The intention of Tri-XIX (19) is to
re-establish the fact that the key to Dispensationalism is the total
distinction between Israel and the Church, and thereby, Law and Grace.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer’s warning sets our
guidelines at the very outset.
Christianity is totally opposite
to Judaism and any mixture of the two must result in the loss of all that is
vital in the present plan of Salvation. One made its appeal to the
limited resources of the natural man and conditioned his life on the earth;
the other sets aside the natural man, secures a whole new creation in Christ
Jesus, and counsels that new being in his pilgrim journey to his heavenly
home. (The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, p. 64)
It would seem, however, that ever since Dr.
Chafer’s Homegoing in 1952, there has been a steady decline of
dispensational distinctiveness among the theologians of our leading
seminaries, and therefore throughout our sound churches.
There are a number of factors that have
contributed to this doctrinal decline. Dr. C.A. Blaising, associate
professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, mentioned
several of them in Bibliotheca Sacra July-Sept., 1988, p. 276. [All emphases
ours]
Three factors that have served to relate
Israel and the Church in contemporary dispensationalist thinking are: (1)
the city of God and the new earth; (2) the New Covenant; and (3) recognition
of a present form of the [Millennial] kingdom.
It is amazing that in the writings of
Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie and McClain published in the ‘50s and ‘60s,
the heavenly/earthly dualistic language is gone. A distinction between
Israel and the church is vigorously asserted and all the theological
structures of distinction are present, except that the eternal
destinies of the two people now share the same sphere.
Consequently the heavenly/earthly
distinctions are dropped. Thus is begun a slow movement away
from the scholastic, classic, absolute distinction found from Darby
to Chafer.
Dr. Campbell [Dallas president '86 to '94]
has surveyed present differences among dispensationalists in the following
way: “Some dispensationalists make a sharp distinction between Israel as
God’s earthly people and the church as God’s heavenly people, both
continuing as such throughout eternity. Others favor a blurring of
such distinctions in eternity. (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight
Pentecost, pp. 149,150)
Contrary to this “blurring,” Dr. Chafer
wrote in his monumental eight-volume Systematic Theology IV:47:
Every covenant, promise and provision for
Israel is earthly, and they continue as a nation on the earth when it is
created anew. The Church continues in heavenly citizenship when the
heavens are recreated.
This Paper has primarily to do with the second
of the three factors stated above, that of Israel’s New Covenant. All
of the theologians we mention, as well as contemporary dispensationalists in
general, believe and teach that Israel alone will be under the New Covenant of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the future Messianic Kingdom.
But they all, with the single exception
of the late Dr. Wm. R. Newell, forsake this exclusiveness of the rightly
divided Word by maintaining that the Church shares in the spiritual
blessings of Israel’s New Covenant! Down goes the scriptural division
between Israel and her law, the Church and her grace!
Those who pander to Israel’s New Covenant,
and seek to participate in its spiritual blessings, are simply playing into
the hands of Amillennial Covenant theology, its stepchild, Theonomy, as well
as Judaistic Messianic Christianity. They all need Israel’s New
Covenant to help legalize their legality.
As for Covenant theology, Dr. Oswald T. Allis
wrote, in his Prophecy and the Church, p. 154:
The passage [Hebrews 8] speaks of the New
Covenant. It declares that this New Covenant has been already
introduced and that by virtue of the fact that it is called “new” it has
made the one which it is replacing “old,” and that the old is about to
vanish away. It would be hard to find a clearer reference to the Gospel
age in the OT than in these verses in Jeremiah.
On the next page [155] Dr. Allis states that
premillennialists drawing from Israel’s New Covenant “is a practical
admission that the New Covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.”
So much for premillennialists’ testimony to Covenant theologians.
Concerning “Messianic Christianity,” Dr.
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, founder and head of “Ariel Ministries,” is
typical. In his recent tome of some 1091 pages, Israelology: the
Missing Link in Systematic Theology, p. 727, he writes:
Just as freedom from the law means freedom
also to keep certain aspects of the law, so freedom from Judaism also frees
the Messianic Jew to keep certain aspects of Judaism, such as the Jewish
holy days. They present a good way of identifying with the Jewish
people. This matter of identification [accommodation] is very
important as a testimony to the Jewishness of faith.
On page 854 Dr. Fruchtenbaum naturally gives
the Church the spiritual benefits of Israel’s New Covenant.
The Church is related to the New Covenant
only insofar as receiving the spiritual benefits of the Covenant, but the
Church is not fulfilling it. The Church has become a partake of Jewish
spiritual blessings, but the Church is not a takeover of the Jewish
covenants.
In his recent Newsletter (Winter ‘89-‘90),
he says, “The ‘two-covenant theology’ issue has become a very hot and
controversial topic among Christians." Also mentioned was the
printing of 10,000 copies in Russian of his tract titled, “Jewishness and
Hebrew Christianity.”
An admonition concerning this type of thing
comes from Mr. F.W. Grant, an early Plymouth Brethren leader, in his fine
commentary, The Numerical Bible / Matthew, p. 70.
To take from Israel what is hers is only
to diminish her and not enrich ourselves; nay, what has been called in this
way the spiritualizing of the promises has led most surely and emphatically
to the carnalizing of the Church.
The Word of God makes it unquestionably clear
just what Israel’s New Covenant consists of, just who it is
for, and just when it will be inaugurated.
Jeremiah 31:31–34
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the
day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
which My covenant they brake, although I was an husband to them, saith the
Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel; and after those days, saith the Lord, I will put My laws in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they
shall be My people.
And they shall teach no more every man his
neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall
all know Me, from the least unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I
will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.
Ezekiel 36:26–28
A new heart also will I give you, and a new
spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of
your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit
within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My
ordinances, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your
fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God.
There is neither word nor inference in this
Covenant concerning the Church, nor is it to be established during the Church’s
dispensation. Paul, in his time, stated that Israel’s New Covenant was
yet future: “And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written. There shall
come out of Zion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
for this is My covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins” (Rom.
11:26, 27).
The Church, on the contrary, has a New
Covenant exclusively her own.
Hebrews 13:20, 21
Now the God of peace, who brought again from
the dead the Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the Blood of the eternal
covenant, even our Lord Jesus, make you perfect in every good thing to do
His will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through
Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
DR. WILLIAM R. NEWELL
In his outstanding commentary, Hebrews,
Verse by Verse, Dr. Newell shared some information concerning the Church’s
New Covenant (see pp. 260-271; 460–463):
This Covenant was not between creatures, but
between “the God of peace” and “the Lord Jesus,” and the condition
was the obedience unto death of Christ to the Father; its ground, the shed
Blood of the Son; and its issue, “an eternal Covenant.”
