COVENANTAL THEOLOGY INTRODUCTION I have already written the paper… and now I sit here to write the introduction. But I honestly wonder how I can possibly begin. Perhaps my own “personal testimony” would be the best place to start. Perhaps that will even be all that is really needed. I grew up in a Christian home. A home where I was taught to love the Word of God, to read it, study it, and memorize it – a home where I was taught to trust in God and obey Him. Where would I be apart from this rich spiritual heritage? I shudder to think of it. I am grateful to my parents, and I will be eternally grateful to my gracious, and loving, and merciful, and compassionate Lord!!! I also grew up as a Dispensationalist. I went through the thorough doctrinal teaching of the Word of Life youth program. I read Charles Ryries’s “Basic [Systematic] Theology” and “Dispensationalism.” For twelve years I used the Ryrie Study Bible. I read Dwight Pentecost’s “Thy Kingdom Come,” Robert Saucy’s “The Church in God’s Program,” and Earl Radmacher’s “The Nature of the Church.” I referred to John Walvoord’s commentaries on Daniel and Revelation, and I read all eight volumes of Lewis Sperry Chafer’s “Systematic Theology.” I completed my undergraduate studies at the Moody Bible Institute where I was taught nothing but Dispensationalism. Very simply, I was a “died- in-the-wool” Dispensationalist – and I loved the Lord (however imperfectly). My relationship with God profited greatly from all of my dispensationalist teachers. For the first twenty-two years of my life, all that I knew of Covenantalism was what I was told by the Dispensationalists – and it wasn’t pretty. As a professor at Word of Life Bible Institute recently stated in a lecture (in effect): “Just as there are some Christians within the Roman Catholic Church, so there are also some Christians within Reformed (Covenantal) circles.” This professor also stated that Covenantalists believe in a works- based salvation. I was told that Covenantalists interpreted the Bible allegorically. Indeed, from the books that I read, I could Greene 1
Transcript
COVENANTAL THEOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
I have already written the paper… and now I sit here to write the introduction. But I honestly wonder how I can possibly begin. Perhaps my own “personal testimony” would be the best place to start. Perhaps that will even be all that is really needed.
I grew up in a Christian home. A home where I was taught to love the Word of God, to read it, study it, and memorize it – a home where I was taught to trust in God and obey Him. Where would I be apart from this rich spiritual heritage? I shudder to think of it. I am grateful to my parents, and I will be eternally grateful to my gracious, and loving, and merciful, and compassionate Lord!!! I also grew up as a Dispensationalist. I went through the thorough doctrinal teaching of the Word of Life youth program. I read Charles Ryries’s “Basic [Systematic] Theology” and “Dispensationalism.” For twelve years I used the Ryrie Study Bible. I read Dwight Pentecost’s “Thy Kingdom Come,” Robert Saucy’s “The Church in God’s Program,” and Earl Radmacher’s “The Nature of the Church.” I referred to John Walvoord’s commentaries on Daniel and Revelation, and I read all eight volumes of Lewis Sperry Chafer’s “Systematic Theology.” I completed my undergraduate studies at the Moody Bible Institute where I was taught nothing but Dispensationalism. Very simply, I was a “died-in-the-wool” Dispensationalist – and I loved the Lord (however imperfectly). My relationship with God profited greatly from all of my dispensationalist teachers.
For the first twenty-two years of my life, all that I knew of Covenantalism was what I was told by the Dispensationalists – and it wasn’t pretty. As a professor at Word of Life Bible Institute recently stated in a lecture (in effect): “Just as there are some Christians within the Roman Catholic Church, so there are also some Christians within Reformed (Covenantal) circles.” This professor also stated that Covenantalists believe in a works-based salvation. I was told that Covenantalists interpreted the Bible allegorically. Indeed, from the books that I read, I could almost believe that the Covenantalists were outside of the orthodox and evangelical faith. I thought that I knew what the Covenantal position was about, even though I had never read a single Covenantal book or listened to a single Covenantal speaker. Why? Because Lewis Sperry Chafer (and other Dispensationalists) had told me what the covenantalist believed.
After graduating from Moody, I moved immediately into the Pastorate and the weekly teaching of God’s Word. Based mostly off of my four semesters in Greek (in which I was never taught either Dispensationalism or Covenantalism), I grew disillusioned with the Dispensational commentaries. Increasingly, it seemed to me that their exegesis was either flawed and artificial or left a great deal to be desired. So I began to buy commentaries that in my opinion (which is not always to be trusted!) were committed to careful exegesis (whether I agreed with all of their conclusions or not). But even before buying these commentaries, I came to my own independent conclusion that a faithful exegesis of the text of Scripture simply could not support the doctrine of a pre-trib rapture. And, of course, the absence of the pre-trib rapture spells the death of the entire Dispensational system (see Part III). My (systematic) theological world was about to fall apart around me.
Greene 1
Over the ensuing (five) years, I tried my best to remain committed to careful exegesis of Scripture, and I continued my habit of reading through the Bible. Never once did I read a book on Covenantalism or listen to a Covenantal speaker. My Covenantalism arose purely from my interaction with exegetical commentaries and from simply reading through the Bible. At one point, I attempted to formulate on paper my Covenantal views (the seed form of this paper). But the scary thing was that I really didn’t know if even the Covenantalists would agree with me! On occasion, I would be reading an author, and he would say something that I had said – something that I had never heard before – and I would be encouraged that maybe I wasn’t alone. But still, what if I had invented my own personal understanding of God’s Word? Now that is a terrifying proposition! So for the first time, over the last couple of months, I have read several systematic presentations of Covenantal/Reformed Theology – and what a blessed and exciting time it has been! It was so wonderful to read in others what I had been trying to formulate and say for the previous five years. I felt like I had finally come home.
But this is all a bunch of sentimental mumbo-jumbo – utterly worthless apart from a persuasive case in the following pages. It was this recent “cap-stone” to this stage of my biblical-theological journey that emboldened me to write the following pages and give them to you – whoever you might be. But ultimately, I have written this paper for Timothy Greene… when he was still a Dispensationalist. This paper is what I wish I would have been able to read fifteen years ago. This paper would have answered the questions (and accusations) that the dispensationalist Timothy would have had. And in the end, he would have finally understood. I do not assume that this paper will change your mind (though I certainly hope that it does!) The most important thing to me is that you truly understand. I beg you to listen. And when you think that you understand, it is still best to assume that you don’t, and then keep trying some more. For many, this will be their very first introduction to Covenantalism by a Covenantalist. So let some of your assumptions about Covenantalism be challenged. Let yourself be surprised.
I have written this paper in three parts. The first part (p.p. 3-14) is entirely “positive” versus polemical or apologetical. It presents a “Covenantal” sketch of the entire Bible. The second part (p.p. 15-28) is an examination of Dispensationalism and is more “negative” in nature. You may read the first part and be unconvinced. Then perhaps the second part will cause you to waver. Then read the first part again! The second part is necessary, but of course I wish it wasn’t! The first part is intended to be the most edifying, and the most fun, and the most beautiful (though even the second part contains much that is positive and edifying). The third part (p.p. 29-34) is a brief examination of the Dispensational foundation for the pre-trib rapture – so essential to the entire Dispensational system. And please don’t forget to read all of the Scriptures carefully! They truly speak for themselves.
Lastly, I love my Dispensational brothers and sisters in Christ, though I will say some pretty strong things in the following pages. I have not written this paper out of a carnal desire to try and prove myself right and others wrong. I have written this paper because very simply I believe it represents the truth, and because the ideas presented here have resulted in what I will call my own “liberation” and the immeasurable enrichment of my understanding of God and His Word. If even one person might experience the same liberation and enrichment as a result of this paper, then I will be utterly speechless with great joy. But in the end, it’s really not about your
Greene 2
enrichment or my joy. It’s really all about GOD – and HIS ETERNAL GLORY. May HE be pleased and glorified even with something as inadequate and unfit as the following pages…
Part I – The Scriptural Basis for Covenantalism
Creation Blessing and Covenant
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Then God created “earthlings” (Gen. 1:1; 2:7). God created these earthlings (man) to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” and to “rule” over it (Gen. 1:28). Of course, the point of this rule was not man-centered, but God-centered… the point of man’s rule was to mediate God’s rule over all the earth (Gen. 1:26). So the spread of man as he gradually filled the earth would be the equivalent of the spread of God’s kingdom and rule on the earth. We could say, then, that God entered into a covenantal relationship with Adam and Eve (Hos. 6:7) in which God promised Adam and Eve that their seed (“be fruitful and multiply”) would inherit the land (“fill the earth”). The birthright and inheritance of God’s royal sons and daughters (the people of God) was the entire planet earth. God’s richest blessings on man are evident in the garden environment. Indeed, we see that the land is the physical source of many of these blessings (the trees, the rivers, the precious metals, the tree of life). But the greatest blessing of all is God’s presence among His people (Gen. 2:8-14). In the first two chapters of Genesis, we see very clearly an emphasis on land, seed, and blessing, and what it all adds up to is the kingdom of God on earth.
But there was a condition placed on this covenantal relationship. God warned of certain death if Adam and Eve ever ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17). Adam and Eve did eat from the forbidden tree and as a result the entire creation came under the curse (Gen. 3:17-18; Rom. 8:19-22). Adam and his seed were now cut off from God’s presence and turned out into a hostile land (Gen. 3:17-18, 24). No longer would the land be an uninhibited source of blessing and prosperity. Adam’s seed would still fill the earth, but now both seed and land were under a curse. Now the spread of man would no longer mean the spread of God’s kingdom and rule. The promises and blessings of God (universal land, universal seed, universal blessing… universal kingdom) are now under attack by sinful man.
But God’s purposes cannot ultimately be derailed. We see the first sign of hope in God’s word about the victorious seed of the woman (Gen. 3:14-15). Through the first eleven chapters of Genesis, the elect line of the woman’s seed is traced through Seth, Enoch, Noah, and Shem.
