In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the overall thrust of the Dispensational argument for the expectation of a future earthly restoration of the nation of Israel. We also looked a bit more at the Abrahamic Covenant itself to understand what sort of pre-conditions we should expect in the case of such a restoration and any conditions that were necessary for enjoyment of the blessings of that Covenant.
But the matter still remains of what to think of the plethora of prophecies that Dispensationalists commonly cite in defense of their expectation of a restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land along with its eschatological outworkings; that of a thousand year earthly reign of Christ and the reinstatement of the Old Covenant sacrificial system, following a convoluted series of events during the tribulation, the Rapture and the Parousia. If Dispensationalism is wrong in its interpretation, what exactly is right?
Another Point-Of-View
As we have mentioned before, Dispensationalists hold to a very distinct view of Israel and the church of the New Testament and that view carries over to matters of destiny as well. The two groups are actually seen as having quite distinct redemptive futures, the time of the Gentiles actually being described as “constituting a parenthesis in the divine program for Israel”, a pause in the otherwise unbroken story of their redemption.
So perhaps the first matter of interpretation that should be considered is just where theological primacy of hermeneutics should lie. It is sometimes said that Dispensationalists approach their interpretation of the New Testament in light of the Old Testament and that this theological bent leads to much of the unwarranted or unnecessary emphasis being placed on the continuance of the Old Testament system, patterns, and actors into the future. However, this belies the more sensible and Biblical approach, that we must not just interpret Scripture literally and contextually but also progressively, that is, to interpret prior revelation in light of later revelation.
This point is driven home by way of both reason and Scripture. Naturally, given that God’s redemptive story for humanity is lived out and recorded chronologically, and given the nature of prophecy and fulfillment, we only see the demonstrated outworking of that plan in successive history. As Stephen Sizer describes it, “God’s revelation is progressive in the sense that he reveals more of his purposes as time goes on.” We must also understand that New Testament believers, the Apostles, their disciples and all others after, are in a privileged position after Pentecost and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The power and presence of the Holy Spirit in understanding God’s revelation to mankind is a uniquely New Testament advantage; as D.L. Moody is noted as being fond of saying, “The Bible without the Holy Spirit is a sundial by moonlight.” Thus, understanding all of Scripture, especially prior revelation, from a post-Pentecost perspective, is paramount to proper exegesis.
As well, given that all of Scripture points to and finds its purest meaning in Christ, it is by way of Christ that we must understand that Scripture, both future and past. Hebrews 10:1 attests that “the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities.” And Galatians 3:23-25 tells us that “before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” Jesus tells the Pharisees in the Gospel of John that “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you possess eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.” (John 5:39) and II Corinthians 1:20 reminds us that “all the promises of God find their Yes in him [Jesus Christ].”
A Better Fulfillment of Prophecy
So, given that New Testament revelation, especially the words of Christ Himself or those pertaining to Him, should often be weighted more heavily than Old Testament revelation, the question remains: does the Bible offer an alternative fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that Dispensationalists hold must be fulfilled by Israel? Recall again Scofield’s insistence that, for Dispensationalists, “not one instance exists of a ‘spiritual’ or figurative fulfilment of prophecy” and that “prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal.” But, if this is indeed true, we should expect to see this principle present or even developed and emphasized in the New Testament.
However, what we actually find in Scripture is a full and healthy repudiation of this principle. What we actually find is a greater fulfillment of the prophecies and types laid out in the Old Testament in Christ and the New Testament church.
Take, for example, the matter of circumcision. Recall that, as part of the Abrahamic Covenant, the sign or seal of that covenant included circumcision: “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:10)” This sign is further described and affirmed as everlasting: “So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. (Genesis 17:13)” Recall also that those who receive eternal life through faith in Christ are also considered to be included as part of Abraham’s offspring, as Galatians 3:29 affirms: “if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
Given this history, one might logically conclude that if Christians today have been made heirs according to the promises originally made to Abraham, the same sign and seal of circumcision would be binding as well. And yet, throughout the New Testament, circumcision is thoroughly understood as being fulfilled spiritually. Philippians 3:3 confirms that “we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus.” In Romans 2:28 and 29, Paul further spiritualizes circumcision, not only for the New Covenant believer, but for Jews as well: “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.” Galatians 6:15 even tells us that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.”
