Chapter1:DefiningtheBasicSystem

Partofourchurch'santiquatedcoolingsystemisawatertowerthatusesafloatmechanismtoregulatethewaterlevel.Unhappily,thisexposedfloatpresentsaninvitingdiversionforchildrenwhohappenby.Afewofthemeninthechurchhave commented periodically for several years that we need to install aprotectivescreenoverthefloatbutnoonehasyetgottenaroundtodoingit.Thisyear someonecompletelybrokeoff the float, and Ihad togoby thehardwarestore togetanewone.Thereby theplumbingsupplies stoodRommy,agoodChristianfriendand the leaderofan influentialcommunityBiblestudy.Afewyearsbefore,RommyandhisfamilyhadleftatheologicallyliberalchurchandhadjoinedanewlyformingdispensationalBiblechurch.IhadhadopportunitiestotrytoexplaintoRommywhyIhadcometodisagreewithdispensationalismbut had had little success. I remember well the time Rommy had looked mestraight in the eye and had said with deliberate seriousness, "Grover, I am adispensationalist."

I greeted Rommy, and he looked up from the faucet parts. Immediately hethankedmeforthecopyofmylittleself-publishedbookondispensationalismthat I hadmailed him.And thenRommymade another statement that burneditself indeliblyuponmyconsciousness:"Grover, Iwantyoutoknowthatafterreadingyourbook, I amnever againgoing to callmyself adispensationalist."The Lord had established the work of my hand in a way far beyond myexpectations,andIwasgrateful.

IwonderedexactlywhatinthelittlebookhadbeenusedofGodtohelpeffectthisdramaticreversal.Wasittheexegesisofsomeverse?Wasitthelogicalforceofsometheologicalargumentation?Rommysoonansweredmyquestion.Itwasthe list of the seven dispensational teachings that I find most objectionable.Thereinthehardwarestore,Rommytoldmerepeatedlythathedidnotholdtoasingleoneofthoseteachings.

IdonotbelievethatRommy'ssituationisallthatunusual.TodaytherearemanyBible believing Christians who have to some degree been influenced in theirunderstandingofprophecyandthechurchbydispensationalism.Andyetmany,

ifnotmost,ofthesedonothaveaclearunderstandingofdispensationalismasithasbeenclassicallydefinedbywriterssuchasDr.C.I.ScofieldandDr.LewisSperryChafer.Theyhavenotconsistentlythoughtthroughdispensationalismasasystemorevenbecomefamiliarwithitscontrollingpresuppositions.Theyarelargelyunawareofmanyofthetheologicalandexegeticalconclusionstowhichthissystemnaturallyandlogicallyleads.Myownconvictionisthatmanypeoplewhoarenowfavorablydisposedtowarddispensationalismwouldnotbeiftheywereonlybetterexposedtothedispensationaltheologicalsystem.

A person's theological system is his basic understanding of what the overallteachingsofScriptureareandhow they interrelate.AverseofScripture takenstrictly alone can often have more than one meaning. One importantcharacteristic of the correctmeaning of any verse is that the correctmeaningmustharmonizewiththeoverallteachingofScripture,whichissummarizedinthe theological system. The interpreter's job is, on the one hand, to interpretScripture with the help of his theological system, and on the other hand toconstantly evaluate and adjust his system in the light of Scripture. Theinterpreter must ever seek to insure that his theological system is indeedconsistentwithalltheteachingsofScriptureandalsologicallyconsistentwithinitself. This is a lifelong process for the interpreter. Really it is a lives' longprocesssincetheinterpreteralwaysbuildsontheworkofpreviousinterpretersandsincethejobisnevercompletelyfinished.

The first step in arguing against the dispensational system is to define anddocumentwhatImeanbythedispensationalsystem.DispensationalismistodaythereigningsysteminmanyChristiancircles,and the taskofproclaiming thattheking isnaked isneverpleasantorpopular.Before I assume thisunpopulartask,IwanttotrytomakesurethatpeopleunderstandwhatIamtalkingaboutwhenIrefertodispensationalism.InthischapterIwillbediscussingtherecentdevelopment of dispensational theology, the fundamental Christian teachingwhichdispensationalismcontradicts,andthethreefoundationalpresuppositionsofdispensationalism.

Thedispensationaliststhemselveshavesaidthattheirsystem,whichfirstbegantobetaughtintheearlynineteenthcentury,isarediscoveryoftruthslostsincethe early days of Christianity. When I was a student at Dallas TheologicalSeminary,AlanBoyd,anunusuallygiftedstudent,studiedintheoriginalGreektheearlychurchwritingsuptothedeathofJustinMartyrtogatherevidencethat

dispensationalismwas indeed the systemof earlyChristianity. Specifically, hewas historically evaluating in a master's thesis Dr. Charles C. Ryrie's claim:"Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church."1 Alan's conclusion wasthatDr.Ryrie'sstatementwas invalid,2 andhe stated "basedonclassroomandprivatediscussion,"thatDr.Ryriehad"clarifiedhispositiononthesematters."3Alanfoundtheprophetic"beliefsoftheperiodstudied"tobe"generallyinimicalto those of themodern system."4 He concluded that there is no evidence thatseveralofthechurchfatherswhoareroutinelyclaimedbydispensationalistsasfellowpremillennialistswereevenpremillennial,thatthepremillennialistsintheearly church "were a rather limitednumber."5He concluded that those churchfatherswhowerepremillennial, suchasPapias and JustinMartyr,had little incommon with modern day dispensationalists.6 Alan, as a dispensationalist,explainedhisfindingsasanexampleoftherapidlossofNewTestamenttruthinthe early church.7 In other words, there is no extant concrete evidence thatdispensationalismoranythingsignificantlyresemblingitwasevertaughtinthechurchanytimeuntilthenineteenthcentury.8

Dispensationalistsliketocontrastthemselveswithcovenanttheologiansbecausethey can claim that covenant theology is almost as recent a theologicalinnovation as is dispensationalism.9 What they appear to be referring to iscovenanttheologyasahighlystructuredsystemthatinvolvesthedoctrineofthecovenantofworksandwhichexplainsGod'sdealingswithAdaminthegardenof Eden in covenantal terms. Covenant theology so defined is, likedispensationalism, a recent development in the history of doctrine,10 but Ipersonally do not believe this is a valid comparison. Dispensationalism is afoundationalsystemthatofferedanewanddifferentparadigmforunderstandingthechurchandprophecy.Thecovenantofworks isa relativelyminordoctrinethat built on a previously accepted doctrinal foundation and that is notuniversally accepted among opponents of dispensationalism.Mypurpose is tocontrast dispensationalism, not with the covenant of works or with a highlystructuredcovenanttheology,butwiththegeneralteachingthatGodhashadonebasic plan of salvation through the ages that has resulted in one salvificallyunited people ofGod through the ages. This teaching that in themidst of thedispensational changes of covenant administration throughout redemptivehistory,therehasalwaysbeenonebasicplanofsalvationandonepeopleofGodhas in general been the historic position of the church and is specifically the

positionfoundinReformedtheology.

God'splanofsalvationasadministered throughtheageshasfounditsunity inChrist, the oneMediator betweenGod andman and the onewho is the sameyesterday,todayandforever.God'seternalcovenantofgracefrometernitypasttoeternityfuturehasalwaysbeenbaseduponthehistoricalworkoftheincarnateChrist,whetherthatworkwashistoricallyfutureorpast.AndGod'scovenantofgracehasalwaysbeenadministeredthroughfaithinChrist,whetherChristwasthe one to come or the one who has come. This position finds eloquentexpressioninthewordsofthegreatReformerJohnCalvin:

...sinceGodcannotwithouttheMediatorbepropitioustowardthehumanrace,underthelawChristwasalwayssetbeforetheholyfathersastheendtowhichtheyshoulddirecttheirfaith.11

...apartfromChristthesavingknowledgeofGoddoesnotstand.Fromthebeginningoftheworldhehadconsequentlybeensetbeforealltheelectthattheyshouldlookuntohimandputtheirtrustinhim.12

... all men adopted by God into the company of his people since thebeginningoftheworldwerecovenantedtohimbythesamelawandbythebond of the same doctrine as obtains among us. ... [the patriarchs]participatedinthesameinheritanceandhopedforacommonsalvationwithusbythegraceofthesameMediator....God'speoplehaveneverhadanyotherruleofreverenceandpiety.13

Thecovenantmadewithallthepatriarchsissomuchlikeoursinsubstanceandrealitythatthetwoareactuallyoneandthesame.Yettheydifferinthemodeofdispensation.14

The Lord held to this orderly plan in administering the covenant of hismercy:asthedayoffullrevelationapproachedwiththepassingoftime,themore he increased each day the brightness of its manifestation.Accordingly,atthebeginningwhenthefirstpromiseofsalvationwasgiventoAdam,itglowedlikeafeeblespark.Then,asitwasaddedto,thelightgrewinfullness,breakingforthincreasinglyandsheddingitsradiancemorewidely.At last --whenall thecloudsweredispersed--Christ, theSunof

Righteousness,fullyilluminedthewholeearth.15

The Reformed faith holds that the Bible contains a unified progression ofrevelation inwhichGodhas onebasic peoplewho form theuniversal church.Whileacknowledging thatGod's finalpurpose ineverydetailofhistory isHisownglory,theReformedfaithteachesthatGod'splantosaveapeoplethroughthe death of Christ is the unifying purpose that runs like a scarlet threadthroughoutredemptivehistoryfromGenesistoRevelationandtiesitalltogether.There is an essential unity to God's people throughout the ages and a basiccontinuityinGod'sprogramthroughouttheages.

ThisteachingontheunityofGod'speopleandthecontinuityofGod'sprogramis the fundamental teaching with which dispensationalists disagree.Dispensationalists hold Biblical revelation to be an interrupted progression inwhichGodhastwobasicpeoples:theearthlyseed,Israel,andtheheavenlyseed,thechurch.Dispensationaliststend,invariousdegrees,todenythatredemptionthroughChrist is thebasicunifyingpurpose inScriptureand todeny thebasiccontinuityofGod'splanofsalvationintheOldandNewTestaments.Thistwo-peopleviewofredemptivehistorycanalsoleadtostrongtheorizeddichotomiesbetween law and grace, between conditional and unconditional covenants,betweenearthlyandheavenlypurposes,andbetweenJewishandChristianend-time prophetic events. As dispensationalist Dr. John F. Walvoord explains,dispensationalism "maintains sharply the distinctions between law and grace,between Israel and the church, between earthly and heavenly, and betweenpropheciesbeingfulfilledandthosewhichwillbefulfilledinthemillennium."16

Whenoneexaminesinmoredetailthebasicsofthedispensationalsystem,onefinds three bedrock concepts. The first of these is a literalistic and JewishunderstandingofOldTestamentprophecyandtheMessianickingdomsuchthattheserequireafuturefulfillmentintermsofaresurrectedOldTestamentorderwithcertainenhancementsandvariations.Thedispensationalistargues that thenatureofthekingdomannouncedbyJohntheBaptistandofferedbyJesusChristshould be understood in terms of the popular Jewish understanding of thekingdom at that time, and that the Jews at that time were expecting a literalrestorationofDavidicpoliticalrule.17Similarly, thedispensationalistviewstheMessianickingdomasaglorifiedextensionoftheMosaicceremoniallaw18andtheDavidicpoliticalkingdom.

Inreality,thereisnostrongevidenceofaunifiedJewishviewofthekingdomatthe time of Christ. The Jewish understanding of theMessiah and the comingkingdom was varied.19 What we do know is that among the variousunderstandings of the Messianic kingdom at the time of Christ, there was anationalandpoliticalhope thatexpected theearthly restorationofan idealizedDavidic kingdom with deliverance from national enemies and the nationalexaltation of Israel. The disciples at times gave possible evidence of beinginfluenced by such a view of the kingdom (Matthew 20:21; Acts 1:6). Thedispensationalist assumes that this national, Jewish understanding of thekingdomwasthecorrectview.

The dispensationalist defends his view of the Messianic kingdom with aliteralisticinterpretationofOldTestamentprophecy.Aneasywaytoexplainthedispensationalsystemofinterpretation(i.e.,hermeneutic)istoillustrateitwithageneral description of the millennial situation expected by respecteddispensational authorities based on their general interpretation of prophecy.Dispensationalistsareexpectingliteralandcataclysmictopographicalchangesinthe landofPalestine.TheMountofOliveswillbe split in two to formanewvalley running east and west. Mount Zion will be elevated above all thesurrounding hills and the rest of Palestine will be transformed from amountainousterraintoagreatfertileplain.20TherewillbeanearthlyJerusalemfromwhichJesuswillexercisehisearthlyDavidicruleandaheavenlyJerusalemhovering over Palestine fromwhichChristwill co-reignwith the church. Theheavenlycitywillhaveafoundation1500milessquareandwillbeeitheracubeorapyramidthatis1500mileshigh.21Thelandingeneralandthetempleareawillbeenlarged.ThelandwillberedistributedtothetwelveJewishtribes,andthetempledescribedinEzekiel'stemplevisionwillbebuilt.TheOldTestamentpriestlyand leviticalorderswillbe reestablishedunder thesonsofZadok,andtheofferingofbloody sacrificeswill be reinstituted.From the temple, a smallflow ofwaterwill come forthwhose volumewill progressively increasewithdistance from the temple, becoming amighty riverwithin a little over amilefromthetemple.TheriverwillflowsouththroughJerusalemanddividetoflowwest into the Mediterranean Sea and east into the Dead Sea, which will betransformedintoafreshwaterbodyfulloffishandsurroundedbyvegetation.22Jerusalemwillbethecenterofaworldgovernmentsystem,nationalIsraelwillbe exalted, and theGentile nationswill be subordinated as Israel's servants.23ThisisthebasicmillennialsituationasdescribedbyDr.JohnF.Walvoordand

Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, who are influential and respected dispensationalauthorities.

Theinterpretationofprophecywiththedegreeofliteralismnecessarytoproducethe above view of the Messianic kingdom is the first foundation stone ofdispensationalism. The second foundation stone is the parenthesis theory.According to this theory, the church age is an unforeseen parenthesis orinterjectionintheJewishprogramprophesiedbytheOldTestamentprophets.IftheJewshadnot rejectedJesus, theJewishkingdomagewouldhavebegunatChrist's first coming, according to this theory. But since the Jews did rejectChrist, thepropheticprogramwas supposedly interrupted, and the church age,totallyunforeseenbytheOldTestamentprophets,wasinterjected.Thekingdomprogram is to resume where it left off in the future in the dispensationaltribulationandmillenniumafterthechurchage.Accordingtodispensationalism,noOldTestament prophecy can refer directly to the parenthetical church age.Theseprophesiesmustbefulfilled literally in thecontextofarecontinuedOldTestamentJewisheconomy.Thisparenthesistheoryisthelogicalimplicationofthe dispensation literalistic hermeneutic. If the dispensational interpretation oftheOldTestamentprophetsiscorrect,thenthesepropheciesarenotpointingtothe church age and theremust be a future Jewish age if these prophecies aregoingtobefulfilled.

Thisparenthesisdoctrine isdogmaticallyassertedbyDr.LewisSperryChafer,thefounderandfirstpresidentofDallasTheologicalSeminary,inthefollowingstatementaboutthebeginningofthechurchage:

Up to that time Judaism had not only occupied the field, but had beenengendered,promotedandblessedofGod.ItwasGod'swillforhispeoplein the world. The beneficiaries of Judaism were as intrenched in theirreligious position and convictions and as much sustained by divinesanctionsasarethemostorthodoxbelieverstoday.Thenewdivineprogramhad intentionally been unrevealed before its inauguration. It came,therefore, not only with great suddenness, but wholly without OldTestament revelation. The case would be nearly parallel if a new andunpredicted project were to be forced in at this time to supersedeChristianity.Theunyieldingprejudiceandviolentresistancewhicharoseinthe Jewish mind was in direct ratio to the sincerity with which theindividual Jew cherished his agelong privileges. Added to all this and

calculatedtomakethenewdivineenterprisemany-foldmoredifficultwasitsboldannouncementthatthedespisedGentileswouldbeplacedonequalfootingwiththeJew....

...Infact,thenew,hithertounrevealedpurposeofGodintheout-callingofaheavenlypeoplefromtheJewsandGentilesissodivergentwithrespecttothedivinepurposetowardIsrael,whichpurposeprecededitandwillyetfollowit,thatthetermparenthetical,commonlyemployedtodescribethenewage-purpose,isinaccurate.Aparentheticalportionsustainssomedirectorindirectrelationtothatwhichgoesbeforeorthatwhichfollows;butthepresent age is not thus related and therefore ismore precisely termed anintercalation.Theappropriatenessofthiswordwillbeseeninthefactthat,asaninterpolationisformedbyinsertingawordorphraseintoacontext,soanintercalationisformedbyintroducingadayoraperiodoftimeintothecalendar.ThepresentageoftheChurchisanintercalationintotherevealedcalendarorprogramofGodasthatprogramwasforeseenbytheprophetsofold.Such,indeed,istheprecisecharacterofthepresentage.24

Dr.CharlesC.Ryrie,amorerecentdispensationalist,hassaid:

The Church is not fulfilling in any sense the promises to Israel. ... ThechurchageisnotseeninGod'sprogramforIsrael.Itisanintercalation....TheChurchisamysteryinthesensethatitwascompletelyunrevealedintheOldTestamentandnowrevealedintheNewTestament.25

This parenthesis view can also be vividly seen in the dispensationalinterpretation of Daniel's seventy weeks prophecy. According to thedispensationalists, the church age is a prophetically unforeseen parenthesisbetween the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week of Daniel's seventy weeks(Daniel 9:20-27). The seventieth week is identified with a future seven yeartribulationperiodthatprecedesthemillenniumandduringwhichGod'sprogramforIsraelwillberesumed.

The third foundation stone of the dispensational system is the dichotomybetween Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church. According todispensationalism, the Old Testament saints are not in the church universal,whichistheBodyofChristandtheBrideofChrist.TheNewTestamentchurchis God's heavenly people while Old Testament and millennial Israel is God's

earthly people. According to Dr. C.I. Scofield and Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer,leading dispensationalists in an earlier generation, the earthly seed Israel is tospendeternityonthenewearth,andtheheavenlyseed,thechurch,istospendeternityinheaven.Inotherwords,thedichotomybetweenIsraelandthechurchevenlaststhroughouteternity.Morerecentdispensationalistshaveputthesaintsof all ages together on the new earth in eternity butmaintain their dichotomythroughout eternity by eternally excluding Old Testament saints, tribulationsaints and millennial saints from the Body and Bride of Christ. ThisdispensationalteachingonthedichotomybetweenIsraelandthechurchisfoundinthefollowingquotations:

Israel'sdistinction,gloryanddestinywillalwaysbeearthly.Theywillalsobeaspiritualpeople,Jehovah'spossession.Thereisnodivision,however,between the saved Jew and the saved Gentile of this dispensation, bothbeing in theChurch.But after theChurch is complete, at the end of thisdispensation,therewillofnecessitybeadivision.The"holyJerusalem"ofRevelation 21 is the "bride, the Lamb's wife," for whom is the "newheaven,"whilethe"newearth"willbeforIsrael,thetabernacleofGodistobewiththem,and"Godhimselfshallbewiththem,andbetheirGod."Thedistinctive New Testament spiritual and heavenly blessings are for theChurch;thoseblessingsofandontheearth,forIsrael.26

Judaism is not the bud which has blossomed into Christianity. Thesesystems do have features which are common to both -- God, holiness,Satan,man,sin,redemption,humanresponsibility,andtheissuesofeternity--yettheyintroducedifferencessovastthattheycannotcoalesce.EachsetsupitsgroundofrelationshipbetweenGodandman--theJewbyphysicalbirth, theChristianbyspiritualbirth;eachprovides its instructionson thelife of its adherents -- the law for Israel, the teachings of grace for theChurch;eachhasitssphereofexistence--Israelintheearthforallagestocome,theChurchinheaven.TotheendthattheChurchmightbecalledoutfrombothJewsandGentiles,apeculiar,unrelatedagehasbeenthrustintotheoneconsistentongoingofthedivineprogramfortheearth.Itisinthissense that Judaism,which is the abiding portion of the nation Israel, hasceased. With the completion and departure of the Church from earth,Judaism will be again the embodiment of all the divine purpose in theworld.27

The fact that revelation concerning both Israel and the Church includestruthaboutGod,holiness,sinandredemptionbyblood,doesnoteliminatea far greater body of truth inwhich it is disclosed that Israelites becomesuchbynaturalbirthwhileChristiansbecomesuchbyaspiritualbirth;thatIsraelites were appointed to live and serve under a meritorious, legalsystem, while Christians live and serve under a gracious system; thatIsraelites, as a nation, have their citizenship now and their future destinycenteredonlyintheearth,reachingontothenewearthwhichisyettobe,whileChristianshave theircitizenshipandfuturedestinycenteredonly inheaven,extendingonintothenewheavensthatareyettobe....28

ThatGodiscontinuingHisworkofredemptionincallingoutapeopleforHisnamein theChurch theBodyofChristwegladlyaffirm,butwealsoinsist that this Body of Christ is distinct from any previous body ofredeemedpeopleinitsnature,characteristics,time,andpromises.29

... the Church in a technical sense is strictly limited to those who haveaccepted Christ in this age. Therefore, the Church is a distinct body ofsaintsinthisage.30

ThemarriageoftheLambisaneventwhichevidentlyinvolvesonlyChristand the church. ... While it would be impossible to eliminate [OldTestament saints and tribulation saints] from the place of observers, theycannotbeinthepositionofparticipantsintheeventitself.31

Reformed theology disagreeswith all three of these dispensational foundationstones.According toReformed theology, thepeopleofGod fromall ageswilltogether bemembers of theBody andBride ofChrist andwill enjoy eternitytogetheronthenewearth.OldTestamentIsraelisseenasorganicallyrelatedtotheNewTestamentchurchlikechildhoodisrelatedtoadulthoodinthelifeofaman (Galatians 4:1-7).Many of the Old Testament prophecies about Israel --even Old Testament prophecies that refer to ceremonial law, the tribes, theancientenemiesofIsrael,andsoon--areseenasbeingfulfilledinandthroughthe church in this age. Obviously, there is a clear and even dramatic contrastbetweentheReformedandthedispensationalunderstandingsofthechurchandprophecy. The thesis of this book is that the Reformed understanding ofprophecy and the church is Biblically sound and the dispensational

understandingisanartificialimpositionuponScripture.

EndNotes

1 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith(Neptune,N.J.:LoizeauxBrothers,1953),page17,comparepage33.

2 AlanPatrickBoyd,"ADispensationalPremillennialAnalysisoftheEschatologyofthePost-ApostolicFathers(untiltheDeathofJustinMartyr)"(Th.M.thesis,DallasTheologicalSeminary,1977),page89.

3 Ibid.,unnumberedpreface.4 Ibid.,pages90-91.5 Ibid.,page92,footnote1.6 Ibid.,page89.7 Ibid.,page91,footnote2.8 "...untilbroughttotheforethroughthewritingsandpreachingandteachingofadistinguishedex-clergyman,Mr.J.N.Darby,intheearlypartofthelastcentury,itisscarcelytobefoundinasinglebookorsermonthroughaperiodofsixteenhundredyears!Ifanydoubtthisstatement,letthemsearch,asthewriterhasinameasuredone,theremarksoftheso-calledFathers,bothpre-andpost-Nicene;thetheologicaltreatisesofthescholasticdivines;RomanCatholicwritersofallshadesofthought;theliteratureoftheReformation;thesermonsandexpositionsofthePuritans;thegeneraltheologicalworksoftheday."

HarryA.Ironside,TheMysteriesofGod(NewYork:LoizeauxBrothers,1908),pages50-51.QuotedinDanielPaytonFuller,"TheHermeneuticsofDispensationalism"(dissertation,NorthernBaptistTheologicalSeminary,1957)page29.

9 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),pages178-183.

10 "ItisdifficulttodiscoverthegenealogyofthedoctrineoftheCovenantofWorkswhichappearedinfullydevelopedforminthelastdecadeofthe16thcentury."

JohnMurray,CollectedWritingsofJohnMurray:VolumeFour:StudiesinTheology,Reviews(TheBannerofTruthTrust,1982),page219.

11 JohnT.McNeill,editorandFordLewisBattles,translator,TheLibraryofChristianClassics,VolumeXX:Calvin:InstitutesoftheChristianReligion(Philadelphia:TheWestminsterPress,1960),pages344-345(II.VI.2.).

12 Ibid.,page347(II.VI.4.).13 Ibid.,pages428-429(II.X.1.).14 Ibid.,page429(II.X.2.).15 Ibid.,page446(II.X.20.).16 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),page224.

17 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,AStudyinBiblicalEschatology(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),pages446-447;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page213;PaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy(Rockville,Maryland:AssurancePublishers,1974),pages300-301.

18Dr.J.DwightPentecostobjectstotheassociationofthedispensationalmillenniumwiththeMosaicsystem:

"ThekingdomexpectationisbasedontheAbrahamiccovenant,theDavidiccovenant,andthePalestiniccovenant,butisnowaybasedontheMosaiccovenant.Itisinsistedthatthecovenantswillbefulfilledinthekingdomage.Thisdoesnot,however,linktheMosaiccovenantwiththekingdomnecessarily.ItisthereforefallacioustoreasonthatbecauseonebelievesinthefulfillmentofthedeterminativecovenantshemustalsobelieveintherestorationoftheMosaicorder,whichwasaconditionalcovenant,non-determinativeandnon-eschatologicalinintent,butgivenrathertogovernthelifeofthepeopleintheirrelationtoGodintheoldeconomy.Onegreatstumblingblockthathinderstheacceptanceofliteralsacrificesinthemillenniumisremovedbyobservingthat,whiletherearemanysimilaritiesbetweentheAaronicandmillennialsystems,therearealsomanydifferencesbetweenthemthatmakeitimpossiblethattheyshouldbeequated."

Dr.Pentecost,however,goesontoargue:

"ItcanthusbeseenthattheformofworshipinthemillenniumwillbearastrongsimilaritytotheoldAaronicorder."

"TheveryfactthatGodhasinstitutedanorderstrangelyliketheoldAaronicorderisoneofthebestargumentsthatthemillenniumisnotbeingfulfilledinthechurch,composedofGentilesandJew,inthepresentage."

J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages518-519.19 "Astothecontentsofthefutureexpectationthusindicated,therewasagreatdiversityofconceptions.ForaknowledgeofwhatwasactuallybelievedinsomecirclespriortoandatthetimeofthebirthofChrist,thepseudoepigraphicandapocryphalwritingsoftheperiodareespeciallyimportant.Buttheyarefarfromunanimousintheireschatologicaloutlook.Itis,consequently,verydifficulttostateaccuratelywhatthefutureoutlookoftheJewsactuallywasatthebeginningoftheChristianera.AlongsideofutterancesthatstartfromthepropheciesoftherestorationofthepeopleofIsraelandofthehouseofDavid,otherwritingslaymoreemphasisonthesupernatural-transcendentcharacterofthegreattimeofsalvation."

HermanRidderbos,TheComingoftheKingdom(Philadelphia:ThePresbyterianandReformedPublishingCompany,1962),page10.

20 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages320-321;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages509-510;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,pages147-148.

21 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages578,580;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages327-328,334.

22 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages309-315,320;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages509-511.

23 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages495-507;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages299-304.

24 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8vols.(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1948),4:40-41.

25CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,page136.26C.I.ScofieldwithEllaE.Pohle,compiler,Dr.C.I.Scofield'sQuestionBox(Chicago:MoodyPress,1917),page70.

27 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:248-24928 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:30.29CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page144.30CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,page138.

31 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page227.

"FromtheseScripturestheevidenceisconclusivethattheChurchistheBrideofChristandthatIsraelwillhaveherplaceofhonorinthekingdomascompanionsoftheBride."

LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:133.

Chapter2IsraelandtheChurch

Theconsistentdispensationalistisatheologianinthegripofanidea--theideathat there is a strong dichotomybetween Israel and the church.This idea is arelativelymodern theory in thehistoryofdoctrine thatwas initiallydevelopedand popularized by J. N. Darby (1800-1882), the father of dispensationalthought.Duringaperiodofconvalescencein1827,DarbymeditatedonthefactthatthetrueChristianthroughthebaptizingworkoftheSpiritisinunionwithChrist and therefore is seatedwithChrist in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:4-7).With this on his mind, Darby read in Isaiah 32:15-20 about a prophesiedoutpouringoftheSpirituponIsraelthatwouldbringearthlyblessingsuponthepeopleofGod.DarbytookthisScripturaldataandconcludedittoimplyastrongcontrastbetweenearthlyblessingsprophesiedforIsraelandheavenlyblessingspromisedtotheChristianintheNewTestament.FromthisDarbydevelopedhistheory thatGodhas twopeoples,anearthlypeopleandaheavenlypeople.1 In1840,Darbygavethefollowingsummaryofhisnewideasonprophecy:

Prophecyappliesitselfproperlytotheearth;itsobjectisnotheaven.Itwasabout things thatwere tohappenon theearth;and thenotseeing thishasmisled theChurch.Wehave thought thatwe ourselves hadwithin us theaccomplishments of these earthly blessings, whereas we are called toheavenlyblessings.TheprivilegeoftheChurchistohaveitsportionintheheavenly places; and later blessings will be shed forth upon the earthlypeople. The Church is something altogether apart -- a kind of heavenlyeconomy,during the rejectionof theearthlypeople,whoareputasideonaccountoftheirsins,anddrivenoutamongthenations,outofthemidstofwhichnationsGodchoosesapeople for theenjoymentofheavenlyglorywithJesusHimself.TheLord,havingbeenrejectedbytheJewishpeople,isbecome wholly a heavenly person. This is the doctrine which we findpeculiarlyintheapostlePaul.ItisnolongertheMessiahfortheJews,butaChristexalted,glorified;anditisforwantoftakingholdofthisexhilaratingtruth,thattheChurchhasbecomesoweak.2

This summary statement demonstrates that Darby had come to interpret

Scriptureintermsofthedispensationaldichotomyandparenthesistheories.HehadcometoviewtheJewsastheearthlypeopleofGodwithanearthlypurpose,destinyandhope,theChristiansastheheavenlypeopleofGodwithaheavenlypurpose,destinyandhope,andthechurchageastheheavenlyparenthesisintheearthlyprogram.

Reformed theology, of course, strongly disagrees with this radical dichotomybetween Israel and the church. Reformed theologians do recognize BiblicaldistinctionsbetweenOldTestamentIsraelandtheNewTestamentchurchbutnotastrongdichotomy.TheBiblicaldistinctionsbetweenOldTestamentIsraelandthe New Testament church involve an organic progression analogous to thedevelopmentofachildintoanadult(Galatians4:3-4).Theorganicdevelopmentbrought about during the time of the New Testament includes theunprecedentedly clear revelation through the IncarnateWord andHis apostles,the historical accomplishment of the prophesied Messianic atonement, theoutpouring of the Spirit in unprecedented fullness, the cessation of theburdensomeMosaic ceremonial laws, and the universalization of the kingdompreviously limited to the Jewish nation. In the midst of these developmentalchanges, there was also a strong continuity with the Old Testament program.Although God often dealt with Old Testament Israel in terms of earthlyinstitutionsandpromises,thesewerepicturesofthesameheavenlyrealitieslaterspokenofintheNewTestamentandtherewasagenuinespiritualdimensioninthe lives of theOldTestament saints.And although theNewTestament oftenspeaks in terms of heavenly and spiritual realities, theChristian is still in theworldandhasbeengiventheearthlytaskofbeingthelightoftheworld,thesaltoftheearthandthedisciplerofthenations.

Here are two antithetically opposed systems in regard to the relationshipbetweenIsraelandthechurch.Todeterminewhichsystemiscorrect,wemustgoto Scripture. ANew Testament passage that speaks to this issue is Ephesians2:12-21, a passage inwhich theApostle Paul contrasts the covenant status ofGentilesingeneralundertheoldcovenantwiththatofGentileChristiansunderthenewcovenant.Inthispassage,PaulfirstremindstheEphesianChristiansoftheir former spiritualpovertybefore their coming to faith inChrist in thenewcovenant age. As "Gentiles in the flesh," they were uncircumcised and weretherefore without what had been in former times the sign and seal of God'scovenant(verse11).Paultheninverse12summarizeswhathadoncebeenthese

EphesianGentiles'covenantstatus:

...atthattimeyewerewithoutChrist,beingaliensfromthecommonwealthofIsrael,andstrangersfromthecovenantsofpromise,havingnohope,andwithoutGodintheworld.

Astheuncircumcised,theyhadbeen"aliensfromthecommonwealthofIsrael"(verse 12). Outward membership in God's covenant community does notguarantee inward membership and salvation, but it is important. OutwardmembershipinOldTestamentIsraelhadnotbeenwithoutitsadvantages,tosaytheleast:

WhatadvantagethenhaththeJew?orwhatprofitisthereincircumcision?Mucheveryway:chiefly,becausethatuntothemwerecommittedtheoraclesofGod.Romans3:1-2...Israelites;towhompertaineththeadoption,andtheglory,andthecovenants,andthegivingofthelaw,andtheserviceofGod,andthepromises;whosearethefathers,andofwhomconcerningthefleshChristcame,whoisoverall,Godblessedforever.Amen.Romans9:4-5...salvationisoftheJews.John4:22

The "Gentiles in the flesh" under the old covenant had been without theseadvantagesdue to theiralienationfromIsrael.Thewordhere translated"beingaliens"isastrongtermusedattimestospeakofestrangementfromGodduetomoral abominations (Ezekiel 14:5,7-8 LXX; Hosea 9:10 LXX). After theformation of the nations at the tower of Babel, God had chosen one man,Abraham,tofather theonenation,Israel, throughwhichHewouldexclusivelyadministerHiscovenantsuntil theuniversalismof thenewcovenantagewhenHispeoplewouldbefromeverytribe,nationandtongue.DuringthatperiodofJewishparticularism,Godhad"sufferedallnationstowalkintheirownways"(Acts 14:16), allowing them to remain in their bondage to demonic paganismandthereforeinastateofalienationfromGodandHispeople.

As "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel," the "Gentiles in the flesh" had

been,mostsignificantly,"withoutChrist."Undertheoldcovenant,theJews,ofcourse, had not known the historicallymanifested Jesus ofNazareth, but theyhadknowntheMessiahyettocomethroughthe"covenantsofpromise"(verse12).PaulinasermonaddressedtophysicalJewsstatedthat

...thepromisewhichwasmadeuntothefathers,Godhathfulfilledthesameuntoustheirchildren,inthathehathraisedupJesusagain;...Acts13:32b-33a

TheuncircumcisedGentile'srelationshiptothesepromiseshadbeenthatofthe"stranger,"ageneraltermfortheforeigneroralienwhowaswithouttherightsassociatedwithcitizenshipinthecovenantcommunity.

Paul then contrasts this former position of spiritual povertywith the covenantstatus in this age of Gentiles who believe in Christ. Contrary to their formerstatus,theyarenow"nomorestrangersandforeigners,butfellow-citizenswiththe saints, and of the household ofGod" (verse 19). Eachmajorword in thisstatementisworthyofcloseexamination.Accordingtoverse12,the"Gentilesinthe flesh" had been "strangers from the covenants of promise," but now theGentiles inChristare"nomorestrangersor foreigners" (verse19).TheGreekword here translated foreigners is used in the Greek translation of the OldTestamenttorefertotheresidentalienswholivedinIsraelandhadcertainlegalrightsbutwhowerenotcitizensinIsraelandcouldnotpartakeofthePassover(Exodus12:45LXX).Thiswordliterallymeans"theonebesidethehouse,"andPaulstatesthattobenolongeraforeigneristobe"ofthehouseholdofGod,"asymbolicexpressionformembershipinGod'speopleunderboththeoldandthenewcovenants(Numbers12:7;1Timothy3:15;Hebrews3:5-6).TheGentilesinChrist are also now "fellow-citizens with the saints." In the Greek, the wordtranslated fellow-citizen inverse19 iscloselyrelated to theword inverse12translatedcommonwealth intheKingJamesVersion.IntheNewInternationalVersion, thisword fromverse12 is translatedcitizenship, a translationwhichbetter shows the close affinity of this word with the one translated fellow-citizen.TheGentileinthefleshhadbeenalienated"fromthecommonwealthofIsrael,"but theGentileChristian isnowa"fellow-citizenwith thesaints."The"saints" areGod's holy people, the people of the covenant. TheChristian is acitizenof theheavenlyJerusalem(Galatians4:26;Philippians3:20;Revelation3:12) and therefore a fellow-citizenwithwith the saints of all ages (Hebrews

12:22-23).

Verses13and17alsorelatetoourdiscussion.Inverse13,theGentileChristiansatEphesusarereferredtoas"yewhosometimeswerefaroff."Theninverse17,theapostlesays,

And(Christ)cameandpreachedpeacetoyouwhichwereafaroff,andtothemthatwerenigh.

Aswehaveseenfromverse13, thosewhoarereferredtoas"afaroff"are thepaganGentileswhohadlivedas"aliensfromthecommonwealthofIsrael."Whothenarethosereferredtoas"themthatwerenigh"?ManybelievethatthistermhasreferenceheretotheJewsatEphesuswhohadheardtheGospelmessage.3Peter used some similar terminology in his Pentecost sermon to the Jews atJerusalem:

Forthepromiseisuntoyou,andtoyourchildren,andtoallthatareafaroff,evenasmanyastheLordourGodshallcall.

TheJewasamemberofGod'scovenantpeoplewasalreadyprovisionallyneartotheGospelsincetheGospelwasthefulfillmentof thecovenantsofpromisethathadbeenmadewithOldTestamentIsrael.Ofcourse,iftheJewpersistedinrejecting theMessiah, he was cut off from the true covenant people, but theGospelwasoffered to the Jew first and then to theGentile (Romans1:16). Inverse13ofEphesians2,Paulsays,

ButnowinChristJesusyewhosometimeswereafaroffaremadenighbythebloodofChrist.

Let us assume that the terms "near" and "far" do refer to the respectiverelationshipsoftheJewandthepaganGentiletotheOldTestamentcovenantsofpromiseat the timeof the transitionbetween theoldandnewcovenantswhenthe new covenant Gospel was first being offered. Then Paul in verse 13 isteachingthatthepaganGentilewhobelievedinChristhadbeenmadeanheirinnew covenant fullness of those Old Testament covenants of promise whichformerlyhadexclusivelybelongedtoOldTestamentIsrael.

ThispassageisnotteachingthattheGentileChristianhasbecomeamemberof

Old Testament Israel. Ephesians two teaches that the Gentile believer hasbecomeamemberofthechurchofMessianicfullness,whichPaulcalls"thenewman" (verse 15) and which Paul speaks of as a building built upon thefoundation of the New Testament apostles and prophets (verse 20). TheimportanceofthispassageisthatitstressesboththenewnessofthechurchandthecontinuityofthechurchwithGod'spreviouscovenantprogram.TheanswertoGentile alienation from Israel and her covenants ismembership in the newman, which makes one a fellow-citizen with God's covenant people and amemberofGod'shouse.ThesetermshaverootsintheOldTestament,andthispassagefitsinwellwiththeReformedteachingthattheNewTestamentchurchis Old Testament Israel come to new covenant maturity. The dispensationalinterpretationofthisEphesianspassageputsallitsemphasisontheteachinginthis passage that theNewTestament church is a "newman."4 True, there is asignificantnewnesstotheNewTestamentchurch,butthatfactdoesnotnullifytheequallyvalidteachinginEphesians2that theNewTestamentchurchhasastrong relationship of organic continuity with Old Testament Israel. Is thenewness of the newcovenant church the newness ofmaturity that occurs in acontext of organic continuity with the past? Or is the newness of the newcovenant church best explained by the rigid dispensational dichotomy andparenthesis theories? For the dispensationalist to assume automatically anddogmatically that the "new man" has no organic continuity with the OldTestament covenant people is to commit the logical fallacy of begging thequestion.

Under the Mosaic covenant, only practicing Jews were members of God'scovenantpeople.Inthisageofthenewcovenant,however,believingJewsandGentiles are together full members of God's holy people (Galatians 3:28;Ephesians 2:14) and unbelieving individual Jews and Gentiles are togetheroutsidethecampofcovenantblessings.TherearetwowaysthisequalizationofspiritualstatusbetweenJewandGentilecouldhavebeeneffected.In linewiththe dispensational dichotomy and parenthesis theories, the Old Testamentcovenants could have parenthetically become inoperative. According to Dr.LewisSperryChafer, "... the Jewhas been removed from the place of specialprivilegewhichwashisinthepastageandleveledtothesamestandingastheGentile..."5According toDr.JohnF.Walvoord,"In thepresentage, Israelhasbeensetaside,herpromisesheldinabeyance,withnoprogressinthefulfillmentofherprogram."6Andthenewanddistinctprivilegesofthechurchcouldhave

been introduced for believing Jews and Gentiles alike. Or, in line with theReformed teaching that the church age is an exalted continuation of the OldTestamentcovenantprogram,believingGentilescouldhavebeenelevatedtotheprivileged position of spiritual Israel by being made full heirs of the OldTestament covenants in new covenant fullness. Believing Jews would haveremained in spiritual Israel during the transition between the old and newcovenants, and unbelieving Jews would have been cut off from the covenantpeopleinjudgment(Romans11:20).Tobecutofffromthechurchinjudgmentwastobereducedintheeyesofthecovenantpeopletothereligiousstatusofapagan(Matthew18:17).Ephesians2supportsthissecondsuggestionthroughitsteaching that believingGentiles today participate in the covenants of promisethatformerlyhadbeenlimitedtothecommonwealthofIsrael.

Another relevant passage isRomans 11, inwhich Paul discusses the status ofJews in thechurchage.Theolive treeofRomans11 stands for theprivilegedposition of blessing that belonged toOld Testament Israel (compare Jeremiah11:16;Hosea14:6).ItisanolivetreewhoserootsarefirmlyestablishedintheOld Testament covenants made with the Jewish patriarchs. Before looking atPaul's useof the figure, let us examinehowwe should expectPaul touse thefigure if he really were a dispensationalist. Since, according todispensationalism,alltheJewsinthisparentheticalagearecutofffromtheirOldTestamentprivileges,weshouldexpectPaultoteachthatallthebranchesontheolivetreeofIsraelwerebrokenoffatthebeginningofthechurchage.Liketheclock of the Jewish prophetic program that supposedly stopped ticking at thebeginning of the church age, the old Jewish olive tree would have to standdormant during the church age until that future tribulation period andmillenniumwhenGodagainresumestheJewishpropheticprogram.ItwouldbeliketheJewishtrainthatiswaitingonthesidetrackuntilthechurchtrainpassesby on the track of history, to use another illustration popular withdispensationalists.Also,sinceaccordingtodispensationalism,God'sprogramforthe church is totally distinct fromGod's program for Israel,we should expectPaul to teach that at the beginning of the church age a new olive treerepresenting the churchwas divinely planted.And all the believing Jewswhowere broken off from the olive tree of dormant Israel and all the believingGentileswhowere formerly in thewildolive treeof paganismare in this agegrafted into theolive treeof churchblessings.But this, of course, is notwhatPaul teaches. Paul instead teaches that only unbelieving Jewswere brokenoff

from the olive tree of Israel. Jews who accepted Christ remained where theyalways had been -- in the olive tree of Israel. And believing Gentiles weregraftedintotheolivetreeofIsrael.ThisRomans11explanationofthestatusofJewsinthechurchagestronglyimpliesthatthechurchisspiritualIsraelinthisnewcovenantage.

Another passage which shows the strong continuity between Israel and thechurch isHebrews3:5-6.Thispassagerefers tobothOldTestament IsraelandtheNewTestamentchurchasGod'shouse,whichdemonstratestheirunityastheone people of God. This passage builds upon Numbers 12:7, where the termGod'shousedefinitelydoesrefertoIsrael.7Thispassagealsodemonstratestheorganicprogressionbetween the testamentswith itsmessage that theChristofthenewcovenantera,whoisaSonoverGod'shouse,issuperiortoMosesoftheoldcovenantera,whowasaservantinGod'shouse.

AnotherpassagethatspeakstotheissueoftheBiblicalrelationshipbetweenOldTestamentIsraelandtheNewTestamentchurchisRevelation21.Revelation21reveals that theNew Jerusalem is symbolic for the saints of all the ages. Thecity'stwelvefoundationstones,havingthenamesofthetwelveapostleswrittenupon them, represent the New Testament saints. And the city's twelve gates,havingthenamesofthetwelvetribesofIsraelwrittenonthem,representtheOldTestament saints (Revelation 21:12,14). The New Jerusalem, a city whosecitizenshipincludesthesaintsofalltheages,isinthispassagecalledtheBrideofChrist(Revelation21:2,9-10).TheBrideofChristiselsewheredefinedasthechurchuniversal,theBodyofChrist(Ephesians5:22-33).ThismeansthatbothOldTestamentIsraelandtheNewTestamentchurcharetogetherintheBodyofChrist.

TheconclusionthatOldTestamentsaintsareincludedintheNewJerusalemisfurther confirmed byHebrews 11 and 12. Hebrews 11 sets forth examples offaithinthelivesofOldTestamentsaintsandendswiththefollowingcommentonthesalvificstatusoftheOldTestamentsaints:

Andtheseall,havingobtainedagoodreportthroughfaith,receivednotthepromise:Godhavingprovidedsomebetterthingforus,thattheywithoutusshouldnotbemadeperfect.

Followingthis, inHebrews12:22-24,theinhabitantsoftheNewJerusalemare

describedasfollows:

ButyouhavecomeuntomountSion,anduntothecityof thelivingGod,theheavenlyJerusalem,and toan innumerablecompanyofangels, to thegeneralassemblyandchurchofthefirstborn,whicharewritteninheaven,andtoGodtheJudgeofall,andtothespiritsofjustmenmadeperfect,andtoJesusthemediatorof thenewcovenant,andtothebloodofsprinkling,thatspeakethbetterthingsthanthatofAbel.

AcomparisonoftheaboveversescanleavelittledoubtthatbothOldTestamentandNewTestament saints arecitizensof theheavenlycity.Hebrews12:22-23teachesthat"thespiritsofjustmenmadeperfect,"areincludedamongtheNewJerusalem inhabitants, and Hebrews 11:39-40 gives evidence that thisdesignationisinclusiveoftheOldTestamentsaints.

Dr.J.DwightPentecostattemptstoexplainawaytheimplicationsoftheabovereferencetotheNewJerusalemastheBrideofChristbyarguingthatthoughtheNewJerusalemdoescontainallthesaintsofalltheages,thecitytakesits"chiefcharacterization" from theNewTestamentchurch,whichalone is theBrideofChrist.8Dr.C.I.Scofieldhasadifferentexplanation:

The "Lamb's wife" here [Revelation 19:7] is the "bride" (Rev. 21.9), theChurch,identifiedwiththe"heavenlyJerusalem"(Heb.12.22,23),andtobedistinguishedfromIsrael,theadulterousandrepudiated"wife"ofJehovah,yet to be restored (Isa. 54.1-10; Hos. 2.1-17), who is identified with theearth(Hos.2.23).Aforgivenandrestoredwifecouldnotbecalledeitheravirgin(2Cor.11.2,3),orabride.9

Dr.LewisSperryChafersuggeststhefollowing:

It is named for the Bride of Christ and probably because she has somesuperiorrighttoit;yetotherpeoplesandbeingsenterhergates.10

AndDr.JohnF.Walvoordsaysthefollowing:

TheNewJerusalemisgivendetailedrevelationandisdescribedingeneral"as a bride adorned for her husband" (Revelation 21:2). The figure ofmarriageisusedforthechurch,forIsrael,andhereforthecityinwhichthe

saintsof all ageswill dwell.The fact that themarriage figure is used formore thanoneentity inScriptureshouldnotbeconsideredconfusing,norshouldthecitybeidentifiedspecificallywiththechurch.ItisratherthattheNewJerusalemhasallthebeautyandfreshnessofabrideadornedforherhusband.11

AnothersignificantpassagethatspeaksdirectlytothisissueisMatthew21:43,astatementwhichChristmade to theJewish leadersnear theendofHisearthlyministry: "Therefore say Iuntoyou,ThekingdomofGodshallbe taken fromyou,andgiventoanationbringingforththefruitthereof."Thequestionthatthisstatementraisesis,WhatisthisnationthatwasgiventhekingdomofGod?Theobviousanswer is thechurch,which is elsewheredesignatedanation (1Peter2:9). If the church was given the kingdom program that God had firstadministeredthroughOldTestamentIsraelandhadpreviouslyrootedintheOldTestament covenants, then there is a strong continuity between Israel and thechurch.IfthechurchassumestheOldTestamentkingdomprogrambegunwithOldTestamentIsrael,thenthechurchtrulyistheIsraelofthenewcovenant.

Acommondispensationalanswertotheabovequestionisthatthekingdomwillbegiven"tothenationIsraelwhensheshallturntotheLordandbesavedbeforeenteringthemillennialkingdom."12Thismeansthatthewholechurchagemustintervene between the first clause of the verse inwhich the kingdom is takenawayfromphysicalIsraelandthesecondclauseinwhichthekingdomisgivento another nation!Somedispensationalists do admit that this verse is teachingthat the kingdom in some sense has been transferred in this age from OldTestamentIsraeltotheNewTestamentchurchortothebelievingGentilesofthisage.13Thosewhomakethisadmissionmustdefineawaythroughqualificationsthe significance and meaning of this transfer if they are to maintain theirdichotomy between Israel and the churchwith their two separate and distinctprograms.Wheneverdispensationalistsadmitthatthekingdomisrelatedtothechurch, they usually interpret it as either the kingdom in mystery form ofMatthew13orasGod'snon-theocraticruleofprovidence.

AdditionalinsightintothetransitionofthekingdomfromOldTestamentIsraelto the New Testament church can be found in the Biblical teaching on theMessianic Good Shepherd. The Messianic Good Shepherd was both todispossessthe"badshepherd"leadersofIsraelandtojudgebetweenmembersof

theflockofIsrael(Ezekiel34:7-31).JesusChristtookthekingdomawayfromtheleadersofIsraelwhohadopposedHimandgavethekingdomtothe"pooroftheflock"(Zechariah11:7,11),therighteousremnantwithinthenationwhowereHisdisciples.InLuke12:32,JesussaidtoHisdisciples:"Fearnot, littleflock;foritisyourFather'sgoodpleasuretogiveyouthekingdom."HisdiscipleswerethetruesheepinIsrael,forthetruesheepwithintheflockofIsraelwerethosewho recognized the Messianic Shepherd, listened to His teachings, andobediently followedHim(John10:14,27).ThoseJewswho rejectedChristdidnotbelievebecausetheywerenottruesheep(John10:26).

Jesus also taught that He also had sheep outside of the fold of His Jewishdisciples(John10:16).JesuswasherespeakingoftheGentileswhowouldlaterbelieveandbeincorporatedintoHischurch.Thoughthesehadnotyetbelieved,ChristspokeofthemasthosechosenandpredestinedtobeHisfrombeforethefoundation of the world. This statement parallels the Lord's later visionarycommandmentthat instructedPaul tocontinuepreachinginCorinthbecause"Ihavemuchpeopleinthiscity"(Acts18:10).

InJohn10:16,Christsaidthat theseGentilesheepwereat that timeoutsideofHispresentfoldofdisciplesandthatHewouldleadthemintoHisoneflock.14ThewordtranslatedfoldinJohn10:16literallyreferstoawalledcourt(compareJohn 10:1) and brings tomind a picture of Israelwalled off from theGentilenationsbyherceremonial laws.Jesuswasto leadtheseGentilesheepintoHisoneflock,"forHeisourpeace,whohathmadebothone,andhathbrokendownthemiddlewall of partition between us" (Ephesians 2:14). The new covenantpeopleofGodareoneflockwithnodistinctionbetweenJewandGentile.

The use of the flock metaphor in John 10 demonstrates the relationship ofcontinuitybetweenoldcovenant Israeland thenewcovenantchurch.Botholdcovenant Israel and the new covenant church are spoken of as God's flock.15Christ'ssheeparethoseforwhomHesavinglydied(John10:11)andtowhomHehasgiveneternallife(John10:28).SincesalvationisfoundinChristalone,God'struesheeparethesaintsofallages.

Taken together, this data on the Good Shepherd teaches that Jesus took thekingdom away from the leaders and members of old covenant Israel whorejectedHim,gavethiskingdomtotherighteousremnantwithinthenationwhoreceivedHim in faith,and thenadded to thisone flock thebelievingGentiles.

Thismessagegivenunder thefigureof theoneflock issimilar to themessagethatPaulteachesinRomans11underthefigureoftheoneolivetree.BothJohn10 andRomans 11 teach the essential unity of the people ofGod through theagesasone flockandoneolive treeand illustrate theorganicprogressionandthe developmental continuity in the transition between the old and newcovenants.

Anothergroupofpassages thatare relevant toourdiscussionof thecontinuityquestionconsistsofpassageswhichgive thechurcha Jewishname.ThemostcommonlydiscussedoftheseisGalatians6:16,wherePaulreferstothechurchas the Israel of God. Dispensationalists argue that Paul here was referringexclusivelytotheJewsintheearlychurchandnot to thechurchasawhole.16But one must remember that one of Paul's main themes in Galatians is theteaching that the Jewshaveno special privileges over theGentiles in this age(Galatians 3:28). Christ has broken down the religious dividing wall betweenJewandGentileintheChristianchurch(Ephesians2:14).IfPaulthengivestheJews in the church a special status or recognition by referring to themexclusively as the Israel of God, then Paul would have destroyed his ownargument.HewouldhaveplayedintothehandsoftheJudaizersbygivingthemavalidreasonforarguingthatGentileChristianscouldimprovetheircovenantstatus by becoming Jewish proselytes as well as Christians. According todispensationalists,believingJewsandGentilesinthechurcharetogetherheirsofspiritual promises, but Jews, believing and unbelieving, are exclusive heirs ofnationalpromises.17SincePaul taught that there isnoJeworGentile inChrist(Galatians3:28),hemusthavebeenreferringtothewholechurchwhenhespokeoftheIsraelofGodinGalatians6:16.If thisinterpretationiscorrect, thenthisverse would be best translated "Peace andmercy to all who follow this rule,eventotheIsraelofGod"asintheNewInternationalVersion,andthetrueIsraelofGod in this agewouldbe defined as all thosewhowalkby the rule of notboastingexceptinthecrossofChrist.

