It generally is recognized that without the New Testament one would have no basis for discerning the meaning of Old Testament promises and prophecies. Berkhof observed that "the main guide to the interpretation of the Old Testament is certainly to be found in the New." Ladd agrees "that there is only one place to find a hermeneutic" for interpreting prophecy and that is "in the New Testament."
The Old Testament prophets bear this out inasmuch as they could not discern the meaning of their prophecies. Peter said they "inquired and searched diligently" to know "what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow" (1 Peter 1:10-11; see also Matthew 13:17 and 1 Corinthians 2:9-12).
God's covenant Promise to Abraham was to be fulfilled in Christ far beyond what Old Testament Israel could comprehend through the dim light of her earthly mode of existence. Obviously, Israel failed to come to grips with this truth to the extent of its revelation in Christ. The New Testament makes it clear that the Mosaic economy was a shadow of "things to come" (Colossians 2:16,17; Hebrews 10:1), and that these earthly shadows did not point to themselves as the object and substance of Israel's future state of blessing in Christ.
The mission of the Holy Spirit, as seen in 1 Peter 1:12, was to reveal what was concealed m the Old Testament. However, it is important to bear in mind that the Spirit was not sent to "disclose" Israel's promises in Christ until after the death and resurrection of Christ. This makes sense in view of the age-changing significance of the cross.
How could Israel's new creation in Christ be revealed and fulfilled within that which concealed it, namely the temporal, earthly, Mosaic economy? If this were possible, Christ would not have departed from the old covenant cosmos through death and resurrection. But He did so because, from the standpoint of the covenant confirmed in Him, He was of "the world above" instead of the "world beneath" (John 8:23). And the best commentary on these contrasting worlds is found in Hebrews 12:18-29 -- the Mount Sinai creation versus the Mount Zion creation. It is the latter creation that contains the things that Jesus said are "Mine," and "of the Father" -- the things the Spirit was sent to "disclose" (John 16:13-15).
It follows, therefore, that what Israel was in "the world below" was not the rule or measure for what she was designed to be in "the age to come," the new covenant creation from Mount Zion. This is drawn out clearly by Paul in Philippians 3 (see verse 16) and in Galatians 6:15-16, where, in connection with Christ's death and resurrection, Paul speaks of the "rule" for becoming "the Israel of God" in Christ. The centrality of the cross in the "rule" of which Paul speaks is too clear to miss in Philippians 3, and in the New Testament as a whole. Not to accept and walk by this rule constituted the Jews, the "concision" in verse 2, "the enemies of the cross of Christ" in verse 18. In this connection, see Romans 11:28.
It is precisely at this point that premillennialists make a fatal blunder in their exegesis of God's promises to the fathers of Israel. They come to a screeching halt at the cross, disclaiming it as God's way for bringing Israel into their promised state in Christ. Instead of taking Israel's Old Testament promises and prophecies through the cross, they jump over the New Testament and postulate a carnal fulfillment in Palestine following Christ's return to rapture the non-Israel church from the earth -- which translates into booting the Gentiles out of Israel's olive tree (Romans 11:17-24) so that Israel, the natural branches, can be grafted in and inherit her "distinctive" promises independently of the Gentiles -- at least for a thousand years!
This is a clear-cut case of ignoring the light of the New Testament, using instead the Old Testament to interpret Old Testament promises and prophecies. It is contrary to the whole spirit of the New Testament, which unequivocally proclaims that "it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:46) in order that all things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets might be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). In like manner Paul preached Christ, "saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come -- that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles" (Acts 26:22-23).
The leap-frog hermeneutic of premillennialism takes Israel completely out of the range of all things spoken by Moses and the Prophets.
The cross postpones nothing promised to Israel, but rather is the avenue through which all things written are fulfilled in Christ.This is what the New Testament is about from Matthew through Revelation. Revelation is the capstone of Christ's fulfillment of God's promises to the fathers of Israel. Not only were the things that John saw (ie.- the new heaven and earth, new Jerusalem and tabernacle of God; Revelation 21:1-3) the things promised to Israel, their arrival was "at hand" at the time John wrote Revelation (Revelation 1:1-3; 22:6-10).
