The Loud Verse and the Secret Rapture

A key verse beloved by all dispensationalists is Paul's statement in 1 Thessalonians 4:16: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first." This verse is the foundation stone to dispensationalism's unique doctrine of the "Secret Rapture."

Dispensationalists hold that the Church Age will end just before the Great Tribulation, when Jesus will return and secretly Rapture his saints into heaven. Their view is not only premillennial, but pre-tribulational premillennial. This verse in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians teaches, according to dispensationalism, that the Lord will rescue his people from the world before the outbreak of the Great Tribulation. This event will be "secret" in that only believers will hear the call.

Meanwhile, those on earth, who are "left behind" will notice the Christians are gone, but will not know what happened. The Antichrist will create a lie to account for the sudden disappearance of millions of people from the world.

Unfortunately for dispensationalism, their doctrine of the Secret Rapture is not only unheard of in Church history prior to 1830 (maybe that explains why is is a secret!), but is also established on a verse that contradicts the very idea itself.

Note that this "Secret Rapture" verse is the noisiest verse in Scripture. Paul went out of his way to declare the dramatic, public nature of Christ's return. Not once, but three times he presents its public nature. Christ will descend from heaven "with a shout." In case you miss that, he adds: "with the voice of the archangel." And if you slept through all that, he adds: "with the trumpet of God."

1. The shout. Here he uses a word that speaks of loudness. He could have used the word for "command," if he had not wanted to emphasize its audible nature. Look anywhere in Scripture: a "shout" is always used as a publically audible, dramatic sound.

2. The voice of the archangel. This is not simply a voice of a lowly angel (if there be such!), but the voice of a mighty archangel, the "ruling" (arch) angel. Again, the emphasis falls on the dramatic nature of the voice. It is not a "still, small voice," but "the voice of the archangel."

3. The trumpet of God. Like shouting, a trumpet emits a loud, publically audible sound. In fact, when the Israelites surround Jericho, they are commanded to both shout and blare trumpets to publically show that the walls of Jericho will fall at their audible "command."

How can a "Secret" Rapture be founded on such a dramatically public sounding? If I were going to create a new theology, I certainly would try to make it at least appear to match the verse upon which it is based. The Antichrist will really have his work cut out for him, when he tries to lie about such a dramatically public blaring sound. Perhaps he will use the whole phenomenon to impose a world-wide noise ordinance on all men and nations.

Will Dispensationalism Survive?

By Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Dispensationalism is a resiliant theological system that somehow weathers its own failures. The modern fundamentalist sees the system as "plain and simple," pure Scripture clearly stated.

Somehow they keep overlooking their failures and their changing system. Consider Hal Lindsey's notorious failures: 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon. Oops! Perhaps there is a "gap" in the countdown.

Then his follow-up failure: Planet Earth 2000: Will Mankind Survive? Well, yes: in fact, it will.

To make matters worse, the more intellectual types are abandoning the old-line dispensational ship. They have created what they call "Progressive Dispensationalism." This approach effectively abandons the distinctives of dispensationalism, while maintaining only its premillennialism.

And now comes our documentary expose: "The Late Great Planet Church" from NiceneCouncil.com. This will surely stir up a storm of controversy. Hopefully the storm will knock the lid down over dispensationalism's casket from which it keeps arising. Surely this will help stop dispensationalism frmo sucking the blood out of Christianity's integrity.

When will the Christian-in-the-pew finally have enough of the embarrassment of continuing failed predictions? When will they realize their intellectual forces are abandoning them. Perhaps the televangelists and the novelists can fan the flames for awhile longer, but eventually this fire will soon be extinguished. Perhaps "The Late Great Planet Church" will move us closer to that day.

The Obituary of Dispensationalism

by Vic Reasoner

In 1830 Margaret MacDonald had a vision about the end of the world and when she came out from under her trance, she wrote it down. This account attracted the attention of Edward Irving and his church later claimed Margaret has one of their own prophetesses. Irving is regarded as the forerunner of the charismatic movement because of his emphasis on healing and tongues. Irving also had an interest in prophecy and held prophetic conferences. The historian of Irving's church claimed that Margaret was the first person to teach a two stage second coming of Christ.

The Birth of Dispensationalism

John Darby traveled to Scotland to visit the MacDonald home. Darby was a lawyer until a year after his conversion when he was ordained a deacon in the Church of England. Soon after entering the ministry he became disillusioned with the institutional church and started the Brethren movement in Plymouth, England. Darby became known as the father of dispensationalism, the first eschatology to incorporate the "prophecy" of Margaret MacDonald. Darby continued to develop this new view by becoming the first to make a radical distinction between Israel and the Church. Darby taught that God has two special groups of people (or two brides) and a separate plan for each of them. This meant Christ would have to return twice.

Darby had a pessimistic view of the Church, teaching that it would end in apostasy. Only a remnant would be secretly raptured out (namely those who followed Darby). Of course, this secret rapture was so secret that no one had ever heard of it for 1800 years! The Church was a parenthesis in God's original plan because of the supposed failure of Christ to set up His kingdom while He was on earth. When He comes again to set up the kingdom, for some strange reason, the temple will be rebuilt and animal sacrifices re-instituted. By the time Darby had finished dividing the Word of Truth there were seven dispensations, five judgments, two brides, two new covenants, two kingdoms, two advents, two resurrections, a 2000 year gap in Daniel's seventy weeks, and eight separate Plymouth Brethren denominations.

The Influence of Dispensationalism

Darby made eight trips to America to promote his new teaching. Daniel Steele interviewed him and was not impressed. As Darby tried to distinguish between all the judgments, Steele was so amused that he could hardly keep from laughing in his face. Steele wrote, "May I never see another man, manifestly of so great genius and learning, compelled to crawl through orifices so small." It is an irony of history that the holiness movement canonized Daniel Steele, but adopted the teachings of John Darby!

While other dispensational scholars find as few as three dispensations or as many as eight, Scripture never uses the word "dispensation" to refer to a period of time. It is made up of two words: "house" and "law" meaning management or administration. When C. I. Scofield, a converted lawyer, visited at the prophetic conferences he did not have the theological background to properly evaluate Darby's teaching. He was indoctrinated and in 1909 first published his reference Bible. This book did more than anything else to make Darby's teachings popular in America.

