Natural Israel Not My Glory (2 of 5)

.

Part Two: What God’s Word Affirms

In part two of Showers’ The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, he starts off by saying that the assertions of Covenant Theologians that the concept of "the Church" as being made up of all Old and New Testament Jews, and as well as Gentiles sometimes even in the Old Testament (and of course in the New Testament as well), that such an idea of a people of God from both the Old and New Testaments called "the Church" didn’t even actually begin to exist until Christ had actually stated, “I will build My church” (Mat. 16:18). And Showers bases this upon the fact that the verb “will build” is future in tense, not past tense. But it would stand to reason that Christ wouldn’t say “I have built My church,” but that He is still going to build it from thereon forward. Indeed, it is the very building that Abraham and all of the Old Testament saints through eyes of faith are said to have looked forward to (cf. Heb. 11:10). Even in Revelation and throughout the New Testament epistles, the Church, or these “called-out” ones made up of Old and New Testament saints, are said to be both the temple and the city of God now called New Jerusalem (or the building of God). In fact, the heavenly Jerusalem that Paul speaks about in Galatians chapter four with regards to her being the mother of us all, John says in in Rev. 21–22 that she, spiritually, has gates with the names of the twelve Jewish tribes on them, along with twelve foundation stones with the names of the twelve Jewish apostles on them. This building of Christ’s has been going on for a long time. Clearly, this can only mean that the Church is, spiritually speaking, Jewish inwardly in nature as Paul said in Rom. 2:29, and that she is made up of both Old and New Testament saints. And the reason that we know this is "the Church" universal is because the Lord tells John that she is “the wife, the bride of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:9–10). In this building or household of God, New Testament saints are joined with Old Testament saints such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and form the Israel of God not born after the flesh, but born after the Spirit. As such, all Gentiles as citizens who live and minister in this city and temple become as even naturally born Israelites who minister and live in this city and temple, and are thus likewise privileged to even take on the name “Israel.” In God’s sight there is absolutely no physical difference whatsoever between Jews and Gentiles. As such, Gentiles in Christ are no longer called “dogs,” whereas all those who are actually outside of this hand-picked group by God are indeed now called “dogs” (cf. Rev. 22:15), something that I mentioned earlier that both God and Paul called all unbelieving Jews in Isaiah 56:10-11 and in Philippians 3:2.

God (or Christ) has been building this building of His all along with all such "children of promise" who have been “called-out” in both the Old and New Testaments. And He will continue to do so until the door of this great ark of opportunity of salvation is closed. God has been building this building since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so until there is no more building to be done and the last stone has been set in place in this glorious building made without men’s hands.

In this second part of Showers’ five-part series, like the JW’s, Showers craftily attempts to convince the unstudied and unwary Christian that a distinction or a line of demarcation is drawn in the sand, that is to always separate and distinguish natural Israel and promises supposedly associated only with them, apart from the Church who receives only spiritual or heavenly promises. And he attempts to erect this dividing line or division based upon a few ideas that are common with all natural thinking and reasoning Jews. Some are novel with him, while others are what mainline dispensationalists and even messianic Jews have also always believed in, even in accordance with the words of dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer:

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity. [1]

It is upon this basis that Showers first of all states that this group of "called-out ones" (or “the Church”) only had its beginning when Christ first began to formulate this New Testament group of called-out ones.

Secondly, Showers states the Church is never referred to as a singular “nation,” whether in the Old or New Testament, but is always referred to as those who came out of “nations” (plural), never to become a nation (singular).

Thirdly, he asserts natural Israel is called God’s wife, whereas the Church is never referred to as God’s wife.

Fourthly, he says God still has a future seven-year tribulation for natural Israel, often erroneously referred to as Jacob’s trouble, where an Antichrist figure will set up a covenant with the Jews in a supposed third rebuilt temple, causing their sacrifices to cease after 3½ years based upon an erroneous interpretation of Dan. 9:27. Of course, all of this presupposes that there will be yet another rebuilt temple sanctioned by God no less, along with the reinstating of the animal sacrifices. And of course all of these individuals also believe that once this "third" temple is destroyed, that even a fourth literal temple with attending literal animal sacrifices, festivals and Sabbaths, etc., patterned after Ezekiel’s vision in his last eight chapters, will also be built by God and Christ no less with all natural Jews at the start of a future earthly millennium.

Fifthly, Showers and all dispensationalists say that Christ will rule on a throne on earth from this "fourth" rebuilt stone temple with natural Israel, as opposed to ruling from a throne in heaven with His Church. In fact, in part five of Showers’ series, he makes the remarkable claim that Christ isn’t even now seated on a throne in heaven at all, but just sitting next to the Father at His right hand. If this doesn’t disturb the thinking Christian, I don’t know what will. To say that Christ is seated next to the Father, but not on a throne, is ridiculous. What is He seated on? Is it just a meager stool or chair? I mean, really, it just goes to show you how far one will actually go, who dethrones Christ to make Him fit into their own theological framework. And, honestly, isn't that what all natural Jews have done. You've heard them for yourselves: “We have no king but Caesar!” (Jhn. 19:15). Showers is in good company. They may be his “friends,” and he theirs. But they are not Christ's, or ours. At least not until they say, “Blessed is the King, the Coming One, who comes in the name of the Lord” (Lk. 19:38, lit. trans.)

And sixth, Showers assumes that the restoration of all things will be with these natural Jews on the earth (and with future Gentiles who get saved and are literally circumcised in their flesh according to Ezk. 44:9), when the truth is that Christ is restoring things even now as we speak in and through His people in a kingdom that does not come with natural observation, with all of it to be finalized and completed at His Second Coming. All the Scriptures that dispensationalists use to prove a future for natural Israel in their small pittance of a land, have either already been fulfilled, or will be fulfilled on a more grander scale in the person and work of Christ and His New Testament church. As said earlier: The meek will inherit the earth (or land)! And Paul says that “the world” is now ours![2] And it is these issues that I will address point by point below.

With regards to the first point, Showers claims in his article that Acts 11:15 establishes “the beginning” of God’s building program with the Church by the fact that Peter says the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles as well as on the Apostles “at the beginning.” But this has nothing to do with the formation of God’s “children of promise” from both Jews and Gentiles called the Church (or “called-out ones”), but rather with Peter only referring to the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit which actually began to be “in” God’s people, as opposed to just being “with” them or “on” them as Christ had stated prior to Pentecost (cf. Jhn. 7:38-39; 14:16-17).

With regards to the second point, another way that Showers fails to prove that there is to be a stated difference by God between natural Israel and the Church is to claim that “in the Old Testament Israel was a nation” and that in the New Testament “the church is never called a nation, rather an assembly or gathering of believers from many nations,”[3] (plural). But both Jesus and Peter actually do refer to the Church as “a nation” in Mat. 21:43 and 1Pet. 2:9–10. And it was Jesus who said it was the Church (comprised of both Jews and Gentiles) that would be the ones to actually sit and feast with the nationhood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom; whereas, the Jews born only according to the flesh would be “cast out” from such a nationhood (Mat. 8:11–12; Lke. 13:28–29). Again, this is the very same thing Paul has said of the earthly Jerusalem along with her children in Gal. 4:30, with natural Israel also likened to the bondslave Hagar and her child which is to be “cast out,” not to be a part of the nationhood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And this spiritual nationhood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is now also inclusive of all Gentiles whom God also calls to be such children of Abraham by faith.

How does Showers get around these words of Peter? He says that Peter's words in 1Pet. 2:9-10 refer ONLY to Jews, and not to Gentiles at all. He writes:

Since Peter likely was writing to Jewish believers, he would have found it natural to use the Old Testament titles of Israel. Peter was not teaching that the church has appropriated the Old Testament titles of Israel; rather, he used words his Jewish audience would readily identify with. [4]

Again, can Showers really be serious here? You bet he is! All the titles that Peter describes here of “a chosen generation” (or “race”), “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” and “His own special people” (or “a people of God's own possession”) all have to do with that which is applicable only to Jews. And Showers does this in order to prove that Gentiles cannot be called names or titles that he believes strictly belong to natural Jews, especially when it comes to calling them “spiritual Jews,” or “spiritual Israel” and the like. Showers and all dispensationalists want to reserve all of these names and titles only for ethnic Jews, with the Gentiles being treated no more and no less than slaves who are exempt of such titles and honors. Is this what Christ and His apostles believed in? Not on your life! And what about the titles Peter's uses in verse 5 of “living stones,” “a spiritual house,” and “a holy priesthood” who offer up “spiritual sacrifices? Are these titles reserved only for ethnic Jews? I will let you be the judge. Anyone who believes what these men believe and teach, needs to have their heads examined. Seriously.

Additionally, while it may be granted that Peter was an apostle to the Jews, his epistles don't address them as such. He frequently uses terms that apply to both Jewish and Gentile believers, and rightly so. In 1Pet. 1:1, they are “God's elect, strangers in the world...who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God”; in 4:16, they are “Christians”; in 5:2, they are “God's (or Christ's) flock” of whom Christ is the “Chief Shepherd” (v. 4); in 5:13, Peter grants “Peace to all of you who are in Christ”; in 2Pet. 1:1, Peter's epistle is “to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours”; and in 1:10, they are “brothers” in Christ. Clearly, Peter's epistles are not written in a partisan manner just to Jewish believers, but to all who believe—“to all who are in Christ.”

No doubt, the passages in Exodus that Peter is referring to in chapter 2, he actually applies to the Church (or “Christians”) made up of both Jews and Gentiles, and not just to natural Israel, as Showers erroneously contends. For Peter qualifies all this by saying, “Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1Pet. 2:10). If Peter was referring strictly to natural Jews here (or "Jewish believers"[5] as Showers puts it in part four of his series) and not to Gentiles, then how does this explain Peter’s words, “Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God”? If all natural Jews are the people of God, as Showers and all dispensationalists claim they are, then how is it that Peter can say that ALL the people who make up this “holy nation” were never before the people of God? It is because anyone, whether natural Jews or Gentiles, were never God’s “children of promise” until separated by God by His Spirit and exercised a faith in Him to believe in Him, even as our father Abraham did. As such, Abraham is our father, not theirs! And as mentioned earlier, both Paul and Jesus affirmed this very same truth.

God through Jeremiah has similarly stated: “‘Go through her vineyards and ravage them, but do not destroy them completely. Strip off her branches, for these people do not belong to the Lord. The house of Israel and the house of Judah have been utterly unfaithful to me,’ declares the Lord” (5:10). And again, “Among My people are wicked men who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to catch men. Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek. Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it, they do not defend the rights of the poor. Should I not punish them for this? declares the Lord. Should I not avenge Myself on such a nation as this? A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and My people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?” (5:26–31). And again, “And though a tenth remains in the land, it [the land] will again be laid waste. But as the terebinth and oak leave stumps when they are cut down, so the holy seed will be the stump in the land” (Isa. 6:13). And even in our day it is declared: “The remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God. Though your people, O Israel, be like the sand by the sea, only a remnant will return. Destruction has been decreed, overwhelming and righteous." (Isa. 10:20–21). This last prophecy was used by Paul in Rom. 9:27 in his day to establish all who are God’s “children of promise” by faith alone in Christ alone that he just got through earlier talking about in verse 8. And just as God reserved for Himself 7,000 in Elijah’s day, “so also,” says Paul, “at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace” (Rom. 11:4, 5).

Among natural Israel in the past there were those who said they were Jews, but were not. Even Jesus said so in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9. Inwardly they were ravenous wolves. So too in the Church there are those who say they are Christians, and are not. They too are wolves all dressed up in sheep’s clothing. This was always true among the Israelites in the past, and it is no less true among the Church today. And that is why God could say through Jeremiah, “Among My people are wicked men.” Among His “remnant” chosen by grace there are wicked men who spoil the flock in order to carry away disciples after themselves. And sadly, many of God’s true people have been deceived by such false prophets and teachers and have come to “love it this way,” just as in Jeremiah's day. But my mission is to undo what these enemies of God’s flock have done and set God’s people free from the deceptive lies of these false prognosticators and teachers.

Like Ishmael of the past, these supposed brothers of ours mock and laugh at what is being depicted in this article before us as truth. And with that said, sincere believers in the truth have always been more mistreated and oppressed by religious brethren from within their own ranks, than by atheists and those from without. This was true as far back as Cain with Abel, the Jews with the prophets, and as well as false brethren masquerading as true brethren from within the Church. Even Paul had more trouble with the Judaizers of his own flesh and blood than he actually did with the Romans. As James Montgomery Boice succinctly notes, “Today the greatest enemies of the believing church are found among the members of the unbelieving church, the greatest opposition emanating from the pulpits and church hierarchies.”[6]

When Paul quoted Gen. 21:9–10 in Gal. 4:30 concerning Hagar and Ishmael being cast out, the Jews (and even Showers as you will soon see later in this article) generally understand this incident in Genesis as God’s rejection of the Gentiles from being heirs together with natural Israelites, but Paul turns it all around and applies this rejection to all natural unbelieving Jews, to the exclusion of all believers in God and in Christ who are God’s true “children of promise” like Isaac. Like Ishmael who persecuted Isaac, along with the Jewish opponents of Paul in his day, the Jews of today and even such supposed Christian brothers as Showers, are infuriated to no end that natural Jews could be likened to Ishmaelites who are only to be “cast out” and not among those who are to be blessed along with Isaac. But Paul’s point should be well taken, not harshly criticized (which possibly says something about those who do). God does not look on physical descent to qualify one as a child of God and of promise. The true sons of Abraham are those who are born by the power of the Spirit of God from above.

In Mat. 21:43, where Jesus says the kingdom of God would be taken away from natural Israel and given to another “nation” who will produce its fruit, Showers pulls another sleight-of-hand in part three of his series claiming,

Throughout the first part of His ministry on Earth, Jesus preached, "Repent, for the kingdom is at hand!" He offered the restored [natural] Kingdom of God to Israel if the people repented of their sins and accepted Him as their Savior and Lord.[7] 

No He didn’t! He offered what His Jewish apostles and believers who were His chosen "children of promise" in fact received; a kingdom that is not of this world and that does not come with observation. Nothing more, and nothing less! These first Jewish believers and Israelites indeed “repented of their sins and accepted Him as their Savior and Lord.” The rest were “cast out.” All Israel was never saved in the past and all Israel will never be saved in the future. Only a remnant, even as Christ’s first Jewish believers, will be saved by grace. This is the "all Israel" that God saves. The rest are left to themselves only to become more hardened (cf. Rom. 9:17ff; 11:7ff).

If what Showers has stated above doesn’t disturb the thinking Christian, just listen to these remarks by him:

Christ’s use of nation in Mat. 21:43 refers to the future generation of Jewish people who will accept Him and bear the fruit of the restored Kingdom [on earth]. Christ chose the word nation rather than generation because He knew the Jewish people [natural unbelieving Jews] would soon be scattered; and He wanted to note a future day when [natural] Israel would be a nation, accept Him as Messiah, and usher in the restored Kingdom of God [on earth]….Jesus emphasized that, because the Jewish generation alive during His First Coming refused His offer of the restored Kingdom [on earth], God would take the Kingdom [on earth] from them and give it to a future Jewish nation that will accept Him.[8]

To get around these words of Christ in Mat. 21:43 as referring to the nationhood of Christians, from both Jews and Gentiles, Showers is forced to press a meaning upon Jesus' words that is out of character with the Spirit of Christ. Showers says that since the Jews as a nation did not repent, Jesus is saying that they would be judged accordingly, but then He “concludes by promising a future day when a new generation of national Israel will repent and accept Him as Messiah.”[9]

Yep, you heard him for yourself. Because of Showers a priori theological biases, like the JWs and Mormons, he is forced to read into Jesus' words something that just isn't there. It is the “twisting” of the Scriptures that Paul warned us about, and the “cleverly invented stories” that “bring the way of Truth into disrepute” that Peter said to avoid (2Pet. 1:6; 2:2). All such individuals are “teachers who will exploit you with stories they have made up” (2Pet. 2:3).

Clearly, the “nation” that Jesus is describing isn’t a future restored natural Jewish nation on earth who believe in Him when they physically see Jesus and, whereas, “seeing is believing,” but it is all about Jews and Gentiles who make up this one holy nation formed in Christ who see Him through eyes of faith. One God, one Lord and one Shepherd, with one people, one flock and one nation! This is what all the prophets were talking about when Israel and Judah would one day become one stick or one flock with one Shepherd, along with the Gentiles no sooner joining them. God’s true people are not two separate and distinct peoples that form two separate and distinct groups. And surely not one natural nation of Israelites distinct from both Jews and Gentiles in Christ from a multitude of nations that form no unified nation at all. On the contrary, Gentile believers from all over the world come out of a multitude of nations to form one unified nation under God with all Jewish believers. Out of the two, Christ joins the two to form one new man and one nation in Him. With the spiritual Israel of God of old made up of all true Old Testament saints or believers, the Gentiles have become no longer foreigners and strangers to the covenants of promises, but fellow citizens with this one nation and household of faith.

Showers again continues along this same line of thinking above with such similar nonsense as:

At most, they [Peter, Christ, and the Scriptures] teach that the church shares the spiritual promises given to Abraham. This is inclusion of the church, not exclusion of [natural] Israel.”[10]

Do you see what he has just done here? He almost makes it sound like the Church is just a bunch of Gentiles to the exclusion of natural Jews or Israelites! On the contrary, the Church, made up of both natural Jews and Gentiles who are God’s chosen “children of promise,” are the only ones who do actually share in the spiritual promises by faith given to Abraham the father of faith—to the exclusion of all natural reasoning and unbelieving Jews who are of their father the Devil. God has never rejected His people out of both Jews and Gentiles whom He foreknew and has set His electing love upon in order to be saved. Israel according to the Spirit has never been excluded by God, only Israel strictly according the flesh is excluded. Again, unbelieving natural Jews and Gentiles are the seed of the Serpent as opposed to all of God’s true “children of promise” who are the seed of the woman.

