 |
|||
 |
|||
|
ANOTHER GOSPEL …Israel & the Church in Covenantal Confusion Chapter 11 - The False Prophet By Doug Krieger
With the resurgence of Covenantalism – and the subsequent disarray of Dispensationalism – Israel’s precarious posture as an essential distinction and mandatory participant in the divine scheme bodes ill for her immediate security…as one of her few friends, evangelical Christians, appear increasingly alarmed at her posture with “strangers” in her land, let alone Israel’s contradiction as an “ethnic democracy.” One’s Weltanschauung, as we’ve repeatedly stated, should and does influence how we live on this planet. Increasingly, how one views the aforementioned controversy – and, in particular, the relationship between Israel and the Church – may overshadow the growing anxieties we address; for when economic, political and religious affairs hit home, far too often the West is singled out in its supportive relationship with Israel and the absolute necessity to truncate itself from Israel’s influence and peculiarity in order for economic, political and religious stability to win the day becomes paramount to the nations. Then think it not strange the False Prophet’s “ministry” will up the ante on Israel’s precarious posture…driving her into the hands of her protector…but more of that later. For now, Israel’s growing isolation among the nations – and the theological battlefield now engulfing her persistence – cannot go unnoticed. It’s the Tribnet’s peculiar obligation to crystallize those contemporary theological nuances – some abrupt, some so peculiar one would hardly concern – but none are scarcely unimportant, nor inconsequential given the stakes for believer and unbeliever, to both Israel and the Church. THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE GOSPEL?
Yes, the sounds of sanity, human dignity, peaceful resolution, two-state solution, calls to human, yea, divine and public justice – all have such a splendid ring to them, given the unabashed disclaimers used by Reformed-minded Christians who, decidedly in the main, upheld the Church’s alignment with Herr Hitler in damning the Jews to their most desirable fate; having no truck with covenant past, present nor future, they were easily dispensed with and nary a finger was lifted in their ignoble plight.
“At the heart of the political commitments (support for Israel among American evangelicals – my parenthesis) in question are two fatally flawed propositions. First, some are teaching that God’s alleged favor toward Israel today is based upon ethnic descent rather than upon the grace of Christ alone, as proclaimed in the Gospel. Second, others are teaching that the Bible’s promises concerning the land are fulfilled in a special political region or ‘Holy Land,’ perpetually set apart by God for one ethnic group alone. As a result of these false claims, large segments of the evangelical community, our fellow citizens, and our government are being misled with regard to the Bible’s teachings regarding the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel.” “(Number 6) – The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham were made effective through Christ, Abraham’s True Seed. These promises were not and cannot be made effective through sinful man’s keeping of God’s law. Rather, the promise of an inheritance is made to those only who have faith in Jesus, the True Heir of Abraham. All spiritual benefits are derived from Jesus, and apart from him there is no participation in the promises. Since Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant, all who bless him and his people will be blessed of God, and all who curse him and his people will be cursed of God. These promises do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel. The people of God, whether the church of Israel in the wilderness in the Old Testament or the Israel of God among the Gentile Galatians in the New Testament, are one body who through Jesus will receive the promise of the heavenly city, the everlasting Zion. This heavenly inheritance has been the expectation of the people of God in all ages.” “(Number 9) – The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the ‘Holy Land’ cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact, the land promises specific to Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled under Joshua. The New Testament speaks clearly and prophetically about the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. No New Testament writer foresees a regathering of ethnic Israel in the land, as did the prophets of the Old Testament after the destruction of the first temple in 586 B.C. Moreover, the land promises of the Old Covenant are consistently and deliberately expanded in the New Testament to show the universal dominion of Jesus, who reigns from heaven upon the throne of David, inviting all the nations through the Gospel of Grace to partake of his universal and everlasting dominion.” “The present secular state of
Israel, however, is not an authentic or prophetic realization of the Messianic
kingdom of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, a day should not be anticipated in
which Christ’s kingdom will manifest Jewish distinctive, whether by its
location in ‘the land,’ by its constituency, or by its ceremonial institutions
and practices. Instead, this present “In light of the grand prophetic expectation of the New Testament, we urge our evangelical brothers and sisters to return to the proclamation of the free offer of Christ’s grace in the Gospel to all the children of Abraham, to pray for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and to promise all humanitarian sympathy and practical support for those on both sides who are suffering in this current vicious cycle of atrocity and displacement. We also invite those Christian educators and pastors who share our convictions on the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel to join their names with ours as signatories to this open letter.” (Advent – In the Year of our Lord 2002 – An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel) It is noteworthy that Zionism – specifically the Palestinian Covenant promise made to National Israel – is at the heart of the present consternation. Brit Stephen Sizer, Vicar of Christ Church in Surrey, UK, and pal David Peterson, make no bones about their Covenantalism and how displeased they are relative to “Christian Zionism” and its insistence on Israel’s divine mandate. The left-leaning Sojourners are more than capable of spewing forth their vindictive against the easier targets of Christian Zionism; to wit: “Stephen Sizer's Christian Zionism:
Road-map to Armageddon? provides a detailed and thoughtful critique of the
framework Hagee and
many others enthusiastically embrace. Sizer is Vicar of Christ Church in
Surrey, England, and chair of the International Bible Society in the United
Kingdom. His book explores the historical development, theological
underpinnings, and political implications of Christian Zionism, a movement that
began in Britain in the 19th Century. Incidentally, Kimball’s text, When Religion Becomes Evil, concludes that absolutism within Christian Zionist circles is an acute example in the devolution of religion becoming evil (and this is fair to conjecture) akin to Islamic extremism – hardly a comparable deduction! DISPENSATIONALISM – THE COUNTER TO COVENANTALISM All Dispensationalists perceive a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, particularly as different groups who receive a different set of promises. Dispensationalists hold that God provided the nation of Israel with specific promises which will be fulfilled at a future time for the Jews. The Church has received a different set of promises than that of Israel. Most Dispensationalists also recognize ‘membership’ overlap between Israel and the Church. Jewish Christians such as Paul, Peter and John are in this category. While most do not believe that Israel and the Church are mutually exclusive groups, there is a small minority of past and present Dispensationalists who do. Those who do hold that Israel and the church are mutually exclusive include some classical Dispensationalists and virtually all Ultradispensationalists. Indeed, there are other forms of Dispensationalism, including Progressive Dispensationalism (whose attention merits their counterparts among the Covenantalists); “Messianic” Dispensationalism (espoused by Dr. Arno Fruchtenbaum and many within the “Messianic Jewish” movement), as well as sundry forms of Ultra-Dispensationalism (Acts 28 view or the mid-Acts view) and embraced by the likes of E. W. Bullinger and A. E. Knoch (Concordant Version of the Bible). Furthermore, out of Classic/Traditional/Pauline Dispensationalism we find the “Revised Dispensationalism” of Walvoord and Ryrie. Definitions of the sundry forms of Dispensationalism (see chart below) are mandatory in order to understand the current dynamic of Israel’s materiality and a plethora of Jewish claims to Christianity (or vice-versa, Christian claims to Israel’s Covenantal promises), while maintaining some form of Mosaic manifestation or “Jewishness” – be it purely “cultural” and/or “spiritual” in sum and substance within a “Christian” context – i.e., “Jewish-Christians” – akin to Ethno-Socio-Christian comparisons (American Christians, Swedish Christians, etc.) NEO-DISPENSATIONALISM – TODAY’S “REAL ACTION” IN CHRISTENDOM
“While freeing believers from the bondage of Rome, the Reformation (i.e., Covenant Theology) brought them back, in large measure, under the bondage of Sinai. The Church came out of the Middle Ages like Lazarus from the tomb—alive but bound in grave clothes. The Reformers took away one set of bindings, but bound believers in another, the Law—and this has atrophied the spiritual life of multitudes.” (Messianic Judaism, Miles J. Stanford, withchrist.org) The Gospel of the Grace of God – under the Law of Christ – “Pauline” in its Dispensational dealings, was and is so contrary to Covenant Theology, that one could easily exclaim: As the heavens are as high above the earth, so high and lofty is the Church’s vision and mission above that of Sinai and all claims to earth’s treasures. It was in point of glaring fact that the Dispensationalists were from Darby on resolved to free the Church from “what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh” to “the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2-3). The very soteriological nexus of Dispensationalism not only demanded/demands the separation of the Church from Israel, but frees the believer by placing him under the “Law of Christ” – that being “in Christ” the Jew and Gentile is no longer bound by the dictates of the Mosaic Covenant, nor for that matter, the so-called “spiritual elements” of Israel’s prophesied New Covenant. The Reformers – to this day – are determined to bring Christians under the law and affirm its viability in so far as cannon concerns – i.e., Old Testament and New Testament, “all Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (II Timothy 3:16-17); however, the Dispensationalist will counter with: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Tim. 2:15). As Pauline Dispensationalist Miles Stanford affirms in the defense of the major tenets of Dispensationalism: “Dispensationalism stands or falls upon
rightly dividing the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Dr. Charles
C. Ryrie put it succinctly: ‘The essence of Dispensationalism ... is the
distinction between Israel and the Church’ (Dispensationalism Today, p.