Dispensationalism also infiltrated the American church through the rise of the Bible School movement. As early as the 1930's dispensationalism was firmly established as a foundational doctrine in most of the new schools. In time a minister was not considered orthodox unless he adhered to this new doctrine. It is another irony of history that dispensationalists would be intolerant of anyone who held one of the major historic views taught for nearly 1900 years. No real Wesleyan scholar has ever subscribed to dispensationalism because they recognized that is was based on Darby's own Calvinistic presuppositions. However, genuine calvinists also reject Darby's conclusions as "watering down Biblical Calvinism."

As early as 1887 Daniel Steele recognized that dispensationalism belittled the Christian agencies in operation by asserting that they were inadequate to convert the world. He feared the system would end in embarrassment just as it happened to William Miller and the Seventh Day Adventist movement who first said that the Lord would return in 1843, then 1844. Steele warned that the attention of the Church would be diverted from evangelism to speculation.

The rapture came to be anticipated as an escape from responsibility. At the turn of the 20th century there was a move to finish the task of world evangelism, but dispensationalism shifted the emphasis away from social responsibility to that of rescuing the souls of a few before they were out of time. Never in the history of the Church has so large a percentage of professed Christians had so little influence. The Roman Empire caved in to Christian influence when only 10% of the population was Christian. Today 34% claim to be born again.

The history of dispensationalism's negative influence is traced in Less Than Conquerors with Douglas W. Frank concluding, "The appeal of dispensationalism might well wane, with post millennial optimism taking its place." The Church has only recently gained some of the earlier momentum and emphasis on world evangelism. Of course, this, too, must be interpreted by dispensationalists as a delusion since the Church is in ruin. Darby declared that "the yearbooks of history are the yearbooks of hell." Much later Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote in his eight volume magnum opus of dispensational theology that God gave us no commission to convert the world and "enterprises based on that sort of idealism are without His authority."

Decline of Dispensationalism

False prophets attempting to predict the outcome of both world wars hurt dispensationalism's credibility. They were always confident that Bible prophecy was being fulfilled right before their eyes, but the subsequent events always forced them to continually re-evaluate what was being fulfilled. Bible scholars had either grown silent or abandoned the viewpoint after the mid 1960s. Then there was a revival of interest when Hal Lindsey published the best selling book of the 1970s: The Late Great Planet Earth. In it Lindsey declared that "no self-respecting scholar who looks at world conditions and the accelerating decline of Christian influence today is a post-millennialist." Lindsey wold have saved himself much embarrassment if he had interpreted world conditions in light of Scripture, instead of trying to read into Scripture his understanding of current events. Lindsey helped bury dispensationalism with his unfulfilled predictions and there were plenty of post-millennialists around to attend the funeral!

The decade of the 1980s came and went without any armageddon despite Lindsey's forecast in The 1980's: Countdown to Armageddon. It was not The Terminal Generation. Getting married three times did not help his credibility either. Scofield also had to cover over the fact he had deserted his first wife and children.

With the establishment of Israel as a nation on May 14, 1948, dispensationalists taught that there would be only one more generation of the Church. God would rapture it out and the tribulation would begin, according to their view of Matthew 24:34. All this was to occur within one forty year "generation." While dispensationalists have never agreed among themselves as to whether the rapture was to be partial, pre-tribulational, mid-trib, or post-trib, time has proven them all to be wrong. The year 1988 ended with an awkward silence from their scholars. If Israel is "God's prophetic clock," then dispensationalists do not know how to tell time.

Dispensationalists tried hard to hang on to life with such sensational attempts as UFO's and the rapture, studies of Egyptian pyramids, the alignments of the planets, hidden messages in the Psalms, a revival of the old Roman Empire, 666 on Social Security checks, 666 on the Universal Products Code, or 666 on anything! Edgar Whisenant was the latest to play the dating game. He sold 4.5 million copies of a book proving the Lord would return between September 11-13, 1988. He later updated it to October 3, then January, 1989, and finally to September 1, 1989. He finally admitted, "I guess God doesn't always do things the way man thinks he will." Constance Cumbey had earlier given up a seven year effort to expose a conspiracy to introduce the Anti-Christ. At one point she claimed it might even be Pat Robertson. She return to practicing law (too bad Darby and Scofield didn't). No wonder several dispensational seminaries moved away from their earlier positions altogether.

The Death of Dispensationalism

Although the Church was supposed to be in ruins, it experienced the greatest revival since Pentecost during the end of the 20th century. Peter Wagner declared, "We are in the springtime of missions." In 1900 the ratio of non-Christians to Christians worldwide was 27:1. In 1989 that same ratio was 7:1. Although there were repeated attempts to connect the year 2000 with something cataclysmic, "wolf" had been cried too many times. Nothing could revive the old theory and it passed away leaving a host of red-faced prophecy expects and a huge surplus of obsolete books and charts.

For Sale:

1. The Collected Works of J. N. Darby, 1867-83, 32 vols.
2. Systematic Theology, Lewis Speery Chafer, 1947-8, 8 vols. (Out of print with a two volume abridgment schedules. Dallas Theological Seminary is embarrassed with their founder).
3. Scofield Reference Bible, 1909, Original Recipe.
4. The New Scofield Reference Bible, 1967, New and Unimproved.
5. Dispensational Truth, Clarence Larkin, 1918.
6. Red Terror and Bible Prophecy, Dan Gilbert, 1944.
7. When Your Money Fails, Mary S. Relfe, 1981 (But I still have checks left!)
8. Kissinger: Man of Peace? Salem Kirban, 1974. Gorbachev! Has the Real AntiChrist Come? Robert W. Raid, 1988.
9. The 1980's: Countdown to Armageddon, Hal Lindsey, 1980. (Everything else by Hal Lindsey. Don't feel sorry for Hal; he has his book royalties in long term real estate investments).
10. 88 Reasons Why the Rapture is in 1988, Edgar Whisenant.
11. Hidden Prophecies in the Psalms, J. R. Church, 1988.
12. Guardians of the Grail, J. R. Church, 1989. (What will he come up with this year?)
13. Peace, Prosperity, and the Coming Holocaust, Dave Hunt, 1983.
14. Everything by Constance Cumbey.
15. Contact: I. C. Betternow

Hurry, because the terms are Cheap!

