehovah will Himself place Israel in their land at the time of His \u2018return.\u2019 \u201d The fourth facet then becomes \u201cIsrael\u2019s restoration to the land.\u201d The \u201ctruth that Israel will return to their own land\u201d becomes one of the major themes of prophecy. Jesus said that \u201cIsrael\u2019s regathering \u2026 will be accomplished by angelic ministration and in relation to His second coming.\u201d Chafer then cites the many times that God said to the Patriarchs, \u201cI will give you this land,\u201d to show that the possession of the land was promised to the Patriarchs as well as to their descendants. Obviously, they died without the promises ever being fulfilled. \u201cSince it was given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as to their seed these must be resurrected and through resurrection come to the realization of this covenant.\u201d The point is that when the resurrection of the Old Testament saints occurs, they will possess the land and inherit the promises made to them. The fifth facet is \u201cIsrael\u2019s conversion as a nation.\u201d With the final regathering, Israel will experience a national regeneration that will keep them a saved nation throughout the kingdom period. When the \u201cnational conversion\u201d comes, it will include \u201cfrom the least of them unto the greatest of them.\u201d The sixth facet is \u201cjudgment on Israel\u2019s oppressors.\u201d Gentiles will all appear before this judgment at or after the second coming. They will be judged on the basis of their \u201ctreatment of Israel whom Christ identifies as \u2018my brethren.\u2019 \u201d This judgment will determine who among the surviving Gentiles \u201care accounted worthy of entrance into Israel\u2019s kingdom.\u201d The seventh facet is that \u201cthe nation will be blessed then.\u201d At this point Israel will enjoy all of the blessings and conditions promised in those four covenants.<\/p>\n
The third feature is \u201cA King Forever\u201d:<\/p>\n
\u2026 the covenant with David provided an unending occupancy of David\u2019s throne. His throne is established forever (2 Sam. 7:16), His seed shall endure forever (Ps. 89:36), and David shall never lack for one to sit upon his throne (Jer. 33:17).\u2026 Christ was the rightful heir to that throne and He, from that time on and forever, fulfills the promise to David.<\/p>\n
The fourth feature is \u201cA Throne Forever\u201d:<\/p>\n
In addition to the initial covenant with David, three other passages announce the eternal character of David\u2019s throne: \u2026 (Ps. 89:36\u201337); \u2026 (Isa. 9:6\u20137); \u2026 (Luke 1:31\u201332). Here the observation may be made that David himself believed this promise was of an earthly throne, which would not be located in heaven then or ever.\u2026 David was not promised a heavenly, spiritual throne, and the one who contends that David\u2019s throne is now a heavenly rule is by so much obliged to name the time and circumstances when and where so great a change has been introduced.<\/p>\n
The fifth feature is \u201cA Kingdom Forever\u201d:<\/p>\n
In Scripture usage, the King, His throne, and His kingdom are inseparable. The reign of the King, however, is over a theocratic kingdom. Its Ruler will be Immanuel\u2014\u201cGod with us\u201d (Isa. 7:14).\u2026 The kingdom will be heavenly in its character, since it manifests the rule of heaven over the earth and the heavenly demands.\u2026 This kingdom will be in the earth.\u2026 It will be centered in Jerusalem.\u2026 This kingdom will be over regathered and converted Israel.\u2026 Messiah\u2019s kingdom will include Gentiles.\u2026 That kingdom will be established by virtue of the returning King.\u2026<\/p>\n
The sixth feature is \u201cA New Covenant\u201d:<\/p>\n
Reference at this point is to the new covenant yet to be made with Israel and not to the new covenant now in force in the Church. All unconditional covenants\u2014the Abrahamic, the Palestinian, the Davidic\u2014since they rest on the faithfulness of God and not at all on the unfaithfulness of men, are unbreakable by men. They endure forever.\u2026 He will make a new covenant with them\u2014not to supersede any unconditional covenant, but to supersede the law covenant which they have broken.\u2026 (Jer. 31:31\u201334).<\/p>\n
Chafer believed in two new covenants, one which was \u201cyet to be made with Israel,\u201d and one \u201cnow in force in the Church.\u201d This was and still is the view of many Dispensationalists, but not all. Even Chafer observed, after citing Jeremiah 31:31\u201334, which he identified as the New Covenant with Israel, that \u201cthe four blessings which this covenant promises \u2026 are the present possession of those who comprise the Church.\u201d At any rate, Chafer\u2019s two new covenants are not germane to Dispensationalism.
\nThe seventh feature is \u201cAbiding Blessings:\u201d<\/p>\n
Every promise found in Jehovah\u2019s covenants, including those just named in the new covenant, will constitute Israel\u2019s blessings forever.\u2026 But no blessing is more far-reaching or complete than that oft-repeated assurance from Jehovah, \u201cAnd I will be their God\u201d \u2026 and they will be His people. This promise suggests that in the Messianic kingdom Israel\u2019s relation to Jehovah will be one of unbroken fellowship such as was accorded Adam in Eden before the fall.<\/p>\n
3. The Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses<\/p>\n
The one common element to which all Dispensationalists adhere is the fact that the law was given to Israel and not the Church. Chafer defines the Law of Moses as a rule of life which God gave to Israel. Contrary to frequent charges by Covenant Theologians, Dispensationalists like Chafer never believed that the Law of Moses was a means of salvation. As a rule of life, the Law of Moses was temporary, \u201cwhich ran its course for 1500 years,\u201d but came to an end with the death of the Messiah. Chafer identifies the Law of Moses with \u201cthat covenant which God made with Israel\u201d at the Exodus. In other words, it is the Mosaic Covenant which contained the Law of Moses. Chafer views this covenant as \u201cstrictly a conditional agreement which conditioned divine blessings upon human faithfulness.\u201d However, it need not be so \u201cstrictly\u201d limited, and other Dispensationalists have noted that there was grace even under the law. Other affirmations that Chafer makes which are important to Dispensational Israelology include the fact that the Law of Moses did not exist before \u201cit was proclaimed by Moses at Mount Sinai.\u201d Whatever rule or rules of life existed between Adam and Moses, it was not the Law of Moses. Furthermore, the Law of Moses was given to Israel and \u201cwas never under any circumstances addressed to Gentiles; and as certainly it is never addressed to Christians.\u201d In other words, the Law of Moses was never intended to be for the Church, nor is any part of it intended to be a rule of life for the Church or any New Testament believer. Any believer who \u201cbecause of ignorance of God\u2019s will for them\u201d begins to obligate himself to the Law of Moses is then required \u201cto do the whole law\u201d and cannot subjectively decide which part is applicable and which part is not. The truth is that \u201cthe law which Moses commanded came to its termination at the time and under the circumstances divinely decreed,\u201d that is, at the death of Christ.
\nIn a later volume, Chafer affirms that the Law of Moses was a rule of life \u201cdesigned to govern Israel in the land,\u201d In spite of accusations coming from Covenant Theologians, Dispensationalists like Chafer did not believe that the Law of Moses was given as a means of salvation, for concerning the law as a means of justification, \u201cit was never that, nor could it be.\u201d Like Covenant Theology, Chafer divides the Law of Moses into moral, civil, and ceremonial (\u201creligious\u201d) commandments; but unlike Covenant Theology, Chafer does not make these distinctions in order to keep a part of the law intact for today while doing away with the rest. On the contrary, Chafer sees the law as a single package, all of which has been done away, for \u201cthe law as an ad interim system did come to its end and a new divine economy superseded it.\u201d Chafer also points out various paradoxes of the Law of Moses. The law was \u201choly, just, and good,\u201d but because Israel failed, it became a \u201cministration of death.\u201d The law \u201cwas ordained unto life,\u201d but because of Israel\u2019s weakness in being able to keep it, it could not give life. However, it did succeed in serving as a \u201cchild-conductor, to lead to Christ.\u201d This was true both individually and dispensationally, but it is wrong \u201cto impose the law system upon the heavenly people.\u201d This is a statement all Dispensationalists can agree to without necessarily agreeing to the distinction between Israel and the Church in terms of \u201cheavenly\u201d and \u201cearthly.\u201d
\nWhat all Dispensationalists do recognize is that there are different law codes for different periods of time, which is why Dispensationalists are what they are. Covenant Theologians in general refuse to recognize these differences and try to coalesce them into their one covenant of grace while accusing Dispensationalists of violating the unity of the Bible. To this Chafer responds by insisting that it is wrong to impose a unity on Scripture that is not there naturally. This is trying to \u201cblindly \u2026 fuse these opposing principles into one system\u201d while either ignoring or trying to explain away the obvious differences. As Chafer asserts, the \u201ctrue unity of the Scriptures \u2026 is found when God\u2019s plain differentiations are observed.\u201d To accuse Dispensationalists of creating these differences is wishful thinking, for these \u201cconflicting principles, in the text of Scripture, are observable to all who penetrate deep enough to recognize the essential features of divine administration.\u201d In fact, the truth of the matter is that in place of creating these distinctions, \u201cthe dispensationalist is the one who has a solution for them.\u201d Chafer is describing Covenant Theology when he states: \u201cA plan of interpretation\u2014which, in defense of an ideal unity of the Bible, contends for a single divine purpose, ignores drastic contradictions and is sustained only by occasional or accidental similarities\u2014is doomed to confusion when confronted with the many problems which such a system imposes on the text of Scripture.\u201d The validity of this charge has been shown in the preceding chapters. A Dispensationalist recognizes the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16, but this is not the same as saying that every part of Scripture is equally applicable to every individual believer or that it applies equally to Jews, Gentiles, and the Church, for \u201call Scripture is not of primary application to a particular person or class of persons which the Bible designates as such.\u201d Not all Scripture is addressed to the Jew any more than it is addressed to the Gentile. Nor is all Scripture addressed to the Church, or to the Covenant Theologian\u2019s one people of God. There is no question that \u201call Scripture is profitable\u201d in that \u201cit has its moral, spiritual, or secondary application.\u201d However, \u201cthe dispensationalist\u2019s plan of interpretation is none other than an attempt to be consistent in following these distinctions in the primary application of Scripture as far as, and no further than, the Bible carries them.\u201d So the Scriptures must be allowed to mean what they say and to whom they say it. Scriptures addressed to and\/or being about Israel may provide \u201cmoral and spiritual lessons,\u201d but there is no need to impose them on the Church \u201cto comply with all that a primary application of the Scriptures specifically addressed to Israel would demand.\u201d
\nWhile discussing the rule of life in the Old Testament, Chafer goes into more detail as to why the law was given. He begins by pointing out that the law was intended to be temporary, \u201can ad interim,\u201d beginning with Moses and ending with the death of Christ. A primary purpose of the law was to serve as a \u201cchild disciplinarian\u201d in order to lead one to the Messiah. Though primary, it was a distant purpose since 1500 years would transpire before the Messiah was born. A more immediate purpose was to provide \u201ca redeemed people\u201d with a rule of life in the three areas of their \u201ccivil, religious, and moral life.\u201d Contrary to constant harping by the Covenant Theologians, Dispensationalism did not and does not believe that the law provided a way of salvation. It was intended to be a rule of life for the believers among Israel, or the true Israel of God. In Sight of their immediate purpose, Chafer also points out two important truths. First, \u201cthe Mosaic Law was never addressed to Gentiles \u201cexcept for those Gentiles who become proselytes to Mosaic Judaism.\u201d Second, \u201cthe Law of Moses did not serve to institute right relations between an Israelite and God.\u201d In other words, it was not the way of attaining salvation. Instead, the law \u201cwas instruction to people concerning God\u2019s will for them who are elect, redeemed, under covenants and, by so much, basically in right relation with God.\u201d In other words, it was a rule of life for the Old Testament saint. As for the sacrificial system, it too was not for the purpose of attaining salvation. Instead, in \u201ccase of failure to do the law, sacrifices were accepted as a means to restoration\u201d just as confession is for the believer today. It is incredible in light of such clear statements by one who is a recognized spokesman for Dispensationalism in the first half of the twentieth century that Covenant Theologians still insist that Dispensationalism holds to more than one way of salvation and even accuse Chafer of this belief though they conveniently never cite a statement by Chafer to defend their claim. This is not to deny that the law contained \u201can element of merit,\u201d but this merit system was not related to salvation but to attaining blessings for obedience and to avoid judgment for disobedience.
\nLike Covenant Theology, Chafer recognizes three elements in the Law of Moses: commandments, which were moral issues; judgments, which were civic issues; and ordinances, which were religious issues. The difference is that Covenant Theology insists that only two of the three have been done away with while Dispensationalism would insist that the whole law has been rendered inoperative. Another purpose of the law was to reveal the character of sin. It did so by giving sin \u201cthe augmented character of transgression.\u201d While sin has \u201calways been evil in itself in the sight of God,\u201d with the giving of the law, \u201cit became disobedience!\u201d The law did not produce \u201can obedient, people\u201d because \u201cthey were wholly unable to keep the law.\u201d The law for them became \u201ca ministry of condemnation.\u201d The problem was not with the law, but with whom the law had to do: sinful humanity. Once again Chafer affirms that \u201cthe law was never given as a means of salvation or justification,\u201d but it was \u201cgiven as a rule of conduct for Israel in the land.\u201d However, because of Israel\u2019s inability, it became a \u201ccurse,\u201d \u201ccondemnation,\u201d and \u201cdeath.\u201d Chafer again points to the distant purpose of the law which \u201cwas a \u2018schoolmaster\u2019 \u2026 or child-trainer, to bring the offender to Christ\u201d This was temporarily accomplished when the Old Testament saint presented his \u201csin offerings \u2026 which were the type of Christ in His death.\u201d This was more fully \u201caccomplished when the dispensation itself came to an end in the death of Christ.\u201d
\nChafer then turns to the issue of the beginning and the end of the law. Chafer affirms that the Law of Moses clearly began with Moses and that it \u201cwas never imposed upon any people or generation before it was given to Israel at the hand of Moses.\u201d While Chafer and mainline Dispensationalism reject the notion that the law was given as a way of salvation, Chafer expresses a view about the giving of the law that was held by many Dispensationalists in the past, but this is no longer true. This view claims that when Israel accepted the Law of Moses, they rejected grace as a rule of life in favor of the law. While the New Testament clearly presents a contrast between law and grace, it is not the absolute dichotomy in the way Chafer presents it. Other Dispensationalists have pointed out that there was grace under the law just as there is law under grace. However, Chafer had the tendency to carry the dichotomy beyond its biblical bounds as his discussion here shows. Chafer believed that at Mount Sinai Israel had a choice to either accept the Law of Moses in place of grace or reject the Law of Moses and remain under the grace of the Abrahamic Covenant. According to Chafer, when Israel accepted the Law of Moses, they \u201cdeliberately forsook their position under the grace of God which had been their relationship to God until that day, and placed themselves under the Law.\u201d According to the author, God did not require Israel to choose the law, nor was that His primary will for Israel. When Israel chose the law, Israel \u201cfell from grace,\u201d meaning that they chose the Law of Moses as a rule of life and rejected grace as a rule of life. However, no such concept is found in the text which is why virtually all Dispensationalists reject this view today. It is true that Israel had the option to accept or reject the Law of Moses, but that option was not a choice between law and grace. In fact, the giving of the Law of Moses was itself a product of God\u2019s grace. The acceptance of the law was God\u2019s primary will for Israel at that time. The law was what God \u201crequired\u201d of Israel for a proper relationship to Him. In order to obey God, Israel had to accept the Law of Moses. To reject it would not mean that they would remain under the grace of the Abrahamic Covenant, but it would mean disobedience to the revealed will of God. Israel\u2019s options at Mount Sinai were to accept the law and be in a state of obedience or reject the law and be in a state of disobedience. Since the law itself was a product of the grace of God, Israel did not fall from grace by accepting it, but remained in the grace of God as it was now to be administered by the Law of Moses.
\nWhile discussing Eschatology, Chafer again discusses the various Jewish covenants. Concerning the Mosaic Covenant, Chafer states that this was a conditional and temporary covenant promising blessings for obedience and judgment for disobedience. The Mosaic Covenant containing the Law of Moses was \u201ca rule of life addressed to a people who are in covenant relation to God by physical birth.\u201d This covenant was destined to be superseded by the New Covenant.
\nIn an earlier work, Chafer emphasized exactly what the law was or was not. Chafer clearly distinguishes between the way of salvation and a rule of life. For Israel, the Law of Moses was her rule of life and not a way of salvation. Though Covenant Theologians insist on misquoting Dispensationalists on this point, Chafer already made this point in print as early as 1915! That the law was not a means of redemption is evident in that it was given to Israel only after the redemption from Egypt. \u201cThe law of Moses did not redeem Israel; it became her rule of life after she was redeemed.\u201d The national redemption from Egypt was a type of \u201cthe blood redemption of the cross.\u201d The Law of Moses \u201cwas given to Israel alone\u201d and is not the rule of life for the Church saint. The rule of life for the saint today is found in the epistles of the New Testament. As with the Law of Moses, instructions and commandments of the New Testament are not the means of salvation but they are a \u201cheavenly rule of life\u201d for those who are heavenly citizens through the power of God.
\nRyrie also affirms that:<\/p>\n
The Law was given to Israel. Both the Old and New Testaments are unanimous in this (Lev. 26:46; Rom. 9:4). Further, Paul contrasted the Jews who received the Law with the Gentiles who did not (2:14).<\/p>\n
In a later work, Ryrie presents the dispensational view of the Law of Moses:<\/p>\n
To the children of Israel through Moses was given the great code that we call the Mosaic law. It consisted of 613 commandments covering all phases of life and activity. It revealed in specific detail God\u2019s will in that economy. The period covered was from Moses until the death of Christ, or from Exodus 18:27 to Acts 1:26.<\/p>\n
The people were responsible to do all the law (Jas. 2:10), but they failed (Rom. 10:1\u20133). As a result, there were many judgments throughout this long period.\u2026 All during their many periods of declension and backsliding, God dealt with them graciously from the very first apostasy with the golden calf when the law was being delivered to Moses, to the gracious promises of final regathering and restoration in the millennial age to come. These promises of a glorious future are guaranteed secure by the Abrahamic promises, which the law in no way abrogated (Gal. 3:3\u201325). We are also told very clearly in the New Testament (Rom. 3:20) that the law was not a means of justification but of condemnation.<\/p>\n
McClain discusses the Law of Moses and its relationship to God\u2019s theocratic kingdom over Israel. Commenting on \u201cthe terms of the covenant,\u201d McClain states that it includes the promise that \u201cthe nation of Israel would be established in the promised land, and her regal rights under the Abrahamic covenant would be exercised them as long as the nation obeyed\u201d the Law of Moses. The character of this covenant is that it was a conditional covenant, meaning that it was \u201cdependent for its fulfillment upon the actions of the people.\u201d This made it \u201cradically different\u201d from the other Jewish covenants. Though Covenant Theology tries to make it the same as the Abrahamic Covenant, McClain states that by \u201cno device of interpretation can this Mosaic covenant be precisely equated with the earlier covenant with Abraham,\u201d citing Deuteronomy 5:2\u20133 and Galatians 3:17\u201319 as clear evidence. Furthermore, the Mosaic Covenant was destined \u201cto vanish away\u201d according to Hebrews 8:13, but the Abrahamic Covenant \u201cwill never pass away.\u201d It was the nature of its conditionality that led to the failure of the Mosaic Covenant. The problem was not with the Law of Moses; \u201cthe root of failure was not in the Law but in man.\u201d It was for this very reason that the Mosaic Covenant was destined to be replaced by the New Covenant.<\/p>\n
B. Israel Present<\/p>\n
This is Dispensationalism\u2019s weakest area, though logically it should be as well developed as Israel Past and Israel Future. Dispensationalists have written on the subject, but most of what they have written on Israel Present shows how Israel and the Church remain distinct. However, there is usually more said about the Church than Israel per se as this section will show.<\/p>\n
1. The Kingdom of God<\/p>\n
Dispensationalists, like Covenant Theologians, believe that there is more than one facet to the kingdom program. Many Dispensationalists have tried to base this difference on two terms: Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven. Chafer is one example of this:<\/p>\n
The phrase, the kingdom of heaven, is peculiar to the gospel by Matthew, and refers to the rule of God in the earth. In that particular, it is to be distinguished from the kingdom of God, which is the rule of God throughout the bounds of the universe. One, in certain aspects, is included in the other, and there is, therefore, much that is common to both.<\/p>\n
Some Dispensationalists, not understanding the Jewish frame of reference, have tried to make a distinction between the terms \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d and \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d Covenant Theology has had a field day with this and have rightly challenged the validity of this distinction. They have correctly pointed out that by comparing parallel accounts in the gospels, it is obvious that the two terms are used interchangeably and are synonymous. On this point, Covenant Theology is correct, though some go too far when they claim that Dispensationalism stands or falls on this distinction. In fact, many other Dispensationalists have also criticized this distinction and such a view is not germane to Dispensationalism. Chafer observed that \u201cthe phrase, the kingdom of heaven, is peculiar to the Gospel by Matthew\u201d and this fact should have kept him clear of such an error, for Matthew wrote his gospel specifically to Jews while the others did not. Jews then, as Orthodox Jews today, are sensitive to the use of God\u2019s name or even the term \u201cGod.\u201d There is the tendency to use a substitute such as HaShem or The Name or even to write the noun as \u201cG-d.\u201d Another way to substitute is to use the term \u201cHeaven\u201d in place of \u201cGod.\u201d This is exactly what Matthew was doing and so his \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d means exactly the same as \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d While there are facets and distinctives within God\u2019s kingdom program, as even some Covenant Theologians have admitted, such distinctions are not to be based on a distinction between \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d and \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d Most Dispensationalists today no longer make any such distinctions. Covenant Theologians are correct in criticizing this distinction, but overstate their case when they claim that by destroying the distinction they, therefore, destroy Dispensationalism.
\nOne major facet of God\u2019s kingdom program is the Messianic Kingdom or the Millennial Kingdom. Summarizing previous material, Chafer states:<\/p>\n
In that discussion it has been made clear that Israel and her kingdom with her Messiah on David\u2019s throne in Jerusalem is the hope which characterizes the Old Testament. A mere reference to all that has been presented must suffice at this point; but the student should not, through inattention, be unconvinced of the truth that a literal, earthly kingdom is the justifiable hope of Israel as a nation.<\/p>\n
Chafer\u2019s point is that the Old Testament clearly anticipated a literal, earthly kingdom for Israel. This point is conceded by Covenant Theologians of all stripes if it is assumed that the prophecy was intended to be taken literally. Later, Chafer again summarizes previous material:<\/p>\n
Again for want of space and out of the desire to avoid repetition, the student is referred back to the former consideration of this theme in Ecclesiology. No more exact terms could be employed than are used to report the earthly ministry of Christ as one addressed to Israel exclusively and concerning their kingdom as \u201cat hand.\u201d The evidence is complete respecting the fact that Israel\u2019s kingdom was offered to that nation by Christ at His first advent.<\/p>\n
Chafer\u2019s point here is that the kingdom was declared as being at hand by both John the Baptist and Jesus. Neither one tried to explain the meaning of the kingdom they were presenting. This would have been necessary if the kingdom they were offering was something different than what the Jews understood from the Old Testament. The very fact that no explanation or correction was offered shows that the kingdom proclaimed as being at hand was the same one anticipated by the prophets.
\nThen Chafer elaborates on the kingdom offered to Israel. Chafer\u2019s point here is that the failure to recognize that it was the Messianic Kingdom of the Old Testament prophets that Christ offered, which was then rejected and rescinded, has led to the errors of Covenant Theology, especially in its postmillennial and amillennial form. It is this error which causes problems with their Israelology in their emphasis on \u201cthe dispersion of Israel rather than to their regathering.\u201d This failure has led to the error of making the kingdom purely a \u201cspiritual kingdom unknown to either Testament.\u201d It is this misconception that has led Covenant Theologians to interpret Christ\u2019s words as being a rebuke to those who believed in a literal kingdom. On the contrary, there is no rebuke in Acts 1:6\u20137, only a statement that it was not for them to know the timing of the setting up of the kingdom. Chafer points out that a \u201cmethod of interpretation which is free to spiritualize\u201d is a short step away from an actual denial of the authority of Scripture. It may be true that the majority of the Church has chosen to follow this allegorical approach, but truth is not determined by majority vote and so this fact \u201cproves nothing finally.\u201d
\nChafer then moves on to discuss \u201cChiliastic Beliefs Held by the Early Church.\u201d By \u201cearly church,\u201d Chafer means the Apostolic Church. To prove his contention, he cites Acts 15:1\u201329 which deals with the issue of Christian Gentiles and the Law of Moses. Based on this passage, especially the comments by James in verses 13\u201318, Chafer sees the order of events as follows. First, God has now inaugurated a \u201cnew divine undertaking\u201d which is to take out from among the Gentiles \u201ca people for His name.\u201d This is in addition to taking out a people from the Jews and not in place of it. The \u201cnew divine purpose\u201d then \u201cis the outcalling from Jews and Gentiles\u201d in order to become \u201ca company peculiarly chosen\u201d which now constitute the Church. Second, after this purpose is accomplished, the Messiah \u201cwill return and build again the tabernacle of David,\u201d meaning that the Messianic Kingdom will now be set up. Third, at this point the \u201cKingdom blessings will then be fulfilled for Israel and those from among the Gentiles upon whom the divine name is called.\u201d Chafer points out that the Old Testament predicted \u201cthe part Gentiles will have in the earthly kingdom.\u201d The first century Church was now \u201cdiscovering the new divine purpose and recognizing the postponement of the earthly kingdom.\u201d It is with this background that the Jerusalem Council decreed that the \u201cGentiles within the Church are not under the Mosaic Law.\u201d Chafer\u2019s conclusion from this passage is \u201cthat a chiliastic belief that Christ returns before the thousand-year kingdom, was adopted by the church at its first council.\u201d
\nChafer later provides a good summary of his view of the kingdom program. Chafer again makes a distinction between the terms \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven.\u201d Chafer defines the Kingdom of God as that which \u201cincludes all intelligences in heaven or on earth who are willingly subject to God.\u201d He defines the Kingdom of Heaven as that which includes \u201cany sort of empire that God may have on earth at any given time.\u201d Chafer observes correctly that the term \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d is used by Matthew while the others, in parallel contexts, use the term \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d However, Chafer never draws the obvious conclusion that the two terms mean the same thing and that Matthew, writing to Jews, resorts to the common Jewish practice of substituting the term \u201cGod\u201d with the term \u201cheaven.\u201d Chafer claims that \u201cthe differences seem more important than the similarities\u201d but there are no differences apparent between the two terms. Chafer also shows that the kingdom program of God had several facets. Although he refers to those as being the \u201cvarious aspects\u201d of the \u201ckingdom of heaven,\u201d it is not necessary to accept Chafer\u2019s distinctions between the \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and the \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d to accept the \u201cvarious aspects\u201d of the kingdom program. Chafer lists seven such aspects. The first is the \u201ctheocratic\u201d kingdom which was God\u2019s rule over Israel through \u201cdivinely appointed leaders, judges, and patriarchs.\u201d The second is the \u201ccovenanted\u201d kingdom which is the Messianic Kingdom or the Millennial Kingdom as promised in the Davidic Covenant by which it became \u201cthe national hope of Israel.\u201d The third is the \u201cpredicted\u201d kingdom which is the Messianic Kingdom as portrayed by the Old Testament prophets and so anticipated \u201ca glorious kingdom for Israel on earth.\u201d The fourth is the \u201cannounced\u201d kingdom which is the Messianic Kingdom announced as being at hand by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles. It was an offer of the Messianic Kingdom to the nation but the prerequisite was to accept the King. However, that offer was rejected. The fifth is the \u201cpostponed until Christ returns\u201d aspect which is the Messianic Kingdom that was rejected and, therefore, the offer was rescinded. Where Covenant Theology goes wrong is that they fail to understand the nature of the kingdom that was offered to Israel and so try \u201cto build a kingdom on the first advent of Christ as its basis, whereas \u2026 it will be realized only in connection with the second advent.\u201d The sixth is the \u201cmystery\u201d kingdom which is the present facet of God\u2019s kingdom program resulting from the rejecting and rescinding of the Messianic Kingdom. The Mystery Kingdom is defined as \u201cChristendom\u201d and constitutes \u201cthe new message of the New Testament.\u201d The seventh is the \u201crealized\u201d kingdom which is the Messianic Kingdom when it will be established on earth after the second coming. As Chafer states, \u201cNot until the millennium will the kingdom \u2026 come to realization.\u201d
\nIn an earlier work, Chafer defends the dispensational view of the kingdom which Christ offered to Israel. Dispensationalism strongly affirms that the kingdom Jesus offered and proclaimed as being at hand was the same one described by the Old Testament prophets and for that reason Jesus, or John the Baptist before Him, never needed to explain what they meant when they spoke of the kingdom. The kingdom offer was made with the full knowledge that it would be rejected and, therefore, rescinded or, as some prefer, \u201cpostponed.\u201d It is this very issue that Covenant Theology harshly criticizes. Chafer quotes Allis, a covenant amillennial critic dealt with earlier who characterized this dispensational view as \u201cimpossible\u201d and even more serious as minimizing \u201cthe value and centrality of the cross.\u201d Allis and other Covenant Theologians claim that the value of the cross is minimized if the kingdom was offered before the death of Christ. Chafer finds such criticism, coming from Calvinists, as being rather odd and inconsistent on their part because this whole issue is only another example of the \u201cconflict between divine sovereignty and human will.\u201d Chafer provides some other examples in which a predicted event, which made it sure, was still offered as a choice. One such example has to do with the fall of Adam. If is a teaching of Scripture \u201cthat Jehovah\u2019s Lamb was in the redeeming purpose slain from the foundation of the world.\u201d It was decreed in the plan of God that the Messiah would die for human sin even before Adam was created. So when Adam was created, it was certain that he would sin and that his sin would be an act of his own free will. Yet, Adam was commanded not to sin. Chafer asks, \u201cWhat would have become of the redemptive purpose had Adam obeyed God?\u201d A Calvinists answers that because of the decree of God, although Adam was commanded not to sin, there was no question that he would. The offer of eternal life to Adam for not sinning did not \u201cminimize\u201d the redemptive program of God. By the same token, when the kingdom was offered to Israel, it was already known that the offer would be rejected. This offer, however, did not minimize the cross since the rejection of the offer was clearly anticipated. \u201cThe precross offer of the earthly Messianic Kingdom to Israel by her Messiah \u2026 was also made sure by prediction.\u201d It was \u201cequally made sure by prediction that Christ would be crucified which was Israel\u2019s official rejection of their King.\u201d In the same way, other things were made sure such as resurrection, ascension, the present session at the right hand of God the Father, and His future reign \u201con David\u2019s earthly throne and \u2026 over the house of Jacob forever.\u201d Chafer concludes that it was predicted that Israel would reject her Messiah and this rejection could not possibly be \u201cthe personal rejection of a crucified and risen Savior\u201d since these events had not yet happened when He was rejected. Jesus came to Israel as a nation and offered Himself to them as the \u201cMessiah King\u201d and it is this that Israel rejected.
\nIn one of his earlier works defending Premillennialism, especially in its dispensational form, Ryrie discusses the two terms, \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d:<\/p>\n
The phrase kingdom of heaven which is used at least thirty-six times is confined to Matthew\u2019s Gospel. The phrase kingdom of God is used explicitly at least seventy-two times in the New Testament. The characteristics of the two are different. The kingdom of heaven is characterized by religious profession; the kingdom of God, by the new birth (John 3:3). It follows that there are no unbelievers in the kingdom of God, and nowhere is a separation of unbelievers out of the kingdom of God spoken of. Both the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God experience abnormal growth in the world (Mark 4:30\u201332), and both include a saved remnant of Israel and the Church. In brief, there are significant distinctions between the two that make it erroneous to equate the terms; on the other hand, the similarities pose no contradictions.<\/p>\n
However, we still must insist that similarity is not equivalence and that the distinctions are not contradicted.<\/p>\n
Again, such a distinction is not germane to Dispensationalism and many Dispensationalists do not hold to such a distinction, in his later writings, even Ryrie made less and less of such a distinction.
