Posted on 09/30/2005 9:26:35 AM PDT by HarleyD
He who would understand the prophets had better begin with Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, where he will find that the Church is one in the Old Testament and New, and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the very last phase of God's redemptive work on earth.
He will discover in Galatians who the true Israel is, to whom the promises are made and that there is no other Israel, and no further fulfillment of prophecy.
The problem of the Galatian believers was the conspiracy to impose upon them Jewish interpretations of prophecy, and to claim over them a Jewish priority or privilege. Paul repulses this conspiracy with unparalleled severity.
On this question it was "Paul contra mundum" (Paul against the world) as later it was to be, on another vital question, "Athanasius contra mundum." Even Peter came under his lash- "I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2:1 1). Great men were temporarily swept away by the Jewish pretensions to perpetual privilege and priority-- "Even Bamabas was carried away with their dissimulation" (Gal. 2:13).
Here Paul placed his foot, the last man on earth to stand between Judaistic heresy and the safety of the church: "To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:5).
In our day the same Jewish heresies have well-nigh crushed the theology of the evangelical churches and destroyed effective preaching of the Word. The error has taken different forms in our time, but springs from the same Judaistic root whose fundamental ground is that Jewish privilege and priority are perpetual and that the New Testament Church at best is only a makeshift arrangement of providence to tide over the time until the resources of a baffled and well-nigh impotent Godhead are assembled in sufficient force to compel at last a Jewish solution of the problem of redemption.
A glance at any average missionary magazine dedicated to Jewish evangelization will clearly show this. Sayings of present Jewish leaders are eagerly quoted in justification of 2,000 years of Jewish unbelief, as showing that the Jewish expectation of a Messianic kingdom on earth, with restoration of temple, sacrifices, and priesthood, is a true interpretation of prophecy, whereas it was because John the Baptist and Christ did not proclaim such a kingdom of earthly and visible Jewish glory and privilege that the one was betrayed to Herod and the other was crucified by Pilate.
Let the martyrdom of John and the crucifixion of the Savior stand for ever as the final answer to that interpretation of prophecy which displaces the church, relegates the gospel, and establishes for "Israel after the flesh" an earthly empire and a national economy falsely regarded as "the kingdom of Heaven."
The fact that some (but by no means all) earlier Reformed theologians and expositors have given some countenance to the error is neither here nor there; for to a man, they all lived before that final dispensational arrangement of prophecy which has turned error into a heresy.
With happy lack of consistency, the earlier theologians held their post-millennial teachings alongside a truly spiritual interpretation of prophecy, not perceiving that the two were mutually exclusive. Their hearers at least got the benefit of both worlds even though one had to be proved false by the other.
Today, we are not permitted that luxury. The theory has become sinister and subversive through its elaboration into a succession of "ages" to which belong certain well-defined segments of Holy Scripture, all combining to exclude "the church" from all but a fragment of the Divine Word. The Jewish theory predominates. A variety of second comings and last judgments has been invented. The abolition of the gospel has been proclaimed with great enthusiasm for it is fundamental to pre-millennialism that another gospel known as "the gospel of the kingdom" will take the place of the gospel of grace when "the church" is safety removed out of the way.
Paul has a word for those who proclaim "another gospel," or who even proclaim there will ever be another-"Let him be accursed ... though he be an angel from Heaven" (Gal. 1:8).
This perversion of Holy Scripture, now so destructively rife, is significantly at the root of all the modem "cults" which have sprung out of evangelicalism in the last 15O years, all proclaiming "another gospel" which is invariably a thinly concealed doctrine of "works" presented in more orthodox circles under the well-sounding title"Gospel of the Kingdom."
This title occurs very blessedly v in the New Testament, of course, but nowhere is it separable from the gospel "kingdom" which is neither here nor there, neither in Jerusalem, nor Samaria, nor Rome, but is "within you" (Luke 17:20-21). The "Gospel of the Kingdom" as described by our pre-millennialist is suspiciously like that which the sect known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" proclaims.
The inconsistency of former (but otherwise sound) theologians who pursued the millennialist fantasy is testified by our dispensationalists today who indignantly strike from the chapter headings of the Authorized Version of the Bible any reference to "the church" found in those headings throughout the Old Testament prophets.
We are on common ground therefore in acknowledging that the millennialism of the older theologians was inconsistent with modem dispensationalism or even with more moderate post-millennialism. These men cannot be quoted as experts on prophetical interpretation, but we have every ground for asserting that if they had lived after the invention of the dispensational heresy, they would have fled in dismay from their millennial house and cried havoc!
That Mr. Spurgeon did not appear to perceive this, can only be attributed to the fact that he lived too near the onset of the new error and was too engrossed (rightly so.) with the challenge of the new Bible criticism, to perceive the other "downgrade" which after his death became a landslide, and in two generations overwhelmed the evangelical testimony and destroyed theology and divinity, leaving evangelicalism powerless and without nerve or sinew to meet the challenge of world-wide atheism and Satanic unloosing.