Elsewherethechurchiscalledthediaspora,atechnicaltermforJewslivinginGentilenations(1Peter1:1;James1:1);thetwelvetribes(James1:1;Revelation7:4;Luke22:30);achosenrace,aroyalpriesthood,aholynation,apeopleforGod's own possession (1 Peter 2:9-10; Revelation 1:6; Titus 2:14; compareExodus 19:6;Deuteronomy 7:6); Jewswho are Jews inwardly (Romans 2:28-29);thecircumcision(Philippians3:3;compareColossians2:11,Romans2:29);

comers untoMountZion (Hebrews12:22); citizensof theheavenly Jerusalem(Galatians4:26);childrenofpromiselikeIsaac(Galatians4:28);Abraham'sseedandheirsaccordingtothepromiseofAbraham(Galatians3:29).

Typically,dispensationalistsargue that theseJewishnamesgiven to thechurchreferonlytobelievingJewsinthechurch.TherearesomecaseswheretheNewTestamentdoesmakea limited reference tobelievingJews,as inRomans9:6:"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." That verse is contrastingbelieving Jews and unbelieving Jews. There, however, are many other caseswherePaulisclearlyreferringtothewholechurchwhenheusesaJewishtitle.Forexample,Pauldefinedthecircumcisionasthose"whichworshipGodinthespirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh"(Philippians3:3).ThecircumcisionisatitleforIsrael(Ephesians2:11),andthisdescriptionofthetruecircumcisioninthisageisinclusiveofalltruebelievers,both Jew and Gentile. All Christians are spiritually circumcised (Colossians2:11-12),and"he isaJew,which isone inwardly;andcircumcision is thatoftheheart"(Romans2:29).

ItisalsorelevantthatJesusinRevelation2:9and3:9calledtheJewswhowerethenpersecutingthechurchesatSmyrnaandPhiladelphia,those"whichsaytheyareJews,andarenot"and"thesynagogueofSatan."Theseversesclearlyshowthat thoseethnicJewswhorejectedChristwereno longerconsideredapartofthe true Israel. Paul said inRomans 3:28: "For he is not a Jew,which is oneoutwardly;neitheristhatcircumcision,whichisoutwardintheflesh"(Romans3:28).

TherelationshipbetweenOldTestamentIsraelandtheNewTestamentchurchisnotoneofstrongdichotomybutoneoforganic,developmentalcontinuity.IftheBiblepresents anygroupasbeing in adichotomous relationshipwith spiritualIsrael, it is not the New Testament church but New Testament Phariseeism,which developed into what is today called normative Judaism. The NewTestament age differs from theOldTestament period in its non-bloody ritualsand its greater spiritual fullness, but the saints of both ages constitute the onepeopleofGodwhoaretogethertheBodyandBrideofChrist.

EndNotes

1 DanielPaytonFuller,"TheHermeneuticsofDispensationalism"(dissertation,NorthernBaptistTheologicalSeminary,1957),pages38-41.

2 Ibid.,page45;quotingfromJ.N.Darby,"TheHopesoftheChurchofGod,"CollectedWritings(WilliamKelly,editor;35volumes;secondedition;London:G.Morrish,n.d.),2:571-572.

3 "InEph.2:13GentileChristiansareremindedofGod'sgiftthatthosewhowereoncefarfromGod,...,havebeenbroughtneartoHimbyChristandbecomeHischildren.InEph.2:17,whichsetsIs.57:19inthecontextofsalvationhistory...,theGentilesaretoldthattothem,whoarefarfromGod...,ChristbroughtpeaceandsalvationnolessthantotheJews,sothatthedistantandthenear,GentileandJewishChristians,experienceasthegreatmysteryofGodthroughChristtheirunionintothenewpeopleofGod."

GerhardKittel,editor;GeoffreyW.Bromily,editorandtranslator,TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1967),4:374.

SeealsoLewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8vols.(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1948),4:74;JohnEadie,CommentaryontheEpistletotheEphesians(reprint:Minneapolis:JamesandKlockChristianPublishingCo.,1977;original:Edinburgh:T.andT.Clark,1883),pages169-170;WilliamHendriksen,NewTestamentCommentary:ExpositiononEphesians(GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1967),pages213-214;T.K.Abbott,TheInternationalCriticalCommentary:ACriticalandExegeticalCommentaryontheEpistlestotheEphesiansandtotheColossians(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clerk,1897),page60.

4 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),page165.

5 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:248.

"TheGentilewasnotelevatedtothelevelofJewishprivilege;buttheJewwasloweredtothelevelofthehopelessGentile,fromwhichpositioneitherJeworGentilemightbesavedthroughgracealoneintoaheavenlypositionandglory."

Ibid.,4:75.6 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page136.Yetonpage165,Dr.Walvoordarguesthat"IsraelisnotreducedtothebankruptcyofGentiles--to

become'strangersfromthecovenantsofpromise'..."Dr.Walvoord'spointmaybethatalthoughunbelievingindividualJewsarenotheirsofspiritualblessings,allJews,believingandunbelieving,remainheirsofthenationalpromises,indispensationaltheory(page169).Onpage136,hesays,"Promisesmaybedelayedinfulfillmentbutnotcancelled."

7 CompareExodus16:31;2Samuel1:12;Jeremiah31:31;Matthew10:6;15:24;Acts2:36.

8 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),page576;comparepage227.

9 C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1909),page1348(noteonRevelation19:7).

10 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,5:367.11 Dr.JohnF.Walvoord,TheChurchinProphecy(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1964),page161.

12CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,page71.13CharlesCaldwellRyrie,RyrieStudyBible:TheNewTestament,noteonMatthew21:43;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages465-466.

14 ThisdistinctionbetweentheflockandthefoldinJohn10:16isnotmadeclearintheKingJamesVersionwherebothGreekwordsaretranslatedfold.

15 Israel:Psalm74:1;78:52;79:13;95:7;100:3;Isaiah40:11;63:11;Jeremiah13:17;23:1;50:6;Ezekiel34:31;Micah7:14;Zechariah10:3;13:7;Matthew10:6;15:24.Church:Acts20:28-29;1Peter2:25;5:2-3.

16CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,pages139-140.AccordingtoDr.J.DwightPentecost,thereisnospiritualIsraelinthisage:

"ThereisadistinctionbetweenthetruechurchandtrueorspiritualIsrael.PriortoPentecostthereweresavedindividuals,buttherewasnochurch,andtheywereapartofspiritualIsrael,notthechurch.AfterthedayofPentecostanduntiltherapturewefindthechurchwhichisHisbody,butnospiritualIsrael.Aftertherapturewefindnochurch,butatrueorspiritualIsraelagain.Thesedistinctionsmustbekeptclearlyinmind."

J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page199.

Dr.PentecostdefinesJewishChristiansasthose"whowouldbeapartofspiritualIsrael"(Ibid,page89).IassumehimtomeanbythisthatJewish

ChristiansarethoseJewswho,becauseoftheirfaith,wouldbeapartofspiritualIsraelifthiswerenottheparentheticalchurchage.

17 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page169.

Chapter3TheParenthesisTheory

andtheChurchinProphecy

ThemostbasicdisagreementbetweendispensationalismandReformedtheologycenters around the relationship between the New Testament church and OldTestamentIsrael.Accordingtodispensationalism,thechurchageisaparenthesisin the Jewish kingdom program prophesied in the Old Testament. The NewTestament church at Pentecost, they teach, was an absolutely new entity, amysterytowhichnoOldTestamentprophecyhaddirectlyreferred.TheyteachthatalltheJewishkingdompropheciesreferredtoaJewishmillennialkingdomthatwaspostponeduntilaftertheunexpectedchurchagebecauseoftheJewishrejection of Jesus.Of course,Reformed theologydisagreeswith this teaching.ReformedtheologyrecognizesboththatthechurchatPentecostwassomethingnewinarelativesenseandthatthechurchisbuiltuponandcontinuestheOldTestamentkingdom. Justbecause thebutterfly (theheavenlypeople) emergingfrom the cocoon is new on the scene does not mean that it has no directrelationshiptothecaterpillar(theearthlypeople)thatbuiltthecocoon.Also,thekingdomprogram'sbeingtakenfromtheJewishleadershipbecausetheyrejectedJesusdoesnotmeanthatthekingdomprogramitselfwaspostponed.Accordingto Reformed theology, the church is spiritual Israel come to dispensationalmaturityandisthefulfillmentofmanypropheciesmadeaboutIsraelintheOldTestament.

Whichof these twoopposingviewsof the relationshipbetween Israel and thechurch is correct? From the nature of the question, one should expect to findsomeclues to the correct answerby studying theNewTestament's useofOldTestament prophecy. If the New Testament ever quotes any Old TestamentprophecyasreferringdirectlytotheNewTestamentchurch,thenabasicelementof the dispensational system is thereby discredited. Unfortunately for thedispensationalists,therearesuchquotationsintheNewTestament.

Probably thebestknownsuchOldTestamentprophecy is Joel2:28.Nowtakenote: this prophecy comes from the Jewish Old Testament. According todispensationalists, theOldTestament prophetswere absolutely and completely

ignorant of the coming church age. They supposedly had been led byGod tobelievethatthecomingoftheMessiahwouldbefollowedbythedispensationalJewish millennium, not by a church age. Also, the prophecy of Joel wasaddressed to Israel and the children of Zion (Joel 2:23,27), not to the church.SinceIsraelmeansIsrael,andsincechurchmeanschurch, aprophecyaboutIsrael can have no direct relationship to the church, according to thedispensationalists.Nowcomes the test:Whatdoes theNewTestamenthave tosayaboutthefulfillmentofJoel2:28?

We find Joel 2:28 quoted by Simon Peter in Acts 2:16-17 on Pentecost, thebirthdayoftheNewTestamentchurch!TheHolySpiritwasonthatdaypouredout upon the church in unprecedented fullness, and Peter explained thisphenomenonbysaying,"ThisisthatwhichwasspokenbytheprophetJoel,"andthenbyquotingJoel2:28-32.Ifwordsaretobetakenintheirnormalandliteralsense, it is hard to imagine how one could communicatemore clearly that aneventwasafulfillmentofprophecythanwiththewordsthisisthat.

TheBiblealsoindicatesthatJoel2continuestobefulfilledthroughoutthisage.In his Pentecost sermon, Peter indicated that the outpoured Spirit as a giftpromised in prophecywas also for "all that are afar off, even asmany as theLordourGodshallcall"(Acts2:39),areferencetopaganGentileswhowouldbelieve.The blessings of thePentecost outpouringwere extended to believinguncircumcisedGentilesinActs10.Nowthattheblessingsofthenewcovenanthavebeenusheredinandextendedtoallnations,theHolySpiritispouredoutinfulfillmentofJoel2everytimeapersonisregenerated(Titus3:5-6).

Consistent dispensationalists, because of their presupposed theological system,have difficultywith such an understanding of Joel 2.They cannot even admitthat Pentecost where Peter said "this is that" was an outpouring of the Spiritforeseen by the prophet Joel. Dispensationalists believe that Joel's prophesiedoutpouring will occur in their yet future Jewish tribulation period andmillennium, inanage inwhich there isnobaptizingworkof theHolySpirit.1There is a note of irony here. The Pentecost outpouring is identified as thebaptismoftheHolySpirit(Acts1:5;10:44-48;11:15-18),thatdivineworkthatputsoneintotheBodyofChrist,thechurchuniversal(1Corinthians12:13).Yetdispensationalistssaythatthetrueoutpouring,theonegenuinelyforeseenbytheprophet,will occur in an age inwhich there is nobaptizingworkof theHoly

Spirit,fordispensationalistshavenoplaceforeitherthechurchorthebaptismoftheHolySpiritintheirearthlymillennialprogram.

HowdodispensationalistsdealwithPeter'swordsatPentecost?The followingquotation from Merrill F. Unger is typical of many dispensationalists'understandingofthispassage:

Peter's phraseology "this is that" means nothing more than "this is [anillustrationofthat]whichwasspokenbytheprophetJoel"(Acts2:16).Inthereferencethereisnottheslightesthintatacontinuedfulfillmentduringthechurchageor a coming fulfillment toward theendof thechurchage.The reference is solely in an illustrative sense to Jewish listeners atPentecost.Fulfillmentof Joel'sprophecy is still futureandawaitsChrist'ssecond coming in glory and a copious spiritual outpouring ushering inkingdomblessing(cf.Zech.12:10-13:1;Acts1:6,7).2

Accordingtoanotherdispensationalwriter:

Peter says that the events of Acts 2 are what Joel spoke of but notnecessarilythefulfillmentofwhatJoelspokeof!3

The writer goes on to speak of the Pentecostal event as containing "abreakthrough" and "a specimen" of the kingdom age prophesied by Joel.DispensationalistsfeelfreetointerpretPeter'swords"thisisthat"inalessthanliteralmannersotheycaninterpretJoel'sprophecywithadispensationallystrictliterality.

Interestingly,theultra-dispensationalistsbelievethatJoel'sprophecydidhaveadirect fulfillmentonPentecost.4According toultra-dispensationalists, therearethreepeoplesofGod:OldTestamentIsrael,theearlyJewishPetrinechurch,andthe later Pauline "Body of Christ" Christian church. Since ultra-dispensationalists associatePentecost exclusivelywith the early Jewish churchand not with the Christian church, they can allow a fulfillment of Jewishprophecy in Acts and still consistentlymaintain the dispensational dichotomybetween Israel and the Christian church. Just as dispensationalists believe theSermonon theMount to be Jewish truthnot directly related to the church, sosomeultra-dispensationalistsbelievethebookofActsandalltheNewTestamentepistleswrittenduringthattimeperiodtobeJewishtruthnotdirectlyrelatedto

theChristianchurch.

Dispensationalists argue for their futuristic view of Joel's prophecy from theprophecy'smentionofcataclysmiceventsintheheavens.Theyaskwheninthechurch age was the sun turned to darkness and when did the moon becomeblood?IntheOldTestament,however,similarlanguagewasusedtodescribethenationaldisastersprophesiedforBabylon(Isaiah13:10),Egypt(Ezekiel32:7-8),andEdomandtheGentilenationsingeneral(Isaiah34:4-5).Historicalaccountsofthefallofancientpoliticalempiresmaybeboringtous,buttherewasnothingboringaboutthepropheciesofsucheventsfortheancientJews.Theprophesiedfall of these powerful, antagonistic pagan powers were events poeticallycomparable to the fall of stars and the darkening of the sun. For the ancientpeople who were exposed to the splendor and glory of, for example, ancientBabylon,thefallofthatcitywouldhaveseemedaboutaslikelyasthefalloftheheavenly bodies that ruled the sky. TheBible speaks of the sun andmoon asrulers over the heavenly realm (Genesis 1:16) whose continuing rule is ametaphorforpermanency(Jeremiah31:35-36).Thisismyunderstandingofthislanguage. Others view such language as a literal description of the secondcomingofChrist andbelieve that theprophets spokeof theseancientnationaljudgmentsintermsofthefinaljudgmentorinconjunctionwithadescriptionofthefinaljudgment.WhatiscertainisthatBiblicalpropheticlanguagesometimesassociates cataclysmic events in the heavens with the fall of supposedlyinfallible and everlasting political systems. First century Judeawas nomightypoliticalpowerbutitwasGod'schosennationandregardedbyfirstcenturyJewsasunderGod'sprotection.Itsfallanddestructionwasunthinkable.

IbelieveJoelusedthislanguageassociatedwithcataclysmicnationaljudgmentstorefertothegeneralprinciplethatGodpoursoutHiswrathuponHisenemiesaswellasHisSpirituponHispeople.TheconqueringMessiah throughout thenew covenant era leads the horsemen of the Apocalypse in judgment againstthose nations that reject Him (Revelation 6). This general principle about theoutpouringofGod'swrathhadaspecialapplicationinGod'sjudgmentupontheapostate Jewish nation in 70A.D. (compare 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).At thetimeofJesus'crucifixion,therewereliteralsignsandwondersinheavenandonearth--the darkening of the sun, the quaking of the earth, the rending of therocks, the opening of graves (Matthew 27:45-54). Some who observed theseextraordinary events were filled with fear and smote their breasts (Matthew

27:54;Luke23:48),indicationsthatsomemayhaverecognizedtheseeventsaswarningsofacomingdivinejudgment.PeterinhisPentecostalsermonexhortedhis Jewish listeners to "be saved from this perverse generation!" (Acts 2:40).Thisexhortationhadreferencetosalvationfromthiscomingnationaljudgmentwhich Jesus had prophesied, and history testifies that the Jewish church wasdelivered from that catastrophe. Also, when Jesus prophesied this nationaljudgment,HeusedapocalypticlanguagesimilartothatfoundinJoel2(Matthew24:29;Luke21:11,25).ThisinterpretationofJoel2findsfurthersupportinJohntheBaptist's statement that theMessiahwould baptize not onlywith theHolySpirit but alsowith the fireof judgment (Matthew3:10-12; compareMalachi3:1-2;4:5-6).

Theprophecy inJoelasquotedbyPeteralsospokeabout"wonders inheavenabove, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, fire and vapor of smoke" (Acts2:19). In Jewish literature, the phrase signs and wonders is almost alwaysassociatedwithMosesandthedeliveranceofIsraelfromEgyptthroughmightyactsofGod.5ThelastwordsoftheFiveBooksofMosesare:

AndtherearosenotaprophetsinceinIsraellikeuntoMoses,whomtheLordknewfacetoface.InallthesignsandwonderswhichtheLordsenthimtodointhelandofEgypt,toPharoah,andtoallhisservants,andtoallhisland,andinallthatmightyhand,andinallthegreatterrorwhichMosesshowedinthesightofallIsrael.Deuteronomy34:10-12(compareActs7:36)

Joel'smentionof "blood, fire andvaporof smoke"pointed to theNile's beingturned to blood and the plague of outpoured hail and fire and to the fire andsmokeonMountSinai.Also,hismentionofthedarkenedsunsuggestedanotherof the ten plagues upon Egypt. The age of the Messiah was to include newwonders like thoseassociatedwith theexodus fromEgypt (Micah7:15).PeterproclaimedthatJesuswas"amanapprovedofGodamongyoubymiraclesandwonders and signs" (Acts 2:22). Indeed Jesus was the prophesied MessianicprophetlikeuntoMoses(Deuteronomy18:18;Acts3:22).Theapostles(aswellas those supernaturally gifted by the apostles through the laying on of hands)continuedtoperformMessianicsignsandwonders(Acts2:43;4:30;5:12;6:8;8:13; 14:3; 15:12) as signs of their genuine apostleship (2Corinthians 12:12).

ThementionofsignsandwondersinJoel'sprophecyisnobasisforteachingthatithasyettofindadirectfulfillment.

Lastly,dispensationalistssometimesarguethatonlytheirsystemcanadequatelyexplain the cessation of the gift of prophecy after the age of the apostles.Dispensationalists argue that if thekingdomperiodprophesied in Joel2 is thechurchage,thenthisageshouldbeanageofcontinuingprophecyandmiraclesin the daily lives of believers.6 There is a note of historical irony here.Dispensationalists argue that only their system can adequately countercharismaticclaimsthattherevelatorygiftsoftonguesandprophecyshouldbeanormative experiences throughout the church age. And yetmany PentecostalswhowereexposedtothedispensationalsystemthroughtheKeswickmovementreadilyacceptedthedispensationalsystemascompatiblewiththeirown.7

Joelprophesied theMessianicageof theSpirit inwhichall thepeopleofGodwouldreceivetheSpiritandspiritualgiftsinnewcovenantfullness.IntheOldTestament,thegiftofprophecywasassociatedwiththecomingoftheSpiritinpower upon a person (Numbers 11:25,29; 1 Samuel 10:10; 19:20). Joel'sprophecy described the new covenant age of spiritual fullness in terms ofprophesying, dreaming dreams and seeing visions, all of which the OldTestamentassociatedwith thepropheticoffice (Numbers12:6). Joel'smessagewasthat therewascominganageinwhichallGod'speoplewouldreceivetheSpirit with a fullness and power that was then associated with the propheticoffice. And indeed in this age, the least in the kingdom are greater than thegreatest of the old covenant prophets (Luke 7:28). I see no need to interpretJoel's prophecy as meaning that the whole new covenant age is to becharacterizedbyliteraldreams,visionsandprophecies.ItwasintimepastwhenGod spoke in these divers manners through the prophets (Hebrew 1:1). Joel,ministering"intimepast,"simplyspokeofthethenunknownfutureintermsoftheworkingoftheSpiritinthatage.

Therewas, admittedly, amore literal fulfillment of Joel's prophecy during thedaysoftheapostlesandtheNewTestamentprophets.Thiswastheperiodduringwhich the New Testament canon was not completed, the apostles were stillperforming signs and wonders as proofs of apostleship, the extraordinaryrevelatorygiftsoftheSpiritwerecommonamongthepeopleofGod,theJewishagehadnotyetendedwithfinalitythroughthedestructionofthetemple,andthe

churchwasadjustingtothedifferencesbetweentheoldandnewcovenants.Thisapostolicperiodwas foundationalandnotnormative for thenewcovenantage(Ephesians2:20).Through the inspiredcommittingof theapostolic revelationstoScriptureandthecompletingoftheNewTestamentcanon,thefaithwasoncefor all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Now, through this completed and allsufficient revelation, all the people ofGod have access to a greater propheticrevelationthanwasevergrantedtoanyprophetsofold.WiththewrittenWordand the illuminatingwork of the Spirit, the people ofGod are nowno longerdependentuponthepropheticelitefordivineteaching(1John2:27).Thisistheage inwhich allGod's peopleknow theLord from the least to thegreatest ofthem(Jeremiah31:34).8God'sperfectrevelationthroughJesusChristhasbeencommitted toScripture.Manyprophets and righteousmen longed to seewhatwenowseethroughthecompletedBiblebutdidnotseeit.

I see a parallel between the difficulties the modern day dispensationalist hasacceptingadirectfulfillmentofJoel2amongChristiansinthechurchageandthedifficultieswhichsomeearlyJewishChristianshadacceptingafulfillmentofJoel 2 among the uncircumcised Gentiles. To prepare Peter the Jew for thisevent,Godgavehima special instructivevision (Acts10:9- 16).And inActs10:44-45, we read of the total surprise experienced by some of the Jewishstudentsofprophecyin theearlychurchwhenJoel2foundits first fulfillmentamongbelievinguncircumcisedGentilesatthehouseofCornelius:

WhilePeteryetspakethesewords,theHolyGhostfellonall themwhichheard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed wereastonished,asmanyascamewithPeter,because thaton theGentilesalsowaspouredoutthegiftoftheHolyGhost.

TheHolySpiritwaspouredoutonthebelievinguncircumcisedGentilesevenasHehadbeenpouredoutuponbelievingJewsatPentecost (Acts10:47;11:15).Joel2hadspecificallyprophesiedthattheSpiritwouldbepouredoutupon"allflesh," but these early Jewish Christians had apparently assumed that thisuniversal term referred strictly to the Spirit's being givenwithout reference tosex, ageor economic statuswithin Israel.Thisnewcovenantoutpouringuponuncircumcised Gentiles did not fit their preconceived understanding of theprophet'smessage.The issueof thespiritualequalityofuncircumcisedGentilebelieverswithinnewcovenant Israel continued toplague the early churchand

wasnotofficiallysettleduntiltheJerusalemcouncilofActs15.

AttheJerusalemcouncil,therewasadditionalNewTestamentrevelationonthefulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy. This Old Testament prophecy isquotedinActs15:13-17inJames'speechattheJerusalemcouncil:

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men andbrethren,hearkenuntome:SimeonhathdeclaredhowGodatthefirstdidvisit theGentiles, to takeoutof themapeople forHisname.And to thisagreethewordsoftheprophets;asitiswritten,AfterthisIwillreturn,andwillbuildagain the tabernacleofDavid,which is fallendown;and Iwillbuild again the ruins thereof, and Iwill set it up: that the residueofmenshall seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whomMy name iscalled,saiththeLord,whodoethallthesethings.

The issuebefore thecouncilwas thestatusofGentileChristians in thechurchage. Some Jewish Christians were contending that it was necessary for allGentileChristians tobe circumcised and tobe required toobserve all theOldTestamentceremonial laws. Inotherwords,someJewishChristianswantedalltheGentileconvertstobecomeJewishproselytes,tobecomemembersofIsraelin theOldTestament sense.At the Jerusalemcouncil,Peter argued that in thechurch age, neither Jew nor Gentile had to bear the yoke of observing theceremoniallawinordertoreceivethefullcovenantalstatusofatrueJew.PeterpointedoutthatGodhadgiventheHolySpiritatCornelius'housejustasfreelyto uncircumcisedGentile believers as He had givenHim to Jewish believers.PaulandBarnabus then related"whatmiraclesandwondersGodhadwroughtamongtheGentilesbythem."ThenJamesmadehisclimacticspeechinwhichhepointedout that thewordsof theprophets agreedwithwhatPeterhad saidaboutGod's taking "out of (theGentiles) a people forHis name" for the firsttimeatCornelius'house.Herewehave thewordsof theJewishprophets,whowere supposedly ignorant of the church age, agreeingwith and confirming anevent in the church age. James then paraphrased Amos 9:11-12, a prophecywhich in the contextofAmospromised that sometimeafter thedestructionofnorthern Israel byAssyria,Godwould again return to Israel in a visitation ofblessingtorebuildandtorestoretheDavidickingdomsothat"alltheGentiles,uponwhom(God's)nameiscalled,""mightseekaftertheLord."JamesviewedthisOld Testament prophecy aboutGentiles' being included in the covenantalprogramasbeingfulfilledbytheinclusionofuncircumcisedGentilebelieversin

theNewTestamentchurch.

ThedispensationalistshavetheirowninterpretationofJames'useofAmos9atthe Jerusalem council. I believe the following paraphrase fairly represents thedispensational interpretationofActs15:15-17found in theScofieldReferenceBible:9

AfterGodhastakenoutapeopleforHisnamefromamongtheGentilestoformthechurch(whichSimeonrelatedwouldoccurfirstbeforethesecondadvent), thesecondadventofChristwilloccurandChristwill reestablishtheDavidicruleoverIsraelinorderthatIsraelitesmayseekaftertheLordandalsoinorderthatallthemillennialGentilesmaydothesame.

The dispensationalists stress thewordsafter and first in James' speech. Theyteach that James addressed the issue of Gentile equality in the church bypointing out that the newly inaugurated and parenthetical period of Gentileblessing must come first and the prophesied period of Jewish blessing mustcomeafterwards.Thedispensationalistsinterpretthisaspropheticevidencethatthere was to be a time of Gentile blessing and that God's special millennialprogramforIsraelhadnotbeenabandoned.10

There are several inaccuracies in the above that make the exegesisunacceptable.11First,thephrase"afterthis"inAmosdoesnotreferto"afterGodhas taken out a people for His name from among the Gentiles to form thechurch,"aninterpretationthatputsthetimereferenceaftertheentirechurchagein a Jewishmillennium. "After this" does not relate chronologically to James'previousstatementaboutPeter'stestimonyconcerningthecallingoftheGentileCornelius (Acts 15:14). "After this" must be related chronologically to thecontext in Amos. The prophecy of Amos was directed primarily against thenorthernkingdomofIsrael,andthecontextofAmos9referstotheprophesiedscattering of the northern kingdom of Israel, which was fulfilled by theAssyriansunderSargonin722B.C.(Amos9:9-10).Therefore,thephrase"afterthis,"which is James'paraphraseofAmos'phrase "in thatday" (compare Joel2:28 and Acts 2:17), referred to the time of the establishment of the NewTestamentchurch,whichwastheprophesiedspiritualrenewalinIsraelaftertheprophesiedscattering.

Ifdispensationalistsinterpret"afterthis"tomeanafterthechurchage,thenthat

interpretationcontradictsthedispensationalparenthesistheory.Accordingtotheparenthesis theory, the church age was not foreseen in any Old Testamentprophecy.IfAmosknewaboutthechurchageasaperiodofGentileopportunitybeforetheJewishmillennium,thentheparenthesistheoryiswrong.IfAmosdidnotknowaboutthecomingchurchage,then"afterthis"couldnotmeanafterthechurchage.

Dr.JohnF.Walvoordseemstointerpret"afterthis"asmeaningafterthetimesofthe Gentiles. The times of the Gentiles in dispensational interpretation is thatperiodfromtheBabyloniancaptivitytotheendofDaniel'sseventyweeksduringwhichJerusalemisunderGentilepoliticalrule.Thechurchageisaparentheticalinterruption in the dispensational times of the Gentiles, which are nowaccomplished except for the future seven year tribulation period,which is theseventieth of Daniel's seventy weeks.12 Dr. Walvoord identifies the "this" of"afterthis"with"theperiodofGentileopportunity"and"theGentileperiod."Dr.Walvoord then argues that James was quoting Amos' statement that therestoration of the Davidic kingdom would occur after the Gentile period asevidence that thedivinevisitationupontheGentileswhichbeganatCornelius'house in Acts 10 was to occur first before the millennial period of Jewishblessing.13Inanotherbook,Dr.Walvoordsaysthefollowing:

It was difficult for the Jews to understand that for the time being theGentiles shouldhaveaplaceof equalitywith Israel, inviewof themanyprophecies in the Old Testament which anticipated Israel's pre-eminenceandglory...

...itseemsthat"afterthesethingsIwillreturn"referstothereturnofChristafter the period of Gentile prominence which began in 606 B.C. and isdestined to continueuntil the second coming. It is after these things--i.e.,judgment on Israel, their scattering, anddiscipline--thatChristwill returnandbuildagainthetabernacleortentofDavid...

... The divine order therefore is judgment on Israel and blessing uponGentilefirst,tobefollowedbyjudgmentonGentileandblessingonIsrael.This isnotonly theorderof theOldTestament,but it is theorderof thisportioninActs...14

IfDr.Walvoordissayingthat"afterthis"means"afterthetimesoftheGentiles,"

thenthatinterpretationdoesnotcontradictthedispensationalparenthesistheory.That interpretation, however, does take away any relevance theAmospassagewouldhavehadtothecontroversyoverthespiritualequalityofGentilesinthechurch age. All the passagewould have said is that after the time of Gentilepolitical rule over Jerusalem, Gentile political superiority over Israel will endandtheDavidicpoliticalkingdomwillberestored.Amos'prophecywouldhavesaid nothing about the church age and nothing about spiritual equality forGentiles. According to dispensational theory, there is no spiritual equality forGentilesduring the"timesof theGentiles"exceptduring theparentheticalandunrevealedchurchage,ofwhichAmoswouldhavebeentotallyunaware.IsDr.WalvoordsayingthatJames'argumentwasthatjustasthereistobenoJewishpoliticalsuperiorityuntilafterthetimesoftheGentiles,sobyanalogytheJewisto have no spiritual superiority over the Gentiles until after the times of theGentiles? This, however, would not be a valid argument. The Jewswill havespiritualsuperiorityovertheGentilesinthelastsevenyearsofthetimesoftheGentiles, according to dispensationalism. During the future seven yeartribulationperiod,which isafter theparentheticalchurchageand is the lastofDaniel'sseventyweeks,theOldTestamenteconomywillberestored.

Second, theword first in the sentence "SimeonhathdeclaredhowGod at thefirstdidvisittheGentiles,totakeoutofthemapeopleforHisname,"doesnotmeanfirstinsequencebeforeaJewishmillennium.JamesisreferringtoPeter'stestimonyabouttheintroductionoftheGospelintothehouseofCornelius(Acts15:7-9;Acts10),wheretheGospelwasintroducedtouncircumcisedGentilesforthefirsttimeandthereforesequentiallyfirstbeforethemiracleswroughtamongtheGentilesthroughPaulandBarnabus.

Third,theclause"Iwillreturn"doesnotrefertothesecondadvent.ThisclauseisnotfoundintheAmospassage,andsomecommentatorssuggestthatitmaybebased on Jeremiah 12:15 where the return is a return of favor and a divinevisitationofblessing.TheHebrewofJeremiah12:15literallysays"Iwillreturnand have compassion," and theNew InternationalVersion translates this as "Iwillagainhavecompassion."ThesameGreekwordtranslatedreturninActs15isfoundintheLXXtranslationofGenesis18:10&14.TheretheAngeloftheLordpromised to return toAbrahamandbless himwith a son throughSarah.Thiswas fulfilled through a visitation of blessing recorded inGenesis 21:1-2,notthroughaliteralbodilyreturn.Theconceptofavisitationofblessingisnot

uncommonintheOldTestament.15

Fourth, the phrase "the residue of men" does not refer to Israel. There is noreference to Israel in this quotation fromAmos 9, yet theScofieldReferenceBible specifically identifies the phrase "the residue of men" with "Israelites."ThisphraseistheSeptuaginttranslationoftheoriginalHebrew"theremnantofEdom."OnecanviewthisasaparaphrasethatinterpretativelyviewedEdomassymbolic for all theGentile enemies of Israel (compare Isaiah 34:1-5).Or theexplanationmaybethattheearlyHebrewtextdidnothavethevowelpointsandthe Hebrew words for Edom and mankind (i.e., adam) without the vowelpointing are almost identical. Regardless of the correct explanation for theparaphrase, this passage specifically states that the house of David would bereestablishedinorderthatGentilesmightseektheLord.ThepassagefromAmospointstotheMessianicageasatimeofspecialspiritualblessingsuponGentiles,and James used this teaching as an argument for recognizing and acceptingGod'sspiritualblessingsupontheGentilesinthechurchage.ThedispensationalpositionisthattheMessianicagespokenofinAmosisnotthechurchagebutayetfutureJewishmillenniumandthatJamesquotedAmostoprovethatthetimeof special Jewish blessing follows the time of Gentile blessing. The Amospassage, however, presents theMessianic age as a period of Gentile spiritualblessings,notasanageofJewishblessingfollowinganageofGentileblessing.

Fifth, the dispensational interpretation fails to see the obvious connectionbetween "the heathen, which are called by My name" in Amos 9:12 (Acts15:17)andCornelius'householdwhere"GodatthefirstdidvisittheGentiles,totake out of them a people forHis name" (Acts 15:14). In the dispensationalinterpretation,thefirstphrasereferstomillennialGentilesandthesecondphrasereferstochurchageGentiles.

Sixth,thedispensationalinterpretationofthispassagedoesnotrelatewelltotheissueofthespiritualequalityofJewsandGentilesinthechurch,theissuebeforethe Jerusalemcouncil.DispensationalistCharlesL.Feinbergapparently agreeswithmethatJamesquotedaprophecyaboutGentilesintheMessianicageasanargumentforthereligiousequalityofJewsandGentilesinthechurchage:

It was left to James to make the concluding remarks. He pointed to thetestimony of Peter,which showed conclusively thatGodwas visiting theGentiles "to take out of them a people for his name." Then followed his

statementastotheharmonizationofthatwiththereturnoftheLordandthesettingupoftheDavidickingdomwiththeconversionofthoseinIsraelandtheGentilesalso.16

IviewthechurchageasthefulfillmentofAmos9andDr.Feinbergdoesnotinaccordancewiththeparenthesis theory.HeinsteadseesAmos9asreferringtothe dispensational millennium and relates it to the church age as a"harmonization."ButwhatisharmoniousbetweenthedispensationalmillenniumandthechurchagespiritualequalityofbelievingJewsandGentiles?Accordingto dispensationalistDr. J.Dwight Pentecost, Israel in themillennium "will beexalted above the Gentiles," "the Gentiles will be Israel's servants," and "thedistinctionofIsraelfromtheGentileswillagainberesumed."17AccordingtoDr.Feinberg, "Thenations in thekingdomwill recognize the favoredconditionofIsrael..."and"...Israelwillalsoruleoverthenationsunderthedirectcommandof theKing."18According toDr. JohnF.Walvoord: "Incontrast to thepresentchurch age in which Jew and Gentile are on an equal plane of privilege, themillennium is clearly a period of time in which Israel is in prominence andblessing."19 If the dispensational interpretation of the millennial situation iscorrect,thenthepartyofthecircumcisionwhowantedGentilesadmittedintothechurch as they had been admitted into the synagogue (i.e. as circumcisedproselytes)couldhavemadebetteruseof thispassage thandid James.20 Theycould have argued that the prophesied inferior status of spiritually blessedmillennial Gentiles is evidence for a similarly inferior status for church ageGentiles.

Scofield in his reference Bible notes described this passage in Acts 15 as"dispensationally ... themost important passage in the New Testament."21 Hewas perhaps correct, but not in the sense that he intended. The correctinterpretation of this passage demonstrates that, contrary to dispensationalclaims,aprophecyaboutIsraelandtheJewishDavidiccovenantisheredeclaredtobefulfilledinandthroughtheChristianchurchinthechurchage.

I would like to discuss the New Testament's use of one last Old Testamentprophecy. We read in Acts 13 that Paul spoke to the synagogue at PisidianAntiochaboutJesusofNazarethasthefulfillmentofMessianicprophecy.Acts13:44-48recordswhathappenedonthefollowingSabbath:

Andthenextsabbathdaycamealmost thewholecitytogethertohearthewordofGod.ButwhentheJewssawthemultitudes,theywerefilledwithenvy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul,contradictingandblaspheming.ThenPaulandBarnabuswaxedbold, andsaid,ItisnecessarythatthewordofGodshouldfirsthavebeenspokentoyou: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy ofeverlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lordcommanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of theGentiles, thatthou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.Andwhen theGentilesheardthis,theywereglad,andglorifiedthewordoftheLord:andasmanyaswereordainedtoeternallifebelieved.

Here we have Paul quoting Isaiah 49:6, one of the many Old TestamentpropheciesaboutthespiritualblessingsthatweretocomeupontheGentilesinthe age of theMessiah.22 If the dispensationalist is to hold to his parenthesistheorywithstrictconsistency,hewoulddirectlyrelatethesepropheciesaboutthenationstomillennialGentilesandrelatethesepropheciestothechurchageonlyindirectly.Accordingtotheparenthesistheory,theOldTestamentprophetsweretotallyignorantofthecomingchurchageandspokenopropheticwordaboutthechurch age. Also, some of these prophecies spoke about the coming spiritualblessings upon theGentiles in terms of theOldTestament systemofworship.Forexample,Malachi1:11says:

For from the risingof the sunevenunto thegoingdownof the samemynameshallbegreatamongtheGentiles;andineveryplaceincenseshallbeoffered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name shall be greatamongtheheathen,saiththeLordofhosts.

Fortheconsistentdispensationalist,theseprophecieshavenodirectreferencetothechurchage.Therefore,Dr.J.DwightPentecostisonlybeingconsistentwhenhe uses Isaiah 49:6 as a proof text for the statement: "the fact of Gentiles'participationinthemillenniumispromisedinthepropheticScriptures."23Paul,however,believedthathewasanagentforanactualfulfillmentofthisprophecy.

The Old Testament prophets spoke about the coming day when Israel wouldenlarge her tent to include the Gentiles (Isaiah 54:2). All three of the OldTestamentpropheciesthatwehaveexaminedinthischapterhaverelatedtothisthemeof thedaywhenGod'scovenantalblessingwouldbeuponall fleshand

not just upon physical Israel. In all three cases, we have seen thatdispensationalists refer theseprophecies toa futureJewishmillenniumand theNew Testament refers these prophecies to the present church age. The NewTestament's use of Old Testament prophecy contradicts the dispensationalparenthesistheory.

EndNotes

1 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),pages271,486;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheRyrieStudyBible:TheNewTestament(Chicago:MoodyPress,1976),pages208-209(noteonActs2:16-21);JohnB.Graber,"Ultra-Dispensationalism"(dissertation,DallasTheologicalSeminary,1949),pages88-89.

2 MerrillF.Unger,NewTestamentTeachingonTongues(GrandRapids:KregelPublications,1971),page26.

3 JosephDillow,SpeakinginTongues:SevenCrucialQuestions(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1975),page105.SeealsoPaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy(Rockville,Maryland:AssurancePublishers,1974),pages183-185.

4 JohnB.Graber,"Ultra-Dispensationalism,"page85.5 GerhardFriedrich,editor;GeoffreyW.Bromiley,editor,TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament,10vols.(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1971),7:216,221.

6 JosephDillow,SpeakinginTongues:SevenCrucialQuestions,page101.7 "Dispensationalism,whichfitsowellwiththePentecostalandholinessideasofthe'AgeoftheSpirit,'easilygainedacceptanceinthenewPentecostalmovement,eventhoughScofield-typedispensationalistsmaintainedthattonguesceasedwiththeapostles."

GeorgeM.Marsden,FundamentalismandAmericanCulture:TheShapingofTwentieth-CenturyEvangelicalism:1870-1925(NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1980),page94.

"TheKeswickmovement,asweshallsee,wasabsolutelycrucialtothedevelopmentofPentecostalism....thatwingofthePentecostalmovementwhichhadearlierconnectionswithWesleyanismbecamePentecostalbyacceptingKeswick(i.e.Calvinist)teachingsondispensationalism,

premillennialismandtheBaptismoftheHolySpirit."

RobertMapesAnderson,VisionoftheDisinherited:TheMakingofAmericanPentecostalism(NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1979),page43.

8 "Thecorrectunderstandingofthewordsresultsfromarightperceptionofthecontrastinvolved,viz.thatundertheoldcovenanttheknowledgeoftheLordwasconnectedwiththemediationofpriestsandprophets."

C.F.KeilandF.Delitzsch,CommentaryontheOldTestamentinTenVolumes:VolumeVIII:Jeremiah,Lamentations(GrandRapids:WilliamB.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1973),2:40.

9 C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1909),pages1169-1170(noteonActs15:13);seealsoCharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith(Neptune,N.J.:LoizeauxBrothers,1953),pages102-103;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page133;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),pages204-207;JohnF.Walvoord,IsraelinProphecy(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1962),pages91-93;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheRyrieStudyBible:TheNewTestament,page236(noteonActs15:15-17).

10 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages205-206;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheRyrieStudyBible:TheNewTestament,page236(noteonActs15:15-17).

11 SeealsoWilliamEverettBell,Jr.,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePre-tribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology"(dissertation,SchoolofEducationofNewYorkUniversity,1967),pages197-203.

12 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages314-316;C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible,page1345(noteonRevelation16:19).

13 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page205.14 JohnF.Walvoord,IsraelinProphecy,pages91-93.15 paqad:Genesis21:1;50:24-25;Exodus13:19;Ruth1:6;Psalm65:9;Jeremiah15:15;29:10;32:5;shub:Genesis18:10,14;2Chronicles30:6;Psalm6:4;80:14;90:13;Isaiah63:17;Jeremiah12:15;Zechariah1:3;Malachi3:7.

16CharlesL.Feinberg,Millennialism:TheTwoMajorViews,ThirdandEnlargedEdition(Chicago:MoodyPress,1936),page154.SeealsoPaulLee

Tan,TheInterpretationofProphecy,pages128-130.17 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages507,508,519-520.18CharlesL.Feinberg,Millennialism:TheTwoMajorViews,page186.19 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages302-303.20DanielPaytonFuller,"TheHermeneuticsofDispensationalism"(dissertation,NorthernBaptistTheologicalSeminary,1957),page347,footnote18.

21C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible,page1169(noteonActs15:13).

22 Psalm22:27-30;68:29-31;72:8-11,17;Isaiah2:2-5;11:9-10;19:24-30;42:1-4;45:14;49:6-7,22-23;52:10;54:1-3;60:3f.;65:1;66:19;Jeremiah16:19;Amos9:11-12;Zechariah2:3-13;8:20-24;Malachi1:11.

23 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page508.

Chapter4TheNewCovenant,PartOne

Beforediscussingthenewcovenant,Iwouldliketoreviewthebasicdistinctionbetween dispensationalism and Reformed theology. This basic distinctionrevolves around the concepts of unity in reference to God's people andcontinuity in reference to God's program. First, according to Reformedtheology,thepeopleofGodinallagesareinunionwithChristandarethereforetogetherunitedintheuniversalchurch,whichis theBodyandBrideofChrist.Accordingtodispensationalism,onlythosewhoaresavedbetweenthePentecostofActs2andtheendtimeraptureare in theuniversalchurch.Inotherwords,Mary,themotherofJesus,willbeintheBrideofChrist,butJosephherhusbandwho died before Pentecost will only be a guest at the wedding of the Lamb.Also,JohntheApostlewillbeintheBodyofChristineternity,butnotJohntheBaptist. According to dispensationalism, the Old Testament saints who diedbeforeActs2arenottobemadeperfecttogetherwiththeNewTestamentsaints(compare Hebrews 11:39-40), but are instead to remain spiritually inferiorthroughout eternity, never being in the Body and Bride of Christ. Second,accordingtoReformedtheology,theNewTestamentchurchisacontinuationofthe Old Testament program and is directly rooted in the Old Testamentcovenants. According to dispensationalism, the New Testament church is aparenthesisintheprogrambegunintheOldTestament,notacontinuationoftheprogram. They continue the Old Testament program in a future JewishmillenniumthatisaglorifiedextensionoftheDavidicnationalkingdomandtheMosaicceremoniallaws.

Letusnowgoonwithourexaminationofthedispensationaltheorybylookingat the dispensational teaching on the new covenant. Since those twenty-sevenbooksofScripture thatwerewrittenafter the lifeof Jesusarenamed theNewTestament or covenant, one would expect that all Christians woulduncompromisinglyacknowledgetheChristiannatureofthenewcovenant.Suchan acknowledgment, however, is not easy or simple for the consistentdispensationalist. As it turns out, when the dispensationalist tries to bendScripture tofithissystem, theBiblicaldataonthenewcovenant isamongthemost stubbornly unyielding and uncooperative. Dr. Charles C. Ryrie says the

followingaboutdispensationalinterpretationofthenewcovenant:

Although thenewcovenant is oneof themajor covenants ofScripture, aclearstatementofitsmeaningandofitsrelationshiptothe[dispensational]premillennial system is needed. Even among [dispensational]premillennialists there seems to be a lack of knowledge concerning thiscovenant.1

[Dispensational] premillennialists are divided into three groups as far astheirinterpretationofthenewcovenantisconcerned.Thisdoesnotevinceweakness,fornotoneoftheviewscontradictsthesystem.2

The classic passage on the new covenant is Jeremiah 31. Please take note:JeremiahisanOldTestamentprophecy,anddispensationaliststeachthatnoOldTestament prophecy can refer directly to the New Testament church.Dispensationalists interpret Jeremiah 30 and 31 as referring to their futuristictribulationperiodwhich is tooccurafter the raptureof thechurchand to theirJudaisticmillennium.3The"timeofJacob'strouble"(Jeremiah30:7)isidentifiedwith theseven-year tribulationperiod,and thenewcovenantofJeremiah31 isviewed as a millennial blessing upon Israel. According to Dr. J. DwightPentecost:

ThiscovenantmustfollowthereturnofChristatthesecondadvent.4

Thiscovenantwillberealizedinthemillennialage.5

Regardless of the relationship of the church to the new covenant asexplainedinthesethreeviews,thereisonegeneralpointofagreement:thenewcovenantofJeremiah31:31-34mustandcanbefulfilledonlyby thenationIsraelandnotbytheChurch.6

AccordingtoDr.JohnF.Walvoord,

... the [dispensational] premillennial position is that the new covenant iswith Israel and the fulfillment in themillennial kingdomafter the secondcomingofChrist.7

The [dispensational] premillennial view, though varying in detail, insiststhatthenewcovenantasrevealedintheOldTestamentconcernsIsraelandrequiresfulfillmentinthemillennialkingdom.8

AccordingtoDr.CharlesC.Ryrie,

...itcanbeshownthattheperiodofthenewcovenantismillennial.9

Also,Jeremiah'snewcovenantprophecyistobemade"withthehouseofIsraelandwiththehouseofJudah"(Jeremiah31:31),anddispensationaliststeachtheirstrong dichotomy between Israel and the church. In other words, what has aprophecyforIsraeltodowiththeNewTestamentchurchinadirectandprimarysense? Nothing, says the consistent dispensationalist. So, for the consistentdispensationalist, the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 must be for the Jewishmillenniumandnotfor thechurchage.For thenewcovenant tobefulfilledinandbythechurchwouldbetoabrogatethenewcovenantwithIsraelandtoalteritsmostessentialmeaningandintention.10ThesignificanceofthispointcanbeseeninthefollowingquotationbyDr.J.DwightPentecost:

Ifthechurchfulfillsthiscovenant,shemayalsofulfilltheothercovenantsmadewithIsraelandthereisnoneedforanearthlymillennium.11

AccordingtoDr.Ryrie:

IfthechurchisfulfillingIsrael'spromisesascontainedinthenewcovenantor anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism iscondemned.12

WehaveseenthatdispensationalistsinterprettheOldTestamentdataonthenewcovenant as referring solely to the nation Israel in a futuremillennium.WhenonecomestotheNewTestamentdataonthenewcovenant,thisdispensationaltheoryencounterssomecriticalcomplications.Forexample,inHebrews8:6-13,the inspiredwritercalledChrist"themediatorofabettercovenant,whichwasestablishedonbetterpromises"and thenquotedextensively fromtheJeremiahnewcovenantprophecy. InHebrews10:14-18, the inspiredwriterquoted fromtheJeremiahnewcovenantprophecyinanargumentfor thediscontinuationofanimal sacrifices in the church age. This indeed is ironic, for thedispensationalistrefersthisJeremiahnewcovenantprophecyinsteadtoaJewish

millennium in which animal sacrifices are renewed! In Hebrews 12:22-24,severalOldTestamentconcepts,likeMountZion,Jerusalem,thebloodofAbel,andthenewcovenant,areapplieddirectlytotheChristian.In2Corinthians3,Paul called himself and Timothy "ministers of the new testament." As if toremoveanydoubtaboutwhichnewcovenanthewasreferringto,Paulinverse3mentions the Jeremiah new covenant concept of writing on human hearts(Jeremiah 31:33).When Christ inaugurated the Lord's Supper, He said, "Thiscup is the new testament inMy blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20).Whatdid theJewishdisciplesassociatewith this statement?Undoubtedly theyrelated it to Jeremiah 31.What other new testament (i.e. covenant)were theyawareof?

Surelyyoucannowseethattheconsistentdispensationalisthasaproblemwiththenewcovenant.Accordingtoaconsistentapplicationofbasicdispensationalassumptionsandthedispensationalhermeneutic,thenewcovenantofJeremiah31isforIsraelinaJewishmillennium,notfortheNewTestamentchurchinthechurch age.Dispensationalists are divided among three suggested solutions tothisseriousproblemintheirsystem.

Let us begin by examining the theory most consistent with dispensationalassumptions,thetheoryofDrs.LewisSperryChaferandJohnF.Walvoord,thefirst two presidents of Dallas Theological Seminary. This theory asserts thattherearetwonewcovenantsinScripture,oneforIsraelandoneforthechurch.Ifanewcovenantpassagerelates to Israel, then thepassage is referring to theJewish new covenant of the Jewish millennium. If a new covenant passagerelates to the New Testament church, then the passage is referring to theChristian new covenant of the church age. The following quotations by Drs.Chafer,Walvoord, andPentecost respectively further explain the two-covenantview:

There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenlypeople, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel, a "newcovenant."ItismadeinthebloodofChrist(cf.Mark14:24)andcontinuesineffect throughoutthisage,whereasthenewcovenantmadewithIsraelhappenstobefutureinitsapplication.Tosupposethatthesetwocovenants--one for Israelandone for theChurch --are thesame is toassume thatthereisalatitudeofcommoninterestbetweenGod'spurposeforIsraeland

HispurposefortheChurch.13

[Dispensational] premillenarians are in agreement that the new covenantwith Israel awaits its complete fulfillment in the millennial kingdom.However, there exists some difference of opinion how the new covenantrelatestothepresentinteradventage....

Thepointofviewthatholdstotwocovenantsinthepresentagehascertainadvantages.ItprovidesasensiblereasonforestablishingtheLord'ssupperfor believers in this age in commemorationof thebloodof the covenant.The languageof1Corinthians11:25seems to require it: "Thiscup is thenewcovenantinMyblood:thisdo,asoftenasyedrinkit,inremembranceof Me." It hardly seems reasonable to expect Christians to distinguishbetweenthecupandthenewcovenantwhentheseappeartobeidentifiedinthis passage. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, Paul speaking of himself states: "Oursufficiency is ofGod:who alsomade us sufficient asministers of a newcovenant."ItwouldbedifficulttoadjusttheministryofPaulasaministerof the new covenant if, in fact, there is no new covenant for the presentage.14

This view holds that there are two new covenants presented in the NewTestament;thefirstwithIsraelinreaffirmationofthecovenantpromisedinJeremiah31and the secondmadewith the church in this age.Thisview,essentially, would divide the references to the new covenant in the NewTestament into twogroups.The references in thegospelsand inHebrews8:6; 9:15; 10:29; and 13:20 would refer to the new covenant with thechurch,Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:16would refer to the new covenantwithIsrael, andHebrews12:24would refer, perhaps, toboth, emphasizing thefact of themediation accomplished and the covenantprogramestablishedwithoutdesignatingtherecipients.15

This theory is a pristine and pure application of the dispensational dichotomybetween Israel and the church, but it requires amazingly strained exegesis toreconcileitwiththeScripturaldata.AcloserexaminationoftheNewTestamentpassages on the new covenant will naturally show the artificial nature of thistwo-covenanttheory.

Some of New Testament data on the new covenant not only relates a new

covenant to the church but also clearly relates the Jewish Jeremiah 31 newcovenanttothechurch.OnesuchpassageisHebrews8:6-13:

6 ButnowhathHeobtainedamoreexcellentministry,byhowmuchalsoHeisthemediatorofabettercovenant,whichwasestablisheduponbetterpromises.

7 Forifthatfirstcovenanthadbeenfaultless,thenshouldnoplacehavebeensoughtforthesecond.

8 Forfindingfaultwiththem,Hesaith,Behold,thedayscome,saiththeLord,whenIwillmakeanewcovenantwiththehouseofIsraelandwiththehouseofJudah....

13 InthatHesaith,Anewcovenant,Hehathmadethefirstold.Nowthatwhichdecayethandwaxetholdisreadytovanishaway.

Accordingtothetwo-covenantinterpretation,the"bettercovenant"ofverse6isthe churchnewcovenant but the "newcovenant" of verses 7-13 is the Jewishnewcovenantforthemillennium.Proponentsofthisviewpointoutthatthetextnever specifically equates the "better covenant" with the "new covenant" ofverses7-13.Thisissupposedtobeastrongargumentfromsilence.TheyarguethatthewriterofHebrewsquotedtheJeremiahnewcovenantpassagetoprovethattheMosaiccovenantwastemporarybutthathedidnotintendtoleavetheimpressionthatthe"bettercovenant"ofverse6isthenewcovenantmentionedinthequotationfromJeremiah.16

Accordingtothedispensationalunderstandingofprophecy,thechurchageisanunforeseen parenthesis in the prophetic program between the sixty-ninth andseventieth of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9. Therefore it would have beenimpossible for Jeremiah to have foreseen the church new covenant. The newcovenantprophesiedbyJeremiahmusttakeeffectinthemillenniumaftertheyetfuture seventiethweek (i.e., the tribulation), not in the unforeseen church agebetweenweekssixty-nineandseventy.

