Is Covenant Theology Replacement Theology? (2 of 3)

Two Bodies—One Earthly and One Heavenly?

Col. 1:18 says of Christ and His body: “And he is the Head of the body, the Church; He is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything He might have the supremacy.” And in Eph. 3:6, Paul writes: “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ [or the Messiah] Jesus.” And again, Paul says that the Gentiles are no longer “excluded from citizenship of the Israel” (Eph. 2:12, lit. trans.); that they are no longer “foreigners to the covenants of promise” (ibid); and that they are “no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens[1] with the saints, and members of God’s household” (v. 19, HCSB). This promise of Jesus Christ is unto all in all ages, both past and present: “Unto Him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.” (Eph. 3:21, KJV). And notice how that Paul says we are “citizens of the Israel” in verse 12 which is also being “fellow citizens of the saints” in verse 19. Is Paul saying we are citizens with natural Israel? How absurd is that. They are not “the saints.” We are no more citizens with natural Israel than we are citizens with the Germans, Swedes, the Chinese or Japanese. If such is the case that we are “citizens of the Israel,” which is synonymous to being “fellow citizens of the saints,” then what “Israel” is Paul talking about that we Gentiles are said to be one body with? With “the Israel of God” in Gal. 6:16 that Paul says is a new creation born of the Spirit. We are citizens “of the Israel” according to the Spirit, and not citizens of Israel according to the flesh. Our association isn’t with Israel according to the flesh whom Christ says is rejected and “cast out,” but our association is with the Israel that is born from above by the Spirit God, and who is of the free woman that Paul articulates for us in Gal. 4:28-31. We are not a part of the Jerusalem (or Israel) below and of the earth, but are a part of the Jerusalem (or Israel) from above which Paul also says has her citizenship in heaven (vv. 25-26; Php. 3:20). If we are “sharers,” “heirs,” “fellow citizens” and “members together” with Israel of the one body (and not two), then what does that make us? Still Gentiles, and them Jews? Of course not. Paul now says there is “no difference” (Rom. 10:12). The Greek word for “foreigners” used by Paul above in Ephesians denotes one who is “beside (or outside) the house,” and Paul is now saying that Gentiles with Israel are “of the house” (v. 19). And it is of this same “house” that the author of Hebrews says Christ the Son is now "over" as opposed to Moses who use to be "over" only as a servant (cf. Heb. 3:3-6, NASB). As citizens of Israel we have also been grafted into the one cultivated olive tree of Israel and thus take on the name “Israel,” just as any other citizen of a country or someone adopted into a family would do. And this is just another glaring example that the “Israel” that Paul has in mind here in Ephesians is not “Israel” according to the flesh at all, but Israel according to the Spirit. These are all the “children of promise” that Paul denotes in Rom. 9:8 who are “all Israel” in verse 6, and whom he says of Gentiles are also called “children of promise,” just like Isaac, in Gal. 4:28. All “children of promise” such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all of us are this true and spiritual “Israel” of God.

We know for a fact that the apostles considered those in the Old Testament as part and parcel with the Church. Even Jesus had alluded to this when He spoke of many coming from the four corners of the globe to sit and feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Many dispensationalists, on the other hand, have said that “Israel is not the Church and the Church is not Israel.” And a lot of their doctrines and eschatology are built upon this premise. Yet, when one examines the Scriptures themselves, one is truly surprised that the Israel in the Old Testament is repeatedly referred to as “the Church” in the wilderness.

For example, in Acts chapter seven, Stephen tips us off to this fact when he was falsely accused of teaching as heretical that Israel’s promised Messiah (or Jesus) would destroy the Jewish temple and change the customs handed down to them from the Law of Moses. Stephen declares: “This is he [Moses] that was in the Church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us” (7:38, ASV). Stephen clearly, using new testament Greek, refers to Israel in the wilderness as “the Church.” The “Church” has existed ever since the time of Adam and Eve. And all believers like them are assembled together as God’s called-out ones, chosen and elected specifically by Him for His own purpose and good pleasure (cp. Eph. 1:5). “The Church,” or these, “called-out ones,” is not a new development in the so-called “dispensation of grace.” All who are of the faith, whether they be Jews or Gentiles (both past and present), are this “Church” who are called out as God’s one true and spiritual nation called Israel. Being a “child of promise” such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and thus referred to as “Israel” was no novel idea created by Paul. Even though many in times past may have not been specifically referred to as the Israel of God from above, this “Israel” born of the Spirit was nevertheless around since the beginning of creation, and even in God's mind before the foundation of the world. There has always been a holy nation and remnant of God’s chosen people within the nations, and even within the natural nation of Israel. It is just as First Peter declares of what was promised to the Jews in Exodus 19:6, “But you [all of us believers in Christ] are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (2:9). All of the Old Testament saints along with all New Testament saints make up this one nation, or body—the one “nation” that Christ also describes in Mat. 13:43, “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [natural faithless Jews] and given to a nation who will produce its fruit.” And notice how that Peter says there is only one holy nation made up of both Jews and Gentiles. It’s singular. There are not two bodies and two nations who are God’s true people, called “saints”; there’s only one body and one true people or Israel of God. We are called out of the Gentiles, out of the nations, to be joined together as one holy nation with all believing Jews.

