Dispensational Truths

Dictionary of Premillennial Theology

The English word “dispensation” is an anglicized form of the Latin dispensation, which the vulgate uses to translate the Greek word oikonomia. Its Latin counterpart, a verb, means “to weigh out or dispense.”

                         Three principal ideas are connected to the meaning of the English word: 1.The action of dealing out or distributing; 2.The action of administering, ordering, or managing the system by which things are administered; 3.The action of dispensing with some requirement. In further defining the use of the word theologically, the Oxford English dictionary says that a dispensation is “a stage in a progressive revelation, expressly adapted to the needs of a particular nation or period of time.” Also, “the age or period during which a system has prevailed.” The Greek word “oikonomia” comes from the verb that means to manage, regulate, administer, and plan. The word itself is a compound whose parts mean, literally, “to divide, apportion, administer, or manage the affairs of an inhabited house.” Other meanings of the word are steward, or manager, of an estate or as a treasurer. Thus, the central idea in the word dispensation is that of managing or administering the affairs of a household. 

System of Theology 

            Dispensational theology is a system that embodies two essential concepts: 1. the church is distinct from Israel, and 2. God’s overall purpose is to bring glory to Himself (Ephesians 1:6, 12, 16).

            The church is seen as distinct from Israel for two reasons. The first reason is the church’s character. In the Old Testament, God was dealing primarily with the nation of Israel, which consisted of the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. On the other hand, the church consists of believing Jews, and Gentiles baptized into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). The church is also indwelt by the Holy Spirit. There is also a distinction between the church and Israel based upon time. The church age began after the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:20-22), and His ascension (Ephesians 4:7-12). Therefore, since all believers of this age are baptized into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), the church age began with the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2; 11:15-16).

            The church is a mystery that was not revealed to past generations (Ephesians 3:3-5, 9; Colossians 1:26-27). This mystery, now revealed, includes the uniting of Jewish and Gentile believers in one spiritual body, Christ indwelling believers, and the future rapture of this unified body (1 Corinthians 15:50-58).

            This distinction between Israel and the church is the result of historical-grammatical interpretation. Literal interpretation is not used solely by dispensationalists, but its consistent use in all areas of biblical interpretation is.

            The second essential concept is that of God’s purpose of glorifying Himself. Scripture is not human-centered, as though salvation was the principal point, but God centered, because His glory is at the center. The glory of God is the primary principle that unifies all the dispensations, the program of salvation being just one of the means by which God glorifies Himself. Each successive revelation of God’s plan for the ages, as well as His dealings with the elect, non-elect, angels, and nations, all manifest His glory.

Hermeneutics

            The fundamental assertion of dispensational hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation, which gives to each word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage. This is also called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The principle relies on the normal meaning of words as the approach to understanding them. It is also known as plain interpretation to keep from ruling out symbols, figures of speech, and types. These are interpreted plainly in order to communicate their intended meaning to the reader. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are normal literary tools that are used to clarify or emphasize thoughts and ideas.

            This position is supported in the following ways.

1.                          Language was given by God for the purpose of communication with humankind. Therefore, God would give His linguistic communication in the most understandable ways – literally and normally. It seems unlikely that God would go to all the trouble of revealing Himself to people in a manner that only caused people confusion and uncertainty in their understanding of who God is and how He works.

2.                          The Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ’s birth and rearing, ministry, death and resurrection were all fulfilled literally.

3.                          In order to maintain objectivity, the literal method of interpretation must be employed. This ensures that impartiality is maintained, and prevents the interpreter from overlaying biblical truths with personal thoughts.

Thus, normative dispensationalism is the result of the consistent application of the

basic hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation. This claim can be made by no other system of theology.

            Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value, which involves recognizing distinctions in the Bible. The text taken at face value and the recognitions of distinctions in the progress of revelation reveals the different economics God uses on the outworking of His program. The consistent hermeneutical principle of plain or literal interpretation is the basis of dispensationalism.

            The opponents of dispensationalism say that it gives the view of compartmentalizing the Bible, which has the effect of destroying its unity. Nothing could be further from the truth. C.I. Scofield identified seven evidences that the Bible is one book.

1.      From Genesis, it bears witness to one God

2.      It forms one continuous story

3.      It sets forth the most unlikely future predictions

4.      It is a progressive unfolding of the truth

5.      From beginning to end, the Bible testifies to one redemption

6.      It’s great theme throughout is the person and work of the Christ

7.      The forty four witnesses over a period of sixteen centuries have produced a perfect harmony of doctrine in progressive unfolding.

Instead of clouding biblical unity, dispensationalism serves to clarify it. It brings

into sharp focus, the progressive unfolding of God’s plan throughout ages. It is this disclosure of God’s absolute truth that stands in direct opposition to modern self centered relativism. Thus, dispensationalism sees the unity, the variety, and progressive character of God’s purposes for the world as no other system of theology does. It is through these progressive stages that God is glorified.

Progressive Dispensationalism

            Progressive dispensationalism began on November 20, 1986 in a

 dispensational study group in connection with the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia. Those at the forefront of this movement include Darrell L. Brock, Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary; Craig A. Blaising, Professor of Systematic Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; and Robert Z. Saucy, Professor of Systematic Theology, Talbot Theological Seminary.

            The basic beliefs of progressive dispensationalism includes: the kingdom of God is the unifying theme of biblical history. This view is not clearly defined. Those that hold to this belief have imprecisely defined it as God’s rule over the whole earth. This inclusive definition blurs important distinctions between various kingdoms. Church historian and researcher R.A. Heubur gives a prompt answer to progressive dispensationalists, and defends the Darby dispensationalism. The main aspect of the dispensational teaching is the acknowledgement that the most important thing in the Word of God is not the salvation of the elect, but rather the manifestation of the glory of God in Christ. In 1836, J.N. Darby wrote, ”If some, attaching everything to the final salvation of the elect, say, if this be not affected by it all the rest is immaterial and curious, and they do not know anything about dispensations; I answer that the salvation of the elect is not the great end of any Christian’s thoughts, but the divine glory; and that God has been pleased to glorify Himself and display this character in these dispensations for the instruction of the church; and that if the church casts it aside, they are casting aside the instruction which God has afforded for His ways. They are making themselves wise without God, and wiser than He, for He has thought fit for His glory to instruct us in these things.”  J.N. Darby is the father of dispensational theology. He knew about reformed faith, or of covenant theology.