This is the great fundamental transaction
between the Father and the Son: no creature is seen; but ah! believers
become apart from works--blessed beneficiaries! So that God can
go on and establish (in the millennial future) the second, or “new,”
covenant with Israel , who “continued not” in the Mosaic or “first”
covenant (p. 258).
It is here in this eternal covenant
that we find “the God of peace bringing again from the dead our Lord
Jesus, the Great Shepherd of the sheep” - how? “With the Blood of
an everlasting covenant.” That is, in accordance with the terms of
an agreement between the Father and the Son, which terms are seen to be a
promise from the Father that if the Son would become “a little lower than
the angels for the suffering of death,” shedding His Blood for us, the
Father would bring Him from among the dead. The Son came to earth, and
became "obedient unto death,” and the Father indeed brought Him again
from among the dead. The eternal covenant was kept.
The “new covenant” yet to be made with
Israel and Judah at our Lord’s return to earth and that nation, is all of
grace--God’s operation instead of their response (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 37:12–14,
21, 23, 25–28). Therefore the “new covenant” which the Hebrew
believers to whom Paul was writing had explained to them, was not yet on,
nor will be until Christ’s return to earth; and then it will apply to “the
house of Israel and the house of Judah,” as God says, in the land of
Palestine, with the peculiar earthly blessings described in Scripture.
But--there is yet an eternal covenant,
detailed in Hebrews 13:20, in which and according to which Paul knows that
all believers may be made perfect in every good work. This eternal
covenant, in which the God of peace and our Lord Jesus are the Benefactors,
and the sheep are the beneficiaries--this covenant is the only covenant
which believers should keep in mind as already and eternally fulfilled in
its conditions, and available to all who believe.
This was the covenant that was revealed to
Paul: “The Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread in
like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant
in My Blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
This is the eternal covenant of which the Lord Jesus is said to be the
Mediator, and which is celebrated in the Lord’s Supper, in view of His
death, by those benefited forever thereby! (pp. 460-463).
Since there seems to be a tendency among our
seminary leaders to relate the Church and Israel’s Messianic
Kingdom, we will share some material by Dr. Chafer to the contrary.
The teachings of the kingdom have not been
applied to men in all ages; nay, they have not been applied to any
man. Since they anticipate the binding of Satan, a purified earth, the
restoration of Israel, and the personal reign of the King, they cannot be
applied until God’s appointed time when these accompanying conditions on
the earth have been brought to pass.
The kingdom laws will be addressed to Israel
and beyond them to all the nations which will enter the kingdom. It
will be the first and only universal reign of righteousness and peace in the
history of the world. One nation was in view when the Law of
Moses was in force in the earth; the individual is in view during the
dispensation of grace; and the whole social order of mankind
will be in view when the kingdom is established on the earth.
The Church is not once mentioned in relation
to the teachings of the kingdom, nor are those teachings applied to her; for
her part in the kingdom is not to be reigned over, but to reign with
Christ--her Head. She, being the Bride of the King, is His
Consort. She will be under the heavenly teachings of grace, and her
home will be in the bosom of the Bridegroom in the ivory palace of the
King. He will rule with a rod of iron. Sin and iniquity will be
rebuked instantly and judged in perfect righteousness. Clear
conception of the glory of the kingdom is lost if it is confused with the
age of grace.
There is a dangerous and entirely baseless
sentiment abroad which assumes that every teaching of Jesus must be binding
during this dispensation simply because He said it. The fact is
forgotten that the Lord Jesus, while living under, keeping, and applying the
Law of Moses, also taught the principles of His future kingdom, and, at the
end of His ministry and in relation to His Cross, He also anticipated the
teachings of grace. If this threefold division of the teachings of
Jesus is not recognized, there can be nothing but confusion of mind and
consequent contradiction of truth.
The teachings of grace are perfect and
sufficient in themselves. They provide for the instruction of the
child of God in every situation which may arise. There is no need that
they be supplemented, or augmented, by the addition of precepts from either
the Law of Moses or the teachings of the Kingdom. (Systematic Theology
IV:224)
Mr. J. Butler Stoney, Darby co-worker, kept
the dispensational distinctions.
The millennial saint will have the happy
consciousness of the King’s rule over everything. Satan will be
bound and the King will order everything morally as the sun rules the day
materially. The Lord Jesus is now absent, but the Christian is united
to Him in heaven, even though he still be on the earth.
The difference between this present
dispensation and that of the millennium is very distinct. The
Christian is now joined to Him and is one spirit with Him. Since I am
united to Him, He is my Life; “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom.
8:2). “The life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the
Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). Here
I have died, and my life is hid with Christ in God. The future earthly
kingdom saint will live here on earth, but he will not be united to the Lord
Jesus, he will not be dead to the flesh and the world, and he will be a man
living in all the commandments and ordinances of the law blameless.
This then is a great difference--the
heavenly saint has a standing of complete deliverance from the man in the
flesh; while the millennial saint will be through grace empowered by the
Spirit to do what God requires of man in the flesh. “For this is the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith
the Lord: I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their
hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people”
(Heb. 8:10).
Again, the way into the Holiest of All is
now made manifest. We--the heavenly believers--have “boldness to
enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus...that is to say, His flesh”
(Heb. 10:19, 20). The earthly millennial saint, though cleansed from
his sins by the Blood, cannot speak of being inside the veil, because his
dispensation is connected with this earth. If we admit that our
position as worshippers is inside the veil, we must admit another great
difference between a heavenly and an earthly saint.
One more difference is to be noticed: the
saint united to the Lord Jesus in heaven, knowing deliverance in Him and
worshipping in the Holiest of All, has a place in heaven prepared for him by
the Lord Jesus Christ, which the earthly kingdom saint never could
have. True, he can speak of knowing the Lord of heaven and earth, and
eventually he will be in the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, when
all things are made new; but he cannot speak of having a place prepared for
him in the Father’s house, and still less speak of being raised up
together with Christ, and made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus (Eph. 2:6).
Thus we see the difference in doctrine
between the heavenly and the earthly saint. First, the connection with
Christ is different, the saints during His rejection being united to Him in
heaven, a privilege not known by, nor granted to, any other class of
saints--neither to OT saints, nor the millennial saints. (Ministry X:36)
There is no comparison between those who are
heavenly, in the Life, and those who will be earthly, under
the King. Simply because all scriptural covenants are based
upon the Blood of the Cross, it does not follow that the Church must therefore
have a part in Israel’s New Covenant for the soteriological benefit of that
Blood. Nor is there anything else in Israel’s New Covenant that is
meant for the Church--spiritual or otherwise.
Every step downward toward Israel, whether
past or future, is a step into the baneful bondage of the law--hence the
present galatianized condition of the Church. If the Church, and her
leaders, were based upon and centered in the liberating identification truths
as set forth by Paul, the problems identified here would be a thing of the
past.