We have begun by stating that the key to prophetic understanding of the Old Testament promises lies in the epistle to the Galatians, an epistle specially written to defend the church against all judaizing errors and interpretations.
The Galatian church was the Most Gentile of all the churches of the New Testament, as the name suggests. The inhabitants of that province in Asia Minor were a segment of the great Gaelic-Gautic-Celtic race from which the English-speaking peoples take most of their blood. It is sad to see that the Judaic-dispensational heresy has found only too congenial ground in this race, as it did in their Asiatic brethren in the days of Paul the apostle. It seems that our race is peculiarly prone to Casting away its great privileges and placing its mind in pawn to Judaistic doctrines. "O foolish Galatians! Who hath bewitched you" (Gal. 3:1).
In Paul's day men came from Judea to Galatia teaching that God had set aside neither the Jewish nation nor Jewish privilege, and unless the Gentiles became as Jews they could not be saved. They even insisted that Gentiles become circumcised as Jews. Against this Paul thundered,"I testify again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:3-4).
It is useless for our friends to tell us that this is not their error, for their interpretations require that in their so-called millennial age Gentiles must be circumcised according to the laws of Ezekiel's "temple." Hence our Savior Christ, supposedly reigning in person in Jerusalem, must preside over the subversion of His own gospel, the undoing of His work of redemption on the Cross and the dismantling of that kingdom of grace and truth which was the sole purpose of His coming into the world. In other words, the "Second Coming" according to the dispensational scheme will undo the whole purpose of the First Coming, and the Law will supplant the gospel.
Those who reject the true spiritual interpretation of Ezekiel 44:6-9 must teach that "the stranger" (that is, the Gentile) is to be excluded from God's sanctuary unless he is circumcised. This passage occurs in that portion of Ezekiel in which the New Testament temple is described but which our friends take to mean an actual temple restoration in Jerusalem during the so-called millennial reign of Christ on earth. As they insist that Ezekiel's temple is to be literally constructed they cannot escape the conclusion that circumcision is to be reestablished in their millennium, on a far more extensive scale than ever before; Gentiles must be circumcised as well as Jews if they are to have access to divine worship.
And who is now the heretic~we who plead for a spiritual and gospel interpretation of prophecy, or our friends who reestablish circumcision, the temple, the sacrifice, the Levitical priesthood, and abolish the church and the gospel, and put Moses in the place of Christ'? When we say that the epistle to the Galatians was written to destroy this Judiastic error, we do not overstate the truth, as we shall now attempt to prove.
The third and fourth chapters of Galatians are crucial to the interpretation of prophecy. Three things are shown therein: (1) The Church is one continuing body in the Old Testament and the New Testament. (2) The New Testament Church is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel (3) Therefore, prophecy concerning the promised kingdom is to be understood in spiritual, not in natural terms .
In the first chapter of Galatians, Paul proves his competence to speak with authority showing that the gospel which he preached and from which the Galatians were in danger of being subverted, was received by him as a direct and specific revelation from God, by- passing all human means, so that his apostleship was not derived from the Jerusalem apostolate with which he had only the flimsiest contact. It was three years after his conversion before he visited Jerusalem, and even then he lived with Peter for only fifteen days, seeing no other apostle save James (the relative of the Lord). His apostleship came direct from Heaven and his knowledge of the gospel from the same exalted source.
He was the man who (whether in spirit or body, he could not say) had been caught up to Heaven and in a personal interview with the glorified Redeemer received that inner knowledge of the divine wisdom in the plan of redemption that exceeded what he was permitted to teach or write (2 Cor.12).
In chap. 2 he records his visit to the great council of the church at Jerusalem called to deal with the Judaistic dispute-a dispute satisfactorily settled in favor of Gentile liberty under the gospel: a liberty unhindered by those Jewish observances which continued amongst the early Jewish believers during the appointed 40 years of Jewish probation terminating with the abolition of the temple, the Mosaic code, the priesthood, sacrifices and the synagogue connection in the Roman war of A. D. 70. In this account of the evangelical council at Jerusalem under the superintendence of the apostle James (Acts 15), the position of the church in relation to the Mosaic Law is clinched by an appeal to the verdict of the prophets themselves. Amos is being quoted as representative of all the, prophets (note the use of the plural)-Acts 15:15. That Quotation governs the right use of all prophecies related thereto, in reference to thee kingdom which Christ came to establish at His first coming, and shows that the kingdom is spiritual and not Jewish, of Heaven and not of earth, and that the rebuilding of David's house has been fulfilled in the perpetual reign of Christ, beginning with the resurrection and the ascension into Heaven.
Though Paul does not recapitulate the history of this great council, he records this result affecting the Gentiles. It was established that Gentile salvation outside the law and outside the Jewish camp was valid, scriptural and eternally binding, though (as Paul declares to his Galatian friends) it would not have mattered to him if the council had gone against him~."God accepteth no man's person" (Gal. 2:6).
