Chapter 2: Dispensationalism

-Address John MacArthur’s dispensationalism, where it fundamentally agrees that there are two distinct peoples of God, and that they have two fundamentally different purposes, yet then he doesn’t believe that Jesus’ messages are mixed between some for Israel and some for the church, some of the books of the bible are for Israel, and some for the church, etc. He doesn’t believe that you can take certain parts of the Bible and say that this applies to those people, but not to me, nor visa versa. This is good, but still incorrect. If you assert that there are two peoples of God, and that all of it applies to both, then in what way? You still have a fundamental problem in interpreting the passages to relate to both, because if there are two different peoples of God, and they are both distinct in their purposes in God, then how do you possibly say that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the same message to both? How is Joel 2:28 the same for both? How are the prophecies of the coming Kingdom, and the King of the Jews to rule over Israel, to be taken in regard to the Church? Are they to be taken the same way, or differently? If the same way, then in what manner is the church different and distinct from Israel? If differently, then how are you not doing the same thing you claim the “crazy” dispensationalists are doing?

In Christianity, we have formed our theology into several main “branches”. How we define and specify each branch, and how we work out the details of each, will affect the rest of our understanding. Dispensationalism (to be defined soon) falls under the category of ecclesiology. Though it is something that we typically would have in the eschatology section of our theology textbooks, the truth is that it has much more to do with the way we view the church than the way we view the end times. Unlike supercessionism, it doesn’t claim that we have replaced Israel. It does, however, distinguish us from Israel in quite an extraordinary way. What exactly we call “church” matters. If what we call “church” is anything less than the glory that God has intended it from the beginning, then it might be a religious system, maybe even “good people”, but it is not the church.

Dispensationalism essentially teaches that there are different ways that God has dealt with mankind. These various manners, or administrations, can be seen and categorized in a successive manner. These various administrations are called “dispensations”. The teaching mostly emphasizes a fundamental distinction between God’s plan for national Israel, and for the New Testament Church, thus maintaining a pre-tribulation rapture of the church, and the fulfillment of Israel’s purpose and destiny during the Tribulation. Many, if not most, trace the root of this teaching back to the Plymouth Brethren movement and John Darby.

The dispensations that are taught are as follows:

1) The dispensation of innocence (or freedom) – Genesis 2:8-17, 252) The dispensation of conscience – Genesis 3-5, Romans 2:11-15 (Adam to Noah)3) The dispensation of government – Genesis 6-11, Romans 13:1 (Noah to Abram)

4) The dispensation of patriarch (or promise) – Genesis 12-51, Galatians 3:15-19 (Abraham to Moses)

5) Dispensation of the Mosaic Law – Exodus through Malachi, Galatians 3:19 (Moses to Christ)

6) Dispensation of grace – Romans 5:20-21, Ephesians 3:1-9 (current church age)7) Dispensation of the Millennial Kingdom – Isaiah 9:6-7, 11:1-9, Revelation 20:1-6

Each of these dispensations represents a different way that God deals with mankind. C.I. Scofield has said, “These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God’s method of dealing with mankind, in respect to two questions: of sin, and of man’s responsibility. Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment – marking his utter failure in every dispensation.” What is meant by this is simple. When you examine Adam in the Garden, there is perfection. Yet, mankind sins, and thus judgment ensues: we lost Eden. There is a covenant made between God, the serpent, and humanity, which we find in Genesis 3:15. Thus, the beginning of the new dispensation commences with the establishing of a “new covenant”.

When you come to the time of Noah, you find that God is grieving because he made mankind. Sin has so abounded that God actually repents of making humanity. Thus, he sends the flood as judgment. Yet, God does not destroy all of humanity. Noah and his family survive through the ark. When Noah and his family get off the boat in Genesis 9, they see a rainbow, and God establishes a covenant of peace with them. Thus, the new dispensation commences through a “new covenant”. Humanity sins again, though, through the establishing of a one-world government system and the building of the tower of Babel. God then sends judgment by confusing the languages, and sets up a covenant with Abraham that through him shall all the families of the earth be blessed. This covenant also introduces circumcision. Thus, the new dispensation begins with a “new covenant”. Can you see the pattern?

Truly, in the heart and nub of dispensationalism lies four basic tenets. Dispensationalism maintains:

1) A fundamental distinction between Israel and the church – i.e. there are two peoples of God with two different destinies, earthly Israel and the spiritual church

2) A fundamental distinction between the Law and Grace – i.e. they are mutually exclusive ideas

3) The view that the New Testament church is a parenthesis in God’s plan which was not foreseen by the Old Testament

4) A distinction between the rapture and the second coming of Christ – i.e. the rapture of the church at Christ’s coming “in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:17) precedes the “official” second coming to the earth by seven years of tribulation.

The final tenet will be dealt with more fully in chapter four. Behind these tenets is a supposed presupposition of “consistent literalism” in hermeneutic, especially in the literal

interpretation of Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel. I would interject that it seems that the idea of different dispensations, which asserts that the people are bound to the covenants made with them forever, will effect the way that you view the prophetic texts regarding certain peoples. For example, when we read of the New Covenant texts in Jeremiah 31:31-37, or Ezekiel 36:26, we don’t associate them with national Israel except at the millennium. However, these same texts are then applied to the church at large a total of two millennia before the establishment of Christ’s 1000 year reign.

For all dispensationalists, Israel is an ethnic nation consisting of Hebrews (Israelites), beginning with Abraham and continuing in existence to the present. The church consists of all saved individuals in the present dispensation – from Acts 2 until the rapture. There is an “overlap” in the Jewish Christians, such as Peter or Paul or James or John, who are ethnically Jewish and also have faith in Jesus Christ. They also believe that toward the end of the Tribulation, Israel as a nation will turn and embrace Jesus as their messiah, just before the second coming. The church is merely a “parenthesis”, like an interlude, in between God’s plans for Israel. We find God’s plan for Israel in Daniel 9 with the seventy weeks. It is assumed that between verses 26 and 27 there is a “parenthesis” where the church fits in.

That the Tribulation is called in Jeremiah 30:7 a “time of Jacob’s trouble”, and because the church is neither Jewish nor Gentile, but all are one in Christ, the Tribulation must be a Jewish phenomenon. In this, we find the dispensational mentality linking directly the distinction between Israel and the church to the rapture of the church. This goes back to the tenet that claims that when Israel was central in the Old Testament, the church was a mystery. Likewise, when Israel was central in the Gospels, the church is virtually unmentioned. Then, the supposition is given that from Acts through Jude, because the church is the focus, Israel is virtually not mentioned. Then, in the tribulation, from Revelation 6 through 18, the church is not mentioned. This last point is debatable, because outside of the 144,000, Israel doesn’t seem to be mentioned directly in Revelation 6 through 18 either… Rather, any “mention” of Israel in that time is an interpretation of symbol, and not a direct reference.

A Quick Word

Before we begin to dissect the theory of dispensationalism, I think it necessary for us to come to terms with something. It is asserted by the dispensational mentality that the prophets did not know that the Messiah would come twice. It is also asserted that the church-age was not understood before the book of Acts. The distinction between Israel and the Church is debated among the dispensationalists, but it cannot be sidestepped. Whether there is honest distinction or not, the point still presses: God has prophesied in times past of a millennial splendor where Jesus would rule over Israel, and through Israel would rule over the nations.

