|
Problems with Dispensationalism |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The pre-tribulation rapture doctrine is based on the doctrine of dispensationalism. John Nelson Darby developed dispensationalism in the years starting around 1830. Dispensationalists will argue that Darby’s motivation was to counter the liberalism that was developing in that day, by finding a way to deal with the friction between the Old and New Testaments in the area of covenants, prophecies, and promises, without reverting to spiritual interpretation. For example, the Old Testament readers would have understood the Davidic covenant to be fulfilled literally, in an earthly kingdom. But traditional covenant (reformation) theology says the Davidic covenant is completely fulfilled now in Christ, with his heavenly reign. Dispensationalism allows for a literal interpretation of the Davidic covenant by making strong distinctions between Israel and the Church, saying that the Davidic covenant is to be fulfilled literally, during the millennium, in Israel only. So perhaps the pre-tribulation rapture was an unexpected consequence, and not a motivation for Darby. But it is also known that a lady named Margaret McDonald, while recovering from a sickness, had a vision that suggested some Christians may be able to escape the tribulation that would come before the return of Christ. And it’s also known that Darby visited the McDonald family. Prior to 1830, Darby had believed in the traditional covenant (reformation) theology and historic interpretation of Revelation held by the Reformation. So it’s inconclusive whether or not Darby’s motivation was to find a Scriptural basis that would support the pre-tribulation rapture, or whether the pre-tribulation rapture was simply an unexpected consequence of Darby’s work. In either case, dispensationalism requires the pre-tribulation rapture to work. And the pre-tribulation rapture does not have any real Scripture backing without dispensationalism. | (NIV Revelation 1:3) Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
However, it is a noble cause to find a way to deal with the friction between the Old and New Testament in the area of covenants, prophecies, and promises, without reverting to spiritual interpretation. But instead of making a strong distinction between Israel and the Church, why not do the opposite. Make Israel be completely identical to the Church. Then, we must stop interpreting Church eschatology using the more Greek-like ideas, where everyone goes straight to heaven or hell right after death. Jewish eschatology saw Sheol (Hades) as being a place for both the righteous and the wicked. Everyone who dies waits, in Hades, for the Messianic age to come and the resurrection. This is called the New Wine System. The application of Jewish eschatology to the Church, and making the Church be equivalent to Israel, solves many major problems of Scripture that have divided the Church over the centuries. This includes Calvinism vs. Arminianism (Election vs. Free-Will). We no longer have to pretend that Scripture teaches two opposite positions, but that both are somehow true. This is solved without the use of paradoxes, or two sides of the same coin. This same eschatology interpretation also solves the problem of our loved ones, who have died having never heard or understood about the salvation of Jesus Christ. Death is not the end of the story. Again, the New Wine System assumes that Israel is the Church, and then applies Jewish eschatology to the Church. It’s the complete opposite of Dispensationalism, and yet it achieves the same noble goal of dealing with the friction between the Old Testament and New Testament in the area of covenants, prophecies, and promises, without reverting to spiritual interpretation. The details of the New Wine System, however, are beyond the scope of this article. You can order the book, New Wine for the End Times, to better understand this system, and to see how the system solves many problems of Scripture. This article does not get into the application of Jewish eschatology to the Church. That’s done in the book. However, as this article will show, there is a lot of Scriptural reason to see the Church as being Israel. Dispensationalism, by definition, is just the opposite. This article will show that by applying all the Old Testament covenants, prophecies, and promises to the Church, yet doing so with the same literal interpretation as used by dispensationalism for Israel, we can achieve this same level of harmony between the Old and New Testaments, without the use of spiritual (“or typological”) interpretation. Even dispensationalism uses some spiritual (“or typological”) interpretation with regard to the Church. This is eliminated when the Church is seen as Israel. The truth is in pre-millennialism, with the same literal interpretation of Scripture as used by dispensationalism, yet with all distinctions between the Church and Israel set aside. We must also set aside the pre-tribulation rapture, because it’s only in the distinction of Israel and the Church that the pre-tribulation rapture is arguable. Prior to 1830, no one believed in the pre-tribulation rapture. Many of the church fathers before Augustine (the ante-Nicene fathers) believed in the millennial reign of Christ (pre-millennialism). But none of them believed the rapture is before the tribulation. So the pre-tribulation rapture, as a doctrine, dates back only to Darby. If one were to adopt or reject the doctrine of dispensationalism, then one should also adopt or reject the pre-tribulation rapture. Likewise, if one were to adopt or reject the pre-tribulation rapture, one should also adopt or reject the doctrine of dispensationalism. The two go hand in glove. Each requires the other. Each will fall apart if the other is rejected. But the issues of Scripture pertaining to these two topics are quite different. Therefore I have written separate articles arguing the Scriptural problems for each of these two topics. This article is titled “Problems with Dispensationalism.” The other article is titled “Problems with the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.” |
New Wine for the End Times
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The term dispensationalism comes from the word “dispensation” (1 Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, 3:2, Colossians 1:25), in which the corresponding Greek word means the administration or stewardship (of a household or estate), specifically of a religious “economy.” These verses can be interpreted as Paul speaking about different times. According to dispensationalists, each dispensation shows different arrangements between God and mankind. Dispensationalists agree that it’s not rules of salvation that change from dispensation to dispensation. Hebrews 11 clearly teaches that people of all ages are saved by faith. Under Abraham, God’s people were told to physically circumcise themselves. Under Moses, God’s people were told they must observe certain religious festivals. But today we are told they were shadows of Christ. So no one questions that our instructions from God have changed over time. But dispensationalists believe there are different standards by which our faith is tested. And they believe there are seven such dispensations. Paul, however, only speaks of two dispensations. He speaks of the present dispensation that he saw as being given to him to present to us. I call this the Age of Grace. Dispensationalists will more often call this the Church Age. Ephesians 1:10 speaks of a future “dispensation of the fullness of times,” which is probably Christ’s millennial reign. We can also assume a past dispensation prior to the present Age of Grace. So we must remember that Scripture itself only speaks of these three dispensations. But dispensationalists extrapolate this thinking out into seven dispensations. (It’s interesting that everyone seems to agree that there are seven dispensations, but they don’t agree on exactly what the list of seven should be.) Still, for augment’s sake, we can agree to a chart of seven ages during which the revelations and instructions of God have been given. But dispensationalists say recognizing such a chart does not make one a dispensationalist. The core belief of dispensationalism is to distinguish “two purposes of God.” The pre-tribulation rapture is argued on the basis of “two purposes of God.” One purpose is said to be “heavenly” and the other “earthly.” Generally speaking, the heavenly purpose is the Church, and the earthly purpose is Israel. Only the dispensation of the Church Age is involved in the heavenly purpose. All other dispensations are of the earthly purpose. This distinct purpose for the Church Age is a “parenthesis” in God’s purposes. Each individual believer is either in the Church or in Israel. Thus each individual believer is either for the heavenly purpose or for the earthly purpose of God. Thus it’s argued that the rapture must be before the tribulation in order for God to switch purposes from the Church back to Israel. All the heavenly purposed individuals must be removed before earthly purposed believers will begin to believe in Christ. Without the pre-tribulation rapture, under this system, there would be no one left to populate the earth in the millennium. This distinction of two purposes between Israel and the Church is what makes one a dispensationalist. | (KJV 1 Corinthians 9:17) For if I do
this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel
is committed unto me.