And, by the way, the “inclusion of the church” isn’t only the inclusion of Gentiles, it is the assembly of all saints from both the Old and New Testaments that is also inclusive of both natural Jews and Gentiles. Again, natural Israelites are excluded only when such are determined by God not to be His “children of promise” like Ishmael and Esau, as opposed to Isaac, Jacob and all the rest of us.

Furthermore, Showers wants to make it sound like spiritual promises are given to Gentiles whereby natural promises are given only to natural Israelites. But the natural types were to only precede the spiritual antitypes to come with the natural giving way to that which is spiritual. Everything natural was a shadow of that which was ultimately to be seen as heavenly and spiritual. Nothing more and nothing less is to be garnered from all of this. And everything that God had promised “in the natural” to His “children of promise” among those who were natural Israelites in the past He has fulfilled with all such people, right down to ultimately making them one stick in Christ. All that was typical in the natural was to be superseded by that which is spiritual. That which is now wholly to be understood as spiritual is not to give place again to that which was natural and which, again, only in fact really pointed to that which was spiritual. And it isn’t that we are not blessed in this life, Jesus said we would be (cf. Mk. 10:30; Lke. 18:30). But for us it is more about the afterlife when all that we know of naturally in this life will all some day pass away.

Now the problem with Showers is that he (as well as with most of his dispensational friends) is Arminian in his theology and does not have a proper biblical perspective on unconditional election as outlined and taught in the Bible. Many dispensationalists believe God chooses to elect people after He sees them deciding for Christ, not before the fact as God clearly illustrates for us in His sovereign choice (or election) of Isaac and Jacob as His “children of promise” before either of them were born, or had any say so in the matter. Israel according only to the flesh is not, nor ever was, a part of this assemblage of God and of Christ that has been formed by God since the time of Adam and Eve, and even before creation! As John in chapter one of his gospel, and Paul in chapter nine of Romans say: it is not according to natural descent. It never was and never will be. But Showers and all dispensationalists say that God’s choice of Israel is according to “natural” ethnicity (or something foreseen in them), and that being a natural Jew is extremely vital and important to any of them being saved at all. When are such men as Showers going to get it? But you know, the natural Jews in Paul’s and Christ’s days just didn’t get it either. So it stands to reason that we will always have those who have crept into the Church, as before, and who will affirm the very same things as they did back then. It happened in the past, it is happening in the present, and it will continue to proliferate in the Church well on into the future. There will always be false brethren, false prophets and false teachers placed side by side with those in the Church by the father of all lies that are deceived and deceiving others. Satan, through men like Showers, wants to belittle the Church as the true people of God and place more of an importance and significance upon natural Jewish ethnicity than even what God has Himself tolerated to be placed upon them. They are not all Israel which are of Israel, but it is only “the children of promise who are counted for the seed” of Abraham (cf. Rom. 9:8b). Are you beginning to see this brethren? Oh, I hope that you do! All of us who have faith in Christ (not them) are God’s chosen seed of Israel’s race, the ransomed from the fall. Hail Him who saved you by His grace, and crown Him Lord of all!

With regards to the third point, another way that Showers attempts to erect a dividing wall or partition between natural Israel and the Church is by making the remarkable statement that, “Scripture calls Israel the wife of God (Isa. 54:5–6) but calls the church the Bride of Christ (Rev. 21:9; 22:17).[11] But if he had only read a little bit further in Rev. 21:9, instead of listening to just what others have said to him, he would have seen that this verse goes on to say that the Church is said to not only be the bride, but “the wife of the Lamb.” Natural Israel was only a wife to God in type, married to Him in a works-oriented covenantal relationship; whereas, the Church is the spiritual Israel and wife of God in Christ by grace alone through faith alone.

I suppose though that Showers would counter all this with the fact that Israel was called the wife “of God,” whereas the Church is called the wife “of Christ.” But, again, this would be the same logic that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use in trying to disprove Jesus is Jehovah or Jehovah is Jesus. But as we all very well know, whatever is said of God (Jehovah) is said of Christ, and vice-versa. In Acts it says God has ransomed us with His own blood. But I thought it was Christ’s blood that ransomed us? Clearly, to speak of one is to speak of the other; unless, of course, one denies that Christ is God incarnate. Showers house of cards that he has been attempting to build all along is showing clear signs of weakness and beginning to topple. And only a few more breaths (or words) from this article will eventually blow it all down.

On the fourth point, Showers says God still has a separate plan for the natural nation of Israel by the fact that Scripture claims there is to be a supposed future seven year tribulation in which an Antichrist figure from the revived Roman empire is suppose to make a seven year covenant with Israel, and then cause sacrifices and offerings to cease in the middle of this supposed covenant that he is to establish with them. And since it is an Antichrist figure who causes both “sacrifice and offerings to cease,” then this also naturally presupposes that a third temple must be rebuilt. These assumptions, taken from Dan. 9:26–27, is the only Old Testament prophecy that they use to base their fictitious notions upon. The New Testament verses that they normally use are in Mat. 24, 1Ths. 2 and Rev. 11. But Matthew 24 predicts not a future restoration for Israel, but only their desolation in 70 AD by the Romans, in accordance with the prophecy that Jesus was referring to in Dan. 9:26–27. Neither Daniel or Christ are talking about two desolations at two different times, one in 70 AD and another one in the future. They are both talking about one desolation that occurred in 70 AD. And Jesus’ analogy of a fig tree budding (or any tree for that matter according to Lke. 21:29) as a tell-tale sign of what was to come, wasn’t to be understood of the establishing of Israel as a nation, but were to be the tell-tale signs that would lead up to natural Israel's impending desolation as a nation in their not-so-distant future. This alone disproves what these so-called “brethren” are saying about the temple being rebuilt in the future as nothing more than false prophecy and false teaching. These words of Christ teach just the opposite of what they so adamantly claim! And as far as 2Ths. 2 and Rev. 11 goes, they do not depict (nor presume) that a future literal temple will be rebuilt; for both Paul and John have had in mind all along since the passing away of the types and shadows of Judaism, Christ and His Church, which is now God’s “temple” which is measured, protected and accounted for; and wherein the antichrist spirit attempts to take up his seat and desecrate God’s spiritual temple (or the Church),[12] with his false doctrines, practices and lies; blaspheming all that is called God, and even setting himself up as God in Christ’s temple as the sovereign determiner of his own destiny, as all Arminians sitting in the Church do today. Dispensationalists have even changed the law of God (or His Truth) to reflect on times and seasons that are supposedly appointed only for natural Jews in the future, as opposed to what God has appointed all along only for His Church that is comprised of all Old and New Testament saints, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.

And as far as a future seven-year tribulation during a supposed seven-year covenant made by an Antichrist with the Jews in a rebuilt temple is concerned, it is a wholesale fabrication and lie based entirely upon the misinterpretation, misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Daniels’ seventieth week in his Seventy Weeks prophecy. “He” that confirms or gives strength to a covenant for a period of seven years, causing both bloody and non-bloody sacrifices to cease 3½ years from its commencement, is the Messiah (or Christ), not an Antichrist; with the subject pronoun “he” in verse 27 having as its antecedent the more distant subject noun, “Messiah.” The “prince” in verse 26, although also the Messiah in context (cf. v. 25), is not a “subject” noun that is to be linked with the personal “subject” pronoun “he” who confirms a covenant in verse 27. The “people” of the Prince are the closest “subject” noun to “he,” with the “Prince” here (though a “noun” no less at that) being the object of preposition to the people, or an object noun, and not a subject noun at all. And the “people,” though the “subject” in that sentence, can’t be the “subject” antecedent noun to “he” because “people” is in the third person plural form. “He” is a first person, singular, masculine, subject pronoun that agrees with the more distant antecedent, singular, masculine subject noun “Messiah.” And the reason that I believe “he” in verse 27, is not linked with “prince” in verse 26, is to show that the Messiah as Prince who does the work of destroying the city and sanctuary with the people is to be differentiated from His work as the Messiah the High Priest who is “cut-off” and sacrifices Himself for His people. One idea or aspect of the Messiah’s work is to be linked with His work as Judge, the other with His work as The Suffering Servant. And so the latter portion of verse 26 is a parenthetical statement sandwiched in between all of this which stops to explain the Messiah’s work as Judge for being cut-off in the first part of verse 26, with the narrative continuing with His work as the atoning sacrifice that puts an end to Old Testament ceremonial sacrifices. And, of course, what follows in verse 27 as the result of this confirming of the covenant by Christ—once the Seventy Weeks are fulfilled—is a further explanation of the desolations that were decreed and only briefly described for us in the latter part of verse 26. God is no longer bound by covenant to “natural” Israel. That covenantal relationship was abolished in Christ who superseded that Old Covenant. As such, there are no more Tabernacle’s of Moses or Temple’s of Solomon to be built along with the reinstitution of all of those animal sacrifices. Those days are over with and of an era gone by. Literal land promises made to Abraham and all of his seed were fulfilled. But mind you, it was not to his natural seed alone that these promises were fulfilled to, but to all the “children of promise” who descended from him such as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, etc., and all the prophets. “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16, KJV). And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (v. 29). Could anything be anymore clearer? “It is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (Rom. 9:8). These are the true children and descendants of Abraham—bar none! And anything “everlasting” that was ever said to Israel in the past is only to be realized in all of God’s “children of promise” apart from all children born only according to the flesh. Time and space will not permit me to go into more detail than what has been stated above with regards to Dan. 9:26–27. But for further thoughts and analysis on all of this, I defer my readers to my book: The People of the Prince, the Coming One!

With regards to the fifth point, Showers all along claims that Christ will rule on a throne on earth with natural Israel as opposed to ruling from a throne in heaven with His Church. And as I said earlier, in part five of Showers’ thesis, he makes the remarkable claim that Christ isn’t even now seated on a throne in heaven at all, but just sitting next to the Father at His right hand. Here are his own words for you to read for yourself:

Jesus said [in Mat. 19:28] that He will sit on the throne of His glory, a throne that will bring Him honor. Nowhere does Scripture say He sits on a throne in heaven. Rather, it teaches that He is seated at the right hand of the Father’s throne. The throne of Christ’s glory is earthly. It will be located in Jerusalem where He will rule over Israel and the world. Jesus did not ascend to that throne at His First Coming. Thus, if He is to be faithful to His words, He must yet sit on His throne in Jerusalem.[13]

Notice that Christ’s throne is “earthly” and to be located literally “in Jerusalem” where He will rule over ethnic Israel and the unsaved Gentle world. Born-again saints are in heaven, suspended in the air in a supposed literal city called New Jerusalem made of literal gold and precious stones, where, in the words of dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer again, “never the twain…shall meet.” At least not at that time (for some believe they will after the millennium is over). Additionally, Showers states that Jesus never ascended to a throne in heaven. His throne is to be only on earth. And, if Christ is going to be faithful to His words (as Showers’ carnal thinking deduces), “He must yet sit on His throne in Jerusalem.”

As has been already noted, Christ himself stated that He is “not of this world” and that His kingdom is “not of this world” and that it does not come “with observation,” as the other kingdoms of this world do. Christ's kingdom is a kingdom that is not to be seen with the natural eye. One must be born-again even to “see” this kingdom (Jhn. 3:3). And this is also what Christ meant when He told the Jews, “You will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’” This is clearly articulated for us in Luke, when after Christ had said these words to them, He likewise said: “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace, but now it is hidden from your eyes” (Lke. 19:28–44; esp. v. 42). And, again, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you [His disciples], but not to them….Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand….But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear” (Mat. 13:11, 13, 16). Clearly, Christ had much more in mind in all of these verses than just seeing with the natural eye.

Additionally, with regards to Christ ruling and reigning as other worldly kings dwelling in the literal city of Jerusalem someday, we have already noted that Christ now dwells in His spiritual Jerusalem, the bride and wife of the Lamb―His Church! If, according to Paul in Galatians, natural Jerusalem (or Israel) has been forsaken and “cast out,” not to share in the inheritance with God’s true and holy saints and “children of promise,” what does that say for Christ someday ruling and reigning in the natural city of Jerusalem over natural Israel in the future? He didn't want to then, He doesn’t want to now, and He won’t in the future! End of story. It is a figment of one’s own carnal and vain (and even a natural Jew’s) imagination. This was true in Christ's day, as it is even now with dispensationalists and the Jews in our day.

In referring to Revelation 20, nothing is said about a reign by Christ here on earth―it is an inference, at best. But what it does say is that the “souls” of martyrs, and of those who did not worship the Beast, reign as judges more likely from heaven than from earth, being seated together with Christ as Judge in heavenly places. And understanding, according to Christ, that His kingdom, rule and reign is not of this earth, all this begins to make more sense that we are talking about departed souls and not about those who are physically ruling and reigning here upon the earth. There is mention later in Rev. 20: 7-9, at the end of this heavenly reign of Christ's, about Satan being released to impose harm and danger upon God's saints who are living here upon the earth, but this is to be understood no differently than what is going on even now, yet on a more grander scale as in the days of the early church under Rome's power. Additionally, Christ Himself said that if His kingdom was of this world that His servants would indeed fight for Him as all other earthly kings’ servants do for them (cf. Jhn. 18:36). Conversely, dispensational premillennialists, such as Showers, assert that Christ not only offered a natural kingdom to the Jews to begin with, and for which they rejected, but will indeed in the future establish that kingdom, that is of this world, and in which His servants will fight for Him in a future literal battle between His people and the literal armies of Gog and Magog. All this is utter nonsense. And it is even as David Brown of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentaries once again notes:

The moderns, for the most part, expect the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, and their supremacy over the nations of the earth; [and] while the early chiliasts [among the early church fathers] appear to have agreed with their opponents that Christianity had forever abolished Jewish peculiarities, though they were termed Judaizers, this was not, so far as I can observe, because they contended for any millennial supremacy of Jews over Gentiles, but because their system Judaized Christianity itself…. 

[These are] your curious and restless spirits who feed upon the future. These are charmed with the multifarious details of the millennial kingdom. They are in their very element when settling the order in which these events shall occur, separating the felicities of the kingdom into its terrestrial and celestial departments respectively, sorting the multitudinous particulars relating to the Ezekiel and Apocalyptic cities—and such like studies. For such minds, whose appetite for the marvelous is the predominant feature of their mental character, and who live in a sort of unreal world—for these, the confused and shadowy grandeur of a kingdom of glory upon earth, with all that relates to its introduction, its establishment, its administration, and its connection with the final and unchanging state, opens up a subject of surpassing interest and riveting delight—the very food which their particular temperament craves and feeds on. And, to mention no more, there are those who seem to have a constitutional tendency to materialize the objects of faith, and can hardly conceive of them save as more or less implicated with this terrestrial platform. Such minds, it is superfluous to observe, will have natural affinity with a system which brings glory to the resurrection-state into immediate and active communion with sublunary affairs, and represents the reign of those who neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven, as consisting in a mysterious rule over men in the flesh, who [do] eat and drink, buy and sell, plant and build, marry wives, and are given in marriage. To set about proving to persons of this cast of mind that premillennialism will not stand the test of Scripture, is like attempting to rob them of a jewel, or to pluck the sun out of the heavens. To such minds, any other view of the subject is perfectly bald and repulsive, while theirs is encircled with a glory that excelleth. To them it carries the force of intuitive perception; they feel—they know it to be true.[14]

In speaking of Revelation 20, John says he saw thrones and they which sat upon them. And everywhere in Revelation where a “throne” is mentioned, it is in heaven, not on earth. And John says they are occupied with those souls who die in the Lord after having been martyred for their faith and who had not worshiped the beast or his image evidently while still living here on earth. Clearly, these are the souls of all who have died in the Lord and who have gone on to be with the Lord in heaven, and which Scripture elsewhere attests to. For even Jesus has said, “to him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with Me on My throne, just I overcame and sat down [past tense] with My Father on His throne” (Rev. 3:21). And these are also all the ones that He had earlier encouraged to “be faithful even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown” (2:10).

An earthly throne of Christ is completely out of character with Christ and His kingdom. It is a carnal and earthly notion born not from above. And if it is to be on earth, how many thrones do you suppose will be all over the earth for all of these billions and trillions of people to sit upon? All of this borders on the absurd and is not to be taken literally. Like the JW’s, men such as Showers want to argue over words and trip-up the unsuspecting and unwary Christian over all the finer details of the trees, without really seeing the bigger picture of the forest and beyond.

Furthermore, this idea of Christ not now being seated on His throne next to the Father is just absolutely heretical to me. Again, are we reading the words from born-again Christians here, or from a bunch of people who are more akin to the Jehovah’s Witnesses? It just might as well be the Jehovah’s Witnesses who are saying all of these things. Both are just as blind to the truth. And with both there is just no end to the demeaning of Christ and what He purposed and came to do. There is more natural things to be understood and going on here with these people than anything spiritual at all. And they downplay the spiritual, giving more precedence and weight to that which is carnal and natural. This is simply nothing short of amazing to me!

