Untitled Sermon (1)

SECTION FIVE SALVATION IN DISPENSATIONALISM I. The Charge against Dispensationalism A. The Statement of the Charge It is commonly argued that dispensationalism teaches different ways of salvation. Usually at least two different plans of salvation are alleged for dispensationalists: Old Testament and New Testament; Law and Grace; works and faith, etc. Sometimes it is said that dispensationalists have as many ways of salvation as there are dispensations. B. Reasons for the Charge 1. A misunderstanding of the varying degrees of the display of God’s grace Some think that the dispensation of Grace implies that there was no grace in other dispensations. Others fail to comprehend that within the dispensation of grace itself there are varying degrees of grace manifested. James 4:6 2. A misunderstanding of the concept of dispensation The specific revelation for a dispensation may include requirements for salvation or for one’s approach to God, but not always. The revelation for the dispensation of Civil Government had no new light regarding redemption. 3. Unguarded statements by dispensationalists The most commonly reported statement is in the old Scofield Reference Bible, 1115 (note 1, part 2). “As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation (John 1. 12, 13; 3. 36; Mt. 21. 37; 22. 42; John 15. 22; Heb 1. 2; 1 John 5. 10-12).” The phrase “legal obedience as the condition of salvation” raises the objection.[1] C. Reply to the Charge Dispensationalists have maintained consistently only one way of salvation – by grace through faith. This will be explicated in a few pages. II. The Relation of the Mosaic Law to the Principle of Grace A. The Problem Some dispensationalists, unfortunately, have given the impression that the dispensation of Law was a forsaking of a previous plateau of grace under Promise, a going backward in the dispensational scheme. L.S. Chafer says, “When the Law was proposed, the children of Israel deliberately forsook their position under the grace of God which had been their relationship to God until that day, and placed themselves under the law.”[2] B. The Solution 1. Viewed in the light of the apostasy in Egypt, Law was an advance. The apostasy proved that Israel needed a detailed code for obeying God. 2. The Law was recognized as a gift from God (Deut. 8:18). Israel’s election and political formation (i.e., her theocratic position) was also an act of God’s grace (Deut. 7:7, 8). 3. The Law did not annul the promise of the previous dispensation (Gal. 3:17); therefore, Law was not a retrogression. 4. At least one purpose of the Law was to point to Christ (Rom 3:21; Gal. 3:24). C. Salvation under the Mosaic Economy 1. The Covenant Position Since covenant theology’s motif is redemption, with the unifying factor of the Bible being the covenant of grace, it follows that in this system the various facets of salvation are the same in both testaments. This means that in a very real sense the Old Testament saints believed on Christ or had definite faith in the promise of salvation through Messiah. I.e., they had personal faith in the yet future Messiah; He was the actual object of their faith. a) John Gill, for example, said that Abraham believed that Christ would spring from his seed, and he believed in Him as his Savior and redeemer. “He believed in him for righteousness, and he believed in his righteousness as justifying him before God.”[3] b) After presenting opposing viewpoints, Charles Hodge emphatically argued, “In opposition to these different views the common doctrine of the Church has ever been, that the plan of salvation has been the same from the beginning. There is the same promise of deliverance from the evils of the apostasy, the same redeemer, the same condition required for participation in the blessings of redemption, and the same complete salvation for all who embrace the offers of divine mercy.”[4] c) Likewise, J. Barton Payne argued that in spite of some difference, the doctrine of regeneration is taught in the Old Testament as well as in the New. He writes: “This definition of regeneration as being ‘in Christ’ by no means, however, eliminates the doctrine of the new birth from the Old Testament. There is but one, unified testament, God’s sole plan of salvation, through which Christ offers a redemption that is equally effective for the saints of both dispensations. Christ states that Abraham, in the patriarchal period, rejoiced to see His day, ‘And he saw it, and was glad’ (John 8:56).”[5] d) Dispensationalism, however, argues that it is debatable as to how much understanding there was of the full import of the prophecies about the Messiah or how much of the truth about Christ’s coming redemptive work was understood by Old Testament saints. (1) What does not seem to be the case is that men consciously believed in Jesus Christ, for we do not find until the New Testament the explicitly stated revelation that Jesus of Nazareth is the long-awaited Christ. (2) When Hodge specified the content of faith as Jesus Christ, he went too far. Would God have expected Adam and Eve to place their faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth? Would He have expected them to believe that their redeemer would be the second person of the Godhead? Would He have even expected them to believe that their redeemer would die for their sins? Genesis 3:15 does not indicate so. (3) It seems that those who hold this view are so concerned to uphold the unity of God’s redemptive program that they do not do justice to the truth of the progress of revelation. Consequently, the Old Testament saint seems to be granted more revelation and more