(KJV Ephesians 1:10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. (KJV Ephesians 3:2) If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward. (KJV Colossians 1:25) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It’s important to remember that Scripture never mentions these two purposes of God. These two purposes are seen as necessary by dispensationalists in order to resolve the friction between the Old and New Testaments in the area of covenants, prophecies, and promises, without reverting to spiritual interpretation. Yet few seem to realize that the same thing can be accomplished by saying that the Church is Israel. The Church can be the recipient of the literal fulfillments of all the covenants, prophecies, and promises. Under such a system there would not be two purposes of God, because Israel and the Church would be the same. But under such a system there would not be a pre-tribulation rapture either. So it would not have the popularity that’s dispensationalism has received. Over the years since Darby, dispensationalism has come in three major flavors. From Darby forward is now known as “classical dispensationalism.” From the late 1950’s to the late 1970’s emerged what is known as “revised dispensationalism.” And then “progressive dispensationalism” emerged in the 1990’s. Classical dispensationalism teaches that the people of God’s two purposes remain eternally separate. During the millennium there is the “kingdom of heaven” here on earth, and the “kingdom of God” in heaven. After the millennium those on earth become the “kingdom of God” in the new earth. Those in heaven become the “kingdom of God” in the new heaven. Revised dispensationalism brought the two groups together after the millennium, some saying it’s to be a “kingdom of God” on earth, and others saying it’s to be a “kingdom of God” in heaven. In my opinion, after the resurrection, all of God’s people will be here on earth with Christ. And after the millennium, we will all be on the new earth. I don’t distinguish between the Church and Israel. Both classical and revised dispensationalists view the covenants similarly. All the covenants are to be fulfilled literally in Israel. But the Church only gets the covenant with Abraham and the new covenant. And for the Church they are only fulfilled spiritually (or “typologically”). Since Augustine, right up to Darby, the church has been almost exclusively amillennial. With amillennial teaching, Christians think of themselves as going to heaven eternally when they die. There is not much thought about living on earth at the resurrection. So naturally, to the amillennialists, the old covenants would seem to be about Old Testament Israel. That’s why the Bible was once divided into the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant”, which means the same as the Old Testament and the New Testament. When the old covenants are interpreted literally, there is a tendency to assume they are exclusively about Old Testament Israel. Dispensationalists put major emphasis on the “grammatical-historical” hermeneutical system. So it’s clear that the covenants must be fulfilled literally. Covenant (reformation) theology holds that Israel is the Church. Therefore, if millennialism were to be applied to covenant (reformation) theology, the covenants would be literally fulfilled in the true Church, which is true Israel. But dispensationalists must show a distinction between Israel and the Church. To show this distinction, dispensationalists say the covenants are only to be fulfilled spiritually (or “typologically”) in the Church. Therefore, classical and revised dispensationalists go against their own principles of hermeneutics and revert to a spiritual (or “typologically”) interpretation of the covenants for the Church. But if the Church were Israel, this problem would be eliminated, along with the pre-tribulation rapture. Progressive Dispensationalists Recognizing some of these problems, “progressive dispensationalism” emerged in the 1990’s. Progressive dispensationalism does not see the Church as spiritually (or “typologically”) fulfilling any of the covenants. Progressive dispensationalism believes that the covenants have not been completely fulfilled. But today, aspects of the covenants are being fulfilled. They are being partially fulfilled in the Church. When Christ returns, they are to be completely fulfilled in Israel. Thus the covenants are “progressive” in nature. And their fulfillments are “progressive” in nature. Thus the name “progressive dispensationalism.” Progressive dispensationalism is a purposeful shift back towards covenant (reformation) theology. But progressive dispensationalism still distinguishes the Church from Israel. Progressive dispensationalism does not have two purposes of God. Both Israel and the Church are together on earth during the millennium. Without the two purposes of God, there is no longer an argument for the pre-tribulation rapture. In other words, the original argument for the pre-tribulation rapture was so that God could shift back to the earthly purpose of Israel, remove all the heavenly-purposed believers, and then get some new believers in order to repopulate the millennium. Without the two purposes, we are all really one body, one faith, and one baptism. So for this I applaud progressive dispensationalists. But are progressive dispensationalists really dispensationalists? It takes more than simply acknowledging a chart of dispensations to be a dispensationalist. Perhaps they still consider themselves dispensationalists because they still distinguish the Church from Israel. Yet even this distinction is vague. Or perhaps they still consider themselves dispensationalists in order to keep in good standing with Dallas. Progressive dispensationalists tend to keep silent about the pre-tribulation rapture. They would say that it’s an optional belief. But people forget that dispensationalism was the original Scriptural argument for the pre-tribulation rapture. Now, it would seem, progressive dispensationalists want the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine to stand on it’s own. And in my opinion, it really doesn’t. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