First Peter 2:10 also says concerning all former unbelievers: “which in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God”—in other words, Israel! No one doubts that God's people here are Israel. But they are "Israel" according the Spirit and not according the the flesh. If Peter had only converted Jews in mind in verse 9, as some dispensationalists also claim, then how could he claim they were "not a people, but are now the people of God?" If all natural Jews are "God's people" by default, as many erroneously claim today, then these words of Peter make no sense whatsoever when applied only to Jews. No, Peter has the Church made up of both believing Jews and Gentiles in mind whom he says have now received God's "mercy," the same thing that Paul has said of both Jews and Gentiles in Rom. 11:30-32. It was no accident, that Stephen, a Jewish believer of the house of Judah and who understood Greek customs and culture, would now call Israel, “the Church”; for Stephen’s Greek version of the Bible, the Septuagint, regularly uses the Greek “Ekklesia” (or Church) to refer to “Israel” in the Old Testament. Many believers back in those days relied heavily on the Septuagint, and the New Testament is filled with quotations from it. Thus, those in the first century were all very well acquainted with the biblical concept that God’s “Church” in the Old Testament times was the true nation of Israel within the natural nation of Israel; just as the “Church” in the writings of the New Testament is also denoted as the very same “Israel of God” among many in the churches who are not this Israel of God. Always remember this: there is an Israel according to the Spirit, and an Israel according to the flesh; a people who are identified outwardly as the Church, and a people who are identified inwardly as the Church (Judas is a glaring example of this "outward" association). Jesus and His apostles clearly make this distinction throughout their writings. And although for the most part hidden from the natural eye, it is in the writings of all the prophets for those who have the eyes to see it and the ears to hear it.

It would be hundreds of years later, from the early beginnings of the Church, in which the theological interpretive framework of dispensationalism would be invented and taught in mainstream Christianity today, even though it is absolutely contrary and diametrically opposed to the Apostles’ doctrine. In fact, it is really Judaism being taught in the Church all over again, but now only infiltrating us under a different guise. For instead of Jewish wolves entering into the Church and not sparing the flock, men from our own selves have arisen and have distorted the truth (cf. Acts 20:29-30). And instead of now being called Jewish Zionists, they are now commonly denoted as Christian Zionists. They are Christians who teach and uphold the cause of Judaism in the defense of all natural Jews. This is just simply remarkable to me. Talk about a people being “bewitched.” This takes the cake!

The Greek word “Ekklesia” (or, called-out ones) is the Hebraic equivalent of the word “Qahal,” which likewise means called-out congregation or assembly; and it is also related to one who provides a witness or testimony. In every instance where “congregation” or “assembly” is found in the English versions of the Old Testament, the Greek “Ekklesia” (or “Church”) is used by the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament Hebrew.[2] The Israel of God in the OT is referred to as the “Ekklesia” or, the “Qahal”—i.e., the Church! Isn't this what Jesus, Paul and all the apostles taught us as sound doctrine and as rightly dividing the Word of Truth? Much of what has already been stated has already proved this to be the case. But let’s probe a little further into Jesus’ and the Apostles’ doctrine.

First of all, in Romans 11 Paul teaches that salvation by faith alone through grace alone brings us into the kingdom of God or of heaven.[3] Paul in no uncertain terms states that Gentiles are grafted into the one “Olive Tree” (Romans 11), which is Israel (cp. Jer. 11:16). Once a “wild” olive tree, or branch, Gentiles are now grafted into the cultivated olive tree, Israel, God’s nation of saints within national Israel that have always made up His actual one holy nation. Paul does not teach us that there is a new tree called, the Church, that is distinct and separate from this Israel of God. On the other hand, Paul teaches that we are grafted into the already existing olive tree, which is “Israel.” If Paul were a dispensationalist, would we expect him to use the one olive tree figure? No, we would expect Paul to say that all of the natural olive tree branches were cut off forming an entirely new tree. But he doesn’t! What he says is that some natural branches are cut off while the rest remain intact, with some Gentiles also now being grafted into or assimilated into them. All the believing remnant of both Jews and Gentiles remain intact, while all the rest are only hardened, cast off and away from us only to be burned. This is basically what Paul says in Rom. 11:7: "So what does all this mean? It means that Israel has never achieved what it has been striving for. However, those whom God has chosen have achieved it. The minds of the rest of Israel were closed" (GWT), just as Isaiah wrote concerning God giving them eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear (cf. v.8).