understanding of revelation than Scripture indicates he actually had. 2. The Dispensational Position a) The basis or ground of salvation in every age is the death of Christ. (1) However, claiming that Christ’s death is the ground of salvation does not mean that at all times in history God had revealed that the death of Jesus of Nazareth is the sole basis for granting salvation. It is unlikely that anyone knew that before His advent or perhaps before Isaiah’s writing. (2) What is meant by saying that Christ’s death is the basis or ground of salvation is that from God’s perspective, the sacrifice of Christ is the objective act on the grounds of which God offers salvation in any age. God has known about Christ’s death from eternity. Because God knows that the deed will be done (since He decreed it), and because He sees all of history (including the completed work of Christ) at once, God can grant man salvation, even before the sacrifice is performed in history. Thus, God always sees Christ’s work as an accomplished fact. (3) Man, limited by his human perspective, did not know about the atoning work of Jesus Christ until God revealed it and then accomplished it within human history. The people of the Old Testament era did not know that Jesus was the Messiah, that Jesus would die, and that His death would be the basis of salvation. But God did. Consequently, He could grant salvation on the basis of it. b) The requirement of salvation in every age is faith. (1) According to Scripture (Heb 11), the sole requirement for salvation is that man exercise faith in the provision that God has revealed. Hebrews 11 clearly indicates that in both the Old and New Testaments, faith is the sole requirement of man for salvation. (2) God always requires that man respond in faith to whatever He has revealed concerning salvation. c) The object of faith in every age is God. (1) The ultimate object of faith in any and every age is God Himself. The ultimate issue at any time in history is whether a man will take God at His word and exercise faith in the provision of salvation which He reveals. (2) In Hebrews 11 each hero of the faith did what he did because of his faith in God (cf. Rom 4:3). It is also interesting to note that the prophets did not call the backslidden people to return to the sacrificial system or even to a renewed belief in the promises of God. Instead, the plea was to return to God (Jer 3:1, 12, 14, 22; 4:1; Ezek 33:11; Hos 12:6; 14:1; Joel 2:12). (3) In all times, God is the ultimate object of faith. d) The content of faith changes in the dispensations. (1) The content of faith is the revelation from God; i.e., what was actually believed. (2) The content of the faith of the Old Testament saints was not the incarnate, crucified Lamb of God. (a) When they “looked forward” to the final sacrifice for sin, they did not see exactly what we see when we “look back” to the cross of Calvary. (b) The first hint of redeeming grace was the seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15), but whose heel would be crushed by the serpent. It would be difficult for Adam and Eve to understand the death of the Redeemer from that promise, but they would have understood that a human would solve the sin problem. (c) This glimmer grew brighter throughout the Old Testament until the prophets were speaking of the name, character, mission, and even birthplace of the Coming One (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2; etc.). (d) It is extremely doubtful, however, if anyone clearly understood these matters; even His disciples did not understand until afterHis death and resurrection (John 2:22).(3) The content of the faith of the Old Testament saints was essentially God’s redemptive revelation up to that point accompanied by an animal sacrifice. It is important to remember that since in each economy the content is what God has revealed, belief in the content for that age is belief in the ultimate object of faith, God. (a) Thus, it is not the performance of the sacrifices or a belief in the sacrificial system per se that saved someone living under the Mosaic law. (b) Instead, what saved a person was a commitment to the God who had revealed that sin was to be expiated through sacrifices made in faith that God would give atonement. (c) Therefore, in agreeing to respond positively to the specific content in any age, the believer was ultimately responding to the God who revealed the content (cf. Rom 4:3).III. The Purpose and Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices[6] A. The Theocratic Efficacy View This view holds that animal sacrifices atoned only for ceremonial or theocratic offense, not for moral transgressions.[7] Analysis: 1. This would render large portions of the Pentateuch, especially of the book of Leviticus, of no importance. It does not really account for the whole sacrificial system. 2. To the Hebrew living under the Mosaic system, the Levitical ritual was an integral part of his moral obedience to the revealed will of God. The Levitical priesthood and altar was the only means for being right with God, and was wholly adequate for its intended purpose. B. The Moral Efficacy View This view holds that animal sacrifices were automatically efficacious for theocratic offenses and made real atonement for moral sin when offered in true faith.[8] 1. Since there was a union of religion and state (civil and religious matters) in Israel, one was a member of the covenant community by birth. 2. Also as a result of this union, an offense was both a civil and a moral sin producing a breach in both covenant standing in the community and spiritual standing before God. 3. Animal sacrifices granted a ceremonial cleansing and a restoration to covenant standing in the theocratic community regardless of heart attitude. 