The Covenant

 A covenant is an agreement between two parties and represents relationships formed between God and man, man and man, or nation and nation. Scripture identifies two kinds of covenants, conditional and unconditional. A conditional covenant is binding on both parties for its fulfillment, that is, the response to the one making the covenant is conditioned by the response of the party with whom the covenant was made. Conversely, an unconditional covenant is only binding on the one who makes the covenant, although certain blessings attached to the unconditional covenant may require some response from the party with which the covenant was made in order for that party to receive the blessing.

            There are four characteristics that must be noticed concerning the nature of the covenants. First, they are literal. Second, they are eternal.  Third, they depend entirely on the integrity of God, and fourth, they were made with a covenant people, Israel.

There are three theological covenants that must be identified. These are held by the covenant theologian who views the ages of history as the progressive fulfillment of the covenant God made with sinners in which all who would come to Him by faith would be saved.

1.                          The covenant of redemption (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 13:20) into which the members of the Godhead entered before time, and in which each member assumed that part of the plan of redemption that is their present position as set forth in the word of God, is supported primarily by the fact that it seems reasonable and inevitable.

2.                          The covenant of works designates certain blessings from God conditioned upon human merit. It has origins in amillennial theology.

3.                          The covenant of grace is understood to indicate all aspects of divine grace toward humankind through all ages. The first of these covenants, redemption, has weak scriptural support, while the remaining two have none. They are based primarily on human reason with little or no regard for scriptural support.

There are six biblical covenants, of which only one, the Mosaic, is conditional. The remaining five are unconditional, meaning that God will fulfill them sovereignly, at some future point in history.

1.                          The Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:1-18) – This is a perpetual agreement made with Noah in which God promises to never again destroy the earth by a flood. It is unconditional.

2.                          The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1 – 15:17)

3.                          The Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 20:1 – 31:18)

4.                          The Palestinian Covenant (Deuteronomy 28 – 31)

5.                          The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:4-16; 1 Chronicles 17:3-15)

6.                          The New Covenant

            It must be observed that the biblical covenants are quite different from the theological covenants postulated by the covenant theologian. They see the ages of history as the development of a covenant made between God and sinners, by which God would save, through the value of the death of Christ, all who come to Him by faith. The covenants of the covenant theologian may be summarized as follows: In the covenant of redemption, (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 13:20) into which, it is usually thought by theologians, the persons of the Godhead entered, before all time, and in which each assumed that part in the great plan of redemption which is their present portion as disclosed in the word of God, the Father gives the Son, the Son offers Himself without spot to the Father as an efficacious sacrifice, and the Spirit administers and empowers unto the execution of this covenant in all its parts. This covenant rests upon but slight revelation. It is rather sustained largely by the fact that it seems both reasonable and inevitable. The covenant of works is the theologians’ designation for those blessings God has offered men and conditioned on human merit. Before the fall, Adam was related to God by a covenant of works. Until he is saved, man is under an inherent obligation to be in character like his creator and to do His will. The covenant of grace is the term used by theologians to indicate all aspects of divine grace toward men in all ages. The exercise of divine grace is rendered righteously possible by the satisfaction to divine judgment, which is provided in the death of Christ.

            While there is much in the position of the covenant theologian that is in agreement with scripture, covenant theology is woefully inadequate to explain the scriptures eschatologically, for it ignores the great field of the biblical covenants which determines the whole eschatological program. Lewis Sperry Chafer talks about covenant theology. “The theological terms covenant of works and covenant of grace, do not occur in the sacred text. If they are to be sustained, it must be wholly apart from biblical authority … Upon this human invention of two covenants, reformed theology has largely been constructed.” It sees the empirical truth that God can forgive sinners only by the freedom which is secured by the sacrifice of His Son, anticipated in the old order, and realized in the new, but that theology utterly fails to discern the purposes of the ages, the varying relationships to God of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church, with the distinctive, consistent human obligations which arose directly and unavoidably from the nature of each specific relationship to God. A theology which penetrates no further into scripture than to discover that in all ages, God is immutable in His grace toward penitent sinners, and constructs the idea of a universal church, continuing through the ages, on the one truth of immutable grace, is not only disregarding vast spheres of revelation, but is reaping the unavoidable confusion and misdirection which partial truth engenders.

            This study is not based on the covenants contained in reformed theology, but rather with the determinative covenants set forth in the scriptures.

            The nature of the covenants:

1. The covenants are literal covenants and are to be interpreted literally.
2. These covenants, according to the scriptures, are eternal.

All of Israel’s covenants are called eternal except the Mosaic covenant which is declared to be temporal, i.e. it was to continue only until the coming of the promised seed.

1. The Abrahamic covenant is called eternal in Genesis 17:7, 13, 19,  1 Chronicles 16:17, and Psalm 105:10.
2. The Palestinian covenant is called eternal in Ezekiel 16:60.
2. The Davidic covenant is called “eternal” in 2 Samuel 23:5, Isaiah 55:3, and Ezekiel 37:25.
3. The New covenant is called eternal in Isaiah 24:5, 61:8, Jeremiah 32:40, 50:5, and Hebrews 13:20.

These covenants were made with a covenant people, Israel. In Romans 9:4, Paul states that the nation of Israel had received covenants from the Lord. In Ephesians 2:11, 12, he states, conversely, that the Gentiles have not received any such covenants and consequently do not enjoy covenant relationships with God.

The Covenant With Noah (Genesis 8:20 – 9:17)

            In response to Noah’s pleasing sacrifice, God declared never again to curse the ground because of man. Though God might inflict other punishments upon humans because of their sin, there never would be another universal destruction by a flood.

            God’s covenant with Noah included a number of promises. Noah was instructed, “be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1). God placed everything in creation under human authority, whether beast or bird or fish. For the first time, God gave Noah the right, not only to eat of the green plants, but to eat meat from animals. Before this, the human race had been vegetarian. In eating meat however, they were commanded not to leave the life blood in it, and a new regulation was added recognizing the sanctity of human life (Genesis 9:5, 6). The rainbow became a sign of the covenant with Noah.

The Abrahamic Covenant

            Beginning with Abraham, scripture charts a new course for God’s people. The choice of Abraham marked a new narrowing of the redemptive purpose of God. The book of Genesis is largely occupied with the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Humanity began in the Garden of Eden and moved to Egypt. Genesis was the book of beginnings only. The line of Abraham continued through Isaac (Genesis 21:12), Jacob (25:23; 28:13-15), Judah (49:10), David (2 Samuel 7:9-11, 16), Nathan (Luke 3:31), and Mary (Matthew 1:16) to Jesus Christ.

            Redemption as a purpose from God - From Genesis chapter 12 through the book of Revelation, Israel is shown to be one of the major purposes of God. God revealed Himself through the prophets of Israel, through both His blessing and judging of Israel, through the twelve apostles and other writers of scripture, and ultimately through Jesus Christ. In addition to God’s purpose for Israel in the redemptive plan as revealed in the Old Testament, the New Testament imparts the special purpose of God in the present age of calling out His church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

            God’s covenant with Abraham is first set forth and initiated in Genesis 12:1-3. It is later reiterated in Genesis 22:15-18. In each case, it is enlarged upon. It is later confirmed to Isaac (Genesis 26:3-5, 24) and Jacob (28:13-15; 35:9-12; 46:1-4) and is subsequently spoken of as God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (2 Kinds 13:23).

            Importance of the covenant – From an interpretive standpoint, the Abrahamic covenant is the single most important event in the Old Testament. The Abrahamic covenant is foundational to all of scripture. It is the Key to both the Old and New Testaments, and is foundational to the whole program of redemption. All subsequent revelation is the outworking of this covenant. This covenant, and the subsequent covenant framework, is the key to understanding the scriptures.

            The essence of God’s covenant with Abraham consists of three basic aspects: land, seed, and blessing. Each of the divine covenants that follow is the outworking of the Abrahamic covenant. The Palestinian covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-12) amplifies the seed aspect, and the New covenant (Jeremiah 31:27-37, Ezekiel 36:22-32) amplifies the blessing aspect. Thus, the Abrahamic covenant is the fountainhead from which the others flow. The Abrahamic covenant, then, is determinative of the entire outworking of God’s program for both Israel and the nations, and is the key to biblical eschatology. The Abrahamic covenant is the cornerstone of premillennialism. A literal interpretation requires the perpetuation of national Israel and their restoration to the land in blessing and everlasting possession.