God says that Israel is a “people called by My Name” (2 Chronicles 7:14, 6:5-6, 1 Kings 8:16, Nehemiah 1:9, Isaiah 43:7, Jeremiah 7:12, 7:30, Acts 9:15). Is this name Jehovah or Yahweh? Israel was never called by that name. They wouldn’t even say that name. Israel was called by the name Israel. Those who are God’s people are Israel. Genesis 32:22-32 tells us the story about Jacob receiving his new name Israel. Jacob wrestled with a man who is God. The man, of course, is Christ. He said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.” In each of the seven letters to the seven churches, Jesus says that those who overcome are given salvation. We overcome as we “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12) “For it is God who works in [us] to will and to act according to his good purpose.” (Philippians 2:12) God does this only with those whom God chooses. God’s chosen people are the people who overcome. The people in true Israel are a chosen people. The people in the true Church are a chosen people. “There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to one hope when you were called — one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (NIV Ephesians 4:4-6). The name Israel means, “he struggles with God.” So God’s chosen people, those who wrestle with God and with men to overcome sin, are Israel. Those who are given salvation from sin are Israel. If there is one body, one faith, and one baptism, how can there be two purposes? After Jacob wrestled with Christ, Jacob asked, “Please tell me your name.” But Christ replied, “Why do you ask my name?” The name Israel means, “he struggles with God.” We are given that name because we struggle to overcome sin. But Christ also struggles with God. He doesn’t struggle to overcome his own sin, because He has no sin. Christ struggles with God and with man to overcome our sin. Christ works in us to will and to act according to his good purpose. Christ is our mediator. He struggles along side us. He is our advocate. Christ is our High King, and He is our High Priest. As King, he is the Anointed One (Messiah). The High King and the High Priest are our representatives to God. Since Christ struggles with God on our behalf, Christ is Israel. Christ is the head (or root) of Israel. The Church is the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33). Israel is the Bride of Christ (Ezekiel 16). Thus the Church is Israel. Hosea 2:16 tells us about the future time when Israel will no longer call Christ ‘Master’, but will call him “Husband.” Revelation 21:2,9 tells us about the time after the millennium, after the new heaven and the new earth, when all who have overcome sin will be the Wife of Christ. This must include redeemed Jews and Gentiles from every age, and from every nation, tribe, people, and language. The true Bride of Christ is Israel. Christ gives His Name to his Bride. We are a people called by His Name. We are Israel. Jesus said, “I am the vine and you are the branches” (John 15:1-5). This had to infuriate the Pharisees because in the Old Testament, the olive tree, the fig tree, and the grape vine are all symbolic of Israel (Judges 9:7-15, Habakkuk 3:17, Haggai 2:18-19). So those who abide in the vine are Israel. If Christ’s words abide in you, then you are Israel. Paul used the symbolism of the vine in Romans 11:13:24. Those who are in the vine are in Israel. Those who are in the vine are in Christ. Christ is the root (or the head) of Israel. From this text some have spoken of “natural Israel” and “spiritual Israel.” But the text never mentions “spiritual branches.” Romans 9:8 speaks of the “natural children” as specifically not being God’s children. So they are not Israel. Paul refers to “natural branches” as apposed to branches from a “tree that is wild by nature.” In this context, Paul is comparing Jews with Gentiles with respect to the fact that the Promise of Christ came though the Jews, and that the Jews had been trained in God’s word from birth. The Gentiles were simply chosen by God’s Grace (favor) alone. But Paul never speaks of a “spiritual Israel.” He is simply pointing out that not all Israel are Israel (Romans 9:6). In other words, not all Christians are true Christians. James addresses his letter “to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (James 1:1). Some dispensationalists will go to the extreme and say the book of James, Matthew 24, and parts of Hebrews are not written for the Church, but are written for Israel. The early Church canonized the book of James. They would not have effectively discarded it by saying it’s only for Jews. The followers of this extreme form of dispensationalism apparently do not understand dispensationalism itself. Most dispensationalists would say that all Christians, Jew or Gentile, who accept Jesus Christ before the rapture are said to be a part of the Church-Age dispensation. They are said to be a part of the heavenly purpose of God, because they are to be caught-up in the rapture. The Christians to whom James was writing would certainly be a part of this dispensation. James was simply writing to the Church. James obviously considered the Church to be the “twelve tribes scattered among the nations.” Also, remember that James was written before 70 AD. Jews were living abroad at that time. But to refer to the tribes as scattered among the nations is an obvious allusion to the scattering of Israel to Assyria, and to the later scattering of Judah to Babylon. Also remember that the Jews at the time of Christ were descendents of Judah, re-gathered from Babylon. The northern ten tribes have not been re-gathered. No doubt James understood this. So James seems to be addressing the Gentile Church as being the lost tribes of Israel. As stated previously, the opposite of dispensationalism is the belief that true Israel and the true Church are one and the same. This is held to be true by covenant (reformation) theology, and was the basic belief of Calvin and the reformation. It was important to the reformation because it allows for the priesthood of the believer. It gives Scriptural justification for the believer to be saved without being a part of an earthly church system such as the Catholic Church. However, covenant (reformation) theology also implies a lot of spiritual (“typological”) interpretation of Old Testament Israel to force it to fit traditional interpretations of the Church in the New Testament. One important consideration to remember is that at the time of the reformation, the Protestant church was almost exclusively amillennial. Amillennialists will always interpret Old Testament prophecies about Israel with spiritual (“typological”) methods of interpretation. There were groups like the Anabaptists who were millennial. But they were considered to be heretics. Therefore covenant (reformation) theology could be considered as strictly amillennial. From the amillennial perspective, covenant theology would say that the old covenants are fulfilled in the Church, in a spiritual (or “typological”) way. The amillennialist would not, for example, believe that the covenant of land with Abraham is to be literally fulfilled when Christ returns. But the core belief of covenant theology is that the true Church is true Israel. If we can continue to insist upon the “grammatical-historical” hermeneutical system, and at the same time recognize the truth that Israel is the Church, then we must conclude that all the covenants will be fulfilled literally in the Church, which is Israel. | (KJV 2 Chronicles 7:14) If my people, which
are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their
wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
