Natural Israel Not My Glory (1 of 5)

For those who are interested, please click here to purchase a copy of this book.


Part One: The Old Covenant of Law and Works Verses The New Covenant of Grace and Promise

David Brown (of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentaries) once wrote:

It is the vice of premillennial theory [and even more so with dispensational premillennial theory], that it of necessity hands over to the future, and to a new and unique dispensation, whole masses of prophecy, which, in the view of the great bulk of the true Church in all time, belong to the dispensation of the Spirit―to the economy of the Gospel―to Christianity just as it now exists, with its present Word and its present Spirit, as competent to effect all that is predicted. Once make the throne of David, as occupied by Christ, future and local, and it will go hard with us if we do not find ourselves compelled to futurize one prophecy after another, till Christianity itself, as a present thing hardly remains to us in the Old Testament.... 

I am perfectly prepared to part with whatever may be demanded [as literal], by a firm adherence to the announcements of Christ. True, there are many dark things in the Word; but they will become darker still, if, instead of explaining the dark things by the clear, we explain the clear things by the dark, making the Old Testament the key to [interpreting] the New. It is this unnatural method which lies at the foundation of all the [carnal] Jewish expectations of Christians; and never till we reverse the process are we safe from the danger to which Jerome alludes, of Judaizing our Christianity, instead of Christianizing the adherents [and tenants] of Judaism.... 

If such expectations, or anything like them, are not directly in the teeth of all that the apostle [to the Hebrews] says on this subject of the temple service, he has used language which is next to impossible not to misunderstand, and which the whole Church, with [almost] hardly an exception, has misunderstood.” (Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premilllennial? pp. 132-133; 351-352, 353. Words in brackets mine).

What David Brown has said above will be key to us moving forward in being able to ascertain...what is truth.

Do you have “itching” ears for the future prophetic eschatological scheme of things? Stop! You need go no further. The future for natural Israel and the Church is answered definitively once-and-for-all in this article, with a more sure-word of prophecy than all of the thousands of false prognosticators and gainsayers that are out there in Christendom today. As with Israel in the past, false prophets and false teachers abound so much in the Church today, that if it were possible, they might even deceive the elect.

Now this article could have been called: The Facts and Flaws of James A. Showers In His Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, but that would have been too long of a title. So I chose a title that is the opposite of the well-known publicized magazine in which his article was written in, called, Israel My Glory, and simply just called it: Natural Israel Not My Glory!

The title of this Christian Zionist magazine is very misleading because it makes one automatically think that God’s glory, presence and blessing rests upon all naturally born Jews, when in all actuality, it never has, nor ever will! For natural Israel is not God’s glory. Spiritual Israel (the Church) is! They always have been, and always will be. There has always been only one people of God that have truly belonged to God, not two; and they are all of God’s elect “children of promise,” whether they be Jews or Gentiles (Rom. 9:6–8; Gal. 4:28). Natural Israel’s former days of “glory” are over with, along with that old Mosaic covenant that ended and was done away with entirely in Christ. The spiritual antitype (Christ and His people) is the fulfillment of natural Israel who was, in type, a people set apart by God to portray that God always had a spiritual remnant set apart from all the other peoples of the world, and thus the reason why Paul could say “they are not all Israel which are of Israel.” He didn’t say that all Israel according to the flesh is Israel, but that Israel not according to the flesh is Israel. This is very important for all of us to realize in understanding what lies ahead in this discussion. This was no different than what Paul had said earlier that he is not a Jew who is one “outwardly,” but who is one “inwardly.” There is a spiritual Jew, or Israelite, not according to the flesh, that is separate and distinct from a natural Jew, or Israelite, which is only according to the flesh. One is the people of God, the other not.

Paul makes this very clear in Romans 9–11 that there has always been a spiritual Israel or remnant apart from the natural nation of Israel (cf. 9:6). And even one of this above magazine’s contributing writers, James A. Showers (now president and executive director of Friends For Israel and who also publishes Israel My Glory), acknowledges in his five–part series on The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, that: “there is a spiritual Israel inside of physical Israel,”[1] albeit, to Showers, Paul is “speaking exclusively of the Jewish people.”[2] But this is a “Jewish” idealism, sentiment, and misnomer born not from above; on the contrary, it is a natural sentiment that is earthly, sensual, and devilish. Outside of Christ, even Jesus himself said the Jews are nothing more than the children of the devil; and whose father is neither Abraham nor God, but is in fact Satan himself (Jhn. 8:39–44). Indeed, the Lord even additionally adds that they “are of the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). So we have Christ’s (or God’s) own words on the matter that being a natural Jew makes one neither the child of Abraham; that they are an assembly (Gk. synagogee) of Satan’s; and that their father is not God but the Devil. Their laying claim to being the physical descendants of Abraham gave them no precedence or privilege as far as who the true children of Abraham really were; for Christ had in mind a people of faith like Abraham that are born according to the Spirit of promise and making them the "children of promise" like Isaac and Jacob, and not as children according to the flesh like Ishmael and Esau. In essence, Jesus (and Paul) were saying that physical Jews who lacked faith in God and in Christ were akin to Ishmael and Esau, not Isaac and Jacob.

Some of these false brethren and/or teachers, that say otherwise, even have the audacity to claim that children not according to the flesh means those like Ishmael who were not of a pure bloodline as both Isaac and Jacob were. But then what about Esau? Unlike Ishmael, He did have the same mother that Jacob had, so it cannot be because Jacob was of a more pure bloodline than that of Esau. Clearly, this false notion is not what Paul had in mind at all. For Paul, being a “child of promise” doesn’t depend on any blood lineage or ethnicity at all, otherwise it would have been superfluous for him to say in Galatians that we too, like Isaac, and not like Ishmael, are “children of promise” (cf. Gal. 4:28).

Furthermore, to understand also that Paul isn’t talking about all natural Israelites on a national level being called "the children of the promise" in Romans 9, we must not forget that Paul’s anguish in verses 1–5 is over the fact that many of his own countrymen according to the flesh were cursed and cut off, and that if he could be cursed and cut off instead of them he would gladly comply. The question thus naturally arises: Why is it that so few ethnic Israelites are actually being saved and that so many are actually being lost through unbelief if God's word is true that His salvation is for all Jews? The answer to this problem of eternal blessings for some and eternal condemnation for others is unraveled for us in verses 6-13. Paul reveals that the choice of God choosing one over another is based solely upon God’s mercy and love upon a remnant set apart by Him to be denoted as His "children of promise," while the passing over of others is based solely upon His displeasure and the further hardening of their hearts; therefore, “God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden” (v. 18). Does this make God unjust? “Not at all,” says Paul, “for He [God] says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.’ It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (v. 15); a “mercy” that all of us are also free to extend to whomsoever we would wish to extend it to, without anyone claiming that we too are being “unjust” for having done so. Rom. 11:7 goes on to say that what natural Israel sought so earnestly for it did not obtain, but only the elect who were among them obtained it, while the rest are actually hardened and left to themselves—just as Ishmael and Esau were.

So in light of all of this, how does an appeal by some misguided Christians in our day such as Showers of a future collective election of all natural Israelites that are through Jacob and his seed as an earthly historical people and nation solve the problem of all unbelieving Jews who are eternally lost both in the past and in the present? It doesn’t solve the problem at all! It masks over what is true experientially in both the Old and New Testaments, and repackages (or replaces) it to say just the opposite of what God’s word says, that every single Jew whose origin can be traced back to Abraham and Sarah will some day in the future en-mass be saved.

The problem in Paul’s own day that all ethnic Jews en-mass were God's covenantal people who had received the adoption as sons, the Divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the Law, the temple worship, the promises and the patriarchs from whom was traced the human ancestry of Christ (vv. 4-5) created the basis for Paul’s discussion of what follows. If all it meant to be God’s chosen people was to trace one’s natural lineage back to Abraham and Sarah, then why doesn’t God save them all based upon this fact alone? It was enough for the Jew to just simply say: “We have Abraham as our father” (Mat. 3:9; Jhn. 8:39); something that John the Baptist and that both Christ and Paul undermined as not being justifiably true without true repentance and faith in God or in Christ.

So for all dispensationalists such as Showers to simply reaffirm along with the Jews in Christ’s and Paul’s day that God has elected the entire nation collectively and destined them all to be His chosen people is no answer at all. All Israel was never a collective people of faith in the past, in the present, and neither will they ever be in the future. Only a remnant has been chosen to be God’s people; first from the Jews, then from the Gentiles. And it is in this manner that Paul belabors for us why not all individual ethnic Israelites are God’s "children of promise." It is because it is based strictly upon God’s mercy and electing love.

In Romans 9:6–14, Paul is trying to show us why there exists a spiritual Israel apart from physical Israel. Therefore, anything put forward by others to buttress the idea of God’s election of the entire nation of physical Israel as a whole using the examples of Isaac and Jacob just does not fit the “spiritual” verses “physical” scenario that Paul lays out for us. With that said, even the idea of Jacob and Esau being used as examples of only nations (Gentiles vs. Jews) being called of God or not called of God, as opposed to God’s choice of each and every individual who are designated to be His "children of promise," is just simply out of character with Paul here. Paul uses God’s sovereign election of Isaac and Jacob to establish as examples for us how that God selects individuals to be His "children of promise" (or “spiritual” Israel), as opposed to all others who are not, such as Ishmael and Esau; and with even “Ishmael” being likened by Paul in Galatians more to all physical Jews who are tied to the physical earthly Jerusalem that is to be “cast out” with her children, rather than to those who are tied to the spiritual and heavenly Jerusalem from above (Gal. 4:24–31). Yes, faithless, natural Jews are likened unto “Ishmael,” not unto “Isaac,” contrary to what the dispensationalists would have us believe. One is the “heir” to God’s promises, the other is not.

It was not true of Isaac that he was born by natural processes and that God then acknowledged him based upon this fact. Isaac was only unique in the sense that he was a child that was promised by God. And apart from Divine enablement to Isaac’s parents, he would have never been born; for Abraham was impotent and Sarah was no longer able to have children. And this is also why John the Baptist could say that God could make children to Abraham from the stones of the ground if He wanted to. What God promises to do, He does, regardless of any efforts on anyone else’s part. This is why they are called “children of promise.” God creates each and everyone of them based upon His own good pleasure. They are all “born from above.”