            Dispensational truth is opposed by covenant theology, which teaches that there is an eternal covenant of grace, or of redemption, and all other covenants are the unfolding or expression of it. The church is seen as under the new covenant, as seen in Jeremiah 31. Thus, scripture is unified under the idea of the covenant. The system, in effect, therefore, centers upon the salvation of the elect, thus putting man at the center of God’s activities, instead of His glory in Christ. This, it is thought, is what binds all of Scripture into a harmonious whole.

            The charge made against dispensational truth is that, because of the nature of the distinction made between Israel and the church, it fragments the unfolding of redemption, and it makes the Bible a prophetic jigsaw puzzle. On the contrary, instead of the objectors’ mythical “covenant of grace” being the unifying truth, dispensational truth shows that what unifies Scripture is the unfolding of the nature and glory of God in Christ, manifested in two spheres, the earthly and the heavenly. That is, the cross being the moral foundation of all, where God’s nature was vindicated so that blessing could reach man, God’s glory in Christ will be manifested in government to the earthly sphere, with Israel as its center; and God’s glory in Christ will be manifested in blessing in the heavenly sphere with the church as its center. Ephesians 1:9,10 tells us that the mystery of God’s will is that in the dispensation of the fullness of times, i.e. the millennium, Christ will head up both the heavenly and earthly spheres. He will unite all things under one headship for God’s glory. 

The Covenant Theology

            The system of covenant theology incorporates a way of understanding the Old Testament prophets, which results in those prophets speaking about the church. The process of interpreting the old prophets is usually called “spiritual” interpretation. This they place in contrast to “literal” interpretation, which indicates a future for Israel under the reign of Christ, the Millennium, as the Old Testament prophets prophesied would occur. Spiritual interpretation transforms what the Old Testament prophets have said about Israel’s future glories into church blessings now.

            Spiritual interpretation, or spiritualization, is not spiritual in the sense of 1 Corinthians 2:13. Literal interpretation recognizes figures of speech and symbols used by the Old Testament prophets. Let us consider the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who went astray, saying that the resurrection had taken place already and therefore overthrew the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:17,18). They evidently applied a non-literal view to the resurrection. Perhaps they used truths we find in Ephesians 2 – our being raised up together with Christ. They must have given figurative meaning to the resurrection, spiritualizing it. 

Definition of Covenant Theology

            There are no clear definitions for covenant theology. “Covenant theology” is distinguished by the place it gives to the covenants because it represents the whole of scripture as being covered by covenants: 1. The covenant of works. 2. The covenant of grace. Covenant theology is a system of theology based on the two covenants of works and grace as governing categories for the understanding of the entire Bible.

            In covenant theology, the covenant of works is said to be an agreement between God and Adam promising life to Adam for perfect obedience, and including death as the penalty for failure. However, Adam sinned, and thus, mankind failed to meet the requirements of the covenant of works. Therefore, a second covenant, the covenant of grace, was brought into operation. Louis Berkhof defines it as “that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending, but elect, sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience.”

            Some reformed theologians have introduced a third covenant, the covenant of redemption. It was made in eternity past and became the basis for the covenant of grace, just described, between God and the elect. This covenant of redemption is supposed to be “the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him.” These two or three covenants become the core and bases of operation for covenant theology in its interpretation of the Scriptures. Reformed covenant and dispensational theologies may overlap in many aspects. Some covenant theologians speak of certain dispensations. Some dispensationalists mention the covenant of grace. Noncharismatic dispensationalists accept some of the points of reformed theology, whereas charismatic dispensationalists would not. Therefore, though these labels are not totally, mutually exclusive, they do serve the legitimate and helpful purpose of distinguishing systems of theology.

            Systematized covenant theology is recent. It was not the expressed doctrine of the early church. It was never taught by church leaders in the Middle Ages. It was not even mentioned by the primary leaders of the reformation. Indeed, covenant theology as a system is only a little older than dispensationalism.

            Covenant theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or even Melanchthon, even though they discussed at length the related doctrine of sin, depravity, redemption, and so on. There were no references to covenant theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster confession in 1647, and even then, covenant theology was not as fully developed as it was later by reformed theologians. The first proponents of the covenant view were reformers who were opposed to the strict pre-destinarianism of the reformers of Switzerland and France. It is true that Calvin spoke of continuity of redemptive revelation and of the idea of a covenant between God and His people, but that was not covenant theology. Covenant theology came to America with the Puritans through the writings of Francis Turretin and Herman Witsuius, and was championed in the New World in the works of John Cotton and others.

            Covenant theology is a post-Reformation development in doctrine. It began as a reaction to extreme Calvinism, but soon became the handmaid of Calvinism. Covenant theology is not the theology of the reformers; neither is the covenant theology today the same as it was when originally introduced. Covenant theology is a refinement, and the refining did not antedate Darby by many years. Covenant theology cannot claim much more antiquity than dispensationalism, and in its present form, it is considerably refined. If lack of antiquity is detrimental and refinement is disallowed for dispensationalism, then, by the same two criteria, covenant theology is discredited. And if these matters are basically nonessential for covenant theology, then they are likewise irrelevant in the critique of dispensationalism.

 The Teaching of Covenant Theology on the Distinctiveness of the Church

             The covenant theologian denies the distinctiveness of the church to this present age. Their viewpoint is based on the premise that God’s program for the world is the salvation of individuals, therefore, the saved people of God in all ages may be called the church. If the church is God’s redeemed people of all ages, then the church must have begun with Adam, though most covenant writers are reluctant to say that. They usually begin the church with Abraham in order to found it on the Abrahamic covenant, link it to the olive tree of Romans 11, preserve the idea of a group fellowship, and be able to use the label “Israel” for the church. The church in the New Testament is the “New Israel,” and the church in the Old Testament, is Israel. But before Abraham, what was the church? Louis Berkhof does recognize the church as existing in godly families before the calling out of Abraham, but there is not a name for this pre-Abrahamic church.