(KJV 2 Chronicles 6:5-6) Since the day that I brought forth my people out of the land of Egypt I chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build an house in, that my name might be there; neither chose I any man to be a ruler over my people Israel: But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel. (KJV 1 Kings 8:16) Since the day that I brought forth my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house, that my name might be therein; but I chose David to be over my people Israel. (KJV Nehemiah 9:1) Since the day that I brought forth my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house, that my name might be therein; but I chose David to be over my people Israel. (KJV Isaiah 43:7) Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. (KJV Jeremiah 7:12) But go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. (KJV Jeremiah 7:30) For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. (KJV Acts 9:15-16) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many dispensationalists have in a negative sense renamed covenant theology to be called “replacement theology.” They put emphasis on this word “replacement”, arguing against the idea that the Church would replace Israel. But there is a big distinction between the Church replacing Israel and the Church being the same as Israel all along. The dispensationalist just assumes a difference, and then accuses covenant theologians as replacing Israel with the Church. The best way to measure whether or not there is a difference between the true Church and true Israel is to examine the covenants and to see if there are differences in the promises of God between his different adopted children. We must also ask, “Who are God’s adopted children?” Are not the children of Abraham really the same as God’s adopted children? Are not the promises given to Abraham promises for all of God’s children? And in sticking with the “grammatical-historical” hermeneutical system, can we arbitrarily say that some of God’s children receive the promises with spiritual (or “typological”) fulfillments, while others receive literal fulfillments of the very same promises? In the next section, we study the children of Abraham more closely. One verse that is sometimes used by dispensationalists is Romans 9:3-4. Paul is speaking about his brothers of his own race, who had rejected Christ. He said, “Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.” Some dispensationalists distinguish between the covenants and the promises, saying that promises can be given to the Church, but the covenants are strictly for Israel. But Paul is making no such distinction. As a matter of fact, Galatians 3:17 (quoted below) directly equates the covenant with the promise. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The context of these verses is Paul’s anguish over his own race, and the fact that apparently God’s word had failed. How could those who are “adopted as sons, recipients of the covenants, of the law, of the temple worship, and of the promises” have rejected the Messiah? Paul concludes by saying that those who did this were not really the true Israel. They were Israel only by their physical bloodline. Paul is saying that their bloodline did not make them Israel. If they were not Israel, then they were not the recipients of the covenants, of the law, of the temple worship, and of the promises. On the contrary, it is all who are in Christ who are “adopted as sons” (Ephesians 1:5). Thus, it would also follow that those who are in Christ are also recipients of the covenants. | (KJV Ephesians 1:5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Consider Galatians 3, which teaches Gentiles are Abraham’s Children:
So, being children of Abraham, we are blessed along with Abraham. But is this blessing simply salvation? Or does it include the covenant of Abraham?
Notice how this verse equates the covenant with the promise? Paul is using these two words interchangeably. Thus as children of Abraham, we are heirs of the covenant of Abraham. This one verse alone should cause one to reject dispensationalism. These verses prove that all true Christians are the true and literal heirs of the literal covenant with Abraham. And this implies we are the true literal heirs of all the Old Testament covenants. But generally people spiritualize verses that are in disagreement with what they want to believe. In this case, dispensationalists say the Church is a recipient of this covenant in only a spiritual way. But Paul concludes by saying that there is no difference between Jew and Greek (Gentile). And that anyone who belongs to Christ is Abraham’s seed, and heirs of the covenant (promise.)
No Jew is or was a child of Abraham except by faith. No Gentile is or was a child of Abraham except by faith. So all who are children of Abraham, and heirs of the covenants, are in the vine of Israel. Dispensationalism is based on the idea that Jews after the rapture, who are physically descendents of Abraham, and who also receive Christ, will be sole literal heirs of all the Old Testament covenants. But according to Paul, being a physical descendent of Abraham is not significant with regard to the "promise", which are the covenants. Romans 9:6 says:
This is like saying not all Christians are Christians. People can go to church and take the sacraments. But does that give them the "promise" of inheriting the kingdom? Likewise, being a physical descendent of Israel does not give anyone a promise or covenant. Otherwise, God’s word would have failed. The next verse says,
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This makes it clear. They are not his descendents simply because they have Abraham's physical seed. We see the same thing in John 8:39-40. Jesus is telling the Jews that they are not Abraham's children. Then in verse 44, he says their father is the devil. Being a child of Abraham is the same as being a child of God. It is only by faith. According to Jesus, even the Jews in Jerusalem were not Abraham's children. They were instead children of the devil. Paul goes on to say:
It's only by faith that we are "Abraham's seed," with regard to anything having to do with either inheriting the kingdom, or with the promises that were given to Abraham. How can any of the covenants apply to people who are not children of Abraham? In other words, the covenants themselves have nothing to do with being Abraham's physical seed. They all have to do with being Abraham's seed by faith. Next, Paul goes on to explain why this is true:
The promise is the covenant of Abraham. Paul is making the point that the promise was not to be given through Ishmael, even though Ishmael was also Abraham's physical seed. Then he makes the same point with Jacob and Esau. The promise was to go through Jacob, even though Esau was Abraham's physical seed, and even the first-born. So the covenants themselves are not for the physical seeds of Abraham. It's for those who God chooses, which are those who have faith (Hebrews 11). That's because faith only comes from God. Those who have faith in Christ are those in the vine of Israel, which is Christ. The promises (covenants) of Abraham are only for those who are true Israel, which is the same as true Christians. Since the covenant of Abraham only applies to the true children of Abraham, the covenants of Moses and David, who were Abraham’s children, would also only apply to Abraham’s children. | (KJV John 8:39-40) They answered and said unto
him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do
the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have
heard of God: this did not Abraham.