The two-covenant theory dispensationalists are correct that the author ofHebrews would not have taught a church fulfillment for Jeremiah's newcovenantprophecyifhehadbeenaconsistentdispensationalist.If,however,theauthorofHebrewshadheldtothetwo-covenanttheory,hecouldhaveavoidedanyconfusionbycallingtheMosaiccovenantthefirstcovenant,thechurchnew

covenantthesecondcovenant,andtheJewishmillennialnewcovenantthethirdcovenant. The author of Hebrews instead in Hebrews 8:7 called the Mosaiccovenant the firstcovenantand theJewishnewcovenant thesecondcovenant.Assuming the authorofHebrewswas a two-covenant theorydispensationalist,we could speculate that he did not count the church new covenant in hiscalculations,eventhoughhehadmentioneditasthe"bettercovenant"ofverse6,becauseofitsparentheticalnature.

ThenewcovenantofJeremiah31isalsoquotedinHebrews10:14-18:

14 Forbyoneoffering[God]hathperfectedforeverthemthataresanctified.

15WhereoftheHolyGhostalsoisawitnesstous:forafterthathehadsaidbefore,

16 ThisisthecovenantthatIwillmakewiththemafterthosedays,saiththeLord,Iwillputmylawsintotheirhearts,andintheirmindswillIwritethem;

17 AndtheirsinsandiniquitieswillIremembernomore.18 Nowwhereremissionoftheseis,thereisnomoreofferingforsin.

HeretheauthorofHebrewsisquotingtheJeremiah31newcovenantprophecyastheclimaxofhisargumentforthediscontinuanceoftheLeviticalsacrificesinthechurchageandasadivinewitnesstous(i.e.toChristians,nottomillennialJews). Strangely, the two-covenant theory dispensationalists relate the abovepassage not to the church new covenant but to the Jewish millennial newcovenantwhichwillbeineffectwhen,accordingtomanydispensationalists,theLeviticalsacrificialsystemwillbereinstituted.Dr.Walvoordexplainsthat"thenewcovenantwithIsraelnotonlyanticipatedtheabrogationofthelawbutalsotheendofMosaicsacrificesasabasisforforgiveness."17 Ishesaying that theOld Testament Levitical sacrifices were a basis for forgiveness but that themillennialLeviticalsacrificeswillnotbeabasisforforgiveness?Theninwhatsensewere theOldTestament sacrifices abasis for forgiveness?Thebloodofbullsandgoatsnevertookawaysins(Hebrews10:4).Dr.Walvoordhimself,indefendingmillennialsacrifices,goesontosay,"ThemillennialsacrificesarenomoreexpiatorythanweretheMosaicsacrificeswhichprecededthecross."18

AnotherinterestingandrelevantpassageinHebrewsisHebrews12:22-24:

22 ButyearecomeuntomountSion,anduntothecityofthelivingGod,theheavenlyJerusalem,andtoaninnumerablecompanyofangels,

23 Tothegeneralassemblyandchurchofthefirstborn,whicharewritteninheaven,andtoGodtheJudgeofall,andtothespiritsofjustmenmadeperfect,

24 AndtoJesusthemediatorofthenewcovenant,andtothebloodofsprinkling,thatspeakethbetterthingsthanthatofAbel.

This passage is full of references to the Old Testament: Mount Zion, thesprinkledbloodofsacrifice,thebloodofAbelandthenewcovenant.Arewetosay that in this context, the author of Hebrews was not referring to the newcovenantspokenofintheOldTestament?YettheseversesalsoareaddressedtotheChristianandapplythisnewcovenanttotheChristian.Dr.Walvoordstressesthat the word translated new in this passage is nea, a Greek word meaningrecent. Therefore, he says, "Reference is apparently to the covenant with thechurchandnot to Israel'snewcovenant."19Dr.Walvoord is correct in arguingthat thenewcovenantofHebrews12:24applies to theChristianbutwrong inarguingthatthisisnotthesamenewcovenantspokenofinJeremiah31.

BernardRammhas said that the interpretation of the book ofHebrewswhichdoesnotapplythenewcovenanttothechurch,butwhichinsteadappliesittoaJudaistic future, is an "oddity in the history of the exegesis of this book."20Elsewherehehassaid,

The New Covenant is one of several items discussed in Hebrews all ofwhich are realized in the Church and the present age. That Christ is ourMoses, our Aaron, our Sacrifice, the strict literalists readily admit. ToisolatetheNewCovenantandforwardittothemillenniumistodisrupttheentirestructureofHebrews.21

There are New Testament passages outside of the book of Hebrews that alsoshowtheerrorofthetwo-covenanttheory.Forexample,in2Corinthians3:6,theapostle Paul called himself and Timothy "ministers of the new testament [i.e.covenant]"Inthispassage,PaulmakesreferencetotheJeremiah31conceptofwritingonhumanhearts (Jeremiah31:33). In2Corinthians3:3,PaulspokeoftheCorinthianChristiansasbeinghumanletters,"writtennotwithink,butwiththeSpirit of the livingGod;not in tablesof stone,but in fleshly tablesof the

heart." Paul then contrasted his ministry of the new covenant with the oldMosaicministrationthatwas"writtenandengraveninstones"(verse7).ThisisanapplicationofnotjustanewcovenantbuttheJeremiah31newcovenanttothechurchandthechurchage.

Christ also mentioned a new covenant when He instituted the Lord's Supper:"ThisisMybloodofthenewtestament[i.e.covenant],whichisshedformany"(Mark 14:24). Moses also had spoken of the "blood of the covenant" at theinaugurationoftheoldcovenant(Exodus24:8).Surelythediscipleswouldhaverecognized thatChristwas institutingasecondcovenant to replace theMosaiccovenant, whose many types He was fulfilling. Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost haspointedoutthefollowing:

In itshistorical setting, thediscipleswhoheard theLord refer to thenewcovenantintheupperroomthenightbeforeHisdeathwouldcertainlyhaveunderstood Him to be referring to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31. ...Since the discipleswould certainly have understood any reference to thenew covenant on that occasion as a reference to Israel's anticipatedcovenant of Jeremiah, it seems that theLordmust have been stating thatthatverycovenantwasbeinginstitutedwithHisdeath....22

This close association of the Lord's Supper to Jeremiah's new covenant withIsrael may explain why E.W. Bullinger, the father of ultra-dispensationalism,taught that the Lord's Supper is a Jewish ordinance that has no place in theChristianchurch.23

Thetwo-covenanttheory,themostconsistenttheorydispensationally,isthemostdifficult to defend Scripturally. Therefore, it has not received widespreadacceptance among dispensationalists. For example, the popular dispensationalwriterHarryIronsidehassaid:

ItwerefollytospeakofanewcovenantwiththeChurch,whennoformercovenant has been made with us. In the case of Israel and Judah it isdifferent.TheyenteredintothecovenantofworksatSinai.24

John F. McGahey in his doctor's dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminarycametothefollowingconclusion:

Consequently, ithasbeenestablished that there isnowarrant inScriptureformaintainingthattherearetwonewcovenants.Ithasbeenevidentfromthisstudythatthetheoryofthetwonewcovenantswasbornofcontroversyratherthanstrongexegesis.Foritappearsthatitwasmanufacturedtoavoidthe assumed conclusion that to relate the church to Israel's new covenantnecessitated that church fulfilling the promises given to Israel under thatcovenant.25

EndNotes

1 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith(Neptune,N.J.:LoizeauxBrothers,1953),page105.

2 Ibid.,pages106-107.3 H.A.Ironside,NotesontheProphecyandLamentationsofJeremiah"TheWeepingProphet"(Neptune,N.J.:LoizeauxBrothers,1906),pages146-166;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,pages108-114;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),pages481,183-184,210-211,258-259;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),pages120-121.

4 Pentecost,ThingstoCome,page120.5 Ibid.,page121.6 Ibid.,page124.7 Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page209.8 Ibid.,page210.9 Ryrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,page111.10 Ibid.,pages105-106.11 Pentecost,ThingstoCome,page116.12CharlesCaldwellRyrie,"TheRelationshipoftheNewCovenanttoPremillennialism"(unpublishedMaster'sthesis,DallasTheologicalSeminary,1947),page31.QuotedinWilliamEverettBell,Jr.,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePretribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology"(dissertation,SchoolofEducationofNewYorkUniversity,1967),pages178-179.InDr.Ryrie'sbookTheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,thewordcondemnedischangedtoweakened.

13

LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8volumes(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1948),7:98.

14Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages218-219.15 Pentecost,ThingstoCome,page124.Also,compareWalvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page214.

16Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages216-217.17 Ibid.,page217.18 Ibid.,page312.19 Ibid.,page218.20BernardRamm,"ChristandAaron,"Eternity,13:18,May1962.QuotedinBell,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePretribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology,"page182.

21BernardRamm,ProtestantBiblicalInterpretation:ATextbookofHermeneutics(GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1970),page264.

22 Pentecost,ThingstoCome,page126.23 JohnB.Graber,"Ultra-Dispensationalism"(dissertation,DallasTheologicalSeminary,1949),pages36-37.Mr.Graberdefinesanultra-dispensationalistas"anystudentofScripturewhoplacestwodispensationsbetweenPentecostandtheendofthechurchage"(page6).Thesetwodispensationsinvolve"thePentecostalapostolicchurchofthebookofActsandthemysteryPaulinechurchoftheprisonepistles"(page6).AccordingtoMr.Graber,dispensationalistsandultra-dispensationalistsusethesamehermeneuticbutdifferonlyintheinterpretationofcertainpassages.Forexample,ultra-dispensationalistsbelievethatJoel2:28-32wasfulfilledatPentecostanddispensationalistsdonot.SinceJoel2isaprophecyaboutIsraelandsinceJoel2wasfulfilledatPentecost,theultra-dispensationalistdoesnotbelievethatthechurchagebeganatPentecostbecauseofthedispensationaldichotomybetweenIsraelandthechurch(pages88-89).Initsextremeform,ultra-dispensationalismteachesthatthechurchwasnotformeduntilafterActs28.ThismeansthattheonlyScripturedirectlyrelevanttothechurcharethosePaulineepistleswrittenafterActs28(page32).Mr.Grabermakesthefollowingstatements:

"...itisadmittedbybothpremillennialistsandamillennialiststhattherootoftheirdifferenceliesinthemethodofBiblicalinterpretation.Such,however,isnotthecaseinthesystemsofdispensationalismandultra-dispensationalism.Inthefinalanalysis,thevalidityofultra-

dispensationalismmustbeexaminedonthebasisofitsexegesisofvariouspassagesofScriptureuponwhichthesystemclaimstorest"(page1).

"Thedistinctionbetweendispensationalismandultra-dispensationalismisnotoneofkindbutoneofdegree"(page7).

24 Ironside,NotesontheProphecyandLamentationsofJeremiah"TheWeepingProphet,"page163.

25 JohnF.McGahey,"AnExpositionoftheNewCovenant"(dissertation,DallasTheologicalSeminary,1957),page262.QuotedinBell,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePretribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology,"page189.

Chapter5TheNewCovenant,PartTwo

One of the greatest challenges before anyone who calls himself adispensationalistisexplaininghowthenewcovenantwhichJeremiahsaidwouldbemadewith Israel and Judah is related to theChristian church today. In thepreviouschapter,weexaminedthedispensationalanswertothischallengethatismost consistent with the dispensational system and found it wanting. In thischapter, we will examine the other two dispensational attempts to meet thischallenge.

A second dispensational theory on the new covenant's relationship to theChristian is the theory advanced by John Nelson Darby, the father ofdispensationalthought.AccordingtoDarby'stheory,theChristianisnotdirectlyrelatedtoanynewcovenantbutisrelatedonlytothebloodofthenewcovenant.ThistheoryemphasizesthatthebloodofChristisnotonlythegraciousgroundforthenewcovenant tobemadewithIsraelbutalsothesourceofallspiritualbenefits and blessings, both heavenly and earthly.1 Since there is noChristiannew covenant, every mention of a new covenant in both the Old and NewTestamentsmustalwaysbeareferencetoaJewishmillennialcovenanttowhichthe church is not directly related. The Christian is directly related to "theannexedcircumstancesofthecovenant,"2to"theessentialprivilegesofthenewcovenant,"3 to the "benefit" of the covenant, and to "the Mediator of thecovenant,"4butnottothecovenantitself.

Darbyexpressedhistheoryasfollows:

ThiscovenantoftheletterismadewithIsrael,notwithus;butwegetthebenefitofit.5

Thegospelisnotacovenant,buttherevelationofthesalvationofGod.Itproclaimsthegreatsalvation.Weenjoyindeedalltheessentialprivilegesofthenewcovenant, its foundationbeing laidonGod'spart in thebloodofChrist,butwedosoinspirit,notaccordingtotheletter.

The new covenant will be established formally with Israel in themillennium.6

ThistheoryisdefinedanddefendedingreaterdetailbydispensationalistsHarryIronsideandE.SchuylerEnglish:

Itisimportanttonotethatwhiletheblessingsofthenewcovenantareours,yet it is never said to bemadewith theChurch. ... TheMediator of thatcovenant is theLord JesusChrist.Thebloodof the newcovenant is thatwhich he shed for our sins. Therefore believers now rejoice in thedistinctive blessings it insures; but it is with the earthly, not with theheavenly,peoplethatthecovenantitselfistobemade.7

...surelythegraceofGodhasembracedtheChurchwithinthebenefitsofthenewcovenant.WhenourLordtookthecup,onthenightinwhichHewasbetrayed,Hesaid:"ThisisMycupofthenewtestament(covenant)inMy blood" (1 Cor. 11:25). The cup was taken by Him for all His ownthroughfaith--HisChurch,HisBody,HisBride.

Nevertheless,fundamentallytheGentilesarenotacovenant-people,neitheris theChurchmade up of a covenant-people. ... TheChurch, then, is notunder thenewcovenant;theChurchis,however,abeneficiaryofthenewcovenant initsheavenly,spiritualandeternaloperation.TheChurch,nowon earth, is at the same time seated together "in the heavenlies inChristJesus" (Eph. 2:6) because of the blood of the new covenant, shed by theMediatorofthenewcovenant,forus.

But now, since it is Israel which is God's covenant- people, ... we mustdiscover the primary facts and functions of the new covenant establishedforthem.8

Letus think throughtheworkofChrist in termsofDarby's theoryon thenewcovenant.JesusChristatHisfirstcomingcametobethemediatorofanearthly,nationalistic and Jewish new covenant that is totally unrelated to church ageChristianity. He offered to Israel a theocratic political kingdom based on thisJewish new covenant, and He shed His blood to establish this Jewish newcovenant.WhentheJewishnationrejectedtheChrist, theofferwaswithdrawnand the theocratic kingdom was postponed. In this parenthetical age of

postponement,Godbegananentirelynewandunprophesiedworkinthecallingof a heavenly people, theChristian church.Although the blood ofChristwasshed for theestablishmentof theearthlypeople'snationalnewcovenant, therewas enough efficacy in theMessianic sacrifice for it also to be the basis forindividual salvation and heavenly blessings in the church age. Christ hadassumed the office of mediator to mediate the Jewish covenant, but in thisparentheticalage,Hismediatorialoffice isavailable for thespiritualbenefitofChristianseventhoughtheyaretotallyunrelatedtothecovenantofwhichHeismediator.

Darby's theorymakesGod'sentireprogramfor thechurchseemincidentalandsecondarytoGod'sprogramforIsraelbutatthesametimegreatlylimitsIsrael'seternal inheritance. This is true of dispensationalism in general, but it isespeciallytrueofDarby'stheoryonthenewcovenant.ThistheoryteachesthatChristiansalvation in thechurchage isanunprophesiedbenefitof theatoningworkofChrist.Theatonement'sprophesiedpurposewastheestablishmentoftheJewishnewcovenantandkingdom,towhichtheChristianisunrelated.Andyetthosesaintswhoareunderthisnewcovenantandwhoinheritthiskingdomwillbe,throughouteternity,inferiorinstatustotheBodyofChristchurchsaints.TheChristianwillremainthroughouteternityastrangertothenewcovenant,andyethisspiritualpositionwillbeaboveIsrael'sliketheheavensareabovetheearth.

Also, the New Testament gives no support to Darby's suggestion that theChristianisrelatedtothebasisandbenefitsofthenewcovenantbutnottothenewcovenant itself.According toDarby, theChristian,althoughrelated to theconcomitantsofthenewcovenant,isstillastrangertothenewcovenantitself.In contrast, Paul taught thatChristians before conversion frompaganismwere"strangers from the covenants of promise" but "now in Christ Jesus ye whosometimeswerefaroffhavebeenmadenighbythebloodofChrist"and"arenomorestrangers"(Ephesians2:12-13,19).Tobebroughtnighbythebloodofthecovenant is to be no longer a stranger to the covenant.Also, Paul consideredhimselftobeaministernotonlyofthebloodofthecovenantbutoftheJeremiah31 new covenant itself (2 Corinthians 3:6). And the sacramental statement ofChrist: "This cup is the new testament (i.e., covenant) in My blood" (1Corinthians 11:25)makes little sense if the new covenant itself is not directlyrelated to the church in this age. Thewriter of Hebrews taught that Christ istoday"themediatorofabettercovenant"(Hebrews8:6).IstheChristianrelated

to the mediator of this better covenant but not to the better covenant itself?BernardRammhasappropriatelynoted:

TosaythatweareunderthebenefitsoftheCovenantwithoutactuallybeingunderthecovenantistoclandestinelyadmitwhatisboldlydenied.9

Many dispensationalists have recognized the validity of these criticisms andhave rejected Darby's explanation of the church's relationship to the newcovenant.Forexample,Dr.JohnF.Walvoordhassaid:

Most[dispensational]premillenarians(Darbyexcepted)wouldagreethatanewcovenanthasbeenprovidedforthechurch,butnot thenewcovenantforIsrael.10

Thethirddispensationaltheoryonthechurch'srelationshiptothenewcovenantof Jeremiah 31 is the theory advanced by Dr. C.I. Scofield in the ScofieldReferenceBible. According to Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, this is the theory mostwidely accepted among dispensationalists.11 In his reference Bible notes,ScofieldsimplyappliesthenewcovenantbothtothechurchandtoIsraelwithnoexplanationabouthow this is accomplished, asevidencedby the followingquotations:

The New Covenant ... secures the perpetuity, future conversion, andblessingofIsrael....12

The New Covenant rests upon the sacrifice of Christ, and secures theeternal blessedness, under theAbrahamicCovenant (Gal. 3:13-29), of allwhobelieve.13

Later dispensationalists have elaborated upon Scofield's theory. Dr. J. DwightPentecosthassaidthefollowing:

... according to this view, there is one new covenant with a two-foldapplication;onetoIsraelinthefutureandonetothechurchnow.14

This view places the church under the new covenant, and views therelationshipasapartialfulfillmentofthecovenant.15

ScofieldagreeswithDarbyfullythatthecovenantwasprimarilyforIsraelandwill be fulfilled by them.Any application of it to the church, as theScofieldpositionholds,doesnotnullifytheprimaryapplicationtoIsrael.16

Dr. Pentecost in hiswriting onScofield's new covenant theory quotes anotherwriter who says that the new covenant is notmade with the Christian but isministeredtotheChristian.Dr.JohnF.WalvoordhasthefollowingcommentsonScofield'stheory:

The [dispensational] premillennial view popularized by the ScofieldReferenceBibleregardsthenewcovenantashavingatwofoldapplication,first toIsraelfulfilledinthemillennium,and,second,tothechurchinthepresentage.17

... Scofield ... regards the new covenantwith Israel as having an obliquereference to the believers of this age, though concerned primarily withIsrael.18

Dr.CharlesC.RyriedescribesScofield'stheoryasfollows:

This interpretation holds that the one new covenant has two aspects, onewhich applies to Israel, and onewhich applies to the church.These havebeen called the realistic and spiritual aspects of the covenant, but bothaspectscompriseessentiallyonecovenantbasedonthesacrificeoftheLordJesusChrist.19

W.H.GriffithThomashasexpoundeduponthisdispensationaltheoryasfollows:

Itwillbeobservedthatthecovenantissaidtobemade"withthehouseofIsraelandwiththehouseofJudah,"thatis,withthewholeJewishnation.There is no doubt that this is the primary designation and purpose of thecovenant. The promise of Israel's restoration is clear, together with thespecificationofbenefits. Jeremiah'swordsare:"Lo thedaysarecoming,"anditiswellknownthattheNewTestamentantitypeoftheOldTestamenttypesisnottheChristianChurchbuttheKingdomwhichisstillfuture....ButweChristianshave thespiritual realityof thiscovenant,which,whilemade with Israel, is for our benefit as well, through grace, and so wedistinguishbetween theprimary interpretation to Israeland the secondary

(spiritual)application to theChurch today.Wenowenjoyin thepoweroftheHolySpiritalltheblessingsofthenewcovenant,andyettherewillbestill further and fullermanifestations in the future for Israel, according toGod'spromise(Rom.11:25-32).20

Theproblemwith theScofield theory is that itviolatesboth thedispensationaldichotomy between Israel and the church and the dispensational literalistichermeneutic (i.e., theory of interpretation). Scofield's theory violates thedispensational dichotomy in that it allows the church to partially fulfill aprophecy made for Israel and to partially be under a covenant belonging toIsrael. If the church can fulfill this Jewish prophecy and be under this Jewishcovenant,thenwhynotothers?Thistheoryineffectsaysthatthechurchcanbepartially identified with Israel. Dispensationalists have acknowledged thisweakness in Scofield's theory. For example, Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost in hisdiscussionofScofield's theorynotes:"Thechurch,however,cannotbeplacedunderIsrael'scovenant."21Dr.CharlesC.RyriehasmadethefollowingcriticismoftheScofieldtheory:

IftheChurchisfulfillingIsrael'spromisesascontainedinthenewcovenantor anywhere else in Scripture, then [dispensational] premillennialism isweakened.Onemightwell askwhy therearenot twoaspects toonenewcovenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many[dispensational] premillennialists, butwe agree that the amillennialist haseveryrighttosayofthisviewthatitis"apracticaladmissionthatthenewcovenantisfulfilledinandtotheChurch."22

Dr.Ryrieelsewherehasthefollowingcriticismofnon-dispensationalism:

... the amillennialist's hermeneutics allow him to blur completely themeaningsofthetwowords[IsraelandtheChurch] in theNewTestamentso that theChurch takesover the fulfillment of thepromises to Israel. Inthat view true Israel is the Church. The covenant premillennialist goeshalfway. The Church and Israel are somewhat blended, though notamalgamated. The dispensationalist studies the words in the NewTestament, finds that they are kept distinct, and therefore concludes thatwhen the Church was introduced, God did not abrogate His promises toIsraelnorenmesh theminto theChurch.This iswhy thedispensationalist

recognizes twopurposesofGodand insists inmaintaining thedistinctionbetweenIsraelandtheChurch.23

Thesedispensationalcriticismsagainstcovenantpremillennialismcould justaswell have been applied to Scofield's theory on the new covenant. Scofield'stheoryblendsIsraelandthechurchandenmeshespromisesmadetoIsrael intothechurch.

Scofield's theory also contradicts the dispensational hermeneutic. The cardinalruleof thedispensationalhermeneutic isnever tospiritualizeorallegorize.Dr.Walvoordgivesthefollowingexplanationofspiritualization:

Spiritualizationofthe...wordIsraelwouldinvolveinWebster'sdefinitionofspiritualization:"totakeinaspiritualsense,--opposedtoliteralize."Inother words, if Israel should mean something else than Israel, e.g., thechurchintheNewTestamentcomposedlargelyofGentiles,thiswouldbespiritualization.24

Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost quotes the following definition of the allegoricalmethod:

Allegorism is the method of interpreting a literary text that regards theliteral sense as the vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual and moreprofoundsense.25

In the Scofield theory, the new covenant for Israel has a primary reference toIsraelandanobliquereferencetothechurch.Thenewcovenanthasarealisticand a spiritual aspect, an earthly and a heavenly application, a primaryinterpretation and a secondary spiritual interpretation. In this theory, the newcovenantwithIsraelcanmeansomethingelsethanthenewcovenantwithliteral,national,earthlyIsrael.Theverycriticismof"spiritualizing"and"allegorizing"thatthedispensationalistssofreelycastatReformedtheologianscanalsobecastat this popular dispensational theory. The dispensationalists who hold to thistheory should refrain from casting these stones for they are notwithout "sin"themselves.

ThissurveyofthethreedispensationaltheoriesonthenewcovenantshowsthatdispensationalistsarestrikinglydividedonhowtoreconciletheNewTestament

dataon thenewcovenantwith thedispensationalpresuppositions.Dr.WilliamEverettBell, Jr.haswelldescribed thisdivisionamongdispensationalistsoverthenewcovenantanditssymptomaticsignificance:

Since the two-covenant view, although it is consistent dispensationalism,has not found wide acceptance among dispensationalists because of itsobvious exegetical failings, leading dispensationalists are found to beseriouslyatoddsovertheproblem.AllareagreedthatthechurchmustnotfulfillanyofIsrael'spromises,butthemethodofpreservingthedichotomywithregardtothenewcovenantiselusive.

Ontheonehand,somerecognizetheexegeticalcasuistryinvolvedintryingtoretain theblessingsof thecovenantapart fromanyvital relationship tothecovenant,and thuspositasecondcovenant.Ontheotherhand,othersrecognize the exegetical impossibility of a second covenant and prefer toignore thecasuistry. Ineithercase, theposition isbasicallyuntenableandpoints up rather dramatically the hermeneutical dilemma ofdispensationalism in attempting to reconcile scripture to a basicpresupposition.26

TheNewTestamentdataonthenewcovenantfitswellwithReformedtheology.No bending is necessary; no artificial exegesis is required; no hair splittingdistinctionsareneeded.SincetheNewTestamentchurchisthecontinuationoftheOldTestamentkingdomprogramandisspiritualIsraelinthisageandisthefulfillment ofmanyOldTestament prophecies, there is noproblem in directlyrelatingtheJeremiah31newcovenanttothechurchinthisageasisdonebytheNewTestamentwriters.ThenewcovenantrelatesdirectlytophysicalIsraelonlyinsofar as Jews accept Christ and are regrafted back into the olive tree ofspiritualIsrael,whichisthechurch(Romans11:26-27).27TheScripturaldataonthenewcovenant is for thedispensationalbuildersastone that fitspoorly intotheir theological structure.Theycannot agreehowbest to cement it onto theirsystemina fittingmanner. Incontrast, for theReformed theologian, thisstonehasbecomeacapstoneinhissystemofinterpretation.

EndNotes

1 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:Zondervan

PublishingHouse,1959),pages210,218;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingCompany,1958),pages121-122.

2 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page122.3 WilliamEverettBell,Jr.,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePre-tribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology"(dissertation,SchoolofEducationofNewYorkUniversity,1967),page210;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page210;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page122.

4 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page121.5 Ibid.,page121.6 WilliamEverettBell,Jr.,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePre-tribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology"(dissertation,SchoolofEducationofNewYorkUniversity,1967),page210;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page210;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page122.

7 H.A.Ironside,NotesontheProphecyandLamentationsofJeremiah"TheWeepingProphet"(Neptune,N.J.:LoizeauxBrothers,1906),page163.

8 E.SchuylerEnglish,StudiesintheEpistletotheHebrews(TravelersRest,S.C.:SouthernBibleHouse,1955),pages226-227.

9 BernardRamm,ProtestantBiblicalInterpretation:ATextbookofHermeneutics(GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1970),page264.

10 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page214.11 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith(Neptune,N.J.:LoizeauxBrothers,1953),page107.

12C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1909),page1297,note1onHebrews8:8.

13 Ibid.,page1298,note2onHebrews8:8.14 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page123.15 Ibid.,page124.16 Ibid.,page124.17 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page210.18 Ibid.,page218.19CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,page210.

20W.H.GriffithThomas,Hebrews:ADevotionalStudy(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1961),pages106-107.

21 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page124.22CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,page118.23CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),pages95-96.

24 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page64.25 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page4.26WilliamEverettBell,Jr.,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePre-tribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology,"page190.

27 IainH.Murray,ThePuritanHope:AStudyinRevivalandtheInterpretationofProphecy(Carlisle,Penn.:TheBannerofTruthTrust,1971),pages72-74;JohnMurray,TheEpistletotheRomans(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1968),2:91-103.

Chapter6HowTheyArgueTheirCase

In thepast fewchapters,wehaveexaminedseveralpassageswhose teachings,on the positive side, give strong testimony to the correctness of Reformedtheology, and, on the negative side, greatly contradict the basic dispensationalassumptions.TheseBiblicalargumentsareones that Ibecameawareofonlyafewyears agowhen Iwaspainfully leaving thedispensational systemwhile astudent at Dallas Theological Seminary, theMecca of dispensational thought.Dallas was then the home of well-known dispensational writers such as Drs.CharlesC.Ryrie,J.DwightPentecost,andJohnF.Walvoord.Itslegacyfromthepast includes Drs. Lewis Sperry Chafer and Merrill F. Unger. One of itsgraduates is the well-known Hal Lindsey, the great popularizer ofdispensationalism in this generation. So, not only have I been exposed to thearguments for Reformed theology, I have also been exposed to the Biblicalargumentsfordispensationalismasexplainedbysomeofitsleadingproponents.Now that Ihavebeenonboth sidesof the fence, Ihave found the theologicalgrasstobemuchgreenerontheReformedside.Yet,Istillrememberthatatonetimemythinkingwasdominatedandcontrolledbythedispensationalarguments,andIcansympatheticallyunderstandhowasincereChristiancanbeledastrayintothedispensationalsystem.Inthischapterwewillexaminesomeofthemainarguments used by the dispensationalists to defend their theorized dichotomybetweenIsraelandtheNewTestamentchurch.

AsIanalyzemyformerdevotiontothedispensationalsystem,IbelievethatthedispensationalargumentthatheldmemostpowerfullywastheonebasedonthebaptismoftheHolySpirit.1Theargumentgoeslikethis:itisthebaptismoftheHolySpiritthatputsoneintotheBodyofChrist,whichisthechurchuniversal(1Corinthians 12:13); therewas no baptism of theHoly Spirit beforeActs 2(Matthew3:11;Acts1:5;11:15-16); therefore,noneofGod'speoplewhodiedbefore Acts 2 can be in the church universal; therefore, there is an absolutedichotomy between Old Testament Israel and the church. This is a subtleargument that can appear, on the surface, to be an iron-clad logical deductionfrom Scriptural data. The apparent strength of this argument, however, isillusionary. Its forcefulness fades into nothingness when one examines the

unstatedandhiddenassumptions that lie at thecoreof this argument.WewillexaminethesehiddenassumptionsinthepenetratinglightofScripture.

First, this dispensational argument assumes that at glorification the OldTestament saints will not be made perfect together with the New Testamentsaints.Itassumesthatthoseadvancesinspiritualbenefitsthatwerehistoricallyrealized at the inauguration of the New Testament era cannot be applied inglorificationtothosewhodiedbeforetheNewTestamenterabeganinfullnessatActs2.ThisassumptioncontradictstheteachingofScripture.Noone'ssalvation,whether Old Testament saint or New Testament saint, is made perfect orcompleteduringthislife.Thiscompletionoftheapplicationofsalvationoccursatglorificationat thereturnofChrist.TheScripturesclearly teach inHebrews11:39-40 that theOldTestament saintswillbemadeperfect togetherwith,notapartfrom,theNewTestamentsaintsbecauseGodhasprovidedbetterbenefitsfor saints in this ageof spiritual fullness.BothOldTestament saints andNewTestament saintswill receive the full benefits of the Trinity's salvificwork atglorification, and that includes the post-Pentecost baptismof theSpirit for theOldTestamentsaints.ThisconclusionisverifiedbytheteachingofRevelation21thattheOldTestamentsaintswillbeincludedintheBrideofChrist,whichisthechurchuniversal.

Second, this dispensational argument assumes that the baptismof theSpirit atPentecostwastotallydifferentinnaturefromtheSpirit'sOldTestamentministryof salvation. The Spirit's new covenant ministry can be both significantlysuperiortoandsignificantlycontinuouswithHisoldcovenantministry.WasnottheSpiritrenewing,sustaining,illuminatingandgiftingthepeopleofGodbeforePentecost? Was not this work in both ages based on the person, work andcovenantheadshipofChrist?BeforePentecost,thesavingworkoftheSpiritwasbasedonMessianicpromises,andafterPentecost,thesavingworkoftheSpiritwas based on historically realized Messianic accomplishments. The Spirit'spresentministry is superior toHis old covenantministry because it no longerrelatestotheChristtocomebuttotheChristwhohascomeandbeenglorifiedand who now reigns in power (John 7:39). The Spirit's being poured out inunprecedentedfullnessonandafterthePentecostofActs2doesnotmeanthattheSpirithadnotbeenpreviouslyputtingthepeopleofGodintocovenantunionwiththeChristwhowasthenyettocome.

Third, this dispensational argument assumes that salvationwas possible in the

Old Testament apart from the union with Christ effected by the Spirit. ThiswouldmeanthatOldTestamentsalvationcouldnothaveincludedthosespiritualbenefitsbaseduponbeingput inChristby theSpirit.Thiswould includeevenregeneration (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:5,10),2 justification or freedomfrom divine condemnation (Romans 8:1), sanctification or freedom from sin'sdominion(Romans6:1-4),andaplaceintheresurrectionoftherighteousunderthe covenant headship of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22)! Union with Christ tosomedegreethroughtheworkoftheSpiritmusthavebeenpossibleintheOldTestament,ortherecouldhavebeennoOldTestamentsalvation.Ofcourse,theOldTestamentsaintdidnotliveintheageofspiritualfullnessusheredinbytheSon's historic redemptive work, but neither was the Old Testament an age inwhichallthemaineffectsoftheSon'sworkwereabsolutelyandtotallyabsent!God applied the Son's work to Old Testament believers to some degree evenbeforethatworkwashistoricallyaccomplished.TherewasarelativedifferenceofdegreeinOldTestamentspirituality,notanabsolutedifferenceofkind.

Imightmention that somedispensationalwriters consistently accept that theirsystem implies that Old Testament salvation must have been somehowaccomplishedapart fromunionwithChrist.Forexample,Dr.CharlesC.Ryriehas said that "those who died before Christ's first advent" are not among the"dead in Christ."3 Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has stated that the Old Testamentsaintswerenot"inthenewfederalHeadshipoftheresurrectedChrist,"thattheirliveswerenot"hidwithChristinGod,"4that"theOldTestamentsaintswerenopartoftheNewCreationinChrist,"5thatotherthanChrist'sneedingtoberaisedfromthedeadtositonDavid'sthrone,"thenationIsraelsustainsnorelationtotheresurrectionofChrist,"6andthat"thereisnokindofapositioninChristinanyteachingofthelaworofthekingdom."7

Fourth, this dispensational argument fails to recognize the close relationshipbetweenspiritualbaptismandspiritualcircumcision(Colossians2:11-12).Theredefinitely was spiritual circumcision in the Old Testament. This was an OldTestament ministry of the Spirit that most probably differed from NewTestamentspiritualbaptismonlyindegree.

Fifth, theNewTestamentspeaksofsalvationinChristasaparticipationin theOldTestamentcovenantsofpromise(Ephesians2:12-13).Thiswouldindeedbeironic if Old Testament salvation were accomplished apart from union with

Christ.

Thereisanotherdispensationalargumentsimilartotheabove.Thisargumentisbasedupon theNewTestament's reference to thechurchageasamystery.8 InScripture, a mystery is a previously unknown secret that God has newlyrevealed. Dispensationalists argue that the church age was a mystery in OldTestament times in an absolute sense. Since the church age was absolutelyunknownintheOldTestament,thennoOldTestamentprophecycouldrefertothe church age.Thismeans that allOldTestament prophecies about a comingagehadtorefertothedispensationalJewishmillennium,nottothechurchage.Then the church age is truly an unforeseen parenthesis in God's program forIsrael.TheReformedanswertothisargumentisthatthechurchwasamysteryinarelativesense.ThisanswerisbasedonEphesians3:3-6:"...themystery...,which in other ageswas notmade known unto the sons ofmen,as it is nowrevealedunto(God's)holyapostlesandprophetsby theSpirit."Theashere iscomparative indicating that the church agewas relatively unknown in theOldTestament, not absolutely unknown. Certain characteristics of the church agethatarereferredtohereasamystery(Ephesians3:6)areelsewhereshowntobepredicted in Old Testament prophecy (Romans 15:7-13), which proves themysterytoberelative,notabsolute.

AnotherdispensationalargumentisbasedonChrist'sstatement,"IwillbuildMychurch" (Matthew16:18).The dispensationalists argue that if the churchwerethensomethingjustbeingbuilt,thenitcouldnothaveexistedinOldTestamenttimes.Dr.LewisSperryChaferhasarguedthisasfollows:

When the stress fallson thewordwill, theprophetic aspect is introducedand the reader is reminded that the Church did not exist at the momentChristwasspeaking,butwastoberealizedinthefuture.Thisisadifficultaspect of truth for those who contend that the Church has existedthroughouttheperiodcoveredbytheOldTestament,oranypartofit.9

Theanswertothisargumentissimple.TheNewTestamentchurchatthetimeofChrist'searthlyministrywasbotholdandnew.ItwasoldinthattheconceptofGod'shavingachurchoracalledoutpeoplewasrootedintheOldTestament.The New Testament church is new in that God's people reached a newdispensationalmaturity at that timebecauseof thehistoricalworkof theSon.The Old Testament church was in the infancy of ceremonial shadows and a

nationallyconfinedkingdom;theNewTestamentchurchwasinthematurityofspiritual realities and a universalized kingdom. In the Old Testament, Mosesserved thechurchasaservant; in theNewTestament,Christwasfaithfuloverthe church as a Son (Hebrews 3:5-8). The newness inMatthew 16 is not anabsolutenewnessasifGodhadnotbeforehadachurchorcalledoutpeople.Thenewness is thenewness ofGod's people belonging to theChrist in a newandintimateway.ChristwasreferringtothematurechurchofMessianicrealitiesasopposedtotheimmaturechurchofMessianicprefigurations.ChristwassayingthatHewouldbuildHisnewcovenant churchnot from scratchbut outof thematerial of the old covenant church, replacing the typological shadows withspiritual substance, excluding the Jews who would not accept Him, andexpandingtheJewishtenttoincludetheGentiles(Isaiah54:1-3).

Ontheside,whentheGreekwordtranslatedchurchisappliedtoOldTestamentIsraelinScripture(Acts7:38),dispensationalistssaythatthewordisbeingusedinanontheologicalsense,as it isusedinActs19:32torefer toanassembly.10Whenever the word Israel is used to refer to the New Testament church(Galatians6:16),dispensationalistssaythatitrefersstrictlytothephysicalJewsinthechurch.

A similar argument to this one based on Matthew 16:18 is one based onEphesians2:20,wheretheapostlesandprophetsaresaidtobethefoundationofthechurch.IfthechurchisdescribedasatemplefoundedontheNewTestamentapostlesandonChrist,arguesthedispensationalist, thenitcannothaveanOldTestament foundation. I have heard that some Reformed interpreters try toanswer thisargumentbypointingout thatEphesians2:20also teaches that thechurch is founded on Old Testament prophets as well as New Testamentapostles, but I consider that to be an inadequate argument. The prophets inEphesians2:20areNewTestamentprophets(compareEphesians3:5,especiallythewordnow;Ephesians4:11).OneshouldacknowledgethatEphesians2:20isreferringto thechurchin itsNewTestamentmanifestation, to thechurchin itsMessianicmaturity,andnottothechurchinitsbroadersense.ThepassagethatdiscussesthechurchinitsbroadersensewiththeuseofanarchitecturalfigureisRevelation21:9-14.Thewordchurch asused in theNewTestamentcan referbroadly to theelectofallagesor itcanrefernarrowly to theassemblyofOldTestament Israel, to the covenant community in its New Testamentmanifestations,ortoalocalNewTestamentcongregation.InEphesians2:20,the

word church is not even used directly. The reference is to the "new man"(Ephesians2:15),whichreferstothechurchinitsNewTestamentform.Ifoneexamines the church as the community with God's promise of salvation, itsfoundation goes ultimately back to the Trinitarian covenant of redemption ineternity past and goes historically back to the promise of the Seed RedeemergiventoAdamandEveafterthefall.Ifoneexaminesthechurchasacovenantcommunity with a system of sacramental administration, its foundation goesbacktotheAbrahamicandMosaiccovenants.IfoneexaminesthechurchasthecovenantcommunityofMessianicfullness, then its foundationis thehistoricalworkofChristandtheNewTestamentapostlesandprophets.Ephesians2:20isadmittedly a discussion of the church strictly in its NewTestament form, butEphesians 2:12-19 also stresses the strong continuity of the New TestamentchurchwithOld Testament Israel andwith theOld Testament covenants. TheReformed theologian acknowledges both the newness of the New Testamentchurch and its continuity with the Old Testament covenant community. Thedispensationalistradicalizestheformeranddeniesthelatter.Also,theReformedtheologianrecognizesthatthewordchurchattimesreferstotheelectofalltheages(Ephesians5:25)andtotheassemblyofOldTestamentIsrael(Acts7:38),usageswhichdispensationalistshavetodeny.

Iwilldealwithonelastargumentthatthedispensationalistsuse.Theyarguethatsince the New Testament continues to distinguish between physical Israelites,physical Gentiles and the Christian church (1 Corinthians 10:32), then onecannot identify Israel and the church.After all, Israel and the church are keptseparate in Scripture.11 This argument is based upon an overly restrictedunderstandingofthetermIsrael.

Though the physical Jewmay have a sense of racial identity, membership inIsrael has never been a strictly racialmatter but instead primarily amatter ofcovenant relationship. Israel was the name of the Old Testament covenantcommunity that was distinguished from the nations by the covenant ofcircumcision. Physical descent and blood lines were emphasized because theMessiahwastobealiteraldescendantofbothAbrahamandDavid,butGentilescouldjoinIsraelthroughtheproselytelaws.InthegenealogyofDavid,wefindTamartheCanaanite,RahabtheharlotfromJericho,andRuththeMoabitess.Allof Abraham's servants were circumcised into Israel in Genesis 17. WhenAbraham delivered Lot, his household servants included 318 men trained for

warfare (Genesis 14:14). The total number of servants and their families wasundoubtedly a largenumber, and all themaleswere circumcised.When Jacobwhen toEgypt, his physical descendants numbered seventy, but his householdwassolargethattheyweregiventheentirelandofGosheninwhichtolive.AmixedmultitudecameoutofEgyptwith thephysicaldescendentsofAbraham(Exodus 12:38). Many of the mighty men of David's army were of foreignextraction (1 Chronicles 11:26-47), the best known being Uriah the Hittite.GentilesthroughouttheancientworldbecameJewsinthedaysofQueenEsther(Esther 8:17). During the intertestamental Maccabean era, many Edomites,descendantsofEsau,becameJews.12 In theeighthcenturyA.D. longafter thegreatdivorcebetweenChristianityandJudaism,theGentileKhazarsofeasternEurope converted to Judaism. And thousands of professed Christians areconvertingtoJudaismeachyearinourownday.TobeaJewistobecovenantedinto the Jewish people by circumcision just as to be a Christian is to becovenantedintotheChristianpeoplebybaptism.

Also,membersofIsraelundertheoldcovenantcouldbeexcommunicatedfromthecovenantcommunityforcertainhighhandedsins.OnecouldbeamemberofIsraelbyracialdescentwithoutbeingamemberofIsraelasacitizenorchurchmember.Also,whenmuchof Israel lapsed into idolatry, theprophetsspokeofthe remnant within the nationwhowere Jews inwardly as well as outwardly.This concept of being a true inward Jew was stressed by John the Baptist(Matthew3:9),Jesus(John8:37,39),andPaul(Romans2:28-29;9:6).Onecouldbeamemberof Israelphysically,nationally,culturally,andreligiouslywithoutbeingamemberofIsraelspiritually.

In this ageof thenewcovenant, thephysical Jewmust follow the exampleofZacchaeusandbelieveinChristtobeatruesonofAbraham(Luke19:9).Inthisage,tocovenantintoethnicIsraelbycircumcisionistocovenantintoapeoplewho reject Jesus of Nazareth. In this age, many Gentiles have followed theexample of the Roman centurion of great faith and have come from east andwest to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven(Matthew8:11).IntheNewTestament,onecanbeaphysicalJewandnotbeaspiritualJew(Revelation2:9;3:9),andonecouldbeaphysicalGentileandbeaspiritual seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29; Romans 4:11). All Christians areinwardJews,andPaulteachesthat"heisaJew,whichisoneinwardly"(Romans2:28).

Although both Christianity and Judaism have roots in the Old Testamentreligion,onlyChristianityistheseedaccordingtopromiselikeIsaac(Galatians4:21-31) and the true heir of the Old Testament covenants. Paul comparesunbelievingethic Israel to Ishmael, theonewhowasaphysicaldescendantofAbrahambutwhowas cast outof the covenant community.As longas ethnicIsraelremainsinspiritualhardnessandblindnessthroughherrejectionofGod'sMessiah, she remains cut off from spiritual Israel and from the sap of God'ssavinggrace(Romans11:23;compareMatthew8:12)and isanenemyofGodconcerning the gospel (Romans 11:28). For a season in the days of transitionbetween the old and new covenants, the status of the unbelieving Jews asmembersof thecovenantcommunitywitha special interest inGod'spromiseswashonored (Acts2:39;3:25),but thosewhohardened in their rejectionwereeventuallyprunedoffthetreeofthetrueIsrael(Romans11:20).

TheuseofthewordIsraelinreferencetophysicalJewsortoethnicIsraelortothereligiousheirsofthePhariseesdoesnotimplythatthechurchisnotspiritualIsrael, the true Israel of God (Galatians 6:16) and the true heir of the OldTestamentcovenants.

But, asks the dispensationalist, what about Romans 11:29: "For the gifts andcallingofGodarewithoutrepentance"?AllthisverseisteachingisthatthereisasenseinwhichethnicIsraelremainsbelovedofGodbecauseofthespecialroleofher fathers in redemptivehistoryandbecauseofhernationalelectionundertheoldcovenant(Romans9:1-5).ThisisnottosaythatethnicIsraelhasitsownpropheticfutureapartfromtheChristianchurch.This is tosaythatbecauseofGod's respect for ethnic Israel's formerparticipation in the covenantpromises,ethnic Israel's apostasy from spiritual Israel will never be full or final.ManyJews have been cut off from the olive tree of spiritual Israel, but there willalwaysbeanelectremnantwithinethnicIsraelwhoareJewsinwardlyaswellasoutwardlyandmembersofthetrueIsraelofGod,whichistheChristianchurch(Romans11:1-7).AndethnicIsraelwillonedayexperienceaspiritualfullnessthatwill be in direct contrast to the hardness, blindness and stumbling of hernational rejection of Jesus (Romans 11:12,15,26-29).God continues to have aplaceforethnicIsrael inHispropheticplans inspiteofhernationalstumblingbutthatfutureisnotdivorcedfromtheChristianchurch.AndthatfuturewillberealizedinandthroughtheChristianchurchwhenthecastoffnaturalbranchesaregraftedback into theolive tree through faith inChrist (Romans11:23).At

thatpoint,allIsraelwillbesavedandwillexperiencetheblessingsof thenewcovenant(Romans11:26-27).13

Insummary,wesee thatdispensationalismoverstresses thedifferencesofkindbetween theOld andNewTestaments to the point of neglecting their organicrelationshipofdevelopmentalcontinuity.OldTestamentIsraelwasthechurchininfancy; Acts 2 was the church's BarMitzvah; the New Testament church isIsraelcometomaturity.TheNewTestamentchurchisorganicallyrelatedtoOldTestamentIsraellikeaman'sadulthoodisorganicallyrelatedtothatsameman'schildhood (Galatians 4:1-7). In such a relationship, there is both newness andcontinuity.

EndNotes

1 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),pages136-137.

2 Jesus'discoursewithNicodemusinJohn3isaclassicpassageonregeneration.Sincethatpassagewasspokenundertheoldcovenantdispensation,dispensationaliststendtoacknowledgethattherewasregenerationundertheoldcovenanteconomy.Dr.JohnF.Walvoordsays,onthesamepage,boththatpeoplecouldbebornagainundertheoldcovenantandthatOldTestamentsaintswerenotinChrist.ThedifficultywiththisteachingisthattheNewTestamentassociatesregenerationwithunionwithChrist.

JohnF.Walvoord,TheHolySpiritatWorkToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1973),page21;compareJ.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),page271;contrastwithLewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8vols.(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1948),4:16.

3 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page136;compareJohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),page280.

Darby,WilliamKelly,A.C.Gaebelein,C.I.Scofieldandothershaveheldthatthe"deadinChrist"of1Thessalonians4:16includestheOldTestamentsaints.Themostobviousdifficultywiththispositionisthedifficultyin

puttingtheOldTestamentsaints"inChrist"asPaulusedthattermandkeepingthemoutoftheBodyofChrist.Manydispensationaliststodaylimitthe"deadinChrist"tochurchsaints,andWilliamEverettBell,Jr.explainsthehistoryofthisdoctrinalevolution:

In1937,inhisTheApproachingAdventofChrist,AlexanderReeselaunchedavitriolicattackonPretribulationism.ThemajorthrustofhisargumentlayintheidentificationoftheresurrectionoftherighteousdeadwiththetimeofChrist'ssecondcoming.HethendemonstratedconclusivelyfromscripturethattheresurrectionofOldTestamentsaintswastofollowthetribulationperiod;thereforethesecondcomingofChristmustfollowthetribulationperiodalso.Theforceofhisargumentwasfeltkeenlybypretribulationalists,butaningenioussolutionwasdevisedtogetaroundtheproblem.PretribulationistssimplyconcededReese'spointthattheOldTestamentsaintswouldberesurrectedafterthetribulation,buttheymaintainedthattheNewTestamentchurchsaintswouldstillberesurrectedattherapturebeforethetribulation."WilliamEverettBell,Jr.,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePre-tribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology"(dissertation,SchoolofEducationofNewYorkUniversity,1967),pages15-16.

4 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:181.5 Ibid.,4:63.6 Ibid.,1:xvi-xvii.7 Ibid.,4:98.8 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages232-237;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page134,footnote4.Onpage201ofDispensationalismToday,Dr.RyriequotesadispensationalwriterwhocommentsasfollowsonEphesians3:5:"The'asithasnowbeenrevealed'mayindeedsuggestthatthismysteryhadbeenhintedatintheOldTestament,butunderveiledformsortypes,andonlynowwasproperlyrevealed."Onpage134,footnote4,Dr.Ryriegivesthenormaldispensationalinterpretationonthispointwhenhedeniesthat:"...the'as'clauseofEphesians3:5mightimplyapartialrevelationintheOldTestament..."Elsewhere,Dr.Ryriesays,"TheChurchisamysteryinthesensethatitwascompletelyunrevealedintheOldTestamentandnowrevealedintheNewTestament."CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith(Neptune,N.J.:LoizeauxBrothers,1953),page136.

9 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8vols.(Dallas:DallasSeminary

Press,1948),4:43.

10CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,page137;C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1909),page1021(noteonMatthew16:18).

11 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page164;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page88;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page138.

12 Josephus,AntiquitiesoftheJews,XIII,ix,1.13 Foradefenseofthisviewof"allIsraelshallbesaved,"seeIainH.Murray,ThePuritanHope:AStudyinRevivalandtheInterpretationofProphecy(Carlisle,Penn.:TheBannerofTruthTrust,1971),pages72-74;JohnMurray,TheEpistletotheRomans(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1968),2:91-103.Foradefenseoftheviewthat"allIsrael"referstothebelievingremnantwithinethnicIsraelthroughouttheages,seeWilliamHendriksen,IsraelinProphecy(GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1968),pages35-52.

Chapter7ConsistentLiteralism

Ibelievethatifyouweretoasktheknowledgeabledispensationalisttospecifythemostbasicand fundamental element inhis system,hewouldprobably sayconsistent literalism or some equivalent expression. The dispensationalistbelievesthatconsistentliteralismisthebasickeytothecorrectinterpretationofScripture and the only sure hedge against liberalism. The dispensationalist'smain criticism of the Reformed theologian is that he "spiritualizes" or"allegorizes," which is to say that he is not consistently literal in thedispensationalsenseoftheexpression.

This dispensational criticism most often refers to the Reformed theologian'sdirectly applying Old Testament prophecies that speak of Israel and theMessianicagetotheNewTestamentchurch.ManydispensationalistsalsoregardtheReformed theologian as an incipient liberal because they believe that it isonly theReformed theologian's inconsistencyandhis failure to applyhisnon-literal hermeneutic (i.e., system of interpretation) throughout his system oftheology that saves him from liberalism.1After all, theReformed theologian's"spiritualizing"awayJewishpropheciesbyapplyingthemdirectlytothechurchdiffersonlyindegreefromtheliberal'sspiritualizingawaythecreationaccountorthevirginbirthbysayingthatthesearemyths,reasonsthedispensationalist.The dispensationalist is emotionally committed to his literal hermeneutic andbelieves that he alonehas themoral courage and integrity necessary to acceptwhatScriptureliterallyteaches.

Dr.CharlesC.Ryrieexplainsthedispensationalemphasisonconsistentlyliteralinterpretationasfollows:

Thedistinctionbetween Israel and theChurch is born out of a systemofhermeneutics which is usually called literal interpretation. ... The wordliteralisperhapsnotasgoodaseitherthewordnormalorplain,butinanycase it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize asnondispensational interpretation does. ... Consistently literal or plaininterpretationisindicativeofadispensationalapproachtotheinterpretation

ofScripture.Anditisthisveryconsistency--thestrengthofdispensationalinterpretation--thatirksthenondispensationalistandbecomestheobjectofhisridicule.2

Ifplainornormal interpretation is theonlyvalidhermeneuticalprinciple,andif it isconsistentlyapplied, itwillcauseonetobeadispensationalist.Asbasicasonebelievesnormalinterpretationtobe,tothatextenthewillofnecessitybecomeadispensationalist.3

Dr. Walvoord captures the spirit of dispensational literalism in his dramaticstatements:

Historyishistory,notallegory.Factsarefacts.Prophesiedfutureeventsarejust what they are prophesied. Israel means Israel, earth means earth,heavenmeansheaven.4

Aliteralpromisespiritualizedisexegeticalfraud.5

The importance of consistent literalism to the dispensationalist cannot beoverstated.DispensationalistsliketoarguethatconsistentliteralismistheirfirstprincipleandthatthedichotomyandparenthesistheorieslogicallyfollowfromtheapplicationofthisfirstprincipletothestudyofScripture.Ibelievethatthereality is the reverse:dispensational interpretationuses thedegreeof literalismnecessary to interpret prophecy in terms of the dispensational dichotomy andparenthesis assumptions. Beyond this, differing degrees of figurativeness andliteralitycanbefoundindispensationalinterpretations.