This strikes a deadly blow to the claim that the "church age" is the age of spiritual blessings for the Gentiles separate and apart from God's promises to Israel, which allegedly will be received after the "bracket age" comes to an end. If that is the case, then the end of the Church age was "at hand" when John wrote Revelation because: (1) he is describing the coming of things that fulfill Israel's promises, and (2) he explicitly says those things were "at hand" and "must shortly come to pass." Why, then, did not the "church age" come to an end "shortly" after John wrote Revelation, if that was the "end" John had in view? Was the end of the Christian age postponed? That's a good question for both pre- and amillennialists!
[As a sideline, amillennialists are not prone to postpone, but will they treat John's "at hand" in Revelation 1:1-3; 22:6-12 concerning the coming of such things as the New Jerusalem the same way they treat Christ's "at hand" in Mark 1:15 concerning the coming of the kingdom? Can they treat John's "at hand" differently and save face in rejecting the premillennial postponement hermeneutic relative to the "at hand" coming of the kingdom in Mark 1:15?]
Maybe it would be a good policy to stick with "the end of the age" that Christ talked about in Matthew 24, the only "end" recorded in New Testament scripture that His disciples ever asked about or wrote about. This clearly identified "end of the age" involving the destruction of Jerusalem was not postponed, but neither did it occur too soon for the new things "at hand" in Revelation to be connected therewith. Jesus said that the end would occur before "this generation shall pass away" (Matthew 24:36), and before some then living would taste death (Matthew 16:27-28). As indicated by Christ, John was among those who would be living (John 21:20-23).
Presumably, John was still living when he wrote Revelation, and surely his testimony is trustworthy when he recorded that God sent His angel "to show His servants the things which must shortly take place" (Revelation 22:6). When God sends an angel to tell his people about things shortly to take place, the message is 100 percent believable. Unquestionably, the events were so crucial, and the timeframe so explicit, that the things John saw coming were not postponable.
Any attempt, therefore, to bypass the culminating of God's plan of redemption in search of another redemptive future for Israel is a leap into outer, eternal darkness. Christ's mission was to "make good" God's promises to the fathers of Israel (Romans 15:8), and thus "to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death" (Luke 1:79). He did not come to retain Israel in darkness and bondage during a non-Israel "church age," after which Israel is reinstated into her former earthly, Old Testament state of existence. There is no reverse gear in God's plan of redemption -- no reverting to the temporal shadows of the law (see Hebrews 10:26-39; 2 Peter 2:20-22).
The Gentile & Eschatology Factors in Promise Fulfillment
There are two basic factors in the fulfillment of God's promises to the fathers of Israel that receive considerable attention in New Testament scripture. One is the coming in of the Gentiles, and the other is New Testament eschatology. The focus will be on these two factors because of their pervasiveness in the New Testament and because they figure heavily in the contrasting premillennial and amillennial interpretations of the Abrahamic covenant.
In premillennial exegesis, the coming in of the Gentiles is seen as postponing rather than being connected with the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. However, New Testament eschatology, which centers in the second appearing of Christ, pertains to Israel's entrance into her promised future following the end of the "church age."
In amillennial-promise exegesis, the coming in of the Gentiles is connected with the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel (a spiritual fulfillment), but on the whole, no such connection is made with New Testament eschatology. Instead, eschatology is treated as a secular, non-Israel end time with no specific covenantal frame of reference, particularly since it is perceived as pertaining to the "end of time."
Thus, in premillennialism, Christ's fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise is attached to New Testament eschatology, but not to the coming in of the Gentiles. In amillennialism, the fulfillment is attached to the coming in of the Gentiles, but not to New Testament eschatology.
Obviously, both views cannot be right on the coming in of the Gentiles, and in the final analysis it will be seen that neither premillennialists nor amillennialists have grasped the biblical meaning and timeframe of New Testament eschatology, even though both hold to a yet future coming of Christ with differing applications of it.
Our aim is to show from scripture that the coming in of the Gentiles and New Testament eschatology are inseparably connected, and bear directly on Christ's fulfillment of God's promises to the fathers of Israel. The New Testament should be read from this perspective. The results will be surprisingly explicit and remarkably coherent. Eschatology is not as peripheral in New Testament scripture, nor as far removed from apostolic time, which would make it irrelevant to the changing of the covenants, as traditional interpretations have led us to believe.