(KJV John 8:44) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Of course you can say that many or most Jews will turn to Christ in the end times. This is true. But that doesn't change the fact that the promises given to Abraham are to those who are by faith children of Abraham. Again, Paul says, "it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring" (Romans 6:8). Those who have faith in Jesus Christ are the chosen people. Paul is making this clear. He is showing that the promises didn't fail when the Jews rejected Christ at his first coming (Romans 9:6). He is saying that these promises (covenants) are instead fulfilled through God's elect. The Jews had considered themselves to be God's elect because of their birth. But Paul and Jesus are saying that the true children of Abraham are only Abraham's children by faith in Jesus Christ. | (KJV Romans 9:6-7) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: [7] Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Church is the Elect (Matthew 24:31, Rom. 8:33, 16:13, Col. 4:12, 2 Tim. 2:10, Titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:2, 2:4, 2:9, 2 John 1:1, 1:13, all use the same Greek word). There is no difference between the elect of the Old Testament and the chosen people of the New Testament. Thus those who are chosen by faith to inherit the kingdom are those who also receive the promises of the covenants. We have been discussing Romans 9. Chapters 9-11 are all about Paul's agony over the fact that the Jews didn't accept Christ. Paul concludes, in Romans 11, saying that they will accept Christ, after the full number of Gentiles have accepted Christ. Romans 11:25 says,
This verse can be interpreted two different ways. Israel is experiencing a hardening in part. Does that mean that some but not all the Jews were hardened? Or is Israel here the true Israel? And the true Israel is experiencing a hardening in part because the Jewish part of Israel is hardened. I interpret it the second way. Both ways of interpretation mean that Jews will be grafted back in after the full number of Gentiles have come in. But Israel should be considered to be the vine into which both Jews and Gentiles are grafted. Right now, the hardening is the fact that Jews are not coming into the vine, as Paul had desired. Thus, when Paul says "and so all Israel will be saved," he is saying that “all Israel” includes Gentiles and then later many Jews after they are no longer hardened. Paul then quotes the end-times covenant from Isaiah 59:20-21 to prove that all Israel will be saved. Paul is thus recognizing that the covenants are for true Israel, which includes both Jew and Gentile. He then concludes with:
In other words, Paul is saying that because of God's love for the patriarchs, that their physical descendents will not be forgotten. They will become part of the elect, and thus will be given faith to turn to Christ. This brings them back into the vine. But all who remain in the vine are still recipients of all the covenants, including the New Covenant, which is the covenant of those who will inherit the kingdom. Gentiles are recipients of the New Covenant, because we are Abraham's children by faith. Likewise we are recipients of Abraham's covenant and the Davidic covenant as well. It is all one body, one faith, one baptism. And that one faith makes you a child of Abraham. Some dispensationalists, however, hold that there are two New Covenants. Others say there is one New Covenant but that the Church is recipient of it in only a spiritual way. Thus dispensationalists revert back to spiritualizing verses in a way to fit what they want to believe. The next section deals with how dispensationalists deal with the New Covenant. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the Last Supper, Jesus instigated the new covenant. He said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 20:20). Is this the same “new covenant” as is spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31 and Hebrews 8:8? This question has been debated quite a bit amongst dispensationalists. In order to better distinguish the Church from Israel, some dispensationalists have said that there are two new covenants. Others say the new covenant is fulfilled in the Church only spiritually (or “typologically”), and is to be fulfilled literally in Israel. In their book “Progressive Dispensationalism”, Craig A Blaising and Darrell L Block write about this controversy (page 37).
So the dispensationalists continued to abandon their “grammatical-historical” hermeneutical system and say that the new covenant is fulfilled in the Church in only a spiritual (or “typological”) way. They were not about to let the covenant be literally fulfilled in the Church, because that would show that the Church is literally Israel. Yet no one has told us what aspect of the new covenant is to be fulfilled literally in Israel, but not in the Church. In Hebrews 8:8, we have a quote of the new covenant from Jeremiah 31:31. It’s the longest quote in the New Testament of an Old Testament verse. The writer of Hebrews is making it clear that the old covenant (of Moses) had been made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), and that this new covenant replaced the old covenant. This, of course, matches the teaching of Paul about the Law of Moses, and God’s Grace that was given after Christ’s crucifixion. The big problem that dispensationalists have with this new covenant, is in the wording of both Jeremiah 31:31, and it’s quote in Hebrews 8:8. Both state clearly that the covenant is “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” If the Church is not Israel, how can the new covenant be fulfilled in the Church? Dispensationalists use that license of “spiritual interpretation” to eliminate “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” from the covenant. The “grammatical-historical” wording of the new covenant, however, in both New Testament and Old Testament, proves that the Church is Israel. The verses that directly follow the new covenant in Jeremiah are even more convincing that this covenant is literally with Israel.
In order for dispensationalists to interpret the Church’s relationship to the new covenant as spiritual (or “typological”), they not only have to do so with Old Testament Scripture, they also have to deny the literal interpretation of Hebrews 8 as well. But how can there be a spiritual (or “typological”) interpretation of Hebrews 8? Is the writer of Hebrews trying to say that a spiritual interpretation of a literal covenant is making the old literal covenant obsolete? It’s hard to get your mind around such an idea. How can you get a spiritual interpretation of a literal covenant by quoting the literal covenant? Or dispensationalists may take the older position that there are two new covenants. Then they must completely deny any natural interpretation of Hebrews 8, which quotes the new covenant, saying that it replaces the old covenant. Some dispensations go to the extreme and say that all or parts of Hebrews is not for the Church. So they would say Hebrews 8 is not speaking to the Church. Yet Hebrews was written during the Church dispensation. And the audience of Hebrews are readers that were all in the Church dispensation. Dispensationalists who deny that some parts of the New Testament are for the Gentile Church are known as hyper-dispensationalists or ultra-dispensationalists. They say that some parts of New Testament Scripture are for Jews and other parts of the New Testament Scripture are for Gentiles. Yet classic and revised dispensationalism is not supposed to distinguish Jew from Gentile. It’s supposed to identify only dispensations, saying that believers from each are for two different dispensational purposes. It’s not supposed to say the rules and the arrangement between God and men are different for Jews after Pentecost. All this confusion about the new covenant clearly shows that neither the writer of Hebrews, nor Jeremiah, ever intended for there to be two new covenants, nor two interpretations of one new covenant, one for one class of believers and one for another class of believers. | (KJV Jeremiah 31:31-37) Behold, the days
come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the
house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day
that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they
brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this shall be the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law
in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be
my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his
brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the
greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember
their sin no more. [35] Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: [36] If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. [37] Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. (KJV Hebrews 8:8-13) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: [9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: [11] And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. [12] For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. [13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paul speaks only of three dispensations (1 Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, 3:2, Colossians 1:25). He speaks of the present dispensation that he saw as being given to him to present to us. This is the dispensation of grace. We can assume a past dispensation prior to the present dispensation of grace. In addition, Ephesians 1:10 speaks of a future “dispensation of the fullness of times,” which would be Christ’s millennial reign. So we must remember that Scripture itself only speaks of these three dispensations. But dispensationalists extrapolate this thinking out into seven dispensations. Dispensationalists rightly use the covenants to help define the dispensations. But there is not a one-for-one relationship between the covenants and the seven dispensations, as defined by dispensationalists. Paul generally referred to being obedient to either the law or to grace, but not both. Thus you were either in one or the other dispensation. Dispensationalists have only one dispensation for the law, and it’s equated to Moses. Dispensationalists believe the dispensation under Abraham to be a separate dispensation of promise – not a dispensation of law. Paul, on the other hand, only equates the law directly with Moses when he is quoting something written by Moses. In Romans 2:25, Paul equates the law with the circumcision of Abraham. There is no evidence that Paul saw more than one dispensation with regard to Abraham and Moses. So even though the concept of dispensations comes from Paul, dispensationalists do not allow Paul to define the dispensations. Hebrews 8:12 says, “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete.” Which “one” covenant is obsolete? Obviously the writer of Hebrews, like Paul, understands there to be simply an old and a new dispensation. The first one is obsolete. | (KJV 1 Corinthians 9:17) For if I do
this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel
is committed unto me.