In that the Blood is the one source of
forgiveness of sins, nearly all of our theological leaders relate Israel and
the Church on the basis of that Blood. For example:
The church today shares in the
soteriological aspects of that [Israel’s] covenant, established by Christ’s
blood for all believers (Heb. 8:7–13). --D.K. Lowrey (Bible
Knowledge Commentary, 1983, edited by Walvoord and Zuck, p. 561)
The commonest explanation among
premillennialists is that there is one new covenant. It will be
fulfilled eschatologically with Israel but is participated in
soteriologically by the Church today. --H. Kent (Grace Theological
Journal, Fall 1985, p. 297)
Dr. J. D. Pentecost gives a fine refutation of
this Israel/Church collaboration.
The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31–34
must and can be fulfilled only by the nation Israel and not the
church. Since this was a literal covenant made with a physical seed of
Abraham, any relationship of the church to the blood required by that
covenant can not change the essential promises of God in the covenant
itself. Apart from any relationship of the church to this blood, the
covenant stands as yet unfulfilled and awaits a future literal fulfillment.
(Things to Come, 1985, p. 124,125)
There are a number of NT references that have
to do with Israel’s New Covenant, and others with that of the Church--most
of which we will touch upon briefly.
Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new testament
[covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mark 14:24
And He said unto them, This is My blood of
the new testament, which is shed for many.
Luke 22:20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you.
In these synoptic references the Lord Jesus is
introducing the New Covenant of His coming Church. He is
not explaining it, but instituting it eschatologically, on the basis of the
soon-coming Cross.
He introduced the subject of the Church in
Matthew 16:18: “I will build My church,” but He did not explain it.
That, He would do through Paul to the members of His Body. And the
explanation of the Church’s eternal covenant is the responsibility of Paul,
the primary source of Church truth.
1 Corinthians 11:23–26
For I have received of the [ascended] Lord
that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in
which He was betrayed... took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup
is the new testament in My blood: this do as often as ye drink it, in
remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye
do show the Lord’s death till He come.
Here Paul establishes the Church’s New
Covenant, identical to that previously introduced in the Synoptics by the Lord
Jesus. We as members of His Body do not remember our glorified Lord and
Life. As such we fellowship with Him now. It is the Saviour in His
humility and death we remember. There is no humbled One now, except in
the memories of His people; and to them He says, “Do this in remembrance of
Me.”
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the
new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit.
Paul’s ministry to the Church is not made up of, nor does it contain,
aspects of Israel’s New Covenant. The Church’s New Covenant consists
of the life of the Son, not the law of the kingdom. “...make you
perfect in every good work to do His will, working in you that which is
well-pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ” (Heb. 13:21). Being,
not doing. As Dr. Chafer put it, “The Christian is appointed to
manifest the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:11), but the children of the kingdom
will be appointed to manifest their good works (Matt. 5:16) .” (Systematic
Theology IV:219)
Hebrews 9:15
And for this cause He is the Mediator of the
new testament [Greek: recent in its beginning as well as new in quality] ,
that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were
under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise
of eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the Mediator of the new
testament, and to the Blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than
that of Abel.
His Blood having been poured out in
fulfillment of the eternal pact between the God of peace and the Lord Jesus,
He thereby becomes the Mediator of the New Covenant for His Body, the
Church--of which the Lord’s Supper is the blessed reminder.
The blood of Abel spoke of judgment--“the
voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me from the ground! And now
cursed art thou [Cain] from the ground, which hath opened its mouth to receive
thy brother’s blood from thy hand” (Gen. 4:10, 11). But the Blood of
sprinkling--the application by faith in the shed Blood of the
Lord Jesus Christ--testified of the judgment of the Cross, past forever, and
of everlasting peace with the God of peace Himself!
Romans 11:26, 27
And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is
written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away
ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant unto them, when I shall take
away their sins.
Paul is here speaking of some of the gracious I
wills of Israel’s New Covenant. “For I will forgive their
iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.”
“I will also save you from all your uncleannesses...in the day that I shall
have cleansed you from all your iniquities” (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 36:29, 33).
The primary purpose of the Book of Hebrews was
to keep the Jews, both saved and unsaved, from turning back to the law, the
old decaying Mosaic covenant; and to exhort them to focus upon the Mediator
of a better covenant.
Those Jews who were saved had come to Jesus
the Mediator of Israel’s New Covenant, not to the covenant itself, which was
yet future. They were in living union with Him who is the Mediator of
the Church’s New Covenant, and that is a higher thing than if merely come to
Israel’s covenant. The Mediator will make this New Covenant with
Israel on earth in the millennial kingdom.
Hebrews 8:6–8
But now hath He obtained a ministry the more
excellent, by so much as He is also the Mediator of a better covenant, which
hath been enacted upon better promises [‘I will’].
For if that first covenant had been
faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. For finding
fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come [Millennial] saith the
Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
house of Judah.
Hebrews 8:10–13; 10:16. In these
verses the writer gives more details concerning Israel’s New Covenant, and
then in verse 13 he states: "In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath
made the first old. Now that which decayeth and groweth old is ready to
vanish away.”
They were not to turn back to Moses, but to a
greater than Moses, greater than all: “that great Shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20).
LENIENT LEADERS
- Now to document and illustrate how contemporary dispensational theologians
have failed to keep the Bride exclusively for her Bridegroom.
Dr. D.K. Campbell, president of Dallas,
wrote in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, 1986, p. 150:
Contemporary dispensationalists affirm
that the church participates in the blessings of the New Covenant of
Jeremiah 31 by experiencing [sic] regeneration, the indwelling Spirit, and
so on.
Dr. John A. Martin, assistant professor
of Bible exposition at Dallas, makes another telling statement concerning
present trends:
One area of discussion in which many
dispensationalists are currently engaged is the relationship between the
Testaments. This is true not only on the textual and theological
levels but also on the application level. Very few would be as
dogmatic about the lack of applicability from the OT as was Chafer (Ibid.,
p. 42).
This has to do, of course, with seeking to
establish a relationship between Israel and the Church. All this in
spite of the fact that the Church is unknown in the OT, to say nothing of the
synoptic Gospels--the wondrous subject being hidden in God (Eph. 3:9)
until His glorified Son revealed it through Paul in his Church Epistles!
Dr. Chafer, in his The Kingdom in History
and Prophecy, p. 39, wrote:
In subject matter the division between
the OT and the NT occurs at the Cross of Christ, rather than between
Malachi and Matthew. The Gospels, in the main, carry forward the same
dispensational conditions that were in effect at the hour when Christ was
born.
LEWIS SPERRY CHAFER
- In considering this problem of including the Church in aspects of Israel’s
future New Covenant, we will begin with Dr. Chafer, who rightly taught that
there are two new covenants.
