Promises to Israel: We Should Expect Literal Fulfillment

Will Varner
Israel
Dispensationalism
Prophecy
Covenant Theology

If Israel has been chosen to perform a special role in the divine plan, what promises have been given to Israel that will enable that ancient people to fulfill that role?

The Apostle Paul is clear on the great privileges that God has granted Israel. He wrote in Romans 9:4: “who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.” Paul nowhere intimates that these great privileges have been annulled, forfeited, or cancelled. As a matter of fact the three chapters of which this verse is a part (Rom. 9-11) have as one of their purposes to emphasize that God has not cancelled His promises to Israel or transferred them to some other people! What says Paul in Romans 11:1?: “I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.”

Specifically, what are those promises to Israel?

Well, they ultimately are derived from those to “Father Abraham” in Genesis 12:1-3. To sum them up, they are basically the promises of a people, a land and a blessing. The Book of Deuteronomy and the later prophets unite on the affirmation of these promises to Israel. Chapters 28 and 29 of Deuteronomy clearly delineate the dire consequences if Israel disobeys the Lord - there will be drought, exile and suffering—to name only a few of the judgments. But even if the promises of judgment are fulfilled, that does not cancel the promises of Israel’s future blessings—found in Deuteronomy 30. As we will emphasize again in this brief article, to view the promises of Israel’s judgement as having been literally fulfilled while attempting to spiritualize and then transfer the promises of her blessings to the Church involves an inconsistent hermeneutic.

As an example of many such illustrations of this principle, consider just the prophets Hosea and Micah. In Hosea 3:4 there is a promise of judgement on Israel which already has been literally fulfilled: “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim.” If that verse has had a literal fulfillment in Israel’s history of the last two thousand years, what about the next verse embodying a promise of blessing for Israel?: “Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days.” If Israel was punished literally, they will be blessed literally!

Or consider the dual promises of judgement and blessing in Micah 3:12-4:2:

Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, And the mountain of the temple like the bare hills of the forest. Now it shall come to pass in the latter days That the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; And peoples shall flow to it. Many nations shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion the law shall go forth, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

The promise of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was literally fulfilled. Why would anyone then spiritualize the promise of restoration and blessing for Jerusalem and the Temple in the very next verses?

Now, someone may say that although the OT prophets may have stated that, now in the NT the Church is the so-called “New Israel” and the Church really spiritually receives those future promises of blessing to Israel. But this cannot be proved from the NT either. Already we have referred to that great chapter on Israel’s future, Romans 11. Throughout that chapter the word “Israel” refers to the Jewish people. Therefore, when Paul affirms the future blessings for Israel in Rom. 11:26-27, why would he then inject the word with a different meaning? “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’” Paul actually bases his theology of blessings for a literal Israel on OT prophecies (Isa. 59:20,21 and Jer. 31:33,34).

Why should the plain and natural sense of a text be jettisoned? In Luke 1:31-33 seven promises were given to Mary. Five of them have already literally been fulfilled. Why is someone authorized to say that the remaining two will not also be literally fulfilled? Indeed, Christ shall receive the throne of His father David, and He shall rule over the house of Jacob forever, literally.

Perhaps we need to pay closer attention to the words of a layman who understood the nature of language very well, the poet and novelist Robert Louis Stevenson:

I cannot understand how you theologians and preachers can apply to the Church Scripture promises, which, in their plain meaning apply to God’s chosen people, Israel; and which consequently must be future. The prophetic books are full of teachings which, if they are interpreted literally, would be inspiring, and a magnificent assurance of a great and glorious future; but which, as they are spiritualized, become farcical…as applied to the Church they are a comedy.

  • 1696 views

Discussion

Profile picture for user TylerR
TylerR
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

The literal kingdom promised to David (2 Sam 7:12-16), and offered and preached by Christ at His first advent (Mk 1:14-15) is not yet here.