(KJV Ephesians 1:10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. (KJV Ephesians 3:2) If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward. (KJV Colossians 1:25) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The seven covenants that Scripture actually calls covenants are directly related to the three dispensations that are specifically given by Scripture.
A covenant is the establishment of a relationship. A covenant is like a marriage. As a matter of fact, marriage is a covenant. You can’t get married without calling it a marriage. Likewise, you can’t enter into a covenant without calling it a covenant. It’s much better to let Scripture interpret Scripture, and to list only the covenants that Scripture itself calls covenants. When we do this, there are exactly seven covenants, including a covenant for the millennium. It’s interesting that dispensationalists disagree on exactly what dispensations are in the list. Yet they all agree that there should be seven. When it comes to the covenants, however, they add more than the seven given by Scripture in order to try and fit them into seven dispensations. When making a list of covenants, dispensationalists tend to start with Adam. Yet Scripture never explicitly states that there was a covenant with Adam. Dispensationalists argue that God’s commandment to Adam is given in the “form” of a covenant. They probably make this assertion because dispensationalists know the covenants should be related to the dispensations. Yet dispensationalists cannot show a one-for-one relationship between the covenants and the dispensations. For example, what dispensation would be brought in by the covenant with David? Amillennialists and preterists believe the covenants are fulfilled in the Church, which is Israel. But they tend to interpret the covenants spiritually (or “typologically”). Dispensationalists, on the other hand, interpret the covenants literally, but they separate the Church from Israel and say the literal covenants are only for Israel. For the Church, they allow only for a spiritual interpretation of the covenant with Abraham and the new covenant. But I believe that the covenants are to be fulfilled literally in the Church, which is Israel. The exception is the covenant with Noah, and the End Times Covenant. These covenants are for the nations as well as for Israel, which is the Church.
This chart shows that both covenant (reformed) theology and dispensationalism have inconsistent ways of interpreting the fulfillment of covenants. Covenant theology interprets the covenants with Abraham, Moses, and Phinehas, as literal and already fulfilled. For example, the land promised to Abraham was literally fulfilled in the time of Solomon, and is not expected to be fulfilled again. The covenant with David is interpreted as fulfilled spiritually in the Church. It not fulfilled literally. Dispensationalists are even more inconsistent in their interpretation of the covenants. The covenant with Abraham is interpreted literally for Israel, but spiritually for the Church. The covenants with Moses and Phinehas are literal for Old Testament Israel. The covenant with David is literal for Israel during the millennium. It does not apply to the Church. The New Covenant is literal for Israel in the millennium, but spiritual for the Church. The New Wine System, as well as Progressive Dispensationalism, uses a very consistent interpretation for all the covenants. All are interpreted literally for both Israel and the Church. One wonders why Progressive Dispensationalism can still be considered dispensational. The seven covenants are not about seven dispensations. In other words, the covenants are not about seven arrangements between God and mankind, under which God tests us. Instead, the seven covenants are about God’s progressive plan of redemption. The first covenant given by Scripture is the covenant with Noah, given after the flood. The Great Flood was the first act that God did to rid His Creation from sin. It was also God’s first act of grace. God had grace (favor) for Noah and his family. The covenant with Noah was a promise not to destroy the earth again by water. (How is this covenant a test? So it’s not a dispensation.) The covenant with Noah was the first in a progressive series in God’s redemptive plan. The fifth covenant is the covenant with David and directly points to Christ. The sixth covenant is the new covenant, and was instigated by Christ. These two relate to the dispensation of grace, which is the two millennial days after Christ’s first coming. Amillennialists believe the Davidic covenant is completely fulfilled today, with Christ sitting on his throne in heaven. Thus they say the kingdom of heaven is strictly spiritual in nature. Classic and revised dispensationalists do allow for the Davidic covenant to be fulfilled at all in the Church. Thus they say the Davidic covenant is strictly a future fulfillment. But it’s hard to deny that the New Testament teaches us there are certain aspects to the kingdom that are already present. For example, Jesus said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not [currently] of this world.” The kingdom of this world is Satan’s (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). But as ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20), the kingdom of heaven is literally in those who are in Christ. And we who are in Christ are also in the world (John 17:15). Thus in a progressive way, the kingdom of heaven is today literally in the world. So there is a partial but literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant in the world today. Progressive dispensationalists also hold to this belief. The sixth covenant it the new covenant, and was instigated by Christ. Under the new covenant, God’s law is written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:8-12). This means that as we overcome sin, our very nature (our heart) is being changed. Yet we still have a sinful nature and can still sin. So the new covenant is not yet completely fulfilled. But as we put our faith in Christ, there is a partial yet literal fulfillment of the new covenant in our lives. When Christ returns, and we receive spiritual bodies, we will no longer sin. This is when the new covenant is completely fulfilled by God. Progressive dispensationalists also hold to this belief of partial fulfillment today, and complete fulfillment in the millennium. So both the Davidic covenant and the new covenant are partially fulfilled in the dispensation of grace. Later on, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, all of the covenants will be completely fulfilled. Classical dispensationalism held a difference between the “kingdom of heaven”, and the “kingdom of God.” The “kingdom of God” was supposed to be heavenly, and the “kingdom of heaven” was supposed to be an earthly kingdom. The “kingdom of God” was the moral rule of God found in our hearts. But the “kingdom of heaven” was fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Matthew is the only New Testament writer that uses “kingdom of heaven.” But Matthew uses “kingdom of God” four times. The “kingdom of God” is used in Mark, Luke, Acts, and in several of Paul’s letters. So it seems to be a difference in style, and the two should be considered as interchangeable. For example, Matthew 13:11 and Mark 4:11 are almost identical accounts with one using “kingdom of heaven” and the other using “kingdom of God.” This also happens in Matthew 13:24 and Mark 4:26. In Mark 10:23-24 we find the “kingdom of God” used twice. In the corresponding account of Matthew 19:23-24, the “kingdom of heaven” as well as the “kingdom of God” are both used. It’s possible that Matthew used “kingdom of heaven” more because he was writing to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. Jewish tradition avoids using names for God. So the “kingdom of heaven” might have sounded better in that culture than the “kingdom of God.” Revised dispensationalists got away from insisting on this distinction. But they stayed with two purposes of God, one heavenly and the other earthly. Thus there were still two different kingdoms, one heavenly and the other earthly. But