Secondly, the root of this one olive tree is said to now support us Gentiles, as well as all believing Jews who continue to be partakers of this one spiritual olive tree. Some theologians say that this “root” is the patriarchs who now support us and from whom we all have our origin of faith from, but Paul has already established that they are themselves likewise the natural “branches,” and not the root at all! They cannot be both the branches and the root, for “the root” is said here to be that which sustains both the "natural" olive branches and the "wild" olive branches. Therefore “the root” can only be Christ in which this entire olive tree called “Israel” is now supported and obtains its nourishment from. Jesus illustrated this idea for us in John 15: “I am the Vine, you are the branches.” And He was talking to His Jewish apostles at this time whose natural descent was from the patriarchs. There is no ambiguity here as to who supports and supplies nourishment to whom. And it is only in such a manner as this (i.e., in Christ) that all natural born Israelites, as well as all Gentile foreigners, shall be saved. But the whole point that Paul is making here is that Gentiles are to be grafted into “Israel.” As Peter said earlier, becoming one holy nation, not two. So we have seen so far that there is only one body, one nation, and one olive tree referred to as Israel, Christ’s body and Ekklesia (or the Church).

Thirdly, again Paul teaches in Ephesians 2 that we, the Church, are now Israel. Notice first of all that he says we were once Gentiles. Secondly, he says we are now citizens of the Israel through Christ. And thirdly, if one is part of “the covenants (plural) of promise,” then one is a part of Israel, right? Let’s take a look at these verses again in Eph. 2:11-13:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)—remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

How could we not be called “Israel” if we are now called “citizens” with Israel? As I stated earlier, when a person becomes adopted into a family or a citizen of another nation they take on the name of that family or nation. For instance, Paul says Abraham is our father and that we are his children. Doesn’t this make us “Israel” by association? Granted, Ishmael was Abraham’s son but this did not make him “Israel.” So how is that we can be called “Israel”? Paul says that it is by our association with Christ, and not through someone like Ishmael at all. For “if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). What promise? The everlasting covenant that was given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of all such “children of promise” (cf. Rom. 9:6; Gal. 4:28) that, “in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed” unlike all natural Israelites who are born only according to the flesh, and whom Paul says are not the “children of promise” and likened more unto Hagar and Ishmael who are only to be “cast out” (Gal. 4:30). Again, this agrees with Christ’s words in Mat. 8:11-12 and Lke. 13:28-29.

Clearly, dispensationalism (in tandem with all natural Jews who have not the Spirit of Christ) has introduced some serious doctrinal errors into the Church. Paul, on the other hand, understood that all who are of the same faith as Abraham, are the Israel of God according to the Spirit, because even the teachings of the Prophets had taught Paul this one thing: that the New Covenant was for the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which are the two representative kingdoms that make up the one whole nation of Israel. For Jeremiah had stated: “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, says the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people (31:31-33; cf. Heb. 8:8-12). Therefore, clearly, if one is part of this "new covenant" which Jesus is NOW the mediator of (again, see Heb. 8:6) as Israel’s promised Messiah, then one is grafted into Christ via either the ministrative efforts of the house of Judah or of the house of Israel, thus becoming even one with Israel. Ironically, many dispensationalists circumvent this understanding by claiming that the “new covenant” with Israel and Judah will be a different new covenant altogether that God makes with them alone in the seven-year tribulation and on into an earthly millennial reign with Christ. So it just goes to show you at what great lengths these deceivers will bend and distort the truth in order to accommodate their doctrine, not unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons. And, I might add, not unlike all natural Jews who have not the Spirit and understand all of this in a similar manner as the dispensationalists do. So, can you NOW see how it is that Judaism has once again crept into the Church all over again? And this little leaven that began in the late 1800's through the teachings of J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, and Lewis Sperry Chafer and the like that have come out of Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas, has practically leavened the whole Church. But Jesus has said, “if it were possible,” such false teachers and false prophets would deceive the very elect. But I truly believe the “elect” are truly seeing all of this for what it really is. It is a “powerful delusion” that has come upon many unsuspecting and uneducated Christians, not unlike upon those whom Paul mentions in 2Thes. 2:11 which causes many to “believe the lie” and, “have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” Have no doubt about it, the doctrine of dispensationalism is a “powerful delusion” and a “lie” that causes many to “not believe the truth” but delight in “wickedness.” To be sure, this doctrine is a doctrine of demons (cf. 1Tim. 4:1); thus it's roots are in “wickedness,” proclaiming and teaching a pseudo-wisdom that is not from above and very wicked indeed; even overthrowing entire households of faith, just as the apostles had claimed that such people would do.