47). THE BATTLE WITHIN DISPENSATIONALISM I have taken the audacious liberty to cannibalize the above chart in order to insert Sanford, Saucey, Knoch, Fruchtenbaum, Gundry and Krieger (me) into the current fray within Dispensationalism. Why? Because these nuances are glaringly pronounced and should demand theological consideration given their past, immediate and future implications regarding the Church’s posture with National Israel, and ultimately, the very Glory of God. For these purposes the segments of Dispensationalism have expanded to include Pauline, Messianic, Transitional and Johannian Dispensationalism – not just the Traditional-Classical, Revised, Progressive and Ultra Dispensational models. If one is Jewish or an Israeli Jew – pay close attention, very close attention to these nuances – and if you’re a Christian in life, may the Lord sustain you in obedience to the “heavenly vision.”
It behooves us to differentiate these systems and why their developments, especially since the early 1970s, bear significant departure from the original models – and why Pauline Dispensationalists like Stanford are so alarmed at the deterioration of Dispensational Truth and what its “compromise” connotes to the Church. Firstly – Stanford does a remarkable job in condensing the major aspects of: Pauline Dispensationalism – Several indispensable teachings of Pauline Dispensationalism are: 1. The Church was neither prophesied nor revealed in Old Testament Scriptures. 2. The Church (born at Pentecost-Acts 2) was a complete mystery until revealed doctrinally by Paul. 3. Paul, in the Church Epistles, was the minister of Church truth. Classic (Traditional) Dispensationalism – From its inception, all the way back to Darby, Classic Dispensationalism: 1. 2. Made OT prophecy to include the Church, thereby eliminating the mystery. 3. No longer viewed Paul as the initial, and primary, source of Church truth. This rending of the scriptural barrier enabled Covenant Theology to come in, and enabled Progressive Dispensationalism to go out—right into Covenantism. Progressive Dispensationalism – The Progressives “progressed” beyond the Classics: 1. Included the Church in OT prophecy, mainly via Israel’s New Covenant. 2. Eliminated the Pauline mystery. 3. Made Paul’s ministry secondary to that of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. (Miles J. Stanford) “It (i.e., Progressive Dispensationalism) has denied the mysterious character of the church, teaching instead that the ‘mysteries’ of the N.T. were revealed in the Old Testament period but not realized yet. But a careful study of Ephesians 3:4-5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26 and Romans 16:26 indicates that a New Testament mystery is that which had been hidden, kept secret, and not made known to men in previous ages, but which has now been made manifest and revealed and made known to God’s saints in this present age by the N.T. apostles and prophets. See our study on The Mystery of Godliness (Middletown Bible Church publication).” PROGRESSIVE AND MESSIANIC “NEO-DISPENSATIONALISM”
“Those who do not center in the truths
which the ascended Lord communicated directly to Paul will not know who and
where they are in Christ, nor what their part is in the purpose of God. Neither
will they know their privileges and responsibilities. Those who are ignorant of,
and not centered in, the Pauline Gospel as set forth exclusively in his Church
Epistles, are constantly astray in their interpretation of the Gospel, to say
nothing of Church truth. With all the acclamation of the New Covenant, promised to Israel in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and spoken by our Lord at the Last Supper and declared again in Hebrews 8-9 – and with all the Progressive Dispensationalists demanding that the Church’s New Covenant participation is that promised to Israel (ipso facto, the Covenantalists announce the Church is the “true Israel of God”) – then, dear brethren, we have a conundrum of implacable confusion: Either the Church partakes in Israel’s aforesaid New Covenant (now) or she doesn’t? Which is it? “He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises…and for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant (i.e., the Mosaic Covenant), that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance…Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 10:19-22). THE EVERLASTING (ETERNAL) COVENANT
Stanford does a brilliant analysis of Traditional/Classical Dispensationalist’s inadequacies entitled: TRESPASS: “Unlike Israel's New Covenant, new in kind, the Eternal Covenant is new in time, having just been revealed to the Hebrew Christians. “Israel's New Covenant is based upon the shed Blood of the Cross. ‘I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more’ (Jer. 31:34). “The shed Blood of the Eternal Covenant is infinitely more beneficial to the Church than to Israel. ‘The Church of God which He hath purchased with His own Blood’ (Acts 20:28). ‘The Blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin’ (1 John 1:7). “‘Now in Christ Jesus we who once were far off are made nigh by the Blood of Christ.’ ‘Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh’ (Eph. 2:13; Heb. 10:19-20). “What of this benefit of the Blood of the Eternal Covenant will Israel ever know? Nothing! She has nothing in common with the heavenly Church. (My comment: In the sense that Israel under the New Covenant compared to that of the Church’s Eternal Covenant, Stanford is correct; however, in terms of the Bride’s Ultimate Manifestation in the New Jerusalem – i.e., the Eschaton – no, “the gates bear the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel (as a testimony to the nations), and the foundations the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb” – here the finality of the work of God is ONE – there are not TWO BRIDES – there is one city, New Jerusalem, prepared as a Bride, the Lamb’s Wife with the proper nouns so designated.) (See Revelation 21:9-21) “‘This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts’ (Jer. 31:33). “It is further stated in Israel’s New Covenant that ‘I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep Mine ordinances, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God; (Ezek. 36:27-28). “Under Israel’s New Covenant, by the indwelling of God's Spirit, the law of the Kingdom will be manifested in the life of the converted Jew. “But as for the Christian, by his being one in life with the Mediator of the Eternal Covenant, the indwelling Spirit of Christ produces the fruit of the Spirit, as he walks in the Spirit—‘that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body’ (Gal. 5:22-23; II Cor. 4:10).” Likewise, the Gospel of the Kingdom – intimately ensconced within the Synoptic Gospels – announces Israel’s immediate Kingdom living – but its wherewithal shall not commence until they cry out: Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord! (Matthew 23:39). For Christians to admire the passages in these gospels which excel the righteousness of the Pharisees, without the wherewithal to surpass their righteousness, can only be exceeded by the Law of Christ; otherwise, it is pure foolishness – for without grace there is no meritorious ascription for the Christian to bring themselves under this “Gospel of the Kingdom.” Indeed, in the latter days its witness (i.e., “this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached to all world as a witness to the nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14) – taken in its context, clearly delineates the immediate Millenarian declaration of the Davidic Kingdom just prior to the judgment of the nations – during the very Wrath of the Lamb and the finality of “desolations” (and for all intents and purposes appears to be a Jewish declarative). It does not bespeak of the Gospel of the Grace of God; however, that said, both the Gospel of Christ (i.e., the Everlasting Covenant – the Church) and the Gospel of the Kingdom (the New Covenant – Israel) will act as the final TESTIMONY during the crucible of Daniel’s Seventieth Week. And, I conjecture, could this be the EVERLASTING GOSPEL declared in Revelation 14:6 announced by the angel prior to Babylon’s total destruction – subsuming all “gospels” from beginning to end? The “Gospel of the Kingdom” as heard in Matthew 24:14 is not the “Gospel of God” or for that matter the “Gospel of Salvation.” This is no mere nod to the Jews in avoiding the name of the Almighty (God) – as if it were a euphemism. Nor is it some metonymy (i.e., the “Gospel of the Kingdom” means the same thing as the “Gospel of God”). Again, just prior to the end (i.e., the very Parousia) the “Gospel of the Kingdom” announcing Israel’s Millenarian Kingdom upon the earth will be announced to the entire world . . . then shall the end come. Indeed, a