            The promise of the covenant consists of personal blessings to Abram, national blessing to Abram’s descendants, and universal blessings to all nations. This promise is the seedbed of God’s entire program for Israel and the nations. In regard to personal blessing, Abram is promised that he shall be the father of a great nation (Genesis 12:2). Other nations shall come forth from him, even kings (Genesis 17:6). His name shall be great, and he himself shall be a blessing; he will be the recipient of spiritual and material blessings, and he shall have everlasting possession of the land (Genesis 12:1, 13:15, 17:8). Abram’s descendants are promised blessing and everlasting possession of the land (12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8). Concerning the nations, Abram is given a general promise that through him, they shall be blessed.

            In tracing the outworking and fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, it is imperative to carefully distinguish the different aspects of the promise. If the blessings ascribed to one recipient are applied to another, confusion can only result. The land aspect of the promise is restricted to Abram and his physical seed, and then only through Isaac and Jacob. So, the promise of the land is only for Israel. This distinction must be held consistently. To say that the promise to Abram is fulfilled in the church ignores the fact that the land is never promised to the church or Gentiles, but Israel alone. It will not do to say that as Abram’s spiritual seed (Galatians 3:29), the church fulfills the promise to Abram. Since when has the church been in everlasting possession of Palestine and its surrounding territories? We cannot spiritualize land to mean heaven or some other Christian experience. The boundaries of this land are outlined in Genesis 15:18-21. A literal, geographic, earthly real estate was promised to Abram and his descendants as an everlasting possession. Some use Galatians 3 to say that the church, as the new Israel, fulfills the promise given to Abram. Since Christ is the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), those who are in Christ are also the seed of Abraham (3:29). Since the church is clearly the seed of Abraham, the promises of the Abrahamic covenant must somehow be seen as fulfilled in the church. Thus, the promise of the land must be spiritualized or seen as abrogated due to Israel’s disobedience. It is true that Galatians 3 teaches that believers who are in Christ (the church) are the seed of Abraham. It is also true that these same are also heirs of the Abrahamic covenant. However, Paul’s point in Galatians 3 is that Gentiles who are in Christ inherit the universal blessings aspect only for the Abrahamic covenant, without having to become Jews or becoming subject to the Law. This does not mean that they come under all the promises given to Abraham personally, or to his seed in a physical or national sense. The scripture distinguishes the three types of seed of Abraham as (1) physical descendants of Abraham, but without Abraham’s faith and who inherit none of the covenant promises; (2) physical descendants of Abraham who also have Abraham’s faith and who inherit all of the covenant promises including the land; and (3) spiritual descendants of Abraham who have not Abraham’s blood, but do have his faith, and who inherit the universal blessings aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. It is this third type of whom Paul refers to in Galatians. There is a fourth type who is in Christ, the ultimate seed of Abraham.

Galatians 3:1-9

            False teachers from Judea, who professed to be Christians, came and misled Galatian believers. They told Galatians that unless they kept the Law of Moses, observed the covenants of circumcision, and the different holy days of the Jewish economy, they could not be saved. One of the issues is whether or not the inheritance is ours by law or by promise. In Galatians 3, we see the effect of the law upon one who is under it (vs. 10). The other thing we see is the absolute contrast between law and promise, the contrast being established that the inheritance is by promise and cannot be by law. J.N. Darby write like this in his paper titled “Not Law, But Promise – Galatians 3.” The law and promise in grace are brought before us as two systems, both of God, but contrasted in their nature and opposite in their effects, and absolutely exclusive, one of the other. Both are positive dealings and revealed ways of God with man, each of its own kind, existing at separate times, though the second could not disannul the first, and whose coexistence, as the ground of man’s standing with God, is in their very nature impossible.

            The Galatians were not rejecting the promise or Christ, but they were adding the law to Christ as completing God’s will. Apostle Paul resists, and declares the incompatibility of the two. The two systems were two distinct ways proposed for having life, righteousness, and the inheritance. One brings a curse and nothing else, the other, a blessing after God’s own heart. One is founded on man’s responsibility, the other on God’s gift, when man had failed altogether under that responsibility.

            In view of the confounding and confusing, all blessings, as is characteristic in antidispensational views, we should understand that there are common blessings for all saints and special privileges for those saints who are members of the body of Christ.

            William Kelly remarks, “There are certain privileges that we share in common with every saint. Abraham believed god, and it was counted to him for righteousness. We too believe, and are justified. Substantially, faith has so far the same blessings at all times. We are children of promise, entering into the portion of faith as past saints have done before us; and this is what we find in Galatians, though with a certain advance of blessing for us. But, if you look at Ephesians, the great point there is that God is bringing out wholly new and heavenly privileges. This is in no respect what is taken up in Galatians. There, we are on the common ground of promise. ‘If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.’ But in Ephesians, there are certain distinct and super added privileges that Abraham never thought, nor heard of. I mean that formation of the church of God, Christ’s body, the truth that Jews and Gentiles were to be taken out of earthly places, and made one with Christ in heaven.” This was the mystery concerning Christ and the church, hidden from ages and generations, but now revealed through the Holy Ghost. So in order to have aright view of the full blessing of the Christian, we must take the Ephesian blessing along with the Galatian. The special time is while Christ is at the right hand of God. Even as to the millennial saints, do you think they will enjoy all that we have now? Far from it. They will possess much that we do not, such as the manifested glory of Christ, exemption from sorrow and suffering. But our calling is totally different and contrasted. It is to love Him whom we have not seen; to rejoice in the midst of tribulation and shame. If a man were to form his thoughts of Christianity from Galatians only, he might confound the saints now with those of the Old Testament, always remembering the difference that we find love, that the heir, as long as he is underage, differs nothing from a servant; whereas, we are brought into the full possession of our privileges. But, there are other and higher things in Ephesians, called, or at least flowing from, the eternal purpose of God. So that it is well to distinguish this double truth, the community of blessing through all dispensations, and the specialty of privilege that attaches to those who are being called now by the Holy Ghost, sent down from Heaven.

            In the above quotation, it was pointed out that Galatians never takes up the standing of the church properly, though referred to in Galatians 3:28, and that this epistle does not go “beyond the inheritance of promise.” In connection with the fact that the inheritance of the promise is a subject of Galatians, William Kelly also remarked, “Another writer … referred to Romans 11 and Galatians 3 in proof that the church actually existed as such in Old Testament times.” But this is evidently to confound things that differ, because the inheritance of the Abrahamic promises, of which their chapters treat, is not identical with the enjoyment of the church’s privileges; whereas their identity is assumed in the argument. It is allowed that the New Testament saints do inherit those promises, but that is an essentially different thing from the blessings revealed, for example, in Ephesians. The olive tree (Romans 11) is not the heavenly church, but the earthly tree of promise and testimony, of which the Jews were the natural branches. Instead of the broken off unfruitful branches, Gentiles are now grafted in, but on their unfaithfulness, excision is the sure threat of God, and the Jews will again be brought into their own divine tree, i.e. for the millennial inheritance. This is the plain teaching of Romans 11, and though as Gentiles we may be grafted in, and as individuals we may be Abraham’s seed, the special position of Christ’s body, as make known in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians, is too distinct to require argumentation. When “the body” is spoken of, there is no cutting off or grafting in. There is in it neither Jew nor Gentile. All is above nature there. What is the inheritance? Romans 4:13-16 gives us the answer.

Nature of the Covenant

            The church can only be the new Israel and the inheritor of Israel’s promises given in the Abrahamic covenant if either the Abrahamic covenant is shown to be conditional, or the promises of the covenant are spiritualized. Neither alternative is acceptable. A consistently literal interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant necessarily leads to dispensational premillennialism and the unavoidable conclusion that Israel and the church, though both beneficiaries of the Abrahamic covenant, are distinct entities with distinct promises peculiar to each. Only by spiritualizing the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant, can one find their fulfillment in the church.