As the prophet Jeremiah above declared, the New Covenant is not stated to be made with anyone other than with Israel (and thus the dispensationalist’s bone of contention that this must be some other new covenant with them). So, one either becomes a part of this one holy nation called Israel, as Jesus, Paul and Peter have declared to us, or then one is not a part of this New Covenant with Israel at all. As one can very well see, it is a little difficult to subscribe to a theological interpretive framework that separates Israel from the Church (or the Church from Israel), when the Scriptures clearly state that we are grafted into Israel via Christ and actually made citizens and "one" with her; and for which Paul can now say there is “no difference” between us. This is why Jesus could now say in Rev. 22:15 that all who are outside of us, His holy city called New Jerusalem (or Israel), are “dogs.” Normally this was a phrase reserved for Gentiles who were outside of the commonwealth of natural Israel. But now Jesus, and even Paul I might add (see Php. 3:2), refer to all those who are outside of this heavenly city of Israel called New Jerusalem, as “dogs.” In fact, all of this wasn’t just stated in a vacuum, for the Lord through His prophet Isaiah had alluded to this of Israel according to the flesh in chapter 56:10-11:

Israel’s watchmen are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all mute dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep. They are dogs with mighty appetites; they never have enough. They are shepherds who lack understanding; they all turn to their own way, each seeks his own gain.

So far, tenet number one of dispensationalism that was listed in the opening statements of this article of putting a distinction between Israel and the Church, and with there being two peoples of God with two entirely different destinies of one earthly and one heavenly, has been absolutely and unequivocally destroyed by the Scriptures. Yet bible colleges and seminaries (or I should say, cemeteries in most cases) continue to teach this aberrant doctrine with absolute and unequivocal resolve to the contrary.

Two Means of Salvation---One by the Works of the Law and One by Grace?

If tenet number two, as noted earlier in this writing of there being a distinction between God’s Law and Grace as being exclusive of one another is correct, then why is the New Covenant all about writing God’s law that was on the tables of stone, on our hearts. This is the whole point of the New Covenant: that the Law of God would be written on our hearts by the very finger of God. And that we may obey it and no longer disobey it as Israel only according to the flesh could only ever hope to do. The head, Christ, does not give out two sets of instructions and commandments for two different bodies of believers. Dispensationalism’s sharp distinction between Israel and the Church (or even between law and grace) clearly is unwarranted and, for the most part, unbiblical. All of those laws written on stone we now actually keep. Even the Sabbath, which Paul said was an outward observance and a shadow or type of that which was spiritually to come in Col. 2:16-17, is now a rest that is spiritually realized in our hearts when we cease from our own works in order to be saved and enter into Christ's gracious rest for us (cp. Mat. 11:28-29; Heb. 4:9). All of the other ceremonial laws are no different. We now spiritually keep every single one of them in the person and work of Christ. Their “everlasting” perpetuity is realized in this: in their spiritual application in the Church today.[4] And so the words of the prophet Isaiah still stand:

In the last days the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us His ways, so that we may walk in His paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem (2:2-3).

And, again, the prophet Ezekiel writes concerning this time that we are now living in wherein formerly the law was not written in the Jew’s hearts until the new birth, also known as the new nature, the new heart, or the new man was in place through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (where God’s Spirit would baptize Christ’s disciples and no longer just be “with” them as denoted in John 14:17, but “in” them[5]). The Lord through Ezekiel writes:

I will give them [Israel] an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow My decrees and be careful to keep My laws. They will be My people, and I will be their God. But as for those whose hearts are devoted to their vile images and detestable idols, I will bring down on their own heads what they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD (11:19-21; cf. 36:25-28).

These verses above are just a handful of verses quoted by the dispensationalists to prove that the law of Moses will once again reign supreme over grace with regards to one's salvation in a future seven-year tribulation and in a future earthly millennium. But as we can very well see, when all of this (including the mountain and the Lord's temple) is understood of what God was going to do "spiritually" with Israel in the future, in the days of Christ and His apostles, then we can better see how keeping God's laws would be a thing of the heart and not just by outwardly observing such things. And this is to be the case with many more passages of Scripture that the dispensationalists will stumble over when understood literally of Israel in the future, and not of the present spiritual realities of the Church age. And the purpose of this article is to try and expose this, using many of the verses that they cite to prove their point, and then show the fallacy of their arguments. And by the way, just as a sidebar, the law of Moses never displaced grace and faith. It was to reveal the need for it. Grace through faith was even taught in the law of Moses, and Paul refers to this in Rom. 10:5-8 when he describes the righteousness of the law vs. the righteousness of faith:

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ”(that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is the message concerning faith that we proclaim...

The truth of the just living by faith was a truth exclaimed even by the prophet Habbakuk (cf. Hab 2:4). And Paul tells us that "David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.'" (Rom. 4:6-8).

So what support is used mainly by dispensationalists that the Church is a new individual group or entity (a parenthesis) apart from Israel? In the absence of applying any other guiding principles or Scriptures, the foundational cause of their error is founded in the poor, reckless and unbridled interpretation of even Matthew chapter sixteen, where Christ says:

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it (16:18).