Later on Peter came to Antioch and because of fear of the opinion of judaizing emissaries from James at Jerusalem, compromised with the synagogue faction and separated himself from the Gentiles. Poor Peter! The same Peter who denied his Lord still denies him despite the artificial theories of conference men who declare that Peter was a different man after Pentecost than he was before.
What grandeur in Paul's argument! The final answer to the judaizing heresy is that the Cross of Christ has abolished the earthly and temporal Jewish economy and set up in its place an economy of the Spirit which transcends the national, the carnal and the external. "I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live..." (Gal. 2:19-20).
No Break Between Old Testament and New Testament
There follows the Pauline analysis of the nature and history of the true church, as contained in chapters 3 and 4, The first great conclusion Paul presents to the Galatians is that the only true children of Abraham, the heirs to the Abrahamic covenant, blessing and promise, are true believers, whether Jew or Gentile: "Know ye therefore that they which be of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7).
There can be no appeal from this fundamental statement. In one sentence Paul destroys the entire dispensational, pre-millennial and post-millennial edifice. It is foundational to all three systems that Jewish privilege and a special Jewish future must be maintained on the basis that the Abrahamic covenant was exclusive to the natural (i.e. Jewish) seed of Abraham.
But Paul shows in these two chapters that the "seed of Abraham" is Christ, and that they who are Christ's (and no one else) are "Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise"; that this "seed" abolishes all distinction of birth or privilege, for "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for all are one in Christ Jesus" (See Gal. 3:16,2819). Moreover, the promise (of redemption in Christ took -precedence over the law by 430 years - the time lapse between Abraham and Moses. The Law itself, with its apparatus of temple, priest and sacrifice, was only added "because of transgression" to bridge the gap till Christ came~Gal. 3:17-19.
How say our literalists therefore that the temple and Levitical priesthood and sacrifice, are to be restored in the "Millennium"? If they were only established as a discipline to hold iniquity in check until gospel times, who will re-establish them save at the cost of recalling the sin and transgression which they were fitted only to restrain? And who now is the heretic?
Paul goes further and shows by the nature and history of the true church that no break has occurred between the Old Testament and New Testament Church. The Church of the New Testament is the legitimate successor of the church of the Old Testament.
Few chapters of Scripture have been so maltreated and distorted as the third chapter of Galatians. Evangelical expositors have sought to show from the word: "The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," that the Holy Spirit uses the Law in evangelical conver sion to drive us through conviction of sin into the arms of Christ. Now whatever experimental truth there may be in this, it is not the subject of Paul's argument. The Galatians were never under "the schoolmaster." The "schoolmaster" is the regime of the Law over Old Testament Israel to preserve the nation in its function as the Church of God in the Old Testament till the "fullness of times" when Christ came at His first advent~"Before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed" (v.23).
This can only mean that the church was under legal restraints and administration till the time of gospel faith, that is, till the time when the fulfillment of the promise in Christ should release the people of God from all earthly and legal restraints and set them free without priest, sacrifice, temple, washings, outward observances or any such "rudiments of the world," to serve God in the spirit.
Christ said to the woman of Samaria: "Neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, shall men worship the Father, but the hour is coming and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth..." (John 4:21-24). In these words Christ abolishes temple, priesthood, sacrifice, circumcision and the entire apparatus of the Mosaic Covenant. Though for another 40 years of probation these "rudiments" were permitted to continue (though without legal enforcement) among pious Jews still attached to the nation and the synagogue, the judgment of the Roman war brought all to an end.
Among Gentile believers no such regulations and requirements were to be tolerated. The attempt to impose them was subversive to the gospel itself~the belief so current now among sincere Christians that the "rudiments" of the Mosaic code will actually, after 2,000 years, be reimposed not only on the Jew but on the Gentile also, is a heresy which baffles credence.
The thunders of the Galatian epistle notwithstanding, this subversive doctrine has obtained a stranglehold on theological thought and under the form of "dispensationalism" has vindicated 2,000 years of Jewish unbelief. It must be repelled and repudiated with the utmost vigor if preaching and exposition of the Word of God is to be restored to the church, and in this exercise the Epistle to the Galatians is crucial.
"But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a "schoolmaster" (v.25). The "coming" of faith in the apostle's argument denotes the passage of the church from the Mosaic to the New Testament economy. It is not an individual experience of the sinner coming to the Savior, but a moment in history when the regime of law gave way to the regime of faith, and the "schoolmaster" (the apparatus of the law summarized under the term "circumcision") handed over his office to Christ, and the church passed from its minority" to its "majority."
The conclusion of this chapter (vv. 26-29) is the charter of the New Testament Church and the ground of her invincible claim to be the lawful successor of Abraham, the true Israel, the true circumcision (not in the flesh but in the spirit), the inheritor of the promises and privileges and hope of Old Testament Israel. Hence-"If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise" (v.29). This glorious sentence winds up the Old Covenant, abolishes the law, the temple, and circumcision, terminates the mission of the Jewish nation, ends their exclusive rights and privileges, and provides the key to the understanding of the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets of the Old Testament.
