UNITED WE STAND

(Part 9 of "Dispensationalism, Israel, and Scripture")

INTRODUCTION

This month's Dispensationalism in Transition will be my next to last article in the present series. I have been reviewing Bruce A. Ware's important chapter in Blaising and Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (Zondervan, 1992). (Hereinafter: DIC.) Ware's presentation focuses on the relationship of Israel and the church with respect to dispensational distinctives in this regard.

Ware's final two paragraphs will serve as the focus for our reformed, postmillennial response:

"The discussion above lends support for the conclusion that Israel and the church are in one sense a united people of God (they participate in the same covenant), while in another sense they remain separate in their identity and so comprise differing peoples of God. (Israel is given territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise not applicable to the church.) Israel and the church are in fact one people of God, who together share in the forgiveness of sins through Christ and partake of his indwelling Spirit with its power for covenant faithfulness, while they are nonetheless distinguishable covenant participants comprising what is one unified people. As the title of this chapter suggests, they are in fact the united 'people(s) of God,' one by faith in Christ and common partaking of the Sprit, and yet distinct insofar as God will yet restore Israel as a nation to its land."

"One new covenant, under which differing covenant partcipants jointogether, through Christ and the Spirit, as a common people of God — this, then, is the grace and the glory of the marvelous provision of God." (DIC 96-97)

But before I engage Ware's final argument, let us note that:

HERE TODAY, GONE TOMORROW

Anyone familiar with the older forms of dispensationalism will find the concession to covenant theology here quite remarkable. I laud the progressive dispensationalists in this "step in the right direction." This is so impressive that the postmillennialist may exult in the progress of doctrine leading to a new advance for Christ's kingdom.

(This last statement is said with tongue in cheek — but evident delight, nonetheless. Ironically, the enormous popularity and sales of books by Lindsey, the LaLonde boys [and girls], Hunt, and so forth could be effectively used by the amillennialist to demonstrate doctrinal declension in the church. But now postmillennialists can point to a change in a better direction. The irony in all of this, though, is for the classic and revised dispensationalists: By newspaper exegesis they gleefully point to a theological aberrations in Christ's church as evidence of the worsening conditions in the world — while their books ministering to Christ's church are selling in the millions! Thus, I agree somewhat with older dispensationalists regarding a concern for declining doctrine: the sales of their books indicate an anemic church in desperate need of revitalization But I digress.)

Allow me to emphasize the tremendous change occurring in dispensationalism regarding Israel and the church. This point needs to be clearly understood.

The role of Israel as a distinct people RADICALLY distinguished from the church is the leading feature of dispensationalism in its older forms. The modified distinction between Israel and the church with lessened tension is the leading feature of the newer, progressive dispensationalism.

It is important that covenantal Christian grasp the significance of dispensationalism's understanding of Israel, for herein lies what is perhaps the fundamental error of the entire system. This crucial error distorts the biblical revelation regarding the progress of redemption, the unity of God's people, the fulfillment of prophecy, and the interpretation of Scripture. No small error!

Revised dispensationalist Ryrie points to the distinctiveness of Israel as the first of the three sine qua non of dispensationalism: "A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 44). (This work has been re-published under a new title: Dispensationalism. Ryrie could not bring himself to properly title it: Dispensationalism Yesterday. Ryrie's problem reminds me of the political cartoon showing Uncle Sam placing a bet with a bookie: In the first scene a spit-and-polished Uncle Sam standing tall confidently bet $1000 on Chiang Kai-Shek against the Communists. In the next frame a hesitant Uncle Sam bet $500 on the South Koreans. In the next frame a harried looking Uncle Sam bet $100 on the Bay of the Pigs in Cuba. The next frame showed an exasperated, bleary-eyed Uncle Sam betting $50 on the Saigon. The final frame had a bedraggled, crossed-eyed, unkempt Uncle Sam tossing a quarter over his shoulder and muttering, "Stick it anywhere.")