THE DISPENSATIONAL HERMENEUTIC

PREPARING FOR PROGRESSIVES

(Part 3: "Dispensationalism, Israel, and Scripture")
by Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

INTRODUCTION

In this third installment of a series on "Dispensationalism, Israel, and Scripture" I will give attention to the progressive dispensational view of Israel especially in light of the foundational new covenant. In the preceding two issues I focused more on problems in dispensationalism regarding Israel and on the revised dispensationalist viewpoint of Ryrie and Walvoord.

As I have indicated on a number of occasions, progressive dispensationalists have undertaken a wholesale overhaul of dispensationalism. The effects of relentless covenantal critiques from as far back as David Brown ("Christ’s Second Come: Will It Be Premillennial?," 1891) in the nineteenth century, through O. T. Allis ("Prophecy and the Church," 1945) in the mid-twentieth century to the present have had their effect. Much within progressive dispensationalism is acceptable to reformed and covenantal theologians. But problems remain.

In this issue I will provide a summary of the progressive dispensational understanding of the new covenant, which covenant has generated so much confusion -- and absurdity -- in older versions of dispensationalism. I will use as my reference point an excellent chapter by Bruce A. Ware in edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (1992, hereinafter: DIC). Ware’s chapter is (cleverly) titled: "The New Covenant and the People(s) of God." The parenthetical "s" alerts the reader to the fundamental issue. Ware is professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Ware is aware (no pun intended) both of the large role the new covenant plays in evangelical theology -- and of the difficulties that arise in the interpretation of the new covenant: "Evangelical biblical scholars and theologians uniformly affirm that the new covenant constitutes a high point in God’s redemptive and restorative program" (DIC, p. 68).

Of special interest to our study, he notes (in part) that "despite this recognition, however, several questions remain. For example, what is the nature of this new covenant?... How will this new covenant be implemented? With whom is the new covenant made? Do Israel and the church both participate in the new covenant?" (DIC, p. 68).

These are but a few of the questions that I lift from his fuller discussion. They are crucial in the ongoing dialogue and debate between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalist evangelical and reformed theologians. He has put his finger on the very pulse of the problem -- and done an admirable job of defending dispensationalism.

(As an aside, I am impressed with the quality and character of the writings of progressive dispensationalists. I seriously doubt if one of the progressive dispensational theologians will ever publish a book like Ryrie’s apocalyptic writings: (1976) and (1982). Of course, academic credibility comes at a cost. I also doubt if progressive dispensationalists will ever be worth the millions of Ryrie either!)

Ware’s important chapter has as its purpose "to devote particular attention to the new covenant as it relates to Israel and the church, and to do so by focusing most directly on (1) the nature of the new covenant, as given to Israel, and (2) its fulfillment or realization in relation both to Israel and the church." This is so that "we can think responsibly about the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church as both entities relate within the one people of God" (DIC, pp. 68-69).

Continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments and the people(s) of God is a fundamental dividing point between reformed and dispensational theologians. For an excellent debate over issues revolving around this question, see: John S. Feinberg, ed., (Crossway, 1988). This was one of the first books generated from the public appearance of progressive dispensationalism.

Ware’s purpose should immediately give rise to concern among the classic and revised dispensationalists: As I noted last month, how could this prophecy, which is literally directed to "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," have ANY realization in the church at all? Remember Ryrie’s "incontrovertible evidence" for TWO new covenants? Remember his vigorous, death-defying argument: "If the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel’s promises, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone. If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many premillennialists [perhaps even by Ryrie now, according to Ware!], but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is ‘a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.’ However, since the New Testament will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?" (BPF, p. 118). He goes so far as to charge "that the one covenant, two aspects interpretation absolutely contradicts the entire premillennial system" (BPF, p. 108).

Also, I ask regarding the new covenant: How can dispensationalism tolerate the notion of "one people of God" in history? Yet this is the direction of the New Kids on the Block, the progressive dispensationalists.

Let us consider Ware’s exegesis, much of which I find quite helpful. This portion of my newsletter will basically function as a book review of those portions of his article directly relevant to the dispensational debate. It is very important, however, to have some of Ware’s observations before us if we are to accurately expose the deficiencies in the progressive dispensational position and show where they go astray.

THE OLD TESTAMENT REGARDING THE NEW COVENANT

The heart of the new covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (a passage I had to memorize when enrolled in Dr. Dennis Wisdom’s course on "Premillennialism" at Tennessee Temple College back in 1972). Jeremiah 31-34 reads as follows:

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Ware shows that though Jeremiah 31 is the key passage of the Old Testament regarding the new covenant, and the only passage specifically calling it the "new covenant," it is not the only mention of this gracious covenant. Other passages referring to the new covenant -- or some effect resulting from it -- include: Isaiah 24:5; 49:8; 55:3; 54:10; 59:21; 61:8; Jeremiah 32:39-40; 50:5; Ezekiel 11:19; 16:60; 18:31; 34:25; 36:26; 37:26; Hosea 2:18-20.

According to Ware, the national implications of this "new" covenant cannot be far from Jeremiah’s mind. The division in Israel (Judah and Israel) which lead ultimately to both their exiles from the land are key historical-contextual matters, as is the reference to the prior covenant with Moses (v. 32). "The breach within Israel began as the people increasingly distanced themselves from their covenant God.... As is clear from Israel’s history, it was their sinfulness of heart producing a breach of covenant with their God that led, in due time, to the breach in their national union. But if the breach of national union results from a breach of covenant, then the remedy becomes clear. In order for God once again to unite his people, they must exhibit covenant faithfulness and so keep from the sin that resulted in their division" (Ware, DIC, p. 71).

Ware notes on this basis "serious questions" are raised about the application of this covenant from this context to the Church of the New Testament: "Jeremiah 31:31-34 is extended to Israel and Judah, not to any other nation or group. Other new-covenant passages, inside and outside of Jeremiah, also direct this new covenant to the people of Israel in a similar manner" (DIC, p. 72). This would seem to pose trouble for the non-dispensationalist who would find fulfillment of the new covenant in the Church, and to the standard dispensationalist view of an "application" of the new covenant to the Church. (But, of course, the problems do not end there: this would seem to cause trouble for Jesus, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews who apply the new covenant beyond the borders of Israel!)