In the days of Noah, seed and land were both destroyed by a flood and the blessing nearly extinguished (Gen. 6:7, 13). However, God graciously preserved Noah and his seed (Gen. 7:1-3) and restored them to the land. In fact, God even enters into a covenant with Noah and his sons (Noahic Covenant), promising that He will never again destroy the earth or the seed with a flood (Gen. 9:8-17; esp. v. 9). On the contrary…! God actually renewed the original creation blessing by repeating the promises of a (universal) seed and a (universal) land (Gen. 9:1, 7). God still intends to establish His kingdom on the earth. That this kingdom was still intended to be universal in scope (not just for one elect line of the woman’s seed and not limited to one tract of land) is made abundantly clear in the Table of Nations. Genesis 10 describes the multiplication of the seed, and the filling/inheriting of the earth/land. Clearly, all of these nations are meant to
Greene 3
be heirs of the kingdom (land and seed). God’s kingdom is still meant to be universal – with equal blessing for all.
But the story of Babel shows us that the curse has not been undone (Gen. 11:1-9). The spread of the seed throughout the earth/land (Gen. 10) does not equal the spread of the kingdom of God (Gen. 11:7-9). Instead, the seed is in open rebellion against God (including the elect line of Shem!), and so both the seed and the land continue to experience the competing claims of curse and blessing. Furthermore, rebellious man cannot ultimately be a legitimate heir to the inheritance of “all the earth.” So the kingdom of man is actually in competition with the kingdom of God. To complicate matters even further, the universal extent of the blessing seems especially jeopardized by the separating of man into different lands, language groups, families, and nations (10:5, 20, 31). How can there ever be one unified kingdom of God on earth when all of the earth is divided up into different peoples and lands? Dare we expect that one day there will again be one seed and one land as part of the one kingdom of God on earth?
Chapter 10 ended with the genealogy of Shem… and then the immediately following account of the building of Babel shows that even the blessed line of Shem (Gen. 9:25-27) is in rebellion against God and under the curse. But then again, immediately after the story of this rebellion of the seed and their desire to establish the kingdom of man on the earth, there is a second genealogy of Shem. This genealogy follows a different line of Shem’s descendents, a line that eventually culminates in Abram (Gen. 11:10-26).
The question that hangs in the air at the end of Genesis 11 is simple: How is God’s rule on the earth (seed, land, and blessing; Gen. 1:26-28) ever to be established when all of mankind is intent only on establishing its own rule – independently of God (Gen. 11:1-9)? It could almost seem that the kingdom of man has overtaken and overrun the kingdom of God!
Enter: The Abrahamic Covenant.
Genesis 1-11 is all introduction to Genesis 12 and the rest of the Old Testament, the story of Abraham and his descendents (remember that Moses wrote this book specifically for his Israelite audience). We could say that the first eleven chapters of Genesis have been setting the stage for chapter twelve. So when the Israelite read Genesis 12, he was meant to interpret it in light of the introduction (Gen. 1-11).
Genesis 12:1-3Now the LORD said to Abram,“Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great…[so that] you shall be a blessing;And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse.[so that] in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
Notice the familiar themes of land, seed, and blessing! On the one hand, this covenant with Abraham represents a “narrowing” in the outworking of God’s plan, for now the focus is on one
Greene 4
specific land (Canaan), and one specific seed (the Jewish nation; Gen. 12:7; 15:5; 17:7) that is the recipient of God’s unique and special blessing. Instead of the history of mankind, we are about to embark on the history of one man and his descendents. But it is absolutely essential that we not see land, seed, and blessing as ends in themselves, for they are simply the means to a greater end – God’s kingdom and rule over all of the earth and all the peoples of the earth. Notice that the express purpose of land, seed, and blessing is to bring about the blessing of all of the families/nations of all the earth (Gen. 10)! We must understand that the goal of Canaan is actually all the earth. This explains why later the prophets can say that one day God is going to create new heavens and a new earth in which Abraham’s seed will dwell forever (Is. 65:17-18; 66:22; cf. 11:9). The birthright of God’s sons and daughters is ultimately the entire earth, not just Canaan! Further, the goal of Abraham’s biological seed is to make it possible for all of the nations to be heirs of Abraham and heirs of the kingdom. This is all according to the original intent of creation (Gen. 1:26-28)! We cannot divorce either land, seed, or blessing from God’s gracious purposes for the entire human race. Let me say it again: The goal of the Abrahamic Covenant is that all the families of the earth (not just Israel) will inherit all the earth (not just Canaan) and experience the rich blessings of God’s presence in the coming kingdom.
In connection with these things, we notice that God describes the land of Canaan as a land “flowing with milk and honey” (Ex. 3:8; Num. 16:13-14). Of course, this reminds us of Creation as it was originally meant to be. As man filled the earth, the entire earth would have been a land flowing with milk and honey (if not for man’s rebellion; Gen. 2:4-17). So Canaan becomes a picture of the original intent of creation – on a much smaller scale. But only if the seed remains faithful. If the seed are unfaithful, then the land will no longer function as a source of blessing for the people of God (Deut. 28:15-51). This is almost exactly parallel to the original arrangement in the garden! If Canaan, as a land that flows with milk and honey, is a picture of the original intent of creation, then certainly it must also look forward to the day when all the earth will likewise flow with milk and honey (Rev. 21:1-6; 22:1-5)!
In confirmation of this point, we can look to another common denominator between the land of Canaan and the original creation (and the new creation!) We remember that on the seventh day of the creation week, God rested. It was God’s intent that mankind would also share and participate in this rest as he inherited the blessings of God’s good earth and especially as he enjoyed the intimate presence of God. But because of sin, man failed to enter into—or remain in—God’s rest (Gen. 3:22-24). In light of the fact that the land of Canaan has already been described in terms reminiscent of the original creation paradise, it should come as no surprise that entering into the land of Canaan is also described as entering into God’s rest – a rest that was originally connected with the inheritance of all the earth.
Deuteronomy 3:19-20 (Josh. 1:13-15) – But your wives and your little ones and your livestock… shall remain in your cities which I have given you, until the LORD gives rest to your fellow countrymen as to you, and they also possess the land which the LORD your God will give them beyond the Jordan.
Deuteronomy 12:9 – For you have not as yet come to the resting place and the inheritance which the LORD your God is giving you…
Deuteronomy 28:64-65 – “Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and
Greene 5
stone, which you or your fathers have not known. Among those nations you shall find no rest, and there will be no resting place for the sole of your foot; but there the LORD will give you a trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul.
Psalm 95:10-11 – For forty years I loathed that generation, and said they are a people who err in their heart, and they do not know My ways. Therefore I swore in My anger, truly they shall not enter into My rest.”
Israel’s entrance into God’s rest was intimately connected with Israel’s entrance into the land of Canaan. But of course, the land of Canaan would not be the ultimate fulfillment of Israel’s rest! In fact, Israel’s entrance into God’s rest would only be complete when, in accordance with the original intent of creation, she inherited all the earth (that heavenly country that the writer of Hebrews so beautifully describes in chapter 11). For now, we turn to the fourth chapter of Hebrews:
Hebrews 4:1-11 – Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, “AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,” although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS”; and again in this passage, “THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.” Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.” For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.
To sum up, God’s original intent at creation was for man to participate in His rest as he inherited the earth. Because of sin, the earth would no longer be a place of rest, but of hard toil and labor (Gen. 3:16-19). The goal of Canaan as a land flowing with milk and honey was to recapture that rest that was originally intended for God’s people. Ultimately, it is only those who inherit the new earth who will enter into God’s eternal rest (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1-3).
Finally, it is of the utmost significance that in Joshua chapter three, at precisely the point when Israel is to enter the land of promise, we read:
Joshua 3:11, 13 – Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth is crossing over ahead of you into the Jordan… It shall come about when the soles of the feet of the priests who carry the ark of the LORD, the Lord of all the earth, rest in the waters of the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan will be cut off, and the waters which are flowing down from above will stand in one heap.
Greene 6
Nowhere else in Joshua is Yaweh referred to as the Lord of “all the earth!” Only here, as God is about to give to His people a little tract of earth in the land of Canaan. The point cannot be missed. Yes, God is giving to His people the land of Canaan, but God actually owns all the earth and God originally deeded all the earth to His royal sons and daughters. Therefore, it can only be appropriate that one day God’s people will inherit all the earth, not just the land of Canaan. As we will see, the land of Canaan is merely a type and shadow of a “heavenly country” – God’s eternal kingdom… in all the earth.
Romans 4:13 – “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world…”
God never said that Abraham would be heir of the world (all creation; Rom. 1:20) – at least not in so many words. In fact, God explicitly says only that Abraham is heir to the land of Canaan.“But since, as Genesis already makes clear, God purposed through Abraham and his offspring to work out the destiny of the whole world, it was implicit in the promises to Abraham that he and his offspring would ‘inherit the earth’” (NASB Study Bible). In other words, Paul saw the “land” in the Abrahamic covenant as simply the first-fruits of “all the earth.” But what about Abraham? What did he see…?
Hebrews 11:8-10 – By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
Abraham understood that God’s promises to him and to his seed were simply the means to a greater end, or the mere shadow of a much greater and more enduring reality – namely, a city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. We see in the following passage that this city was representative of a heavenly country (land).
Hebrews 11:13-16 – All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.
Abraham knew that Canaan was simply a “type” or “shadow” of a heavenly country. But what is this heavenly country? For the present, let it suffice to say that the “heavenly country” is, in fact, very “earthy”:
Matthew 5:3, 5 – Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven… Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Greene 7
Inheriting the kingdom of heaven is the same as inheriting the earth, and in the end, inheriting the earth is the same as inheriting the kingdom of heaven (cf. 2 Pet. 3:13). But again, how is it that the gentle will inherit the (entire) earth? Well, we see once again that this was the ultimate provision of the Abrahamic Covenant… this was the ultimate goal of creation itself.
To sum up, as a direct result of God’s covenant with Abraham, Abraham was ultimately looking to inherit the entire earth (the heavenly country), not just the land of Canaan… Abraham was ultimately looking to inherit the world-wide kingdom of heaven, not just an Israelite theocracy. Abraham understood that the goal of the covenant was really identical with the original goal of all creation (a seed that includes all the families of the earth, a land that extends to the farthest corners of the earth, and the blessing of God’s presence that is free and equally extended to all). The Abrahamic covenant is really the promise of God’s kingdom in all the earth for all the peoples. Perhaps we can see now why the Abrahamic Covenant is the key to understanding the rest of the Bible!
The Abrahamic Covenant is absolutely unconditional (Gen. 15), meaning that its fulfillment is based only on the promise of God. It is not ultimately dependent upon man’s cooperation, for God will bring it to pass, no matter what. However, God cannot ultimately bless an unrighteous people, just as He will not bring blessing to the world through an unrighteous people (Genesis 17:1-2; 18:17-19; 22:15-18; 26:2-5). Indeed, the truth is that God’s kingdom on earth cannot be characterized by anything less than perfect righteousness! Therefore, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant clearly requires the creation of a righteous people.* There can be no curse competing with the blessing.