With regards to Jesus now being seated upon a throne in heaven, and not later upon the earth, the Scriptures are overwhelmingly replete with such examples of Christ’s present rule and reign, with Rev. 3:21 cited above as just one glaring example. For instance, the Bible also says, now, not later, that Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords. For anyone to not to say this of Christ now is suspect of even being a Christian. And furthermore, a king without a kingdom and a throne is no king at all! Such a king is one only in theory, not in practice. In fact, he can’t even rightly be called “king” until he is ruling and reigning over a kingdom from a throne. And so for Jesus not to be seated now a throne, he would be a king only in theory, not in practice. And so with no kingdom or throne Christ is really no king.

But God’s Word on the matter begs to differ. In Luke 19:12–27, in the parable of The Ten Minas, Jesus clearly refers to himself as a King (or “a man of a noble birth,” as He refers it) who goes to a distant country (the land of Palestine in this case) to receive a kingdom (as someone has who reigns over others) and then to return from whence He came. He asks of those in this distant country (the natural Jews in this particular instance) to put to work what He was commissioning them to do until He returned at a later time. “But His subjects hated Him and sent a delegation after Him to say, ‘We will not have this Man to reign over us [i.e., be our king]’” (v. 14, WBT). Verse 15 goes on to say: “And it came to pass, that when He had returned [to heaven], having received the kingdom, then He commanded these servants to be called to Him, to whom He had given the money, that He might know how much every man had gained by trading.” Some (such as His Jewish Apostles) worked with what He had left with them to use, others (natural unbelieving Jews) did not. And it is these “others” to whom Christ says, “But those My enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before Me” (v. 27, WBT). And this is exactly what happened in 70 AD under the Romans, not so dissimilar to His judgments pronounced to them in Mat. 21:41 in the parable of The Tenants, in Mat. 22:7 in the parable of The Wedding Banquet, and later again in Lke. 19:43–44. And in Mat. 22:7, in the parable of The Wedding Banquet, Jesus says “the King was enraged. He sent His army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.” These were the Roman armies that destroyed those murderous Jews, burned up their city and desecrated and leveled their temple. Jesus as the King of all kings seated at the right hand of power was “seen” by these Jews no less as the Judge of all the earth in a way that they had not expected to see Him come. But have no doubt about it, He came alright just as He said He would come for them to “see” once He was seated upon His throne. And He must now rule and reign until He has put all enemies, including Satan, under His feet (cf. 1Cor. 15:25).

In the above parable in Luke, Christ receives a kingdom with the accolade from the people in His triumphal entry mentioned just a little bit later: “Blessed is the King, the Coming One in the name of the Lord” (Lke. 19:38, lit. trans.). It is important for us to notice here that the kingdom that Christ says He came to receive in Luke is clearly not to oversee an earthly kingdom as dispensationalists unwarily claim. For if it was, Christ would not be saying here that He received that for which He came to receive, but something other than what He came to receive, which, according to dispensationalists, was no kingdom at all; at least not in the sense that they understand Christ was to receive it. But, clearly, what Christ has received now as King is a kingdom that He himself had later told Pilate, “is not of this world” (Jhn. 19:36). “So you’re a king then, says Pilate” (v. 37a). Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a King. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world…” (v. 37b). Take note that Christ said He is a King in a kingdom that is “not of this world” and that it is “for this reason” He was born and it was “for this” that He came into the world to receive, which is exactly what Luke says in the parable of The Ten Minas above. No other carnal or worldly “reason,” as Christ most assuredly has stated to us, is justified. And such wisdom is justified only of her children and never of such natural reasoning and thinking men such as Showers or those scribes and Pharisees of Christ’s day who were only earthly, sensual and influenced by the doctrines of demons rather than by the words of Christ or of God. As I said before, such “friends of Israel” are truly no friends of Christ. They are anti-Christs.

Jesus as the second person of the triune Godhead was always a King with a kingdom, but in the New Testament and upon the cross He overthrows and dismantles the kingdom of darkness and of death, subduing the power and authority that Satan had over people’s lives, so that at His resurrection He could take those who were held captive all their lives in Sheol in Abraham’s bosom directly into heaven. Christ “led captivity captive,” so the Scriptures say, giving gifts unto men. Christ came that He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is the Devil, in order that He might free those who all their lives were in bondage in their flesh to sin and to death. Showers asks for a “dethroning of Satan over the earth”; I give you the C. O. C. or, the Cross of Christ, where He is now seated far above all principalities, powers, mights and dominions. The strong man (Satan) has been bound in order that Christ might spoil his goods, which is to release many people out of darkness and bring them into the light.

As I said before, Christ (or God; it makes no difference for they are both one and the same) has always been a King; not in theory, but in practice. To speak of one, is to speak of the other. And to argue that God is now seated on a throne but Christ isn’t, is in essence to put oneself in the same camp and class with the JW’s and the Jews who attempt to demean and belittle Christ's equality with the Father. They are all bent on doing everything in their power to discount that God and Christ are co-equals. And Showers, I’m afraid, stands guilty of this same persuasion, though for different reasons. And there is just no end as to what these individuals will say in order to put Christ more on par with the world and their kingdoms and idealism’s, rather than with God and His world, His idealism’s and His kingdom. But enough of this nonsense of theirs. Let us first of all see what the Old Testament has to say about this heavenly King through the words of the Psalmists.

Psalm 11:14 says, “The Lord is in His holy temple; the Lord is on His heavenly throne” (Psm. 11:4). And again, “You have sat on Your throne judging righteously….The Lord reigns forever; He has established His throne for judgment. He will judge the world in righteousness; He will govern the peoples with justice” (Psm. 9:4, 7, 8). From where is Christ or God doing all of this? From heaven, of course! And again, “I lift up my eyes to You, to You whose throne is in heaven” (Psm. 123:1). And again, “The Lord has established His throne in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all” (Psm. 103:19). From where and over who? His kingdom from His throne in heaven rules over all, both in heaven and in earth! This is the kingdom of God and of heaven that Christ spoke about with His throne in "heaven," not on earth! And again, “How awesome is the Lord Most High, the great King over all the earth…For God is the King of all the earth…God reigns over the nations; God is seated on His holy throne…the kings of the earth belong to God; He is greatly exalted” (Psm. 47:2, 8–9). The triune Godhead sat as King and Judge in heaven over all back then, sits as King and Judge in heaven over all now, and will continue to sit as King and Judge in heaven well into the future. The Triune Godhead has always been, and always will be, the one true King of kings and Lord of Lords over both heaven and earth. He is the One who was, who is, and who is to come.

Now one of the most dramatic and even shocking universalizations of the promises given to Abraham, and then through David of his restored kingdom through Christ, occurs in James’ interpretation of Amos 9:11ff at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:15–18. James declares that the in-gathering of the Gentiles to be no less than the rebuilding, restoration and expansion of the house (or “tabernacle”) and kingdom of David that God had promised to restore one day.[15] This restoration promised to David in Amos is to be understood as having as its foundation the original covenantal promise made to David in 2Sam. 7:10–16, wherein on his throne God would place one of his sons “to establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (v. 13). And it is to be with the spiritual seed, not the natural seed.

Of note on all of this is how the author of Hebrews himself takes up this prophecy in 2Samuel 7 and 1Chronicles 17 as ultimately being realized in the present enthronement, rule and reign of Christ when he states of these Old Testament verses with regards to Christ how that God would “be His Father, and He will be my Son” (1:15), and how that, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever” (v. 8). This is the “everlasting throne” promised to one of David’s sons that the author of Hebrews had just finished stating was what Christ has now sat down upon “at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (v. 3). And it is Peter who elaborates on this idea even further in Acts 2:28–36, when he speaks of David’s ascension to a throne on earth as opposed to a throne that was to be sat upon by Christ in the very heavens themselves: “For David did not ascend [to a throne] in heaven, and yet he said, ‘The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.’’ Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (vv. 34–36). This is significant for all of us to realize. God has made Jesus both Lord (or King) and Messiah.

And get this! Don’t miss this vital piece of information: In Rev. 3:7 Christ says He now (not later) holds “the key of David,” in order to bind and loose what He wants to bind and loose in His kingdom, the very same “key of David” to bind and loose that was given to one of David’s former natural descendants, Eliakim, who functioned as a palace administrator under Hezekiah’s rule and reign (cf. Isaiah 22:20–24). If Eliakim could have had so much power over David’s house, how much more so Christ who was a very successor to David’s throne? What was true of Eliakim with the authority and power of David, as represented by this “key” of power to be an administrator over David’s house, is no less true of Christ now in heaven who is actually seated on David’s throne which has been extended and placed in heaven over all principalities, powers, might and dominions. Not only over the earth, but over all the heavens as well! And it is in this very same chapter in Revelation that Christ affirms of all us who overcome while now living here on earth, even as He overcame while living here on earth: “I will give you the right to sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame [past tense; aorist active indicative] and sat down [past tense; aorist active indicative] with My Father on His throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (vv. 21–22). Are YOU “hearing” this? Christ is now sitting with the Father “on His throne.” But Shower’s and all dispensationalists say He isn’t. Have no doubt about it, Christ as the descendant and greater Son of David and even David’s Lord, is the King of all kings that sits on a throne “forever and ever” as was ultimately promised to David in 2Sam. 7 and 1Chron. 17; not only over the earth, but over the heavens and earth; with the earth said to be His “footstool” in Isaiah 66:1 and Mat. 5:35 and never His throne! And of such a kingdom as this, which is truly “not of this world,” there will be no end!

Not only does Peter say above that what David understood of Christ being seated on his throne was to be evidenced in His resurrection and being seated at the right hand of the Father, but Peter also says that this particular aspect of Christ’s kingdom rule and reign was to continue “until I make your enemies a footstool for Your feet” (Acts 2:35). This concept is repeated throughout the writings of Christ and the apostles in Mat. 22:43–45; 1Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22; and Heb. 1:13; 10:12–13. In fact, in 1Cor. 15:27, which reads, “He has put all things in subjection under His feet” (NAS), the word “subjection,” is the Greek verb upetaxen, which is an aorist active indicative. And this means (as the NAS bears this out above) that it is an actual reality having been inaugurated in the past by the subject of this verb, God Himself. The author of Hebrews goes on to say how we do not presently “see” everything in subjection to Him, but that we do see Jesus “crowned” right now with glory and honor (Heb. 1:9). Just because we don’t physically “see” things right now as we think they should be, this doesn’t mean that they aren’t, or won’t be. The end is inevitable at the end of Christ’s present, and not future, rule and reign over heaven and earth. Christ is now “crowned” a King with a kingdom, seated on a throne in heaven with the Father and on the Father's throne at that! Not just as some queen with her king, but as a co-regent and co-equal with the Father. And the Scriptures go on to say that we too are even now seated together with Christ (Eph. 2:6). This is why in Revelation 20 John saw thrones and they that sat on them. These are the “thrones” that “in Christ” we now sit on, but will one day be physically seated upon when we die and go home to be with the Lord. Remember what Christ said? “I will give you the right to sit with Me on My throne…”

Acts 5:31 likewise affirms of Christ’s present rule and reign: “God has exalted Him to His own right hand as PRINCE (Ruler) and Savior.” And Mark says that “after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was taken up into heaven and He sat at the right hand of God” (16:19). Col. 3:1 says that Christ is “seated at the right hand of God”. And Eph. 1:20 says, “He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms, 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.” Eph. 2:4 again likewise says, “God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.” And Heb. 8:1 says, “We do have such a High Priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and Who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.” So does one still think that Christ is going to come back to earth and build another “copy” of the “true tabernacle” and “sanctuary” that is in heaven from which He is now ruling and reigning, and then come back to rule and reign on a literal earthly made throne in a literal stone temple or sanctuary in the literal city of Jerusalem over natural Israelites born only according to the flesh? And in His glorified body at that? All that has been said above refutes such an idea. Christ is ruling and reigning from heaven on His throne in heaven with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, David and all of us, never to reign on earth with Israel according to the flesh. Such carnal, unbelieving “subjects” of God or Christ's kingdom (Mat. 8:12) are “killed” before Him (Mat. 21:40-41; 22:7; Mk. 12:9) and “cast out” from before His presence, “never to share in the inheritance with the freewoman’s son” (Gal. 4:30).

In Heb. 1:13, God likewise affirms of Christ: “…Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” Heb. 12:2 says, “Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross…and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Rev. 1:5 again says that He is “the Ruler of the kings of the earth” right now, not later! He rules over “the earth” now, and adds, “has made us to be a kingdom and priests before God” (v. 6). Rev. 4:2, 9–11 also adds: “At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it…..Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and worship Him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: ‘You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.’” No one, to my knowledge, doubts that this is referring to Christ, unless, of course, you are someone like Showers, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and all dispensationalists who cannot see the forest for all the trees and who stumble over Christ’s words and the meaning behind His words.

As noted above, Heb. 1:3–4 says that “He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” and “became as much more superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is superior to theirs,” God calling Him His “Son” (v. 5), His “firstborn” (v. 6), and saying, “Let all God’s angels worship Him” (v. 6). To this “Son” we noted before God as saying: “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions…” (vv. 8–9). He is not to sit or be seated below the heavens, the angels, or here on earth; He is to remain “above” them all! And He is not just seated theoretically, but literally “at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” So it is of extreme importance here to realize that the earth is His “footstool,” never to be His throne, as the Scriptures everywhere attest; and even “the clouds are the dust of His feet” (Nah. 1:3).

Heb. 6:19–20 continues upon this very same theme above, affirming that Christ “entered on our behalf” into the inner sanctuary in heaven behind the curtain, “exalted above the heavens” (7:26), as all kings rightly are “above” all of their subjects. In chapter 9:12 it also says, “He entered the Most Holy place.” And Heb. 10:12–13 repeats the fact mentioned earlier in chapter eight that “He sat down at the right hand of God” and “since that time He awaits for His enemies to be made His footstool.” This is Christ’s throne beloved. This is where He rules and reigns from, both now and forever more. Not in a Holy Place on earth in a literal stone temple “copy” made with men’s hands, but in the very real and enduring Holy of Holies in heaven itself is Christ now seated between the cherubim in heaven. Christ is not coming back to the earth to sit in a carnal, worldly “type” or mere “shadow” that He instituted to point to Him and to heaven. Perish such a thought.

Since from what time do the New Testament epistles say that Christ does await for His enemies (including Satan) to be made His footstool? “Since that time,” according to Heb. 10:13, when He began to sit down in heaven on His throne in the inner sanctuary and in the Most Holy place above made without men’s hands. This verse unequivocally states that He will be there until the last of His “enemies” (which includes, “death,” would it not?), will be made His footstool. That will conclude or be the end of this current administration of Christ’s reign. Upon His ascension to His throne, Christ our Melchizedekian High Priest “was sacrificed once to take away sins…and He will appear [once again] a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him” (Heb. 9:28). There is no third or fourth time, beloved, but only a “second” time—the blessed Second Coming! He came the first time, atoned for our sins, and sat down on David’s throne to rule and reign from heaven until He comes a “second” time to judge the earth and bring salvation. At His “second” coming the last of His enemies will be made His footstool, and all His saints will receive their resurrected and glorified bodies with all others being cast forth with their bodies into the eternal lake of fire.

With regards to the sixth point, Showers assumes that the restoration of all things will be with the re-gathering of all natural Jews on the earth someday. But such an ideology misses entirely the distinction the Bible makes between natural Israel and spiritual Israel; between the children of the bond woman and the children of the free woman; between the seed of the Serpent verses the seed of the woman; and between all natural descendants of Abraham verses all of his true “children of promise.” Viewed as such, there is no longer any future for natural Jews born only according to the flesh. Outside of faith in Christ, there never was nor ever will be. It has always been only for a small remnant saved by grace from out of both Jews and Gentiles. Literal temples with animal sacrifices are a thing of the past. They were terminated and superseded at the Cross of Christ. And preserving a natural gene pool in the past, in God’s sight, meant nothing to Him other than for the reason of manifesting His Lamb that would take away the sin of the world via Abraham’s natural bloodline; with even those of that preserved bloodline to be those whom God chose to be His “children of promise”―every single one of them! Not because they were necessarily physically Jews, but just for the fact that God chose to do it in this manner as originally promised to Abraham; and even as far back as with Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15. There is no longer any reason to preserve a natural posterity. And other than for the reasons just cited, Israel according to the flesh had no special privilege or place with God other than blessings for obeying the Mosaic covenant and curses for disobedience. For if they had had such a special privilege and place, Christ would have made sure to have saved all Israel at His first coming and throughout the ages, just like those who say that He will do for them before His Second Coming. But He didn’t do it then, and He won’t in the future. For not all Israel according the flesh is the Israel according to “promise.” Since virtually everyone interprets “the fullness of the Gentiles” in Rom. 11:25 as referring to the full number of elect Gentiles throughout history who are “children of promise” (see Gal. 4:28), is it not also likely that the “the fullness” of Israel in Rom. 11:12 refers to the full number of elect Jews throughout history who are also “children of promise”? I think the answer is self-evident. Any other interpretation of Romans 9-1l will not suffice. “At the present” (11:5) and “now” (11:30-31) there is a remnant according to the election of grace, not en-mass later, separate and distinct from the Church.

To be sure, Showers’ references to Christ’s supposed rule and reign of “regeneration” for natural Israel in the future in Mat. 19:28, and in what Peter refers to as the “restoration of all things” in Acts 3:18–21, is not inclusive of people who are not God’s "children of promise," whether they be Jew or Gentile. Peter made this poignantly clear in 1Pet. 2:9–10 that the chosen people, royal priesthood and holy nation of a people belonging to God are all those “who were not a people, but now are the people of God.” And this agrees with Paul’s, “they are not all Israel which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). Only a “new creation” in Christ made up of both the circumcised and the uncircumcised are this chosen seed of Israel’s race (cf. Gal. 6:15–17; I will address these verse later in part five).