            Others, rightly rejecting a non-literal hermeneutic, argue that the Abrahamic covenant was conditional in nature and that Israel’s disobedience annulled the promises, so that God is not bound to fulfill His promises to Israel concerning the land, its attendant material blessings. But the Abrahamic covenant is clearly not a conditional covenant. The Abrahamic covenant must be considered unconditional for the following reasons.

1. The covenant post-dates the promise, that is, any conditions attached to the covenant, making it a literal covenant (and there were none), would be invalid because the promise came before the ratification of the covenant.
2. The covenant is unilateral in that God alone is bound by the obligations of the covenant. No obligations whatsoever are placed on Abram in the context of its ratification (Genesis 15:9-21). In fact, Abram is excluded from passing through the pieces of animals in formal ratification of this covenant. God alone passed the pieces of animals (Genesis 15:17), eternally and irrevocably binding Himself to His promise to Abram. God thus confirmed this oath to Abraham by a blood covenant. This means God alone could break the covenant because God alone is bound by the covenant.
3. It is reiterated and confirmed to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation of Israel after repeated disobedience on the part of each.
4. The Palestinian covenant and Davidic covenant are based on the Abrahamic covenant. If the Abrahamic covenant, which gives title deed to the land, were nullified, these covenants would be superfluous.
5. The entire history of Israel in both the Old and New Testaments confirms the unconditional nature of the covenant. The literal historical fulfillment of the outworking of this covenant in part demands literal fulfillment of that which yet remains.

There is nevertheless a conditional element to this covenant. From a divine standpoint, this covenant is unconditional in that God will fulfill His promises. Disobedience does not annul the covenant. It does, however, determine whether any individual or generation of individuals is eligible for the blessings of the covenant. Any member of the covenant community could forfeit his share of the covenant blessings, but not that which belongs to his seed or successors for eternity. The conditionality attaches not to the divine promise, but to the participants who would benefit. This is evident in the narrative of the early experience of Israel’s first two generations.

Because the first generation of Israel (redeemed) from Egypt would not believe God at Kadesh-Barnea, the Lord refused to let them enter the land. He kept them wandering in the wilderness for forty years until that generation passed away (Numbers 14:20). He then took their sons to the land. The sons too were warned of the consequences of disobedience. Inherent in the covenant, however, was the promise that when they repented, they would be returned to the land in blessing (Deuteronomy 30:1-10). Israel will one day repent, be spiritually forgiven, cleansed, and regenerated (Deuteronomy 30:6; Zechariah  12:10-14; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:22-32).

Implicit in this Abrahamic covenant are the universal blessings that come to all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:3). These blessings reach into the present church age and into the millennium. By the shedding of His blood, Christ ratified the New covenant (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:17-20) specifically promised to Israel (Jeremiah 31:31). The New covenant amplifies the universal blessings aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. And while Israel presently forfeits these blessings due to unbelief, the church, by its association with the Mediator of the New covenant, inherits the spiritual blessings of the New covenant :forgiveness of sin, spiritual regeneration, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc. (see Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27). When Israel repents and accepts Christ (Zechariah 12:10-14), the nation shall inherit all these spiritual blessings and be restored to the land with its attendant material blessings (Ezekiel 36:22-38).

The Palestinian Covenant

            The special importance of this covenant is that it reaffirmed Israel’s title deed to the land. Although Israel would prove unfaithful and disobedient, the right to the land would never be taken from Israel. While the enjoyment of the land is conditioned on obedience, ownership of the land is unconditional. Furthermore, it shows that the unconditional Mosaic covenant did not lay aside the unconditional Abrahamic covenant.

      The confirmation of the covenant – The land covenant received its confirmation centuries later in Ezekiel 16:1-63. This passage describes God’s relationship to Israel as husband and wife, and God recounts His love of Israel in its infancy (Ezekiel 16:1-7). Israel was chosen by God and became related to Jehovah by marriage and, hence, became known as the wife of Jehovah (16:8-14). Israel, however, played the harlot.

The Palestinian covenant promised a final worldwide re-gathering, following a worldwide dispersion. While the final re-gathering is still in the future, the worldwide scattering is a present reality and has been so since the year AD 70. Furthermore, the covenant promised that the Jewish people would suffer persecution in the dispersion and the land would become desolate over the centuries. The fact that all these promises have been and are being fulfilled, shows that this covenant is still working itself out. The failure of all other occupants of Palestine to set up an independent government again shows that this covenant continues to operate. Many replacement theologians insist that God’s promises to Israel concerning the land have already been fulfilled, based on passages such as Joshua 11:23. But if in examining the chronology, we can now see that Israel never completely occupied Palestine. Even in the time of the Davidic and Solomonic empire, much of the land was under military control and not actually settled by the Jewish population (1 Kings 4:21). The first chapter of Judges records events that took place after the death of Joshua, and records how various tribes failed to take the land allotted to them. Never in Old Testament history did Israel possess, dwell in, and settle all of the Promised Land. Nor did it ever happen in Jewish history since. However, the covenant guarantees that someday it will. Major supporting verses: Isaiah 11:11 – 12:6, 43:5-7; Jeremiah 16:14-15, 23:3-4, 7-8, 31:7-10; Ezekiel 11:14-18, 36:24; Amos 9:14-15; Zephaniah 3:18-20; Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27.

The Davidic Covenant

            Along with many promises to Israel about the land, are prophecies about the Davidic kingdom. Like the promises of the land, the promises of the kingdom have often been spiritualized or interpreted nonliterally, with attempts to find fulfillment in the present age. Once again, the issue is whether prophecies to Christians are to be fulfilled literally in the prophetic future.

            Future kingdom – The kingdom promised to David is important because it explains the history of the past as well as prophesying the future. As stake is the question of whether there will be a future Davidic kingdom on earth following the second coming of Christ, as taught by premillennarians.

            The promise of the kingdom to David – The provisions of God’s covenant with David concerning his future kingdom are recorded in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17. God declared to David, “when your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom” (2 Samuel 7:12). This son was Solomon, and God promised that he would establish the kingdom of Solomon. David himself would have his throne and kingdom established forever (2 Samuel 7:16). There is a meticulous accuracy in this prophecy. Solomon’s line was the end physically in Joseph, the husband of Mary, a fact that would give Jesus Christ, his legal son, the legal right to the throne. Mary, however, was to descend from David through another son, Nathan (not to be confused with Nathan the prophet), and therefore would have a different physical lineage. This is taken into consideration in the Davidic covenant. This covenant, according to the descending line from David to Christ, points to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of this promise to David.

            The amillennial view of the kingdom – Conservative amillennarians interpret the covenant with David to be a covenant with the people of God, that is, the church. In doing so, they equate the throne of David with the throne of God in heaven, and equate the people of Israel, who were ruled by David, with the people of God in general, not Israel. The promise of the kingdom is unconditional and is subject to literal fulfillment. The confirmation of the kingdom promise to David is found in Psalm 89. Isaiah frequently refers to the Davidic covenant and its fulfillment. (Isaiah 9:6-7; Jeremiah 23:5-8; Jeremiah 33:14-17; Ezekiel 37:21-28).

            Ezekiel made plain that the fulfillment of the Davidic promise will be in connection with the re-gathering of Israel to their promised land. It will occur when David is resurrected from the dead at the second coming of Christ. Subsequent to this, Israel will live in the Promised Land (Ezekiel 37:25) and David will continue his reign forever as a resurrected person. Hosea 3:4, 5 indicate that the throne of David will be unoccupied for long periods of time.

            Confirmation in the New Testament – Through amillennial interpretation of New Testament passages, many amillennarians can see that the Old Testament, taken in its plain, ordinary language, predicts a political kingdom on earth in connection with the second coming of Christ. They assert, however, that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament in a non-literal way and that, therefore, the intent of the prophecy was not to predict the restoration of the Davidic kingdom, but rather the triumph of God and the church and that this is fulfilled in the present age. An examination of the New Testament, however, does not provide any confirmation of this. Gabriel announced to many about the kingdom of Jesus (Luke 1:30-33). At the time of Christ’s ascension into heaven, the disciples asked, "Lord, are You at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6).