Elsewhere, Ryrie is even more detailed and emphatic:

"(1) The Church is not fulfilling in any sense the promises to Israel. (2) The use of the word Church in the New Testament never includes unsaved Israelites. (3) The church age is not seen in God's program for Israel. It is an intercalation. (4) The Church is a mystery in the sense that it was completely unrevealed in the Old Testament and now revealed in the New Testament. (5) The Church did not begin until the day of Pentecost and will be removed from this world at the rapture which precedes the Second Coming of Christ." (Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 136)

Unfortunately for dispensationalists of all stripes, Scripture does not support such theological assertions, as I have been and will continue demonstrating.

ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH

Contrary to dispensationalism: The Israel of the Old Testament is, as the Westminster Standards state it, "a church under age" (WCF 19:3). Old Testament Israel is the forerunner of and continuous with the New Covenant phase of the church, which is the fruition of Israel in Christ. And this is not just in "one sense" or "partially," as per Bruce Ware and the progressives.

This theological reality is clear from the New Testament: New Testament Christians (whether Jew or Gentile) call Abraham "our father" (Rom. 4:16) and the Old Covenant people our "fathers" (1 Cor. 10:1). This evinces a spiritual genealogical relation, which is absolutely destructive of the older dispensational scheme, and even injurious to progressive dispensationalism.

Employing another figure, Paul says we are grafted into Israel (Rom. 11:16-19) so that we become one with her, partaking of her promises (Eph. 2:11-20). I agree with Ware that we do enjoy her promises; but Paul goes further: he affirms absolute, final unity. (I will deal with Romans 11 next month in my concluding article in this series.)

NEW JERUSALEM / NEW CREATION / NEW CHURCH

The Lord appointed twelve apostles to serve as the spiritual seed of a New Israel, taking over for the twelve sons of Old Covenant Israel. Both the names of the twelve tribes (as the Old Covenant representatives) and the twelve apostles (as the New Covenant representatives) are incorporated into the one, consummate city of God, the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:12, 14). This New Jerusalem is the church of Jesus Christ, represented in idealized form in the highly wrought imagery of Revelation. This is an important observation requiring some fleshing out:

First, John's time-frame demands that this New Jerusalem begins in the first century, not in the distant, post-Second Advental eternal order. The description of the new creation and new Jerusalem bride-city extends from Revelation 21:1 to 22:5. Following immediately after this John writes: "The angel said to me, 'These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must SOON take place'" (Rev. 22:6), and "Then he told me, 'Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near'" (Rev. 22:10).

Second, Revelation's flow anticipates the replacement of old Israel by the new Israel (implying the absorption of believing Israelites into the body of Christ). As revised dispensationalist Robert Thomas properly notes: there is a "major antithesis between the two women in the closing chapters of the Apocalypse." (Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 569.). This antithesis is of the new Jerusalem replacing the old Jerusalem. The coming of the new Jerusalem down from heaven (Rev. 21-22) logically should follow soon upon the destruction of the old Jerusalem upon the earth (Rev. 6-12, 14-19), rather than waiting thousands of years.

Third, the new creation language suggests the first century arrival of the New Jerusalem/Creation. The paradigmatic new creation passage serving as John's backdrop is Isaiah 65:17, 20: "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. .. . . Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed."

This new creation still experiences sin, aging, and death. Thus, it cannot refer either to heaven or final new creation order. Paul also uses similar language when he describes the Christian's new condition in Christ: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Cor. 5:17; cp. Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Gal. 6:15).

Fourth, New Testament theology supports this replacing of old Jerusalem by the new Jerusalem (or: the old Israel by the new Israel). In the New Testament the church appears as the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-28; 2 Cor. 11:2; cp. John 3:29). This new bride (the international church) must replace the old wife (the racially-based church, Israel). This change is dramatically finalized in A.D. 70 when God removes the temple from the earth. John even portrays the finality of Israel's judgment as a marriage feast (Rev. 19).

The New Testament anticipates the imminent change of the old typological temple system ("imminent" in the etymologically-based dictionary sense of the term, not the special, redefined theological sense of dispensationalism): "Jesus declared, 'Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. . . . Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks" (John 4:21, 23). See the expectancy elsewhere: Matthew 23:36-24:3, 34; 26:64; Mark 9:1; John 4:20-24; Romans 13:11, 12; 16:20; 1 Corinthians 7:26, 29-31; Colossians 3:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:16; Hebrews 2:5; 10:25, 37; 12:18-29; James 5:8, 9; 1 Peter 4:5, 7; and 1 John 2:17, 18.