without a clear Scriptural distinction between the two, revised dispensationalism became very complex in how they would explain the two kingdoms. It left many people scratching their heads trying to sort it all out. But the basic rule remained that the Church, with its heavenly purpose, was not the recipient of the Davidic covenant. When Israel and the Church are seen as one and the same, the kingdom issue is simple. From the creation of the heavens and the earth, there has always been a kingdom of heaven. Everything that has been created was created by Christ and through Christ. “Whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him” (Colossians 1:15-20). These words “thrones”, “powers”, “rulers,” and “authorities” all show that Christ was king of the heavenly kingdom from the beginning of the Creation. When Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not [currently] of this world,” he was speaking of the kingdom in heaven that had always been. He was saying this to assure Pilate that he was not a threat to Rome. But he was not denying a future kingdom that will be of this world. Jesus prayed, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Jesus was praying for the kingdom, which is currently in heaven, to come to the earth. On earth, since the fall of man, Satan has ruled (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). The earth is not Christ’s kingdom. Satan even offered the kingdom to Christ in temptation. And Christ didn’t challenge Satan’s right to do so. But in the midst of Satan’s kingdom, David had an earthly throne. Yet David himself was a child of God instead of a child of Satan. So this can be considered the first step of bringing the kingdom of God from heaven back to earth. The Davidic covenant is a promise of just that. As more and more people turn to Christ to overcome sin, the kingdom is forcefully advancing (Matthew 11:12). But this is only a partial fulfillment. The covenant will not be completely fulfilled until Christ overthrows Satan, sits on David’s earthly throne, and literally rules over every nation, tribe, people, and language. | (KJV Matthew 13:11-13) He answered and said
unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but
to them it is not given. [12] For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more
abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. [13] Therefore
speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do
they understand.
(KJV Mark 4:11-12) And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (KJV Matthew 13:24-26) Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. (KJV Mark 4:26-27) And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In Revelation 11:15, we read, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.” And Israel will reign with Christ. From the dispensational perspective, in the millennium, the Jews who have been saved reign over the Gentiles who have been saved. But the Old Testament paints a different picture of the Messianic reign. Isaiah 66:19-21 speaks of the Messianic reign as a time when some of the “survivors” are sent to the nations and to distant islands that have not heard about Christ, or seen his glory. They are brought to Jerusalem to worship. In Zechariah 14:16, the survivors from all the nations that attack Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King. In other words, the Old Testament does not teach about a Messianic reign where everyone who has not accepted Christ is destroyed. The Old Testament describes a time when Christ rules over the earth, and those he rules over are brought to the King of Kings in order to worship Him. So who rules over whom? It’s not Jews ruling over Gentiles. Those who inherit the kingdom rule over those who don’t. Those who inherit the kingdom will bring the nations to Christ. During the millennium, Satan is bound so they he cannot deceive the nations. Then at the end of the millennium, Satan is released to test the nations. All seven letters to the seven churches of Revelation have a promise to them who overcome. Remember these are letters to Gentile churches, not to Jews or to tribulation saints. Each and every letter contains a different reward related to inheriting the kingdom. These rewards are given to those who overcome. In one of the letters to the seven churches, we read:
In the Greek, the word for “rule” means to shepherd. Verse 27 is a quote from Psalm 2:9. Verse 8 of the Psalm says, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” In other words, the rule of all the nations is Christ’s inheritance. And all those who are in Christ will inherit the kingdom and rule with him. So, all who are in Christ will rule over the nations in the millennium. Who then are the nations? The nations are those who are not a part of the Bride of Christ. The nations are those who will not have overcome by the blood of Christ. The nations are the survivors of those who attack Jerusalem. They are the ones who have not heard, or whom for whatever reason God allows to live into the millennium. Christ rules over the nations, along with his Bride the Church, which is Israel. When we accept the fact that the Church is Israel, and when we accept the truth of Revelation 2:26-27, dualism in the millennium becomes very different than the dualism of dispensationalism. It’s not a dualism of an earthly Israel and a heavenly Church. It’s a dualism of those who are in Christ and the “nations” who are not. Those who are in Christ are not the “nations.” Israel is not the “nations.” This dualism comes to an end at the end of the millennium. Many in the nations will receive eternal life. But many will be destroyed when Satan is released. For more information about this dualism, see my article titled “Dualism in the Millennium.” Also, this is a central topic of the New Wine System. For more information see my book, New Wine for the End Times. | (KJV Isaiah 66:19-21) And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. [20] And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. [21] And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scripture portrays all who God adopts as sons as being born again through a woman who is about to give birth. This symbol has its roots in Isaiah, and can be traced all the way to Revelation. In this section we will trace through these verses of Scripture and learn about the woman. This is important to understand because, as we will see, the woman is Israel. Therefore, all who are adopted as sons of God are born again through the woman, who is Israel. This makes it clear that the Church is also Israel. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The symbolism begins with Isaiah 26:17-21. Verse 19 says, “But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy.” This is the resurrection. Verse 17 speaks of the woman with child and about to give birth. She cries out in pain. Verse 19 says, “The earth will give birth to her dead.” In verses 17 and 18, Isaiah compares the woman to Israel. So the woman is Israel. But he says Israel cried out in the pain of childbirth, and was only able to give birth to wind. Giving birth to wind means exactly what you visualize when you think about it. Isaiah is a book of poetry. Giving birth to wind is a poetic way of saying Israel gave birth to nothing. Of course we know that through Christ, the woman (Israel) will bring salvation to the earth. In this poetic analogy, it’s the earth, or the Creation that brings this birth. In reality the Holy Spirit will give birth to the dead. But in a poetic way, Isaiah is showing that this will be like a new act of Creation. Later on, in Isaiah 65 and 66, he speaks of a new heaven and a new earth. This won’t be literally fulfilled until the end of the millennium. But from a poetic perspective, the new birth is a new creation. The same symbolism can be found in Isaiah 66:
Zion (or Israel) is in labor. So the woman is Israel. Before the birth pains, she brings forth a male son. This is Christ. Christ is the firstborn of Israel (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:18, Hebrews 1:6, 11:28, 12:23, Revelation 1:5). According to this verse, Christ was resurrected into a spiritual body long before the birth pains of the woman. It’s interesting that Luke 2:7 and 2:23 brings out the fact that Jesus was the firstborn of Mary. Jesus is the firstborn of Mary in his original physical body, and is the firstborn of Israel in his spiritual body. In the end-times, the birth pains are shown as signs of Christ’s return. The birth will come forth in a single day. In “one day,” those who are dead in Christ will rise, and those who are still alive will be changed into spiritual bodies. This is the new birth. Notice also that the “earth [is] caused to bring fourth.” This is like the earth giving birth to her dead in Isaiah 26:17-21. The new birth is a new creation. If we are born again, we are new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15). Some translations say we are new creations. The Greek word is the same as in Mark 10:6, 13:19, Romans 1:20, 2 Peter 3:4, and Revelation 3:14. It’s the same word as God’s Creation. We are new creatures from the perspective that our hearts are being changed. But this is preparation of us literally being new creations in new spiritual bodies. In this we see the tie back to the verses in Isaiah. When we are resurrected, or when we are changed to new spiritual bodies, it’s an act of a new creation. The earth gives birth to her dead. In the New Testament, terms such as new creatures, salvation, and born again, are spiritually true as we accept Christ, and become literally fulfilled when Christ returns. We are saved from sin and death, but we still sin and die. When Christ returns, we will literally be saved from sin and death. It’s like justification, sanctification, and then glorification. We are saved. We are being saved. And we will be saved. The same is true about being born again. We are born again. But we will be literally born again when Christ returns. | (KJV Isaiah 26:17-21) Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O LORD. [18] We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen. [19] Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. [20] Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. [21] For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In John 3:3, Jesus told Nicodemus that no one could see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. Nicodemus didn't understand how he could go back into his mother's womb. Jesus said, "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?" Jesus was being kind to Nicodemus. He wasn't being sarcastic. Jesus was speaking of Old Testament Scripture about being born again, of which Nicodemus was not aware. Jesus was talking about the earth giving birth to her dead (Isaiah 26:16-21, 66:7-9). In other words, at the resurrection we will be "born again." Verses 5 and 6 say, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So you have to have a spiritual body in order to enter the natural kingdom of God. And you have to be spiritually born again in order for the kingdom of heaven to be in our hearts. The Holy Sprit is spiritually in us now, and the Holy Spirit will give us spiritual bodies when Christ returns. Spirit gives birth to spirit. Verse 8 of John 3 says, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." Taken literally, if you have to have a spiritual body you can literally "come and go like the wind, so that no one can tell from where it is you are going." Jesus demonstrated this after His resurrection with his spiritual body when he would appear in the middle of locked rooms. So literally speaking, this verse is a description of spiritual bodies. But spiritually speaking, this verse can be interpreted to mean the Holy Spirit leads us in ways that others don't understand. Verse 12 says, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" The earthly things are about the literal kingdom of heaven that will come, and the literal "born again" event when the earth will give birth to the dead. The heavenly things are the spiritual aspects of what it takes to walk the path of salvation. In Matthew 24:7-8, Jesus begins to give the signs of his returns. He said, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.” When Christ returns, the resurrection will happen. The earth will give birth to her dead. This is a definite tie back to Isaiah. It’s interesting to note how closely Jesus ties the birth pains to earthquakes. This alludes back to Isaiah and the idea that the earth itself groans and is about to give birth. | (KJV John 3:3-12) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? [5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. [8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. [9] Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? [10] Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? [11] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. [12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In Romans 8:18-25, Paul relates the groaning of the Creation to the redemption of our bodies. This passage is talking about the time when the curse will be removed from the Creation, and when Christians will receive spiritual bodies. We are not actually "revealed" as sons of God until we receive spiritual bodies. Those who are truly saved currently are sons of God. But this is literally fulfilled at the resurrection. This passage, like Isaiah 26:17-21, depicts the Creation as giving birth. In Isaiah, the “earth gives birth to her dead.” It all stems back this original passage in Isaiah. What’s interesting about this passage is that Paul equates our bondage to decay with the Creation’s bondage to decay. The Creation was subjected to decay because of Adam. The Creation will be liberated because of Christ. In a purely allegorical way, Paul spoke of himself as being in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in the people of his churches (Galatians 4:19). In 1 Thessalonians 5:3, Paul speaks about the day of the Lord. He says the day will come upon people suddenly. They will be saying “peace and safety.” But sudden destruction will come on them, like the birth pains of a woman, and they will not escape. But remember that it’s the world that will not know the time of Christ’s return. The Bride will know. This is made clear by verse 4. In Revelation 12:2, John speaks of the woman who is about to give birth. Back in Isaiah 66:7-9, we saw that the woman has already given birth to her firstborn, which is Christ. Likewise, in Revelation 12:4-5, we see the birth of Christ. These verses certainly suggest the birth being spoken of is Christ’s physical birth, with the woman being Mary. The story of Herod killing all the children in Bethlehem is without doubt an aspect of these verses. But is the woman Mary? In verse 17, we see that the dragon went to make war against the rest of her offspring, those who obey God’s commandments and who hold the testimony of Jesus. Catholics may believe that Mary is our mother. But that doesn’t fit Protestant teaching. Verse 1 says that the “woman [is] clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” This comes from Joseph’s dream (Genesis 37:9). The twelve stars are the twelve tribes of Israel. So the woman is Israel. The woman (Israel) gives birth to Christ as firstborn, then she gives birth to many of his brothers (Romans 8:29). This parallels the woman in Isaiah 66:7-9. The woman is Israel. | (KJV Romans 8:18-25) For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. [19] For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. [20] For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, [21] Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. [22] For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. [23] And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. [24] For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? [25] But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The woman is Israel. The woman gives birth to the dead. We are all brothers in and with Christ. And from the perspective of this analogy of the woman, our mother is Israel. God is not splitting us apart, some in heaven and other on earth. There is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:5-6). Philip B. Brown
|
Overcome sin, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!