The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

            The New covenant is an administrative covenant promised to Israel by God during the late pre-exilic and exilic period, as the instruments that would govern the nation’s spiritual and political life during the future Messianic kingdom. By God’s grace, the church has become a participant in some aspects of this covenant, following its ratification on the cross, although, full realization of the covenant remains future. This covenant administers the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant, replacing the previous administrative covenant, the Mosaic covenant, in the progressive outworking of God’s kingdom purposes. It is presently the basis on which anyone maintains a right relationship with God, and it governs the life of all believers. The church, though not one of the original parties to the covenant, falls under the jurisdiction of the covenant, both as a subject of its rule, and as a recipient of promised Abrahamic covenant blessings for Gentiles that have come through the seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ.

            The provisions, summarized by Charles Ryrie – The following provisions for Israel, the people of the New covenant, to be fulfilled in the millennium, the period of the New covenant, are found in the Old Testament.

1. The New covenant is an unconditional grace covenant resting on the “I will” of God. The frequency of the use of the phrase in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is striking (Ezekiel 16:60-62).
2. The New covenant is an everlasting covenant. This is closely related to the fact that it is unconditional and made in grace (Isaiah 61:2; Ezekiel 37:26; Jeremiah 31:35-37).
3. The New covenant also promises impartation of a renewed mind and heart, which we may call regeneration (Jeremiah 31:33; Isaiah 59:21).
4. The New covenant provides for restoration to the favor and blessing of God (Hosea 2:19,20; Isaiah 61:9).
5. Forgiveness of sin is also included in the covenant.
6. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is also included (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:27).
7. The teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit will be manifested, and the will of God will be known by obedient hearts.
8. As is always the case, when Israel is in the land, she will be blessed materially in accordance with the provisions of the New covenant (Jeremiah 32:41; Isaiah 61:8; Ezekiel 34:25-27).
9. The sanctuary will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, for it is written (Ezekiel 37:26,27).
10. War shall cease and peace shall reign according to Hosea 2:18 and Isaiah 2:4.
11. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation of all the blessings of the New covenant, for “by the blood of Thy covenant, I have sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water” (Zechariah 9:11).

The New Testament gives information as to the time of the ratification of the New covenant (Hebrews 7:17-22). On the basis of this oath, Christ has become the guarantee of a better covenant in the New covenant. Jesus’ mediatorship and high priesthood is based on the New covenant (Hebrews 8:6). Since both of these ministries are currently in force, it would seem to require that the covenant on which they are based is also in force. Hebrews 9:12-28 draws explicit contrasts with the old covenant, showing that Jesus’ present ministry is superior because it is based on the New covenant. Note the explicit mention of Jesus’ death, the shedding of blood, and particularly the phrase, “the blood of the covenant” (Hebrews 9:18-20). This key phrase, also found in Matthew 26:28 and parallels, argues strongly for ratification at the cross due to the parallel with the ratification of the old covenant in Exodus 24:8.

Other New Testament passages corroborate this conclusion. The references in the Gospels specifically connect the New covenant with Jesus’ cross (Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; Mark 14:24). The cup, representing the New covenant, was made on the basis of the blood of Christ. Jesus’ words require the covenant’s ratification at the cross. It is not that the cross simply enabled a future ratification. The blood ceremony of the cross institutes the covenant just as Jesus’ inaugural words instituted the ceremony that would commemorate it. This is most evident in Matthew’s record since he explains that the pouring out is for the purpose of forgiveness of sins, a present reality for both Israel and the church. The cup is what is poured out, and this cup represents the New covenant. The blood, the cup, the covenant and forgiveness are inseparably linked by Jesus’ words. Paul’s account of the Lord’s supper records the words of institution, not as a historical note that is irrelevant to church practice, but as significant words that in themselves communicate truth directly relevant to the church. The references to the cup as representative of the New covenant and the forgiveness provided for sin are directly related to those who participate in the memorial.

      The most extensive passage regarding the New covenant is described in 2 Corinthians 3. Here, the apostle draws a very evident contrast between the old Mosaic covenant and the New covenant. On the one hand, there are the tablets of stone, the letter, a ministry of death, and fading glory. On the other, there are tablets of flesh (human hearts), the spirit, a ministry of life, and surpassing glory. The first has passed away. The second is now reigning. Paul claims the status of the New covenant minister and contrasts the fading glory of the old covenant with the present glory of the ministry that brings righteousness.

Dispensational View

            There are four major dispensational views of the New covenant: the church has a different New covenant than Israel, the church has no relationship to the New covenant, the church participates in some aspects of the New covenant, and the church fulfills some aspects of the New covenant in a preliminary way.

            The church has a different covenant – The classic form of the two new covenants view is found in Lewis Sperry Chafer’s systematic theology. There are three similarities between these two new covenants : their name, their basis (the death of Christ), and some of their provisions. The first new covenant is made with Israel and will govern Israel’s life in the kingdom, replacing the old covenant, yet including the Mosaic commandments in heightened form. The second new covenant is made with the church by the blood of Christ, and is presently in force, in contrast to Israel’s New covenant that is yet future. The basis for this view is the presupposition that there can be no common interest between God’s purposes for Israel and for the church.

            The scripture never explicitly says that there are two new covenants, nor does it ever juxtapose them in the same context. And second, it is built on a theological presupposition rather than on an exegesis of the text.

            The church has no part in the covenant – This view is developed by J.N. Darby. His view is that the New covenant of Jeremiah 31 is made strictly with Israel, and will be fulfilled by Israel in the future millennial kingdom. Because of Israel’s unbelief, the covenant is not new in effect with that nation. Instead, the church participates in the New covenant (he brought us into it), not as a legal party to the covenant, but as recipients of the blessings of the covenant. It does not apply to the church directly as a legal covenant relationship, but as a gracious, spiritual benefit. These benefits come by virtue of a union with Christ, the mediator of the covenant, and are placed into effect at the time of His death. This means that the references in the New Testament are to the same New covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31. True, the church has no direct relationship to that covenant; it is not one of the legal parties of the New covenant. Yet Darby does not hesitate to relate the church to that covenant. He does no suggest that it shares only New covenant-like blessings, but that we share the actual covenant blessings. This covenant is now in effect, having been instituted with the death of Christ. There will be a future implementation with Israel that will result in the fulfillment of the New covenant. Darby nowhere speaks of the church’s participation in the covenant in terms of fulfillment. The only relationship between the church and the New covenant is that members of the church are united to the Mediator of the New covenant, Jesus Christ.

            The church has some part in the covenant – Many in contemporary dispensational circles would say that the church participates in some way in the New covenant. The New covenant will be fulfilled with Israel eschatologically, but is enjoyed soteriologically by the church now.

            The church has a preliminary part in the covenant – The fourth view is represented by Bruce Ware, who argues that the New covenant focuses on two key areas: the cross and the forgiveness it provides, and the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit. These New covenant blessings are applied by the New Testament in a preliminary form to the church as the spiritual seed of Abraham. This provision began to be realized with Jesus’ ministry, being death for sin, providing the basis of the covenant’s enactment. Not until the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, however, was the covenant actually inaugurated. The benefit of this New covenant ministry of the Spirit is to enable the covenant participants to live increasingly righteous lives. The Spirit’s role is characterized by a qualitative newness. Israel and the church thus share a number of theological elements in common, including participation in the same New covenant, while at the same time, maintaining their distinct identities. In other words, there is both continuity and relationship on the one hand and a discontinuity and distinction on the other. The discontinuity comes most sharply into focus when considering the territorial and political promises of the New covenant. The principle of authorial intent necessitates the fulfillment of what God promised to Israel, a future fulfillment of the New covenant, including its territorial and political aspects, for the nation. Continuity comes into play when it is recognized that the church experiences a preliminary and partial fulfillment of some aspects of the New covenant. These include forgiveness and the indwelling of the Spirit viewed in an already not yet from work. The partial nature of fulfillment may be seen in the reality of incomplete obedience on the part of God’s people. Although obedience may be incomplete, the New covenant believer still has far greater resources in their struggle with sin, than were available under the old covenant. The New covenant promises assure that perfect and complete obedience will be a reality when Christ returns and fulfills the New covenant, now inaugurated in a preliminary way. Similar explanations have been proposed by Darrel Boek, Craig Blaising, Larry Pettegrew, and Robert Saucy. There are proponents of progressive dispensationalism.