revival of immense proportions will come about during the Seventieth Week of Daniel – but its basis is the Gospel of the Grace of God, not the Gospel of the Kingdom. We could delve unendingly into the Progressive’s confusions relative to the New Covenant and their Covenantalists delight in blurring the distinctions between Israel and the Church, but Miles Sanford has done a Herculean task in these disclosures, compromises and confusions (Please See: Dispensationalism, Israel And The Church; The Progressives’ KINGDOM CHURCH; Regressive Dispensationalism; Dr. Robert L. Saucy; Pauline Versus Progressive Dispensationalism; Pauline Dispensationalism, DISPENSATIIONALISM, Pauline, Classic, Traditional, Neo, Progressive, Post-Acts 2, etc.). Our beloved brother Stanford was so resolute in the departure of Progressives into the abyss of compromising the Gospel of the Grace of God that he exclaimed: “Dear friend in Christ, you are in for a shock; and I would prepare you at the outset. Progressive Dispensationalism, fostered by Dr. Saucy, and foster-parented by disciples Bock and Blaising, has ‘progressed’ beyond the pale of Christianity, into the vale of New Covenant-Israel’s Messianic Kingdom. This movement rejects the heavenly Church as such; it is not Christian--it is Jewish!” (Dr. Robert Saucy, Miles J. Stanford) WOE TO THEM WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM & DO DESPITE TO THE GRACE OF GOD!
Inevitably, those who proclaim the “Gospel of the Kingdom” find themselves bogged down in endless “duties” and “works” – forever attempting to “transform their world” in making it the ultimate manifestation of Israel’s kingdom – that’s right, Israel’s kingdom, certainly not the Kingdom of His Dear Son! Let me be perfectly clear here – some of my beloved brothers have fallen headlong into this pit of earthly rejuvenation, having absolutely nothing to do with the Kingdom of His Dear Son. They foolishly and even cleverly twist the Scriptures to orchestrate their own “movements” and “tangible” gains upon this earth by pronouncing the merits of the Gospel of the Kingdom, while, again, doing despite to the Grace of God. Taking the physicality of their earthly endeavors so seriously that they encourage abandonment of these United States in search of a haven from Babylon Central – whilst their spiritual shroud which conceals their vision of “Christ in you, the hope of glory” blinds them from Paul’s declarations: “For I know that this (Paul’s imprisonment) will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain…Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 1:19-21; 4:10-13) (My emphasis.). These Covenantal “admixtures” to Pauline Dispensationalism, propounded by well-meaning brethren, frustrated over the “outward appearance of the kingdom yet to come” (e.g., injustice on the globe; inequity of wealth; flagrant deceit and misappropriation of taxpayer monies by the “merchants of the earth” – along with government complicity) are not satisfied with their privileged status of being IN CHRIST – “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge . . . beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily and YOU ARE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of all principality and power . . . In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, HE HAS MADE ALIVE TOGETHER WITH HIM, having forgiven you all trespasses” (Col. 2:3-13). Brethren, are we not satisfied with being IN CHRIST? No, these dear brethren, frustrated by earth’s inequities, cry out in their extreme compromise of the Grace of God by demanding liberation now through the tenets of liberation theology – equity for all or the promise of the Kingdom of this World to become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Messiah in the here and now! Instead of interior transformation and the “fruit of the Spirit” abounding in the life of the believer – these brethren demand the visible works of the Gospel of the Kingdom to measure one’s Christian worth. Why proclaim such a gospel – the Gospel of the Kingdom – a cheapened Gospel at that, while the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ far surpasses this impoverished clod? For that is precisely what they who embrace such a “Gospel of the Kingdom” aspire in the here and now or, worse yet, foresee for themselves and for their followers a distorted “heaven on earth.” Brethren, let us not sell ourselves so very short to compromise Paul’s revelation of Christ and His Body, the Church! Let us NOT be disobedient to the HEAVENLY VISION. STANFORD/WILLIAM R. NEWELL VS. JOHN MACARTHUR’S LORDSHIP SALVATION AND DAVE HUNT’S SUPPORT THEREOF:
Stanford: “WHICH GOSPEL? -- At the outset we must establish just what Dr. MacArthur purports the Gospel according to Jesus to be.” MacArthur: “No passage in all Scripture attacks modern-day easy-believeism with more force than Matthew 7:13-14. It is the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, and it amounts to the Savior's own presentation of the way of salvation. This passage crushes the claim of those who say the Sermon on the Mount is not Gospel but law. In fact this is pure Gospel, with as pointed an invitation as has ever been presented. Here, in the culmination of all He has said in the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord demands that each person choose between following the world on the easy well-traveled road, or following Him on the difficult road. You will not find a plainer statement of the Gospel according to Jesus anywhere in Scripture. (Lordship Salvation, John MacArthur, p. 179 and throughout) Stanford: “Dr. MacArthur's particular error here lies in his applying Jesus’ kingdom Gospel for earthly Israel to the heavenly Church! He has followed his many Covenant mentors in thinking that there is but one Gospel, and but one salvation. Furthermore, he expresses the strong bias of Covenant theologians toward Dispensationalism and its leaders.” MacArthur: “Some dispensationalists have seen ‘the Gospel of the kingdom’ that Jesus proclaimed (Matt. 4:23) as distinct from ‘the Gospel of the grace of God’ (Acts 20:24). Also that the substance of this ‘Gospel of the kingdom’ is ‘that God purposes to set up on earth the kingdom of Christ... in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant’ (New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1366). Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote that the Gospel of the kingdom was for the nation of Israel only ‘and should in no way be confused with the Gospel of saving grace’ (Grace, Zondervan, p. 132). Another early dispensational writer declared that the Gospel Jesus preached had nothing to do with salvation but was simply an announcement that the time had come to set up the kingdom of Christ on earth (Clarence Larkin-Rightly Dividing the Word, p. 61). All this may fit neatly into a particular dispensational scheme, but Scripture does not support it. We must not forget that Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, not merely to announce an earthly kingdom. When Jesus proclaimed His kingdom, He was preaching salvation. (p. 89)” Stanford: What about Dr. MacArthur's kingdom Gospel--the basis for Lordship Salvation? He starts in a past law/kingdom dispensation, and would have Paul and his grace dispensation revert to and build upon that! Stanford: “William R. Newell reiterates: ‘If you were to take Paul’s Epistles out of the Bible, you could not find anything about the Church, or the Body of Christ, for no other Apostle even mentions the Body of Christ! The Apostle’s Gospel concerned Messiah and His Kingdom. It was specifically and repeatedly called ‘the Gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Lu. 9:2, 6). To assume that our Lord sent the Apostles to proclaim ‘the Gospel of the grace of God’ is wholly unwarranted. In fact, ‘the Gospel of the grace of God’ was not preached nor even mentioned (or known) until Paul was raised up and sent forth to declare it (Acts 20:24; Rom. 3:21-28; Eph. 3:1-3). (Selected)” Hunt: (Writing to Stanford) “I don't find that John MacArthur is teaching Covenant theology nor that he has eliminated grace, only that he has strengthened it. There are conditions (obviously) to the gospel, one of them of course being that I must believe it and not add to or take from its truth. Part of that truth is that Jesus is God; He must be or He couldn't save us. If He is God, then He is Lord. If you preach any other Jesus than that, you are preaching another gospel! The new convert may not understand all of the implications of what it means that Jesus is Lord, but if he believes in a Jesus who isn't Lord then I don't believe he is saved. I appreciate your writings and you as one who has contended earnestly for the faith once for all delivered, but on this point I presume we must disagree in love.”