It has already been established above that the Lord’s “Church” has existed since the beginning, and that the “Church” is referred to by God in His Word as “Israel.” If so, then we must ask ourselves this question: How can Jesus (the Jew’s Messiah) build a new Church that doesn’t conflict with everything else that He and His prophets have already taught us? The Scriptures teach everywhere that Israel which had fallen in disrepute and disrepair would be “rebuilt” or “restored.” It is clearly stated over and over again in the prophets that the division in the kingdom related to the house of Israel and the house of Judah would be repaired, and that they would once again be reunited as one stick, and not two (cf. Ezekiel 37:15-28). In fact, Jesus said that He specifically came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel in Mat. 15:24. The whole goal of Christ in the New Covenant is to bring His lost sheep (with the emphasis on "His" sheep) of the house of Israel back to obedience to God’s law, by writing His law on their hearts. Clearly, the whole point and purpose of all of Scripture teaches the central theme of a rebuilding and a restoration that is for "all Israel" born only according to the Spirit, and not a rebuilding and restoration program for Israel born only according to the flesh. Paul is very poignant and to the point concerning all of this: "For not all who are of Israel, are these Israel" (Rom. 9:6, lit. trans.), but only “a remnant” is saved from out of them (v. 27; 11:4-6). And just in case anyone should misunderstand or misinterpret any of this, Paul uses Jacob and Esau who were identical twins and born of the exact same mother and father. And Paul emphasizes that all such “children of promise” (9:8) are not born of any human will or effort (v. 16), with the testimony and witness of St. John also agreeing to this fact in John 1:13. And if that were still not enough, Paul adds later in his epistle to the Galatians that all Gentile believers, just like Isaac, are also “children of promise” (4:28), being part and parcel with the same “children of promise” in Rom. 9:8 that Paul had just earlier said in verse 6 are “all Israel” and who are not just of a natural Jewish ethnicity (see verse 8a). Paul is very clear, “what Israel sought so earnestly for it did not obtain, but THE ELECT did. The rest were hardened” (Rom. 11:7). And again, “So too, at this present time there is a remnant chosen by grace” (v. 5). In Isaiah 49, Jehovah speaks of His Servant (or Christ), “who was despised and abhorred by the nation” (v. 7), but who would no less “raise up the tribes of Israel and restore the preserved ones of Israel” (v. 6a); becoming also “a light for the Gentiles so that You may bring My salvation to the ends of the world” (v. 6b) in order that "a remnant" of "preserved ones" might be saved from the Gentiles as well (Rom. 9:24-26; 11:25; cp. 2Tim. 2:10).

So, did Jesus come to do in the Scriptures what He said He would come to do? In the natural, no. But in the spiritual, yes. All that natural Israel was in type and shadow Jesus fulfilled with them in a spiritual manner. This is the teaching of the Apostles in all of their letters. If anyone is guilty of “spiritualizing” all of this, it was them! And this is all in agreement with what Christ said He came to do in establishing a kingdom that cannot be seen with the natural eye, was within, and from another world or place. Christ did not fail to do what He came to do. He fulfilled every word of it, as pronounced by His holy prophets. The problem was not with Christ, but with men who both then and now “fail” to see the kingdom for all that it really is. The problem is with men who are “dull of hearing,” and who have not the eyes to see it or the ears to hear it.

Jesus was not contradicting the Scriptures in Mat. 16:18, as if He was building some "new thing" with the Church, apart from Israel, and then just deal with them some two millennia later off into the future during a supposed seven-year tribulation and in a thousand-year reign on the earth.

Again, are we Gentiles grafted into the one olive tree denoted as "Israel" or, are both Jews and Gentiles in the so-called "dispensation of grace" grafted into an entirely new tree now designated as “the Church”? If we answer this question honestly, then we have answered the previous question in tenet number one as noted earlier above of the dispensationalists of there being a "dispensation of law" strictly for all natural Jews, and a "dispensation of grace" strictly for the Church. Romans 11 and Ephesians 2 should serve us well for anyone struggling with this issue. Jesus never spoke outside of the Law and Prophets. He fulfilled them, and is still fulfilling them to the last letter of the Law. But in a spiritual manner now; no longer in a literal manner, which were nothing more than types and shadows. The kingdom of heaven is now here on earth. But in listening to many Christians, they would rather have it be an earthly, worldly kingdom, rather than a heavenly one. They would rather believe in a kingdom in and of the earth, rather than in a kingdom in and of heaven. In fact, I hear this from their very lips all the time: “It is evident to the natural eye that Christ’s kingdom isn’t on earth yet.” This is their bone of contention: physically seeing is believing for them. They are looking in all the wrong places, forgetting that Christ said His kingdom does not come with any physical observation at all.