Enter: The Mosaic Covenant.
The Mosaic Covenant came 600 years after the Abrahamic Covenant, but contrary to the Abrahamic Covenant, it was thoroughly conditional. It promised blessings (including possession of the land and a numerous seed) only on condition of obedience, and warned of curses in the case of disobedience (Lev. 26; esp. 26:9; Deut. 27-28). So does the Mosaic Covenant (being conditional) contradict the Abrahamic covenant (being unconditional – Gal. 3:15, 17-18, 21)? And if it doesn’t, then what is the purpose of the Mosaic covenant and how does it relate to the Abrahamic Covenant?
God began the task of making the seed (Israel) righteous by first revealing to them in the Mosaic Law how to practically apply their faith in God and so to live righteously in His sight.Salvation and divine blessing have always been dependant upon God’s gracious gift of faith – and so in the OT the guaranteed evidence of faith was obedience to the Mosaic Law. Just as James can say that a man is justified by works because works are the guaranteed evidence of faith, so Moses can say that Israel’s enjoyment of the Abrahamic promises was dependant upon their obedience to the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 26:40-46; Deuteronomy 6:1-3; 9:4-6; 19:8-9; 29:10-13; 30:15-20) – because this was the guaranteed evidence of faith in the OT. Any Old * Those who view the Abrahamic Covenant as conditional (not Dispensationalists) fail to recognize that God may require something of the covenant people, but then commit Himself to bring about (or enable) the fulfillment of this requirement. There are conditions even in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:1-2; 18:17-19; 22:15-18; 26:2-5), but because the promises themselves are unconditional (Gen. 15), it is God Himself who will see to it that the conditions are satisfied.
Greene 8
Testament Jew with true and genuine faith would wholeheartedly affirm that he loved and delighted in the Law (Psalm 119:16, 24, 35, 47-48, 70, 77, 92, 97, 113, 119, 127, 143, 159, 163, 167, 174) because it was God’s gracious gift to Israel and the treasured—and necessary—expression of Israel’s faith in God. The Law was to the Jew the pathway to true righteousness (Psalm 119:1, 7, 80; Luke 1:5-6) and a source of unending joy, freedom and peace (Psalm 119:14, 44-45, 111, 165). As Israel obeyed the Law by faith, they could then experience the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant.
However, at the same time that the Law brought joy to those who obeyed it in faith, it also made the believing Jew painfully aware of the fact that even Israel’s best obedience would never bring about the final and complete fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises. God’s holiness must demand perfect and complete obedience to His law. But the Law not only highlighted Israel’s sinful failures… because of sin, the Law actually provoked the desire to do the very things that the Law forbade (Rom. 7:7-13). The law was powerless to enable Israel to fulfill its demands. The conditional Mosaic Covenant demonstrated conclusively that the Abrahamic Covenant must be unconditional if it was ever to be fulfilled. The law was meant to prove to Israel that they could never earn the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. If it was up to Israel, the kingdom of God would never be established in the earth. To further complicate matters, at the same time that the Law was showing Israel its sin, it was offering no final provision for forgiveness and salvation (Law and sacrifices; Acts 15:10; Rom. 3:20; Heb. 10:1-4).
Yes, the Law revealed how Israel could experience the joy of righteous living by faith, and yet it was not enough by itself to bring about perfect righteousness and accomplish final salvation! There was still no way for the Abrahamic Covenant to be completely fulfilled and God’s kingdom established on earth. In light of these things, the Law also became to the believing Jew a source of intense frustration and groaning (Rom. 7). The law failed to bring about God’s kingdom on earth, not because it was bad, but because of the sinfulness of man (Rom. 7). Nevertheless, the righteous demands of the law must be satisfied if ever God’s kingdom is to be established among men (land, seed, blessing).
Enter: The Davidic Covenant.
After 300 plus years in the land without any human ruler, the seed of Abraham decided that they would like a king, like all of the nations around them (1 Sam. 8:1-9). This was tantamount to a rejection of God as their king (1 Sam. 8:7) and so we may almost expect a repetition of Babel. Will Israel pursue a political kingdom of man instead of the spiritual kingdom of God on the earth? As it turns out, God, in His sovereignty, will use Israel’s failure to advance His own purposes and to bring about the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. With David, the second king of Israel, God made a covenant in which He adopted the royal line as His own son and promised that the throne and kingdom of this royal line would endure forever (2 Sam. 7:8-17). God determined to use the king, as the new national head and representative of the people to bring about the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (the seed would be planted in the land and experience the blessing of God – 2 Sam. 7:10-11). From now on, “as the king goes, so goes the nation.” From now on, the hope of the nation for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant is rooted in the Davidic Covenant and the Davidic King.
Greene 9
So the Davidic kings were meant to be covenant mediators. They were to lead Israel into covenant faithfulness to the Mosaic Law (Deut. 17:14-20). However, the kings also proved through their wickedness and idolatry to be failures. Even the righteous kings could only bring about temporary and mostly external renewals of the Mosaic Covenant… and then both king and people would quickly lapse back into sin (e.g. 2 Chron. 34-36). If the Abrahamic Covenant is ever to be fulfilled and God’s kingdom to come on earth (land, seed, blessing), then apparently a new kind of king was needed. And apparently, the king would also need a new kind of covenant to mediate to the people.
Enter: The New Covenant.
Just before the final destruction of Jerusalem—when the seed would be decimated and uprooted from the land… when the Davidic King would be disgraced and dethroned… and all because of unfaithfulness to the Mosaic Covenant—God promised through the prophet Jeremiah that one day He would make a New Covenant with His people. This New Covenant would actually enable the seed to live righteously and it would provide the grounds for final forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:33-34; Is. 59:21; Ezek. 16:60-63) – things that the Mosaic covenant could never do. Of course, the details of this covenant were still in part a mystery to Israel because at the time they were shut up under the Law and not yet introduced to the faith which was to come later (Galatians 3:23). However, they could know that when the New Covenant finally came, then the requirement of the Law would be perfectly fulfilled in the seed (Jer. 31:33-34; Rom. 8:3-4). The New Covenant would bring the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant as God’s perfected kingdom was established on earth (the seed would endure and finally possess the land forever; Jer. 31:35-40). Furthermore, the Davidic King was to be the mediator of this New Covenant to the nation of Israel (Is. 49:8-13), and not just to Israel, but also to all the nations (Is. 42:5-7; 55:1-5) – according to the original intention and goal of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Incidentally, it was only as an Israelite demonstrated his genuine faith through obedience to the Mosaic Law that he could qualify to be “covered” under the New Covenant when it finally came. In other words, the provision of the New Covenant is what validated the faith that the OT Jew expressed by obedience to the Mosaic Law (Rom. 3:24-25; Heb. 9:15). Yes, the Law resulted in frustration and groaning as it pointed out sin and then did nothing to finally deal with that sin, but in the process it compelled the believing Jew to place his complete faith in God as the one who must provide the ultimate grounds and validation of his faith-righteousness under the Mosaic Law. He rejoiced in the Law as the revelation of God’s will and took great delight in obeying that Law (however imperfectly) as the sure evidence of faith and of future salvation under the New Covenant.
Enter: Jesus.
Jesus was both the Son of God and the descendent of David, and so He was indeed the new kind of King that was so desperately needed (Rom. 1:1-4). He perfectly fulfilled every requirement of the Mosaic Law by His perfect life of obedience to the Father (Acts 3:14; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 Jn. 3:5), and then He still went on to suffer the curse of the Law by hanging on a tree (Gal. 3:13). Therefore, Jesus was perfectly qualified to be the mediator of a new covenant. God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness
Greene 10
of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus fulfilled the requirement of the law – for us. Then Jesus bore the curse of the law – for us…
Luke 22:19-20 – And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”
Heb. 9:15 (cf. 12:24) – For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Of course, we must remember that this new covenant was first of all (believing/true) Israel’s covenant and the final goal of this covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant – the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth in which the Davidic King will rule over the seed, the (righteous) people of Israel. This is the “eternal inheritance” (i.e. the heavenly city/country) of Hebrews 9:15. The New Covenant is why Jesus could say: “Blessed are the gentle [humble/meek], for they shall inherit [all] the earth” (Mat. 5:5).
But collectively as a nation, the Jews rejected the New Covenant (and the mediator of that covenant) in favor of the Old Covenant (Rom. 10:1-3). Why? They had perverted the original intent of the Law and pursued a righteousness based on legalistic obedience to the Law instead of a righteousness based on a faith that produces obedience to the Law (Rom. 9:30-33). Instead of being humbled by the Law’s revelation of sin and human weakness and so trusting completely in God to provide a way for the Law’s requirements to be fulfilled in them, Israel arrogantly assumed that it could actually fulfill the requirements of the Law through its own efforts and earn the fulfillment of God’s gracious promises (Abrahamic Covenant). But this must obviously be impossible (Deut. 9:4-6; Rom. 3:20; 5:20; 7:7; Gal. 3:19), because otherwise the promises would cease to be completely of God’s grace (Rom. 4:13-14; Gal. 3:18). Any Jew who insisted on staying within the Mosaic system after hearing the message of the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood only proved that he was one who had already distorted the true intent of the Law. His “righteousness” under the Law was self-made and ultimately worthless. And so the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant would seem to be in doubt once more. Will it be impossible in the end for the kingdom of God to come on earth? Will the creation blessing be extinguished?
Enter: The Church.
We have already seen that from the very beginning, the purpose of Israel’s land, seed, and blessing was to bring about the blessing of all the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:1-3; cf. Rev. 5:9; 7:9-10).
Isaiah 2:2-3 (cf. 11:10) – Now it will come about that in the last days the mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may
Greene 11
teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.”