Dr. Henebury made a challenge to you earlier today which you have not responded to. This matter will not be resolved by sweeping pronouncements and broad generalities. It is solved in the text of Scripture. His challenge was this:

Wow. Replacement theology at its ugliest. Joshua, you seem to think you can instruct us. Please expound Jeremiah 33:14-26 for me in its context. Then maybe we’ll talk.

You are making very sweeping statements about dispensationalists, none of which are valid, and you appear to have contempt for dispensationalism in general. This is unfortunate. No dispensationalists on this thread have shown contempt for CT. I don’t have contempt for CT. I simply disagree with it. Please return some common courtesy.

Please exposit Jer 33:14-26 for us. Unless we discuss specific passages, this conversation will continue to be unprofitable.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

User image
Joshua Caucutt
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

Okay, so my characterization of dispensationalism seems accurate: when Christ calls us to forsake all for the kingdom, He is telling us to forsake all for a future, political, ethnic entity - according to you.

Did I ever say that I was CT?

Btw, this is not replacement theology, the kingdom has been transferred to a people who are not defined by ethnicity, but are defined by their submission to God - that is not my word, it is Christ’s in Matt. 21:43. I have yet to see a dispy explanation of that verse that is satisfactory. Jesus plainly states: the kingdom of God is being taken from you (the Jews) and given to a people bearing the fruit of that kingdom (the Church).

I will not included direct quotations from Jeremiah in order to save space - you can click through to see the passage:

Here is just a short summary of Jeremiah 33:14-26:

The fulfillment of the kingdom of David was future (to Jeremiah) - the church is future to Jeremiah.

The righteous Branch is a reference to Christ - I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. And Judah and Jerusalem can dwell safely in Him - if they trust in Him (Romans 10). Also, the writer of Hebrews refers to the church as Jerusalem and Paul in Galatians refers to Old, ethnic Jerusalem as the son of Hagar a slave, however the new Jerusalem, the free son of Abraham is the church (Galatians 4).

Is not Christ the son of David who rules on David’s throne eternally?

Is not Christ a High Priest after the order of Melchizadec, a higher order than the Levites? (Hebrews 7) Btw, Christ was approximately 30 years old when he was crucified, which is the age when a priest begins to serve.

Is not Christ the offspring of David? Galatians 3

Did God not “restore the fortunes” of Israel when Christ died and provided the means of reconciliation to God?

God fulfilled all of these promises through Christ and His church - He provided a Prophet, Priest and King, justification by faith and a kingdom against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. What is missing here?

Now, you might say, well, didn’t God promise the physical land on the east side of the Mediterranean to the Jews? Well, first, he provided that (unless you don’t believe Joshua 23:14). Secondly, all of the promises that were promised to the Jews are “yes” in Christ. The Jews can still have access to those promises, but they must come through the church, the Body of Christ.

formerly known as Coach C

User image
Joshua Caucutt
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

The context of Jeremiah 33 is introduced back in chapter 31 where Jeremiah speak of a “new covenant.” Which Christ uses the exact same term when He institutes the “new covenant” through His blood. The writer of Hebrews certainly sees this in the same way when he quotes Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 10:16.

Also, the writer of Hebrews clearly sees the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:33 which mentions a “covenant with Israel” as also applying to the church. Read Hebrews 10:1-25 and try to make it about anything other than the church. Especially the part about “not forsaking the assembling together.”

Is this “assembling” something future, something we don’t need to do now? Or should we be getting together with Jews? Or … what?

formerly known as Coach C

Profile picture for user Paul Henebury
Paul Henebury
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

Please expound Jeremiah 33:14-26 for me in its context. Then maybe we’ll talk.

Joshua wrote:

God fulfilled all of these promises through Christ and His church - He provided a Prophet, Priest and King, justification by faith and a kingdom against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. What is missing here?
Jeremiah’s context where four covenants are cited!

Now, you might say, well, didn’t God promise the physical land on the east side of the Mediterranean to the Jews? Well, first, he provided that (unless you don’t believe Joshua 23:14).
Last I looked Jeremiah came long after Joshua!

Secondly, all of the promises that were promised to the Jews are “yes” in Christ. The Jews can still have access to those promises, but they must come through the church, the Body of Christ.
And where is all that in the context of Jeremiah?

