I thank Doctor Mike Spaulding for another highly insightful article. Dr Spaulding’s biography is at the end of his article. My readers must be on constant alert to discern false doctrines that creep in to the Church. This article should be carefully read and understood, we are most fortunate that Dr Spaulding takes the trouble to share his teachings with us.

Gibber! Gibber!

Chugley

A further heresy clouds premillennial interpretations of Scripture – their exultation of racism into a divine principle. Every attempt to bring the Jew back into prophecy as a Jew is to give race and works (for racial descent is a human work) a priority over grace and Christ’s work and is nothing more or less than paganism…There can be no compromise with this vicious heresy.[1]

In the last few days, I have had a discussion with other believers on a social media platform. That discussion has focused on the status of Israel both current and future. Specifically, the discussion centered on the differences between a Dispensational view of Israel and a Covenant Theology Postmillennial view of Israel.[2] One simple post that I made ignited a storm of counter-post responses. My post simply said, “Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel are not spiritually realized in the church. Two separate entities.” I expected “push-back” from some people due to their different views. Still, I did not expect to be called a blasphemer, false teacher, and enemy of Christ by others, who acted as if I had somehow denied Jesus by making a distinction between the church and Israel. What exactly has happened within the body of Christ that we have arrived at a place where calling other believers blasphemers is acceptable, especially over things that there is wide disagreement about?

As I considered the shocking responses, I realized a pattern was evident in the vitriol. That pattern pointed to the claims of Covenant Theology and its Postmillennialism. This system advances the proposition that there has always been only one people of God. That proposition means for them, that in the Old Testament Israel was the church and of course in the New, the church is the only people of God. Because Covenant Theology teaches there can only be one people of God, national Israel is believed to have been forsaken by God. They arrive at this theological position through an allegorical hermeneutic.

Covenant Theology for those unfamiliar with its essential tenets, insists that Israel was the church because they teach the covenant of grace – that there is only one path of salvation which includes the content of saving faith – and only one people of God. What is meant by Covenant Theology’s one path and one content is that Old Testament saints were saved by faith in Messiah Jesus just like New Testament believers. We all agree that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. But was the content of faith always the same? Therein lies one difference between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Charles Hodge (b. 1797 d. 1878) the noted Covenant theologian and Postmillennialist, was President of Princeton Theological Seminary from 1851 until his death in 1878. He explains the Covenant view thusly:

From the Scriptures, therefore, as a whole, from the New Testament, and from the Old as interpreted by infallible authority in the New, we learn that the plan of salvation has always been one and the same; having the same promise, the same Saviour, the same condition, and the same salvation.[3]

Is this true? Did the Old Testament saints understand that a Messiah was coming in whom they were trusting for their salvation? Is there any Scriptural support for such a claim? Before Isaiah connected salvation to Messiah’s death, was there any evidence in Israel’s history or writings, as well as the known Scriptural record, that salvation was by faith alone in Messiah alone? It appears that Hodge and Covenant adherents read New Testament thought back into the Old Testament. Hodge knew he had no basis to argue his proposition, recognizing there was no known support for his claims concerning the church being Israel and the content of faith being faith in Messiah. Instead of addressing this problem, Hodge decided to introduce the idea that Israel had information that we do not have today. Here is Hodge on the subject of salvation of Old Testament saints through faith in a known Messiah by extra-biblical material.