\nIn his systematics, Ryrie details the various facets of the kingdom program. While Covenant Theology recognizes at least two facets of the kingdom program, present and future, they have so closely connected the Church with both facets that the two concepts are virtually inseparable and Israelology takes a very back row seat. Ryrie presents a dispensational view of the Kingdom of God program. By way of definition, Ryrie points out that a kingdom includes \u201cruler(s), ruled, and realm.\u201d The way to distinguish the various facets of the kingdom program is to ask three questions: \u201cWho is the ruler? Who are the ruled? When and where is the kingdom?\u201d Ryrie then shows that there are four facets of the kingdom program. First is the Universal Kingdom which refers to God\u2019s universal rule over His creation and in the kingdom of men. in this case, \u201cGod is ruler.\u201d The ruled is all creation and the whole universe. The place of this kingdom is \u201cin all time and eternity.\u201d The relationship of the Church to this kingdom is being part of it. Since the Church is part of the universe, it is \u201cin the world,\u201d therefore, \u201cit is part of God\u2019s universal kingdom.\u201d The second facet is the Davidic\/Messianic Kingdom, also known as the Millennial Kingdom. It is called the Davidic Kingdom because it is based on the Davidic Covenant, it is called the Messianic Kingdom because the \u201cMessiah will be the ruler.\u201d It is called the Millennial Kingdom because Christ will role this kingdom for one? thousand years. In this case, \u201cChrist is the ruler.\u201d The ruled will be all the inhabitants of the earth. The place of this kingdom is the earth \u201cduring the 1,000 years that follow His second coming.\u201d As to when, it is still future. The relationship of the Church to this kingdom is that it \u201cis not a part of this kingdom at all.\u201d However, \u201cwhen this kingdom is established the church \u2026 will reign with Christ over the Millennial Kingdom.\u201d The third facet is the Mystery Kingdom. This is a present facet of God\u2019s kingdom program that comes between the two comings of the Messiah. This kingdom can be defined as \u201cChristendom\u201d for it includes \u201ctrue believers, professing people, rejecters, and even opponents.\u201d In this case, \u201cthe ruler is God.\u201d \u201cThe ruled are people on the earth who have related themselves in a positive, neutral, or negative way to \u2018Christendom.\u2019 \u201d The place is the earth and the timing is \u201cthe period between His comings.\u201d The relationship of the Church to this kingdom is that of being part of it: \u201cSince the church is part of Christendom, she is part of this concept of the kingdom.\u201d The fourth facet is the Spiritual Kingdom. This, too, is a present facet of God\u2019s kingdom program and Is comprised of all believers and only believe; the way of entry is \u201cby the new birth.\u201d In this case, \u201cthe ruler is Christ.\u201d The ruled are \u201cbelievers only.\u201d The timing of this kingdom is that it \u201cexists now.\u201d The relationship of the Church to this kingdom is that the \u201ctrue church, \u2026 is equivalent to this concept of kingdom.\u201d It should be obvious that Dispensationalism does not deny that the Kingdom of God includes God\u2019s rule in the heart of the believer. However, they do not limit God\u2019s kingdom program to this as so many Covenant Theologians do. Other Dispensationalists would add a fifth facet of God\u2019s kingdom program, the Theocratic Kingdom. This refers to God\u2019s rule over national Israel from Moses to Zedekiah, the last king of Jerusalem.
\nIn the above work, Ryrie did not try to draw a distinction between \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven.\u201d In another work, Ryrie does discuss the importance of such a distinction, or the lack of it, to Dispensationalism. As noted earlier, some Dispensationalists, like Chafer, did and do make a distinction between the terms \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven.\u201d Even Ryrie, in his work discussed earlier, made such a distinction, though he seems to lay less stress on it in this work and in Basic Theology. Covenant Theologians have seized on this point in their attacks on Dispensationalism giving the impression that all Dispensationalists hold to such a distinction. Even worse, they have claimed that this distinction is so germane to Dispensationalism that if they can prove that such a distinction does not exist, they have destroyed the entire system. Ryrie shows that this is not the case at all and points out that such a view does nothing more than create \u201ca straw man by insisting that the entire position is maintained on the basis of a distinction of this sort.\u201d As Ryrie states even among \u201cthe ranks of dispensationalists there are those who hold to the distinction and those who do not.\u201d In other words, this distinction \u201cis not at all determinative.\u201d Ryrie quotes from another leading Dispensationalist, Walvoord, who himself did make a distinction between the two terms. Yet this same Dispensationalist denies that such a distinction \u201cis essential to the dispensational argument.\u201d It is possible to be a Dispensationalist and see no such distinction and it is possible to see such a distinction and still be an Amillennialist. \u201cAs far as affecting the \u2026 dispensational argument \u2026 it is irrelevant.\u201d
\nRyrie clarifies that the real issue is \u201cthe present form of the kingdom.\u201d If the Church is the kingdom, \u201cthen dispensationalism is unwarranted.\u201d If it is not the Church, and \u201cif the future form is the Davidic Kingdom on earth, then dispensational premillennialism is the only answer.\u201d One\u2019s conclusion in turn will also be based \u201con one\u2019s view of the kingdom preached by Jesus.\u201d If it is true that Jesus \u201coffered the Davidic Kingdom, then, \u2026 it was obviously postponed\u201d for it was not set up in Jesus\u2019 day. Dispensationalism insists that it was the Davidic Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed, but was rejected; they also insist that \u201cthe Church is not the fulfillment of it.\u201d This does not mean that they deny that a kingdom exists right, now. Dispensationalists, like some Covenant Theologians, recognize that there is more than one facet to God\u2019s kingdom program. Therefore, they do \u201crecognize the presence of the universal and spiritual kingdom or rule of God.\u201d Dispensationalism does not deny the claim of Covenant Amillennialism that the rule of God is to be found in the hearts of the believers. In fact, Dispensationalists affirm it. They also believe in the Spiritual Kingdom and that all \u201cbelievers in every age are part of this spiritual kingdom.\u201d The Dispensationalist rejects the notion that this is the whole of God\u2019s kingdom program or His millennial program or that the kingdom is the promised Davidic Kingdom. What Jesus offered to Israel was the Davidic or Messianic Kingdom and \u201cnot the general rule of God over the earth or His spiritual reign in individual lives.\u201d It would make no sense for Jesus to offer Israel the Spiritual Kingdom because \u201csuch an announcement would have had no special significance whatever to Israel, for such a rule of God has always been recognized among the people of God.\u201d For this reason, Dispensationalism believes that the kingdom Christ proclaimed as being at hand had to be something different than the Universal Kingdom or the Spiritual Kingdom, \u201cor the rule of God in the individual heart.\u201d When a Dispensationalist does speak of a \u201cpostponement\u201d of the kingdom, he means the Davidic or Messianic Kingdom and not the others. He \u201caffirms the continuing presence of the universal kingdom and the spiritual rule of God in individual hearts today.\u201d Dispensationalism recognizes several facets of God\u2019s kingdom program for \u201cGod does not rule in only one way or through only one means.\u201d Even the three schools of Covenant Theology have recognized more than one facet of God\u2019s kingdom program. The Dispensationalist has recognized all the facets of the kingdom program and their individual distinctiveness and, therefore, \u201ckeeps distinct the Church as another purpose of God in addition to His kingdom purposes.\u201d Ryrie concludes that the distinction between \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven,\u201d though made by some Dispensationalists, \u201cis not the issue at all.\u201d The issue lies elsewhere and is twofold: first, \u201cwhether or not the Church is the kingdom;\u201d and, second, whether the Church is a distinct entity in this age.
\nWalvoord also discusses the kingdom program. As has been noted in previous chapters, Covenant Theology often equates the Church with the Kingdom of God. Those who do see a distinction still relate them so closely that there is no real practical distinction. All see at least two facets of God\u2019s kingdom program: a present facet and a future facet. All will agree that there is at least one distinction \u201cbetween God\u2019s general government over the world and God\u2019s particular rule over the saints.\u201d Both Covenant Premillennialists and Dispensationalists also distinguish another kingdom from those previously mentioned: the Millennial Kingdom and the kingdom which Christ offered which was rejected. All four schools of theology recognize that there is more than one facet to God\u2019s kingdom program but disagree as to how many facets there are and the role of the Church in that program.
\nWalvoord, like Chafer, tries to explain the differences by making a distinction between \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven,\u201d though he admits that the latter is used only by Matthew and that \u201cthe term heaven is a Hebraism for God.\u201d It would have been wise for Walvoord to leave it there rather than try to make a forced distinction between the two terms when parallel passages in any harmony clearly show that the terms are used interchangeably. Again, many Dispensationalists make no such distinction, and even Walvoord states that it is not germane to the issue, for this distinction \u201cis largely an exegetical one which does not affect either the doctrine of the church or prophecy as a whole.\u201d What is germane is a distinction \u201cbetween the kingdom in its present form\u201d and \u201cthe kingdom in its future or millennial form,\u201d regardless of the descriptive titles that might be used. The question really is: what exactly is the present form of the kingdom program? Covenant Amillennialism believes that \u201cthe kingdom of the Old Testament is realized in the church in the present age.\u201d Dispensationalism insists that this kingdom will not be realized until after the second coming. However, Dispensationalism does believe that there is a present facet to the kingdom program which is the Mystery Kingdom of Matthew 13. Walvoord points out that it \u201cis a major error to make the word kingdom \u2026 always mean the same in all its uses,\u201d for that term \u201cmust be interpreted by its context.\u201d The very fact that the kingdom of Matthew 13 is called a \u201cmystery\u201d shows that this facet of the kingdom program was \u201chidden\u201d in the Old Testament but revealed in the New, and the term signifies that it is \u201cspecifically New Testament truth.\u201d The \u201ctruths contained in the mysteries of the kingdom \u2026 are not an exposition of the Old Testament doctrine of the kingdom as it will be fulfilled in the millennium, but rather a presentation of truth as it relates to the kingdom in the present age.\u201d
\nAs for the role of the Church, Walvoord notes that the expression \u201cKingdom of God,\u201d as such, \u201cis never in Scripture made a synonym of the church.\u201d However, it is part of the kingdom program, and the parables of the Mystery Kingdom \u201cconstitute a revelation of the progress of the professing church in the period between the first and second advent.\u201d No such kingdom was revealed in the Old Testament. It is also distinct from the Messianic Kingdom \u201cwhen the kingdom will be visible and the King will be on the earth,\u201d for the Mystery Kingdom in \u201cthe present age features the King\u2019s absence and the rule of His subjects by invisible and spiritual means only.\u201d Again, Dispensationalism affirms that there is also a spiritual kingdom in which Christ rules in the hearts of the believers, but refuses to see this as the totality of the kingdom program.
\nPentecost, more than the previous authors cited thus far, recognized the multi-faceted nature of God\u2019s kingdom program. In his introduction, Pentecost observes what Covenant Theologians of all stripes have also observed: that the Bible speaks of the Kingdom of God in more than just one term, and even in contradictory terms. It is seen as both eternal and temporal, both universal and local, both administered by God and by man. For that reason, all theologians, both covenant and dispensational, speak of more than just one facet of the kingdom program. There are differences even within any one particular school of thought as to how many facets of this kingdom program there are, as well as what exactly constitutes that Kingdom of God. Pentecost, in this and subsequent chapters, presents a dispensational view of the kingdom program.
\nThe first facet of the kingdom program, as found in the Old Testament, is the Eternal Kingdom. It is also known among Dispensationalists as the Universal Kingdom. Pentecost defines this facet as \u201cGod\u2019s kingly rule and sovereignty \u2026 His exercise of sovereignty.\u201d He adds that this kingdom has four aspects. The first is the \u201ctimeless aspect,\u201d because \u201cGod has always possessed absolute sovereignty and rules as king.\u201d Furthermore, \u201cGod could not be rightly called a king without a recognized sovereignty and a realm in which that sovereignty is exercised.\u201d The second aspect is the \u201cuniversal aspect,\u201d which emphasizes \u201cthe unlimited scope of God\u2019s sovereignty,\u201d and this rule of God is \u201cexercised over both the heaven and the earth.\u201d The third aspect is the \u201cprovidential aspect,\u201d which teaches the fact that God sometimes exercises His sovereignty providentially through \u201csecondary causes,\u201d such as men and nature. The fourth aspect is the \u201cmiraculous aspect,\u201d pointing out that sometimes God\u2019s sovereignty \u201cis manifested through the direct intervention of God in the affairs of men with a demonstration of sovereignty by miracles.\u201d
\nThe second facet of God\u2019s kingdom program is the Theocratic Kingdom. The Theocratic Kingdom concerns God\u2019s rule over the earth, particularly humanity. This is God\u2019s \u201crule in this earthly sphere,\u201d and \u201cthere has been one continuous, connected, progressive development of that program\u201d although there are \u201cvarious phases of the program.\u201d It should also be noted that Pentecost, although distinguishing various facets of that kingdom program, does not distinguish them on the basis of terminology. He is one of many Dispensationalists who does not distinguish between \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven,\u201d but sees them used interchangeably of the Eternal Kingdom, the Messianic Kingdom, and \u201cthe present form of the kingdom,\u201d the Mystery Kingdom. The differences in the facets of the kingdom program do \u201cnot lie in the terms, inherently, but in the usage in the context.\u201d Instead, the two facets are to be described in other terms, \u201cto refer to the eternal aspects as the eternal kingdom and the development of that kingdom in time as the theocratic kingdom.\u201d It should be noted that this work was published in 1959 and has had widespread influence and reading; it is a standard of Dispensational Eschatology. This work clearly shows that not all Dispensationalists make a distinction between the two terms, nor is such a distinction germane to Dispensationalism. Yet Covenant Theologians writing one, two or three decades later still insist that such a distinction is fundamental and foundational to Dispensationalism. They then claim that by disproving this one issue, they have destroyed the whole system. This approach takes the belief of only some Dispensationalists, then tries to make it a standard for all Dispensationalists, ignoring the published writings of many. This is intellectual dishonesty, and it reflects the weakness of their own system.
\nPentecost then traces the history of the Theocratic Kingdom in the Old Testament in six phases. The first phase is the \u201ctheocratic kingdom in Eden.\u201d Dominion and authority over the earth were given to Adam, and a \u201ctrue theocracy was established at the time of creation.\u201d Adam derived \u201chis authority from God and therefore \u2026 the rulership was God\u2019s.\u201d Adam\u2019s fall was a \u201crepudiation of this authority of God\u201d and so God announced \u201cthe inception of a program\u201d that is destined to manifest this repudiated authority \u201cby bringing a new creation into existence\u201d through the Messiah. This is the redemptive program of God. This redemption program \u201cparallels the development of the kingdom program and is a necessary adjunct to it, but is not identical with it.\u201d The second phase is the \u201ctheocratic kingdom under human government\u201d in which \u201cgovernment became the medium through which the theocratic kingdom was administered.\u201d The third phase is the \u201ctheocratic kingdom under the patriarchs.\u201d This began with Abraham \u201cthrough whom He would establish His purpose upon earth and through whom all men should receive blessing.\u201d For that reason, the Abrahamic Covenant was made with \u201cpromises concerning a land, a seed, and a blessing\u201d and made in the form \u201cof an eternal, unconditional covenant,\u201d and this same covenant \u201canticipated fulfillment of this whole program \u2026 through one that is to be King.\u201d During this phase the \u201ctheocracy was administered through certain divinely appointed representatives\u201d of which Abraham was only the first; it included Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Joshua as the last. The fourth phase is the \u201ctheocratic kingdom under the judges,\u201d in which the Theocratic Kingdom was administered through the Judges beginning with the first one after Joshua, Othniel, and continuing until Samuel as the last. When in the last days of Samuel\u2019s life the people requested a king \u201clike all the nations,\u201d this was \u201ca rejection of the theocracy,\u201d and this led to a new phase of the Theocratic Kingdom. The fifth phase is the \u201ctheocratic kingdom under the kings,\u201d in which the Theocratic Kingdom became a \u201cmonarchial form of government\u201d which was \u201cGod\u2019s ideal for the theocratic kingdom,\u201d for a king was promised to Abraham and Jacob. The promise of God was that the \u201cauthority of the kingdom was to reside in a king eventually.\u201d The \u201cinstitution of this kingdom form of theocratic administration carries the theocratic kingdom a step further toward its ultimate completion.\u201d This phase began with Saul though his rule and dynasty were quickly rejected in favor of David and his dynasty. This phase of the Theocratic Kingdom continued until the last king of Jerusalem, Zedekiah. It was with David, however, that God \u201cparticularly associated \u2026 the development of the theocratic kingdom.\u201d This is seen in two ways: first, \u201cGod identified His kingdom with the Davidic kingdom\u201d; and, second, God made the Davidic Covenant which \u201cguaranteed that the Davidic kingdom should \u2026 come to full realization as one from David\u2019s line reigned forever.\u201d With David the Theocratic Kingdom \u201cassumed the form of a monarchy over which a God-appointed king reigned and Messiah will come to bring the program to completion in that form.\u201d The sixth phase is the \u201ctheocratic kingdom under the prophets.\u201d Actually, this is contemporary with the previous phase, beginning with the death of Solomon, \u201cthe last divinely appointed ruler,\u201d when there comes \u201cthe rise in importance in the prophetic office.\u201d These now became \u201cthe divinely appointed spokesmen for God, who relayed God\u2019s message to the kings.\u201d As the quality of the theocratic kingdom in its monarchial form began to decline, the prophets announced and described the coming of a new and better facet of the kingdom program, the Messianic Kingdom, to be ruled by David\u2019s greater Son, the Messiah.
\nPentecost next deals with the theme of \u201cThe Kingdom Program in the New Testament.\u201d Pentecost discusses the subject in three major points, the first of which is \u201cThe Theocratic Kingdom Offered at the First Advent of Christ.\u201d In his introduction, Pentecost points out that there is a difference of opinion as to the nature of the kingdom which Jesus offered to Israel. There are those who take the \u201cspiritualized view,\u201d and they claim that Jesus did not offer to Israel a literal, earthly kingdom, but \u201coffered a spiritual kingdom to all who would believe.\u201d This is the viewpoint of Covenant Theology. The dispensational position is the \u201cliteral view\u201d which claims that \u201cthe kingdom announced and offered by the Lord Jesus was the same theocratic kingdom foretold through the Old Testament prophets,\u201d meaning in this case the Messianic Kingdom.
\nPentecost then goes on to discuss this issue in ten key points, five of which are directly relevant to Israelology; and only these will be mentioned. The first is, \u201cThe Old Testament theocracy was offered.\u201d The very same kingdom spoken of and prophesied about by the Old Testament prophets was the one actually offered. The second is, \u201cThe theocratic message limited to Israel.\u201d The kingdom offer \u201cthat was announced was announced only to Israel.\u201d This was necessary since the covenants were made with Israel and the promises were made to Israel. The third is, \u201cThe theocratic message confirmed\u201d; it was authenticated and substantiated by signs and miracles. The fourth point concerns, \u201cThe contingency of the offer,\u201d in that the \u201coffer of the kingdom was a contingent offer\u201d; that is, the establishment of this Theocratic Kingdom was dependent upon Israel\u2019s acceptance of it. Of course, God knew that Israel would reject this offer; nevertheless, \u201cthe blessings of the theocratic kingdom were made to depend upon the repentance of the individual and the reception of a new heart from the Messiah.\u201d The fifth point affirms the fact that it was, \u201cThe bona fide offer.\u201d Covenant Theology claims that if in the program of God no literal kingdom was to be set up, then to offer such a kingdom at this time would mean it was not a legitimate offer. For that reason, Covenant Theology opts for a spiritual kingdom offer only; but Pentecost responds that Israel\u2019s rejection of the kingdom offer was also part of the divine plan. Israel could not reject that which was not offered, so this was a bona fide offer in that, had Israel accepted, then the kingdom would have been set up. The fact that God knew or foreknew that they would not does not affect the genuineness of the offer. \u201cThe rejection of the offer was the appointed means of accomplishing God\u2019s desired end.\u201d As for Covenant Theology\u2019s claim that a \u201cbona fide offer of a kingdom at the first advent minimizes the cross and leaves no place for the accomplishment of the redemptive program of God,\u201d the answer is that no Dispensationalist believes that the death of Christ was merely an afterthought in the mind of God. The death of the Messiah was inevitable, and even if Israel had accepted the Messiah, He still would have been crucified by the Romans on the same basis: treason against Rome. However, as Pentecost replies, \u201cthe offer and the rejection of the theocratic kingdom was the design of God by which His eternal purpose was actually accomplished.\u201d From the divine viewpoint and plan, the act \u201cwhich accomplished the divine purpose of salvation through Christ\u2019s death was the rejection of a kingdom offered to Israel.\u201d To claim that Christ only offered a spiritual kingdom is not evident from the gospels. The kind of kingdom the Jews expected was the kind described by the Old Testament prophets. If the kingdom proclaimed as at hand by John and Jesus was something other than what was expected, then they would have explained it; but they did not. Instead, \u201cthey preached the same kingdom the Old Testament promised and Israel expected without change of concept whatsoever.\u201d Pentecost might have added that the Spiritual Kingdom in which God rules in the heart of the believer has been around since Adam; it was not new, and hardly something to be announced as being at hand.
\nThe second major point is \u201cThe Presentation and Rejection of the Theocratic Kingdom Recorded by Matthew,\u201d which is a survey of that gospel. At the end of that discussion, Pentecost presents a summary:<\/p>\n
The Gospel of Matthew was written to present the Messiah to Israel and to record the attitude of the nation to Him. The first movement of the book has to do with His presentation and authentication, as He is shown to have the legal, moral, judicial, and prophetical rights to the throne, which rights are fully authenticated by the King in His miracles. The second movement observed is the opposition and rejection of the Messiah by the nation Israel. The opposition grows into the open rejection by the nation. As a result of this rejection a mystery program for a new age is revealed. The third great movement has to do with the culmination of the rejection in the death of the Messiah. It was the King of the Jews that was crucified. The resurrection of the Crucified One is a divine approval of all His claims and His authentication as Messiah. Because Israel rejected the Messiah, they bear their sin until He comes to redeem the nation and to reign in glory, acclaimed as Messiah by all.<\/p>\n
The third major point is, \u201cThe Theocratic Kingdom Offer Withdrawn and Postponed After the Rejection by Israel\u201d:<\/p>\n
Whichever of these two views be adopted, the Lord\u2019s word still constitutes the announcement of the withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom to Israel at that time because of their rejection of Him as Messiah.<\/p>\n
The basic thrust of this section is that as a result of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiah, the offer of the kingdom was rescinded, or withdrawn and, therefore, postponed. After the rejection in Matthew 12, Jesus proclaimed a new facet of God\u2019s kingdom program in Matthew 13. In Matthew 16, Jesus declared \u201cthe inception of an entirely new, unheralded, and unexpected program\u2014the church.\u201d He now prepares the disciples for a new kind of ministry as a result of this rejection, and \u201cfor a long delay in the kingdom program as it relates to Israel.\u201d He does promise to return, \u201cat which time the kingdom program with Israel will be resumed.\u201d All these things show \u201cthe withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom and the institution of a new program and age before the kingdom program is consummated.\u201d With the withdrawal of the kingdom, Christ announces \u201cwoes upon the leaders of the nation\u201d and the coming of judgment in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed. As to Christ\u2019s statement, the Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43), which Covenant Theology interprets as referring to the Church, Pentecost gives two alternative possibilities which are more acceptable to Dispensationalism. The first is to take the word nation as a reference to Israel, but with the added meaning of \u201cgeneration.\u201d This means that the kingdom offer is being withdrawn from that generation of Israel of Jesus\u2019 day and will be reoffered to another Jewish generation in the future which will accept it. The second option is to retain the meaning of nation and apply it not to the Church, which is not a nation, but to the Gentiles \u201cto whom the good news would go after the death of Christ and through whom the kingdom program would be developed (the mystery program of Matthew 13) until its final realization at the second advent.\u201d Both views picture \u201cthe withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom to Israel at that time because of their rejection of Him as Messiah,\u201d and both views deny that the kingdom program for Israel is now being fulfilled in the Church.
\nAs for the kingdom program today, Pentecost states:<\/p>\n
During this present age, then, while the King is absent, the theocratic kingdom is in abeyance in the sense of its actual establishment on the earth. Yet it remains as the determinative purpose of God. Paul declared this purpose when he was \u201cpreaching the kingdom of God\u201d (Acts 20:25). Believers have been brought into \u201cthe kingdom of his clear Son\u201d (Col. 1:13) through the new birth. Unbelievers are warned they will not have part in that kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9\u201310; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5). Others were seen to have labored with Paul \u201cunto the kingdom of God\u201d (Col. 4:11). Believers were enjoined to suffer to \u201cbe counted worthy of the kingdom of God\u201d (2 Thess. 1:5). It was Paul\u2019s expectation to be preserved \u201cunto his heavenly kingdom\u201d (2 Tim. 4:18). Such references, undoubtedly, are related to the eternal kingdom and emphasize the believer\u2019s part in it. They can not be made to support the theory that the church is that earthly kingdom that fulfills all the prophecies of the Word.<\/p>\n
However, although during this present age \u201cthe theocratic kingdom is in abeyance in the sense of its actual establishment on the earth,\u201d this age will end with the \u201cThe Theocratic Kingdom Reoffered to Israel\u201d:<\/p>\n
The \u201cgospel of the kingdom\u201d as announced by John (Matt. 3:3), by the disciples who were specially commissioned (Matt. 10:7), by the seventy (Luke 10:9), and by the Lord (Matt. 4:17) proclaimed the good news that the promised kingdom was \u201cat hand.\u201d The Lord indicates this same good news will be announced again.\u2026 (Matt. 24:14). Although the news at the first advert was restricted to Israel, prior to the second advent it will be announced not only to Israel but to the whole world. This preaching \u2026 marks the beginning of the final step in the realization of the theocratic kingdom program.<\/p>\n
The conclusion is that this time the kingdom offer will be accepted. This will lead to the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom, which will be the final facet of the theocratic kingdom.
\nMcClain has produced the most extensive work on the dispensational view of the Kingdom of God. McClain\u2019s definition is:<\/p>\n
A general survey of the Biblical material indicates that the concept of a \u201ckingdom\u201d envisages a total situation containing a lest three essential elements: first, a ruler with adequate authority and power; second, a realm of subjects to be ruled; and third, the actual exercise of the function of rulership.<\/p>\n
On the basis of the threefold tentative analysis stated at the beginning of this section, the \u201cKingdom of God\u201d may be defined broadly as the rule of God over His creation.<\/p>\n
McClain rejects Ladd\u2019s abstract concept of the kingdom as merely meaning \u201ckingly rule\u201d and never the kingdom, for the very nature of \u201ckingly rule\u201d means not only having authority, but also \u201cauthority over something, that is, the actual subjects in the realm over which he was chosen to rule.\u201d McClain finds Ladd\u2019s definition as \u201cabstract reign,\u201d insufficient to explain all that the Bible teaches about the Kingdom of God.
\nHaving given his definition of the Kingdom of God, McClain makes the following distinctions:<\/p>\n
First, certain passages present the Kingdom as something which has always existed; yet in other places it seems to have a definite historical beginning among men.\u2026<\/p>\n
Second, the Kingdom is set forth in Scripture as universal in its scope, outside of which there is no created thing; yet again the Kingdom is revealed as a local rule established on earth.\u2026<\/p>\n
Third, the kingdom sometimes appears as the rule of God directly, with no intermediary standing between God and man; yet it is also pictured as the rule of God through a mediator who serves as channel between God and man.\u2026<\/p>\n
Fourth, it has been noted that often the Bible describes the Kingdom as something wholly future; whereas in other texts the Kingdom is said to be a present reality.\u2026<\/p>\n
Fifth, the Kingdom of God is set forth as an unconditional rule arising out of the sovereign nature of Deity Himself; yet, on the other hand, it sometimes appears as a Kingdom based on a covenant made by God with man.\u2026<\/p>\n
Many Premillennialists distinguish between the \u201ckingdom of God\u201d and the \u201ckingdom of heaven,\u201d not regarding the two as precisely synonymous. In one sense it would not be wholly wrong to speak of two kingdoms revealed in the Bible. But we must at the same time guard carefully against the notion that these two kingdoms are absolutely distinct, one from the other. There is value and instruction in thinking of them as two aspects or phases of the one rule of our sovereign God. In seeking for terms which might best designate these two things, I can find nothing better than the adjectives \u201cuniversal\u201d and \u201cmediatorial.\u201d These are not exactly commensurate terms, of course, but describe different qualities; the first referring to the extent of rule, the latter to the method of rule. Nevertheless, in each case the designated quality seems to be the most important for purposes of identification.<\/p>\n
As we proceed with the discussion, therefore, the terms used will be the Universal Kingdom and the Mediatorial Kingdom.<\/p>\n
Like other theologians, both Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians, McClain observes that the Bible speaks of the Kingdom of God in different and sometimes contradictory terms, and he lists five such distinctions: eternal and temporal; universal and local; ruled directly by God and ruled through a mediator; future and present; unconditionally based and based on a covenant. Theologians have tried to explain these distinctions in different ways. While some Dispensationalists make a distinction between \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven,\u201d McClain, a Dispensationalist, like Pentecost, does not follow this procedure. This again shows that leading Dispensationalists have gonThe following chapter deals with the first kingdom, the \u201cUniversal Kingdom of God.\u201d McClain describes this kingdom in seven statements:<\/p>\n
1. The Universal Kingdom exists without interruption throughout all time (Psalm 145:13);
\n2. The Universal Kingdom includes all that exists in space and time (1 Chronicles 29:12);
\n3. The divine control in the Universal Kingdom is generally providential (Psalm 148:8);
\n4. The divine control in the Universal Kingdom may be exercised at times by supernatural means (Daniel 6:27);
\n5. The Universal Kingdom always exists efficaciously regardless of the attitude of its subjects (Daniel 4:35);
\n6. The rule of the Universal Kingdom is administered through the Eternal Son (Colossians 1:17); and
\n7. The Universal Kingdom is not exactly identical with that kingdom for which our Lord taught his disciples to pray (Psalm 103:19 with Matthew 6:10).<\/p>\n
The rest of the book concerns the Mediatorial Kingdom, and McClain closes his discussion on the Universal Kingdom by showing the relationship between the two:<\/p>\n
With this rather brief survey of the Universal Kingdom, we shall now turn to a consideration of the mediatorial phase to which the Biblical material gives the great preponderance of attention. And since the Mediatorial Kingdom is a phase, we should expect that its characteristics will not be totally unrelated to the larger Kingdom but will shed further light upon the nature of the latter.<\/p>\n
McClain divides his large and comprehensive study of the Mediatorial Kingdom into major categories, the first of which is the \u201cMediatorial Kingdom in Old Testament History.\u201d The history covers the next seven chapters and is traced from Eden to Zedekiah, the last king of Jerusalem, at which point the Times of the Gentiles began. The only section relevant to Israelology is in a chapter entitled, \u201cThe Establishment of the Mediatorial Kingdom in History,\u201d and under the subheading, \u201cThe Kingdom-Covenant at Sinai.\u201d Although the Mediatorial Kingdom had existed since Adam, at Mount Sinai a new stage in history developed in which God ruled over Israel in a theocratic relationship. For that reason, the theophany at Mount Sinai \u201cwas something uniquely different from all previous appearances,\u201d and this \u201crevelation began with the proffer of a covenant.\u201d
\nMcClain then makes six observations about this covenant. First, for the first time in Scripture, the word kingdom is actually used \u201cwhere the idea is directly associated with the rule of God.\u201d This kingdom is to be \u201cGod\u2019s kingdom.\u201d Second, according to this covenant, \u201cthe kingdom is to be given to one nation,\u201d which is to be elevated \u201cabove all other nations,\u201d and this is the Jewish nation. McClain rejects any spiritualizing of this point into some basic \u201cpeople of God\u201d concept. He insists that the Jewish nature of the nation be fully understood. The people were \u201cdescendants of Abraham by natural generation,\u201d that is, the Jews, the nation \u201cnamed \u2018the children of Israel.\u2019 \u201d This unique rule of God over Israel is \u201csomething altogether different from that general rule of God over all the nations which is exercised providentially without interruption,\u201d that is, the Universal Kingdom. Third, \u201cin the setting up of this new kingdom, which has a definite beginning in the process of history, the other nations of the earth are not ignored.\u201d Although Israel is now elevated \u201cabove all other peoples\u201d and becomes God\u2019s \u201cpeculiar treasure\u201d or \u201cpossession,\u201d this elevation also carried with it a responsibility to the other nations. Fourth, that particular responsibility was to become a kingdom of priests. This means that Israel was called to serve \u201cmediatorially in religious matters between the true God and the nations of the earth.\u201d In this way, not only will God \u201creign over one nation through a mediatorial ruler, but that through the nation thus ruled there will be mediated the blessings of God to all other nations.\u201d Fifth, in addition to being a kingdom of priests, Israel was called to be an holy nation. McClain points out that the key idea in being holy is \u201cseparation\u201d in two ways: \u201cFirst, unto God as His own possession; and second, from all that is morally impure.\u201d Sixth, this \u201ckingdom-covenant,\u201d also known as the Mosaic Covenant, was a conditional covenant. This factor distinguished this covenant from the Abrahamic Covenant, for the terms of the latter \u201cbeing wholly sovereign and unconditioned, hold good in every age.\u201d The former \u201cwas made dependent on obedience; and on this ground its continuity could be interrupted, and was historically, by the failure of the people.\u201d
\nMcClain makes some clarifications concerning the conditional nature of the Mosaic Covenant. First, the \u201cconditionally of the kingdom-covenant at Sinai \u2026 had to do only with the regal and mediatorial activity of Israel in her own land in relation to Jehovah and the nations.\u201d Israel\u2019s position \u201cas the elect nation of God\u201d does not change, for Israel\u2019s national election is not conditioned on obedience, only \u201cthe regal and mediatorial activity of Israel\u201d is so conditioned. Second, this covenant had nothing to do with \u201cindividual salvation based on legal obedience,\u201d for the Law of Moses was not a means of salvation, and \u201cthe covenant does not set forth a way of salvation by means of law-keeping.\u201d Again, the conditional nature of this covenant only has to do with the status of Israel \u201cin her favored position in the mediatorial kingdom \u2026 functioning as God\u2019s \u2018kingdom of priests\u2019 among the nations on earth.\u201d An additional element in the dispensational understanding of the Mosaic Covenant is that it included \u201cthe establishment of the theocracy\u201d of God\u2019s role over Israel which was \u201cthe typical Kingdom of God.\u201d
\nThe next major category in McClain\u2019s treatment of the Mediatorial Kingdom is the \u201cMediatorial Kingdom in Old Testament Prophecy,\u201d which comprises seven chapters. In a chapter entitled, \u201cThe Prophetic Kingdom as Related to History,\u201d and under the subheading, \u201cIts Favored Nation Will be the Israel of History,\u201d McClain states that when the prophets spoke about the Mediatorial Kingdom they consistently related it to Israel. The many promises of the prophets were \u201cpromises made to the Old Testament people of Israel.\u201d These promises include being made \u201cthe head over all other nations, both religiously and politically.\u201d
\nMcClain also discusses the nature of the kingdom Christ offered to Israel:<\/p>\n
\u2026 the One-Kingdom Millennial view: that the Kingdom announced by our Lord and offered to the nation of Israel at His first coming was identical with the Mediatorial Kingdom of Old Testament prophecy, and will be established on earth at the second coming of the King. This might well be called the Biblical view because it is supported by the material in both Testaments taken at its normal or face value.<\/p>\n
McClain then presents two observations by way of evidence:<\/p>\n
1. The absence of any formal definition of the Kingdom in its initial announcement indicates that the Jewish hearers were expected to know exactly what Kingdom was meant.