So all of this described above just goes to show you at what lengths some of these men such as Showers and all dispensationalists will go to in order to try and prove that being a flesh and blood Jew really does matter, when it doesn’t matter at all! It never mattered back then, it doesn’t matter today, and never will matter well on into the future. No longer is any pure bloodline of any importance other than for the fact that it was to be through this bloodline (that turned out also to be through children chosen specifically by God as "children of promise") that Christ was to be manifest to the Jew first, and then to the Greek. Other than that, an Israelites’ natural lineage meant nothing whatsoever to God. All of Abraham’s true "children of promise" are only all those who have exemplified the same faith as him―bar none!

As the examples of Isaac and Jacob perfectly illustrate to us, being chosen by God to be a “child of promise” is based solely upon God’s sovereign election. There was nothing in Isaac (or in us for that matter) as opposed to Ishmael; or in Jacob as opposed to Esau that determined God’s choice of one over the other. Clearly, God’s choice (as also seen in us who Paul says are like Isaac as "children of promise" and sons of Abraham) is irrespective of any natural progeny. It is not, even as John tells us, according to blood, being born of the flesh, or by the will of man (cf. Jhn. 1:13). “Of God,” said Paul, “are you all in Christ Jesus.” And again, “we [all] are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus.” And again, “For you are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:9). This entire package of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is all a gift from God to us in the person and work of His Son.[3] “For it has been given unto you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Php. 1:29). And once again, “All that the Father has given unto Me will come to Me” (Jhn. 6:37).

In reading on from verse 6 in Romans chapter 9, one will notice that Paul immediately qualifies what he means by such a statement that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel,” by saying that, “neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants,” which is the very same thing that Christ was noted earlier as saying to all Jews who laid claim to being Abraham’s descendants based solely upon natural Jewish ethnicity. But what these Jews, Showers, and all dispensationalists are claiming, is just the opposite. They are all saying that natural ethnicity is of vital importance. But au contraire! says Paul, “it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but the children of promise are counted for the seed,” and thus the ones to be called by the name of “Israel” that He is denoting here. Nothing could be more clear and further from the truth that natural Israel can claim the promises of God based solely upon natural Jewish descent. And as I said before, it is Paul who also says in Gal. 4:28, that all brethren who are set apart and chosen by God just like Isaac in which he just got through talking about above in Romans, “are children of promise.” The exact same thing that Paul is saying of only some of the Jews, he is now saying to all of us Gentiles who are also saved, with Paul qualifying who this “spiritual Israel” is by saying that it is not the one who is born of natural Jewish descent. This is vitally important for all of us to realize or understand in going forward from here, in order to begin to ascertain all that is going to be said in the foregoing discussion. If we don’t get this important truth first, then most of what is said going forward from here on out will make no sense whatsoever to the reader.

All Christian Zionists (or dispensational premillennialists), messianic Jews, and non–messianic Jews alike want to keep insisting that it is according to natural descent. Even for the messianic Jew, to be a true spiritual Jew (or “the true Israel of God” as they like to refer it) is to not only be one who is born again and believes in the Messiah, but is also one who is to be of natural Jewish descent (or from “within” natural Israel, as Showers had stated it); something which many, if not all, can’t even claim today since there is really no evidence or proof anymore of their natural lineage anyways. And even if there were proof, Paul says over and over again in his epistles that for one to argue over their natural genealogies is a moot point, being of no benefit or value whatsoever for those who would be contentious over such matters. Paul says, in verse 7, of Romans 9, “On the contrary,” to be a called spiritual Israelite, like Isaac, goes to no one of natural descent (though it can) but only to all of those who are sovereignly called out by God to be “the children of promise…born according to the Spirit” of promise as he also articulates for us in Gal. 4:28–29. Again, “children of promise” or, spiritual Israel here, are not in any way, shape, manner or form those born of natural descent but are all who are born by the power of the Spirit—including Gentiles!

The apostle John says the very same thing: He says it is everyone who is born “not of blood [i.e., of a pure bloodline], or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God” (Jhn. 1:13). And, as I said, I have stated all this in order to lay the foundation for what lies ahead.

Now not to discount other aberrant articles in this magazine, Israel My Glory (for they are legion), but what particularly struck a funny bone of contention with me in this magazine is a five–part article written over the months that deals with this topic above of who "Israel" really is within the confines of Covenant Theology verses non–Covenant Theology, or what the author James Showers has himself has stated as: Dispensationalism.[4] In a nutshell, dispensationalism is the systematized theological belief that God has a separate and distinct plan for natural Israel apart from all of His elect people out of both Jews and Gentiles called His called–out ones or, the Church! And as one of the contributing writers of the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentaries, David Brown keenly observes of this school of interpreters:

Premillennialism [and even no less Dispensational Premillennialism] is not a barren speculation—useless though true, and innocuous though false. It is a school of Scripture interpretation; it impinges upon and affects some of the most commanding points of the Christian faith; and, when suffered to work its unimpeded way, it stops not till it has pervaded with its own genius the entire system of one’s theology, and the whole tone of his spiritual character, constructing, I had almost said, a world of its own; so that, holding the same faith, and cherishing the same fundamental hopes as other Christians, he yet sees things through a medium of his own, and finds every thing instinct with the life which this doctrine has generated within him….[5]

Over and over again Showers, true to form with many dispensationalists, makes statements that are just not true concerning what Covenant Theology (and I might say, “the Bible”) articulates or believes in. And while the statements that are made by covenant theologians in which Showers cites may be true in what they say, Showers' discounting of what they are actually claiming behind their statements is without any biblical support or warrant. And Showers just flat–out says that Scripture nowhere supports Covenant Theology, claiming that it is nothing more than an inference, when just the opposite is the case. Clearly, it is Showers’ own display of his lack of knowledge and expertise in the Bible (as illuminated by God’s Holy Spirit of understanding) that is glaringly self–evident throughout his writings, as is the case with many of the uninspired articles that are written in Israel My Glory. And as I began to read this five–part series on The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, I could not help but to think or wonder if I was reading the Watchtower magazine by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and not a Christian magazine at all; not so dissimilar to Herbert Armstrong’s Church of God in Christ literature. In fact, messianic Jews won’t even call themselves “Christians” for fear of being associated with the Gentiles, since it was the Gentiles, they say, who coined this phrase about themselves to begin with. So by their own admission, they are not even “Christians.” This is very troubling indeed, to say the least. The Apostles in Christ’s day would have nothing to do with such foolishness. And if Peter's epistles were written no doubt to Jewish believers in Christ, he says that “if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name” (1Pet. 4:16). The fact that these so-called “messianic Jews” of our day are “ashamed” of bearing that name, tells you something about them, don't you think? Rather than be persecuted by natural Jews for bearing that name, they would rather be welcomed as the “friends of Israel.” Rather than bring a sword that divides, they would rather bring peace that unites and which is out of character with Christ.

Everything about the magazine Israel My Glory is for the most part “Jewish” in nature. Indeed, this magazine has that same “air” or “spirit” and “quality” about it that one encounters when they read the Watchtower or any other aberrant literature for that matter under the guise of being called: “Christian.” You just get this sense or feeling that it is just not quite right, i.e., “inspired” by the Holy Spirit, but only the human reasoning of natural, carnal thinking men. In fact, this is the argument that these men of this magazine throw out at all of us who would believe otherwise to what they are saying, when in all actuality it is an argument or statement that really bespeaks of themselves. For example, James Showers writes concerning Covenant Theology, that “it is a human–centered theological system with an inherent weakness for humanism. Who is the god of humanism? It is man and the belief that, ultimately, all answers lie in man.”[6] But just the opposite is true of Covenant Theology. It is not a human or man-centered theology. It is a theology that gives all the glory to God and not one iota to man. On the other hand, it is all dispensationalists such as Showers who are giving the Jews a reason to glory and have confidence in their flesh.

That being said, dispensationalism (and not Covenant Theology) is a man–made, “human–centered theological system” that is “humanism” and humanistic to the core! As Keil and Delitzsch say in quoting Hitz. with regards to the Jews “natural” and “literal” understanding of things in a similar manner presented to us under Jer. 13:12–13, “their answer is that of a psychical [soulish] man, who dreams [or thinks] of no deeper sense.”[7] Every wineskin filled with wine that Jeremiah is referring to, for the natural reasoning Jew seemed so plain and natural to their natural reasoning and thinking minds, for their answer was: “Don’t we know that every wineskin should be filled with wine?” Sound familiar? Just read John 2:19–21 and 9:39–40 for example. Every natural thinking and reasoning Jew was constantly guilty of this dilemma of understanding God's words more literally than they should have. And the same was even true when they encountered Christ and His words. And what was often conveyed to them by God or Christ with "literal" terminology and language, and which was to be understood in a spiritual or figurative manner, they often badly stumbled over, missing entirely the truths that were being spiritually conveyed to them. The gospel of John is replete with many such instances as these so that we may more fully understand Christ and His “spiritual” sayings or words. And just being a believer in Christ doesn’t make one automatically able to understand such things either. Otherwise, Paul’s prayer that the disciples’ at Ephesus that the “eyes of understanding being enlightened” would be superfluous. For all of our eloquent learning in the finest of schools on theology, we all still need the Holy Spirit to teach us and guide us in all things in order to be able to compare spiritual things with spiritual words from God, Christ and His prophets. Such an understanding does not come by that which man’s wisdom teaches, but by that which the Holy Spirit teaches us: “Let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance—for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise” (Pro. 1:5–6). But even so, “strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern between both good and evil” (Heb. 5:14).

With that said, and if God so permits, I too would like to discuss some of the salient points in this five–part series of Showers and uncover many of the fallacies of what he, and those in league with him in this magazine are saying. Like Herbert Armstrong’s Plain Truth magazine and the JW’s Watchtower, many (but not all) of the articles in Israel My Glory are not the truth at all, but are a wholesale fabrication and lie which by the sleight-of-hand are passed along with some smatterings of truth in order to covertly hide the lie that is being propagated; not so dissimilar to wolves who are dressed up in sheep’s clothing. Much of the so-called wisdom that is presented in this magazine is a wisdom that does not come down from above. It is earthly, sensual and devilish and from the father of all lies. Deception almost always piggybacks or rides upon the back of Truth. And it has to do this in order to infiltrate the Church. And that is just what all such magazines as those described above have done in the name of God and of Christ. They are all false gospels of false prophets and teachers who hold out false hopes for many to believe in. They are the blind leading the blind, with all of them falling into the very same dark ditch of deception. Isaiah couldn't have said it any better: “Those who guide this people mislead them, and those who are guided are led astray” (9:16). This was true then, it is still true now.