J.N. Darby on the New Covenant

            “This covenant of the letter is made with Israel, not with us; but we get the benefit of it. Israel not accepting the blessing God brought out of the church, and the Mediator of the covenant went on high. We are associated with the Mediator. It will be made good to Israel by and by.”

            Another place Darby writes, “The gospel is not a covenant, but the revelation of the salvation of God. It proclaims the great salvation. We enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the New covenant, its foundation being laid on God’s part in the blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter.

            The New covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium … the foundation of the new has been laid in the blood of the Mediator. It is not to us that the terms of the covenant, quoted from Jeremiah by the apostles, have been fulfilled, or that we are Israel and Judah; but that while the covenant is founded, not upon the obedience of a living people, to whom the blessing thereupon was to come, and the blood of a victim shed by a living Mediator, but upon the obedience unto death of the Mediator Himself, on which, as its secure, unalterable foundation of grace, the covenant is founded.

            It is, then, the annexed circumstances of the covenant with which we have to do, not the formal blessings which in terms have taken place of the conditions of the old, though some of them may, in a sense, be accomplished in us.”

F.W. Grant : Hebrews Chapter 8

            We are now called in connection with this, to see the New covenant according to which the new priest draws near to God. The covenant made with Israel in the day that He took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, did not abide. Conditional as it was, they did not fulfill its terms, did not, therefore, continue in it, and He did not regard them. It was, in fact impossible that He could do so without denying His own nature. The covenant that He is going to make, on the other hand, asks for no fulfillment on the part of man at all, but is the simple, positive affirmation of what He will do for them. “I will put my laws into their mind, and will write them also upon their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” It is plain here that the common thought that God’s law is written naturally upon everybody’s heart or mind, is entirely contradicted. “It is grace alone that accomplishes it that I will make unto the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord.” Here, God is speaking explicitly of His earthly people, and not any heavenly one.

            It will be asked how, according to this, the New covenant applies at all to us. Other scriptures answer this clearly by assuring us that if we have not the covenant made with us, it can yet, in all the blessings of which it speaks, be ministered to us. “We have, thank God, much more than even what the New covenant declares; and grace, having laid the foundation in righteousness, can act according to its own sovereignty, and in such largeness as suits the bounty of God, we have, therefore, the New covenant, fully ours, while we have much more than this, for all the “mysteries” which constitute Christianity proper are things before hidden, and really beyond it.” The apostle’s purpose here is evidently and simply to show us that the legal covenant is set aside, displaced by that which along could bring any blessing for man at all.

H.A. Ironside on the New Covenant – Hebrews 8:7-13

            Had the first covenant been perfect, it would never have been set to one side and a new covenant brought in. But because of its imperfection on account of the weakness and frailty of the flesh, God had declared long before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ into the world that a new covenant was to be consummated with Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-34). This new covenant is clearly a reaffirmation of the unconditional covenant made with Abraham, which the law, coming in centuries later, could not annul. During all the present years of wandering, Israel and Judah are under the curse of that broken law. But in the regeneration, when they shall be gathered back to their own land and restored to the favor of the Lord, this covenant of grace will be made with them. It is most important to realize that nowhere are we told of a covenant made with the church. In Romans 9:4, we learn that “the covenant” pertained to Israel. Our Lord said, as He gave the communion cup to His disciples, “This is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you.” On the basis of that precious blood, all who now believe in Him who shed it, enter into the spiritual blessings of the New covenant, even the Gentiles, though after the flesh, and therefore by nature “strangers to the covenants of promise.” But in the fullness of times, when the day of Israel’s blessing shall arrive, the New covenant will be confirmed to them and they will be born of God – “a nation shall be born in a day” – and He will own them and His covenant people.

            While this does not reach the full height of Christian blessing, it will be wonderful grace indeed when to the people who failed so terribly when they crucified the Lord of glory. The New covenant says nothing of entrance into the Holiest, as we know it; nothing of being raised up together and seated together in Christ Jesus in the heavenlies; and nothing of union with Him as members of His body by the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is blessing for the earth and on the earth in the coming day. But the fact that all these heavenly privileges are secured for the church now by the shedding of the same blood of the covenant that is to procure future blessing for Israel, leads the apostle in the chapters that follow to stress our present title to enter into the Holiest, while Israel and Judah are still dispensed among the Gentiles, waiting for the day when the New covenant will be confirmed to them.

            The important thing to see is that the New covenant, as such, does not go beyond blessing on the earth. It has to do with the earthly side of the kingdom of god, to enter into which new birth is prerequisite, as our Lord told Nicodemus. This is what is meant by the writing of the divine law upon the hearts in the day that Israel and Judah will turn to the One who was rejected (Hebrews 9:5). “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, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

            Christ is therefore the mediator of the New covenant, which is founded upon His own death, whereby He settled for the transgressions of all who turned to God in faith during the times of the first covenant, that they, with us, might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. This is undoubtedly the meaning of the expression, “The redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant.” The sins of Old Testament saints were not actually put away until Christ accomplished redemption on the cross. Only then did these come into all the blessing of the New covenant which He sealed with His own blood.

            There has been much controversy as to whether the change from covenant to testament, in the sense of a will, is intended in the verses that follow. But the two are so intimately connected that there would seem to be no reason for difficulty in understanding the truth presented. The old covenant was God’s will for His people prior to the coming of Christ and was sealed by the blood of calves and goats, which Moses sprinkled upon the book and all the people saying, “this is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.” The New covenant is the will of our blessed Lord whereby He decrees that all who put their trust in Him should receive a part in that eternal inheritance which He gladly shares with all believers. By His death, this testament came into force. Apart from His death, there could be no such blessing for guilty sinners. A testament is in effect after men are dead. His death upon the cross puts this new covenant, or testament, or will, into operation, and inasmuch as it is a covenant of pure grace, all who believe enter into the good of it, even before the day when it is to be openly confirmed with Israel and Judah, the blood of the covenant, having already been shed. There is nothing to hinder the outflow of blessing. The sprinkling of the blood under the old dispensation confirmed that covenant, and was a warning to the people that death would result for its violation; while at the same time, it justified the shedding of the blood of the new covenant victim. Therefore, we are told that Moses sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry, and “almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” This last statement is absolute. It is not restricted to the old covenant, as the verses that immediately make plain.

The Sermon On The Mount

            The sermon on the mount is the first discourse recorded in the Gospels; it combines prophecy to be fulfilled with moral and ethical principles involved in the kingdom. In many respects, it is the first major teaching of Christ concerning His kingdom.

            The kingdom declared to be at hand – In the early accounts about Jesus in the gospels, announcement was made that the prophesied kingdom was at hand (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:14,15). The kingdom was at hand in the sense that the king was now introducing Himself to Israel. The kingdom referred to the prophesied kingdom on earth in which Christ would reign over the house of David and over the entire world (Daniel 7:13,14; Luke 1:31-33).

            The sermon on the mount is the first major address delivered by Jesus and is recorded principally in Matthew 5-7, but there are occasions recorded in Mark 4:21-23; Luke 6:20-49, 8:16-18, 11:1-4,9-13, and 33-36. Because of the prominence of the promise of the kingdom in the Old Testament, the Jews expected that when their Messiah arrived, He would bring the glory of the kingdom.

Charles Ryrie on the Sermon on the Mount

            In relation to the matter of dispensational interpretation, one of the favorite targets of attack is what opponents consider to be the dispensationalists’ view of the sermon on the mount. One critic asserts that dispensationalists teach that “the sermon on the mount is neither the church’s duty nor privilege. It is not for now.” C. Norman Kraus echoes the “partyline” and misrepresents dispensationalism by insisting that in it, “Jesus’ life and teachings are lost to the church.” An expositor who is highly respected by many, correctly summarizes the classic dispensational teaching on the sermon, but then vitiates what he has said by adding that dispensationalists teach that the sermon has nothing whatsoever to do with Christians in the meantime.

            The picture of dispensational teaching, given the Christian public, is that of a knife that not only makes hair splitting distinctions, but actually cuts away part of the Bible. On the basis of this picture, Christians are urged to reject dispensationalism. As Ladd put it, “A system which takes this great portion of Jesus’ teaching away from the Christian in its direct application must receive penetrating scrutiny.”