\n2. Our Lord never intimated that His conception of the Kingdom differed in any respect or degree from that presented by the Old Testament prophets.<\/p>\n
Later, McClain discusses Christ\u2019s statement about the taking away of the kingdom to be given to another nation in Matthew 21:43. Covenant Theologians insist that Jesus meant that the kingdom was being taken away from Israel, the Jewish nation, and was being given to another nation, the Church, ignoring the simple fact that the Church is not a nation. McClain shows that this is not the only option or even the best option to interpret this passage. As he states, the \u201ctext does not affirm that the Kingdom will be taken from the nation of Israel and given to a nation which is another nation racially and politically.\u201d In light of the fact that Jesus was speaking to the leaders of Israel, He was saying that the kingdom was being taken away from the leaders \u201cin whom civil and religious authority was vested and who were determined to destroy Him.\u2026\u201d The text clearly states that they perceived that he spake of them. When Jesus spoke of taking away the kingdom, \u201cthe correct sense of the passage must be found in the historical situation: The nation as represented by its then existing rulers had rejected the King; therefore, the Kingdom is taken from them.\u201d In other words, it was being taken from that generation of Israel to whom the Messiah had come. McClain insists, however, that this did not mean that the kingdom \u201cas foreseen by the prophets \u2026 is not therefore metamorphosed into something else,\u201d such as a Spiritual Kingdom. What Jesus did say is not that the nature of the kingdom changed, but that the kingdom is to be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. The issue is: \u201cWhat nation?\u201d To insist it is the Church is impossible if for no other reason than the fact that the Church is not a nation. The Greek word ethnos, while used of Gentiles, is often used in the New Testament of Israel and unlike the Church, Israel is a nation. The point is that the kingdom, while taken from that present Jewish generation, will be given to a future generation of Israel. This is necessary because \u201caccording to the uniform testimony of Scripture, the covenants and rights of this people are irrevocable.\u201d While the \u201cfulfillment of these divine promises may indeed be interrupted temporarily, \u2026 the promises to Israel cannot be abrogated.\u201d McClain\u2019s conclusion concerning the meaning of Matthew 21:43 is that \u201cthe Kingdom was taken from a nation of our Lord\u2019s day \u2026 and it shall be given to a nation which brings forth proper fruit.\u201d These are not two separate and different nations, but the same nation of Israel; for the \u201cdifference between the two nations is spiritual and moral, not racial.\u201d That other nation is also Israel, but \u201can Israel repentant and regenerated.\u201d The nation which will receive the kingdom \u201cwill be spiritually a new nation but, at the same time, racially and politically the Israel of history.\u201d
\nIn a chapter entitled, \u201cThe Rejection of the King and His Kingdom,\u201d this subject is carefully developed by McClain in seven points.<\/p>\n
1. In the gospel records the proclamation of the Kingdom was inseparably connected with its King.<\/p>\n
The key point to note here is that the establishment of the Mediatorial Kingdom was preconditioned on the acceptance of the King. If the King is rejected, then no kingdom could be set up.<\/p>\n
2. The good news of the Kingdom was announced to Israel alone.<\/p>\n
The Apostle John describes thus the mission of Christ: \u201cHe came unto his own\u201d (John 1:11), i.e., the people of Israel. In the great mission of the Twelve, they were expressly forbidden by the Lord to go into any way of the Gentiles or to enter into any city of the Samaritans; but to go only \u201cto the lost sheep of the house of Israel\u201d (Matt. 10:5\u20136).\u2026 For, in His word to the Syro Phoenician woman, our Lord defined sharply His own original ministry with reference to the Kingdom: \u201cI am not sent,\u201d He says, \u201cbut unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel\u201d (Matt. 15:24) \u2026<\/p>\n
3. This preaching of the Kingdom to Israel laid upon that chosen nation the demand for a decision.<\/p>\n
This demand was openly present in all the early preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom. The imperatives were \u201crepent,\u201d \u201cbelieve,\u201d \u201creceive,\u201d \u201cconfess,\u201d and \u201cfollow.\u201d No room was left for neutrality: those who heard the message must either be for the Messianic King or against Him (Matt. 12:30).<\/p>\n
4. The ministry of Christ and His message of the Kingdom met with opposition from the very beginning.<\/p>\n
5. This tide of opposition toward our Lord\u2019s good news of the Kingdom grew steadily to a definite crisis.<\/p>\n
For Israelology, the key point made here is that it was \u201cthe religious leaders of Israel\u201d who rejected the Messiahship of Jesus and would ultimately lead the nation into the same rejection. The basis of the rejection was demon possession, for they claimed that the source of His power came from the prince of demons. McClain points out that this was a critical step for the religious leaders, for by producing this charge, \u201cthe vindictive opposition of the religious rulers of Israel reached a new plateau beyond which it could not go.\u201d In response, Jesus delivered \u201can ultimatum of such unparalleled severity that it stands alone in the gospel records \u2026\u201d This ultimatum is the content of the next point.<\/p>\n
6. The charge uttered by the rulers involved blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
Rejecting Jesus as the Messiah on the basis of His being demon possessed led to His charge that the leadership of Israel, and by extension the whole nation, was now guilty of the \u201cblasphemy against the Holy Spirit.\u201d McClain elaborates on this sin in seven points. First, the blasphemy committed \u201cwas definitely related to the Kingdom of God,\u201d for that is the concept running throughout the context. Second, the blasphemy committed \u201cinvolved a question regarding the regal credentials of Christ.\u201d Rejecting Him as the Messiah also meant rejecting Him as King and, therefore, a rejection of the kingdom offer. Third, this specific sin was declared a \u201cblasphemy against the Spirit of God.\u201d Since the miracles of Jesus were by the power of the Holy Spirit and through these miracles the Holy Spirit had testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, to ascribe these miracles as resulting from the power of Satan is to speak against the Holy Spirit. Fourth, this was declared to be an unpardonable sin. Since God the Father sent the Messiah to be \u201cthe Saviour of men,\u201d in the Messiah \u201call sin can be forgiven without limitation.\u201d On the other hand, \u201coutside of Him nothing can be forgiven.\u201d Therefore, the \u201csinful resistance to the Holy Spirit,\u201d Who testifies as to Jesus\u2019 Messiahship, puts the rejecter outside the Messiah. Since it is \u201cmorally impossible for God to forgive sin outside of Christ,\u201d this rendered the sin unpardonable. Fifth, the specific ones involved \u201cin this sin against the Holy Spirit\u201d were \u201cthe religious leaders of Israel\u201d Sixth, the responsibility for this sin is not limited to the leaders, it also extended to the whole \u201cnation of Israel,\u201d for they ultimately followed the leaders in the rejection. \u201cThis corporate responsibility of the people of Israel\u201d is clear from the several uses of the term \u201cgeneration\u201d in the same context. By the same token, the responsibility for the unpardonable sin is limited to the Jewish generation of Jesus\u2019 day and is not extended to subsequent Jewish generations. Seventh, the specific penalty for this sin was a national judgment, \u201can immediate judgment within the history of that particular generation.\u201d That judgment for \u201cthat generation\u201d was the judgment of A.D. 70 when \u201cwithin the time-span of a single generation, judgment fell in the destruction of Jerusalem and the world-wide dispersion of the nation.\u201d However, McClain, in contrast to Covenant Theology, concludes that \u201cwhile an entire generation had lost its historical opportunity, and with dire results for many succeeding generations, the nation itself nevertheless could not irrevocably lose those ancient rights which had been guaranteed by the God of Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n
7. What has been said above, of course, will raise the problem of contingency.<\/p>\n
McClain\u2019s point is that in the actual plan of God, the Messianic Kingdom was not destined to be established at this point in time. However, the divine plan included both the ends and the means. The means included Israel\u2019s rejection of the kingdom offer. This was \u201cthe human factor in history,\u201d for the \u201cimmediate establishment of the Kingdom on earth\u201d required Israel\u2019s acceptance, so the offer was a legitimate offer. However, because it was already known that the kingdom would be rejected, Christ \u201cwas not caught by something unexpected.\u201d This is what is meant by \u201ccontingency.\u201d When the Messiah announced the kingdom as being at hand, He \u201ccalled upon the nation of Israel to make a decision.\u201d When they did make a decision and rejected the kingdom, this was the means for not setting up the Messianic Kingdom at that time. Yet even Israel\u2019s negative decision was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23).
\nThis naturally leads to the next chapter, \u201cChrist\u2019s Ministry in Preparation for the Interregnum.\u201d McClain\u2019s introduction explains what this means:<\/p>\n
We come now to a large and important body of Biblical material which may be described as our Lord\u2019s acts and teaching in view of His final rejection by the nation of Israel.\u2026 In this ministry the death of the King and His second coming will hold the central place. And the chief purpose of the new phase of teaching will be to prepare the disciples for His rejection and also for the interregnum which will intervene between His death and His return from heaven in glory to establish the Kingdom on earth in accordance with Old Testament prophecy.<\/p>\n
McClain then develops the theme in twelve specific points, but not all of them are relevant to Israelology. Only those which are relevant will be discussed here. One of these concerns the Mystery Kingdom. With Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus in Matthew 12, Jesus began a new method of teaching: the parabolic method of teaching in Matthew 13. The author then elaborates on this theme in four points. First, these parables were either addressed \u201cto the general public of Israel\u201d or to the disciples, but there were \u201ctwo distinct pedagogical methods used in teaching respectively two different groups: parables to the general public; exposition to the disciples.\u201d Second, the purpose of these parables was not to illustrate truth, but to hide it; to teach in terms that the people could not and would not understand. For that reason, the \u201cgiving of these parables \u2026 must be regarded as a divine judgment upon the nation of Israel.\u201d Since they did not believe the message when it was understood, \u201cthey now are given something they cannot understand.\u201d Third, on the other hand, \u201cthese mystery parables of the Kingdom had a beneficent purpose,\u201d because for the disciples and others who \u201caccepted the simple facts about the Kingdom, these parables would give further enlightenment.\u201d Fourth, these parables are concerned \u201cwith the \u2018mysteries\u2019 of that kingdom.\u201d McClain again shows that there is no difference between the terms \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and Kingdom of Heaven,\u201d but what is happening here is the introduction of a new facet of God\u2019s kingdom program, the Mystery Kingdom. He defines \u201cmystery\u201d as \u201cthat which is hidden and secret, what can be known only to those who are specially initiated or taught \u2026 that which has hitherto been unrevealed.\u201d These parables concern \u201csomething new in content as well as method in Christ\u2019s teaching to Israel about the Kingdom.\u201d The content of the mystery \u201chas to do with the mystery of an interregnum which is to follow the arrival of the King and continue until His second coming.\u201d This is now being revealed since \u201cit could not be made known clearly until the King\u2019s rejection had become historically certain.\u201d The interregnum was \u201ccaused by Israel\u2019s rejection of her King,\u201d and \u201cthis age will be brought to a close when the Son of man comes to establish His kingdom on earth.\u201d The exact \u201clength of the interregnum is not revealed \u2026 whether long or short.\u201d
\nThe next relevant point is McClain\u2019s discussion on how the death of Christ relates to the preaching of the kingdom. If the gospels are taken literally and seriously, then it is obvious that Christ only began spelling out His program of death and resurrection after the unpardonable sin, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, was committed by Israel, only after \u201cthe announcement of an interregnum,\u201d and only after the declaration of the future formation of the Church. Yet it is obvious from both the Book of Acts and the epistles of the New Testament that the death and resurrection of Christ were central, and this is \u201cthe fundamental of all the fundamentals in the Christian Church.\u201d It is this fact that brings heavy criticism against Dispensationalism by Covenant Theologians, for they misinterpret the view of Dispensationalism as teaching that the cross was secondary and an afterthought because of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messianic Kingdom. For that reason, they insist that the kingdom offered to Israel was a spiritual kingdom to be founded on His death and resurrection. Yet the question remains: why was the death and resurrection not clearly taught in the first half of His ministry and why did He wait until \u201cthe sharp crisis of Jewish rejection\u201d? If it is true that \u201cthe Church and the Kingdom are virtually identical, and if the Kingdom is exclusively spiritual\u201d as so many Covenant Theologians affirm, then why the silence of Christ and the apostles \u201cabout things without which there could have been no Church \u2026?\u201d These are questions which Dispensationalism refuses to ignore. Nor can it simply accept the answer of Covenant Theology, which McClain feels \u201cignores or mishandles the historic facts as recorded in the inspired Word of God.\u201d
\nThe answer of Dispensationalism is to start with the fact that the kingdom offered by Christ was the one predicted by the prophets: the Messianic Kingdom. Furthermore, \u201cno answer can be received as valid unless it recognizes that in the preaching of the Kingdom our Lord actually offered to men something which it was their moral duty to accept.\u201d It had to be something more tangible than the rule of God in their hearts, for this was always true; and since many Jews did believe, it was not something that could be taken away from Israel to be given to another nation. What Israel rejected was the Messianic Kingdom. Yet, although the death of Christ was predestined by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23), it was not \u201ca divinely imposed duty on Israel to reject and kill their own Messiah!\u201d The fact is that \u201cJesus offered Himself as the Messianic King of Israel, that the offer was genuine, and therefore the nation should have accepted Him.\u201d This belief does not minimize the cross or make the death of Christ an afterthought. The rejection was part of the plan, and by that rejection the death and resurrection came to be. The plan of God includes both the ends and the means. To raise questions such as, \u201cWhat would have happened if Israel had accepted Jesus as the Messianic King?\u201d and \u201cCould there have been any true kingdom on earth without the death of Christ as its spiritual foundation?\u201d is simply speculative and is \u201clike asking what would have happened if Adam had not sinned.\u201d The point is that from the view point of God\u2019s plan, the alternative would not have happened. Yet Adam was not forced to sin so that Christ would die, nor was Israel forced to reject the Messiah so that the Messiah would die. As McClain concludes, to \u201cconcede the irrevocable nature of predictive prophecy does not relieve man in any respect of his moral responsibility.\u201d Furthermore, \u201cdivine prophecy is not itself the efficacious cause of human action.\u201d Certainly, Covenant Theologians who are also Calvinists should not have any problem with this dispensational answer.
\nThe next point which is relevant to Israelology is the \u201cFinal Conflict with Israel\u2019s Rulers.\u201d Commenting on Matthew 23, McClain makes two main points. The first is that the Jewish leaders are responsible for leading the nation astray. It is their rejection of His Messiahship that kept the Messianic Kingdom from being established in their day. This guilt applies especially to those leaders of Jesus\u2019 day to whom He came and offered Himself as King. The second point is that the whole nation shares that guilt, for they chose to follow the leaders; but, again, the guilt is limited to \u201cthat generation of Israel\u201d of Jesus\u2019 day, and the judgment that Jesus pronounced came upon that generation in A.D. 70.
\nThen commenting on Matthew 23:37\u201339, McClain makes five deductions. First, Christ ended His denunciation of the leadership of Israel with a lament over Jerusalem. This city was \u201cthe center of the ancient Theocratic Kingdom,\u201d and she was a symbol of the total nation. Second, Jesus revealed \u201cHimself as the God of Israel who\u201d had always \u201cstriven for the good of the nation,\u201d and \u201chad come to offer once more in His own Person the protecting divine Glory which had departed from the temple and city when the Theocratic Kingdom ended with the Babylonian captivity.\u201d Third, they were guilty of rejecting the King and Kingdom. McClain insists that the very words Ye would not means that \u201cif Israel\u2019s rejection of the King was morally genuine, so also must the offer have been.\u201d Fourth, the judgment was the coming destruction of the temple, but these words do not \u201cexclude the city and the nation itself\u201d for the reason that \u201cthe temple was the center of the theocratic nation.\u201d Fifth, the words of judgment conclude with a statement of hope. The desolation of the nation is temporary until the day when they \u201cacclaim the same rejected King with joyous cry, \u2018Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.\u2019 \u201d This event is future at the time of \u201cthe second advent of Christ and the conversion of Israel.\u201d The words of Jesus, then, refute \u201cthe modern and popular theory that God is done with the nation of Israel.\u201d Between the rejection and the acceptance of the Messiahship of Jesus, \u201cthere will be an interval of time.\u201d This interval will be characterized by two conditions: \u201cfirst, the Messianic King will be absent \u2026 and, second, the desolations of Israel will continue without relief.\u201d This interval \u201cwill end with the second advent of Messiah and the conversion of the nation.\u201d What the text does not reveal is \u201cthe length of the interval.\u201d
\nThe last point this chapter makes which is relevant to Israelology is the \u201cproblem of Jewish rejection of the King,\u201d in which McClain again deals with the guilt of the leaders and the nation who followed them:<\/p>\n
Why was the Lord Jesus Christ rejected by the nation of Israel when He offered Himself and the Kingdom for which they had long waited and prayed? I suggest at least six reasons, without pretending at all that these add up to a total answer: First, the high spiritual requirements our Lord laid down as essential for entrance into the Kingdom.\u2026 Second, His refusal to establish a kingdom merely social and political in character.\u2026 Third, His denunciation of the current religion with its traditionalism, legalism, and ritualism.\u2026 Fourth, His scathing arraignment of the ruling classes.\u2026 Fifth, His association with and compassion for the outcasts of Israel.\u2026 Sixth, His exalted claims for Himself.\u2026<\/p>\n
In this connection we should not make the mistake of blaming all this on the ruling classes in Israel. Luke speaks of three classes of men whose voices were united in the demand for the rejection and death of the King; the \u201crulers,\u201d the \u201cpriests,\u201d and the \u201cpeople\u201d (Luke 23:13\u201323). It was, shall we say, a combination of civil, religious, and democratic authority.<\/p>\n
Matthew says that the chief priests and elders \u201cpersuaded the multitude\u201d to ask Pilate for the release of Barabbas and the execution of Jesus (27:20).<\/p>\n
On one key issue, McClain disagrees with other Dispensationalists who teach that the parables of the Mystery Kingdom in Matthew 13 \u201cdescribe the kingdom of heaven as it now exists in \u2018mystery form\u2019 during the Church age.\u201d He admits that \u201cit is true that these parables present certain conditions related to the Kingdom which are contemporaneous with the present age,\u201d but denies that Matthew 13 establishes \u201cthe Kingdom \u2026 within this age.\u201d McClain feels that the parables teach that \u201cthe present age, viewed from the stand point of the Kingdom, is a time of preparation.\u201d These parables are merely describing activities which are \u201cgenerating and developing a spiritual nucleus for the future Kingdom.\u201d All Dispensationalists agree that the Mystery Kingdom is not the same as the Messianic Kingdom; however, Dispensationalists, like Pentecost, did see the Mystery Kingdom as a facet of God\u2019s kingdom program in this present age, but McClain does not. His view is that the parables which describe \u201cthe mysteries of the kingdom of heaven\u201d do not describe a facet of the kingdom program in this age, but only describe certain conditions in the present age which are preparing a present group for the future Messianic Kingdom.
\nCharles Lee Feinberg notes that Covenant Theologians seem to be exasperated over the dispensational teaching of a \u201cpostponed kingdom,\u201d and previous chapters of this work bear out his observation. However, Feinberg points out that the concept of \u201cpostponement\u201d is purely from the human perspective, for Scripture views events from the divine perspective as well as the human standpoint. So, as far as God is concerned, who knows the end from the beginning, nothing is postponed. Dispensationalists are amazed that this should bother Covenant Theologians who are all Calvinists. After all, they believe that God decreed the death of the Messiah before He ever created Adam, and yet still subjected Adam and Eve under a test of obedience in the Garden of Eden. Though Adam\u2019s failure was certain, Calvinists still believe the test was bona fide. He still commanded Adam to obey, knowing Adam would not obey, having already planned the death of a Saviour. By the same token, the offer of the kingdom can be a bona fide offer, although if was known that Israel would reject it and that the Church was already in the plan of God. Covenant Theologians are inconsistent with their own Calvinism when they object to the concept of \u201cpostponement\u201d in the way they do.
\nWhile discussing the relationship of the Church to the kingdom, Feinberg states boldly that the \u201cpremillenarian distinguishes between the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, and the Church,\u201d but this is an overstatement. As has already been shown, while all Dispensationalists distinguish between the kingdom and the Church, and all believe that there are different facets to God\u2019s kingdom program, not all make a distinction in the terms \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven.\u201d Feinberg\u2019s definition of the \u201cKingdom of God\u201d is \u201cthe all-inclusive rule of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit over the entire universe, particularly with regard to all moral intelligences everywhere and at all times.\u201d This is essentially the same as Pentecost\u2019s Eternal Kingdom and McClain\u2019s Universal Kingdom. Feinberg defines \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d as \u201cthe earthly sphere of the kingdom of God and is visible and outward.\u201d As for the Church, it is \u201ca part of the kingdom of heaven in its mystery form.\u201d This is the same as Pentecost\u2019s Theocratic Kingdom and McClain\u2019s Mediatorial Kingdom. Feinberg is correct when he states that such \u201cdistinctions are vital and must be made to harmonize the Word of God,\u201d but such distinctions need not be made on the basis of the terms \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven,\u201d which are obviously interchangeable terms as any harmony of the gospels will clearly show.
\nMore on the mark is Feinberg\u2019s statement that all Dispensationalists \u201cdeny that the kingdom is fulfilled in the Church of this age.\u201d While some Covenant Theologians insist otherwise on the basis of expressions such as at hand, Feinberg shows that by comparing its usage elsewhere, this phrase does not mean \u201cimmediately near\u201d; and \u201cimmediateness and imminency are not synonymous terms.\u201d Jesus even taught a parable to counteract the thinking \u201cthat the kingdom of God should immediately appear\u201d (Lk. 19:11). Furthermore, Dispensationalists \u201care open to proof that will demonstrate that all the Old Testament prophets depicted of the kingdom age and its characteristics, is fulfilled in the church,\u201d but all the evidence produced by Covenant Theologians requires either the ignoring of Old Testament prophecy, such as Covenant Premillennialism, or the allegorizing away of Old Testament prophecy, such as Covenant Postmillennialism and Covenant Amillennialism. While there is no question that Christ is sitting on a throne today, according to Revelation 3:21 He is sitting on His Father\u2019s throne and not on His own throne. Nor can they claim it is the same throne, for the Bible identifies the Messiah\u2019s throne as the Throne of David. Obviously, David never sat on God the Father\u2019s throne.<\/p>\n
2. The Unconditional Covenants and Israel\u2019s Present Status<\/p>\n
Because of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus, Israel\u2019s present relationship to God is different than the relationship prior to the rejection. Spiritually, Israel is now under a special judicial blindness. Chafer discusses Israel\u2019s blindness while dealing with the subject of illumination. While all humanity suffers a common blindness to the gospel, Israel suffers \u201ca judicial darkness\u201d that is unique to that nation. This national blindness \u201cwas predicted to appear in Israel when their Messiah would come.\u201d It did and resulted in two things. First, it \u201ccaused that national unbelief\u201d which \u201crejected their Messiah.\u201d Second, it resulted in \u201cthe breaking off of the natural branches of the olive tree.\u201d However, this was intended only \u201cfor the restricted time of the duration of this age.\u201d Nor is the blindness universal, because there are today those \u201cfrom among Israel who, being illuminated by the Spirit of God, obey the gospel, are saved into the heavenly glory and are no longer blinded as before.\u201d In the future, \u201cthe veil now upon national Israel shall be lifted.\u201d Chafer concludes that \u201cthere are two possible illuminations\u201d: first, in relationship to Israel present, \u201cfor the individual Jew who believes to the saving of his soul, which illumination dispels all previous darkness\u201d; and, second, in relationship to Israel future, there will be an illumination \u201cfor the whole nation.\u201d
\nBecause of this state of judicial blindness, Israel is not enjoying the benefits of the Jewish covenants. For the present, \u201call progress in the national and earthly program for Israel is in abeyance\u201d while individual Jews, like individual Gentiles, can receive individual salvation by \u201cthe exercise of personal faith in Christ as Savior.\u201d God\u2019s program at the present time is to call out \u201cthe heavenly people\u201d from \u201cboth Jews and Gentiles\u201d; however, \u201cwhen the present purpose is accomplished God will \u2026 return to the full completion of His earthly promises in Israel\u201d
\nDispensationalism has developed a well-thought-out Israelology insofar as Israel Past and Israel Future is concerned\u2014Chafer\u2019s statement on the Jews is a good example of this\u2014but it has been weak in developing a comprehensive theology of Israel Present. What is clear so far is that national Israel is in \u201cabeyance\u201d while individual Jewish believers become part of the Church. While this may all be true, there are still many facets which are missing.
\nAlso as a result of Israel\u2019s blindness, she is now in her third dispersion. Dispensationalism affirms that God promised the land to Israel as \u201can everlasting possession.\u201d It is irrelevant whether the Jews are in the land or outside the land; the land is and always will be theirs. Although Israel\u2019s exile out of the land is a result of divine judgment, this does not cancel Israel\u2019s title deed to the land. According to Chafer, Israel was destined to three dispossessions of their land and three restorations to it. The present dispersion is the third dispossession, and the third restoration is to come \u201cwhen their Messiah returns.\u201d When that restoration comes, \u201cthey will go out no more again forever.\u201d Biblical prophecy \u201cis much affected by the position Israel occupies at any given time in relation to her land.\u201d This again shows a clear development of Israel Past and Israel Future. Except for the fact of a present dispersion, there is no clear development of Israel Present.
\nChafer, however, rejects that the present status of Israel is permanent. Chafer also deals with the present status of Israel in that God is dealing with Jews today and with Gentiles today as individuals in need of salvation through faith in Christ. As a nation, Israel, \u201cfor an age,\u201d is \u201cset aside,\u201d There is now a message of divine favor being offered to individual Jews and Gentiles; however, the \u201cdivine favor\u201d now being offered to the Gentiles \u201cdoes not consist in offering them a share in the national blessings of Israel.\u201d Dispensationalism insists that national blessings promised to Israel will be kept to national Israel. Whatever blessings the Gentiles enjoy are those promised and offered to them and not to national Israel. Chafer also states that presently the offer of salvation does not \u201cprovide a way whereby the Jew may realize the specific features of his national covenants.\u201d This conclusion is due to Chafer\u2019s assumption that the Jewish covenants are now in \u201cabeyance.\u201d However, the covenants themselves predicted and covered the present dispersion, and some facets of the covenants are working themselves out even in this present age of grace. A Jewish believer does in some measure \u201crealize the specific features of his national covenants.\u201d This will be shown in the next chapter. This again points out Dispensationalism\u2019s weakness in developing a theology of Israel Present. Chafer\u2019s conclusion is based on the fact that the \u201cpresent divine purpose is the outcalling from both Jews and Gentiles of that company who are the Bride of Christ.\u201d This is very true, but there is no need to assume that, for that reason, the Jewish covenants are in abeyance.
\nLater, Chafer summarizes the third dispersion of Israel:<\/p>\n
As before indicated, there were to be three dispersions of Israel from the land and three returnings. That nation is now in the third dispersion and awaiting the third return.\u2026 Prophecies bearing on this final dispersion are extensive.\u2026<\/p>\n
In no case would Israel\u2019s national entity be lost even through centuries of dispersion (Jer. 31:36; Matt. 24:34).\u2026 their chastisement has been continued, and will be continued until He comes again. At that time He will regather His people into their own land and cause them to enter into the glory and blessedness of every covenant promise of Jehovah concerning them (Deut. 30:1\u201310; Isa. 11:11\u201312; Jer. 23:3\u20138; Ezek. 37:21\u201325; Matt. 24:31).<\/p>\n
Chafer adds more detail to the above statements later in his work. Based upon the five covenants made with Israel, Chafer points out that they predicted three dispersions and three regatherings. Chafer finds \u201cit is essential that Israel\u2019s dispossessions of the land be recognized\u201d for these dispossessions also \u201cinvolve regatherings.\u201d To understand the theology of Israel\u2019s dispersions will lead to an understanding of Israel\u2019s restorations. At this point, all three dispersions have occurred and two of the three regatherings. Israel today is \u201cscattered in her third and final dispersion\u201d and in the future will experience her third regathering. He rejects \u201cthe most common impressions respecting Israel \u2026 that they always have been and always will be scattered among the nations,\u201d a view held by Covenant Amillennialism and Covenant Postmillennialism. An understanding of the theology of Israel\u2019s dispersions and restorations \u201cwill correct such a misleading error.\u201d So would a recognition of the distinction between Israel and the Church for then one would recognize that \u201cIsrael remains a separate people under the specific purpose and covenant of God.\u201d Whereas Covenant Postmillennialists, like Boettner, and Covenant Amillennialists, like Allis, blame the Jews\u2019 desire to re-establish the Jewish State of Israel for many problems in the world, Dispensationalist Chafer takes the opposite view in that \u201cnothing will ever be normal in the earth when this nation is out of her land. All peace and tranquility for the earth await the final placing of Israel on their own promised land.\u201d Chafer then goes on to enumerate the three dispersions and restorations. The first was the \u201cdispersion into Egypt\u201d which \u201cbondage was predicted centuries before\u201d in the Abrahamic Covenant. The first restoration came with the Exodus under Moses and Aaron. The second dispersion was \u201cthe Captivities.\u201d The northern kingdom of Israel went into the Assyrian Captivity and the southern kingdom of Judah went into the Babylonian Captivity. The second restoration came in initially under Zerubbabel and Joshua and then under Ezra and Nehemiah. The third dispersion came in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and it \u201cexceeds the other two in part of duration and in the manner in which Israel is now scattered among all the nations of the earth.\u201d The present scattering, according to Chafer, \u201cmust continue until the Church be removed from the world.\u201d The third restoration will be the final one for the Messianic Kingdom. This \u201cfinal return to the land is one of the major themes of Old Testament prophecy concerning the Jew,\u201d and it \u201cis one of the Bible\u2019s most positive predictions.\u201d According to Chafer, the final restoration is the subject of more than fifty biblical passages \u201cwhich yields to no fanciful notions for its interpretations.\u201d Looking at these passages, they \u201cmust either be accepted in its literal form or ignored completely.\u201d As Chafer remarks, \u201cToo often the latter is done.\u201d The accusation is true even of Covenant Premillennialists, like Ladd.
\nChafer wrote his material before 1948 when Israel became a state. Furthermore, as has been pointed out several times, he lacked a clear theology of Israel Present. Other Dispensationalists have refined this system and see four dispersions and restorations. The present State of Israel is viewed as a third restoration. Some view it as only a third with the final restoration being the fourth. Others view the present state as a partial restoration of the third with the completion coming with the second coming. At any rate, there is a restoration now, but there will be one more forced exile from the land in the middle of the Great Tribulation, the one spoken of in Matthew 24:15\u201328 and Revelation 12:6\u201314. After the second coming, Israel will experience her final restoration. For some, this would be called the fourth, while for others it would be the completion of the third. Regardless of the specific way of enumeration, the basic content and points remain the same.
\nLater, while discussing the Holy Spirit, \u201cDistinctive Character of the Present Age,\u201d under the subheading \u201cIsrael Dormant,\u201d Chafer states:<\/p>\n
Now Israel is dormant and all that is related to her covenants and promises is in abeyance. To them\u2014not as a nation, but as individuals\u2014the privilege of being saved unto heavenly glory along with individual Gentiles is extended in this day of God\u2019s heavenly purpose. No Jewish covenants are now being fulfilled; they are \u201cscattered,\u201d \u201cpeeled,\u201d \u201cbroken off,\u201d and yet to be \u201chated of all nations\u201d for Christ\u2019s name\u2019s sake. This is the one peculiar age in which there is \u201cno difference\u201d between Jew and Gentile, though in former times God Himself had instituted the most drastic distinction between these two classes of people.<\/p>\n
Chafer felt that during the Church Age, all of the covenant \u201cpromises are in abeyance\u201d and that no \u201cJewish covenants are now being fulfilled.\u201d However, not all Dispensationalists would agree and much of what has and is happening to Israel during the present age is the outworking of Israel\u2019s covenants and the fulfillment of some of the features of the covenants. Chafer notes that Israel is now \u201cscattered,\u201d \u201cpeeled,\u201d \u201cbroken off,\u201d etc., but these key elements are part of the Palestinian Covenant. While it is true that God is dealing today with Jews and Gentiles as individuals, this is not to deny that God is still working with Israel as a nation as well.