Now does God’s plan in the future include those who say they are natural Jews? Of course it does! But only under the confines of what Covenant Theology, and what I might add, the Bible teaches with regards to all who are God’s "children of promise," even as Isaac. From the time of Adam, God has always had a seed or a remnant that is chosen by Him according to the election of grace. And they are the ones who have always made up His one true assembly of called–out ones called, for the lack of a better word, “the Church,” and also used repeatedly by the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures. This Greek word for “church” (ekklesia) is nothing more and nothing less than another way of describing this elect body of individuals or assembly from both the Old and New Testament times. It is “the general assembly and church [Gk. ekklesia] of the firstborn-ones” whose names are said to be “enrolled in heaven” in Heb. 12:23 (lit. trans.). And this just so happens to be the Greek word that was used to describe such an assembly of all that have been chosen in Christ before the very foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Rev. 13:8 w/17:8). All of these “called-out” ones have been called-out since the time of Adam. They are not natural Israel according to the flesh, but the Israel of God that is chosen not according to natural descent; and for which much has already been articulated previously concerning this true and spiritual Israel of God who is truly and unequivocally God’s and the Israel of His glory!

In part one of Showers article on The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, he starts out by asserting that those who believe in Covenant Theology say that there was a Covenant of Works made with Adam, a Covenant of Redemption made with the Father and the Son before creation, and a Covenant of Grace made with God and with sinners throughout all the ages,[8] something which Showers and other dispensationalists of his persuasion entirely discount that the Scriptures ever affirm, and only an inference made by those who believe in Covenant Theology. This is a remarkable and serious assertion that needs to be fully addressed.

I’m sure anyone not fully acquainted with dispensationalism would automatically see a red flag going up here, and say, “Wait a minute! You are saying that God never covenanted with Himself and His Son to make a covenant of Redemption or of Grace for sinners, whether they be from the Jews or Gentiles, since the beginning of time. Or, that God never formed a covenantal relationship with Adam of a blessing for obedience and a curse for disobedience?" I’ll tell you this: If there ever was an “anti–Christ” spirit permeating the Church in our day, the doctrine of dispensationalism is it! And this little leaven of doctrine has practically leavened the whole lump of the Church. But I would counter that this idea of a “covenant” in everyone of these instances cited above is replete throughout the Bible, whether by way of inference (which dispensationalists such as Showers deny), or not.

And while we are on the topic of Covenant Theologians “inferring” things that Showers discounts. Showers himself makes up what he describes as a “Land Covenant” in part two of his series that Scripture nowhere explicitly affirms, but is no less implicitly implied. In fact, there is more in the Scriptures to establish a Covenant of Works with Adam and a Covenant of Redemption or of Grace with the Father and the Son for mankind than there is for anything collaborating in no uncertain terms what Showers calls a perpetual “Land Covenant” with the Jews. So Showers has no excuse for accusing us of something that he himself so blatantly guilty of. The unsuspecting reader might not have caught on to this, but I sure did. And so what is good for the goose, should also be good for the gander, don’t you think?

Additionally, Showers says all of the covenants such as the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, the Davidic, and the Land covenant were all made with natural Israel and thereby God has to fulfill these covenants strictly and entirely only with them. But the truth of the matter is, God has, and still is! God has fulfilled His covenants with Abraham and all of his posterity from out of the Jews who were God’s "children of promise," including the Apostles and the first Jewish converts. And furthermore, Paul says that those covenants (plural) that once belonged to all of those "children of promise" among the Jews, now also belong to all New Covenant believing Gentiles as well in Eph. 2:12, and that we are no longer foreigners excluded from citizenship with spiritual Israel, but “fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household” (v. 19). Gentiles are now inclusive of all natural Jews born by the power of the Spirit, not exclusive of them. Together we all make up God’s one household and assembly who were all once far away from Him, but have all now been brought near to approach Him; for “through Him [Christ] we [all] have access to the Father by one Spirit” (v. 18). We are not two groups of people (one natural and one spiritual) with two separate and distinct ways of access to God. There are not two bodies or groups of people belonging to God severed by any genealogical distinctions or differences whatsoever, but only one body formed by one Spirit. “What,” says Paul, “is Christ divided?” Not on your life! Neither now or in the future. But dispensationalists nevertheless want to continue making this division, with Jews of natural descent to rule on the earth in a future millennium, while all of us who are believers in Christ prior to a future seven year tribulation and this earthly millennial reign will reign from heaven. Such notions of such future dividing walls being erected again between us and them are foolish, ridiculous, absurd and not even be entertained.

Truly, the covenants of old were given to all of natural Israel to operate under, not so dissimilar to unsaved children being considered sanctified or made holy by being under a believing parent, but the fact that Israel according to the flesh didn’t faithfully operate under these covenants as they were suppose to, God (or Christ) said the kingdom would be taken away from these “subjects” of the kingdom and be given to another nation or people, or Israel not according to the flesh (Mat. 8:11–12; 21:43; Lke. 13:28–29). These so-called “subjects” would not be allowed to sit and feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but would in fact be “cast out” into outer darkness and from fellowship with all of God’s true and holy saints.

In paragraph one, of part one in this series of Showers’, he states that the three covenants described above are “founded on Replacement Theology”[9] (or on Covenant Theology), and that those who believe in this “Covenant Theology” have replaced God’s true plans concerning natural Israel with a false or “replacement” theology, displacing natural Israel for a spiritual Israel (or the Church). But as noted earlier, what God has planned always to be inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles has never “replaced” what He has promised all along to His "children of promise," but in fact fulfills these plans in and through Israelites who are born of God from above and not according to the flesh, as well as with Gentiles who are also born from above and not according to the flesh. So, I would counter that the three covenants described above are not founded on a so-called “Replacement Theology” at all. Covenant Theology, which embraces the entire overall redemptive plan of God, is founded upon the idea of a covenant of grace (or of redemption) as opposed to a covenant of works, and in which its outworking is seen in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. All of the three covenants described above, including the covenants with Abraham, Moses and David all have only one end and primary purpose in mind: what Christ was going to do for His people―the Israel of God who are not born according to the flesh since the time of Adam and Eve! And being couched and hidden behind what the natural eye could only physically see was the truth of what God was going to be doing spiritually through Christ and with His spiritual people called “Israel.” And Paul particularly lays out for us this “mystery” in Romans 9-11, with this “mystery” especially being articulated in chapter 11 with the fullness of elect Gentiles and Jews "now" (not en-mass later) being called in this present gospel era, while the rest are only hardened (see esp. Rom. 11:7). All of history in the Old Testament—in type, figure and allegory—has moved everything forward to this spiritual end and to this end alone. As understood this way, the natural preceded the spiritual as a type of the antitype of Christ who was to come. And once the spiritual completely became unveiled and revealed to us, those carnal ordinances and natural representations of what was to be understood spiritually are no longer needed to point everyone in that direction. They are still useful to us in seeing that they did point out what God was going to do for us in Christ, but natural Israel and all that God was doing with them back then is no longer needed as such a “pointer” to these spiritual truths that have plainly been now conveyed to us. Christ indeed is the spiritual reality that has in fact “replaced” all those types. And as far as the natural Jew is concerned, they still have a place in Christ’s kingdom today if they will repent and turn in faith to Him. And this is in fact what Paul says in Romans 11 of all the “natural” branches: “if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in” (v. 23).

Now as far as natural land promised to Abraham and all of his spiritual posterity among the carnal, unbelieving Jews is concerned, it has been fulfilled.[10] As Stephen Sizer adeptly notes:

The land had served its purpose, like an airport runway, to provide a temporary residence for the ancestors of the Messiah, David’s greater Son; to host the incarnation, a home for the Lord Jesus Christ;….The land provided a base, a strategic launch pad for God’s rescue mission, from which the apostles would take the good news of Jesus Christ to the world. In the New Testament, the land, like an old wineskin, had served its purpose. It was, and remains, irrelevant in God’s ongoing redemptive purposes for the world.[11]

As such, anything that has to do with “land” promises in the future are only to be realized now in Christ. Not just in Palestine, but in all the earth. Jesus takes the promises made to Abraham’s descendants concerning the land in Psalm 37 and applies it to all of His faithful followers throughout all the earth, in saying, “the meek shall inherit the earth” (Mat. 5:5). And it is even as Paul declares: “…the world is ours” (1Cor. 3:22)! But even the world is not enough. The author of Hebrews declared that the saints of the Old Testament, mind you (not the New Testament saints), “admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth,” and that “people who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one!” (Heb. 11:13c–16a). Just when you might have thought that the country they were referring to as having left the Ur of the Chaldeas for to ultimately be to inherit the earthly promised land of Canaan, the author of Hebrews says they were not looking for an earthly promise land at all, but a "heavenly" land or country. There is no mistaking for us of what they had really envisioned. Where did these saints get such notions from? Dispensationalists will read their Bibles in vain from front to back, not finding a single word concerning such notions as these because of the fact that they simply take their Bibles and the words of God too literally. For them it is all about earthly real estate. But clearly Abraham and those of his same persuasion envisioned promised land that went well beyond the physical boundaries of the planet earth, “far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age, but also in the one to come….And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms…” (Eph. 1:21; 2:6). Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Samuel, David, the Prophets and all the Old Testament saints who are children according to promise are all seated there right now, in heaven, in a heavenly country! And we too who now believe are also said to be seated together with them. All others who are unbelievers, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, are outside the loop of this circle of friends. According to dispensationalists, if there are to be any Jews living on the earth in the future with Christ ruling over them upon a literal throne in Jerusalem---Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all of God’s saints as described above (including us Gentiles)---will not be living there with them. According to dispensationalists we will remain distinct and separate from them. And this is exactly what dispensational brethren are teaching in almost every church throughout Christendom today. It is a false doctrine that is being propagated by these false prophets and teachers and is clearly not from above.