            The covenant amillennialist defines the church as “a congregation or an assembly of the people of God.” In this view, there is no real difference between the church in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. The church existed in the old dispensation as well as in the new, and was essentially the same in both, in spite of acknowledged institutional and administrative differences. To the covenant amillennialist, the church consists of the people of God in every age, whether pre-Israel, Israel, or New Israel (today).

            Covenant premillennialists see no distinction in God’s purpose until the millennium suddenly begins, and they do not agree as to who are included in the church. J. Barton Payne apparently accepts completely the covenant concept of the church in the Old Testament, particularly beginning with Abraham and culminating in the “New Israel” in the New Testament.

George Ladd takes a viewpoint near to that of the dispensationalists. “There is therefore but one people of God. This is not to say that the Old Testament saints belonged to the church and that we must speak of the church in the Old Testament. Acts 7:38 does indeed speak of the church in the “wilderness,” but the word here does not bear its New Testament connotation, but designates only the “congregation” in the wilderness. The church, properly speaking, had its birthday on the Day of Pentecost, for the church is composed of all those who by one spirit have been baptized into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13). And this baptizing work of the Spirit began on the Day of Pentecost.”

David Fuller insists on one people of God while recognizing some distinction in the terms Israel and the church. “Thus it appears that the olive tree analogy yields the natural interpretation that there is but one people of God throughout redemptive history. Prior to the cross, this group of people was composed largely of Jews, who through faith and obedience inherited the promises made to Abraham. Since the cross, this group has comprised Gentiles, who are made equally the heirs of the promises to Abraham. The term “church” applies properly only to that group since the cross, just as “Israel” applies properly to the group before the cross, and to the ethnic entity that traces its decent from Abraham.”

            In other words, Fuller sees the one redeemed people as beginning with Abraham. What about those who were rightly related to God, and who lived before Abraham? They would not have been heirs of the promises made to Abraham, yet they were redeemed. Do they, like the family of Noah, represent another people of God with different promises from those given to Abraham? He also sees the New Testament church as part of that continuing redeemed people and yet somewhat distinct. Here again is seen the inconsistency in application of the literal principle of interpretation in the covenant premillennialist’s position.

In relation to pre-Abrahamic saints, another question may be asked. If God was saving people before the call of Abraham, why did He call out and mark off a national group? If spiritual salvation was being experienced by people before Abraham, why not carry on this redemptive work in the same manner without the national distinction that was made when Israel was singled out from the other nations. The very calling out of Israel must indicate some national purpose for that nation as well as the continuing of the work of spiritual salvation. Certainly, one cannot say that the New Testament church is the nation of Israel, fulfilling the promises given to that nation. Therefore, one must conclude that the church is not the continuation of Israel and her purpose in being called out from among the nations. Even the covenant premillennialist admits that the national promises to Israel are not fulfilled by the church (he reserves their fulfillment for the millennial period), but he will not conclude that God might have a different purpose entirely in the calling out of the church. He is completely blinded by the premise that the one death of Christ must mean one people of God saved in the same way and called out for the same purpose.

            Let it be said emphatically, at this point, that dispensationalism does not deny that God has His own redeemed people throughout all ages, but that these constitute a people rather than peoples of God, we do deny. The fact that God saved people from among the Israelites, and today saves people from among the Gentiles, does not make the church equal to Israel or make the church the fulfillment of Israel’s purposes and promises. That does not follow any more than God’s saving of Noah and his family and His saving of Israelites make Israel the family of Noah, or make Israel fulfill the purposes of Noah. Israel is distinct from the godly line that precedes the calling out of Abraham, and Israel’s promises were different. The godly from both groups are redeemed, but they don’t necessarily have the same promises or fulfill the same purposes.

            Dispensationalism does not deny that God has His own redeemed people throughout all ages, but that these constitute a people rather than peoples of God we deny. The fact that God saved people from among the Israelites, and today saves people from among the Gentiles does not make the church equal to Israel, or make the church the fulfillment of Israel’s purposes and promises. That does not follow any more than God’s saving of Noah and his family, and His saving of Israelites make Israel the family of Noah, or make Israel fulfill the purposes of Noah. Israel is distinct from the godly line that preceded the calling out of Abraham, and Israel’s promises were different. The godly from both groups are redeemed, but they do not necessarily have the same promises or fulfill the same purposes.

            The same is true in comparing Israel and the church, but such obvious and necessary distinctions the covenant theologians, whether premillennial or amillennial, fails to recognize. He has formed a mold into which pours all the redeemed, and nothing, not even Scripture, must break that mold. That God is continuing His work of redemption in calling out a people for His name in the church, the Body of Christ, we gladly affirm, but we also insist that this body of Christ is distinct from any previous body of redeemed people in its nature, characteristics, time and promises.

The Teaching of Reconstructed/Modified/Progressive Dispensationalism on the

Distinctiveness of the Church

            In recent days, this newer form of dispensationalism has modified, or clouded, the classic, or normative, dispensational distinction between Israel and the church in four ways.

            (1) By introducing different facets to the concept of the church, the church, in this new view, is less distinct. For example, Craig Blaising writes, “Progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel. The church is neither a separate race of humanity, nor a competing nation; perhaps not competing, but a nation nevertheless (1 Peter 2:9). The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself. What exactly is meant is not clear.” Blaising also says that the church is not another “people group in connection with the future promises to Israel, the evidence being that a Jewish Christian today does not lose his or her relationship to Israel’s future promises, but will join the Old Testament remnant of faith in the inheritance Israel.” But, does not a Jewish person who accepts Christ today belong to the body of Christ and inherit the blessings of the position, rather than Israel’s or, as the quote implies, does he inherit both? Though not holding to all the teachings of the new dispensationalism, another writer says that the church is an “independently valid historical entity, even though it is not an ontologically distinct entity.” One feels that such a distinction will not clarify matters for the average reader, but may, in fact, blur the distinction between Israel and the church.

Another progressive, Robert Saucy, maintains that the church is included in the concept of “the people of God,” which began with the nation of Israel. Again, what about pre-Israelite redeemed people, like Abel, Noah, and Melchizedek? Were they not also people of God?