\nWalvoord follows Chafer\u2019s lead concerning the three dispersions. While possession and ownership of the land was unconditional, the enjoyment of the land is conditional. If Israel obeys, she \u201cis promised rich blessings in the land\u201d; but if Israel disobeys, then she \u201cis promised curses for disobedience.\u201d Among the curses included \u201cplagues and disasters\u201d while she is in the land, but also exile out of the land. Three such exiles have taken place: the Egyptian bondage; the Assyrian and Babylonian Captivities; and, the dispersion of A.D. 70. Israel returned from the first two exiles and \u201conly in recent years has taken any important steps to return to the land\u201d with the present State of Israel.<\/p>\n
3. Israel and the Church<\/p>\n
Covenant Theologians of all stripes at some point make the Church the true Israel and only disagree at what point in time the true Israel became the Church. Dispensationalists uniformly insist on a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church. Chafer brings this point out early in his Prolegomena. Chafer summarizes all schools of Covenant Theology by pointing out that others, while recognizing \u201cthe redeemed people of this age,\u201d view it only as a \u201csequence or continuation in the progress of the divine purpose in Israel.\u201d While Covenant Theology can speak of the New Testament Church as a continuation of \u201cthe Old Testament Church\u201d and view the two \u201cas together constituting component parts of one divine project,\u201d Dispensationalism cannot. Dispensationalism recognizes \u201cthose distinctions between Israel and the Church which, being so radical in character, serve to indicate the widest possible difference between them\u2014difference as to origin, difference as to character and responsibility, and difference as to destiny.\u201d While there are certainly similarities between the two, \u201cthe obvious similarities do not set aside the differences.\u201d Chafer\u2019s distinctions are several, many of which are still accepted by most Dispensationalists today, but not all. For example, Chafer makes a sharp distinction between \u201cearthly\u201d and \u201cheavenly,\u201d with Israel\u2019s program being \u201cearthly\u201d and the Church\u2019s being \u201cheavenly.\u201d This need not be true, nor is it germane to Dispensationalism. Certainly in the Eternal State Israel will have a \u201cheavenly\u201d future, while in the Millennium the Church will have an \u201cearthly\u201d future. It would be better to view the roles of Israel and the Church as being different while sharing both an earthly and heavenly future. What is germane to Dispensationalism is that in this age, humanity is divided into three divisions: Jews, Gentiles, and the Church.
\nIn a later volume, Chafer discusses the Church and its uniqueness in this age. Not only is there a distinction between Israel and the Church today, that distinction will also be true in the future kingdom. Israel as a nation will be in her Promised Land and \u201cin her kingdom glory,\u201d while the Church will have a world-wide position as she will \u201cbe coreigning with Christ.\u201d As for today, two truths are to be noted. First, that the call to salvation goes out to Jews and Gentiles as individuals; this salvation is by grace through faith. Second, today there is a \u201cnew divine purpose\u201d which is \u201cthe outcalling of the Church.\u201d The specific purpose is not \u201cmerely that Gentiles were to be blessed,\u201d which was a fact that Old Testament prophecy long predicted. This unique new purpose is \u201cthe fact that a new body of humanity was to be formed from both Jews and Gentiles.\u201d This one-new-man concept was something nowhere predicted in the Old Testament. Chafer also states that within this one new man, \u201cthere is neither Jew nor Gentile position retained.\u201d Chafer is not clear what he means by this. If he only means that in relationship to how one is saved, then it is true; but if he means that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have been erased, then it is not true as the next chapter will show. This again shows a weakness in the realm of Israel Present.
\nIn a later chapter under Ecclesiology entitled, \u201cGeneral Features of the Doctrine,\u201d Chafer deals with the origin of the Church, a crucial point of division between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Under the subheading, \u201cFour Reasons Why the Church Began at Pentecost,\u201d Chafer characterizes many of the Covenant Theologians surveyed in this work when he says that \u201csome theologians have sustained the idea that those which characterize the Old Testament revelation are carried forward without change into the New Testament.\u201d As has been shown, this is a major claim of many Covenant Theologians. For many adherents, this is the essence of Covenant Theology. Chafer explains what the essence of Dispensationalism is when he states the \u201cnecessity of observing dispensational distinctions arise in connection with the abrupt abandonment of existing features and the introduction of new features which mark the transition from one dispensation to the next.\u201d It is on the bases of this observable fact that the Dispensationalist insists that the Church was born at Pentecost and not with Adam or Abraham. Chafer gives four reasons why it is evident that the Church was born at Pentecost. First, the death of Christ was a prerequisite to the birth of the Church since the Church\u2019s relationship \u201cto that death \u2026 is based wholly on His finished work.\u201d Second, the resurrection of Jesus was a prerequisite to the birth of the Church, for this was necessary \u201cto provide her with resurrection life.\u201d Third, the ascension of Jesus was a prerequisite to the birth of the Church. Fourth, the coming of the Holy Spirit in the manner that He came at Pentecost was a prerequisite to the birth of the Church since only at this point was the Church \u201cregenerated, baptized, and sealed by the Spirit.\u201d While many Dispensationalists today would agree that regeneration and sealing were available previously, Spirit baptism was not. Failure to see the Church as a new entity, to insist it is a continuation of Old Testament Israel or the Old Testament people of God \u201cis only a figment of theological fancy and wholly extraneous to the New Testament.\u201d
\nThe most relevant chapter to Israelology in Chafer\u2019s Ecclesiology is entitled, \u201cContrasts Between Israel and the Church.\u201d Chafer points out that there are twenty-four contrasts between Israel and the Church. First is the extent of biblical revelation:<\/p>\n
With respect to primary application, Israel occupies nearly four-fifths of the text of the Bible, while the Church, with respect to primary application, occupies slightly more than one-fifth.<\/p>\n
Second, the divine purpose:<\/p>\n
Every covenant, promise, and provision for Israel is earthly, and they continue as a nation with the earth when it is created new. Every covenant or promise for the Church is for a heavenly reality, and she continues in heavenly citizenship when the heavens are recreated.<\/p>\n
Not all Dispensationalists will agree with Chafer here. While it may be true that the primary divine purpose for Israel is earthly, it is not exclusively so, for Israel is also destined to be in the heavenly Jerusalem in the Eternal State. It may also be true that the primary divine purpose for the Church is heavenly, but it is not exclusively so since the Church is to have a major role on earth during the Millennium.
\nThe third contrast concerns the seed of Abraham. The contrast here is that Israel is the earthly seed of Abraham pictured as \u201cthe dust of the earth,\u201d while the Church is the heavenly seed of Abraham pictured as \u201cthe stars of heaven.\u201d Again, not all Dispensationalists will agree with this distinction, and some see the motifs of dust and stars as both referring to Israel. However, all Dispensationalists would agree with Chafer\u2019s other statements. One enters the physical seed by natural generation for Jewish nationality is determined by physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and it is with this nation that \u201cGod has made covenants respecting their earthly privilege.\u201d One enters the heavenly seed by supernatural generation, or regeneration \u201con the efficacious principle of faith\u201d; these become \u201cAbraham\u2019s spiritual seed.\u201d Chafer also recognizes another distinction besides that of Israel and the Church, that of the two Israels: Israel the whole and Israel the remnant. There is \u201cIsrael after the flesh\u201d and there is \u201cthat portion of Israel within Israel who are saved.\u201d The Israel of God of Galatians 6:16, Chafer insists, refers to believing Jews and not to the Church as Covenant Theology insists. Concerning both Galatians 6:16 and Romans 9:6, Chafer insists that the \u201cuse of the passages to prove Israel and the Church to be the same is deplored in the light of the truth which these Scriptures declare.\u201d These are the strongest verses used by Covenant Theologians when they try to prove that the Church is Israel; however, as Chafer shows, allowing a literal interpretation to stand, they refer to believing Jews within the nation as a whole.
\nThe fourth contrast is in the area of birth:<\/p>\n
Israelites become what they are by physical birth. They are each one begotten of human parents and their inheritance is transmitted by human generation. Christians become what they are by spiritual birth. They are begotten directly by God and are therefore His legitimate offspring. Their inheritance is immediate in that each is a child of God.<\/p>\n
Fifth, the contrast in headship:<\/p>\n
Abraham is the head of the Jewish race, and they are properly designated as \u201cthe seed of Abraham.\u201d Though born of Gentile stock, Abraham was set apart by God to the high honor of being the progenitor of the elect earthly people. Over against this it may be said of Christians, \u2026 God is their Father and by the Spirit they are joined to Christ and He, the resurrected Lord, is their new federal Head.<\/p>\n
The sixth contrast concerns the covenants: The point here is that God \u201cmade unconditional covenants with His earthly people\u201d already and will in the future \u201cmake a new covenant with them when they enter their kingdom.\u201d Meanwhile, the Church is enjoying \u201cthe present blessings\u201d of the New Covenant. These are the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant, for the physical blessings belong to Israel.
\nThe seventh contrast concerns nationality:<\/p>\n
Israel belongs to the earth and to the world-system. Though above all nations in Jehovah\u2019s reckoning, they are still in the world as one of its nations. Over against this and forming the strongest contrast is the fact that the Church is composed of all nations, including Israel, and sustains no citizenship here, but instead the believers are strangers and pilgrims.<\/p>\n
The eighth contrast concerns divine dealing:<\/p>\n
\u2026 in the present age, Israelites, like Gentiles, are shut up to their individual responsibility respecting the claims of the gospel, \u2026 the present divine arrangement is exceptional and that God has in other ages dealt with nations\u2014especially Israel\u2014as a whole. The present arrangement is restricted to the one age in which responsibility is altogether personal.<\/p>\n
Simply put, God dealt with Israel as a nation, but with the Church as individuals.
\nThe ninth distinction concerns the dispensations:<\/p>\n
The earthly people, though their estate may vary, are present in the earth in all ages from their beginning in Abraham on into eternity to come, while, as stated before, the Church is restricted to the present dispensation. The dispensation now operative itself is characterized by her presence in the world. It was introduced for her sake; and is therefore unrelated to that which goes before or that which follows.<\/p>\n
Israel is present in every dispensation since Abraham, including this one. In contrast, according to Chafer, the Church is limited to the present dispensation. However, most Dispensationalists today would add the next dispensation of the kingdom as also being a time when the Church will be present.
\nThe tenth contrast concerns the ministry:<\/p>\n
Israel was appointed to exercise an influence over the nations of the earth (cf. Ps. 67:1\u20137), and this she will yet do perfectly in the coming age; nevertheless there was no missionary undertaking and no gospel proclaimed.\u2026 However, immediately upon her formation, the Church is constituted a foreign missionary society.\u2026 given the task of evangelizing the people of the earth in each generation.<\/p>\n
The eleventh contrast is in relationship to the death of Christ:<\/p>\n
That nation which demanded the death of Christ and who said by their officials, \u201cHis blood be on us, and on our children,\u201d is guilty of that death; yet they will be saved as a nation on the ground of that sacrifice. On the other hand, a present and perfect salvation to the praise of God is the portion of the Church through the offering of the Lamb of God.<\/p>\n
The twelfth contrast concerns God the Father:<\/p>\n
To Israel God is known by His primary titles, but not as the Father of the individual Israelite. In distinction to this, the Christian is actually begotten of God and has every right to address Him as Father.<\/p>\n
While God is referred to as Father in the Old Testament, it was a Father in relationship to Israel as a nation, or Israel as a whole, but \u201cnot as the Father of the individual Israelite.\u201d In relationship to the Church, He is the Father of every individual believer.<\/p>\n
The thirteenth contrast concerns God the Son:<\/p>\n
To Israel, Christ is Messiah, Immanuel, and King with all that those appellations imply. To the Church, Christ is Savior, Lord, Bridegroom, and Head.<\/p>\n
The fourteenth contrast concerns God the Holy Spirit:<\/p>\n
Only in exceptional instances and for unusual service did the Holy Spirit come upon an Israelite, and the Spirit withdrew as freely as He came, when the purpose was accomplished. The strongest contrast is to be seen here, in that the Christian is indwelt by the Spirit; in truth, he is not saved apart from this relation to the Spirit (Rom. 8:9).<\/p>\n
In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit was not within every believer and, when He was, it was not necessarily permanent. The exact opposite is true of the Church saints.<\/p>\n
The fifteenth contrast relates to a governing principle:<\/p>\n
For fifteen centuries the Law of Moses was Israel\u2019s rule of daily life.\u2026 Unlike this, the members of Christ\u2019s Body, being wholly perfected in Him, are under the beseechings and directions which grace provides.<\/p>\n
The rule of life for Israel was the Law of Moses, but the rule of life for the Church is grace. It should again be noted that Chafer does not say that the Law of Moses was the means of salvation.
\nThe sixteenth contrast concerns divine enablement. Both law and grace reveal the righteousness of God and His demands of his creatures; however, the law did not provide Israel with divine enablement to keep its demands, while grace does provide it for the Church.
\nThe seventeenth contrast concerns two farewell discourses. This is an observation made by comparing the two discourses. The first is a denunciation of the leadership of Israel, while the latter lays down many seeds of later Church doctrine. This latter discourse is usually known as the Upper Room Discourse.
\nThe eighteenth contrast concerns the promise of Christ\u2019s return. For the Church, Christ\u2019s return will result with the Rapture of the Church and the taking of the Bride \u201cinto heaven\u2019s glory.\u201d For Israel, Christ\u2019s return will mean the second coming resulting in Israel\u2019s national restoration \u201cinto her own land.\u201d
\nThe nineteenth contrast is one of position:<\/p>\n
Though individuals in Israel attained to great usefulness, as did the prophets, priests, and kings, yet they never reached a higher distinction than that they were the servants of Jehovah. Contrariwise, the individuals who compose the Church are forever in Christ and are members in the family and household of God.<\/p>\n
Not all Dispensationalists would agree with this contrast, though all would agree that there is some truth in it. However, it need not be taken as absolute as Chafer makes it.
\nThe twentieth contrast concerns Christ\u2019s earthly reign:<\/p>\n
Those of the elect nation are appointed to be subjects of the King in His earthly kingdom (Ezek. 37:21\u201328), while those who comprise the Church are to reign with the King as His Consort in that kingdom (Rev. 20:6).<\/p>\n
In the Messianic Kingdom, Israel will dwell in her own land and be subjects of the King. The Church will be in the kingdom as co-reignors.
\nThe twenty-first contrast concerns priesthood: \u201cThe nation Israel had a priesthood. The Church is a priesthood.\u201d According to Chafer, Israel had one priestly tribe, the Tribe of Levi, and so in that sense \u201cIsrael had a priesthood.\u201d The Church as a whole is called to be a priesthood, and in that sense the \u201cChurch is a priesthood.\u201d While this contrast does have some validity, it need not be taken as absolute, for in Exodus 19:6, the nation as a whole was called to be a kingdom of priests.
\nThe twenty-second contrast deals with marriage:<\/p>\n
As a nation, Israel is likened by Jehovah to His wife\u2014a wife untrue and yet to be restored.\u2026 In marked distinction to this situation respecting Israel, is the revelation that the Church is to Christ as one espoused and to be married in heaven.\u2026<\/p>\n
This contrast is one virtually all Dispensationalists have recognized: that Israel is the Wife of Jehovah while the Church is the Bride of Christ.
\nThe twenty-third contrast concerns judgment:<\/p>\n
It is clearly predicted that Israel must come into judgment (Ezek. 20:33\u201344; Matt. 25:1\u201313); but it is as clearly declared that the Church will not come into judgment (John 5:24; Rom. 8:1, R.V.).<\/p>\n
The twenty-fourth contrast concerns position in eternity. The contrast here is not one of actual position but title, for both Israel and the Church will live eternally in the New Jerusalem. Old Testament Israel is listed as \u201cthe spirit of just men made perfect,\u201d and these are distinct from the \u201cchurch of the firstborn.\u201d Such an \u201cenumeration\u201d clearly shows a distinction.
\nThese are the twenty-four contrasts between Israel and the Church as listed by Chafer, and most Dispensationalists would substantially agree, but not necessarily with every detail. What is common ground for all Dispensationalists is that there is more than sufficient biblical evidence of a clear distinction between Israel and the Church.
\nAnother chapter under Ecclesiology that also overlaps into Israelology is entitled, \u201cSeven Figures of the Church.\u201d Though primarily dealing with the Church, Chafer also teaches several times on Israelology and shows some other distinctions between Israel and the Church. The first figure is that of the \u201cShepherd and the Sheep.\u201d This figure touches on Israelology in the recognition that the \u201cpeople of Israel were the \u2018sheep of his pasture.\u2019 \u201d The first \u201cfold\u201d is the flock of Israel comprising Israel the whole. The believing Jews are led out of this fold \u201cto find salvation, liberty, and pasture.\u201d While they are not led out of Israel as a people, they \u201care led out of Judaism,\u201d and Judaism is how Chafer defines \u201cIsrael\u2019s fold.\u201d These Jewish believers which are led out of the fold of Judaism are joined with other sheep, \u201cGentile believers who are not of the Jewish fold,\u201d in order to \u201cform one flock under the one Shepherd.\u201d This one flock \u201cis the Church called out from both Jews and Gentiles.\u201d
\nThe second figure is the \u201cVine and the Branches,\u201d but this is not related to Israelology. The third figure is: the \u201cCornerstone and the Stones of the Building.\u201d In his opening statement, Chafer states:<\/p>\n
Another wide distinction is indicated when it is declared that Israel had a temple (Ex. 25:8) and the Church is a temple (Eph. 2:21).<\/p>\n
Later, Chafer adds:<\/p>\n
The symbolization of Christ as a stone is to be seen in various particulars: (a) in relation to Gentiles, He is the Smiting Stone in their final judgment (Dan. 2:34); (b) to Israel, His coming as a Servant rather than as a King became a stumbling stone to them and a rock of offense (Isa. 8:14\u201315; 1 Cor. 1:23; 1 Pet. 2:8); (c) to the Church, Christ is the Foundation Stone (1 Cor. 3:11), and the Chief Cornerstone (Eph 2:20\u201322; 1 Pet. 2:4\u20135).<\/p>\n
Citing Christ\u2019s words of Matthew 21:42\u201344, that the Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you [Israel] and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, Chafer interprets this to mean that Christ was predicting \u201cthe impending transition from the former divine purpose in Israel to the present divine purpose in the Church.\u201d Covenant Theologians have interpreted this to mean that the Kingdom of God has been transferred from Israel to the Church. Chafer interprets this transfer only in terms of a \u201cdivine purpose.\u201d Turning to Ephesians 2:11\u201320, Chafer points out that Gentile believers are now \u201cfellow-citizens\u201d of \u201cthe household of God,\u201d the Church. Being in this position is a blessing \u201cmuch higher than the commonwealth and covenant privileges of Israel as heaven is higher than the earth.\u201d Chafer again distinguishes Israel and the Church in terms of \u201cheavenly\u201d and \u201cearthly.\u201d Gentiles who were \u201conce excluded from the earthly Jerusalem\u201d are now citizens of the \u201cheavenly Jerusalem\u201d from which unbelieving Jews are excluded. The Church is a distinctive entity in this age, for while \u201cGod has had His saints in all dispensations, \u2026 they of the past ages have not formed any part of the Church.\u201d While not all Dispensationalists would agree with the earthly and heavenly distinctive, they would all agree on the uniqueness of the Church in this age and with Chafer\u2019s concluding statement that \u201cIsrael had a building in which God was pleased to dwell; the Church is a building in which God is pleased to dwell.\u201d
\nThe fourth figure is the \u201cHigh Priest and the Kingdom of Priests,\u201d but Chafer\u2019s development does not touch on Israelology. Under the fifth figure, the \u201cHead and the Body with Its Many Members,\u201d Chafer makes the following contrast between Israel and the Church:<\/p>\n
In contrast to Israel, which nation was an organization or commonwealth (Eph. 2:12), and in contrast to the visible church, which is merely a human systemization, the true Church is an organism.<\/p>\n
Under this heading, Chafer expounds on Ephesians two and three. In this section, Chafer has a great deal to say concerning Israelology, though it is found in the context of his Ecclesiology. Chafer never followed through his own theological logic by developing a separate systematized Israelology. Most of his systematized Israelology, as far as he did systematize it, is found within his Ecclesiology and Eschatology. This section is one major example.
\nChafer summarizes Ephesians two by pointing out that the division between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down, and Jewish and Gentile believers are now united into one Body, the Church. The middle wall of partition had lasted for \u201cnineteen hundred years,\u201d but now \u201cthe distinction between Gentile and Jew [has] been divinely set aside.\u201d In light of this truth, Chafer states that \u201ctwo underlying facts should be observed.\u201d First, it was God Himself who initiated this distinction between Jews and Gentiles and \u201cdeclared His favor toward Israel alone,\u201d and so Israel became \u201cthe acknowledged heritage of God.\u201d This action by God rendered the Gentiles as \u201cstrangers\u201d except for those few \u201cwho chose to ally themselves with Israel.\u201d Otherwise, \u201call were strangers who were not of Israel.\u201d Israel as a nation then stood in a unique position, for there was \u201cno other nation or people who were the chosen of Jehovah,\u201d or \u201cto whom He was married,\u201d or \u201cwhom alone He knew among the families of the earth,\u201d or \u201cwhom He had redeemed from Egypt both by blood and by power.\u201d This unique distinction of the Jew from the Gentile and the privileges given to the Jews was God\u2019s doing. Second, this divine favor rendered to Israel was misinterpreted by Israel as meaning superiority and so the \u201cprejudice of the Jew toward the Gentile, based upon divine favor, had come to be nothing less than hatred and contempt.\u201d
\nChafer then shows how Ephesians 2:12 brings out the state of the Gentiles before Christ in \u201cfive disqualifying charges.\u201d First, the Gentiles were without Christ, meaning, they had \u201cno national Messianic hope.\u201d Second, they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, meaning, they were outside Israel\u2019s \u201cone divinely recognized commonwealth.\u201d Third, they were strangers from the covenants of the promise, meaning that God \u201chad entered into no covenant with them as He had with Israel.\u201d While God did make the Edenic, Adamic, and Noahic Covenants with the Gentiles, the point here is that the four unconditional, eternal covenants (Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New) were made with Israel and not with the Gentiles. Fourth, they had no hope, meaning that \u201cno covenant promise had been accorded them,\u201d insofar as the material and physical promises of the Jewish covenants are concerned. Fifth, the Gentiles were without God in the world, meaning, \u201cthey could make no claim to his purpose or favor.\u201d It was in \u201cthe midst of these distinctions between Jew and Gentile which were set up by God, owned of God, and accentuated by human prejudice and hatred,\u201d that God introduced \u201ca new divine purpose\u201d which was \u201cmade possible\u201d on the basis of \u201cthe death and resurrection of Christ\u201d and the coming \u201cof the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.\u201d The new \u201cdivine purpose\u201d was \u201cthe forming of a new Body of heavenly people drawn from both Jews and Gentiles.\u201d This is a new entity in two ways. First, it did not exist before Pentecost and, second, it was not something prophetically revealed in the Old Testament. This, in turn, led to a declaration of \u201cthe most startling divine decree,\u201d which was \u201cthat there is \u2018no difference\u2019 between Jew and Gentile.\u201d Chafer points out two things about this decree. First, \u201cit was never before heard of in the world\u201d and, second, it was \u201ccontrary to the hitherto divinely sanctioned exaltation of Israel over the Gentiles.\u201d All this points out a key feature of Dispensational Israelology: that the Church is a new entity in this age and not a continuation of the Old Testament Israel. Chafer also points out that for the Gentile, there \u201cwas little \u2026 to unlearn in connection with this new age-purpose and plan for salvation.\u201d Since the Gentile had no hope earlier, \u201cthe gospel of salvation by grace became to him as life from the dead.\u201d For the Jew, \u201cthe way of salvation through the cross\u201d proved to be a stumbling block except for the Jewish believers who were \u201cable to abandon their assumed national standing with God and to accept the exceeding grace of God in Christ.\u201d Because of the weakness of a theology concerning Israel Present, Chafer\u2019s last statement goes too far. When a Jew becomes a believer, the New Testament never states that he abandons his national standing. In fact, the New Testament views the remnant as always being within the nation and not outside of it.
\nCommenting on Ephesians 2:13, Chafer states that the result of this new entity is that Gentiles are no longer far off from God, but are made nigh to God in the blood of Christ. The Gentiles were far off because they had no covenantal relationship to God; but the Jews as a nation were nigh unto God because they did have a covenantal relationship with God. However, they are \u201cnot nigh to the same degree in which the saved Jew and the saved Gentile are now, being in Christ and redeemed through His precious blood.\u201d The point is that Israel as the elect nation was nigh to God, but this is a national standing that did not guarantee the salvation of the individual. For the individual, faith is essential. The individual Jewish and Gentile believer is more nigh to God than national Israel, since for the believer it means personal salvation.
\nCommenting on Ephesians 2:14, Chafer returns to the issue of the middle wall of partition. Since Christ became \u201cour peace,\u201d this \u201cwall of separation\u201d is \u201cbroken down.\u201d Chafer states that this wall \u201cwas set up by divine arrangement at the time when God entered into covenant relation with Abraham.\u201d However, since Paul identifies the wall with \u201cthe law of commandments\u201d and \u201cordinances,\u201d it is more accurate to say that the wall was erected with the Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses. Chafer is correct when he points out that believing Jews and Gentiles have been reconciled back to God since both are saved \u201cupon the same condition.\u201d There is no distinction in how each is saved, and in this new body neither \u201cJew nor Gentile can rightfully claim superiority over the other.\u201d When Chafer states that \u201cevery distinction is lost in this glorious oneness in Christ,\u201d he again overstates his case. Certainly, in the way of salvation there is no distinction, and indeed no one can claim superiority; however, even within the body not all distinctions have been erased. Chafer\u2019s statement again reflects the lack of a theology concerning Israel Present. He adds that when the middle wall of partition \u201cwas broken down,\u201d it did not mean that the Gentile was \u201celevated to the level of Jewish privilege,\u201d but that \u201cthe Jew was lowered to the level of the hopeless Gentile,\u201d for apart from faith, neither one has salvation. From that \u201chopeless\u201d position \u201ceither Jew or Gentile might be saved through grace alone into a heavenly position and glory.\u201d
\nCommenting on Ephesians 2:15, Chafer points out that when the middle wall of partition was broken down, it meant that Christ did abolish \u201cthe law of commandments,\u201d and placed the believer \u201cupon a new obligation\u201d which is \u201cthe law of Christ.\u201d Chafer again notes that the death of Christ removed \u201cboth the enmity and the partition between Jew and Gentile,\u201d and this resulted in \u201cthe creation of \u2018one new man.\u2019 \u201d This is the \u201cone new Body\u2014the Church.\u201d
\nCommenting on Ephesians 2:16, Chafer again re-emphasizes that \u201cin the Church \u2026 He reconciles both Jew and Gentile.\u201d
\nCommenting on Ephesians 2:18, Chafer states that \u201cthrough Christ \u2026 both\u2014Jew and Gentile\u2014have access by one Spirit unto the Father.\u201d
\nSummarizing Ephesians three, Chafer states that the Church was \u201ca sacred secret\u201d which was \u201chitherto unrevealed.\u201d The Church is a \u201cnew Body\u201d which made the Gentiles \u201cfellow heirs\u201d with Jewish believers and \u201cpartakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.\u201d This \u201cone new Body\u201d concept \u201cis as new to Jew as it is to Gentile.\u201d Commenting on Ephesians 3:6, Chafer shows how the Church is a \u201cmystery.\u201d The exact content of the mystery is not the fact of Gentile salvation, since this was revealed in the Old Testament. The content of the mystery is that \u201cof a present uniting of Jews and Gentiles into one Body.\u201d This is \u201ca new divine purpose\u201d and is \u201cin no sense the perpetuation of anything which has been before.\u201d This restates the essence of Dispensationalism. The Church is a brand new entity, both historically and by way of revelation, since it was not revealed in the Old Testament.
\nIn conclusion, Chafer reaffirms that \u201cthe Church is a new purpose of God\u201d and rejects the contention of Covenant Theology \u201cthat the Church in her present form is but a continuation of God\u2019s one purpose from the beginning of the human family.\u201d Chafer, as all Dispensationalists, rejects the concept of an \u201cOld Testament church.\u201d As Chafer states, the very \u201cfact that Jews are now invited into fellowheirship in the one Body with Gentiles is no warrant for the belief that Old Testament saints are included in this new divine purpose.\u201d
\nThe sixth figure is that of the \u201cLast Adam and the New Creation.\u201d One of the areas Chafer discusses is the issue of the Sabbath, which in turn affects Israelology. His introduction is:<\/p>\n
The distinction between the reign of law and the reign of grace is at no point more sharply drawn than in the question of the observance of the seventh day of the week or the first day of the week; for these two days are symbolical of the dispensations to which they are related.<\/p>\n
The seventh figure is that of the \u201cBridegroom and the Bride.\u201d Though mostly concerned with the Church as the Bride of Christ, Chafer does draw a parallel with Israel as the Wife of Jehovah:<\/p>\n
A parallel between the Church as the Bride and Israel\u2019s relation to Jehovah is seen in the fact that Israel is said to be the apostate wife of Jehovah who is yet to be restored. Certainly a wide distinction obtains between an espoused virgin (2 Cor. 11:2) and a repudiated wife.\u2026 Ezekiel 16:1\u201359 and Hosea 2:1\u201323. The former of these Scriptures is Jehovah\u2019s scathing repudiation of the nation with whom He entered into covenant and whom He made His own (vss. 8, 59); yet Israel will be restored (vss. 60\u201363). Similarly in Hosea 2:1\u201323 Jehovah\u2019s repudiation of Israel is again described and the prophet is appointed to enact in his own home the situation of Jehovah in relation to His apostate wife, and as an object lesson to Israel.<\/p>\n
Chafer picks up the theme of the Church\u2019s distinction from Israel while summarizing Ecclesiology. Here he merely summarizes points he detailed earlier without adding anything new.
\nIn an earlier work, Chafer draws some further distinctions, but uses the titles \u201cJudaism\u201d and \u201cChristianity\u201d rather than \u201cIsrael\u201d and \u201cChurch.\u201d He points out that a complete religious system has seven features to it, stating that \u201cDispensationalism has its foundation in and is understood in the distinction between Judaism and Christianity.\u201d The first feature is, \u201cAn Acceptable Standing on the Part of Man Before God.\u201d Chafer introduces his theme by showing that with \u201cthe call of Abraham and the giving of the law\u201d there were \u201ctwo widely different, standardized divine provisions whereby man, \u2026 might stand in favor of God.\u201d Covenant Theologians have been prone to misunderstand statements like these by Dispensationalists as teaching more than one way of salvation. The point of these statements has to do with the basis of receiving blessings and not salvation. In the case of Judaism, this was by physical birth; in the case of Christianity, it is by spiritual birth into the Kingdom of God. For Israel, \u201centrance into the right to share in the covenant of blessing designed for the earthly people was and is by physical birth.\u201d The covenant blessings were national blessings and one became a member of the nation by physical birth. When Israel went down into Egypt, they went down as a family, but \u201cthey came out a nation.\u201d The redemption from Egypt was a national redemption and \u201cnot an individual redemption since it was not restricted to that generation.\u201d Israel as a nation \u201cremains a redeemed nation throughout all her history.\u201d Chafer is careful to draw a distinction between a national covenant and an individual covenant for what God \u201ccovenanted to His elect nation is one thing and what He covenants to individuals within that nation is quite another.\u201d The national election guarantees that Israel as a nation \u201chas been and will be preserved forever.\u201d However, the individual Israelite \u201cwas subject to a prescribed and regulated conduct\u201d and failure brought \u201cindividual judgment.\u201d While physical birth did secure the national standing of each Israelite, it did not by itself secure their spiritual state since this was secured on the basis of faith. Not every Israelite exercised faith, but some did and so attained \u201cto more personal blessing than others of the nation.\u201d
\nThe second feature is a \u201cDivinely Specified Manner of Life.\u201d Chafer begins by stating that the Bible \u201csets forth at length three distinct and complete divine rulings which govern human action. None \u2026 are addressed to the angels or to the Gentiles.\u201d Two of these are addressed to Israel and one to the Church. Of the two for Israel, one is past, the Law of Moses, and the other is future, Kingdom Law. The one for the Church is presently in force, \u201cfor the heavenly people who are already perfected, with respect to standing, in Christ Jesus.\u201d Chafer points out that the \u201cthree rules of life do present widely different economies.\u201d This was necessary since the situation \u201ccould not be the same after the death of Christ\u201d as it was before, for His death brought an end to the Law of Moses. Nor can things remain the same after the second coming with \u201cthe regathering of Israel and the restoration of Judaism\u201d and the inauguration of Christ\u2019s \u201crule over the whole earth.\u201d Chafer rejects the belief that it was only the law \u201cas a means of justification\u201d which was done away for the Law of Moses \u201cwas never \u2026 nor could it be\u201d a means of justification. Covenant Theologians need to stop ignoring such clear statements by Dispensationalists who have always rejected the teaching that the Law of Moses was a means of salvation. After describing all three rules of life, Chafer observes that the three \u201csystems do set up conflicting and opposing principles,\u201d and it is useless to deny, as Covenant Theology often does, that \u201cthe conflicts really do not exist.\u201d Dispensationalism recognizes that not all Scripture is addressed to all classes of humanity at the same time and so \u201cthe dispensationalist plan of interpretation is none other than an attempt to be consistent in following these distinctions.\u201d Certainly there are moral and spiritual lessons that can be learned from all Scripture as a secondary application, but this is not the same as trying to force a \u201cprimary application\u201d of Scripture addressed to Israel upon the Church.
\nThe third feature is a \u201cDivinely Appointed Service\u201d:<\/p>\n
Service for God is an essential of any true religion. In the case of Judaism, service consisted in the maintenance of the tabernacle and temple ritual, and all tithes and offerings went to the support of the priesthood and their ministry. In the case of Christianity, service faces outward with its commission to preach the gospel to every creature and includes the edification of the saints.<\/p>\n
The fourth feature is a \u201cRighteous Ground for Forgiveness and Cleansing.\u201d Simply put, the ground for forgiveness for Israel was God\u2019s \u201ccertainly that a sufficient sacrifice would be made in due time by His Lamb.\u201d For the Church, the ground is the fact that Christ has already died.