Hunt: “It is vital to realize that Christianity was not a first-century invention. Far from being new, it was the culmination of a long Jewish heritage. The life-transforming gospel which the early Church brought to the world was founded solidly upon the consistent message which the Hebrew prophets declared for centuries. The apostles boldly used the OT Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Christ, the Savior of the world.” Stanford: “Wrong Gospel! David Hunt is writing here of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which he, John MacArthur, and all Covenant-oriented leaders insist is the only Gospel there is. Of course the kingdom Gospel is the message that the Hebrew prophets declared for centuries; of course it proclaims that the Messiah is the Savior of the world. He will eventually save ‘all Israel’ for the Millennial Kingdom, as well as the Gentile nations, which will be brought into that kingdom. “But that [kingdom] Gospel has nothing to do with the Gospel of the grace of God, the Pauline Gospel of the Church (1 Cor. 15:1-4). That Gospel was totally unknown in the Scriptures from Adam to Paul--and it is evidently unknown to many dispensationalists today. “Dr. Chafer faithfully held the dispensational line, and being in Glory, his writings yet speak: “Judaism is not the bud that blossomed into Christianity. Each sets up its ground of relationship between God and man--the Jew by physical birth, the Christian by spiritual birth. Each provides its instruction on the life of its adherents--the law for Israel, the teachings of grace for the Church. Each has its sphere of existence--Israel on the earth for all ages to come, the Church in heaven. (Systematic IV: 248)” Inserting the Lordship of Christ over the believer thereby justifying the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom by the Church, here and now, by the likes of the Covenantalists and the MacArthurs of this world (supported by blurred understanding of the Dave Hunts), has resulted and will continue to result in the erosion of the unadulterated Gospel of the Grace of God. The squabble within Evangelicalism over Lordship Salvation (ancient history as of this 2010 writing) created an entire doctrinal distinction – literally a movement entitled Free Grace Theology (as well as the Grace Evangelical Society founded in 1986. Juxtaposed to MacArthur and John Piper are the likes of Hodges, Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and the late Bill Bright) – all of whom denied that Reformed soteriology was biblically superior to the Dispensational view; however, and since the term Dispensationalism denoted a broad hermeneutic and philosophy of history, they called their view, juxtaposed to MacArthur et al, Free Grace Theology, to highlight the stereological aspects of the dispute. Miles J. Stanford goes even further in taking on MacArthur: “Lordship salvation ... rightly insists upon repentance, but wrongly includes a change of behavior ... in order to be saved. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Savior; but Lordship advocates an attempt to make behavior and fruit [godly character], as well as good works essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith." (Lordship Salvation, Miles J. Stanford – a critique of The Gospel of Jesus, by John F. MacArthur, 1988, Zondervan) MESSIANIC DISPENSATIONALISM & ARNO FRUCHTENBAUM
Hebrew Christianity vs. the Church is precisely what is going on here – notwithstanding all the disclaimers to the contrary. Hebrew “Christianity” according to Fruchtenbaum (by the way, a descent man whose love for Jesus, the Messiah, goes without saying – but herein lies a most pressing problem) rolls out in this manner: “What then is a Hebrew Christian? He is a Jew who believes that Jesus Christ is his Messiah. He must acknowledge that he is both a Jew and a Christian (p. 12). If a Jew accepts baptism solely to lose his identity as a Jew, he is by no means to be considered a Hebrew Christian; he is a renegade, a traitor, and an apostate. A Hebrew Christian is proud of his Jewishness (p. 13).” Indeed, “an apostate?” Ridiculous! Here we have an intimidating attempt to create a dichotomy which simply does not exist IN CHRIST… “Creating ONE NEW MAN” . . . “ONE BODY” (Ephesians 2:14-16). One can be “proud to be an American” – “proud to be Jewish” or “German” or whatever – but that has absolutely nothing to do with being IN CHRIST – “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” (Galatians 3:27-28). A Jew attempting to erase his Jewish heritage or ethnicity (and I’m not getting into the perpetual morass of “What is a Jew?” here) by baptism would have a very difficult time in convincing Hitler of that change of physical venue. The Judaizers within the Messianists are not looking forward to Christ but backward to Judaism. To entreat them to proper doctrine as to “who and where they are” as “members one of another” within the Body of Messiah, the Christ, the ascended and glorified Lord of the Church, nearly in every instance you will be confronted with hostility and overt rejection – not only rejection of your message but yourself! Again, Fruchtenbaum: “The Bible does teach that there is a Hebrew Christian distinctive in the Body of Christ (p. 17). It is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant that provides the first basis of the Hebrew Christian distinction. Since that Covenant is still very much in effect, these four features also involve the Hebrew Christian both in position and function. First of all, Hebrew Christians are still Jews, for they, like other Jews, are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Secondly, the homeland for the Hebrew Christian is the land of Israel, and this is where his primary loyalty should be despite his place of residence.” Alas! Fruchtenbaum and his interpretation of what a Hebrew Christian purports to be is naught but part of the ancient Covenant belonging to Israel – a Covenant which does not become effective, nor is it fulfilled, until the Davidic Kingdom (i.e., the Millennial Kingdom). Israel’s immediate import is that of an earthly nation; whereas the Church is seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. His Bride is not of this world. Let
me insert here that philo-Semitism and/or rejoicing in National Israel’s
ingathering – be one a Gentile-Christian or a What Fruchtenbaum admonishes is for Hebrew Christians to incorporate themselves into a Covenant belonging solely to Israel which finds its complete fulfillment in the Davidic Kingdom. But consider this – this is not “cultural” – this is a blatant attempt to bring Hebrew Christians under the Abrahamic Covenant (even elements of the Mosaic Covenant) – whereas being IN CHRIST is altogether sufficient in and of itself! Amazing! Fruchtenbaum continues . . . “Finally, there is the matter of circumcision. Since Hebrew Christians still fall under the other provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, they fall under this one as well. It is my conviction that Hebrew Christians should have their sons circumcised on the eighth day (p. 28, 29).” If Paul perchance would confront brother Fruchtenbaum regarding circumcision I’m sure you would hear these words: “Beware of the concision (i.e., the “mutilation”). For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:2-3). Hidden in Christ doesn’t seem to dissuade brother Fruchtenbaum… “In the early period (A.D. 30-68) Christianity was Hebrew, and for all practical purposes it was a sect within Judaism (p. 35). The Gentile believers were called Christians (Acts 11:26), but the Jewish believers were called Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) (p. 37). Several waves of persecution against the Hebrew Christians took place between A.D. 32 and A.D. 66; nevertheless, they lived among their own Jewish people, attending the Temple and synagogue services, and observing Jewish religious practices. The policy of Hebrew Christianity was a policy of distinction from Gentile Christianity, but there was still an alliance between them (p. 38).” In reality, true Christianity was never Hebrew – nor was it Gentile! True Christianity is all about the glorified Christ wherein at Pentecost the Spirit of Christ was poured out upon the disciples! The Book of Acts is an historical account, a transition, from the Law of Judaism to the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus and the revelation of the Body of Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel of the Grace of God (Acts 20:24). Notwithstanding, Arnold persists: “The believer in Christ is free of the Law of Moses. He is also free to keep parts of the Law of Moses if he so desires (p. 88). Modern Judaism is not the same as biblical Judaism, nor is it the ‘father of Christianity.’ At best it can be called its brother, and biblical Judaism is the father of both (p. 106).” The life of the Pauline enlightened believer is in Christ alone – “Christ in you, the hope of glory!” What Arnold says here flies in the face of repeated admonitions found in the book of Hebrews and most certainly Galatians. The Law of Moses is complete in its manifold “system” of ordinances, etc. – one is not “partially under the Law and under Grace” – it’s all or nothing! Not even religious Jews can “pick and pull” what they deem acceptable. Indeed, one can state that “biblical Judaism” is the father of modern Judaism, but the Church’s source is wholly in the heavens – the Bride of the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT the offspring of biblical Judaism – her position is eternal in the heavens and she awaits her glorious completion. Fruchtenbaum’s mixing of the OT covenants and scrambling of the New Covenant – with the Church participating in the “spiritual aspects” of Israel’s prophetic New Covenant . . . whereas Israel will partake of both spiritual and physical elements thereof – is not only confusing but bespeaks of a total deterioration of the Church’s unique participation in the Everlasting Covenant and pulls the Church into Israel’s earthly promises: “The relationship of the Church to the New Covenant is the same as its relationship to the Abrahamic, the Land (so-called Palestinian Covenant), and the Davidic covenants. God promised the physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant (as amplified by the Land and Davidic covenants) exclusively to Israel. However, the blessing aspect (amplified by the New Covenant) was to include the Gentiles. The Church enjoys the spiritual blessings of these covenants, not the material and physical benefits. The physical promises still belong to Israel and will be fulfilled exclusively with Israel, especially those involving the land. “Covenant Theology assumes a theology of replacement, in which the Church replaces Israel. The New Testament speaks of Gentiles partaking in Jewish spiritual blessings, but not of taking over those blessings from Israel." (Arnold Fruchtenbaum - My emphasis) May I humbly announce that any “spiritual blessings” the Christian partakes in are in accordance with: “Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every SPIRITUAL BLESSING IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES IN CHRIST!” (Ephesians 1:3) and have nothing to do with this earthly clod, not even these “spiritual aspects” for these “spiritual ennoblements” associated with the Gospel of the Kingdom (i.e., the New Covenant) are designed by the Almighty in prophetic fulfillment of Messiah’s rule and reign on the earth from Jerusalem, with Israel in Millenarian bliss and full obedience to the King and the wherewithal for “Kingdom living!” NOT DISOBEDIENT TO THE HEAVENLY VISION
Dispensationalism has the pristine prerogative to enunciate the dramatic differentiation between Jesus’ Kingdom Gospel before Calvary and the heavenly Gospel of the Grace of God imparted to Paul after the Cross. Frankly, if the believer in Jesus does not focus upon the transcendent gospel truths entrusted directly to Paul from the ascended Lord of the Church, that individual will be confused in so far as their position IN CHRIST, and for that matter, befuddled as to what part they play in the purposes of God Almighty – incessantly betwixt and between Law and Grace, to say nothing of misunderstanding the essence of the true Church. If Paul’s heavenly vision were naught but some (allow me to say in comparison) lame Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel, he’d have been commissioned by our Lord to seek out the other apostles for clarity; instead, Paul was transferred to the heavens and conferred with no man! (II Corinthians 12:2-4) Ultimately, it was the other apostles, including Peter, who had to be taught by Paul concerning truths which were to them, most difficult to understand, again: “. . . even as our beloved brother, Paul, also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction” (II Peter 3:16). Yea, take note, all they who would tamper with the Law, rather than resting in the grace that is in Christ Jesus by “rightly dividing the Word of truth,” you shall bear a heavy burden within Covenant theology, and all the more if you have forsaken the infinitely better and everlasting covenant within Dispensationalism. Paul’s apparent effrontery to the other apostles did not reveal some innate pride within the “least of all the apostles” – his revelation came not by men, be they apostles, Jews, Romans, whomever! The only relationship Paul had with the apostles was persecuting the Church prior to his conversion experience! “I went up (to Jerusalem) by revelation and communicated unto them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:6). “But of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatever they were, it makes no matter to me; God accepts no man’s person)--for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. But, on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter . . . they gave to me . . . the right hands of fellowship" (Gal. 2:6-7, 9). The Gospel committed to Paul – at its
core – juxtaposed two Adams: The one condemned in death and the other, the
last Adam, was made a Life-giving Spirit! We are identified with Christ in His
death, burial, resurrection and ascension – so extensive is the Father’s
acceptance of the Son’s redemption – so central is the Cross – so glorious is His
endless Life – “I have been crucified with Christ: I live, yet not I, but
Christ lives in me, and the life that I now live, I live by the faith of the
Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me!” (Gal. 2:20)
That said, we do not infer that the
other apostles did not discern Him as the Son of God (Matthew 16:16;
John 1:14; 2:11; 20:28); notwithstanding, their first declarations in
Jerusalem to the Household of Israel regarded His Lordship, His Messiahship, as
Israel’s King. However, Paul got his vision directly from the heavens – for he
was taken to the heavens for its receipt – not from Jesus upon the earth in His
recognized Jewish estate. In reality, there was virtually nothing Jewish about
Paul’s Gospel – shocking though this statement may seem to many! Paul had been
so removed from Judaism – from all the “old things” that the Jews would forever
reject the man; furthermore, after announcing all his “Jewish pedigree and
credentials” he counted the lot of them but rubbish that he might “gain Christ
and be found in Him not having his own righteousness, which is from the law (i.e.,
all the aforementioned accolades found in Phil. 3:5-7) but that which
is through faith IN CHRIST, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that
I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His
sufferings, being conformed to His death” (Phil. 3:8-10). So great was
the revelation in excess of the original apostles understanding and vision of
the ascended Christ during Paul’s earthly journey. “For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is MUCH MORE GLORIOUS. Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech—unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away IN CHRIST. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless, when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (II Corinthians 3:9-18). Finally: “The fact is forgotten that Christ, while living under, keeping, and applying the law of Moses, also taught the principles of His yet future kingdom; and, at the end of His ministry, and in relation to His Cross, He also anticipated the teachings of grace. If this three-fold division of the teachings of Christ is not recognized, there can be nothing but confusion of mind and consequent contradiction of truth (The Dispensational Gospels, Miles Stanford, as taken from The End Time’s Observer, p. 179). Dr. William R. Newell concurs: “Paul’s Gospel is the Gospel of the ascended Lord Jesus Christ, and of God as the One who raised Him from among the dead and is now working on resurrection ground only. Christ appeared to Paul as the ascended One, outside Jerusalem, independent of the Twelve, and apart from Judaism absolutely. The Church has no connection with Israel whatsoever!” (Galatians, p. 24). TRANSITIONAL DISPENSATIONALISM I have resoundingly affirmed what appears to be an implacable fortress of distinction between Israel and the Church in support of Pauline Dispensationalism; however, all of the aforesaid during the current Dispensation of Grace brings us to a grand TRANSITIONAL crisis (eschatologically speaking) – notwithstanding William R. Newell’s “whatsoever!” Though this author concurs with the major tenets of Pauline Dispensationalism and understands Stanford’s concerns relative to the alleged compromises embedded within the Traditional-Classical model (espoused by Ryrie and Walvoord) which permits the OT prophecy to include the Church - it does not eliminate the essence of “mystery.” Notwithstanding, Pauline Dispensationalism demands the Church’s total obfuscation from the OT – herein, as one delves into the eschatological potential for “Witness and Testimony” during the Seventieth Week of Daniel and leading up thereto, an entirely new “Pauline paradigm” comes into view – uncompromised, unfiltered, undiluted Pauline Dispensationalism at its core but with an eschatological imperative having the Glory of God! Pauline Dispensationalism has, unfortunately, wedded itself to the Pre-tribulational Rapture of the Church, and assumed that all Post-tribulationalists are without controversy compromised by Covenantalism. Not only is the Pre-tribulational Rapture of the Church the Achilles heel of Pauline Dispensationalism, it leads to some of the most bizarre convolutions in order to keep the “system” pristine in its fundamental thesis of the separation of the Church and Israel – not seeing any possibility of a concluding connectivity during the final Seventieth Week of Daniel.