Certain passages dramatically demonstrate the difficulty in trying to interpretprophecy with so-called consistent literalism. One such class of passages arethosewhichdispensationalistsapplytotheirJewishmillenniumandwhichrefertosomeancientenemiesofOldTestamentIsraelwhichlongagopassedoutofexistence, such as theAmmonites (Isaiah 11:14;Daniel 11:41), theAssyrians(Micah 5:5; Isaiah 19:23-25), the Edomites (Isaiah 11:14; 63:1-6; Joel 3:19;Amos9:11-12;Daniel11:41),theEgyptians(Zechariah14:16-19;Isaiah19:23-25),andtheMoabites(Isaiah11:14;Daniel11:41).6Dr.WilliamEverettBellhasmadethefollowingobservationsinthisregard:

One wonders why if "Israel means Israel," why Assyria does not mean

Assyria and Egypt mean Egypt. The answer, obviously, is that plaincommon sense militates against any interpretation that sees a necessaryrevivalofancientpeopleswhopassedoffthesceneofhistorythousandsofyears ago. No Christian would deny that God could once again bringtogetheranAssyrianempireoraPhilistinenationifHechosetodoso,butfewexpositors,dispensationalistsincluded,lookforsuchanoccurrence.7

Still anotherproblem for the theoryof consistent literalismare thosepassageswhich dispensationalists refer to a future Jewish dispensation and whichspecifically mention Old Testament family and tribal relationships.DispensationalistsarguethatthereisafuturegenerationofJewswhowillfulfillthe Old Testament prophecies about a Messianic age, but some of theseprophecies specifically mention the existence of ancient family and tribalrelationships. For example, Zechariah chapters 9-12 is usually considered bydispensationalists to be a passage especially supportive of their system.Zechariah 12:11-14, however, specifically speaks of the separate and distinctexistence of the families of David, Nathan, Levi and Shimei. Other passagesabout the Messianic age speak of the distinct existence of the tribe of Levi(Isaiah66:21;Malachi3:3),andsomeevenspeakofthecontinuedexistenceofthe sons of Zadok within the tribe of Levi (Ezekiel 44:15; 48:11). Otherpropheticpassagesspeakofall the separateanddistinct twelve tribesof Israel(Ezekiel48;Revelation7).Thesetribalandfamilyrelationships,however,havelongbeen lost.Godhasnotseen fit topreserve thesegenealogicaldistinctionspastthetimeoftheNewTestament.Oncetribalandfamilyrelationshipsarelost,they cannotbe restored exceptby resurrecting the family and tribal heads andstarting over again.Because of such considerations, Patrick Fairbairn has saidthefollowing:

So long as any prophecies were depending for their fulfillment on theseparate existence of tribes and families in Israel, the distinction betwixtthem was preserved; and so, also, were the genealogical records, whichwere needed to attest the fulfillment. These prophecies terminated in theSonofMary,thebranchofthehouseofDavid,andthelionofthetribeofJudah; but with him this, and all other old things, ceased -- a new era,independentofsuchoutwardandformaldifferences,began.Hence,wefindtheapostledischargingall fromgivingheed toendlessgenealogies,asnolongerofanyavailinthechurchofGod;andtheprovidenceofGodshortly

after sealed the word by scattering their genealogies to the winds, andfusing together in one undistinguishable, inextricablemass, the survivingremnants of the Jewish family. Now, prophecy is not to be verified byhalves; it is either wholly true, in the sense in which it ought to beunderstood,oritisafailure.AndsinceGod'sprovidencehasrenderedthefulfillment of the parts referred to manifestly impossible on the literalprinciple of interpretation, it affords conclusive evidence, that on thisprinciple such prophecies aremisread. Inwhat it callsmen to believe, itdoes violence to their reason; and it commits the word of God toexpectations,whichnevercanbeproperlyrealized.8

The passage most commonly mentioned in discussions of the difficultypresentedbydispensationalliteralismisEzekiel'stemplevision(Ezekiel40-48).Thedispensationalistsarelookingforareinstitutionofbloodyanimalsacrificesin a millennial temple built in accordance with the description found in thispassage.9DispensationalistsarecarefultospecifythatthesesacrificesaremerelymemorialsofChrist'sdeathandwillbe themillennialequivalentof theLord'sSupper.TheproblemwiththisisthatEzekiel'svisionreferstothesesacrificesasliterallymaking atonement (Ezekiel 45:15,17,20;Hebrew:kaphar, atone).Ofcourse,adispensationalistcangoto thebookofHebrewstoprovethatanimalsacrifices in the Old Testament never literally atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4).WhentheReformedtheologian,however,goestoHebrewstoprovethatanimalsacrifices were done away forever by Christ's once for all offering (Hebrews10:10-18), then that is "theological interpretation" and "reading the NewTestamentbackintotheOldTestament,"twopracticeswhichdispensationalistsroutinelycriticize.

Another area where strict literalism is difficult are those prophecies whichdispensationalists interpret as end-time events and which refer to ancientweapons systems. For example, Ezekiel 38-39 is a passage whichdispensationalists interpret as referring to an end-time invasion of Israel by aRussian army. And yet the prophecy speaks of this army as equipped withprimitive weapons: "shields and bucklers, ... bows and arrows, and ...handstaves, and ... spears" (Ezekiel 39:9).Theseweapons are largelymade ofwood as evidenced by their being burned as firewood. Dr. John F.Walvoordsuggeststhefollowingexplanation:

Modernmissilewarfarewillhavedevelopedinthatdaytothepointwheremissiles will seek out any considerable amount of metal. Under thosecircumstances, it would be necessary to abandon the large use of metalweaponsandsubstitutewoodsuchasisindicatedintheprimitiveweapons.Whatever the explanation, the most sensible interpretation is that thepassagereferstoactualweaponspressedintousebecauseoftheparticularcircumstancesofthatday.10

For the sakeof argument, let us assume that thedispensationalist is correct inreferring this prophecy to a specific futuristic end-time event as opposed to apreterite or axiomatic interpretation. Given that assumption, to teach that theprophetwassimplyspeakingofwarfareintermsfamiliartoancientIsraelwouldbe to compromise the dispensational literal hermeneutic. If the prophet couldhaveprophesiedawarwithmodernweaponsintermsoftheprimitiveweaponswith which ancient Israel was familiar, then the prophet could also haveprophesiedthechurchageintermsoftheOldTestamentreligioussystemwithwhichancientIsraelwasfamiliar.If thedispensationalistdoesnot interpret thewoodenweaponsofEzekiel 39 literally, thenhehas little basis for cryingout"spiritualization" when the Reformed interpreter interprets Ezekiel's templevisioninthechaptersimmediatelyfollowingasaprophecyofthechurchageintermsoftheOldTestamentreligioussystem.

Not all dispensational interpretersguard the literal hermeneutic as carefully asdoesDr.Walvoord.ThepopulardispensationalwriterHalLindsey,agraduateofthe seminary where Dr. Walvoord is president, shares his hermeneuticalapproachtothebookofRevelation:

Some writers have chosen to interpret each symbol quite literally. Forexample,alocustwiththefaceofaman,theteethofalion,abreastplateofiron,atailthatcansting,andwingsthatmadethesoundofmanychariotswouldhavetobespeciallycreatedbyGodtolookjustlikethatdescription.

I personally tend to think that God might utilize in his judgments somemoderndeviceswhichtheApostleJohnwasatalossforwordstodescribenineteen centuries ago! In the case just mentioned, the locust mightsymbolizeanadvancedkindofhelicopter.11

Mr.LindseylatersuggeststhatthecompositelocustcreaturesoftheApocalypse

might be Cobra helicopters that spray nerve gas from their tails.12 And yet,interpreters such as Mr. Lindsey also argue that Reformed interpreters aremaking a serious and fundamental error in teaching that the Old TestamentprophetsattimesspokeofthecomingchurchageintermsoftheOldTestamentreligiouseconomywithwhichthepeopleofGodwerethenfamiliar!

AnotherpassagewheredispensationalistsgenerallyinsistonstrictliteralityisthedescriptionoftheNewJerusaleminRevelation21.ThenewJerusalemvisionofRevelation21, if interpretedwith strict literality, involves thecomingdown toearthofacitywhoselength,widthandheightareeach12,000stadia(i.e.,about1,500miles). Just stop and try to visualize a city fifteen hundredmiles long,wide and tall resting on planet earth. Such a metropolitan mass would put adefinitewobbleinthisplanet'sorbitalspin!Ofcourse,Godcoulddosuchafeatand overcome any such difficulties, but is it not more likely that theseoutrageous dimensions were used intentionally to prevent an overly literalinterpretation?Also,theuseofthehighlysymbolicnumber12,000wouldseemenoughtoindicatethatthiscity,whichelsewhereisliterallysaidtobetheBrideofChrist(Revelation21:9-10),isasymbolforthefullnumberofthepeopleofGodofall theages.Thenumber twelve isassociatedwith the twelve tribesofIsrael and the twelve apostles (Revelation 21:12,14) and therefore with thecovenantpeopleofbothages.Thenumberstenandthousandareassociatedwithfullnessorcompletion.Whytheinsistenceonaliteralcitywithsuchoutrageousanddisproportionatedimensionsrelativetoplanetearth?

The dispensationalist Dr. Paul Lee Tan explains that the dispensationalistbelieves thatBiblical prophecy should be interpreted literallywhenever this ispossibleorplausible.Asanexampleofwhatheistalkingabout,hementionsthepearls that are to serve as gates in the extraordinarily large city described inRevelation21.13Of course, it is possible forGod to create such extraordinarypearls.Andit ispossibleforomnipotentGodtorecreatemanyelementsoftheOldTestamentworldandtocataclysmicallyrearrangetheearth'stopographyinorder to allow for a very literal fulfillment of Messianic prophecies. Thequestion, however, is not whether or not such fulfillments are theoreticallypossiblebyanystretchoftheimagination.TheissueiswhatGodwasintendingtocommunicatebythelanguageusedinBiblicalprophecy.

Dispensationalistssometimesdolayasidethisinsistenceonliteralityifpossible

by any stretch of the imagination in prophetic interpretation. For example, inPsalm22,itwasprophesiedthattheMessiahwouldbesurroundedby"bullsofBashan." Most interpreters take this prophecy to refer to those people whopersecuted our Lord at His passion. One must admit, however, that thisinterpretationisnota"literalifpossible"interpretationofthepassage.Andyet,Iamawareofnodispensationalistwho insists in thenameof literalismthatourLord atHis second comingmust suffer again under the threats of literal bullsfrom literal Bashan in order to fulfill all prophecy literally. Yet these sameinterpretersarguethatChristwillnotbeginHisprophesiedMessianicreignuntilHe is ruling from a literal Mount Zion in literal Palestine (Psalm 2:6) eventhough the New Testament teaches both that Christ obtained His MessianicthroneatHisascension intoheaven (Revelation12:5;2:26-27;comparePsalm2:9) and that Mount Zion and Jerusalem in the age are heavenly realities(Hebrews12:22).

The editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible have made a significantadmissionregardingliteralismandtheinterpretationofOldTestamentprophecy.TheyhaveacknowledgedthattheanimalsacrificesinEzekiel'stemplevisiondonot need to be interpreted literally but may be validly regarded as a generalprophecyoffutureworshipintermsoftheOldTestamenteconomywithwhichtheoriginal recipientsof theprophecywere familiar.14 If thisprinciple canbeappliedhere,thenwhynotelsewhereinotherpropheciesoftheMessianicage?IfthisprincipleappliestothesacrificesinEzekiel'stemplevision,thenwhynotalsototheentiretemplesetting?OncethisprincipleisacknowledgedinregardtooneelementofOldTestamentworshipinaMessianicprophecy,itisarbitraryto deny it in regard to other elements of Old Testament worship and otherMessianic prophecies. The more this principle is applied in dispensationalinterpretation of prophecy, the less Judaistic will be the dispensationalmillenniumandthecloserdispensational interpretationwillcometo traditionalReformedpropheticinterpretation.

I opened this chapter with some criticisms that dispensationalists have of theReformedhermeneutic.Allowmetoclosebyansweringthesecriticisms.First,consistentliteralismisnotthefinalkeytoproperBiblicalinterpretation.Itistoosubjective and rationalistic.Oneman's consistency is anotherman's absurdity.Consistentliteralismmeansthattheinterpretermustultimatelylooktohisownpersonal sense of literary usage to determine the degree of literalism and

figurativenessinprophecy.

The proper hermeneutic involves a study of how Scripture interprets otherScripture as a guide to what is Scripturally normal language. If Matthew'sinterpretation of prophecy seems abnormal to us, then we should adjust ourunderstandingofwhatnormallanguageis.

TheproperhermeneuticinvolvesawillingnesstointerpretdifficultpassagesofScriptureinthelightoftheteachingofclearerpassagesofScriptureandwithasensitivity to literary genre. One should not build a theological system onpossible interpretations of poetic or apocalyptic passages when thoseinterpretationsrequireonetotwisttheclearmeaningofstraightforwarddidacticpassages.Forexample,theclearteachingoftheNewTestamentonthefinishedsacrifice of Christ should guide one in interpreting the animal sacrifices inEzekiel'svision.

TheproperhermeneuticinvolvesaprayerfuldependenceontheHolySpirit,whosanctifies in truth. The interpreter should not be a rationalist who puts hisultimate trust in his own personal sense of language. The interpreter's ownpersonal sense of language is reliable only to the extent that it has beensanctifiedbytheSpiritintruth.Theinterpretershouldhumblyacknowledgethathisultimatedependence ison theSpirit's illuminationforspiritualdiscernmentand for deliverance from sinful biases and blindnesses. Interpretation ofScripture is a moral endeavor as well as an intellectual endeavor. We aredependentontheSpirittohelpustounderstandScriptureasGodmeantittobeunderstood.

Second, strict literalism is not the final hedge against liberalism.Both liberalsandcultistsdefendtheirdistortedtheologiesbothbyliteralizingScriptureandbyallegorizingScripture.Forexample,Armstrongismliteralizestheeternalthronein the Davidic covenant and insists upon a fulfillment involving a literal,physical throne. The true hedge against doctrinal distortion is not literalizing.ThetruehedgeisarealsubmissiontotheilluminationoftheHolySpiritandtothe teachings of Scripture.Only here in this double combination ofWord andSpiritdoesonefindtruthsafelyhedgedagainsterror.

What is truly objective interpretation?Theultimate objectivity is found in thedivinesubjectivityasexpressedinthe"thussaiththeLord"ofthewrittenWord.

Andforustohavereliableaccesstothisultimateobjectivity,weareultimatelydependentontheSpirit'sworkingivingus thesubjectiveability tounderstandGod'sWord.Inthelastanalysis,truthandunderstandingaregiftsfromGod.Butfor the grace ofGod, I, too,would be blinded toGod's clear revelation and Iwouldbe enslavedby cultic error.As is truewithmany issues,we in the endcome to the apparent antinomy between human responsibility and divinesovereignty.IammorallyresponsibleforseeingandobeyingtheclearmessageofScripture.Apart fromChrist, I candonothing and am spirituallyblind anddead.When I do understand and obeyGod'smessage, it is an unmerited giftfromGod.Andyetmynatural inabilityandmytotaldependenceonGoddoesnotrelievemeofmyresponsibilitytouseallmyGodgivenfacilitiesinaneffortto understandHisWord.And if I am right andmy dispensational friends arewrong in understandingprophecy, I havenobasis for boasting.Forwhat do IhavethatIdidnotreceive?Everygoodandperfectgiftisfromabove.

EndNotes

1"TheamillennialmethodofinterpretingScriptureiscorrectlydefinedasthespiritualizingmethod.Itisclear,however,thatconservativeammillennialistslimittheuseofthismethod,andinfactadopttheliteralmethodofinterpretingmostoftheScriptures....

"Themodernliberalscholar,whoisalsoanamillenarian,feelsfreetousethespiritualizingmethodratherfreelyinareasotherthanprophecywheneveritsuitshisfancy,andbeingboundbynolawofinfallibleinspirationneednotbeconcernediftheresultisnotconsistent.Thespiritualizingmethodonceadmittedisnoteasytoregulateandtendstodestroytheliteralmethod.Whiletheamillennialuseoftheliteralmethodisgeneralamongconservatives,amongliberalgroupsithaslessstandinganduse."

JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),pages62-63.SeealsoPaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy(Rockville,Maryland:AssurancePublishers,1974),pages275-277.

2 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),pages45-46.

3 Ibid.,page21.4 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages129-130.5 Ibid.,page200.6 CompareJohnF.Walvoord,TheNationsinProphecy(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1967)pages160-169.

7 WilliamEverettBell,Jr.,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePre-tribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology"(dissertation,SchoolofEducationofNewYorkUniversity,1967),pages85-86.

8 PatrickFairbairn,ProphecyViewedinRespecttoItsDistinctNature,ItsSpecialFunction,andProperInterpretation(n.p.:T.&T.Clark,1865;reprinted.,GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1967),pages276-277.

9 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,AStudyinBiblicalEschatology(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),page519.

10 JohnF.Walvoord,TheNationsinProphecy,page116.QuotedinPaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy,page224.

11 HalLindsey,There'saNewWorldComing:"APropheticOdyssey"(Irvine,California:HarvestHousePublishers,1973),page16.

12 Ibid.,pages138-139.13 PaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy,pages157-160.14C.I.Scofield,editor,TheNewScofieldReferenceBible(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1967),page888.

Chapter8InterpretingtheProphets

Interpreting Biblical prophecy is not exactly like reading the morningnewspaper.To readBiblical prophecy is to encounter statements aboutmightybulls of Bashan, strange composite beasts, armies of locusts, and cataclysmicevents in theheavens andon earth.Onedoesn't often encounter language likethateveninthemoreextravaganttabloids.Interpretingthissortoflanguageisachallenge, especially since we are no longer surrounded by the cultural andlinguisticcontext inwhichBiblicalprophecywasoriginallygiven.Interpretingprophecy, however, is a challenge that every Christian should accept. AllScripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction, not just the easier tounderstandportionsofScripture.

The dispensationalist and the Reformed interpreter have basic disagreementsabout how the language of prophecy should be interpreted. It would beimpractical togo throughall thepropheciesofScripture in thischapterand toexplainthedifferencesbetweendispensationalandReformedapproachestotheirinterpretation. A more practical approach would be to examine some of thegeneral issues in the interpretation of prophecy as these relate to the basicdifferencesbetweendispensationalandReformedpropheticinterpretation.

Aprimarycriticism thatdispensationalistshaveof theReformed interpretationof prophecy is that the Reformed interpreter treats prophecy with a differenthermeneutic (i.e., system of interpretation) than he uses with the rest ofScripture.According toDr.Walvoord, the non-dispensational interpreter "usestwomethods of interpretation, the spiritualizingmethod for prophecy and theliteralmethodforotherScriptures."1AccordingtoDr.CharlesC.Ryrie:

What, then, is the difference between the dispensationalists' use of thishermeneutical principle [literalism] and the nondispensationalists'? Thedifferenceliesinthefactthatthedispensationalistclaimstousethenormalprinciple of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible. Hefurther claims that the nondispensationalist does not use the principleeverywhere.Headmits that thenondispensationalist isa literalist inmuch

ofhisinterpretationoftheScriptures,butchargeshimwithallegorizingorspiritualizingwhenitcomestotheinterpretationofprophecy.2

In otherwords, the nondispensationalist position is simply that the literalprincipleissufficientexceptfortheinterpretationofprophecy.Inthisarea,thespiritualizingprinciplemustbeintroduced.3

Thebasicissuehereisthesimplequestionofwhatwas"normal"languagewhenGodspokeaboutthethendistantfuture.ShouldweexpectGodtohavespokenthroughtheprophetsaboutthethendistantfuturewiththesamebasiclanguagethatHeusedwhenHechronicledthehistoryofthecovenantpeople?OrshouldweexpectabasicliterarydifferencebetweenGenesisandZechariah,between1Samuel and Daniel, between the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse ofJohn?Istheonlyliterarydifferencebetweenhistoryandpredictiveprophecythatonelooksatthepastandtheotheratthefuture?Shouldweinterpretpredictiveprophecy as if it were prewritten history or futuristic newspaper reporting?AccordingtoReformedinterpreters,thereisabasicliterarydifferencebetweenhistorical chronicles and prophetic visions. Many Old Testament propheciesweregivenindreams,visions,anddarksayings(Numbers12:6-8)inwhichoneshould expect to find more figurative speech than in historical accounts ordidacticliterature.Oneshouldnotinterprettheprophetsasiftheirmessageisinthesimpleliteraryformofprewrittenhistory.

One of the greatest contrasts between the Reformed and dispensationalunderstandingof"normal"languageintheprophetsrevolvesaroundthequestionof whether the prophets ever spoke of the future in terms of the past. TheReformed position is that God through the Old Testament prophets revealedselected truthsabout the thencomingchurchagewithout revealingeverythingabout the church age. Therewere certainmysteries about the church age thatwere not revealed until New Testament times, such as the believing Gentiles'becoming fullmembersof thepeopleofGodunder thenewcovenantwithouttheirsubmittingtotheMosaicceremoniallawsasJewishproselytes.IntheOldTestamentprophets,Godrevealedtheseselectedtruthsaboutthechurchageinthe descriptive context of the basic Old Testament religious and politicaleconomy with which the prophets and their listeners were familiar. Godprophetically spoke of the unknown future in terms of then known andunderstood realities. God, in the prophets, predicted certain essentials of the

church age in terms of the concrete details of the Old Testament world eventhoughsomeofthesedetailswouldpassawayinthecomingage.Forexample,God, in theprophets, revealed that in theMessianicage,manyGentileswouldworship and serve the God of Abraham along with Israel, but, as mentionedabove,withnohintthattheceremonialdividingwallbetweenJewandGentilewould be torn down. According to the Reformed interpreter, this was God'snormalway of revealing selected truths about the distant future.According tothe dispensationalist, this would have been a deceptive way for God to havespokenaboutthedistantfuture:

Newrevelationcannotmeancontradictoryrevelation.Laterrevelationonasubject does notmake the earlier revelationmean something different. Itmayaddtoitorevensupersedeit,butitdoesnotcontradictit.AwordorconceptcannotmeanonethingintheOldTestamentandtakeonoppositemeaning in theNewTestament. If thiswere so, then theBiblewould befilled with contradictions, and God would have to be conceived asdeceiving the Old Testament prophets when He revealed to them anationalistic kingdom, since He would have known all the time that Hewouldcompletelyreversetheconceptinlaterrevelation.4

It is almost standard among detractors of the literal method to explainprophecy in terms of "Jewish coloration," "historical and contemporarygarb," "Israelitish form," and "Old Testament outer covering." By theseslogans,interpretersmeanthatthewordsorformsofprophecyarecoloredand influenced by the prophet's contemporary backgrounds, and shouldtherefore not be interpreted literally. ... God allegedlymanipulates thingsbefore the prophets so that spiritual, heavenly ideas appear in earthly,comprehensiblegarb.5

ItisincrediblethatGodshouldinthemostimportantmatters,affectingtheinterests and the happiness ofman and nearly touching his own veracity,clothe them in words, which, if not true in their obvious and commonsense,woulddeceivethepiousandGod-fearingofmanyages.6

Thepractical result of thisunderstandingof "normal" language inprophecy isthedispensationalpositionthatnoOldTestamentprophecycanreferdirectlytothechurchage.Forexample,sincethepropheciesaboutGentiles'worshipingthe

God of Abraham in theMessianic age are generally given in the descriptivecontext of the basic Old Testament religious and political economy, thesepropheciesmustbefulfilledinthecomingJewishagewhenthisbasicreligiousand political contextwill be literally reestablished. For these prophecies to befulfilledinthechurchageapartfromanationalisticJewishkingdomwouldbeadivinedeception,accordingtothedispensationalists.Thechurchage,therefore,must be viewed as a totally unrevealed parenthesis in the Jewish programprophesied in theprophets. It is instructive to contrast thisviewof the churchageandtheOldTestamentprophetswiththatoftheapostlePaul:

HavingthereforeobtainedhelpofGod,Icontinueuntothisday,witnessingbothtosmallandgreat,sayingnoneotherthingsthanthosewhichtheprophetsandMosesdidsayshouldcome:thatChristshouldsufferandthatHeshouldrisefromthedead,andshouldshewlightuntothepeople,andtotheGentiles.Acts26:22-23

Inthelastchapter,wequotedMalachi1:11whereGodprophesiedacomingageinwhichGod's namewould be great among theGentile nations. The prophetspoke of the coming day when the God of Abraham would be universallyworshipedintermsoftheuniversalofferingofincenseandpureofferings.TheReformedinterpreterseesadirectfulfillmentofthisprophecyinthechurchageinwhichChristiansfrommanynationsthroughouttheworldworshiptheGodofIsrael.Accordingtothisinterpretation,MalachispokeaboutthecomingchurchageintermsoftheOldTestamentworshipsystem.TotheReformedinterpreter,such usage of language in prophecy is both normal and non-deceptive. Thedispensationalist insists that this prophecy can be directly fulfilled only in acoming Jewish age in which the worship of God through literal incense andofferingswillbereinstituted.

Dr.JohnF.Walvoordgivesanexampleof thedispensational interpretivemindsetinthefollowing:

TheideathatGentilesshouldbeonexactlythesameplaneasIsraelitesandfurthermore,inintimaterelationshipasbeingmembersofthesamebody,isabsolutely foreign to the Old Testament. According to Isaiah 61:5,6, theGentilesarepicturedasbeingtheservantsandIsraelasthepriestsofGod.While it is true that the Gentiles were promised blessings in the future

millennialkingdom,theyarenevergivenequalitywiththeJewsintheOldTestament.Whatwasnewandunpredictedas far as theOldTestament isconcerned, here forms the content of the special revelation given Paulconcerningthechurch,thebodyofChrist.AJeworaGentilewhothroughfaith in Christ becomes a member of the body of Christ, by somuch isdetached from his former situation, and his prophetic program thenbecomesthatofthechurchratherthanthatofJewsorGentilesassuch.Itisonly as the prophetic program of the church as the body of Christ isdistinguishedfromthatofIsraelor thatof theGentiles thatconfusioncanbeavoidedintheinterpretationofunfulfilledprophecy.7

Dr.WalvoordiscommentingonIsaiah61:5-6:

And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alienshall beyour plowmenandyour vinedressers.But ye shall benamed thePriestsoftheLord:menshallcallyouMinistersofourGod:yeshalleatoftherichesoftheGentiles,andintheirgloryshallyeboastyourselves.

HeissayingthatthisprophecycanbefulfilledonlyintheJewishmillennialagewheretherewillbeliteralGentileservantstatusbeforenationalIsraelandwheretherewillbearevivaloftheliteralOldTestamentpriesthood.Afterall,doesnotservant mean servant and does not priest mean priest? Is this not the normalmeaningofthelanguageasunderstoodbytheoriginalrecipients?IsthisnotthefulfillmentthatmanyJewswereexpectingatthetimeofChrist?Soreasonsthedispensationalist.Hesees thispassageas theprophecyofanagethatstands incontrast to theChristian churchwhere believing Jew andGentile are spiritualequals.

TheReformedinterpreterunderstandstheaboveprophecy,notincontrastto,butin the light of the New Testament truth that believing Jews and Gentiles arespiritually equal in this age. The prophecy is not teaching that there will beliteral Old Testament priests and literal Gentile subservience before nationalIsrael at the time of its fulfillment. The prophecy is not teaching an absolutefunctionalandreligiousdichotomybetweenJewsandGentilesintheMessianicage.TheprophecyissimplycontrastingthecomingagewiththeOldTestamentera during which the Gentiles rejected the God of Israel and generally werehostile toward Israel. In theMessianic age, thepreviouslypaganGentileswillservetheGodofIsraelastheirGod.TheJewswillexerciseapriestlyministryin

thatsalvationwillcomefromtheJews(John4:22)throughtheMessiah.AndthebelievingGentileswill bring, through their service and finances, newoutwardstrength to the people of God. In his exhortation in Romans 15:27 to theChristiansatRometohelpthe"poorsaintswhichareatJerusalem,"PaulgivesanexampleofaNewTestamentfulfillmentofthisprophecy:

ForiftheGentileshavebeenmadepartakersoftheirspiritualthings,theirdutyisalsotoministeruntothemincarnalthings.

For another example of the contrast in dispensational and Reformedinterpretationofprophecy,letuslookattheprophecyfoundinZechariah2:4-5:"Jerusalemshallbe inhabitedas townswithoutwalls for themultitudeofmenand cattle therein: for I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire roundabout,andwillbe theglory in themidstofher."Is thefinalfulfillmentof thisprophecy dependent upon the literal, earthly city of Jerusalem? There was apartial fulfillment of this prophecy under the old covenant in the city's divineprotectionduring thevulnerabledayswhenherwallswerebeing rebuiltunderthe leadership of Nehemiah and in the future growth of the city's population.There, however, is amore significant fulfillment in this age and in the age tocome. In this age of the Messiah, the forces of hell are the ones in need ofdefensivewalls(Matthew16:18).TodaytheLordJesusChristhasallauthorityin heaven and on earth, and thewicked one cannot touchHis people (1 John5:18),forgreaterisHewhoisinthemthanhewhoisintheworld(1John4:4).The church is no longer on the defensive but is on the Great Commissionoffensive.Thechurchisnolongerisolatedfromthepagannationsbyawallofceremoniallawbutisunderorderstogoandtodisciplethepagannations.Christhas bound Satan the strong man (Matthew 12:29), and the church is nowplunderingSatan'streasuresasmenaretranslatedfromthekingdomofdarknessto the kingdom of the Son of God's love. In the New Testament era, God'skingdomhasexpandedfromtheconfiningwallsofJewishJerusalemtoincludepeople,togetherwiththeirpossessions,fromtheuttermostpartsoftheearth.Inthe New Testament, physical Jerusalem was judged by God to become adesolation(Luke21:20)andceasedtohavesignificanceforGod'speople(John4:21;Galatians4:25;Hebrews13:14).Inthenewcovenantera,God'speoplearecitizensof the antitypicalheavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews12:22;Galatians4:26;compareHebrews11:10,16;Revelation21:2).EverycitizenoftheheavenlycityisalsoalivingstoneinthetempleandisfilledwiththegloryofGodthroughthe

indwelling Spirit. And the blessings of this age are but a foretaste of theblessingsofeternitywhen theheavenlycitywilldescend to thenewearthandthegloryof theLordwillbe its light.Thesenewcovenant fulfillmentsof thisprophecyarenotdependentontheexistenceofaliteral,earthly,Jewishcity.AprophecyspokenintermsofOldTestamentphysicalJerusalemcanbefulfilledin terms of the antitypical heavenly Jerusalem, ofwhich all the elect becomemembersatsalvation.ThereisnoneedforafutureJudaisticageinwhichOldTestamentJerusalemisrebuiltforthesakeofa"literal"fulfillmentofprophecy.

IwillquicklymentiononlastprophecyfromZechariah.ThefollowingistakenfromtheMessianicprophecyassociatedwith theroyalcrowningofJoshua thepriest:

Behold,themanwhosenameisTheBRANCH;andheshallgrowupoutofhisplace,andheshallbuildthetempleoftheLord:evenheshallbuildthetempleoftheLord;...AndtheythatarefaroffshallcomeandbuildinthetempleoftheLord,...Zechariah6:12b-13a,15a

NoticethestrikingsimilaritybetweenthisprophecyandthemessageofPaulinEphesianschapter2:

ButnowinChristJesusyewhosometimeswerefaroffaremadenighbythebloodofChrist....Andarebuiltuponthefoundationoftheapostlesandtheprophets,JesusChristhimselfbeingthechiefcornerstone;inwhomallthebuildingfitlyframedtogethergrowethuntoanholytempleintheLord.Ephesians2:13,20-21

Is the above prophecy fromZechariah directly fulfilled through JesusChrist'sbuildingupthespiritualtempleofHischurchwithGentilelivingstones?OrwillJesushavetobuildaliteralJewishtempleoutofliteralstonesinafutureagetofulfillthisprophecy?WhichofthesedoyouthinktheApostlePaulwouldhaveregardedasthe"normal"interpretationofZechariahchaptersix?

Another profitable area to examine is the "normal" interpretation of prophetictypes.Ifasportscastermadeacommentaboutafootballteam'srecruitingarealGoliathfortheirdefensiveline,thenwhatwouldbethe"normal"understanding

ofthisstatement?ShouldweexpecttherookielinemantobealiteralPhilistine?Shouldweexpect to seehimon theplaying field in ancient armorandwithaspearwhoseshaftislikeaweaver'sbeam?Shouldweexpecttherookietobetheresurrected original with his head stitched on? Or should we understand thiscommentonlytomeanthatthenewlinemanisanunusuallybig,powerfulandintimidatingopponentonthefootballfieldandpossiblyalso,dependingonthestatement's broader context, boastful, disrespectful, defiant, and showy?Whatwouldbethe"normal"interpretationofthesportscaster'sstatement?

This basic figure of speech used by our hypothetical sportscaster is called aprophetic typewhenused inBiblical prophecy. In using a prophetic type, onetakesaneventorapersonoraninstitutionfromthepastandusesittospeakofthepresent or future.The chosen event, person, or institutionhasboth a formand a substance. The substance of Goliath includes his being a big, strong,formidable foe. The form of Goliath includes such things as his being aPhilistine and an ancient warrior. The substance is the outstanding generalcharacteristic and the real essence of thematter, and the form involves all thedetailed but incidental specifics. When a prophetic type is used to divinelypredictthedistantfuture,itisnotnormaltoexpectanexactreproductionofalltheincidentaldetailsorareappearanceoftheliteraloriginal.

AnexampleofaprophetictypeisfoundintheprophecyinAmos9:11-12abouttheresurrectionofthefallenboothofDavid.Inapreviouschapter,wenotedtheuseofthisprophecyinActs15andthecontroversyoverwhetheritreferstothechurchageortothedispensationalJewishmillennium.Thereisalsocontroversyoverwho ismeantby thenameDavid in theprophecy.Reformed theologiansbelievethatthisprophecywhichmentionsKingDavidwillbefulfilledthroughhis antitype, King Jesus. Some leading dispensational interpreters who aregenuinely striving to be consistently literal instead believe that this and othersimilar prophecieswhichmentionDavid in the context of theMessianic age8mustbefulfilledthroughtheliteral,resurrectedOldTestamentDavidwhowillbegivenamillennialviceroyship.Forexample,Dr.JohnF.Walvoordsays thefollowing:

OneoftheinterestingaspectsofthemillennialgovernmentisthefactthatresurrectedDavidwillapparentlybeaprinceunderChristinadministeringthemillennialkingdominsofarasitrelatestoIsrael.AccordingtoEzekiel,

David will act as a shepherd over the people of Israel. ... Some haveinterpretedthismentionofDavidasareferencetoChrist.However,thereisno good reason for not taking it in its ordinary sense inasmuch asDavidwillcertainlyberaisedfromthedeadandwillbeonthescene.WhatwouldbemorenaturalthantoassignhimaresponsibleplaceinthegovernmentofChristinrelationtothepeopleofIsrael?9

AndDr.J.DwightPentecostmakesthefollowingcomments:

Newellrepresentsthisviewwhenhesays:

Wemustnever confuse inourminds this situation.WemustbelievetheplainwordsofGod.DavidisnottheSonofDavid.Christ,asSonofDavid,willbeKing;andDavid,His fatherafter the flesh,willbeprince,duringthemillennium.

Thereareseveralconsiderationswhichsupportthisinterpretation.(1)It ismostconsistentwiththeliteralprincipleof interpretation.(2)Davidalonecould sit as regent in the millennium without violating the propheciesconcerningDavid'sreign....ItwouldbeconcludedthatinthegovernmentofthemillenniumDavidwillbeappointedaregentoverPalestineandwillruleoverthelandasprince,ministeringundertheauthorityofJesusChrist,theKing.Theprincethusmightleadinworship,offermemorialsacrifices,dividethelandallottedtohimamonghisfaithfulseedwithoutviolatinghispositionbyresurrection.10

Literally speaking, David is no more Jesus than Israel is the church. If theprophethadmeantJesus,whydidhenotsay"SonofDavid"?AndiftypologicalinterpretationsuchasthisisvalidinAmos,thenwhynotelsewhere?Toadmititsvalidity here is truly to allow the Reformed camel's nose into one'shermeneuticaltent.

Anothergoodcase inpoint is theprophecyfound in the last twoversesof theOld Testament (Malachi 4:5-6) that Elijah would precede the coming of theChrist:

Behold, Iwill sendyouElijah theprophetbefore thecomingof thegreatanddreadfuldayoftheLord:Andheshall turntheheartofthefathersto

thechildren,and theheartof thechildren to their fathers, lest Icomeandsmitetheearthwithacurse.

Was this prophecy to be fulfilled through the reappearance of the literal OldTestamentElijahorthroughaprophetwhowouldcomeinthespiritandpowerofElijah?WereadinLuke1:17thatanangeltoldZachariasthefollowingabouthisyettobebornson,JohntheBaptist:

Andheshallgobefore [God] in thespiritandpowerofElias, to turn theheartsof thefathers to thechildren,and thedisobedient to thewisdomofthejust;tomakereadyapeoplepreparedfortheLord.

ThispassageindicatesthatJohntheBaptistwasthefulfillmentofboththeElijahprophecyofMalachi4:5-6andthepreparatorymessengerprophecyofMalachi3:1andIsaiah40:3.Later,JesusChristsaidthefollowingaboutJohntheBaptistandElijahafterJohnsenthismessagefromprisonandafterthethreedisciplessawliteralElijahonthemountoftransfiguration:

ForalltheprophetsandthelawprophesieduntilJohn.Andifyewillreceiveit,thisisElias,whichwasfortocome.Matthew11:13-14And[Jesus']disciplesaskedhim,saying,WhythensaythescribesthatEliasmustfirstcome?AndJesusansweredandsaiduntothem,"Eliastrulyshallfirstcome,andrestoreallthings.ButIsayuntoyou,thatEliasiscomealready,andtheyknewhimnot,buthavedoneuntohimwhatsoevertheylisted.LikewiseshallalsotheSonofmansufferofthem."AndthedisciplesunderstoodthathespakeofJohntheBaptist.Matthew17:10-13(compareMark9:13)

LikeElijah,JohntheBaptistwasaforcefulpreacherofrepentanceandjudgmentwho at times lived in desert regions. The only possible exegetical argumentagainst John's being the fulfillment ofMalachi 4:5-6 is that in John 1:19-21,whensomepriestsandLevitesfromJerusalemaskedJohnifheweretheChristor Elijah or the Prophet, John answered no. As John Calvin explains in hiscommentaryontheseverses,JohntheBaptistwasansweringtheJews'questioninthespiritinwhichitwasasked.TheJewswereexpectingthereappearanceofthe literal Old Testament Elijah before the coming of the Messiah; John the

BaptistunderstoodthattheJewsbytheirquestionwereaskinghimifheweretheliteralOld Testament Elijah, and John theBaptist knew himself not to be theliteral Old Testament Elijah. John the Baptist fulfilled the Malachi prophecyaboutthecomingElijahbutnotintheliteralsenseexpectedbytheJews.

TherearedispensationalistswhorecognizethatJohntheBaptistdirectlyfulfilledMalachi 4:5-6,11 but some do not. As evidenced by the following quotation,somedispensationalists,inthenameofliteralism,arelookingfortheliteralOldTestamentElijahtoappearandtofulfillthisprophecybeforethesecondcomingofChrist:

Weaffirm that John's comingdoesnot literally fulfillMalachi's prophecybuttypifiesandforeshadowstheyet-futurecomingofElijahtheTishbite....JohndidnotfulfillMalachi'sprophecyregardingthecomingofElijahtheTishbite;heisatypeandprefigurementoftheyet-futureElijah....JohntheBaptistwouldhavebeenthepersonal, literalElijahhadtheJewsacceptedChristandHisofferofthekingdom.12

AsIhavesaid,notalldispensationalistsacceptthisinterpretation.Eventhoughthis interpretation is themost literal and themost consistentwith the popularJewish understanding of the kingdom, this interpretation, much like the two-covenantviewofthenewcovenant,isdifficulttoreconcilewiththetestimonyoftheNewTestament.DispensationalistDr.J.DwightPentecost,forexample,hassaidthefollowing:

... theprophecy is interpretedby theLordasbeing fulfilled,not in literalElijah,but inonewhocomes inElijah's spirit andpower. If literalElijahmustappearChristcouldnotbemakingabonafideofferofthekingdom,inasmuchasliteralElijahhadtocomeandJohncouldnothavefulfilledthatrequirement.13

That some dispensationalists would defend the literal Elijah interpretation inspite of thewitness of theNewTestament about John theBaptist does revealsomething about the general effects of the dispensational assumptions onprophetic interpretation.Literally speaking,Elijah is nomore John theBaptistthan Israel is the church. If the prophet hadmeant "someone in the spirit andpower of Elijah," then why did he not literally say so? If a "spiritualized"interpretation such as this is valid in Malachi, then why not elsewhere?

Considerations such as these and thedesire for consistency explainwhy somedispensationalistsaredrawntotheliteralElijahtheory.

Another interestingareaofstudyis theNewTestament'suseofOldTestamentprophecy.Dispensationalists routinelyclaim that every fulfillmentofprophecyintheNewTestamentisastrictlyliteralfulfillment.14Thatclaimsimplyisnottrue.LookatthefulfillmentsofprophecyinMatthew2:13-18.Hosea11:1spokeoftheexodusofIsraelfromEgypt,andMatthewsawChrist'sreturntoPalestinefromEgyptasafulfillmentofHosea11:1.Jeremiah31:15spokeoftheweepingofametaphoricalRachel, themotherofBenjamin,whenJewishcaptivesweredeportedtoBabylonfromRamah,acityintheterritoryofBenjamin.MatthewsawHerod'sslaughterofthebabesatBethlehem(theplaceofRachel'sgrave)asafulfillmentofJeremiah31:15.MatthewleavesnodoubtthatheisidentifyingafulfillmentofOldTestamentprophecy:

...thatitmightbefulfilledwhichwasspokenoftheLordbytheprophet,...Matthew2:15ThenwasfulfilledthatwhichwasspokenbyJeremytheprophet,...Matthew2:17

Were those literal fulfillments of prophecy? No, they were typologicalfulfillments inwhichnational Israelwasa typeofChrist, theultimateSeedofAbraham.15God's protecting the nation Israel inEgypt in the nation's infancyduringaperilousfamineandthencallingthenationoutofEgypttoCanaanwastypologicallypropheticofChrist'sfleeingtoEgyptasaninfantuntilthedeathofHerod.Also,thegriefatRamahwheretheBabyloniansassembledthelastbandofJewishcaptiveswastypologicallypropheticofHerod'sattempttodestroytheMessianicSeedofAbraham.Notall thefulfillmentsofprophecymentionedintheNewTestamentarestrictlyliteralfulfillments.

Whenever a New Testament fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy is notliteralenoughfor thedispensationalist, thedispensationalist simplyargues thatthe fulfillment reallywas not a fulfillment. Such fulfillments are classified asillustrations, foreshadowings, kingdom breakthroughs, prefigurements, types,and so on. They are said not to be either direct fulfillments or the event theprophet actually predicted. Only by classifying fulfillments in this way is thedispensationalist able to argue that all the fulfillments of the Old Testament

foundintheNewTestamentareliteralfulfillments.

Alastarea toexamineis therelativeemphasisplacedonallowingScripture tointerpret Scripture in the two systems. Dispensationalist Dr. Charles C. Ryriemakes the following charge concerning the covenant theologians use of thisprinciple:

... as a result of the covenant of grace idea, covenant theology has beenforcedtoplaceasitsmostbasicprincipleofinterpretationtheprincipleofinterpretingtheOldTestamentbytheNew....

Ofcourse,thereiseverythingrightaboutlettingtheNewTestamentguideusinourunderstandingoftheOldTestament,buteverythingwrongaboutimposing the New Testament on the Old. And this is exactly what thecovenanttheologiandoesundertheguiseofabasichermeneuticalprinciplewhichisallowableonlyifrightlyused.ThecovenanttheologianinhiszealtomakeChristall inall isguiltyofsuperimposingHimarbitrarilyon theOldTestament.HedoesthesamethingwiththedoctrineoftheChurchandwiththeconceptofsalvationthroughfaithinChrist.16

Admittedly,Reformed prophetic interpretation does place a great emphasis onallowingScripture to interpretScripture. IfPeter indicated thatJoel'sprophecyabout the outpouring of the Spirit was fulfilled at Pentecost, then that shouldinfluenceone'sinterpretationofJoel'sprophecy.IfPaulsaidthatthetrueSeedofAbrahamisChristandthosewhoare incovenantunionwithChrist (Galatians3:16,29), then that fact should influence one's interpretation of theAbrahamiccovenant. If theauthorofHebrewsassociates theheavenlyJerusalemwith theAbrahamic land promise (Hebrews 11:8-16) and if Paul associates theAbrahamiclandpromisewiththeentireworld(Romans4:13),thenthatshouldinfluenceone'sunderstandingof theAbrahamic landpromise.The suppositionhereisthattheonlyinfallibleinterpreterofScriptureisScriptureitself,andthefalliblehumaninterpretershouldstudythisinfallibleandinspiredinterpretationof prophecy as a guide to all prophetic interpretation. The dispensationalist,however, rejects this as reading the New Testament back into the OldTestament.17

TheReformedinterpreterregardstheNewTestamentasthesourceofanaddedclarity and fullness in the understanding of the Old Testament that was not

available to the Old Testament saint. This position is consistent with theScriptural teachingthatGod's truthisrevealedwithgreatestclarity in theNewTestament.MoseswassaidtobesuperiortotheotherOldTestamentprophetsinthatGod spoke clearly to himandnot in dark sayings (Numbers 12:6-8).NotanotherprophetlikeMoses,"whomtheLordknewfacetoface"(Deuteronomy34:10), arose until the Christ, who was counted worthy of more glory thanMoses (Hebrews 3:3) and who was the prophesied Prophet like unto Moses(Deuteronomy18:15,18;Acts 3:22). In theOldTestamentGod spoke throughtheprophets"atsundrytimesandindiversmanners,"butHehas"intheselastdays spoken unto us by His Son," who is "the express image of His person"(Hebrews1:1-3),whohasseentheFather(John6:46),whohasexplainedGod(John 1:18), andwho descended fromheaven to bearwitness towhatHe hasseen(John3:11-13).ThroughtheinspirationoftheoutpouredSpirit,thisapexofrevelation continued with the Apostles (John 14:26; 16:13-14). The NewTestamentthenisthefinal,full,andmostclearrevelationofGod.

TheOldTestamentisthefoundationandbackgroundoftheNewTestamentandis indispensable for theproperunderstandingof theNewTestament.TheNewTestament is the infallible revelation of the divine development of the OldTestamentprograminthefullnessoftimeandisindispensableforunderstandingtheOldTestamentwithnewcovenantclarity.TheNewTestamenttellsusabouttheOldTestamentlikeanoaktreetellsusaboutanacorn.Themanwhohasseenthe fullygrownoakcanbetterunderstand the significanceandmeaningof theacorn.Touseanotherillustration,theNewTestamentaidsintheunderstandingof the Old Testament like observing a specimen under a microscope with ahigher magnification aids in understanding what is seen with a lowermagnification. Let us say that two men are observing a specimen magnifiedtwenty timesbut thatoneof themalsohas seen the samespecimenmagnifiedone hundred times. Thatmanwho has seen the greatermagnificationwill beaware of details the other man cannot even see, and he will more accuratelyunderstand and interpret those details that both men can see with the lessermagnification.AccordingtoReformedinterpretation,wetoday,withtheaidoftheNewTestament,canbetterunderstand the implicationsandmeaningof theOldTestament thancould theoriginal recipientsof that revelationbecausewehave had the privilege of observing the same specimen (God's truth) undergreatermagnification(compare1Peter1:10-12).Manyprophetsdesiredtoseethosethingswhichwehaveseenbutdidnotseethem(Luke10:24).

I have tried to contrast the basic differences between the Reformed and thedispensational understandings of Old Testament prophecy. These two schoolsdisagree on prophetic interpretation, and the implications of this disagreementare great. If the Reformed principles are correct, then the church age is acontinuing fulfillment ofmanyOldTestament prophecies about theMessianicage and Old Testament prophecy applies directly to the Christian. If thedispensationalprinciplesarecorrect,thenthechurchagebecomesanunrevealedparenthesis in the prophesiedMessianic programandOldTestament prophecyapplies directly only to the tribulation, the millennium, and eternity. Whichprinciples of prophetic interpretation are correct is an important questionwithsignificanttheologicalandexegeticalrepercussions.

EndNotes

1 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),page63.

2 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),page89.

3 Ibid.,page91.4 Ibid.,pages94-95.5 PaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy(Rockville,Maryland:AssurancePublishers,1974),pages217,218.

6 GeorgeN.H.Peters,TheTheocraticKingdom(3vols.;GrandRapids:KregalPress,1952),1.315;quotedinPaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy,page222.

7 JohnF.Walvoord,TheChurchinProphecy(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1964),pages46-47.

"ThattheGentilesshouldbefellowheirsandofthesamebodyisnotarecognitionoftheOldTestamentpredictionthat,duringIsrael'scomingkingdomglory,Gentileswillberaisedtoasubordinateparticipationinthosecovenantblessings(Isa.60:12).Thosepredictionswereofanearthlycalling,and,beingrevealedinverymuchOldTestamentprophecy,couldbenopartoftheheavenlycalling--the'mystery...hidinGod.'ThismysteryisofapresentunitingofJewsandGentilesintooneBody--anewdivinepurpose,and,therefore,innosensetheperpetuationofanythingwhichhasbeenbefore."

LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8vols.(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1948),4:76-77.

NoticethelonglistofOldTestamentpropheciesaboutGentilesthataresaidtobefulfilledinthemillenniumasopposedtothechurchageinthefollowingquotation:

"TheuniversalaspectsoftheAbrahamiccovenant,whichpromiseduniversalblessing,willberealizedinthatage[theMillennium].TheGentileswillbebroughtintorelationshipwiththeKing.(1)ThefactoftheGentiles'participationinthemillenniumispromisedinpropheticScriptures(Isa.2:4;11:12;16:1-5;18:1-7;19:16-25;23:18;42:1;45:14;49:6;22;59:16-18;60:1-14;61:8-9;62:2;66:18-19;Jer.3:17:16:19-21;49:6;49:39;Ezek.38:23;Amos9:12;Mic.7:16-17;Zeph.2:11;Zech.8:20-22;9:10;10:11-12;14:16-19)."J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages507-508.

8 Isaiah55:3-4;Jeremiah30:9;33:15-17;Ezekiel34:23-24;37:24-25;Hosea3:5.

9 JohnF.Walvoord,IsraelinProphecy(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1962),page121;seealsoJohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages300-301.

10 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,AStudyinBiblicalEschatology(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),pages500-501;quotationfromWilliamR.Newell,TheRevelation,page323.

11 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheRyrieStudyBible:TheNewTestament(Chicago:MoodyPress,1976),page25,noteonMatthew11:14;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages309-311.

12 PaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy,pages185-187;compareC.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1909),page1023,noteonMatthew17:10;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages311-312.

13 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page312.14 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages10,61;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page131;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page88;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith(Neptune,N.J.:LoizeauxBrothers,1953),page44.

15 SeePatrickFairbairnTheTypologyofScriptureViewedinConnectionwiththeWholeSeriesoftheDivineDispensations(GrandRapids:Baker

BookHouse,1900,1975),1.380-382.16CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page187.17 "Nondispensationalinterpreters(ofthecovenanttheologyschool)havebeenguiltyofreadingback(andsometimesforcingback)theteachingoftheNewTestamentintotheOldespeciallyinordertotrytosubstantiatetheirdoctrineofsalvationintheOldTestament....CovenanttheologyallowsforandevendemandsthisreadingbackoftheNewTestamentintotheOld."CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page34.

Chapter9RightlyDividingtheWord

I can distinctly remember the time during my college days when a ChristianwhomGodusedinmylifegavemeashortintroductiontodispensationalism.Hequoted 2 Timothy 2:15 from the King James Version and pointed out theimportanceof"rightlydividing thewordof truth."HethenwentoverwithmethesevendispensationsoftheScofieldReferenceBible:

1. fromcreationtothefall,Innocency;2. fromthefalltotheflood,Conscience;3. fromthefloodtotheAbrahamiccovenant,HumanGovernment;4. fromtheAbrahamiccovenanttotheMosaiccovenant,Promise;5. fromtheMosaiccovenanttothecross,Law;6. fromthecrosstotherapture,Grace;and7. fromthesecondadventtoeternity,Kingdom.1

Now that I have rejected dispensationalism, I still regard this set of divisions,apart fromanyhiddensignificance that thenamesof thevariousdispensationsmighthave,asareasonablewaytodividethedispensations,exceptthatIamnolonger a premillennialist or a pre-tribulation rapturist. I also no longer believethat 2 Timothy is directly referring to dividing Biblical history into differentdivine economies. The American Standard Version translates this verse"handling aright thewordof truth,"which I believebetter conveys theverse'sintent.Nevertheless,regardlessofhowoneinterpretsthatverse,Christianshaverecognized fromearliest times thatGodhasworked throughdifferent spiritualeconomies in different ages. Dividing Biblical history into differentdispensational periods is not distinctive of dispensationalism. To say that allChristians who do not today offer animal sacrifices and who do not todayworship on Saturday are at least incipient dispensationalists is extremelysimplistic.2 The particular number and choice of historical division pointspresented by Scofield do not define dispensationalism either. The truedistinctivesarefoundonamoresubtlelevel.