            Why is the sermon on the mount made the focus of the attack? Nobody ever criticizes the dispensationalist for teaching that the dietary regulations of the Mosaic law have no application to the Christian. The sermon on the mount, however, is different. It contains the Golden Rule, the Lord’s Prayer, and other favorite passages. Even to suggest that its direct relation to the Christian is open to question, inevitably involves people’s emotions before their doctrine. Of course, the dietary laws are just as much inspired scripture as the sermon on the mount – a fact that emotions easily overlook.

Various Viewpoints – It is a Message of Salvation

            Interestingly enough, both liberals and avowed dispensationalists accept this view, though each may understand salvation in different ways. Adolf Harnack (1851-1930), a well known German liberal, views the sermon as a work – salvation, saying that in it, Jesus goes through “the several departments of human relationships and human failings so as to bring the disposition and intention to light in each case, to judge man’s works by them, and on them, to hand heaven and hell.” A similar view states that “in all this, it is made clear that what matters is character and conduct.”

            John MacArthur, Jr. asserts that the sermon is “pure gospel, with as pointed an invitation as has ever been presented.” Granted, the discourse contains several pointed invitations, but invitations to what? To believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again? Impossible to prove. To repent? Definitely. Who were to repent? The Jewish people to whom He was speaking. Of what were they to repent? Of their disobedience to God’s law. What law? The law of Moses. That repentance was with a view to what? To entering the kingdom of heaven, which was at hand. What would those people have understood the kingdom of heaven to be? The Messianic, Davidic kingdom on this earth in which the Jewish people would have a prominent place.

            This kingdom was not the body of Christ, nor was it heaven itself. It was not some dynamic reign apart from a concrete expression of that reign in a realm, which in the audience’s understanding of the sermon would have been the Davidic kingdom on this present earth. Summarizing well, Mark Saucy says, “First, at the beginning of Jesus’ career, He proclaimed and offered to Israel the restoration of the rule of Yahweh in their land, which would bring His peace and righteousness, and through which they would be a blessing to the rest o the world. This kingdom of which he spoke is physical, glorious, and powerful, compelling the wicked either to repent or to fell its wrath.”

            If the sermon is “pure gospel,” is it not presenting a works-salvation gospel? It is for the church. By “for,” it is meant that the message is to be interpreted as directly binding on the church, not merely by application of its principles, but by primary interpretation of its words. For example, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones plainly says that the “sermon is something which is meant for all Christian people. It is a perfect picture of life in the kingdom of God.” Then he describes the kingdom of God as “essentially spiritual in contrast to the materialistic, political, and military conception held by the Jews of Jesus’ time.”

            If the sermon is directly for the church, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to interpret all of it completely, and in a consistently literal manner. George Ladd, for example, who believes that the sermon on the mount is God’s standard for righteousness for this church age resolves the interpretive dilemma by warning against understanding the teaching with strict literalness. As proof, he cites the fact that even Jesus did not turn the other cheek (John 18:23), therefore, we need not understand Matthew 5:39 with “wooden literalness.” Might one observe, facetiously, that “wooden literalness” might also be called “fudging literalness,” where the term fudging is defined by refusing to commit oneself; to be dishonest. If the laws of the sermon are to be obeyed today, I know of no one who interprets them in a consistently literal manner, let alone, obeys them that way. Every businessman and all Christian schools would go bankrupt if they gave to all who asked anything of them (Matthew 5:42). All interpreters face this dilemma: if it is “for the church,” how can in be interpreted with consistent literalness?

            Some who accept this interpretation of the sermon point out that James’ letter contains at least fifteen allusions to the teachings of the sermon. Therefore, they conclude, the sermon is church truth. But what about the fifteen or more other teachings in the sermon that James does not mention? Does it follow that they, and thus all the teachings of the sermon, are church truth? Suppose we use the same logic with regard to the Mosaic law. We know that none of the Ten Commandments, plus several other commandments outside the Decalogue, are repeated in the writings of Paul. Does this mean that Paul gives his imprimatur to the entire Mosaic law as binding on the church?

            Others agree that since Matthew wrote after the church was fully established, why would he include the sermon unless he expected the church to obey it. Remember, we are not speaking of application, but interpretation, i.e., it is to be interpreted or the church, not simply applied to the church. If this is inescapable logic, shall we also interpret other teachings of Christ that Matthew records as for the church? How about Matthew 10, especially verses 5-15 and 34-36, or 15:26, or 19:21, or 24:20? If one does not recognize dispensational distinction in the Gospels, including the sermon on the mount, consistent literal interpretation will be abandoned to a lesser or greater degree.

It is Related to the Kingdom

            The original Scofield reference Bible (1909) explicitly stated that the sermon clearly has a beautiful, moral application to the Christian. L.S. Chafer said essentially, the same thing. “A secondary application to the church means that lessons and principles may be drawn from it. “ The distinction is between understanding the sermon as the rule of life for those in the church, in which case its prescriptions must be taken word for word, and applying principles and lessons from it. There are three basic views.

1. The sermon relates only to the millennial kingdom. This is the view non-dispensationalists generally associate with dispensationalism. It was clearly the view of the original Scofield Bible, and of Chafer. In other words, only when the millennial kingdom is established on this present earth under the kingship of Christ, will the sermon become the rule of life. Such an understanding takes the sermon in its strict, literal sense. One question about this view is simply, if the sermon will be the new rule of life for the millennial kingdom, what will be the purpose of praying “Thy kingdom come,” (Matthew 6:10) if it has already come? Another is this: If the sermon is for the future kingdom when righteousness will reign, why will some be persecuted (Matthew 5:10)?
2. It relates to anytime the Messianic kingdom is offered. Thus, it is a detailed explanation of the Lord’s call to Israel to repent. The time when the kingdom is offered includes both the time when the Lord spoke it and the future time in the tribulation, when the kingdom is about to be established at Christ’s second coming. This view is supported by verses in the sermon that anticipate the coming of the kingdom (Matthew 5:11,12,44, 6:10, 7:15). To make this the exclusive purpose of the sermon seems weakened by sections that demand obedience in the context of a righteous government (5:38-42). Nevertheless, this view would also interpret the sermon literally.
3. It relates both to any time the kingdom is offered, that is, during our Lord’s earthly ministry as well as during the coming tribulation period, and to the time when the millennial kingdom is functioning on earth. This combines views 1 and 2 and allows for the literal interpretation of verses that anticipate the kingdom coming as well as those that relate to conditions when it will be established.

Conclusion

            To summarize, what does this dispensationalist say about the sermon on the mount? Four things are suggested: (1) It is a detailed explanation of what the Lord meant by repentance. It called the Jewish people to an inner heart change that they had dissociated from the requirement for the establishing of the Messianic kingdom. Therefore, (2) It relates to any time that the kingdom is offered, but (3) it also relates to life in the millennial kingdom. And (4) as with all scripture, the sermon is applicable and profitable to believers in this age.

            The dispensationalist does recognize the relevance and application of the teachings of the sermon to believers today, regardless of how much non-dispensationalists want to make him say otherwise. The dispensationalist, however, views the primary fulfillment of the sermon and the full following of its laws as related to either the offering or the establishing of the Messianic kingdom. After all, there are many other passages of scripture that all conservative interpreters recognize are not primarily applicable to believers today, but that have relevance today. Dispensationalists believe that anger, lust, divorce, and murder are sin, and they believe this on the basis of the sermon on the mount, as well as other scriptures. Dispensationalists believe that the Golden Rule and the Lord’s Prayer are excellent guides to be used. But they also believe that the full, nonfudging, unadjusted fulfillment of the sermon relates in several ways to the kingdom of the Messiah while ate the same time not postponing the relevance of the sermon to a future age.

            This is the heart of the dispensationalist’s interpretation of the sermon. Is it so bad? At least it does justice to literal interpretation, and the consistency of one’s theological system. It in no way disregards the importance of the ethical teachings of the sermon for today, and it gives proper recognition to the ultimate purpose of the sermon.

            It is usually charged that dispensationalists teach that the sermon is all law and no gospel. To those who object to this claim, we merely ask, where can one find a statement of the gospel in the sermon? One answer to that question is this, “the standpoint of grace dominates the whole biblical revelation after the fall.” Nevertheless, a straightforward statement of the gospel cannot be found in this sermon.