Most dispensationalists are pre-millennial in their thinking, which means they believe Jesus will return before the millennium. While much of their understanding is something to applaud in comparison to the amillennialist, post-millenialist, or the preterist (all of which will be defined and wrestled later), being partly correct is no better than being entirely wrong. The Achilles heel of dispensationalism comes in their assertions that the Old Testament does not see a phenomenon called “the church”. It is utterly mistaken when it claims that God did not foresee this event.

To the dispensationalist, the Gospels present a Jesus who comes unto His own, fully expecting them to desire the Kingdom, and is rejected. This Jesus comes to give Israel the promised Kingdom, but they instead crucify him. Because Israel crucified their own Messiah, God postponed the coming of the Kingdom until they would say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Thus, it is entirely supposed that Jesus was coming with the Kingdom, but the Jewish people rejected that Kingdom, so God handed it over to they who would bear its fruit until a later time when God could restore the Kingdom unto Israel, and thus the Kingdom could be established upon the earth and not only in heaven. While not all dispensationalists would hold to such wording, the mentality is present in their theology.

Progressive Revelation

It is true that the revelation in the Bible progresses. That is to say, God does not reveal His entire plan of redemption from the first verse of the Bible.1 We’re reading a book that has poetry, history, prose, narrative, prophetic utterance, dreams, prayers, songs, dirges, laments, and many other forms of literature and writing. This is not a systematic theology textbook, something I was surprised to discover when I became a Christian. Instead, much of the Bible is an account given by Hebrews on certain moments in history, and the reaction to those historical moments. In this, we find that God inspires the authors with revelation and insight into His divine purpose and plan.

This isn’t laid out step by step. The people that God addresses at certain times can retain a certain amount of revelation, and that revelation that is given is then carried and faithfully observed. For example, we don’t read anywhere in the account of Genesis 3 about God telling Adam and Eve that they need to offer sacrifices. Circumcision isn’t mentioned until Abraham. The dispensational notion that these are different “dispensations” has with it a lot of baggage, and a lot of defining that is left without explanation. Does it reasonably follow that because God doesn’t mention sacrifices and offerings – like in Leviticus – to Adam, Noah, or Abraham that God interacts with humanity differently in these times?2

What progressive revelation seems to speak more directly to is what is called the “eternal covenant”. God made a pact with the man and woman that there would be a man born out of Eve to crush the head of the serpent.3 In this promise, we find the hope of the Messiah. This Deliverer will be one to take humanity back into Eden. We find with the birth of Cain that Eve blesses the Lord for the birth of a son. Why? Maybe this could be the one. Maybe this could be the Deliverer. Maybe he is the promised one to crush the head of the serpent and take us back into the Garden. Instead, Cain kills Abel.

1 It should be said quite bluntly from the start: There is a massive difference between God progressively revealing His purposes and God not foreseeing those end time events. 2 The various ways in which God interacts with humanity progresses, but what is the reason for that? Is it legitimate to say that God changes the way that he interacts simply because we have entered into a new age? Instead, I think that God is trying to build through history patterns and types. The Levitical Law foreshadows the work of Christ on the cross, just like the circumcision of the flesh foreshadows the circumcision of the heart. It is about types and foreshadowing, and not about God changing the way that he deals with humanity. 3 Genesis 3:15

God does not leave the man and woman without hope, though. Seth is born, and from the lineage of Seth comes the man Noah. It is Noah and his family that survive the flood – the only people to survive such an act of judgment. God made a covenant with Noah – the rainbow – that He would never judge the whole earth again with a flood. It is in Genesis 9 that we find Noah getting drunk, and the reaction of his sons brings about blessing for two and curse for one. It is my personal belief that what was displayed through Ham, and maybe even his son Cain, was a reflection of the wickedness before the flood. This is why Noah reacts so harshly.

The prophetic word is given over Shem that Japheth and Ham will enter into his tent.4 This prophetic word finds its fulfillment in Genesis 12 when God calls Abram out of all nations to establish him as a nation. It shall be through his seed that all the families of the earth will be blessed. It is God’s election that chooses Isaac over Ishamel. God again shows His promise to be faithful in choosing Jacob over Esau. Again, we find in the children of Jacob that the prophetic word is given – “The scepter shall not depart out of Judah”.5 Similarly, the boy Ephraim – Joseph’s youngest son – is blessed that he shall be a “fullness of Gentiles”.6 We can then trace the promise of God for a messianic figure unto King David when God tells him, “You shall have someone on the throne forever”.7

Why didn’t God tell Adam and Eve about this Davidic King who would rule over the nations from Jerusalem? Could it be that David and Jerusalem didn’t exist yet? This brings us to the point about sacrifices and covenants. Yes, it is true that the covenant made with Adam and Eve didn’t require circumcision. Yes, it is true that the covenant made with Abraham didn’t require the Levitical Law. Yes, it is true that the Mosaic Law doesn’t span the breadth of the New Covenant. The question to ask is: why? Why don’t these covenants have as much intricacy as the previous covenant? Why don’t these covenants all speak of the same kind of dealings with God?

The truth is that they all do speak of the same kind of dealings with God. It is through the New Covenant looking backward that we see the depth and breadth of God’s intention from even the beginning. The reason that God deals differently with different people is not because God has changed, nor because these are different dispensations, but because history and time itself is the mechanism that God uses to prepare a people, and eventually the whole world, for the inception of the Messiah and the restoration of all things. This is the point of progressive revelation, and not a dubious categorizing. Rather, we see that God deals with His people at all times in a similar manner.

What manner might that be? It is, and has always been, that righteousness comes by faith, and not by works. Grace is not a new thing. What was hidden in times past was not the Law versus Grace, but rather that faith and works go hand-in-hand. What good is the law without faith? What good is faith without works? Was it before or after the covenant of circumcision that God called Abraham righteous? It was not after, but before! Grace is given on account of faith, and also on account of faith are we accredited as righteous. This is Salvation 101.

4 Genesis 9:25-275 Genesis 49:106 Genesis 48:197 A paraphrase summary of 2 Samuel 7:12-15

We can’t say that God has changed the way that He deals with humanity. As soon as we say that, things like “[He] is the same yesterday, today, and forever”8 are thrown out of the window. God has always accepted His people on the basis of faith. That is why there has always been a remnant, and not the full House of Israel, to receive that grace. Yet, God’s covenant was not made with the remnant. This is where we start to get into the deeper questions at hand. When God made the covenant with Israel at Sinai, that covenant was made with the whole House of Israel. He doesn’t accept the remnant’s righteousness as good enough for the whole. Rather, God has planned that certain events would unfold to cause even the whole of Israel to be saved.

This is also true for the covenant made with Adam and Eve. When we trace it back, we find that the covenants given are to be firmly established for all time. Does that mean that the Abrahamic covenant is to come upon all of the descendants of Abraham? No, because the covenant of circumcision was made with Abraham, but foreshadowed the heart circumcision of all peoples and nations. But, to Noah God gave the eternal covenant, and to Noah’s sons we find the prophetic words over Ham, Japheth, and Shem – that the two brothers should enter the tents of Shem as servants. To Adam and Eve – the parents of all humanity – God made the covenant that He would send the Redeemer, the Deliverer, to crush the serpent’s head. That stands forever for all people of all races, tribes, nations, tongues, and geography. The question we’re dealing with is not one of election. The question we’re dealing with is one of cosmic redemption.