This one sentence is the death-knell of that dispensational heresy which has filled the Church with the rubbish of a dismantled legalism and aims to reimpose in an age yet to come all those temporalities and restrictions which Christ died once and for all to abolish. The subtle doctrine that the gospel of Christ's free grace is going to give away to an imagined millennium of reimposed Jewish privileges, is reinforced by the teaching that there will be in that "golden age" another "gospel" preached, the so-called "gospel of the kingdom" which, whatever way we look at it, becomes a gospel of works and not of grace.
We beg our readers to consider that every false cult or sect which has sprung from the evangelical body in the last century and a half, is dispensational in nature and carries to its logical conclusion this Jewish and rabbinical principle of a gospel of works. It is proclaimed by the "Jehovah's Witnesses" in their significantly named "Kingdom Halls," by Christadelphians and Adventists, and by the newly developed cult launched by Mr. Herbert Armstrong, a financial wizard who claims to be the only man or organization on earth to be proclaiming the truth, and therefore entitled to all the legalistic "tithes" of the Lord's people. Aptly he has been called, "Mr. Ten Percent."
These outrageous impositions are evangelical in their origin and are only variations of that dispensationalism which began in the early 19th century, became standardized by Dr. C. I. Scofield in his "reference Bible" and has ever since dominated the evangelical scene. We cannot proclaim too strongly the dangers of this subtle and incredible movement which now shackles the evangelical mind and destroys all true Bible exposition. It is one of the principal tasks of the movement in our day towards sound Biblical and "Reformed" exposition, to destroy this error. In that task one principal weapon must be the epistle to the Galatians.
If we can demonstrate and prove that the Galatian epistle establishes beyond all cavil that the Church is one, a unity, in Old Testament and New Testament, and that therefore the New Testament Church is the final form of "Israel," the inheritor of all the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the fulfillment of the prophecies of the kingdom which Messiah came to establish, and did in fact establish-our task will have been completed and our readers must do the rest.
It is our deliberate contention that this is the very position established in the next chapter (the fourth) of our Galatian epistle, established with such force that it can only be avoided by a blindness or an ignorance culpable in its nature.
Chapter four contains Paul's final argument, proving these two things: (1) That the work of "adoption" performed in the hearts of all true believers demonstrates that they are the legitimate successors of the Israelitish church of the Old Testament. (2) He reinforces this by an allegory built upon Abraham's history, showing that the natural Jew is not Israel at all but Ishmael; and that the church of Jew and Gentile believers is the true and only and exclusive Israel of God.
This being so, the promises to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies are to be spiritually understood even when they speak apparently of literal and material restoration of "Israel and Judah. This is the key the only key, to prophetical interpretation. We proceed therefore: Gal. 4:l~"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant though he be lord of all."
Paul is saying that in Old Testament times the true church, the true people of God, were in a state of minority. Not having "come of age," they were treated as a child in a rich man's household, the heir to all the father's estates and privileges, but not yet at that age when that inheritance could properly be bestowed. Therefore, the child-heir finds himself fenced about with restrictions and officers who regulate his life so that he has no liberty to enjoy his privileges but must await "the time appointed of the Father." This is expressed by Paul in the words, "But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father" (Gal. 4:2).
The tutors and governors of the church in the Old Testament were the regulations of the Mosaic code. Paul deliberately transfers the figure of the child-heir to the church in her Old Testament minority in the words- "Even so we, when we were children, were in bond age under the elements [margin - rudiments] of the world" (Gal. 4:3). The childhood of the church was in Israelitish form under the Old Testament. The "bondage" was the subjection of the people of God to those earthly "rudiments" of visible temple, sacrifices, circumcision, and all other legal observances "in the flesh" which constituted the preparatory condition of the people of God before the coming of Christ.
Of that glorious event when the church obtained her release and passed from under the law to the full liberty of gospel faith, Paul now speaks- "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4-5).
"The fulness of the time" means the times of prophetical fulfillment of all the purposes and promises of God in redemption. That Paul should call the gospel times "the fulness of the time" means that the gospel age is the age of fulfillment of all things which God spake by His holy prophets since the world began-Luke 1:70.
These are "the last days" described by Paul in Hebrews 1:2, "the end of the world" (Heb. 9:26), "the last time" (1 John 2:18). If these are the last days and the last time, and the end of the world, how say the dispensationalists that there is a "time" after "the last time," another kingdom to come after the "kingdom of God" has run its course, another age after the gospel age? We await with confidence their reply.
In this "fulness of time" God's Son was sent forth, born of the virgin, born under the law, that as One obliged by His true humanity and the time at which He appeared, to keep the whole law, did so in the perfection of His mediatorial office, redeeming "those who were under the law" that they with us Gentiles might receive together that "adoption of sons" which sets us beyond the servitude of the law and introduces us to the full inheritance of the sons of God. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts crying Abba, Father" (v.6).
This is the difference between the experience of the people of God in the Old Testament and those in the New Testament. The difference is not one of the quality of salvation or the nature of faith, but in the status and privilege enjoyed. Living after the sacrifice of Christ which procured the full restoration of the soul to direct communion with God, the believer now receives the full witness of sonship and is released from the service of outward forms and ceremonies.