Therefore, this vast multitude from “all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’. . . ‘Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?’ So he said to me, ‘These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb’” (Revelation 7:9-10, 13-14) – if they are not numbered among the blood bought and blood washed Church, then their “special status” is unknown to all! “…we might well be chary of deducing the absence of the Church from the tribulation in such fashion. Both parties agree that a large number of Gentile saints (whether or not they will belong to the Church) will live on earth during the tribulation (so, clearly, Rev. 7:9-17). But do any tribulational passages in the OT mention those Gentile saints? No such passages are adduced. If none exist, pretribulationists should hardly argue from a mysterious silence in the OT concerning the Church, because the OT remains silent also concerning the Gentile saints whom we know to be on earth during the tribulation. None of the ‘mysteries’ distinctive of the Church—such as the equality of Jews and Gentiles in one Body, the Church as the bride of Christ, and Christ’s indwelling of believers—are ever applied specifically to tribulational saints. But this acquires significance as an argument for pretribulationism only on the premise that the burden of proof rests on posttribulationists to show that tribulational saints will belong to the Church. If the burden of proof rather rests on pretribulationists to show that tribulational saints will not belong to the Church, the ‘failure’ of NT writers to single out a tribulational generation of the Church on earth as possessive of the ‘mysteries’ weights nothing—the application of the ‘mysteries’ to all generations of the Church is a matter of course. Besides, for all the NT writers knew, their own generation, to whom they explained the ‘mysteries,’ might turn out to be the last. Neither side gains an argument of independent value, then, because the matter reduces to assigning the burden of proof on other grounds.” “In the chronological question concerning the rapture, the dispensational issue centers in the field of ecclesiology. An absolute silence in the OT about the present age, a total disconnection of the Church from the divine program for Israel, and a clean break between dispensations would favor pretribulationism: the Church would not likely be related to the seventieth week of Daniel, or tribulation, a period of time clearly having to do with Israel. But a partial revelation of the present age in the OT, a connection (not necessarily identification) between Israel and the Church, and a dispensational change involving a transitional period open the door to the presence of the church during the tribulation.” (The Church and the Tribulation, Robert H. Gundry, 1973, pp. 12-13) (my emphasis) The Church as a mystery (Ephesians 3:1-12) and the associated “unsearchable riches of Christ” as well as the “stewardship” or “dispensation which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ, to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places,” does not contemplate its reflection upon the OT from Paul’s revelation of the same – i.e., by “looking back into the OT from the vantage of the Pauline Epistles” one can clearly ascertain those passages of Scripture (in growing number, I hasten to add) which by Paul’s declarations reveal her whereabouts – and in “connection” to Israel’s futurity, as well as her own. I would encourage a review of Unsealing the End of Days, the Visions and Prophecy of Zechariah (Chapters 1-6) by this author regarding the “Prophetic Church in the OT.” We will discuss these disclosures more fully under Johannian Dispensationalism; however, the alarming extrapolations embedded within the urgency among Progressive Dispensationalists to find some form of “middle ground” with, especially, enlightened New Covenantalists is what concerns . . . we are not by delving into the “prophetical aspects” of the Church from a Pauline or Johannian vantage mingling the Church’s vision with Israel’s proprieties. Gundry postulates:
“Other things being equal, a clean break between dispensations at Pentecost would make easy the establishing of another clean break between the end of the Church age and the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week. However, without belittlement to the significance of the day of Pentecost and the baptism in the Spirit on that day, there are clear indications that the change from Israel to the Church took place over a prolonged period of transition dating from early in Jesus’ ministry to a time posterior to Pentecost.” (Ibid. p. 19) (Note: Pauline Dispensationalism would most definitely concur with this in that the revelation of the One Body in Christ did not occur until Paul’s revelation of the same.) “In an attempt to disconnect the Church from God’s workings with Israel and the nations, emphasis frequently falls on the uniqueness of the Church. To be sure, many features about the Church and this age are unique. However, the Scriptures also teach the essential unity of all saints (Note: Notwithstanding the multi-faceted and differentiations of their participation in the divine chronology throughout history.) Dispensational distinctions between God’s people are economical and transitory. At a deeper level, all saints enjoy unity in Christ. That unity allows the possibility of, indeed provides the basis for, an overlapping of dispensations.” (Ibid. p. 21) (Note: A Pauline Dispensationalist like Stanford would vehemently disagree at Gundry’s assumptions in that Israel’s destiny is considered utterly disassociated from that of the “mystery” revealed to Paul and that the Eschaton’s description of the New Jerusalem does not conflict with their declaration of that eternal separation between the Church and Israel.. . . though that "separation" is, nevertheless, described as "functional" or "positional" in nature but is constituted as the one New Jerusalem, the Woman, the Lamb's Bride.) This again leads us to the prickly issue of the redeemed during the tribulation period, let alone 144,000 “Jewish evangelists” proclaiming the merits of the Lamb of God to the “multitudes” who come out of the tribulation from every tongue, tribe, nation and people. . . Interestingly enough, Progressive Dispensationalist – for the wrong reasons in that they maintain their pre-tribulational position (as if this somehow demonstrates their unfailing commitment to Dispensationalism) – affirm that the “tribulation saints” of Revelation 7 are indeed part of the Body of Christ (and rightly so – but for the wrong reasons): “Craig Blaising writes: ‘Progressive dispensationalists see these ‘saints’ [tribulation saints] as part of the body of Christ, thus a part of the church as it is defined in the New Testament. However, they also affirm a pretribulational rapture on the basis of 1 Thessalonians 4-5’ (Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell Bock [Zondervan, 1999], page 210). On the one hand he says that the rapture is pretribulational but on the other hand he says that tribulation saints are part of the church. Progressive dispensationalists can thus apparently hold to two amazing tenets: 1) The church will be raptured before the tribulation; 2) The church will go through the tribulation. Thus while the marriage supper of the Lamb is taking place in heaven (i.e., during the seven-year tribulation period), part of His bride will still be on earth!” (Progressive Dispensationalism, Some Observations – Middletown Bible Church – a decisively Pauline fellowship) It is fair to say that the Progressives have been slightly exposed in this somewhat farcical attempt to eject the Church while including her suffering saints below simultaneously – a “partial Bride” is she! On the other hand, the Pauline Dispensationalists are, from all their writings, determined to take the redeemed testimony of God’s people (the Church) from the entire Seventieth Week – utterly persuaded that the Almighty simply cannot simultaneously work with two peoples at the same time and must give 144,000 Jewish evangelists cart blanch in getting untold multitudes of Gentiles saved during the Seventieth Week! This presents an immediate conundrum: Pauline Dispensationalism has made an unequivocal commitment to the separation of the Church, Israel and the Nations (the Gentiles); however, then, who are the “Tribulation Saints” who follow the Lamb? And, who are they who “overcome by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony?” If they cannot be the Church (since she is raptured prior to or at the commencement of the Seventieth Week, the “Tribulation Period”) and they most certainly are not Israel (for she is in preparation of her Gospel of the Kingdom) – then who are they? To which “group” do they belong? Are they “late comers” to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb? This brings us to Johannian Dispensationalism within the framework of Robert H. Gundry’s “Transitional Dispensationalism.” JOHANNIAN DISPENSATIONALISM