\nThe fifth feature is a \u201cRevelation of the Human Responsibility for Securing Divine Forgiveness and Cleansing.\u201d For Israel, the human responsibility for securing forgiveness and cleansing was the sacrificial system. The sacrifices were for the purpose of restoring the blessings and relationships contained in the covenant and not \u201ca ground for the entrance into the covenants\u201d for this \u201cwas already secured by their physical birth.\u201d Nor were the sacrifices the grounds for personal salvation. Instead, \u201cthe sacrifices for Israel served to provide a ground for forgiveness and restoration of covenant people.\u201d For the Church saint, the human responsibility for securing forgiveness and cleansing is \u201cconfession of sin, which confession is the outward expression of an inward repentance.\u201d
\nThe sixth feature is an \u201cEffective Basis for Worship and Prayer\u201d:<\/p>\n
Under this heading it is to be observed that the basis of an appeal on which the Old Testament saints prayed was that of their covenants. A study of the recorded prayers will disclose the fact that they pleaded with Jehovah to observe and do what He had promised He would do. The ground of prayer in the New Testament after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the descent of the Spirit, is such that the new approach to God is in the name of Christ.<\/p>\n
The seventh feature is a \u201cFuture Hope.\u201d Chafer discusses this seventh feature at great length. He introduces his subject by a summary and states that Israel \u201chas its eschatology reaching on into eternity with covenants and promises which are everlasting.\u201d In relationship to the Church, he states that \u201cChristianity has its eschatology which is different at every point.\u201d However, while there are clearly differences in the Eschatology of each, to say they differ \u201cat every point\u201d is to overstate the case, for in a number of areas the Eschatology is the same. Chafer then goes on to show the contrasts in five areas, the first of which is the \u201cFuture of This Life.\u201d In the case of Israel, the future was the promise of living long in the Promised Land. In the case of the Church, there was no promise of a land, nor of \u201cearthly things beyond his personal need.\u201d The believer\u2019s hope is \u201cthe imminent coming of Christ to take away His church from the earth.\u201d The second area is the \u201cIntermediate State,\u201d meaning, the state between death and resurrection. For the individual Israelite, the believer went to \u201cAbraham\u2019s bosom,\u201d while the unbeliever went to a place of torment. For the Church saint, when he \u201cdeparts this life he goes to be \u2018with Christ; which is far better.\u2019 \u201d The third area is the \u201cResurrection.\u201d The Old Testament clearly promised a resurrection for Israel. The believer will be resurrected \u201cto everlasting life\u201d and rewarded before they enter the Messianic Kingdom. The unbelieving of Israel will be resurrected \u201cto everlasting contempt.\u201d For the Church saint, there are two facets to the \u201cdoctrine of resurrection.\u201d First, positionally speaking, he is viewed as having been raised with Christ and already partakes \u201cof the resurrection life of Christ.\u201d Second, though he eventually may die physically, he will be resurrected \u201cat the coming of Christ for His own,\u201d and \u201cbe rewarded for faithfulness in service.\u201d The fourth area is \u201cEternal Life.\u201d There can be no question that the \u201cOld Testament saints were in right and acceptable relation to God,\u201d but that relationship cannot be exactly the same as the New Testament saint as Covenant Theology so often proclaims. A change obviously takes place with the coming of Christ that also changes the relationship as Galatians 3:13 makes clear. Concerning Israel\u2019s relationship, Chafer points out four things with regard to \u201cthe estate of the Jew in the old dispensation\u201d: first, the Jews were born into a covenant relationship with God which \u201citself was a demonstration of superabounding grace\u201d; second, in the case of failure, God provided a sacrificial system which is \u201canother demonstration of immeasurable grace\u201d; third, if a Jew neglected the sacrifice, he could \u201cbe disowned of God and cast out,\u201d not that he could lose his salvation, but only his standing in the covenant promises and blessings; and, fourth, in the future there is to be a \u201cnational salvation and forgiveness of Israel.\u201d To Israel, \u201ceternal life was a future expectation.\u201d Chafer again emphasizes that the Law of Moses was a \u201crule of life\u201d and not the means of salvation. While Israel\u2019s national salvation is future and will come in conjunction with the second coming, the Church saint \u201cis saved when he believes\u201d and his salvation is in conjunction with the first coming. The fifth area is the \u201cCovenanted Davidic Kingdom.\u201d This facet, Chafer writes, is \u201cthe most extensive and important feature of the eschatology of Judaism.\u201d In fact, \u201cone of the great burdens of predictive prophecy\u201d concerns the Messianic Kingdom and \u201cthe anticipation of the glories of Israel\u201d on earth. As for the Church saint, there is \u201clikewise much prediction,\u201d but these anticipate \u201cthe glories of the redeemed in heaven.\u201d Not every point Chafer makes about these five areas of contrast would be upheld by every Dispensationalist, though all would be in somewhat substantial agreement.
\nChafer then concludes this section by discussing the \u201cUltimate holy estate of each group\u201d and states that \u201cGod will be equally free to tabernacle with them both.\u201d This will occur in the Eternal Order of the New Earth. Israel\u2019s covenant promises include this facet of God\u2019s program for they are \u201cboth earthly and eternal\u201d and so \u201ctheir national entity\u201d will continue forever in the New Earth. The New Earth is also the destiny of the Church saint, but the Church will remain distinct from Israel. Chafer reiterates that the Old Testament saints received a right standing before God by virtue of their covenant relationship to God and experienced \u201crelief from the condemnation of their sins through the sacrifices.\u201d This does not mean that they were saved by shedding animal blood, only that it was the \u201cground of fellowship with God and temporal blessings when in right relationship to Him.\u201d In fact, Chafer clearly affirms that \u201cfaith toward God was a most vital part of their daily life.\u201d However, as Hebrews 11:39\u201340 points out, while their faith \u201cwrought great accomplishments\u201d (Heb. 11:4\u201338), they nevertheless received not the promise. According to Chafer, this passage \u201cnot only declares the delay in the execution of Israel\u2019s promise, but distinguishes between the blessings of the covenants to Israel and the \u2018better things\u2019 which belong to \u2018us.\u2019 \u201d Temporal blessings and some spiritual experiences were provided through the Law of Moses, \u201cbut the larger features of the taking away of sin, the receiving of eternal life, and the kingdom glories were reserved\u201d for Israel only in connection with the return of the Messiah. However, both Israel and the Church will share in the New Jerusalem upon the New Earth when \u201cGod will tabernacle among men.\u201d
\nIn one of his other works, Chafer points out the hermeneutical reasons Covenant Theologians confuse Israel and the Church. Covenant Theologians often hide behind the fact of symbols when defending their allegorical approach to Bible prophecy, but Chafer points out that while \u201csome prophecy is couched in symbolic language,\u201d most prophecies \u201care largely free from problems presented by such symbolism\u201d and that most of the material is written in words \u201cthe meaning of which cannot be reasonably questioned.\u201d The real problem is confusing Israel with the Church and applying to the Church prophecy intended for Israel. Such application is \u201cgroundless in Scripture,\u201d and it \u201cis hopelessly confusing and grotesque\u201d for in this type of system, only the blessings of Israel are applied to the Church, while the curses are left to Israel. To fully understand what the Bible teaches about the kingdom program, the \u201cplain words are taken in their obvious plain meaning.\u201d This means that \u201cIsrael\u201d is not the Church, \u201cZion\u201d is not \u201cthe body of saints in this dispensation,\u201d the Davidic Throne is not heaven, the Land of Israel is not Paradise and the House of Jacob does not represent Gentile believers. Unless such concepts are discarded, one will arrive at a very faulty concept of the kingdom.
\nA later chapter is entitled, \u201cThe Church Which is His Body,\u201d and Chafer is careful to distinguish Israel and the Church. In Dispensationalism, the purpose of this age is to take out from among the Gentiles a people for God\u2019s name and these Gentiles along with Jewish believers make up the Church. While they do form part of the Mystery Kingdom, this is not the same as \u201cthe Messianic earthly kingdom of Israel,\u201d though the Church will share in that kingdom as co-reigners with Christ; nor did Christ cancel out such a belief when asked about the restoration of \u201cthe kingdom to Israel.\u201d He did not say that no such kingdom will ever exist. Nor did He say that such a kingdom is purely spiritual or to be \u201cmerged into a spiritual conquest of all nations.\u201d What He did say is that it was not for them to know \u201cthe times and the seasons.\u201d The simple reading of Christ\u2019s words clearly implies \u201cthat every promise of God is still intact\u201d to Israel, but the time of the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom is not for them to know. For now, their concern is the \u201cministry of the new gospel age\u201d which is \u201cthe out-calling of a heavenly people.\u201d This purpose was expressly declared by the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. The issue before \u201cthe mother church at Jerusalem\u201d was the relationship of circumcision to the Gentile believers, something obligatory under the Mosaic Law. It became apparent to the Church that \u201cthe Jewish system was being set aside.\u201d At the council, James declared that the new purpose of God in this age is to take out from among the Gentiles a people for God\u2019s name. This will be followed by a return of the Messiah to re-establish \u201cthe Davidic order,\u201d and to set up the Messianic Kingdom. Chafer identifies these \u201ccalled out ones\u201d as the Church which was founded at Pentecost in Acts two. That it did not exist even in the gospel period is evident from the fact that when Christ first mentioned the Church it was still future. The basic meaning of the Greek word is \u201ca collection, or assembly, of people.\u201d The fact that it is used of the assembly of Israel in Acts 7:38 no more proves that the Church is Israel than the use of the same word of a pagan assembly in Acts 19:29 proves that unbelieving pagans are the Church. The primary use of the word is \u201cof the born-again ones of all generations since Pentecost,\u201d and only since then because only these have been \u201cbaptized into one body and made to drink into one Spirit.\u201d It is the forming of this body that is the \u201cprimary purpose of God in this age of grace.\u201d In his elaboration of the Church concept, Paul pointed out that there is a facet of the Church that is \u201ca mystery, a sacred secret, not made known to other ages.\u201d The \u201cmystery\u201d facet is not that of Gentile salvation for this was revealed in the Old Testament. What was not revealed is that Jewish and Gentile believers would be united into one body, the Church, and so the Gentiles would become \u201cfellow heirs with the Jews in one body\u201d and become \u201cpartakers\u201d of Jewish spiritual blessings. Again, while all Dispensationalists maintain a distinction between Israel and the Church, not all go so far as to say the \u201ccovenants and destinies of Israel are all earthly,\u201d while those of the Church \u201care all heavenly.\u201d
\nIn his discussion of the meaning of the Greek word for Church, Ryrie states:<\/p>\n
The Greek word, ekklesia, meant an assembly and was used in a political, not a religious sense. It did not refer to the people but to the meeting; in other words, when the people were not assembled formally they were not referred to as an ekklesia. The word is used in this same secular Greek way two times in the New Testament (Acts 19:32, 41).<\/p>\n
When the Greek word is used in the New Testament, it takes on much richer and fuller aspects to that basic secular meaning. For example, the people themselves, whether assembled or not, are the ekklesia. Nevertheless, the word as used in the New Testament still retains the basic meaning of an assembly, and does not take on a supposed theological meaning (based on the breakup of the word into its two parts, \u201ccall\u201d and \u201cout of\u201d) of a \u201ccalled out\u201d people. If the word is going to be translated on the basis of etymology, then it should be translated \u201ccalled together,\u201d not \u201ccalled out.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ryrie then discusses the four ways the word is used in the New Testament. First, it is used of a pagan assembly, of a \u201cgroup \u2026 composed of heathen people whose reason for assembling was to exercise a political privilege.\u201d This is the same as the classical usage of the term. Second, it is used of the \u201cIsraelites assembled to receive God\u2019s law through Moses.\u201d Spiritually, this group was composed of both believers and unbelievers; while all were part of the national election, \u201cthis alone did not guarantee the spiritual salvation of each person.\u201d This is the same as the usage of the word in the Septuagint. Third, it is used of the universal Church which is comprised of only believers and all believers, both in heaven and on earth. The \u201creason for its existence is the baptizing ministry of the Spirit\u201d which only began as of Acts two. Fourth, it is used of a local church composed of those \u201cwho professed to have accepted Christ as Savior,\u201d though some professors may not actually have possessed this salvation. This type could contain unbelievers.
\nRyrie next discusses the \u201cRelation of the Church to Israel.\u201d One key evidence of a distinction between Israel and the Church is timing. Since the Church did not begin until the Day of Pentecost, obviously it \u201cdid not exist in the Old Testament period.\u201d Ryrie then presents three evidences that the distinction was continued into the New Testament. First, a number of times \u201cnatural Israel and Gentiles are contrasted after the church was clearly established.\u201d He cites several examples from the Book of Acts showing this to be true. Second, Ryrie cites 1 Corinthians 10:32, which makes a threefold division of humanity: Jews, Gentiles, and the Church. As Ryrie states, such a \u201cdistinction would be meaningless if Israel were the same as the church.\u201d Third, Ryrie cites Galatians 6:16 which, as has been shown many times, is the one and only passage that all Covenant Theologians cite as proof that the Church is Israel or the New Israel. Ryrie, however, states that this passage \u201cprovides no clear proof that the church is equated with Israel.\u201d Covenant Theologians are forced to resort to a secondary meaning of kai to arrive at their conclusion. They, therefore, take it as an explicative to get the Israel of God equated with the Church. Covenant Theology is forced to take it this way because if their interpretation is correct, it is \u201cthe only one which would identify the church as Israel.\u201d The word may be taken as an emphatic, \u201cemphasizing an especially important part (Jewish believers) in the benediction on the whole church.\u201d Furthermore, the primary meaning of kai is \u201cand\u201d; in this primary sense it would \u201csimply connect Jewish Christians to the New Creation.\u201d Ryrie states that the \u201cthrust of the Book of Galatians argues against the explicative use.\u201d Since Paul has been denouncing \u201cJewish legalists throughout the book, it would be natural for him to single out those Jewish people who had forsaken legalism and truly followed Christ.\u201d
\nRyrie next deals with the \u201cRelation of the Church to this Age.\u201d Dispensationalists do not believe that the Church existed in the Old Testament, but its existence is unique to this age. Ryrie provides four evidences for this. First is the citation of Matthew 16:18 where Jesus declared. I will build my church. The use of the future tense shows that the Church itself was still future as of Matthew 16. Jesus did not say that \u201cHe would continue to add to something already in existence,\u201d which would have been the case if Covenant Theology is correct. Second, according to Ephesians 1:20, the resurrection was a prerequisite to the founding of the Church since the Church \u201ccould have no functioning Head until after the resurrection of Christ.\u201d Third, the Church \u201ccould not have been an operating entity\u201d without the presence of the spiritual gifts and, according to Ephesians 4:7\u201312, these gifts only became available after the ascension of Christ. The ascension was another prerequisite to the birth of the Church. The fourth evidence concerns the \u201cmystery character of the one body.\u201d The content of this mystery is \u201cthat Gentiles would be fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, fellow partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel.\u201d The nature of a \u201cmystery\u201d is that of a \u201csecret,\u201d and it includes the concept of \u201ca time when the secret was not known followed by a time when it became known.\u201d The fact that the Gentiles would receive salvation and spiritual blessings and were included \u201cin God\u2019s plan of redemption\u201d was prophesied in the Old Testament, so this fact could not be a mystery. What was not revealed is that \u201cthere would be a joint body in which Jews and gentiles would share.\u201d This one body is also called the new man in Ephesians 2:15 and, being \u201cnew,\u201d this body cannot be \u201ca continuation or remaking of Israel.\u201d Covenant Theologians always insist that there is only one people of God and also insist on a singular continuity of the one people of God which is why they so frequently insist that the Church is Israel. Such an insistence is a forced interpretation on the text. Ryrie explains that there is both continuity and discontinuity. There is continuity in that all the redeemed of all ages are members of \u201cthe family of God\u201d and \u201ctheir common destiny is heaven.\u201d There is continuity \u201csimply because they are redeemed.\u201d There is discontinuity \u201cbecause redeemed today are placed in the body of Christ and not in some sort of Israel.\u201d This is the same as the discontinuity of \u201cthe redeemed before Abraham\u2019s day (like Enoch and Noah) [who] did not belong to Israel.\u201d The saints today are members of the Church, which is a new man, a new body, which \u201cwas not known in other ages, but is now revealed.\u201d For this very fact, \u201cthe Church is distinct to this age.\u201d
\nAt the conclusion of his chapter, Ryrie discusses the \u201cRelation of the Church to the Holy Spirit\u201d and, continuing on the theme developed earlier, Ryrie shows how it is this relationship that is responsible for the birth of the Church:<\/p>\n
Pentecost marks the beginning of the church as a functioning body by the outpouring of the Spirit on that day. Before His ascension the Lord promised that the disciples would be baptized with the Holy Spirit soon (Acts 1:5). Though the word \u201cbaptism\u201d does not appear in the account of Pentecost in chapter 2, it is quite clear from 11:15\u201316 that the baptism occurred for the first time on that day. Since, according to Paul (1 Cor. 12:13), Spirit baptism places people in the body of Christ, and since the body of Christ is the church (Eph. 1:22\u201323), the church, the body, began when those first individuals were baptized at Pentecost.<\/p>\n
In another work, Ryrie uses the contrast between Israel and the Church as evidence for the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. Ryrie shows that the Bible maintains a contrast between Israel, the Gentiles, and the Church in three ways. First there is a contrast between natural Israel and the Gentiles. The point here is that even after the establishment of the Church, the New Testament maintains a contrast between Israel and the Gentiles. Israel continues to be addressed as Israel and is addressed as such in contrast to Gentiles. What is true of the term Israel is also true of the term \u201cJew.\u201d When Paul lists the privileges of Israel in Romans 9:4\u20135, he lists them as a present reality and written after the establishment of the Church and \u201cis proof that the Church does not rob Israel of her blessings.\u201d Even the \u201ccovenants\u201d are national, \u201cwhich would be irrelevant if the covenants had been abrogated.\u201d Finally, according to Ephesians 2:12\u201315, \u201cGentiles are expressly said to be excluded from the blessings peculiar to Israel.\u201d Believing Gentiles are not said to have \u201ccome into the Israelite blessings.\u201d On the contrary, they remain as Gentiles and, along with believing Jews, they have become \u201cthe new man in Christ Jesus.\u201d
\nSecond, there is a contrast between natural Israel and the Church. The point here is that even after the establishment of the Church, the New Testament maintains a contrast between Israel and the Church. Ryrie shows this to be true in three ways. First, 1 Corinthians 10:32 distinguishes not only Israel and the Gentiles, but also Israel and the Church. The second evidence is Paul\u2019s teaching in Romans 11. Paul\u2019s argumentation throughout this chapter would be meaningless \u201cif there were no contrast in the mind of Paul between Israel and the Church.\u201d The third evidence is the \u201castounding fact that Israel has continued as a nation until this very day.\u201d Other ancient nations have disappeared, decayed, or assimilated, \u201cbut the Jews continue as a recognizable group\u201d to the point of the reestablishment of Israel as a nation. For Ryrie, this event \u201cshould prove beyond all doubt to anyone that natural Israel is not the Church.\u201d
\nThird, there is a contrast between Jewish Christians and Gentiles Christians. It is Dispensationalism rather than Covenant Theology that allows for a distinction between Jewish believers and Gentile believers even after the establishment of the Church. Ryrie considers this third contrast to be \u201cthe most important of the contrasts.\u201d He then deals with two key passages which are often used by Covenant Theologians to prove that the Church is Israel. Ryrie shows that the opposite is really true. The first passage is Romans 9:6. As has been shown in previous chapters, Covenant Theologians are divided as to the meaning of this verse. The majority understand this verse to be speaking of the Church while a minority see it as distinguishing between Jews who believe and Jews who do not. Ryrie agrees with the latter because, taken literally, the contrast is not between Israel and the Church but between the remnant and the non-remnant. Ryrie rejects the interpretation of this verse which states \u201cthat only spiritual Israel, that is, the Church, are those who inherit the promises, the rest of Israel being excluded.\u201d This is the view of the majority of Covenant Theologians. On the contrary, Ryrie points out that \u201cthis text supports the fact that Gentile Christians are never included in the designation Israel.\u201d The contrast in this verse is between believing Jews and unbelieving Jews and, therefore, it is a contrast \u201cbetween the promises which belong to Israel according to the flesh and those which belong to the Israelite who enters into them by faith.\u201d These spiritual promises \u201calso belong to the Gentile believer who then becomes a child of Abraham by faith.\u201d Ryrie concludes that this \u201cpassage intimates nothing concerning the relationship of Israel and the Church.\u201d Instead, it draws a sharp \u201cdistinction between the believing Israelites and unbelieving Israelites as to their present blessings.\u201d Both groups remain Jews or \u201cgenuine Israelites,\u201d but there is a distinction based on \u201ctheir attitude toward Christ.\u201d What this means is that believing Jews \u201ccome into all the blessings of the Church in this age,\u201d while Jews who do not believe do not. Ryrie concludes that \u201cthis passage does not in any way prove that Gentile Christians are called Israel.\u201d On the contrary, this passage proves that Jewish believers in this Church age are \u201ca distinct group in the body of Christ.\u201d The second passage is Galatians 6:15\u201316 and this is one passage which all Covenant Theologians use to teach that the Church is Israel. In fact, this is the only passage they have to use to try to prove their Church-equals-Israel equation. But does the text teach that the \u201cIsrael of God\u201d is the Church? Ryrie shows that there is a distinction made in this verse between Jewish and Gentile believers. What Paul is doing \u201cis singling out believing Jews in this benediction pronounced upon the entire body of Christ which, of course, includes these Jews.\u201d The kai is understood in its primary meaning as \u201cand,\u201d as a conjunction which links the groups, one them and one the Israel of God, or Gentile believers and Jewish believers. Paul, in this verse, is \u201cinvoking blessing upon all who walk according to the rule of grace\u201d and \u201che singles out believing Israelites as a special group.\u201d
\nHaving dealt with these three contrasts, Ryrie draws the following conclusion:<\/p>\n
We may safely conclude that if these key passages do not identify Israel and the Church, as amillennialists claim, then no passage in the New Testament does. In every case, the term is used of the nation Israel or of the believing remnant which has become part of the body of Christ. In no case are the national promises to Israel destroyed. By these three contrasts, natural Israel and the Gentiles, natural Israel and the Church, spiritual Israel and the Church, it is clear that the Church in its entirety is never designated Israel in Scripture. Thus there is no basis for transferring to the Church the promises which belong to Israel.<\/p>\n
Ryrie\u2019s conclusion is correct: there is no single passage anywhere in the New Testament which equates the Church with Israel and the only passage actually used by all Covenant Theologians, Galatians 6:15\u201316, is a weak basis since it lends itself to other options. In every case that the term Israel is found, it refers to either Jews as a whole or to the \u201cbelieving remnant which has become part of the body of Christ.\u201d It is never used either of the Church or of Gentile believers within the Church. In \u201cno case are the national promises to Israel destroyed\u201d and \u201cthere is no basis for transferring to the Church the promises which belong to Israel.\u201d
\nAnother area which clearly overlaps into Israelology is one which discusses the basis of Premillennialism in Ecclesiology. Ryrie\u2019s introduction spells out clearly what the issue is:<\/p>\n
The main point in question is whether or not the Church is a distinct body in this present age. If the Church is not a subject of Old Testament prophecy, then the Church is not fulfilling Israel\u2019s promises, but instead Israel herself must fulfill them and that in the future. In brief, premillennialism with a dispensational view recognizes the Church as a distinct entity, distinct from Israel in her beginning, in her relation to this age, and in her promises. If the Church is not a distinct body, then the door is open wide for amillennialism to enter with its ideas that the Church is some sort of full-bloomed development of Judaism and the fulfiller of Israel\u2019s promises of blessing (but not of judgment). Thus premillennialism and ecclesiology are inseparably related.<\/p>\n
In this chapter, there are three major areas that Ryrie discusses, but only two actually concern Israelology. The first is, \u201cThe Church, A Mystery.\u201d The relationship this has to Israelology is apparent from the definition of \u201cmystery.\u201d A \u201cmystery\u201d is a truth which \u201cwas not foreseen in the Old Testament,\u201d but is now revealed in the New Testament, This is a definition derived from the usage of the word in the New Testament (a total of twenty-seven times, twenty of which are by the Apostle Paul), especially in Ephesians 3:5. Having defined \u201cmystery\u201d biblically, the next question is, \u201cIs the Church a mystery?\u201d Ryrie admits that \u201cthe Church itself is never actually called a mystery in the New Testament.\u201d However, we know it is a mystery because \u201cits major elements are specifically designated as mysteries.\u201d Ryrie presents four such specific elements. The first is the body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body to form one \u201cnew man\u201d which is called a mystery in Ephesians 3:1\u201312. The \u201cChurch is a new man and not a made-over Israel.\u201d The second element is the concept \u201cof the organism\u201d or the concept of \u201cChrist in you,\u201d meaning \u201cthat Christ indwells each believer,\u201d which is called a mystery (Col. 1:24\u201327; 2:10\u201319; 3:4, 11). Third, \u201cthe mystery of the bride,\u201d meaning that the Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22\u201332). Fourth, the Rapture, \u201cthe idea of the translation of living saints,\u201d is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:51\u201352. Based upon these four mysteries, Ryrie concludes that \u201csince the fundamental characteristics of the Church are called mysteries, the Church itself is a mystery, that is, it was not foreseen in the Old Testament, but revealed only in the New Testament.\u201d
\nThe second area is, \u201cThe Church, a Distinct Body of Saints in This Age,\u201d in which Ryrie comments:<\/p>\n
The last proposition in the argument of this chapter is to consider whether or not the Church is a distinct body of saints in this age.\u2026 These facts have already been pointed out:<\/p>\n
(1) The Church is not fulfilling in any sense the promises to Israel.
\n(2) The use of the word Church in the New Testament never includes unsaved Israelites.
\n(3) The church age is not seen in God\u2019s program for Israel, it is an intercalation.
\n(4) The Church is a mystery in the sense that it was completely unrevealed in the Old Testament and now revealed in the New Testament.
\n(5) The Church did not begin until the day of Pentecost and will be removed from this world at the rapture which precedes the Second Coming of Christ.<\/p>\n
To these reasons we now add two additional ones to show that the Church is a distinct body of saints in this age.<\/p>\n
(6) The first use of the word Church in the New Testament indicates that it is still future. The word is first used in Matthew 16:18, \u2026 \u201cI will build my church;\u201d \u2026 The important word for the present discussion is the word will.\u2026 Thus, at the time of Christ\u2019s earthly ministry the Church was yet future.
\n(7) The use of the word ekklesia supports the conclusion that the Church is a distinct body of saints in this age.<\/p>\n
It is used of the body of Christ. In this sense the word has reference to those who have been baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). This is the technical use of the word.<\/p>\n
Of course an Israelite who accepts Christ is translated from the Old Testament assembly and put into the body of Christ, but natural Israel remains natural Israel, and the Church in the technical sense is strictly limited to those who have accepted Christ in this age. Therefore, the Church is a distinct body of saints in this age.<\/p>\n
In one of his other works, Ryrie defends the way Dispensationalists arrive at their distinction between Israel and the Church. He begins by distinguishing the dispensational approach from two of the three schools of Covenant Theology, both of which to some degree make Israel and the Church the same. Covenant Amillennialism blurs \u201ccompletely the meaning of the two words in the New Testament [Israel and Church] so that the Church takes over the fulfillment of the promises to Israel.\u201d Covenant Premillennialism \u201cgoes halfway\u201d and so \u201cthe Church and Israel are somewhat blended, though not amalgamated.\u201d The Dispensationalist rejects both those options and, indeed, is forced to do so by his literal hermeneutic because the New Testament keeps the two terms distinct. \u201cWhen the Church was introduced God did not abrogate His promises to Israel nor enmesh them into the Church.\u201d Because he allows the Bible to speak for itself, the Dispensationalist \u201crecognizes two purposes of God and insists in maintaining the distinction between Israel and the Church.\u201d While the Covenant Theologian tends to superimpose his scheme on the Bible, the Dispensationalist draws his conclusion \u201con an inductive study of the two words.\u201d
\nLater, while discussing the results of a literal interpretation, Ryrie states that Dispensationalists insist that the Bible must be interpreted literally and this \u201cresults in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value.\u201d This, in turn, results in insisting that the Old Testament prophecies \u201chave not yet been fulfilled.\u201d This, then, leads to a rejection of Covenant Amillennialism which \u201csays that they will not be fulfilled literally but are being fulfilled spiritually in the Church.\u201d it also rejects Covenant Premillennialism, which \u201csees some of them fulfilled literally and some not.\u201d Because \u201cliteral interpretation results in taking the Scriptures at face value, it also results in recognizing distinctions in the Scriptures.\u201d One of these distinctions is between Israel and the Church. Israel is not the Church, nor is the Church Israel.
\nThe chapter which most overlaps with Israelology is entitled, \u201cThe Church in Dispensationalism,\u201d for it is crucial to Dispensationalism that the Church be consistently distinguished from Israel. The importance is pointed out by Ryrie\u2019s opening statement:<\/p>\n
The nature of the Church is a crucial point of difference between dispensationalism and other doctrinal viewpoints. Indeed, ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the Church, is the touchstone of dispensationalism.<\/p>\n
Ryrie discusses the subject in two major categories. The first major category is the \u201cDistinctiveness of the Church\u201d where he points out three areas of distinctiveness. The first is that the \u201cChurch has a Distinct Character.\u201d The main point relevant to Israelology is that the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is comprised of both Jewish and Gentile believers united together on an equal footing. In fact, the \u201cinclusion of Jews and Gentiles in the same body is a mystery.\u201d While the Old Testament clearly predicted that salvation and spiritual blessings would go out to the Gentiles, it said nothing about the equality of Jewish and Gentiles believers in one body. It is this equality which is \u201cthe mystery revealed to the apostles and prophets in New Testament times.\u201d
\nThe second distinctiveness is that the \u201cChurch has a Distinct Time.\u201d Ryrie presents his evidence that the Church did not exist in the Old Testament. Though nothing is specifically said about Israel in this area, it is important to Israelology in that it shows that the Church was not present in the Old Testament and, therefore, the Church is not Israel. Dispensationalism believes that the Church is \u201ca distinct entity in this present age\u201d and Ryrie presents three reasons for this affirmation. First is the \u201cmystery character of the Church.\u201d The very fact that the Church is \u201ca living organism \u2026 in which Jews and Gentiles are on an equal basis,\u201d and that this equality \u201cis described as a mystery unknown in Old Testament times,\u201d shows that the Church did not exist in Old Testament times. The very fact that this union of Jews and Gentiles constitutes the one \u201cnew man\u201d shows it to be \u201cnew\u201d with the New Testament. Second, Paul states clearly what constitutes \u201cthe beginning and the completion of the Church.\u201d Concerning the beginning, two prerequisites were necessary for the establishment of the Church: the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus. This fact necessitates the Church to be \u201cdistinctive to this age.\u201d By the resurrection, Christ was made the Head of the Church and the ascension resulted in the giving of spiritual gifts which rendered the Church functional and operational. The completion of the Church comes with the Rapture, which concerns the resurrection of only those who died in Christ, which excludes those saints who died before the first coming. This too marks \u201cthe Church off as distinct to this age.\u201d Third, the Church is the Body of Christ (Col. 1:18) and the means of entering this Body is by Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13). Since Spirit baptism was still future as of Acts 1:5, and only began in Acts two (Acts 11:15\u201316), then obviously the Church could not have existed prior to that time. Thus, it was born at that time.