After remonstrating with the Galatians for yielding so easily to the subversions of Judaistic teachers, Paul resumes his argument in the famous allegory of Sarah and Hagar. This occupies verse 21-31 of our chapter and is the final word to end all argument of prophetical interpretation.
Abraham had two sons-Ishmael and Isaac. The former, who was the son of the bondwoman, Hagar the Egyptian, was rejected by God as not being the true heir. The other, Isaac, was the son of Sarah the true wife, and this was the true seed through whom the promise of God would come. Then, in the apostle's argument, comes the most startling reversal in the entire history of prophecy. Hagar, the Egyptian bondmaid, is identified with Jerusalem and Jewry. Sarah is identified with the true Church~"the heavenly Jerusalem."
The allegory thus declares that earthly Israel (the twelve tribes) is to be regarded as Ishmael because they are in bondage to the law and not free. The true Church of Gentile and Jew (in which all distinctions of race, degree and privilege are abolished~this is the true Israel to whom the promises made to Abraham apply.
Hagar and Ishmael stand for Jerusalem "which now is" (that is, the earthly Jerusalem standing with temple and sacrifice at the time of Paul's writing). Sarah and Isaac stand for the true gospel church, the "Jerusalem which is from above." The covenant made with Abraham is the promise of the gospel, and from that promise every Jew alive or who ever will be alive, is excluded except insofar as he comes by the same road of repentance, faith and regeneration which the Gentile believer treads.
Paul reinforces his allegory with a quotation from Isaiah 54:1 "Rejoice thou barren [Sarah] that barest not; break forth and cry thou that travailest not: for the desolate [the New Covenant] hath many more children than she that hath an husband [the Old Covenant]." The abolition of the Old Covenant means the abolition of Israel (Jewry) from all her privileges, and the emergence of the New Testament Church is the rise of the new "Israel of God," Jew and Gentile, with all distinctions obliterated, to whom alone the Abrahamic promises belong.
This is tersely and categorically expressed by the apostle in the words, "Now we, brethren [i.e., the church of the N. T.] as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Paul touches in v.29 upon the persecuting envy of the Jews against the church to whom their privileges have passed, and likens it to the hatred of Ishmael against Isaac and concludes his argument by quoting against the Jew the very words originally spoken against Hagar and her son Ishmael~"Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman with her son [i.e., the Old Covenant and the earthly Israel]: for the son of the bondwoman [Israel] shall not be heir with the children of the free woman [that is, the N. T. Church]" (v.30).
The dreadful judgment of these words is unmistakable: Israel is cast off and cast off forever as a nation. Paul gives no hint of any "restoration" though here would be the place to state it, if restoration there is to be. Jewish privilege is ended for all time. The covenant has passed to the New Testament Church in which Israel has no part except as individual believers.
This "casting off' is not anywhere modified by Paul. We have elsewhere shown that in Rom. 11 Paul is speaking of individual Jews and not the nation, when he writes, "If the casting away of them be the riches of the Gentiles, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?"
His last word to the Galatians is, "So then brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free" (Gal. 4:3 1 ). This he writes to the most Gentile of all the churches, showing that to the Gentile church has passed the covenant, the glory, the birthright, the privilege and the redemption hope.
The consequences are most far-reaching. They extend to every prophecy of the Old Testament in which the New Covenant is foretold, even though the words of the prophets are addressed to "Israel and Judah." That "Israel and Judah" is the New Testament Church, and though the prophecies are couched in terms of the land of Israel and employ topographical and geographical details drawn from the earthly territory of the twelve tribes, these are "figures of the true" just as temple, sacrifice and priesthood, passover and feasts were "figures of the true," designed to portray gospel truths to those whose ears are open to hear. It is greatly to be feared that to very few of our prophetical teachers today those words could be addressed: "Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear" (Matt. 13:16).
It might well be asked of our dispensational friends today-What was it that the Lord hid from the wise and prudent Jews of His day and revealed only to "babes" (Matt. 11:25)? If it were "the things" pertaining to His kingdom which He had come to establish on the ruins of Satan's empire of sin and death, then the "kingdom" which he "offered" to the Jews was entirely spiritual and not natural, and this is the reason why it was concealed from all except those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
The reason why the Jews rejected Christ is the same as that for which they still reject Him today-namely, because they expected an earthly kingdom, and Christ did not bring them this. The prevailing prophetical theories, however, insist that Christ did in fact "offer" this kingdom to the Jews and because they rejected the offer, the gospel was brought in as an afterthought or a substitute. What the dispensational theory is saying is that Christ offered to the Jews the very kingdom which they expected, but they rejected Him and it! At the last, says this extraordinary theory, Christ will relent and will in fact give the Jews the very kingdom which they crucified Him for not establishing at His first coming. The dispensational theory therefore vindicates the Jew for 2,000 years of unbelief and at the same time contradicts itself by alleging that the kingdom which the Jews rejected was the very kingdom which they crucified Him for not offering but which will be gratuitously conferred upon them in the near future as the fulfillment of what God promised to Abraham.