All of Christ’s teachings were in perfect harmony with all that the Law and the Prophets had foretold. If God’s purpose was to create a new body of people and give them a different set of laws, He would have told us this somewhere in His Word. The problem with many today is that they do not understand how something could be stated in the Law and the Prophets, that was to still be observed in our day, and as NOW being understood and observed in a spiritual manner rather than in a literal manner. When we read of circumcision, the priesthood, sacrifices or what-have-you as being “everlasting” or “eternal,” it begins to make sense as them being “everlasting” when they are understood as being typical of that which is spiritual and is in fact “everlasting” and “eternal.” God knew what He meant when He was saying those things. They were all pointing to Christ and His “everlasting” work. Nowhere does God say He was going to create a new law and a new people. But He was going to use the same law with the same people (but with some changes) to form one body in Himself, and which now includes the Gentiles as well. Naturally, all of this is to be understood spiritually, and not literally at all. The temporary types spoke of and pointed to the everlasting antitypes; the temporal earthly things spoke of and pointed to the eternal heavenly things; and the natural and carnal things spoke of and pointed to the spiritual things that were to come and become manifestly more evident and no longer a mystery. Again, it is only in this sense that all of those things instituted by God in the past can ever be understood as being “everlasting.” This is why the author of Hebrews says we have come to a kingdom and a mountain that cannot be “shaken.” Earthly kingdoms and mountains can be “shaken” or removed. Christ’s heavenly kingdom and mountain of His spiritual people and house, cannot. It remains for all eternity, "everlasting."

In conjunction with the idea of the “building” and “restoration” of Judah and the house of Israel spoken of in the Law and Prophets, the Hebrew language uses the word “banah” sometimes translated “to build,” which can also be rendered at times “to rebuild” or “to restore.” Thus, Christ’s declaration to Peter in Mat. 16:18, and likely speaking Hebrew when He first uttered these words to Peter, could be translated “I will rebuild my assembly…I will rebuild my Church,” without stretching the underlying thought of the text at all.[6] And, in fact, this translation of the text has so much to commend for itself, particularly when we consider how at numerous times the Prophets spoke of the re-establishment and the rebuilding of the house of Israel which had fallen in disrepair.

Let’s go to one such statement by one of God’s prophets announcing this “rebuilding” program of spiritual Israel. The prophet Amos speaks of this rebuilding of the house of David, not so dissimilar to Isaiah 10:33-34 and 11:1ff. Amos 9:9-12 says:

For I will give the command, and I will shake the house of Israel among all the nations as grain is shaken in a sieve, and not a pebble will reach the ground. All the sinners among My people will die by the sword, all those who say, “Disaster will not overtake or meet us.” In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and BUILD IT as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear My name, declares the LORD, who will do these things.

Here, in Amos, the house of Israel is spoken of as disciplined and scattered among the nations on account of their sin. And, in the same context, God informs us that He will one day “restore” (and notice, “build”) David’s fallen tent, which is a reference to the house of Israel. God says He will “restore” and “build” it as in the days of old. But be careful on how you interpret “David’s house” that God says He is going to “restore“ and “build.” This is the dispensationalist’s, and all natural Jews, fatal mistake and death knell for them. This is where they both stumble over God’s words very badly here, as Christ said many would. It is not with natural Jews only according to the flesh that God is going to “build” David’s house with. They are not the ones that God is referring to here as “David’s” house. The ones that God is referring to here are all of His spiritual “children of promise” like Isaac and Jacob—a remnant (or His “pebbles”) out of natural Israel (and even eventually from the Gentiles as well) whom the Lord hand picks for Himself to be His peculiar people, spiritually speaking, and not based upon any natural genealogies at all. The nation of Israel is the only entity that the prophets mention that God would “restore” or “build” back up. There is no mention of any other structure in the Old Testament that God said He would “build” in the last days, and thus the reason for the dispensationalist’s bone of contention that the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament. But she is! The “Church,” or assembly of God’s called-out ones, is “the Israel of God” according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. And this mystery is that it would include a "remnant" from the Gentiles as well who are adopted as sons through Christ and thus become actual sons of David, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob and of all of God’s chosen people called “Israel.”

Now it is specifically with reference to this prophecy in Amos that James describes the “building” of the New Testament Church called "Israel," with the inclusion of the Gentiles as if they were native-born citizens with Israel, and in agreement with Ezekiel’s vision of these last days wherein he states in a parabolic manner: “You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance, declares the Sovereign LORD" (47:21-23). All of this agrees with Paul’s words in Ephesians 2 that were noted earlier. Paul got his teachings by revelation of this hidden “mystery” foretold through the prophets, and more particularly by Ezekiel above.

In citing Amos chapter 9 in Acts chapter 15, James in agreement with the prophets states:

Brethren, hearken unto me: Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, after these things[7] I will return, and I will BUILD again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; and I will BUILD again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old (Acts 15:13-18, ASV).

And get this: all of this was “known from of old”! What has been “known from of old”? What God was then and now doing with Israel born according to the Spirit along with the inclusion of the Gentiles as being part and parcel with this house of David (or with this one olive tree). No wonder Isaiah the prophet spoke of “descendents” as “surnaming” themselves with the name of “Israel” in chapter 44:5, as accurately translated for us in the King James Version. No natural Jew would have to do this, for they were already deemed “Israel” by natural birth. Only those who were to join Israel and become as “native-born” citizens of the Israel of God were to be the ones described here as ascribing to themselves the name of “Israel.” It is just one of the many “new names” that God is accustomed to giving to His people. Gentiles who are wild olive trees by nature are being grafted into the cultivated olive tree of Israel, with them no longer being referred to as Gentile foreigners anymore, but as “Israel.” Israel maintains her exclusivity and importance in God’s overall scheme of things; but it is only with Israel after the Spirit and not with Israel after the flesh. They are not all the Israel of God who are being spoken of here who are just of natural Israel. Gentiles, just like Isaac, are also called "children of promise" (Gal. 4:28). And who are "children of promise"? They are "Israel" according to the Spirit! Click here for part three.