In the progressive revelation, we find that God has intended from the beginning to redeem all of humanity. How that takes place will then fall into the categories of election, covenant, salvation, and eschatology. But let us not cast aside the first question in order to jump to the other questions. These second questions are to be understood in the context of the first. How has God purposed that He would redeem all of humanity? How has God purposed that He would bring about deliverance from Satan’s oppression without destroying the world, save a remnant? The answer to that is that God has chosen a remnant, and that through that remnant He will usher in this eternal blessedness.

What is Israel?

It is at this time that we need to define election. What is Israel? If God has chosen a remnant by which to bring that eternal blessedness unto all peoples and all nations, what exactly constitutes that remnant? We already have knowledge of Israel and the church, and that Paul speaks about a “spiritual Israel”, and all of these things and our opinions and beliefs regarding them will cause us to answer this. For example, dispensationalism would answer this that the election is according to spiritual Israel, which is the church, and that national Israel has a different calling to fulfill according to a different covenant. Ultimately, at the end of the age, Israel will eventually be grafted back into spiritual Israel, and will therefore during the Millennial Kingdom be considered one with the church, but never apart from that grafting.

Covenant theology claims that there is Israel of the flesh, and Israel of the Spirit. It would answer this question in saying that the Israel of the Spirit has always existed, and that we have been grafted into it, and so the remnant is based solely upon spiritual Israel. Replacement theology would suggest that Israel has no part in the blessings – and some would also say no part

8 Hebrews 13:8

in the curses either – and therefore election concerns only the believers in Christ Jesus, therefore making the blessing to come through the church and the church alone. In this, we find things like “Kingdom Now”, “dominionism”, preterism, and other forms of eschatology that would expect glory to come through our evangelistic efforts.

The “mystery of the church” is not a mystery because it was hidden in the time of the Old Testament. Rather, it was a mystery because, like Zion, it is two things at once. To explain this, lets again go through our list. In every generation, God chooses a remnant. Out of Cain, Abel, and Seth, it is of Seth that we read, “At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord.” Of Noah’s sons, Shem is chosen. Notice that whatever character Shem seemed to exhibit, that Noah doesn’t simply bless Shem, but proclaims, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem!” In Genesis 10, we read of many descendants of Shem, and yet it is the Lord’s choosing that elects Abraham. Of Abraham, we read for the first time that his faith was attributed as righteousness. Though the Lord said of Ishmael, “I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers,” it was of Isaac that we read, “My covenant I will establish with Isaac.” It is of Esau and Jacob that we read, “One people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.” Up until this time, we find that God is establishing election upon the remnant – they are the same thing.

From here, we find that the twelve sons of Jacob are all recognized before the Lord as elect. Moses declared to all of Israel, “It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.” It is from the book of Exodus onward that the descendants of Jacob – all twelve tribes of Israel – are called Israelites. The remnant has become the whole of Jacob’s descendants. Don’t miss this. While it was true of both Abraham and Isaac that God chose a remnant of the children, it is not true that God chose a remnant of Jacob’s children.

And yet, we read that there is a remnant in Jacob. As Paul would tell us later in Romans, “not all Israel is Israel,” and again, “At the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” Somehow, there is national election upon Israel, and yet there is a remnant upon which God calls “Israel”. How do we distinguish the two? In John 1:47, Jesus says of Nathanel, “Here is a true Israelite; one in whom is no guile.” Later, Paul in Romans 2:28-29 writes, “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.” Think again to the book of John where Jesus tells the Jewish people around him, “If you were Abraham’s descendants, you would act like Abraham.”

There is something happening here. I think that Lamentations 2:1 reflects what it is that is happening. There is this bizarre mention of the “beauty of Israel” that has been “cast down”, or “hurled down from heaven to earth”. It caught me recently that Israel isn’t in heaven… We have this idea that we, as believers in Jesus, are seated with Christ in heavenly places, but Israel in the Old Testament to be in heaven? That just sounds odd. What if the prophet is beholding something that we’ve been missing, though? What if what Paul wrote concerning the Jew being one inwardly applies to all ages? Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb has commented – most certainly from past sages – that if Adam wouldn’t have eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that what humanity’s ultimate destiny would have been to become Israel.

I think the rabbi is onto something. I think that this remnant found within ethnic Israel is the spiritual Israel unto which we have come. I think that the church is not a new phenomenon.

For example, the Greek word ecclesia comes from the Hebrew word kahal. There is another word that is used to replace kahal in the Septuagint: synagogue. Synagogue is consistently used to describe the place that the people gather. Ecclesia is specifically used to describe the assembly – the people themselves. This is why in Acts 7:38 we read of the church – the ecclesia – in the wilderness at Sinai. This is why in Acts 19:32 we read of the ecclesia being in confusion chanting, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians” for two hours. It isn’t that the church is chanting this, but that ecclesia doesn’t mean “church”. It simply means “assembly”.

Thus, when we come to the question of Israel and election, and whether or not the church and Israel are distinct, we have some serious problems emitted from the Greek words being mistranslated. Where everyone seems to see a difference between Israel and the church, I would submit that there is no difference. Just like there has always been a remnant that has existed, so too do we find that today there is a remnant within Israel. That remnant is called the church, which is a part of Israel, and is not distinct from Israel. The two are one. This isn’t that the destinies are intertwined. They are the same. The remnant of Israel has ever and always been the object that God would use to call back the nation unto repentance. It has always been the remnant within Israel to exercise a certain position of spiritual leadership, whether listened to or not, by the rest of Israel. Some of the remnant was prophets, some were priests, some were kings or counselors, and some were simply laymen. Yet, in all cases, God has given them the perception and understanding necessary to rise up in the moment intended by God to proclaim repentance unto the children of Israel (can you find examples of each?).

Let us look at Romans 9 through 11 in this light. Paul says in 9:4, “Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises.” It is right on the heels of this that we read, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all the descendants of Israel are Israel.” What is Paul saying? He is making mention back to this spiritual Israel that has ever and always existed. He is going back to texts like Lamentations 2:1 to show there is a heavenly people who are in this world, but not of this world – and they are the remnant within the House of Israel.

Little wonder, then, that we read Paul stressing in verses 11 and 12 that, “God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works, but by him who calls”. Why didn’t God cast away all of Israel at the time of their disobedience, and then just continue the lineage of the remnant? “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” It is because of God’s hardening of the hearts of Israel – at least, the ones who are not of the remnant – that salvation has even come unto the Gentiles (9:17, 11:11)! It is this that Paul is expressing when quoting from Hosea in verses 25-26.

“As he says in Hosea: I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one.” You should read the context of Hosea 2 to get what Paul is communicating. “And, it will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called sons of the living God.” When we look at the context of Hosea, something incredibly interesting shows up. Paul is not saying that the people who are not God’s people are the Gentiles. Rather, Paul is asserting that the people who are not God’s people are the House of Israel! It is the remnant that have always been the sons of God. Here, we find that Paul is making an incredible statement regarding the rest of Israel. They have never been a part of that adoption and sonship. Though they are physical Israel, and though they are heirs to the promises, it is actually the remnant that is given the fullness of the promises.