THE NAME GAME

Older dispensationalists strongly assert that "the Scriptures never use the term Israel to refer to any but the natural descendants of Jacob" (Charles Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views, 230). The New Scofield Reference Bible (p. 1223), representing older dispensationalism, puts the matter clearly and succinctly: "The term Israel is nowhere used in the Scriptures for any but the physical descendants of Abraham."

Nevertheless, the New Testament applies to Christians various terms associated with the Old Covenant people: we are called the "seed of Abraham, (Rom. 4:13-17; Gal. 3:6-9, 29), "the circumcision" (Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), "a royal priesthood" (Rom. 15:16; 9; cp. Exo. 19:6), "twelve tribes" (Jms. 1:1), and the "temple of God" (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 1:16; Eph. 2:21).

These phrases reflect the very essence of Israel's covenantal identity. Yet they are applied to the New Testament era Christian church, composed of Jew and Gentile. And in order to maintain a distinction (though not as strongly), newer, progressive dispensationalists must also reserve the name "Israel" for racial Israel. Or else their partial-now / full-then argument vanishes away.

Peter, who was sent to the circumcision (Gal. 2:7), follows Paul's pattern when he designates Christians as "stones" being built into a "spiritual house" (1 Pet. 2:5-9). He also draws upon several Old Testament designations of Israel and applies them to the church: "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation" (1 Pet. 2:9-10; Exo. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6). He, with Paul, also calls Christians "a peculiar people" (1 Pet. 2:10; Titus 2:14), which is a familiar Old Testament designation for Israel (Exo. 19:5; Deut. 14:2; 26:18; Psa. 135:4). In addition, he designates the New Testament believers as a "diaspora" (1 Pet. 1:1).

If Abraham can have Gentiles as his "spiritual seed" (as per Ware's statement above, and even according to the New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 122 at Rom. 9:6.), why cannot there be a spiritual Israel?

In fact, Christians are called by the name "Israel": "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). Although dispensationalists explain Galatians 6:16 as speaking of Jewish converts to Christianity, such is surely not the case: The entire context of Galatians is set against claims to any special Jewish status or distinction: "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26-28).

Thus, we see that in Christ, all racial distinction has been done away with — forever. Why would Paul hold out a special word for Jewish Christians ("the Israel of God"), when he had just stated that there is no boasting at all, save in the cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14)? After all, "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation" (Gal. 6:15). That new creation is spoken of in detail in Ephesians 2:10-22, where Jew and Gentile are united in one body. This is the church.

Various New Testament passages illustrate how the church fulfills prophecies regarding Israel. Citing Amos 9:11-12, James says God is rebuilding the tabernacle of David through the calling of the Gentiles (Acts 15:15ff). In Romans 15:8-12, Paul notes that the conversion of the Gentiles is a "confirming of the promises to the fathers." And at least one of the verses brought forth as proof speaks of Christ's Messianic kingdom rule (Rom. 15:12).

In Acts, the preaching of the gospel touches on the very hope of the Jews, which was made to the fathers (Acts 26:6-7). The promises did not set forth a literal, political kingdom, but a spiritual, gospel kingdom. Psalm 2 begins its fulfillment in the resurrection of Christ — not at the Second Advent (Acts 13:32-33). The prophecy was fulfilled.

Another illustration in addition to those given above is Paul's use of Hosea 1:9-10 and 2:23. In Romans 9:24-26 Paul interprets these very strong Jewish-contexted verses as referring to Gentile salvation in the New Covenant phase of the church.

In Luke 24:44-47 the Lord taught that it was necessary for Him to die in order to fulfill Scripture in bringing salvation to the Gentiles: "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations."

A fundamental message of the New Testament is that the distinction between Jew and Gentile has forever been done away with. Paul points out this fact in Ephesians 2:11-16: "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh . . . at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

Thus, "there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for ye are all one in Christ" (Gal. 3:28) and "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision" (Col. 3:11).