            Another matter is this: Dispensationalists often point out the absence of church truth from the sermon. It is readily admitted that this does not prove that the sermon is not primarily for the church, but it is very strange that this most complete of all teachings of Jesus does not mention the Holy Spirit once, or the church per say, or prayer in the name of Christ. These things were taught by Christ on other occasions during His ministry but not in the sermon (John 14:16, 16:13,24; Matthew 16:18). Concerning prayer, the Lord said later that it was to be offered in His name, a rather important fact that the sermon nowhere reveals. This is a serious omission if the sermon is the rule of daily life for the Christian believer.

            The usual nondispensationalist reply to these assertions is that the sermon must be supplemental by the teaching of the remainder of the New Testament. But such supplementation appears to involve some major differences that make one suspicious of any interpretation that sets forth the sermon as the believer’s rule of life.

            Thus, the dispensational interpretation of the sermon on the mount simply tries to follow consistently the principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. It results in not trying to relegate primarily and fully the teachings of the sermon to the believers in this age. But it does not, in the least, disregard the ethical principles of the sermon as being not only applicable, but also binding on believers today. Can this truthfully be called “cutting out pages from the Bible?”

Does Church Fulfill the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom?

            By quoting a number of passages in Acts, many antidispensationalists claim that the church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the kingdom. Such a notion is contrary to Romans 16:25,26, Ephesians 3:9, and Colossians 1:26. The Jews had expected a temporal kingdom. The kingdom was presented as embodied in the meek and lowly one who was rejected and so the kingdom is postponed. Then a heavenly parenthesis was introduced which occupies the time between Pentecost and the rapture.

            The objective of the spiritualizers of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the kingdom is to show that the reign of the Messiah was inaugurated at Pentecost. O.T. Allis thinks that the book of Acts gives clear proof of this theory.

The Kingdomization of the Church by the Covenant

            It should be expected that the self-styled, progressive dispensationalists, at this stage in their theological approach to covenant pretribulationists, would join with those, like the amillennialists, O.T. Allis, and others who embrace covenant theology, in making the church to be the kingdom, i.e. the notion that the reign of the Messiah was inaugurated at Pentecost. While allowing for a future kingdom, as do covenant posttribulationists, the covenant pretribulationists regard the present as a phase of the Davidic kingdom. The following quote is their view to support the false teaching. “All of the language describing the church in the New Testament is either directly drawn from or is compatible with the genres of covenant promise and the Messianic kingdom. Being a dispensation of the kingdom, the church corresponds to the mystery form of the kingdom which Jesus revealed in the parables of Matthew 13. The identity of the church as a present reality of the coming eschatological kingdom receives further explanation in Ephesians” [Craig A. Blaising and Darrel L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 1993, p.260]. R.A. Huebner answers to the above statement like this. “If they think that they cannot produce scripture that something is Davidic, then they can claim that it ‘is compatible with…’ and, behold, there is their theological demonstration.” Such is theology. Thus, the truth concerning Christ’s headship of the body and the Christian’s heavenly position and eternal position is removed by this system. For example, our being seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6) is not compatible with covenant promise. This system undermines what Christianity is and that our blessings are in the heavenlies in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). It thus directly leaves Christ’s place, limiting all his present actings to a Davidic character. The fact is that David’s great Son is also David’s Lord. This system will not have it that our Lord is presently acting above what is Davidic. Indeed, the designation that the Lord took and often used, consequent upon it being manifested in Israel that they would not have Him, namely “the Son of Man,” a title that is of vastly wider bearing than that of “the Son of David.” This system has subsumed some things that result from our Lord’s place as the Son of Man under their Davidic system – changing, thereby, the full bearing of those things and vitiating and corrupting others. The truth is the opposite, namely that His title as the Son of David will have its expression under the immense range and bearing of His title as the Son of Man. If Ephesians can be so distorted, what must the book of Acts suffer at their hands? We may expect them to say that Christ is on David’s throne now (Acts 2:30-36), and that the fallen tabernacle of David (Acts 15) is now rebuilt, etc; just as the antidispensationalists have insisted.

Acts 2:30-36 : Is Christ On David’s Throne Now?

            Peter’s Message – Peter, here, quotes Old Testament scripture. Did he quote it in order to tell the Jews that David’s earthly throne had just been transferred to heaven? And to tell them also that the prophesied reign was changed from a kingdom on earth to a spiritual reign in heaven? Well, antidispensational theologians think so.

            What throne is Christ on now? – There is a theological process that involves “spiritualizing” the Old Testament prophecies so as to have the church be the subject of those prophecies, leaving the Old Testament curses for the spiritual Israel, i.e. allegedly the church. That is the general framework for handling such passages. In the process of this spiritual alchemy, the passage we are considering must mean, therefore, that Christ is on David’s throne now, even though no New Testament text has been produced that states it. This process involves:

1. Transferring David’s earthly throne to heaven and changing David’s throne from an earthly to a heavenly throne.
2. Making the church the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32).
3. The reign of Christ beginning at Pentecost.
4. Ignoring the fact that Christ says He is now on the Father’s throne (Revelation 3:21).
5. Moving the throne that Christ speaks of as His own to the eternal state.

In Acts 2, we do not find Peter stating, or implying, what is found in points 1 thru 3 stated above. These points are mere theological assertions. Peter was proving from the Old Testament that the Messiah would die, be resurrected, and sit down at God’s right hand. It was this that reached the conscience of some of Peter’s hearers (Acts 2:37). There is not a word here, or anywhere else, that Christ is now occupying David’s throne.

            Christ distinguished His throne from the Father’s throne. – “He that overcomes, to him will I give to sit with Me in My throne; as I have overcome, and have sat down with My Father in His throne” (Revelation 3:21). Here, our Lord distinguished His own throne from the Father’s throne. He is not on His own throne of glory now. Yet we are told by progressive dispensationalists that Christ is reigning now in David’s throne. What does scripture say regarding Christ’s reign? Psalm 110:1,2 say, “Jehovah said unto my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I put Thine enemies [as] footstool of thy feet. Jehovah shall send the scepter of Thy might out of Zion: rule in the midst of Thine enemies.” But by the spiritualizers, His enemies are, in effect, told He is reigning now. When will He rule in the midst of His enemies? When Jehovah makes them Messiah’s footstool - when Jehovah sends the scepter of Christ’s might out of Zion. Clearly, the reign upon David’s throne is in the millennium.

            Craig A. Blaising and Darrel Brock try to remove these heavenly position and portion of the Christian and the church, and make the church a phase of the Davidic reign of Christ. They wrote, concerning Acts2:22-36,” Peter then argues that this enthronement has taken place upon the entrance of Jesus into heaven, in keeping with the language of Psalm 110:1 that describes the seating of David’s son at God’s right hand. The Davidic nature of Christ’s present activity… every New Testament description of the present throne of Jesus is drawn from Davidic promises… The Bible itself describes the present position and activities of Christ in terms of the promises covenanted to David.”

            Let us examine the last quote given above. It means that Christ’s position as the head of the body is described in terms of the promises covenanted to David. Just so is it with the Lord as the second man, and also as the last Adam. All His glories in connection with these titles are lowered, and this is true of Him as “the Son of Man,” another title that is above the Son of David. Their new theology contradicts Romans 16:25, Colossians 1:26, and Ephesians 3:9. They are engaged in a systematic effort to undermine the truth of the heavenly position and portion of the Head and His members. Writers such as these declare themselves incapable of seeing the difference between Revelation 3:21 and 1 Chronicles 17:13,14 and Psalm 89:26. Their system lowers the saints now to the level of millennial saints, with Christ reigning over them now in a spiritual way.

            The following quote from J.N. Darby and William Kelly answers appropriately to the progressive dispensationalism. The glories of the Son of Man – These quotes prove that Christ’s glories as the Son of Man are far higher than those as the Son of David.

            “His government and headship over creation are not to be confounded. The government laid on His shoulder is not His headship over creation either. And, though it be the Messiah who is set over all things, it is not as Messiah, but as Son of Man; and as Son of Man, it is not till after His death that all power in heaven and in earth is, by God’s act of devolution, laid on Him. Till then, though the person was there who was to have it, man and the Jews were put to the test; and until Christ was rejected, the time was not come for Him to take this place.