Ware (DIC, p. 72) makes an important observation, though, that "one new-covenant text" that suggests extension "beyond Israel to the nations" is Isaiah 55:3-5, which reads:

"Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you-- The sure mercies of David. Indeed I have given him as a witness to the people, a leader and commander for the people. Surely you shall call a nation you do not know, And nations who do not know you shall run to you, Because of the LORD your God, And the Holy One of Israel; For He has glorified you."

He concludes from this verse, then, that "the new covenant made with Israel includes a host of Gentile participants, not directly addressed as God’s covenant partners" (DIC, p. 73). This, of course, comports well with our experience of the new covenant in the New Testament! But it sure causes some complications for classic and revised dispensationalists who do not so easily apply Israel’s promises to the Church. Especially since the new covenant is "literally" directed to Israel and Judah.

(As an aside: a refreshing aspect of Ware’s exposition of Jeremiah 31 is his treatment of the law of God. Though certainly not endorsing the theonomic ethic, Ware comments: "Notice that neither in Jeremiah 31 nor in Ezekiel 36 do we find a denunciation of the law as somehow defective, requiring a new law to replace the old. Instead we find, amazingly, that the same law is carried over or maintained. The problem with the old covenant, then, is not the law; the problem, rather, is with the nature of those persons who are called to covenant faithfulness but instead transgress the law" [DIC, p. 76]. If this statement were cited without bibliographic reference, one might think it was uttered by Greg L. Bahnsen, author of , rather than a dispensationalist. But this probably doesn’t matter that much: Progressive dispensationalists are as vigorously skewered by revised dispensationalists as is Bahnsen: see Ryrie’s [1995] and Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master, eds., [1994]. For my full review of Willis and Master see: [September, 1996].)

Having visited the house of covenant theology, Ware returns to his dispensational roots when he begins speaking of the ultimate fulfillment of the new covenant: "It seems clear that the promised new age, in which the new covenant would finally be realized, would come only when God’s king would liberate Israel from its oppressors and when God’s Spirit would inhabit the whole company of the people of God.... [God’s favor then] would also be accompanied by the promised physical, national, and geographic blessings" (DIC, p. 84). This, of course, is the key to a dispensational premillennial conception of the new covenant -- whether for classic, revised, or progressive dispensationalism.

Over the next several pages of his argument, Ware shows how the New Testament demands an application of the new covenant upon the Church (pp. 84-91). Then in his final section, "The New Covenant and Its Relation to the People of God," he raises the question toward which his chapter has been moving: "Should the New Testament application of the new covenant lead us to see an identity of Israel and the church? ... Or is there a way of conceiving of the one new covenant in relation both to Israel and the church that, on the one hand, distinguishes them from one another while, on the other hand, unites them as one people of God?" (DIC, p. 91).

After an excellent citation from dispensationalist Homer Kent exploding Ryrie’s two new covenants construct, Ware asks: "Having rejected the view of the two new covenants, are we then left solely with the option of understanding Israel and the church as so strictly identified under new covenant as to compose undifferentiated people of God? This conclusion is premature" (DIC, p. 92). This is where progressive dispensationalists part company with revised dispensationalists and reformed covenantalists. This is where the battle lies!

THE PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF THE NEW COVENANT

Ware defends the progressive dispensational argument for a future millennial exaltation of Israel on the basis of two principles:

First, "What do we make of the territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise that clearly states that God will restore Israel to its land in prosperity and productivity and unite it again as one nation (Israel and Judah) whose center of rulership is Jerusalem?" (DIC, p. 93) In other words, the land aspect of the new covenant suggests a literal earthly-political fulfillment in a millennium.

Second, "is the ‘already-not yet’ eschatological framework correct in which promises of God are understood to be realized first in preliminary (inaugurated) and then in final (future) stages?" (DIC, p. 93) This allows progressive dispensationalism to take the middle road between revised dispensationalism (iron-clad, sealed-for-your protection dispensations) and covenantalism, with its one-people, developmental maturation framework.

I will deal with the second matter (already/not yet) in a later issue of our newsletter. But first we will need to begin responding to the very important question of the land promise to geo-political Israel. As Ware (and others) notes, this is where the debate lies. We must recognize the "problem" and then resolve it within a biblical-covenantal framework.

THE LAND PROMISE

Regarding the first question Ware makes two observations:

(1) He is dispensationally insistent that "there can be no question that the prophets meant to communicate the promise of a national return of Israel to its land," which requires a "literal rendering" of God’s promise to Israel (DIC, p. 93).

(2) The New Testament "does not permit a spiritual absorption of the literal promises to Israel by the church" (ibid.).

What are we to make of the territorial reality of the land promise found in the new covenant? Especially in light of the verses following Jeremiah’s new covenant revelation? Jeremiah 31, including not only the famous verses 31-34 but also the dispensationally significant conclusion in verses 35-40, reads:

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- [32] not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. [33] But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. [34] No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. [35] Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar The LORD of hosts is His name): [36] If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever. [37] Thus says the LORD: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD. [38] Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. [39] The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. [40] And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."

The progressive dispensational argument seems to be quite persuasive. And on the surface it is. But like Gary North once observed about surface appearances: A duck appears to glide peacefully upon the surface of the water, but below the surface there is a lot of fancy footwork going on. In our next newsletter we will begin a covenantal response to the geo-political aspects of the new covenant promise. Sorry! You will have to tune in next month!

ABBREVIATIONS:

DIC: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).

Israel and Scripture - Part Two

NEW COVENANTAL CONFUSION
(Part 2 of "Dispensationalism, Israel and Scripture")

Having introduced our series in the previous post, I will now begin analyzing the role of Israel in dispensationalism. Few issues rival this one as a leading theme for critiquing dispensationalism in all of its varieties. Let’s get to work!