Dispensationalists like Showers claim that Covenant Theology replaces God’s covenants that are to be strictly with natural Israel. But as said before, Covenant Theology doesn’t replace them at all. It is built upon them, working from them to expand and enhance upon them to include not just a "children of promise" who are from the Jews, but a "children of promise" from the Gentiles as well. God’s plan was never about having two separate and distinct peoples who belong to Him under varying covenants or dispensations, but one man and one nation in Christ to be God’s one, true, holy and spiritual nation from all kindreds, nations, tribes and tongues. If the truth is to be really known here, it is the dispensationalists who have “replaced” God’s true spiritual people with a people born wholly of the flesh. They have substituted or “replaced” God’s plan which is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles regardless of ethnicity who are His "children of promise," for an ethnic group of naturally born Jews that are exclusive of the Church; and who are to live out the rest of their lives here on earth in an earthly millennium, as opposed to the Church which is to reside in heaven, thus forming two separate and distinct entities or groups of people under two totally separate and distinct covenants and dispensations. This is all very troubling indeed to me, brethren, and more will be said on all this to expose the fallacy of such arguments and such nonsensical reasoning as we move forward on this subject.

Now with regards to the Covenant of Works with Adam and Eve that Showers discounts as being inferred by Covenant Theologians and as not being taught in the Bible, he writes:

According to Covenant theologians, the covenant of works was established between the creation and Fall of Man. Covenants are formal, legally binding agreements in which both parties have obligations. 

The covenant of works supposedly was established between the triune God and Adam, in which Adam is God’s representative head of the human race and acts for all of his descendants. Covenant theologians argue that Adam’s obligation was perfect obedience to God. God’s obligation was to provide eternal life in exchange for perfect obedience. Adam’s penalty for failing to keep his part of the covenant was death to both Adam and his descendants. 

Where do we find this covenant in the Bible? We don’t. It is not in the Bible.[12]

Can any thinking Christian honestly take this man seriously? What he discounts as not being in the Bible, is in fact in the Bible: 1) It was a binding agreement in which both parties had obligations; 2) it was established between God and Adam; 3) Adam was the representative or federal head of the entire human race; 4) Adam’s obligation was perfect obedience (or “work”) to guarantee his blessing of living forever; 5) God was obliged to keep His part for Adam’s obedience, and; 6) Adam’s penalty for not doing his part was death to him and all of his posterity, not only physically but spiritually as well. This was clearly a contractual agreement or covenant between two parties. And a covenant of works, at that, based upon man’s merits and not upon Christ’s merits, and which all pointed forward for the need of eternal life by grace and not by works.

And furthermore, if anyone wants to remain contentious about all of this, in Hosea 6:7 the Lord says of natural Israel: “like Adam, they broke their covenant, they were unfaithful to Me.” Now this statement may be understood in three different ways:

First, it has been suggested that “Adam” should be understood as designating a place. In other words, at Adam (or at the town of Adam) Israel broke their covenant with God. But this interpretation is difficult to support in that it is based purely on conjecture. Only a pure speculative theory can attempt to provide a concrete occasion of any national sin of Israel at a town called "Adam" which was located off the Jordan river about twelve miles north of Jericho. And this lone account in Scripture of the rolling back of the waters of Jordan that occurred near this region makes no mention of any sin on Israel’s or anybody else’s part (cf. Josh. 3:16). And furthermore, this interpretation would require an amendment to the Hebrew text to actually read, “at Adam,” rather than “as Adam.” Clearly, Israel is doing something similar to what Adam did in the garden of Eden, which is to break covenant with God by being unfaithful to His commandments that were prescribed.

The second possible way of reading this verse suggests that Israel broke their covenant with God “like man,” or “like mankind.” In other words, after the manner of men. In what sense may it be affirmed that a non-Israelite man stands in a covenantal relationship with God? No covenant with mankind in general is mentioned anywhere in Scripture outside of the covenants made with Adam, Noah, Abraham and then with Israel. And God’s covenant with Noah and with man in general is a covenant to no longer destroy mankind by water. No conditions are given upon man in general to keep in order for this covenant between Noah and God to remain intact. God in His grace was no longer going to destroy man with water whether they were obedient of not. And furthermore, the suggestion “like man” or “like mankind” forces too much into the equation here as does the notion of “Adam” as referring to a town. It is much more natural in light of the explicit reference of Israel breaking a covenantal relationship with God here in Hosea to see it as being not so dissimilar to the covenantal relationship of works that Adam broke when he too was unfaithful to God.

So the more traditional, or third view, sees the phrase “like Adam” as an explicit reference to the sin of the first man called “Adam.” And not to put a feather in the Jew’s cap, but even Jewish commentators have traditionally referred this phrase “to the disobedience of Adam in the Garden of Eden.”[13]

Now, as said earlier, the Bible says the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:4–10; Rev. 13:8). And so Christ (the Son) and God (the Father) clearly covenanted before time began to establish this covenant of redemption for all of His elect in all of the world as foretold even by His prophets. For instance, Isaiah writes of Christ who is also called the Servant of the Lord: “I will keep You and will make You to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles” (42:6ff; 49:6ff). Dan. 9:27, in unison with Isaiah, likewise says of Christ, and not of a future antichrist, that “He will confirm a covenant with many”;[14] and this is also affirmed of Christ in Mat. 26:28; Lke. 1:72–73 (see also verses before and after); Jhn. 1:17; Acts 3:23–26; and Gal. 3:17–18 (verse 17 of Galatians here also says that God in His “grace” gave our covenant that we now enjoy, to Abraham. And Heb. 10:29 says it is Christ’s blood of redemption that is the blood of this covenant, and that to deny it is an insult to “the Spirit of Grace”). It is a gracious covenant where salvation isn’t merited according to our own works, but based strictly upon grace through faith. And it is a grace through faith that Abraham received when he believed God. This everlasting covenant that was promised to all of God’s elect faithful Jews such as Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Samuel, David, etc., is the eternal covenant ratified by God’s own blood (cf. Heb. 13:20). As said before, our new covenant of grace with Christ is the culmination of all those former covenants made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David brought together in one cohesive manner—with something new and something old gathered from each to be brought all under one roof. The covenants of all of these forefathers differ not too substantially from ours other than in how each of them were administered. The one covenant of grace and redemption in Christ is depicted in them all in one way, shape, manner or form. And Paul additionally says in Ephesians that we are no longer foreigners to “the covenants (plural) of promise,” but we have been brought near to God, just as all Jews who were faithful to God and who were the chosen seed of Israel’s race (Eph. 2:12). And so to whatever extent the Old covenants were a means in establishing a peculiar relationship of God with His true and spiritual people Israel, the New Testament places this older intimacy and carnal relationship into the shadows of the past. Our New Covenant is a covenant par excellence which brings into the realization the words: “I will be their God and they shall be My people (Heb. 8:10; Rom. 9:25–26). The successive covenants are coeval with each successive epoch of time or dispensation in the unfolding and accomplishment of God’s redemptive plan for His spiritual people Israel—whoever they may have been within each of those particular time periods. As John Murray notes:

As covenant revelation has progressed throughout the ages it has reached its consummation in the new covenant and the new covenant is not wholly diverse in principle and character from the covenants which have preceded it and prepared for it but it is itself the complete realization and embodiment of that sovereign grace which was the constitutive principle of all the covenants….This covenant cannot give place to another. Grace and truth, promise and fulfillment, have in this covenant received their pleroma.[15]

Showers had stated concerning the Covenant of Redemption (or of Grace) as he flippantly and recklessly did with the Covenant of Works with Adam, “

Where is the covenant in Scripture? And again the answer is that it is not there. It does not exist. Covenant theologians claim it is implied based on God’s promises and the Son’s willingness to go to the cross.[16]

Well, duh! Am I missing something here? Who in their right mind wouldn’t see it “based on God’s promises and the Son’s willingness to go to the cross”? Was it all an afterthought or a last ditch effort with a plan B for a plan A that had gone completely awry? Some of these men actually believe that it was. If the Jews had not rejected Christ and His earthly kingdom that He was supposedly offering to them, then there would have been no need for Him to have died on the cross. The cross to many of these individuals was a parenthesis (or a plan B) for the ideal plan A of setting up a kingdom on earth that Christ had originally intended with them; and, as such, the Church is a distant glimmer in Christ’s eye, while the natural Jews are actually the true apple of His eye—the true people of God. Truly, God’s gracious promises and His Son’s willingness to go to the cross is much more than simply “implied,” let alone being just an “afterthought.” The Scriptures are overwhelmingly replete with “God’s promises” and “the Son’s willingness to go to the cross,” for in the volume of the book it is written of Christ whether in direct prophecy, typology, parables or allegories. Undoubtedly, for some such as Showers, this is all still a "mystery" and an enigma to them, even as it is still for all unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. And this is why I would question whether or not such people are even saved! And this is why I would question whether or not such people as Showers and all hard-core dispensationalists are even saved! It just seems to me that they are all birds of a different feather that all seemingly like to flock together—and with natural Jews as well! They sure don't fly with those of us who believe otherwise. Clearly, there seems to be here a distinction between those of us who are the true brethren of Christ, as opposed to those who are not. They go out from us, showing that they are not really of us. They are men who have arisen from our own ranks and who “distort the truth” and teach things that are contrary to sound doctrine (cf. Acts 20:30). They are “Judaizers” of another kind.

So, without any further ado, the Scriptures state unequivocally (as noted above with just a few) that the Covenant of Redemption or of Grace is based upon God’s promises and upon the Son’s willingness to go the cross, even before the very foundation of the world. What Bible is Showers reading that he can’t see this implicitly or explicitly everywhere throughout the Scriptures? The entire theme and goal of the Bible is God’s covenant of Redemption through the shed blood of Christ for mankind. Showers defense here is no defense at all, but is nothing more than a straw man whose end is only to be consumed by fire.

In this first part of James Showers five-part series, he is already off to a bad and shaky start in trying to say that a covenant of works verses a covenant of grace or of redemption is not found in the Bible, in a failed attempt to try and deprive those who believe in Covenant Theology of their claims, as well as the unwary and ignoble Christian who might read their aberrant literature. But let’s move on. There is more to this madness.