4. If offered in true faith in God’s revelation, the sacrifices secured a real forgiveness and a practical removal of moral as well as theocratic defilement. a) The necessity of true faith Gen 15:6 Psalm 50:5-6 Psalm 51:17 Rom 4:14-16 Heb 11:4, 6 b) The bestowal of forgiveness Leviticus 4:20 – “So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.” See also Leviticus 4:26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7; Numbers 15:25, 28; etc. c) A practical removal of guilt and defilement It is a “practical” removal rather than a “final” removal. By practical is meant that removal of sin and guilt as far as the offerer was concerned. He left the offering with forgiveness and expiation, although there had not been final expiation or a permanent removal. The blood of the sacrifices could not ultimately remove sin. Psalm 103:12 Lev 14:31 Lev 16:17, 21 Deut 21:9 d) Leviticus 17:11 – “for it is the blood by reason of the life (fpn – nephesh) that makes atonement.” e) The nepheshof the animal was the source of life – the animating, driving principle. The animal was not capable of accountability, personality, or freedom; it was moved by instinct or by the necessities of nature. Morally, it was sinless or guiltless and became the vehicle of the forgiveness of the sin of man. “By reason of” (preposition b – beth) the nephesh, which was the innocent life, God granted an expiation for the sin of the people. (1) This does not mean that the blood itself (the corpuscles, plasma, etc.) secured the atonement; it was by reason of the nephesh. Still there was no atonement until animal blood was offered, so that the sacrifice was not merely symbolic (i.e., animal blood did not have onlysymbolic forgiveness and symbolic atonement). (2) The same applies to the blood of the Son of God (1 John 1:9). His blood has efficacy to atone for sin by reason of His active and passive obedience, not by reason of the physical elements or properties. (3) The blood in the cases of both Christ and Old Testament animals was in itself representative or symbolic, not sacramentarian. This symbolism or representative nature did not preclude the literality of the blood or its necessity. (4) The representative nature of Old Testament sacrifices (a) They represented, by substitution, the sinner’s guilt. (b) The blood represented the nephesh. The nephesh per se did not give atonement; it was the blood by reason of the nephesh that made expiation. It was life yielded up in death.(5) The representative nature of the sacrifice of Christ (a) Christ’s sacrifice represented, by substitution, the sinner’s guilt. (b) The blood represented the passive obedience of Christ, the real efficacious instrumentality and integrating factor in atonement.C. The Problem of Hebrews 10:4. There is an apparent contradiction between the Old Testament teaching regarding expiation and the surface meaning of Hebrews 10:4 – “for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Note the following factors: 1. Animal sacrifice did not grant a final removal of sin and a final purging of the conscience, but they did grant genuine expiation and effected a real forgiveness. a) Hebrews 9:8, 9 This does not mean that the Old Testament saint never had a cleansed conscience; it means that he had no inner consciousness of a complete and permanent removal of guilt. He had to keep offering sacrifices for atonement, which to the observant OT believer would have been a significant truth. b) Hebrews 10:1, 2 New objective sin brought new guilt which needed objective removal as far as the offerer was concerned. 2. The final expiation of sin came with the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. NT believers can only accept one sacrifice as the payment for their sin. Heb 9:26 Heb 10:10 Heb 10:14 3. The Old Testament sacrifices were validated in the mind of God on the basis of the coming offering of Christ. Rom 3:25 Heb 9:15 Rev 13:8 EXCURSUS ON THE CENTRALITY OF THE LEVITICAL SYSTEM The elaborate sacrificial and festal system in the Law was the only God-appointed means of approaching Him and of being in right relationship with Him. The Levitical system was actual faith in action, not just an outcome of faith or merely an outward symbol of previously exercised internal faith. The sacrifices were not truly comparable to the communion elements of the church age, a comparison often made. Faith in God for salvation was in and through the sin offering. Cleansing from sin as a believer was secured by faith through the sin and trespass offerings. Testimony and praise to God, consecration, thanksgiving, and the like, had appropriate offerings and ritual. To be deprived of the ritual was tantamount to apostasy or idolatry (1 Sam 26:19). God made special provision for Israel in the Captivity (Ezek 11:16). Even prayer was not the direct approach to God which we enjoy today; it was connected with the altar of incense in the Holy Place and with the daily offerings in behalf of the nation. 1 Kings 8:29, 31, 33, 35, 38, 42, 44, 48 Daniel 6:10 Exodus 30:7, cf. Psalm 5:3 Psalm 88:13 Psalm 141:2 Acts 3:1 See also the following verses that link prayer with the ritual: 2 Chron 20:9 Psalm 138:2 Psalm 5:7 Daniel 9:21 Psalm 28:2 Jonah 2:4, 7 Psalm 42:1 Luke 1:10 Psalm 55:17 Acts 10:3, 30 Psalm 134:2 One could not have a lofty disregard for the ritual and remain spiritually alive in Israel. The mediatorial function was in the hands of the Levitical priests, and one had to approach God via that exclusive provision. Malachi 2:7