In the New Testament, especially, the terms “Israel,” “twelve tribes,” “circumcision,” “temple,” “Jerusalem,” “Mt. Zion,” “the priesthood,” “sacrifices,” “stones,” “a stone,” “a chief cornerstone,” “pillars,” etc., all now take on a spiritual meaning and idea in the person and work of Christ. Earthy Jerusalem typified the heavenly Jerusalem; the earthly temple, the heavenly temple; the natural priesthood, a spiritual priesthood; and even natural Israel was typical of a spiritual Israel. And literal festivals, sacrifices, and Sabbaths as well, all take on a whole new meaning in Christ. They were all earthly, carnal, types, copies and representations of that which was heavenly—mere shadows of the spiritual realities found in Christ. This is what God told Moses when He gave him the blueprints for the Tabernacle in the wilderness; and the author of Hebrews substantiates all of this in every detail. So when Christ spoke in Mat. 19:28 of sitting on the throne of His glory with the twelve apostles also sitting on twelve thrones with Him judging the twelve tribes of Israel, He had in mind Israel not according the flesh, but Israel according to the Spirit, with the twelve tribes being situated on the north, south, east and west of the Tabernacle of Moses all figuratively portraying in a similitude all of God’s chosen people coming from the four corners of the earth—the Israel of God which is not all Israel according to the flesh (see also Mat. 8:11–12 and Lke. 13:28–29 for Christ referring also to this very same idea that He even spoke of through His prophet Isaiah in Isa. 43:5–9 and 49:11–12).

So for Showers to make the claim “that all Israel,” or all natural Jews in the future, “will be regenerated”[16] is just simply not true. It never was in the past and it surely won’t be in the future. And furthermore, “all Israel will be saved,” according to Paul in Rom. 11:26 was never to be construed of as every single Jew being saved in a future seven-year tribulation and on into a future earthly millennium. Such a notion borders on the absurd, and is not in-line with Paul’s overall teaching in Romans 9–11 that only those who are God’s elect remnant and “children of promise” (9:8) out of both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Gal. 4:28) are counted or reckoned for the seed of Abraham. God doesn’t have two peoples, one natural people comprised of all ethnic Jews, and one spiritual people comprised of all Jews and Gentiles in Christ. It can only be one or the other, not both; with the latter being wholly on the side of truth.

Again, what Christ has to say here in Mat. 19:28 has nothing whatsoever to do with Israel according to the flesh, let alone to all natural Jews being regenerated in the future as Showers claims. To be sure, the “regeneration” that Christ is talking about here is the same one mentioned only one more time in the New Testament that Paul talks about in Tit. 3:5 of, “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” as a confirming witness to the words of our Savior of the age of His children being born-again, or regenerated (Gk. palingghenesia; from palin, “again” and genesis, “birth”).

When Christ speaks of this period of people being born-again, He says it would be when He would be seated on the throne of His glory. This occurred upon His ascension to His throne after His resurrection that Peter describes of David also saying about Christ one day sitting on his throne, in heaven, immediately upon His resurrection and ascension to His throne in Acts 2:30–36. This is not some future sitting on a throne—let alone on earth—but is now, and in heaven. And although many commentators have considered this idea of the word “regeneration” here, they haven’t been able to make heads or tails of it one way or another due to the fact that they have not quite understood what to think about Christ saying that He would come in His kingdom with power and on the throne of His glory seated at the right hand of the Father. They have stumbled over this important interpretive key to the puzzle here, having placed this enthronement of Christ’s off into the future at the end of this age, rather than at the beginning of His present rule and reign with Him now indeed being seated at God’s right hand. And until one crosses over this hurdle, they will inevitably stumble over Christ’s words here and venture down a path that is not of His choosing.

In Mat. 16:28 (along with Mk. 9:1 and Lke. 9:27) and Mat. 26:64 (along with Mk. 14:62 and Lke. 22:69), Jesus told some of His disciples that they would not die before seeing Him come in His kingdom and power, and that the Sanhedrin from that time in which He spoke those words to them would “henceforth” (or, lit., from that time forward) see Him seated at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of heaven; a seating “at the right hand of God” that Mark later says occurred right after Christ’s parting words to His disciples (16:19). And many Scriptures have already been cited from the New Testament epistles that affirm this very same idea. What Christ is stating here in these verses speaks volumes of His current rule and reign. And the “sign” of Him being “in heaven” in Mat. 24:30 (not on earth mind you), was to be “seen” by His disciples and the Sanhedrin no less in His coming on the clouds[17] of the Roman armies with power to sack Jerusalem in 70 AD; in addition to giving His Holy Spirit of washing and "regeneration" along with the power to inaugurate His kingdom. Christ’s Second Coming, not predicted here in these verses, is to come later when the last enemy to be destroyed will be death at the resurrection of the just and the unjust at the last trump.

And as far as Showers claiming that those who believe in Covenant Theology don’t hold out a restoration of the entire heavens and earth some day in the future, just the opposite is true. Rom. 8:21–22 is often cited by those who believe in Covenant Theology for such a persuasion to the contrary, albeit not referring to Christ ruling from an earthly throne upon the earth in a future millennium, but realized at His Second and final Coming when He makes all things new. And the verses that Showers refers to in Isa. 2:2–4; 9:6–7; 11:2–5, 6–9; 33:24; 35:5–6; 55:13; Ezk. 34:25–29 and 47:1–12, in the greater contexts in which he extrapolates these verses from, have nothing whatsoever to do with a future reign of Christ as King on the earth, but with His present rule and reign as King now from heaven. Even Isaiah 65–66 has nothing to do with Christ reigning as King on the earth someday in the future, but only denotes with parabolic and figurative language of what is taking place right now in His kingdom. Such men as Showers are taking all of these things too literally, and are again stumbling over God’s and Christ’s words, which is to be expected of all those who have not had the eyes of their understanding enlightened. All such people are still dull of hearing and slow of learning, having eyes in which they do not see and ears in which they do not hear. And whereas they ought to by now be teachers, they have need that someone teach them again what these first principles or teachings of Christ—as laid out in the tabernacle of Moses and the temple of Solomon—are really all about. The fact that Christ said His kingdom is not a literal kingdom of this world whereby men would physically fight for Him, should lead us all to believe that we must, by the very nature of the case, look for another meaning when it comes to reading such verses above. Christ's apostles eventually did, we must as well. We must begin to “see” things as they began to see them; things that are of a spiritual and ethereal nature, not of a carnal and earthly one.

Click here for part three.



Footnotes:

[1] Lewis Sperry Chafer. Dispensationalism (Dallas Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.

[2] See 1Cor. 3:22.

[3] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 2. Nov./ Dec. issue 2011, Vol. 69, Number 6, p. 21.

[4] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 4. Mar./ Apr. issue 2012, Vol. 70, Number 2, p. 34, col. 3, par. 7. Italics mine.

[5] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 4. Mar./ Apr. issue 2012, Vol. 70, Number 2, p. 34, col. 3, par. 3ff.

[6] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), vol. 10, p. 485.

[7] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 3. Jan./Feb. issue 2012, vol. 70, #1. p. 28. Words in brackets mine.

[8] Ibid. Words in italics his, words in brackets mine.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 4. Mar./Apr. issue 2012, vol. 70, #2. p. 35. Words in brackets mine.

[11] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 2. Nov./Dec. issue 2011, vol. 69, #6. p. 21.

[12] With the temple of God now being understood by Paul as the Church, it stands to reason in understanding what Paul is describing here in Thessalonians as something similar to what happened with the old literal temple made of stone which was a type not only in its glorification, but in its desecration and desolation as well. Whether from within Israel’s own ranks, or from without, the temple of God was always in some manner or form being desecrated or defiled. So too, in the Church, there are those from within and without who attempt to set themselves up within her midst and desecrate or defile her in some manner or form. This can be either through false doctrine through the commandments and teachings of men, through unholy living, or by the world trying to influence and take over the Church and make her conform to their image and likeness, rather than after God’s. This occurs because Paul says they “love not the truth” in order to be saved and delivered. And they also love to have their ears tickled with false and fanciful theories about the future. As a result, God sends them a strong and powerful delusion so that they would rather believe a lie than to believe in the truth. This has been going on since the formation of God’s spiritual temple through Christ and His apostles, right up until this present time with the leaven of Judaism and of false brethren within our midst; with unholy living being acceptable as the norm; and with the Church becoming a political and social entity that is being fashioned after the likeness of the other kingdoms of this world. In the end, all such people will be condemned who have not believed in the truth, but have delighted in all such wickedness. They prefer lies over truth; they revel in being recognized more as sinners rather than as saints; and they take pride and glory in buildings made of stone and in exerting their influence over others as the Gentiles of this world also love to do. As such, their god is their own bellies. They are more like the world rather than like Christ. And these people “love” it this way!

[13] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 5. May/June. issue 2012, vol. 70, #3. p. 34. Words in brackets mine. This is the verse Showers had just referred to in reference to his statement here being cited.

[14] David Brown. Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial? (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1856), Intro., pp. 7, 9, 10.

[15] Amos’ prophecy of David’s tent being repaired and rebuilt with its borders being enlarged in order “that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear My name” (9:12), was to also include the rest of those things declared in his prophecy of,

when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills. I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them, says the Lord your God (vv. 13–15).

What is being depicted here of reapers overtaking plowman and those treading grapes before they are even planted goes beyond anything that is to be understood naturally here. As I stated earlier, God states things in such a way in order to let us know that He is not talking about literal plowman plowing and literal harvesters harvesting, but of a time when those of us would say not that there are four months until the harvest, but that the fields are already ripe for harvesting even now (cp. Jhn. 4:35). And the “new wine” is not literal wine as many have mistakenly supposed, but is the “new wine” of the Holy Spirit that is placed into the “new wine skins” that Jesus described to us. And, also, who is not to say that even the “ruined cities,” “vineyards,” and “gardens” are those whom the apostles and others have rebuilt and planted and who as their plowman “drink their wine” and “eat their fruit” even as the ox that treads out the corn?

But even if the rest of these verses in Amos were to be understood in a literal manner, they can only be understood as being realized under our New Covenant with Christ in which this tabernacle of David is now being said to be restored and going beyond Israel’s borders to possess even the remnant of Edom (or the Gentiles).

Interestingly, Isaiah depicts some of these exact same ideas that Amos talks about above with similar expressions and wording found in chapter 61; and which began to be fulfilled in the days when Christ stood up in the synagogue and announced that He would preach the good news to all those who were poor in spirit; binding up the brokenhearted; proclaiming freedom for the captives; and release from darkness for the prisoners. All such converts Isaiah says would be called, “oaks of righteousness, a planting of the Lord for the display of His splendor” (v. 3). And it is of these converts in our days that he continues to write about and say:

They will rebuild the ancient ruins and restore the places long devastated; they will renew the ruined cities that have been devastated for generations. Aliens [Gentile converts] will shepherd your flocks; foreigners [again, Gentile believers] will work your fields and vineyards. And you will be called priests of the Lord, you will be named ministers of our God. You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast. Instead of their shame My people will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace they will rejoice in their inheritance; and so they will inherit a double portion in their land, and everlasting joy will be theirs….For as the soil makes the sprout come up and a garden causes seeds to grow, so the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness and praise spring up [like plants] before all nations. (vv. 4–7, 11; bracketed words mine).

This is where dispensationalists would accuse us who believe in Covenant Theology of spiritualizing all those texts that seem to be so obviously understood by the untrained eye as that which is to be interpreted literally. But the rebuilding of David’s tabernacle that also seems to be “so obviously” as understood “literally,” according to the inspiration of James, is not. And it is only because of this that we would even attempt to interpret the remainder of Amos’ prophecy as also that which is not to be understood literally, but were literal words used by God to describe something that is to be only spiritually discerned. And there are many more such occurrences in the all of the prophet’s writings that would lead us also to interpret things in this manner, or at least to begin to point us in that direction.

Jesus’ own interpretation and application of Malachi’s prophecy of the coming of Elijah before the coming of the day of the Lord as being John the Baptist is just one glaring example of this. And in knowing that there would be those who would have a very difficult time in believing or receiving that, Christ said, “If you can receive it, he is the Elijah who was to come” (Mat. 11:14; 17:12). John was the one whom his father Zechariah had received a word of the Lord from the angel saying that he would come “in the Spirit and power of Elijah” (Lke. 1:17). And yet even for all this, there are still the carnal thinking and reasoning literalists today who believe that this prophecy must still be literally interpreted and fulfilled in the physical return of Elijah the prophet some time later in our future.

Dispensationalist are very troubled by the words of Amos being quoted by James as applying to the ingathering of the Gentiles with believing Israelites as the rebuilding of David‘s tabernacle or house. It just doesn’t quite fit so well into their “literal” hermeneutic. So they attempt to side-step or skirt the truth that James is proclaiming in Acts 15, in a vain attempt to put off this rebuilding of David’s tabernacle in the future with the natural Jews in Palestine in a future rebuilt temple and in a kingdom that is upon the earth. For they claim that when James says, “after this I will return and rebuild,” that he meant some time long after his day and some time later in our future. But this is not what James meant at all. He is quoting the words of Amos as Amos spoke them back in his day and from that time going forward. The prophet Amos, in chapter 9:8-10, had just described the calamities which would come upon the nation of the Jews by their being scattered and driven away. But after that (Heb: “on that day,” v. 11, that is, the day when God should revisit them and recover them) He would, as also in the words of Isaiah 11:1, restore them through a Branch from the root of Jesse that had been felled like a great tree. James understood this as referring to the times of the Messiah, and to the introduction of the gospel to the Gentiles to make them citizens and fellow-heirs with believing Israel. And so the passage of Amos 9:12 is rendered to read in the Septuagint: “that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called, may earnestly seek Me, saith the Lord who does all these things.”

It is natural to presume that men who do not have the eyes to see, or the ears to hear, that they would be inclined to believe as they do without God’s Spirit illuminating them. It was no different in Christ’s day, and it is no different today. “Shall we pluck out these tares,” we might ask! “No,” says Christ, “leave them alone until the end.” Every man shall give an account for what he has said and done.

[16] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 2. Nov./Dec. issue 2011, vol. 69, #6. p. 22.

[17] Often “clouds” in the Old Testament prophets is a descriptive or figurative term used by the Lord to depict the clouds of devastating armies He would use to mete out His judgments upon other nations. The prophets speak of the Lord riding on these “clouds” to bring swift destruction upon an unruly nation. For example, in Isaiah 19:1, the prophet says the Lord will ride on a swift cloud and come to Egypt. Here God refers to His imminent judgment upon Egypt as Judge and King (or as, “the Lord”) and describes it in terms of coming on a “cloud.” Clouds are often referred to in the Scriptures as either that which bestows a blessing, or that which bestows devastation and destruction, as storm clouds often bring. Here God is likening His judgment to a storm cloud that brings with it devastation (see also Jer. 11:16; 23:19; 25:32; 30:23 and Isa. 30:30).

Again, Ezekiel writes concerning Egypt and her surrounding allies:

Wail and say, “Alas for that day!” For the day is near, the day of the Lord is near—a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations. A sword will come against Egypt, and anguish will come upon Cush. When the slain fall in Egypt, her wealth will be carried away and her foundations torn down. Cush and Put, Lydia and all Arabia, Libya and the people of the covenant land will fall by the sword along with Egypt….Thebes will be taken by storm….Dark will be the day at Tahpanhes when I break the yoke of Egypt….She will be covered with clouds (30:1–5).

Here we see such judgment depicted by stormy, gloomy “clouds…of doom,” and referred to also as “the day of the Lord”; common wording used throughout Scripture depicting God’s wrath being meted throughout history upon ungodly people. And it was to be meted out by “the sword” of the invading army of the Babylonians (vv. 4, 10–12), one of God’s four sore judgments as described in Ezk. 14:21.

And also notice the wording “she will be covered with clouds.” Not too soon afterward do we read also in Ezekiel where God says He will bring Gog and his armies against Israel “advancing like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land….You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land” (38:9, 16).

The “clouds” referred to earlier that God said Egypt would be “covered” in, were the hordes of the armies of king Nebuchadnezzar that were to sweep over the land of Egypt, just like here in Ezekiel 38, where they are described as the armies of Gog. Literal, white, puffy clouds are not what the Lord is referring to here. He is using the imagery of “storm” clouds as figurative language to describe judgments that were about to come upon these nations via other nations.

Once again the Word of the Lord states: “Look! He advances like clouds, His chariots come like a whirlwind” (Jer. 4:13). Here in this context God is referring to the Babylonians (“from the north,” v. 6) that He was going to use “to advance like clouds” and judge Israel with. In Isaiah 19, as noted above, this judgment of the Lord is also said to be advancing and “coming on a cloud” via the Babylonians against Egypt.

Other places where similar imagery is used is: Isa. 5:30; 14:31; 28:2; 29:6; 30:30; Jer. 25:32; Psm. 83:15. In none of these verses are we to get the impression that God, or anyone else, is to literally come on clouds, winds, or stormy tempests. Clearly, the Lord is using such imagery to express certain ideas and concepts about Himself to others. In Gen. 11:5, God said “He came down to see the city,” or in Ex. 3:8, “I am come down to deliver thee.” But in none of these places are we to understand that the Lord “visibly” came down, but He did “come down” nevertheless.

Natural Israel Not My Glory (3 of 5)

.

Part Three: What God’s Word Maintains

A lot of part three in this section of Showers’ thesis is a repeat of what has already been stated above, so I won’t belabor those topics anymore. And a lot of what he says isn’t even worth arguing over at all. Like the JW’s, Showers just loves to keep taking us down many little insignificant tributaries and paths that are of no benefit or value to the hearers.