There is a heavenly covenant for the
heavenly people, which is designated a “New Covenant, “ as is the
preceding one for Israel. It is made in the Blood of Christ (Mk.
14:24) and continues in effect throughout this dispensation, whereas the new
covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application.
To suppose that these two covenants--one
for Israel and one for the Church--are the same is to assume that there is a
latitude of common interest between God’s purpose for Israel and His
purpose for the Church.
Israel’s covenant, however, is new only
because it replaces the old Mosaic covenant, but the Church’s covenant is
new because it introduces that which is God’s mysterious and unrelated
purpose. Israel’s new covenant rests specifically on the sovereign
“I will” of Jehovah, while the new covenant for the Church is made in
Christ’s Blood. (Systematic Theology VII:98, 99)
And then, like all the others mentioned
herein, Dr. Chafer qualified his stand by adding: “Everything that Israel
will yet have, to supply another contrast, is the present possession of the
Church - and infinitely more” (p. 99).
JOHN NELSON DARBY
- Mr. Darby, original Plymouth Brethren leader, like most, taught that there
is but one new covenant [Israel’s], but with--dual benefits, in which
the Church shares.
This new covenant of the letter is made
with Israel, not with the Church; but we get the benefit of it. (Collected
Writings 27:565)
We enjoy indeed all the essential
privileges of Israel’s new covenant, its foundation being laid on God’s
part in the Blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the
letter. (Synopsis V:286)
CHARLES C. RYRIE
- He was on the faculty of Dallas and Dean of their Graduate School for many
years, now retired. In 1953 Dr. Ryrie emulated Dr. Chafer concerning the
two-covenant view.
It is more consistent premillennialism to
consider that Israel and the church each has a new covenant. (The Basis of
the Premillennial Faith [1953], p. 119)
Hebrews 8 quotes the new covenant with
Israel only to show that the OT anticipated an end to the Mosaic covenant
and that Christians have a better covenant, that is, the new covenant with
the Church. (Ibid., p. 125)
In 1959 in his Biblical Theology, p.
249, Dr. Ryrie still held to the two-covenant view.
The new covenant, under which the church
is blessed is not the same as that which Jeremiah promised, for that is yet
to be fulfilled to the house of Israel and the house of Judah as prophesied.
However, as is indicated here, if Dr.
Ryrie includes the Church in Israel’s new covenant benefits, he has to that
extent forsaken his former two-covenant position. In 1975, in the
Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia 1:392, he wrote:
The believer today is saved by the blood
of the new covenant shed on the cross. All spiritual blessings are his
because of this, and many of his blessings are the same as those
promised to Israel under the OT revelation of the new covenant.
In the Grace Theological Journal, Fall
1985, p. 298, Dr. Homer Kent states:
Charles C. Ryrie, who at an earlier time
preferred the two-covenant view, appears to have come to this conclusion of
the one new covenant of Israel.
In Bib Sac / July-Sept. 1988, p. 278, Dr.
C.A. Blaising wrote:
It is interesting to read Ryrie’s
belabored effort in The Basis of Premillennial Faith [1953] to defend
the view [of the two covenants]. It is doubtful that anyone could have
done a better job. However, it is really a defenseless position, and
both Ryrie and Walvoord eventually surrendered it. This writer knows
of no dispensational scholar who holds it today.
JOHN
E. WALVOORD - He is at present Chancellor of Dallas. In 1959
Dr. Walvoord, then president of Dallas, followed Dr. Chafer in his
two-covenant view.
The new covenant in force in the present
age is not claimed to fulfill the new covenant with Israel at all.
(Millennial Kingdom, p. 217)
[My] preference was stated earlier in
this study for another new covenant view advanced by Lewis Sperry Chafer
advocating two new covenants: one for the nation Israel to be fulfilled in
the millennium, the other for the church to be fulfilled in the present age.
(Ibid., p. 218)
The concept of two new covenants is a
better analysis of the problem and more consistent with premillennialism as
a whole. (Ibid., p. 219)
But then, in 1983, there is a
retraction, similar to that of Dr. Ryrie. In the Bible Knowledge
Commentary, edited by Dr. John E. Walvoord and Dr. Roy B. Zuck, it is
stated by Dr. Zane C. Hodges:
It is clear that all the “better
promises” of the new covenant belong, in fact, to all the regenerate of
every age since the cross.
Though the new covenant is specifically
focused on Israel (“house of Israel and house of Judah” in Jeremiah
31:31), it is clear that Christians of the present time also stand under its
blessings (Lu. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6). This perception does
not lead to an inappropriate confusion between Israel and the church. (p.
800)
The new covenant’s force, like that of
all human wills--depends on the death of the one who made it. This
is when it takes effect.
J. D. PENTECOST
- He is Distinguished Professor Emeritus, having taught on the Dallas faculty
for over 30 years. In his Things To Come, pp. 126,127, Dr. Pentecost
makes it clear that Israel’s New Covenant did not go into effect at the
death of its Mediator.
In Hebrews 8, as in 10:16, the passage
from Jeremiah is quoted, not to state that which is promised those is now
operative or effectual, but rather that the old Mosaic covenant was
temporary and ineffectual, and anticipatory of a new covenant that would be
permanent and effectual in its working.
It is a misrepresentation of the then
purpose of the writer of Hebrews to affirm that he teaches that Israel’s
new covenant is now operative with either Israel or the church.
There is certainly a difference between
the institution of the new covenant and the realization of the
benefits of it. Christ, by His shed blood, laid the foundation
for Israel’s new covenant, but its benefits will not be received by
Israel until the second advent (Rom. 11:26, 27) .
Then, on the same page [127] Dr. Pentecost
steps down with all the others: “The church may receive blessings from
Israel’s new covenant without being under or fulfilling that new covenant.”
In the November 1986 issue of Confident
Living, p. 17, Dr. Pentecost makes another contribution to the blurring of the
all-important difference between Israel and the Church.
What God did for Saul of Tarsus He is
going to do for those 144,000 so they can bring the Gospel to every nation
during the Tribulation. The Gospel they will preach is the same Gospel
we preach today. God has only one plan of salvation.
It is true that the Blood is the means of
salvation for both the Church and Israel. Similar means, but two
entirely different salvations! The Church is in Christ in the heavenlies
now. Israel will be under the King and His theocratic law, on
earth in the future millennial kingdom. No comparison!
HOMER A. KENT, JR.
- He is a professor on the faculty of Grace Theological Seminary. Dr.
Kent teaches the one covenant of Israel, applicable to both Israel and the
Church.
It is obviously the intention of the
author [of Hebrews] to show that the promises of the new covenant [Israel’s]
are all experienced [sic] by Christians. (Grace Theological Journal, Fall
1985, p. 295)
In the April-June 1986 issue of Bib Sac, p.