I believe that one can begin to see at least one real distinctive of

dispensationalism's "rightly dividing the Word" by examining Scofield'sdefinition of a dispensation: "A dispensation is a period of time duringwhichmanis testedinrespectofobediencetosomespecific revelationof thewillofGod."3Nowitistruethatineverydivineeconomy,Godgavefurtherrevelationof Himself and His will, and man was responsible for responding to thatrevelationinobedience.Itisalsotrue,aspointedoutbydispensationalists,thatmanapartfromGod'ssavinggracewillalwaysfailthetestofobediencebecauseofman's depravednature.God's judgment uponman's disobedience is seen intheexpulsion from thegarden, in the flood, in theconfusionof tonguesat thetower of Babel, in the Babylonian captivity, in the Roman destruction ofJerusalem,andinthejudgmentonthefinalrebellion(Revelation20:7-10).Yet,although there is truth in Scofield's definition and scheme, there is also error.DispensationalistsandReformedtheologiansdisagreeabouttherelationshipthatrevelation given to past dispensations has to the present dispensation.Dispensationaliststeachthatsuchpastrevelationisnotbindingtodayexcepttotheextentthatitisreaffirmedintherevelationgivenspecificallyforthispresentdispensation.Past revelation that is reaffirmedfor thepresent issaid tohaveasecondary and indirect application today due to the presence of timelessprinciples.Incontrast,Reformedtheologiansteachthatpastrevelationcontinuesto be binding today except to the extent that it was time bound or situationspecific in itsoriginalapplicationor to theextent that ithasbeenmodifiedbythe more recent Biblical revelations because of the developments in God'sprogram for the ages. An example of such amodificationwould be theNewTestament's teaching that the people of God in this age are no longer toexternallyadministertheOldTestamentceremoniallaws,althoughthespiritualimport and message of these laws continue to be valid. Like Christ, theReformed theologian emphasizes the continuing relevance of God's formerrevelations(Matthew5:17-19),whereas thedispensationalistputs theemphasisonthenonbindingnatureofpastrevelationthatisnotspecificallyreaffirmedfortoday.This difference in emphasis is implied inScofield's statement that eachdispensation is related to"somespecific revelation," as if eachdispensation islimitedtotherevelationspecificallydirectedtothatdispensation.

Tobetterappreciate thedistinctivesofdispensationalism's"rightlydividingtheword," one needs to think through the dispensational explanation of Biblicalhistory.AgoodplacetostartistheAbrahamiccovenantandthedispensationofPromise. HereGod provided a salvation administered on a by-faith basis and

administered without moral conditions.4 All went well for the people of GoduntilMountSinaiwherearashandtragicmistakeoccurred.TherethepeopleofGodrashlyabandonedtheirunconditionalby-faithcovenantpositionandinsteadtragicallyacceptedtheconditionalandlegalisticMosaiccovenant.Drs.ScofieldandChafergivethefollowingexplanationsofMountSinai:

The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law(Ex.19.8).Gracehadpreparedadeliverer(Moses),providedasacrificefortheguilty,andbydivinepowerbroughtthemoutofbondage(Ex.19.4);butatSinaitheyexchangedgraceforlaw.5

When the Law was proposed, the children of Israel deliberately forsooktheirpositionunder thegraceofGodwhichhadbeentheirrelationshiptoGoduntilthatday,andplacedthemselvesundertheLaw....

While it is certain that Jehovah knew the choice that the people wouldmake,itisequallycertainthattheirchoicewasinnowayrequiredbyHim.... The surrender of the blessings of grace should have been allowed bythesepeopleonnoconditionwhatsoever.Hadtheysaidatthehearingoftheimpossiblelaw,"Noneofthesethingscanwedo.WecraveonlytoremaininthatboundlessmercyofGod,whohaslovedus,andsoughtus,andsavedusfromallourenemies,andwhowillbringustoHimself,"itisevidentthatsuch an appeal would have reached the very heart of God. And thesurpassinggloryofHisgracewouldhavebeenextended to themwithoutbounds;forgraceaboveallelseisthedelightoftheheartofGod.Inplaceoftheeagles'wingsbywhichtheywerecarrieduntoGod,theyconfidentlychoseacovenantofworkswhentheysaid:"AllthattheLordhathspokenwewilldo."TheywerecalledupontofaceaconcretechoicebetweenthemercyofGodwhichhadfollowedthem,andanewandhopelesscovenantofworks.Theyfellfromgrace....

Uponthedeterminedchoiceoflaw,themountainwhereGodwasrevealedbecameaterriblespectacleoftheunapproachable,holycharacterofGod....HewhohadbroughtthemtoHimselfundertheunconditionalblessingsofgrace, must now warn them lest they break through unto the Lord andperish....

ThechildrenofIsraeldefinitelychosethecovenantofworks,whichislaw,

astheirrelationshiptoGod.6

It is instructive to contrast this traditional dispensational evaluation ofMountSinaiwiththeBiblicalevaluationofMountSinai:

AndMosescalledallIsrael,andsaiduntothem,...TheLordourGodmadeacovenantwithusinHoreb....TheLordtalkedwithyoufacetofaceinthemountoutofthemidstofthefire....Anditcametopass,whenyeheardthevoiceoutofthemidstofthedarkness,(forthemountaindidburnwithfire,)thatyecamenearuntome,evenalltheheadsofyourtribesandyourelders;andyesaid,...Gothounear,andhearallthattheLordourGodshallsay:andspeakthouuntousallthattheLordourGodshallspeakuntothee;andwewillhearit,anddoit.AndtheLordheardthevoiceofyourwords,whenyespakeuntome;andtheLordsaiduntome,Ihaveheardthevoiceofthewordsofthispeople,whichtheyhavespokenuntothee:theyhavewellsaidallthattheyhavespoken.Deuteronomy5:1,2,4,23,27-28

According to dispensational authorities such as Dr. Chafer, by-faith salvationbased upon an imputed righteousnesswas abandoned atMount Sinai andwasnotresumeduntilafterMountCalvary.7Duringthisperiodoflaw,therewasnodivine enablement and the people ofGod obeyed the law in the power of theflesh.8Many,ifnotmost,dispensationaliststeachthattherewasnoenablementthrough a universal indwelling of the Holy Spirit among the Old Testamentsaints,9andsomealsoteachthattherewasnoenablementthroughregenerationundertheoldcovenant.10IftheOldTestamentsaintsdidnothavetheindwellingHolySpiritoranewnature,thentheywerelimitedtotheenergyofsinfulfleshintheirobeyingGod'slaw.

IfoneconsiderstheperiodfromtheAbrahamiccovenanttotheendtimechurchrapture, the Mosaic covenant was a legalistic parenthesis in a by-faithadministrationofgracethatbeganinthedispensationofPromiseandresumedinthe dispensation of Grace.11 If one considers the period from the Mosaiccovenanttotheendofthemillennium,thechurchageisaparenthesisofgraceina meritorious administration of law since the post-rapture tribulation is arecontinuance of the dispensation of law and since the millennium will be aperiodoflegalistickingdomlawthatissimilartoMosaiclaw.12Itisonlyfairto

mention that some recent dispensationalists have, invariousdegrees,modifiedthisexcessivelyrigiddichotomybetweenlawandgraceintheirexplanationsofredemptive history and have begun to drift toward the teachings on law andgracemoretraditionallyheldbyReformedtheologians.

ThenextmajordevelopmentinthedispensationalexplanationoftheBibleisthedispensational interpretation of the Gospels and the early chapters of Acts.Accordingtodispensationalism,JohntheBaptistwasannouncingandJesuswasofferingaJudaisticpoliticalkingdom.EventhoughthiswasthesortofkingdomthatthedispensationalistssaytheJewswereexpectingandwanting,Israelasanation rejectedChrist andHisoffer. In judgmentupon Israel'sunbelief,ChristpostponedtheJewishkingdomandinauguratedtheparentheticalandpreviouslyunrevealed church age. Because of this analysis of the ministry of Christ,dispensationalists see the Gospels as a complex combination of truth relatingdirectly to three different dispensations: law, grace, and kingdom.13 Thepreaching of John theBaptist14 andChrist's Sermon on theMountwere legaldiscourses related to Jewish kingdom truth and not directly intended for thechurch age. For example, Dr. Chafer in his Systematic Theology gave thefollowingdispensationalanalysisofChrist'sSermonontheMount:

There is in theSermonon theMount a recognitionof theFather and theMessiah-Son, but no reference will be found to the Holy Spirit whoseindwelling and limitless ministry is so great a factor in this age of theChurch.There is no reference to the death ofChristwith its redemption,reconciliation, and propitiation values. There is no regeneration and nomentionofthefaithprincipleasawayintothesavinggraceofGod.Thereis a reference to faith as a lifeprinciple (Matt. 6:25-34), but this is innoway related to salvation from sin. The great truth of a New CreationprocuredandsecuredthroughtheresurrectionofChrist iswhollywantingin this address.Thephrase inChristwith its infinitemeaning relative topositionsandpossessionsisnotpresent,norisevenoneofthosepositionsorpossessionshintedat throughout itsmore thanonehundredverses.Noenablingpowerwherebythesegreatdemandsbothincharacterandconductmayberealizedisintimated.Itrepresentsahumanresponsibility.Thegreatword justification could not possibly be introduced nor that imputedrighteousness uponwhich justification is founded.How far removed is amere man-wrought righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the

scribes and the Pharisees (Matt. 5:20) from the "gift of righteousness"bestowed on those who receive "abundance of grace" (Rom. 5:17)! Andhow great is the difference between those who hunger and thirst afterrighteousness (Matt. 5:6) and those who are "made the righteousness ofGodinhim"(2Cor.5:21)!Thus,also,greatisthedifferencebetweenthosewhoareindangerofhellfire(Matt.5:22,29-30)andthosewhoarejustifiedonaprincipleofperfectdivinejusticewhohavedonenomorethanbelieveinJesus--eventheungodly(Rom.3:26;4:5).Thus,again,noteshouldbemadeofthedivergencebetweenthosewhoobtainmercybybeingmerciful(Matt.5:7)andthosewhohavefoundeverlastingmercyevenwhendeadinsins (Eph.2:4-5), likewisebetween thosewhohope tobe forgivenon thegroundoftheirownforgivenessofothers(Matt.6:12-15)andthosewhoforChrist's sake have been forgiven (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). And, yet again,considerationmust be given to a distinction between thosewho follow acourse--straitandnarrow--withthegoalinviewthattheymayfindlifeattheendof thatpath (Matt.7:14)and those towhometernal lifehasbeengiven as a present possession (John 3:36; Rom. 6:23; 1 John 5:11-12).Finally,farremovedisasituationinwhichsomeheartheLordsay,"Ineverknew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. 7:23) and anassurancethatonetrustinginChrist"shallneverperish"(John10:28;Rom.8:1).15

Dr.Scofieldsaid:

...theLord'sprayeris,dispensationally,uponlegal,notchurchground;itisnotaprayerinthenameofChrist...;anditmakeshumanforgiveness,asunder thelawitmust, theconditionofdivineforgiveness;anorderwhichgraceexactlyreverses....16

Dr.CharlesC.Ryriesaid:

It is usually charged that dispensationalists teach that the Sermon on theMount is all law and no gospel. To those who object to this claim, wemerelyask,WherecanonefindastatementofthegospelintheSermon?17

Dispensationalists regard theSermonon theMountas theMessiah'smanifestoof thekingdomHewouldhave then set up if Israel had acceptedHim. Israel,however,didnotacceptHim,andJesusbeganlookingawayfromtheprophesied

Messianicageandtheearthlypeople(theJews)totheunrevealed,parentheticalchurchageandtheheavenlypeople(thechurch).TheparablesofMatthew13,whichobviouslyrefertothechurchage,areinterpretedbydispensationalistsasaninitialexplanationofsomeoftheunexpectedmysteriesofthecomingageduetothispostponementoftheJewishmillenniumandtheunrevealedintroductionofthechurchage.AccordingtoDr.J.DwightPentecost:

This thirteenth chapter holds a unique place in the development of theGospel....ChristshowsthatbothHeandHisforerunnerhavebeenrejected(11:1-9),andthisrejectionwillresultinjudgment(11:20-24)....Inchapter12therejectioncomestoaclimax....Asthechaptercloses(12:46-50)theLord indicates that He is setting aside all natural relationships, such asIsraelsustained toHimand tocovenantpromisesbyaphysicalbirth,andestablishes a new relationship, based on faith. ... Since this kingdomwasthe subject of an irrevocable covenant itwasunthinkable that it couldbeabandoned.Thechaptergivestheeventsinthedevelopmentofthekingdomprogramfromthe timeof its rejectionuntil it is receivedwhen thenationwelcomestheKingatHissecondadvent.18

Themysteryformof thekingdom, then,hasreference to theagebetweenthetwoadventsofChrist.Themysteriesofthekingdomofheavendescribethe conditions that prevail on the earth in that interim while the king isabsent.ThesemysteriesthusrelatethispresentagetotheeternalpurposesofGodinregardtoHiskingdom.19

Dr. Pentecost gives his dispensational interpretation of these parables of thekingdominmysteryform.Theparableofthewheatandthetares"hasprimaryreferencetoIsraelduringthetribulationperiod."Theparableofthemustardseedteaches that the church age "is characterized by abnormal external growth.""That which was to be an herb has become a tree -- it has developed into amonstrosity" and has become the resting place for metaphorical birdsrepresenting the enemies ofGod's program.The parable of the leaven reveals"that therewill risea religioussystemthatwill introduceacorruptingelementintothedoctrineofthepersonofChrist."Theparableofthehidtreasuredepicts"the relationship of Israel to this present age" and the parable of the pearl ofgreatprice relates to theChrist'schurchwhich,"likeapearl,canonlybecomeHisadornmentbybeingliftedoutoftheplaceinwhichitwasformed[i.e.,the

rapture]."20

Aftergivingtheparablesofthekingdominmysteryform,ChristbeganspeakingofboththecomingparentheticalchurchageandthefutureJewishtribulationandmillennium when the prophesied but postponed kingdom program would beresumed. Matthew 16:18 is where Christ first openly revealed His plans toestablish the church.21 As we noted in a previous chapter, dispensationalistsarguethatChrist'sstatement"IwillbuildMychurch"isastrongargumentthatthechurchwasthenanabsolutelynewspiritualentity.Matthew18:17iswhereChristgavechurch truthondiscipline.TheOlivetdiscourse (Matthew24) isadetailed prophecy of the seven year Jewish tribulation period after the churchrapture.Theupperroomdiscourse(John14-16)thatoccurredafewdayslaterischurchtruth.TheapostlesinActs1:6representedtheJewishremnantwhentheyaskedtherisenChristifHewerethengoingtorestorethekingdomtoIsrael.InActs 2 on Pentecost, the disciples preached church truth. According to somedispensationalists, the apostles in Acts 3:12-26 again offered the Judaistickingdom to the Jewish nation one last time.22 If the Jews had accepted thisreoffer,thechurchrapturewouldhavethenoccurredandthesevenyearJewishtribulationperiodwouldhavebegunafteranextremelyshortchurchage.

AfterPentecost,Paul, theapostle to theGentiles,wascalledand theemphasisprogressively turned away from Israel to the formation of the largely Gentilechurch.TherestofthebookofActsisviewedbydispensationalistsasdefinitelychurchtruth.Aproblemforthedispensationalististhefrequentreferencetothekingdom both in Acts and in the epistles written during that period.DispensationalistsexplainthatthekingdomtherereferredtoisnotthetheocraticMessianic kingdom of Old Testament prophecy but instead is either God'snontheocraticsovereignruleofprovidenceoris"thekingdominmysteryform"ofMatthew 13,which dispensationalists interpret as a name applicable to thenon-kingdom church age. Dispensationalist Dr. Paul Lee Tan explains thepresentrelevanceofthekingdomasfollows:

It is true that thekingdompromisedby theprophetswaspostponedwhentheMessiahinthepersonofJesusChristwasrejected.Nevertheless,duringthepresent inter-adventage, thekingdomisanticipatorilypresentandhasitspresentoutworkings.23

Explanations such as these do not satisfy the ultradispensationalistswho viewActsandtheepistlesofthatperiodasJewishtruthandnotastruthforthelaterGentilePaulineBodyandBrideofChristchurch.

Mostdispensationalistsbelievethattheparentheticalchurchagewillendwithasecret rapture before the beginning of a seven-year Jewish tribulation periodwhichisidentifiedastheseventiethoftheseventyweeksofDaniel9.Thesaintswhoarealiveatthattimewillbetranslatedintoresurrectionbodiesandthenbecaught up to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)Dispensationalistsdefinethe"deadinChrist"whoareresurrectedjustbeforetherapture as the deceased saints who were saved after the Pentecost of Acts 2.AccordingtoDr.JohnF.Walvoord:

Theexpression"thedeadinChristshallarisefirst"(1Thess.4:16)seemstoincludeonlythechurch.

TheOldTestamentsaintsareneverdescribedbythephrase"inChrist."24

After the tribulation, Christ will return and resurrect the saved of all ages,except,ofcourse,the"inChrist"saintswhowereresurrectedorrapturedsevenyears earlier. The earth will be populated by the believers who survived thetribulationperiod,andalltheresurrectedsaintsofallageswillgotoabideintheheavenly Jerusalem that will descend to hover over Palestine during themillennium.25 Christ will bind Satan, set up a national, Jewish kingdom andreignbothonearthandfromtheheavenlycityfor1000years.Deathwillberareor even non-existent except as a penalmeasure for overt sin.26 The spirits ofwickedmillennialresidentswhodiewillgotohelltoawaitthefinaljudgment,and I have heard the opinion that millennial saints who die during themillenniumwillbe immediatelyresurrectedandwillenter theheavenlycityasresurrectedsaints.At theendof themillennium,Satanwillbe loosedandwillinspire a military revolt which Christ will quickly put down. The earthlymillennial saintswill be judged and translated into resurrected bodies and theeternal state.27 Then the unsaved dead of all ages will be resurrected andcondemnedwithSatantothelakeoffireatthegreatwhitethronejudgment.Theearthwillbepurgedwithfire,thenewheavensandthenewearthwillbeformed,theheavenlycitywilldescendtoearth,andeternitywillbegin.

Thisisthebasicdispensationalexplanationofredemptivehistory.Asignificant

difference between this viewof redemptive history and theReformed viewofredemptive history is the unifying theme. In Reformed interpretation, theunifyingthemethatisthekeytounderstandingthedevelopmentofredemptivehistoryisthesavingworkofJesusChrist.GodcreatedAdamandgavehimtheearthtoruleandtosubdue.BecauseofAdam'sfallintosin,theearthwascursedand man became a servant of sin and Satan. God immediately promised acomingSeedofwomanwhowouldovercomeSatanand reverse theeffectsofthefall.Therestofredemptivehistoryisthedevelopingstoryoftherestorationof fallenman's earthly inheritance and authority through theworkof theSeedRedeemeronbehalf ofHispeople.The theocracyofOldTestament Israel fitsintothisredemptivedramaasalocalizedpledgeandprefigurationofthecomingperfect kingdom rule and everlasting earthly inheritance that the Christ willestablishforHispeopleandasthenationalmeansthroughwhichtheChristwasbrought into theworld.ThroughthehistoricalworkofJesusChrist,Satanwasdefeated and Jesus of Nazareth, who is fully man as well as fully God, wasexaltedtotheplaceofallauthorityinheavenandonearth.Inthisage,ChristisexercisingHisauthority, thenationsarebeingdiscipled, andChrist'suniversalruleovermenisbeingextendedtotheuttermostpartsoftheearth.ThedramaofredemptionwillfinditsultimateandfinalfulfillmentintheglorifiednewearthofRevelation21afterChristreturns.

ThedispensationalistrejectsthisconceptofaChristological-soteriologicalunityto redemptive history and also claims to be the only one to have an adequateconcept of progressive revelation. Dr. John F.Walvoord makes the followingobservations:

CovenanttheologyistheviewthatallthedispensationsfromAdamtotheendofhumanhistoryareaspectsofGod'ssoteriologicalprogram.Inotherwords,thedispensationsaredifferentpresentationsofthewayofsalvationinagraduallyunfoldingprogression.The tendencyof thisviewpoint is toregardGod'sgeneralpurposeasessentiallythatofsavingtheelect,toblendthe various Biblical revelations regarding Israel, the Gentiles, and thechurch into one stream, and to minimize the differences between thevarious dispensations. In contrast, the dispensational theology, while notdisputing the view of the unity of God's plan of salvation, finds in thevariousdispensationsperiodsofstewardshipwhicharenotdirectlyrelatedtosalvation.Inaword,thedispensationalistdoesnotconsidertheprogram

of God for salvation as the sole purpose of God, and in fact denies thatsomeofthedispensationsarebasicallysoteriological.28

AccordingtoDr.CharlesC.Ryrie:

The covenant theologian in his zeal tomakeChrist all in all is guilty ofsuperimposing Him arbitrarily on the Old Testament. He does the samewiththedoctrineof theChurchandwiththeconceptofsalvationthroughfaithinChrist.29

The hermeneutical straitjacket which covenant theology forces on theScriptures results in reading the New Testament back into the OldTestamentandinanartificialtypologicalinterpretation.30

Onlydispensationalismdoesjusticetotheproperconceptoftheprogressofrevelation. ...Covenant theology ... becauseof the rigidityof its unifyingprincipleofthecovenantofgracecannevershowwithinitssystemproperprogress of revelation. ... Only dispensationalism can cause historicaleventsandsuccessionstobeseenintheirownlightandnottobereflectedintheartificiallightofanoverallcovenant.31

Dispensationalismalonehasabroadenoughunifyingprincipletodojusticeto the unity of the progress of revelation on the one hand and thedistinctivenessofthevariousstagesinthatprogressontheother.Covenanttheologycanonlyemphasize theunity,andinsodoingoveremphasizes ituntilitbecomesthesolegoverningcategoryofinterpretation.32

DespiteDr.Ryrie'sboldclaims,dispensationalismprovidesaninadequatebasisfordemonstratingtheunityoftheWordofGod.

Whatistheunifyingthemethatholdstogetherthedispensationalexplanationofredemptive history? I believe it is the theocratic kingdom. Dr. Lewis SperryChafer traces the theocratic kingdom from the timeof the judges to eternity33

andDr.J.DwightPentecosttracesitfromEdentoeternity.34Thechurchagefitsin thisexplanationof redemptivehistoryasaparenthesis in theprogression. Itwould even be hypothetically possible to omit the church age altogether. Dr.LewisSperryChaferhassaidthefollowingabouttheparentheticalnatureofthechurchage:

But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and iswhollyunrelatedtoanydivinepurposewhichprecedesitorwhichfollowsit -- Israelwouldbe expected to pass directly from the crucifixion to herkingdom; for it was not the death of Christ and His resurrection whichdemandedthepostponement,butratheranunforeseenage.Itshouldrequirenogreatefforttonotethattherecognitionofthisage--whollyunforeseen,wholly unrelated, and itself a strict intercalation -- is the key to theunderstandingof the entire programofGod in the ages, andwithout thatkeyonlyconfusionwouldresult.35

Myopinionisthataunifyingthemethatcanlogicallyomitamostimportantandsignificantstageofdevelopmentisnotanadequateunifyingtheme.

Dr. Charles C. Ryrie teaches that the glory of God is the unifying theme inredemptivehistory:

NodispensationalistminimizestheimportanceofGod'ssavingpurposeinthe world. But whether it is God's total purpose or even His principlepurposeisopentoquestion.ThedispensationalistseesabroaderpurposeinGod's program for theworld than salvation, and that purpose isHis ownglory.ForthedispensationalistthegloryofGodisthegoverningprincipleandoverallpurpose,andthesoteriologicalprogramisoneoftheprincipalmeansemployedinbringingtopassthegreatestdemonstrationofHisownglory. Salvation is part and parcel of God's program, but it cannot beequatedwiththeentirepurposeitself....theunifyingprincipeofcovenanttheology is in practice, soteriological. The unifying principle ofdispensationalismisdoxological,or thegloryofGodasHemanifestsHischaracterinthedifferingstewardshipsgiventoman.36

Reformed theologians believe that the glory ofGod is the final purpose in allthat happens but not the unifying theme that ties together the drama ofredemptivehistory.BecauseGod'sgloryisthefinalpurposeinallthathappens,every segment of redemptive history is related to God's glory. But finding acommonfactorinthosesegmentsisnotthesamethingasdemonstratingthatacertainthemeisprogressivelydevelopedandrevealedinthosesegments.

Dr.RyrielistsfivepurposesthroughwhichGod'sgloryismanifestinredemptivehistory: "the programof redemption, the programof Israel, the punishment of

the wicked, the plan for the angels, and the glory of God through nature."37Closer examination will reveal that these are not five independent purposeswhoseonlycommonlinkis thegloryofGod."Thepunishmentof thewicked,the plan for the angels, and the glory of God through nature" are relatedprogressively and developmentally to "the program of redemption." Inredemptive history, the angels function as "ministering spirits, sent forth toministerforthemwhoshallbeheirsofsalvation"(Hebrews1:14)andasagentsofthepunishmentofthewickedandasmembersofthedivinecourt.The"planfor the angels" in redemptive history is primarily a sub-purpose under "theprogram of redemption" and "the punishment of the wicked." Evenwhen theangelsappear inredemptivehistoryasmembersof thedivinecourt, theyareapart of some vision of God that is a revelatory part of "the program ofredemption.""Thepunishmentofthewicked"isbuttheothersideofthecoinof"theprogramofredemption."And"thegloryofGodthroughnature"isabasisofjudgmentforthewicked(Romans1:20)andabasisofpraisefortheredeemed(Psalm19).Itisalsorelatedto"theprogramofredemption"inthattheglorifiednewearthwillbetheeternalinheritanceofthesaints.Whenonegetstotherealkernelofthisdoxologicalunifyingthemewithitsfivesub-purposes,onefindsatheocratic kingdom program for Israel and a soteriological programwith foursub-purposes. The theocratic kingdom program for Israel is inadequate as aunifying theme of redemptive history, and the dispensationalists reject thesoteriologicalprogramasaunifyingtheme.Toacceptthesoteriologicalprogramastheunifyingthemewouldlogicallyresult inasoteriologicallyunitedpeopleofGod,whichwoulddestroydispensationalism.

Dividing Biblical history into a progression of dispensations is not unique todispensationalists. All theologians do that. What is characteristic of theconsistentdispensationalististhathesuffersfromanacutecaseof"hardeningofthecategories."Havinginpracticerejectedthetypologicalandorganicunionofthe two testaments that is found inChrist andHis savingwork, the consistentdispensationalist has instead adopted a two-program, two-people view ofBiblicalhistoryinwhichthechurchageisalogicallyunnecessaryparenthesisinthedivineprogramand, fromtheperspectiveof theOldTestamentprophets,adivine afterthought and adjustment. My own opinion, to use a pun, is thatconsistently interpreting Scripture through the rigid grid of dispensationalassumptions has the potential for turning Biblical bread into theologicalshredded wheat. Fortunately, many dispensationalists today are mild

dispensationalists who are not all that rigid when it comes to dispensationalinterpretation and theology and who have had little actual exposure to theclassicalanddefinitivedispensationalworksbymensuchasChaferandScofieldwherethesedispensationaldichotomiesaremorerigidlypressed.

EndNotes

1 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),page84;C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1909),page5note4onGenesis1:28.

2 "(1)AnypersonisadispensationalistwhotruststhebloodofChristratherthanbringingananimalsacrifice.(2)AnypersonisadispensationalistwhodisclaimsanyrightortitletothelandwhichGodcovenantedtoIsraelforaneverlastinginheritance.And(3)anypersonisadispensationalistwhoobservesthefirstdayoftheweekratherthantheseventh.ToallthisitwouldberepliedthateveryChristiandoesthesethings,whichisobviouslytrue;anditisequallytruethat,toaveryconsiderabledegree,allChristiansaredispensationalists.However,notallChristians,thoughsincere,areaswellinstructedinthespiritualcontentoftheScripturesasothers,norhavetheyseenthenecessityofrecognizingotheranddeeperdistinctionswhichdoconfrontthecarefulstudentoftheWordofGod."LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1936),page9.

3 C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible,page5note4.4 "This[Abrahamic]covenant,beingwithouthumancondition,simplydeclarestheunchangingpurposeofJehovah.Itwillbeachievedinpuregrace,apartfromeveryhumanfactor,anditsaccomplishmentsareeternal."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8vols.(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1948),4:235.

5 C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible,page20note1onGenesis12:1.

6 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:162-164.SeealsoCharlesL.Feinberg,Millennialism:TheTwoMajorViews,ThirdandEnlargedEdition(Chicago:MoodyPress,1936),page217.

ImightmentionthattheBible'sevaluationofMountSinaiandtheresponseofIsraeltothelawisinmarkedcontrasttoDr.Chafer'sevaluation

(Deuteronomy5:27-28).7 "MenwerejustandrighteousasrelatedtotheMosaicLaw,butnonehadtherighteousnessofGodimputedtothemonthegroundoffaithexceptAbraham,hewhowassoevidentlymarkedoutandraisedupofGodtoanticipateandillustrate(cf.RomansandGalatians)theNewTestamentdoctrineofimputedrighteousness;soofAbrahamaloneChristsaid,'Abrahamrejoicedtoseemyday:andhesawit,andwasglad'(John8:56)."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,6:74.

"AdistinctionmustbeobservedherebetweenjustmenoftheOldTestamentandthosejustifiedaccordingtotheNewTestament.AccordingtotheOldTestamentmenwerejustbecausetheyweretrueandfaithfulinkeepingtheMosaicLaw....MenwerethereforejustbecauseoftheirownworksforGod,whereasNewTestamentjustificationisGod'sworkformaninanswertofaith(Rom.5:1)."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,7:219.

Dr.ChaferhasheremadethesameerrorofinterpretationthatwascommoninJudaism:

"Godexpectsthosewhoarewithinthecovenant,andwhoonthisbasishavebeendeclaredtobeinrightrelationshipwithhim,toliveaschildrenoftherighteousLord....Whereamistakecouldbemade,andinfactwasmadeinlaterJudaism,wastothinkthatGod'sdeclarationofrighteousnesswasdependentuponanindividualJew'smeticulousfulfillmentofthelawswithinthecovenantmadewithMosesonMountSinai.Actually,righteousnessasanethicalqualityofblamelessnesscameasaresultofGod'sdeclarationofrightstandingbeforehimwithinhiscovenantofgrace,andnottheoppositewayaround.ThePhariseeinLuke18representsthewayinwhichthewholepursuitofrighteousnesscangowrong.HestoppedlookingtotheLordasthegiverofrighteousnessandconcentratedonseekingtoachieverighteousnesstopresenttotheLordattheendofhislife."PeterToon,JustificationandSanctification(Westchester,Illinois:CrosswayBooks,1983),page18.

8 "Thelaw,beingacovenantofworksandprovidingnoenablement,addresseditselftothelimitationsofthenaturalman.Nomorewasexpectedorsecuredinreturnfromitscommandsthanthenaturalmaninhisenvironmentcould

produce.Therequirementsunderthelaware,therefore,ontheplaneofthelimitedabilityoftheflesh.Ontheotherhand,grace,beingacovenantoffaith,andprovidingthelimitlessenablementofthepoweroftheindwellingSpirit,addressesitselftotheunlimitedresourcesofthesupernaturalman."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:247.

"Thelawsystemprovidednoenablingpowerforitachievement."Ibid.,4:51.

"...butoneofthesethreedivineeconomies[i.e.law,grace,kingdom]providesdirectlyandpurposefullydivineenablementforeveryrequirementwhichitplacesupontheindividual;thatis,nomentionismadeintwooftheseeconomiesofaprovisionofdivineenablementfortheirfulfillment.However,inthepresenteconomy,bothsupernaturalstandardsofactionareannouncedandcompleteabilitybytheSpiritisprovidedfortheirfulfillment."Ibid.,4:156.

"TheLawofMosespresentsacovenantofworkstobewroughtintheenergyoftheflesh;theteachingsofgracepresentacovenantoffaithtobewroughtintheenergyoftheSpirit."Ibid.,4:211;compareIbid.,4:234.

"ThissameindwellingoftheHolySpiritbecomes,aswell,anage-characterization.ThisisadispensationoftheSpirit,aperiodoftimeinwhichtheHolySpiritisthebeliever'sall-sufficientResourcebothforpowerandguidance.InthisagetheChristianisappointedtolivebyanewlife-principle(cf.Rom.6:4).TherealizationoftheSpirit'spresence,power,andguidanceconstitutesawhollynewmethodofdailylivingandisincontrasttothatdominanceandauthoritywhichtheMosaicLawexercisedoverIsraelintheagethatispast."Ibid.,6.122-123.

"ThebasisofLawisacovenantofworks;thatofgraceisacovenantofgrace.HumanmeritisthefoundationstoneoftheLaw;themeritofChrististhefoundationofgrace....Acovenantofworksisgroundedinwhatthefleshcando;acovenantofgraceisbaseduponfaithinwhatGodhasdoneandiswillingtodo."CharlesL.Feinberg,Millennialism:TheTwoMajorViews,pages216-217.

DispensationalistDr.CharlesC.Ryrieacknowledgestheerroroftheabove:

"DispensationalistshaveoftenpicturedtheLawasaperiodwhenenablementwascompletelylacking.ItistruethattherewasasharpcontrastbetweentheenablementunderthelawandtheworkoftheHolySpirit(John14:17),butitisnotaccuratetosaythattherewasnoenablementunderthelaw."CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),page120.

9 Dr.JohnF.Walvoord,TheHolySpirit(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1954,1958),pages71,73,75;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page120;C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible,page982;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,AStudyinBiblicalEschatology(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),page271.

10 "AtthispointthequestionofwhatconstitutedtherightrelationofaJewtoGodwithinthescopeandpurposeofJudaismmightbeasked.ItistheCovenanttheologianwhoadvancesatthispointtheassumptionthatthesaintsoftheoldorderwereregeneratedandonthesamebasisofrelationshiptoJehovahasisaccordedthesaintsoftheNewTestament.Suchanassumptionisneedfuliftheirtheoryistobesustained."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,6:104-105;compare3:215and6:111.

11 "SincethecovenantofgracewhichisbasedonhumanfaithwasestablishedinthepromisemadetoAbraham,thecovenantoflaw,madefourhundredyearslater,andaddedonlyforatemporarypurpose,cannotdisannulit.Thereignoflaw,withitscovenantofworks,ceasedwiththedeathofChrist.Itspurposehadbeenaccomplished,anditsappointedtimehadexpired.Thustheby-faithprinciplewhichwasannouncedintheAbrahamiccovenantisbroughtagainintoforce,throughthedeathofChrist."Ibid.,4:229.

"TheexampleofAbrahamwhobelievedJehovahandit(hisfaith)wascounteduntohimforrighteousness(Gen.15:6)waseverbeforeIsrael,andDavidhasdescribedtheblessednessofthemanuntowhomGodimputethrighteousnesswithoutworks(Romans4:6);nevertheless,Israelstumbledoverthestumblingstoneofhumanmerit...Their[Israel's]troublewasignorance.TheydidnotknowthetruththatfaithinGodwould,aswitnessed

byAbraham,David,andtheprophets,bringabout,throughdivinegrace,anadjustmentall-satisfyingtoGod--evenarighteousnessasperfectasHimself."Ibid.,3:79.

"LetitberestatedthatAbrahamisthepatternofaChristianundergraceandnotofaJewunderlaw."Ibid.,3:84.

"TheLawofMoses,tobesure,wasanadinterimdealingineffectonlyuntilChristshouldcome.Forthetimebeingitgavetosinthecharacteroftransgression(Rom.5:13;Gal.3:19).Itwaspreceded(Ex.19:4)andfollowed(John1:17)bygrace."Ibid.,7:225-226.

12"Thenatureofacovenantwhichisbasedonhumanworksisobvious.WhateverGodpromisesundersuchacovenant,isconditionedonthefaithfulnessofman.EveryblessingundertheLawofMoseswassoconditioned,andeveryblessinginthekingdomrelationshipwillbefoundtobesoordered.TurningtothekingdomteachingsofChristwhereintheissuesofpersonalconductandobligationinthekingdomaretakenup,itwillbeseenthatallthekingdompromisestotheindividualarebasedonhumanmerit....Itisacovenantofworksonlyandtheemphaticwordisdo."Thisdo,andthoushaltlive"isthehighestpromiseofthelaw....

"TurningtotheLawofMoses,wediscoverthatitpresentsnootherrelationtoGodthanthissamecovenantofworks:....

"BythesereferencestotheLawofMosesandthelawofthekingdom,itmaybeseenthatbothofthesesystemsarebasedwhollyonacovenantofworks."Ibid.,4:211-212.

"...Thekingdomteachings,liketheLawofMoses,arebasedonacovenantofworks.Theteachingsofgrace,ontheotherhand,arebasedonacovenantoffaith.Intheonecase,righteousnessisdemanded;intheotheritisprovided,bothimputedandimparted,orinwrought.Oneisofablessingtobebestowedbecauseofaperfectlife,theotherofalifetobelivedbecauseofaperfectblessingalreadyreceived."Ibid.,4:215-216.

"Thetribulationperiod,also,seemstorevertbacktoOldTestamentconditionsinseveralways;andintheOldTestamentperiod,saintswereneverpermanentlyindweltexceptinisolatedinstances,thoughanumberofinstancesofthefillingoftheSpiritandofempoweringforservicearefound.Takingallthefactorsintoconsideration,thereisnoevidencefortheindwellingoftheHolySpiritinbelieversinthetribulation."Dr.JohnF.Walvoord,TheHolySpirit,page230.

13"TheGospelsarecomplexalmostbeyondanyotherportionofScripture,sincetheyareacompositeoftheteachingsofMoses,ofgrace,andofthekingdom."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:172.

"TheSynopticGospels,thoughonthesurfacepresentingasimplenarrative,are,nevertheless,afieldforcareful,discriminatingstudyonthepartofthetrueexpositor.IntheseGospelsChristisseenasloyaltoandvindicatingtheMosaicLawunderwhichHelived;HealsoanticipatesthekingdomageinconnectionwiththeofferofHimselfasIsrael'sKing;and,whenHisrejectionisindicated,HeannouncesHisdeathandresurrectionandtheexpectationconcerningaheavenlypeople(Matt.16:18)forwhomHegaveHimselfinredeeminglove(Eph.5:25-27)."Ibid.,4:12.

"IfcriticalscholarsassumeitpossibletoclaimtwoIsaiahsontheevidenceaffordedinthedifferenceinstyleandsubjectmatterwhichthetwopartsofIsaiah'swritingsetforth,therewouldbebyfarmoreconclusiveproofofatleastthreeChrists.Itseemsnottooccurtoacertaingroupoftheologiansthatthesediscoursesnotonlyintroduceprincipleswhich,foradoctrinalstandpoint,areirreconcilable,butalsohappentobeaddressedtoclasseswhicharedifferentlyrelatedtoGodandtoChrist."Ibid.,5:96.

14 Ibid.,4:214-215.15 Ibid.,5:112-113;compare4:216f.

"Sad,indeed,isthespectaclewhenChristiansassumethattheSermonontheMountrepresentsthehighcallingoftheChurchandattempttomodifythecharacterofsovereigngracetotheendthatitmayconformtoameritsystem."

LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,5.109.16C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible,page1089-1090note1onLuke11:1;seealsopage1002note1onMatt.6:12.CompareLewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:221-222.

17CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page108.18 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages140-142.19 Ibid.,page143.20 Ibid.,pages146-149.21 Ibid.,page201.22C.I.Scofield,editor,TheScofieldReferenceBible,page1153note1onActs3:20;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page469.

23 PaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy(Rockville,Maryland:AssurancePublishers,1974),page311.

24 JohnF.Walvoord,TheRaptureQuestion(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1957),page154;compareJohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),page280.

25 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages291,302,317,324-326;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages411,414-415,542,546;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,pages146-147.

26 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page277;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages317-318.

27 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages277,328.28 Ibid.,pages79-80.29CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page187.30 Ibid.,page190.31 Ibid.,pages19-20.32 Ibid.,page35.33 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,5:333-358.34 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages433-494.35 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,5:348-349.36CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,pages102-103.37CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,pages211-212.

Chapter10ChristianZionism

Thedispensational systempromotesZionismamongChristians, theconvictionthatphysical Jews todayhaveaBiblical right topossess the landofPalestine.The point of discussion in this chapter is not Zionism as a political issue butZionism as a Biblically based theological issue. The typical dispensationalistdoes have a passionate commitment to theological Zionism and a religiousregardfortheepicZionisticeventsof1948and1967:themodernestablishmentof the Jewish state of Israel and the Israeli conquest of Jerusalem. These twoeventsareviewedas the twomostdramatic fulfillmentsofprophecysince thedestruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D. and as signs of the soon return ofChrist.Many dispensationalists are also anticipating a third imminent Zionisticfulfillmentofprophecy:therebuildingofthetempleatJerusalem.1

ThefollowingstatementbyDr.JohnF.Walvoordistypical:

OneofthemostdramaticevidencesthattheendoftheageisapproachingisthefactthatIsraelhasre-establishedherpositionasanationinherancientland.IsraeltodayisinproperplacetoenterintothecovenantanticipatedinDaniel9:27whichwillbeginthelastseven-yearperiodleadinguptothesecondcomingofChrist.EventhemoderncityofJerusalembuiltbyIsraelisoccupyingthepreciseareapredictedinJeremiah31:38-40andconstitutesa fulfillment of this prophecy given twenty-five hundred years ago andnever before fulfilled. Jeremiah states thatwhen Jerusalem is built in theareadescribed,asithasbeeninourgeneration,itwillbeasignofthefinalchapter in the history of Jerusalem, in preparation for the millennialkingdomofourLord.2

HalLindseyhasevengonesofarastoindulgecautiouslyinsomepropheticdatesettingbasedonthe1948eventinhisbestsellingbookTheLateGreatPlanetEarth,copyrightedin1970:

When the signs just given begin to multiply and increase in scope it'ssimilar to the certainty of leaves coming on the fig tree. But the mostimportantsigninMatthewhastobetherestorationoftheJewstotheland

in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech "fig tree" has been ahistoric symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly2,000yearsofexile,underrelentlesspersecution,becameanationagainon14May1948the"figtree"putforthitsfirstleaves.

JesussaidthatthiswouldindicatethatHewas"atthedoor,"readytoreturn.ThenHesaid,"TrulyIsaytoyou,thisgenerationwillnotpassawayuntilallthesethingstakeplace"(Matthew24:34NASB).

Whatgeneration?Obviously, incontext, thegenerationthatwouldseethesigns--chiefamongthemtherebirthofIsrael.Ageneration in theBible issomethinglikefortyyears.If this isacorrectdeduction, thenwithinfortyyearsorsoof1948,all these thingscould takeplace.ManyscholarswhohavestudiedBibleprophecyalltheirlivesbelievethatthisisso.3

Mr.Lindseyissayingthat1948establishmentofthestateofIsraelhasgivenhimreason to anticipate that the eventsof the sevenyear Jewish tribulationperiodthatculminates in the secondcomingofChrist couldalloccurby1988.SinceMr.Lindsey,likemostdispensationalists,placesthechurchrapturesevenyearsbeforethesecondcoming,hewouldhaveexpectedtheraptureby1981ifhehadexpectedthesecondcomingtooccurby1988.

Ofcourse,thereallycarefuldispensationalistneithersetsdatesnorregards1948and1967asdirectfulfillmentsofprophecy.Accordingtodispensationaltheory,noJewishprophecycandirectlyrefertotheunrevealedandparentheticalchurchage.Also, dispensationalists argue for their pre-tribulation rapture by insistingthat "the prospect of being taken to heaven at the coming of Christ is notqualified by description of any signs or prerequisite events."4 These ZionisticeventsareinsteadregardedasdramaticpreparationsfortheJewishfulfillmentofprophecy that will begin to occur after the rapture of the church. For thedispensationalist, the supposed preparation of the end-time stage in thisgenerationisastrongindicationthattheend-timedramaisnowimminent.

Dispensational Zionism is founded on the dispensational interpretation of theAbrahamic covenant. Dispensationalists argue that theAbrahamic covenant isJewish, unconditional and unfulfilled. Since the covenant is unconditional, itmustbefulfilledatsomepoint inhistory.Since ithasnotbeenfulfilled in thepast, then itmust be fulfilled in the future.And since it is Jewish, itmust be

fulfilled in a future Jewish dispensation. Therefore, the Abrahamic covenantmandates a coming Jewish age, the millennium, for the fulfillment of Jewishprophecy.Wewill examine in this chapter thedispensationalunderstandingoftheAbrahamiccovenantasJewishandunfulfilled.

Wewillbeginwith the teaching that theAbrahamiccovenant isJewish.Usingtheir "literal" hermeneutic, dispensationalists interpret the seed associatedwiththe Abrahamic covenant to be the physical Jews. A difficulty with thisinterpretationisthatinGalatians3,verses7and29,theChristian,regardlessofhisrace,issaidtobetheseedofAbrahamandtheheirofthepromisemadetoAbraham.ThedispensationalanswertothisisthattheindividualChristianisaspiritual seed of Abraham and heir of the universal spiritual aspects of theAbrahamic covenant but not the physical seed towhich the national promiseswere made. This dispensational solution is typical in that it stresses a rigiddichotomybetweentheearthlyandthespiritual,theJewishandtheGentile,thenationalandtheindividualaspectsoftheAbrahamiccovenant.

AccordingtoDr.CharlesC.Ryrie:

ItisquiteobviousthatChristiansarecalledthespiritualseedofAbraham,buttheNewTestamentnowheresaysthattheyaretheheirsofthenationalpromisesmade to thephysicaldescendants. . . . the termIsrael isnot theappellativegiventothespiritualseedofAbraham.ItiscorrecttocallsomeofthespiritualseedofAbrahamspiritualIsrael,butnotall....Onlywhena believer belongs to the race of Israel can he in any sense be called aspiritualIsraelite.5

Faithandjustificationarepersonalandindividualmatters,andbelongingtothe spiritual seed of Abraham is also a personal and individual matterunrelatedtorace.ThespiritualseedofAbrahamdoesnotmeanIsrael,forAbraham is related to Israel as a national father, and he is related tobelievingindividualsofallnations(includingtheJewish)whobelieve,asaspiritualfather.ButbelieversasagrouparenotcalledspiritualIsrael.6

AccordingtoDr.JohnF.Walvoord:

There are, then, three different senses in which one can be a child ofAbraham.First,thereisthenaturallineage,ornaturalseed.Thisislimited

largely to the descendants of Jacob in the twelve tribes. To them Godpromises tobe theirGod.Tothemwasgiven the law.To themwasgiventhe landof Israel in theOldTestament.With themGoddealt ina specialway.Second,thereisthespirituallineagewithinthenatural.ThesearetheIsraelites who believed in God, who kept the law, and who met theconditionsforthepresentenjoymentoftheblessingsofthecovenant.Thosewho ultimately possess the land in the futuremillenniumwill also be ofspiritual Israel.Third, there is the spiritual seed ofAbrahamwho are notnaturalIsraelites.Hereiswherethepromiseto"allthefamiliesoftheearth"comes in. . . . the children of Abraham (spiritually) who come from the"heathen" or the Gentiles fulfill that aspect of the Abrahamic covenantwhichdealtwithGentiles in thefirstplace,not thepromisespertainingtoIsrael....

Whilepremillenarianscanagreewithamillenariansconcerningthefactofaspiritual seed for Abraham which includes Gentiles, they deny that thisfulfills the promises given to the natural seed or that the promises to the"seedofAbraham"arefulfilledbyGentilebelievers.Tomaketheblessingspromisedtoall thenationsthesameastheblessingspromisedtheseedofAbrahamisanunwarrantedconclusion.7

Thisdispensationalexplanationof thespiritualandphysicalseedsofAbrahamdoesnotadequatelyintegratealltheBiblicaldataaboutAbraham'sseed.Evenasearly as the Genesis 17 covenant of circumcision, there were provisions forincludingGentilesandexcludingphysical seedofAbrahamfromthecovenantcommunity(Genesis17:12-14).8GentileproselytessuchasRahabtheharlotandRuth the Moabitess, ancestors of King David (Matthew 1:5), inherited thenational promises of the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament. PhysicaldescendantsofAbrahamsuchasIshmaelandEsaudidnot.IshmaeldidreceivehisownnationalpromisebecauseofhisphysicaldescentfromAbraham,buttheseedofcovenantblessingwasreckonedonlythroughIsaac(Genesis21:12-13).EsauandJacobweretwinbrothers,andyetonlyJacobbecameafatherofGod'schosen nation and an heir of the land promise. This data suggests that thedispensationalteachingthatthephysicalseedwill inherit thenationalpromisesisnotanadequateexplanationof theBiblicaladministrationof theAbrahamiccovenant.

InReformedinterpretation,theland-inheritingseedofAbrahamaredefinednotstrictly in terms of racial descent but in terms of a continuing covenantcommunity.9 Physical descent and genealogies were important under the oldcovenantbecausethecomingMessianicseedwastobeaphysicaldescendentofboth Abraham and David, but the developing covenant community bothexcludedunfaithfulphysicaldescendentsofAbrahamandassimilatedbelievingGentiles.ThehistoricaladministrationofthecovenantcanbeexplainedfromtheReformed perspective by using Paul's Romans 11 olive tree illustration. Theolive tree represents God's covenant community and its roots represent God'sgracious covenant. The physical seed within the covenant community are thenaturalbrancheswhoallpartakeoftheroots'saptosomedegree,whoallenjoycovenantblessingssuchasexposuretothemeansofgraceandspecialtemporalblessings. Gentiles or branches from the wild olive tree of paganism can begrafted into the covenant community through a profession of faith. And anybranch unrepentantly exhibiting obvious high- handed evidences of unbeliefshould be pruned off in discipline. After being cut off from the covenantcommunity in judgment, the natural branches and their descendants remainbelovedofGodonaccountoftheirfathersandareprimeprospectsforgraftingin through a profession of faith. In terms of thismotif, Isaac and Jacobwerepersevering natural branches, Rahab and Ruth were persevering grafted onbranches,IshmaelandEsauwereprunedoffnaturalbranchesthatcontinuedtoexperience certain temporal divine blessings, and the Edomites who becameproselytes during the inter-testamental period were grafted in descendants ofEsau,aprunedoffbranch.

The spiritual seed of Abraham are all those who truly share Abraham's faith(Romans 4:11-12), and these alone are the seed of Abraham in the mostfundamentalsenseoftheterm(John8:39;Romans9:6-7;2:28).Onlythesewillinheritthepromisesofthecovenantintermsofrealspiritualrestandaneternalinheritance. This definition of the seed of Abraham, which is from theperspectiveofGod'ssecretdecreesandsovereignworkofgrace, issimpleandeasily understood. Defining the seed of Abraham from within the context ofhistoryandhumanrelations,however,ismuchmorecomplexbecauseofhumanlimitations.Inadministeringthecovenant, thechurchisnot toseektopryintoGod's secretplansor topresume tobeable to infalliblygaugeeveryone's truespiritualcondition.Thechurch'slimitedresponsibilityistofunctionintermsofGod'srevealedwill,theBiblicallydefinedrulesforadministeringthecovenant.

TheseedofAbrahamfromthisperspectiveofhistoricalcovenantadministrationis a complex phenomenon best defined in terms of a continuing covenantcommunityratherthanintermsofracialdescentalone.

Aswehaveseen,thedispensationalpositionalsostressesthatthespiritualseedofAbrahamasdefinedinGalatians3havenoclaimtothenationallandpromiseoftheAbrahamiccovenant.Paul'steachingontheChristianandtheAbrahamiccovenantwillnotallowsuchaconclusion.PaularguesinGalatians3thatGodintentionallyusedseedasacollectivenoun thathasbothasingularandpluralreference so that the singular reference could refer to Christ and the pluralreference could refer to those who are in Christ. Paul's point is that theAbrahamicpromisesweremadetoAbrahamandtohisseed(verse16),thattheseedofAbrahamisChrist (verse16)andallwhoare inChrist (verse29),andthat therefore the promise given toAbraham belongs to allwho are inChrist(verse 29). In his argumentation, Paul specifically quotes from the OldTestament the phrase "and to thy seed," the "thy" referring to Abraham(Galatians 3:16; see also Romans 4:13). The Greek phrase in Galatians 3:16translated "and to thy seed" could have come from only two passages in theSeptuaginttranslationoftheHebrewOldTestamentintoGreek:Genesis13:15-17andGenesis17:8.10AndinbothoftheseOldTestamentpassages,thatwhichispromisedtoAbraham'sseedisthelandpromise.11Beyondthis,everytimeinthebookofGenesiswherethephrase"toyourseed"isusedinthecontextofadivinepromisetogivesomethingtosomebody,thereferenceistotheAbrahamiclandpromise.12When Paulwas talking about theOld Testament promise thatbelongs to theChristian, hewas referring specifically to the landpromise, theonepromisethatdispensationalistsarguethatPaulcouldnothavebeenreferringto.IwillexplainlatermyunderstandingofhowtheChristiantodayisrelatedtotheAbrahamiclandpromise.

TheOldTestamentquotation inGalatians3 that thedispensationalistsstress isthestatement"Intheeshallallnationsbeblessed"(Genesis12:3;Galatians3:8).ThedispensationalistsacknowledgethatthisportionoftheAbrahamiccovenanthasreferencetothespiritualblessingsthatarenowenjoyedbyGentilesinChristJesus.13TherearemanyOldTestamentpropheciesthatexpandonthisuniversalstatement of the Abrahamic covenant,14 and it is instructive to note thedispensational position on their fulfillment. Since dispensationalists define thechurchageasanunrevealedparenthesis in theJewishpropheticprogram, they

cannotwithconsistencyteachthattheseprophecieshaveadirectreferencetothechurchage;thesepropheciesmustbefulfilledinthefutureJewishmillennium.Under the heading "TheGentiles in theMillennium,"Dr. J.Dwight Pentecoststates: "The universal aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, which promiseduniversalblessing,willberealizedinthatage."15ThattheuniversalaspectoftheAbrahamiccovenantfindsitsdirectfulfillment,notinthechurchage,butinthecoming Jewish earthly millennium, demonstrates how thoroughly Jewish theAbrahamiccovenantisindispensationalinterpretation.

Thedispensationalistalsoargues that theAbrahamiccovenant isunconditionalincontrasttotheconditionalMosaiccovenant.DispensationaliststeachthattheunconditionalAbrahamiccovenantwasexpandedintothreeotherunconditionalJewish covenants: thePalestinian covenant, theDavidic covenant and thenewcovenant.Theexpandedcovenantdealingwith the landpromiseportionof theAbrahamic covenant is the Palestinian covenant, which dispensationalistsidentify with Deuteronomy 30:1-10. It does seem strange that anyone wouldteach thata sectionofDeuteronomycontainsa separatecovenant that isnotapart of theMosaic covenant and that differs from theMosaic covenant in itsbasic nature. The Palestinian covenant is supposed to be unconditional in thedispensational senseof theword.Deuteronomychapter30,verses1-3and10,however,containsstatementsthatsoundlikemoralconditions:

And it shall come to passwhen all these things are come upon thee, theblessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt callthemtomindamongallthenations,whithertheLordthyGodhathdriventhee, and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voiceaccordingtoall thatIcommandtheethisday, thouandthychildren,withall thineheart,andwithall thysoul; that then theLord thyGodwill turnthy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, andwill return and gathertheefromallthenations,whithertheLordthyGodhathscatteredthee.