However, the fulfillment of this universal blessing was almost always envisioned within the context of the Jew-Gentile distinction. In other words, ethnic and believing Israel is still the nucleus of the people of God, and those Gentiles who wish to be part of the people of God must proselytize or “covert” to Judaism (Mosaic Law, Temple worship, sacrificial system, etc. – Ezek. 40-48; Zech. 14). The only possible OT exception to this rule is found in Isaiah 19:23-25:
Isaiah 19:23-25 – In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”
Here Assyria is called “the work of My hands” and Egypt is called “My people,” both of which are phrases that God uses to describe His covenant people Israel (Is. 29:22-23; 45:11; 60:21; Ex. 3:10; 5:1; 7:4; 12:31)! Perhaps Jesus had this passage in mind on the day that He said this very… very strange thing: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd” (Jn. 10:16). Jesus was saying that one day Jews and Gentiles would actually become one flock. This was an entirely new thing… never revealed in the Old Testament. After stating that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (cf. Rom. 3:22; 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 3:11) Paul goes on to say that “if [we] belong to Christ, then [we] are Abraham’s seed” (Gal. 3:28-29; cf. Rom. 4:13-17; Gal. 4:21-31).
Romans 4:16 – For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.
Romans 2:28-29 – For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
Philippians 3:3 – For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.
Colossians 2:11 – And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;Galatians 6:15-16 – For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.
And exactly what is the significance of being Abraham’s seed? Paul answers very simply in Galatians 3:29… we are “heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:19). In other words, if by faith we are of Abraham’s seed, then we can also look to inherit the land (now all the earth) and partake in Abraham’s blessing! We are now heirs with Israel of God’s kingdom on earth. This is that great mystery that even the OT prophets never fully understood.
Greene 12
Ephesians 3:1-6 – For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1 Peter 2:9-10 – But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.
Ephesians 2:11-19 – Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY [Gentiles], AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR [Jews]; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.
We see then that according to Paul we are now part of the “commonwealth of Israel,” we are now “fellow heirs” with Israel of the covenants of promise, we are now “fellow citizens” with Israel, and are of God’s household – all because of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. This is the CHURCH, the New Covenant community, the seamless continuation of the people of God from the Old Testament. Since the church is made up of Abraham’s seed (believing Jews and Gentiles in one body), the members of that church can now look to inherit the land (all the earth) as citizens of God’s coming kingdom on earth. And, of course, since Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT Law, sacrificial system, and temple worship (markers of the Old Covenant and of Jewish distinctiveness), these OT types and shadows have now given way to the greater reality and fulfillment in which the church (Jews and Gentiles in one body) now participates (more on this in Part II).
Hebrews 12:22-24, 28 – But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem… and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant… Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe.
We have come to the very city that Abraham was looking for (Heb. 11:8-10, 13-16)! We have
Greene 13
come to the substance of which earthly Canaan was the mere shadow! The writer of Hebrews says that “All these [the OT saints from Abraham to Malachi]… did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us [members of the New Covenant community] they [members of the Old Covenant community] would not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:39-40). Remember that in the book of Hebrews, the heavenly “city” is representative of the “heavenly country” (Heb. 11:13-16). So to inherit this city and country is to inherit the land, indeed, it is to inherit all the earth as the chosen seed of Abraham (Mat. 5:5).
Ephesians 6:1-3 – Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH.
2 Peter 3:13 – But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
Revelation 21:1-4 – Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”
In these verses, then, we see the final and ultimate realization of the Abrahamic Covenant: One land, one seed, and one blessing for all – the eternal kingdom of God on earth.
Postscript
But what about ethnic Israel? Is God through with the Jewish people? Do they no longer have any special place in God’s plan? May it never be (Rom. 11:1)! God is using the temporary unbelief of the Jews to open a door of faith to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:33-43; Rom. 11:25). But the very fact that there is still a remnant of “Christian Jews” today is sufficient evidence of the fact that God has not rejected the Jewish people (Rom. 11:1-6). Furthermore, God has determined that one day the nation of Israel as a whole will turn to Jesus Christ and enter into their own… into the New Covenant community (the Church) that was originally promised to Israel in the first place (Jer. 31:33-34; Luke 22:20; Heb. 8:6-13; 9:13-16; 12:22-24). And so all (ethnic) Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:22-27; cf. Jer. 31:33-34).
We Gentiles must remember that we have not stolen Israel’s blessings. God has not replaced the Jews with us. God has simply let us in to the commonwealth of Israel. To use Paul’s analogy (Rom. 11:17-24), the natural branches (Israel) have been broken off of the olive tree and wild branches (Gentiles) have been grafted contrary to nature into the cultivated olive tree. Nevertheless, the Gentiles must not become arrogant and conceited, because they are supported by the Jewish root of the tree (the Jewish covenants)! And if God can graft wild branches in, then He can certainly graft the natural branches back into their own tree. Indeed, it is only after all of the branches (Jews and Gentiles) have been grafted into the one olive tree that God will finally bring about the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Covenant theology is
Greene 14
certainly not “replacement theology!” It is “fulfillment theology.” Believing Jews and Gentiles together in the church as the Israel of God (one seed; Gal. 6:15-16) will live forever in the new earth and the New Jerusalem (one land) and so the kingdom of God will be established on this earth forever, and ever, and ever. AMEN (Gal. 4:24-31; Heb. 12:18-24; Rev. 21-22).
Greene 15
Part II – A Scriptural Refutation of Dispensational Theology
In Part I, we concluded that the Gentiles have been “let in” to Israel’s covenants and that all those Gentiles who are in Christ are now the seed of Abraham, fellow heirs with Israel, part of the commonwealth of Israel, etc. Indeed, believing Jews and Gentiles are now one flock with one shepherd (one people of God in the church) and together they look to inherit the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises (the kingdom of God on earth). This is the classical and historic position of the church.
However, especially popular today in America and England is a system of theology called Dispensationalism. Dispensational theology (DT) sees in the Bible two separate peoples of God, totally and forever distinct. Further, God is even said to have two separate plans, programs, or purposes for these two separate peoples.
In the OT the people of God were clearly (believing) ethnic Israel and all Gentiles who converted to Judaism (circumcision, law, temple, sacrifice, priesthood, etc.). The ethnic divide was real and active. The Abrahamic Covenant was made with Israel (Abraham) and according to DT, Gentiles will NEVER be heirs of this covenant equally with Israel. This was Israel’s covenant and ONLY Israel’s covenant (contrary to our conclusions in Part I).
In the NT, ethnic Israel is temporarily set aside as the people of God and God begins an entirely new, separate and unrelated work called the church in which there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Instead, they are members together in one body (1 Cor. 12:13). But what about God’s promises to the Old Testament people of God (Israel)? When you erase the distinction between Jew and Gentile it seems that the Abrahamic Covenant can never be fulfilled because for the Dispensationalist, it can only be fulfilled when the distinction between Jew and Gentile is maintained. In order to resolve this dilemma, the Dispensationalist teaches two yet future comings of our Lord or two stages to the one coming (note the word “coming” in 1 Thess. 4:15).† The first stage (coming) is said to be the pre-trib rapture. When God is done with “project church” He will come and take the church out of the world while leaving everyone else. After the church is removed, well, there will be no more church on earth (Jew and Gentile in one body) and so once again an essential distinction will obtain between Jew and Gentile throughout the period of the Tribulation and Millennium. With the New Testament people of God gone, God will be free to resume His unfinished work with His Old Testament people. Consider the following quotes from dispensational writers:
“By the removal of the Church before this period [tribulation] begins, the human representation on the earth is again reduced simply to Jews and Gentiles” (Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology; Eschatology. Vol. 4, p. 383).
“It seems that the church as the Body of Christ is out of the picture, and saints who come to know the Lord in this period are described as saved Israelites or saved Gentiles, never by
† Dispensationalists don’t want to acknowledge two future “comings” but rather a “rapture” and a “coming.” This terminology helps to create the impression of two separate events. However, in the passage referenced here, the “coming” and the “rapture” occur at one and the same time! Indeed, the “rapture” (caught up) happens at the coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Paul doesn’t feel the need to differentiate which coming because there is only one)! A simple, straightforward reading of the Scripture will simply not support two future comings (See Part III).
Greene 16
terms which are characteristic of the church, the Body of Christ. Saints mentioned from this point on do not lose their racial background as is commonly done in referring to the church where Jew and Gentile are one in Christ” (Walvoord, John. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. p. 103).
We see that according to Dispensationalism, there is coming a day when Jewish and Gentile believers will no longer be one in Christ. Indeed, while most dispensationalists may not be willing to go this far, I believe that E.W. Bullinger clearly states the only logical and consistent conclusion of the Dispensational system. With regard to Revelation 11:2, he writes:
During this present Dispensation Jews and Gentiles stand on the same level. There is “no difference” (Rom. 3:22; both are equally sinners before God, and both need the same Saviour. The Church of God cannot be here, for in Col. 3:11 we are distinctly told that now there is “neither Greek (i.e., Gentile) nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarism, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all and in all.” But here (in chap. 11) the Jews are again in remembrance for the father’s sake, and the Gentiles are put back to the place which they occupied in the former Dispensation. This measurement of the Temple, etc., is the formal acknowledgment of the Jew again, and the re-grafting him on his own olive-tree; and it is the formal putting back of the Gentiles from the privilege and position which they hold under the present Dispensation. The “middle wall of partition,” which is now “broken down” (Eph. 2:14), is to be built up, and this measurement is the proof of it (Commentary on Revelation, 350-51).
But to say that the “middle wall of partition” which is now “broken down” in the New Covenant community (the Church) because of the shed blood of Jesus… to say that this wall will be built back up again is nothing less than appalling (if this is not self-evident, I will seek to provide sufficient Scriptural proof below). Perhaps some Dispensationalists will disagree with Bullinger and say that the wall really is not built back up again – we are simply returning to the Jew-Gentile distinctions. But to say that “Jew-Gentile distinctions” and a “middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles” are two different things is not only illogical, it is simply not consistent with the text of Scripture. Will the Dispensationalist argue that in the future revival of Jew-Gentile distinctions, Gentiles will no longer need to “convert” to the Jewish system of worship in order to demonstrate their faith in God? If so, then he cannot maintain a consistent dispensational hermeneutic. To give just one example, Zechariah says of those days after the return of Yahweh to rule on the earth:
Zechariah 14:16, 18-19 – Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.
For the nations to go up to Jerusalem can only mean that they are going up to observe the appointed feasts and to offer sacrifices under the officiating Levitical Priests, for according to the Dispensational hermeneutic, Ezekiel is clear that this will one day be the required system for any
Greene 17
acceptable worship of God (40-48; cf. 43:27; see below). In summary, it is Scripturally unthinkable that there can be a Jew-Gentile distinction where the Gentiles are not required to become as the Jews if they would be part of God’s people (Ezekiel 44:9). Regardless of one’s position on this matter, we will see below than any future revival of the Jew-Gentile distinction is fraught with both exegetical and theological problems.