SECTION SIX THE CHURCH IN DISPENSATIONALISM

Dispensationalism is nowhere more distinctive than in its doctrine of the church. Dispensationalists hold that the church is entirely distinct from Israel as an entity. This is argued from several points.

1. The church was a mystery, unknown in the Old Testament (Eph 3:1-9; Col 1:26).

2. The church is composed of Jews and Gentiles; the Gentiles being fellow-heirs with Jews without having to become Jewish proselytes – something that was not true in the Old Testament (Eph 3:6). This issue was resolved in Acts 15 when the Judaizers attempted to put Gentiles under the law.

3. The church did not begin until Acts 2. John the Baptist’s prophecy that Jesus would baptize the disciples in the Holy Spirit was still a future event according to Acts 1:5, but in Acts 11:15 it is clear that it began in Acts 2. Dispensationalists also believe that the church will conclude its existence upon the earth at the rapture, prior to the Tribulation (1 Thes 4:16).

4. The church is consistently distinguished from Israel in the New Testament (1 Cor 10:32). Covenant theology cannot appreciate the dispensationalist’s doctrine of the church because of the blurring effects of the ideas of the one covenant of grace and the one people of God.

I. The Distinctiveness of the Church

A. It is distinct in character.

1. Because of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (according to most traditional dispensationalists)

a) The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the positional, non-experimental placing of a believer in the church which is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 1:22). It is universal among all believers of this present age (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:5).

b) It is this unique ministry that secures the position of being “in Christ” (Eph 2:6) as well as being “baptized into Christ” (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27). By this means believers are united to Christ in perfect spiritual union, and to each other (Rom 12:5), fulfilling the Lord’s prayer for such oneness (John 17:21).

c) This unique ministry of the Spirit is only operative in the present age because it is a new ministry forming a new body – the church or the “new man” (Eph 2:15).

2. Because of the components of the body In the church, Jews and Gentiles are on a plane of equality in the same body. The Old Testament allowed Gentiles into the nation of Israelbut not with perfect equality. There were some things a Gentile could not enjoy because of the racial and ethnic barrier. In the church, which is a spiritual organism, all racial and ethnic barriers are obliterated. Mark 7:27 Gal 3:28 Eph 2:16 Eph 3:6

3. Because of the new relationship of the indwelling Christ The Old Testament was concerned with Christ’s external appearance (Isaiah 64:1). The Old Testament saint did not have the relationship to Jesus Christ that is enjoyed today through the Spirit’s indwelling. Col 1:27

B. It is distinct in Time.

1. Because of the revelational mystery of the Church Eph 3:3 ff. A mystery is revelation kept in the mind of God and revealed at a certain later time. To Paul was given the officialrevelation of the church. Paul was not the first one to have church truth (cf. Matt 16:18 ff.), nor was he the only one to have it (Eph 3:5). This argues at least that the church did not exist in Old Testament times. It had to be formed sometime in the New Testament era.

2. Because of the necessity of the work of Christ

a) His death and resurrection Matthew 16:18, cf. v 21 John 16:7 Eph 1:20-23 The Holy Spirit could not come in His full, new dispensational capacity until Christ had died, been resurrected, and ascended. The Spirit’s full ministry is based on Christ’s finished work. See John 7:39.

b) His ascension Eph 4:7-12 The gifted men necessary for the church were dependent on the triumphant exaltation of Christ above all things.

c) His second coming (rapture) 1 Thes 4:16, 17 The rapture of those “in Christ” marks the end (or the beginning of the end) of the church age.