The Coming In Of The Gentiles
As we begin to explore the biblical connection between the Abrahamic promise and the coming in of the Gentiles, we need to see that one of the basic tenets, if not the cornerstone of premillennialism, is the claim that the church, as composed primarily of Gentiles, cannot fulfill God's promises to Israel. Charles Ryrie, for example, makes it clear that the distinction between Israel and the Church "is the essence of dispensationalism."
Premillennialists claim that two separate programs exist in God's covenant with Abraham relative to Christ and the new covenant -- one for Israel and one for the Church. Furthermore, they claim that the designation "Israel" consistently denotes Abraham's physical descendants through Isaac and Jacob, that it never can be used to refer to the church, even though the church is the spiritual seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29). Ryrie wrote, "To carry this designation Israel over to believers in the Church is not warranted by the New Testament."
Premillennialists agree that Gentiles in Christ are Abraham's spiritual seed but contend that they cannot be called Israel because they are not Abraham's natural seed. How, then, do the Gentiles fit into the Abrahamic promise? Walvoord writes, "Here is where the promise to 'all the families of the earth' comes in. This is the express application of this phrase in Galatians 3:6-9 . . . the children of Abraham (spiritually) who come from the 'heathen' or the Gentiles fulfill that aspect of the Abrahamic covenant which dealt with Gentiles in the first place, not the promises pertaining to Israel."
A number of questions are raised when the phrase "all the families of the earth" is singled out. Walvoord seems to be saying that this aspect of the Abrahamic covenant deals with the Gentiles, in contrast to "another" aspect of the covenant that deals strictly with promises for Israel, the natural seed of Abraham.
First, if this is true, why was the gospel which pertains to the Gentile aspect of the Abrahamic covenant (the blessing of all nations, Galatians 3:8) ever preached to the Jews in the first place? Why is this gospel declared by Paul to be the power of God unto salvation, "for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Romans 1:16), if it is a gospel that does not offer what God promised the Jews, the natural descendants of Abraham?
Second, why preach a Gentile aspect of the Abrahamic covenant to Jews for years before preaching it to the Gentiles? Should they not have been the first to hear and to receive their part of the Abrahamic covenant, if it pertained to God's promise to them as opposed to other distinct promises to the Jews? But if it is admitted to be spiritual blessings for Jews as well as Gentiles (and premillennialists grant this), why, then, should it be labeled a Gentile aspect of the Abrahamic covenant? Did God say He would bless "all families of the earth" through a seed line of the Gentiles? If not, then why shift the promise from a Jewish to a Gentile aspect of the Abrahamic covenant? Such a shift cannot be found in scripture, but obviously it is essential in premillennialism.
Third, who are the "partakers" if the premillennial claim is true? When the blessing of "all nations" is made first and foremost a Gentile aspect of the covenant, does it not logically follow that any Jew who becomes a Christian is made a partaker of the Gentiles' spiritual things? Clearly, that is a reversal of Paul's teaching in Romans 15:27. He understood that the Gentiles were made partakers of Israel's spiritual things.
Paul makes this equally clear in Ephesians 3. He said that "the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets" was "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel" (Ephesians 3:4-6).
All three things mentioned in verse 6 -- the inheritance, the body of Christ and God's promise in Christ -- come not out of a Gentile background history but out of Israel's Old Testament redemptive history. Paul is talking about things promised to Israel, of which the Gentiles are made partakers in Christ. Thus, Ephesians 3:6 and Romans 15:27 are identical in meaning. The Gentiles are made partakers of Israel's "spiritual things," not the reverse.
Fourth, what was the status of a Jew, a natural descendant of Abraham, who became a Christian? Here is where the "seed plot" of premillennialism thickens! How many seed categories are there?
In this connection, Walvoord wrote: "There are, then, three different senses in which one can be a child of Abraham. First, there is the natural lineage, or natural seed. This is limited largely to the descendants of Jacob in the twelve tribes. . . . Second, there is the spiritual lineage within the natural. These are the Israelites who believed in God, who kept the law, and who met the conditions for present enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant. Those who ultimately possess the land in the future millennium will also be of spiritual Israel. Third, there is the spiritual seed of Abraham who are not natural Israelites." He goes on to identify these third people as the Gentile believers in Christ.