Now, Showers goes on to state how that Covenant Theology is a system of theology that focuses more on man (God’s redemption of men) than on God himself. He calls this a “human centered view”[17] where “the glory of God is summed up only through the redemption of man.”[18] No it isn’t! It is summed up entirely in God in His grace alone redeeming men, and whereby God alone gets all the glory—not man! To be quite frank, most dispensationalists like Showers are more Arminian in their theology and put more of a high view on man being able to come to God in his own power and strength, rather than in God coming to man and saving them by His grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone; and where even the faith to believe is not that of our own selves but is entirely the gift of God. But they want to give man the credit for his own faith and in his own inherent ability to arise from his dead state and come to Christ. They are the one’s being entirely “human-centered” in their system of theology, not us! It is they who are the ones that are saying natural ethnicity matters when it comes to being a child of Abraham and being called God’s so-called: “Chosen People.” It is a man-made, human-centered soteriology that has its origins in the philosophical thinking and reasoning of worldly, carnal men and not from God above. In addition, dispensationalism and premillennialism, which are essentially and fundamentally Judaistic in nature, have made Christ fit into their own worldview of things rather than them fitting into His. It is humanistic (or humanism) par excellence to the core in every fiber of its being! And their so-called Jewish “friends” are quite elated that they would speak so well of them and be in such absolute agreement with them that their Messiah “of this world” will come back to rule and reign with them here on earth for a thousand years in a rebuilt temple with the reinstating of their Levitical priesthood, animals sacrifices that atone for men’s sins, along with a literal circumcision and the like. I kid you not. This is what they believe by taking Ezekiel’s vision of a future rebuilt temple with all of its attending sacrifices and holy days, literally, rather than understanding it as conveying with literal objects and ideas the spiritual realities that were to come in the person and work of Christ. Have no doubt about it: the days of literal temples are over with. Those shadows have given way to the true image that cast those shadows in the first place. This is what Paul tells us in Col. 2:17. And for those who can receive it, this is what the author of Hebrews tells us in Heb. 9:13. In quoting Jeremiah’s prophecy, the author of Hebrews was reflecting on what God was saying through Jeremiah from that time back then when the author writes: “in saying, ‘new,’ He has made the first old; and the thing being made old and growing old is near vanishing away” (lit. trans.). In hindsight, can anyone question the validity of this interpretation? That old covenant with Israel isn’t to “vanish” some time in our future (as some erroneously contend and say is still in place with natural Israel), but has already “vanished” when the new covenant was ratified and confirmed in Christ’s blood on the cross. The very mention of a new covenant by God back in Jeremiah’s time had even then begun to antiquate the old covenant for something new that was about to come upon the horizon.

Showers goes on to say that Covenant Theology “is flawed because it only explains God’s purpose for elect man. It does not begin to touch on all the other programs God is carrying out in history.”[19] First of all, there has always been only one program of God for man since Adam and Eve, with only one focus in mind: Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone for all of God's "elect." There is one God, one people, one faith, one Lord, one baptism.

Continuing along this same line of thinking above, Showers goes on to say:

For example, if God is the one true and sovereign God of this universe, He will restore the universe to its pre-fall condition (Mt. 19:28; Acts 3:18–21). Covenant theology provides no explanation for this aspect of history.[20]

I beg your pardon! Sure it does! But these verses that Showers mentions above do not specify exactly what it is that God will restore. In Matthew, Christ just speaks of an age or a kingdom of “regeneration,” and Peter in Acts likewise talks about a “restoration of all things” (and in which we will talk about a little bit more later); but what these particular verses definitely do not say is that Christ will restore the earth or the universe to its “pre-fall condition” as Showers so blatantly and recklessly asserts.

Clearly, Christ in His person and work is now restoring man to his pre-fall state or condition by creating all of us in the image of God (Eph. 4:24), as opposed to no longer being in the image of Adam in his post-fallen state or condition, and thus making all of us one new man or new creature in Christ. Additionally, Christ will eventually overturn all that Satan has accomplished with all of creation along with him also later to be thrown into the lake of fire. And if there is to be any restoration of the heavens and earth, it is to be after the first heavens and earth are destroyed (Heb. 1:10–12), not before.

Showers again continues:

Nor does it [Covenant Theology] provide reasons for God’s dethroning of Satan as ruler of the earth (Rom. 16:20); or for reestablishing God’s theocratic Kingdom on Earth.[21]

With regards to the first part of this statement by Showers, he can’t be serious, can he? All Christian denominations of one form or another “provide reasons for God’s dethroning of Satan.” What planet is Showers living on? The only real reason for dethroning Satan is to stop sin and the results of this sin he has inflicted upon all mankind—nothing more and nothing less! Christ’s purpose is to reverse sin’s rebellion and its effects. And it definitely isn’t to live out ones life in a “theocratic kingdom on earth” as all dispensationalists (and even some premillennialists) believe. Christ said that He nor His kingdom is of this world (cf. Jhn. 17:14-16; 18:36), and Paul says our citizenship is in heaven; so there’s your reason for Christ not establishing a theocratic kingdom on earth. And it is also said in Hebrews that Abraham and all of God’s true spiritual people looked forward towards a better country than this earthly one. Again, I repeat, they all looked forward to: “a heavenly one”! And Scriptures such as Isaiah 9:6–7; 11:1–16 and chapters 65–66, etc., that these men such as Showers refer to, all have to do with Christ’s present rule and reign over all principalities and powers now over the earth from His throne in heaven, not later here on earth. And “in putting everything under Him [including Satan himself], God left nothing that is not subject to Him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to Him. But we see Jesus…now crowned with glory and honor…” (Heb. 2:8, 9). “For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed, is death” (1Cor. 15:25–26).

It would take an entire commentary to expound upon all of these passages above for which time and space just will not permit. And, furthermore, Showers doesn’t expound upon these texts, so why should I? He just states that they are all future; whereas I, along with all those who believe in Covenant Theology, see them as being presently fulfilled in Christ’s current rule and reign. But, suffice it to say, if one wants to do any further study on all of this, I would advise them to read some of the older commentators such as Matthew Poole, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Matthew Henry, John Gill and the like. And while these men might not be the last word on all of this, at least they are closer to the truth than such men as Showers will ever be (I would also recommend reading my article on Isaiah 11 called: Lions, Tigers, and Bears, Oh My!)

In referring to Covenant Theology as teaching a human or man-centered theology, Showers couldn’t be further from the truth when he also states:

Add to that fact [of a human-centered theology] a hermeneutic that spiritualizes the words of Scripture, reinterpreting literal into something figurative, and you have created a platform for humanism.[22]

But, again, au contraire! It has created a platform for spiritualism as found in Christ in opposition to all humanistic idealisms, traditions and philosophies of men such as those of natural thinking Jews, Showers and all dispensationalists that they have all cleverly conjured up. After all, didn’t Christ himself reinterpret many things He said that were understood by the natural, carnal, thinking and reasoning mind as literal and yet only to be understood as spiritual things? He even told His disciples later in the book of John that He had “been speaking figuratively” (Jhn. 16:25). And where did the apostles such as Paul and Peter get such ideas of Israel drinking from “that Spiritual Rock,” eating from “that Spiritual Bread,” or God’s temple now being us made up of “living stones” who make up “a spiritual house,” offering up “spiritual sacrifices” unto God? It comes by understanding those Old Testament types and shadows being literally conveyed by literal objects and ideas, and as having “spiritual” object lessons in mind behind them all. And having now been fulfilled in Christ, they are no longer to continue as literal object lessons. And if it hadn’t been for Christ and His apostles saying these things, but only those who believe in Covenant Theology who are saying them, Showers and all those of his persuasion would be accusing us of not adhering to a literal method of interpretation, but actually spiritualizing things.

Christ spiritualized things, the Apostles spiritualized things, and there is no reason that we shouldn’t also come to terms with spiritualizing things under the New Covenant rather than interpreting or understanding everything in an overly wooden or hyper-literal manner. According to biblical hermeneutics, following a literal hermeneutic doesn’t mean interpreting everything literally, but actually means interpreting things according to the literal genre of the language used for that day; whether it be through signs, metaphors, prose, typology, apocalyptic language, parables or whatever. And when something is said that sounds so literal but doesn't make any sense when understood or interpreted literally, then we can rest assured that God has something else in mind by using literal sounding words to convey spiritual truths or ideas to us.

For instance, to take Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel’s vision of a future temple with all of its attending sacrifices literally, one would have to believe that God is going to resort back to doing those things again as they were done before the cross of Christ—which, by the way, is exactly what Showers and all dispensationalists have done! But the fact that Christ did away with doing such things literally any longer in the person and work of Himself should lead us all to conclude that we shouldn’t take such things literally anymore, but spiritually. And in contradistinction to dispensationalists, this is exactly what Christ and His Apostles have done for us as God’s inspired interpreters; not as Showers’ and all dispensationalist’s uninspired interpretations would have us believe. This “mystery” was conveyed to Christ’s apostles as such; and they spoke accordingly of that which is to be understood “spiritually” over and against that which was being conveyed naturally, or with literal sounding words, concepts or ideas. The Tabernacle of Moses, the Temple of Solomon and Ezekiel’s Temple were all types and shadows of the spiritual realities that are found in Christ. We have no trouble believing this about the two former structures, so why will many not believe this about this latter one of Ezekiel’s? And since Christ fulfilled all of those types and shadows, doesn’t it stand to reason that Ezekiel’s temple which was likewise a type and shadow shouldn’t be understood now as having to be literally built as the former ones were, but now just understood and realized as being also that which typically portrays Christ in some manner or way? “Living water” in Zechariah’s and Ezekiel’s prophecies flowing from the temple and the city and giving life unto all kinds of fish in which men can fish from, with other areas being left for salt marshes in which they could not be fished from, leads us to conclude as Christ said to His apostles that He would make them fishers of men from every kindred, nation, tribe and tongue; and that in many places the Lord had much people in a city, whereas in other cities or regions the disciples were forbidden to even go and fish in those regions (Acts 16:6–9; 18:10). Additionally, going up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord keeping the Feast of Tabernacles was no longer, according to Christ, going to be “on this [literal] mountain nor in [the literal city of] Jerusalem” (Jhn. 4:21), but wherever in the world His New Jerusalem or City might be residing God's people would go up to worship, spiritually keeping the Feast of Tabernacles, like all of the other Feasts. And this also makes it more understandable how that everyone in the world could go up and worship at such a place, for there is not enough room in the literal city of Jerusalem for everyone to go there and worship. That alone should tell us something about how we shouldn't read into these verses an idea that is literally impossible for us to do. And God often says things this way just for that reason alone. It is to get us all thinking spiritually and not literally anymore, just as Jesus was doing when He said, “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” or, “unless you eat My body and drink My blood, you have no part in Me.” Over and over again Christ said things in a manner that all natural thinking and reasoning Jews took literally, but were to be spiritually discerned. Christ was training all of us to think differently, out of the box. And it takes time for our “senses” to be exercised in such a manner. It is the “strong meat” that the author of Hebrews talks to us about and for which many cannot swallow. For many, “milk” is all they can handle.