“What shall we say, then? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.” That remnant that has ever and always existed in Israel is now being made full of Gentiles. It is in this context that we read Romans 10. Who are they who Paul desires to call upon the name of the Lord? Is it not Israel (observe verse 1)? This is why Paul concludes by quoting passages that claim that Israel has heard the message, and yet is continually a “disobedient and obstinate people.” But God, in His infinite mercy and wisdom, has spoken even by Moses that, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”

Thus, we come to Romans 11. Here Paul picks up the question, “Did God reject his people?” By no means! Paul actually makes the argument that because there has always been a remnant in Israel, we shouldn’t expect that this remnant having Gentiles is now a rejection of the House of Israel (verses 2-5). In verse 7 we read, “What then? What Israel has sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened…” Who is this elect? Paul is about to explain it. Where in the Old Testament there was the whole House of Israel with a remnant, now we find that God has “broken off” some of the branches – those who have sought so earnestly to obtain, but did not obtain. In their place, the Gentiles have been grafted in (verses 11-21). Now it is that the election specifically applies to the branches grafted in – whether Jew or Gentile. No longer is it a House of Israel with a remnant of spiritual Israel within it. It is at this time that the spiritual Israel is the election.

But don’t think that this is replacement theology. Keep reading. We come unto Romans 11:25-26, where we read that, “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved…” There is a direct connection between the fullness of the Gentiles – going back to Genesis 48:19 – and the salvation of all of Israel. Who is this “all of Israel”? Is it not the same as what Paul has been calling Israel throughout all of Romans 10-11? It is national Israel – even the branches that have been cast off.

We read in verse 28 that “as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.” How is it that Paul would use the word “election” to mean the remnant in verse 7, and yet here election seems to mean the whole of the House of Israel? The answer is found in verse 26. It is at this time, when all Israel is saved, that the remnant is all of Israel. “For God’s gifts and callings are irrevocable”. God has spoken that this particular people – the descendants of Jacob – would be the elect people to bless all the families of the earth. They, generally speaking, have not been a part of that heavenly people by which that blessing can come. Therefore, God has purposed that through the people who “are no people” the House of Israel might be driven to jealousy. This is why Paul concludes, “Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.” Israel and the church are one and the same thing.

When we take this perspective, the whole breadth of prophetic proclamation opens up. The prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Israel’s destiny are concerning our destiny. We have been grafted in. The prophecies speaking of Jacob’s Trouble, and how God will sift Israel through all nations, concern us, because we have been grafted in. The prophecies that speak about the restoration of the kingdom unto Israel concern us, because we have been grafted in. At the end of the age, when the two sticks come together (Ezekiel 37:19), we will find that all along we have been one. We are brothers, and not simply associates. This helps me to understand

Hebrews 11:40, “God has planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be complete.” It helps me to better understand why God speaks so harshly concerning Israel. Israel is a spiritual reality unto which the nation has been called.

The patriarchs attained unto that spiritual reality. Righteousness through faith is spoken of concerning Abraham. Of Shem we saw that he had such character that God Himself was blessed! Jacob’s name was changed unto Israel because of the night that he wrestled with God. This is our heritage. This is the pattern. There is a certain high calling unto which these men had attained, and for all who follow in their footsteps to attain that same high calling, they are considered the sons of God.

For that first tenant, I would like to give a little bit of information regarding where the word "church" comes from. The Greek is ecclesia. The Old Testament was translated into Greek before the time of Jesus, and when it was translated from Hebrew to Greek, we find that the word kahal is often translated to ecclesia. Now, the question then becomes: what does kahal mean? Kahal is the Hebrew word used to address the assembly of Israel. When the people gather to a certain place, it would be called the kahal. The Greek would be synagogue when addressing the place, but ecclesia when the assembly itself is being addressed.

So, we see that ecclesia is not separate from Israel in the Old Testament. What about the New Testament? Almost 80 times the word Israel appears in the New Testament, and not one time is it used to mean the church universal. Over 185 times the word "Jew", or "Jews" is used, and not one time is it used in relation to a Gentile. Instead, what we find is that there is the notion that "a Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly." Now, if I were to say, "Real men care for their wives and families, and aren't afraid to cry, and tell their children they love them," am I then limiting my statement if I continue with, "Now let me talk to you men"? No, we all understand that what I'm saying is that true manliness is defined in these ways, but that doesn't mean the person who is female is suddenly male if they have those qualities, nor that a male who does not have those qualities is suddenly female. The context is obvious. This happens with the word Jew.

So, we see that Israel is never called the church, and that the church is never called Israel. However, there are two passages that need to be weighed. Romans 11:11-24 and Ephesians 12:12-16 both seem to indicate that the reason that these words are never used synonymously is because of a mystery. When we read Ephesians 2:12-16, we see that Paul is emphasizing that the Gentiles have now been brought into the family of God. While it was in the past considered exclusively Israelite, now the Gentiles are being welcomed. But what precisely does that mean? You see, Paul is saying that Jesus has "made the two one" to create in himself "one new man". According to this passage, the church is distinct from Israel because it incorporates the Gentiles and Israel into a new phenomenon.

Let us consider Romans 11 before making hasty conclusions. In Romans 11:11-24 we read of the Gentiles being engrafted branches. What does that mean? Whatever it is that the Gentiles are being grafted into is already present. It isn't a new phenomenon. Yet, when we read Ephesians 2:12-16, the "new man" seems to be a new phenomenon. Confused? Let me explain. Before we reach Romans

11:11, we must first read Romans 11:2-5. Here we find Paul explaining that in Elijah's day there was a remnant - a 7000 who did not bow the knee to Baal. Similarly, there is a remnant today. The question is this: is Paul saying that the remnant are the Jewish believers, or is Paul saying that the church is the remnant?

Initially it appears to be that Paul is saying the Jewish believers are the remnant. The 7000 that did not bow the knee to Baal were Jewish, and so too there is a remnant today chosen by grace. This is where it becomes fascinating. In Acts 2, Peter was addressing the Jewish people from all nations. There were most likely no Gentiles that Peter was speaking to on the day of Pentecost. In Acts 3, Peter is addressing the Jewish people. In Acts 7, Stephen claims that there was an ecclesia (church) at Sinai (see verse 38). Then, in Acts 8 we find the first mention of going out of Jerusalem. Now, most think the Ethiopian eunuch would have been Gentile, and he very well might have been, but why is it that Peter has to have a vision in Acts 10 to even realize that God is choosing some of the Gentiles to be part of this?

Do you see the thrust of this argument? Paul is saying that there was a remnant of Jewish people chosen by grace, just like the first portion of Acts is entirely devoted to the Jewish Church. There were no Gentiles in the Church. Then, just like Peter went to Cornelius and discovered that God has chosen the Gentiles as well, Paul shifts focus slightly to explain that God has grafted Gentiles into this already existing Jewish remnant. What is the church? It is the remnant of Israel. That believing remnant has always had Gentiles within it. Egyptians joined with Israel in the exodus. Rahab was a Gentile, Ruth was a Moabite, Bathsheba was born of a Hittite, which means Solomon wasn't even fully Hebrew (neither was David, actually).

What makes the church a new phenomenon is not the fact that there are now both Jews and Gentiles, but that Gentiles don't have to become Jews in order to be grafted in. They are transformed, and through the new birth are grafted into the "commonwealth of Israel". Now, with this bit of information we can fully question the first tenant. How can there be a distinction between Israel and the church beyond the simple agreement that there has always been a believing remnant? And, if the distinction is only in believing versus 'will one day believe' (see the conclusion of Paul's statement in Romans 11:25-26), then what credence do we have in saying that they have two distinct destinies? No, we have the same destiny. The unbelieving Jew cannot fulfill their purpose without us, and we cannot fulfill our purpose without them. It is one and the same, and without one another - when the two shall become one - our purpose cannot be accomplished.