The people of God are one people because all will be related to Him through the same covenant salvation. But this fundamental unity in relation to God through Christ does not remove Israel’s distinction as a special nation called of God. Nor does it define the totality of the people of God as “Israel,” requiring that the church is somehow a “New Israel.” This statement is not entirely dissimilar to what has been traditionally taught by dispensationalists, for it does not obliterate the distinction between Israel and the church, nor does it replace Israel by the church, which would be conceived as the New Israel.

            (2) By redefining the concept of the church as a mystery, the church has a less distinctive purpose in God’s plan. As previously stated, classic dispensationalism has understood the mystery of the church to be Jews and Gentiles as joint heirs in the body of Christ and joint sharers of the promises in Christ, something unknown in the Old Testament (Ephesians 3:4-6).

            Amillennialists say that this mystery “was new and unknown in a relative sense only, being in its essentials an important theme from the time of Abraham.” In other words, the mystery of the church, the body of Christ, was only relatively unknown in the Old Testament, being revealed in kernel form. Essentially, the same viewpoint is found in covenant premillennialism. They say that mystery does not necessarily imply discontinuity. A mystery need not even have been unknown or unappreciated previously, except perhaps relatively so. Progressive dispensationalists have a similar view. They view the mystery as unrealized, but not completely unrevealed in the Old Testament. Clearly, the progressives and the amillennialists agree on the relation of the mystery to the Old Testament: revelation as being partly revealed; but they disagree on a millennial fulfillment.

            Does the term “mystery” mean something not revealed in the Old Testament, or can it mean something partly, or relatively, revealed? In classical Greek, the meaning of mystery was something hidden or secret. In the plural form, the word was used to designate the sacred rites of the Greek mystery religions, secrets that only the initiated shared.

            In the Old Testament, the Aramaic equivalent of mystery appears only in Daniel 2:18, 19, 27-30, 47; 4:9. In the second chapter of Daniel, the mystery was the dream and its interpretation. In Daniel 4:9, it was only the interpretation. In all instances, the mystery was something unknown. In the Dead Sea scrolls, two synonymous words for mystery indicate not only something unknown, but also wisdom that is far above finite understanding.

            In the New Testament, the word occurs twenty seven times, and includes ideas of something both deep (Matthew 13:11) and secret (Colossians 1:26). The Greek scholar J.B. Lightfoot gives the meaning of the word as “simply a truth which was once hidden, but now is revealed; a truth which without special revelation would have been unknown.” He expands on this definition: “But the one special ‘mystery’ which absorbs St. Paul’s thoughts in the epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians is the free admission of the Gentiles on equal terms. This, though hidden from all time, was communicated to him by special revelation.”

            The mystery in Ephesians 3:6 is that Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the same body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ. This is the detail of the “mystery of Christ” in verse 4. They mystery is more than the fact that Gentiles are included in God’s salvation, for there is little mystery in that, since the Old Testament revealed this (Genesis 12:3, Isaiah 42:6,7). If this only is the mystery, then Paul was wrong to label it a mystery, for it is neither something new, nor something higher. The heart of the mystery is the only body into which both Jews and Gentiles are placed.

            A concordance examination of the word body indicates that the idea of a body into which redeemed people are placed is nowhere found in the Old Testament. The first occurrences of the word body, in connection with the body of Christ, are in 1 Corinthians 12:12-25, and Romans 12:5. The remaining occurrences are found in Ephesians and Colossians. This further supports the truth that the mystery of the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the one body of Christ was unknown and unrevealed in the Old Testament.

            (3) Abandoning the Concept of the Church as an Intercalation or Parenthesis Classic dispensationalism used the words parenthesis or intercalation to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God’s program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis, in one sense, is defined as an interlude or interval, which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period. So, either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God’s program for Israel, as clearly taught in Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24-27.

            Progressive revisionist dispensationalism wishes to discard the word parenthesis, implying that it means that the church is something lesser in God’s plan, an afterthought. Of course, the dictionary definition does not support this meaning. Instead, the church is submerged into the broader kingdom concept and called a “functional outpost of God’s kingdom” and a “sneak preview” of the future kingdom.

            (4) A New Concept for the Meaning of the Baptism With, or by, the Spirit

Classic dispensationalism has understood this particular ministry of the Holy Spirit as forming the body of Christ, the church, in this dispensation (Acts 1:5; 11:15, 16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Progressive dispensationalists do not believe that the baptism is a unique ministry only for the people of the present church age, and understand the body metaphor as applicable to believers who are not in the church.

            These changes have not led the revisionists to deny all distinctions between the church and Israel, or to embrace “replacement theology,” the teaching that the church is the New Israel. One wonders if someday that may not happen. Already, one progressive dispensationalist has done this. “The number twelve is perhaps the most familiar number in the Bible, most frequently associated with the sons of Jacob, the twelve tribes of Israel, and the twelve apostles of the ‘New Israel,’ the church.”

The Relationship of the Church

            The truth of the distinctiveness of the church does not deny that she has a relationship with other purposes of God. Although dispensationalists recognize the church as distinct in the plan of God, that does not mean that she is isolated from the plan of God. The church is related and integrated into the plan of God, while maintaining its distinctive purpose. These ideas are not contradictory, and both sides of the coin need to be examined.

The Relation of the Church to the Kingdom

            Because of the distinctions dispensationalists draw between the programs of God for the church and for the kingdom, it is often assumed that there is no relationship between the two. In relation to the future millennial kingdom, dispensationalists have always taught that the church will share in the rule of the kingdom. The church will share in the rule of the kingdom. At the same time, dispensationalists maintain the separate place and distinct blessings of the nation of Israel, restored and regenerated in the millennial kingdom. The church, while distinct in the millennial kingdom, is not apart from it.