3. Because of the time of the empowering of the Holy Spirit If the empowering by the Holy Spirit is the building agent of the church, then the official beginning of the church can be pinpointed to the Day of Pentecost. 1 Cor 12:13 Acts 1:5, 11:15, 16 (John 20:22 is not a reference to Spirit baptism. It appears to be the fulfillment of the promise of the indwelling Spirit.)

C. It Is Distinct from Israel.

1. The Church is distinct from National Israel. Israelis addressed as a nation after the church is established. Acts 3:12 Acts 4:8, 10 Acts 5:21, 31, 35 Acts 21:28

2. The Church is Distinct from Natural Israel (i.e., individual Jews). 1 Cor 10:32

3. The problem of Gal 6:15-16 The problem is in the meaning of the phrase “and upon the Israel of God.” Is Paul equating the church with the Israel of God? If so, then the church and Israel would not be fundamentally distinct. Note the various ways this clause can be handled, based on the use of the conjunction “and.”

a) The Explicative use of kai In this case kai would be translated “even,” “to wit,” or “yea.” This identifies or equatesthe Israel of God with the “as many” and the “them” of 16a. This is the normal covenant view.

b) The Copulative use of kai In this case kai would be translated “and.” Thus the Israel of God would be a group in addition to the “as many” and the “them.” In this interpretation, Jewish Christians (the Israel of God) are given a special blessing of peace and mercy because they realize that circumcision avails nothing in this dispensation. The “as many” and the “them” would be Gentile Christians who are blessed with peace and mercy because they understand also that circumcision is nothing. Jewish Christians in the church are blessed in addition to the Gentile Christians.

c) The Emphatic use of kai In this case kai would be translated “especially” or “indeed.” Thus the Israel of God would be included in the “as many” and the “them” but are emphasized for a particular reason. In this interpretation, Jewish Christians (the Israel of God) are singled out for special blessing if they learn that circumcision avails nothing and thus can avoid the legalism Paul warned against. The “as many” and the “them” would be all the members of the church who walk by the Pauline doctrine of free grace. Among these members, Jewish believers are especially blessed if they could comprehend free grace after having had the Law for 1500 years. The second two options fit with a dispensational approach to Scripture

4. Conclusion: The term “Israel” always had racial and ethnic connotations, even though these connotations avail nothing before God within the New Testament church. A Jewish Christian does not lose his racial identity in the church; he loses his status of racial preference because of the equality in the new body.

D. The Church and Israel compared Note the many similarities as stated by Charles Lee Feinberg: “Both have covenant relations with God. Both are related to God by blood redemption that is centered in the Lord Jesus Christ. Both are witnesses for God to the world. Both are of the seed of Abraham. Both are to be glorified. Both are called to a walk of separation. Both have one shepherd. Both have common doctrines. Both are called the elect of God. Both are dearly beloved of God. Both are vitally related to God as illustrated by the figure of marriage. Both are the recipients of eternal life.”[9]

E. The Church and Israel contrasted

1. As to origin Israel originated as an ethnic group with the call of Abraham, and as a political entity at the Exodus and the giving of Law on Sinai. The church originated at Pentecost as a spiritual organism.

2. As to purpose God’s purposes for Israel were largely earthly (social, political, spiritual); she was a theocratic kingdom. His purposes for the church are spiritual. While the church is given visible and local expression on earth in local assemblies, it is basically a heavenly body (Phil 3:20).

3. As to destiny Israel is destined to be revived politically and spiritually and will be at the head of the nations in the Kingdom of God as a mediatorial Kingdom of priests (Isa 61:6). The church will share in the Messianic reign as the wife of the King and the regal aristocracy (2 Tim 2:12a). In the present age, church saints are distinguished from Old Testament saints (Heb 12:23). In the eternal state, Israel and the church may continue to be distinguished (Rev 21:12, 14).

F. The Church in Covenant Theology

1. General definition The church is generally defined as the “people of God.” This people is the one body of believers or saints who are saved on the basis of the one continuous redemptive covenant of grace. Thus there is spiritual and theological continuity between Israeland the church. This is why many speak of the “Old Testament church.”