The Issue of Adoption

Adam was called the son of God. Israel is called His firstborn. From there, we find the language of adoption being quite difficult to ignore from the New Testament. Lamentations 2:1 speaks of the beauty of Israel being cast down from heaven to earth. Sonship and adoption are the issue at hand. When we’re trying to explain the people of God, we’re speaking specifically

about they who have been adopted. We find in Genesis 3:15 two seeds. There is the seed of the woman, and there is the seed of the serpent. Between the two seeds, there is enmity. We can trace those two seeds through the whole of Scripture, and we find that John the apostle did just that.

In the book of Revelation, we find the contrast between the citizens of the New Jerusalem and the citizens of Babylon. Another way it is worded is “those who dwell in heaven” and “the inhabitants of the earth.” Here John saw the contrast between Zion and Babylon. We can see this pattern through all of Genesis: Cain and Abel, Ham and Shem, Abraham and Lot, Ishmael and Isaac, Israel and Esau. It is the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of darkness. At the heart and nub of these two kingdoms lies the issue of adoption. They who are adopted through faith unto eternal habitation are the sons of God and the dwellers of Zion – the Israel of God. They who reject this adoption to find righteousness through works – or even worse, to deny righteousness entirely – are the sons of Satan and the dwellers of Babylon – the inhabitants of the earth.

You can see how in this we really are destroying the notion of any distinction between Law and Grace. Whereas before we defined Israel, and therefore showed the connection between Israel and the church, now we see that even the distinction between “law and grace” is unprecedented. When we read in Galatians that Paul is speaking against the Law, what exactly is he speaking against? I am not of the assumption that the word law means the same thing in Paul’s mouth as it does in Christ Jesus’ mouth. In almost every instance that Paul speaks of the law, he also mentions sin, death, or the principalities and powers. In Galatians 4:8-9, Paul quite distinctly draws the parallel between the law and the principalities and powers: “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaved to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God – or rather are known by God – how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?”

Interestingly, when we look at the context, we find that Paul just finished speaking about adoption. Somehow, Paul sees the issue of adoption, the principalities and powers, and the observance of the law as related issues. When we compare this text with Colossians 2:14-17, we find this parallel all the more blatant: “Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us, he took it away nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do let let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”

For Paul, the law is not something that God gave upon Mount Sinai alone, but instead an entire system of religion that has been established in order to “do for God” what we think He requires. The law is about righteousness through our own ambition and ability. Because we have enough zeal to memorize what the Law says, and because we have the gumption to attempt to live according to it, we feel as though we’ve attained a certain righteousness through observance of the law.

Now, what Paul is not saying is that the law is the work of the devil. Nor is Paul saying that the law is not to be observed. Rather, the point is pressed that righteousness comes through faith, and through faith alone. To be under the law is to use the wisdom of the principalities and powers, which is to say, to use our own strength and endurance, in order to attain unto righteousness. However, it is a false righteousness. This is why Paul tells the Galatians not to submit again to the law, because the law is not simply the written words of the Old Testament,

but a wisdom that promotes self-righteousness according to deeds and accomplishment. Through the wisdom of the principalities and powers, we formulate a conception of righteousness, and we thus pursue that end through our own strength, but the Law of Christ is freedom in the Holy Spirit – to walk according to the fruits of the Spirit.

This is why Jesus tells us that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees. That sentence should strike fear into our hearts. Yet, we don’t fear because we don’t realize the absolute righteousness that the Pharisees had. If you wanted to know who to model your life after, you modeled it after the Pharisees. They were the ultimate example of godliness. Only the most elite and the most learned could possibly be considered a Pharisee. Then Jesus tells those He is speaking to – most likely common folk – that their righteousness needs to exceed that. It isn’t humanly possible, and that is the point. Our righteousness is not according to the works of the Law, but rather according to the Spirit.

The reason that the law is the power of sin comes back to the problem of humanly contrived righteousness. In Colossians, the Greek word is used: στοιχεια. Στοιχεια is typically translated as “basic principles”, “philosophies”, or something to that effect. The word is a neuter plural from the root στοιχείον, which means “first principles”. In some of the Jewish apocalyptic literature, the word is used in reference to heavenly beings, but in the Greek literature, and more classically, the word refers to basic components. When Paul uses this word, he is using it in relation to the principalities and powers. He seems to be drawing a connection between the basic principles of nature and the powers of the air. However, judging by the context, it seems more logical to conclude that these “basic principles” are indeed “first principles”, referring back to the dietary laws, holy day observance, and other aspects of the Jewish custom.

Ultimately, when we attempt to plunge into the depths of understanding the law in the mouth of Paul, we end up finding difficulty because it so heavily depends upon the principalities and powers, and the power of sin. Often Paul mentions the law and sin right next to one another. Sin and death are also mentioned side by side. The mystery being expressed is that the bondage of the law does not come from the law per se, but from the law of sin at work within the person. We are enslaved by these powers, whether powers of morality, powers of nature, or powers of religion. The powers demand worship, and many of us are still worshiping the powers that be. It is upon the freedom found in the cross of Christ Jesus that we find liberty from the oppression of these powers.

In the question of what it means that the law is the power of sin, we need to understand the problem. What is it about the law that binds us to sin? We don’t simply define sin as an action, but instead a condition that we cannot be made pure from apart from Christ. If we say that the law in itself binds us to sin, then we lie, because the law is holy and righteous. Yet, if we claim that there is something at work behind the law, what exactly is it that is at work? If we say that the law is the power of sin, and that the law is defined as a self-righteous system of religion that desires to perform certain religious acts and functions to “be right” before God, then we see quickly how this is binding. We are constantly enslaved to a system of performance. For example, if the gods are pleased with our sacrifices, and we end up with more wealth next year, then we cannot simply offer the same offering because it pleased them last year. We must show our gratitude by offering more. But what if the gods are angry and our crop is devastated? In order to please the gods, we then need to offer more.

Thus, whether we please the gods or whether we upset the gods, we must offer more – more to either keep them pleased or to stay their wrath. In this, we find what the power of sin is.

It is that false mindset that tells us we are entrapped in a system of constantly offering more and more until we’re cutting ourselves and offering our children on altars. The Law actually tells us opposite of this – once you have offered the required sacrifices, you are considered right before God. Our sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ. This is our freedom. But for those outside of Christ, they are entrapped in a system of continuing to offer more and more. The people who continue to work hours that lead to death are enslaved to a system. Work is their god. The people who continue to find their fulfillment in relationships with others, sex and relations are their gods. Of course, when you find fulfillment in something that does not give satisfaction, you find yourself giving more and more and more until there is nothing left to give – thus resulting in death. Whether our gods are drugs, work, sex, education, or the State, we are entrapped in systems of bondage through the law.

In this definition, we find exactly why law and grace are opposed to one another. Yet, in the very words of the Law, we find the freedom from this system given. Like I said, once you have offered what you must offer, you are free. But, under a religious system that is based upon the wisdom of the principalities and powers, and with religious leaders that exploit and oppress their people, the law crumbles as something to bring sin and death upon those who strive to obey it. In essence, the way that the Law is viewed in the eyes of the unregenerate would be like the cliché that many of us say: “The Bible is the B.I.B.L.E – the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth”. In this, we see the Scripture as a “manual” instead of a revelation of the heart of God. Because we extract the heart of God to ask what we must to, we give ourselves to law instead of to grace. Grace constitutes that we are no longer under obligation through observance to certain laws in order to be righteous. Righteousness comes through faith. Yet, as James has said, “You show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” Law and grace go hand-in-hand or not at all. It is by grace that we’re saved, but if we live according to the flesh, even Paul would bring into question your salvation.