In Part I, we saw that the New Covenant was first of all Israel’s covenant (Jer. 31:33-40) and that all of its blessings and benefits have now been extended to Gentile believers (Luke 22:19-20; Heb. 9:15). But how can project Israel and project Church partake equally of the same covenant? Indeed, for the Dispensationalist, this would seem to blur the distinctions between these two separate peoples. To avoid this problem and maintain their system, some dispensationalists teach two New Covenants. When Chafer writes of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, he says:
“Reference at this point is to the new covenant yet to be made with Israel and not to the new covenant now in force in the Church” (Systematic Theology; Vol. 5, 325).
“There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people,‡ which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a ‘new covenant.’ It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, 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” (Systematic Theology; Vol. 7, 98-99).
But just because Israel’s full entrance into the blessings of the New Covenant is yet future (Rom. 11:25-27) doesn’t in any way mean that it is an entirely different New Covenant than the New Covenant that the church partakes of (Luke 22:20; Heb. 8:6-13; 9:13-16; 12:22-24)! This is forcing Scripture to conform to a system versus submitting our systems to the authority of Scripture. Chafer writes: “If note is taken of the four blessings which this covenant promises, it will be seen that these—and vastly more—are the present possession of those who comprise the Church” (Systematic Theology; Vol. 5, 325). Of course, this “similarity” can simply be attributed to the fact that there is only one New Covenant and that the vast scope of this covenant was not fully revealed in the Old Testament. Robert Saucy (cf. Schofield) recognizes (contrary to Chafer) that Israel and the Church partake of the same Covenant (there is only one new covenant), but then he argues that Israel and the Church partake of the same covenants (Abrahamic and New) in different ways so that it is not necessary to say that “the church is fulfilling Israel’s prophecy in her place” (The Church in God’s Program; 78).
Of course, even the Covenantalist would not say that the church is fulfilling Israel’s prophecy in her place (“replacement theology” is truly an egregious misnomer originating with Dispensational writers). Indeed, this would fail to acknowledge the fact that even in the Old Testament there was an Israel within an Israel – there was a believing and true Israel (including ‡ We see that for Chafer, another difference between the two peoples of God is that one is heavenly and the other is earthly. One could easily conclude from this that one people of God is superior and the other is inferior. We remember, however, that even the founder of the so-called “earthly” people was himself looking for a “heavenly” city and country (Heb. 11:8-10, 13-16). On the other hand, the so-called “heavenly” people are looking for an earthly inheritance (2 Pet. 3:13).
Greene 18
some Gentile proselytes!) within ethnic Israel (Rom. 2). Ultimately, the Old Testament covenants could only be the birthright of this true Israel. Or… only the true Israel of the Old Testament could legitimately inherit the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Psalm 37:9, 11, 18, 22, 29, 34 – For evildoers will be cut off, but those who wait for the LORD, they will inherit the land… But the humble will inherit the land and will delight themselves in abundant prosperity… The LORD knows the days of the blameless, and their inheritance will be forever… For those blessed by Him will inherit the land, but those cursed by Him will be cut off… The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever… Wait for the LORD and keep His way, and He will exalt you to inherit the land; when the wicked are cut off, you will see it.
So as we saw in Part I, the church does not fulfill Israel’s prophecy in her place… rather, the Church is believing Jews and believing Gentiles (the continuation of the true Israel of the Old Testament). Again, Ephesians chapter two (and the entire New Testament) is very clear about the fact that in the church, Gentiles become part of the commonwealth of Israel and partakers of Israel’s covenants (there are no qualifications or limitations here). In other words, believing Gentiles become one with believing Jews (true Israel) in the church (true Israel) so that along with these believing Jews they might partake in the fulfillment of the covenants of promise (Gal. 3:29; Heb. 9:15).
As we have already hinted at above, perhaps of the greatest significance is the nature of this (supposed) renewed distinction between Jews and Gentiles (made possible by the pre-trib rapture). In a word, the result of this renewed distinction is that Israel’s temple will be rebuilt, the atoning animal sacrifices will be reinstituted (though the sacrifices are supposed to be only memorial in nature instead of atoning), the Levitical priesthood reinstated, the OT festivals, feasts, and Sabbaths re-inaugurated, and the covenant sign of circumcision revived. The Gentile nations will once again be dependent upon Israel for the true worship of God (Zech. 14:16-21). After all, if it weren’t for these things, how could we maintain any real distinctions between Jews and Gentiles?
This view is said to be based on a “literal interpretation” of OT prophecies. We will see however, that what it fails to recognize is the fact that Jesus has fulfilled the OT types and shadows and so the OT prophecies will be fulfilled not with the types and shadows, but with the greater and more perfect realities to which they had always pointed. To be consistent, anyone who believes in two separate peoples of God (and therefore a pre-trib rapture) must also believe that one day the temple worship, sacrificial system, Levitical Priesthood, etc., will be reinstituted by God. We might expect this teaching from Judaism, but not from Christianity. Indeed, we will demonstrate that the foundation for the pre-trib rapture (a consistent system of dispensationalism) is one that undermines the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Having said these things, let us take a closer look at the requirements of any consistent system of Dispensationalism and how these requirements meet with the unqualified censure of the New Testament.
Rebuilt Temple
Greene 19
In Ezekiel 40-48, the prophet (Ezekiel) was transported to a very high mountain. On this mountain to the south was a structure like a city (40:2), and the most important element of this city was the Temple complex (40:5)! As the vision progresses, Ezekiel is informed in great detail of the dimensions and measurements of this temple, and it quickly becomes apparent to us that the temple of Ezekiel’s vision has never been built. Therefore, according to the Dispensationalist there must come a day in the future when God will once again take up His dwelling place in Israel’s earthly temple (43:1-5). Indeed, because of his “literal hermeneutic” the dispensationalist must believe that God will dwell in this earthly temple FOREVER:
Ezekiel 43:7 – Son of man, this [temple] is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever.
However, when the Apostle John is likewise translated to a great and high mountain where he sees the holy city, Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God (Rev. 21:10), we are told that “there is no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (Rev. 21:22). Of course there is no temple in it! The earthly temple of the Old Covenant has been superceded and replaced by the heavenly tabernacle. The fleeting shadows have given way to the enduring realities. The types have given way to fulfillment (“Fulfillment Theology” versus “Replacement Theology”).
Hebrews 8:1-6 – Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.” But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
Hebrews 9:1-12 – Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of
Greene 20
reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 9:23-24 – Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.
If we are to take our cue from the writer of Hebrews, we will say that the heavenly tabernacle (substance/“true one”) is the literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s earthly temple (“copy/shadow”), just as the heavenly country (substance) is the literal fulfillment of the Old Testament Promised Land (shadow) and the heavenly Jerusalem (substance) is the literal fulfillment of the earthly Jerusalem (shadow; Gal. 4:21-31). We must remember that the heavenly tabernacle is much more real than the earthly copy! According to Hebrews, the earthly temple has always been a “symbol” of the “greater and more perfect tabernacle.” To insist on any other “literal” fulfillment of Ezekiel is to insist on regressing from the superior to the inferior, from the realities to the shadow-land. For the writer of Hebrews, it is ultimately to desecrate and trample upon the work that our Lord and Savior accomplished through His own shed blood. It is better to insist upon a Scriptural hermeneutic (what the Reformers called the “analogy of Scripture”) than a so-called “literal” hermeneutic that fails to see the substance as the literal fulfillment of the shadows.
Reinstituted Sacrificial System
Returning to Ezekiel, it is self-evident that a rebuilt earthly temple must be accompanied by a reinstituted sacrificial system – and this is exactly what Ezekiel describes (43:13-27; 46:1-24). According to the Dispensationalist, then, when the future temple is rebuilt the bloody sacrifices that belonged to the Old Covenant will resume. However, to avoid the natural charge of apostasy from the New Covenant faith, most Dispensationalists then insist that these sacrifices are only memorial in nature – much like the Lord’s Supper is today.
In response, we can observe first of all that a consistent Dispensational hermeneutic will not allow such a distinction. Ezekiel 44:15 speaks of “offering” God “the fat and the blood.” In light of the once for all offering of the body of Jesus (Heb. 10:10), any future return to this kind of language is simply incomprehensible. Ezekiel speaks of burnt offerings, sin offerings, and peace offering (43:18-27). The Dispensational hermeneutic cannot stay consistent and still turn “sin offerings” into “memorial offerings” (Lev. 4). For the Dispensationalist, “sin offerings” must “literally” be “sin offerings!” The text of Ezekiel clearly states that God will “accept” the people only as they are careful to offer the bloody animal sacrifices (43:27). Similarly, God says in Leviticus 1:3 – “If his offering is a burnt offering… he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD.” Of course, in the age of the New Covenant, it is inconceivable that anyone should ever look for Divine acceptance based on animal sacrifices. Ezekiel 45:13-17 explicitly says that the bloody sacrifices will make atonement for the people. This is identical with the purpose of the sacrifices in Leviticus (Lev. 16). It is simply not possible to say that the sacrifices in Ezekiel are memorial in nature or that
Greene 21
they have any different character or purpose than the sacrifices in Leviticus. A consistent Dispensational hermeneutic must believe that there is coming a day when animal sacrifices will once again make atonement for the sins of the people.
Secondly, we must acknowledge that the comparison with the Lord’s Supper as a memorial is fundamentally flawed. The Reformers’ dispute with the Roman Catholic Church over the Lord’s Supper centered around the appalling doctrine of Transubstantiation – namely, the idea that the elements actually become the very body and blood of Jesus, thus turning the Lord’s Supper into a bloody sacrifice… which it obviously cannot be (Heb. 7:26-27; 9:11-12; 10:10)! In the same way, since animal sacrifices are always bloody they can never be compared to the Lord’s Supper as a memorial. So how would a “Scriptural hermeneutic” approach the bloody animal sacrifices of Ezekiel? Once again, we turn to the book of Hebrews:
Hebrews 10:1-25 – For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED , BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE . THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.’” After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, “THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,” He then says, “AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
According to the book of Hebrews, the once for all bloody sacrifice of Jesus (“very form”) is the literal fulfillment of the bloody animal sacrifices of Ezekiel (“shadow”). If “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Hebrews) then there can no longer be any “sin offerings” (Ezekiel). If God no longer desires sacrifices and offerings and if He no longer takes any pleasure in burnt
Greene 22
offerings and sacrifices for sin, then there can no longer be burnt offerings and sin offerings (Ezekiel). If the first (bloody animal sacrifices) have been “taken away” and replaced by the second (the once for all sacrifice of Jesus), we must not think that one day the first will again exist alongside the second. If the sacrifice of Jesus has “perfected for all time those who are sanctified,” it is nonsensical to say that animal sacrifices will once again aid in making anyone “acceptable” to God. Such an idea would make the entire book of Hebrews a mere joke at best. Indeed, to insist upon a future return to bloody animal sacrifices is ultimately to desecrate the cross of Jesus Christ. Once again, the bloody animal sacrifices of Ezekiel are literally fulfilled in the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is a truly Scriptural hermeneutic.