Though Israel is "the key to prophecy" in all varieties of dispensationalism, it is also the key to some embarrassing errors among older dispensational schools. As Frank Gaebelein admits in the Foreword to Ryrie’s 1965 watershed work (which Foreword is reprinted in Ryrie’s revised update ): "Dispensationalism has at times been the victim of its adherents who have pressed unwisely certain of its features" (D, p. 7). What he did not confess, though, was that these errors often revolved around Israel and were only spit-shined among newer dispensationalists. Eventually, these errors necessitated the revision of dispensationalism.

The necessity of revision, however, did not end with the publication of Ryrie’s and the correctives of the early 1960s. Eventually internal pressures created by continuing external critiques gave rise in the 1980s to the latest version of dispensationalism, the more palatable "progressive dispensationalism."

Unfortunately, the key to dispensationalism (Israel) very early broke off in the lock to the dispensational house. Much locksmithing down-time has resulted from the problem for dispensationalists. Israel, the definitional distinctive of dispensationalism, has been as sticky a problem for dispensational popularizes as for their favorite henchmen, the political leaders of Israel dealing with the West Bank in the modern state of Israel. I illustrated this in the February, 1997, edition of this newsletter. The major developments within dispensationalism revolve around the role of Israel (as Bock argues in PD, pp. 23ff). Allow me to employ about a dozen sentences to refresh your memory regarding these system-restructuring overhauls associated with Israel.

Classic dispensationalism (e.g., C. I. Scofield, L. S. Chafer) maintained a metaphysical distinction between Israel and the Church. It held that Israel and the Church would be forever distinguished in eternity, with Israel inhabiting the new earth and the Church heaven. Thus, an eternal separation will prevail between Israel and the Church in this system.

Revised dispensationalism (e.g., C. C. Ryrie, J. F. Walvoord, J. D. Pentecost) jettisoned the eternal metaphysical distinction, allowing only a temporal earthly distinction rooted in a difference between two redemptive-historical purposes, rather than in two different plans stretching out to eternity. Revised dispensationalists held two forms of one redeemed humanity existing in and confined to history. The Church exists presently to the glory of God in its own, distinct dispensation, with its own principles and purposes differing from those of Israel. Israel’s ultimate historical purpose will be realized in the future, literal, earthly millennium. After the millennium, though, the eternal order will realize the union of the two people in one redeemed mass forever.

Progressive dispensationalists have moved in a more covenantal direction, while maintaining their premillennial orientation and emended dispensational distinctives. They are "progressive" in that they view each successive dispensation as building upon and developing the principles of the preceding one. This progresses the one plan of God for his one redeemed people, rather than distinguishing two separate plans and peoples. This allows that the one divine purpose for redeemed humanity will ultimately be realized in the earthly, literal millennium. The millennial phase of the redemptive historical plan of God is necessary to bring to fulfillment the Old Testament prophecies for Israel.

NEW COVENANT FOCUS

Perhaps there is no better means of illustrating and critiquing dispensationalism than by analyzing the biblical revelation of the new covenant. Revised dispensationalists affirm its centrality. Ryrie states that "the new covenant is one of the major covenants of Scripture" (BPF, p. 107). Walvoord holds that "it is one of the great prophecies in the Old Testament" and is the "strongest prophecy in the Old Testament for the continuance of Israel" (PKH, p. 140). Pentecost lists this covenant as one of "the four great determinative covenants" (TC, p. 116).

Progressive dispensationalist Bruce A. Ware observes: "Evangelical biblical scholars and theologians uniformly affirm that the new covenant constitutes a high point in God’s redemptive and restorative program" (DIC, p. 68) and "Regarding the territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise, it seems incorrect to disregard these or to say they are fulfilled in some spiritual manner in the church. There can be no question that the prophets meant to communicate the promise of a national return of Israel to its land" (DIC, p. 93). "We must conclude that God will yet fulfill the new covenant with the nation of Israel, precisely in the manner prophesied by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel" (DIC, p. 94).

Elsewhere and more recently Pentecost notes the importance of the new covenant for Israel’s distinctive future: "This New Covenant, then -- which is an unconditional, eternal covenant based on the shedding of blood -- guarantees the preservation of Israel as a nation and her ultimate restoration to the land originally given by God to Abraham and Abraham’s descendants.... As a result of this covenant, the blessings Israel never found through the Law will at last be experienced" (TKC, p. 171).

Walvoord brings the new covenant into the present-day apocalyptic context: "This remarkable prophecy, given by Jeremiah almost 2,500 years ago, has seen modern fulfillment in the recapture of Jerusalem.... This prophecy is one of the signs that the coming of the Lord may be near" (PKH, p. 141).

Though the new covenant is a cornerstone for dispensationalism, Ryrie, oddly enough, laments dispensational confusion with reference to Israel and the new covenant: "Premillennialists have not always dealt with questions about the new covenant uniformly. Some have taught that the church has no relation to the new covenant, only Israel does. Others see two new covenants, one with Israel and another with the church. Others acknowledge that the church receives some of the blessings (or similar blessings) promised in the Old Testament revelation of the new covenant but not all of them. Progressives make these similar blessings evidence that the new covenant has been inaugurated. All premillennialists agree that there will be a future fulfillment of the covenant for Israel at the second coming of Christ" (D, p. 172).

In light of all of this, we see here in one biblical theme -- the new covenant -- both a pre-eminent proof of dispensationalism AND a source of dispensational stumbling, failure, and hem-hawing. Thus, the new covenant of Scripture will be an excellent theme on which to focus for exposure of past and present errors within the system loved by untold millions of American Christians -- and profit-conscious dispensationalist publishers.

In the remainder of this newsletter I will lay out the shifting sands approach of classic and revised dispensationalism on the question of the new covenant. Then in the next newsletter I will focus on the progressive dispensational argument. Being aware of these differing approaches to the new covenant -- a foundational proof for dispensationalism -- is a crucial first step in analyzing, critiquing, and dismissing dispensationalism as a viable theological option.

JEREMIAH’S NEW COVENANT

The basic new covenant revelation is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Its contextual setting is crucial to the debate, as well. Jeremiah 31:31-40 reads:

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (the LORD of hosts is His name): If those ordinances depart from before Me, says the LORD, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever. Thus says the LORD: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD. Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever. Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."