Try again

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

User image
Marsilius
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

Josh, your expressions are genuinely those of one who holds to Replacement Theology (whether you realize it or not).

Replacement Theology holds that:

1) The Church is the New Israel

2) The Church assumes basically all the promises of the Old Testament given to Israel

3) National Israel has no more future in the plan of God that is different from any other nation.

You have expressed yourself quite clearly that this is what you believe. Both the Roman Catholic Church and Liberal churches in the west distanced themselves from this position, particularly point 3, several decades ago, because it played a serious role in the destruction of 6 million Jews in WWII. This is all easily-accessible history. Only Evangelical churches (primarily those holding Reformed Theology) have held on to these beliefs. Pope Benedict stated emphatically, that the Nation of Israel has its own separate function and future in God’s plan, as revealed in the Scriptures. It is an oddity that when the religious world which denies many important Bible teachings, recognizes a correct biblical view (much as they did with Civil Rights in the US), that Evangelicals will tenaciously hold to the wrong one.

It is those Christians who reject Replacement Theology, who have been so effective in reaching Jewish people for Christ. Their numbers are increasing all the time. This will doubtless continue to be the case in the future.

User image
Joshua Caucutt
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

[Marsilius]

Josh, your expressions are genuinely those of one who holds to Replacement Theology (whether you realize it or not).

Replacement Theology holds that:

1) The Church is the New Israel

2) The Church assumes basically all the promises of the Old Testament given to Israel

3) National Israel has no more future in the plan of God that is different from any other nation.

You have expressed yourself quite clearly that this is what you believe. Both the Roman Catholic Church and Liberal churches in the west distanced themselves from this position, particularly point 3, several decades ago, because it played a serious role in the destruction of 6 million Jews in WWII. This is all easily-accessible history. Only Evangelical churches (primarily those holding Reformed Theology) have held on to these beliefs. Pope Benedict stated emphatically, that the Nation of Israel has its own separate function and future in God’s plan, as revealed in the Scriptures. It is an oddity that when the religious world which denies many important Bible teachings, recognizes a correct biblical view (much as they did with Civil Rights in the US), that Evangelicals will tenaciously hold to the wrong one.

It is those Christians who reject Replacement Theology, who have been so effective in reaching Jewish people for Christ. Their numbers are increasing all the time. This will doubtless continue to be the case in the future.

Marsilius, call it what you will, I must stand where Scripture stands.

From Hebrews 12:22-24: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” The church here is being called “Mount Zion,” “the heavenly Jerusalem” and yet somehow, the church is not Israel?

From Colossians 1:13-14 “Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Paul apparently thought that the believers at Colossea - primarily Gentiles had been transferred into the kingdom. Clearly though, these people had not become physical Jews.

From Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” To continue to maintain that there is some special divine favor that is still reserved for ethnic, physical or national Israel is a direct contradiction to this verse and frankly, nearly all of Paul’s ministry. In Christ, “Jewishness” does not matter in the slightest any more than being from any other ethnic background.

Finally, Christ himself prophesied that this is what was happening - the transfer of the kingdom - which is one of the main reasons why the Jews hated Him so much. He told them that no longer did having Abraham as one’s genetic heritage give one an advantage when it came to being the people of God. John 8;39 “They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did.” And even more to the point: Matthew 21:43 “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” I am attempting to hold the same theological position of Christ, Paul, Peter, John, etc.

Other than the writers of Scripture, I don’t really care who did or did not hold any particular view. The Holocaust was a great tragedy and was clearly wrong regardless of which people group was the target.

Furthermore, mission efforts that win Jewish people to Christ are fantastic and as long as the true Gospel is preached, Jews can and sill be saved. Paul believed that under the New Covenant, the kingdom was the church and that the kingdom no longer resided in ethnic Israel - especially after the destruction of the Temple. Yet, he still continued to win Jews to Christ, he himself was a Jew and a testimony to the fact that all of God’s promises to the Jews were being fulfilled in Jews who like Paul were turning to Christ. Romans 11:1 “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.”

formerly known as Coach C

User image
Joshua Caucutt
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

[Paul Henebury]

Please expound Jeremiah 33:14-26 for me in its context. Then maybe we’ll talk.