Although far more at rest within Pauline Dispensationalism, it, nevertheless, occupies a unique niche within Futurism – wholly outside of Covenantalism and the Reformed Covenantal Church’s vain attempts at suppersessionism wherein the Church supplants National Israel’s prerogatives (viz., Amillennialism, Historicism, Preterism, Postmillennialism embrace the “covenantal system”); but simultaneously militates against the eschatological separation embedded within Traditional-Classical Pre-Tribulationism/Dispensationalism (i.e., within post-tribulationalism the divine schematic not only permits but demands a collaborative “witness” be given, again, from the divine perspective, by both the Church and Israel (even in unbelief – which is anathema to Covenantalists who believe it is unfathomable to affirm that National Israel in their “uncovenant” state could ever constitute a witness to the Gentile World Powers). Once the completion of the “mystery” is announced – “but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel (i.e., the Seventh Trumpet or “last trump”), when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets” – Rev. 10:7), the rapture of the Church takes place. It is the “sounding of the Seventh Trumpet” that announces both the “pouring out of the seven vials of the Wrath of God/Wrath of the Lamb” (the 30-days or unto the 1,290th day of desolations mentioned in Daniel 12:11) as well as the very rapture of the Church and completion of the “mystery of God” which “mystery” is indeed the Church – for this author sees no special class of the redeemed who follow the Lamb and overcome by His blood without their participation in the “mystery hidden in Christ before the foundations of the world were laid”). Johannian Dispensationalism acclaims the “prophetic witness” of the Church and Israel within the commencement of the Seventieth Week of Daniel yet future from the divine perspective. It commences that eschatological significance within the bestirring of National Israel’s awakening to her regathering towards Eretz Israel (Zionism) and confirms the intensification of that Witness throughout the Seventieth Week as a pronounced incitement and divine testimony to the Gentile World Powers. Furthermore, Johannian Dispensationalism sees in so-called Progressive Dispensationalism and its deviant offspring – Messianic Dispensationalism and Lordship Salvation – overt claims which militate against the pristine truths embedded within Pauline Dispensationalism; degrading the Church’s heavenly revelation into the earthly elements embedded within the Gospel of the Kingdom originally presented to Israel prior to the cross (at best) and, at worst, a two-fold theological disaster: (1) Galatianizing the faith once delivered – in effect Judaizing the Church, bringing her back under law; and (2) Committing the Church to a life of works via the Gospel of the Kingdom preached to Israel during our Lord’s initial proclamation – juxtaposed to our Lord’s “heavenly vision” committed through Paul and clearly known as the Gospel of Grace – the Gospel of Christ – “my Gospel.” Due to its distinct post-tribulational eschatology, Johannian Dispensationalism demands that prophetic Israel (the present ingathering – the “Valley of Dry Bones”) and the “perseverance of the saints” – the “Tribulational Saints” (the Church) constitute the– the TWO WITNESSES (Revelation 11 – not individuals like Moses, Enoch, Elijah or Old and New Testaments; neither the Law and the Prophets – for “the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them” – Revelation 11:7). They are called to bring forth prophetic witness in the crucible of the entire Seventieth Week of Daniel’s prophecy (3.5 days of unmitigated testimony and 3.5 days of persecution – Revelation 11:2-12). In sum: The Two Witnesses are at war with the Beast and must be corporate in nature. We would not go so far as to say what Gundry postulates; however, as you will see later – we are tempted! “It is a matter of dealing simultaneously with, and through, two groups of redeemed people and witnesses. Will two diverse groups of saints, those who belong to the Church and those who belong to Israel coexist on earth and perhaps live according to different regulations? If so, will the tribulational Church be composed exclusively of Gentile believers? Will two distinct companies of witnesses preach the Gospel, maybe variations of it? Such questions arise quite naturally if we take the tribulation as transitional. But the mere existence of these questions does not preclude the possibility of the presence of the church in the tribulation. For we might ask similar questions about the saints who we know came out of the Mosaic dispensation into the Church.” (p. 23 – Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, Zondervan, 1973) However, Gundry immediately clarifies himself: “The tribulation knows only one group of redeemed people, the Church. The regenerate Jewish remnant will belong to the Church then as now (Rom. 11:5) and will be raptured at the post-tribulational advent of Christ. That unconverted part of the Jewish nation who by God’s special protection will physically survive the tribulation (Rev. 7:1-4) will repent, believe, and be saved as they see their Messiah descending. But they will have missed the rapture. Instead, they will enter the millennium as the natural-bodied subjects of the restored Davidic kingdom.” (p. 24 – Ibid) Gundry makes no claim about the identity of the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 as “corporate beings” – we affirm that Johannian Dispensationalism does. The Church and National Israel are in “divine collaboration” – the one, the Church stridently preaching the Gospel of the Grace of God and defiant before principalities and powers be they cast down from the heavens or in their confrontation against the Antichrist-Beast and the Second Beast-False Prophet – yes, “They overcame (him – the Beast/Antichrist/Dragon) by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony and they loved not their lives unto the death” (Revelation 12:11); and Israel, even in unbelief, regathered in the land as a prophetic statement of the unending “mercies of David” forecasting a pending Gospel of the Kingdom soon to be. To the contrary, Gundry sees no witness, per se, in Israel’s “preparation” during the Seventieth Week of Daniel’s prophecy; consequently, he does not see Israel as one of the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11:
“Again within a post-tribulational understanding of the tribulation, the Church will be God’s SOLE WITNESSING body during the tribulation. For all the redeemed of that period, Jews and Gentiles, will belong to the Church. Not until their conversion at the Parousia, which inaugurates Christ’s millennial reign, will God reinstate the nation of Israel as His witness to the nations. Prima facie, it is reasonable that the Church rather than Israel should represent God to the world during the time Israel undergoes final, bitter chastisement.” (Gundry, P. 26 - The Church and the Tribulation) Herein we beg to differ with Gundry. Johannian Dispensationalism’s view is from the “divine perspective” – it sees Israel’s preparation in the crucible of the turbulent and final week as their witness to Gentile World Powers that the Almighty’s promise to refine the “sons of Levi” and ultimately, “to anoint the Most Holy” (i.e., the “cleansing of the Third Temple” – “that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness”) – to attest to His uncompromised, unconditional, covenant-keeping, unilateral word to David and all elements within the Palestinian Covenant – as that marvelous preparation has ensued, wherein Israel shall become a “cup of trembling to all the nations round about” – wherein the day comes when “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Messiah, saying, ‘Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.’ He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure: ‘Yet I have set My King on My holy hill of Zion.’ ‘I will declare the decree; the Lord has said to Me, You are My Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession. You will break them with a rod of iron; and shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel…Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him” (Psalm 2). Where TWO constitutes testimony – is remarkable within Johannian Dispensationalism. Israel and the Church are distinct – but their “prophetic witness” is wholly wrought in divine collaboration. Both are called forth to testify against Babylon, that Great City (for ultimately, they shall constitute the Holy City, New Jerusalem) – and for good reason: The Judge of all the earth demands a verdict of GUILTY AS CHARGED but awaits the full testimony of His chosen witnesses (cf. Numbers 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 26:60). The “tribulum” or “Tribulation period” is in essence a “cosmic courtroom” wherein the Almighty calls forth His Two Witnesses wherein “evidence that demands a verdict” over the past four thousand years is “rehearsed” to incite the aforementioned verdict against the accused (i.e., “the accuser of the brethren”) and his Great City, Babylon. It is for these reasons that the repeated statements of “joint prophetic collaboration” in the Apocalypse demands a reappraisal of Israel’s testimony within the crucible of Daniel’s 70th Week. 1. “And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God (Israel) and have the testimony of Jesus (the Church)” (Revelation 12:17). 2. “They sing the song of Moses (Israel), the servant of God; and the song of the Lamb (the Church)” (Revelation 15:3). Many more comparisons of “collaborative prophetic witness” can be made – please review Unsealing the End of Days, the visions and Prophecy of Zechariah by this author. Furthermore, the ultimate consummation of the Bride decisively bespeaks exclusively concerning two proper nouns in the description of the New Jerusalem; to wit: “Come, I will show you the WOMAN, the Lamb’s Bride. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the city, holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:9-14). Be it carefully noted that the consummation of the ages in the Eschaton (following the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:11-14 concomitant of the “new heaven and a new earth” announced in Revelation 21:1 and the revelation of the New Jerusalem, the Woman, the Bride of the Lamb), after the Millenarian reign of a literal thousand years, indeed ushers in a “new heaven and a new earth” – but, again, unveils the glorious WOMAN, the Lamb’s Bride – comprised of both Israel and the Church – distinct but in everlasting union – what grace is this! Although the New Covenant promises made to National Israel are immediately recognized at the Second Coming of Messiah – so all Israel shall be saved and the throne of David upon the earth in Millenarian fulfillment is actualized (i.e., the New Covenant of Jeremiah and Ezekiel is inaugurated) – she, the “twelve tribes of Israel,” shall in the Eschaton, be part and parcel of the Ultimate Manifestation of the work of God – the Bride of the Lamb – the New Jerusalem and shall with the Church be considered the Universal Masterpiece of the Almighty: The Woman – The Lamb’s Bride! It is absurd to conclude there are TWO BRIDES – one of Israel and one of the Church – as much as it is absurd to conclude there are two New Covenants! Allow me to refute the insane notion that the Lamb of God is a polygamist! It is within Johannian Dispensationalism that the mandatory eschatological intent to bring both heaven and earth into final judgment and prophetic fulfillment occurs; therefore, Israel’s decisive and predictive testimony before the Gentile World Powers is mandatory; likewise, the Church’s final struggle against principalities and powers in heavenly places is played out in the heavens, while subjected to grievous endurance upon the earth during the Seventieth Week of Daniel’s finality. It is of divine necessity that His “Witnesses” – Israel (the two olive trees) and the Church (the two lampstands) – be called forth to give terrestrial and celestial witness simultaneously; in sync and divine collaboration for the angel to announce the final judgments against that Great City, Babylon and her tripartite manifestation: Religious Apostasy (the Harlot – Revelation 17); Commercial Exploitation (the Merchants of the earth – Revelation 18); and Political Babylon (the Beast and Second Beast and the binding of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan for a thousand years – Revelation 19). Three Hallelujahs have been exclusively reserved throughout the entire New Testament until Babylon the Great is utterly destroyed (Revelation 19:1-4); even so: “Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath” (Revelation 16:19).
We do not consider the defense of Traditional/Classical nor Revised Dispensationalism, nor for that matter Pauline Dispensationalism (Miles Stanford), to be at odds with Johannian Dispensationalism in that all believers in Jesus as Messiah prior to the post-tribulational rapture of the Church (i.e., “the dead in Christ shall rise first then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” – I Thess. 4:16-17) – be they from Gentile or Jewish backgrounds) still constitute the Church (i.e., Jew and Gentile members thereof); and, furthermore, Messiah’s disclosure to National Israel and their subsequent salvation and Davidic/Palestinian Millenarian fulfillment do not mitigate against Traditional or Pauline Dispensationalism. Their distinct roles are preserved and magnified in fulfillment as the Almighty calls them forth to testify against that Great City (i.e., the Holy City vs. the Great City). “Most dispensationalists, along with
Covenant theologians, fail to realize that there are two Gospels, each
dependent upon the Blood of the Cross. One is earthly, the other is heavenly.
And both Gospels are ‘according to Jesus.’ The one was ministered by Him on
earth, in His humiliation, prior to the Cross, exclusively for Israel and her
earthly kingdom. Here is where Sanford’s “Gospel of the Kingdom” and “Gospel of the Grace of God” under Johannian Dispensationalism must merge into the “Everlasting Gospel” wherein the “Two Gospels” unite as the EVERLASTING GOSPEL. This is not an affront to the unsearchable riches IN CHRIST but a divine consummation of inestimable prophetic perfection – HAVING THE GLORY OF GOD! In conclusion, remember, the “ministry” of the False Prophet comes to prepare the way of the First Beast – with designs to make an Image of that Beast wherein it will worship itself, while it worships the Beast. The Church’s infatuation with the State (“State churches in Europe” wrought, in the main, by the presuppositions of the Gospel of the Kingdom under Covenant theology with its eschatological action corollaries and the persistent and increasing calls by today’s Covenantalists demanding Christian engagement in “social reformation”) is the ultimate conclusion of their faulty interpretation of the gospel of the Kingdom, and the pending view of the Harlot who rides the Beast. It is the antithesis of “the glory of God” (Revelation 21:23) – for the Lamb’s Bride never indulges in the worship of self but “eyes her dear Bridegroom’s face – I will not gaze at glory, but on my King of Grace!” Likewise: “Who are you, O Great Mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain! And he shall bring forth the capstone with shouts of ‘Grace, grace to it!’” (Zechariah 4:7). Indeed, that final consummation of His eternal purpose to “sum up all things in Christ” – therefore, the heavens are full of the glory of the Lord and… “. . . the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear Your name, both small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth.’ Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ARK OF HIS COVENANT was seen in His temple” (Revelation 11:19a). |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