166, Dr. John A. Witmer, of the Dallas faculty, wrote:
Homer Kent accepts the view that there is
one New Covenant, which “will be fulfilled eschatologically with Israel
but is participated in soteriologically by the church today” (Grace
Theological Journal, Fall 185, p. 297). Generally this is the position
held by Dallas professors.
JOHN C. WHITCOMB
- He has taught dispensationalism at Grace Theological Seminary for the past
38 years. Dr. Whitcomb advocates Israel’s one New Covenant, with dual
application.
The fact that the church participates in the
soteriological benefits of the new covenant is a major factor which
demonstrates continuity between Israel and the Church.
Believing [Kingdom] Jews will experience
regeneration and sanctification just as Christians do today, by the grace of
God and through faith in the Lord Jesus. (Grace Theological Journal, Fall
1985, pp. 204,216)
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY - In a recent letter [Sept. 1989], Dr. Whitcomb wrote:
Grace Seminary teaches that the Holy
Spirit not only regenerated but also indwelt all true believers before
Pentecost. However, we agree that there were special spiritual
gifts (not necessarily permanent) that God provided for some theocratic
leaders in Israel (Saul’s and David’s gift of kingship, for
example). Theologically, we cannot see the Holy Spirit regenerating a
person without indwelling him. But we agree, of course, that
Spirit-baptism began at Pentecost.
HADDON W. ROBINSON
- He is President of Denver Seminary (Conservative Baptist). Dr.
Robinson’s dispensational deviation is declared here in a March 1989 letter
to M.J.S.
I sat under Dr. Chafer and graduated from
Dallas. I taught on the faculty for almost twenty years, and I am very
familiar with the dispensational approach to the Scriptures.
Quite frankly, I discovered that what I
was taught as a student simply did not wash. I discovered that many
Dallas grads seldom preached from the Gospels and even less from the
OT. While they acknowledged that “all Scripture is inspired by God
and profitable ...,” they did not treat the Bible that way in their
preaching.
I still hold to the distinction between
Israel and the church but, as you gather, I see great similarities between
regenerated Israel and the church since both stand before God as His people.
I think you are right that great changes
have taken place at Dallas Seminary over the years. There is a vast
difference, for example, between what Dr. Chafer taught and what Charles
Ryrie wrote in Dispensationalism Today.
There is a continued distance between
what the faculty of Dallas holds now and traditional
dispensationalism. That may have come about because of a defection
from God’s truth, or it may have come because they have seen a
responsibility to properly interpret the whole counsel of God.
There are important implications here.
What Dr. Robinson as a Dallas student was taught under Dr. Chafer regarding
dispensationalism “simply did not wash” with him. Yet after that he
taught at Dallas for nearly twenty years! And he faults the Dallas grads
of his early years for not preaching enough from the OT and the Gospels.
Evidently their ministries were centered
in Paul’s Church Epistles, where they belonged. Would that there were
more such among the Dallas grads of today! In asking Dr. Campbell why so
many contemporary grads emerge from Dallas with a Covenant orientation (which
he did not deny), he replied, “Maybe they come in that way.” To
which one might ask, If they come into purportedly dispensational Dallas that
way, why do they come out that way; and if they do not come in that way, why
do they come out that way?
There is also the serious matter of the vast
number of Christians who think that Dallas Seminary is the stronghold of
dispensationalism, who are praying, giving, and sending students there on that
supposition, never realizing that the dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield and
Chafer has long been abandoned in the name of “doctrinal development.”
CRAIG A. BLAISING
- As associate professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas, Dr. Blaising also
holds to the one new covenant of Israel, with dual application.
These are new covenant [Israel’s]
ministries, predicted but not yet experienced in the old dispensation.
They include the reception of the new heart, new birth (regeneration), the
law of the Spirit written on the heart (fruit of the Spirit, living and
being led by the Spirit--NT Sanctification) Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 11:19,
20; 36:25–27; 2 Cor. 3:2–18; Heb. 8:6–13; 9:14, 15; 10:14–22; Lu.
22:20. (Lecture #21 - Law and Grace, Fall 1987, p. 5)
RENALD E. SHOWERS
- Until recently a professor at Philadelphia College of the Bible, he is
presently associated with The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry. Dr.
Showers teaches Israel’s one New Covenant, with a dual application. He
has written a book, The New Nature (Loizeaux Brothers, 1986),
concerning the believer’s new nature, based upon Israel’s New Covenant.
The new nature is a favorable disposition
toward God. It consists of the law written on the human heart, (p. 9)
The new disposition or nature which is
favorably oriented toward God is described in several key prophetic passages
in the OT. The most outstanding prophetic passage which relates to the
new disposition is Jeremiah 31:31–34. (p. 34)
The church today partakes of the
spiritual blessings which God promised as part of the new covenant
[Israel's]. For example, church believers do experience [sic]
regeneration and forgiveness of sin, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and do
possess the new nature (the law of God in the heart). (Israel My Glory
/ April-May 1986, pp. 13,14)
The following statements by Dr. Chafer and Mr.
Stoney are in direct opposition to Dr. Showers’ “undivided” thinking.
The writing of the law upon the heart (Jer.
31) is a divine assistance toward the keeping of the Kingdom Law,
which enablement was in no wise provided under the reign of the Law of
Moses.
However, the written law on the heart, as
it will be in the Kingdom, is not to be compared with the power of the
indwelling Spirit which is the present divine enablement provided for the
Christian life under grace. (Systematic Theology IV:170)
In the one case, that of the earthly or
millennial family, the law will be written in their hearts (Jer. 31:33); the
inclination to do evil will be superseded.
In the other family, the heavenly, the
Lord Jesus Christ is written on the Christian’s heart by the Spirit of
Christ. This is a great and important distinction, indicating that the
Christian blessings are in association with Christ who has gone within the
veil. (Ministry VIII: 358)
FREDERICK W. GRANT
- Mr. Grant was an early Plymouth Brethren leader, and held to the one New
Covenant for Israel, with dual application.
It will be asked how Israel’s new
covenant applies to all of us. Other scriptures answer this clearly by
assuring us that if we have not the covenant made to us, it can yet,
in all the blessings of which it speaks, be ministered to us.
(Numerical Bible VII:48)
JOHN F. MACARTHUR,
JR. - He is pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church, and president
of The Master’s College and Seminary. As in much of his theology, Dr.
MacArthur seeks to occupy both sides of an issue at the same time.
God has never made a covenant with the
Gentiles, and, as far as I can see from Scripture, He never will. The
new covenant is not made with the church, as some seem to think. It is
made with the same people the old covenant was made with: Israel.
(Commentary on Hebrews, p. 213)
So far so good; but there is a nullifying
counterweight in the next few pages. And here Dr. MacArthur goes further
astray than all the previous theologians thus far cited. They teach that
the New Covenant is Israel’s, while the Church shares some of its spiritual
blessings. Dr. MacArthur here states that the Church is under
Israel’s New Covenant.