\nThe third distinctiveness is that the \u201cChurch is Distinct From Israel,\u201d which is obviously the most relevant to this work. Ryrie points out that the New Testament makes three distinctives even after the founding of the Church. First, Israel and the Gentiles are contrasted even after the Church was born. Second, \u201cnatural Israel and the Church are also contrasted in the New Testament.\u201d Paul\u2019s threefold division of humanity in 1 Corinthians 10:32 would be pointless if Jews were not distinct from both the Church and the Gentiles. The Israel of Romans 9:3\u20134 is clearly \u201cnatural Israel\u201d and Paul \u201cascribes to them the covenants and the promises.\u201d This was penned after the birth of the Church and so proves \u201cthat the Church does not rob Israel of her blessings.\u201d Furthermore, the very \u201cterm Israel continues to be used for the natural (not spiritual) descendants of Abraham after the Church was instituted, and it is not equated with the Church.\u201d Third, \u201cbelieving Jews and believing Gentiles, which together make up the Church in this age, continue to be distinguished in the New Testament, proving that the term Israel still means the physical descendants of Abraham.\u201d
\nRyrie then focuses his attention upon the two passages which Covenant Theologians use to try to prove that the Church is Israel. The first is Romans 9:6. Ryrie shows that the passage never states that \u201cthe spiritual remnant within Israel is the Church.\u201d What Paul is doing is simply distinguishing \u201cthe nation as a whole from the believing element within the nation.\u201d This was a very common distinction in the Old Testament. Paul\u2019s point is to show that \u201cnatural birth does not assure one of the life and favor promised the believing Israelite who approached God by faith.\u201d While not all Covenant Theologians use Romans 9:6 to show that the Church is Israel, since many recognize that the distinction there is between two kinds of Jews, all Covenant Theologians do use Galatians 6:15\u201316 \u201cto attempt to show that the Church is the new, spiritual Israel.\u201d As Ryrie states, the key issue is the meaning of kai. Grammatically, there are three possibilities. The Covenant Theologian is forced to resort to a secondary meaning and insist on taking it as an explicative with the meaning of \u201ceven.\u201d This interpretation would make the Israel of God equal to the new creature and so would \u201cmake the Church the Israel of God.\u201d The two other options are more in keeping with the primary meaning of kai and for that reason alone to be preferred. The second option is to understand it as an emphatic with the meaning of \u201cespecially.\u201d This interpretation would make the Israel of God only one segment of the whole, separated from the whole for special mention. This one segment from the whole would be the Jewish Christians. The third option is to understand the kai in its primary usage of a simple connective and would then have the meaning of \u201cand.\u201d This interpretation \u201cwould also distinguish the Israel of God as Jewish Christians, but not identify them as the whole Church.\u201d Certainly, if the primary meaning makes good sense, as it does here, there is no need to resort to a secondary sense. Even the context favors the primary meaning for \u201cPaul had strongly attacked the Jewish legalists; therefore, it would be natural for him to remember with a special blessing those Jews who had forsaken this legalism and followed Christ and the rule of the new creation.\u201d Again, Galatians 6:15\u201316 is the only passage Covenant Theologians have to try to prove that the Church is Israel and even then they must resort to a secondary meaning when neither the context nor the grammar demands it. In light of this, Ryrie poses a valid question: \u201cOne might also ask why, if the New Testament writers meant to equate clearly Israel and the Church, they did not do so plainly in the many other places in their writings where they had convenient opportunity to do so.\u201d Ryrie concludes that a study of how the New Testament uses the words Israel and Church clearly shows that \u201cnational Israel continues with her own promises and the Church is never equated with a so-called \u2018new Israel,\u2019 but is carefully and continually distinguished as a separate work of God in this age.\u201d
\nThe second major category is \u201cThe Relationships of the Church\u201d and deals with four such relationships; however, only the first three are relevant to Israelology. The first is the \u201cRelation of the Church to the Kingdom.\u201d While many Covenant Theologians try to equate the kingdom with the Church, others see a distinction and yet make them so inseparable as to be mutually indistinguishable, Dispensationalists do not. Certainly the Church is part of God\u2019s kingdom program but this does not make the Church and the kingdom the same. The Church is both \u201cdistinct from the kingdom purpose,\u201d but is still related to it. When the Millennium is established, the Church will be there as co-ruler. Israel will exist in the Messianic Kingdom as a \u201crestored and regenerated\u201d nation enjoying her own \u201cdistinct blessings.\u201d The same is true for the Church. She will be \u201cdistinct in the millennial kingdom\u201d but \u201cnot apart from it.\u201d
\nThe second relationship is the \u201cRelation of the Church to Saints of Other Ages.\u201d Because some Dispensationalists, like Chafer, have often portrayed the distinction between Israel and the Church in terms of \u201cearthly\u201d and \u201cheavenly\u201d distinctions, this has given rise to the thinking that Israel\u2019s destiny is purely earthly and the Church\u2019s destiny is purely heavenly. Covenant Theologians have seized on this point in their attacks on Dispensationalism. Ryrie clarifies the dispensational position and provides a balanced view. He points out that such an \u201capparent dichotomy between heavenly and earthly purposes is not actual.\u201d When Dispensationalists speak of \u201cthe earthly purpose of Israel,\u201d they mean that the national promises made to Israel \u201cwill be fulfilled by Jews during the millennium as they live on earth in unresurrected bodies.\u201d However, Jewish believers who died during \u201cthe Mosaic age\u201d and Jewish believers who die today do have \u201ca heavenly destiny.\u201d Jewish believers today \u201care members of the Church, His Body, and their destiny is the same as Gentile believers.\u201d In the Messianic Kingdom, \u201cthose Jews who will be living on the earth in earthly bodies \u2026 and those who will be born with earthly bodies during the period\u201d will experience \u201cthe earthly promises\u201d contained in the Jewish Covenants. This is all that Dispensationalism means by Israel being an \u201cearthly people\u201d with \u201cearthly promises.\u201d This does not mean that there Is no \u201cheavenly hope and future for Israel.\u201d Dispensationalists have always affirmed that \u201cthe spirits of just men made perfect\u201d of Hebrews 12:22\u201323 are the Old Testament saints \u201cwho have their place in the heavenly city along with the Church of the firstborn ones.\u201d Just as the Church will be on earth co-reigning with Christ in the Messianic Kingdom, so will Israel be in the heavenly Jerusalem in the Eternal State. Even in the Eternal State, Israel and the Church are kept distinct for \u201cdistinction is maintained even though the destiny is the same.\u201d Ryrie\u2019s conclusion is that \u201cthe earthly-heavenly, Israel-Church distinction taught by dispensationalists is true, but it is not everything that dispensationalists teach about the ultimate destiny of the people included in these groups.\u201d
\nThe third relationship is the \u201cRelation of the Church to the Seed of Abraham.\u201d As Ryrie points out, Covenant Theologians like to argue for their Church-equals-Israel equation on the basis that the Church is called \u201cthe seed of Abraham.\u201d However, Ryrie responds by showing that \u201cthe Church is a seed of Abraham, but this does not mean that the Church is Israel.\u201d The reason is \u201cthat the Scriptures speak of more than one kind of seed born to Abraham,\u201d and he lists three such seeds: \u201cthe natural seed, the physical descendants of Abraham,\u201d by which Ryrie means the Jews, but he could also have included the Arabs; the Messiah, who is the unique individual Seed of Abraham; and, \u201cChristians are Abraham\u2019s seed,\u201d meaning, the Church. Covenant Amillennialism \u201cminimizes the physical seed aspect\u201d and Covenant Premillennialism, while recognizing both the physical and spiritual seeds still \u201cagrees with the amillennialist in equating Israel and the Church.\u201d The point is that merely being a Seed of Abraham by itself does not mean that the Seed is Israel. Not all the physical Seed of Abraham are Jews\u2014in fact, most are Arabs. The real \u201ccrux of the matter is this: Is the spiritual seed of Abraham also called Israel?\u201d The answer is a solid \u201cNo.\u201d There is no question that Christians are called the spiritual Seed of Abraham, but the New Testament never states that \u201cthey are hairs of the national promises made to the physical descendants\u201d and never calls this group \u201cIsrael\u201d for \u201cthe term Israel is not the appelative given to the spiritual seed of Abraham.\u201d Ryrie further points out that \u201cit is correct to call some of the spiritual seed of Abraham spiritual Israel, but not all,\u201d by which he means that only Jewish believers could legitimately be called spiritual Israel. Faith \u201cis the determinative reason for being able to be called the spiritual seed of Abraham\u201d and this \u201cis also a personal and individual matter unrelated to race;\u201d but race is the determinative reason for being called \u201cIsrael.\u201d All Jews make up the peoplehood of Israel. Among them are those who believe and those who do not. Only the one who does can \u201cin any sense be called a spiritual Israelite.\u201d Ryrie concludes that to apply the \u201cdesignation Israel over to believers in the Church is not warranted by the New Testament.\u201d Scripturally, \u201cthe spiritual seed of Abraham does not mean Israel for Abraham is related to Israel as a national father, and he is related to believing individuals of all nations (including the Jewish) who believe, as a spiritual father.\u201d The obvious fact is that \u201cbelievers as a group are not called spiritual Israel.\u201d
\nRyrie might have added one more point. What Covenant Theology needs to prove their point is to show that the Church is called \u201cthe seed of Jacob.\u201d Not all physical descendants of Abraham are Jews, but all physical descendants of Jacob are. The very term \u201cIsrael\u201d originated with Jacob and not Abraham. If there was but one verse that clearly showed that the Church is the Seed of Jacob, Covenant Theology would establish one of their major contentions. This they cannot do. They can only resort to passages which speak of the Seed of Abraham which by itself is insufficient to prove their contention.
\nThe chapter closes with Ryrie\u2019s summary conclusion:<\/p>\n
The principle emphasis of dispensationalism\u2019s doctrine of the Church is its understanding of the Church as distinctive in the purposes of God.\u2026 The time of her existence is distinctive to this present dispensation, which makes the Church distinct from Israel and not a new spiritual Israel.<\/p>\n
While emphasizing the distinctiveness of the Church, the dispensationalist also recognizes certain relationships which the Church sustains. He does not say that there is no kingdom today, but insists that it is not the fulfillment of Old Testament kingdom promises.\u2026 He recognizes believers in this age as a seed of Abraham but not the only seed.\u2026 All his viewpoints stem from what he feels to be a consistent application of the literal principle of interpretation of Scripture.<\/p>\n
If the dispensational emphasis on the distinctiveness of the Church seems to result in a \u201cdichotomy,\u201d let it stand as long as it is a result of literal interpretation. There is nothing wrong with God\u2019s having a purpose for Israel and a purpose for the Church and letting these two purposes stand together within His overall plan.<\/p>\n
For Walvoord, the present age between the first and second coming of Christ is \u201cunique and unpredicted in the Old Testament.\u201d The purpose of the present age is to preach the gospel \u201cto all the world.\u201d In order to accomplish \u201cthe purpose of the present age,\u201d God formed the Church. The Church \u201cis quite distinct from Israel in the Old Testament and is not simply a revamped Judaism.\u201d The Church is declared to be a mystery and, therefore, it is \u201ca truth not revealed in the Old Testament.\u201d The Church is composed \u201cof Jew and Gentile on an equal basis.\u201d The Church is a \u201cnew entity\u201d and a \u201cnew creation from God\u201d and it was \u201cformed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit.\u201d The Church began at Pentecost and its \u201cprogram and formation\u201d is for \u201cthe present age.\u201d The Church has its own \u201cprophetic future\u201d and should not \u201cbe confused with Israel or Old Testament saints.\u201d
\nLike Ryrie, Walvoord insists that the dispensational distinctive between Israel and the Church is based on a literal hermeneutic. Because of the literal approach used by Dispensationalists, they insist that the promises will be fulfilled by the ones to whom they were made. Promises made to Abraham, to Abraham\u2019s seed, and to the Gentiles will be fulfilled by Abraham, by Abraham\u2019s seed, and by the Gentiles. This insistence of a literal fulfillment to Israel whereby her physical existence and her possession of the land are guaranteed does not mean that Dispensationalism denies the existence of a spiritual Seed of Abraham. There is no question that the New Testament affirms the fact of a spiritual Seed of Abraham. Where Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology part company is over the exact identification of the spiritual seed and what it is that God promised the spiritual seed. Furthermore, Dispensationalism \u201calso recognizes the distinction between the natural and spiritual within Israel itself.\u201d According to Romans 9:6 and 8, within Israel the whole \u201cthere is a believing remnant who are both natural and spiritual children of Abraham.\u201d Walvoord then shows that there are three different ways by which one can be a child of Abraham. \u201cFirst, there is the natural lineage, or natural seed.\u201d This seed is the Jewish nation with whom God has a covenant relationship and to whom He gave the Law of Moses and the Promised Land. \u201cSecond, there is the spiritual lineage within the natural.\u201d To put it another way, there is the believing remnant within the nation as a whole. These are the believers who in the past \u201ckept the law, and who met the conditions for present enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant.\u201d In the future, it is the \u201cspiritual seed of Abraham\u201d who will \u201cultimately possess the land in the future millennium.\u201d As is so often true with Dispensationalism, Walvoord has nothing to say about the present role of the remnant. \u201cThird, there is the spiritual seed of Abraham who are not natural Israelites,\u201d meaning, the Gentile believers. The promises and blessings those Gentiles receive are only those which were promised to the Gentiles. The believing Gentiles \u201cfulfill that aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant which dealt with Gentiles in the first place, not the promises pertaining to Israel.\u201d Since \u201cGentiles can be Abraham\u2019s seed \u2026 in the spiritual sense only,\u201d they therefore can only be \u201cheirs of the promise given \u2018to all the families of the earth.\u2019 \u201d Walvoord concludes that while Dispensationalism can agree with Covenant Theology that there is \u201ca spiritual seed of Abraham which includes Gentiles, they deny that this fulfills the promises given to the natural seed or that the promises to the \u2018seed of Abraham\u2019 are fulfilled by Gentile believers.\u201d This, Walvoord declares, \u201cis an unwarranted conclusion.\u201d
\nWalvoord raises and answers two questions. The first is: \u201cAre the promises given to the physical seed of Abraham?\u201d The answer is \u201cyes\u201d for several reasons. It is obvious from the context of Genesis 17:19 that when God promised to sustain His covenant with Abraham\u2019s seed, that seed was Isaac, a physical seed. It is also obvious that Abraham understood the term seed to refer \u201cto the physical seed, Isaac, and his physical descendants.\u201d Later, when God made the same promise to Jacob, he also understood the seed to be in reference to his physical lineage. Furthermore, \u201cthe particular promises of a great posterity, of possession of the land, and being a channel of blessing to the Gentiles is never given to any except the physical seed.\u201d It is true that \u201cthe seed culminates in Christ, who fulfills much of the promise of blessing to the Gentiles.\u201d However, Dispensationalism denies that this is the totality of what God intended by the physical Seed of Abraham for \u201cit is clear that all twelve tribes \u2026 were considered the seed of Abraham and in particular the seed of Israel.\u201d Contrary to Covenant Theology, especially in its amillennial form, the biblical use \u201cof the term seed of Abraham while it justifies the concept of a spiritual seed does not exclude the promise of the physical seed.\u201d The second question is: \u201cDoes Abraham have a physical seed today?\u201d Walvoord raises this question because some amillennial writers claim that the Jews today have no racial continuity with Abraham. Walvoord points out that the Jews today certainly consider themselves to be of physical descent and world history bears \u201cwitness to the continuing physical strain of Jewish blood.\u201d The Scriptures themselves both historically and prophetically acknowledge the existence of a body of people, the Jews, who are such because of their physical descent from Abraham. The re-establishment of the Jewish state is further witness to this fact. To Walvoord, \u201cone of the greatest of modern miracles has been the preservation of the identity of Israel as a race and nation.\u201d As Walvoord states and as has been noted in previous chapters, the continued existence of the Jews \u201chas been the stumbling stone for the amillennial denial of Israel\u2019s future.\u201d Walvoord concludes: \u201cAnyone in the face of such overwhelming evidence for the recognition of the physical seed of Abraham in the world today who in effect denies them the right and title to the name Israel is shutting his eyes to some very plain facts \u2026 To deny that Israel has a bona fide existence today is to ignore that which is plain to everyone else.\u201d
\nWalvoord also discusses the term Israel. The controversy between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology over the term Israel \u201cdoes not concern the Old Testament use of the term so much as it concerns the New Testament meaning of Israel.\u201d Contrary to Covenant Theology of all three schools, Dispensationalism affirms that \u201cthe term Israel \u2026 always has reference to those who are physical descendants of Jacob.\u201d While there is a \u201cspiritual Israel,\u201d this is not the Church, but a reference to Jewish believers. The believing remnant comprised \u201cspiritual Israel\u201d in the Old Testament and \u201cthere is a godly Israel in the church consisting of Israelites who are believers in Jesus Christ.\u201d For Dispensationalism, Israel always refers to physical descendants whether used of the people as a whole or of the believing remnant within the nation. This conclusion by Dispensationalism is based on \u201ca careful study of all the New Testament references to Israel and by the contrast between Israel and other terms.\u201d It is this contrast that is developed in the subsequent points of the chapter.
\nWalvoord, like Ryrie, also points out that there is a contrast between Israel and Gentiles. He states three things concerning this contrast. First, \u201cDistinctions continue after Pentecost.\u201d The two terms, \u201cIsrael and Gentiles continue to be used after the institution of the church at Pentecost.\u201d Furthermore, these two terms \u201care mutually exclusive.\u201d Both groups continue to exist and \u201cwhile some of each come into the church,\u201d they continued to exist as separate entities. Romans 10:1 is a good example of the use of Israel as a reference outside the Church. What is true of Israel is also true of the term \u201cJew.\u201d It continues to be used after Pentecost, and in 1 Corinthians 10:32 it is used in contrast with both the Gentiles and the Church. Second, \u201cIsrael\u2019s continued privileges.\u201d Israel\u2019s covenant privileges promised in the Old Testament still remain hers after Pentecost even in her state of unbelief, as Romans 9:3\u20135 clearly shows. Even in unbelief, they remain Israel and retain \u201call the peculiar privileges of Israel.\u201d It is obvious that \u201cthe institution of the church did not rob Israel in the flesh of its peculiar place of privilege before God.\u201d Third, \u201cGentiles continue to be excluded from Israel\u2019s privileges.\u201d Not only does national Israel retain her covenant blessings even in unbelief, \u201cGentiles are expressly declared to be excluded from the promises given to Israel\u201d in Ephesians 2:12. While believing Gentiles gain privilege \u201cas Christians in the church,\u201d they are never said to come \u201cinto these same Israelitish promises when they were converted.\u201d On the contrary, what the Bible does declare is \u201ca work of God bringing Jew and Gentile into a new order entirely\u2014\u2018one new man.\u2019 \u201d Gentiles do not take over the Jewish promises, nor is Israel \u201creduced to the bankruptcy of the Gentiles\u2014to become \u2018strangers from the covenants of promises.\u2019 \u201d Walvoord\u2019s conclusion is that it \u201cmay be concluded without further argument that the distinction between national Israel and Gentiles is continued after the institution of the Church\u2014Israel is still a genuine Israel, and the Gentiles continue to fulfill their part.\u201d In fact, the very \u201ccontinuance of Israel and Gentiles as such is a strong argument against either one being dispossessed of their own place.\u201d
\nThe second key contrast is between Israel and the Church. If it is true that \u201cnatural Israel continues with its own program and destiny,\u201d then this becomes a \u201cvital argument against the transfer of Israel\u2019s promises to the church or their loss by any other means.\u201d To prove that this contrast does exist, Walvoord draws two conclusions from the New Testament. First, \u201cNew Testament testimony to a future for Israel.\u201d Walvoord declares that the New Testament clearly predicts \u201ca future for Israel\u201d and this \u201ctestimony of Scripture is confirmed by the obvious fact that Israel in the flesh has continued to exist as a distinct people even in centuries of dispersion.\u201d In other words, if God had no future for Israel, the Jews would have long disappeared just like other ancient peoples who were exiled from their home country; this has not happened. On the contrary, \u201cthe Scriptures reveal that God has placed Israel in the present age in a peculiar relation to Himself and that He contemplates a renewal of His mercies to them at a future period.\u201d Second, \u201cIsrael\u2019s future program to follow present Gentile blessing.\u201d Based on Romans 11, Walvoord states that while it is true that Paul \u201cspeaks of Israel being broken off that Gentiles might be grafted in \u2026 he also speaks of the future ingrafting of Israel back into \u2018their own olive tree.\u2019 \u201d This would require that the blindness be lifted, and Paul \u201cdeclared that the blindness will continue \u2018until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.\u2019 \u201d The very word \u201cuntil signifies not only that the period of Gentile blessing will end, but it also indicates that a future period of Israel\u2019s ingrafting will follow.\u201d Walvoord concludes that the \u201cdistinction between Israel outside the church and the church Itself \u2026 is a highly significant fact.\u201d It means that \u201cIsrael in unbelief is blinded,\u201d but \u201cthis blinded condition is temporary, not final.\u201d When \u201cthe present period of Gentile blessing is concluded\u201d then Israel\u2019s \u201cblindness will be lifted\u201d and the \u201cfulfillment of the covenants with Israel will follow.\u201d The New Testament clearly teaches \u201cthe fact of Israel\u2019s continuance\u201d and reveals two things: \u201cIsrael\u2019s present program and future blessings.\u201d
\nA third contrast is between spiritual Israel and Gentile Christians. In this contrast, the issue boils down to: does the New Testament ever use the term Israel as a designation of either Gentile Christians or the Church? Covenant Theology answers positively, but Dispensationalism negatively. In dealing with the issue, Walvoord turns to the two New Testament passages used by Covenant Theologians to prove the point. The first is Romans 9\u201311 which some Covenant Theologians use to prove that spiritual Israel is the Church and, therefore, inherits Israel\u2019s promises. Walvoord\u2019s interpretation of the passage is that the contrast is between Jews who believe and Jews who do not. It is a contrast between \u201cIsrael according to the flesh or Israel which enters into the spiritual promises by faith\u2014which are also given to Gentile believers.\u201d It is \u201ca contrast between those who inherit only national promises and those who inherit the spiritual promises also.\u201d The national promises are limited \u201cto Isaac and his seed\u201d while the spiritual promises are limited \u201cto those who believe.\u201d Today, as a nation, Israel is blinded, \u201cwhich blindness will be lifted.\u201d Jewish individuals who believe \u201cbelong to the election of grace.\u201d Both types of Jews \u201care genuine Israelites.\u201d While they \u201care sharply distinguished as to present blessings,\u201d in that unbelieving Jews \u201care lost and blinded\u201d while believing Jews \u201ccome into the present blessings of the church,\u201d nevertheless this sharp distinction is based on \u201cwhether or not they believe in Christ, not on whether they are true Israelites.\u201d In other words nothing in Romans 9\u201311 justifies the use of the term Israel for the Church in general or Gentile Christians in particular. The term is used only of physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; either of Jews as a whole or of Jewish believers in particular. Concerning the second passage, Galatians 6:15\u201318, Walvoord\u2019s interpretation is that this very verse draws a distinction between Gentile believers and Jewish believers with only the latter receiving the designation, the Israel of God. In verse 15, Paul makes a contrast between the circumcision and the uncircumcision, which is obviously a contrast between Jews and Gentiles. Such a contrast \u201cis declared to avail not in Christ Jesus, but that rather the issue is a new creation when either Jew or Gentile becomes a believer.\u201d In verse 16, Paul pronounces a blessing \u201con those who walk according to this rule.\u201d The them are \u201cthe Galatians who were Gentiles\u201d or the uncircumcision of verse 15 and the Israel of God are the Jewish believers who are the circumcision. Walvoord points out that the kai, translated as \u201cand\u201d must not be ignored and must be interpreted according to its primary meaning. As Walvoord states, the use of the conjunction \u201cis difficult to explain apart from the intention of the writer to set off the \u2018Israel of God\u2019 from those considered in the first half of the verse.\u201d This passage provides no evidence that Israel is used of the Church or Gentile believers. There is no exegetical reason to make the Israel of God the same as the new creation.
\nAfter considering these two key passages, Walvoord concludes: \u201cIt is safe to say that if these key passages which are claimed as special proof of the identification of Israel and the church do not teach this doctrine then there is no passage in the New Testament in which the term Israel is used as synonymous with the church.\u201d On the contrary, every time Israel is used, it speaks of either Israel as a nation still in unbelief or the \u201cbelieving remnant which is incorporated into the church without destroying the national promises to Israel in the least.\u201d
\nWhat has appeared several times in Walvoord\u2019s works is the fact that a believing Remnant of Israel exists. He has made it clear that this remnant was part of the nation in the Old Testament and now in New Testament times is part of the Church. What is unclear is the relationship of the Jewish believer today to national Israel. Like Chafer, Walvoord shows a weakness in the development of Israel Present. The implication of Walvoord\u2019s statement is that the Jewish believer, being part of the Church, is no longer part of Israel. However, it is not certain from his writings whether he would actually make such a deduction or reach such a conclusion.
\nWalvoord also discusses the use of Amos 9:11 in Acts 15:14\u201317. This is a favored passage used by some Covenant Theologians to try to show that the Davidic Covenant is to be interpreted spiritually or allegorically as being fulfilled in the Church in which Christ is now reigning. For these, this is the only reign of Christ that the Davidic Covenant intended. Walvoord shows that this position is untenable if both the original Old Testament text is looked at in its context and if the details of the New Testament quotation are not ignored. The issue boils down to two questions. First, \u201cWhat is meant by the \u2018tabernacle of David\u2019?\u201d; and, second, \u201cWhen is the \u2018tabernacle of David\u2019 to be rebuilt?\u201d Going back to the original text in Amos 9:11, the \u201cpreceding chapters and the first part of chapter nine deals with God\u2019s judgment upon Israel.\u201d This is followed by \u201cthe promise of blessing after the judgment.\u201d It is the first verse of the blessing passage which James quoted. From that context, the blessings speak of Israel\u2019s blessings in the Messianic Kingdom and her final restoration. Walvoord interprets the tabernacle of David not as a reference to the House of David but as \u201can expression referring to the whole nation of Israel and that in contrast to the Gentile nations.\u201d In its original context, the tabernacle of David cannot \u201cbe an equivalent of the New Testament church\u201d for the simple reason that the \u201cprophecy concerns the rebuilding of that which was fallen down\u201d and the Church is hardly that which has already broken down in Amos\u2019 day. The blessings listed by Amos \u201care earthly, territorial, and national, and have nothing to do with a spiritual church to which none of these blessings has been promised.\u201d Does the New Testament in Acts 15 re-interpret what Amos said as Covenant Theology often insists? Walvoord states that the question which the Jerusalem Council was considering was \u201cone of Gentile participation in the church\u201d and just how \u201cwas this to be reconciled with the promises of God to Israel?\u201d Walvoord interprets James as saying \u201cthat it was God\u2019s purpose to bless the Gentiles as well as Israel, but in their order.\u201d He insists that two key words, first and after not be ignored. The program of God \u201cwas to visit the Gentiles first, \u2018to take out of them a people for his name\u2019 \u201d and then \u201cafter the Gentile period\u201d will come \u201cthe period of Jewish blessing and triumph.\u201d Walvoord concludes that this passage does not teach that Christ\u2019s Davidic rule is fulfilled in the Church, but establishes \u201ca specific time order.\u201d God will first \u201cconclude His work for the Gentiles in the period of Israel\u2019s dispersion.\u201d Then, after that purpose is accomplished. He will \u201creturn,\u201d which Walvoord identifies with the second coming, \u201cto bring in the promised blessings for Israel.\u201d \u201cChrist is not now on the Throne of David bringing blessings to Israel,\u201d but is sitting \u201con His Father\u2019s throne \u2026 interceding for His own who form the church.\u201d Only with the second coming will He sit on the Throne of David.
\nWhile all Dispensationalists would agree that the tabernacle of David is not the Church, not all would say that it refers \u201cto the whole nation of Israel.\u201d Some would identify it with the House of David and\/or the Throne and Kingdom of David. With the fall of the Jewish kingdom, the tabernacle of David was broken down. With the second coming, the House, Throne, and Kingdom of David will be restored and, in that way, the tabernacle of David is rebuilt. However, this variant position does not change any of the main points, and the order and timing of the passage remains the same.
\nWalvoord defines what is distinctive about Dispensational Ecclesiology: that the Church is \u201ca distinct body of saints in the present age, having its own divine purpose and destiny and differing from the saints of the past or future \u2026 ages.\u201d He then proceeds to give several reasons why this would be true. Walvoord first turns to the word ekklesia. It is because this word is used of the congregation of Israel in Acts 7:38 that Covenant Theology insists that the Church must be Israel. However, this ignores the different ways that ekklesia is used and Walvoord shows that it is used in four different ways. First, it is used \u201cto mean an assembly of people.\u201d It is in this sense that it is used of Israel, but in this sense it is also used of an assembly of pagans in Acts 19:39. Its usage of Israel in the wilderness in Acts 7:38 does not prove that the Church is Israel any more than its usage of the pagans of Ephesus in Acts 19:39 proves that they constituted the Church. This usage of ekklesia \u201chas no special theological meaning.\u201d Second, it is used of a local church or churches. Third, it is used of \u201cthe total of professing Christians without reference to locality,\u201d and Walvoord defines this usage as describing \u201cChristendom.\u201d Fourth, it is used of the universal Church, which is \u201cthe body of Christ\u201d and \u201ccomposed of those baptized by the Holy Spirit.\u201d It is with this usage of the word that it \u201cbecomes a technical word referring to the saints of this age.\u201d Walvoord points out that ekklesia is never used of Israel in this last sense, or even in the second or third sense; only in the first sense. Furthermore, when ekklesia is used of saints, it is only used of \u201csaints of the present age\u201d and never of saints of the Old Testament or saints of the future beyond the Church age. A second point of evidence is the fact that when the Church is mentioned for the first time in Matthew 16:18, it is still future, as the use of the future tense clearly shows. Jesus did not say, \u201cI am building,\u201d which would have been the case if the Church was already in existence. The only possible conclusion is that the Church was formed at Pentecost. This is evidenced by several facts. First, the Church is the Body of Christ and, according to 1 Corinthians 12:13, Spirit baptism \u201cis the act of God by which the individual believer of Christ is placed into the body of Christ.\u201d Second, according to Acts 1:5, Spirit baptism was still future as of this verse. While Acts two does not say anything about Spirit baptism, Acts 11:15 clearly states that Spirit baptism began, and the prophecy of Acts 1:5 was fulfilled, in Acts two. Walvoord concludes \u201cthat a new thing has been formed\u2014the body of Christ.\u201d It is impossible for the Church to have existed before Pentecost for \u201cthere was no work of the baptism of the Spirit to form it.\u201d The Church is \u201ca new entity\u201d which \u201cis distinguished from both Jew and Gentile.\u201d This new entity is the ekklesia and when this word is used of the Body of Christ it is \u201cused only of saints of the present dispensation.\u201d
\nLike Chafer and Ryrie, Walvoord also sees the Church as a \u201cmystery\u201d and, therefore, something \u201chidden\u201d in the Old Testament but now revealed in the New. If this can be substantiated, then Dispensationalism is further defended. As Walvoord observes, if \u201cthe church fulfills the Old Testament promises to Israel of a righteous kingdom on earth,\u201d then the Covenant Amillennialist is right. However, if \u201cthe church does not fulfill these predictions and, in fact, is the fulfillment of a purpose of God not revealed until the New Testament,\u201d then Dispensationalism is right. Like Ryrie, Walvoord admits that the \u201cchurch is never expressly called a mystery.\u201d However, several \u201cdistinctive elements of the truth concerning the church\u201d are referred to as a \u201cmystery.\u201d
\nThe first such mystery that Walvoord discusses is the \u201cMystery of the One Body.\u201d The content of this mystery is \u201cthat Gentiles have an absolute equality with the Jews in the body of Christ.\u201d They have become \u201cfellow-heirs,\u201d \u201cfellow-members\u201d and \u201cfellow-partakers of the promise in Christ through the gospel.\u201d Since this mystery concerned a feature of the Church, then the Church itself was a mystery. The point for Dispensationalism is that \u201cif God\u2019s present dealings with the body of Christ do not fulfill His promises concerning the kingdom age then a future fulfillment is demanded.\u201d Since the \u201ccentral concept of the church as the body of Christ including Jews and Gentiles on an equal basis is described as a mystery in this passage,\u201d it did not exist in the Old Testament. The mystery was both \u201cnot made known\u201d and hid in God during the period of the Old Testament and is now revealed in the New Testament.
\nThe second mystery is that of the \u201cChurch as an Organism.\u201d This mystery emphasizes the Church as an organism and the content of this mystery is \u201cChrist in you;\u201d it is the mystery \u201cof the indwelling Christ.\u201d That this is a mystery becomes apparent for this truth was \u201chid for ages and generations.\u201d This was a fact of the Messiah that the Old Testament never envisioned or predicted. In the context, \u201cthe entity thus indwelt \u2026 is identified as the body and the church.\u201d It is \u201cthe church as the body of both Jew [sic] and Gentile believers in this age indwelt by Christ Himself.\u201d This concept was not revealed in the Old Testament nor experienced by Israel. Israel is \u201ca nation, a theocracy, and people among whom God dwells.\u201d The Church, however, is \u201ca living organism in whom God dwells.\u201d This is another example that while the Church itself is not called a \u201cmystery,\u201d a central feature of the Church, the indwelling Christ, is. Walvoord concludes that \u201cif the qualities observed hers which are the very essence in the present age are described as mysteries, it is not too much to regard the church itself as unheralded in the Old Testament.\u201d The specific \u201cmystery\u201d is the indwelling Christ. In Walvoord\u2019s view, the \u201cexamination of these particular truths reveal that they are the distinctive qualities relating to the church in contrast to Israel\u2019s promises.\u201d
\nThe third mystery is that of the Rapture. It is not the resurrection of the dead that is the mystery, but the translation of the living. This new mystery has become \u201cthe hope of saints in the present age.\u201d Since this too is a vital element of the Church, it shows that the Church itself is a mystery.
\nThe fourth mystery is the Church as the Bride of Christ. While the Old Testament had a great deal to say about the relationship of Israel as the Wife of Jehovah, it said nothing about the relationship of the Church as the Bride of Christ. Israel is \u201can untrue wife to be restored in millennial days.\u201d The Church, however, \u201cis described as a pure virgin being prepared for future marriage.\u201d The content of this mystery is \u201cthe union between Christ and the church composed of Gentile and Jewish believers in the present age.\u201d It is \u201cthe union of love binding Christ and the church.\u201d Because this mystery is also related to the Church, it also shows the Church itself is a mystery.