Footnotes:

[1] Same Greek word as in verse 12 but now with “fellow” in front of it.

[2] In the Greek Septuagint of the OT, and in the Greek Apocrypha, the Greek ekklesia occurs nearly 100 times. And a careful examination fails to discover an incident in which it is used otherwise than to designate Israel in their religious association as the covenant people of God. And it is in this sense that it also passed over into the NT. The word is justifiably appropriated to designate an assembly with God, while in a secondary sense to people as related to an assembly or a gathering of some kind. And in one place in the NT, there is an exception to its normal usage of the Church in Acts 19:39 and 41 where it denotes the assembly of the freeman of the city. But in every other case it is applied either to Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38), at the temple (Heb. 2:12), or to believers in the NT who were called-out by God to gather together.

[3] To prove that the New Testament knows of only one kingdom (and not two) as denoted by two synonymous terms as “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven,” is to prove based upon the dispensationalist’s own arguments that the kingdom is now a present reality in the Christian community, and not in the future with natural Israel. Many Scriptures could be cited to prove that these two terms are synonymous, but one will suffice. In one sweeping breath and statement Christ uses both terms interchangeably: Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Mat.. 19:23-24). I rest my case. Many of the stories that Jesus tells in Matthew's gospel, with Matthew using "the kingdom of heaven," are in Mark's and Luke's gospels denoted as "the kingdom of God." Thus, they are used interchangeably to denote the one and selfsame kingdom. The words "of God" denote that it is God's kingdom; whereas, "of heaven" denotes that its origin is from heaven and not from earth.

[4] There is another way that “everlasting” is used in the Scriptures without necessarily referring to a future and eternal spiritual application at all. Sometimes the Lord actually uses the term with conditions attached. Dispensationalists often want to claim unconditional “everlasting” covenants and promises to all natural unbelieving Israelites according to the flesh, while ignoring all the other verses that claim: “Therefore, I will surely forget you and cast you out of My presence along with the city I gave to you and your fathers. I will bring upon you everlasting disgrace—everlasting shame that will not be forgotten” (Jer. 23:39–40). Or, Jer. 25:9, which says, “I will summon all the peoples of the north and My servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, declares the Lord, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin.” What all of this tells us is that we either take all of these words literally or conditionally based upon natural Israel’s faith, or a lack thereof, as outlined in the law and the prophets. This is how Solomon understood an “everlasting” promise from God to him and to his seed as always having a king ruling and reigning over his throne: “If you walk before Me in integrity of heart…I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever….But if you or your sons turn away from Me…then I will cut off Israel from the land” (1Kings 9:4–7). And it was because of their disobedience that God cursed Solomon’s natural descendant Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, “For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah,” (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, was to sit on David’s throne ruling from heaven over His heavenly kingdom. So Jesus circumvents the curse of Jeconiah by being born through Mary. Thus, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son to rule on David’s throne, and not of the biological curse. This is why there are two genealogies mentioned in Matthew and Luke: Luke’s was of Mary (the actual biological line according to prophecy), with Matthew’s of the legal line through Joseph; otherwise the curse of Jeconiah would stand. All this goes to show us that Jesus was not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but no less a biological descendant of David through Mary. Thus, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands fulfilled, and the conditional aspect of Solomon no longer having a literal flesh and blood son to sit upon his throne for lack of obedience, is maintained.

These same conditional promises are seen concerning Eli, the High Priest: “I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before Me forever. But now the Lord declares: ‘Far be it from Me!’” (1Sam. 2:30). Clearly, “everlasting” in everyone of these instances above does not mean “everlasting” regardless of any conditions being met. Dispensationalists can’t claim that the blessings for natural Israel according to the flesh are to be unconditional and everlasting when other verses counter that they won’t be if they are disobedient. And if anything “everlasting” is to be understood via Abraham, or even through David, as being unconditional, then it is only through Christ and all of His "children of promise" and not with those who are born only according to the flesh. Again, this is where the dispensationalist, and I might add, the Jews, stumble badly. It is the old classic “blind leading the blind” scenario. Only this time the roles are reversed: it is now blind Christians who are leading and coaxing blind Jews.

[5] See also John 7:38-39 and 1Cor. 12:13.