            In relation to this present age and the kingdom in mystery, the position of believers in the church is well summarized by Sauer: “As to their persons, they are citizens of the kingdom; as to their existence, they are the fruit of the message of the kingdom; as to their nature, they are the organism of the kingdom; as to their task, they are ambassadors of the kingdom.” J. Dwight Pentecost writes in the same vein: “During this present age, then, while the king is absent, the theocratic kingdom is in abeyance in the sense of its actual establishment on the earth. Yet it remains as the determinative purpose of God. Paul declared this purpose when he was ‘preaching the kingdom of God’ (Acts 20:25). Believers have been brought into ‘the kingdom of His dear Son’ (Colossians 1:13) through the new birth. Unbelievers are warned they will not have part in the kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5). Others were seen to have labored with Paul ‘unto the kingdom of God’ (Colossians 4:11). Such references undoubtedly are related to the eternal kingdom and emphasize the believers’ part in it.”

            How can the church be distinct from the kingdom’s purpose, and yet be related to it? We must not try to understand such a seeming paradox by obliterating the distinction between the two purposes, as the antidispensationalist does, any more than such a procedure would satisfactorily harmonize sovereignty and responsibility. The truth must stand even though it may seem, to the human mind, to involve paradox. And yet, if our concept of the kingdom were as broad as it appears to be in the Scriptures, and if our definition of the church were as strict as it is in the Scriptures, perhaps nondispensationalists would cease trying to equate the church with the kingdom and dispensationalists would speak more of the relationship between the two.

            As noted above, progressive dispensationalists submerge the church into a broader concept of kingdom without clearly defining and distinguishing various kingdoms in the Scriptures. They show that classic dispensationalists have established some differences in their discussion of the concept of kingdom, and then conclude from this that their own view, that the Davidic/Messianic kingdom has already been inaugurated by Christ, who is reigning now in Heaven on the throne of David, is justified as simply another variation that is still within the parameters of legitimate dispensationalism.

Definitions of Progressive Dispensationalism

1.         Progressive dispensationalism advocates a holistic and unified view of eternal salvation. This means that all the redeemed will be blessed with the same salvation with respect to justification and sanctification. One wonders if this is not similar to the concept and purpose of the covenant of grace in covenant theology.

2.         The church is not “an anthropological category” in the same class as terms such as Israel and Gentiles, nor is it “a competing nation” (What about 1 Peter 2:9?), but it is redeemed humanity in this present dispensation. These phrases seem inadequate and unclear, for they do not convey the differences in the progressives’ concept of the church; those are major differences. One divergence seems to be this, that normative dispensationalists distinguished the future heavenly promises for Jewish Christians who become part of the body of Christ from the future promises for national Israel in the earthly millennium; progressives do not. A Jew who becomes a Christian today does not lose his or her relationship to Israel’s future promises.

            Another major change in revisionist dispensationalism is that the mystery character of the church does not mean that the church was unrevealed in the Old Testament, but only that it was unrealized. Also, the church is submerged into an overall kingdom concept.

3.         The blessings promised in the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are given today in partial and inaugurated form. Thus, progressive dispensationalism can be described as understanding these covenants as already inaugurated and beginning to be fulfilled. Why is no mention made of an already inaugurated Palestinian covenant (Deuteronomy 29-30)?

            Progressive dispensationalism teaches that Christ is already reigning in Heaven on the throne of David, thus merging the church with a present phase of the already inaugurated Davidic covenant and kingdom. This is based on a complementary hermeneutic that allows the New Testament to introduce changes and additions to the Old Testament revelation. And finally, the overall purpose of God is Christological, holistic redemption, being the focus and goal of history.

Basic Tenets of Progressive Dispensationalism

1. The kingdom of God is the unifying theme of biblical history.

2. Within biblical history, there are four dispensational eras.

3. Christ has already inaugurated the Davidic reign in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, which equals the throne of David, though He not yet reigns as Davidic king on earth during the millennium.

4. Likewise, the new covenant has already been inaugurated, though its blessings are not yet fully realized until the millennium.

5. The concept of the church, as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament, needs revising, making the idea of two purposes and two peoples of God invalid.

6. A complementary hermeneutic must be used alongside a literal hermeneutic. This means that the New Testament makes complementary changes to Old Testament promises without jettisoning those original promises.

7. The one divine plan of holistic redemption encompasses all people and all areas of human life – personal, societal, cultural, and political.

Evaluation of These Tenets

The Kingdom

            One of the major emphases in revisionist dispensationalism is on the kingdom as the unifying theme of biblical history. One of the major weaknesses in the system is not defining the kingdom and not distinguishing the various kingdoms in the Bible. In general, progressives speak of a single, or unified, kingdom of God in both testaments, with major emphasis on the “eschatological kingdom,” defined as the kingdom of God in the last days, which began with the first coming of Christ. Thus, their exposition of the kingdom of God in the Old Testament, though the actual phrase does not occur in the Old Testament, focuses largely on the messianic reign, especially in the future, millennial, kingdom. In the New Testament, the discussion breaks down into the kingdom related to the life of Christ, to the church, and to the future. All these are aspects of the eschatological kingdom, since the last days begin with the first coming of Christ. First, because the focus is largely messianic, whether discussing the psalms, prophets, the life of Christ, or the epistles, various kingdoms are blurred and their characteristics merged because Christ is the one involved in each. At least two results follow from this. One is the blurring of the distinction between the church and the Davidic kingdom by asserting that Christ is now reigning from Heaven on the throne of David and that the church is the present revelation of the eschatological kingdom. The second result identifies the goal and purpose of history as Christological in contrast to normative dispensationalism’s focus on the glory of God. A Christological purpose is less comprehensive than the glory of God purpose in normative dispensationalism, but goes hand in hand better with the messianic, eschatological, unified kingdom emphasis. This unifying kingdom emphasis places a different cast on the place of the church in the program of God. The church is called a “sneak preview” of the kingdom and “a functional outpost of God’s kingdom.” This emphasis comes from focusing on the Lord’s present reign and authority as messianic – enthroned and reigning in Heaven on the Davidic throne in inaugural fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and incarnate as the son of David and “not as generic humanity.” Therefore, progressives conclude that the church is the present reality of the coming eschatological kingdom. It is the kingdom today.

The Dispensations of Progressive Dispensationalism

The Davidic Reign

            One of the major departures, if not the major one, of progressive dispensationalism from traditional dispensational and premillennial teaching is that Christ, already inaugurated as the Davidic King at His ascension, is now reigning in Heaven on the throne of David. The Davidic throne and the heavenly throne of Jesus at the right hand of the Father are one and the same. This present reign is the first stage of His Davidic rule, the second being during the millennium on the throne of David from the earthly Jerusalem on the present earth.