And this spiritualization of the physical circumcision is even found in the Old Testament! Deuteronomy 30:6 promises that “the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring.” Jeremiah 4:4 exhorts the people to “circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts” for, later on, God would “punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh…for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart (Jeremiah 9:25,26)”.
All this points to the realization that, in the case of circumcision, as Brian Godawa surmises, “the thing to understand is that the physical act of circumcision was never the guarantee for physical Jews to inherit the promise. It was a physical sign of the spiritual circumcision that truly justifies a person.”
What About Other Elements of the Covenant?
So, if this physical or “literal” element of the Abrahamic Covenant itself is thoroughly spiritualized in Scripture, could it be that other elements of the Covenant and, by extension, prophecies pertaining to that Covenant, are also justifiably spiritualized? In fact, could it be that other elements in the Covenant were always meant to be physical types and shadows of spiritual realities that would only be truly fulfilled in the New Covenant?
Let us look more closely at the land promise of the Covenant. This promise finds its root in Genesis 17:8: “And I will give to you [Abraham] and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” The first important point to note regarding the New Testament significance of the land promise is that any references to it in the New Testament look quite different from prior Old Testament references. Hebrews 11 actually provides a rather clear understanding of the inheritance of the Covenant and obliterates any prior understanding:
“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance….9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God…15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. (Hebrews 11:8–10, 15-16)”
I Peter 1:3-4 speaks of an “inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,” not an inheritance found on a physical Earth. And Galatians 3:28 reinforces that, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Indeed, given the emphasis in the New Testament of unity in Christ, it is quite contrary to insist that the Jews alone would then go on to inherit an exclusive physical Kingdom with an exclusive national destiny which would reinstate a very explicit separation yet again.
Judging from the way that New Testament Scripture speaks of the Abrahamic inheritance, a very different picture emerges than what is often painted by Dispensationalists. It would seem, as Brian Godawa succinctly states, “the kingdom of God is the Land of Promise in Christ. Our inheritance as the people of God is not a physical piece of land, but a heavenly land, not an earthly kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom, the kingdom of God.” This is further reinforced in Scripture by the contrast between the Apostles’ expectation and Christ’s intention. For instance, on the Emmaus road, the disciples opined that “we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.” And later, in Acts, they asked, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” John Stott clarifies that, in their statement, “the verb restore shows they were expecting a political and territorial kingdom; the noun Israel that they were expecting a national kingdom; and the adverbial clause at this time that they were expecting its immediate establishment.”
And yet, the words of Jesus do not support this understanding. In the Gospel of John, Christ affirms that “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” And Luke 17:20 further agrees when Christ, “being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” In response to their question in Acts 1, He replied that, “it is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth,” not directly repudiating the notion as a whole, but hardly confirming it, in fact emphasizing that they would not stay in Israel but go out into the world.
As well, Stephen Sizer makes the important point that, “following the rebuilding of the Temple in 516 BC, there are no further biblical references to yet another return to the Land but plenty about exile from it.” He pointedly reiterates: “the Church was sent out into the world to make disciples of all nations but never told to return.”
The Bottom Line
The parallels do not end there but discussing them all at length at once can be quite confusing. So, in part 3, we will list and look at particular prophecies, applying the principles and viewpoint laid out so far, in order to understand just how the responsible Christian can and should understand their fulfillment in Christ and the New Covenant. But, for now, I hope that the concepts here have been impactful and have given you reasons to doubt the legitimacy of the Dispensational understanding.