That is how much better off a person is under
the new covenant than under the old. In Christ we are freed from all
sin’s debts, and we live forever in the riches of the One we love and who
loves us. (Ibid., p. 193)
Jesus is the Mediator of the new
covenant, and in this has provided us with eternal life. All of God’s
promises in the new covenant are guaranteed to us by Jesus Christ Himself.
(p.198)
For the time being, in fact, Gentiles are
sharing more in the new covenant than are Jews. But one day this will
change. After Gentiles have had sufficient time to respond to the
gospel, all Israel will be saved. (p. 214)
Now, however, the Spirit writes God’s
law in the minds and hearts of those who belong to Him. n the new
covenant true worship is internal, not external, real, not ritual (cf. Ezek.
11:19, 20; 36:26, 27). But for those who belong to His dear Son -
whether they believed under the old covenant or under the new--God forgets
every sin. (p. 216)
Dr. MacArthur fails badly in his
dispensational responsibilities. Another example: upon reading the title
of his controversial book, The Gospel According to Jesus, his error is
immediately obvious. The Lord Jesus’ pre-Cross Gospel was for new
covenant Israel and her millennial kingdom. The Gospel that produces the
Church is ministered primarily by Paul, received from the glorified Lord Jesus
Christ (Gal. 1:11, 12). Wm. R. Newell succinctly refutes this MacArthur
error.
The Gospel does not begin for any sinner,
Jew or Gentile, until the Cross: “I delivered unto you first of all,
that Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). (Romans, Verse by
Verse, p. 393)
Dr. Merrill F. Unger and others concur--the
Gospel that relates to the Church has to do with the Cross, Pentecost, and
Paul’s Church Epistles.
The Church is said to be a mystery (Eph.
3:3), “the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). It was foretold, but not
explained by the Saviour (Matt. 16:18). It was a truth unknown and unrevealed
to anyone in OT times (Eph. 3:5), indeed a revelation and purpose “hid in
God” throughout the ages (Eph. 3:9), first revealed historically at
Pentecost, and first revealed doctrinally to the Apostle Paul (Eph.
3:3, 7). (Baptizing Work of the Holy Spirit, p. 29)
The word ekklesia (Church) does
not occur in the Gospels except for three references in Matthew 16:18 and
18:17. It is also absent from 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 and 2
John, and Jude. (Selected)
The expression “in Christ” occurs
some seventy times in Paul’s epistles and only twice elsewhere (1
Peter 3:16 and 5:14). Identification is a doctrine unique to the
Pauline revelation--the Church Epistles. (Selected)
It is natural to read the Gospels in the
light of the Epistles, and thus to “read into them” the wider truths of
Christianity. But if the canon of Scripture ended with the Gospels
this would be impossible. (Selected)
In the Grace Theological Journal X,I ,
1989, pp. 67-77, Dr. Homer Kent reviewed MacArthur’s The Gospel
According to Jesus. With virtually no criticism of the material in
the ten pages of his review, Dr. Kent concluded by saying:
To those who feel that salvation has been
confused in this volume with discipleship, this reviewer would urge a
careful rereading of these pages. The author makes a good case for his
conclusions. Much that has been written on this topic has needed
rethinking.
The Gospel According to Jesus is a
thought-provoking book. The discussions it has prompted are important
ones and should cause every believer to examine again the critical issues of
Christian faith so as to be true to the Scripture and honest with
sinners. Dr. MacArthur has raised these issues effectively.
One wonders what that champion of grace, Dr.
Alva McClain, would have thought of that!
THE COVENANT TREND
- Dr. Chafer was correct in teaching two New Covenants--one for Israel and one
for the Church. If total distinction is to be maintained between Israel
and the Church, and thereby Law and Grace, the Church cannot be included in
Israel’s New Covenant benefits. To divide, or not to divide, that is
the question. The scriptural answer is to rightly divide!
Although Dr. Chafer stood for two New
Covenants, he failed to give an adequate scriptural basis for his
thesis. All he did was to mention one Scripture reference: “There
is a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people...it is made in the Blood of
Christ (Mk. 14:24). (Systematic Theology VII:98)
It is possible that for this reason Dr.
Walvoord and Dr. Ryrie ultimately ceased to follow Dr. Chafer’s two covenant
view, and resorted, with all the others, to Israel’s one New Covenant.
It is little wonder that Dr. Blaising states that it was “really a
defenseless position, and both Ryrie and Walvoord eventually surrendered it.”
All of those theologians admit that Israel’s
New Covenant is for Israel alone, and will be established on earth in the
future millennial kingdom. But they persist in breaking down the
scriptural barrier by insisting that the Church presently benefits from the
“spiritual” aspects of Israel’s covenant.
What this amounts to is Covenant-type
spiritualizing. And, ironically, Dr. Daniel Fuller came to such a
realization a decade ago.
DANIEL P. FULLER
- He is professor of Hermeneutics at Fuller Theological Seminary. In his
generously titled book, Gospel and Law - Contrast or Continuum? The
Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Eerdmans,
1980, p. 62), he wrote:
Charles Ryrie was correct in taking me to
task for espousing a “theological” hermeneutic in my unpublished
doctoral dissertation of 1957. In these pages he strongly urges for a
hermeneutic that admits only a “literal” or “normal” interpretation
to invalidate the meaning of a passage in earlier revelation.
In the intervening years I have come to
agree with him. But now [1980] to my dismay I find that today’s
dispensationalists have reverted to the hermeneutic of Covenant
theology!
Dr. Fuller, well qualified to recognize a
Covenant trend when he sees it, also said on page 51:
Although today dispensationalism explains
the relationship between law and grace in wording that is different from
that of Covenant theology, there is no substantial difference in meaning
.
John Zens mentions “the Israel-centered
stance of dispensationalists.” (Moses in the Millennium, p. 14)
ISRAEL'S
"SPIRITUAL" BLESSINGS - There are a number of scriptural
reasons why Israel’s New Covenant blessings do not qualify for the heavenly
Body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
THE BLOOD
- First, it is said that the Church benefits from the blood of Israel’s New
Covenant in the forgiveness of sins. On the contrary, Israel will
benefit in her iniquities forgiven and her sins remembered no more (Jer.
31:34) from “the Blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20)--the
Church’s New Covenant.
The heavenly Bride, hidden in the heart of the
glorified Bridegroom, requires nothing from earthly Israel and
her coming kingdom. The Church’s citizenship and position are
heavenly--yes, all the way into the Holiest! “Having therefore,
brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus” (Heb.
10:19). Israel, in all her coming earthly glory, will never be the
recipient of anything like that from the Blood!