With that being said, all of these spiritual thoughts and ideas described above are what is actually being conveyed to us in Zechariah and Ezekiel, using literal ideas or words to convey spiritual truths or realities. Do we understand all of the spiritual meanings behind all of the details of the Tabernacle of Moses, the Temple of Solomon, or even of Ezekiel’s vision? Of course not! But just because with our natural thinking and reasoning minds we might not be able to spiritually understand it all, and maybe even sometimes “stumble” over the wording used to describe such ethereal realities being conveyed to us, it doesn’t mean that they are no less speaking of that which is indeed spiritual. For, indeed, they are!

Natural Israel, the land, Mt. Zion, the temple, the sacrifices, the festivals, the Sabbath and the city were all literal object lessons pointing to heavenly and spiritual truths. Even with regards Hagar and Sarah with their two sons, Paul says in Galatians that they figuratively spoke of two women with two peoples living in two entirely different cities―one natural and of the flesh that is cast out, contrasted against one spiritual and of the Spirit and who receives an inheritance from God. Even Jerusalem of the earth prefigured a Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. So don’t say Covenant Theology “spiritualizes” Scripture when Christ and His apostles spiritualized many literal Old Testament concepts and ideas. And furthermore, don’t accuse Covenant Theologians of spiritualizing Scripture when those of the dispensationalist persuasion are guilty of the very same things. I could cite many examples, but only one need suffice. For example, everyone is pretty much well aware of Hal Lindsey in his literature claiming that the locusts in Revelation are modern day Stinger helicopters. And when Russia no longer seems to fit the bill as the enemy coming out of the north against Israel, Muslims are conveniently made to be Israel’s future arch enemy. All of these dispensationalists, such as Hal Lindsey, use the latest newspaper headlines to exegete the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures themselves; creating an eisegesis of Scripture rather than an exegesis.

All of this could not be more evident with the dispensationalist’s reading into Jesus’ parable of the fig tree as the forming of Israel as a nation. In context, nothing is said about Israel forming as a nation. It is an absolute assumption...an eisegesis! Jesus is actually using the lesson or parable of the budding of a fig tree (even “all the trees,” Lke. 21:29) as a story to illustrate all the signs that His disciples would themselves see that would lead up to Israel’s desolation as a nation, not their restoration. “Even so,” says Christ to His disciples, “when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door” (Mk. 13:29). That what is near? The coming fruition of the desolation of Jerusalem that Christ predicted, and which occurred in the disciples lifetime in 70 AD.

And while we are on this subject, since when does the Bible say that the birthing of a particular generation began with the formation of a country beginning to be legally or nationally recognized as a nation? It doesn’t! Clearly, Jesus wasn’t predicting the beginnings of the formation of a generation of Israelites in our day, but that His generation in His day wouldn’t pass away until everything He told His disciples about would be seen by them and fulfilled in their lifetime.

And not to belabor this anymore about reading into things that just aren’t there, or even “spiritualizing” a text, even Baptist minister, John Hagee, is quoted as saying that when God told Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky for multitude and as the sand on the seashore for number, that the “stars” represent Abraham’s spiritual seed (the Church) that would rule and reign from heaven, and that the “sand” represents all of Abraham’s natural seed (natural born Jews) that would rule and reign on earth both now and on into the millennium.[23] So who is spiritualizing what and reading into texts things that are just not there? I could cite many more dispensationalists’ claims where they “spiritualize” texts that not even those who believe in Covenant Theology would dare to spiritualize as such. So what about Hagee’s claims? Interestingly, Nehemiah writes in his day how that God had made Israel on earth, “as numerous as the stars in the sky” (Neh. 9:23). So, who are you going to believe? Hagee or Nehemiah? I choose to literally believe the inspired words of God through Nehemiah that Israel on earth was likened to the stars in the sky for multitude. This is an “exegesis” of Scripture, and not an eisegesis. This is what the Reformers called The Analogy of Faith or, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

At least Covenant Theologians have one thing going for them: They don’t use the latest newspaper headlines or an eisegesis of Scripture to interpret the Scriptures. They are more adept at comparing Scripture with Scripture, interpreting it within its own guidelines of how things are to understood or interpreted. For instance, wolves dwelling with lambs, leopards with goats, cows with bears, and lions with oxen all eating of the same fodder in Isaiah 11 speaks clearly in the prophets of Gentiles dwelling with Israelites someday and both eating from the same fodder (or the Word of God). Wolves, leopards, bears and lions and all wild animals are repeatedly used by the prophets to refer to the Gentiles (Isa. 43:20; Jer. 5:6; Psm. 57:4; 58:6; Hos. 13:7–8; Ezk. 34:25, 28 et al); while lambs, goats, cows and oxen are all reminiscent of Israel and the sacrifices they gave to God on their altars. The German commentators Keil and Delitzsch concur here in Isaiah 11: “Lambs, rams, goats are emblems of all classes of the people of Israel.”[24] In fact, in one place in Scripture the Lord says, “Israel is a scattered flock that lions have chased away. The first to devour him was the king of Assyria; the last to crush his bones was Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon” (Jer. 50:17). Here the Assyrians and the Babylonians are likened unto “lions” who “chased away” Israel who is likened to a “flock” (or sheep with their lambs).[25] But in Isaiah 11 God is saying one day that such Gentile “lions” as these will no longer chase away Israel, but will indeed live harmoniously among them. This entire chapter speaks of Judah and Israel becoming as one, and with the Gentiles eventually joining in their ranks. And this all began to occur in the days of Christ with His Jewish followers and the Gentiles that were soon to follow who would become fellow citizens with God’s people Israel, and members together with God’s household. (cf. Eph. 2:12-13, 19). And Paul quotes a verse out of this chapter in Isaiah 11, in Rom. 15:12, as referring to what began with the Gentiles in the days of the early church up until now; and even on into the future before Christ’s Second Coming when the last enemy to be put under His feet will be death.

Now in this first-part series of Showers’, he states also that Covenant Theology “diminishes the true covenants recorded in Scripture: the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants—to mention three.”[26] Again, where is he getting his information? Covenant Theology doesn't “diminish” them at all! In fact, it builds upon them as all pointing eventually to our one New Covenant in Christ. And what is extremely disturbing about Showers, and almost all dispensationalists for that matter, is that they create even a fourth new covenant that God makes with the Jews alone in an earthly millennium based upon a misappropriation of Jer. 31:31–37; Heb. 8:8–13; 10:15–17 and Ezekiel’s last days temple vision with its sacrifices. This is what they “infer” or “imply” by all of these statements and visions from the Lord, that this new covenant referred to and this temple of the Lord has to do only with natural Israel in the future, and not with us at all, because God says through Jeremiah that He would make this covenant “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,” and that “the descendants of Israel will [never] cease to be a nation before me” (Jer. 31:31, 36). But this is exactly what did occur in the days of Christ and His Jewish followers. Christ indeed made a new covenant with them in fulfillment of His promise to them, even making of them a future nation comprised of not only Jews, but of Gentiles as well (cf. Mat. 21:43; 1Pet. 2:9). If a light doesn’t go on in your head over these statements made by these men, then I don’t know what else to say. But this is just how far deception has taken these men. And they want you to be carried along with the same deception as well. That which is the children’s bread (who are made up of both Jews and Gentiles) has been cast by dispensationlists to the “dogs” of those who are solely of a natural Jewish ethnicity, something that even God and Paul refers to them as in Isa. 56:10–11 and Php. 3:2 (cp. Rev. 2:9; 3:9; 22:15). As such, Israel according to the flesh has no lot or part with Israel according to the Spirit who are made up of all of God’s true “children of promise” out of both Jews and Gentiles. Like Hagar, Israel according to the flesh is likened to this bond woman that is “cast out” with her son, far away from the free woman Sarah with all of her children (cp. Gal. 4:22ff).

Finally, in this first-part of this five-part series of Showers’, he also states:

Another of Covenant Theology’s serious flaws is that it denies the distinction between Israel and the church. It redefines the church as all covenant people throughout history. Therefore, the church begins with Abraham (Gen. 12), rather than in Acts 2; and Old Testament Israel no longer refers to the physical descendants of Abraham.[27]

First of all, Covenant Theology doesn’t deny a distinction between natural Israel and spiritual Israel (or the Church). Jesus and His Apostles themselves put this distinction between the two, calling one the seed of the woman as depicted all the way back in Gen. 3:15, and with the other being depicted as the seed of the Serpent. One is the Jerusalem born from above and coming down out of heaven from God, the other is the Jerusalem of the earth and who is in bondage to sin with all of her children (Gal. 4:22–31). In both the Old and New Testaments there have always been a people of God chosen according to the election of grace as opposed to those born only of the flesh and thereby being the seed of the Serpent. That's why John the Baptist called the unbelieving Jews a “brood of vipers” (Lke. 3:7). And it didn’t just start with Abraham either, but with Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:15, as seen in the animosity between Cain and Abel who were born of the same mother and father. And furthermore, as true as it may be that Old Testament Israel according to the flesh were the physical descendants of Abraham, the Bible also says they are not all spiritual Israel who are comprised of just the physical, natural bloodline of Israel. Only the "children of promise" born from above by God are the true children of Abraham. Not only did Paul make this same distinction between these two Israel’s, two Jerusalem’s and two groups of people both in Romans and Galatians, but Christ made them as well:

“I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill Me, because you have no room for My word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.” “Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on My own; but He sent Me. Why is My language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me! Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe Me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God (John. 8:37–47).