Joshua wrote:

God fulfilled all of these promises through Christ and His church - He provided a Prophet, Priest and King, justification by faith and a kingdom against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. What is missing here?
Jeremiah’s context where four covenants are cited!

Now, you might say, well, didn’t God promise the physical land on the east side of the Mediterranean to the Jews? Well, first, he provided that (unless you don’t believe Joshua 23:14).
Last I looked Jeremiah came long after Joshua!

Secondly, all of the promises that were promised to the Jews are “yes” in Christ. The Jews can still have access to those promises, but they must come through the church, the Body of Christ.
And where is all that in the context of Jeremiah?

Try again

I am not sure where you are going with this, but Jeremiah 33 is particularly concerned with the restoration of national Israel following the Babylonian exile. The near fulfillment of this prophecy happened under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah. I don’t belief that anyone disputes this strongly.

formerly known as Coach C

User image
Larry
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

Joshua,

Let me take another quick stab here, though I don’t have a lot of time for this. Pardon the length, but you have said a lot and I want to respond to it.

I think your approach is significantly (irreparably?) harmed by severe deficiencies, both in understanding and in methodology.

First, in a previous post you admitted to not understanding dispensationalism, even when you were an adherent to it. That, IMO, should give you pause to make such dogmatic declarations about it. It should also prevent you from declaring that your “characterization of dispensationalism seems accurate.”

Second, your methodology is flawed. Earlier, I posted a response interacting with almost all of your previous verses. You haven’t responded, which is fine. But more importantly, you have offered nothing but assertions in support of your position.

For instance, you have repeatedly declared that the “people who produce the fruit of [the kingdom] ” is the church. While that is a popular view (along with a couple of others), I find it insufficient. To the contrary, in light of the OT, we should expect that the “people who produce such fruit” is in fact Israel. This was prophesied in the Palestinian covenant in Deut 30:1ff. where God prophesies the turning away and the repentance and restoration. And significantly, it is the same group of people—the Israelites. This is also the testimony of the NT, such as in Acts 3:19ff. where the restoration (which means the restoration of something that previously existed, i.e., the kingdom) is to happen after Christ has spent time in heaven, which was spoken of in the OT. So Peter gives the same message as the OT, a message of a period of delay with Christ in heaven followed by a period restoration. It what happens when Zech 12:10 is fulfilled in Rev 1:5 when Israel mourns and repents at the sight of the returning Jesus (something that didn’t happen in AD 70 and something that the church has already done, meaning that Zech 12:10 can’t fulfilled in either; there has to be something else).

For another instance, take the New Covenant (NC). You have repeatedly referred to it, but haven’t actually interacted with it. It expressly says the “house of Israel and the house of Judah.” That means something. It talks of those who were led by the hand out of Egypt. That means something. It talks of those who were given the covenant that they broke. That means something. What exactly does that mean? You haven’t told us how these terms with clear historic referent to the nation of Israel somehow become something that is not a nation, who were never in Egypt, and with whom there was never a Law. Those terms have no reference to the church. Yet you just ignore what the words mean in their context and change them to something else. You appeal to Hebrews, but fail to note that Hebrew is talking about something very specific—forgiveness—and invokes only part of the NC, not the whole thing. This is significant because it signifies that AH did not intend to imply that the entire NC was fulfilled, but rather only part of it.

You face the same kind of issues in Romans 9-11 where Paul explicitly talks about Israel as “my kinsmen according to the flesh.” What else can that mean but ethnic Jews. The church is not Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh. That is spiritual. Paul uses OT language to describe them as the ones for whom are the promises, the covenants, the Law, and the blessings. And yet you want us to believe that “his kinsmen according to the flesh” for whom he desires repentance are actually the church (who presumably have already repented). This seems a significant issue for your position that can’t be dismissed with the wave of a hand.