If thou shalt harken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep hiscommandmentsandhisstatuteswhicharewritten in thisbookof the law,andifthouturnuntotheLordthyGodwithallthineheart,andwithallthysoul.

Lastly,dispensationalistsalsoarguethattheAbrahamiccovenantisunfulfilled.Theyprove thecovenant tobeunfulfilledbyexamining thechronological and

geographicboundariesofthecovenantpromise.Chronologically,theAbrahamiccovenant is a forever promise (Genesis 13:15; 17:8), and the Jews possessedPalestine for only a limited time in the Old Testament. Geographically, thepromisedlandwastoincludethelandfromtheriverofEgypttotheEuphratesRiver(Genesis15:18).DispensationalistsarguethattheJewsneveratanytimepossessed all the landwithin these boundaries. In 1Kings 4:21,we learn thatSolomonruledoverallthelandfromtheborderofEgypttotheEuphratesRiver,but the dispensationalists argue that the "border of Egypt" is not the "river ofEgypt"andthatSolomonmerelyruledovermuchofthisterritorybycollectingtribute,notbyactuallypossessingit.16So,ifthedispensationalistsareright,theland promise of the Abrahamic covenant is Jewish, unconditional andunfulfilled,andthereforetheremustbeayetfutureJewishpossessionofthelandofPalestine.

If this is so, then exactly when and how is the Abrahamic covenant's landpromise to be fulfilled? In searching out the details of this question, oneencounters some interesting divergencies in dispensational answers. In theearlier dispensationalwriters likeChafer, theAbrahamic covenant had a trulyeternalJewishfulfillment.AccordingtoDr.Chafer:

Jehovah'sfivefoldcovenantwithIsraeliseverlastingineveryrespect--(1)a national entity (Jer. 31:36), (2) a land in perpetuity (Gen. 13:15), (3) athrone(2Sam.7:16;Ps.89:36),(4)aKing(Jer.33:21),and(5)akingdom(Dan.7:14).TheseearthlypromisesareconfirmedbytheoathofJehovahand extend forever, else language ceases to be a dependablemedium fortheexpressionoftruth.17

Inthatsystem,theresurrectedOldTestamentsaintstogetherwiththeresurrectedmillennialsaintsweretoinheriteternallyaJudaisticnewearthaftertheJudaisticmillennium and the church saintswere to inherit aChristian new heavens foreternity.AccordingtoDr.Chafer:

. . . there isaneschatologyofJudaismandaneschatologyofChristianityandeach,thoughwhollydifferentindetails,reachesonintoeternity.OneofthegreatburdensofpredictiveprophecyistheanticipationofthegloriesofIsraelinatransformedearthunderthereignofDavid'sSon,theLordJesusChrist,theSonofGod.Thereislikewisemuchpredictionwhichanticipates

thegloriesoftheredeemedinheaven.18

...Israelites,asanation,havetheircitizenshipnowandtheirfuturedestinycenteredonlyintheearth,reachingontothenewearthwhichisyettobe,whileChristianshave theircitizenshipandfuturedestinycenteredonly intheearth,reachingonintothenewheavensthatareyettobe....19

Every covenant, promise, and provision for Israel is earthly, and theycontinueasanationwiththeearthwhenitiscreatednew.Everycovenantor promise for the Church is heavenly, and she continues in heavenlycitizenshipwhentheheavensarerecreated.20

It should be asserted, however, that the entire system known as Judaism,alongwithall itscomponentparts, is, in thepurposeofGod, inabeyancethroughout the present age, butwith the definite assurance that the entireJewish system thus interrupted will be completed by extension into thekingdom,thenewearth,andonintoeternitytocome.21

Amongthosewhostandineternal favorwithGodare theearthlycitizenswhosedestinyit is togoonintoeternityasthedwellersontheearth . . .,andtheheavenlycitizenswhosedestinyitistooccupythenewheaven....22

ThedispensationalistbelievesthatthroughouttheagesGodispursuingtwodistinct purposes: one related to the earthwith earthlypeople and earthlyobjectivesinvolved,whichisJudaism;whiletheotherisrelatedtoheavenwith heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which isChristianity.Whyshouldthisbeliefbedeemedsoincredibleinthelightofthefactsthatthereisapresentdistinctionbetweenearthandheavenwhichispreservedevenafterbotharemadenew;whentheScripturessodesignateanearthlypeoplewhogoonas such intoeternity;andaheavenlypeoplewhoalsoabideintheirheavenlycallingforever?23

Inthisolderdispensationalsystem,therewasaneternaldichotomyofdestiniesbetweenIsrael,theearthlyseedofAbraham,andthechurch,theheavenlyseedofAbraham.

SomemorerecentdispensationalistsdisagreewiththesedetailsofChafer'sview.

Theyteachthat theeternalJewishlandpromiseis tobecompletelyfulfilledinthe1000yearJudaisticmillennialperiod.AccordingtoDr.CharlesC.Ryrie:

TheearthlypurposeofIsraelofwhichdispensationalistsspeakconcernsthenationalpromisewhichwillbefulfilledbyJewsduringthemillenniumastheyliveontheearthinunresurrectedbodies.24

AccordingtoDr.J.DwightPentecost:

ThepromisesintheAbrahamiccovenantconcerningthelandandtheseedare fulfilled in themillennial age (Isa. 10:21-22; 19:25; 43:1; 65:8-9; Jer.30:22; 32:38; Ezek. 34:24; 30-31; Mic. 7:19-20; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:16-18).25

The promises in the Palestinic covenant concerning the possession of thelandarefulfilledbyIsraelinthemillennialage(Isa.11:11-12;65:9;Ezek.16:60-63;36:28-29;39:28;Hos.1:10-2:1;Mic.2:12;Zech.10:6).26

It will thus be observed that the millennial age finds the completefulfillmentofallthatGodpromisedtothenationIsrael.27

Elsewhere, Dr. Pentecost argues that the eternal nature of the covenants withIsraelrequiresthattheybefulfilledineternityonthenewearth.28If,however,thelandpromisefindsitsultimatefulfillmentineternityonthenewearth,thenthereisnorealmandateforaJewishmillenniumintheAbrahamiccovenant.

Somemore recentdispensationalists also teach that thepromised land is tobeinhabitedduringthemillenniumonlybyunresurrectedlivingJewsandGentilesandnotby the resurrectedOldTestament saints.29During themillennium, theresurrectedOldTestamentsaintstogetherwiththeresurrectedchurchsaintsareto be in the new Jerusalem,whichwill be amillennial satellite city hoveringoverPalestine.30Attheendofthemillennium,thenewJerusalemwilldescendto earth, and the saints of all ageswill inhabit together the new earth. In thissystem, the strictly Jewish inheritance of the land promise is limited to themillennial years and to unresurrected millennial saints. The land promisespecificallypromised the landinheritance toAbrahamaswellas tohisseed31,but Abraham, together with the other Old Testament saints, will be in theheavenlycitywiththechurchsaintsduringthetimeofthelandinheritance.

HerewehavethedispensationalunderstandingoftheAbrahamiccovenant'slandpromise. Was Scripture truly allowed to interpret Scripture? Was there asensitivity to progressive revelation? Is there any evidence that thedispensational interpreters recognize their fallibility and have awillingness toadjust, if necessary, their initialunderstandingof theAbrahamiccovenant if itdoesnotharmonizewellwithfurtherinfalliblerevelationonthesubject?OrdoweseeevidenceofawillingnesstoartificiallybendfurtherrevelationinordertovindicateaparticularunderstandingoftheAbrahamiccovenant'slandpromise?

My own understanding of theAbrahamic covenant's land promise is differentfromthedispensationalist's.IbelievetheJewishinhabitationofPalestineintheOldTestamentwasa temporary typological symbolandpledgeof theultimateeternal inheritanceof thesaints. Ialsobelieve that the landpromiseapplies totheChristiantodayinthespiritualrestandheavenlypositionthatishisinChristJesus.The following is an eight point explanationofmyunderstandingof thefulfillmentofthelandpromise.

First,thereissomesenseinwhichthelandpromisehadarealfulfillmentintheOldTestament:

AndtheLordgaveuntoIsraelallthelandwhichheswaretogiveuntotheirfathers;andtheypossessedit,anddwelttherein....TherefailednotoughtofanygoodthingwhichtheLordhadspokenuntothehouseofIsrael;allcametopass.Joshua21:43,45...notonethinghathfailedofallthegoodthingswhichtheLordyourGodspakeconcerningyou;allarecometopassuntoyou,andnotonethinghathfailedthereof.Joshua23:14bBlessedbetheLord,thathathgivenrestuntohispeopleIsrael,accordingtoallthathepromised:therehathnotfailedonewordofallhisgoodpromise,whichhepromisedbythehandofMoseshisservant.1Kings8:56ThouarttheLordtheGodwhodidstchooseAbram,andbroughtesthimforthoutofUroftheChaldees,andgavesthimthenameofAbraham;Andfoundesthisheartfaithfulbeforethee,andmadestacovenantwithhimto

givethelandoftheCanaanites,theHittites,theAmorites,andthePerizzites,andtheJebusites,andtheGirgashites,togiveit,Isay,tohisseed,andhastperformedthywords;forthouartrighteous.Nehemiah9:7-8.

Thisdatamustbeintegratedintoone'stotalunderstandingofthelandpromise.Thereweremany elements in theOldTestament Jewish economy besides theland promise that were said to be eternal. For the consistent literalist, thisrequires a belief in an eternity involving resurrected Old Testament rites andritualsandinstitutions.AnotherpossibilityisthattheseOldTestamentritesandritualsandinstitutionsweretemporarytypesofeternalspiritualrealities.Thesefounda fulfillmentas types in theOldTestamentandalsoanticipateda futurefulfillmentintermsoftheantitype.AccordingtoPatrickFairbairn:

TheoccupationoftheearthlyCanaanbythenaturalseedofAbrahamwasatype,andnomorethanatype,ofthisoccupationbyaredeemedChurchofherdestinedinheritanceofglory;andconsequentlyeverythingconcerningtheentranceoftheformerontheirtemporarypossession,wasorderedsoasto represent and foreshadow the things which belong to the Church'sestablishmentinherpermanentpossession.32

Second, as we have already mentioned, the ultimate fulfillment of the landpromise is an eternal fulfillment (Genesis 13:15; 17:8). The Hebrew wordtranslatedforeverisattimescontextuallylimitedanddoesnotalwaysrefertoaliteral eternity (compareDeuteronomy 15:17), but God's covenants do have atruly eternal, forever reference.When the forever nature ofGod's covenant iscomparedtothelifespanofthesun,onecanbecertainthatthedivinelyinspiredwriter had more in mind than a mere 1000 years (Psalm 89:34-37; compareJeremiah31:35-36;33:20-21;Isaiah54:10).

Third,theultimatefulfillmentofthelandpromiseinvolvesthewholeworldandnotjustPalestine.NoticewhatPaulsaidinRomans4:13:

For thepromise, thatheshouldbe theheirof theworld (Greek:kosmos)was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through therighteousnessoffaith.

We have already shown the terminology about a promise given by God to

Abrahamandhisseedcanonlyrefertothelandpromise.Paulidentifiedthelandpromise given toAbraham and his seed notmerelywithCanaan butwith thewholeworld.

Fourth, the ultimate inheritors of the land promisewill be the elect of all theages.Aswehavealreadyseen,thereareNewTestamentpassageswhichrelatethelanguageofthelandpromisetoChristiansasthespiritualseedofAbraham(Galatians3;Romans4:13). In theSermonon theMount,Christ identified theheirsofthelandpromiseasthespirituallymeek(Matthew5:5;comparePsalm37:11),which is an appropriate description ofGod's people in general. In thebookofHebrews,thelandpromiseisassociatedwithcitizenshipintheheavenlyJerusalem:

ByfaithAbraham,whenhewascalledtogooutintoaplacewhichheshouldafterreceiveforaninheritance,obeyed;andhewentout,notknowingwhitherhewent.Byfaithhesojournedinthelandofpromise,asinastrangecountry,dwellingintabernacleswithIsaacandJacob,theheirswithhimofthesamepromise:Forhelookedforacitywhichhathfoundations,whosebuilderandmakerisGod....Butnowtheydesireabettercountry,thatis,anheavenly:whereforeGodisnotashamedtobecalledtheirGod:forhehathpreparedforthemacity.Hebrews11:8-10,16

ThesaintsofallagesarecitizensoftheheavenlyJerusalem(Hebrews12:22-23;13:14;Galatians4:26),whichisfurtherevidencethatthesaintsofallageswillinheritthelandpromise.

Fifth, this association of the land promise with citizenship in the heavenlyJerusalem means that during the inter-advent age, the land promise findsfulfillment in "an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth notaway, reserved in heaven" (1 Peter 1:4). From themoment of conversion, theChristian isacomeruntoMountZionandacitizenof theheavenlyJerusalem(Hebrews12:22),hasspiritualrestinChristJesus(Matthew11:28),andisseatedwithChristintheheavenlies(Ephesians2:6).We,today,inChristJesushaveaforetaste of the heavenly rest that was pictured by Joshua's conquest of thepromisedland(Hebrews4:8-9).

Sixth, the land promise today is related to the covenant blessing of the fifth

commandment. Under the old covenant, those who honored their father andmotherwerepromised, ingeneral, that itwouldgowellwith them in the landwhichGodgave them (Deuteronomy5:16).Now that the covenant people arefromeverynation,tribeandtongue,thispromiseofcovenantblessinghasbeendispensationallyadjustedbyPaultoread:"thatitmaybewellwiththee,andthatthou mayest live long on the earth" (Ephesians 6:3). Paul has removed thePalestinian specific geographic limitation in this covenant promise that relatedcovenantblessingintermsofthelandpromise.

Seventh, theChristian today is in a position analogous to Israel under Joshuawhentheyconqueredthepromisedland.Thedifferenceisthatourweaponsarenotphysical(2Corinthians10:4)andourtaskistoconquerthewholeworld.Weknow that the Abrahamic land promise ultimately refers to the whole world(Romans 4:13). Adam was originally given dominion over the whole world(Genesis 1:26-28). This inheritancewas lost in the fall and Satan became theprinceofthisworld,33butGodpromisedthataSeedRedeemerwouldultimatelydefeat Satan (Genesis 3:15) and that this new Adam would regain worlddominion (Psalm 8:6). This Seed Redeemer would be a Seed of AbrahamthroughwhomAbrahamwouldbeablessingtoallnations(Genesis12:3).ThisSeedRedeemerwouldbe a sonofDavidwhowouldhave thenations forHisinheritanceandtheendsoftheearthforHispossession(Psalm2:8).ThisSeedRedeemerwouldbeaSonofManwhowouldbegivendominionandgloryanda kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him (Daniel7:14). ThroughHis resurrection-ascension,Christ has received all authority inheavenandonearth(Matthew28:18).Christ,fromHisheavenlythrone,istodayfulfilling Psalm 2 (Revelation 2:26-27; 12:5) and Psalm 8 (Hebrews 2:6-8; 1Corinthians15:25-27).Even asGodgavePalestine to Israel under Joshua andtold them to conquer it, soGod has given the nations to new covenant IsraelunderJesusandhastoldustodisciplethem.

Andeighth,whenChristreturns,theheavenlyJerusalemwilldescendtothenewearth (Revelation 21:1-2), which then becomes the eternal locus of the landpromisefulfillment.InHebrews4:8-9,welearnthattherestunderJoshuaaftertheconquestofthepromisedlandwasatypeoftheheavenlySabbathrestoftheeternal inheritance. The ultimate fulfillment of the land promise will be theeternalinheritanceofthenewearthbythesaintsofallages.OnlyinthiseternalcontextcanAbrahamandallhistrueseedinheritthelandforever.

BeforeclosingthischapterontheAbrahamiclandpromise,Iwanttocommenton the Old Testament prophecies about dispersed Jews' returning to the land.Dispensationalists tend to refer these prophecies to an end-time regathering ofthe Jews to Palestine, but it seems much more logical that these propheciesprimarilyreferredtotheBabylonianexileandthereturnoftheJewishcaptives,firstunderZerubbabelandJoshuathepriest,andlaterunderEzra.Inoppositionto this, the dispensationalist can point out that these prophesied regatheringswereasecondreturntotheland(Isaiah11:11)andaregatheringfromaworld-wide dispersion, not from a localized Babylonian exile (Isaiah 49:12). ThisobjectionignorestheBiblicalfactthattheexiledJewswerescatteredalloverthecivilizedworldofthatday(Esther3:8).AndreturnfromBabylonianexilewasthesecondreturntothelandsincethefirstwastheexodusunderMoses(Isaiah11:15-16).Admittedly, there are elements in the restorationprophesies that gobeyond what was experienced under the old covenant. This is because thefulfillmentofpropheciesofblessingcanbe limited (Joshua1:4&7:11-12)orpostponed(Numbers14:30-31)orcancelled(Jeremiah18:9-10)duetocovenantdisobedience and because these prophecies have continuing and progressivelygreater fulfillments in the church age and in eternity. As I discussed in theprevious chapter on literalism, a prophecy can be given in terms of the oldcovenant economy and fulfilled in terms of the new covenant economy andeternity.

InolongerbelieveinaZionisticinterpretationoftheAbrahamiclandpromise,butitispossibletoretainaZionisticelementinone'sunderstandingofprophecywithout going to dispensational extremes. One needs to recognize that theAbrahamiccovenantisprimarilyaspiritualcovenantthatrelatestoalltheelectof all the ages. If there is any specific Jewish inheritance of Palestine in theAbrahamiccovenant,thisshouldbeseenassecondarytotheultimatefulfillmentin the eternal inheritance of all the saints. And such a limited PalestinianfulfillmentshouldbeconditionedonthephysicalJews'beingconvertedinmasstoChristianityandbeingregraftedintospiritualIsrael.NowheredoestheBiblepromise blessings and return from judgmental exile toGod's covenant peoplewhentheyarestilllivinginrebellion.34Theblessingofreturntothelandfromexileisalwaysconditionedonrepentanceandspiritualrevival.

ThemajordifferencebetweenthedispensationalandtheReformedviewoftheland promise is that dispensationalists view it as having primary reference to

physicalJews.ThisstrongJewishemphasis in thedispensational interpretationof theOld Testament covenants is probably best demonstrated by a statementmadebyDr. J.DwightPentecost about thedispensational interpretationof thenew covenant: ". . . there is one point of agreement: the new covenant ofJeremiah31:31-34mustandcanbefulfilledonlybythenationIsraelandnotbythe church."35 If the dispensationalists have such a strongly Zionisticinterpretation of the new covenant, is it any great surprise that theirinterpretationoftheAbrahamiccovenant'slandpromiseislargely,primarily,andultimatelyZionistic?

EndNotes

1 HalLindseywithC.C.Carlson,TheLateGreatPlanetEarth(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1970),pages50-58;DwightWilson,ArmageddonNow!ThePremillenarianResponsetoRussiaandIsraelSince1917(GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1977),pages199-201.

2 JohnF.Walvoord,IsraelinProphecy(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1962),page130;compareDwightWilson,ArmageddonNow!,pages123-143;188-214.

DispensationalistsinterpretDaniel9:27asteachingthatinthemiddleofthefutureJewishtribulationperiod,theAnti-ChristwillbreakacovenantmadewithnationalIsraelthathadallowedthemtohavetempleworshipwithsacrificesandwilldesolatethetemplebythereproclaiminghimselfdivine.Thisactistomarkthebeginningofthethreeandonehalfyeargreattribulation.

3 HalLindseywithC.C.Carlson,TheLateGreatPlanetEarth,pages53-54.

ContrarytoMr.Lindsey,thefigtreespecieswasnot"ahistoricsymbolofnationalIsrael."TheonlypossibleevidenceforsuchaviewisthebarrenfigtreeinMatthew21whichChristcursed.ThattreewasusedbyChristasasymbolofnationalIsrael,notbecauseitwasafigtree,butbecauseitsabundanceoffoliagegavereasontoexpectthepresenceoffruitwhentherewasnone.ThiswasanalogoustonationalIsraelwhoseabundantfoliageincludedthetemple,thepriesthood,andreligioustradition,butwhichlackedthefruitoffaithinGod'sMessiah.ThatJesusdidnotregardthefigtreespeciesasasymbolofIsraelintheOlivetDiscourseisevidentfromthe

wordinginLuke21:29:"Beholdthefigtree,andallthetrees."Thegrapevine(John15)andtheolivetree(Romans11)werehistoricsymbolsofIsrael.

4 JohnF.Walvoord,TheRaptureQuestion(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1957),pages78-79.

5 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),page149.

6 Ibid.,pages149-150.7 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),page145-146.

8 Dr.Walvoord'sresponseis"Circumcisioniswiderinitsapplicationthanthetermseed,asfarastheuseinGenesisisconcerned."JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page141.

9 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,AStudyinBiblicalEschatology(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),pages86-87

10 Thephrase"andtoyourseed"isfoundinbothverses15and17ofGenesis13intheLXXbutonlyinverse15intheHebrew.

11WilliamEverettBell,Jr.,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePre-tribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology"(dissertation,SchoolofEducationofNewYorkUniversity,1967),pages125-126.

12Genesis12:7;13:15;15:18;17:8;24:7;26:3,4;28:4,13;35:12;48:4.13 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page145;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith(Neptune,N.J.:LoizeauxBrothers,1953),page62.

14ComparePsalm22:27-30;68:29-31;72:8-11,17;Isaiah2:2-5;11:10,14;19:24-25;42:1-4;45:14;49:6-7,22-23;52:10;54:1-3;60:3f.;65:1;66:19;Jeremiah16:19;Amos9:11-12;Zechariah2:3-13;8:20-23;Malachi1:11.

15 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page507;compareCharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page134.

16 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages156-157;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheBasisofthePremillennialFaith,pages60-61.

17 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8vols.(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1948),4:30.

18 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:27;Dr.LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1936),page65.

19 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:30.

20 Ibid.,4:47.21 Ibid.,4:248.22 Ibid.,4:401.23Dr.LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page107.24CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page146.25 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page476.26 Ibid.,page477.27 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page477;compareWilliamEverettBell,Jr.,"ACriticalEvaluationofthePre-tribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology,"page85.

28 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages491-494;561-562.29 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages536-537,542,546.30 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages546,576-580;JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages327-330;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheRyrieStudyBible:TheNewTestament(Chicago:MoodyPress,1976),page482,noteonRevelation21:2.

31 SeeLewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:320,406-407.32 PatrickFairbairn,TheTypologyofScriptureViewedinConnectionwiththeWholeSeriesoftheDivineDispensations(GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1900,1975)1:359.

33 John12:31;14:30;16:11;compareEphesians2:2.34 [34]LouisA.DeCaro,IsraelToday:FulfillmentofProphecy?(GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1974)pages31-42.

35 [35]J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page124.

Chapter11"ThyKingdomCome"

ThePresbyterianChurch inAmericaBookofChurchOrder beginswith thestatement, "JesusChrist ... sits upon the throne ofDavid."Most people raisedwith the teachingsof theReformedfaithwould take thisfundamental truthforgranted. Who, after all, would question this essential teaching? Well, aninformedandconsistentdispensationalistwouldnotonlyquestionthisteaching,but would take strong exception to it. The Davidic throne is another BiblicalsubjectconcerningwhichdispensationalistsandReformedinterpretersdisagree.

The Davidic kingdom in Scripture is founded on the Davidic covenant of 2Samuel 7:12-16. This covenant promise obviously involved Solomon,David'simmediateseedandheirtothethrone,sinceitspokeoftheseed'sbuildingGod'stempleandof thepossibilityof theseed'ssinning.Thepromise,however,alsoinvolvedagreater antitypical fulfillment since it spokeof aneternalkingdom.The prophets later associated the eternal Davidic kingdom with the Messiah,whowould inherit the throneofDavidand rule eternallyover thekingdom inrighteousness and justice (Isaiah 9:6-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6- 33:15-16). ThisMessianickingdomwastobecomeauniversalkingdomoverallthekingdomsoftheworld (Psalm2;Daniel2:44).According toReformed interpretation, theseMessianic kingdom prophecies were initially fulfilled by Christ at His firstadvent,arebeingprogressivelyfulfilledbyChristthroughoutthisage,andwillbe perfectly and completely fulfilled by Christ after His second advent.Concerning the nature of Christ's fulfillment of these kingdom prophecies,ReformedinterpreterPatrickFairbairnhassaidthefollowing:

Jesus of Nazareth needed no outward enthronement or local seat ofgovernmentonearth,toconstituteHimthepossessorofDavid'skingdom,asHeneedednophysicalanointingtoconsecrateHimpriestforevermore,or material altar and temple for the due presentation of his acceptableservice.1

Nomoreshouldithavebeenexpected,thattheMessiahwastobeakingontheearthlymodelofDavid, than thatheshouldbeapropheton thesamelevelwithMoses,orapriestaftertheimperfecttypeofthosewhopresented

theirfleshlyofferingsonabrazenaltar.2

Dispensationalistsdisagreewith thisevaluationof thekingdompropheciesandtheir fulfillment. They teach that Christ atHis first advent offered the Jewishnation an earthly political kingdom. If the Jews had accepted Jesus as theMessiah, He would have re-established the old Davidic political kingdom,exalted its majesty and extended its rule to the uttermost parts of the earth.BecausetheJewishnationrejectedtheChrist, thiskingdomofferwasretractedand the earthly, political, re-establishedDavidic kingdomwas postponed untilthefutureJewishmillennium.Betweenthewithdrawalofthekingdomofferandthefuturemillennialestablishmentofthekingdomwasinsertedthechurchage,aparenthesisinGod'sprophesiedprogramforIsraelandthenations.Thepresentage and the present reign ofChrist have no direct relationship to theDavidiccovenant or to Messianic prophecy, according to dispensationalism. ThefollowingcommentsbyDr.JohnF.WalvoordonthefulfillmentoftheDavidiccovenantarerepresentativeofdispensationalthought:

Ifa literal interpretationbeadopted, thepresentsessionofChrist isnotafulfillmentofthecovenantanditmustbereferredtothefuture.Itisclearthatat thepresent timeChrist isnot inany literal sense reigningover thekingdomofDavid.3

A literal promise spiritualized is exegetical fraud. The point of theDavidic covenant is that theSon ofDavidwill possess the throne ofHisfather David. To make His person literal but His throne a spiritualizedconceptistonullifythepromise.4

TheNewTestamentistotallylackinginpositiveteachingthatthethroneofthe Father in heaven is to be identified with the Davidic throne. TheinferenceisplainthatChristisseatedontheFather'sthrone,butthatthisisnotatallthesamethingasbeingseatedonthethroneofDavid.5

Which of these two understandings of the Davidic covenant and kingdom iscorrect? I was once committed to the dispensational understanding of theMessianickingdombutnowamconvinced that theReformedunderstanding iscorrect. Inmy change of conviction on this subject, three areas of studywerecrucial.First,Icametoabetterunderstandingofthewordkingdom.Second,Ire-examined the New Testament's testimony about the establishment of the

kingdomatChrist'sfirstadvent.Andthird,Icametoseesomeoftheproblemsassociatedwiththedispensationalexplanationofthekingdom.

First, there is themeaningof thewordkingdom.Once Icouldnotunderstandwhy anyone would believe that Christ is now ruling over His Messianickingdom.When I thought of theMessianic kingdom, I pictured Christ rulingfromearthoveraterritorialrealmandexercisingauthorityoverpoliticalsubjectsafter the pattern ofKingDavid in theOldTestament. I could see theDavidickingdomintheOldTestamentandIcouldvisualizeaMessianickingdomruleinthe coming Jewish millennium, but I could not see any direct associationbetweentheMessianickingdomandthechurchage.Partofmyproblemwasthecommon primary association of the English word kingdom with realm andsubjects. The following are the second and third definitions of the wordkingdomgivenintheOxfordEnglishDictionary:

2. Anorganizedcommunityhavingakingasitshead;amonarchicalstateofgovernment.

3. Theterritoryorcountrysubjecttoaking;theareaoverwhichaking'sruleextends;arealm.6

Thesedefinitionsarewhatwenormallyassociatewiththewordkingdom,andthese definitions are consistentwith the dispensational interpretation inwhichkingdom must refer to a political kingdom. These definitions, however, aresecondarydefinitions.TheprimarymeaningoftheEnglishwordkingdomisthefollowing:

1. Kinglyfunction,authority,orpower;sovereignty,supremerule;thepositionorrankofaking,kingship.7

This primary definition is marked obsolete, which explains why we seldomassociateitwiththeword,butthisobsoletedefinitionistheprimarymeaningofboththeHebrewandtheGreekwordsthataretranslatedkingdominourBibles.8AccordingtotheTheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament,the"essentialmeaning"oftheGreekequivalentofkingdom"isreignratherthanrealm."9AndtheHebrewequivalentof"thekingdomofheaven"is"anabstractconstructiontodenotethefactthatGodisKing..."10Theterm"cannevermeanthekingdomofGodinthesenseofaterritoryruledbyHim.Fortheexpressiondenotesthefact

thatGodisKing, i.e.,Hiskinglybeingorkingship."11Both theGreekand theHebrew words mean primarily the majesty and authority of the king. Thisabstractmeaningistheprimarymeaningoftheword,andtheconcreteaspectsofarealmandsubjectsaresecondarymeanings.

This understanding of the word kingdom is well demonstrated in a parablewhichChristgaveinLuke19:11-27whenhewasabouttoenterJerusalemandsome"thoughtthatthekingdomofGodshouldimmediatelyappear"(verse11):

A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself akingdom,andtoreturn.Andhecalledhistenservants,anddeliveredthemtenpounds,andsaiduntothem,OccupytillIcome.Butthecitizenshatedhim, and sent amessage after him, saying,Wewill not have thisman toreignoverus.

Noticethatthismanleftbothhisrealmandhissubjectstoreceivehiskingdom.Leavingone'srealmandsubjectstoreceiveone'skingdommakeslittlesenseifkingdom refers primarily to a realm and subjects. But if the word kingdomrefers primarily to the authority to rule, this usage of theword in the parablemakesperfectsense.ThisparableisallegoricallyreferringtoJesus'ascendingtotheFathertoreceiveHiskingdom.

Thisproperunderstandingofthewordkingdomclarifiesthemeaningofmanypassages. For example, in Matthew 6:33, Christ said, "But seek ye first thekingdomofGod,andHisrighteousness;andallthesethingsshallbeaddeduntoyou." What is the Christian to seek in order to obey this commandment, atheocratickingdominafutureageorGod'sruleandauthorityinalloflifenow?Also, notice the second petition of the Lord's prayer: "Thy kingdom come"(Matthew 6:10). With this proper understanding of the word kingdom, thissecondpetitionisalmostsynonymouswiththethirdpetition,"Thywillbedone,onearthasitisinheaven."

Whenonerealizesthatthewordkingdomhasaprimaryreferencetoanabstractreign and a secondary reference to a concrete realm, he can easily understandhowChrist'skingdomissimultaneouslypast,presentandfuture.Itispastinthatthe old Davidic political kingdom prefigured and anticipated the comingMessianic reign and in that Christ atHis first advent actively established andexercisedHisauthoritytoruleandtoreign.Itisfutureinthatitisnotuntilthe

timeof thenewheavensand thenewearth thatChrist'skingdomwillbe fullyand perfectly realized in the concrete elements of realm (the new earth) andsubjects (theelectofallages). It ispresent in that theLordChristnowhasallauthorityinheavenandonearthandnowisprogressivelyconcretizingHisreignasthenationsarediscipled.Asnationsandpeoplesacknowledgeandsubmittothe lordshipof JesusChrist,He isprogressivelypossessing inpracticewhat isalreadyHisinprinciple.TheMessianickingdomrelatestothehereandnowaswell as to the past and future. This is not an age of kingdomparenthesis andpostponement.

ThesecondareaofstudythatcausedmetochangemyconceptoftheMessianickingdom from dispensational to Reformed was a general study of the NewTestament'steachingsonthekingdom.Tobeginwith,thelanguageofScripturedoes not say that Christ at His first advent offered a kingdom that couldpotentiallybepostponed.ThelanguageofScriptureindicatesthatChristatHisfirstadventestablishedakingdom.BothJohntheBaptistandJesusproclaimedthat the kingdom was near at hand (Matthew 3:2; 4:17), not that it waspotentiallynearathand.Jesustoldhisdisciplestoseekthekingdombecause"itis your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32). Jesusgave specific instructions on how to enter the kingdom (John 3:3,5;Matthew5:20; 7:21) and stated that "everyman presseth into it" (Luke 16:16). In HisBeatitudes, Jesus proclaimed that the kingdom belonged to those "which arepersecuted for righteousness's sake" (Matthew 5:11). Christ spoke of thekingdomasanactuality thatHewasestablishing,notasapotentiality thatHemightpostpone.

Further, Jesus spoke as if the establishment of His kingdom was especiallymanifestedinthecastingoutofdemons(Matthew12:28-30).Inthecastingoutof demons,Satan, the strongman,wasbound andhis propertywasplundered(Matthew12:29).When thedisciples reported that"even thedevilsaresubjectuntousthroughThyname,"JesusproclaimedthatSatanwasfallingfromheavenlike lightning (Luke 10:17-18). The power of the name of Jesus over demonsdemonstrated thatSatanwas adefeated foewhosepowerwasbeinggroundedout.ThekingdomsofthisworldhadbeeninbondagetodemonicpaganismandunderthelordshipofSatan,whowascalledtheprinceofthisworld(John12:31;14:30;16:11).Satanhadcometoregardtheworld'sgloryanddomainashisown(Luke 4:6). But Christ invaded the kingdom of Satan and won the deciding

victory. As Christ anticipated His plundering of Satan's treasure through thedrawing of people from all nations unto Himself, he declared, "Now is thejudgment of thisworld: now shall the prince of thisworld be cast out" (John12:31).12 This coming victory over Satan was so clearly manifested by thecastingoutofdemons thatJesussaid:"But if Icastoutdevilsby theSpiritofGod,thenthekingdomofGodiscomeuntoyou"(Matthew12:28).Thisverseisespeciallysignificantinthatitoccursintheverychapterinwhich,accordingtothedispensationalists,ChristwaswithdrawingHiskingdomoffer.Commentingonthisverse,GeorgeLaddhassaid:

While the kingdom as the realm in which God's will is perfectly donecontinuestobefuture,thekingdomastheactivesavingpowerofGodhascome into the world in the person and activity of Christ to redeemmenfromthekingdomofSatan.13

JesusalsoclarifiedthenatureofthekingdomHewasestablishingintheparablesofMatthew13.Christgavetheseparables,nottoexplainthatHewouldnotbeestablishing theDavidic kingdom spoken of in prophecy, but to correct somepopularmisconceptionsabout theprophesiedMessianickingdom.ThemysteryorpreviouslyunrevealedtruthaboutthekingdomwasnotthatGodwasgoingtopostponethekingdomprogramandtemporarilyengageinachurchprogramthatwouldbealtogetherdifferentfromtheprophesiedprogram.Themysteryofthekingdom was that the kingdom would be established, not with cataclysmicsuddennessandflamingjudgment,butgraduallyandslowly.Thekingdomwasnot to be established swiftly with military might, but peaceably through thesowingoftheWordandthepatientwaitingforspiritualfruit.Kingdomsuccesswould not be immediate or sudden or conspicuous. Many would reject thekingdom like hardened soil rejects seed, and others would profess allegianceonlytofallawaylikeaplantinshallowsoiloramongthorns.Theenemiesofthekingdomwerenot tobeimmediatelydestroyed,butweretoremainin thisagelike tares inawheat field.Thewickedwerenot tobefully removedfromthisworlduntil theendof theagewhen their judgmentwillbe like theburningoftaresafterawheatharvestorthedisposalofinediblefishafteraharvestfromthesea. The kingdom was to have a small and inconspicuous beginning, like amustard seed, but itwasgradually togrow into a great and remarkable entity.Thekingdomwaseventuallytoaffectthewholeworldlikeasmallbitofleavenbringslifetoalargeandinertmassofdough.Thoughthekingdomhadasmall

beginning,itwasofgreatvalueandwasworthgivingone'slifefor.Itwaslikeasmall pearl of great value or some treasure inconspicuously hidden in a field.Though theseare small in size,menwill sell all toobtain them.Thekingdomparablestaughtthatthekingdomwasextremelyvaluableandthatthekingdomhad a great future before it even though its outward success would not beimmediateoralwaysapparent.

JesuscontinuedtorefertoHiskingdomworkthroughoutHisministry.ReferringtoHisownpresence,JesustoldthePhariseesthatthekingdomwasintheirmidst(Luke17:20-21).JesusgavePeterthekeysofthekingdomofheaven(Matthew16:19)andtoldhisdisciplesthatsomeofthemwouldnot tastedeath"till theyseetheSonofmancominginHiskingdom"(Matthew16:28).Jesusexplainedthe principles of kingdom greatness (Matthew 18:1f.), kingdom forgiveness(Matthew18:21f.) and the first and the last in thekingdom (Matthew19:30f.;20:20f.).Jesusexplainedtherelationshipsofspiritualeunuchs(Matthew19:12),covenantchildren(Matthew19:14),andthemateriallyrich(Matthew19:23)tothe kingdom. Jesus warned the chief priests and elders of Israel that thepublicansandharlotswereenteringthekingdomaheadofthem(Matthew21:31)and that the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to others(Matthew21:43;22:1f.).

NeartheendofHisearthlyministry,JesusenteredJerusalemandwasacclaimedas theMessianicKing of prophecy (John 12:13). Soon afterward, atHis trial,Jesuswasaccusedofbeingapoliticalkinganda rivalofCaesar (John18:33;19:12). Jesus denied this, saying thatHis kingdomwas not of thisworld andarguingthatifHiskingdomwereofthisworld,Hisfollowerswouldhavefoughtto have preventedHis arrest (John 18:36). Earlier in Hisministry, Christ hadrejectedamovetoforceHimtobesuchaking(John6:15).ItisnoteworthythatChristdidnotarguebeforePilatethatHehadindeedcometosetupapoliticalkingshipmodeledafterKingDavid'sbutthatHehadsincepostponedallthatandwasnolongerarivaltoCaesar.Caesar'ssoldiersmockedthekingshipofJesus(John19:1-3),andHewascrucifiedundertheindictment:"JesusofNazareththeKingoftheJews"(John19:19).JesushadgivennoevidencethatHehadofferedapoliticalkingdomtoIsrael.This insteadwasthemisinformationHisenemieshadusedtohaveHimcrucified.

AfterHiscrucifixion,Jesuswasresurrectedfromthedeadandascendedto theright hand of the Father. The New Testament stresses that this resurrection-

ascension established in a special way Jesus' Messianic kingship. TheresurrectedChristappearedtothedisciplesandmadetheregalclaim,"Allpower(orauthority)isgivenuntomeinheavenandinearth"(Matthew28:18).Hethenpromised tobewith thechurch till theendof theageandgave thechurch theroyal responsibility of discipling the nations, thereby securing for Christ Hisrightful realm. After giving the Great Commission, Christ ascended up intoheaveninacloudinfulfillmentofDaniel7:13-14:

Isawinthenightvisions,and,behold,oneliketheSonofmancamewiththecloudsofheavenandcametotheAncientofdays,andtheybroughthimnear before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and akingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: Hisdominion is an everlastingdominion,which shall not pass away, andHiskingdomthatwhichshallnotbedestroyed.

ThroughHisresurrectionandascension,JesusbecametheMessianicSonofGodin power (Romans 1:4).14 Jesus' divine Sonship as the second Person of theGodheadhadnobeginningorneedforexaltation,butHisMessianicSonshipasahumanSonofDavidwasestablished inpowerwhenChrist entered intoHisglorifiedresurrectionexistence.ThisMessianicSonshiphadabeginning,atimeatwhichGod said, "Thou artMy Son; this day have I begotten thee" (Psalm2:7).15 Therefore Peter could say on Pentecost regarding the resurrection-ascensionofJesus:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, thatGod hathmadethatsameJesuswhomyehavecrucifiedbothLordandChrist.Acts2:36

ThetitleChrist,whichistheGreekequivalentoftheHebrewMessiah,meanstheanointedone,whichis theOldTestament titleforGod'schosenkingoverIsrael(1Samuel24:6;Samuel23:1;Psalm2:2).

AtthesynagogueofPisidianAntioch,PaulproclaimedasimilarmessageabouttheMessianicruleofJesus:

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which wasmadeuntothefathers,Godhathfulfilledthesameuntoustheirchildren,inthathehathraisedupJesusagain;asitisalsowritteninthesecondpsalm,ThouartMySon,thisdayhaveIbegottenthee.Acts13:32-33

ThissecondPsalmwaswrittenintermsoftheDavidickingdomasevidencedbythestatement,"YethaveIsetMykinguponMyholyhillofZion."AndyettheNewTestament nowhere teaches that this Psalm awaits fulfillment in a futureJewish age. The New Testament instead gives repeated indication that theMessianic coronation spoken of in this Psalmwas fulfilled at the resurrectionandascensionofJesusChrist.

InActs4:25-28,thesecondPsalmisagainspokenofasfulfilledby"ThyholyChild (or Servant) Jesus whom Thou hast anointed." The book of Revelationalso testifies that Jesus Christ by His resurrection-ascension and presentheavenlyreignhasfulfilledandisfulfillingthesecondPsalm:

AndhethatovercomethandkeepethMyworksuntotheend,toHimwillIgivepoweroverthenations:Andheshallrulethemwitharodofiron;asthevesselsofapottershalltheybebrokentoshivers(Psalm2:9):evenasIreceivedofMyFather.Revelation2:26-27

Andshebroughtforthamanchild,whowastoruleallnationswitharodofiron(Psalm2:9);andherchildwascaughtupuntoGod,andtohisthrone.Revelation12:5

AndtheauthorofHebrewsgavethefollowingevidence:

Soalso theChristglorifiednotHimself tobemadeahighpriest; butHethatsaiduntoHim,ThouartMySon,todayhaveIbegottenThee.Hebrews5:5

AnotherPsalmthatclearlyreferstotheMessianickingdomisthe110thPsalm,whichbeginsasfollows:

TheLordsaiduntoMyLord,SitthouatMyrighthand,untilImakeThineenemiesThyfootstool.TheLordshallsendtherodofThystrengthoutofZion:rulethouinthemidstofthineenemies.

Thedispensationalistsclaimthatthereisnobasisforteachingthat"thethroneoftheFatherinheavenistobeidentifiedwiththeDavidicthrone,"16andyetthisPsalmclearly identifies theMessianic thronewith therighthandof theFather.AndPeterquotedthisveryPsalminhisPentecostsermoninwhichhesoughtto

provethatGodhadmadeJesus"bothLordandChrist"throughHisresurrection-ascension (Acts 2:29-36). The New Testament contains significant additionaltestimony that the fulfillment of this Messianic Psalm began with theresurrection,ascensionandheavenlyseatingofJesusChrist.17

ThatJesusisnowexercisingHisprophesiedMessianicruleisfurtherconfirmedby the apostolic church's total ignorance of any kingdom postponement. AtSamaria, "Philip preached the things concerning the kingdomofGod, and thenameofJesusChrist"(Acts8:12).PaulandBarnabusencouragednewlyformedchurcheswith themessage: "Wemust throughmuch tribulation enter into thekingdomofGod" (Acts14:22).Theunbelieving JewsatThessalonicachargedthat Paul and Silaswere acting "contrary to the decree of Caesar, saying thatthereisanotherking,oneJesus"(Acts17:7).AtEphesus,Paulspoke"boldlyforthe space of threemonths, disputing andpersuading the things concerning thekingdomofGod"(Acts19:8;compare20:25).ThroughoutPaul'simprisonmentatRome,he"preachedthekingdomofGod"(Acts28:31;compareverse23).IfPaulwasawarethatthekingdomhadbeenpostponed,hegavenoindicationofit. Perhaps this is why extreme ultra-dispensationalists conclude that thekingdomwasnotpostponeduntilafterthebookofActsandthatActsandalltheepistleswrittenduringthetimeof theActsareJewishbooksandnotChristianbooks!

The kingdom is also mentioned often in the New Testament epistles. Forexample,PaulspokeofsalvationasdeliverancefromthedomainofSatanintothekingdomofGod'sdearSon (Colossians1:13). InColossians4:10-11,PaulreferredtoAristarchus,MarkandJustusas"fellowworkersuntothekingdomofGod." There are many other similar passages.18 The dispensationalist reasonsthat since these verses definitely refer directly to the church age and since,accordingtodispensationalism,thekingdomChristofferedtoIsraelwasentirelyunrelated to the churchage, then thewordkingdom in the aboveversesmustrefertosomethingentirelydifferentfromthewordkingdominthepreachingofChrist.Theyarguethatthewordkingdomrefersto"theuniversalandspiritualkingdomorruleofGod"19inversessuchastheabove.Butwherewasthewordkingdom redefined inScripture?What is theScripturalbasis forclaiming thatthe "normal"meaning of thewordkingdom in theNewTestament epistles isentirelydifferentfromthe"normal"meaningofthewordintheGospels?Tousea criticismwhichDr. Ryrie used against an amillennialist, the reason that the

dispensationalist does not see the kingdomwhich Christ offered in the aboveverses isbecause"he feels,ofcourse, thathehas found justifiable reasons forspiritualizingtheconceptofthekingdom."20The"justifiablereason"hereisthataconsistentinterpretationofthewordkingdomwouldgreatlycontradictsomebasicdispensationalassumptions.

Lastly, we want to look at some of the difficulties associated with thedispensationalviewoftheMessianickingdom.WewilldothisbylookingatthedispensationalexplanationofthesimplepromiseintheDavidiccovenant,"Iwillstablishthethroneofhiskingdomforever"(2Samuel7:13b).Dispensationaliststeach that thiscovenantwillbe fulfilled literallyandunconditionally. If this isthe case, then dispensationalists need to explain how the throne of Davidremained literally established during the time of theBabylonian exile?Verses38, 39 and 44 of the eighty-ninth Psalm give the following description of thestatusoftheDavidiccovenantduringtimesofdivinechastisement:

But Thou hast cast off and abhorred, Thou hast been wroth with Thineanointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of Thy servant: Thou hastprofanedhiscrownbycastingittotheground.

Thouhastmadehisglorytocease,andcasthisthronetotheground.

Thereareonly twowaysofwhich I amaware that thedispensationalist coulddealwiththis.Ontheonehand,hecouldacknowledgethattheDavidiccovenantisconditional in thesense thatGodblesses inaccordancewithholiness.Dr. J.DwightPentecosttakesthisrouteandsays:

TheonlyconditionalelementinthecovenantwaswhetherthedescendentsofDavidwouldcontinuallyoccupythethroneornot.Disobediencemightbringaboutchastening,butneverabrogatethecovenant.Peterssays:

Some ...wrongfully infer that the entire promise is conditional overagainst the most express declarations to the contrary as to thedistinguishedOne,thepre-eminentSeed.Itwas,indeed,conditionalasto theordinary seedofDavid ..., and ifhis seedwouldhaveyieldedobedience, David's throne would never have been vacated until theSeed, par excellence, came; but being disobedient, the throne wasoverthrown,andwillremainthus"atabernaclefallendown,""ahouse

desolate,"untilrebuiltandrestoredbytheSeed.21

Dr.Pentecost thengoeson toargue that theDavidiccovenant isunconditionalbecause

... the covenantwas reaffirmedafter repeated acts of disobedienceon thepartof thenation. ...Thesereaffirmationswouldandcouldnothavebeenmadeifthecovenantwereconditioneduponanyresponseonthepartofthenation.22

I disagree with the dispensational teaching on conditional and unconditionalcovenants,butIaminbasicagreementwithwhatDr.Pentecosthassaidaboveabout the Davidic covenant. The blessings of the Davidic covenant wereconditioneduponobediencebytheseedofDavid.This,however,didnotmeanthat theDavidiccovenantcouldhavebeenabrogatedor laidasidebecause thecovenant ultimately had reference to the sinless Christ who through HisobediencemeritedthefullblessingsofthiscovenantforHispeople.IbelieveDr.PentecosthasdealtwiththeproblemoftheBabylonianexilebycompromisingtheusualdispensational teachingon thenatureofanunconditionalcovenant. Iwill examine the dispensational dichotomy between conditional andunconditionalcovenantsinthenextchapter.

On the other hand, a dispensationalist could deal with the problem of theBabylonianexilebydefiningtheDavidicthroneinsuchanon-literalfashionthatthe throne could said to be established even while unoccupied. This is thesolutionsuggestedbyDr.JohnF.Walvoord:

By the term "throne" it is clear that no reference is made to a materialthrone, but rather to the dignity and power which was sovereign andsupreme in David as king. The right to rule always belonged to David'sseed.Bytheterm"kingdom"thereisreferencetoDavid'spoliticalkingdomover Israel. By the expression "for ever" it is signified that the DavidicauthorityandDavidickingdomorruleoverIsraelshallneverbetakenfromDavid's posterity. The right to rule will never be transferred to anotherfamily, and its arrangement is designed for eternalposterity.Whatever itschangingform,temporaryinterruptions,orchastisements,thelineofDavidwillalwayshavetherighttoruleoverIsraelandwill,infact,exercisethisprivilege.Thisthen,inbrief,isthecovenantofGodwithDavid.23

Itis,then,notnecessaryforthelinetobeunbrokenastoactualconductofthekingdom,butitisratherthatthelineage,royalprerogative,andrighttothe throne be preserved and never lost, even in sin, captivity, anddispersion.Itisnotnecessary,then,forcontinuouspoliticalgovernmenttobeineffect,butitisnecessarythatthelinenotbelost.24

IftheDavidicthroneonlyrefersto"therighttorule,"thentheseedofDaviddidretainthethroneevenwheninBabylonianexile.Thisbringsustoaninterestingquestion: Does Christ not now possess "the dignity and power which wassovereign and supreme inDavid as king" and "the right to rule"? If themoreimmediate seed of David could possess the Davidic throne even when inBabylonby retaining the"right to rule," thenwhydoesnot Jesusnowpossessthe Davidic throne? If one accepts Dr. Walvoord's definition of the Davidicthrone,thenhowcanonepossiblyalsoholdthatChristdoesnotnowpossessitbecauseHeisnotliterallyrulingfromearthlyJerusalem?

In arguing that Christ does not now possess the throne of David,dispensationalistsinsistthatthetruethroneofDavidmustbeanearthlythrone.They have insisted that a heavenly throne (Revelation 12:5) and a heavenlyMount Zion (Hebrews 12:22) do not fulfill the prophecy of the Davidiccovenant.Forexample,Dr.LewisSperryChaferhassaidthefollowing:

...thethroneofDavidispreciselywhatDavidbelievedittobe,anearthlyinstitutionwhichhasneverbeen,norwilliteverbe,inheaven.25

More recently some dispensationalists have begun to teach that theMessianicrule will be exercised from both an earthly throne and a heavenly throne, asevidencedbythefollowingquotationsfromDr.J.DwightPentecost:

According to the established principles of interpretation the Davidiccovenantdemandsaliteralfulfillment.ThismeansthatChristmustreignonDavid'sthroneontheearthoverDavid'speopleforever.26

This heavenly city will be brought into a relation to the earth at thebeginningof themillennium, andperhapswill bemadevisible above theearth. It is from this heavenly city that David's greater Son exerts HisMessianicrule,inwhichtheBridereigns,andfromwhichtherewardedOldTestamentsaintsexercisetheirauthorityingovernment.27

Inclosingthischapter,IwouldliketopointoutthepracticaldifferencebetweentheReformedand thedispensationalviewsof thekingdom.WhenoneacceptstheReformedunderstandingof theDavidickingdom,itreally ismeaningful totheChristiantoday.Itrelatestothehereandnow,nottoafutureJewishage.Theprayer"Thykingdomcome"makessensefortodayintheReformedsystem.ThedispensationalviewofthekineglectsthefullsignificanceofthepresentreignofChrist and can led to a pietistic, other-worldly sort of Christianity that isculturallyimpotent.Somedispensationalistshavesaid,"Whypolishthebrassona sinking ship?" and "My job is to fish formen, not to clean up the goldfishbowl."Dr.JohnF.WalvoordhasexpressedthismentalitywellinthefollowingquotationfromhisbookTheMillennialKingdom:

Thepremillennialconceptofthepresentagemakestheinter-adventperiodunique and unpredicted in the Old Testament. The present age is one inwhichthegospelispreachedtoalltheworld.Relativelyfewaresaved.Theworld becomes, in fact, increasingly wicked as the age progresses. Thepremillennial view holds no prospects of a golden age before the secondadvent, and presents no commands to improve society as a whole. Theapostles are notably silent on any program of political, social, moral, orphysicalimprovementoftheunsavedworld.Paulmadenoefforttocorrectsocial abuses or to influence the political government for good. Theprogramof theearlychurchwasoneofevangelismandBible teaching.Itwasamatterofsavingsoulsoutoftheworldratherthansavingtheworld.Itwas neither possible nor in the program ofGod for the present age tobecomethekingdomofGodonearth.28

EndNotes

1 PatrickFairbairn,ProphecyViewedinRespecttoItsDistinctNature,ItsSpecialFunction,andProperInterpretation(n.p.:T.&T.Clark,1865;reprinted.,GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1976),pages230-231.

2 PatrickFairbairn,Prophecy,page229.3 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),page199.

4 Ibid.,page200.5 Ibid.,page203.6 TheCompactEditionoftheOxfordEnglishDictionary(Oxford

UniversityPress,1971),s.v."kingdom."7 TheCompactEditionoftheOxfordEnglishDictionary,s.v."kingdom."8 GeorgeEldonLadd,CrucialQuestionsabouttheKingdomofGod(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1952),pages77-81.

9 GerhardKittel,editor;GeoffreyW.Bromley,translatorandeditor,TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1964),1:582.

10GerhardKittel,editor,TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament,1:572.

11 GerhardKittel,editor,TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament,1:571-572.AccordingtoRidderbos,"inJewisheschatologicalliteraturethemalkuthshamaim[kingdomofheaven]isunderstoodtobethecominguniversalrevelationofthekingshipofGodwithwhichtheappearanceoftheMessiahisintimatelyconnected."HermanRidderbos,TheComingoftheKingdom(n.p.:ThePresbyterianandReformedPublishingCompany,1962),page13.