Every one of us, regardless of genealogies, is going to hell in a hand basket outside of God sovereignly choosing us to be His “children of promise” like Isaac and Jacob. Clearly, even in the Old Testament there was an “Israel” according to promise as opposed to an Israel born strictly according to the flesh. And it was to those individuals who were foreordained to be “children of promise” that God was interested in turning to Him and sovereignly saving and redeeming them. The cry went out to all, even as it does to this day, but only the elect such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Christ’s twelve disciples and Paul, etc., are destined only to be given the ability to respond to the call and be saved. Not because of anything inherent in them physically or otherwise, but solely based upon God’s sovereign love, grace and mercy. Even as the Lord has said in Elijah’s day: “I have kept for Myself 7,000 who have not bowed their knees to Baal.” And again, “Even though the number of [natural] Israelites be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.” For “unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah” (Rom. 9:27, 29).

So these supposed “flaws” of Covenant Theology that Showers says are “serious” are not really serious at all, but are in line with the overall teachings of Christ and His Apostles. And in all actuality, it is what the dispensationalists have to say that is grossly and seriously flawed. There never was, is, or ever will be a dividing wall of separation between natural Jews who supposedly belong to God here on earth, as opposed to all of us who are God’s true and spiritual heavenly people who are hand-picked by Him according to promise. Birthright as God’s sons in His kingdom has never been about children born according to the flesh, but children born according to the Spirit of promise. Both dispensationalists and those who believe in Covenant Theology indeed agree that there is a distinction and a separate plan for each of these two groups of people. Dispensationalists believe that both groups are to be considered as God’s true people. Whereas Covenant Theologians, in agreement with the overall analogy of faith as laid out in the Scriptures, see only one group of people being the promised seed of the woman through Christ, with the rest being the seed of the Serpent born only according to the flesh. The one is of the bond woman in association with Hagar, the other of the free woman in association with Sarah. One answers only to the law of Moses from earthly Mt. Sinai and being under a covenant of works, while the other answers to the law of Christ from the heavenly Mt. Zion[28] and who are under a covenant of grace. One is of the earth being carnal and worldly, the other of heaven being spiritual and heavenly.

Dispensationalist, Lewis Sperry Chafer, a disciple of C. I. Scofield and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas, got it right when he said (albeit for the wrong reasons): “Never the twain, [natural] Israel and the church, shall meet.”[29] The “subjects” of the kingdom (natural Israel only according to the flesh) will be “cast out” into “outer darkness” where there shall be nothing left for them but “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (cf. Mat. 8:12; Lke. 13:28). Showers and all dispensationalists, in tandem with the Jews of today, and in the past, are mistakenly claiming as noted in the Epistle of Barnabas from the Jews in his day: “Let us see if this people [or Christians] is the heir, or [with] the former [us Jews], and if the covenant belongs to us or to them.” (13:1). Christ’s scathing words above are a testament against all such false prognosticators. God's promises belong only to His “children of promise.” The rest are hardened, only to be “cast out.”

Click here for part two.



Footnotes:

[1] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 4. Mar./Apr. issue 2012, vol. 70, #2. p. 34.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Paul is saying in Eph. 2:8 that everything that had to do with our salvation “is the gift of God.” Someone may try to argue that the phrase, “this is not from yourselves,” in Eph. 2:8, refers only to being “saved” and not to “faith” in this passage. But the Greek demonstrative pronoun touto, “this,” in “this not from yourselves,” and even the phrase “it is the gift of God,” are both in the nominative singular neuter form. And the basic rule of thumb is to look for a singular neuter noun in the immediate context as the antecedent to the demonstrative pronoun “this.” The rules of common grammar dictate to us that pronouns agree with nouns, not verbs, so the verb “saved,” by the very nature of the case cannot agree with “this.”

Notice this: “Faith” is a genitive singular feminine noun; “saved” is a perfect passive participle verb, nominative, plural masculine; and “grace” is a dative singular feminine noun. As one can very well see, there are no “singular neuter nouns.” In fact, as was stated earlier, the word “saved” isn’t even a noun, but a verb, so the demonstrative pronoun cannot even by the slightest stretch of the imagination refer to the word “saved.” And furthermore, wouldn’t it have been redundant for Paul to say, “and this salvation is not of yourselves” when he had just got through saying that salvation was in the “passive” voice, clearly denoting that it isn’t of ourselves? His Greek readers would have immediately known that already! And he again qualifies this fact by stating that being saved is “by grace.” But what one wouldn’t be so readily aware of is that faith is also not of themselves and a gift from God. So Paul wraps up all that he has just said by basically saying, “and this [faith] is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works lest anyone should boast”; in other words, lest anyone should boast and say, “My faith is what actually saves me, not God’s grace." Paul responded by saying that it doesn't. It is not, "I responded to His grace and it was the response of my faith alone that saved me as the final arbiter," or that, "God didn’t elect me to be saved and instill in me the faith to respond, I responded to Him of my own power and initiative, and He thus chose or elected me based upon foreseeing me choosing Him or having faith.” Now, we know that this isn’t biblical at all. For what of the saying, “I was found by those who did not seek Me; I revealed Myself to those who were not asking for Me”? (Rom. 10:20). Or, there is “no one who seeks God” in Rom. 3:11? Why is this? It is because we didn’t choose Christ, but Christ chose us (Jhn. 15:16) and ordained us that we should bring forth fruit (ibid). Jesus said in Jhn. 6:65, “no one can come to Me unless the Father has enabled him.” The Greek word for “enabled” here is from the Greek dunamis, and means to empower us to come.

Additionally, for those to argue that “and this” is in the nominative and that “saved” is in the nominative (while grace and faith are in the genitive and dative) in order to prove that “and this” refers to “saved,” is just not a valid argument. Greek “nominative” demonstrative pronouns often have as their antecedent a word, or a group of words, that are not necessarily in the “nominative” form at all—as seen in the example of Php. 1:28 (here in Philippians the antecedents are all in the genitive).

All that the “nominative” case indicates is normally, but not always, a subject of a sentence; while the genitive expresses chiefly possession; and the dative denotes what is the indirect object. And it is also a matter-of-fact that anyone of these cases can denote the “subject” of a sentence. But in the case before us here in Ephesians, the verb “saved” in the nominative form just notes its relation in an adjectival way to the subject noun “grace.” And you can always tell what the subject of a sentence is by who or what is doing the action of the verb. Here, it is “by the grace” (the noun) that we are “saved” (the verb). And as stated earlier, “saved” isn’t a singular neuter noun to match the pronoun “this,” but a masculine plural verb. This idea is also seen in Eph. 2:8, Php. 1:28, Php. 1:9, Col. 2:4 Heb. 6:3 and Rom. 13:11, where, again, the singular neuter “and this” has as its antecedent either the entire thought in the sentence preceding it, or one particular noun made up of feminine/masculine and singular/plural words. And thus the antecedent “noun” that only fits with the pronoun “this” is “faith.” Again, pronouns agree with nouns, not verbs.

Now it is also the common ploy for those who do not want to believe that faith is also a gift from God, to point out that since the word “faith” is feminine and “this” is neuter, then this demonstrative pronoun cannot be referring to faith as a gift from God. And yet, wouldn’t this same person also have to admit that grace is a gift from God? But this word “grace” is feminine as well as “faith”; so, if they were to consistently follow through with their logic, they would have to also conclude that grace is no more a gift from God than faith is, right? And so as anyone can very well see, such an argument only refutes itself. Anyone who would rule out “faith” as a gift from God would also have to rule out “grace” as a gift from God, an action that Paul says elsewhere in Scripture is indeed a free gift from God (Rom. 3:24; 4:4; 5:15; 1Cor. 2:12; Eph. 3:7).

The noted Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson, says with regards to this verse that, “in general,” the demonstrative “agrees with its substantive in gender and number,”[1] but then he departs from this rule because his own a priori theological bias will not allow him to believe that our faith to believe is a gift from God also, as he asserts: “Grace is God’s part, faith ours.”[2] So we see here how one cannot entirely trust a Greek expositor just because he is a Greek expositor, but we must adhere more closely to the rules of grammar that correctly guide and lead us along to a more perfect understanding.

And so then, to what does the pronoun “this” refer to? Either to the noun “faith” or, to all of the aforementioned in this verse. It is quite possible in English or Greek grammar for the entire phrase to be what this demonstrative pronoun is pointing to. As James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries states with regards to this pronoun: “It is good Greek grammar to use a neuter pronoun to ‘wrap up’ a phrase or a series of thoughts into a single whole.”[3] And it is quite possible that Paul left it “neuter” because he didn’t want his statement to refer to just one of these ideas, but to all of them. So, it is quite possible for the pronoun “this” to include the whole package of: salvation, grace and faith. The entire process of salvation, which includes even the faith to believe, is a gift from God. But I think “this” is actually pointing to the “faith,” since, like I said, it would be redundant for Paul to say salvation is not of ourselves when he had already said it is “by grace” and is in the “passive” voice.

Now this would not be the first time in Scripture where even the faith to believe for salvation is seen as something given to us by God (cp. Acts 3:13; Eph. 6:23; Php. 1:29; 2Pet. 1:1b (“obtained” here in the KJV literally means, “allotted”); 1Jhn. 5:1[4]). In Gal. 5:22 there is also the fruit of “faith” [or faithfulness] given to us by God. In 1Cor. 12:9 a person is clearly given “faith by the same Spirit.” In Acts 4:16 “faith that comes through Him [or Christ]” is given to the crippled man in order to be healed. And in Rom. 12:3-8 “the measure of faith” is given to us by God in order to exercise our several ministries. Even in 1Cor. 4:7 Paul says: “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” We owe our entire being―all of our natural gifts, our spiritual life, and even our ministries―all to God and to God alone.

In conclusion, this idea of this entire work in Eph. 2:8 as being “all of God” is affirmed throughout this entire context in Ephesians chapter two: In verse 1 we “were dead.” And then in verse 5 we are said to have been “made alive.” On the heels of this, in verse 6, we are said to have been “raised up” by God from that dead state. And in verse 10 we are said to be God’s continual “workmanship [or lit., “God made”] after having been created” (aorist passive participle) on the heels of Paul having just stated in verse 9 that the whole process was, “not by works so that no one can boast.” And this all goes along also with what was stated above by Paul in 1Cor. 4:7. Dead people do not and cannot raise themselves, save themselves, reach out for grace—or let alone exercise any faith! So where is such boasting? You can't find it here!