I think the real issue is the relationship between Israel and the church. You assert (through argument) that the church has replaced Israel, yet you provide no exegesis for that. That is a weakness and it gives us nothing to talk about.

But since you asked, let me hit quickly a few passages, though not all. The methods used here will be applicable to all though.

… what happens when Israel comes back to God?

When Israel comes back to God, God restores the kingdom promised in the OT (cf. Deut 30, and too many to list after that) and reiterated in Acts (cf. 3:19ff.). God always keeps his promises.

If this new New Covenant that you speak of has it’s basis in the blood of Christ, how is that not the New Covenant - the church?

Not sure what your question is. The New Covenant is the New Covenant. There’s only one. The church participates in its blessings as Hebrews says, but the NC it actually with the people described in the NC (see above).

Christ and the apostles thought the kingdom was now.

Interestingly, at the ascension, the disciples asked Jesus if he was going to restore the kingdom at the time of his resurrection. It is instructive.

  1. We learn that they did not think the kingdom was then. It was something still to be restored.
  2. We learn that Jesus agreed with them since he did nothing to correct them. He simply told them it wasn’t theirs to know the time. Had you been correct, he would have simply said, “It’s already here.” They continued to preach as if the kingdom was still future.
Colossians 1:13 is probably the best, written in past tense to the church at Colossea: “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.”

Yes. I would say that is a judicial transfer. In line with Phil 3:20, our citizenship is in heaven, even though we are not currently there. So it is possible to be a part of something even when we are somewhere else.

Matthew 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Yes, when Jesus was here, the kingdom was here. And the Jews rejected it. That’s why it was taken from them to be given to a people producing the fruit of it, namely, end time Israel, such as in Matt 21:43, which you make “the church” without exegetical warrant. He said the kingdom was in their midst (Luke 17:21). It was all around them; they simply needed to look at it. But they refused.

According to your position, someone was given keys that they can’t use until … when?

Isn’t that a reference to salvation and eternal life that comes from the forgiveness of sins? This passage has to do with church membership as an affirmation of salvation; therefore, put out people who are not living as if they are saved.

Also, I understand that at times, the NT speaks explicitly of the kingdom as our future in heaven. These are clear - but one cannot be a part of the future, heavenly kingdom if he is not a member of the present, earthly kingdom (the church) so these two groups are essentially the same.

Notice again the huge unwarranted jump from the kingdom future to the kingdom equaling the church.

To make this passage [Heb 12:18-29] about something other than the church would be rip it from it’s context which includes numerous references to the church.

Not following you here. An awful lot of that passage is future, specifically the things that will be shaken, i.e., taken out of the way, for the sake of the kingdom that will not be removed.

Tell me, what is the “assembly of the firstborn” in this passage? If it is the church, then nearly everything that I have said is true. If it is not the church, then what could it be?

It is most likely saints already in heaven since it is the “general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.” So we as believers are joining a body that already exists, the church, and some of them are already in heaven. But I don’t think any thing here requires that the church be Israel, or that Israel is excluded from a future.

The mystery of the church was hidden from the view of the OT prophets

Yes, but the kingdom was not, which is yet another reason why the church is not the kingdom. If it were, they would have fully known about it.

Why do dispy’s hold on to a system in which it is so easy to poke biblical and logical holes so tightly?

What if it’s not that easy to poke biblical and logical holes in it? I don’t find these arguments substantive. You already told us you didn’t understand it. Perhaps that is why you find it so easy to poke holes in.

I mean, even though Jesus died for the church… does he then expect us to make some future Jewish state as our top priority?

No, the priority is making disciples (the Great Commission).

when Christ calls us to forsake all for the kingdom, He is telling us to forsake all for a future, political, ethnic entity - according to you.

Do you know anyone who thinks this? Because I don’t. It is, to me, totally inaccurate.

I have yet to see a dispy explanation of that verse that is satisfactory. Jesus plainly states: the kingdom of God is being taken from you (the Jews) and given to a people bearing the fruit of that kingdom (the Church).