            Covenant premillennialist George E. Ladd wrote in 1947, “The exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God means nothing less than His enthronement as Messianic King.” Covenant theologian O. Palmer Robertson wrote, “A reading of the early chapters of the book of Acts indicates that Jesus Christ does indeed now reign in fulfillment of the promises spoken to David. God’s throne and Jesus’ position as heir to David’s throne seated at God’s right hand merge in the new covenant.” If Christ inaugurated His Davidic reign at His ascension, does it not seem incongruous that His first act as reigning Davidic King was the sending of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), (something not included in the promises of the Davidic covenant)? Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews plainly declares that Christ “sat down at the right hand of the throne of God,” not the throne of David (Hebrews 12:2). That does not deny that our Lord has authority in Heaven and earth, or that He rules in the world and in the church. Rather, it denies that He is ruling on David’s throne now and that the Davidic covenant has already been inaugurated. To conclude otherwise confuses the various rules in the Bible. Remember that David too was designated and anointed to be king sometime before he began to reign as king. Christ is the Davidic King, designated before His birth to “reign over the house of Jacob,” not the church (Luke 1:31-33), though He will not be reigning as Davidic King until His second coming.

            Does Psalm 110 prove that Christ is now reigning as the Davidic King? Progressives think so, but others believe that the evidence does not support that conclusion. Elliott E. Johnson points out that in Psalm 110, Messiah is presently waiting for a future conquest and victory. His present position is one of honor in the presence of His enemies. Further, Messiah’s present position does not include any of the activities that accompany the coronation of a king; only His priestly activity is mentioned. Also, David’s earthly throne and Yahweh’s heavenly throne should be distinguished, although progressives attempt to equate them on the basis of Peter’s use of Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30. However, it is preferable to see David’s earthly throne as different from the Lord’s heavenly throne because of the different contexts of Psalm 110 and 132. Psalm 110 refers to the Lord’s throne (v. 1) and a Melchizedekian priesthood (v. 4), but Psalm 132 refers to David’s throne (v.11) and an Aaronic priesthood (vs. 9, 16).

            A word should be said about the progressives’ revised interpretation of Acts 3:19-21 and the phrase “times of refreshing” and “restoration of all things.” The former phrase, they say, refers to the present time, the “already” aspect of the kingdom, and the latter to the future return of Christ. But that would not have been what Peter’s audience understood, nor is it supported exegetically. Progressives believe that the time of refreshing refers to the present time, preceding the return of Christ. But the construction links the two events: the time of refreshing, the millennial David kingdom, will come when Christ returns, and not before. Nothing grammatically separates the promises. In fact, they are joined together by the connective kai. Therefore, both expressions refer to the promised restoration of the nation of Israel in the millennium. This teaching of an already inaugurated Davidic reign in revisionist dispensationalism is far from having been firmly established by clear exegesis of the relevant texts. 

The New Covenant

            Progressives view the New Covenant, like the Davidic covenant, as already inaugurated by Christ, who is dispensing certain of its blessings in this age, even though its provisions will not yet be fully realized until the millennium. Furthermore, the new covenant will be mediated by the Davidic king, since the new covenant is the form in which the Abrahamic covenant blessing will be fulfilled. Bock claims that Peter’s allusion to Joel 2 in Acts 2 and the coming of the spirit in Acts 2 fulfills the new covenant and that the coming of the spirit is a key promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Therefore, if the new covenant is fulfilled beginning at Pentecost, and thus inaugurated in this present age, then so also is the Davidic covenant inaugurated in this present time.

            In this way, progressives link the role of Christ as Davidic king over Israel in the millennium with the fulfillment of the new covenant with Israel in that same period (Ezekiel 37:24-28), and the inauguration of both the Davidic and new covenants in the present church age. But this linkage hardly proves that Christ is reigning as Davidic king now or that He is fulfilling, however incompletely, new covenant promises now. Also, progressives acknowledge that the few similar new covenant promises allegedly being fulfilled today are being fulfilled only partially and by analogy.

            Is it time to say that any part of the new covenant as promised in the Old Testament has been inaugurated? Putting all the Old Testament passages together, one finds these new covenant promises.

1. Putting God’s law into Israel’s hearts
2. No necessity to teach His people
3. Forgiveness of Israel
4. Israel restored to favor and guaranteed everlasting existence
5. God’s spirit upon the people
6. Material blessing in the land of Israel
7. Peace
8. God’s sanctuary rebuilt

Of course, not one of these promises has been inaugurated for the house of Israel and the house of Judah today. But are any of them similar to what God is doing for the church today? Yes, forgiveness and the ministry of the spirit are being experienced today, but only to some extent. After all, both those promises, a ministry of the Spirit and forgiveness of sins, were realized by Israelites under the Mosaic covenant, but that in no way connects the Mosaic covenant with subsequent covenants any more than their experience today connects a supposed inauguration of the new covenant with a future, clearly fulfilled, new covenant.

            What is the relation of the new covenant to the present time? Has it been inaugurated? Does that mean it is operative now? If so, how do we decide which parts are operatives, and to what extent? How can the church fulfill a promise given to the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31)? How does the death of Christ relate to the matter?

            Amillennialists understand that the church fulfills the provisions of the new covenant made with Israel. Some 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 made these similar blessings evidence that the new covenant has been inaugurated.

            Perhaps some of the confusion surrounding the church’s relation to the new covenant can be dispelled by focusing on the word “payment” rather than “fulfillment” or “inauguration.” In other words, clearly, our Lord paid for sins that will be forgiven when the new covenant is in force. He also paid for sins committed under the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Palestinian covenants, as well as for those committed in the church age. If that were not so, then there would have to be multiple deaths of Christ, one for each group whose sins have been, are, or will be forgiven. The blood shed to pay for the sins of those who experienced the new covenant also pays for sins of those who believe in all ages. It is not a matter of inauguration, but payment. New Testament references focus on the blood as payment. In the upper room, that payment is clearly related to the future fulfillment of the new covenant. This is to be expected since those gathered there did not understand that there would even be an intervening church age. The references in Hebrews 10:29, 12:24, and 13:20 also focus on the blood.