Here we note that the prophecy expressly associates the new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Revised dispensationalists created the (strained and unattainable) notion of literalism in an attempt to sustain their system. We can see why this passage has had such a strong impact on dispensationalists. Jeremiah 31 also speaks of phenomena that seem to suggest a regathering of Israel into the promised land. Surely this is the passage upon which dispensationalism should be able to make its stand (much like General Custer). Yet dispensationalists have even struggled over how to understand this foundational passage!

DISPENSATIONAL NEW COVENANT STRUGGLES

Of this "determinative" covenant, the new covenant, Ryrie lists three pre-millennial views that have been generated by dispensationalists. Many of the following quotations are from Ryrie’s published in 1953. This contains more detail of Ryrie’s view on this "determinative" covenant than does his 1995 work (D, pp. 173-174). Therefore, it provides an excellent historical specimen of the dispensational confusion over the matter. Ryrie’s summation of the three dispensational views of the new covenant are as follows:

(1) The Jews Only View. This is "the view that the new covenant directly concerns Israel and has no relationship to the Church" (BPF, p. 107). This was the earliest dispensational view, held by John Nelson Darby (for documentation see: TC, 121-122). But though Darby’s name is still revered by dispensationalists, his teaching on this foundational covenant is not usually accepted by premillenarians today -- despite its consistency with the dispensational hermeneutic of literalism (IP, p. 54). Unfortunately, this untenable position flies directly in the very face of New Testament evidence to the contrary. Jesus, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews expressly associates the "new covenant" with the Church in Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8; 9:15; 12:24. Numerous other allusions to the new covenant appear elsewhere in the New Testament, as I will note in later issues.

(2) The One Covenant/Two Aspects View. Ryrie summarizes this position: "The one new covenant has two aspects, one which applies to Israel, and one which applies to the church" (BPF, 107). This is the view held by Walvoord: "This can best be explained as one New Covenant of grace made possible by the death of Christ, whether applied to Israel or the church as in the New Testament" (PKH, 140). Although Pentecost was ambiguous while earning his doctorate at Dallas Seminary’s, later (after securing tenure?) he settled on this view (TKC, p. 175).

(3) The Two New Covenants View. This is Ryrie’s view. (Ware claims Ryrie has abandoned it, DIC, p. 91, n. 40. If that is true, the following presentation will be all the more remarkable in that Ryrie would be condemning himself for fidelity to the system principles of dispensationalism!) Ryrie notes that this view actually "distinguishes the new covenant with Israel from the new covenant with the Church. This view finds two new covenants in which the promises to Israel and the promises to the Church are more sharply distinguished even though both new covenants are based on the one sacrifice of Christ" (BPF, p. 107).

Ryrie states vigorously that: "If the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel’s promises, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone. If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many premillennialists [perhaps even by Ryrie now, according to Ware!], but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is ‘a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.’ However, since the New Testament will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?" (BPF, p. 118). He goes so far as to charge "that the one covenant, two aspects interpretation absolutely contradicts the entire premillennial system" (BPF, p. 108).

Strangely, this view was a "corrective" to the earlier view of a Jews-only new covenant. As I will show in a later newsletter, this position necessitates all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics. Ryrie continues this bizarre (though logically necessitated) view in his 1995 work, where he tentatively holds that the lack of the definite article with "new covenant" in 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24 "may indicate that Paul is focusing on a new covenant made with the church" (D, pp. 173-174).

Since the two new covenants view is so vigorously argued by Ryrie and, therefore, shows so clearly how absurd old-line dispensationalism is, it might be helpful for our purposes of expose’ to provide a little more detail to the argument from Ryrie. This will also serve to illustrate the marked difference between Ryrie’s revised dispensationalism, and the current progressive dispensationalism. And if Ryrie has indeed abandoned this position, this will show the internal contradictions within the system (when we note how vigorously Ryrie argued as a dispensational systematician for this view).

The New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31ff, says Ryrie, is necessarily limited to the Jews on the basis of "three incontrovertible reasons." Notice this argument is "incontrovertible." Ryrie’s argument goes as follows:

(1) The argument from specific reference (BPF, p. 108). Verses 31 and 33 clearly specify God’s making the new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." And in the revised dispensational hermeneutic "Israel means Israel" (BPF, p. 125). This is like "seed of Abraham" means "seed of Abraham." (Oops! I forgot about the spiritual seed of Abraham in Gal. 3.) This is just like "bread" means "bread." (Oops! I forgot about the "bread of life" in John 6.)

(2) The argument from legal contrast. This is "also seen by the fact of its very name which is contrasted with the Mosaic covenant" in Jeremiah 31:32 (BPF, p. 108). A "new" covenant contrasted with a former covenant made when Israel departed Egypt necessitates a sole relationship to the people specifically under the previous covenant.

(3) The argument from historic effect (BPF, p. 109). "In its establishment, the perpetuity of the nation Israel and her restoration to the land is vitally linked with it (Jer 31:35-40)" (BPF, p. 109). The context clearly assumes an historical regathering to the Land (or at least, so dispensationalists think!).

Despite Ryrie’s literalistic argument from specific reference, we should note that the New Covenant is specifically applied through the Lord’s Supper to the Church in Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25. Apparently literalism was not the method of Jesus and Paul! Note the following:

(1) Pentecost is quite correct, when he writes of the establishment of the Lord’s Supper: "In its historical setting, the disciples who heard the Lord refer to the new covenant. . . would certainly have understood Him to be referring to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31" (TKC, p. 172).

(2) In fact, the sudden appearance of the "new covenant" in the New Testament record, without qualification or explanation, demands that it refer to the well known new covenant of Jeremiah. See: Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25.

(3) Hebrews 8, on everyone’s view, cites Jeremiah’s new covenant in a context speaking to New Testament Christians. In addition, this new covenant sacrament is specifically for the "Church" in the "Church Age" (1 Cor. 11:23ff). Yet Ryrie argues that "the writer of the Epistle has referred to both new covenants" (BPF, p. 121). This is pure desperation. Walvoord is driven to admit of the crucial Hebrews 8 reference: "it is, in fact, the only passage which provides any difficulty to the premillennial view" (MK, p. 215). And: "There are problems that remain in the premillennial understanding of this passage" (IP, p. 54).