Why did you add “the church” in there? It makes perfect sense of the OT to see it as end time Israel. Remember the OT: From beginning to end, God prophesied that disobedience and rejection of him would result in their loss of the kingdom and its blessings. But repentance and faith would be a return of the kingdom and its blessings. And both promises (judgment and restoration) are made to the same people. So we should expect exactly what Jesus said there to be a reference to those promises. This is why I say that dispensationalism makes better sense of the whole Bible. It can actually correlate these things in a sensible way. Acts 3:19ff. make the exact same promise, with the explicit declaration that the time of restoration (restoring the kingdom) will come after Jesus has been in heaven. So there, for Peter, the restoration of the kingdom was future, after Christ had been in heaven and then returned.

Did God not “restore the fortunes” of Israel when Christ died and provided the means of reconciliation to God?

No. Romans 11 is explicit: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. If you say that Israel in Rom 9-11 is the church, you have a partial hardening happening to the church. That is odd. The only avoidance seems to be that sometimes Israel means the nation and other times it means the church. How do we know which it means? Well, it appears to depend on the point we want to make. I am not comfortable with that.

What about Rom 11:28-29 which say that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable? That is specifically tied to promises God made to the fathers; it quotes the NC; and it is in contrast to the church. The points seems to be that national Israel has a future because God made irrevocable promises to the fathers.

What is missing here?

The teaching of the whole Bible. You have picked out certain things here or there and separated them from the whole Bible in its context. You have failed to correlate everything God says about the issues at hand.

Well, first, he provided that (unless you don’t believe Joshua 23:14).

Here you are speaking of the land promises as being fulfilled. Again, as I pointed out (and as Paul did), 600-800 years after Joshua, God is still holding out the promise of the land to his people. How do you explain that? The NC explicitly includes restoration to the land marked by certain geographical landmarks. That seems strange if it was all fulfilled during the conquest. Furthermore the Davidic covenant, 400 years after the conquest also promises safety and dwelling in the land in peace under the ultimate Davidic ruler.

The Jews can still have access to those promises, but they must come through the church, the Body of Christ.

Of course. We are in the church age. God has broken down the middle wall and made both one. But what of the future and God’s promises to Israel? You seem to want to just sweep those under the rug, and pretend like they don’t matter. I don’t think you can do that.

So here’s my conclusion The biggest question, IMO, is this: What makes the best sense of the whole Bible? I will grant that your position may make better sense of some individual passages. But what of the whole? When you try to incorporate that back into the whole of Scripture, there are serious problems, and for these, you must resort to theologizing rather than exegesis. I am not comfortable with that. Our theology must grow out of exegesis.

I don’t have a lot of time to devote to this. I have probably already spent too much time on it. But such is life … I do think this needs considerably more consideration than you appear to have given it.

User image
Joshua Caucutt
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

I’ve read through your post and I think that before God, I can deal with each of your statements.

For instance, the disciples’ question to Jesus about when He was going to bring in the kingdom makes sense - they were still looking for the dispensational :) physical fulfillment of the prophecies of the kingdom. This was before Pentecost and before 70 AD (the final destruction of the Temple). Remember also, that Jesus promised that some of His disciples would live to see the kingdom. “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matt. 16:28 So, yes, at the time of the ascension, the kingdom as the church age had not yet been fully realized. Eventually, they figured it out and pretty quickly. At least Peter did when he quoted from Exodus 19 and wrote that the church was “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Clearly, the church is a nation with laws, a King, boundaries, etc.

It is stunning to me that someone cannot see the church as the literal fulfillment of these statements. How can you be looking for something more?

But in the interest of brevity, I just want to ask you one question - this was something that I did not understand when I called myself a dispensationalist: Jesus calls his disciple to forsake all for the kingdom. I would like to be one of Christ’s disciples, for what entity then am I forsaking all? What is my “treasure in the field” what is my “pearl of great price”? Is this not the church?

formerly known as Coach C

User image
Larry
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

For instance, the disciples’ question to Jesus about when He was going to bring in the kingdom makes sense - they were still looking for the dispensational physical fulfillment of the prophecies of the kingdom.