\nWalvoord\u2019s summary of the four mysteries is:<\/p>\n
The various mystery aspects of the church combine to form a united testimony. The features therein revealed are foreign to divine revelation given in the Old Testament. They are related to the church as a distinct entity in the present age. They mark out the church as a separate purpose of God to be consummated before the resumption of the divine program for Israel.<\/p>\n
Premillennialism is therefore related to the church primarily in maintaining the distinctions between the church and Israel which are so confused by the amillenarians and at the same time distinguishing the purpose of God for the present age from other ages past or future. This form of interpretation provides a literal and natural exegesis of the key passages which is honoring to the Word of God and furnishing an intelligent understanding of the program of God in past, present, and future ages.<\/p>\n
In another work, Walvoord develops the contrast further. Most Covenant Theologians insist that all saints of all ages make up the Church. Dispensationalism disagrees and insists that \u201csomething new began on the Day of Pentecost, namely, a body of believers distinct in divine purpose and situation from saints who preceded them in the Old Testament.\u201d The issue is not whether saints existed in the Old Testament, only \u201cwhether the term church is properly applied to these saints of the Old Testament.\u201d Covenant Theology, as has been shown in previous chapters, merely takes it \u201cfor granted that if there are saints in the Old Testament they belong to the universal church.\u201d Furthermore, all agree that promises were made to Israel in the Old Testament, but there is disagreement as to \u201chow these prophecies are to be fulfilled in the future.\u201d One of the arguments Covenant Theologians use to defend their position is the fact that the Greek word for \u201cchurch,\u201d ekklesia, is found seventy times in the Septuagint; however, Walvoord points out that in the Septuagint it has the meaning of a physical assembly and does not carry its New Testament theological meaning \u201cof a mystic company of saints joined in a spiritual way, though scattered geographically.\u201d The Church is a spiritual community while Israel was primarily a \u201cracial and political \u2026 entity.\u201d While according to Galatians 3:6\u20139 all believers make up \u201cthe seed of Abraham,\u201d terms such as \u201cIsrael, or Jew or seed of Israel [are] never used to include Gentile believers,\u201d nor are these terms ever used as \u201cequivalent to the idea of the church.\u201d Walvoord admits that \u201cthe concept of a church in the Old Testament in the sense of a spiritual community is a common idea in theology,\u201d especially Covenant Theology; however, such a concept \u201chas no support in the terminology used in the Old Testament itself.\u201d What is unique to the New Testament is the \u201cuse of ekklesia as a term describing the body of Christ, i.e., all believers in the present age both in earth and heaven.\u201d The ekklesia of the New Testament \u201csignified a new undertaking of God divorced from His program for Israel and for Gentiles which was revealed in the Old Testament history and prophecy.\u201d The existence of saints in the Old Testament only \u201cdemonstrates the underlying redemptive purpose of God spanning the whole of human history,\u201d but does not by itself prove the existence of the Church in the Old Testament, for \u201cthe concept of the church as it is unfolded in the New Testament is dramatically different and is an important division of the over-all work of God in salvation.\u201d Covenant Theology has a tendency to see everything as soteriological which, in turn, leads to their the-Church-is-Israel equation; but for Dispensationalism, the \u201cdivine purpose of God for salvation as revealed in the Old Testament is therefore not synonymous with God\u2019s purpose for the seed of Abraham, the nation of Israel, nor the Davidic kingdom.\u201d God\u2019s program for the Church is different than that for Israel, and \u201chaving factors which are foreign to God\u2019s program for either Jews or Gentiles as contained in Old Testament revelation.\u201d When the Messiah returns, \u201cHe will fulfill His role as the Son of David and deliverer of the nation Israel.\u201d
\nUnder the subtitle, \u201cMajor Concepts of the Church,\u201d Walvoord gives a basic summary of the Gospel of Matthew in which Jesus came as the Messiah, but was rejected. The Messiah pronounced a judgment upon that generation of Israel and changed His message \u201cfrom that of presentation of Himself as the Messiah to one of invitation to personal discipleship.\u201d It was following the national rejection of Matthew 12 that Jesus declared in Matthew 16, I will build my church. Walvoord points out that the future tense rules out the concept that the Church is \u201ca continuation of that which had begun in the Old Testament.\u201d Instead, because of the \u201cnational rejection on the part of Israel, He proclaims a new divine purpose, namely the formation of a new assembly to be delineated on spiritual rather than racial lines and without territorial or political characteristics.\u201d This, of course, is the bone of contention between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. While all \u201cagree that the church is part of the plan of God for salvation of the elect,\u201d not all agree as to the exact role of the Church in that plan. Most Covenant Theologians believe that \u201cthe church is only a continued development of the plan of God for Israel in the New Testament and try to identify the church with Israel.\u201d Other Covenant Theologians hold to other variations of that view, such as seeing the Church as \u201can aspect of the over-all kingdom of God of which the church is a segment.\u201d The dispensational view is that the Church \u201cis indeed an aspect of God\u2019s general program of salvation, but that this program in many respects is distinct from the Old Testament revelation and is not a fulfillment of God\u2019s plan and purpose for the nation of Israel.\u201d Furthermore, \u201cthe church is not a realization of the kingdom promises of the Old Testament which will be fulfilled in the future millennium following Christ\u2019s advent.\u201d The Church, therefore, was begun on the Day of Pentecost:<\/p>\n
Though Christ anticipated a new fellowship and a new selective testimony for God, He did not bring into being a genuine fulfillment of the prophecy that He would build His church. The church could not be properly begun until after His death and resurrection and the coming of the Spirit.<\/p>\n
On the Day of Pentecost, the prophecy of Christ that they would be baptized by the Spirit \u201cnot many days hence\u201d (Acts 1:5) was fulfilled and with this the New Testament church formally began. The Apostle Peter later referred to this as \u201cat the beginning\u201d (Acts 11:15), when the Lord\u2019s prophecy of the baptism of the Spirit was fulfilled (Acts 11:16).\u2026 and the body of believers from then on was characterized as the church.<\/p>\n
Discussing the \u201cFormation of the Church at Pentecost,\u201d Walvoord asserts that the Church began only in Acts two. The Day of Pentecost is a dividing line for it sets \u201capart the period prior to Pentecost as belonging to the old order and signified that the period following Pentecost would be a fulfillment of a dispensation in which the Holy Spirit would have prominence.\u201d The key ministry of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Church is the ministry of Spirit-baptism which Peter, in Acts 11:15\u201317, clearly states began in Acts two. Peter, referring to the experience of Acts two, labels it as the beginning, which is \u201ca plain indication that something new began on the Day of Pentecost, namely, the body of Christ formed by the baptism of the Spirit.\u201d Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul clearly revealed that the baptism of the Spirit is \u201cthe universal work of the Spirit which places every true believer in Christ into the body of Christ, the church.\u201d This is now true of both Jews and Gentiles. The event of the Day of Pentecost \u201cis the fulfillment of a the original pronouncement of Christ in Matthew 16:18.\u201d
\nLater, Walvoord discusses the \u201cPauline Doctrine of the One Body.\u201d Relevant to Israelology is his discussion of Ephesians 2\u20133. The status of the Gentiles in the Old Testament changed with the coming of the Messiah when \u201cthe contrast between Jew and Gentile\u201d was eliminated \u201cin that both have been made one in the body of Christ,\u201d and \u201cthe enmity which separated Jew and Gentile is now abolished.\u201d Walvoord does not mean that Jewish believers cease to be Jews or that Gentile believers cease to be Gentiles; nor does he mean that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have been erased. Walvoord himself has stated that even the New Testament makes a distinction between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. His point is that Jewish and Gentile believers are now united into a unique unity described as the one new man which is \u201canother reference to \u2026 the body of Christ.\u201d Paul claimed that \u201cthe doctrine of the church as the body of Christ was a subject of special revelation to him.\u201d Furthermore, this is also one of the mysteries of Scripture. The content of this mystery is \u201cthat the Gentiles shall be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.\u201d The distinction between Jews and Gentiles that began in Genesis 12 and continued until the Day of Pentecost has, in some way, been eliminated. Again, Walvoord does not mean that all distinctions have been erased, for he has pointed out in several of his writings that the New Testament continues the contrast between Israel and the Gentiles. The eliminated contrast specifically is the Old Testament portrayal of the Jews as \u201cthe chosen people in contrast to the Gentiles who are outside the covenant.\u201d The point is not that the Jews are no longer the chosen people, but that the Gentiles are no longer \u201coutside the covenant.\u201d This means that Gentiles are now \u201con exactly the same plane as Israelites and, furthermore, in intimate relationship as being members of the same body.\u201d The mystery is not that Gentiles were to receive \u201cpromised blessings\u201d either in this age or \u201cin the future millennial kingdom,\u201d for both were revealed in the Old Testament. What is unique and \u201cnew and unpredicted\u201d is \u201cthe content of the special revelation given to Paul concerning the church, the body of Christ.\u201d
\nWalvoord further asserts that a \u201cJew or a Gentile who through faith in Christ becomes a member of the body of Christ, by so much is detached from his former situation, and his prophetic program then becomes that of the church rather than that of Jews and Gentiles as such\u201d; but this is not totally true. It is a fact that, prophetically speaking, Jewish and Gentile believers will have their future in the destiny of the Church; but in this life neither believing Jew nor believing Gentile is totally \u201cdetached from his former situation,\u201d which is why Jewish believers are still called Jews and Gentile believers are still called Gentiles by the New Testament. Furthermore, Jewish believers today are not only part of the Church, they are also part of the Remnant of Israel, and the remnant is always within the nation and not apart from it. In this age, Jewish believers share the fate of the Jewish people as a whole and so are part of the dispersion and suffer in all persecutions that come against the Jews as such. Walvoord\u2019s statement again illustrates this problem within Dispensationalism of not having a clear theology of Israel Present. Walvoord\u2019s conclusion, shared by all Dispensationalists is that \u201conly as the prophetic program of the church as the body of Christ is distinguished from that of Israel or that of the Gentiles that confusion can be avoided in the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy.\u201d The same is true of the statement which concludes the chapter:<\/p>\n
This dual development is paralleled to some extent by prophecy relating to the godly remnant of Israel throughout history as contrasted to the nation as a whole, but the church never becomes Israel, and Israel never becomes the church.<\/p>\n
In summary, McClain makes five main observations about the Church in the Book of Acts. First, of the nineteen times the term ekklesia is found in the Book of Acts, it is found only once in the first seven chapters, and eighteen times in chapters 8\u201320. It should also be noted that in the first seven chapters the preaching of the gospel is limited to Jews only; and, as of chapter eight, for the first time, it goes out to the Gentle world. Second, McClain feels that in these same early chapters, the apostles viewed the ekklesia as \u201cthe saved Jewish \u2018remnant\u2019 of Old Testament prophecy which would constitute the spiritual nucleus of the Messianic Kingdom.\u201d Third, this in turn \u201chelps to explain the rise of the Jewish-Gentile problem in the Apostolic Church.\u201d As the history of the Church in the Book of Acts continued and Gentiles were saved, \u201cthe admission of the Gentiles to the ekklesia raised the problem of how they were to be received, if at all.\u201d The problem resolved itself with \u201cthe progress of revelation as to the unique nature of the ekklesia begun on the Day of Pentecost.\u201d Fourth, this in turn explains the prominence of Paul in the Book of Acts. More than half the chapters \u201care concerned primarily with the work of the apostle Paul,\u201d because it was to Paul that God revealed \u201cthe lofty character of the ekklesia begun on Pentecost,\u201d which is \u201ca unique body of believers in which all racial and national distinctions disappear,\u201d and the Church is \u201cthe one body of Christ in which there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.\u201d To say that the Gentiles might enter the Church was one thing, but \u201cto declare that within that body the Jew had no advantage or priority over the Gentile\u201d was quite another. It should be pointed out that McClain overstates his case. It is true that Jews and Gentiles are in the Church on an equal footing; but while there is \u201cno distinction between the Jew and Gentile\u201d insofar as to how one enters the Church (by grace through faith), this does not mean that there is no distinction within the body, or that \u201call racial and national distinctions disappear.\u201d This goes beyond the evidence. Fifth, with Paul\u2019s clear revelation of the Church, \u201cthe theological barrier between Jew and Gentile was completely broken down.\u201d
\nMcClain also makes three observations about the Church in the epistles. First, the epistles were all addressed to the Church \u201cunder various forms of address,\u201d but one of them was not \u201cto the saints in \u2018the kingdom of heaven.\u2019 \u201d Second, in light of the fact that ekklesia is used more in the epistles than anywhere else shows that the epistles \u201care concerned chiefly with this particular body of the saved.\u201d Third, the epistles \u201care concerned mainly with the career of the ekklesia on earth in time.\u201d The Church begins with Pentecost in Acts two, and the epistles \u201cplace the completion of the Church at the second coming of Christ.\u201d The \u201cinterim\u201d period between the two events is \u201cthe life of the Church.\u201d
\nIn a chapter entitled, \u201cBiblical Interpretation,\u201d Feinberg argues against Ladd\u2019s view that the only place to find a hermeneutic to interpret the Old Testament is in the New Testament:<\/p>\n
The place to find a hermeneutic, a Biblical hermeneutic, is in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Is it scientific induction to begin at the latter division of Scripture first? The Spirit of God can be depended upon to give us a revelation in orderly fashion from incompleteness to completeness, without the fear that the latter portion will contradict the former. We maintain and insist that the Bible can be read in order and interpreted according to proper literal principles without misgivings that the New Testament will invalidate what is revealed in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
Ladd, a Covenant Premillennialist, is not willing to accept the Old Testament prophecies at face value; but Dispensational Premillennialism has no such difficulty and insists that the proper place to find a biblical hermeneutic \u201cis both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.\u201d Since God gave the Old Testament first, it would seem odd that one had to wait until the New Testament to know how to interpret the Old. Dispensationalism avoids the problem of ignoring the Old Testament prophecy in its own context.
\nFeinberg later goes on to discuss Israel and the Church and begins by defining the term Israel. He lists its various usages to include Jacob, the descendants of Jacob or the whole nation of the twelve tribes, the ten tribes after the split of the kingdom, and \u201cbelievers in Christ who are the natural descendants of Abraham.\u201d The term is never used of the Church as a whole. While it is \u201cproper to speak of believing Jews and believing Gentiles as Abraham\u2019s spiritual seed \u2026, spiritual Israelites are believing Jews only.\u201d Turning to Romans 9:6, Feinberg denies that this verse is \u201cspeaking of a distinction between Israel and the church or between Gentile Christians and Jewish unbelievers.\u201d The distinction is \u201cbetween those in the nation Israel who are unbelievers, Abraham\u2019s natural seed, and those of Israel who are believers, the spiritual seed of Abraham.\u201d This passage does distinguish two Israels, but both are composed of Jews. In this passage, the \u201cGentiles or the church are here nowhere in view.\u201d As for Galatians 6:16, Feinberg explains the \u201cIsrael of God\u201d by stating that in \u201ccontradistinction to all that the apostle has said denouncing the Judaizers, he uses the term here of those who were once Israelites after the flesh, but are now the Israel of God or the spiritual children of Abraham.\u201d The one problem in Feinberg\u2019s statement is that when speaking of Jewish believers, he seems to put their Jewishness into the past tense: \u201cwho were once Israelites after the flesh.\u201d However, they still are of the natural seed but, in addition, they are now also members of the spiritual seed. Feinberg is correct when he states that the Scriptures \u201cnever use the term Israel to refer to any but the natural descendants of Jacob.\u201d
\nFeinberg admits that there are similarities between Israel and the Church, in that both \u201chave covenant relations with God \u2026 are related to God by blood redemption \u2026 are witnesses for God to the world \u2026 are of the seed of Abraham \u2026 are to be glorified \u2026 are called to a walk of separation \u2026 have one shepherd \u2026 have common doctrines \u2026 are called the elect of God \u2026 are clearly beloved of God \u2026 are vitally related to God \u2026 by the future of marriage \u2026 are the recipients of eternal life.\u201d These similarities do not, however, make them one and the same, because \u201cIsrael and the church have more differences between them than they have similarities.\u201d Feinberg goes on to list the twenty-four differences which Chafer had listed and which were already discussed earlier in this chapter.
\nFeinberg concludes the chapter as follows:<\/p>\n
If God is through with the Jew, it is in point to inquire whether Paul ceased to be a Jew after his conversion (Acts 21:39). Was he still an Israelite (Rom. 11:1)? Was he still a Hebrew (Phil. 3:5)?\u2026 Israel is Israel, and the church is the church. God has given us large bodies of truth in the Old Testament and in the New Testament concerning them. There is no good reason for confusing them, mingling them, or equating them. Let no one rob Israel, hoping thereby to enrich the church, but at the same time impoverishing both Israel and the church.<\/p>\n
4. The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ<\/p>\n
Dispensationalism believes that the Law of Moses is no longer a rule of life. Chafer\u2019s evidence for the termination of the law focuses on Galatians 3:16\u201325. The law was temporary till the seed should come. This seed was the Messiah Who now has come and, since He has now come, the law has come to an end. Insofar as sin is concerned, the \u201cdistinction between Jew and Gentile is broken down\u201d for both are \u201cunder sin.\u201d Chafer does not go so far as to say that all other distinctions have been erased, which has been a constant position of Covenant Theology. Furthermore, the law was a schoolmaster; but now that the Messiah has come, the believer operates under \u201cthe new principle in grace.\u201d The Jew is no longer under the schoolmaster, which is the law. The physical \u201credemption from Egypt\u201d was a type of the spiritual \u201credemption from sin.\u201d Just as the redemption from Egypt created the need for a rule of life, the redemption from sin also created a need for a rule of life. The former rule of life was \u201cthe teaching of the law.\u201d The new rule of life is \u201cthe teaching of grace.\u201d This is also known as the Law of Christ. The point is that the latter has displaced the former.
\nChafer reaffirms that the law was given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles since \u201cthe law was given only to the children of Israel.\u201d The Mosaic Covenant \u201cwas never made with any other nation or people.\u201d The Gentiles \u201chave not the law\u201d and so have no \u201cdivine authority to impose it upon themselves.\u201d As has been shown in previous chapters, in contrast to Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology does try to impose the law on the Church, both Jewish and Gentile.
\nLater, Chafer deals more extensively with the termination of the Law of Moses. Chafer begins this discussion with a contrast between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. The former was unconditional and eternal while the latter was conditional and temporary. The Law of Moses \u201cwas deliberately chosen by the nation of Israel, and which applied to them only.\u201d It was intended to be a rule of life for Israel until \u201cthe coming of the promised Seed\u201d and this \u201cSeed is Christ.\u201d The coming of Christ did two things. First, it fulfilled the messianic \u201chope contained in the Abrahamic Covenant\u201d and, second, \u201cof necessity, the termination of the ad interim reign of the law.\u201d According to Romans 4:13\u201324, \u201cthe law has no place in the divine dealings under grace.\u201d According to Galatians 3:19, \u201cwhen the Seed did come, the authority of the Mosaic Law was no longer required, or even possible, as a principle of divine rule.\u201d Furthermore, \u201cthe law was never given to any people other than Israel\u201d and so it was never intended for the Gentiles to begin with, and even less so, for the Church. However, Gentiles are free \u201cto impose the law obligation\u201d upon themselves, but this means they \u201creject or distort the truth of God.\u201d Furthermore, God neither \u201caccepts, or even recognizes, any self-imposed legalism.\u201d However, because the \u201claw was a unit,\u201d if a Gentile imposes part of the law, he is duty bound to keep the whole law for \u201che is a debtor to do the whole law.\u201d Not only were Gentiles never obliged to keep the Law of Moses, with the death of the Messiah \u201cthe divine application of the law ceased even for the Jews, and all\u2014Jews and Gentiles\u2014were shut up to grace alone.\u201d Jews continue to keep the law because of unbelief. Some Gentiles also insist on keeping the Law of Moses either as \u201ca means unto justification\u201d or others \u201cas a rule of life,\u201d but both are wrong. Chafer declares that it must \u201cnever be supposed that, because of self-imposed legality and misguided conscience, there is any divine recognition of Gentiles as being under the law.\u201d Gentiles practicing the law today will not be judged for failure to keep it. They only create \u201ca conscience in regard to the law\u201d which either excuses or accuses them. All that this will do is produce \u201cdiscomfort, misdirection, confusion, and limitation of their own conscience,\u201d but they will fail in keeping God\u2019s demands for their life today. The law is not a rule of life for the New Testament saint. The \u201claw, though wholly superseded by grace, may now be self-imposed \u2026 by turning for a rule of life to the written legal code of Moses.\u201d However, this is not the intent of God for the New Testament saint.
\nHowever, Chafer betrayes a real inconsistency when he discusses the issue of the Sabbath and Sunday. Chafer, while acknowledging that the Sabbath law does not apply to the Church, implies that the observance of the first day of the week does. While Covenant Theologians do refer to Sunday as a \u201cChristian Sabbath,\u201d Chafer, speaking for Dispensationalism, points out that such a term \u201cis a misnomer.\u201d Such a concept is a result of \u201cinexcusable inattention to Bible terms,\u201d and a \u201ccommingling\u201d of law and grace. Chafer observes that the Sabbath commandment is the only one of the Ten Commandments \u201cwhich is not carried forward in any manner whatsoever into the reign of grace.\u201d For that reason, a \u201cdistinction between these age-representing days\u201d must be maintained to avoid the \u201calmost universal confusion of mind on the subject among Christians.\u201d By \u201cage-representing days,\u201d Chafer means that the Sabbath was the biblical day of observance under the law while Sunday is the same under grace. The former is true, but not the latter since the New Testament never mandates a Sunday observance. Unlike Covenant Theology, Chafer does not make Sunday a Christian Sabbath and does not try to incorporate Old Testament laws into Sunday; but he does make Sunday a day of worship for the Church and so goes beyond the biblical evidence and comes close to the position of Covenant Theology concerning this day. Like Covenant Theology, Chafer refers to Sunday as \u201cthe Christian\u2019s day,\u201d and \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day.\u201d He points out that there is mass confusion on this issue in the Church and often it is a question of \u201cpersonal sentiment, prejudice, or ignorance.\u201d His treatment of Sunday shows that he also fails to escape some confusion on the question.
\nChafer then goes on to trace the \u201cBiblical Testimony Regarding the Jewish Sabbath.\u201d He points out that in the period between Adam and Moses, the Sabbath was not commanded, nor was it observed. In the period between Moses and Christ, Sabbath observance was mandatory upon Israel. Chafer observes:<\/p>\n
The Sabbath began to be observed by Israel from the time of its institution through Moses. Invested with the character of a sign between Jehovah and the nation Israel, it was in no sense extended to Gentiles.<\/p>\n
Chafer also points out several things about the Sabbath during this period. First, \u201cthe Sabbath was a part of Israel\u2019s law, and it was the possession of that law which distinguished that nation from all other peoples of the earth.\u201d Second, it was \u201ca day of physical rest.\u201d Third, the Sabbath \u201cwas interrelated with the law, just as it is imbedded in the heart of the Decalogue.\u201d When the death of Christ brought the Law of Moses to an end, it included the Sabbath commandment. When Christ died, the Sabbath was \u201csuperseded by the reign of grace.\u201d Chafer concludes that \u201cthe unscriptural inconsistency is greatly increased when the celebration of the Sabbath is changed from Saturday to Sunday, and is imposed on Gentiles.\u201d
\nIn the period of the gospels, Jesus lived under the law and kept the Sabbath. As Chafer points out, the law did not end with the birth of the Messiah, but with His death. Jesus did not impose the Sabbath as an observance to be kept after His departure.
\nChafer notes that in the period represented by the Acts and the epistles, there is no record of the Church observing the Sabbath, nor is there any command for the Church to do so. Chafer\u2019s point is that the teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses \u201cas a rule of conduct\u201d has passed away and \u201cis not once applied to the Christian.\u201d Since the Sabbath commandment is part of the law, it no longer applies. Chafer also makes two observations. First, there is no record of any Christian group observing the Sabbath. Second, in no epistle is there a command to observe the Sabbath; it was never \u201cincorporated in the new teachings of grace.\u201d
\nConcerning the Sabbath in the Book of Acts, Chafer observes:<\/p>\n
The word Sabbath is used nine times in the Acts, and wherever it is referred to as a day which is observed, it is related only to the unbelieving Jews, who, as would be expected, perpetuated\u2014and who still perpetuate the observance of the Sabbath day. Not once in this book is it stated, or even implied, that Christians kept a Sabbath day. It is said that the Apostle Paul went into the synagogue of the Jews and reasoned with them every Sabbath; but this can imply nothing more than that he took advantage of their gathering together on that day in order that he night preach to them. Such may be the experience of any missionary to the Jews today.<\/p>\n
Concerning the Sabbath in the epistles, Chafer states:<\/p>\n
Turning to the Epistles, it will be seen in this portion of the Scriptures, as in the Book of Acts, that no Christian is said to have observed a Sabbath day.<\/p>\n
Turning to the Sabbath in prophecy, Chafer notes two things. First, Hosea 2:11 prophesied \u201cthe cessation of the Sabbath,\u201d and this was fulfilled \u201cat the beginning of this age of grace.\u201d Second, in the Messianic Kingdom, the Sabbath will again become mandatory.
\nChafer then turns to the subject of Sunday. Chafer persists in calling Sunday \u201cthe Lord\u2019s Day\u201d although the New Testament never calls it that. In fact, the only way the New Testament refers to Sunday is by the term, \u201cthe first day of the week.\u201d Chafer is correct that while all the other commandments of the Decalogue are repeated in the Law of Christ, the Sabbath commandment is not. He correctly notes that \u201cthe Sabbath is not once imposed upon the believer.\u201d He then states that the New Testament contains \u201cexplicit warning against the observance of a Sabbath day.\u201d This, however, is another overstatement. While the New Testament does speak against mandatory Sabbath observance and warns against keeping the Sabbath as a means of justification, it does not forbid or warn against observing the Sabbath on a voluntary basis. Chafer also makes another overstatement. While it is historically true that throughout \u201cthe history of the church, a new day has been observed,\u201d and that \u201cthis change of days has not been contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures,\u201d the observance of Sunday as a Christian day of worship was never commanded. To say that this new day of observance \u201csuperseded the Jewish Sabbath\u201d goes beyond the evidence of the New Testament. It would be better to say that the New Testament rendered the Sabbath commandment inoperative without mandating another day in its place.
\nChafer then gives seven reasons for the change of days. It should be noted that he must actually prove two separate things. First, he must prove that the Sabbath commandment no longer applies; but having proved this is not evidence that a new day has been appointed. Second, he must also prove that Sunday is a divinely appointed day.
\nHis first evidence is that \u201cthe Mosaic System has ceased,\u201d the point being that since the Sabbath commandment is part of the Law of Moses, then it too is no longer operative. He then describes the view of many Covenant Theologians when he refers to \u201cthose who observe the first day, but who invest it with the character of the Jewish Sabbath, and observe it on the authority of the law which was given to Israel by Moses.\u201d It is one thing to observe the first day of the week, and Chafer, a Dispensationalist, did believe it was so decreed; but it is quite another to \u201cinvest it with the character of the Jewish Sabbath,\u201d which, as has been shown, many Covenant Theologians do. Those Covenant Theologians \u201cwho recognize the first day of the week,\u201d but then \u201cinvest that day with the character of the Sabbath, and keep the day on the authority of the Law of Moses\u201d are inconsistent for several reasons. First, it means to resort to a partial keeping of the law, but the truth is that the \u201cLaw of Moses was never subject to a partial observance.\u201d To insist on keeping the first day of the week on the basis of the Sabbath commandment of the Mosaic Law, while ignoring the rest of the Law of Moses, is inconsistent. This is especially true when the Law of Moses obligated the observer to keep the entire law. Second, it is inconsistent to keep to a Sunday observance and the Law of Moses while at the same time ignoring the specific prohibitions of the law concerning the Sabbath. If one is going to keep the first day of the week on the basis of the Law of Moses, he is \u201ccommitted to keep every feature of the Jewish Sabbath,\u201d as well as the whole Mosaic system. Third, it is inconsistent to keep the first day of the week on the basis of the Law of Moses while at the same time ignoring exactly which day the Law of Moses specified as the Sabbath the seventh day of the week. Chafer points out that, under the law, \u201cto observe the first day of the week in place of the seventh\u201d would have incurred the death penalty. The Covenant Theologian, like Hodge, who resorts to the Law of Moses to observe Sunday is inconsistent on a number of points. Chafer concludes that \u201cthere is no Christian Sabbath.\u201d This is true. Then he adds that the \u201cnew day which belongs to grace is in no way related to the Sabbath.\u201d Chafer is correct when he insists that Sunday is not the new Sabbath, but he is wrong that Sunday is the \u201cnew day which belongs to grace.\u201d
\nChafer\u2019s second argument is based on the term \u201cLord\u2019s day.\u201d When Chafer states that the \u201cnew day is also a particular day of the week and has been given a name which is in accordance with its character,\u201d he means \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d; but this is merely an assumption based more on tradition than anything else. The term appears only once in the whole New Testament (Rev. 1:10) and there is no evidence textually or contextually that it refers to Sunday. This point was discussed earlier. Every clear reference to Sunday always defines that day as \u201cthe first day of the week.\u201d Chafer\u2019s evidence only shows the weakness of the claim. He cites Psalms 118:22\u201324, but there is no textual or contextual evidence that this is a reference to Sunday. If there is a specific day of the week that this passage makes reference to, it would not be Sunday anyway. If the day in view was connected with the day that \u201cthe stone which the builders refused,\u201d it would be a reference to His death and the day of the week He died was Friday. If the day intended was the day the stone \u201cis become the head of the corner,\u201d then this is a reference to the second coming; on what day of the week this will take place is nowhere revealed. It cannot be the day of the resurrection since He did not become the head of the corner on that day and is still in a state of rejection by the builders. The citation of Acts 4:10\u201311 does not support Chafer\u2019s contention since all Peter is saying is that by crucifying Jesus, the Jewish leaders fulfilled the prophecy and rejected the Messianic Stone. Chafer produces no evidence that \u201ca new day is divinely appointed under grace.\u201d Such a belief, however, is not germane to Dispensationalism and many Dispensationalists do not follow Chafer here. Chafer builds on his assumption and states that the \u201cChristian has an unchangeable day \u2026 he cannot change the one day, which is divinely appointed, any more than Israel \u2026 could change the divinely appointed seventh day.\u201d The problem with this statement is that the Law of Moses clearly appointed the seventh day as the Sabbath and spelled out many details concerning that day. However, there is no clear statement on the appointment of the first day of the week. In reality, the believer today has the option of observing any day of the week and has no \u201cunchangeable day.\u201d To claim that the \u201cchange of the first day to another breaks the symbolic meaning of the day as it represents the true relationships under grace\u201d goes way beyond the biblical evidence. Chafer\u2019s claim that the believer has no option but to observe the first day of the week directly contradicts the New Testament teaching that the believer does have such an option as found in Romans 14:5\u20136. To claim that if any believing group chooses a day other than Sunday they are guilty of \u201crejection of the most vital relationships between Christ and the believer under grace\u201d is totally unwarranted.
\nChafer\u2019s third argument is that \u201ca new day is indicated by important events.\u201d In this section, he lists all the New Testament events that were recorded as having taken place on the first day of the week; but all this proves is that these events did occur on that day. That is all it proves. It in no way proves that a new day has been appointed. In the midst of this section, Chafer tries to answer an obvious objection:<\/p>\n
If it be claimed that there is no direct commandment for the keeping of the Lord\u2019s day, it should be observed that there is explicit command against the observance of the Sabbath day, and that the lack of commandments concerning the Lord\u2019s day is both in accordance with the character of the new day, and the entire order of grace which it represents and to which it is related.<\/p>\n
Chafer never actually answers the objection, but merely excuses the lack of a \u201cdirect commandment for the keeping of the Lord\u2019s day\u201d as being \u201cin accordance with the character of the new day, and the entire order of grace which it represents and to which it is related.\u201d This is avoiding the issue. The Law of Christ, which is certainly based on grace, is not short on issuing many specific commandments, and if God had wanted the first day of the week to be kept, He certainly would have issued at least one such command. To call Sunday \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d is not supported by Scripture. To answer the objection by claiming \u201cthat there is explicit command against the observance of the Sabbath day\u201d is begging the question. Even if this is true, it is not the same as proving that a new day was appointed. Furthermore, the observance is not actually prohibited. What is prohibited is the keeping of it as a means of seeking to be justified by keeping the Law of Moses. Otherwise, the keeping of the Sabbath was purely optional, neither mandatory nor prohibited.
\nChafer\u2019s fourth argument is that \u201cthe new day typifies the new creation.\u201d However, the one passage he cites, Colossians 2:11, makes no such statement. Even if it did, that is still no evidence that a new day has been appointed as a mandatory day of worship.
\nChafer\u2019s fifth evidence is that \u201cthe new day is typical of unmerited grace.\u201d He does not cite a single passage to support such a claim, however. Even if this claim could be proved, it is not the same as proving that a new day has been appointed for mandatory observance.
\nChafer\u2019s sixth argument is that \u201cthe new day began to be observed with the resurrection of Christ.\u201d He cites a number of church fathers, showing an observance of the first day of the week. This is all historically true, but the essence of Dispensationalism is that the Scriptures are the only and final authority for all matters of faith and practice, and this includes the issue of the day of observance. What the early church did is one thing, and all Chafer proves is that the early church observed Sunday. That is still not the same as proving that the New Testament requires it.
\nChafer\u2019s seventh argument is that \u201cthe day has been blessed of God.\u201d Once again, not a single passage is cited to prove such a claim.
\nAfter giving these seven reasons, Chafer states:<\/p>\n
The reasons for keeping the Lord\u2019s day, or the first day of the week, are clear and sufficient to those who will receive the teachings of God\u2019s Word without prejudice.<\/p>\n
The evidence does not warrant this conclusion. On this point, unfortunately, it is Chafer who fails to approach this subject \u201cwithout prejudice.\u201d He has failed to show that the term \u201cLord\u2019s day\u201d is applied by Scripture to Sunday. He has not only failed to show from Scripture that Sunday has been appointed as a \u201cnew day,\u201d but he has even admitted that there is no explicit command concerning the keeping of Sunday. This is poor Dispensationalism. More consistent Dispensationalism is to note that while the Sabbath is not a mandatory day of observance, no new day has been appointed to replace it. The truth is that a local church is free to choose any day of the week.
\nChafer picks up the issue again while discussing Christology. Chafer begins his discussion showing an inconsistency of Covenant Theology. On one hand, they insist that the Sabbath commandment still applies. On the other hand, they ignore that the Sabbath commandment was applied to the seventh and not the first day of the week. Covenant Theologians ensnare themselves into a trap of their own making. Because they believe in only one covenant, the covenant of grace, they insist that \u201cthe structure of the Jewish Sabbath remains in force.\u201d They then ignore that very same structure, observe the first day of the week in place of the seventh, and even ignore the specifies of what was allowed or not allowed on the Sabbath. They even misconstrue the purpose of the Sabbath, which was a day of rest and not a day of worship. All this is true and has been documented from the writings of Covenant. Theologians cited in previous chapters of this work. Where Chafer goes too far is his statement that \u201cin the present age the day to be celebrated is divinely changed from the seventh to the first day of the week.\u201d However, no such statement is found anywhere in the New Testament and later Chafer virtually admits this to be true.