In determining the degree of knowledge possessed by the ancient people of God, we are not to be governed by our own capacity to discover from the Old Testament Scriptures the doctrine of grace. What amount of supplementary instruction the people received from the prophets, or what degree of divine illumination was granted to them we cannot tell. It is, however, clear from the writings of the New Testament that the knowledge of the plan of salvation current among the Jews at the time of the advent was much greater than we should deem possible from the mere perusal of the Old Testament.[4]

What is clear is that neither Hodge nor any subsequent Covenant theologian has been able to identify any known source for the doctrine of grace being one and the same for both dispensations, Old and New. The reason is because it does not exist. What we have here is pure speculation masquerading as truth. It is simply an assumption. Unfortunately for the church today, this assumption of Covenant Theology has infected their entire system regarding the place of Israel both today and certainly in the future. This then is the source of the anger, hatred, and attacks on Israel and the Jews by some who claim Christ. Israel and the Jews according to proponents of Covenant Theology Postmillennialism, have been cast off, never to be reconciled again. They have become so persuaded that their theology is correct, that Israel and the Jewish people are irrelevant or worse, global dregs worthy of extreme prejudice up to and including genocide. This is so because in their minds (without Scriptural support), the church was always the true Israel. Consequently, they are willing to take their beliefs into Christendom and foment hatred for the nation and people of God. On top of that, they will attack, vilify, and name as blasphemers any Christian who holds a different view. Rousas Rushdoony’s quote above sums up well Covenant Theology’s view of other believers with whom they disagree – they are pagans and heretics.

Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out in his book, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, that:

“…there is no Old Testament passage that teaches this (faith in the promised Redeemer, or faith in the promised redemption of Messiah) before Isaiah. Even after Isaiah, it is not totally clear if Isaiah’s contemporaries understood the full import of what Isaiah prophesied. Hodge is forced to assume that New Testament knowledge was available to the Old Testament saint, and that “the same redeemer was revealed to them who is presented as the object of faith to us.” His conclusion is “that the condition, or terms of salvation, was the same then as now.” A faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion, and his faulty premise falsifies his own claim that the written Scriptures are the primary and final source for determining all matters of faith. Hodge’s conclusion, in practice, ignores the principles of progressive revelation.[5]

The entirety of Covenant Theology concerning Israel is based on assumption, presumption, unproven presuppositions and unsubstantiated claims for biblical support. All of this in service to their perceived necessity to maintain their doctrine of grace across every and all dispensations. Sounds exactly like what Covenant Theology Postmillennial adherents say about Dispensationalists – it is a system invented from whole cloth.[6]

Dispensationalists will agree with our Covenant Theology Postmillennial brethren that the basis of salvation is always the same. That basis is Jesus the Messiah. We also agree that the means of salvation is faith alone. Our differences are at the point of content of faith. What exactly was required in the Old Testament for salvation? Was the content of faith for Old Testament believers the substitutionary atonement of Messiah Jesus? Appeals are often made by Covenant theologians to Abraham, but this is misguided. Abraham was declared righteous by faith alone in Yahweh’s promises. Even Paul’s discussion of this subject in Romans 4 points out that Abraham was righteous by faith, not by works. It is beyond a stretch to say Abraham believed in Jesus as Messiah.

Charles Ryrie clarifies what the content of faith in the Old Testament was.