He continues his argument that Replacement Theology insists God has “replaced or superseded ethnic Israel with the church.”[1] But as already stated, God’s plan has never been about an “ethnic” race of people, but a race of people and one “holy nation” (1Pet. 2:9) who all have faith in Christ irrespective of one’s ethnicity. This is what all dispensationalists such as Showers for the likes of themselves just cannot perceive. Israel, according to the flesh, was a vehicle that God used to manifest His Christ, nothing more and nothing less. And any benefit they may have had in God sovereignly electing and choosing some of them from among them was only secondary to Christ being a blood-line descendant through David back to Abraham; and even as far back as Adam and Eve through Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methusalah, Lamech and Noah, etc.

Showers also argues that,

Replacement Theology teaches there is no future for national Israel: God has thoroughly rejected Israel and no longer has a place for it in His plan for eternity apart from the salvation of individual Jewish people.[2]

It is amazing to me how that dispensationalists like Showers can possibly believe that God could have any other plan for natural Jews separate and distinct “from the salvation of individual Jewish people”! The salvation of individuals or an elect remnant out of the Jewish nation has been God’s plan all along! Again, all this is according to the biblical doctrine of election in which such men as Showers just do not seem to get or understand (not so dissimilar to all unsaved Jews, Mormons and JW’s. And like I said, until one crosses over this hurdle, they will always inevitably be talking like this about all natural Jews apart from God’s election and salvation of individual Jewish (or Gentile) people. The natural Jews in Christ’s and His apostles’ days stumbled over this truth, just as they do to this day. And all unsuspecting Christians are following after the same Jewish myths and fables—hook, line and sinker. Like I said before, it is Judaism being revisited in the Church all over again. Only now coming more from within the Church rather than from without, as even Paul declared, “Even some men from your own group will rise up and distort the truth” (Acts 20:30, NLT). As if it isn’t bad enough that natural thinking and reasoning Jews would believe in such things and even infiltrate the Church back in the days of the apostles, we now have those from among our very own selves who are following after the same dissipation. The doctrines and traditions of Judaism have not left us. They have just entered the Church through another medium―from those among our own selves! And, honestly, it makes one wonder if they are even brethren at all! As I have said all along: they are folks of a different stroke. They are birds of a different feather that don't fly together with us. They may look like a duck, but they truly don't quack like a duck.

Showers and all dispensationalists seem to forget, due to their seemingly very short retention spans, that Paul addressed all of these very same issues for us in Romans 9:6ff and 11:1ff, by stating: “It is not as though God’s word has failed” concerning Israel, or: “Did God reject His people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people whom He foreknew.” This word “foreknew” is very important to Paul’s thesis in understanding if there is to be any place in God’s singular plan of a people of faith that would be inclusive of any naturally born Jews. In Romans 9, Paul first of all says that being a “child of promise” is not contingent on natural descent. But unless anyone should think that God has abandoned His promises to Israel, Paul notes how that God chose Isaac, Jacob and even himself; and how that even in the Old Testament times God had reserved for Himself a remnant of 7,000 in Elijah’s day from out of natural Israel. This is the way that it has always been, and always will be, right up until Christ comes for all of us the second time. It is for these, and these alone, that God is concerned with. The rest are left to themselves only to become hardened (cp. Rom. 11:7). All such “children of promise” God has foreknown (or even foreloved) and elected to be saved, He has predetermined before the foundation of the world to call, justify and glorify (Rom. 8:29–30). All of these Greek verbs: “predestined,” “called,” “justified” and “glorified” are all aorist passive indicatives, meaning, that God in the past decided to do this irrespective of us (thus, the reason for the “passive” voice). Thus it is easily to be deduced according to Paul’s words that God has not rejected any of “these” whom He foreknew in love to redeem by the blood of His Lamb, and that the Bible also says were chosen in Christ before the very foundation of the world (Mat. 25:34; Eph. 1:5–14; Rev. 13:8; 17:8). This is all about those “in Christ,” not those outside of Christ who are separate and distinct from the Church here on earth. It is not a “heavenly” people verses an “earthly” people. It is one “holy nation” under God from both Jews and Gentiles—bar none!

Another one of the small and insignificant tributaries that Showers wants to take us all down is the idea that,

Replacement Theology also conveniently manages to uncouple God’s covenant promises from His covenantal curses. The church inherits all of the promises to Israel, but the Jewish people (ethnic Israel) keep all of the covenantal curses.[3]

Additionally, Showers again entirely misses the point. “The church,” comprised of ethnic Jews and Gentiles who are God's “children of promise,” does indeed inherit all the promises to Israel; but to spiritual Israel, mind you, not natural Israel. In both the Old and New Testaments the promises are guaranteed to all the faithful in the land. And what was promised naturally in the past has been fulfilled, only to be realized now on a spiritual and heavenly level both now and in the future. And any promises that Showers and all dispensationalists interpret “literally” to still be fulfilled in the future are to be interpreted spiritually now that Christ has come. Everything in Christ supersedes the natural for the spiritual, as I have already articulated with many verses that dispensationalists use to say that many things must still “literally” occur only with ethnic Israel, thus creating two groups of people and not just one. That in itself should tell you something about what these so-called brethren are teaching. Indeed, as Paul has stated, Israel according to the flesh is in fact “cursed” and only to be “cast out” as Hagar and Ishmael. Only those like Isaac, who are “children of promise” are blessed with Isaac, Jacob and all of God's holy prophets and saints. All others are hardened. They are children of wrath. They are a brood of vipers. They are the “subjects” of the kingdom that Christ also said are to be “cast out” into “outer darkness” where there shall be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Indeed, they are “cursed children” whose god is their belly and Satan is their father.

Like I said, just as the unbelieving Jews in Christ's day, Showers and all dispensationalists just do not get it. They are looking at everything through natural eyeglasses, rather than through spiritual eyeglasses.

In contradistinction to what I and all covenant theologians are saying, it is dispensationalists like Showers who in fact want to claim “everlasting” covenants and promises to all natural Israelites according to the flesh, and yet ignore all the 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.” Whatever the word “everlasting” means here, must mean the same elsewhere. And we either take these words literally, or conditionally based upon natural Israel’s disobedience or obedience as outlined in the Law of Moses. This is how Solomon understood an everlasting promise from God to him and to his seed as always having a king ruling and reigning upon 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). The same was said 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 contexts doesn’t 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 through Abraham, or even through David, as being unconditional, it is only through Christ and for all of His “children of promise,” not with those born only according to the flesh.

Honestly, it is the dispensationalists who want only “blessings” for all natural Jews according to the flesh without any conditions attached whatsoever―not curses! Natural Israel cannot expect to enter the land in unbelief and expect to be blessed. And when they tried to go in and take the promised land in unbelief, they were met with harsh opposition, and even death, and all by the hand of God at that (cf. Num. 14:40-45). And this will no doubt continue to be their demise in the future. The more they fight, the more they will be met with harsh opposition and resistance. And if history is any teacher, they will be met with a holocaust in the future of an unprecedented nature unlike anything they experienced in World War II. As with any other nation, unbelieving Israel’s sins will catch up with them sooner or later and they will all be overthrown as everyone else. As with all nations that are formed or continue in unbelief, a curse will only hang over their lives unless they all turn in faith to Christ. The United States of America is no different. We have seen this repeated throughout history with nations throughout the world over and over again. Natural Israel today forming as a nation is to be considered no differently than any other people throughout the world that God has allowed to form as a nation. In fact, if the truth were really known, natural Israel today isn’t even anything like natural Israel of the past. And even the 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica states with regards to the Jews as being a pure race any longer: “The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to popular view, there is no Jewish race.”[4] And just listen to what the present-day Jews have to say in their own encyclopedia:

It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities….Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction of terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all—a not uncommon phenomenon.[5]

Who are these people today that “readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race” and are “overlooked” with the “stereotype for some” being “extended to all”? Why, by none other than those who are in the Church. Note that not even the Jews themselves recognize themselves as a pure race of people. And there are no genealogical records anymore to prove such a thing. And we of all people in the Church should know better and recognize and acknowledge this. But a majority in the Church don't! And it is only because of a misinterpretation and misapplication of many Scriptures in the Bible that many in the Church hold out to the Israel of today that which should not be held out to them. Which is the idea that they are to be a theocratic nation under God again made up of only natural Jews, separate and distinct from the Church. All this is blasphemous and absolutely heretical. And anyone in the Church who does not see this for what it really is, is no more blind than every natural Jew who believes and upholds the very same things. It is simply amazing to me that we have those in the Church today who believe and teach what they are teaching with regards to ethnic Jews.

The Encyclopedia Americana likewise adds with regards to what has been stated above:

Some theorists [such as Showers, I imagine] have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis. In every country in which the Jews lived for a considerable time, their physical traits came to approximated those of the indigenous people. Hence the Jews belong to several distinct racial types, ranging, for example, from fair to dark. Among the reasons for this phenomenon are voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism.[6]

Mind you, it's not the Jews who consider themselves “a distinct race,” but all “theorists” such as dispensationalists and those who don't know any better.

And, finally, Collier’s Encyclopedia also writes:

A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a “race.” This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition.[7]

The Jews today are like Catholics or Protestants: they can be of any race or color. And in Israel they have a law which defines what their government says is a Jew. Funk and Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia records this for us, by stating: “In 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or convert.”[8] It matters no longer who the father is, nor to what race the child belongs. And a convert can be someone from any race. Clearly, Israel as a race no longer exists. The Israel of the flesh today is not the Israel of the flesh of yesteryears gone by. Over 90% of them are said to be either Ashkenazim or Sephardim Jews. The former being from the bloodline of the Khazars in the southwest regions of the Soviet Union next to the Caspian Sea, and that converted to the Jewish religion around the 10th century and who formed the beginnings of what is today known as the Zionist movement that began to reoccupy Palestine, the latter (the Sephardim Jews) are a mixture from the regions of Spain.

In 1991, it is well documented that the government of Israel air-lifted 14,087 so-called natural “Jews” from Ethiopia. Months before, 15,000 or so had also been brought to Palestine. These were all a black-skinned people who called themselves Beta Israel or House of Israel “whose ancestors had intermarried with the natives, as the black skin of the modern Falashes indicated.”[9] They are like the Jews of North Africa, the Jews of Yemen, the Jews of Persia, the Jews of India, the Jews of China, and the Jews of the Pacific Lands, of Japan, of the Phillipines, of the Dutch East Indies, New Zealand, Latin America and the like. At least the Jews in Christ’s day who said they were natural Jews were indeed pureblood authentic natural Jews. But even of these Christ said, “I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9). And John the Baptist likewise said, “Do not say to yourselves we have Abraham as our father.” And as I said before, Christ even said their father was the Devil (Jhn. 8:44). I didn't say it, Christ did! There is no “private interpretation” here. There is no such thing as “replacement theology” here. It is the dispensationalists who have “replaced” a true theology for a false theology; a doctrine of demons for the true doctrine of God.

So, for all dispensationalists such as Thomas Ice who says, “the fact that ethnic Israel has been reestablished as a nation and now controls Jerusalem is a strong indicator that we are near the end of the church age,”[10] who is he kidding? If by “ethnic” Israel he means the present-day racial Israel made up of a mixed breed from all over the world, then in no way, shape, manner or form can it be said that “ethnic” Israel has been reestablished as a nation. Just the opposite is known to be historically to be the case.

It has been overwhelming asserted by those cited above and who have studied Jewish anthropology that there is no Jewish race today. And if the Israel of today is of no pure-blood natural descent then their being a “sign” of the end of the Church age is an error in judgment and in doctrine that must be discounted as just not true. And let it be also noted that, “the most remarkable fact of all is [this], that those who held the premillennial theory in the second and third centuries, seem not to have believed in any literal, territorial restoration of the Jews at all,—much less in their [the Jews] millennial supremacy over all nations, and the re-establishment of their religious peculiarities.”[11]

Today is the day of salvation for all peoples in all nations throughout all the world, not later in some future seven year tribulation or earthly millennium of second chances for some so-called natural Jews, which is a wholesale fabrication and lie conjured up by the imaginations of mere carnal thinking and reasoning men.

Once again Showers claims:

Since Israel did not reject Christ until the Gospels, we would expect Replacement Theology to be taught in the New Testament. Using the literal-historical-grammatical method of interpretation, we would expect to find:

• Clear, concise statements that God has rejected Israel. 

• Definitive passages that teach that the church has replaced Israel.

• God’s declaration that He has excluded Israel from the Old Testament covenants.

• A total lack of New Testament verses that speak of Israel’s future in God’s plan. [12]

Again, short answer: As already said in everything above and, eventually below, God has neither “rejected,” “replaced,” “excluded” or held back a future for those whom He foreknew as His “children of promise” and who have faith in Him like our father Abraham. Israel, according to the flesh, are not the inheritors of God’s promises made to Abraham. Only Israel according to the Spirit was, and is. Any “future” for Israel is now, not later; in Christ and in His Church; not exclusive but inclusive of the Church. And like Israel that came out of Egypt as a “mixed multitude,” along with God’s chosen people like Moses, Miriam, Joshua and Caleb who were all Abraham’s children of faith, what was common grace to one was common grace to all. Rain fell on the just and on the unjust alike. And natural Jews who obeyed the Law benefited from the Law, as did their unbelieving children under them (not so dissimilar to unbelieving children even under a believing parent today; cp. 1Cor. 7:14), but this in no way guaranteed to any of these individuals eternal life in Christ or as benefactors of “the everlasting covenant” promised to Abraham and all of his spiritual seed.

And just as all God’s “children of promise” in the Old Testament looked forward in faith to Christ, we now all look backwards in faith to Christ. And all those who died in faith in the Old Testament were not made perfect without us, God having planned something better for us “so that only together with us would be made perfect” (Heb. 11:40). All Old Testament saints (who were for the most part natural Jews) are formed “together with us” who are New Testament saints as an assembly of “called-out” ones (or the “church”), coming all together to Mt. Zion and to the city of the living God, even to the heavenly Jerusalem; even to a myriad of angels and to the assembly and church of the firstborn-ones whose names are enrolled in heaven (cf. Heb. 12:22–23). Not enrolled here on earth, mind you, in a Jewish registry made with men’s hands in an earthly Jerusalem that is of no value to the hearers, but enrolled by God himself “in heaven.” Our citizenship is “in heaven” in Christ, not here on earth in and through natural men born only of the flesh. This is the heavenly city of God everywhere in the New Testament called “Jerusalem” or “New Jerusalem” (Gal. 4:26; Rev. 21:2, 9–10) that Abraham and all of the Old Testament saints envisioned and looked forward to, and whose architect and builder is God (Heb. 11:10). God's plan is not with an earthly city made of natural stones and with men’s hands. His plan is with a heavenly city made with “living stones” (1Pet. 2:5) by His hands. The Rock (or Christ) cut out of a mountain (spiritually speaking) not by men's hands, is become a huge mountain (again, spiritually speaking) that fills the whole earth (Dan. 2:35, 45). It is “the mountain of the Lord's temple” that is now being “established as chief among the mountains” and now “raised above the hills” with “all nations streaming into it.” And “many peoples” now “come and say, 'Come, let us go to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob...” (Isa. 2:2-3). What “temple,” “mountain” and “house” may I ask? His temple, mountain and house made without men's hands. This alone has been the “eternal” and “everlasting” plan of God all along. It is a mountain that cannot be touched, a house that cannot be physically built, and temple that is not of this world and where indeed “the twain shall never meet.”

Showers states that “Israel did not reject Christ until the Gospels.” Seriously? They were doing this long before the gospels with God or Christ, unlike Abraham and all of his children of faith and of promise. For even Christ had stated to these Christ-rejecters and murderers, “If you were Abraham’s children, 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” (Jhn. 8:39–40). Abraham was not a Christ-rejecter as these men were, thus proving that they were not Abraham’s true children of faith; and that their father was not God, but indeed actually the Devil. The gospel was preached just as much to Abraham as it is to us today (cf. Gal. 3:8). And the reason why many fell in the wilderness was because they did not have faith: “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it” (Heb. 4:2). Additionally, the Spirit of Christ was just as much in the prophets of old as He is in us today, albeit in a limited form and way. And Paul also affirms that they all drank from that spiritual Rock that accompanied them, and that, “that Rock was Christ” (1Cor. 10:4). Paul also speaks of the righteousness that is by faith in God and in Christ that was first formulated in Deuteronomy:

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 word of faith we are proclaiming…” (Rom. 10:6–8).

And then Paul adds, “But not all the Israelites accepted the good news [or the gospel]. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message’” (v. 16). So don’t say “Israel did not reject Christ until the Gospels.” They rejected Christ long before He ever arrived on the scene. And this is seen even as far back as in the first sin of Cain in murdering Abel and in the murdering of all God’s prophets that He had sent unto them. And the Jews in Christ’s day were only filling up the sins of their fathers (Mat. 23:29–39). All of these “snakes and brood of vipers” that Christ referred to them as, in Mat. 23:33, are the seed of the Serpent foretold by Him long ago in Genesis 3:15, as opposed to all children of faith in Christ and in God.