(4) The Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, even promotes the New Covenant as an important aspect of his ministry (2 Cor 3:6). He does not say he is a minister of a second new Covenant" or "another new covenant." Paul writes that God "also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6).

Ryrie’s bravely defends the indefensible, reminding me of the preacher who promised that if you come to church Sunday, he would "unscrew the inscrutable." Reviewing dispensationalism’s history like this, we can see how important the new covenant issue is to the debate.

THINGS TO COME

In my next issue, I will begin presenting and analyzing the role of the new covenant in progressive dispensationalism. Though far superior to its predecessors, progressive dispensationalism falls short of the biblical reality, as well. And the presentation and analysis ought to be helpful to our growth in understanding the theology of Scripture.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS:

BPF: Charles C. Ryrie, (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux, 1953), 107.

D: Charles C. Ryrie, (2d. ed.: Chicago: Moody, 1995).

DIC: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).

IP: John F. Walvoord, , (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962).

MK: John F. Walvoord, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974).

PD: Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, (Wheaton, Ill.: Bridgepoint, 1993).

PKH: John F. Walvoord, (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1990).

TC: J. Dwight Pentecost, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958).

TKC: J. Dwight Pentecost, (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1990).

Israel and Scripture - Part One

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.

ISRAEL: THE APPLE OF SCOFIELD’S EYE

In this and the next several issues of our newsletter, I will consider the biblical role of Israel in Scripture and prophecy. Few theological and eschatological issues parallel in significance that of Israel. This is especially of interest to us in our "Dispensationalism in Transition" newsletter because Israel is the key to the outworking of dispensational theology -- whether of the progressive (Bock, Blaising, Saucy) type or the revised (Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost) type. In fact, the role of Israel is THE constant in the evolving system of dispensationalism which is, as we say, "in transition."

MY PURPOSES FOR THIS SERIES

In this series I will seek to accomplish three tasks that should be of interest to our readers:

(1) As we study the matter of Israel and Scripture we will learn something of the serious internal difficulties rupturing (not "rapturing"!) the dispensational camp. This, then, will accomplish an important historical purpose. Dispensationalism is the leading evangelical theology today in terms of market presence -- though most of it is due to its unsightly offspring, Lindseyesque apocalyptic dispensationalism, from which academic progressives (wisely) demur: "It is not correct simply to identify the popular apocalypticism of Hal Lindsey with dispensationalism" (Blaising, DIC, 15n).

(2) As we study the matter of Israel and Scripture we will highlight a foundational problem endangering all brands of dispensationalism. This, then, will serve as an important apologetic tool. The ongoing debate between dispensationalism and covenantalism is important for both the development of the theological systems and, ultimately, the integrity of the Christian faith. "Iron sharpens iron."

(3) And as we study the matter of Israel and Scripture we will grow in our understanding of the redemptive-historical nature of Scripture. This, as I say above, is an important theological matter. If we are to live in terms of a Bible-based Christian worldview, big questions such as this are extremely important. Paul’s method of epistolary instruction was to lay down the theological principles, then build the practical and exhortational on that basis (see Paul’s famous "therefore" clauses, e.g., Eph. 4:1; Rom. 12:1).

This newsletter will be introductory to the series. I am a big believer in laying foundations before building a case.

MY BIBLIOGRAPHICAL RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS SERIES

As I begin this introductory issue, I would like to recommend two very important and extremely helpful books. I highly recommend these to those interested in this issue (and surely anyone downloading this newsletter will be interested!). Theology students should be building a personal research library. Of course, you can borrow ANY book you want for free by simply calling your public library and asking for the "Inter-library Loan" department. They can secure hard-to-find works and bring them right to your library. But the diligent theologue will want to build his own library with purchases of important works. Don’t be like Ring Lardner’s friend, of whom Larnder once commented: "He took me into his library and showed me his books, of which he had a complete set."

This book purchase idea may not be a good idea for revised dispensationalists, though: Who would want to buy "1980s: Countdown to Armageddon" now? Or: "88 Reasons Why the Lord Could Return in 1988?" And you know what’s going to happen to Lindsey’s latest: "Planet Earth 2000: Will Mankind Survive?" These quickly become dated and embarrassing. Why waste money on them? (As H. L. Mencken once said: "There are two kinds of books: those that no one reads and those that no one ought to read." Of course, many do buy these books, after all: When a book and a head collide and there is a hollow sound, is it always from the book?)

I consider the books I will be recommending below so essential to the question of the theological and eschatological significance of Israel that I will begin requiring them for courses I teach at Bahnsen Theological Seminary (714-572-9846 or INTERNET: BahnsenSeminary @compuserve.com). These have been extremely helpful for bolstering my understanding of the issues and in preparing this present series. The books are:

Peter W. L. Walker, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).

David E. Holwerda, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

Any Christian with an interest in biblical theology and eschatology must face the question of the role of Israel in the plan of God. All evangelicals agree: God’s redemptive purpose in the Old Testament focuses on Israel as his special people. But all evangelicals do not agree on the answer to the questions: What is Israel’s PRESENT role in the new covenant era? What is God’s prophetic purpose for Israel in the FUTURE? These are important issues, which, if unresolved, wholly undermine one’s understanding of Scripture. These are issues separating dispensationalism from all other forms of evangelical theology.

Walker’s work is a post-doctoral treatise written under a fellowship at Tyndale House, Cambridge. He was urged to pursue this work after some lectures he gave on the New Testament and Jerusalem in 1984. As far as I can remember from reading his book, he never mentions dispensationalism (only in America do you have to mention dispensationalism). But the utility of the book for dispensational analysis is unsurpassed. The work strikes hard and deep at the root of all dispensationalism: the role and identity of Israel. And in addition it sprays Roundup in the hole from which revised dispensationalism is dug.

Questions broached in include: What is the biblical significance of Jerusalem? What was Jesus’ attitude toward the city and its temple? Did the New Testament writers see Jerusalem as being affected by the coming of Jesus? How should Christian view Jerusalem today?