The resolution of this apparent difficulty lies in distinguishing the primary relationship of sin in the Old Testament to that in the New. Under the law the individual Israelite by birth was related to God through the theocratic state. He sustained this relationship regardless of his spiritual state, and his relationship to the government had to include a certain relationship to the head of that government – God…When sin occurred, it was both a governmental and a spiritual offense because of the nature of a theocracy…All Israelites were related to God theocratically; some were also related spiritually. The bringing of the sacrifices restored the offender to his forfeited position as a Jewish worshiper and restored the theocratic relationship…But was this theocratic adjustment the only purpose of the offerings? Apparently not, for there seem to have been in the offerings that which could point a believing worshiper to a better sacrifice that would deal finally with the entire sin question. This might be called an ulterior efficacy in the sacrifices that did not belong to them as sacrifices but as prefigurations of a final dealing with sin. However, it cannot be implied that the Israelite understood what that final sacrifice was. For if he had sufficient insight, to the extent of seeing and believing in the finished work of Christ, then he would not have had to offer the sacrifices annually, for he would have rested confidently in what he saw in the prefiguration. If the sacrifices had given a clear foreview of Christ, the offerer would have understood the truth of a completed atonement and would not have had any consciousness of sins every year. But, since the Scriptures say that he did have consciousness of sins (Heb. 10:2), he must not have seen very clearly “the same promise, the same Saviour, the same condition, and the same salvation” as the believer today sees. If so, the Covenant position is an anachronism, a reading back of the New Testament revelation into the Old and a failure to recognize the progress of revelation and the distinctions in God’s economies. Jesus Christ was not the conscious object of their faith, though they were saved by faith in God as He revealed Himself principally through the sacrifices that He instituted as a part of the Mosaic law…This conclusion is exactly the teaching of the New Testament. On the Areopagus, Paul summarized the Old Testament understanding of salvation and called the period “the times of ignorance,” which God “overlooked” (Acts 17:30). That does not imply a clear comprehension of the Christological content of their faith! Paul again summarized the situation concerning salvation in the Old Testament as “remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God” (Rom. 3:25 KJV). The understanding of the average Israelite concerning Messiah at the time Jesus walked the earth was very feeble (John 1:21; 7:40), and even the prophets lacked comprehension (1 Peter 1:10-11). These passages make it impossible to say that Old Testament saints under the law exercised personal faith in Jesus Christ.[7]

The differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are in sharp disagreement concerning Israel. These differences encourage and fuel anger, bitterness, and wild denunciations of other Christians and especially Israel by those in the grip of Covenant Theology. These violent responses are being used by the enemy of our souls to stoke the global outrage against Israel. “See, even Christians hate Israel,” is often heard today as an excuse to continue the hatred. This situation must be rectified soon before a serious division occurs. I hope that it is not too late to rid the faith of this ungodly behavior.

The truth is, that Israel is the elect of God, not the church. Israel is the subject of every covenant promise God made with their fathers, be it the Abrahamic, Palestinian, Mosaic, Davidic, or New Covenant. Israel will see a future restoration as Zechariah 12 makes plain. The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is in operation today as evidenced by Jewish people receiving Christ by faith. Paul’s assertion that all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26) is a yet future promise of God that will be fulfilled at the end of the Tribulation when the remaining Jewish population will turn to Christ in faith. Let us not be distracted by people who work to divide us, but instead, let us keep looking for the appearance of our blessed hope, the soon return of Jesus for His bride.

Dr. Mike Spaulding

About Dr. Mike Spaulding

Mike Spaulding was ordained to the ministry in 1998. Since then he has planted two Calvary Chapel churches – Calvary Christian Fellowship, St. Marys, Ohio, in 1998, and Calvary Chapel of Lima, Ohio, in 2005, where he currently serves as teaching pastor. Mike holds a B.A. in Organizational Management, a Masters Degree in Theological Studies, and a Ph.D. in apologetics.

[1] Rousas John Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come, (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1970), p. 134. Cited in Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, (Ariel Ministries, 1989), p. 49.

[2] Throughout this article I am engaging Covenant Theology of the Postmillennial variety. Covenant Theology also has expressions of Amillennialism and Premillennialism. The latter system distinguishes between the church and Israel to its credit.

[3] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 368. Author’s electronic library.

[4] Ibid., 367-368.

[5] Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, p. 34

[6] Studying Darby and Scofield and the emergence of Dispensationalism historically will lead one to understand that the ideas credited to both of these men, were apparent among the early church fathers. For those interested in understanding Dispensationalism as a Systematic Theology, I recommend Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism; William Watson’s Dispensationalism Before Darby; Paul Richard Wilkinson’s For Zion’s Sake: Christian Zionism and the Role of John Nelson Darby; Michael J. Vlach’s Dispensational Hermeneutics: Interpretation Principles That Guide Dispensationalism’s Understanding of the Bible’s Storyline; and of course, Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology. The Pre-Trib Research Center has hundreds of resources for those interested in digging deeper – https://www.pre-trib.org/

[7] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), pp. 119-120.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.