The Church was chosen in Him (not under
the King) before the foundation of the world--in eternity past. “With
the precious Blood of Christ... who verily was foreordained before the
foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you” (I
Pet. 1:19, 20). “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling,
not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which
was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim.
1:9).
On the other hand, Israel’s New Covenant
kingdom will be “prepared” somewhat later and is meant for a definitely
later period. “Then shall the King say unto them on His right,
Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34).
Granted Israel’s sins are to be forgiven by
the same Blood that was shed for the Church on the Cross, but that is where
any similarity between the two ceases. The Church is already made “nigh”
at the right hand of the Father. “But now in Christ Jesus ye
who were far off are made nigh by the Blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13).
“And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places
in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come [including the millennial kingdom
age] He might show [to the angels, redeemed Israel, and the redeemed Gentile
nations] the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us
through Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6, 7).
Israel, standing before the King and His
blessed Bride in all the glory of David’s earthly millennial throne, will
never, then or ever, attain unto that!
William Kelly, Darby’s co-worker and editor,
spells out the difference between the two recipients of the Blood.
The Blood of the Cross is for millennial
Israel as well as for the Church. But there is a vast difference
between their positions, though it be the same Saviour who died for both,
and the same Spirit who appropriates the result of His death for each.
Israel, like the Church, will be born of the Spirit, and yet one is for God’s
glory on earth, as the other is for His glory in heaven. (The Bible Treasury
N-3:44)
THE CROSS
Identified with the Lord
Jesus on the Cross, the Christian died unto the old Adamic life, sin, the
world, Satan, and the law (Gal. 2:20). As a result of His work on the
Cross the Christian was re-created in the Last Adam (2 Cor. 5:17), resurrected
and ascended to the right hand of the Father in His Beloved--complete in Him
(Col. 2:10). The glorified Lord Jesus Christ is the believer’s Head,
Bridegroom, and Life.
Further, being in Christ,
the believer is an heir of God, and joint-heir with Christ, forever one
spirit with Him "when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own
right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality
and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in
this age, but also in that which is to come.
"And hath put all things
under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church,
which is His Body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph.
1:20–23).
There is no possible comparison between Israel
and the Bride! It might be profitable to note the 32 positions in
which the Christian is brought at the moment he receives the Saviour (Salvation,
by Chafer, pp. 59-67), as over against the 7 features
attributed to Israel in her coming messianic kingdom.
RISEN BODY
- The Christian is a heavenly being, one spirit with Him, and is not of this
earth--neither now, nor in the coming kingdom, nor in eternity. “If
ye, then, be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above....Set your
affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead,
and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our
Life, shall appear [to reign over Israel], then shall ye also appear with Him
in glory” (Col. 3:1–4).
Keep the Church clear of Israel’s law and
kingdom, and all will be heavenly. Judaism in its full results is the
manifestation that God has come down to man on earth; and this will be
displayed in the millennial days of Israel’s blessing. But
Christianity is based upon the wondrous fact that man, in the person of the
ascended and glorified Lord Jesus Christ, is gone up to the Father into the
heavens.
THE HOLY SPIRIT
- Israel’s New Covenant includes the indwelling of the Spirit, for the
purpose of writing the theocratic law upon their hearts and enabling them to
walk in all His ordinances. “After those days, saith the Lord, I will
put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts”. “And
I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye
shall keep Mine ordinances, and do them” (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 36:27).
The primary ministry of the Holy Spirit in the
life of the Christian is to manifest the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, never
the works of the law. The believer has died to the law, and is alive
unto God in Christ Jesus. “For the law of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.” “We
all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are
changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the
Lord” (Rom. 8:2; 2 Cor. 3:18). Instead of the works of the law, the
Spirit manifests the fruit of the Spirit--the life of the Lord Jesus in our
mortal body (Gal. 5:22, 23; 2 Cor. 4:10).
When we, as His Bride, are co-reigning with
Him over Israel and her glorious millennial kingdom, we will be like Him,
including our redeemed and glorified bodies like unto His glorious body (Phil.
3:21). “We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones”
(Eph. 5:30).
HEAVENLY VS. EARTHLY
- The Church never was, nor ever will be, earthly. She was born in
heaven, united to her glorious Head by the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
It must be remembered that the spiritual
blessings described in the OT [including Jeremiah and Ezekiel] are set
firmly in a context of sense and experience. They are
inseparably united with other blessings which are social, physical, and even
political in nature. What is spiritual is joined to the sensible and
perceptible. To find this, one has only to read any of the great OT
chapters dealing with the prophetic kingdom. --A.J. McClain (The Greatness
of the Kingdom, p. 220)
Vain is the dream that the Church, or the
Christian, is contemplated in Israel’s new covenant. The truth
always suffers by tampering with its integrity or by ignorance. Israel
only had the first (Mosaic) covenant; Israel by grace will have the second
(new).
Meanwhile we, once Gentiles, who had
neither adoption, nor the glory, nor the covenants, nor the law-giving, nor
the promises--we are called by sovereign grace in Paul’s Gospel [not Jesus’
kingdom Gospel] to privileges higher far as God’s sons, and members of His
Body wherein is neither Jew nor Gentile, blessed with every spiritual
blessing in heavenly places in Christ; as Israel will be blessed in
their land, when this dispensation gives way to the dispensation of
the King displayed in power and great glory. --Wm. Kelly (The Serious
Christian II, IV:152)
STANLEY D. TOUSSAINT
- He is professor of Bible exposition at Dallas. It is painful to see how far
the blurring of dispensationalism takes these leaders, and many victims with
them, in their Covenant-oriented thinking.
The themes of the kingdom and biblical
covenants are inextricably bound together. Where there is one there is
the other. Many feel the most unifying theme of the Bible is the
Messianic Kingdom.
It would certainly seem from Matthew
25:34 that this was God’s original goal for man. There Christ
predicts the Messiah will say to the sheep on His right hand, “Come, you
who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world.” From the very beginning God proposed for
man to be sovereign over the world. (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost
[1986], P. 19)
Dr. Toussaint is referring here to God’s
goal for man--earthly Israel and the saved nations--but that is not His goal
for His Son’s Bride!
ELLIOTT E.
JOHNSON - He is associate professor of
Biblical exposition, at Dallas. Again, we have Israel’s messianic
kingdom stressed in typical earth-bound fashion.
In an evil world deserving of
wrath, Christ graciously works through the message of truth and the Spirit
of promise to redeem a possession for praise of His glory. In that way
His work today enjoys a degree of fulfillment.
But there still remains a
future hope. Paul envisions that future hope being exercised in a
final phase of fulfillment known as the "Kingdom." In that final
age, God purposes to fully restore rule to man, enabling him to triumph
over the evil one and to accomplish God’s purpose in creation. (Walvoord:
A Tribute [19821, p. 250)
The "Kingdom" may be the Covenant
goal and hope, but it is certainly not the Blessed Hope of the dispensational
Christian!