Reinstated Levitical Priesthood
Returning yet again to Ezekiel, it is obvious that the reinstitution of bloody animal sacrifices must be accompanied by a reinstating of the Levitical priesthood. But why is this so obvious? Can anyone possibly conceive of our great High Priest, who has offered His own body once for all, officiating over the slaughter of animal sacrifices and the offering of these dead bodies to God? Indeed not! Therefore, a return to the old system of sacrifice must also mean a return to the old priesthood. And once again, this is exactly what Ezekiel describes (44:15-31). But as before, we are compelled to ask what a “literal” fulfillment of this portrait in Ezekiel will look like according to a Scriptural hermeneutic. We need only turn again to the book of Hebrews:
Hebrews 7:11-28 – Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of Him, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, “THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, ‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’ ”); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the
Greene 23
word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.
After reading this passage, it can only be crystal clear that the Levitical Priesthood of Ezekiel (shadow) is literally fulfilled (yes, even superceded) by the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ, which is according to the order of Melchizedek. The priesthood of Jesus is not just something new and different, so that it is an easy thing to bring back in the former priesthood. No, the priesthood of Jesus is the fulfillment of the Levitical priesthood! The former priesthood has been “set aside” (permanently) because of its “weakness and uselessness.” The High Priest who is “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” and possessing an “indestructable life” will never co-exist with a Levitical Priesthood that is earthly and staffed with dying sinners. The former priests had to offer up daily animal sacrifices (those in Ezekiel), but Jesus has offered up Himself once for all (Hebrews). A literal hermeneutic that accords with Scripture stands in irreconsilable opposition to the “literal hermeneutic” of Dispensationalism – a hermeneutic that dillutes the superior with the inferior and the “better hope” with the “weak and useless.” Let us never forget that “we have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (Heb. 13:10). For the writer of Hebrews, any kind of future return to the Levitical Priesthood would have been understood as a direct assault upon the person of Jesus Christ – our great High Priest who is “exalted above the heavens.”
The “Reinauguration” of the OT Festivals, Feasts, and Sabbaths
A return to an earthly temple, bloody animal sacrifices, and the Levitical Priesthood can only mean the “reinauguration” of the OT festivals, Feasts, and Sabbaths. Why? Because all of these ingredients of the Old Covenant came as a package deal. So we are not surprised to find that Ezekiel also describes the obligatory observance of appointed feasts and festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths (45:17-46:15). But what really is the literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s vision? For the Dispensationalist, once the church is removed from the earth and ethnic Israel once again constitutes the people of God, it will only be natural for Israel to embrace the old forms of worship and ceremony. And why not… if the church has no relationship with (believing) Israel? Paul tells us why not:
Colossians 2:16-17 – Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
If there was no relationship between the New Covenant community and the Old Covenant community, then Paul’s talk about the festivals, new moons, and Sabbath days giving way to the substance that belongs to Christ would be complete nonsense and the whole force of his argument would be lost. According to Paul’s logic, however, the festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths of Ezekiel (“shadow”) are literally fulfilled in Christ (the “substance”). Therefore, it is impossible for a future day to come when the observance of these days will be a binding obligation upon God’s people – whether Jewish or Gentile (Ezekiel 45:21; 46:3; 6, 13; Zech. 14:16-19). For Paul, to return to the shadows (at any time) would be nothing less than a flagrant rejection of Jesus Christ.
The Revival of Circumcision
Greene 24
Remember, the Old Covenant was a package deal. And absolutely essential to the Old Covenant was the covenant sign of circumcision. Therefore, if the Dispensationalist is to remain faithful to his hermeneutic, he must teach that in a future day, circumcision will once again be binding upon the people of God – whether Jews or those Gentiles who wish to convert to Judaism (Jewish “Christianity?”).
Ezekiel 44:9 – Thus says the Lord GOD, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary.”
From this verse, we may conclude two things. First of all (following a dispensationalist hermeneutic), a day is yet coming when God will require the sons of Israel to practice circumcision (both of flesh and of heart) if they would be His people. And second, if any foreigner would desire to be a part of God’s people and enter into Israel’s future temple, then he also must be circumcised both in flesh and in heart (cf. Ex. 12:43-49; Zech. 14:20-21). But if we were to follow a Scriptural hermeneutic, what then would the “literal” fulfillment of this part of Ezekiel’s vision look like? Perhaps the New Testament could shed some light:
Philippians 3:3 – For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.
Colossians 2:11 – And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.
Galatians 6:15-16 – For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.
Galatians 5:6 (cf. 1 Cor. 7:18-19) – For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
The Old Covenant sign of circumcision (shadow) is literally fulfilled in the New Covenant “circumcision of Christ” (reality / “true circumcision” / “made without hands”). In the Old Covenant, God required that circumcision of flesh and circumcision of heart exist side by side. In the New Covenant we find that by its very nature the true circumcision of the heart both fulfills and replaces (forever) the fleshly sign of the Old Covenant. For those who are “in Christ,” no longer does circumcision in the flesh mean anything at all, but rather a “new creation,” and “faith working through love.” To say that in some future day, fleshly circumcision will once again be binding upon the people of God is to say that one day God’s people will be “outside” of Christ (Gal. 5:6), and so Christ Himself will be of no benefit at all to the people of God. But to say this would be nothing less than blasphemy.
Galatians 5:1-2 – It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
Galatians 2:3-5 – But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us
Greene 25
into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
The Mosaic Law all over again
From all that we have seen, we can only conclude that according to a Dispensational hermeneutic, there is coming a future day when the people of God will once again be obligated to observe the entirety of the Mosaic Law. This is clearly necessary because “earthly temple” + “bloody animal sacrifices” + “Levitical Priesthood” + “appointed feasts and Sabbaths” + “circumcision” can only equal “Mosaic Law.”
Acts 15:5 – But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
Galatians 5:3 – And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
To say that a return to the Mosaic Law would be contradictory to the teaching of the entire New Testament would be a very severe understatement indeed!
In spite of all of the above, it is not at all uncommon for the Dispensationalist to observe with evident approval that the Red Heifer has been re-discovered (cf. Num. 19:2), the temple vessels and furniture are being prepared in Israel and kept in readiness, etc., etc., etc. The orthodox Jews are indeed anxious to see the full revival of their religion. However, we should not look at these developments with approval, but with sadness, for they reflect the continued hardening of the Jewish heart (Rom. 11:25) – a hardening that results ultimately in eternal damnation (unless, of course, these Jews should happen to live past the pre-trib rapture, when such pursuits will no longer reflect a hardened heart that is destined for Hell?) The Jews continue to insist on the shadows, instead of embracing the heavenly realities and the substance that belongs to Christ.
It is also clear from all that we have seen that the Covenantalist can recognize and affirm the (dispensational) differences between the New Covenant and Old Covenant communities without being a “Dispensationalist.” But even while he recognizes these differences, he can also affirm the essential unity and continuity between the New Covenant and Old Covenant communities. It is this recognition of unity/continuity that enables the Covenantalist to see the Old Covenant documents as a part of his own spiritual heritage. For the Dispensationalist, however, the Old Testament must essentially be Israel’s Bible (though it is still of some application to the church), while the New Testament is essentially the Church’s Bible. Two separate peoples of God (with two separate Divine plans for these two separate peoples) results for all practical purposes in two separate Bibles for these two separate peoples. The sad result is that much of the Church has been effectively “robbed” of half of its Bible.
To sum up our treatment of Ezekiel thus far, I also interpret Ezekiel literally in so far as I believe that Ezekiel literally saw exactly what he has described to us. However I also believe that the better and heavenly realities of the New Covenant are the literal fulfillment of the Old Covenant shadows in Ezekiel. For this reason, Covenant Theology is rightly called “Fulfillment Theology” (versus “Replacement Theology”). The Dispensationalist, however, cannot
Greene 26
consistently view the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old, for otherwise there could be no possible excuse to go back to the Old – in any way, shape, or form (Hebrews). I believe that the hermeneutic we have used in our approach to Ezekiel is the only kind of “literal hermeneutic” that can also be called a “Scriptural hermeneutic.” With this Scriptural hermeneutic, we may then rightly read and interpret the rest of the Old Covenant documents. This hermeneutic is not allegorical (otherwise the writer of Hebrews is guilty of the most blatant kind of allegorizing), nor does it leave the interpreter to every passing whim and fancy. In fact, I would make so bold as to suggest that I have been much more faithful in my (“literal”) exegesis of Ezekiel than any Dispensationalist can afford to be. The Scriptural hermeneutic that I have described (the same hermeneutic that was used by Paul and the writer of Hebrews) must be applied always with the utmost care and faithful exegesis… in a way that honors the text of Scripture as the inspired, authoritative, and infallible word of God. We must not start with a preconceived idea of “literal interpretation” and then force this hermeneutic on the text when the text simply will not support it. Instead, we must discover the hermeneutic that the Scriptures claim for themselves. Only in this way can we truly submit ourselves to the authority of God’s Holy Word.
But someone may still object: If the shadows and types are fulfilled with the substance and realities, then why didn’t the prophets just say so? And why on earth would Ezekiel go to such great lengths in describing the temple and temple worship in his vision if these shadows were going to be permanently replaced with the heavenly realities? These questions are really a reflection of just how far removed we are from the Jewish mindset and culture. First of all, we need to remember that most of the realities of the New Covenant were still very much a mystery to the Israelites of the Old Testament, and even to the prophets themselves (Eph. 3:1-6; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; Gal. 3:23)! When the New Covenant realities are not yet revealed, one can only speak of these realities in terms of the Old Covenant copies. According to God’s sovereign design, it simply would not have been possible for the prophets to speak in clear terms of New Covenant fulfillment.