In Showers reference to Galatians 6:16 in this third part of his five-part series, in his usual and customary non-enlightened manner says “Israel” here is only a natural Israelite who believes in Christ, irrespective of any Gentile believers. But as we have already discussed earlier, this testimony just isn’t true. And he further states in order to substantiate this claim, that, “In all other Pauline passages, the word Israel refers to national or ethnic Israel.”[13] Oh, really! What Bible is he reading? As we have already determined, “all Israel” in Rom. 9:6 is not all Jews or Israelites based upon any natural ethnicity. Paul says so in verses 7–9! And St. John confirms this in his gospel in chapter one, verse thirteen. Paul is in no way, shape, manner or form saying that all those who are called “Israel” here in Romans, or in Galatians, are only those who are naturally born Jews who believe in Christ, but are all peoples who are designated as “children of promise,” just like Isaac, and thus called “Israel” irrespective of any natural ethnicity at all. And not to sound redundant, but Paul in Gal. 4:28 includes Gentiles who are hand-picked by God, like Isaac, calling them likewise “children of promise.” The point that both God and Paul are making is that the choice is totally dependent on God in deciding that, instead of choosing Ishmael, He would choose to create Isaac and set him apart for Himself; instead of choosing Esau, He would choose to set aside Jacob for Himself. And even since the time of Adam and Eve God has been doing this from both Jews and Gentiles alike. And this is also why Paul could say that “God, who set me apart from birth and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach among the Gentiles” (Gal. 1:15). And of these Gentiles where it was said of them that they were not God’s people, “they will be called the sons of the Living God” (Rom. 9:26). It is just like Christ said: “All the Father has given unto Me, will indeed come unto Me; and I will lose none of them.”

Even in Rom. 11:26, when Paul says “all Israel,” he has in mind individuals whom God personally chooses and hand picks from among natural Israelites, just like Paul and any other Jewish believer who are a part of God’s “children of promise” that Paul just got through earlier talking about in Rom. 9:8. Not because they are natural Jews, per se, but because of God’s unspeakable grace in His gifts and callings that are irrevocable in setting aside for Himself “a remnant” chosen from not only the Jews, but also from the Gentiles that make up this spiritual “Israel” of God. In Paul narrowing down his definition of “Israel” in Rom. 9:6–8 as those who are “children of promise,” regardless of natural progeny and who have faith in God and in Christ, he has ruled out any idea that all ethnic Jews en-mass will be saved either in the past, the present, or in the future. In Rom. 11:26, Paul specifically has just those in mind whom God sets apart as His “children of promise” from the Jews. But in Rom. 9:6, Gal. 4:28 and Gal. 6:16, he has anyone who is a “child of promise” in Christ in mind.

In summary, in Rom. 9:6ff and Gal. 4:28, again Paul has in mind any individual regardless of natural progeny who are Abraham’s children according to God’s irrevocable promise, and who are designated as such by God calling them his “children of promise.” They are all the “children of promise” that God in Christ designated before any are ever born; even before the foundation of the world. And as the Scriptures also affirm, Christ was designated as a scapegoat and a lamb slain for all those whom God would give to Him before the foundation of the world. Was this a Covenant of Redemption or of Grace that Showers discounts was between the Father and the Son before anything was ever created? You bet it was! Jesus said He came to die for His sheep. And not only for His elect sheep out of the nation of Israel, but for all of the children of God (or Gentiles) scattered abroad throughout all the world (Jhn. 11:52). What this is saying to us is that before any of these people have actually become the “children of God,” they were designated as such just like Isaac, Jacob, John the Baptist, Paul and all of God’s “children of promise” before any were ever born.

In addition, when Paul says in Rom. 11:26: “And so all Israel will be saved,” the words “and so” in the Greek are kai houtos, which literally translated means: “and thus, and [in] this wise, and so, or even so (NIV, 'so too').” A common equivalent given in all lexicons is also, “in this manner.” This is very instructive for us as we will soon just see. But before going any further, it must be understood that the phrase kai houtos is not saying “after that” the fullness of the Gentiles have come in before Christ’s coming for them at the rapture, then all ethnic Jews will thus be saved “after that.” This idea is based upon the misapplication and misappropriation of these words translated “after that” in the KJV and as noted in the Strong’s Concordance that is entirely based upon the KJV. For if one were to read a little further in Strong’s Concordance, it doesn’t give these Greek words this meaning at all, but states that “after that” means: “in this way (referring to what precedes or follows)―after that, after (in) this manner, as, even (so), for all that, like(-wise)…on this fashion(-wise), so (in like manner), thus…” In fact, in the two occurrences where the Strong’s Concordance of the King James Version translation refers to such wording as “after this” or “after that,” in both occurrences this wording is used in the sense of: “after this manner.” The first occurrence, in Mat. 6:9, Jesus says, “after this manner pray”; in other words, based upon what He just got through saying to His disciples how they should pray. It is used again this way one more time in 1Cor. 7:7, where Paul says everyone is said to have his proper gift “after this manner, and another after that,” meaning, in the manner in which he just got through describing for everyone. And, actually, the Greek really reads: ho men houtos, ho de houtos or, “one indeed so, one moreover so” (Marshall’s Inter.); or, again, “one man thus, and another thus” (Darby trans.); and, again, “one indeed thus, and one thus” (Young’s trans.). The Greek demonstrative pronoun houtos never means “that,” but more correctly translated means: “thus,” “this,” or “so.” So, even to translate this Greek word as “that” is a misnomer. The common word for “that” in the Greek is the demonstrative pronoun, ekeinos.

And last but not least, in 1Cor. 14:21, Paul says, “In the law it is written, ‘With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that [Gk. kai oud houtos] will they not hear me, saith the Lord.’” Literally, Paul is saying here that, “and not even [for] this,” or in speaking after this manner in a foreign tongue, will the people hear (or listen). The NASB translates this phrase, “even so they will not listen to Me.” The majority of translations translate it: “even then,” or “even thus.” Only one time, in 1Cor. 7:7, is this Greek phrase translated in the KJV as Strong denotes, “after that”; and in no way, shape, manner or form is it to be understood to mean as the dispensationalists would have us to understand it to mean that after one thing has happened, then another thing will begin to occur after that. It unequivocally means “after this manner,” or after the manner just described.

Additionally, for even some dispensationalists to argue that the Greek “kai” translated “and,” “even,” or “also” in our English translations means “after” here, but then even argue that it can’t mean “even” instead of “and” in Gal. 6:16, is to argue over words in favor of their a priori theological bias rather than upon a literal translation of the Greek. As all Greek lexicons affirm, the Greek “kai” never means “after,” but either “and,” “even,” or “also.” It is a “conjunction of annexation, uniting things strictly co-ordinate.”[14] When Strong remarks that houtos means “after that” he is only meaning by his definition afterward given that it means: “after (in) this manner, as, even (so)…so (in like manner),” etc. Any other meaning other than this is just displaying one’s ignorance of the Greek, or parroting those who unbeknownst to themselves are also displaying the same ignorance. This happens often when one doesn’t study, but just quotes their mentors as if they are authoritative and have the last word to say on an issue. And oft-times these “mentors” are also just saying what they too have only heard what others have said. Thus the reason for the old saying: the blind leading the blind. Those leading have no more of a revelation than those who are being led.

Pertinent to our discussion here of all elect Israelites being saved in the same way or manner as the Gentiles, kai houtos is used again by Paul in verse 31 of Romans chapter 11 where he refers to all Jews having become disobedient “in this manner” (Gk. kai houtos) or in similar fashion to the Gentiles that he just got through talking about in verse 30. And just as God shows mercy on some of the Gentiles who were once disobedient, He can now also “in this manner” or “and so” have mercy on some (or a part) of the Israelites who are also disobedient. And notice how in these verses Paul says, “Just as you [Gentiles] were at one time disobedient to God and have now received mercy as a result of their [or Israel’s] disobedience, so they too [or, in this manner] have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.” All of this isn’t occurring sometime later after this gospel dispensation, it is occurring “now,” “now,” “now.” Three times Paul says, “NOW,” not later! The Textus Receptus of the KJV uses “now” twice. Either way, they are both saying the same thing. From the time in Paul’s day, in our own day and even right up until the full number of the Gentiles come in, Paul saw all Israel (or all elect Jews) being saved under Christ’s current rule and reign. “Now” doesn’t mean sometime later. Natural logic would have us believe that it began in Paul’s day (as he says it did) and continues right up until the rapture at Christ’s Second Coming, with no seven-year interval in-between of second chances for those who didn’t get it right the first time. “Now” is the day of salvation for both Jew and Gentile alike, not later. There is no other salvation to be named among us (both then and now), other than that which is now proclaimed through us of one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one new man comprised of both Jews and Gentiles in Christ. Thus, one people belonging to God―not two! Not “two groups” of people separate and distinct from each another, only one. Honestly, if a lot of Christians only knew what the pastors and elders of their churches were really teaching, they wouldn't be a part of them anymore. They “will flee from” them, just as Christ said we would when we hear someone who is not speaking His words (cf. Jhn. 10:5).

In Romans 11:5, the Greek kai houtos is clearly and unequivocally used by Paul again in this chapter as referring to what he had just stated in verse 4. Here he quotes God as saying that He had reserved for Himself 7,000 in Elijah's day who had not bowed their knee to Baal. And it is “in this manner” (“and so” in KJV) that in Paul’s day there is likewise a remnant out of natural Israel who are chosen by God’s grace.

So, in going back to verse 25 of chapter 11 in our discussion here—and before Paul’s actual statement in verse 26—he has just said that natural Israel has experienced “a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,” and that “and so [or, in this manner] all Israel will be saved” (v. 26). As it is logically to be presumed that only a “part” of the Gentiles will remain hardened while the rest of all Gentiles who are God's elect will be saved, it is also “in this manner” all Israelites who are God's elect will be saved right up until the time of the end when God closes the door of opportunity for all Gentiles, when their full and complete number have all come into His fold. Clearly, according to Paul’s overall thesis in Romans 9–11, not all ethnic Jews will be saved; a “part” of them will always remain hardened, while a “part” are shown mercy. “All Israel” in Rom. 11:26 parallels “the full number of the Gentiles” in verse 26 (and the full number of elect Jews in verse 12); and it is in this manner that a portion (or a part) out of each shall be saved.
Additionally, the word “until” in the Bible doesn't always necessarily denote that something will change for Israel “after” all the elect Gentiles are saved. It is often used in Scripture to denote a terminus point where once something is completed, it is over.

For example, 1Sam. 15:35 says that “Samuel came to see Saul no more until his death.” Does this mean Samuel resumed his visits with Saul after his death? How absurd is that? It even states that there was a time when Samuel didn’t visit Saul prior to his death. And, clearly, nothing was to change for Saul upon dying. Matthew 11:13 says, “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until (heos) John.” Did any more persons from that era prophesy afterward? The Law and the Prophets concluded their prophecies at that time. No further prophecies were given concerning Israel or Christ through those mediums. Luke 17:27 says, “People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up until (achri) the day Noah entered the ark.” Were they eating, drinking and marrying afterward? In fact, when Noah entered the ark this terminated those people altogether. Everything as they knew it ended for them. In 1Cor. 16:8, Paul says, “But I will stay on at Ephesus until (heos) Pentecost.” Did Paul stay after Pentecost? Gal. 3:17 and 19 says, “…the law was introduced 430 years later…What then was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until (achris) the Seed…had come.” Is this word “until” here to infer that the Mosaic law was to continue after, or once the Seed came? Not at all, it was terminated at the cross. So too, all Israel will be saved right up “until” the full number of the Gentiles has come in. Both are saved simultaneously to become one stick, not two. We are all to be one fold with one Shepherd.

It should come as no surprise to us by now that God is not concerned about saving all the world, or even all the Jews for that matter, but in saving and setting apart His elect chosen people in Christ who were chosen in Him before the very foundation of the world—just like Isaac, Jacob, John the Baptist and even Paul before they were ever born. This is the biblical doctrine of election beloved. And whether we like it or not, it is all nevertheless true. And all of us who have been saved as such should be thankful that God would have mercy on such sinners as ourselves. For “unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have all become like Sodom, we would have all become like Gomorrah.” Unless God in Christ hadn’t awakened us from our former dead state and had made us alive or quickened us by His Holy Spirit, we would all be going to hell in a hand-basket, as all deserving sinners should be. A Christian should rejoice and exult over the fact that God has so sovereignly saved them and elected them, not bemoan or be repulsed by the idea. If God has so graciously saved you, then what are you so angry about? To argue as such makes you no different than those Jews in Christ’s day who heard the same things coming from Christ’s lips and wanted to gnash on Him with their teeth for having said such things about them. Could it be that you, who similarly reason as such with the Jews, are possibly no more different than they, and that maybe you too are not even saved, being party to them and in league with them rather than with all of Christ’s true brethren? Because if you were truly God’s elect, you wouldn’t be bemoaning over such an election, but rather rejoicing over the great love wherewith He has bestowed upon you!

So, in getting back again to Rom. 11:25–26, verses 30–31 actually further explain to us what Paul has just said to us in verses 25–26ff. That just as us Gentiles who were one time disobedient with a part of us being shown mercy due to natural Israel’s unbelief (or disobedience), so too (or “in this manner”) Israelites have also become disobedient in order that they too in a part of them might be shown mercy. Paul says God has bound all Jews and Gentiles over to disobedience so that He might have mercy on all of them whom He has chosen to be a part of His remnant saved by His mercy and grace. All Jews and Gentiles have been “hardened in part,” meaning, through this hardening God will mercifully save a part (or a remnant) out of each group. As such, their “hardening” will not continue, like that of Pharaoh’s. Thus the reason for the saying of Paul: “Therefore, God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to hardens” (Rom. 9:18).

Now with regards to all of these “children of promise” of Abraham and of Christ being called “Israel,” in Isaiah 49 the Suffering Servant (or Christ) is likewise referred to as “Israel” in verse three. And so it stands to reason that all those who are born in Christ would also surname themselves with His name “Israel,” right? Why shouldn’t they be able to subscribe to themselves His name, being that they are His children? And this in fact is exactly what God through Isaiah the prophet predicts would occur in chapter 44, verse 5. In verse 3, God says He will pour out His Spirit on Jacob’s seed, His blessing upon his descendants―the “descendants” of which we should all know by now are all those who are in Christ and designated as the true and spiritual Israel of God that “will spring up like grass in a meadow, like poplar trees by flowing streams” (v. 4). In verse 3, they are likened to a dry and barren land in which God “will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground” (v. 3). And in verse 5, all of this “seed” of Jacob that will be watered and sprout up out of dry ground will say, “I am the LORD’s; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand to the LORD, and surname himself by the name of ISRAEL” (AKJV). Even in the natural, not all natural Israelites could say, “I am the Lord’s,” let alone with the Lord affirming this of all of those spoken of here, if it were not for the fact of them having a broken and contrite heart. And if the Lord was talking about a natural Israelite, no natural Israelite would have to say this, for they were already born with the moniker or name of “Israel” over their heads. No, all of these particular “descendants,” that are said to be the Lord’s, are the only ones here who would be calling themselves “Israel.” And this includes any natural born Jew who believes in Christ, as Paul has articulated for us in Rom. 9:6. This is “the Israel of God” that both God and Paul are talking about who are not “Israel” according to the flesh. They (all natural Israelites) are not spiritual Israel, but only those who are faithful and elect “children of promise” in Christ are denoted as this Israel of God. Natural unbelieving Jews cannot in any way, shape, manner or form call themselves by this name; just as they cannot refer to themselves as the new and spiritual Jerusalem from above as opposed to all those who are in league with the natural and earthly Jerusalem from below; or even as being the children of Sarah as opposed to being likened unto the children of Hagar; or being the temple of God made with living stones and without men’s hands as opposed to being associated with a temple made of literal stones and with men’s hands. All such “descendants” that God is describing through Isaiah are the same “descendants” that both Christ and Paul spoke of as all children of faith, as opposed to all children born only of the flesh and without faith in Christ at all. And it is along this same line of thinking that Jesus likewise proclaimed: “I know...those who say they are Jews, and are not,” or even as Paul says: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly...but he is a Jew who is one inwardly.” So Paul could have very well of said, “they are not all Jews who are of the Jews.” It is one and the selfsame thing. There is a spiritual temple and a spiritual city called New Jerusalem that is comprised of spiritual Israelites, or Jews, and whose “Praise” is of God. There is an Israel or Jew according to the flesh, and there is an Israel or Jew according to the Spirit. Israel born of the flesh and set apart as a nation by God was a type of Israel born of the Spirit and set apart as nation by God. Both are born irrespective of their own decision or choice; but only one is born from above, the other from below.

Of all of these spiritual “children of promise” of the barren woman whom Paul quotes from Isaiah 55:1 in Gal. 4:27, these are also the ones whom Isaiah mentions elsewhere that are birthed through the Israel according to the Spirit and as the mother of us all:

“Lift up your eyes and look around; all your sons gather and come to you. As surely as I live,” declares the Lord, “you will wear them all as ornaments; you will put them on, like a bride….The children born during your bereavement will yet say in your hearing, ‘This place is too small for us; give us more space to live in.’ Then you will say in your heart, ‘Who bore me these? I was bereaved and barren; I was exiled and rejected. Who brought these up? I was left alone, but these—where have they come from?’” (49:18, 20–21).

And, again, Isaiah writes:

“Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children. Do I bring to the moment of birth and not give delivery?” says the Lord. “Do I close up the womb when I bring to delivery?” says your God. “Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her. For you will nurse and be satisfied at her comforting breasts; you will drink deeply and delight in her overflowing abundance.” For this is what the Lord says: “I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream; you will nurse and be carried on her arm and dandled on her knees. As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.” When you see this, your heart will rejoice and you will flourish like grass; the hand of the Lord will be made known to his servants, but his fury will be shown to his foes (66:8–14).