Why were they looking for this? Is it not because this is what the OT communicated? And why didn’t Jesus correct them? In your view, Jesus let these men (to whom he had entrusted his mission) to go on believing something that wasn’t true. Don’t we consider that a breach of ethics, when a leader allows a subordinate to go on believeing something untrue? Would not an ethical leader correct these false notions, particularly if the mission was at stake?

Remember also, that Jesus promised that some of His disciples would live to see the kingdom. “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matt. 16:28

Yes, and in every account of that occasion it is immediately followed by the Transfiguration where they saw the glory of the Son of Man in his kingdom. And Peter wanted to stay, and Jesus said, “No.” Why, in every account of that story, is this statement followed by the Transfiguration? That doesn’t seem accidental does it?

It is stunning to me that someone cannot see the church as the literal fulfillment of these statements. How can you be looking for something more?

Because of the promises God made. Will God keep those promises or not? Of course you say “Yes,” but in the process you change the promises. so God doesn’t actually keep the promises he made; he keeps other promises.

Clearly, the church is a nation with laws, a King, boundaries, etc.

That may all be true (though I think there is a more reasonable explanation in light of all of Scripture … remember, all of it, not just part of it). But none of that is what the OT talked about, and none of that precludes a future for the nation of Israel.

Jesus calls his disciple to forsake all for the kingdom. I would like to be one of Christ’s disciples, for what entity then am I forsaking all? What is my “treasure in the field” what is my “pearl of great price”? Is this not the church?

No, it’s the future, the kingdom, the eternal state. We are to forsake all for the glory of Christ in his kingdom.

Are you familiar with Michael Vlach’s “Has the Church Replaced Israel?” It is a book worth your time. Even if you don’t agree, he gives substantive discussion and explanation of these issues, much more so than can be done in a forum like this.

User image
Joshua Caucutt
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

If the Transfiguration fulfilled the prophecy regarding the fact that some of the disciples would not tasted death before they would see the kingdom, then A. How can the kingdom still be future to us … if they saw it at the Transfiguration? and B. If they had already seen the kingdom, why were they still looking for it in Acts 1? and C. This does not explain why Paul and Peter told their readers that they “had come” to the kingdom.

I’m willing to let the matter rest in this forum, but I just want to point out that in the course of just that one comment, you have made the kingdom to at one point refer to heaven and then at another point, you make it to be physical Israel. This is indicative of the contradictions and discontinuity within dispensationalism. There are some dispy’s who add the “mystical body” of all believers and even the USA to the list of possible “kingdoms.” And where they plug in these various interpretations is arbitrary.

Christ shed His blood for the church, the apostles devoted their lives and writings to the church, the church has been given the keys to heaven and hell, the very Body of Christ is the church, yet for some reason, you are looking for something more, in actuality, you are looking for something less - a physical country in the Middle East, instead of the glorious kingdom of the church. In the dispy world, the kingdom seems to be “anything but the church.” In fact, some have implied that my position might be anti-Israel, it seems to me that the dispensational position could likewise be considered anti-Church.

I’ll try to let this be my last comment here, but the reality is that I agree strongly with the title from the original article: Yes, the promises to Israel have been literally fulfilled. When Christ said that the kingdom was “at hand” He was speaking the truth and that this reality was soon.

formerly known as Coach C

User image
Larry
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

One last comeback, and then I too will let it rest here.

If the Transfiguration fulfilled the prophecy regarding the fact that some of the disciples would not tasted death before they would see the kingdom, then A. How can the kingdom still be future to us … if they saw it at the Transfiguration? and B. If they had already seen the kingdom, why were they still looking for it in Acts 1? and C. This does not explain why Paul and Peter told their readers that they “had come” to the kingdom.