\nChafer then discusses the issue of the Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s Day in six categories. The first category is \u201cThe Sabbath from Adam to Moses.\u201d In this section Chafer makes three points: first, God rested on the seventh day of creation; second, there was no command given to observe the seventh day; and, third, there is no record in the Book of Genesis or the Book of Job of anyone observing the Sabbath during the period between Adam and Moses.
\nThe second category is \u201cThe Sabbath from Moses to Christ.\u201d In this section, Chafer makes seven points: first, Sabbath observance began with Moses; second, during this entire period the Sabbath was fully in force; third, the reason is that the Sabbath commandment \u201cwas embedded in the law\u201d; fourth, \u201cthe Sabbath was never imposed on the Gentiles;\u201d fifth, the Sabbath was a sign between Jehovah and Israel; sixth, Jesus kept the Sabbath just as He kept all of the Law of Moses because this law continued until His death; and, seventh, this fact by itself \u201cis no basis for the claim that a Christian is appointed to follow Christ in His Sabbath observance either in example or precept.\u201d If that were the case, it would obligate the believer today to keep all 613 commandments of the Law of Moses.
\nThe third category is \u201cThe Church Age.\u201d In this section, Chafer makes eight points: first, there is no record in the New Testament that a believer observed the Sabbath after the resurrection of Christ; second, after the resurrection, there is no commandment \u201cgiven to Jew, Gentile, or Christian to observe the Sabbath\u201d; third, \u201cthere are warnings against Sabbath observance\u201d (however, it should be pointed out that Galatians 4:9\u201310, cited by Chafer, is not a blanket prohibition against observing the Sabbath, but only a prohibition against observing the Sabbath on the basis of merit); fourth, the epistles treat the Sabbath typologically of salvation rest; fifth, Colossians 2:16\u201317 instructs a believer not to allow himself \u201cto be judged with respect to a Sabbath day\u201d; sixth, according to Romans 14:5, a believer \u201cmay esteem all days alike\u201d; seventh, since \u201cin the New Testament the Sabbath is never included as any part of a Christian\u2019s life and service, the term \u2018Christian Sabbath\u2019 is a misnomer\u201d; and, eighth, \u201cin place of the Sabbath of the law there is provided the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d This last statement is never borne out by Scripture, nor does Chafer ever cite a New Testament passage that teaches this. Even calling Sunday \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d is a presupposition because the New Testament never calls it that.
\nThe fourth category is \u201cThe Sabbath in the Coming Age.\u201d In this section, Chafer makes four points: first, the Sabbath will become a mandatory observance in the Messianic Kingdom; second, the \u201cfirst day of the week has been celebrated by the church from the resurrection of Christ to the present time\u201d; third, \u201cthe believer is appointed of God to observe the first day of the week\u201d; and, fourth, the believer must be careful not to invest the first day of the week \u201cwith the character of \u2026 the seventh day Sabbath laws.\u201d It is the third point, however, that is questionable. There is no New Testament statement that ever states \u201cthe believer is appointed of God to observe the first day of the week.\u201d
\nThe fifth category is \u201cThe New Creation.\u201d In this section, Chafer again makes four points: first, in this dispensation \u201cthe purpose of God \u2026 is the outcalling of the Church\u201d and the Church constitutes \u201cthe New Creation\u201d; second, \u201cthe Sabbath was instituted to celebrate the old creation\u201d; third, the Lord\u2019s Day was instituted to celebrate the new creation; and, fourth, the Lord\u2019s Day observance is limited to the Church. However, while what Chafer declares to be true of the Sabbath and Israel is backed by Scripture, this is not true with what he writes about the Lord\u2019s Day and the Church. The New Testament never declares that the first day of the week is to be observed to celebrate the new creation. Moving away from the dispensational principle of sola scriptura, Chafer is trying to prove his point by analogy rather than by clear statement of Scripture or exegesis.
\nThe sixth category is \u201cThe Lord\u2019s Day.\u201d The title itself is an assumption and a presupposition, for the New Testament never uses that term for the first day of the week. Chafer begins this section pointing out that \u201cthe Sabbath is no where imposed on the children of God under grace.\u201d This is true. However, he then adds that \u201cthere is abundant reasons for their observance of the first day of the week.\u201d To prove this latter claim, Chafer gives seven reasons. The first reason is, \u201cA New Day Prophesied and Appointed.\u201d Here he cites Psalms 118:22\u201324 and Acts 4:10\u201311. As discussed earlier, there is no reason to assume that the reference in the Psalm is either to Christ\u2019s resurrection or to the first day of the week. Since he will become \u201cthe head of the corner\u201d only with the second coming, it is to be taken as a reference to that event. Even if it is a reference to the resurrection day, there is no command to observe it anyway. The second reason is, \u201cObservance Indicated by Various Events.\u201d Here Chafer cites a number of events which took place on the first day of the week. While all of this is true, there is still no command in any of these citations to observe the first day of the week. The third reason is, \u201cThe Day of Circumcision.\u201d The logic here is that circumcision occurred on the eighth day, which is \u201cthe first day following a completed week.\u201d This \u201ctypified the believer\u2019s separation from the flesh and the old order\u201d and it was \u201csymbolical of a new beginning.\u201d This typology of circumcision may or may not be totally true (though some of it is certainly true according to Col. 2:11), but the typology does not prove the point. Typology is useful to illustrate a doctrine, but cannot be the basis of it. Again, by itself, it does not carry a command or obligation to observe the first day of the week. The fourth reason is, \u201cThe Day of Grace.\u201d His point is that the Sabbath was given to Israel to provide \u201ca day of rest\u201d following \u201ca week of toil.\u201d For the believer, his \u201cworks are finished in Christ.\u201d On that day the believer is blessed, in the beginning of the week and then \u201cserves the following six days.\u201d For that reason, for the believer today \u201ca day of worship is appointed\u201d which is \u201cthe first day of the week\u201d and \u201cprecedes all days of work.\u201d This again is trying to prove a point by analogy. Such an analogy contains no evidence that the observance of the first day of the week has been \u201cappointed\u201d as \u201ca day of worship.\u201d The fifth reason is, \u201cThe Day Blessed of God.\u201d This is an argument based on the fact that \u201cthroughout this age spirit-filled, devout believers\u201d have kept the seventh day of the week. However, tradition is not a basis for determining doctrine. It is true that observers of the first day of the week were not \u201cguilty of Sabbath-breaking,\u201d but this is not the same as saying that the observance of the first day of the week is mandatory. The sixth reason is, \u201cThe Day Committed Only to the Individual.\u201d Here Chafer makes two points. First, the observance of the first day of the week \u201cis not committed to the unsaved.\u201d This is true; however, it is nowhere committed to the saved either. Second, \u201cit is not committed to the Church as a body.\u201d This is true; however, it is nowhere committed to the individual either. The seventh reason is, \u201cNo Command to Keep the Day.\u201d In this section, Chafer admits that no New Testament passage commands the keeping of the first day of the week or, in his own words \u201cwritten requirement for the keeping of the Lord\u2019s day is not imposed, nor is the manner of its observance prescribed.\u201d This fact should have been a signal to a good Dispensationalist like Chafer not to make the first day of the week a divinely appointed day of worship for the Church. Chafer\u2019s explanation for the lack of a \u201cwritten requirement\u201d is to claim that this was so in order not to encourage anyone \u201cto keep the day as a mere duty; it is to be kept from the heart.\u201d However, this is reading into the text what is not there. Chafer should have left it where the New Testament leaves it: the keeping of the Sabbath is no longer obligatory; the Church must meet as a corporate body; but the day of the week is the choice of each individual congregation.
\nChafer\u2019s conclusion that the seventh day of the week was \u201cJehovah\u2019s choice\u201d for Israel is correct, but his statement that the first day of the week \u201cis the appointment of God\u201d for the Church is incorrect. He is also correct in that in the way Covenant Theology handles the issue leads him to inconsistency and the invention of the first day of the week as the \u201cChristian Sabbath.\u201d
\nChafer later gives a summary of the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. The Law of Moses was \u201ca rule divinely given through Moses to govern Israel in the land of promise,\u201d given to them \u201cbecause they were a covenant people.\u201d The Law of Moses clearly \u201cdefined the manner of their daily life,\u201d but this covenant \u201cthey soon broke\u201d; however, it was destined to \u201cbe superseded by the New Covenant.\u201d For Chafer, this is the New Covenant with Israel to be made in the kingdom and so, in Chafer\u2019s view, \u201cwill include the former Law of Moses.\u201d The Law of Moses contains \u201cthree forms of law\u201d which were commandments (moral requirements), judgments (social requirements), and ordinances (worship requirements). These were sufficient to satisfy \u201call of Israel\u2019s requirements before God.\u201d However, the Law of Moses was intended to be temporary, \u201can ad interim dealing in effect only until Christ should come\u201d and to give \u201cto sin the character of transgression.\u201d However, \u201cthe entire system, including the commandments as a rule of life, ceased with the death of Christ.\u201d The second is the Law of Christ \u201cwhich now governs the Christian.\u201d The law includes not only what Christ commanded for the Church in the gospels, but also \u201cincludes all the teachings of grace addressed to the Christian.\u201d This would include the commandments given by the apostles in the epistles.
\nIn keeping with consistent Dispensationalism, Ryrie states that the Law of Moses has come to an end. Ryrie proves this to be true by citing three New Testament passages. The first is the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. Certainly, if the Law of Moses was still in effect this council would have made circumcision and other factors mandatory. However, in their instructions to the Gentile churches, \u201cthey did not try to place the believers under the Law \u2026 for they realized the Law had come to an end.\u201d As Ryrie points out, had they done so, this \u201cwould have settled the problem quickly.\u201d The second passage cited is 2 Corinthians 3:7\u201311, a crucial one because it focuses on the Ten Commandments, the major part of the law which Covenant Theologians try so hard to keep. Yet this very part of the moral law is labeled \u201ca ministry of death and condemnation,\u201d and the Ten Commandments themselves were done away with and \u201creplaced by the New Covenant which brings life and justification.\u201d The third passage is Hebrews 7:11\u201312 which deals with the two priesthoods: Levitical and Melchizedekian. The very fact that Jesus was to be a priest after the Order of Melchizedek presupposes a doing away with the Order of Aaron and that, in turn, with a doing away of the Law of Moses, since the Mosaic Law only allowed for an Aaronic priesthood for which Jesus was not qualified. \u201cIf the taw has not been done away, then neither has the levitical priesthood, and Christ is not our High Priest today.\u201d On the other hand, \u201cif Christ is our High Priest, then the Law can no longer be operative and binding on us.\u201d
\nHaving said this, Ryrie then deals with a problem: if the Law of Moses has come to an end, \u201cthen why does the New Testament include some laws from the Mosaic Law in its ethic?\u201d It is this very thing that causes Covenant Theologians to insist that the Law of Moses has not been done away with and is still binding. The question is, \u201cHow could the unit end and still have specifics in it still binding on the Christian?\u201d One common answer often given by Covenant Theologians is that the Ten Commandments have continued and so \u201cthe moral law continues while the rest has been concluded.\u201d As Ryrie shows, however, there are two problems with that solution. First \u201cthe New Testament only includes nine of the ten.\u201d Second, it also includes \u201csome laws from parts other than the moral section of the Law.\u201d
\nRyrie then gives two suggested solutions before giving his own. First is that of Calvin. Calvin distinguished between the moral and ceremonial law\u2014the latter was done away with totally while the former was only done away with insofar as its condemning ability is concerned. While Calvinistic Covenant Theologians believe Sunday to be the continuation of the Jewish Sabbath, Calvin did not. He did consider the Ten Commandments to be binding \u201cexcept the Sabbath one which he took nonliterally.\u201d Ryrie\u2019s verdict is that this solution \u201cdoes not really solve the problem.\u201d Second, the solution of John Murray is that \u201cthe Commandments were abolished, but sees them applicable in some deeper sense.\u201d Such a solution is meaningless and subjective.
\nRyrie then offers his own solution. Though unique to him, it lies well within dispensational principles. This solution \u201cdistinguishes between a code and the commandments contained therein.\u201d There are several such codes in Scripture: Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc. A specific code could be done away with. This was true of the Law of Moses which \u201chas been done away in its entirety as a code\u201d and it \u201chas been replaced by the law of Christ.\u201d This law has \u201csome new commandments \u2026, some old ones \u2026, and some revised ones.\u201d It is very true that \u201call the laws of the Mosaic code have been abolished because the code has.\u201d It is also true that the Law of Christ contains many of the same commandments that the Law of Moses did, but this does not mean that there is \u201ca continuation of part of the Mosaic Law.\u201d It is just that some of the same commandments found in the Law of Moses were also incorporated into the Law of Christ and, for that reason, are mandatory for believers today. Ryrie\u2019s conclusion then is that a \u201cparticular law that was part of the Mosaic code is done away; that same law, if part of the law of Christ, is binding.\u201d This is a good solution to avoid two common errors: resorting \u201cto a nonliteral interpretation\u201d; and, resorting to \u201ctheological contortions to retain part of the Mosaic Law.\u201d
\nAs Chafer did before him, Ryrie accepts the designation of \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d as referring to Sunday, but there is no exegetical reason to believe that Revelation 1:10, the only place this expression is found, refers to Sunday. As Ryrie admits, \u201cAlmost always the day is designated as the first day of the week.\u201d If one excludes Revelation 1:10 as a reference to Sunday, and there is good reason to do so, then that is the only designation for that day of the week. It is a Jewish designation since it follows the Sabbath, which is the seventh day of the week. Ryrie is correct that the New Testament believers chose this day \u201cas their day of corporate worship.\u201d However, referring to it as \u201cSunday\u201d may not be totally correct since Sunday begins at midnight while the Jewish first day of the week actually begins on Saturday night at sundown. This is important since in those places where the Bible speaks of a meeting of the Church on the first day of the week, it might mean Saturday night rather than Sunday morning. In Acts 20:7, that is clearly the case. Ryrie, like Chafer, obviously considers this day important but, unlike Chafer, he does not claim that this day was divinely appointed. More correctly he states that \u201cthe only explanation as to why the early church established a new day of worship unrelated to the Sabbath and the existing calendar was that Sunday was the day of the Lord\u2019s resurrection.\u201d It was \u201cthe day used by believers to celebrate that greatest event in history.\u201d There is no question that \u201cthe early church made this day distinct.\u201d When the early church met in corporate worship, it was indeed on the first day of the week. While Covenant Theology also recognizes this fact, they \u201cinvariable attempt to emphasize the connection between the Lord\u2019s Day and the Sabbath.\u201d Dispensationalists do not, and Ryrie states that the \u201cearly church and the church fathers did not make that emphasis.\u201d They even felt that the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, had come to an end with the death of Christ. Not only is keeping the Sabbath no longer mandatory, it also forbids the common attempt to apply Sabbath rules and regulations to Sunday. As Ryrie states, \u201cThe idea of a particular day for worship may have been connected with the Sabbath, but the particular day was unrelated to the Sabbath.\u201d
\nFeinberg discusses the concepts of the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ in terms of law and grace. Feinberg declares that the \u201cprinciples of law and grace are mutually destructive; it is impossible for them to exist together.\u201d By this, the author means that they cannot coexist as rules of life, for he does believe that there was grace under law and law under grace. Feinberg then goes on to show the \u201cdistinctions between law and grace\u201d in seven ways. First, there is a distinction when each began and ended. Some Covenant Theologians believe \u201cthat the Law has always existed,\u201d but \u201cit has not.\u201d While law, \u201cas a principle contained in a system of works, has existed from the day that God commanded Adam to refrain from eating of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden,\u201d the specific Law of Moses began only with Moses. It also had a definite termination which \u201coccurred with the death of Christ on Calvary.\u201d The special \u201cspecific display of grace and truth as seen in the New Testament did come by Jesus Christ,\u201d and \u201cits fullest aspects began to be manifested when the Law was done away.\u201d It is grace that \u201cnow offers salvation to all.\u201d Second, there is a distinction as to whom is addressed. The Law of Moses \u201cwas addressed and given to one people and only one\u2014Israel.\u201d However, grace is offered to all, for all \u201care under the same divine judicial sentence, and the remedy offered is universal in its application.\u201d The third distinction is \u201cin respect to its requirements.\u201d The law was \u201climited in its adaptation to its subjects,\u201d and its requirements had to be met first \u201cbefore the blessings of God can be received.\u201d The order was: do, and be blessed. In relationship to grace, the requirements are there for the one who has already been accepted by God. The order is: because you are blessed, do. The fourth distinction is in the area of enablement. The law did not provide it, but grace does. The fifth distinction is the basis of each. The basis of the Law of Moses \u201cis a covenant of works,\u201d but the basis of grace \u201cis a covenant of grace.\u201d \u201cHuman merit is the foundation stone for the Law,\u201d while \u201cthe merit of Christ is the foundation stone of grace.\u201d The Law of Moses \u201cis grounded in what the flesh can do,\u201d while grace \u201cis based upon faith in what God has done and is willing to do.\u201d The sixth distinction concerns the purpose of each. The purpose of the law was not to provide a way for a man to come \u201cto God and be accepted by Him.\u201d On the contrary, the purpose of the Law of Moses was \u201cto show man his utter lack of merit before God and the impossibility of gaining any by reliance on his own strength.\u201d Another purpose was \u201cto give sin the added character of transgression.\u201d While the Law of Moses itself was \u201choly, and just, and good,\u201d it was unable to make a man \u201choly and just and good.\u201d The Law of Moses could not make anything perfect and could not provide justification. These were not the purposes of the law. The purpose of grace is that \u201cby the death of the Lord Jesus Christ all the redeemed by faith might be brought into glory.\u201d The purpose of grace is \u201cto save those who believe in the finished work of Christ.\u201d The purpose of grace is that believers should live godly lives. The seventh distinction is \u201cthe respective results of the operation of these [two] principles upon the individual.\u201d The Law of Moses \u201cbrings death,\u201d its \u201cletter kills,\u201d it is a \u201cministration of death\u201d and a \u201cministration of condemnation.\u201d Grace \u201cgives life,\u201d is a \u201cministration of the Spirit,\u201d and a \u201cministration of righteousness.\u201d<\/p>\n
5. Israel Today<\/p>\n
Most Dispensationalists view the modern State of Israel as biblically and theologically significant. Ryrie touches on this point when discussing and rejecting the concept that the Church fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant. If one takes the prophecies literally, then it is \u201cclear that these promises have not been fulfilled.\u201d For that reason, \u201cIsrael\u2019s regathering is surely future,\u201d for it \u201cis also clear that the Church does not possess the land of Palestine.\u201d It is in light of this that Dispensationalists look in favor upon Zionism. As has been seen, Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Amillennialists were very negative and opposed to Zionism, while Covenant Premillennialists were ambivalent to the movement; Dispensationalists look upon Zionism with favor. As Ryrie states, \u201cthe ever-increasing Zionist movement and the formation of the nation of Israel are of no small import.\u201d Ryrie does not claim that this fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant. For the Dispensationalist, these are \u201csignificant indications \u2026 that God is working, and they are highly embarrassing to the amillennialist.\u201d
\nWalvoord makes the same point. The fact is that all \u201cprophecies given to Israel are viewed as literal and unconditional.\u201d This means that the \u201cglorious future\u201d God promised to Israel \u201cwill be fulfilled after the second advent,\u201d at which time \u201cIsrael will be a glorious nation\u201d and \u201cexalted above the Gentiles.\u201d In the present age, however, there are three things true of Israel: first, she \u201chas been set aside\u201d; second, \u201cher promises\u201d are now \u201cheld in abeyance\u201d; and, third, there is \u201cno progress in the fulfillment of her program.\u201d Walvoord, however, sees two miracles concerning Israel in the twentieth century: first, Israel has been preserved \u201cas a racial entity\u201d; and, second, Israel has been resurrected \u201cas a political entity\u201d with the modern State of Israel. It should be noted that Dispensationalism has no problem incorporating theologically the re-establishment of the Jewish State. All three schools of Covenant Theology, including Covenant Premillennialism, were unable to integrate it into their system.
\nLater, Walvoord again shows a favorable view of Zionism for he sees the \u201cpresent partial possession of the land is a token\u201d of the \u201ccomplete possession\u201d which \u201cawaits the coming of Israel\u2019s Redeemer.\u201d Israel\u2019s \u201ceverlasting possession of the land\u201d in turn \u201canticipates also Israel\u2019s restoration\u201d for \u201cone is antecedent to the other.\u201d The only conclusion possible is that \u201cIsrael is to be restored as a nation.\u201d
\nIn a different work, Walvoord explains how the modern Israel has forced a new study of the role of Israel in Bible prophecy. It should again be noted that while Covenant Postmillennialism and Covenant Amillennialism try to ignore Zionism and the State of Israel or are antagonistic to it, sometimes to the point of anti-Semitism, and while Covenant Premillennialism is either ambivalent to it or admits it is not at all sure what to do with it, Dispensationalism insists that Zionism and modern Israel is of major theological significance. Walvoord insists that the \u201cestablishment of the new state of Israel \u2026 introduced a new and important factor in the interpretation of Biblical prophecy.\u201d Well before 1948, most Covenant Theologians \u201csaw no future for Israel\u201d and in writing \u201cexpressed doubt that the nation would ever return to its native land.\u201d Dispensationalists have long been on record that \u201con the basis of Biblical prophecies predicted that some day Israel would be restored and would possess the Promised Land.\u201d In the twentieth century, exactly what Dispensationalism insisted would happen, did happen. In this century, and before \u201cthe entire world the seemingly impossible has occurred.\u201d A nation \u201cscattered for almost two millenniums are now firmly entrenched in the land of their forefathers.\u201d What that means is that regardless of one\u2019s \u201ctheological point of view, all the world must acknowledge the partial restoration of the nation Israel,\u201d because \u201cits recognition as a political state are now facts of history.\u201d It is impossible for anyone to say today \u201cthat a return of the nation Israel is an impossibility.\u201d This is true regardless of whether or not anyone sees any theological significance in this reestablished state. Yet the very existence of Israel today means that \u201ca restudy of Biblical prophecy relating to Israel is more than an academic or theological exercise.\u201d
\nWhile for Covenant Theologians of all stripes the issue of Israel tends to be peripheral to their theology, for Dispensationalists it is central; for from \u201cthe standpoint of Biblical doctrine, the divine program for Israel can justly claim a place of central importance.\u201d This is unavoidable for a literalist, because most \u201cof the Bible from the early chapters of Genesis to the concluding chapters of Revelation either directly or indirectly relate to the nation Israel.\u201d As a result, the \u201cunderstanding of Israel\u2019s program affects the interpretation of every book of the Bible.\u201d For Covenant Theology, which either spiritualizes these passages as referring to the Church or insists that such prophecies have been cancelled, Israel today can still be ignored or railed against. But for Dispensationalism, the \u201cproper understanding of divine revelation relating to Israel is one of the most important and crucial issues in theology today.\u201d
\nWalvoord, however, admits that among evangelicals there is \u201ca radical division concerning the meaning of Biblical revelation in relation to Israel.\u201d Covenant Amillennialists deny \u201cany future to Israel as such and consider the promises to Israel as being fulfilled in the church in the present age.\u201d Covenant Postmillennialism believes \u201cthat there will be a spiritual restoration of Israel, but tend to disregard the geographic and political aspects of Israel\u2019s promises.\u201d Dispensationalism affirms both a national salvation and a national restoration of Israel. For Walvoord, the very \u201cfact of a partial restoration of Israel\u201d in our day calls for a reconsideration of \u201cthe time-honored interpretations of the Bible which anticipated such a restoration.\u201d
\nIn yet another work, Walvoord again expresses a favorable view of Zionism and the State of Israel. For Dispensationalism, \u201cthe remarkable revival of the nation Israel and their return to their ancient land\u201d is one of \u201cthe most striking situations from the standpoint of Biblical prophecy.\u201d For Dispensationalists, this was not a surprise because \u201cGod\u2019s program for Israel is one of the major revelations of Scripture\u201d from Genesis to Revelation. Walvoord clearly believes that the present state is prophetically significant and \u201ca clear indication of the approaching end of the present age and the beginning of events which will bring history to consummation.\u201d The reason the Middle East is biblically significant is \u201cbecause it contains the land which was promised to Israel\u201d in the Abrahamic Covenant.
\nThis covenant promises the land as \u201can everlasting and perpetual\u201d possession and \u201cits exact dimensions are outlined\u201d so there is no mistaking its exact borders. Yet Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all died without ever possessing the Promised Land. Furthermore, with Jacob, the Jewish family settled in Egypt and remained there for four centuries. However, the Egyptian sojourn did fulfill the predicted first dispersion from the land and provided the first regathering under Moses, both of which were predicted by the Abrahamic Covenant and both of which were literally fulfilled. Even with the first return, Israel failed to possess all of the Promised Land. It is true that under Solomon \u201cmuch of the land was put under tribute,\u201d but this is not the same as actual possession and dwelling in the Promised Land, and even that which was actually possessed did not fulfill the promise of an \u201ceverlasting possession.\u201d Instead, the Jewish people were carried into the Assyrian and Babylonian Captivities; but this second dispersion was also predicted, this time by the prophets of Israel, as was the second return seventy years later. Once again, both \u201cthe promise that they would be carried off into captivity and that they would return to the land were literally fulfilled.\u201d The second return also failed to result in a total and everlasting possession of the land. In fact, both Moses and the prophets predicted that Israel would be \u201cscattered over the entire earth.\u201d The prophecies of the third dispersion go \u201cfar beyond the other predictions in that in this revelation it states that the Lord would scatter the children of Israel \u2018among all people.\u2019 \u201d This too was literally fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem and the Second Temple were destroyed. This third dispersion came as a direct result of \u201cthe rejection of Christ by Israel.\u201d The scattering of Israel \u201cover the entire earth has continued for almost 1900 years and no significant reversal was witnessed until our generation.\u201d Even in the third dispersion, which involved a worldwide scattering \u201camong all the nations,\u201d prophecy was again literally fulfilled \u201cin that the nation Israel was nevertheless preserved.\u201d In fact, \u201cIsrael has been preserved as a distinct people in a situation in which any other race or nationality would have long been swallowed up.\u201d As for the land, it was for all these centuries emptied of Jews with \u201cnot a single Jewish village\u201d and only 25,000 Jews scattered in towns and cities \u201cin all of their ancient land,\u201d and \u201cin the area which once belonged to their forefathers.\u201d
\nThe Bible also prophesied a third regathering and so Walvoord states that from \u201cthe standpoint of Biblical prophecy, the formation of the nation of Israel is of tremendous significance, for what is now being witnessed by the world seems clearly to be a fulfillment of prophecy that there was to be ultimately a complete and final regathering of Israel in connection with the second coming of Christ.\u201d The third regathering \u201cis distinct from all previous historic regatherings in that it is an assembly of the children of Israel from all the nations of the earth.\u201d Furthermore, the final regathering will be a total one so that \u201cnot a single Israelite will be left scattered among the heathen.\u201d In this final return, Israel, after \u201creturning to their ancient land will build their waste cities, plant vineyards, and drink the wine, as well as make gardens and eat the fruit.\u201d Also, after this final return, the promise is that Israel, once \u201cplanted \u2026 on their land,\u201d are never to be \u201cpulled up out of their land.\u201d The final regathering from all nations is never going to be reversed, but the \u201cchildren of Israel will continue in their land throughout the millennial kingdom as long as this present earth lasts.\u201d For Walvoord, the present Jewish State is the beginning of this final regathering, for it \u201cseems highly probably that the regathering of Israel, which has so significantly begun in the twentieth century, will have its consummation and completion after Christ comes back and all Israel is assembled in the Holy Land.\u201d The predicted rebuilding of the land \u201cis graphically being fulfilled already in the present restoration of Israel and will have future fulfillment also in the millennial kingdom.\u201d Walvoord insists that just as the \u201cdispersion and regathering from Egypt was literal; the dispersion and regathering from Babylon was literal; the dispersion to the entire world is literal,\u201d even so must the final regathering also be literal. The very fact that \u201cthe twentieth century is witnessing the beginning of the final literal return to the land\u201d is evidence that the final return will also be literal. For Walvoord and most Dispensationalists, it is \u201ca proper conclusion that Israel back in the land is a preparation for the end of the age.\u201d
\nFurthermore, such a return was prophetically necessary. The Great Tribulation begins with the signing of a seven-year covenant between Israel and the Antichrist. Obviously, then, before a covenant of this nature could be signed, if was necessary for a Jewish State to exist with whom a covenant could be signed, for it \u201cis transparent that in order for such a covenant to be fulfilled, the children of Israel had to be in their ancient land and had to be organized into a political unit suitable for such a covenant relationship.\u201d The fact that a Jewish State now does exist gives \u201ca sound basis for believing that this covenant will be literally fulfilled as anticipated in Daniel 9:27.\u201d Walvoord concludes that of \u201cthe many signs indicating the end of the age, few are more dramatic and have a larger Scriptural foundation than the revival of Israel as a token of the end of the age.\u201d
\nIt should again be noted that Dispensationalism has no problem fitting modern Israel into its theological and prophetic scheme, while Covenant Theology, including Covenant Premillennialism, does. Dispensationalism more than any other evangelical theology presents a positive view of Zionism and modern Israel.
\nWhile Walvoord, following Chafer\u2019s lead, sees three dispersions and three regatherings, other Dispensationalists add a fourth. The fourth dispersion is to occur in the middle of the Great Tribulation as described in Matthew 24:15\u201328 and Revelation 12:6\u201317. The re-establishment of the present state was necessary for the fourth dispersion to occur. The fourth dispersion will be followed by the fourth and final regathering after the second coming for the enjoyment of the Messianic Kingdom.<\/p>\n
6. Romans 9:1\u201311:24 and the Olive Tree<\/p>\n
The dispensational view of these crucial chapters of Romans and of the Olive Tree can be gleaned from their theological works and commentaries on the Book of Romans, This work will first deal with the former and then three dispensational commentaries will be compared.
\nChafer, while discussing Soteriology, makes a passing reference to Romans 9\u201311 and points out that the \u201cApostle distinguishes clearly between Israel the nation and \u2018spiritual Israel.\u2019 \u201d Like Covenant Theologians, Dispensationalists recognize that Paul is speaking of two Israels; but unlike many Covenant Theologians, Dispensationalists do not view the two Israels as being ethnic Israel and the Church as Israel, but rather Israel the whole and the believing Israel within the nation.
\nChafer discusses the passage again later. According to Chafer, the question being raised by the text is: \u201cWhat has become of the oath-sustaining Israelitish covenants?\u201d This question was raised because it was obvious that \u201cthe Jewish covenants are not being fulfilled in the present age.\u201d The question is, \u201cWhat, then, has become of these covenants?\u201d Chafer points out that there are two wrong answers: first, that \u201cGod had changed His mind and withdrawn the promises of an earthly kingdom for His chosen earthly people\u201d; or, second, that \u201cIsrael had no such promises really,\u201d but these promises were intended to be understood by \u201ca spiritual interpretation to be fulfilled in what is now in progress in the world,\u201d that is, the Church. The correct answer is to be found in this passage: first, God has not cast away His people and so Israel is not \u201ceither forsaken or mistaken with respect to her covenants or that these covenants are realized in a spiritual way by the Church\u201d; second, while a \u201cblindness has been imposed upon Israel as a nation\u201d that is temporary until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in,\u201d or \u201cuntil the Church\u2014\u2018the fulness of the Gentiles\u2019\u2014be come in\u201d; third, at that point God will forgive the sins of Israel \u201caccording to covenants made with Israel\u201d; and, fourth, the reason all this is so is because \u201cthe gifts and the calling of God respecting Israel are without repentance on His part.\u201d
\nRyrie states that, according to this passage, God has not cast away His people and that people is \u201cnatural Israel.\u201d While Paul does make a distinction between the remnant and the non-remnant, \u201cthat distinction cannot vitiate the irrevocable promises made to Abraham.\u201d Although there has been a hardening in part, \u201cthe hardening is not permanent.\u201d However, the positive side of Israel\u2019s fall is that riches have come to the Gentiles in that the \u201cthe gospel has come unto them.\u201d Paul then asks that if this is true, \u201chow much more their [Israel\u2019s] fullness?\u201d As Ryrie states, \u201cthe fullness of blessing for Israel will be \u2018much more,\u2019 \u201d This statement alone is conclusive evidence \u201cthat Israel will have a future.\u201d Ryrie then proceeds to give a dispensational view of the Olive Tree. The Olive Tree is neither Israel nore on record as not holding to such a distinction, and this should not be ignored by Covenant Theologians in their criticism of Dispensationalism.
\nMcClain prefers other designations. The first kingdom is called the Universal Kingdom, and this emphasizes \u201cthe extent of rule.\u201d This is the same as Pentecost\u2019s Eternal Kingdom. The second McClain calls the Mediatorial Kingdom, which emphasizes \u201cthe method of rule.\u201d This is the same as Pentecost\u2019s Theocratic Kingdom.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The issue of Israel is one of the major points of division in evangelical theology today. This is true both among Arminians and Calvinists. An evangelical theologian\u2019s view of Israel will determine whether he is a Covenant Theologian or a Dispensationalist. It will also determine what kind of Covenant Theologian he is: … <\/p>\n