If our friends cannot see the hopeless dilemma in which their theory involves them, we can only marvel at the success of that error of dispensationalism by which evil powers have succeeded in well nigh destroying scriptural exposition and understanding.
The truth is that there is not a breath of suggestion that Christ ever offered" to the Jews any other "kingdom" but the gospel: that this was in fact the kingdom which John the Baptist came to present under the keyword "repent," which Christ Himself presented with the same keyword "repent," that the Sermon on the Mount with which He formally introduced His mission was in fact an exposition of the text- "Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." In that great sermon Christ promised or offered nothing to anyone except "the poor in spirit," the "mourner for sin," the "meek," the "brokenhearted," and those who "hungered and thirsted" for true righteousness.
Dispensationalism, faced with the embarrassment that these dispositions of soul are noticeably absent in the Jewish occupation of Palestine today, had to descend to the device that the Jew must go back to Palestine in unbelief though this was the very reason for which the Jew was cast out of Palestine. The theory teaches that the Second Coming of Christ will convert the Jews "in a day" despite the fact that they do not need to be converted to the conceptions of an earthly kingdom of Christ, seeing they crucified the Savior for not setting up this very thing.
The dispensational theory today is jubilantly hailing the prospect of an early fulfillment of Jewish expectation of an earthly kingdom of Messiah. The theorists exceed the rabbis in this enthusiasm, though it is from rabbinical sources that their theory has been contrived. They actually tell the Jews that their present occupation of Palestine, in a state of bitter hostility to Christ and the Christian gospel, is the fulfillment of prophecy and that their ungodly zeal against Christ and truth will be rewarded shortly by God with an instant faith and that this extraordinary act of God will be a fulfilling of the promises made to Abraham.
But Paul in Galatians has already told us who Abraham's seed are, to whom these promises are made, and he mentions not a word about restoration to Palestine, but builds it all on the nature of the Church. He maintains, as we have shown, that the Church is the lawful continuation of Old Testament Israel and the inheritor of the Abrahamic covenant and promises.
We ask our dispensational friends to consider what their position will be if the present Jewish occupation ends in disaster. While they are forming their reply, we would point out to readers that so far from converting Israel and establishing them in the land, the second coming of Christ will overtake them (and all the world) "as a thief in the night," in the which the heavens will pass away with a great noise and the elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up (2 Peter 3: 1 0).
Peter knows of no other "second coming" save that which abolishes the heavens and the earth in one stupendous conflagration. Where then is the earthly kingdom which Christ is to bring to the Jew, and where is the "kingdom" of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Adventists and the Armstrongites? We fear for the company which our dispensationalists keep and earnestly entreat them to consider Paul's interpretation of who Israel is, what are "the two covenants" and what is the nature of "the promise" made to Abraham?
Our last word is that of Paul, significantly found in the conclusion of that epistle specifically written to deliver the Church from Jewish error and Jewish pride:
"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." (Gal. 6:14-16).
First of all, the NT does mention Christians continuing to follow Torah and even offer sacrifices, does it not? Therefore, I am not the one arguing from silence.
Secondly, even if we were both arguing from silence, the conventional assumption in reading a historical work is to expect that the author will mention any drastic sociological change--which massive numbers of Jews apostasizing from the Torah and ceasing to sacrifice would have been--so that if there is no mention of such a change, we usually assume that they just kept on doing what they were doing.
This is not even an argument between two opinions anymore. Its an argument of the Scriptures--again, from four or five different passages--against your opinion. Guess which wins.
In answer to your question, I think it was indeed a type. The original Abomination of Desolation--that is, the Idolatry that caused great destruction--was the act of Antiochus Epiphanes in putting a false god, Zeus, in the Holy of Holies of God's Temple. I think the fulfillment of the type will be the Antichrist (which even sounds like Antiochus) putting a false god, himself, in the Holy of Holies of God's Temple, per 2 Th. 2:4.
If Jerusalem were not destroyed after Yeshua's death and Resurrection, Dan. 9:26, just to pick one example, would not have been fulfilled. Thus, Yeshua is saying that 70 AD was part of the whole fulfillment of Scripture. Just like Jerusalem's restoration will be.
What He does not say, your imagination to the contrary, is that everything in Scripture was fulfilled in or by 70 AD.
This says it all.....very profound!
No, the "old covenant" spoken of here is clearly the Mosaic Covenant, the only covenant made at the time when God brought Israel out of Egypt, and the only covenanant in the Tanakh which was not a unilateral promise of God. It was that covenant in which all Israel promised as one, "All that God has commanded, we will do."
Did they? No; God, speaking through the prophet Jeremiah said they didn't. So He promised to remove that covenant and replace it with a New one, in which He would supernaturally empower them to keep His Torah by writing it on their hearts and indwelling them with His Spirit.