            Remember, revisionists see only one new covenant which has been inaugurated with the death of Christ, some of its blessings being fulfilled now, but the complete fulfillment awaiting the second coming of Christ. They use this to help substantiate the same idea with the Davidic covenant i.e. that it has already been inaugurated, though not yet completely fulfilled. Obviously, not all the provisions of the new covenant, as revealed in the Old Testament, have been inaugurated. For example, there is no need of teaching (Jeremiah 31:34) and Israel is firmly and safely planted in its own land (Jeremiah 32:41).

            Two of the blessings of the new covenant for Israel in the future are similar to those experienced by the church today – forgiveness of sins and the ministry of the Spirit. But note carefully that those two particular blessings were given to Israel under the old Mosaic covenant (Psalm 51:11, Nehemiah 9:20). Does this mean that, in reality, the Mosaic covenant was a pre-inaugural stage of the inaugurated stage of the new covenant? Not at all; and progressives agree.

What About 2 Corinthians 3:6-11

1.         A major purpose of this passage is to contrast the kind of ministry based on a wrong use of the Mosaic law, which promoted works and self effort with one that is dependent on the Holy Spirit. This contrast between a ministry that kills and one that gives life is vividly seen by comparing the old Mosaic covenant with a new covenant to show the superiority of the new and the inferiority of the old.

2.         If the only new covenant is with the house of Israel and has not been inaugurated with the church, we still minister some things about that new covenant.

3.         The reference to “new covenant” is without the definite article. The text does not say we are ministers of “the new covenant,” but of “a new covenant.” The definite article is also absent in Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24. This may not be significant at all, or it may indicate that Paul is focusing on a new covenant made with the church, which, of course, is based on the death of Christ, as is the future new covenant made with Israel. If so, there are two new covenants, perhaps even more if one understands a covenant related to each dispensational change in the outworking of God’s plan and purpose. In this view, the two new covenants are distinct and not merged into one, which has already been inaugurated, as progressives teach.

            To sum up: In what ways are we today ministers of a new covenant? In the sense that we (1) minister in the power of the Spirit to bring life, and not with self-righteous works of the law to bring death, (2) place the substitutionary death of Christ, the blood of the new covenant, central in all our ministry, and (3) proclaim the eschatological promises of the new covenant made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 

The Distinctiveness of the Church

            Progressives do not see the church as completely distinct from Israel as normative dispensationalists have maintained. Neither do they consider the mystery concept of the church to mean that the church was not revealed in the Old Testament, only that it was unrealized. A corollary of this new view erases the idea of two purposes of God – one for the church and one for Israel.

 The Church In Dispensationalism

            The nature of the church is a crucial point of difference between classic, or normative, dispensationalism and other doctrinal systems. Indeed, ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church, is the touchstone of dispensationalism, and also of pre-tribulationism. Not only has the dispensational teaching concerning the church been the subject of controversy, but also the ramifications of that teaching in ecclesiastical life have been attacked. Rather than examining the validity of teaching on this subject, antidispensationalists simply dismiss it as heretical because they know of some instances where some dispensationalist was connected with a local church split.

            Clarence Bass is quite accurate, however, in stating that “whatever evaluation history may make of this movement, it will attest that dispensationalism is rested in Darby’s concept of the church – a concept that sharply distinguishes the church from Israel.” But, he is off target when he makes his chief criticism of Darby’s doctrine, the “practical effects … rather than theological arguments.” We must be constantly reminded that the test of any doctrine is whether or not it is scriptural. It is probable safe to say that most doctrines have been abused in practice, and if tested by their practical effects, they would all have to be discarded. Nevertheless, this doctrine of the church is a watershed in dispensationalism and must be examined to its scriptural accuracy.

The Distinctiveness of the Church

The Church Has A Distinct Character

            The distinct character of the church is rooted in its unique relationship to the living Christ as the body of which He is the Head. God “gave His as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:22, 23). “He is also the head of the body, and individually, members of it” (Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12:27).

The distinctiveness of the character of the church as the Body of Christ is twofold. It is distinct because of who are included within that body i.e. Jews and Gentiles as fellow heirs, and it is distinct because of the new relationships of being in Christ and of Christ’s indwelling the members of that body. Both of these distinctives are unique to the church and were not known or experienced by God’s people in Old Testament times, or even during the earthly lifetime of our Lord. Speaking of the new relationships that would begin with the Day of Pentecost, just before His crucifixion, our Lord said, “In that day [after Pentecost] you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.” (John 14:20)

The inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in the same body is a mystery, the content of which is “that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (Ephesians 3:6) It is a mystery that “in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the spirit.” (Ephesians 3:5)

The amillennialist tries to undermine the importance of this declaration by insisting that the word “as” in verse 5 shows that this mystery was partially revealed in Old Testament times and, therefore, is not distinctive to the church age. Even if the “as” could be so construed, that does not mean that the body composed of Jews and Gentiles was in existence in Old Testament times. Paul has just written in the same Ephesian epistle that only in Christ was the dividing wall broken down between Jew and Gentile so that He could reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross (Ephesians 2:16). That was not done before the cross; therefore, it is clear that the new man, the one body, was not in existence in Old Testament times. Even if it had been partially revealed, as some claim, that did not bring it into existence. The Body of Christ could not have been constituted until after the death of Christ, and the time of the revelation of that truth does not affect the institution of it. The Old Testament does predict Gentile blessing for the millennial period (Isaiah 2:1-4; 61:56). But the specific blessings do not include equality in the Body of Christ. Great blessing is promised to Gentiles in the prophecies of the Old Testament, but no on the basis of equality of position with the Jews. This equality is the point of the mystery revealed to the apostles and prophets in New Testament times.

The other aspect of the distinctiveness of the character of the church as the Body of Christ is the indwelling presence of Christ in the members of that body. That is the mystery revealed in Colossians 1:27. “To when God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” This mystery is expressly said to have “been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints” (Colossians 1:26). The immediate context speaks of the Body of Christ three times (vs. 18, 22, 24), leaving no doubt that it is the members of the body who are indwelt by the living Christ. That is what makes the body a living organism and this relationship was unknown in Old Testament times.