It is even as the Psalmist declares in Psalm 87, “this one and that one were born in her” (v. 5). Born in who? The Israel of God according to the Spirit! And which “one” or “that” one? All those such as “Rahab,” those of “Babylon,” those of “Philistia,” those of “Tyre” and of “Cush” (v. 4). “They will say, ‘This one was born in Zion’” (v. 4). How so? Not naturally, of course, but spiritually by the breath of God like Isaac. Truly it is as God through Isaiah and even Paul have declared to us, “More are the children of the desolate woman (Jerusalem from above) than of her that could physically have children (Jerusalem below).”

Now it is pretty much the common consensus among all of the older commentators that the verses mentioned in Isaiah 44:3–5 above predict the future outpouring of God’s Spirit presently now upon a remnant out of Israel, along with the ingathering of a remnant out of the Gentiles as well, who publicly profess their allegiance to God and to His people of faith. Keil and Delitzsch make an insightful remark with regards to Isaiah’s words here in verse five. They concur:

The heathen…will count it the greatest honor to belong to Jehovah and His people….The threefold zeh [of one saying I will belong to Jehovah; of a second one who takes on the name of Jacob; and a third one who inscribes himself with Jehovah’s name and even takes upon himself the name of Israel] refers to the heathen, as in Psm. 87:4–5.”[15]

Albert Barnes, in his commentary, likewise remarks with regards to these verses here in Isaiah 44:1–5:

To call one’s self by the same name as another, is indicative of friendship and affection; and is expressive of a purpose to be united with him, and to identify our interests with his. The idea is that which one would express by saying, that he cast in his interest with the people of God, or he became identified with them; as we now say, a man calls himself by the name of Christ, i.e., a Christian.”[16]

Ezekiel too, in a figure and vision, predicts the time in Christ’s temple and kingdom of priests that we are now living in, when land allotments that were formerly prescribed only to the Jews would also be given to the Gentiles “who are settled among you and have children” (47:22). This spiritual Israel of God would, “consider them as native-born Israelites” (ibid); and “in whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance, declares the Sovereign Lord” (v. 23). This is all akin to Paul’s words in Ephesians, where the Gentiles who were once “excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of promise” (2:12) have been “brought near” to partake of all of these things “through the blood of Christ” (v. 13). “Consequently, you [Gentiles] are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household” (v. 19). Citizens of a country have all the rights of native-born citizens, and as such they also have the right to share the same name of those citizens, no longer identifying themselves with their former country in which they use to live but with their new country, just as foreigners who become citizens of America can now call themselves, “Americans!” As already noted, this “Israel” that Ezekiel is describing is not “Israel” according to the flesh, but the Israel of God that has been formed all along through faith in Christ—not to be two separate and distinct groups of citizens, but one citizenry and one household of faith. They are the one fold and one new man in Christ who is the One Chief Shepherd and Chief Bishop over all their souls.

What God is describing through Ezekiel, in a vision, via literal objects and ideas (like the vision given to Peter of literal clean and unclean animals of all kinds brought together on a sheet), never “literally” occurred in the past and will never “literally” occur in the future either. But all of this is actually occurring spiritually right now by Gentiles being received as “native-born Israelites” with all of Christ’s Jewish believers, and with Gentiles no longer being “excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of promise.” These are all the one, united people of God called His “children of promise” since the time of Adam and Eve, not two.

Showers’ bone of contention is that God has always had two separate and distinct groups of people that are called “Israel”: one being spiritual, the other natural. And in a nutshell, this is the dispensationalist’s teaching of the Bible in the majority of churches around the world today—even with regards to there being an earthly people made up of only natural Jews, verses a heavenly people made up of believing Jews and Gentiles in Christ. And Showers even attempts to prove that the “spiritual Israel” that Paul refers to in Gal. 6:16 can only be natural Jews who believe in Christ, and not Gentiles at all, but who together do make up what is called: “the Church.” And he does this based upon this idea below:

It is possible to be Abraham’s ‘son’ or ‘seed’ but not be Jewish. Ishmael was Abraham’s son, but he was not Jewish. In Romans 4:11–12 Paul taught that Abraham is the father of both the uncircumcised (Gentiles) and circumcised (Jewish). Some of Abraham’s descendants are Jewish, and others are not.[17]

So, for Showers, Isaac (as well as Jacob) represent all natural Jewish believers, while Ishmael represents all Gentile believers. And according to Showers, both can be Abraham’s spiritual children, but both still represent two entirely different groups or classes of people; one inclusive of Gentiles, the other not. They are both referred to as “the Church,” while the distinction between the two of being “Jewish” or “Gentile” still remains. And this is why I said earlier that many messianic Jews will not even call themselves a “Christian”; for to do so is to be more akin to a Gentile than a Jew, so they avoid calling themselves by this name.

Now, if all this above by Showers is not a “private interpretation” with regards to Isaac and Ishmael, I don't know what is! And as far as “the Israel of God” in Gal. 6:16 being “inclusive” of the Gentiles, I have already spoken my peace earlier on all of this. Have no doubt about it: Gentiles, as well as Jews, are the spiritual Israel of God.

But Showers is right in this respect: both Isaac and Ishmael do represent two entirely different groups of people, but it is not as Showers and many dispensationalists erroneously contend!

First of all, Paul in Romans was not insinuating that there were to be two groups of people that are to be God’s people; but only one group out of both Jews and Gentiles from both the Old and New Testaments that make up God’s one true spiritual people that are called “the children of promise,” not based upon any natural ethnicity at all. As I have said all along, this has always been the case since the time of Adam and Eve. As has been already noted, “children of promise” are all those chosen like Isaac and Jacob, regardless of any “Jewish” ethnicity; while in Gal. 4:22ff “Ishmael” is akin to all Jews who are not God's “children of promise” (which we will discuss some more shortly). The one new man in Christ is spiritually, “Jewish,” with no distinctions between any whatsoever. Such “distinctions” are a “carnal” idea, born of carnally minded men and Jewish sentiment that is not of God.

Secondly, if Showers and all dispensationalists are also going to contend by Paul’s analysis in Romans 9, that God is creating one plan for natural ethnic Jews as God’s “children of promise” apart from Jews and Gentiles who now believe in Christ, and who form two separate and distinct groups of people which belong to God (with one on the earth and the other in heaven), then they are grossly mistaken! They are wrong on all accounts! Again, this is like the JW’s reasoning that there will be 144,000 select JW’s in heaven while the rest of the JW’s live out their lives here on earth. Do you see the futility of such thinking? It is the same story, but with a different twist to it. And is is all utter nonsense! It is in the words of God through Paul, “contrary to sound doctrine.” These are the one’s whom Paul claims lead captive silly women and subvert whole houses filled with those with itching ears who have given themselves over to such Jewish myths and fables, and who are deceived and being deceived thereby (cp. 1Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:14; 2Pet. 1:16, KJV).

Now notice something very carefully of what Showers has just said above: For Showers, “Isaac” equals being a natural Jew, while “Ishmael” equals being a Gentile. But, au contraire! says Paul. In Galatians 4:22ff, Paul says “Ishmael” (along with Hagar) equals (allegorically or figuratively speaking) all natural Jews according to the flesh who are only to be “cast out.” Paul in no uncertain terms says that natural Israel born only according to the flesh, like Ishmael born through Hagar, is excluded from the promises associated with “the children of promise” born according to the Spirit, and whom God has set apart for Himself like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Rahab, Samuel, David, Ruth and all the prophets, etc. These are the sole remnant chosen according to the election of grace for which Paul has said God’s gifts and callings are irrevocable for―no one else! All others are irrevocably rejected! They are marked for reprobation. Understand this, and understand it well: if anything at all, Paul is unequivocally stating that all natural Jews who are born only according to the flesh are not linked at all with Abraham and Sarah’s son Isaac who was born according to the Spirit of promise, but with Ishmael! Ishmael doesn’t equal Gentiles; Ishmael, according to Paul, equals ethnic unbelieving Jews (as well as all unbelieving Gentiles) who are born only according to the flesh. As such, neither are given any part or inheritance with the children of the free woman who are Abraham’s true spiritual seed and “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28).

Showers further adds that to be called “Israel” didn’t occur through Ishmael, but through Jacob, and that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all descendants through them are thus the only ones that can be called, “Israel.” He admits that “Abraham himself was not Jewish,”[18] but “was a Gentile from Ur of the Chaldeans,”[19] and that “if he had been Jewish, then all of his descendants would be Jewish.”[20] And so this is why there can be one group inclusive of Gentiles in Christ born according the Spirit that is separate and distinct from natural ethnic Israel born only according to the flesh. For the name “Israel,” Showers contends, didn’t come until afterwards through Jacob, when “God bestowed the title of Israel.”[21] So, by this same logic and reasoning, wouldn’t Abraham and Isaac not be called “Israel” either, but only those born afterward through Jacob? If we are just talking about natural Israelites, then, yes, the name “Israel” was ascribed only to those linked to Jacob. But if we are talking about “spiritual Israel, then, yes, this group is likewise inclusive of whoever is a believer, even as far back as Adam and Eve. All of these people from that time forward will be in heaven with the Church, also now known as the true spiritual Israel of God.

Natural Jews and Israelites are to Palestine today, what Americans are to the United States or the Brits to England, no more and no less. They are a nation just like any other nation. And common grace is extended to all who with a good conscience towards God do what is just, good and right in His sight. There are blessings for good conduct and curses for bad conduct which extend to all nations and ethnic groups across the board, not just to natural Jews. All will be held accountable for the good or bad things that they have done in this life. And all will be rewarded not only in this life for the good or bad they have done, but will also be rewarded in the life to come based upon whether they have had faith in God or not. Natural Israel may have had more required of them, but what was mainly good for the goose has also been good for the gander across all ethnic groups throughout all nations.

If anything, Abraham is associated more with Gentiles in his past than with natural Israelites in the future, as were all of the other former patriarchs before him. As God has said, “Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (Ezk. 16:3, 45). Many of Abraham’s closest allies in the land of Canaan, were in fact, Amorites. And upon closer scrutiny, even Melchizedek seems most likely to have been an Amorite, along with the ungodly Amorite king Adonizedek of Jerusalem who came much later after him, and who attempted to overthrow Joshua in that very same region (cf. Josh. 10). So, as the case may be, Abraham in fact represents both ethnic groups of Gentiles in looking back and of Jews looking forward, but only as it pertains to those who are his “children of promise,” and as the father of faith of all the faithful ones.

Again, what does God say through Paul in Galatians concerning natural Israel who is likened unto Ishmael born only according to the flesh, and for which Showers and all dispensationalist’s claim is, “Replacement Theology”? “Cast out” the bond woman with her son which is akin to Jerusalem of the earth; for she shall not be an heir together with the free woman and her son which is akin to Jerusalem from above (cf. Gal. 4:30). Outside of Christ, all natural Jews are likened to nothing more than Ishmaelites in God’s sight. This is God’s word of truth on the matter, not man’s! It is not what Showers and all misguided dispensationalist’s are claiming at all. And it is they who in fact “replace” natural Israel for God's true people of faith who are His “children of promise.” Covenant theologians are not casting out children born only according to the flesh. God is! God is not concerned about ethnicity. He is concerned about choosing whom He will choose, regardless of ethnicity. And that has been the one single focal point of this discussion all along. And if there is to be any future for ethnic Jews, it is now, not later. God's plan for them is inclusive with the Church, not separate and distinct from the Church; otherwise, they remain only children of wrath like the rest of the world, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

In Galatians chapter four, Paul isn’t just pitting one covenant (the Old Covenant) against another (the New Covenant),[22] or law verses grace (albeit this is also no less true); he is pitting one people (or seed) along with their literal mountain and their city who are in slavery to sin, against another people with their spiritual mountain[23] and city who are the Lord’s freemen; he is pitting a children born only according to the works of the flesh here on earth who are the work of men’s hands, against a children of faith and of promise who are born from above according to the Spirit and who are the work of God’s hands. Not so dissimilar to the law of Moses, one strives to be accepted by the work of procreation according to the flesh and which only produces slaves to sin; the other doesn’t strive at all like these others, but rests solely on God’s created act by grace and the power of the Spirit which produces slaves of righteousness. The latter owe their lives not to their own efforts, but to the miraculous power of God; while the former rely on their ethnicity and their own self-righteousness. The question here really is: Who is your mother, and in what way are you born? Every believer, like Isaac, is supernaturally conceived and miraculously born of the Spirit to be “the seed” of Abraham according to God’s promise which is realized in Jesus Christ. Again, all the “natural seed” according to the flesh are likened unto Ishmael born of the flesh; all the “spiritual seed” according to promise are likened unto Isaac and Jacob who are children of promise.

Spiritual Israel, according to Showers is simply: only ethnic Israelites who receive Christ. And Gentiles, according to Showers, can be called “the Church,” but they cannot be called “Israel.” All of this smacks right in the face of what both Christ says in John chapter eight, and what Paul says in Galatians and in Romans as repeatedly noted earlier. As was said, Gentiles are not likened unto Ishmael (as Showers claims) but are indeed likened unto “children of promise,” such as Isaac and Jacob, who are all hand-picked by God not according to natural ethnicity, but according to the supernatural birthing of the Holy Spirit from above. But like the Jews in Christ’s day, I suppose none of these individuals such as Showers will ever really understand any of this until enlightened from above, and will always continue to contend along with the Jews in Christ’s day: “Abraham is our father….We are not illegitimate children.... The only Father we have is God himself” (Jhn. 8:39, 41). But Christ countered, “If you were Abraham’s children…then you would do the things Abraham did….You are doing the things your own father does” (vv. 39, 41), who is, “the devil” (v. 44). Thus, they were not Abraham’s true children in the sense that both Jesus and Paul understood who were truly Abraham’s children.

Of a truth, there are two Israel’s, two temple’s, two Mt. Zion’s, two Jerusalem’s, two priesthood’s and so on and so forth. One was a natural carnal type of the spiritual anti-type that is to be realized only through faith in God and in Christ. One is carnal and of this earth, the other is spiritual and from above. One is in bondage with her children, the other is free with her children. And the son of the bond woman will never share in the inheritance with the son of the free woman. The bondwoman and her son (Israel according to the flesh) will never come into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. All such “subjects” of the kingdom, according to Christ, will be “cast out” into “outer darkness where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mat. 12:12; Lke. 13:28; Gal. 4:30).

Click here for part four.



Footnotes:

[1] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 3. Jan./Feb. issue 2012, vol. 70, #1. p. 28.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Vol. 12, p. 1,054.

[5] Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50.

[6] 1986, vol. 16, p. 71. Words in brackets mine.

[7] Collier’s Encyclopedia, 1977, vol. 13, p. 573.

[8] Vol. 14, p. 214.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Pre-Trib Perspectives Articles (accessed on 8/27/2112 at: http://www.according2prophecy.org/datesett.html

[11] David Brown. Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial? (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1856), p. 339.

[12] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 3. Jan./Feb. issue 2012, vol. 70, #1. p. 28.

[13] Ibid., p. 29. Italics his.

[14] E. W. Bullinger. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 50.

[15] Commentary on the Old Testament; Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), vol. 7, p. 204. Words in brackets mine and as also noted in his commentary.

[16] Barnes’ Notes; Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), p. 130.

[17 Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 3. Jan./Feb. issue 2012, vol. 70, #1. p. 29.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] It is argued by some reformed brethren that when Paul was describing Sarah and Hagar as representing two covenants in Galatians chapter four, that he is really only denoting one covenant of grace administered in two different ways or forms. This is where I would depart from such notions of some of these men who also adhere to Covenant Theology. Such notions are entirely unwarranted and should be discounted as most definitely not on the side of truth. A gracious covenant of promise or of grace doesn’t produce children who are in bondage as slaves that is being denoted here of Hagar, her son, and all Israelites under the slavery and condemnation of the law of Moses; and a slavery to the law which Paul says elsewhere leads only to the servitude of sin. The Mosaic covenant, which I do not doubt with others to have been graciously given by God, was not a gracious covenant of promise or of grace but a legalistic covenant of works like the Adamic covenant: “do this, and you shall live; don’t do this, and you shall die.” Both of these covenants exemplified work done by the power of the flesh without the Spirit, as opposed to the work of grace by faith alone that is entirely done by the power of the Spirit. And though we too are now in a sense called slaves to God, we at the same time are also considered as the Lord’s freemen. This is not what Paul has in mind of those who are a slave to the law and to sin. One leads to sin, the other to holiness. One is a forced submission, the other is not. The one is bound to do what only his sinful nature (or old man) dictates for him to do, the other is bound no longer to the dictates of the sinful nature or old man (for he's dead [a]); but we freely and willingly from a newly created heart (or new man) serve Christ without any reservations whatsoever. As such, we are in fact, for all practical intents and purpose, His people, and He is our God.

[a] See my book or blog: Created in God’s Image, Not Adam’s! on us no longer being the old man (or having the old nature) according to Rom. 6:6, but a new man and new creation in whom the old things have passed away and all things have become new for us. The new wine of Christ’s Spirit has been place in an absolutely new wine skin; not in a combination of an old wine skin and a new one, but in one new wine skin! See also John Murray’s Principles of Conduct and John MacArthur’s commentaries.

[23] As said before in an earlier endnote, this idea of Paul in Galatians chapter four of pitting the earthly Mt. Sinai (or Horeb) 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). There are two women representing two covenants of law and of grace; two sons representing slavery and freedom; two cities, one of the earth and one from heaven; and two mountains, one also of the earth and the other from heaven.

Natural Israel Not My Glory (4 of 5)

.