Second of all, we must remember that the Old Testament Jew would readily and fully identify only with these “typical” pictures of future covenant renewal and restoration. To fully describe the New Covenant future to the Old Covenant Jew would have been self-defeating at best and suicidal at worst. How could the Jew under the Old Covenant possible conceive of a day when the very fabric of his universe (law, temple, sacrifice, priesthood, Sabbath, appointed festival, circumcision, etc.) would be set aside and replaced (fulfilled) with something else? It was hard enough for the Apostles to grasp these concepts even after spending three years under the private instruction of the New Covenant Mediator (Acts 10 &15)! We should not at all be surprised that the prophets would describe New Covenant realities in terms of perfect adherence to, or idealized portraits of, the Old Covenant types and shadows. In fact, we should have been surprised only if we had found that it was any other way.
But again, why such incredible detail in Ezekiel? And again, this question continues to reflect the fact that we are not Old Covenant Jews. Consider the following excerpts from Ezekiel’s temple vision (cf. Ezek. 45:7-10; 46:18):
Ezekiel 43:10-11 – As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan. If they are
Greene 27
ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes and do them.
Ezekiel 44:5-7 – Son of man, mark well, see with your eyes and hear with your ears all that I say to you concerning all the statutes of the house of the LORD and concerning all its laws; and mark well the entrance of the house, with all exits of the sanctuary. You shall say to the rebellious ones, to the house of Israel, “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Enough of all your abominations, O house of Israel, when you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to profane it, even My house, when you offered My food, the fat and the blood; for they made My covenant void…’”
Apparently, the careful measurements and the detailed description of the temple’s design, structure, exits, entrances, etc. was intended to provoke in the Israel of Ezekiel’s day a shame that would lead to genuine repentance. This approach is certainly quite foreign to us, and yet it made absolutely perfect sense in Ezekiel’s day! The description of Ezekiel’s temple vision was not just about the future. In fact, it was primarily about the present. The physical measurements were intended to bring about moral and spiritual results. Additionally (as already stated above), for the Old Covenant Jew, this idealized and highly detailed portrait of the temple worship would have been one of the best possible ways to describe the future glories of the New Covenant realities while still living in the Old Covenant era of shadows and types (it was certainly an appropriate method for Ezekiel, the priest – Ezek. 1:3).
Finally, there are hints that even the Old Covenant Jews would have recognized that Ezekiel’s temple vision was an idealized portrait and that they were never intended to pursue its “literal” fulfillment (Dispensationally speaking). First of all, God clearly expected a repentant Israel to “observe [the temple’s] whole design and all its statutes and do them” (43:11). It is clear that God expected them to “observe” and “do them” – right now! So why, when Israel returned to the land, did they make no attempt to rebuild the temple according to Ezekiel’s blueprint? Even more significantly, why did God not hold Israel responsible for failing to build the temple according to the vision that Ezekiel had related to them? The answer is that even though Israel did not build the temple according to Ezekiel’s specifications, they could still build it in accordance with the “spirit” of Ezekiel’s temple. They could still “observe” and “do” all of the design, statutes, and laws of Ezekiel’s temple. Indeed, if they didn’t, God would undoubtedly hold them responsible for such willful rebellion.
Furthermore, it is doubtful that the Jew would have applied a “dispensationalist hermeneutic” to Ezekiel’s description of water flowing from under the threshold of the temple and then gradually becoming a river that makes the waters of the Dead Sea become fresh (Ezek. 47:1-12)… and it is certain that we should not! Observe that on either side of Ezekiel’s river are all kinds of trees, the fruit of which is for food and the leaves of which are for healing. Then observe that in John’s city there is also a river that flows from the throne of God with the tree of life growing on either side bearing twelve kinds of fruit, the leaves of which are for the healing of the nations (Rev. 22:1-2). But, of course, John’s river cannot be flowing from the temple because there is no temple… while Ezekiel’s river is said to be flowing from a temple that will last forever. (Notice also that according to John, the heavenly city appears at the same time as the new heaven and the
Greene 28
new earth – an earth in which there is no longer any sea [Rev. 21:1-2]. But Ezekiel’s river is said to flow into the Sea [Ezek. 47:8]!) The “dispensationalist hermeneutic” forces a contradiction where a “Scriptural hermeneutic” sees none at all.
Finally, the measurements and blueprints of Ezekiel’s vision show much more evidence of being idealized than of truly being “practical” (Ezek. 45:1-6; 48:1-35). In connection with this, it is interesting that the apostle John feels at complete liberty to draw from the imagery of Ezekiel’s temple/city complex in describing the heavenly city of Jerusalem. We can observe first of all that both Ezekiel and John are transported to a high mountain in order to be shown a city or something like a city (Ezek. 40:2; Rev. 21:10). In both visions there is an angelic-like figure with a measuring rod to measure the temple and/or city (Ezek. 40:3; Rev. 21:15). Both cities have three gates on each of the four sides named for the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel (Ezek. 48:30-35; Rev. 21:12-13). Both cities are intended for the same purpose. The name of Ezekiel’s city is “The LORD is there” (Ezek. 48:35) while God says of John’s city: “the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them… and God Himself will be among them” (Rev. 21:3). Both cities have rivers flowing from the presence of God with life-giving trees growing on either side (Ezek. 47:1-12; Rev. 22:1-2).
But of course, as we have already seen, in Ezekiel’s city there is a temple that is said to last “forever”, while in John’s city there is no temple at all (Ezek. 43:1-7; Rev. 21:22). The length and width of Ezekiel’s city is 4,500 cubits, while the length and width of John’s city is 12,000 stadia. It is especially interesting to note that while there is no temple in John’s city because “the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (Rev. 21:22), the city itself is described as a perfect cube – as is the holy of holies in Solomon’s and presumably Ezekiel’s temple (Rev. 21:16; 1 Kings 6:20; Ezek. 41:4). Incidentally, in what sense is a city (not the walls?) 12,000 stadia tall? And why are the walls exactly 144 cubits? We see again that the measurements of John’s city are more symbolic and idealistic than “dispensationally literal.” The measurements literally symbolize the literal fact that this city will be the home of all the redeemed – both Jew and Gentile (SEE Rev. 7:4-8; 21:12-14; Heb. 12:22-24; Gal. 4:21-31). Indeed, one of the most significant “additions” to John’s city (cf. Ezekiel’s city) is that “the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” – and these apostles are none other than the foundation of the church (Rev. 21:14; Eph. 2:19-22; Heb. 12:22-24).
In the end, we get the distinct impression that the “city” plus “temple” of Ezekiel’s vision and the “city” minus “temple” of John’s vision are both the same… and different. John’s vision relates the New Covenant fulfillment of Ezekiel’s Old Covenant vision. The differences and similarities can all be accounted for in terms of type and antitype, shadow and substance. Indeed, from the time of Abraham even to the present day, the heavenly Jerusalem/country of John’s vision has always been the ultimate hope of every true believer.
Hebrews 11:9-10 – By faith [Abraham] lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
Greene 29
Hebrews 13:14 – For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.
So after a careful and faithful exegesis of the text of Scripture, we are not at all surprised to find that our conclusions support what the New Covenant documents already required. The literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s very literal temple vision is the heavenly city whose architect and builder is God. The literal fulfillment of every single type and shadow of Ezekiel’s vision is to be found in the substantive and “true” realities that are made manifest in the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. I think it is safe to say that if God chose to describe (believing/true) Israel’s glorious future in the language of shadow and copy, this true Israel would not have felt in the least bit slighted or deceived to find that the fulfillment of these prophecies would involve nothing less than the real thing – the master/original from which all of the copies had derived their meaning.
Greene 30
Part III – The Pre-Tribulational Rapture
In this final section we will briefly examine the grounds for a belief in the pre-tribulational rapture. In the end, it is really very simple… You cannot have two separate peoples of God on the earth at the same time when in one people of God there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile and in the other people of God there IS an essential distinction between Jew and Gentile! God cannot bring about the fulfillment of His promises to His Old Testament people when His New Testament people are still on earth. Thus a pre-tribulational rapture becomes necessary to the system of DT. Again, if there are two separate “peoples” of God, totally and forever distinct, then there must also be a pre-trib rapture. On the other hand, if there is no pre-trib rapture, then it is impossible to maintain the distinction between two separate peoples of God.
It is important to understand that for the first 18 centuries of the church, there was no such thing as “Dispensationalism” (distinguishing between two separate peoples/programs of God; cf. Parts I & II) and consequently, there was not a single person or church (to our knowledge) that ever taught a pre-trib rapture. In the 1800’s, however, a new system of doctrine arose (Dispensationalism) and this new teaching about two separate peoples of God gave rise to the brand new teaching of a pre-trib rapture. Consider the following quotes from dispensational writers:
“The distinction between Israel and the church leads to the belief that the church will be taken from the earth before the beginning of the Tribulation...” (Ryrie, Charles; Dispensationalism, 148).
“John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) gave the greatest initial impetus to the systematizing of pretribulationism. This is because he saw the church as a special work of God, distinct from His program for Israel. This, integrated into his premillennialism, led him to the position that the church would be raptured before the Tribulation period when God would again deal specially with Israel” (Ryrie, Charles; Basic Theology, 482).
“The interpretation of the Scriptures as advanced by those who teach that the Church will enter or pass through the tribulation is subject to errors which are traceable to a failure to discern dispensational distinctions…” (Lewis Sperry Chafer; Systematic Theology)
“It is safe to say that pretribulationism depends on a particular definition of the church [as a separate people of God from Israel]” (Walvoord; quoted in “Dispensationalism,” by Keith A. Mathison; p. 116).