Because if you recall the story, (A) the glory of the kingdom went away on that mountain because it was not yet time, and (B) because of what their Bible told them the kingdom was and because they could look around and see that what the OT said did not match what they saw, and again, Jesus took no steps to correct their view; he allowed them to continue to believe it. With respect to C, I am not sure what passage you are talking about, so I don’t know the context of the comments.

you have made the kingdom to at one point refer to heaven and then at another point, you make it to be physical Israel.
I don’t think I have done this. The kingdom gives way to the eternal state, the new heavens and the new earth.

It is true that many dispensationalists do wierd things with the kingdom and the like. At some level, you are correct that “This is indicative of the contradictions and discontinuity within dispensationalism,” although it’s more accurate to say “among dispensationalists.” But remember your side is hardly more unanimous. There are a number of divisions over there as well. But that’s why I said earlier, the kingdom issue here is a bit of a red herring. The real issue is the relationships of Israel and the church. You think they are the same, and I think that is exegetically unsupportable, regardless of the relationship of the church to the kingdom.

Christ shed His blood for the church, the apostles devoted their lives and writings to the church, the church has been given the keys to heaven and hell, the very Body of Christ is the church, yet for some reason, you are looking for something more, in actuality, you are looking for something less - a physical country in the Middle East, instead of the glorious kingdom of the church.

The first part is all true. But then you say we are looking for something more … or something less instead of the glorious kingdom of the church. Here’s the issue to me:

Should we say that the promises of God are more or less compared to other promises? You seem to think it is either the church as the kingdom or the kingdom without the church. I think there is both. There a church and there is a kingdom.

And God made promises. I don’t think we should call the promises of God to his people Israel “something less.” I don’t see the warrant for that.

In the dispy world, the kingdom seems to be “anything but the church.” In fact, some have implied that my position might be anti-Israel, it seems to me tsuhat the dispensational position could likewise be considered anti-Church.

As a dispensationalist, I am a big church guy. I don’t think anything I say could be remotely construed as anti-church.

The question is, What is the kingdom and when does it come? To answer that, we must use the Bible. And when we do that, I don’t think we can say the church is the kingdom. The kingdom has spiritual aspects to be sure, but also moral, ecclesiastical, physical, etc. And we can’t simply do away with those, IMO. God made promises and he must keep them or else be unfaithful to himself.

When Christ said that the kingdom was “at hand” He was speaking the truth and that this reality was soon.

I absolutely agree. In fact, he said, “It is in your midst.” But they rejected it, and he said it would be taken away and given to people producing the fruit of it, which again, in the context of the whole Bible, is national Israel in fulfillment of Zech 12:10.

Thanks for the exchange. I am going to try to bail out here and work on the kingdom that is my life.

User image
AJWhit
Fri, 05/31/13 12:00 am

I wanted to contribute one thought. Joshua C. mentioned several times that the land promises to Israel have been fulfilled in Joshua 23:14. I would like to add to the mixture the dilemma of the account of Judges. In Judges 1:21, 27-36 (and additional places), we have accounts of the Canaanites remaining in the land. Either God’s promise is fulfilled in Joshua 23:14 and the Jews simply did not receive the entire benefit of the promise by their neglecting to drive out all the inhabitants (which does not seem likely, particularly in light of Jeremiah 33:14-26 and Larry’s comments regarding the greater dimensions of the land specified more fully in the NC and that God would seem to be, pardon me, “short-changing” the people by giving them a Canaanite-ridden land), or the promise is yet unfulfilled and we must question the integrity of Joshua’s statements of “conquest totality” peppered throughout Joshua 23-24 (not just 23:14). It seems to me that we should understand Joshua’s statements as “inspired boasts,” if you will. This was done commonly throughout the ANE (and even by politicians today!!). In other words, Joshua exaggerated the extent of the conquest and the extent to which God’s promises (at least in the promise of land) had been fulfilled. How else can we understand the book of Judges’ obvious depictions of failed expulsion, which seem contrary to the benefit of possessing the land fully?

I know Larry and Josh C. are done, but someone else is welcome to contribute a thought on this! Sorry, I know, it’s kind of a sidebar to the topic (but important nonetheless!).