The Mosaic Covenant, in which Israel promised to obey the Torah in their own power, is growing old and fading, but until every last living Jew has entered the promised New Covenant, it still remains, for a Jew is bound to the covenant of his fathers by birth and circumcision (which makes him "a debtor to the whole Torah").
Therefore, it isn't the Torah which is old and fading away, but Man's attempt to keep God's Law by his own power.
And now, speaking of which, I'm off to Yom Kippur service. I'll be back sometime after sundown tomorrow. God bless.
Actually, there's no evidence that He did any such thing. It doesn't seem that the meal Jesus had with His disciples was a passover meal. For one thing they used leavened bread (the greek word used to decide the bread, artos, always refers to leavened bread in the NT). Second, we have the curious account from John when, after the meal is eaten and Jesus tells Judas to go do his thing, the other disciples speculated on what just happened. " For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had said to him, 'Buy those things we need for the feast,' or that he should give something to the poor." (John 13:29). Why would they speculate about buying things for the feast if they were in the process of celebrating the feast? This was apparently a pre-passover meal, which makes sense since Christ had to be crucified when the animals were sacrificed for the passover. He couldn't be eating the passover and be the Last Passover at the same time.
But, enough of a diversion. Let's get back to my point. Jesus was circumcised. You want to be like Jesus. Under the old covenant gentiles that wanted to fully participate in the old covenant ceremonies, esp. passover, were also required to be circumcised.
Now you claim that none of the old covenant cultic laws were done away with when Christ came. So the question remains, which you have never answered, by what authority do you, an uncircumcised gentile, participate in the ersatz passover of our tradition? How is it "being like Jesus" for a gentile to engage in the passover rituals?
"And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." (Exodus 12:48-49)
How do you consider yourself a Jew to be admitted to the passover in opposition to Exodus 12?
Hey, I only asked a questionand quoted a verse. What are you getting defensive about. Are you going to answer? What does Luke 21:22 "literally" mean. And what was the theological significance of AD70?
No, not in the way you suggest.
Secondly, even if we were both arguing from silence, ...
Correction. I said the Scriptures do not teach that the church continued to offer sacrifices in the temple as an ongoing part of church life. You claim it is implied. Since Christ is the last sacrifice, the burden is on you to prove your position, which, of course, you cannot do.
This is not even an argument between two opinions anymore. Its an argument of the Scriptures--again, from four or five different passages--against your opinion. Guess which wins.
I've already demonstrated how your passages do not say what you claim they say. And you have yet to show how a plain, "literal" reading of the books of Galatians and Hebrews (for a start) do not disprove you position from beginning to end. So there we have it.
No, the "old covenant" spoken of here is clearly the Mosaic Covenant,
How do you distinguish between "Torah" and "Mosiac covenant"?
"For the law (torah??)was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)
"Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?" (John 7:19)
"If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" (John 7:23)
"Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission." (Heb. 9:18-22)
I don't see anywhere in Hebrews of the rest of the Bible how you can make a arbitrary distinction between the law of Moses and the Mosaic covenant. Certainly Hebrew does not, speaking of the law and covenant in the very same verse. If the covenant has decayed and passed away, then the law of Moses that went with it has also passed away.
Question is do you live according to the blood of the old covenant which Moses gave in the law, or according to the new covenant of grace and truth in Jesus Christ?
That sure looks like a bottom-line question to me.
We were not reborn into the past, but into the future.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." -- 1 Peter 1:23
There's only one incorruptible seed.
On this, we agree, but I will try to take it a step further. Types have layers. One example would be communion. The bread and wine are types of Christ’s body and blood. But Christ’s body and blood are also types. So you have a symbol of a symbol. They also start out in the natural world, and ultimately, illustrate the spiritual world. I believe that the order is set by I Cor 15:46. From my observations, all roads lead to Christ.
Some years back, my wife and I went to a Seder Service with some friends. I was impressed because every detail about the service had meaning. I am convinced that God has done the same thing with creation. Take anything, whether in nature or in Scripture, and look for spiritual meaning, you will find Christ. God has put meaning into everything, and our business is to search it out.
Challenge me on this if you like, it is not without its problems, but I proceed on the Abomination of Desolation. Your view looks at thing that we can see. But spiritual things are the things we cannot see, at least not with our eyes, but they are understood by the things that are made. It is the invisible things that types teach.
Thus a spiritual Abomination of Desolation, would have to be connected with Christ because he is the Spiritual Temple, and the desecration would have been on or immediately after the Cross.
Some reasons for my reservations on the third example. Perhaps my question, “can there be an illegitimate Abomination of Desolation?” is appropriate.
Seven
As I pointed out before, you have to be careful not to abuse Roman 14 to say something that it does not say, or to address an issue directly that is really not the focus of the passage.
Romans 14 is about what we call adiaphora, that is, things which in themselves are indifferent as far as God is concerned. Now, the days and the food of Romans 14 can be taken in various ways.