To this day, the only people who teach a pre-trib rapture are Dispensationalists because they are the only ones who believe in two separate peoples of God. If you don’t believe in two separate peoples of God, then you cannot believe in a pre-trib rapture. It is essential to understand that the pre-trib rapture first appeared on the scene because it was required by a system of doctrine and not because people saw that it was taught in any text of Scripture! Let me put it another way: if some Christians of the 19th century had not concluded that there are two separate peoples of God and that the Gentiles are not heirs with Israel of the Abrahamic promises, then to this day, the pre-trib rapture wouldn’t even be in our church vocabulary. However, even the dispensationalist recognizes that a doctrine like the pre-trib rapture must not simply be inferred or assumed as the necessary result of a system (regardless of how true to the Scriptures that
Greene 31
system may be). Therefore, the dispensationalists of the 1800’s began looking for “proof texts” to support the prior conclusion of their system. The proof-texts are the result of the system, not the other way around. Today, however, most people are introduced to the pre-trib rapture with the proof-texts, and so the false impression is given that the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture arises from the actual text of Scripture. In light of these things, we can safely assume that at the very best, the “proof texts” will all be indirect arguments and arguments from inference. In the end, it will only be the accumulated “weight” of numerous such indirect (and at times fanciful§) arguments that will give the pre-trib rapture the appearance of biblical legitimacy.
On the one hand, we shouldn’t have to respond to the pre-trib proof texts so long as we can establish that God does not have two separate plans for two separate peoples (Parts I & II). However, since many people have been taught to believe that the pre-trib rapture is based in the text of Scripture, let us briefly examine some of these “proof-texts” – remembering that these verses were only “discovered” after the system of Dispensationalism came into being.
1. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
Dispensationalists teach that this passage cannot refer to the second coming of Jesus because it appears that Jesus doesn’t actually come all the way to earth. They also ask: “Why would we be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and then come right back down? The fact that we will meet the Lord in the air implies that we will then continue our journey into heaven and stay there for some period of time.”
First of all, no doctrine should be based on (or even inferred from) arguments like this. Second of all, we should remember that for 1800 years, the church assumed that these verses obviously referred to the second coming of Jesus to this earth. Here’s why: Paul refers to this event as “the coming of the Lord” (v. 15) and the church knew of only one
coming and only one stage in that coming for 1800 years. Paul says that God will bring with Him the dead in Christ. If we were to use dispensational
style arguments, we might ask why God brings the dead in Christ down only to have them go right back up again? The fact that God brings with Him the dead in Christ and that the Lord descends from heaven meant that the church would naturally see this as the second coming of Christ referred to in Revelation 19:11-14.
Paul says that the coming of the Lord will be accompanied with a shout, the voice of the archangel, the trumpet of God, and the resurrection of the righteous dead. Yet according to the Dispensationalist, the rapture will be “secret” and not seen by the world (16).
To sum up, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 teaches that we will meet the Lord (and His returning armies) in the air as He returns to establish His kingdom on earth.
2. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
The Dispensationalist teaches that the Thessalonians thought they had missed the rapture. Why else would they be unsettled and alarmed that the day of the Lord had come?
§ “Fanciful” is not meant to be inflammatory. I simply believe that it is the most accurate description of many dispensational arguments.
Greene 32
First of all, no doctrine should depend for its existence on an inference like this. Second of all, we should remember that for 1800 years, the church never thought that the Thessalonians were afraid they had missed being caught up to meet the Lord in the air. Here’s why: Paul treats the rapture and the coming of the Lord as one and the same event (v. 1; cf. 1
Thess. 4:13-17) and the church knew of only one coming and only one stage in that coming for 1800 years.
Even if the church had conceived of such a thing as a “secret” pre-trib rapture, it would have been impossible for the Thessalonians to think they had missed it for otherwise Paul himself would have also missed it along with every single Christian known to the Thessalonians!
To sum up, the Thessalonians were rattled because someone was telling them that they were entering into the final period of persecution and suffering. Paul responds by pointing out that this was not possible because the man of lawlessness had not yet been revealed. He goes on to remind the Thessalonians that when the Lord comes (same coming as verse 1) He will slay the man of lawlessness and judge all who believed in him. Even if the day of the Lord had come, they need not be rattled.
3. Revelation 3:10
The dispensationalist assumes that the only way God can keep us from the hour of testing is with a pre-trib rapture.
First of all, so far the pre-trib rapture is not taught in any other text of Scripture. To base such a teaching as the pre-trib rapture on this isolated verse would be completely unacceptable. Second of all, we should remember that for 1800 years, the church never imagined that this verse meant it would not have to undergo the tribulation. Here’s why: The only other time that “keep” and “from” are combined in the New Testament is in John
17:15 – I do not ask You to take them from the world, but to keep them from the evil one.” Here “keep them from” clearly refers to spiritual protection in the face of trials and temptations. In fact, Jesus specifically says that He does not ask the Father to take us from the world when such trials come. Of course, this would defeat the whole point of “testing” (Rev. 3:10; cf. James 1:2-3, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6-7; 4:12-13; Rev. 2:10; 6:9-11)!
To sum up, Revelation 3:10 does not promise an exemption from the experience of final testing, but rather the spiritual protection and enablement to endure victoriously in the hour of testing. Here, indeed, is the perseverance of the saints (Rev. 13:7-10; 14:9-13).
4. 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 5:9
The Dispensationalist says that since the church is not destined for wrath, and since in the tribulation God pours his wrath out on the earth (Rev. 6:16-17), then the church must be raptured out of the earth prior to the Tribulation.
First of all, since the teaching of the pre-trib rapture has still not been found in any other text of Scripture, it certainly ought not to be assumed from this one! Second of all, we should remember that for 1800 years, the church never thought that the truth of these verses was dependent upon a pre-trib rapture. Here’s why:
Greene 33
Even though the church will go through the Tribulation, it will not be the recipient of God’s wrath. Instead, all those who are sealed will be spared from the experience of God’s wrath (Rev. 7:2-3; 9:4; 16:2). Only those who worship the beast will drink of the wrath of God (Rev. 14:9-13; 18:4). Just as God made a distinction between the people of Israel and the Egyptians during the Ten Plagues (Ex. 8:22-23; 9:4), so He will also make a distinction between the righteous and the wicked during the Great Tribulation.
If these verses required that the church be raptured prior to the Tribulation, then they would also require that every conversion during the tribulation be accompanied by another “rapture” – unless the believers during the tribulation are destined for wrath and verses like Romans 5:1 and 8:1 no longer apply.
To sum up, we can be greatly comforted that we are not destined for the experience of God’s wrath. “We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ… There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 5:1; 8:1)! However, this does not mean that we will escape the wrath of Satan and the world (Rev. 12:11-12, 17; 13:7, 10).
5. “Immanence”
Based on passages that speak of the coming of Jesus as “at hand” or “soon” or “near” as well as passages that teach that we don’t know the day nor the hour of Christ’s coming, Dispensationalists conclude that the Bible teaches that Jesus could come back “at any moment.” But if this is true, they say, then there must also be a pre-trib coming, for the coming that is after the tribulation cannot happen “at any moment.”
First of all, the pre-trib rapture has yet to be taught or implied in any text of Scripture. Therefore, we have yet another example of basing a doctrine on inference. Second of all, we should remember that for 1800 years, the church never thought that any of these expressions required that Jesus’ coming could happen “at any moment.” Matthew 24 describes the coming of Jesus after the tribulation (29-31) and then goes on to
say that no one knows the day or the hour of His coming (36-37). “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming” (42-44). To read into this passage two separate comings is a classic example of letting a preconceived system sit in judgment on the Word of God.
John describes only one coming of Jesus in the book of Revelation and this takes place only after the final period of suffering and testing that is to come upon all the earth. Nevertheless, Jesus says that He is coming quickly (Rev. 22:7). Once again, to say that Jesus must be referring to a pre-trib coming is only possible when a human system of interpretation sits in judgment over the Word of God.
To sum up, the coming of the Lord has been a very real possibility in every generation of the church and so every generation must live in expectation of that coming. The coming of the Lord need not be “soon” or “at hand” in the sense that it could happen at any moment (the text never teaches this), but rather in the sense that it could happen in any generation. Any one of us could live to see the day of Christ’s coming and so we ought to live in readiness. The Bible simply does not teach that for the past 2000 years, Jesus could have come at any moment.
Greene 34
Dispensationalists have had 150 years to “discover” and collect numerous inferences and proof-texts to support the prior conclusion of the pre-trib rapture. It is not possible within the scope of this paper to counter each and every one – and neither is it necessary. Suffice it to say that since the pre-trib rapture is not taught in any text of Scripture and since the only reason it was ever conceived of is because of a new teaching about two separate and unrelated peoples of God, there is simply no Scriptural basis for the pre-trib doctrine. In fact, I would suggest that this doctrine is ultimately dangerous and detrimental to the church of Jesus Christ.
It would be well to ask how an unscriptural doctrine like this ever came to have such a firm foothold in the churches of England and America. (Indeed, while most Christians don’t have any idea what Dispensationalism is, they nevertheless do believe in the pre-trib rapture). The first reason is the Schofield Study Bible. This Study Bible included dispensational notes along with the text of Scripture and was the first “mass-produced” Study Bible of its kind. What people didn’t see in the Scriptures previously, they could now see with the aid of the Study Notes. (Today, the Ryrie Study Bible has taken over where Schofield left off.) The second reason the pre-trib rapture has easily become so popular is because it guarantees that we will not have to experience that final period of persecution and testing before Jesus returns.
Of course, the only people who will truly appreciate this “blessing(?)” (Mat. 5:10-12; 1 Pet. 3:14) are those who have never suffered, or don’t anticipate ever having to suffer for the sake of Christ! However, the Bible teaches that the normal lot of the Christian in this world is suffering and persecution at the hands of the world (Jn. 15:17-20; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 3:10-12). As Christians, we should expect that our lot in life will be suffering and persecution! Indeed, we should even rejoice in that suffering (James 1:2-4; Mat. 5:12) in so far as it is a sharing in the sufferings of our Lord (1 Pet. 2:21; Phil. 3:10). The pre-trib teaching undermines the biblical doctrine of Christian suffering. Multitudes in the church will be disillusioned—or worse—when they find that they have, indeed, been “left behind” (Mat. 10:28; 1 Pet. 4:19; Rev. 2:10; Jn. 16:33).
In the end, the pre-trib teaching doesn’t just undermine the biblical doctrine of Christian suffering, it very simply replaces the “blessed hope” with a fraud. We don’t look for a secret coming (invisible to the world) and an escape from earth, but for a public, conquering, and triumphant return of King Jesus to establish His everlasting rule on this earth (one seed, one land, and one blessing for all!) We don’t look for a coming that will spare us the experience of persecution, but rather for a coming that will destroy our persecutors. We must reclaim the ancient and blessed hope of the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Titus 2:11-13 – For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
Revelation 19:11-16 – And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white
Greene 35
and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 – For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