2. The beginning of the Church

a) Some include all of the elect in the church so that it began with Adam.[10]

b) Others begin the church with Abraham.[11]

c) Still others see some kind of significance in Pentecost, although not a fundamentalbeginning for the church.[12]

II. The Relationships of the Church

A. The Relationship to the New Covenant

The fulfillment of covenant promises does not necessarily have to be tied to the ratification of the covenant or to participation in covenant benefits. One can look to the Abrahamic covenant as an example. Among the promises God gave to Abraham was that Abraham and his descendants would possess the land of Palestine as an eternal inheritance. Hebrews refers to this promise, saying that Abraham came and dwelled in the land that he was to receive as an inheritance, yet residing in the land of promise as an alien and not an owner. What this means is that Abraham was participating in the benefits of the promise without the promise being fulfilled. Hebrews alludes to this in chapter 11 when it says that Abraham died in faith “without receiving the promise.”

B. The Relationship to the Kingdom

1. Its relationship in the Present Age The Kingdom of God can always be construed as something future to the present age (e.g., 2 Tim 4:1, 18). Whatever interpretation is put on the “mystery kingdom” of the present age, it cannot be an entity or be said to have any kind of real existence as though it had a king, subjects, and the exercise of the regal function in any Messianic sense. The church does sustain a present relationship to the future kingdom (Col 1:13). This placement in the Kingdom must be understood in a judicial sense, on the order of believers already being “in the heavenlies.” Today, members of the church are part of the citizenry and partake of some of the blessings of the future Kingdom (New Covenant blessings).

2. Its function in the future establishment of the Kingdom In the coming Kingdom, the church will be co-regent with Christ the King. She will be the regal family, the ruling aristocracy, or the official administrative staff at the highest echelon of millennial rule.

a) Matt 16:19

b) Luke 22:29

c) Rev 4:4, 11:16; 20:4

d) 2 Tim 2:12

e) Rev 2:21

f) 1 Cor 6:2

C. The relationship to saints of other ages It is sometimes said that the church in dispensational thinking robs saints of other ages of a heavenly future. Note the following factors in reply:

1. The spirits of Old Testament saints have been made perfect in heaven, waiting the final redemption of the body (Heb 12:22, 23).

2. The bodies of Old Testament saints will be raised prior to the Kingdom in order to enjoy its blessings as promised in the prophets (Dan 12:2).

3. There is presently an elect remnant of Jews who will inherit all the Old Testament promises to the nation which were forfeited because of unbelief (Matt 21:43; Rom 11:5, 7, 26).

D. The relationship to the “Seed of Abraham”

1. The usage of the term

a) Physical descendants of Abraham through Jacob (Isa 41:8).

b) Jesus Christ is in a unique sense the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16).

c) A spiritual, saved remnant within the natural seed (John 8:39; Rom 9:6-8).

d) A spiritual seed that includes the church (Gal 3:29)

An explanation of the Church’s relationship Gal 3:29 – Christians today are the seed of Abraham because of their inseparable union with Christ, the Seed. As such, the church inherits some pre-fulfillment blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, although the covenant as such is Israelite in character and will be fulfilled in the Kingdom. Some dispensationalists today see the church fulfilling that aspect of the covenant which refers to “all the families of the earth” (Gen 12:3). It is theologically and hermeneutically possible to understand that God had intended for the church to fulfill directly that portion of the covenant. That intention, however, is not clearly stated in the New Testament.

[1] Compare, however, the unguarded statements of covenant theologians in the same regard. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 112. [2] Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:162. [3] John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (London: Matthews and Leigh, 1810), 1: 88. [4]Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:367. [5]Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, 241. [6] For helpful material on this subject one may consult: Hobart E. Freeman, “The Problem of the Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices,” Grace Journal (Winter 1963): 21-28. For a complete handling of this problem see Hobart E. Freeman, “Substitution in the Old Testament” (Th. D. dissertation, Grace Seminary). C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 2: 271-81, 302 ff. J.H. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship in the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863), 66-75. Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle To the Hebrews (Winona Lake: BMH, 1972), 145-95. Gustav Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884), 276 ff. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 2009), 722-28. T. J. Crawford, The Doctrine of Atonement (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), 246 ff. John S. Feinberg, “Salvation In the Old Testament,” Tradition and Testament, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1981), 59 ff. [7] See Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:305; Erich Sauer, Dawn of World Redemption (London: Paternoster, 1951). [8] See Strong, Systematic Theology, 724-26, and Freeman, “The Problem of the Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices.” [9] Charles Lee Feinberg, Premillennialism or Ammillennialism? (New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1954), 148. [10] R.B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 22. [11] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 295; D. Douglas Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 43. [12] John Murray, “Christian Baptism,” Westminster Journal (May, 1951); George E. Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 112.