Part Four: What God’s Word Upholds

In part four of Showers article he begins by stating,

Most Replacement theologians use a particular set of verses to argue that God no longer views the Jewish people as His Chosen People and has replaced Israel with the church. But is that what the verses really mean? Scrutiny shows the fallacy of the Replacement interpretation.[1]

First of all, I find it quite interesting that whenever he references natural Israel he always capitalizes words that are associated with them. But when he refers to the Church, he never capitalizes this word or anything that has to do with them at all. Clearly, he gives more preference and honor to natural Jews than he does to the Church. They are God’s “Chosen People,” while we are only His “chosen people.” According to Showers and all dispensationalists, in God’s scheme of things the Church is only secondary in importance to natural Jews; and that, “God will bless those who bless natural Israel, and curse those who will curse natural Israel!”— a promise that was to Abraham and his holy seed, not to unholy and unbelieving Jews.

When I first read this statement above by Showers, I thought to myself: Oh, really! To be quite honest, in tandem with the JW's, it is they who argue by many ill-placed verses in order to buttress their beliefs, that God has always had a plan for ethnic Israel apart from His spiritual seed and “children of promise” from out of both the Jews and Gentiles. It is the doctrine of Showers’ and all dispensationalist’s that has “replaced” the truth of God's Word for a wholesale fabrication and lie. Before dispensationalism reared its ugly head in the early 1800’s through J. N. Darby and the like,[2] what is referred to today as “Replacement Theology” is really their own theology which has “replaced” the true and orthodox teachings of the Church which have been passed down to us since the inception of the Church. All Church history attests to what Covenant Theology articulates, not to what dispensationalists are propagating. In fact, before it was even called, “dispensationalism,” it was called by another name: Judaism! And it has baptized Christianity as a Judeo-Christian belief. Dispensationalism is just another aberrant form and inroad for “Judaism,” parading itself under the guise of sheep’s clothing. “Of your own selves,” cried Paul, “shall men arise to draw away disciples after themselves.” “Be forewarned!” he cried. “I have told you even before it happens.”

As said, dispensationalism is just a another mutated form and strain of that insidious virus―Judaism! At the last, it bites like the adder that it is; and in the end it stings like a serpent with its poisonous venom permeating the entire body of Christ, even as the leaven (or doctrine) of the Pharisees. This is the result of all of those who enter our midst and who have been hatched by the Wicked One. It is even as Isaiah says of this same infectious brood:

They hatch viper’s eggs and weave spider’s webs. Whoever eats their eggs will die; crack one open, and a viper is hatched. Their webs [of deceit] cannot become clothing, and they cannot cover themselves with their works (59:5-6, HCSB).

Indeed, when they stand before Christ they will be found naked and wanting; being held accountable for every idle word they have spoken.

Now much of what Showers states in part four has already been addressed earlier, such as the truth concerning Rom. 9:6; 11:26 and 1Pet. 2:9–10. But one more verse that Showers uses in his arsenal of weaponry to disprove Covenant Theology’s claims is Rom. 2:28–29. Notice that I never say “Replacement Theology’s” claims, for it is such men as Showers and all dispensationalists that have “replaced” the true for the false. Covenant Theology doesn’t teach a replacement theology, dispensationalism does. Theirs is a “Replacement Theology” that has been hatched by the father of all lies. It is not what God teaches, but what man teaches; therefore, it “replaces” what is true in God's purpose and plan for what is false.

So with regards to Showers’ “Replacement Theology,” and his interpretation of Rom. 2:28–29, nothing could be more clear as to what Paul is saying to the Church comprised of both Jews and Gentiles in this epistle to these Christians in Rome, when he says: “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly.” This was no different than saying later: “They are not all Israel which are of Israel.” And this language of Paul squares with Christ’s words in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9: “I am against those who say they are Jews and are not.” So Paul says “outwardly” (or physically) being a Jew does not qualify one as being a Jew in Christ’s kingdom, and Christ said that to say one is a Jew based upon one’s ethnicity is just not true. It would be no different than me saying today that the Jews over in Palestine and all over the world who claim to be Jews are not really Jews at all, even if they could prove it according to any genealogical records. I have just stated it no differently than how both Paul and Christ have stated it: those who are Jews by natural descent are not Jews at all. At least not in the sense that both Paul and Christ are talking about. They are not all Israel which are of Israel is very clear and unambiguous. And even dispensationalists understand that much; albeit, they believe a spiritual Jew and Israelite can only be a natural Jew.

So, Paul says in Romans 2 that being a Jew outwardly or physically does not qualify one as a Jew; and Christ likewise said in John chapter eight that to say one is a child of Abraham (or a Jew), based upon natural ethnicity, is just not true. In Christ's words, they “are of the synagogue of Satan,” and that, “if God were your Father, you would love Me…You belong to your father the Devil” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9; Jhn. 8:42, 44). They are not God’s (let alone Abraham’s) “Chosen People” or children, as all dispensationalists in tandem with all natural Jews contend. In the words of Christ, they are children of Satan! And Christ even says they are “liars” for saying otherwise (Rev. 3:9a; cp. also Jhn. 8:39ff). And if all that were not enough, Jesus says He will have them come and bow down at our feet and acknowledge that He has loved us, not them! (Rev. 3:9b). US, not them!!! So, what is it with all this attention and love that is being extended towards natural Jews born only according to the flesh, as if they are God’s chosen people and that God blesses those who bless them? You can’t find it here! Showers and all dispensationalists have turned all of this upside down. God blesses those who bless us, not them! He loves us, not them! And we will talk about this some more later.

Now like Pilate, you may be also asking yourself: What is truth? This is the truth brethren, as laid out in this five-part series! And sometimes the truth hurts. But, nevertheless, it is the truth. All that has been said so far is a scathing testimony and rebuke against all those who teach and believe that that all natural Jews are the true children of Abraham or of God. But it is only us who believe who are to be called Abraham's or God’s true children; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. It is to “children born not of natural descent [of blood], nor of human decision [of the flesh] or a husband’s [or man’s] will, but born of God” (Jhn. 1:13). But men such as Showers want to claim a distinction between natural Israel and the Church, and say that it is for “children who are born of natural descent,” completely reversing what John, Christ, and even what Paul says in Rom. 9:8, 12 and 16, that, “it is not natural children who are God’s children…not by works [lest any man should boast],” and that it “does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon US that WE should be called the SONS of the living God! Indeed, more are the children of the barren and desolate woman than of her who could physically have children. For so it seemed good in thy sight O Lord!

When referring to 1Pet. 2:9–10, Showers says,

Replacement theologians say Peter used Old Testament descriptions of Israel to identify the church, thereby redefining Israel as the church. They also say Peter taught that the church is new Israel and that God’s ‘chosen people’ are now spiritual Israel, rather than the physical descendants of Abraham.[3]

First of all, I have already addressed much of what Showers says here of Peter using “Old Testament descriptions” with regards to Jews and Gentiles in the Church (and not just to Jews) in part two, so I won't belabor that here.

And I don't really need to say anything further either about “spiritual Israel” being the Church and not just “the physical descendants of Abraham.” As said all along, being a physical descendant of Abraham matters nothing to God, to Jesus, or to Paul and the apostles.

Secondly, notice again how when speaking of the Church as God’s “chosen people” Showers doesn’t capitalize “chosen people.” But when referring to natural Israel, as noted just earlier, he does. It is because dispensationalists such as Showers place more of an importance upon them being natural Jews than they do upon the Church. It’s like the JW’s capitalizing all words that have to do with Jehovah as “God,” whereas Jesus is only a “god.” Like the JW’s who exalt Jehovah above Christ, dispensationalists exalt natural Israel to a status above the Church. But remember the words of Christ above: “I will make them [natural Jews] fall down at your [our] feet and acknowledge I have loved you”―NOT THEM! The only prominence that will be given to them is to fall down at our feet like Joseph’s brothers, and acknowledge that God was with us rather than with them and their evil ways.

Thirdly, like I have already said before, men like Showers just don’t get it that God’s chosen people have always been children born not of natural descent. How much more clearer could Christ and Paul have stated all of this? What more could they have said in order for us to believe them on all of this? Even if the Lord were to speak to them with men of other tongues and of other lips, yet for all this they still won’t hear (1Cor. 14:21). Deception is a strong delusion. It tricks the mind into believing one thing, when it should be believing in another.

As far as God is concerned, natural descent or ethnicity is a moot point. God is no respecter of persons; and this goes for all naturally born children, including the Jews. God has never chosen anyone based upon natural ethnicity, but upon His irrevocable calling, election and grace since the time of Adam and Eve; and even before all creation. Contrary to Showers’ statement above, God’s chosen people are, and always have been, all of His spiritual “children of promise” according to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all God’s saints who share in the same faith as theirs. And this is why Paul could say to the Galatians: “And you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise”(4:28). Being “born of blood,” as St. John was noted above as saying, doesn’t matter one iota. None, zilch, zip! How many times and ways must this be stated?

So every man’s mouth must be stopped, such as that of Showers', who put such an importance upon natural genealogies and claim that being “the physical descendants of Abraham” does matter in order to be God’s “chosen people.” This persuasion does not come from above brethren. And these are just a few of the Jewish myths and fables that Paul had warned us about, even avoiding divisive arguments over one’s genealogical upbringings (cp. 1Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9).

Now if all this isn’t enough, Showers concludes this fourth part in his series with these words below to buttress his idea that Peter wrote his epistle only to Jewish believers in Christ as God’s royal priesthood and one holy nation, and not to Gentile believers:

In addition, Peter used the Septuagint to quote the Old Testament. It would be highly unlikely he would use the Septuagint for Gentiles but natural to use it when speaking to Jews. In fact, Peter’s arguments in 1 Peter would have been difficult for Gentiles to grasp; but a Jewish audience would have understood them easily.[4]

Really? Such nonsense as this is an insult to the intelligence of the thinking Christian. I would rather think it would be more highly likely and “natural” that Peter would use the Hebrew text, rather than the Greek Septuagint text, if he were addressing only the Jews. But the fact that he uses the Greek Septuagint only buttresses the idea that he had the Gentiles in mind as well as the Jews, for the Gentiles readily understood and spoke Greek. Peter's words are not just partial to Jews, but for Gentiles as well.

I am a Gentile. And I use the Septuagint and, any translation available to me at the moment for that matter, in referencing the Old Testament. Does this mean that I am addressing only natural Jews in m teachings and articles when I use the Septuagint? Of course not! Such assumptions are silly and just another indicator of how far someone will go to try and pull the wool over someone's eyes.

It is very difficult for natural reasoning Jews and men like Showers to grasp how an Old Testament verse that seemingly applied to natural Israel, actually applies to all Jews and Gentiles who have faith in Christ! How so? It is due to the fact that, in Christ (who is the true “Israel” of God according to Isaiah 49:3ff), all Gentiles who are born “in Him” are now considered as a native-born Jew or Israelite. Again, “in Christ” we are neither Jew nor Gentile but one new man in Christ with only one identity now as spiritual Jews and as spiritual Israelites; not based upon ethnicity but based upon being a child of promise. As Paul has likewise stated, Gentiles are not “excluded from citizenship in Israel” (Eph. 2:12) but “included” as if they were “native-born Israelites” (Ezk. 47:22). Again, Paul in Romans 11 says Gentiles are grafted into Israel, the one natural olive tree. We have become assimilated into Israel where there is “no difference” between the two us (cp. Acts 15:9; Rom. 10:12; Eph. 2:14).

Honestly, can anyone looking at an olive tree, tell if some branches were grafted into it from another olive tree? Both Jews and Gentiles in Christ are one and the same, with Gentiles being assimilated into spiritual Israel and being given all the honors and titles due the same. It is through the Spirit of adoption that we are joined with all spiritual Israelites from both the Old and New Testaments to become God's “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a people belonging to God” (1Pet. 2:9). Indeed, in Rev. 1:6 and 5:10 all Christians are now “kings and priests.” Where did this idea of being a “priest” come from? Why, from the Old Testament titles that were types and shadows, of course. The natural priests back then pointed to the spiritual priesthood that both Peter and John talk about. And all the sacrificing that went on then, is also now understood spiritually. This is all elementary and shouldn't even be up for debate. But it is, so it must be addressed. And, hopefully, by now, the light is beginning to go on for some of you with regards to all of this.

Clearly, according to the inspiration of Peter, God had in mind in Exodus 19:6 more than just what had met the natural eye. It was a promise that was to be extended and realized to all of God’s true children of faith and of promise, not just to Jews. The entire Bible is centered around all such children of faith, and these alone! As I have said all along, it is the story of the children of the seed in Christ verses the children and seed of the Serpent in Adam. And as I stated before, Showers got one thing right: that there are two peoples. One is of the earth and earthly and who are born of the flesh; the other is spiritual and heavenly and who are born of the Spirit. One receives eternal damnation, the other eternal life; one is passed by, the other elected; one is not the heir, the other is; one is “cast out,” the other kept and reserved unto God for Himself. And never, ever, shall the twain ever meet! All children of faith coming from the north, south, east and west around the globe will sit to feast in the kingdom of Christ and of God with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (cf. Mat. 8:11; Lke. 13:29). But these subjects and enemies of Christ who didn’t want Him to rule over them, He has said, “bring them here and kill them in front of Me (cf. Mat. 8:12; Lke. 19:27). For them there shall be heard only a voice in Ramah, Rachel weeping for her children: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” All Jews, as well as men like Showers, are keeping the true children of God from entering the kingdom of God and believing and receiving what is rightfully theirs: that they alone are God’s “Chosen People,” His true “children of promise” like Isaac.

Remember the words of Christ, and remember them well: “I will make them [ethnic Israel] fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you” (Rev. 3:9). “I have loved YOU,” not them! says Christ. “YOU” are My Chosen People, not them! And so don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Stand up in this your might, and go forward in this your strength. You are the child of God and of the King. “The rest are hardened,” only to be “cast out.”

Click here for part five.



Footnotes:

[1] Israel My Glory. The Facts and Flaws of Covenant Theology, Part 4. Mar./Apr. issue 2012, vol. 70, #2. p. 34.

[2] Dispensationalism has a relatively short history. It has its beginnings with the Protestant Sottish minister Edward Irving who lived in England (circa 1792-1834). Irving got his revelations in prophetic conferences held in the Lady Powerscourt meetings that were centered around biblical prophecy and interpretation. His eschatology is said to have been influenced by a book written by a Jesuit Priest known as Emanuel Lacunza. Edward Irving started writing about his new ideas for prophecy, and for which J. N. Darby (of the Plymouth Brethren) became influenced by. And as we all know by now, the Plymouth Brethren came to America. Darby put these notes and ideas of Irving's in a Bible called: The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby, also known as: The J. N. Darby Bible. C. I. Scofield was, in turn, influenced by Darby and also put his notes in what is known today as the C. I. Scofield Reference Bible. And it is his bible that began to influence tens of thousand in America. Lewis Sperry Chafer was Scofield's disciple, and his eschatological viewpoints were greatly influenced by Scofield. Chafer would go on to form a bible college called: Evangelical Theological College, which is now known today as: Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. When Chafer died in 1952, John Walvoord, a graduate, took over as president in 1953. Walvoord retired in 1986, and from 1986-1994 Donald K. Campbell served as president. Chuck Swindoll, also a graduate, took over from Campbell from 1994-2001 and as of this date now serves as the schools Chancellor. From this school has come Hal Lindsey, Thomas Ice, Norman Geisler, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, J. Vernon McGee, Merrill F. Unger, Harold Hoehner, Charles Feinberg and the like. All of the Calvary Chapels of America, headed by Chuck Smith, have been influenced by this school's teaching. And even the Christian Zionist movements of today, such as that of James A. Showers, have been heavily influenced by this school's teachings on an eschatology that centers primarily around natural Israel, with the Church being only secondary and consequential to them. For in the words of many dispensationalists, if the Jews had not rejected Christ, there would have been no need for the Church. The Church is only an afterthought. Natural Israel is primarily the apple of God's eye. And will be so once more in the future. This is “dispensationalism” through and through, in agreement with Judaism.

Dallas Theological Seminary has influenced hundreds of thousands of ministers with its dispensational premillennialism. It has now become the dominant eschatological teaching in most churches around the world today. But like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon doctrines, dispensational premillennialism is relatively new. Since the formation of the early church, Amillennialism has always been the predominate teaching, with some few premillennialists and postmillennialists scattered throughout. But no one ever taught what is being taught today with regards to natural Israel in a future seven-year tribulation, let alone in a future earthly millennium. Everyone use to more or less understand many supposed unfulfilled prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Zechariah and all the prophets as having to do with spiritual Israel (or the Church). Even Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy was considered, until more recently, fulfilled in the person and work of Christ as both Prince and High Priest. And to read more about this prophecy from a “fulfilled” perspective, I would suggest getting my book: The People of the Prince, the Coming One! There are other books out there, but they are rare and hard to find. I would also suggest reading some of the older commentators such as: Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Edward Young, Matthew Poole, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, J. C. Ryle, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown and the like. Also, many books written by reformed brethren in reformed churches are helpful. William Hendriksen's commentaries are also very good. His set on the New Testament is called: The New Testament Commentary. Simon Kistemaker took over his work upon his death. A lot of the older systematic theologies by reformed brethren such as Shedd, Hodge, Turretin, Berkhof and Bavinck are also helpful. Steer clear of anything written by dispensationalists, unless using them only for reference in order to critique them. Being that I was spiritually birthed in a Church that was dispensational, I have a handful of their books already in my library. And even a lot of their books are hard to find, especially those from Chafer and the like in the 50's, 60's and 70's. I quote a few of them in this five-part series.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.