1) That can be taken as regarding the heathen practices of the gentiles, such as eating meat sacrifices to idols (1 Cor. 8:1ff). The gentiles had their festival days and food practices. There were at that time various "vegetarian sects" such as the followers of Orpheus. There were also festival days to the gods of the Romans/Greeks and other pagans. If this is Paul's focus, then his words echo what he said to the Corinthians about meat being sacrificed to idols being nothing. And also what he says here, " I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (v. 14)
2) The mention of days and food could have to do particularly with the practices of the Jews under the old covenant cultic system. In this case then "days" would refer to Levitical holy days. In thiose case we know that the Jewish festival days were merely a shadow of the heavenly reality in Christ, and destined to pass away (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5,13; 10:1). The Roman Christians were living at a time when the practices of the Jews were still very much apparent. The temple was still standing and the priesthood was still in place, so sacrifices and holy days could still eb observed. No doubt many Jewish Christians felt the tug of their old social and religious patterns. But in reality those old practices mean nothing under the new covenant in Christ. Even today Jews who convert to Christ often feel a sense of wanting to observe the "old traditions". And that is perfectly fine so long as they realize those things are merely social habits and not religiously significant practices.
I tend to think the first option is what Paul has in mind.
In either case the weak brother is the one who either eats only vegetables or continues to follow their old traditions wrt "holy days". They are to be permitted to continue in their practice without condemnation until the reality of Christ is made known to them. They must be convinced in their mind otherwise it is sin. When they stop being weak they will recognize their freedom in Christ.
In any event this hardly applies to modern day gentiles who voluntarily place themselves under old covenant cultic practices. They are not simply weak brethren that are still struggling with all those old habit patterns and practices. They have willing placed themselves in a very perilous position wrt the gospel. Paul even wonders in Galatians if there is any hope for them if they continue in the practice. Those who willingly place themselves under the law become a slave to the law and Christ is of no avail to them.
"But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? ... Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?" (Gal. 4:9,21)
What does Paul and the Scripures say about those who want to be under the law?
"Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing." (Gal. 4:30-5:2).
Becoming entangled in the Levitical code is a form of bondage. It denies fundamentally the liberty of Christ. Whether one does it "voluntarily" of not is not the issue for Paul. Every example demonstrates bondage to the law rather than freedom in Christ.
We need to run to the merciful High Priest who can release us from all our bondage, the one who has paid the price not after the shadowy and decayed priesthood of Aaron and his sons, but according to the order of Melchizedek.
And Paul says that any mingling of law and grace is a basic denial of what Christ came to accomplish. Paul doesn't say anything about "voluntary" observance of the old covenant cutilc practices. Paul speaks as if any following of the law after coming to Christ is prima facie evidence of bondage to the law and denial of Christ.
I think you are looking for wiggle room that does not exist in Scripture. For Paul the matter was so clear and so cut and dried that it was not for compromise.
This needs to be hammered home over and over.
He chooses to follow the Law becuase of his love for Christ and he does not impose these views on others
You're not reading carefully enough. Actually he does impose these views on others. Oh, sure, he doesn't go around beating you for up for not wearing certain clothes or eating certain food or following certain ersatz holy days. He doesn't have that power. But when he makes the claim that this is not a matter of indifference, not adidaphora, he is saying just that very thing.
He believes that Christ's commandment to His body today is to follow the old covenant practices according that tradition of the rabbis and his fellow messianics. He has made that abundantly clear. He believes the church was mistaken to change the sabbath day observance from the last day of the week to the first day of the week. He believes that Christ is pleased by having His followers keep the ersatz passover of the messianics. We are not just being indifference to these things, we are in error -- in sin!
He obviously cannot impose those views on anyone else, but he nevertheless says "thus saith the Lord" when it comes to these issues.
That's why Romans 14 doesn't apply to him and his messianic brethren. To them the matter of food and holy days is not adiaphora. They are not the weak brethren in their eyes.
Don't get suckered by the subtlety of his position. It is not very subtle when you dig a little deeper and ask some penetrating questions.
I kind of see it as marriage.
We are to keep Christ's commandments as evidence of our love for Him (John 14:15). To add all these old, expired, cultic laws as legitimate commandents for today is to cheapen that which truly remains. We don't show love to our wife by doing things where are not to her benefit, or which mask the reality of our relationship. That is precisely what we have here, a masking of the grace that is found in Christ alone who freed us from the law of bondage. I have no wish to return to earthly Sinai or earthly Jerusalem. The Jerusalam above is free and is the mother of us all.
When did passover observance go from mandatory to voluntary? When did all those "thou shall"s get changed to "thou may"s? Are they only voluntary because he's a gentile? Or are they voluntary for everyone? If it's voluntary because he's a gentile where does the Scripture make that racial distinction wrt the old covenant law of Moses? In any event where is the rule change to permit gentiles to voluntarily observe passover without first being circumcised (i.e., becoming a Jew after the flesh)? Is a person's standing in Christ complete and perfect without the observance of any of these old covenant regulations, or are you guilty of falling short of Christ's word to keep His commandments as a demonstration of our love towards Him?
There are many questions that have yet to be answered. It helps to dig deeper. I'm sure you can see why Paul was so concerned about law keeping esp. among the gentiles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.