            But we have another truth here: the Son of Man was to re-enter heaven as man, to be head over all things. As Son of God, He has been appointed Heir (Hebrews 1); He is such as Creator (Colossians 1), but also as man and Son of Man, according to God’s counsels. (Psalm 8, quoted in Ephesians 1, in 1 Corinthians 15, in Hebrews 2 – passages which develop clearly His place in this respect.) Proverbs 8 teaches that He who was Jehovah’s delight before the foundation of the world, rejoiced then in the habitable parts of the earth, and His delights were in the sons of men. The angels (Luke 2) recall this truth, or rather the proofs which His incarnation gave of the thoughts of God in this respect; they speak of this incarnation as the manifestation of God’s good pleasure in men. As then, He has been the manifestation of God upon earth, He enters as man into the glory of God on high. He will reign over the earth as Head of creation, gathering together all things under His authority (Colossians 1); but here we speak of heavenly things. The Son of Man takes Him place on high to be head over all things (1 Peter 3:22; John 13:3, 16:15.”

The Throne of the Son of Man

            Some say that Christ now is sitting on David’s throne. If reading carefully, we can see that Peter had said no such thing. Peter says that God raised up Jesus, but he does not say that Jesus was placed upon David’s throne. So far, this, he declares the exaltation of Jesus to a seat, which he does tell us David never occupied, “for David is not ascended into heaven.

            Revelation 3:7 is another passage referred to in connection with Isaiah 22:22 as proving that when Christ claims to have the key of David’s house, His meaning is that, He has that antitypical authority in David’s house which Eliakim’s robe, girdle, and key faintly shadowed forth; that He is now exercising this power of the key; and that the house of David, as Christ is ruler in it, at least, can be non other than the church of the living God, under the Redeemer’s regal administration.” To this argument, we need only reply that at the end of Isaiah 22, we find that “the nail fastened in a sure place” [Eliakim] was to “be removed, and to be cut down, and to fall; and the burden that was upon it,” says the prophet, “shall be cut off; for the Lord hath spoken it.” Understand this of Christ’s relation to the literal Israel, as King, and it is easy to understand Messiah, the King of Israel was “cut off;” but not for himself” (Daniel 9). The burden of Jewish hopes and prospects which hung upon that nail, was “cut off” along with it; though in resurrection, as we all know, the whole is yet to be made good. “The key of David is in the land of his risen son; but it is still ‘the key of David,’ and it is as such that it is seen in the hands of Jesus (Revelation 3:7-12).  It is as opening into a new dispensation, in which He will be known in the character that He addresses the church of Philadelphia, promising to keep them from the hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” Jesus now is not exercising the power of which the key of David is the distinctive symbol and expression.

            To say the Father’s throne is David’s throne, is nonsense. God was to raise up one of David’s seed to sit on David’s throne, and that means, they say, the Father’s. This is a bad interpretation.

            “¹⁹Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the time of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; ²⁰And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: ²¹Whom heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. ²²For Moses truly said unto the fathers, ‘A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you. ²³And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.’ ²⁴Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. ²⁵Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in they seed shall the kindreds of the earth be blessed. ²⁶Unto you first God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from His iniquities.”      - Acts 3:19-26, KJV

The Times of Refreshing and of the Restoration of All Things

What are these times? The answer is: the millennium and the reign of Christ (Isaiah 44:3; 59:20: Ezekiel 34:26). Now, there is a very important related question, and that is, does the repentance in verse 19 refer only to the repentance of some of the Jews, or does it require the repentance of all of them to realize all these blessings? It is true that an individual Jew who repented would have his sins blotted out, but that would hardly be the cause of God sending Jesus Christ. This fact indicates that a national repentance is connected with God’s sending Jesus Christ.

            The prophet spoke of “these days” (Acts 3:24). They spoke of the reign of Messiah on earth. “These days” are the “times of refreshing and the times of the restoring of all things.” These expressions refer to characteristics of the days of Messiah’s millennial reign. Their arrival depends on the national repentance of Israel.

The national repentance of Israel – An individual repentant person will be saved, the passage here in view refers to national repentance of Israel. Romans 15:8,9 reads, “Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy.” Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that He should gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad” (John 11:51,52).

When turning over our Lord to the civil power for execution, the leadership said, “we have no king but Ceasar” (John 19:15). Romans 11:26 says that all Israel shall be saved, as Isaiah 60:21 declares that they shall all be righteous. What was a Jew supposed to understand by Isaiah 60:21? That the church would be all righteous. “God will destroy the wicked out of the land (Zechariah 13:8) and the wicked of Israel outside the land will not enter therein (Ezekiel 20). What remains will compose the righteous nation. The national restoration is dependent upon national repentance (Zechariah 12:10-14).

There is also such a thing as a national adoption and it belongs to Paul’s kinsmen, according to the flesh; who are Israelites; whose is adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises (Romans 9:3,4). Christ died for the nation (John 11:51), and our Lord became a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers; and that the nations should glorify God for mercy (Romans 5:8,9).

The times of refreshing – When considering Acts 1:7, “times” (chronos) refers to duration or date of occurrence chronologically, while “seasons” (kairos) refers to characteristics of the chronological periods. In Acts 1:7, these two words apply to the same events, not to two differing periods. In Acts 3:19, we read of “times” (kairos) of refreshing.

While our blessings are in the heavenlies in Christ (Ephesians 1:3), the seasons of refreshing refer to the blessing here on earth under Messiah’s reign. For example, consider the feasts of Jehovah, spoken of in Ezekiel 40-48, which chapters speak of millennial worship. The Jews will, of course, have begun sacrifices which will be carried out for part of Daniel’s 70^th week, since the coming Roman prince will cause them to stop in the middle of the week (Daniel 9:27). No doubt, other aspects of the Jewish seasons will also be in force. Indeed, the Beast (Revelation 13:1-7) will change seasons and the law (Daniel 7:25). But in the restoration of all things, the season of refreshing will be enjoyed under Christ’s beneficent reign. F.F. Bruce interprets this section like this, “the expression suggests rather” moments of relief during the time men spend in waiting for that day. Some of the progressive dispensationalists also hold similar views. In their view, the seasons of refreshing are a part of the allegedly present Davidic reign of Christ. When will these seasons of refreshing occur?

Repent therefore, and be converted for the blotting out of your sins, so that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and He may send Jesus Christ (Acts 3:19; William Kelly).

Why repent? For three reasons:

1.      Blotting out of your sins.

2.      So that seasons of refreshing may come.

3.      And so that God may send Jesus Christ.

All three are dependant on the repentance. It is not merely individuals here and there repenting. The sending of Jesus Christ is dependant on the repentance of which Peter spoke. Presently, if an individual repents, his sins are blotted out, and he may sense refreshment, but God sending Jesus Christ has nothing to do with that individual thing. So, the attempt to apply “seasons of refreshing” to the present, thus individualizing it, really disjoins what God has here put together as inter-connected.

            The times of refreshing are not a refreshing for an individual anymore than the times of the restoring of all things are times for the restoration of individuals, although, the individuals will be blessed with restoration and refreshing. This refers to the earth brought into blessing under the reign of Christ, with restored Israel at the head of nations.

            The restoration of all things (Acts 3:21) – This scripture states that the prophets spoke about the times of restoring all things. Covenant theologians say that this prophecy is about the church. Acts 3 shows these prophecies are future and bound up with the second advent. Thus, the prophets spoke of the millennial kingdom, not the church; and so, Christ’s advent is premillennial.

Acts 4-14

            Is Acts 4:23-31 a fulfillment of Psalm 2:1, 2? Antidispensationalist O.T. Allis says, “according to this passage, the early Christians saw, in the sufferings of Christ, and in the persecutions which they were being called upon to endure because of their loyalty to Him in the preaching of the gospel, a fulfillment of Psalm 2:1, 2. Since dispensationalists admit a partial fulfillment of Joel 2 in the events of the day of Pentecost, they should be ready to recognize at least a partial fulfillment of prophecy here also. Otherwise, the citation from the psalm would be neither applicable nor appropriate.” This does not prove the case.

1. There