Law and Grace

This second tenant is dangerous. Let me quote S. D. Gordon, from Quiet Talks About Jesus p. 114: "It can be said at once that His dying was not God's own plan. It was conceived somewhere else and yielded to by God. God had a plan of atonement by which men who were willing could be saved from sin and its effects. That plan is given in the Old Hebrew code, to the tabernacle or temple, under prescribed regulations, a man could bring some animal which he owned. The man brought that which was his own. It represented him."

We see the combination of the first, second, and third tenants in the note from C. I. Scofield in his reference Bible (p. 711): "The kingdom thus made way for the church, which was a distinct and separate entity which can never be merged with the kingdom, neither in time nor eternity. And the message is no longer 'the gospel of the kingdom', but the 'gospel of the grace of God...' The church corporately is not in the vision of the Old Testament prophets." J. C. O'Hair (The Great Blunder of the Church) has written: "At this time (millennium) the king will rule with a rod of iron. There is no word of the cross or of grace in the kingdom teachings."

With these two opinions, that there are two different peoples of God that cannot be brought together and two gospels, there is another ideology that emerges: "The Old Testament prophets failed to distinguish between the first and second comings," Clarence Larkin.

Here is my contention: In Revelation 14:6 an angel declares the eternal gospel, and in Jude 1:3 it is called the "faith once and for all given to the saints." How is it, then, that we have two gospels? Now, I want to separate this tenant into a couple different categories so that I can break down each piece. First, we'll talk about this idea that there is the gospel of the kingdom versus the gospel of grace. Second, we'll talk about God not knowing that Jesus would die upon the cross, but instead rolling with the punches and yielding to man's freewill. Third, we'll talk about Jesus' two comings not being foreseen.

1) Is there a difference between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace? First, lets begin with defining "gospel". This is one of those words that we learn in Sunday school. It means "good news". Here is the thing: if we claim that these are two different "gospels", what exactly are we communicating? If the "gospel of the kingdom" is somehow the gospel of Mosaic Law, is that really "good news"? Is the very thing that Paul expresses to be what caused sin to abound truly "good news"?

What does Hebrews 11 mean if it does not mean that by faith they in the Old Testament were not saved? If salvation in the Old Testament is about works, then why did God not accept Cain's offering? Why does Jesus tell us that the gospel of the kingdom must be preached throughout the whole earth before the end will come? Shouldn't he have said the gospel of grace? Did Jesus not know what he was talking about? If the old covenant was more than a shadow of things coming, then why does the author of Hebrews make his entire point off of this? Jesus is high priest according to a better priesthood, we are under a new covenant, the sacrifices of the old covenant all point to the sacrifice of Christ, the Old Testament saints had faith in God, and therefore God accepted them. By what authority can we pin these two things against one another?

This is a rejection of the Gospel in all ways. God was unjust in punishing and judging Israel when they performed the works without faith. Also, by what means can we validate the assertion that the millennium will reestablish the old covenant sacrifices as means of salvation? If salvation is not by faith, but by works alone, then what hope do we have? We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that is exactly the point. We have no hope. Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.

2) It is ludicrous to claim, let alone believe, that God did not know Jesus would die upon the cross. Actually, this is stepping over the fine line between false teaching and heresy. It is one thing to believe there are different dispensations. Is is something entirely different to say that God's plans were summed up in the Mosaic Law, and therefore the new covenant and the work of redemption through the blood of Christ is only a parenthesis (a postponement) until the rapture. What do we do with Revelation 13:8, which says Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world? Once again, what do

we do with the book of Hebrews? Hebrews makes its entire point off of God foreknowing the work of Christ and establishing the Mosaic Law as foreshadowing of the heavenly archetype.

What does Jesus mean when He says that he has suffered to fulfill what was written? Why does Jesus rebuke His disciples, calling them slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have written? Why does Jesus tell his disciples multiple times before his crucifixion that he will be handed over to the Pharisees and crucified in order to fulfill what has been said? Why does Jesus make much of the man who will betray him, but woe to him through whom that betrayal comes? What do we do with passages like Isaiah 53? This is obviously speaking of a suffering servant, and it can quite arguably be posed that Isaiah prophesies resurrection. To purport that there was ever a time, or will ever be a time, that men will be saved outside of the grace of God through the redemptive blood of Jesus is flat out heresy.

Finally, if God doesn't have the sovereignty to stop man's freewill from bankrupting his plans, then what on earth makes us to believe that Jesus has power to come back and toil the plans of the Antichrist? What logic tells us that man's freewill could actually hinder the coming of the kingdom to only conclude in the next breathe that Jesus shall return to establish the kingdom? Does that make sense? How many times does Jesus need to come before humanity doesn't stop the kingdom from being manifest? It didn't work the first time, anyway...

3) For the third point, I want to make it known that God did foreknow the two comings, and the prophets also spoke of it. Paul does mention that this was hidden in the past, but hidden doesn't mean absent. For example, we read of the coming of the "son of man" in the clouds of heaven in Daniel 7:14. Yet, when we read of the Messiah's coming in Zechariah 9:9, we find that he comes lowly on the donkey. Actually, it is important to focus around these two verses because both Daniel and Zechariah prophesied two comings of the Messiah.

In Daniel 7, we find this little horn destroyed at the coming of the son of man. When we read the context of what this little horn does in Daniel 7 and 8, we come to Daniel 9 to find some of these same details repeated regarding the seventieth week. For example, in Daniel 8 we read that the little horn will desolate the temple and cut off the sacrifices. In Daniel 9:27 we find that this vile price establishes the abomination of desolation halfway through the week. The little horn is the vile prince. So, when we compare Daniel 7 and Daniel 9:27, what is the appointed end of this man? The son of man comes on the clouds of heaven and the man is thrown into blazing fire. That is all established in Daniel 7. Yet, here is the real kicker. Before we reach Daniel 9:27 we need to read Daniel 9:26. In Daniel 9:26 we read of the messiah - an anointed one - being cut off, but not for himself. That is Jesus dying upon the cross. Then, in the very next verse, we read of this antichrist figure coming to his end. How does that happen? Jesus dies in verse 26, and he returns to destroy the Antichrist in verse 27.

In Zechariah we find the verse quoted above. There is this "king" who comes lowly on the back of a donkey. Then, when we get to the end of the book, we read of a future time of devastation. This future time (Zechariah lived during the time of Nehemiah) would include Jerusalem being captured, but God coming to the rescue on the clouds of heaven with His "holy ones". Jesus then quotes that exact phrase regarding his second coming. So, we have this king who will come on the back of the donkey,

and then again he will come with the holy angels to rescue Jerusalem and establish the kingdom of God upon the earth.

Obviously the two comings of Jesus were prophesied in the Old Testament if we are only willing to dig and do our homework. There are many other passages that hint this, and there are parallels found within the stories of various characters as well. In the next post we'll examine that third tenant.

Is There an Untold Age?

-According to dispensationalism, there is an untold era called “the church age”. It was completely unpredicted by prophecy. -What about Deuteronomy 32:21?