The church, as a living organism in which Jew and Gentile are on equal footing, is the mystery revealed only in New Testament times and able to be made operative only after the cross of Christ. It is the distinct character of the church – a character that was not true of the body of Old Testament saints.

Progressive dispensationalism teaches that the mystery character of the church means, not that the church was unrevealed in Old Testament times, but only that it was unrealized. The view also makes the baptism of the spirit more of a metaphor related to messianic times in general, including the nation of Israel when it turns to Christ in the future.

The Church Has A Distinct Time

            It is quite evident from what has been said that the dispensational understanding of the church limits its building to this present age. It was something unknown in Old Testament times; it is a distinct entity in this present age. The proofs of the distinctiveness of the church to this age are three:

1.         There is proof from the mystery character of the church. This is the natural corollary of what has been discussed in the preceding section. If the distinctive character of the church as a living organism indwelt by Christ in which Jews and Gentiles are on an equal basis is described as a mystery unknown in Old Testament times, then the church must not have been constituted in those Old Testament days. Indeed, Paul says, very clearly, that this entity is a “new man” (Ephesians 2:15), made possible only after the death of Christ.

2.         The church is distinctive to this age because of what Paul has to say about the beginning and completion of the church. Concerning its beginning, Paul is emphatic in placing stress on the necessary relation of the church to the resurrection and ascension of Christ. It is built upon this resurrection, for the Lord was made Head of the church after God “raised them from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 1:20). Furthermore, the proper functioning and operation of the church is dependent on the giving of gifts to the body, and the giving of gifts is, in turn, dependent on the ascension of Christ (Ephesians 4:7-12). If, by some stretch of the imagination of the Body of Christ could be said to have been in existence before the ascension of Christ, then it would have to be concluded that it was a nonfunctioning body. In Paul’s thought, the church is built on the resurrection and ascension, and that means it is distinctive to this age. Concerning the completion of the church, when saints will be translated and resurrected, Paul uses the phrase “dead in Christ” (1 Thessalonians 4:16). This clearly distinguishes those who have died “in Christ” in this age from believers who died before Christ’s first advent, thus making the church distinct to this age, and a mystery, hidden and unrevealed, in Old Testament times.

3.         The baptizing work of the Holy Spirit proves that the church did not begin until Pentecost. The Lord had spoken of this work of the Spirit just before His ascension (Acts 1:5) as being yet future and unlike anything they had previously experienced. Although it is not expressly recorded in Acts 2 that the baptism of the Spirit occurred on the Day of Pentecost, it is said in chapter 11, verses 15 and 16, that it did happen on that day in fulfillment of the promise of the Lord as recorded in Acts 1:5. Paul later explained the doctrinal significance of the baptism as placing people into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). In other words, on the day of Pentecost, men were first placed into the Body of Christ. Since the church is the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18), the church could not have begun until Pentecost, and it did begin on that day.

            The distinctiveness of the church to this age as emphasized in dispensationalism does not mean that (1) dispensationalists believe that no people were rightly related to God in Old Testament times or that (2) Christ is not the founder of the church. Dispensationalism insists that the people of God who have been baptized into the Body of Christ and who thus form the church are distinct from saints of other days, or even of a future time. Dispensationalists fully recognize that the church is Christ’s church (Matthew 16:18). He chose and trained its first leaders during his earthly ministry. 

The Church Is Distinct From Israel

            In the New Testament, natural Israel and the Gentiles are contrasted. Israel is addressed as a nation in contrast to Gentiles after the church was established at Pentecost (Acts 3:12; 4: 8, 10; 5: 21, 31, 35; 21: 28). In Paul’s prayer for natural Israel (Romans 10:1), there is a clear reference to Israel as a national people distinct from and outside the church. He also wrote, “gave no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (1 Corinthians 10:32). If the Jewish people were the same group as the church or the Gentiles, then certainly, there would be no point in the apostle’s distinction in this passage. In addition, Paul obviously referring to natural Israel as his kinsmen according to the flesh, ascribe to them the covenants and the promises (Romans 9:3, 4). That these words were written after the beginning of the church is proof that the church does not rob Israel of her blessings. The term Israel continues to be used for the natural, not spiritual, descendants of Abraham after the church was instituted, and it is not equated with the church.

            In addition, believing Jews and believing Gentiles, which together make up the church in this age, continue to be distinguished in the New Testament, proving that the term Israel still means that physical descendants of Abraham. “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” Romans 9:6 does not say that the spiritual remnant within Israel is the church. It simply distinguishes the nation as a whole from the believing element within the nation. This kind of distinction within the nation was often made in the Old Testament and thus would be familiar to Jews reading such a statement as Romans 9:6. The servant of the Lord in the Old Testament is sometimes called “blind and deaf” (Isaiah 42:19); other times, the term obviously refers to the righteous remnant within Israel (Isaiah 44:1; 51:1, 7). In the Romans passage, Paul is reminding his readers that being an Israelite by natural birth does not assure one of the life and favor promised to the believing Israelite who approached God by faith.

            More frequently, nondispensationalists use Galatians 6:15, 16 to attempt to show that the church is the new, spiritual Israel. “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” The question is, who composed the Israel of God? The amillennialist insists that these verses equate the Israel of God with the entire church. The premillennialist says that Paul is simply singling out Christian Jews for special recognition in the benediction. Paul had strongly attacked the Jewish legalists; therefore, it would be natural for him to remember, with a special blessing, those Jews who had forsaken this legalism and followed Christ and the rule of the new creation. One might Also ask why, if the New Testament writers meant to equate Israel and the church, they did not do so plainly in the many other places in their writings where they had convenient opportunity to do so.

            Historically, the word “Israel” is applied to the Christian church for the first time by Justin Martyrc in A.D. 160 in his Dialogue With Trypho, where the church is equated with the true Israel, not labeled as “the Israel of God,” as in Galatians 6:16. Use of the words “Israel” and “church” shows clearly, that in the New Testament, national Israel continues with her own promises and that the church is never equated with so-called “new Israel,” but is carefully and continually distinguished as a separate work of God in this age.