Additional Notes to footnote above:

[1] A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research,(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 704.
[2] Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1931), vol. 4, p. 525.
[3] White, James R. The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville: Calvary Press), p. 296.
[4] 1Jhn. 5:1, reads: “Everyone who believes…has been born of God.” In the Greek it says that our being born of God preceded our believing, and that our believing is a result of our having been quickened, or being regenerated by God. He quickens our spirit to respond in faith, just like He quickened Lazarus from the dead enabling him eventually to come forth of his own volition from the tomb. In two other places is this Greek construction of 1Jhn. 5:1 found: In 1Jhn. 2:29 and 4:7. In 2:29, it is, “everyone who does what is right has been born of Him.” And so what we see here is that the new birth precedes everyone doing righteousness. In 1Jhn. 4:7 it is: “everyone who loves has been born of God.” Again, the new birth precedes everyone who loves. Did any biblical love and righteousness towards God and others precede the new birth? No, of course not! The effect of both was preceded by the cause of being born-again. So, it stands to reason that the same can only be said for having faith or belief in Christ. Like Lydia in Acts 16, the Lord opens our hearts to respond and to believe in Him. In Acts 13:48, those ordained to eternal life…BELIEVED! It is inevitable of all those chosen by God and awakened from their dead, morbid state to believe. He is the “cause” of our belief, love and righteousness. Left to ourselves none of this would occur. It is by Him whereby we cry, “Abba, Father!”

[4] As Showers in no uncertain terms states it for those who would accept his view as opposed to Covenant Theology, “this would turn them into dispensationalists” (Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 1. Sept./Oct. issue 2011, vol. 69, #5. p. 23)
[5] David Brown. Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial? (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1856), Intro., p. 8.
[6] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 1. Sept./Oct. issue 2011, vol. 69, #5, p. 22.
[7] Commentary on the Old Testament. Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Pub., 1978), vol. 8, p. 235. Words in brackets mine.
[8] As Showers notes, some see the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace as one and the same, and so we are just talking about mainly two covenants—the covenant of works as opposed to the covenant of grace.
[9] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 1. Sept./Oct. issue 2011, vol. 69, #5. p. 21.
[10] No doubt, all of the land promises were fulfilled. See Gen. 15:18–19; 17:8; 28:4, 13; 50:24; Deut. 1:6–8; 31:7–8; Josh. 1:1-6 with Josh. 11:23; 21:43–45; Psm. 80:8–11; 1Kin. 4:21, 24; Neh. 9:7–8, 23–25. Even the six Cities of Refuge were a sign or token that all the land promised, was given. Upon taking the area east of Jordan, three cities were established. Then once “the whole land promised” them was subdued, the remaining six cities were established (see Num. 35:10-15; Deut. 4:41-43 and 19:8-9).
[11] Stephen Sizer. Zion’s Christian Soldiers? (Downers Grove: IVP Press, 2007), p. 96.
[12] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 1. Sept./Oct. issue 2011, vol. 69, #5. p. 21.
[13] Op. cit., by A. Cohen in his The Twelve Prophets, Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary. The Socino Books of the Bible (London: 1948), p. 23.
[14] The masculine, singular, first person, subject pronoun “he” in Dan. 9:27 is to have as its antecedent a noun in the previous sentence of verse 26. And not just any noun in the sentence, but a subject noun at that. Normally, this "noun" is usually the first noun immediately preceding this subject pronoun. If it isn't, then what is commonly known in grammar as a more distant antecedent subject noun is to be sought after.

There are actually five nouns in verse 26, with this verse being divided up into three sentences in our English translations. These five nouns are: the Messiah who is cut-off; the people who destroy the city and sanctuary; the Prince of the people; and, of course, the city and the sanctuary. The people, the city and the sanctuary will not fit because all three of these nouns are not masculine. And while the word “people” is the subject in the immediate sentence, it will not work either because it is in the third person plural form. So this leaves us only with the “Messiah” or the “Prince” as the possible antecedent noun. But understand this, and understand it well: The immediate noun “Prince” is not the subject noun in this immediate sentence preceding this personal subject pronoun “he” in verse 27, the “people” are. The “Prince” is an object noun and an object of preposition to the subject of the people. In other words, the people as the subject are of, or from, the Prince (the object of the people) and are the ones who actually do the destroying of the city and sanctuary for this Prince. And so this leaves us with only one subject noun left in the first sentence of verse 26 as the antecedent to “he” in verse 27, which is “the Messiah.” The Messiah, as the Suffering Servant who establishes a covenant of grace with His people (in the space of one week or seven years), is being differentiated here from His work as the Messiah who is both a Prince and Judge who comes with the armies of the world (the Romans in this case) that He uses to mete out His destruction upon the city and sanctuary. To link the “Prince” who destroys with “the people,” with “He who confirms a covenant” of peace “with many,” would be to mix two separate and distinct ministries and purposes of the Messiah as the One who Judges, with the One who Redeems.

For the Jews “cutting-off” (or killing) their Messiah as the Suffering Servant who came to confirm (or give strength to) a covenant with both them and the Gentiles (the “many”) within a span of about seven years, the Messiah as Prince and Judge would likewise cut-off them (along with their city and sanctuary) with His desolating Roman armies (see also Mat. 22:7; Acts 6:14[1]). For further insight into all of this, please read my book: The People of the Prince, the Coming One!

Additional Note to footnote above:

[1] It was not uncommon for false witnesses to take the true sayings of Christ and His followers and turn them around and use them against them as something not to be believed in. How could Christ “destroy this place” (or even “change the customs”), it is to be argued, if He is dead? Evidently, to the Jews, Stephen’s testimony was false; for at that time the temple was still standing and the customs had not changed. But in God’s mind it was a done deal; to be physically realized just forty years later in 70 A.D. This was something that Christ had also told them personally in Lke. 22:69 (lit. “from thereon forward” they would see Him coming in judgment); see also Mat. 26:64 and Mk. 14:62. All of this is also alluded to in Mat. 24:30 and Rev. 1:7. See also Mat. 21: 40-41; 22:7 and Lke. 19:42-44.

[15] The Covenant of Grace (Phillipsburg: P&R pub., 1953), pp. 31–32. Italics his, words italicized and in bold mine.
[16] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 1. Sept./Oct. issue 2011, vol. 70, #5. p. 21.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid., p. 22.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] See John Hagee’s, Final Dawn Over Jerusalem (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub., 1998), pp. 108–109.
[24] Commentary on Jeremiah 51:39. Public domain.
[25] We also see this analogy of the wolf, lion and even a leopard, used again in Jer. 5:6 concerning the Gentiles. Of Israel, the Lord says in Jer. 4:27 that “the whole land will be ruined, though I will not destroy it completely.” Then in Jer. 5:6, the Lord says, “Therefore a lion from the forest will attack them, a wolf from the desert will ravage them, a leopard will lie in wait near their towns to tear to pieces any who venture out, for their rebellion is great and their backslidings many.” And then in verses 9-10 the Lord declares of these brute beasts: “Should I not punish them [Israel] for this? declares the LORD. I not avenge myself on such a nation as this? Go through her vineyards and ravage them, but do not destroy them completely.”

Then in verses 14–19 the Lord interprets for us what He means by these wolves, lions and leopards ravaging Israel:

Therefore this is what the LORD God Almighty says: Because the people have spoken these words, I will make my words in your mouth a fire and these people the wood it consumes. “O house of Israel,” declares the LORD, “I am bringing a distant nation against you―an ancient and enduring nation, a people whose language you do not know, whose speech you do not understand. Their quivers are like an open grave; all of them are mighty warriors. They will devour your harvests and food, devour your sons and daughters; they will devour your flocks and herds, devour your vines and fig trees. With the sword they will destroy the fortified cities in which you trust. Yet even in those days,” declares the LORD, “I will not destroy you completely. And when the people ask, ‘Why has the LORD our God done all this to us?’ you will tell them, “As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your own land, so now you will serve foreigners in a land not your own.”

In chapter five, verse 10, the Lord again says of these devouring beasts, “do not destroy it completely.” And then in verse 18 He says of these invading armies that He uses to devour Israel with, “I will not destroy you completely” by them. This theme of God using the Babylonians to "devour" Israel is carried throughout chapters four through six. So, in chapter four, the Lord says, “I will not destroy you completely.” In chapter five, He says of these Babylonians likened unto wild animals, “but do not destroy them completely.” And then later in this same chapter the Lord says of these Babylonians that He uses to “devour” Israel with: “I will not destroy you completely” by them.

For literal leopards to lie in wait near all their towns and tear in pieces any who would venture out (5:6), there would have to be hundreds, if not thousands, of leopards stationed outside of every city devouring everyone in site. But the Lord isn’t talking about thousands of literal leopards laying in wait outside their cities, but about the invading armies of the Babylonians. It was to be as God has said through His prophet Isaiah: “Your choicest valleys are full of chariots, and horsemen are posted at the city gates” (22:7). It was to be even as the Lord through Hosea declares:

So I will come upon them like a lion, like a leopard I will lurk by the path. Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and rip them open. Like a lion I will devour them; a wild animal will tear them apart (13:7–8).

Who were these "wild animals" that would “tear them apart”? Why, none other than the Gentile nations whom the Lord would use to mete out His judgments upon Israel. Israel wasn’t being devastated by literal wild animals, but as history records for us, it was by the devastating armies of the heathen Gentile nations all around them. There are many such verses as these above throughout the Psalms and the Prophets that depict this very same idea and imagery; and for which a careful word study in a Strong’s Concordance will reveal.
[26] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 1. Sept./Oct. issue 2011, vol. 69, #5. p. 22.
[27] Ibid.
[28] This idea of Paul in Galatians chapter four of the earthly Mt. Sinai (or Horeb) being pitted against the heavenly Mt.Zion, though not expressly stated, is alluded to here and expressly stated elsewhere in Scripture: “You have not come to a mountain that can be [physically] touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm…But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God…” (12:18, 22).
[29] Op. cit., by Stephen Sizer. Zion’s Christian Soldiers? (Downers Grove: IVP Press, 2007), p. 41.