Yet dispensationalists see the church either as a temporary parenthesis in God's plan (older dispensationalism), or as a partial, spiritual fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. After the Great Tribulation, they teach, the church will be superseded by a rebuilt Jewish temple and its animal sacrifices.

Ware is correct in noting that "Israel and the church are in one sense a united people of God", but is incorrect in averring that "in another sense they remain separate in their identity and so comprise differing peoples of God" (DIC, 96). Next month I will conclude this analysis of Ware, focusing in on Romans 11.

ANNOUNCEMENT AND SPECIAL OFFER

Zondervan has just announced publication dates for two debate books in which I am involved. Below I provide the interested reader with Zondervan's academic sales catalog announcement. I am providing a pre-publication offer for either book between now and April 1, 1998. If you send a check now for a cost of $14.00, upon publication I will autograph and send the buyer a copy of either book postpaid. You may purchase both books for $26.00. Order from me at: P.O. Box 388, Placentia, CA 92871. (Please note that this is a new address — far removed from South Carolina!)

Zondervan announcement:

FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, C. Marvin Pate, ed. Contributors:

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Sam Hamstra, Jr., C. Marvin Pate, and Robert L. Thomas. Projected publication date: April 1998. $14.95.

According to the old adage, there are as many views of the book of Revelation as there are commentaries. But among the many interpretations available, most authors take one of several directions. Among these the most common ones today are the preterist view, the idealist view, the progressive dispensationalist view, and the classical dispensationalist view.

Kenneth Gentry Jr. presents the preterist view, arguing that almost all of Revelation was fulfilled in the Jewish war of A.D. 67-70, when God destroyed the temple and replaced the Jews as his covenant people with the church, where all nations worship in harmony.

Sam Hamstra Jr. presents the idealist view, maintaining that Revelation sets forth timeless truths concerning the battle between good and evil, which continues throughout the church age until the return of Jesus.

Marvin Pate presents the progressive dispensationalist view, showing how the already/not yet scheme of New Testament eschatology demands that we see a present reign of Christ as well as a partial fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of the Gentiles' coming to salvation at the end of history. But God also has a wonderful future for Israel, which will occur during a millennial reign of Christ.

Finally, Robert Thomas presents the classical dispensationalist view, asserting that most of Revelation is future-oriented, describing what will happen during the Great Tribulation after the church has been removed from this earth through the Rapture.

In presenting their views, each author interacts with the Others, pointing out areas of agreement and disagreement. Insofar as one's hermeneutical approach to the book of Revelation in large measure determines his or her interpretive conclusions, most of the interaction takes place on the level of principles of interpretation rather than on exegesis of specific passages.

Four Views on the Book of Revelation is part of the Counterpoints Series.

THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND, Darrell L. Bock, ed. Contributors: Craig Blaising, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Robert Strimple and Richard Gaffin. Projected publication date: June 1998. $14.95.

As we approach the end of another millennium, interest in the Millennium and the end of history is beginning to increase. But this does not mean that evangelical Christians have reached any consensus on Revelation 20 and its relationship to the present and the future. This book, using the familiar Counterpoints format, explores three main views of the Millennium.

Darrell Bock begins the book with in introductory, essay, summarizing the main issues of difference among evangelical Christians. Craig Blaising then discusses the premillennialist view. Robert Strimple argues for an amillennial view, and Kenneth Gentry Jr. presents a postmillennial position. In each article, the author surveys the basic variations within his tradition, such as dispensationalist and nondispensitionalist premillennialism and theonomist and nontheonomist postmillennialism. Each writer then presents an exegetical/ theological defense of his own approach, discussing not only the Millennium as such, but its relationship to other eschatological events, such as the return(s) of Christ, the final battle against Satan and his hosts, and the judgment Day.

Each author is also given an opportunity to critique the articles of the others, pointing out areas of agreement and disagreement. Richard Gaffin writes the responses for the amillennial approach. This format allows for a lively, healthy dialogue of the issue, enabling the reader to form his or her own opinion.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond is part of the Counterpoints Series.

END