But this is not the total seed picture. It becomes much more complicated as the premillennial position unfolds. Notice carefully that in the second seed reference mentioned above, Walvoord said, "These [the spiritual lineage within the natural] are the Israelites who believe in God, who kept the law, and who met the conditions . . . of the covenant." Ryrie wrote, "Faithful, believing Jews in Old Testament times were spiritual Israel and both the physical and spiritual seed of Abraham." But we can't stop at this point.
What about the Jews who obey the gospel that Paul said was preached "to Abraham beforehand, saying, 'In you all the nations shall be blessed'" (Galatians 3:8)? Certainly they are not Jews under the law, therefore they cannot fit into the category of Abraham's spiritual seed mentioned above from the writings of Walvoord and Ryrie. Premillennialists know that Jews in Christ are said to be the spiritual seed of Abraham, the same as the Gentiles (Galatians 3:26-29).
This means, therefore, that there are two spiritual seed categories, and the difference is not merely Jews under the law versus Gentiles in Christ, but Jews under the law versus Jews in Christ. In both cases they are the physical descendants of Abraham. By premillennial definition they are both the spiritual seed of Abraham. It cannot be denied that both are his natural seed, but only one is in line to inherit Israel's promises. The other, the seed in Christ, is not.
Let's put it into premillennial perspective. First, according to Walvoord, there is the spiritual lineage (or seed) within Israel who believe in God and keep the law. Therefore, they are spiritual Israelites, and as such they stand in the line of Jewish promises that are ultimately possessed in the millennium. But this is not true of Abraham's spiritual seed in Christ, even if such a one is a physical descendant of Abraham. Remember what we learned above about the premillennial position -- the spiritual seed in Christ cannot be called Israel because Israel and the Church must be kept separate. The Church cannot fulfill Israel's promises.
Therefore, a physical descendant of Abraham who enters Christ is Abraham's spiritual seed, but he cannot be numbered with spiritual Israel of the law. Ryrie said "It is correct to call some of the spiritual seed of Abraham spiritual Israel, but not all. . . . Only when a believer belongs to the race Israel can he in any sense be called a spiritual Israelite." Then he went on to say that the designation "Israel" cannot be carried over to believers in the Church.
In other words, the appellatives spiritual lineage and spiritual Israelites can be given to Abraham's spiritual seed under the law, but not to his spiritual seed in Christ or the Church. When it comes to the Church, a spiritual Israel, spiritual lineage or spiritual Israelite is a no-no from a premillennial perspective.
This is within itself a fatal error in premillennial literalism. When followed to its logical conclusion, for a Jew to be a spiritual Israelite and thus to be in line to inherit God's promises to the fathers of Abraham, he must, of necessity, ignore, bypass or leapfrog the Gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ by which one becomes the non-Israel spiritual seed of Abraham. It means that if every physical descendant of Abraham became a Christian, not a single promise that God made to the fathers of Israel could be fulfilled.
If that were the case, then who could fault the Jews for bitterly resisting Paul's persistent endeavors to turn Jews from Moses to Christ? Truly he would be going against the grain of promise fulfillment. But when Paul stood before King Agrippa and cried out saying, "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers" (Acts 26:6), he certainly was not saying that he was trying to keep Jews from becoming Christians so there would be a seed left to receive Israel's promises. Paul was not a premillennialist, but he was a strong champion of God's promises to Israel through faith in Jesus Christ.
Nowhere did Paul or any other apostle ever indicate that they were preaching a "Gentile aspect" of the Abrahamic promise or that the church was a "bracket age" after which the things promised to Israel would be fulfilled -- for a thousand years. Rather, the coming in of the Gentiles played a vital role in fulfilling God's promises to Israel.
This article orginally appeared in the December 1992 issue of The Living Presence with the title, "Israel and the Promise, Part IV." (Vol. 3, No. 5).
URL:
http://www.presence.tv/cms/premillennialism.php
| 
Top of Page
Email Article
Printer