12CompareColossians2:15;Hebrews2:14;1John3:8;Revelation12:9.13GeorgeEldonLadd,CrucialQuestionsabouttheKingdomofGod,page89.

14 JohnMurray,TheEpistletotheRomans(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1959,1965),1:9-12.

15H.C.Leupold,ExpositionofthePsalms(GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1959),pages50-51;GerhardKittel,editor,TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament,8:367.

16 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page203.17Hebrews1:13;5:6;7:17,21;10:12-13;Matthew22:41-46;1Corinthians15:25-27a.

18 1Corinthians6:9-10;Galatians5:21;Ephesians5:5;2Thessalonians1:5;2Timothy4:18.

19CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),page172;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,AStudyinBiblicalEschatology(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),pages471-472.

20CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page93.21 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,pages103-104.22 Ibid.,page104.

23 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page196.24 Ibid.,page201.25 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:315.26 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page112.27 Ibid.,page546.28 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page134.

Chapter12OldTestamentSalvation

According to dispensationalist Dr. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, the most frequentcriticismofdispensationalismisthatdispensationalismteachesdifferentwaysofsalvationindifferentages.1Andthemostprobablebasisforthiscriticismisthedispensational teachings on salvation in theOld Testament and themillennialkingdom.Certaindispensationalwritershavemadestatementsthatdosoundlikethey were teaching that Old Testament salvation was and that millennialsalvationwillbeameritorioussystemofworks.Forexample,Dr.LewisSperryChaferhassaidthefollowing:

AdistinctionmustbeobservedherebetweenjustmenoftheOldTestamentandthosejustifiedaccordingtotheNewTestament.AccordingtotheOldTestamentmenwerejustbecausetheyweretrueandfaithfulinkeepingtheMosaic Law. ...Menwere therefore just because of their ownworks forGodwhereasNewTestamentjustificationisGod'sworkformaninanswertofaith(Rom.5:1).2

The Law of Moses presents a covenant of works to be wrought in theenergyoftheflesh;theteachingsofgracepresentacovenantoffaithtobewroughtintheenergyoftheSpirit.3

The law, being a covenant of works and providing no enablement,addresseditselftothelimitationsofthenaturalman.Nomorewasexpectedor secured in return from its commands than the natural man in hisenvironmentcouldproduce.4

ItistobeconcludedthatthepreachingofJohntheBaptistwaswhollynew,andwasaccordingtohismissionasheraldoftheKing;butthatmessageislegalisticandnotgracious.Itisacovenantofworksandnotacovenantoffaith. ... Into that kingdom,men are said to be "pressing in." "To crowdoneself in" is the literal meaning, and the word suggests intense humaneffort,andimpliestheneedofmeritforentranceintothekingdom.5

The Sermon on the Mount is the expansion of the full meaning of thepersonalrighteousnesswhichisrequiredinthekingdom.Thegreatwordsin this age are believe and grace. Not once do these words appear inconnectionwiththekingdomteachingsofMatthew5-7.6

Thekingdomteachings,liketheLawofMoses,arebasedonacovenantofworks.Theteachingsofgrace,ontheotherhand,arebasedonacovenantof faith. In the one case, righteousness is demanded; in the other it isprovided,bothimputedandimparted,orinwrought.Oneisablessingtobebestowedbecauseofaperfectlife,theotherisalifetobelivedbecauseofaperfectblessingalreadyreceived.7

Undergrace,thefruitoftheSpiritis,whichindicatesthepresentpossessionof theblessing throughpuregrace;whileunder thekingdom, theblessingshallbetosuchasmerititbytheirownworks.8

Inthisage,GodisdealingwithmenonthegroundofHisgraceasitisinChrist. His dealings with men in the coming age are based on a verydifferent relationship.At that time, theKingwill rulewith a rod of iron.Thereisnowordofthecross,orofgrace,inthekingdomteachings.9

It isstrange, indeed, thatmenwhohavewonhonorsastheologiansofthefirstmagnitude do not see the difference between the proclamation of anearthly kingdom addressed to one elect nation to be established on legalgrounds, and the proclamation of a grace message which concerns onlyindividuals with Jews and Gentiles, on an equal footing, under sin andoffersinsovereigngracetotheonewhobelievesonChristthathewillbemademeettobeapartakeroftheinheritanceofthesaintsinlight.10

"The straight and narrow way" is an outworking of personal merit andrighteousnessandisfarremovedfromsalvation,whichprovidesaperfectand eternal justification based on an acceptance in the Beloved. TheChristianhasbeensavedbyanactoffaithandnotbyrelentlessperseveringinanarrowpath....ThereisnoresthereinthefinishedworkofChrist(cf.Heb. 4:9); all is personalmerit as the basis of hope for entrance into thekingdomofheaven.11

Thus itmay be concluded that the teachings of the law, the teachings of

grace,andtheteachingsofthekingdomareseparateandcompletesystemsofdivinerulewhichareperfectlyadaptedtothevariedconditionsofthreegreat dispensations. The teachings of Moses and the teachings of thekingdom are purely legal, while the instructions to the believer of thisdispensationareinconformitywithpuregrace.12

Dr.Chafer does appear to have taught differentways of salvation in differentages, and yet Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, who studied underDr. Chafer, claims thefollowing:

Neither the older nor the newer dispensationalists teach two ways ofsalvation,anditisnotfairtoattempttomakethemsoteach....Strawmenareeasytocreate,butthehuffandpuffittakestodemolishthemareonlyhuffandpuff.13

Suchaclaiminthelightofsuchquotationsdemonstratesthatthedispensationalteachings onOld Testament salvation is a sensitive area for dispensationalistsandaninterestingareaforstudy.

Inthischapter,IwillseektoexaminetheteachingsonOldTestamentsalvationof the older and the newer dispensationalists, asDr.Ryrie labels them, and tocontrast these dispensational teachings with that of Reformed theology. I willfirst discuss a basic inherent weakness in the dispensational teaching on OldTestamentsalvationandthengoontoexaminethespecificsoftheirteachingonthissubject.

This basic inherent weakness results from the foundational dispensationalassumptionthatthereisastrongdichotomybetweenIsraelandthechurchsuchthat the Old Testament saints will not be in the Body and Bride of Christ ineternity.Thismeans that thedispensational systemcontains apresuppositionalprejudice against the Old Testament saints' being in Christ and under thecovenant headship of Christ. The dispensational system imposes upon itsconsistentadherentsthenecessityofexplainingOldTestamentsalvationinsuchawaythatOldTestamentsalvationdoesnotinvolvecovenantmembershipintheBodyofChrist.Tobe in covenantunionwithChrist is tobe in theBodyandBrideofChrist,andtobeintheBodyandBrideofChrististobeinthechurchuniversal, and for theOldTestament saints to be in the churchuniversal is todenydispensationalism.AccordingtoDr.PaulLeeTan:

To see the church as theBodyofChrist, an organismdifferent fromOldTestament Israel, is to readScripture dispensationally and to qualify as adispensationalinterpreter.14

AccordingtoDr.J.DwightPentecost:

ThemarriageoftheLambisaneventwhichevidentlyinvolvesonlyChristandthechurch. ...Whileitwouldbeimpossibletoeliminatethesegroups[OldTestament saints and tribulation saints] from the place of observers,theycannotbeinthepositionofparticipantsintheeventitself.15

AccordingtoDr.LewisSperryChafer:

There is probably no word of Scripture which more clearly defines theessentialfactconcerningtheChristianthanthephraseinChrist;andastheChristianis themost importantfactofallcreation, therehasneverbeenawordutteredwhichwas so far-reaching in all its implication, orwhich isfraught with greater meaning to humanity than the phrase in Christ. ...Overagainst theemphasiswhich isgiven to this truth in the teachingsofgrace,isthecorrespondingfactthatthereisnohintofapossiblepositioninChristinanyteachingoflaworofthekingdom.16

MuchofdivineblessingisdeterminedforIsraelallofwhichisanticipatedinhercovenantsandprophecies;butnocovenantorprophecybrings thatnationintoheavenlycitizenshiporintomarriageunionwithChrist.17

Dispensationalists recognize that ifOldTestament saints are inChrist as Paulused that term, then Old Testament saints are in the church universal (1Corinthians 12:13), and that would effectively destroy the dispensationaldichotomybetweenIsraeland thechurch.AsalvificallyunifiedpeopleofGodthroughtheagesisaconceptantitheticaltothefoundationalpresuppositionsofdispensationalism. This fundamental dispensational bias against the salvificunityinChristofthepeopleofGodthroughtheagesis,Ithink,themostbasicweaknessinthedispensationalteachingonOldTestamentsalvation.

Nowthatwehavediscussed thispreliminaryconsideration, Iwillexamine thespecificdetailsofthedispensationalteachingsonOldTestamentsalvation.Sincedispensationalteachinginthisareahasevolvedovertheyears,Iwillfirstlookat

theolderdispensationalteachingasrepresentedbyDr.LewisSperryChaferandthen at the newer dispensational teaching as represented by Drs. John F.Walvoord,CharlesC.Ryrie,andJ.DwightPentecost.

The older dispensational teaching on Old Testament salvation is extensivelyexplained in the fourth volume of Dr. Chafer's Systematic Theology, theprimary source for my understanding on this subject. Fundamental to Dr.Chafer'ssystemarehisconceptsofconditionalandunconditionalcovenants.Aconditionalcovenant,accordingtoDr.Chafer,isacovenantinwhichGodagreestodoHispartonlyupontheconditionthatmandoeshispart.Itisameritorious,by-works, "be good, and Iwill bless you" proposition. In contrast,Dr.Chaferdefines an unconditional covenant as a covenant in which God has boundHimselftodosomethingregardless.Thereisnohumanresponsibilityinvolved.Itisagracious,by-faith,"Ihaveblessedyou,nowbegood"proposition.18

In Dr. Chafer's system, the nation Israel afterMount Sinai was under both aconditional and an unconditional covenant. The Abrahamic covenant with itslandpromisetoAbrahamandhisSeedwasIsrael'sunconditionalcovenant:

This [Abrahamic] covenant, being without human condition, simplydeclares the unchanging purpose of Jehovah. It will be achieved in puregrace, apart from every human factor, and its accomplishments areeternal.19

WhenthenationIsraelwasredeemedfromEgypt,theywereinanidealposition.They had been redeemed as a nation, and, on the basis of the Abrahamiccovenant, they had an unconditional right to the promised land which wascontingent upon no human responsibilities.But then, according toDr.Chafer,Israel made a foolish and rash mistake at Mount Sinai by accepting themeritoriousMosaiccovenant.20

Dr.ChaferregardedtheMosaiccovenantasameritoriouscovenantofworksinwhichdivineblessingwasconditionedstrictlyuponhumanfaithfulness.21Itwastheantithesisofacovenantofgrace.22 Itsbywordwas"Thisdoandthoushaltlive." Itwas a legal relationship inwhich one entered intoGod's blessings bymeansofpersonalself-righteousness.23InacovenantofworksliketheMosaiccovenant,thereisnodivineenablementandmanmustdependontheenergyof

theflesh.24

WenowhavethenationIsraelunderboththeconditional,"Begood,andIwillbless you," meritorious, by-works, and temporary Mosaic covenant and theunconditional,"Ihaveblessedyou,nowbegood,"gracious,by-faithandeternalAbrahamiccovenant.This,ofcourse,seemslogicallyimpossible.Howcouldthesame people simultaneously be related to God through two such antitheticalcovenants?Thedispensational solution is toposit a strongdichotomybetweennational and individual promises and blessings and hopes. According to Dr.Chafer,

WhatJehovahhascovenantedtoHiselectnationisonething,andwhatHecovenants to individuals within that nation is quite another thing. Thenational entity has been and will be preserved forever according tocovenantpromises(Isa.66:22;Jer.31:35-37;Gen.17:7-8).TheindividualIsraelite, on the other hand, was subject to a prescribed and regulatedconductwhich carriedwith it a penalty of individual judgment for everyfailure(Deut.28:58-62;Ezek.20:33-44;Matt.24:51;25:12,30).25

Israel as a nationwas secure in its national salvation under the unconditionalAbrahamiccovenant,buttheindividualIsraeliteshadanunsuresalvationundertheconditionalMosaiccovenant.Dr.Chafercontrastedthiswiththesituationoftheuniversalchurchinwhichboththecorporatebodyandalltheindividualsinthecorporatebodyaresecure.26

WenowhavethebackgroundnecessarytoexamineDr.Chafer'sunderstandingof theway of salvation in theOld Testament. There are four elements in Dr.Chafer'sexplanationofOldTestamentsalvation.27ThefirstelementisphysicalbirthintoJudaism.AccordingtoDr.Chafer,

Whatever may have been the divine method of dealing with individualsbeforethecallofAbrahamandthegivingofthelawofMoses,itisevidentthat, with the call of Abraham and the giving of the law and all thatfollowed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisionswherebyman,who isutterly fallen,might stand in favorofGod,namely,(a)byphysicalbirthintoJudaismor(b)byspiritualbirthintoChristianityorthekingdomofGod.28

Distinctionwouldalsobemadebetweentheblessingsandprivilegeswithinthecovenantsandthetermsofadmissionintothecovenants.InthecaseoftheIsraelite,entranceintothecovenantswasbyphysicalbirth;whileinthecaseoftheChristianitisbyspiritualbirth.29

Israelites become what they are by physical birth. They are each onebegotten of human parents and their inheritance is transmitted by humangeneration. Christians become what they are by spiritual birth. They arebegottendirectlybyGodandare thereforeHis legitimateoffspring.TheirinheritanceisthateachisachildofGod.30

Toomuch importance cannot be placed on the fact that an Israelite wasphysicallybornintoanelectrace,aredeemednation,andmadeheiroftheeverlastingcovenants.WhileanIsraelitewasinductedbyhisphysicalbirthintoallprivilegesofthechosenpeople,therewasinthelawanelementofmerit because its attending blessings for compliance and judgments forfailure.31

TheJew,thoughunderthelegalisticMosaiclaw,wasstillanheirbybirthtothegraciousandunconditionalAbrahamiccovenant.TheAbrahamiccovenantwasanational covenant, and since a Jewbecameamemberof the Jewishnationbybirth, he became an heir of the promised national blessing at birth.Therefore,according to Dr. Chafer, the Jew became a member of God's earthly peoplethroughphysicalbirthjustastheChristianbecomesamemberofGod'sheavenlypeople through spiritual birth. This gracious admission into the covenantrelationshipsthroughphysicalbirthmeantthatOldTestamentsalvationwasnotentirelythroughthelaw.32Afterall, thelawdidnotmakeoneaJew.Thatwasdonebyphysicalbirth.

The second element in Dr. Chafer's system of Old Testament salvation is thesacrificialsystem.TheJewasanindividualwasunderthemeritoriouscovenantof lawandhewas responsible forkeeping the law in full.That,however,wasimpossible.Noonecouldkeepthelawfully,especiallynotinthepowerofthefleshwithnodivineenablement.TheonlyreasonsalvationwaspossiblefortheJew was because he had the sacrificial system as a means for obtainingforgivenessforhistransgressionsofthelaw.AsDr.Chaferexplainsit:

ThefinalstandingofanyJewbeforeGodwasnotbasedonlawobservance

alone, but contemplated that Jew in the light of the sacrifices he hadpresentedinhisownbehalf.33

In case of failure to do the law, sacrifices were accepted as a means torestoration.AstheChristianmaybeforgivenandcleansedonthegroundofconfessionofhissintoGod(1John1:9),soIsraelitesbothindividuallyandnationallywererestoredbysacrifices.34

WhenlookingbackuponhisexperienceinJudaism,theApostlePaulcouldsay that he had been, as 'touching the righteousnesswhich is in the law,blameless'(Phil.3:6).Thisdidnotimplysinlessperfection,butratherthathe had always provided the requisite sacrifices.On that basis the faithfulJewlivedandwasacceptedofGodintheMosaicsystem.35

Old Testament salvation in Dr. Chafer's system involved forgiveness of sinsthrough the sacrificial rituals and personal righteousness through keeping thelaw.Dr.Chaferstatedthatneithertheby-faithprincipleofgracenortheimputedrighteousnessofChristwasapartofOldTestamentsalvation.36Hetaughtthatthe Jews did not use the by-faith principle because theywere ignorant of thepossibility of a by-faith imputed righteousness in spite of the example ofAbrahamandDavidspokenofinRomans4.37Dr.ChafersaidthatAbrahamwas"thepatternofaChristianundergraceandnotofaJewunderlaw."38Hestatedthat"theby-faithprinciplewhichwasannouncedintheAbrahamiccovenantisbroughtagainintoforce,throughthedeathofChrist,"39andthattheMosaiclaw"was preceded (Ex. 19:4) and followed (John 1:17) by grace."40 ConcerningimputedrighteousnessintheOldTestament,Dr.Chafersaidthefollowing:

Israel,asanation, isneverseeninheaven,norare theyasapeople,as istrueof theChurch, constituted righteous.Though termed"aholynation,"thatholinessisrelativeratherthanabsolute.41

AndDr.ChafersaidthefollowingaboutimputedrighteousnessintheSermonontheMountandinthemillennialkingdom:

No reference, here or elsewhere, in this sermon, is made to imputedrighteousness.Thekingdomsaint'srighteousnessunderMessiah'sreignwillexceedtherighteousnessofthescribesandPharisees.Indeed,suchpersonal

qualityandmeritaredemandedforentranceintothatkingdomatall.ManyJewswillbejudgedunworthytoenterthekingdom,andthosewhowillbejudged will include Jews of the past dispensation who are raised to thisjudgment (cf.Dan. 12:1-3) aswell as the last generation livingwhowillenterthatjudgment.Areminderatthispointmaybeinorder,whichassertsagainthatthebelieverisprovidedinthisagewithrighteousnesswhichisagift from God made possible through the sweet savor aspect of Christ'sdeathandonthegroundofthebeliever'spositioninChrist.42

Old Testament salvation as explained by Dr. Chafer sounds like a legalisticsystem based on ritualistic andmoral obedience. Dr. Chafer, however, arguesthatOldTestamentsalvationashehasexplaineditisabygracesystem:

Since human faithfulness in whatever degree could never be the exactcompensation or exchange for the values of eternal life or for unendingblessingsinthekingdom,thereisaverylargemeasureofdivinegracetobeseeninthesalvationoftheelectearthlypeople.43

The third element in Dr. Chafer's system of Old Testament salvation is theteaching that a Jew could be disowned from the nation and thereby from thegracious Abrahamic covenant by neglecting to keep the law and to offersacrifices.Dr.Chaferexpresseditasfollows:

TheindividualJewmightsofailinhisconductandsoneglectthesacrificesas, in the end, to be disowned of God and cast out (Gen. 17:14; Deut.28:58-61;Ezek.3:18;Matt.10:32-33;24:50-51;25:11-12,29-30).44

Thus it is disclosed that the salvation of an Israelite, who lived in theMosaic age,which agewill be completed in the comingTribulation,wasguaranteed by covenant; yet the individual could, by failing to do God'srevealed will as contained in the Mosaic Law, sacrifice his place in thecomingKingdomandbecutofffromhispeople(cf.Lk.10:25-28;18:18-21;Matt.8:11,12;24:50,51;25:29,30).Jehovah'ssalvationofIsraelwillbeonthegroundofChrist'sdeath.Thehumanterms,becauseofthecovenantpromise regarding their salvation, are not the same as that required byAbrahamoranindividualinthisage,whetherJeworGentile.45

AndDr.Chaferalsogaveinsighttohisthinkingonthispointinhiscommentsof

theSermonontheMount:

Thus,also,greatisthedifferencebetweenthosewhoareindangerofhellfire(Matt.5:22,29-30)andthosewhoarejustifiedonaprincipleofperfectdivine justice who have done no more than believe in Jesus -- even theungodly(Rom.3:26;4:5)....And,yetagain,considerationmustbegiventoadistinctionbetweenthosewhofollowacourse--straitandnarrow--withthegoalinviewthattheymayfindlifeattheendofthatpath(Matt.7:14)andthosetowhometernallifehasbeengivenasapresentpossession(John3:36;Rom.6:23;1 John5:11-12).Finally, far removed is the situation inwhichsomeheartheLordsay,"Ineverknewyou:departfromme,yewhowork iniquity" (Matt. 7:23) and an assurance that one trusting in Christ"shallneverperish"(John10:28;Rom.8:1).46

Of course, Reformed interpreters agree that the Old Testament Jew could bedisinherited from the nation for unrepented, high-handed sin. The Reformedinterpreter,however,doesnotmakephysicalbirthintoIsraeltheOldTestamentequivalenttonewcovenantregeneration.FortheReformedinterpreter,thisOldTestamentpruningof theunfaithful fromtheolive treeof Israel is in thesamecategorywithNewTestamentchurchdisciplineandisnottobecontrastedwithnewcovenantsecurityinChrist.

The last element inDr.Chafer's system is the national salvation of the nationIsrael. Dr. Chafer held that this national salvation was a main objective inChrist's death.47 This national salvation is to take place during the futuristicdispensational seven-year tribulationperiod after the churchhas been rapturedand in connection with the post-tribulational return of Christ. During thetribulation,IsraelwillberegatheredtothelandofPalestineandmanyJewswillturn to God through the renewed preaching of the kingdom gospel.48 Thekingdomgospel,according toDr.Chafer,waswhatJohntheBaptistandJesushadpreachedatthefirstadventbeforeJesusturnedfromIsraeltotheGentiles.Dr. Chafer quoted the following definition of the kingdom gospel from theScofieldReferenceBible:

ThisisthegoodnewsthatGodpurposestosetuponearth,infulfillmentofthe Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:16 ...) a kingdom, political, spiritual,Israelitish,universal,overwhichGod'sSon,David'sheir,shallbeKing,and

which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of therighteousnessofGodinhumanaffairs...

TwopreachingsofthisGospelarementioned,onepast,beginningwiththeministryofJohntheBaptist,continuedbyourLordandHisdisciples,andendingwiththeJewishrejectionoftheKing.Theotherisyetfuture(Matt.24:14),duringthegreattribulation,andimmediatelyprecedingthecomingoftheKinginglory.49

At the post-tribulational return of Christ, He is to deliver the nation of IsraelfromallherenemiesandtosaveIsraelasanationfromallhersinsbyapplyingthe efficacy of His death to the many Jewish sins that for ages have beentemporarilycoveredbyanimalsacrifices.ThereistobeanationaljudgmentinwhichalltheOldTestamentJewswhowereunfaithfultotheMosaiclawwillbecutoffandpurgedfromthepeople.ThentheHolySpiritwillworkintheheartsoftheremainingfaithfulJews,whothenwillbemovedtoacceptinfaithChrist'sdeathfortheirnationalsalvation.Thus,"allIsraelwillbesaved"(Rom.11:26).50AsaresultofthereturnofChristandthisnationalsalvation,theJewsofeveryageexcepttheparentheticalchurchagewhowerefaithfultoJudaismwillinheritthelandpromisedtoAbraham.51TheseJews,togetherwiththeGentilenationsthat treated Israel well during the tribulation period, will enter the earthlymillenniumandthechurchwillremaininheaven.Inthemillennium,theGentilenations will be inferior to Israel as Israel's servants.52 And Israel will have amillennialinheritancethatisinferiortothechurch,whichwillresideinheavenand rule as Christ's consort.53 Dr. Chafer expressed uncertainty about "theeternalestateofsuchpatriarchsasAdam,Enoch,Noah,JobandMelchizedek."54IdonotknowifDr.ChaferbelievedthesewouldinherittheearthwithIsraelorheavenwiththechurch.

Attheendofthemillennium,therewillbethecreationofthenewheavensandthenewearth.Inthisnewcreation,theseparationbetweenIsraelandthechurchwill continue throughout eternity. The new heavens will be the eternalinheritanceoftheheavenlypeople,thechurch,andtheJudaisticnewearthwillbetheeternalinheritanceoftheearthlypeople,Israel.55

There are three obvious problems with Dr. Chafer's system. First, though hedeniedthathetaughtdivergentwaysofsalvationindifferentages,56hedidmake

many statements that appeared to justify this criticism. Second, Dr. Chaferinterpretedthephraseheavenandearthasreferringtotwoseparatespheresthatare to remain eternally distinct. The phrase heaven and earth is a commonHebrew figureof speech (amerism)used to refer to all created reality.57 Andthird,Dr.Chafer's teaching that the resurrectedOldTestament saintswouldbeonearthduringthemillenniumandthatresurrectedchurchsaintswouldnotbeonthenewearthduringeternitycontradictstheNewTestamentteachingsontheNewJerusalem.

This third point about the New Jerusalem needs some explanation. A closeexaminationofRevelation21willshowthattheNewJerusalemdoesnotcometoplanetearthuntilafterthecreationofthenewheavenandthenewearth(Rev.21:1-2,9-10).Aswasdemonstrated inChapterTwo, the teachingofRevelation21,Hebrews11:39-40andHebrews12:22-23indicatesthattheNewJerusalemis symbolic for the saintsofall theages.ThisNewTestament teachingon theNew Jerusalem contradicts two aspects of Dr. Chafer's system. Both theresurrected Old Testament saints and the resurrected church saints are in theNew Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem has a heavenly location during thedispensationalmillenniumbutisonthenewearthduringeternity.Thismakesitimpossible for the resurrected Old Testament saints to be on earth during amillennialageandfor theresurrectedchurchsaintsnot tobeon thenewearthduringeternity.

ThesethreeproblemareaswithDr.Chafer'steachingaretheareasinwhichthenewer dispensationalists have departed from Dr. Chafer's system. The neo-dispensationalistshaveeliminated the firstproblembyclearly teachinganOldTestament by-faith salvation. Dr. Charles C. Ryrie explains this position asfollows:

ThebasisforsalvationineveryageisthedeathofChrist;therequirementforsalvationineveryageisfaith;theobjectoffaithineveryageisGod;the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this lastpoint, of course, which distinguishes dispensationalism from covenanttheology,butitisnotapointtowhichthechargeofteachingtwowaysofsalvation can be attested. It simply recognizes the obvious fact ofprogressive revelation.When Adam looked upon the coats of skins withwhichGodhadclothedhimandhiswife,hedidnotseewhatthebeliever

todayseeslookingbackonthecrossofCalvary.AndneitherdidotherOldTestamentsaintsseewhatwecanseetoday.58

Dr.RyriegoesontoquotetheDallasTheologicalSeminarydoctrinalstatement,whichgoesontosay:

... we believe that it was historically impossible that [the Old Testamentsaints]shouldhavehadastheconsciousobjectoftheirfaiththeincarnate,crucifiedSon,theLambofGod(John1:29),andthatitisevidentthattheydid not comprehend aswe do that the sacrifices depicted the person andworkofChrist.Webelievealsothattheydidnotunderstandtheredemptivesignificanceof thepropheciesor typesconcerningthesufferingsofChrist(1 Peter 1:10-12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God wasmanifestinotherwaysasitisshownbythelongrecordinHebrews11:1-40.Webelievefurtherthattheirfaiththusmanifestwascounteduntothemforrighteousness(cf.Rom.4:3withGen.15:6;Rom.4:5-8;Heb.11:7).59

SincedispensationalistscannotallowtheOldTestamentsaintstohaveapositioninChrist,itseemsconsistentthattheywoulddenythattheOldTestamentsaint'sfaithwasinthecomingChrist.

Dr.RyriehasstatedthattheobjectoffaithineveryagehasbeenGodandthatthe content of faithwas different in theOldTestament.This statement allowsgreat latitude in interpreting the content of faith in the Old Testament. Forexample,itwouldaccommodatethefollowinganalysisofthefaithofAbrahambyDr.Chafer:

AbrahambelievedGodrespectingasonwhomhewouldhimselfgenerate....

... God imputes righteousness to those in this age who believe, whichrighteousness is theforemostfeatureofsalvation,on theonedemandthattheybelieve;butthisbeliefisnotcenteredinasonwhicheachindividualmightgenerate,as inthecaseofAbraham,but intheSonwhomGodhasgiven to a lostworld,who died for theworld andwhomGod has raisedfromthedeadtobeaSaviorofthosewhobelieve.InRomans4:23,24itiswritten,"Nowitwasnotwrittenforhissakealone,thatitwasimputedtohim;Butforusalso,towhomitshallbeimputed,ifwebelieveonhimthat

raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." From this it will be seen that,thoughthespecificobjectoffaith--IsaacinthecaseofAbrahamandJesusChrist in the caseofChristians -- varies, bothhave a promiseofGodonwhichtorestandbothbelieveGod.60

Christ,however,saidthatAbrahamsawHisdayandwasglad(John8:56).PaulsaidthatGodpreachedthegospeltoAbraham(Galatians3:8).ThisisnottosaythatAbrahamunderstoodGod'scovenantpromiseaswellaswedotoday.ThisistosaythatthecontentofAbraham'sfaithwentbeyondthebeliefthathewouldhaveasoninhisoldage.ThisistosaythattheobjectofAbraham'sfaithwasaprogressiverevelationofthecovenantpromisewhichGodbegantorevealintheSeed-RedeemerpromiseofGenesis3:15.

Inregardtotheobjectandcontentoffaith,IwouldsaythattheobjectofsavingfaithforGod'speoplehasalwaysbeenGodasthegiverofHiscovenantpromiseandthatthecovenantpeople'sknowledgeandunderstandingofGod'scovenantpromise has progressively changed through the ages. Paul refers to the"covenantsofpromise"(Eph.2:12),whichimpliesthatallthevariouscovenantswhich God has administered throughout redemptive history are united by acommonpromise.Herewehavethedevelopmentaldiversity(manycovenants)and the organic unity (one promise) of progressive revelation.God's covenantpromise has never changed but man's knowledge and understanding of God'scovenant promise has greatly progressed through the ages and will greatlyprogressinthefuturewhenallthesaintsseetherisenandglorifiedChristfacetofaceatthesecondadvent.ThatwetodayknowandunderstandGod'scovenantpromisebetterthandidtheOldTestamentsaintsdoesnotmeanthattheobjectoftheirfaithwasnotthesamecovenantpromise.TheChristiantodayhasfaithintheChristwhohasalreadyhistoricallycomeandmanifestedHimselfthroughthefirst advent. Faith in the Christ who has come, however, is but faith in thepromiseofGenesis3:15withaprogressedknowledgeandunderstandingofthepromise of Genesis 3:15. The object of Adam and Eve's faith was the Seed-Redeemer promise, and the ultimate referent of that promise was Jesus ofNazareth, regardless of the level of their understanding of the promise. Theultimate referent of the sacrificial system andmuch of theMosaic ceremoniallaw was Christ. To have believed in these Old Testament promises andinstitutionswas tohavebelieved in theMessianicpromise to theextent that ithadbeenrevealed.Thecontentofsavingfaithhasnotchangedthroughtheages;

men'sknowledgeofandunderstandingofthatcontenthasprogressivelychangedthroughtheages.ThisexplanationofthecontentofOldTestamentsalvationisbetteradaptedtotheconceptofprogressiverevelationsincetheveryconceptofprogression implies an organic unity as well as diversity and developmentalchange.

InspiteofDr.Ryrie's teachingabout thechangingcontentoffaith throughtheages,Dr.RyrieappearsinhisdiscussionoftheOldTestamentsacrificialsystemto teach that thedimly seencontentof theOldTestament saint's faithwas thecomingChrist:

Andyetthelawcontainedtherevelationwhichbroughtmentoarealizationthat their faith must be placed in God the Saviour. How did it do this?Primarily through the worship which it instituted through the sacrificialsystem. The sacrificeswere part of the law; the keeping of them did notsave;andyetamancouldrespondtowhattheytaughtsoastoeffecteternalsalvation.61

... there seemed to have been in the offerings that which could point abelievingworshippertoabettersacrificewhichwoulddealfinallywiththeentiresinquestion.Thismightbecalledanulteriorefficacyinthesacrificeswhichdidnotbelong to themassacrificesbutasprefigurationsofa finaldealingwithsin.However,itcannotbeimpliedthattheIsraeliteunderstoodwhatthatfinaldealingwas....Christwasnottheconsciousobjectoftheirfaith,thoughtheyweresavedbyfaithinGodasHehadrevealedHimselfprincipally through the sacrifices which He instituted as a part of theMosaiclaw.62

ThereislittledifferencebetweenwhatDr.RyriehasherestatedandthegeneralReformedpositiononthecontentofOldTestamentfaith.Todistinguishhimselffrom the Reformed position, Dr. Ryrie has to characterize the covenanttheologian as presuppostionally inclined toward the teaching that the OldTestamentsaintunderstoodChrist'sworkastypifiedinthesacrificesasclearlyasdoestheNewTestamentsaint:

Theobviousfallacyinthecovenanttheologian'ssolutiontothisproblemisthat it is an a priori approach which has yielded artificial results. Theassumptionisthateverythingaboutsalvationmustbethesame;therefore,

the conscious object of the faith of old Testament saintsmust have beenChrist. This is not to imply that covenant theologians do not recognize alimitation on the revelation of theOldTestament, but they do everythingpossible to obliterate the resulting effect that any limitation of revelationmighthaveonthedoctrineofOldTestamentsalvation.63

TheabovemaybeavalidcriticismofcertainstatementsbyindividualReformedinterpreters,64 butDr.Ryrie should not accuse covenant theologians as a classwith making this mistake. For example, examine the following statement byReformedtheologianGeerhardusVos:

Eventhoughthedefectiveprovisionalefficacyoftheceremoniesmightbetosomeextentperceived,itwasfarmoredifficulttotellwhatwasintendedtotaketheirplaceinthefuture.Herethetypeneededtheaidofprophecyfor their interpretation (cp. Isa. 53). We must not infer from ourcomparativelyeasyreadingofthetypesthatIsraelitesofoldfelt thesameease in interpreting them. It is unhistorical to carry back into the OldTestamentmindourdevelopedconsciousnessofthesematters.Thefailureto understand, however, does not detract from the objective significancethesetypeshadintheintentofGod.65

OrexaminethefollowingstatementbyPatrickFairbairn,aReformedinterpreterfromapastage:

ItwascomparativelyaneasythingfortheJewishworshippertounderstandhow, from time to time, he stood related to a visible sanctuary and anearthly inheritance, or to go through the process of an appointedpurification by means of water and the blood of slain victims appliedexternally to his body, -- much more easy than for the Christian toapprehend distinctly his relation to a heavenly sanctuary and realize thecleansingofhisconsciencefromallguiltbytheinwardapplicationofthesacrificeofChristandtheregeneratinggraceoftheHolySpirit.ButfortheJewishworshipper to doboth his own and theChristian's part, -- both toreadthemeaningofthesymbolasexpressiveofwhatwasalreadylaidopentohis eyes, and todescry its concealed reference to theyetundiscoveredrealities of a better dispensation, -- would have required a reach ofdiscernmentandastrengthof faith farbeyondwhat isnowneeded in the

Christian.66

A second area where neo-dispensationalists significantly differ from the olderdispensationalismofDr.Chafer isrelatedto theconceptof theNewJerusalemandtotheinterpretationofthenewheavensandthenewearth, thesecondandthirdproblempointsinDr.Chafer'ssystem.Inthenewersystemascontainedinthewritings ofDr. J.Dwight Pentecost andDr. JohnF.Walvoord, the churchenters her eternal state in the heavenly Jerusalem at the rapture immediatelybefore thebeginningofa sevenyear tribulationperiod.During this tribulationperiod,God'sprogramwithIsrael,whichwasinterruptedbythechurchage,willberesumed.Afterthistribulationperiod,atthetimeofthesecondadventandthebeginningofthedispensationalmillennium,theheavenlyJerusalemwilldescendtoahoveringpositionover the landofPalestine.67Thissatellitecitywillhaveastonishing dimensions, being either a cube or a pyramid with a 1500 milesquarebaseandaheightof1500miles.68Atthetimeofthesecondadvent,thedeadOldTestamentsaintswillberesurrectedandwillentertheireternalstateinthe heavenly Jerusalem along with the resurrected church saints. The livingJewish saints who survived the tribulation period, however, will enter themillennium in unresurrected bodies on earth alongwith selectGentiles.69 Theresurrectedsaintsoftheheavenlycitywillbefreetotraveltoandfromtheearthduring themillennialperiod.70At the endof themillennium, thenewheavensandthenewearthwillbecreated,theheavenlycitywilldescendtoPalestineonthenewearth,and theredeemedofall theageswillenjoyeternity togetheronthenewearth.

ThisnewersystemdoesnothavethespecificproblemspreviouslypointedoutinDr. Chafer's system. In this neo-dispensational system, there is one eternaldestinyforthesaintsofallagesinaccordancewithaproperinterpretationofthephrase heaven and earth. Also, this system does not contradict the NewTestament's teachingon theNewJerusalem thewayDr.Chafer's systemdoes.This new system, however, has generated new problems in its adjustments tocompensatefortheoldproblemsinDr.Chafer'ssystem.

First, the newer systemdoes not allow theOldTestament saints to inherit theland promised to Abraham and his seed. Neo-dispensationalist Dr. John F.Walvoordhassaidthefollowing:

Much of the confusion that exists in regard to the millennium and theeternalstatestemsfromafailure todistinguishbetween thepromises thataregiventothelastgenerationofsaintswhoareontheearthatthetimeofthesecondadventandthepromisesthataregivenresurrectedortranslatedsaints in both the Old and New Testaments. The prophecies of the OldTestament give adequate basis for the doctrine that Israel has an earthlyhope. The prophets in Israel's darkest hours painted the most glowingpictureofthecomingearthlykingdominwhichIsraelwouldparticipateasafavorednationandpossesstheirpromisedlandunderthereignoftheSonofDavid.Thepromisesgiven,however,clearlyrefertothosewhowerenotresurrectedandaredirectedtothenationofIsraelasitistobeconstitutedatthetimeofthesecondadvent,thatis,theIsraeliteswhowillsurvivethegreat tribulation. They and their seed will inherit the promised land andfulfill thehundredsofprophecies thathave todowithIsrael'shope in themillennial kingdom. These promises are delineated in the Abrahamic,Davidic,Palestinian,andnewcovenants.71

Dr. Walvoord's explanation becomes obviously inadequate the moment oneremembers that the Abrahamic covenant specifically stated that Abrahamhimselfwould inherit the land alongwithhis seed.ButAbraham, in this neo-dispensationalscheme,willnotbeonearthduringthemillenniumtoinheritanyland.Hewillbeintheheavenlycity.ThespeculationabouttheNewJerusalem'shoveringoverPalestineduringthemillenniumanditsinhabitants'beingabletotraveltoandfromplanetearthmaybemeanttocompensateforthisflawbyatleastgiving theOldTestamentsaintssuchasAbrahamaccess to the land theyaresupposedtoinherit.Inreality,thisnewersystemdoesnotallowAbrahamtoinheritanylandduringthemillenniumbutinsteadmakeshimamillennialbondservantintheheavenlycity.72

Asecondproblemwiththisnewersystemisthatinthissystemthewordforeverno longer literallymeans foreverbutmeans a longdurationor, to be specific,one thousandyears.This isnotconsistent literalism, forGodpromised togivethelandtoAbrahamandtohisseedforever.ThatiswhyinDr.Chafer'ssystemthe Jews continued throughout eternity on earth with a distinctive Jewishinheritance.AsDr.Chafersaid,

Those earthly promises are confirmedby the oath of Jehovah and extend

forever,elselanguageceasestobeadependablemediumfortheexpressionoftruth.73

If the dichotomybetween the earthly people and the heavenly people is to beconsistentlymaintainedandif theJewishcovenantsareeternalcovenants, thentheJewsmusthaveadistinctivelyJewisheternityseparatefromthechurch.Butif the Jewish covenants find their complete fulfillment in eternity, as in Dr.Chafer's system, this de-emphasizes the millennium and makes it a mereaddendumtothedispensationalsystem.Thedispensationalist'smillenniumisnolongermandatoryand"anintegralpartofhisentireschemeandinterpretationofmanyBible passages"74 if the Jewish covenants find their final fulfillment ineternity,not in themillennium.Therefore, inneo-dispensational thought, theseeternal covenants must find their basic fulfillment in the specifically Jewishmillenniumandnotduringtheeternityonthenewearththatwillbesharedwiththechurch.Forever,therefore,meansonethousandyears.

Athirdproblemwiththeneo-dispensationalsystemisthesignificantnewstrainthat it puts on the dispensational dichotomy between national and individualpromises. InDr.Chafer's system, all the individualswithin the nationwere toreceive the same promises, though admittedly on a conditional basis, that thenationasawholewastoreceiveonanunconditionalbasis.Allthoseindividualswhoremainedmembersingoodstandingofthenationwereheirsofthenationallandpromisethatwastoberealizedinacomingearthlykingdom.AccordingtoDr.Chafer,

ThegloriousMessianickingdomhasbeen thehopeof theOldTestamentsaintsandinconformitytothishopetheyorderedtheirlives.75

Inneo-dispensationalism,noneoftheindividualswhomadeupthenationintheOld Testament are to receive the promised national inheritance. The onlyindividualswhowillinheritlandinthisnewerschemearethelivingJewsofthatfuture generation that will enter the millennium and their descendents. Theindividualhopesof all the individual Jewsof theOldTestament era find theirfulfillmentnotintheJewishnationalinheritancebutintheheavenlyJerusalemandinaneternitysharedwiththechurch.76OfwhatsignificancewasanationalpromisetoanOldTestamentJewifheasanindividualwerenottopartakeofit?

Afourthproblemisthattheneo-dispensationalistgivestheOldTestamentsaint

an eternal destiny in common with the church but without giving the OldTestament saint a salvation based upon covenant union with Christ. I see nojustificationfortheOldTestamentsaint'shavingthesameeternaldestinyastheNewTestament saint apart from theOldTestament saint'sbeing inunionwithChrist in eternity. Not being in covenant union with Christ is not simply aquantitativedifferenceinOldTestamentsalvationthatallowstheOldTestamentsainttohavethesameinheritanceasthechurchsaintbutwithlesshonor.Itisaqualitative difference that requires a separate inheritance altogether, assumingthat any inheritance is possible apart from covenant union with Christ. Adispensationalistmightargue thatAbrahamhadan imputed righteousness, andthatAbraham,anOldTestamentsaintwhohadnotexperiencedthebaptismoftheSpirit,wasnotand isnot incovenantunionwithChrist.Washenot?Pauluses Abraham's imputed righteousness as a proof that the Christian has animputed righteousness (Rom. 4:22-25), and the Christian's imputedrighteousness is an "in Christ" imputed righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). DidAbraham have an "out ofChrist" imputed righteousness? That is not possiblesince the righteousness that is imputed in justification is the righteousness ofChrist. And, assuming that there can be an "out of Christ" imputedrighteousness, then it would be radically inferior to "in Christ" righteousness.And in correlation to this, the Old Testament saint must be given an eternaldestiny thatdiffers from theeternaldestinyof thechurch like theearthdiffersfromtheheavens.ThisishowDr.Chaferreasoned,andnotwithoutreason.Togive theOld Testament saint an eternal destiny in accordwith an "in Christ"righteousness is to put the Old Testament saint in the church, for the churchconsistsofallthosewhoareinChrist.

A fifth problem is that differences between the newer and the olderdispensationalism evidence a less consistent use of the dispensationalhermeneutic by the neo-dispensationalists. On the basis of their hermeneutic,dispensationalistshavelonginsistedthattheseedwhichistoinheritthelandisthephysicalseedofAbraham.Dr.Chaferputmoreemphasisonthesignificanceofphysicalbirth inOldTestament salvation,makingphysicalbirthan integralpartofOldTestament salvationandplayingdown the importanceofproselytesalvation apart from physical lineage in the Old Testament.77 The newerdispensationalemphasisonby-faithsalvationintheOldTestamentcouldalsobecalledareadingoftheNewTestamentbackintotheOldTestament.

AfterexaminingthedispensationalconceptofOldTestamentsalvation,itmustbeconcludedthatthedispensationaltheoriesonthissubjectareinadequateandobjectionable.Severalquestionscanberaisedtoshowfurtherthisinadequacy:Isthe rent veil of the temple to be repaired for themillennium and eternity? IsworshipagaintobecenteredinJerusalem(John4:21)?IsthedividingwallthatwasdestroyedbyChristtoberebuilt(Eph.2:14)?Areallchurchsaintsgoingtobe superior in eternity to Old Testament saints such as Abraham,Moses andDavid?ItistruethatJesussaidthattheleastinthekingdomofheavenwouldbegreater than John the Baptist, but was he not referring to spiritual privilegesenjoyedinthislifeandnottoeternaldestinies?IsMary,themotherofourLord,to be in a different eternal assembly fromher husband Joseph simplybecauseshelivedafewyearslonger?IsthefuturetobeatimeofretrogressioninGod'sprogram instead of a time of progression?These and other difficulties are theinevitable result of the dispensationalist's dogmatic dichotomy between IsraelandthechurchasitisappliedtoOldTestamentsalvation.

EndNotes

1 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),page110.

2 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8vols.(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1948),7:219.

3 Ibid.,4:211.4 Ibid.,4:247.5 Ibid.,4:214-215.6 Ibid.,4:215.7 Ibid.,4:215-216.8 Ibid.,4:219.9 Ibid.,4:222.10 Ibid.,5:101.11 Ibid.,5:110-111.12 Ibid.,4:225.13CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page207.14 PaulLeeTan,TheInterpretationofProphecy(Rockville,Maryland:AssurancePublishers,1974),page251.

15

J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,AStudyinBiblicalEschatology(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1958),page227.

16 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:98.17 Ibid.,4:142.18"WhateverGoddeclaresHewilldoisalwaysabindingcovenant.IfHeinnowwayrelatesHisproposedactiontohumanresponsibility,thecovenantisproperlytermedunconditional.IfHerealitiesittohumanresponsibilityormakesittodependoncooperationonthepartofanyotherbeing,thecovenantisproperlytermedconditional....Acovenantwhichisunconditionalcannotbeconditionalandaconditionalcovenantcannotbeunconditional."LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1936),page73.

"IfGodhasmadeacovenantdeclaringwhatHewilldoprovidedmandoeshispart,itisconditionalandthehumanelementisnotoneofwalkingworthyofwhatGod'ssovereigngraceprovides,butratheroneofbeingworthytotheendthatthepromisemaybeexecutedatall.Whenthecovenantisunconditional,GodislimitedinwhatHewilldoonlybytheknowledge-surpassingbountyofHisinfinitegrace.Whenthecovenantisconditional,Godisrestrictedbywhatmanisableorwillingtodo.Asanefficaciousappeal,theobligationtowalkworthy,thoughinnowayconditioningthesovereignpurpose,securesmorenormalandspiritualresponsethanallthemeritorioussystemscombined.Thehumanheartisfarmoreresponsivetothepropositioncouchedinthewords"Ihaveblessedyou,nowbegood,"thanitistothepropositioncouchedinthewords"Begood,andIwillblessyou."Theelementofhumanconductthusappearsineachformofthedivinecovenantbutinsuchamannerthatoneisrenderedunconditionalandtheotherconditional."LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page75.

"InrelationtoHisearthlypeople,Israel,andtheirblessingsGodhasmadevariouscovenants.Someoftheseareconditional,andsomeunconditional,whichtermssuggestthatinsomecovenantsGodhasthemtodependuponhumanfaithfulness,whileinothersHemerelydeclareswhatHewilldowhollyapartfromthequestionofhumanworthinessorfaithfulness."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,7:97.

19 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:235.20 Ibid.,4:162-163.

21"Thelawcovenantwasstrictlyaconditionalagreementwhichconditioneddivineblessingsuponhumanfaithfulness."Ibid.,3:77.

"TheLawofMosespresentsacovenantofworkstobewroughtintheenergyoftheflesh;theteachingsofgracepresentacovenantoffaithtobewroughtintheenergyoftheSpirit....Thenatureofacovenantwhichisbasedonhumanworksisobvious.WhateverGodpromisesundersuchacovenant,isconditionedonthefaithfulnessofman.EveryblessingundertheLawofMoseswassoconditioned,andeveryblessinginthekingdomrelationshipwillbefoundtobesoordered.TurningtothekingdomteachingsofChristwhereintheissuesofpersonalconductandobligationsinthekingdomaretakenup,itwillbeseenthatallthekingdompromisestotheindividualarebasedonhumanmerit."Ibid.,4:211-212.

22"Inthiscontext[Romans8:2-8],thelawstandsastherepresentationofthemeritsystem--thatdivinearrangementwhich,accordingtotheNewTestament,isheldastheantipodesofGod'splanofsalvationbygrace."Ibid.,3:343.

"Sincelawandgraceareopposedtoeachotherateverypoint,itisimpossibleforthemtocoexist,eitherasthegroundofacceptancebeforeGodorastheruleoflife.Ofnecessity,therefore,thescripturesoftheNewTestamentwhichpresentthefactsandscopeofgrace,bothassumeanddirectlyteachthatthelawisdoneaway.Consequently,itisnotinforceinthepresentageisanysensewhatsoever.ThispresentnullificationofthelawappliesnotonlytothelegalcodeoftheMosaicsystemandthelawofthekingdombuttoeverypossibleapplicationoftheprincipleoflaw.Thelargerconceptionofthelaw,asbeforedefined,isthreefold:(1)theactualwritteninstructionsofboththeteachingsofMosesandtheteachingsofthekingdom;(2)thelawcovenantofworksinallofitsapplications,whichconditionsblessingandacceptancewithGodonthegroundofpersonalmerit;and(3)thelawprincipleofdependenceoftheenergyoftheflesh,inplaceofthefaithprincipleofadependenceonthepoweroftheindwellingHolySpirit."

Ibid.,4:234.

"Thekingdomteachings,liketheLawofMoses,arebasedonacovenantofworks.Theteachingsofgrace,ontheotherhand,arebasedonacovenantoffaith.Intheonecase,righteousnessisdemanded;intheotheritisprovided,bothimputedandimparted,orinwrought.Oneisofablessingtobebestowedbecauseofaperfectlife,theotherisofalifetobelivedbecauseofaperfectblessingalreadyreceived."Ibid.,4:215-216.

"Thedeterminingcharacterofpurelawisseeninthefactthatitisacovenantofworkswhereinthedivineblessingisconditionedonhumanmerit.Nosemblanceofthisprincipleistobefoundundergrace,exceptthatrewardsaretobebestowedforfaithfulserviceuponthosewhohavealreadyenteredintoeverypresentpositionandpossessionprovidedingrace.Itthereforefollowsthat,notonlythewrittenrulesofthelaw,buttheveryprincipleofthelawcovenantofworks,hasbeendoneawayinthisageofgrace."Ibid.,4:247.

"AccordingtotheOldTestamentmenwerejustbecausetheyweretrueandfaithfulinkeepingtheMosaicLaw....MenwerethereforejustbecauseoftheirownworksforGod,whereasNewTestamentjustificationisGod'sworkformaninanswertofaith(Rom.5:1)."Ibid.,7:219.

23"Thenatureofacovenantwhichisbasedonhumanworksisobvious.WhateverGodpromisesundersuchacovenant,isconditionedonthefaithfulnessofman.EveryblessingundertheLawofMoseswassoconditioned,andeveryblessinginthekingdomrelationshipwillbefoundtobesoordered.TurningtothekingdomteachingsofChristwhereintheissuesofpersonalconductandobligationinthekingdomaretakenup,itwillbeseenthatallthekingdompromisestotheindividualarebasedonhumanmerit.Thekingdomblessingsarereservedforthepoorinspirit,themeek,themerciful,thepureinheart,andthepeacemaker.Itisacovenantofworksonlyandtheemphaticworkisdo.'Thisdo,andthoushaltlive'isthehighestpromiseofthelaw.Asmenjudge,soshalltheybejudged.Atreeisapproved,orrejected,byitfruits.AndnoteveryonethatsaithLord,Lord,shallenterintothekingdomofheaven;buthethatdoeththewillof'myFather'whichisinheaven.Astheindividualforgives,sowillhebeforgiven.Andexceptpersonalrighteousnessshallexceedtherighteousnessofthescribesand

Pharisees,thereshallbenoentranceintothekingdomofheaven.TointerpretthisrighteousnesswhichisrequiredtobetheimputedrighteousnessofGod,istodisregardtheteachingofthecontext,andtointroduceanelementwhichisnotoncefoundinthiswholesystemofdivinegovernment.ThekingdomteachingsoftheSermonontheMountareconcludedwiththeparableofthehousebuiltontherock.Thekeytothismessageisgiveninthewords,'Whosoeverheareththesesayingsofmine,anddoeththem.'

"TurningtotheLawofMoses,wediscoverthatitpresentsnootherrelationtoGodfortheindividualthanthissamecovenantofworks:...

"BythesereferencestotheLawofMosesandthelawofthekingdom,itmaybeseenthatbothofthesesystemsarebasedwhollyonacovenantofworks."Ibid.,4:211-212.

"First,boththecommandmentsandrequirementsoftheMosaicsystemandthecommandmentsandrequirementsofthekingdomarewhollylegalintheircharacter,and,together,comprisethewrittenstatementofthelaw,whichlaw,itwillbeseen,issetasideduringthepresentreignofgrace.

"Second,everyhumanwork,beiteventheimpossible,heaven-highbeseechingofgrace,whichiswroughtwithaviewtomeritingacceptancewithGod,isofthenatureofalegalcovenantofworks,andthereforebelongsonlytothelaw.ThroughthefinishedworkofChrist,acceptancewithGodisperfectlysecured;butthatacceptancecanbeexperiencedonlythroughfaithwhichturnsfromdependenceonmerit,andrestsinChristasthesufficientSavior.Inlikemanner,itwillbeseen,thewholepropositionoflegal,meritoriousacceptancewithGodhaspassedduringthereignofgrace.

"Third,again,anymanneroflifeorservicewhichislivedindependenceontheflesh,ratherthanindependenceontheSpirit,islegalincharacterandhaspassedduringthepresentperiodinwhichgracereigns."Ibid.,4:238.SeealsoIbid.,4:119-120.

24"TheLawofMosespresentsacovenantofworkstobewroughtintheenergyoftheflesh;theteachingsofgracepresentacovenantoffaithtobewroughtintheenergyoftheSpirit."Ibid.,4:211.