Though the theme of the book focuses on Jerusalem, Walker necessarily deals with the three-fold realia of Israel: its city, land, and temple. Each chapter analyzes the biblical-theological perspectives of select New Testament writers on these three issues. And anyone who knows anything of the dispensational debate will instantly recognize the significance of these issues. With careful precision and clarity of expression Holwerda’s shows that Christ is the fulfillment of Israel. His chapters study Jesus in relation to Israel, the Land, the Temple, and the Law. His sixth chapter then considers the question: "A Future for Jewish Israel?" He holds a very postmillennial-like view as found in Murray’s commentary on Romans. In his final chapter he inquires whether Israel as a nation with a temple-centered worship will arise again in fulfillment of the plan of God.

By careful theological analysis Holwerda shows us the remarkable correspondences between the history of Israel and the life of Christ. These are not accidents of history, but are indications of Jesus’s functioning as God’s true Israel. Page after page of the Gospel record exhibit Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel. For instance, the Old Testament promises of the regathering of Israel to the Land are fulfilled in the gathering of the Jews in Christ, i.e., in salvation. With a wealth of biblical research we are brought to a greater appreciation of the depth and glory of the Scriptural story of Christ, as well as to the meaning and purpose of Israel.

Now, alas, we live in the nineties. Consequently, Political Correctness with its Siamese twin Religious Correctness move me to issue:

A WARNING TO THIN-SKINNED DISPENSATIONALISTS

If Fuzzy Zoeller can be castigated for the light-hearted remarks he made about his friend Tiger Woods winning the Masters golf tournament, I suppose I had better brace myself for potential feedback regarding my understanding of Israel. With some apocalyptic dispensationalists like Lindsey out there, my views (as the views of Holwerda and Walker) will undoubtedly be used to discredit me. (See Lindsey’s incredible , 1989. Better yet: Don’t see it.)

In the course of our study I will be showing that God has fulfilled the Israel-hope in Christ and the Church. Racial Israel has lost its distinctive status and special privilege: They will no longer be exalted over the gentiles and given special treatment by God. Although, as mentioned above, Israel does have a glorious future wherein they will return to the favor of God and rejoin the historical people of God -- but this is only by conversion to Jesus Christ through the same means as anyone else.

Lindsey () and Thomas Ice ( newsletter, Jan.-Feb., 1992) charge that "supersessionism" is morally reprehensible, being anti-Semitic. Supersessionism is the theological perspective that sees the Church as replacing Israel in the plan of God. Lindsey, Ice, Dave Hunt, and others cry out in alarm that supersessionism leads to the persecution of Jews, and charge non-dispensationalists with a moral perversity that threatens historical danger paralleling that of Hitler’s Third Reich (Lindsey’s first reference in his book was a citation from the writings of Adolf Hitler).

However, supersessionism (which I will be presenting and defending in this series) in no way implies that Jews should be either verbally taunted, socially ostracized, economically deprived, or physically persecuted. Indeed, the evangelical supersessionist believes they should be treated with respect ("love your neighbor as yourself") and should be evangelized ("Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them") -- like every other non-believing person.

Perhaps one of the most helpful books exposing the error of the dispensational charge is one intended to do the opposite. Dan Cohn-Sherbok, a Jew who teaches Jewish theology at the University of Kent, Canterbury, England, has written (Eerdmans, 1992). He argues that "the seeds of anti-Semitism were sown in Christian sources and nurtured throughout the history of the Church" (p. xiv). To this Lindsey and Ice would give a hearty "Amen." And certainly many Christians have been guilty over the years of treating the Jews in a less than Christian manner -- much like the Jews treated the Christians in the New Testament (Acts 8:1ff).

Unfortunately for Lindsey and Ice, a closer reading of Cohn-Sherbok shows his complaint is not against reformed theology and for dispensationalism. The "sources" which he charges with anti-Semitism are non-other than the New Testament itself! Note the following citations:

"In Chapter 2 the development of Christian anti-Jewish attitudes is traced in detail. According to the writers of the Gospels, Jesus attached the leaders of the Jewish nation for their hypocrisy... In proclaiming this Christian message Paul stressed that the Jewish nation had been rejected by God, and the new covenant had superseded the old.... In these various ways the New Testament laid the foundations for later Christian hostility to the Jewish nation. The New Testament tradition served as the basis for the early Church’s vilification of the Jews...." (CJ, p. xv).

"Matthew referred to these unbelievers [Jews] as hypocrites, blind fools, and serpents.... Such a view of the Church — in opposition to the official leaders of the nation — was a starting point for the tragic history of Christian anti-Jewish vilification and attack" (CJ, pp. 14-15).

"Thus the Jewish leaders are depicted as rejecting and killing Jesus, whereas the first believer was a Roman centurion (Mark 15:39). The Good Samaritan is contrasted wit the faithless Jew (Luke 10:33). The gentiles will come from all places to sit at the Messianic banquet while the sons of the Kingdom will be cast into outer darkness" (p. 18).

What is the horrendous immorality that led Christians to persecute Jews? The declaration that Christianity is the true religion that alone can promise salvation: "In common with other groups at this time, the early Christians believed themselves to be the true Israel in opposition to official Judaism, and such a conception provided the basis for the subsequent repudiation of Judaism and the vilification of the Jews.... [T]he Jewish faith was seen as a stage on the way to Christianity rather than as an authentic religious experience with its own inherent validity" (p. 8).

Supersessionism "sin," therefore, is claiming the Jews were responsible for crucifying Christ, then having the nerve to preach that salvation only comes through (the Jew) Jesus Christ. If that is anti-Semitism, then I am guilty. And I urge you to guilty, as well. This is simply liberalism in racial dress. Or, from Lindsey and Ice’s perspective, it is blatant error due to simplistic analysis. (One thing that bothers me about apocalyptic dispensationalism is that so many of its adherent went to college. Unfortunately, some people go to college to drink deeply from the well of knowledge; some go only to sip; and too many go there only to gargle.)

CONCLUSION

So then, we will be analyzing the dispensational view of Israel, showing it to be erroneous. We will learn something of the distinctive principle of all brands of dispensationalism, the debate over Israel between progressive dispensationalists and revised dispensationalists, and the biblical conception of Israel and the people of God. Stay tuned.