ROBERT L. SAUCY
- He is professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot School of Theology, Biola
University. He also teaches one covenant, with dual application.
The present dispensation involves the
spiritual aspects of the Messianic Kingdom, that is, the blessings of Israel’s
new covenant (i.e., regeneration, the indwelling Spirit, etc.).
(Contemporary Dispensational Thought, p. 11)
We would suggest that God’s historical
working is a unified plan. Contrary to traditional dispensationalism,
it does not entail separate programs for the church and Israel. The
present church age is not an historical parenthesis which is unrelated to
the history which preceded it. Rather, it must be viewed as an integral
phase in the development of the mediatorial kingdom.
Contrary to traditional
dispensationalism, the church is involved in the fulfillment of the
Messianic promises of the OT. Messianic days have dawned, albeit in a
way not clearly seen in the OT. (Criswell Theological Review 1:1,
1986, pp. 162,399)
Not clearly seen in the NT,
either! Dr. Saucy is considered by Grace Seminary to be the “leading
spokesman of dispensationalism in the country.” “Cry, the Beloved
Country”
“DISPENSATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT”
For some time now the phrase “doctrinal
development of dispensationalism” has been noted, especially in Dallas
realms. The subject has recently been articulated by Dr. Craig Blaising
in Bib Sac / April-June 1988, titled “Development of
Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists.”
Over the past three decades [Dr. Chafer
went Home 37 years ago] the signs of doctrinal development have clearly
appeared within the dispensational system itself. (p. 255)
Dr. Saucy is typical of the Church/Kingdom
trend.
As believers in the church live in
anticipation of that [Millennial] kingdom and are presently called “sons
of the kingdom” (Matt. 13:38), the pattern of life set forth by Jesus in
the Sermon on the Mount would appear to be increasing within
dispensationalism, thus excluding this issue as a point of distinction
vis a vis non-dispensationalists. (Criswell Theological Review, Winter 1986,
p. 154)
Believers are here to witness to the
coming kingdom, not to inaugurate the kingdom rule. They are here as
ambassadors of the King, to urge people to transfer their citizenship to the
future kingdom by coming into a relationship with the King today. (Bib Sac /
Jan-March 1988, p. 46)
How effortlessly Dr. Chafer refutes such
low-church thinking.
To Israel the Lord Jesus is Messiah,
Immanuel, and King; to the Church He is Head, Life, and Bridegroom.
The covenants and destiny of Israel are earthly; the covenant and destiny of
the Church are heavenly.
As Bride and Consort the Church will
rightfully share with Him His reign (2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 5:10; 20:6).
The purpose of this dispensation is not to form a kingdom by securing
subjects of the King: it is rather the calling out and perfecting into His
very image those who will be co-reigners with Him in His yet future kingdom.
The Queen is never a subject of the King:
her position is to share with Him His authority and glory and to rest in the
bosom of the Bridegroom in the palace of the King. (The Kingdom in History
and Prophecy, pp. 78,88)
For those who do not agree with Dr. Chafer’s
two new covenants view, that position is acceptable. The Church, being
in Christ, is thereby in the Mediator, which is far better--she does not need
a covenant, new or old.
But for those who would in any way relate the
Church to the “spiritual blessings” of Israel’s New Covenant, that is not
acceptable. This would be to descend to Israel’s OT/ Synoptic/
Kingdom level. Every one of her members being now hidden with the
Mediator in the Father, the heavenly Church has no need for any aspect of
Israel’s earthly kingdom covenant.
We are come “to Jesus the
mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 12:24). We are not come to the
New Covenant, but to Jesus the Mediator of it. We are in living union
with Him who is the Mediator; that is a much higher thing than if merely
come to the Covenant. The Lord Jesus will make this New Covenant with
Israel and Judah on earth. --H.H. Snell
Our leading theologians have “developed”
and “progressed” far beyond such dispensational founding fathers as Mr.
J.N. Darby, Dr. C.I. Scofield, and Dr. L.S. Chafer. The grace ministries
of these giants of the faith were position - centered. It would
be acceptable to progress beyond them only if one could improve upon their
heavenly position.
But it is sadly clear to not a few that
contemporary progression has developed into a descending digression, both
backward to Israel’s New Covenant, and downward to her coming earthly
theocratic kingdom.
Our leading seminaries and their theologians
have stopped short of the all important factor of identification with
Christ, and as a consequence they have failed to lead the Church of the Lord
Jesus Christ upward to her present heavenly position. The
need is to Abide Above, and to Keep Looking Down, from
There!
P.S. - Recently a letter came in with mention
of the present downward trend.
I stopped at Dallas Seminary to visit my
son. The situation has be come precarious for the few remaining
traditional dispensationalists. He is treading warily as he pursues
his studies.
By the way, we have just completed our
I.F.C.A. regional convention. MacArthur, and the weakening of
dispensational position, were the main topics of concern. The
grassroots pastors and laymen seem to have a better grasp of the inherent
danger than our leaders. Please pray for us!
Then today a letter arrived from an executive
of a leading foreign mission society.
I have just returned from visiting one of
our missionary training centers where they have had serious problems with
some candidates from the west coast--one in particular from Talbot.
Our leaders were telling me what a help
it has been to have your Paper, “Progressive Dispensationalism.”
Without it they would have had a much more difficult time understanding
where these people are coming from in their thinking.
Do you have anything that you can share
concerning the I.F.C.A., and just what they intend to do about John
MacArthur, in that he is so far off in a number of doctrinal areas?
The fact that they are having their next National Convention in MacArthur’s
church, with him as a speaker, really places their approval upon him.
Just how Dr. MacArthur can honestly sign the
I.F.C.A. Doctrinal Statement is difficult for many to understand, to say
nothing of how the I.F.C.A. can maintain him as a member in good standing.
During the recent [June] I.F.C.A. National
Convention MacArthur was given exclusive time and opportunity to answer
several Committee questions, and to reiterate his beliefs as to the Blood,
Eternal Sonship, and One Naturism.
When asked during the public session by a
Committee member how he could conscientiously sign and be in hearty agreement
with the I.F.C.A. Doctrinal Statement [which stands for two natures,
incidentally], Dr. MacArthur replied, “I could sign because I know
what you mean by it."
Possibly so, but does the I.F.C.A. know what
Dr. MacArthur means by his aberrations concerning (1) Dispensationalism (The
Kingdom Now), (2) Lordship Salvation (The Gospel According to Jesus),
(3) the Blood, (4) One Naturism, (5) the Eternal Sonship, (6) the New
Covenant?
Ah, that is the question!
(January 1990)
LIVE POSITIONALLY
“Crucified, Risen,
Seated”
(Gal. 2:20; Eph. 2:6)