We have been examining dispensationalism a little bit, and I've written some of why I don't believe in it. The first two posts were in regards to the first two tenants that I've laid out that dispensationalism teaches. In the first post I didn't use any quotes because I assume these aren't scandalous concepts. In the last post I used quotes to prove that people truly do believe this stuff. Those four tenants, again, are:

1) A fundamental distinction between Israel and the church – i.e. there are two peoples of God with two different destinies.2) A fundamental distinction between Law and Grace – i.e. there used to be a gospel of the kingdom under law, but now we see the gospel of grace.3) The view that the New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan which was not foreseen by the Old Testament.4) A distinction between the rapture and the second coming of Christ – i.e. the rapture of the church at Christ’s coming “in the air” (1 Thess 4:17) precedes the “official” second coming to the earth by seven years of tribulation.

This is our last post until I give a more thorough refutation of dispensationalism. I'm not interested, at this time, in getting into the concept of pre-trib rapture, so I'll be leaving that last tenant alone. Now, we saw with the last two posts that this idea of a distinction between Law and Grace truly shows us that God has two completely different gospels. The gospel of grace is actually a parenthesis. What I mean by that is that the Father did not intend for Jesus to die upon the cross. Jesus came to the earth offering the kingdom to the Jews. But, they didn't want it. So now that kingdom has been postponed until Jerusalem shall say, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

This, of course, is blatantly in error with the Scripture. It makes the cross and the so-called church age a "Plan B". Because there was no plan that Israel would reject the kingdom, the church age was not prophesied of. The Old Testament should say absolutely nothing in regard to the church or to Israel being cast off temporarily. Yet, here is the problem exactly. There is prophesy in the Old Testament regarding people outside of Israel that shall be God's people. There is prophesy in the Old Testament regarding Israel being cast off temporarily.

Deuteronomy ends with what is called the song of Moses. This "song" was taught to all of the Hebrew children and commanded to be learned by all of Israel. In it we find some of the most vivid and powerful prophetic uttering in all of the Scripture regarding Israel. In Deuteronomy 32:16-21, we read how Israel is said that they have (and the context implies will continue to) offer sacrifices to idols, which are demons. This has provoked God to jealousy, and therefore God is going to bring devastation to Israel. However, verse 21 is kind of a strange verse for most: "Because you have provoked me to jealousy by what is no god... I will make them jealous by a people that are no people."

Paul latches onto this verse in the book of Romans. In Romans 9-11 we read the classic explanation of how God intends to deal with Israel. Paul quotes this verse in Romans 10:19. In the context of the whole passage, Paul has just mentioned that God has purposed that not all of Israel is Israel, just like every "good Italian" loves him mama :) Then, instead of continuing in that vein of thought to tell us about how we are the new Israel, Paul begins to use the word "Israel" 10 more times in regard to ethnic Israel. Here in chapter 10 we just read how they cannot believe if they haven't heard, and how can they hear unless one preach, and how can one preach unless he is sent? Therefore, faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God. Yet, notice the context is still speaking about Israel. As much as this applies to any and all who hear, it is specifically the Jewish people that Paul is talking about hearing this message. And who is God desiring to send to them?

Romans 10:19 tells us that God desires to use a "no people". Who are these "no people"? We continue to read and we come to Romans 11. Romans 11 expresses how we've been grafted in as Gentiles. Their falling away has caused the opening up unto us so that we might "provoke them to jealousy". (I wonder where Paul got that phrase...) Then, Paul asks the question, "If their falling away has meant riches for the Gentiles, then what shall their fullness bring?" What is this fullness that Paul is speaking of? This fullness is the provocation by the Gentiles. He expresses in verses 25-26 that the "fullness of the Gentiles" shall come in, resulting in "all Israel shall be saved". There is a fullness, specifically meaning numerical value, of Gentiles to come in, and when that "fullness" has come in it results in the rest of the Jewish people who continue in unbelief to turn to the Lord Jesus Christ and believe.

What exactly that number is, we may never know. However, the mystery is clearly laid out when you perceive it. Our grafting in is for the affect of driving them to envy. Their envy causes their turning unto God once again. It is we who are the sent agent to preach unto Israel - and that as Gentiles and they who are considered "ex-Jews" for leaving the tradition of their fathers! This one verse is already significant enough, because Paul quotes it. However, there is more. Psalm 102 is a dirge about the sufferings of the Jewish people. They are, in this Psalm, under the judgment of God. Yet, when you

reach verses 13-14, you begin to read how God is going to bring vindication unto Israel. He shall redeem them, for "your servants have compassion on her stones".

Who are these servants, and what are they having compassion on? These servants cannot be Israel, for Israel is under judgment. They must be something outside of Israel who is not under judgment. Here enters you and me. This is the church. This is they who believe in the Messiah Jesus. There awaits a future time when Israel shall be in absolute chaos and destruction, under the chastisement of God, and a body of believers outside of Israel (us) will take pity and have compassion on them. It is precisely at that moment that they shall be redeemed. And, little wonder why I choose this verse, because Paul continues in Romans 11:28-31 to expound even more to us about this mystery. We provoke them to jealousy. How? By extending to them the mercy that we have received.

For God has handed all over to disobedience so that He might have mercy on them all. Who is this "all". We have two options. Either this is all of mankind, or this is the "all Israel" mentioned in verse 26. Whichever you choose, it doesn't escape the weight of this. It is clearly marked out in both the Old and New Testament that the church was indeed foreseen by the prophets. Yet, once again, if I stopped here that would be enough. Let me give one more Scripture evidence of this.

In a book that I'm sure you've all read enough that you have it memorized (Micah), the prophet declares, "Therefore he shall give them up until the time that she who is in labor has given birth; then the remnant of his brethren shall return to the children of Israel." Let's actually break down all of Micah 5:2-3. "“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel (Jesus), whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. Therefore He (Yahweh) shall give them up, until the time that she who is in labor has given birth (see Rev 12:1-5); Then the remnant of His (Jesus) brethren (Israel) shall return to the children of Israel."

Here we see a prophecy that actually concerns the casting off of the natural branches "until the time... the remnant of His brethren shall return to the children of Israel." Where is the lack of evidence of this phenomenon? It is actually quite explicit, but it is overlooked and misunderstood because we have come in with preconceived bias. What is equally zaftig in grave divergence is that some dispensationalists actually believe what they are saying. It is one thing to say that the church is a parenthesis but not believe it. When we escape the bounds of false doctrine to speedily latch onto heresy, we find that the truth of our condition is in both word and deed.

The dispensationalists who clutch to such deception show forth their rejection and despise of the truth when they make statements like the letters of Paul are for today, but the book of Hebrews, the epistles of James, the letters of Peter, and, yes, even the book of Revelation (chapters 6-19) have absolutely no sway on believers today - all of this is written for the Jewish converts during the Tribulation - we are confronted with utter blasphemy. Let me be clear: very few dispensationalists hold to this, and if some knew that this is the outcome of their logic they would be utterly appalled. This is an extreme minority, and extreme in other forms as well.