"Thelaw,beingacovenantofworksandprovidingnoenablement,addresseditselftothelimitationsofthenaturalman.Nomorewasexpectedorsecuredinreturnfromitscommandsthanthenaturalmaninhisenvironmentcouldproduce.Therequirementsunderthelaware,therefore,ontheplaceofthelimitedabilityoftheflesh.Ontheotherhand,grace,beingacovenantoffaith,andprovidingthelimitlessenablementofthepoweroftheindwellingSpirit,addressesitselftotheunlimitedresourcesofthesupernaturalman.Therequirementstobemetundergraceare,therefore,ontheplaneoftheunlimitedabilityoftheSpirit.Thereisnodivineinjunctionaddressedtotheunregenerateconcerninghisdailylife.ThegospelofthesavinggraceofGodaloneisofferedtohim.Theonlydivineinjunctionsnowinforceintheworldareaddressedtothosewhoaresaved,andtheseheaven-highstandardsaretoberealizedontheprincipleoffaithtowardthesufficiencyoftheindwellingSpirit,andneverbydependenceontheenergyoftheflesh."Ibid.,4:247.SeealsoIbid.,4:51,156,234,239.

25 LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page43;LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:15.

26"ButthisnationalelectiondoesnotextendtoeveryIsraelite.Thisitdoesnot,theApostleprovesinRomans9:1-24.Onthecontrary,theindividualIsraelite,whenundertheMosaicLaw,was,inthematterofhispersonalblessing,underasecondary,meritoriouscovenantwithgraciousprovisionsintheanimalsacrificesforthecoveringandcureofhissinsandfailures.Insharpdistinctiontothis,theChurchis,inrespecttohercorporatewhole,anelectpeoplealso(Rom.8:33),butherelectionandsovereignsecurityisextendedtoeveryindividualinthatbody(John5:24;6:37;10:28;Rom.8:1,A.R.V.)."LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page76.

"OftheelectionoftheChurchwhichisindividual,notonecouldeverbelost.Ontheotherhand,theelectnationwillbepurgedandoutofthemwillberemovedallthatoffend."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:321.

"ThenationalcovenantswithIsraeldonotextendtotheindividual;theyguaranteetheperpetualityoftheraceornationanditsfinalblessing.WhenundertheMosaicLaw,theindividualIsraelite,itwillbeseen,wasonanunyieldingmeritoriousbasis.Overagainstthis,thedivinepurposeforthewholeChurchasabodydoextendtotheindividualbelieverandeveryone

predestinatedwillbecalled,andeveryonecalledwillbejustified,andeveryonejustifiedwillbeglorified(Romans8:30)."LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page90.

"TheconclusionisthatblessingundertheMosaiceconomywasconditionedonindividualfaithfulnesstothelaw.Thiseconomyformedasecondarycovenantwhichwasmeritoriousincharacter--secondaryinthefactthatitwasrestrictedtotheproblemsconcerningtheindividual'sconductandinnowaycompromisingtheprimarycovenantswhichdeterminethedestinyofthenation.Incontrasttothis,theChristian,whilegivenaruleoflifewhichisinnowaymeritoriousthoughhisfaithfulservicewillwinarewardordivinerecognition(1Cor.3:12-15;9:19-27;2Cor.5:9-11),isinregardtohispersonalsalvation--likethecorporatewholetowhichhebelongs--bothsecureandsafeanddestinedtoeternalgloryfromthemomenthebelieves."Ibid.,page93.

27 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:181.28 LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page41;LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:14-15.

29 LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page76.30 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:48.31 Ibid.,4:159.32"Thus,inlikemanner,theMosaicLaw,evenifobserved,neverhadthefunctionofcreatingIsraelites;itwasgivenasaconsistentruleoflifetothosehowwereIsraelitesbyphysicalbirth."LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page91.

"They[theJewsintheolddispensation]werebornintocovenantrelationwithGodwhereintherewerenolimitationsimposedupontheirfaithinHimnorupontheirfellowshipwithHim.Thisfactwasinitselfademonstrationofsuperaboundinggrace."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:181.

33 Ibid.,4:182.34 Ibid.,4:159.35 LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page92.36 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:215-216.37 Ibid.,3:79-80.

38 Ibid.,3:84.39 Ibid.,4:229.40 Ibid.,7:226.41 Ibid.,4:131.42 Ibid.,5:106.43 LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page91.

"Asbeforestated,whateverGoddoesforsinfulmanonanytermswhatsoever,beingmadepossiblethroughthedeathofChrist,is,tothatextent,anactofdivinegrace;forwhateverGoddoesonthegroundofChrist'sdeathisgraciousincharacter,andallwillagreethatadivinecovenantthatisvoidofallhumanelementsismoregraciousincharacterthanonewhichisotherwise.Thesedistinctionsapplyonlytothedivinesideofanycovenant.Onthehumanside--athemeyettobeconsidered--thereisnoexerciseofgraceinanycase;butthehumanrequirementswhichthedivinecovenantimposesmaybeeitherabsolutelylackingorsodrasticallyimposedastodeterminethedestinyoftheindividual."Ibid.,page74.

"Onceagainandfinallyletitbeasserted,thatsalvationofanycharacterorofanypeopleoruponanyvariedhumantermsistheworkofGodinbehalfofmanandisrighteouslyexecutedbyGodonthesolebasisofthedeathofChrist.Itispueriletointimatethattherecouldbeasalvationachievedalonebythepowerofeitherlaw-worksorfaith.ItisonlyGod'spowersetfreethroughChrist'sdeaththatcansaveanditisalwaysandonlythroughChrist'sdeath,whateverthehumanresponsibilitymaybe."LewisSperryChafer,"InventingHereticsThroughMisunderstanding,"BibliothecaSacra,volume102,number405(Jan.-March,1945),5.

44 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:181.

"OftheelectionoftheChurchwhichisindividual,notonecouldeverbelost.Ontheotherhand,theelectnationwillbepurgedandoutofthemwillberemovedallthatoffend."Ibid.,4:321.

45 LewisSperryChafer,"InventingHereticsThroughMisunderstanding,"BibliothecaSacra,volume102,number405(Jan.-March,1945),4-5.

46 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,5:112-113.47

Ibid.,3:108.48 Ibid.,4:318-322;3:105-108.49 Ibid.,7:175.50 Ibid.,3:105-107.51"QuiteincontrasttotheexperienceaccordedtheChurch(cf.John5:24),thenationIsraelmustbejudged,anditisreasonabletobelievethatthisjudgmentwillincludeallofthatnationwhoinpastdispensationshavelivedunderthecovenantsandpromises.Thereforearesurrectionofthosegenerationsiscalledforandmustprecedetheirjudgment.ThegloriousMessianickingdomhasbeenthehopeoftheOldTestamentsaintsandinconformitytothishopetheyorderedtheirlives....Theirrewardswillbeforthemwhenthey'return,'whichtermanticipatesthedayofIsrael'sregathering."Ibid.,4:406-407.

"Asindicatedbefore,Israelinallhergenerations--exclusiveofthosewhohaveenteredintotheexaltedprivilegeofthepresentageofgrace--willcomeupforjudgment,sometoeverlastinglifeandotherstoeverlastingcontempt(cf.Dan.12:2;Ezek.20:33-44;Matt.24:37-25:30).Theportionofthispeoplewhoaredestinedtoenterthekingdombecomethe'allIsrael'whowillbesaved(cf.Isa.63:1)whentheDeliverercomesoutofSionaccordingtoGod'sunalterablecovenant(Rom.11:26-27,29).These,likeallothercreaturesofGod,aretracedintoeternitytocome;forthekingdomis'aneverlastingdominion'(Dan.7:13-14).GreatgracefromGodwillbeuponthosewhoentertheland(cf.Ezek.20:44;Rom.11:27)."Ibid.,4:416-417.

"Ashasbeenseen,theblessingsprofferedtotheindividualIsraelitesunderthelawwereintwoclassifications:...

"(b)ForfaithfulnessunderthelawtheywerepromisedashareinthefutureglorieswhichJehovah,withunconditionalsovereignty,covenantedtothenation."LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page91.

52 Ibid.,pages20-22;LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:5-6,416;3:108;5:355-356.SeealsoJohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),page304.

53 "ShouldthepresentkingofGreatBritainmarryawomanofanothernationhe

wouldbringherintohiskingdom,notasasubject,butasaconsort.ThepresentdivinepurposeistheoutcallingfrombothJewsandGentilesofthatcompanywhoaretheBrideofChrist,whoare,therefore,everyonetopartakeofHisstanding,beinginHim,tobelikeHim,andtoreignwithHimontheearth(Rev.20:4,6;22:5)."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:10;LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,pages30-31.

54 "WhatevermaybetheeternalestateofsuchpatriarchsasAdam,Enoch,Noah,Job,andMelchizedek,whoareclassedastheoriginalstockwhichGentilesperpetuate,averydistinctcompanyofGentilesarebeingcalledoutandsavedbyGod'sgraceintoaneternallikenesstoChristandaredestinedtoshareHisgloryforever."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:416.

55"Suchcontrastsmightbecitedtogreatlengths,buttheimportantobjectivehasbeengainedifithasbeenmadeclearthatthereisaneschatologyofJudaismandaneschatologyofChristianityandeach,thoughwhollydifferentindetails,reachesonintoeternity.OneofthegreatburdensofpredictiveprophecyistheanticipationofthegloriesofIsraelinatransformedearthunderthereignofDavid'sSon,theLordJesusChrist,theSonofGod.Thereislikewisemuchpredictionwhichanticipatesthegloriesoftheredeemedinheaven."LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page65;LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:27.

"ThedispensationalistbelievesthatthroughouttheagesGodispursuingtwodistinctpurposes:onerelatedtotheearthwithearthlypeopleandearthlyobjectivesinvolved,whichisJudaism;whiletheotherisChristianity.Whyshouldthisbeliefbedeemedsoincredibleinthelightofthefactsthatthereisinthepresentdistinctionbetweenearthandheavenwhichispreservedevenafterbotharemadenew;whentheScripturessodesignateanearthlypeoplewhogoonassuchintoeternity;andaheavenlypeoplewhoalsoabideintheirheavenlycallingforever?"LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page107.

"ThefactthatrevelationconcerningbothIsraelandtheChurchincludesthetruthaboutGod,holiness,sin,redemptionbyblood,doesnoteliminateafargreaterbodyoftruthinwhichitisdisclosedthatIsraelitesbecomesuchbyanaturalbirthwhileChristiansbecomesuchbyaspiritualbirth;thatIsraelites

wereappointedtoliveandserveunderameritorious,legalsystem,whileChristiansliveandserveunderagracioussystem;thatIsraelites,asanation,havetheircitizenshipandfuturedestinycenteredonlyintheearth,reachingontothenewearthwhichisyettobe,whileChristianshavetheircitizenshipandfuturedestinycenteredonlyinheaven,extendingonintothenewheavensthatareyettobe...."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:30.

"Everycovenant,promise,andprovisionforIsraelisearthly,andtheycontinueasanationwiththeearthwhenitiscreatednew.EverycovenantorpromisefortheChurchisforaheavenlyreality,andshecontinuesinheavenlycitizenshipwhentheheavensarerecreated."Ibid.,4:47.

"Itshouldbeasserted,however,thattheentiresystemknownasJudaism,alongwithallitscomponentparts,is,inthepurposeofGod,inabeyancethroughoutthepresentage,butwithdefiniteassurancethattheentireJewishsystemthusinterruptedwillbecompletedbyextensionintothekingdom,thenewearth,andonintoeternitytocome."Ibid.,4:248.

"...each[JudaismandChristianity]hasitssphereofexistence--Israelintheearthforallagestocome,theChurchinheaven."Ibid.,4:249.

"AmongthosewhostandineternalfavorwithGodaretheearthlycitizenswhosedestinyitistogoonintoeternityasthedwellersontheearth(cf.Rev.21:3-4;Isa.66:22),andtheheavenlycitizenswhosedestinyitistooccupythenewheavens(cf.Heb.12:22-24;Rev.21:9-22:7;John14:1-3)."Ibid.,4:401.

"ItisclearthatIsraelwilldwellintheirownlandforever.Ifitistobeanunendingresidence,thatdwellinginthelandmusttranscendthemillennialkingdomandthuscontinueintothenewearththatshallbe....EarthhasbeenthesphereofsinandcorruptionunsuitedtothepresenceofGod;butitwillthenbeasholyasheaven,andinthenewearthHewilldelighttodwellamongmenandtobetheirGod.ThetermmenisevidentlyincontradistinctiontotheBiblicaltermsaints.Heavenwillbe,asnow,theabodeofthesaints,whileearthwillbetheabodeofmen.Godissaidtodwell

amongmentoo.Peterassertsthatrighteousnesswilldwellinboththenewheavenandthenewearthalike(2Pet.3:13)."Ibid.,5:365-366.

Asdemonstratedbytheabove,Dr.ChaferdogmaticallyandrepeatedlyassertedinhiswritingsthatthereisaneternaldichotomybetweenIsraelandthechurchwithIsrael'sinhabitingtheneweartheternallyandthechurch'sinhabitingthenewheaveneternally.Dr.Chafer,however,didonoccasionmakestatementscontradictingthisteachingandwhichanticipatedthenewerdispensationalteachings.Forexample,Dr.Chaferinoneplacesuggestedthepossibility,andinanotherplacestatedthefact,thattheearthlypeopleorIsraelwillbeincludedtogetherwiththechurchintheheavenlyJerusalem(Ibid.,4:131;5:367).Andinanotherplace,Dr.ChaferspokeasifhebelievedthattheunconditionalOldTestamentcovenantswouldfindtheircompletefulfillmentintheonethousandyearmillennium(Ibid.,1:41).

56 LewisSperryChafer,"InventingHereticsThroughMisunderstanding,"BibliothecaSacra,volume102,number405(Jan.-March,1945),1.QuotedinCharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),page113.

57Merism:aformofsynecdocheinwhichatotalityisexpressedbytwocontrastingparts.

58CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,pages123-124.59WeBelieve...DoctrinalStatement(Dallas:DallasTheologicalSeminary,n.d.),page11.

60 LewisSperryChafer,"InventingHereticsThroughMisunderstanding,"BibliothecaSacra,volume102,number405(Jan.-March,1945),2-3.

61CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page126.62 Ibid.,page129.63 Ibid.,page123.64 Ibid.,page122.65GeerhardusVos,BiblicalTheology:OldandNewTestaments(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCo.,1948),pages147-148.

66 PatrickFairbairn,TheTypologyofScriptureViewedinConnectionwiththeWholeSeriesoftheDivineDispensations,2vols.(NewYork,1900;reprint,GrandRapids:BakerBookHouse,1975),1:58.

67

"Thisheavenlycitywillbebroughtintoarelationtotheearthatthebeginningofthemillennium,andperhapswillbemadevisibleabovetheearth."J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page546.

"Thisdwellingplacepreparedforthebride...ismoveddownintotheairtoremainoverthelandofPalestineduringthemillennium,duringwhichtimethesaintsexercisetheirrighttoreign.Thesesaintsareintheireternalstateandthecityenjoysitseternalglory.Attheexpirationofthemillennialage,duringtherenovationoftheearth,thedwellingplaceisremovedduringtheconflagration,tofinditsplaceaftertherecreationastheconnectinglinkbetweenthenewheavensandthenewearth."Ibid.,page580.

"ThisviewcontemplatestheheavenlyJerusalemasinexistenceduringthemillenniumovertheearthasthehabitationoftheresurrectedsaints,andisincontrasttothecityJerusalemlocatedontheearth.TheheavenlyJerusalemapparentlyiswithdrawnatthetimeofthedestructionofthepresentearthandheaven.ThenaspicturedinRevelation21:2itreturnstothenewheavenandthenewearthwhenthesceneisreadyforitsdescent.ThisinterpretationregardsRevelation21:9ff.astheheavenlycityintheeternalstatethoughrecognizingitsexistenceinthemillennium.Thisseemstosolvemostoftheexegeticalproblemsthatareinvolvedand,infact,answersmanyobjectionstothepremillennialinterpretationofScriptureasawhole.ItprovidesacleardistinctionbetweenresurrectedsaintswhoinhabittheNewJerusalemandthemillennialsaintsontheearthwhowillinhabitthemillennialearth.Itisassumed,thoughtheScripturesdonotstateit,thatthemillennialsaintsattheendofthemillenniumwillbetranslatedpriortotheirentranceintotheeternalstateandthuswillqualifyforentranceintotheheavenlyJerusalem."JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page328.

"Ifthisinterpretationbeadmitted,thereisnoparticularreasonwhytheNewJerusalemshouldnotbeinexistencethroughoutthemillenniumandsuspendedabovetheearthasasatellitecity....IftheheavenlyJerusalemishoveringovertheearthduringthemillennialreign,itwouldbeanaturaldwellingplacenotonlyforChristHimselfbutforthesaintsofallageswhoareresurrectedortranslatedandthereforesomewhatremovedfromordinaryearthlyaffairs.Theirpositionthusclosetotheearthwouldpermitthemtocarryontheirfunctionsinearthinconnectionwiththemillennialreignof

Christandyetwouldremovedthemasfarasresidenceisconcernedfromcontinuingorminglingwiththoseintheirnaturalbodiesandwouldsolvetheproblemoflackofreferencetoadwellingplaceforresurrectedbeingsonearthduringthemillennium."JohnF.Walvoord,TheChurchinProphecy(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1964),pages159-160.

"DuringthemillenniumthenewJerusalem...apparentlywillbesuspendedovertheearth,anditwillbethedwellingplaceofallbelieversduringeternity...."CharlesCaldwellRyrie,TheRyrieStudyBible:TheNewTestament(Chicago:MoodyPress,1976),page482(noteonRevelation21:2).

68"Amostastoundingfeatureisthedimensionofthecitywhichisgivenas1500squaremilesandalso1500mileshigh....Expositorsdifferastowhetherthecityisintheformofacubeorapyramidthoughthelatterseemsmorelikely.Ifintheformofapyramid,itispossiblethatthethroneofGodwillbeatthetopandtheriveroflifewillwenditswayfromthethronedownthevariouslevelsofthecity."JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page334.

Inamorerecentwork,Dr.Walvoordsetsthedimensionsat1342milesandmentionsthatthecityalsomightbeasphere.SeeJohnF.Walvoord,TheChurchinProphecy,pages161-162.

69 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages324-325;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page542,415,422;CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page146.

70 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,page329;J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page579.

71 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages324-325.72 "Attheraptureandresurrectionofthechurchthesaintsofthisageare,afterjudgmentandmarriage,installedinthatpreparedplace.TheyarejoinedbythesaintsoftheOldTestamentatthetimeoftheirresurrectionatthesecondadvent.Thisdwellingplacepreparedforthebride,inwhichtheOldTestamentsaintsfindtheirplaceasservants(Rev.22:3),ismoveddownintotheairtoremainoverthelandofPalestineduringthemillennium,duringwhichtimethesaintsexercisetheirrighttoreign."J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page580.

73 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:30.74 ThelanguageusedhereisfromacriticismofnondispensationalpremillennialistsbyDr.Ryrie.CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday,page160.

75 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:406.SeealsoLewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page91.

76"ThereisnoquestioninthemindoftheliteralinterpreteroftheScripturesbutthatIsrael'snationalpromiseswillbefulfilledbythenationitselfinthemillennialage,whichfollowstheadventoftheMessiah.AllthecovenantednationalpromisesareearthlyincontentandwillbefulfilledinthetimeoftheearthlyreignofMessiah."J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page535.

"...thenationalpromisesweretobefulfilledbutatthetimeofandinthemillennium...."Ibid.,page536.

"ThelivingwillrealizethefulfillmentofthenationalpromisesoftheOldTestamentinthemillennium,whiletheresurrectedwillrealizethefulfillmentoftheexpectationofa'citywhichhathfoundations'duringthemillennialage."Ibid.,page542.

"TheconclusiontothisquestionwouldbethattheOldTestamentheldforthanationalhope,whichwillberealizedfullyinthemillennialage."Ibid.,page546.

77 "ApartfromtheprivilegeaccordedproselytesofjoiningthecongregationofIsrael--whichseemedtobearlittlefruitage--entranceintotherighttoshareinthecovenantsofblessingdesignedfortheearthlypeoplewasandisbyphysicalbirth."LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,4:15.

Chapter13DealingwithItintheRealWorld

IbegantoquestionthedispensationalsystemduringmyfifthyearasastudentintheTh.M.programatDallasTheologicalSeminary.Upuntilthattime,IhadhadasomewhatunquestioningfaithintheteachingofmyDallasprofessors.Iknewso little and theywere so knowledgeable and respected that questioning theirteaching seemed presumptuous. Then, through the influence of my seminaryfriend Herb Swanson, who had then recently graduated from Dallas, I beganreading Reformed literature on Calvinism. Thank you, Herb! Through thisreading,IcametodisagreewithagoodbitofwhatIhadbeentaughtatDallasregardingsalvation.AlthoughIcontinuedtovaluemuchoftheinstructionIhadreceivedatDallas,Icametoviewsomeofthetheologicalinstructionasshallowand inaccurate. I then, naturally enough, came to the pointwhere Iwanted toreevaluate my commitment to dispensationalism.What was discouraging wasthegreatdifficultyinfindinganyonewhocouldshowmeBiblicalpassagesthatrelated to thebasic issues at stake. I finally found thehelp I thenneeded in adissertation byWilliam Everett Bell, Jr. entitled "ACritical Evaluation of thePretribulationRaptureDoctrineinChristianEschatology."Thisworkisamuchbroader criticismofdispensationalism than the titlewould suggest.Dr.Bell, aDallas graduate, wrote this while pursuing a doctorate in philosophy at NewYorkUniversity.Thankyou,Dr.Bell!Ironically,thesummerbeforemylastyearatDallas,IhadpubliclychallengedDr.BellataSouthernBaptistSundayschoolclass when Dr. Bell had criticized Dr. Ryrie's teachings on "Savior only"salvation.

Ihope thisbook thathasgrownoutofmyowncontinuingstudywillhelp theReformed pastor when someone comes to him and says, "Show me fromScripturewhyIshouldnotbeadispensationalist.ShowmefromScripturewhyIshouldacceptReformedorcovenanttheology."

Iofferthefollowingsuggestionsondealingwiththeopen-mindedinquirerwithadispensationalbackground:

1. Center your arguments on the teachings of specific Scriptures.Dispensationalists are sometimes taught that Reformed interpreters

superimpose a rationalistic theological system onto Scripture that distortsits true message. Dispensationalists will probably be more open toarguments taken directly from the exegesis of specific passages than togeneraltheologicalarguments.

2. DealwiththefoundationalissuesoftheunityofGod'speopleinChristandthecontinuityofGod'sprogram.Don'tgetsidetrackedonperipheralissuessuchasthedefinitionofadispensationorthepre-tribulationrapture.

3. Be content with arguing against dispensationalism in general and forReformedtheologyingeneral.Don'tfeelthatyoualsoneedimmediatelytoconvincetheinquirerofyourparticularconvictionsonsecondarypropheticissues.

4. Don't begin with arguments about the proper interpretation of genuinelydifficult passages such as Daniel's seventy weeks prophecy, or Ezekiel'stemplevision,orthemanofsinpassage,orthebookofRevelation.Idonotbelieve anyone could have convinced me to reject the dispensationalinterpretation of Daniel's seventy weeks vision until I had first begun todoubt the dispensational system in general and the parenthesis theory inparticular. I had been well drilled in the dispensational understanding ofDaniel9buthadneverreallynoticedorgiventhoughttomostoftheclearNewTestamentpassagesonunityandcontinuity.

5. Be careful not to overstate your case. Acknowledge that there is a realnewnesstotheNewTestamentchurch,thatthewordIsraeldoesoftenrefertothephysicalJewsintheNewTestament,thattheprophetsinEphesians2:20areNewTestamentprophets,andsoon.

6. Stateyourcasewithprayerfulcompassionandpatience.Don'tpresentyourcasewitharroganceandemotionorwithan"I'mrightandyourpositionisridiculous"attitude.SowtheseedsoftruthandleavetheresttotheLordoftheharvest.

7. Knowthebasicsofthedispensationalsystemwellandbeabletodocumentthem if necessary.Somewho today call themselves dispensationalists areveryemotionallyattachedtothatsystembuthavedonelittleactualresearchonthebasicsofthesystem.Theywouldprefernottobelievethefactsaboutwhattraditionaldispensationalteachershavetaught.

IalsowouldliketolistwhatIconsidertobethereallyobjectionableteachingsassociatedwithdispensationalism.Thereareotherdispensationalteachingswithwhich I disagree, but I do not view them as foundational and basic. The

followingarethedispensationalteachingsthatIpersonallyregardasespeciallyobjectionable:

1. ThebeliefthatOldTestamentsalvationwasnotthroughfaithinthecomingChrist. The Reformed position is not, as it has been misrepresented onoccasion, that theOld Testament saints understood asmuch about ChristandtheGospelaswedotoday.TheReformedpositionisthattheobjectofsavingfaithintheOldTestamentwasthesameastheobjectofsavingfaithin the New Testament, although admittedly the Old Testament saint hadmuch less knowledge of Christ. He saw dimly through the Messianicprophecies and types. The object of faith has not changed through thedispensations;thedegreeofknowledgeoftheobjecthas.

2. ThebeliefthattheOldTestamentsainthadasalvationthatdidnotincludeunionwithChristandthattheOldTestamentsaintsineternitywillnotbemembers of the Body and Bride of Christ. Reformed theology doesrecognizethattheNewTestamenteraisaneraofgreatergraceandspiritualfullnesstothepointthatScripturecancontrasttheNewandOldTestamentages as light compared to darkness. This is not to say that the OldTestament was so lacking in grace that Old Testament salvation did notinvolvecovenantunionwithChristandthecovenantheadshipofChrist.

3. The belief that there is a strong dichotomy of nature between theAbrahamiccovenantandtheMosaiccovenantinthatoneisunconditionaland the other conditional. Related to this would be the dispensationalteaching that the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's Prayer are legalgroundandthusnotdirectlyapplicabletotheChristian.Reformedtheologyviews theMosaic covenant as basically a nationally expanded version oftheAbrahamic covenant, and itsmoral law elements are regarded as stillvalid. Since moral law is merely the expression of God's holiness as itrelatestocreatedreality,God'smorallawcannomorebeinvalidatedthancan God's holiness (cf. Matthew 5:17-20). There can be, and are,adjustmentsintherealmofcaselawandceremoniallawsincecaselawisatime-bound,situation-specificapplicationofmorallawandceremoniallawispositivelaw.

4. The belief that the New Testament era is a parenthesis in the propheticprogramforIsraeltothepointthatnoOldTestamentprophecycandirectlyrefertothechurchage.

5. TheconvictionthattheAbrahamiccovenantandtheDavidiccovenantand

thenewcovenantof Jeremiah31areprimarily Jewishcovenants that canrelatetotheChristianonlyinasecondaryandindirectsenseatmost.

6. ThebeliefthatChrist'spresentreignattherighthandoftheFatherhasnodirect relationship to the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and theMessianickingdomprophecies.

7. Thebelief that there isnoorganic relationshipof continuitybetweenOldTestament Israel and the New Testament church. Reformed interpretersbelieve that the Christian church, and not the theological heirs ofPhariseeism,arethetruepresentheirsoftheOldTestamentcovenantsandkingdompromises.

The purpose of this list is not to stereotype all dispensationalists. These areobjectionablebeliefs fromtheperspectiveofReformed theology,and thesearebeliefs that have been taught by leading dispensational theologians as basicelementsinthatsystem.IfthereareChristianstodaywhothinkofthemselvesasdispensationalistsandwhodisagreewithsomeoftheabovelistedbeliefs,thenIam thankful that they do disagreewith at least some of these.What a personactuallybelievesismoreimportantthanhowheclassifieshimselftheologically.Such people, however, should be challenged to think through their totaltheological systems. A person should accept with consistency all theimplicationsof thebasicdispensationalpresuppositionsorelse reject thebasicdispensationalpresuppositionsasinvalidimpositionsuponScripture.

IwouldliketoconcludewithsomesuggestionsastowhydispensationalismhasbeensopopularamongBiblebelievingAmericanChristiansinmoderntimes.IknowthatIwasasincerestudentofGod'sWordwhenIwasadispensationalist,and Ihaveno reason todoubt that this is trueofdispensationalists ingeneral.AndyetdispensationalismsoplainlycontradictstheteachingsofScripture.Whydo they continue to adhere to this system? I would suggest the followingpossiblereasons.

First, many dispensationalists have never been exposed to the weaknesses oftheir system. I attended a dispensational seminary for four years withoutbecomingawarethattherewereanysignificantweaknessesinthedispensationalsystem.Iwassoconfident indispensationalismthatIsawnoneedforwastingmytimereadinganyunsympatheticcritiquesofthesystem.WhenIfinallywasexposedtosomeoftheseweaknesses,Ihadnoanswers.

Second, many dispensationalists have not consistently thought through theimplicationsoftheirsystem'sfoundationalassumptions.Howmanywhoacceptthe dispensational dichotomy theory realize that this theory, if appliedconsistently, excludes the Old Testament saints from the Body and Bride ofChrist?Howmanyrealizetheimplicationsofthistheoryconcerningthefederalheadship of Christ in Old Testament salvation? How many who accept theparenthesis theory realize that this theory, if applied consistently, denies anydirectfulfillmentofOldTestamentprophecyinthechurchage?

Third, many have been attracted to dispensationalism because somedispensational predictions have seemingly materialized in the modern world.The rise ofRussia, the establishment of the Israeli state, the formation of theEuropeanCommonMarket,thedevelopmentoftheWorldCouncilofChurches,andthegrowthofapostasyinthemainlinedenominationsallfitinwellwiththedispensational end time scenario. This apparent spectacular modern dayconfirmation of the ancient Biblical prophecies is attractive to many sincereChristiansbecauseofitsapparentapologeticvalue.

Fourth,thepessimismofdispensationalismexplainsthecurrentworldproblemsand also effectively relieves theChristian of his responsibility towork towarddiscipling thenations in thisage.Weare todayfacing the repercussionsof theageofreasoninwhichmanwasphilosophicallyelevatedandGodwasdismissedas a myth. This philosophical rebellion spawned the atheistic social scientistswho have gained control overmuch of theworld. There is presently amajorideologicalwartothedeathbetweenChristianityandatheistichumanism.Atatime such as this, it is convenient for the Christian to be eschatologicallypessimistic.IfthechurchisresponsiblefordisciplingthenationsforChrist,thenwehaveanawesometaskonourhands.Wouldn'titbemuchmoreconvenienttobelieve that the church age was prophesied to be a failure and that all theChristiancanhopetoaccomplishtodayistosnatchafewsoulsfromthefire?Itisconvenienttothinkthatthingsareinevitablygoingtogetworseandthatthereislittlewecandoexceptwaittoberapturedoutofthesituation.Butweneedtorememberthat thesameChristwhocommandedus todisciple thenationsalsoassuredusthatHenowhasallauthorityinheavenandonearthandthatHewillbewithustilltheendoftheage.ThosewhobelievethatChristmustbebodilypresentbeforethekingdomofGodcanhaveanyvictoriesoughttotakealessonfromthecenturionwithgreatfaith(Matthew8:5-13).Wemustlivebyfaithand

not appearance.Wemust not despise the day of small things. Themountainsbefore the churchwill be cast into the sea. The gates of hell will not prevailagainsttheonslaughtofthechurch.Hewhoisinusisgreaterthanhewhoisinthe world. The mustard seed of God's kingdom will in this age become thegreatestplantinthefieldofthisworld.

Fifth,weareapproachingtheyear2000.Whilethismillennialdateapproaches,therewill naturally bemuch prophetic speculation just as therewaswhen theyear 1000 approached a millennium ago. In such an atmosphere,dispensationalism,withitsdirectidentificationofprophecywithcurrentevents,willhaveapopularappeal.

Sixth, dispensationalism appeals to some philosophical biases. As we havenoted, dispensationalism is pessimistic, and pessimism conforms to theexistential spirit of our age. Also, there are some striking parallels betweenempirical philosophy and dispensationalism. They both prefer literal, preciselanguageoverfigurativepoeticexpression.Theybothemphasizethediversityoftruth, seeing each truth as a self-sufficient, encapsulated entity to the point ofneglecting the organic unity of truth. British empiricism compared truths tobilliard balls and rejected the concept that truths are related organically like ablossom is related to fruit. Similarly, dispensationalists reject the idea that theOldandNewTestamentsarerelated likeabudis related toablossom.Britishempiricists also emphasized individual autonomous freedom, and a similaremphasiscanbeseenintheteachingofthosedispensationalistswhosaythattheChristian today is not under law in any sense. Dispensationalism isindividualistic in itspessimisticattitude toward theorganizedchurchandin itsrelegationofkingdomtruths,withtheirsocialimplications,toafutureage.

George M. Marsden has pointed out that dispensationalism developed in thenineteenth centurywhen the empiricismofFrancisBaconwas philosophicallypopularinAmerica.Mr.Marsdenmadethefollowingobservations:

To whatever degree dispensationalists consciously considered themselvesBaconians (it is rare to find reflections on philosophical first principles),this closelydescribes theassumptionsofvirtuallyallof them.Theywereabsolutelyconvincedthatall theyweredoingwastakingthehardfactsofScripture, carefully arranging and classifying them, and thus discoveringtheclearpatternswhichScripturerevealed.1

The role of the interpreter, according to the sameBaconian assumptions,wasnot to imposehypothesesor theories,but toreachconclusionson thebasisofcarefulclassificationandgeneralizationalone.Thisdisposition todivideandclassifyeverythingisoneofthemoststrikingandcharacteristictraitsofdispensationalism.2

Dispensationalist leaders regarded these methods of dividing andclassifyingastheonlyscientificones.Scofield,forexample,contrastedhisworktoprevious"unscientificsystems."Similarly,ReubenTorreyregardedideas basically as things to be sorted out and arranged.One of hismajorworks,WhattheBibleTeaches(1898),isanincrediblydryfive-hundred-page compilation of thousands of Biblical "propositions" supported byprooftexts.Theclosestanalogywouldbetoanencyclopediaordictionary.Torreyexplicitlydefendedthisutterlackofstyleorelegance."Beautyandimpressiveness,"hesaidinthepreface,"mustalwaysyieldtoprecisionandclearness."Asusual,hismodelwasthescientist.Torreydepictedhisworkas "simply an attempt at a careful unbiased, systematic, thorough-going,inductive study and statement of Bible truth. ... Themethods ofmodernscienceareappliedtoBiblestudy--thoroughanalysisfollowedbycarefulsynthesis."

Inductionhadtostartwiththehardfacts,anddispensationalistsinsistedthattheonlyproperwaytointerpretScripturewasin"theliteralsense,"unlessthetextorthecontextabsolutelydemandedotherwise.3

Theparallelsbetweendispensationalandempiricalthoughtarestriking.

Myprayer is thatBiblebelievingdispensationalistswillprayerfully reconsidertheir commitment to that system and prayerfully analyze the reasons for theircommitmenttoit.Ihavebeenthroughtheprocess,andIknowthatitispainful.Giving up familiar beliefs and seeking new answers is not easy.Our ultimateloyalty,however,shouldnotbetoanysystem.ItshouldbetoJesusChrist,forHeistheTruth.AndtheTruthwillmakeusfree.

EndNotes

1 GeorgeM.Marsden,FundamentalismandAmericanCulture:The

ShapingofTwentieth-CenturyEvangelicalism:1870-1925(NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1980),page56.

2 Ibid.,page59.3 Ibid.,page60.

Chapter14AppendixOne

ThePre-TribulationRaptureDoctrine

From experience, I have learned thatwhen I amdiscussing the dispensationalpre-tribulationrapturedoctrine,IneedtobecarefultoexplainthatIdobelievethatthesaintswhoarealivewhenChristreturnswillberapturedtomeetHimintheair.Thisistheclearteachingof1Thessalonians4:16-17:

... the dead inChrist shall rise first: thenwewhich are alive and remainshallbecaughtuptogetherwiththemintheclouds,tomeettheLordintheair.

TheEnglishwordraptureisbasedontheLatinraperewhichmeanstoseizeorsnatch and is used in the Latin translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Since Ibelieve what 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 teaches, I believe in the rapture of thesaints.WhatIdisagreewithisthenotionthattherapturewilloccursevenyearsbeforeChrist'ssecondcomingandwillinvolveonlythosesaintswhoweresavedafterActs2.AccordingtodispensationalistDr.JohnF.Walvoord:

Theexpression"thedeadinChristshallarisefirst"(1Thess.4:16)seemstoincludeonlythechurch.

TheOldTestamentsaintsareneverdescribedbythephrase"inChrist."1

ForwhatpurposewillthesaintsmeettheLordintheair?AstudyoftheGreekwordtranslatedmeetin1Thessalonians4:17answersthatquestion.Thatwordwasatechnical termforacivilcustomofantiquitywherebyapublicwelcomewas accorded by a city to important visitors.2 If any dignitary were newlyarrivinginanancientcity,thegreatofthecitywouldgoouttomeethimasheapproachedthecitygatesandthenwouldpersonallyescorthimintothecity.Itwas the ancient equivalent of rolling out the red carpet. This word translatedmeet does not always refer to this ancient custom, but, interestingly, thisunderstanding of the word does fit each of its three occurrences in the NewTestament.ThiswordoccursinMatthew25intheparableofthefoolishvirgins:

Andatmidnighttherewasacrymade,Behold,thebridegroomcometh;goyeouttomeethim.Thenall thosevirginsaroseandtrimmedtheirlamps....thebridegroomcame,and they thatwere readywent inwithhim to themarriage:andthedoorwasshut.

ThiswordalsooccursinActs28intheaccountofPaul'sarrivalatRome:

...wewenttowardRome.Andfromthence,whenthebrethrenheardofus,theycametomeetusasfarasAppii forum,and the three taverns ...AndwhenwecametoRome...

The use of this same Greek word, translatedmeet, in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,wouldindicatethattheresurrectedsaintswillmeettheLordintheairtohonorHimastheKingofkingsandtheLordoflordsbyprovidingHimwitharoyalescort for the remainder of His descent to earth. The saints, the truly royalcitizensofplanetearth,willmeetChristintheairatHissecondadventtogiveHimthe"redcarpettreatment"whenHecomestoearthtorenewitandtoruleoveritforeternity.

Ibelieve that theraptureof thesaintswilloccurat the timeofChrist'ssecondadventandnotsevenyearsbefore.IknowofnoplaceinScripturethatteachestheraptureandthesecondadventareseparatedbyasignificanttimespan.Andtherearecertainpassagesthatareespeciallydifficult toexplainintermsofthedispensationalpre-tribulationrapturedoctrine.Forexample,in2Thessalonians1:5-10, Paul comforts the church age saints at Thessalonica with the blessedhopeoftherestthatwillbeboththeirsandPaul'swhenChristreturnsinflamingfire and judges those who have been troubling the church. According todispensationalassumptions,however, thispassagecouldnotbereferringtotheChristian's blessed hope. In dispensational thinking, there is no flamingjudgmentassociatedwiththechurchreturnofChrist,whichisasecretrapture.Flamingjudgment isassociatedonlywith theJewishreturnofChrist,whichisthesecondadvent.SotheChristian,churchagerecipientsof2Thessalonians1weretherebeingtaughtJewishtruth.Accordingtoaconsistentapplicationofthedispensationaldistinctionsandassumptions,theChristiansatThessalonicamusthavebeenactingasrepresentativesofJewishtribulationsaints.3

Notice also Titus 2:13. Paul there mentions "the blessed hope," whichdispensationalists acknowledge to be the church return of Christ, the secret

rapture.Paul,however,alsomentionsinthisversetheappearingofthegloryofJesusChrist.Towhatend-timeeventdoesthatrefer?ThemostobviousansweristhesecondadventwhenChristwillopenlycometoearthinflamingglory,theopinion of Dr. John F. Walvoord in an early article.4 The problem with thisinterpretationforthedispensationalist,whodistinguishesandseparatesintimeachurch returnofChrist (the rapture) anda Jewish returnofChrist (the secondcoming), is that theGreekofTitus 2:13 strongly identifies "theblessedhope"and"thegloriousappearing"asoneevent.ThiscanbeclearlyseenintheNewInternational Version which translates this phrase "the blessed hope -- theglorious appearing." The dispensational answer that has appeared in the laterwritingsofDr.Walvoordisanargumentthat"thegloriousappearing"mustrefertotherapture.HepointsoutthatatleasttherapturedchurchsaintswillthenseethegloryofChrist.5

Themain subject of the classic rapture passage (1 Thess. 4:16-17) is not theraptureof livingsaintsbut the resurrectionof the"dead inChrist."PaulwrotethispassageprimarilytoassureChristiansthatthosesaintswhoarealiveatthereturn ofChristwill have no precedence over those saintswho die before thereturnofChrist.Paulstates,"wewhoarealiveandremainuntil thecomingoftheLordwillbynomeansprecedethosewhoareasleep"and"thedeadinChristwillrisefirst."Paul'smainpointinthispassagethenisthatthephysicallydeadwhoareincovenantunionwithChristwillberesurrectedpriortotherapture.

TherearetwopassagesofScripturewhichdispensationalistscommonlyinterprettoteachthattheOTsaintswillnotbeamongthoseresurrectedatthetimeofthepretribulation rapture: Isaiah 26:19 andDaniel 12:1-2. I will discuss only theclearerofthetwo:Daniel12:1-2:

AtthattimeMichaelshallstandup,thegreatprincewhostandswatchoverthesonsofyourpeople;andthereshallbeatimeoftrouble,suchasneverwas since there was a nation, even to that time. And at that time yourpeopleshallbedelivered,everyonewhoisfoundwritteninthebook.Andmanyof thosewhosleep in thedustof theearthshallbeawake, some toeverlastinglife,sometoshameandeverlastingcontempt.

Thispassage teaches that therewillbea resurrectionof saintsafter "a timeoftrouble, such as never was since there was a nation."Most dispensationalistsidentify this "time of trouble" with an end-time tribulation and interpret this

passagetoteachthattheOldTestamentsaintswillberesurrectedatthesecondadvent.IftheOTsaintsareresurrectedatthesecondadventandifthe"deadinChrist" are resurrected seven years before the second advent, then the OldTestament saints cannot be included among the "dead in Christ."DispensationalistswillarguethattheOTsaintsareincludedamong"thosewhoare Christ's" (1 Cor. 15:23) but not among the "dead in Christ" of 1Thessalonians4:16.

DispensationalistsmusteithergiveupthepretribulationrapturedoctrineorteachthattheOldTestamentsaintsweresavedapartfromcovenantunionwithChrist.As a rule they have held onto their pretribulation rapture teaching. Note thefollowing statements by Drs. Ryrie and Walvoord, respected dispensationaltheologians:

ConcerningthecompletionoftheChurchwhensaintswillbetranslatedandresurrected, Paul uses the phrase "dead in Christ" (1 Thess. 4:16). Thisclearly distinguishes thosewhohave died in this age frombelieverswhodiedbeforeChrist'sfirstadvent,thusmarkingtheChurchoffasdistincttothisageandamysteryhiddeninOldTestamenttimesbutnotrevealed.6

TheOldTestamentsaintsareneverdescribedbythephrase"inChrist."...The best answer . . . is to concede the point that the resurrection ofOldTestament saints is after the tribulation,but todivorce it completely fromthetranslationandresurrectionofthechurch.7

EndNotes

1 JohnF.Walvoord,TheRaptureQuestion(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1957),page154;compareJohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1959),page280.

2 GerhardKittel,Editor,TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament(GrandRapids:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1964),1.380-381.

3 JohnF.Walvoord,TheBlessedHopeandtheTribulation(GrandRapids:ZondervanPublishingHouse,1976)pages122-124.

4 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page157;quotationfromJohnF.Walvoord,"NewTestamentWordsfortheLord'sComing,"Bibliotheca

Sacra,101:288,July1944.5 JohnF.Walvoord,TheRaptureQuestion,pages81,157;JohnF.Walvoord,TheBlessedHopeandtheTribulation,pages57,165

6 CharlesCaldwellRyrie,DispensationalismToday(Chicago:MoodyPress,1965),page136.

7 JohnF.Walvoord,TheRaptureQuestion,page154.

Chapter15AppendixTwo

ConditionalandUnconditionalCovenants

Dispensationalists stress a strong dichotomy between the unconditionalAbrahamic covenant, which was expanded into the Palestinian covenant, theDavidiccovenant,andthenewcovenant,andtheconditionalMosaiccovenant.What do thedispensationalistsmeanwhen they label theAbrahamic covenantunconditional and theMosaic covenant conditional? Dr. Lewis Sperry Chaferexplainsitlikethis:

WhateverGoddeclaresHewilldoisalwaysabindingcovenant.IfHeinnowayrelatesHisproposedactiontohumanresponsibility,thecovenantisunconditional. If He relates it to human responsibility or makes it todepend on cooperation on the part of any other being, the covenant isproperlytermedconditional.1

InrelationtoHisearthlypeople,Israel,andtheirblessingsGodhasmadevariouscovenants.Someof themareconditionalandsomeunconditional,whichtermssuggestthatinsomecovenantsGodhasthemtodependuponhuman faithfulness, while in others Hemerely declares what Hewill dowhollyapartfromthequestionofhumanworthinessorfaithfulness.2

When any person becomes the beneficiary of God's unconditional,unalterable promise apart from any consideration of human merit, hisobligation for righteous conduct becomes that of adorning, or walkingworthy, of theposition intowhich the covenanthasbroughthim. IfGodhasmadeacovenantdeclaringwhatHewilldoprovidedmandoeshispart,it is conditional and the human element is not one ofwalkingworthy ofwhatGod'ssovereigngraceprovides,butratherofbeingworthytotheendthat the promise may be executed at all. When the covenant isunconditional,God is limited inwhatHewilldoonlyby theknowledge-surpassingbountyofHisinfinitegrace.Whenthecovenantisconditional,God is restrictedbywhatman is able orwilling to do.As an efficaciousappeal, theobligation towalkworthy, though innoway conditioning the

sovereignpurpose,securesmorenormalandspiritualresponsethanallthemeritorioussystemscombined.Thehumanheartisfarmoreresponsivetothepropositioncouched in thewords"Ihaveblessedyou,nowbegood,"thanitistothepropositioncouchedinthewords,"Begood,andIwillblessyou." The element of human conduct thus appears in each form of thedivinecovenantbutinsuchamannerthatoneisrenderedunconditionalandtheotherconditional.3

Dr.J.DwightPentecosthasgiventhefollowingexplanation:

There are two kinds of covenants into which God entered with Israel:conditional and unconditional. In a conditional covenant that which wascovenanteddepends for its fulfillmentupon the recipientof thecovenant,not upon the onemaking the covenant. Certain obligations or conditionsmust be fulfilled by the receiver of the covenant before the giver of thecovenant is obligated to fulfill thatwhichwas promised. It is a covenantwithan"if"attachedtoit.TheMosaiccovenantmadebyGodwithIsraelissuchacovenant.Inanunconditionalcovenant thatwhichwascovenanteddependsupon theonemaking the covenant alone for its fulfillment.Thatwhichwaspromisedissovereignlygiventotherecipientofthecovenantontheauthorityand integrityof theonemaking thecovenantapart from themeritorresponseofthereceiver.Itisacovenantwithno"if"attachedtoitwhatsoever.

To safeguard thinking on this point, it should be observed that anunconditional covenant, which binds the one making the covenant to acertaincourseofaction,mayhaveblessingsattachedtothatcovenantthatareconditionedupon the responseof the recipientof thecovenant,whichblessingsgrowoutoftheoriginalcovenant,buttheseconditionedblessingsdonot change the unconditional character of the covenant.The failure toobserve that an unconditional covenant may have certain conditionedblessings attached to it has led many to the position that conditionedblessings necessitate a conditional covenant, thus perverting the essentialnatureofIsrael'sdeterminativecovenants.4

It isdifficult toanalyze thisdispensationaldichotomybetweenconditionalandunconditional covenants because it is difficult to understand. The conditionalnature of the Mosaic covenant as described by dispensationalists makes the

Mosaic covenant sound like a legalistic and meritorious system of salvation.Also,someofthedispensationaldescriptionsofanunconditionalcovenantmaketheunconditionalcovenantssoundlike"cheapgrace"licensestosin.Ifthelandpromise were unconditional in the sense of involving no "ifs" or moralconditions of any sort, thenwhy didGod punish Israel's rebellion atKadesh-BarneabynotallowingthatgenerationtoenterthepromisedlandandwhydidGod later in judgment expel Israel from the land in theBabylonian captivity?BecauseofBiblicalconsiderationssuchasthese,somedispensationalistsqualifythe position that an unconditional covenant contains absolutely no moralconditionsbysuggestingadichotomybetweenthecovenantandtheblessingsofthecovenant,asevidencedbytheabovequotationfromDr.Pentecost.Togiveanotherexample,Dr.JohnF.Walvoordinoneplacestatesthatanunconditionalcovenant"isnotconditionalupontheobedienceofindividualsornationsforitsfulfillment," and then in another place in the same book argues thatunconditionalcovenantsinvolve"humancontingencies."5

Instead of seeing a rigid dichotomy between the unconditional, gracious andnationalAbrahamiccovenantandtheconditional,meritoriousandindividualisticMosaiccovenant,ReformedinterpretersviewtheMosaiccovenantasanationalexpansionof thepromises,moral stipulationsandceremonial lawfound in theAbrahamic covenant. Both covenants were by-grace covenants and bothinvolvedmoral stipulationswithblessingspromised forobedienceandneither,whenproperlyinterpreted,werelegalisticormeritorious.

Dr.LewisSperryChaferarguesthat"Acovenantwhichisunconditionalcannotbeconditionalandaconditionalcovenantcannotbeunconditional."6Idisagree.God'scovenantsareallunconditionalintheirmeritoriousbaseandconditionalintheir normal instrumental means of administration. The meritorious base ofGod's covenant is the substitutionary suffering and the alien righteousness ofJesusChrist.TheChristianissaved,notbecauseofHisownworks,butbecauseoftheworkofChristinhisplace.ThesufferingofChristsatisfiesGod'swrathagainsttheguiltofHispeople,andtherighteousnessofChristisimputedtotheirlegalaccountbeforeGod.AndChristiansdonothingtoearnor todeservethissaving work of Christ on their behalf; it is all of grace, totally undeserved,completelygratuitous.

That the Christian's personal holiness is not the meritorious basis for his

salvation,however,doesnotmeanthatpersonalholinessisnotanecessarypartof the Christian life or that God does not administer covenant blessings inaccordancewith theChristian's personal obedience.God normally administersHis gracious covenant through a required response of genuine faith. I saynormallybecauseGodsaveswithoutsucharesponseinexceptionalcasessuchasthedeathofanelectinfant.Isaygenuinefaithbecausenotallprofessedfaithisgenuinefaith.Genuinesavingfaithisfaiththatprogressivelybearsthefruitofholiness and good works (James 2:17; Ephesians 2:10; Hebrews 12:14). Thesaved then are, as a rule, thosewhodogoodbeforeGod (John5:29;Romans2:7;Ephesians2:10)butthesavedarenotsavedbymeansoforbecauseofthegoodtheydo(Titus3:5;Ephesians2:8-9).

Theseconditionalandunconditionalaspectsofthecovenantarenotantagonisticdichotomies for two reasons. First, though an obedient faith is necessary forsalvation, it is not meritorious. The onlymeritorious work in salvation is thesaving work of Christ on behalf of His covenant people. In this essentialquestion of covenantal merit, God's covenant is purely unconditional. Andsecondly,anobedientfaithisnecessaryforsalvationexceptinexceptionalcasessuchas thedeathofan infant,butChristgivesHischosenpeople thespirituallifeandabilityneededtomeet this requirement.AsapartofHissavingwork,ChristredemptivelypurchasedforHispeopledeliverancefromtheirbondagetounbelief and the gift of regeneration through thework of the outpouredHolySpirit.EveryprofessedChristianhas theGod-given responsibility toworkouthisownsalvationwithfearandtrembling(Philippians2:12),butGodworksinHis people's lives to enable them to will and to work according to His goodpleasure (Philippians 2:13). God unconditionally gives His chosen people thespiritual abilitynecessary tomeet the conditions for receiving theblessingsofthecovenant.

Inmyestimation,theCalvinistictheologyofrewardsisthebestexplanationofhowGod'scovenantscanconditionblessingsuponmoralstipulationsandstillbetotally unconditional and all of grace.Without faith, it is impossible to pleaseGod (Hebrews 11:6), and the natural, non-regenerateman is totally unable toplease God (Romans 8:8). The person, however, whom God unconditionallychooses to bless, He regenerates and sanctifies and enables to believe with adynamic faith that will lead to holy living. God then rewards this obedientholinesswith blessings and rewards.The faith thatworks is not ameritorious

conditionforblessingbut is theinstrument throughwhichGodbringsblessinguponthesaintinaccordancewiththedivineprinciple,"tobecarnallymindedisdeath but to be spiritually minded is life and peace" (Romans 8:6). God'scovenantblessingsarebutrewardsupontheeffectsofHisowngrace.

When God unconditionally chose Abraham to receive blessings, GodregeneratedhimandenabledhimtobelieveandtoobeysothatGodcouldblesshim in accordance with holiness. God chose to actively, personally knowAbraham in order that Abraham might raise His family in the way ofrighteousness and thereby receive covenant blessings (Genesis 18:19). Godrewarded Abraham for his obedience (Genesis 22:15-18; 26:2-5) and yetAbraham'ssalvationwasunconditionalandallofgrace.

In regard to the land promise, the covenant blessing of rest in the land washistoricallyconditionedoncovenantobedience(Deuteronomy4:25-26;chapter28). This explains the wilderness wanderings and the exile and the times ofunrest and the geographic limitations on the land inheritance in the OldTestament history of Israel. The land promise, however, will have a perfect,final,full,andeternalfulfillmentwhenthesaintsareglorifiedandfreedfromallsin.Thenewearthwillbe inheritedboth inholinessandunconditionallysinceglorificationwillbeaby-gracegiftfromGodtoHispeople.

EndNotes

1 Dr.LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1936),page73.

2 LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology,8vols.(Dallas:DallasSeminaryPress,1948),7:97.

3 Dr.LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,pages74-75.4 J.DwightPentecost,ThingstoCome,page68.5 JohnF.Walvoord,TheMillennialKingdom,pages149,177.6 Dr.LewisSperryChafer,Dispensationalism,page73.

TableofContents

Chapter1:DefiningtheBasicSystemChapter2IsraelandtheChurchChapter3TheParenthesisTheoryandtheChurchinProphecyChapter4TheNewCovenant,PartOneChapter5TheNewCovenant,PartTwoChapter6HowTheyArgueTheirCaseChapter7ConsistentLiteralismChapter8InterpretingtheProphetsChapter9RightlyDividingtheWordChapter10ChristianZionismChapter11"ThyKingdomCome"Chapter12OldTestamentSalvationChapter13DealingwithItintheRealWorldChapter14AppendixOneThePre-TribulationRaptureDoctrineChapter15AppendixTwoConditionalandUnconditionalCovenants