[6] The Greek word for “build,” oikodomeo, is on some rare occasions translated “rebuild” in the NASB in Mat. 26:61; 27:40 and Mk. 15:29; for Jesus had intimated that if they had destroyed the temple of His body that He would build it [again] in three days. If this isn’t a “rebuilding” of something that was to be torn down, I don’t know what is. In fact, Thayer’s Geek Lexicon even lists these verses above as being “contextually equivalent to restore by building, to rebuild, repair,” with Lke. 11:47 being also listed by him as another example (p. 440, italics his). In John 2:20, the Pharisees had told Jesus that it had taken 46 years “to build” the temple; and, clearly, this was a restoration and "rebuilding" of the former old temple still standing, not a completely new building at all. So, it is no stretch of the imagination to speak of something as being "built" as if it had not been formerly been built before. In Acts 15:16, James adds the prefix “ana” before “oikodomeso” which can mean either “up, above or again,” and can simply be translated “build up.” God is going to “build up” what had “fallen down” (which is the natural juxtaposition to the Greek “kata” for “down”), just like Herod is said to have built [up] the old temple which had fallen down in disrepair without using the prefix “ana” at all.

[7] As a side bar, the conditions surrounding Peter’s evangelistic efforts in verses 7-11 upon which James summarizes his speech—“how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name”—have been grossly misrepresented and recklessly abused and mishandled in the defense and interests of dispensationalists. It is one of their leading pillars in their defense that natural Israel will en-mass, in the future, be saved and delivered by Christ. In the words of F. F. Bruce, “If it is true, as the Scofield Reference Bible says (ad loc.), that ‘dispensationally, this is the most important passage in the N.T.’, it is strange that it should have come from the lips of James…. James meant that God had clearly shown His pleasure that the new community which was to display His glory in the world should be drawn from Gentiles as well as from Jews” (New Inter. Comm. on the NT, p. 309-310). But the argument of dispensationalists, in the words of one of their adherents, John MacArthur, reads like this: “After Israel is temporarily set aside, God will [first] gather Gentile believers for Himself, then (‘after these things’) He will restore and reclaim His ancient people Israel (figuratively, ‘the tabernacle of David’), and finally He will establish His glorious kingdom on earth” (MacArthur NT Comm., Romans 9-16, p. 129; words in brackets mine). In other words, natural Israel was “temporarily set aside” due to their unbelief and rejection of the Messiah (saying nothing of those Jews who did in fact receive Him), thus allowing Gentiles to "first" be gathered in, only to be followed again later in our future with a national belief and acceptance of Christ who will reign with them in His millennial kingdom on earth; from a fourth rebuilt temple, with a reinstated Levitical priesthood, with atoning bloody animal sacrifices, and with the literal observance again of circumcision, festivals, new moons and Sabbath days.

But the words, “after these things” in James statement do not mean that after all Gentiles first come in, then all natural Jews will come in later during a future seven-year tribulation who are of the house of David, as all dispensationalists erroneously contend. As one can readily see, in context, Amos says Gentiles come in upon the heels of God building up the house or tent of David, not before, and so we are not talking about a literal tent or building at all here either that God is going to “build” up. It is people or descendants of David that are to be given to him, like unto Abraham, in the person and work of Christ which is what all of this is about. It is “the sure mercies of David” that Isaiah talks about, wherein nations would be summoned through David (or through his descendants, the first Jewish followers of Christ) whom David “knew not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you” (55:3, 5); and where,“the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will freely pardon” (v. 7). And so James concludes, using Amos as just one of all the “prophets” who “agree” with this: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (v. 19). The Gentile believers were then and now turning to God upon Jewish believers having turned to God first—and who all continue to be turned unto God “now” as Paul in Rom. 11:30-31 agrees with using the adverb “now.” The apostle Paul has stated that the gospel was “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 2:10, et al). And Jesus said the very same thing to His disciples (cf. Mat. 10:5-6). So, the word “first” used by James does not mean first in order, for then this would contradict that the gospel went to the Jew “first” in order to save some of them first, such as Paul, the Apostles, and other Jewish converts. Therefore, “first” in this instance can only mean “at the beginning” in the early formation of the Church comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. As Lenski notes in his commentary, the verb “visited” (or “looked”) “has no personal object, and hence we translate, ‘first looked to it’” (p. 607). In other words, the Greek here denotes how that God in the beginning of the formation of His Church “first looked to it” to include Gentiles along with the Jews. It should also be noted here at this venture that Gentiles become joined with the spiritual house of Israel, and not Israel with the Gentiles; with Israel retaining her name and identity, while the Gentiles lose theirs and ascribe to themselves with the new name of “Israel,” as all citizens and children do who are joined to another nation or family. And with regards to the words, “after these things,” James is clearly just referring to what Amos had said prior to this statement of his in all of the previous verses, which describe all of the calamities that would befall the natural nation of Israel in their being scattered and driven away. But God promises to “not totally destroy the house of Jacob” (Amos 9:8); “in that day I will restore David’s fallen tent” (v. 11). In what “day” dare we again ask? In the days of the gospel of grace, peace and mercy—to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God.