This rejection of the letters of Peter and James - and some even say the teachings of Jesus aren't for the church - is not merely a rejection of certain portions of God's word. It is a rejection of the senate: the Holy Trinity itself. God the Father sent His Son, and His Son communicated to these men the very words of the Father. To reject the words of the apostles is to reject the second hand teachings of Jesus, which is the teaching of the Father. To reject these epistles as pertaining to us is to deny their inspiration, which is to reject their authority through the Holy Spirit. The Godhead is the triumvirate - what they say is truth to all generations. There is no alternative. And it is for these reasons and more that I cannot hold any longer to dispensationalism.

signifies the creation of an entirely new people of God. In this view, the body of Christ constitutes a separate entity from Israel, which consists only of believers living between Pentecost and the rapture. In contrast, our view of the mystery does not see the creation of a new entity, but the revelation of the incarnational relationship of Christ to all saints who have ever been made alive by Spirit and the Word (Mk 12:27; Jn 3:6; Ro 8:9; 1Cor 6:17; Col 1:27; 1Pet 1:11,23). The revelation of the believer’s mystical union with Christ through the Spirit as members of His one body derives from the central revelation of the mystery of the incarnation and the gospel. The gospel is also called a mystery (Eph 6:19;1Tim 3:16), but this mystery is completely foretold in prophecy (Acts 26:22; Ro 1:2; 16:26; 1Cor 15:3). This was an important point in the apologetics of the early church, namely, can what is being proclaimed be verified and demonstrated to conform to what stands written in the Old Testament scriptures? (Acts 26:22;Ro 16:25-26). Therefore, the revelation the church as the body of Christ should not be interpreted to mean that an entirely new people of God have been created with no past or future continuity with Israel. This error is based on dispensationalism’s misconception of the mystery.]

With this as background, it is possible that the Lord has the ‘foolish nation’ of Moses’ prophecy in mind in His reference to ‘a nation’ producing fruits worthy of the kingdom. In which case, it would also be a nation that is divinely intended to move Israel to jealousy, which Paul applies to the church of this present age in its predominantly Gentile configuration (Deut 32:21; Ro 10:19; 11:11). So the revelation of the mystery has brought to light the time and circumstance of the fulfillment of Moses’ mysterious prophecy that God would move Israel to jealousy with a ‘not a people’ and provoke them to anger with a ‘foolish nation’ ( Deut 32:21; Acts 15:14; Ro 10:19; 11:11). So it is altogether possible that Jesus’ threat to transfer the kingdom to ‘a nation producing its fruits’ has in mind the church of this age.

Notes from eschatology247:-Dispensationalists like to make a distinction between the kingdom of god and the kingdom of heaven. The view also holds that there is a distinction between Israel and the church. It also says that Jesus offered the kingdom to Israel, but they refused it, thus their inheritance of the kingdom has been postponed to a literal time when they will welcome Him back saying, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” This will be the millennium, and from that time forward Jesus will rule for 1000 years. Thus, the kingdom and the church are totally distinguished from one another, seeing as it was to Israel and not the church.

-Thus, the cross and the church age are simply “plan B”. Clarence Larkin says: “The ‘church’ and the ‘kingdom’ are not identical. They are never confounded in the Scriptures… Christ is the ‘Head’ of the Church, but He is never spoken of as its ‘king’… The church is here, the kingdom is to come… the church s an invisible and heavenly spiritual organism, entered by the ‘new birth’, and to be ‘caught out’ while the kingdom is an outward, visible, and earthly ‘political organization’ that is to be ‘set up’ on EARTH, of which the Jewish Nation will be the ‘head’ (Deut 28:11-13), and will have a King, a Throne, and a capital city – Jerusalem.”

John Darby has said (John Darby, Lectures on the Second Advent, p. 13): “Supposing for a moment the Christ had not been rejected, the kingdom would have been set up on earth. It could not be so, no doubt, but it shows the difference between the kingdom and the church.” C.I. Scofield says in his reference Bible: “The kingdom was promised to the Jews. Gentiles could be blessed only through Christ crucified and risen.” M.R. DeHann says (in his book The Second Coming of Jesus, p. 98): “…the kingdom of heaven is the reign of heaven’s king on earth. This Jesus offered to the nation of Israel when he came the first time, but they rejected it and he went to the cross.” S.D. Gordon says, “It can be said at once that His dying was not God’s own plan. It was conceived somewhere else and yielded to by God. God had a plan of atonement by which men who were willing could be saved from sin and its effects. That plan is given in the Old Hebrew code, to the tabernacle or temple, under prescribed regulations, a man could bring some animal which he owned. The man brought that which was his own. It represented him.” (Quiet Talks about Jesus p. 114)In the Scofield Bible (pg. 711): “The kingdom thus made way for the church, which was a distinct and separate entity which can never be merged with the kingdom, neither in time nor eternity. And the message is no longer “the gospel of the kingdom,” but the “gospel of the grace of God…” The church corporately is not in the vision of the Old Testament prophets.” J.C. O’Hair (The Great Blunder of the Church): “At this time (millennium) the king will rule with a rod of iron. There is no word of the cross or of grace in the kingdom teachings.”

-Two things: first, what does Jesus mean when he says that he has suffered to fulfill what was written (Luke 24)? Second, how are people to be converted and the new covenant ushered in without the cross?

-Some of these things are outright heretical. To purport that there was ever a time, or that there will be a future time, that men will be saved outside of the grace of God through the redemption through Jesus’ blood is flat out heresy. Through these ideologies, the notion was birthed that the church is just a parenthesis. The kingdom was postponed, and therefore the church age is only the time of that postponement. Larkin says, “The Old Testament prophets failed to distinguish between the first and second comings.”

-My own note: How can this be so? What about Daniel 7:14 contrasted with Zechariah 9:9? What about Daniel 9:26 contrasted with Daniel 9:27? 1 Peter 1:10-12. Serious errors:1) That man can alter God’s plan. Isaiah 44:6-8, 46:8-10. Mark 14:21. 2) The Old Testament prophets failed to perceive the two comings of Jesus. 3) The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are totally distinct. Matthew 3:2, 4:17, Mark 1:15. Matt 11:12-13, Luke 16:16. 4) The cross of Christ was plan B. Rev 13:8, Eph 1:3-9, the whole of Hebrews seems to speak against this. What about Isaiah 53? 5) The gospel of the kingdom is different than the gospel of grace. Yet, what does Hebrews 11 mean if it does not mean that by faith they in the Old Testament were not saved? If it was not by

faith, but by works alone, then what hope do we have? This is a rejection of the Gospel in all ways. God was unjust in punishing and judging Israel when they performed the works without faith. Also, by what means can we validate the assertion that the millennium will reestablish the old covenant sacrifices as means of salvation? It is one thing to say of worship – which even that is highly debated – but what happens to nullify the blood of Jesus so that the old covenant will be embraced once more? What is equally zaftig in grave divergence is that some dispensationalists actually believe what they are saying. It is one thing to say this and not believe it – but to say it because you know logically that 2 + 2 = 4. When we escape the bounds of false doctrine to speedily latch unto heresy, we find that the truth of our condition is in both word and deed. The dispensationalists who clutch to such deception show forth their rejection and despise of the truth when they make statements like the letters of Paul are for today, but the book of Hebrews, the epistle of James, the letters of Peter, and yes even the book of Revelation has absolutely no sway on believers today – it is written for the Jewish converts during the Tribulation – we are confronted rudely with utter blasphemy. This rejection of the letters of Peter and James as having anything to say to us today is not merely a rejection of certain portions of God’s word. It is a rejection of the senate: the Holy Trinity itself. God the Father sent His Son, and His Son communicated to these men the very words of the Father. To reject the words of the apostles is to reject the second hand teachings of Jesus, which is the teaching of the Father. To reject these epistles as pertaining to us is to deny their inspiration, which is to reject their authority through the Holy Spirit. They are the triumvirate – what they say is truth to all generations.