The Abrahamic Covenant, by Dr. George B. Fletcher, Ch. 11, Part 6

    

Chapter XI

    

THE BENEFITS TO ABRAHAM AND HIS FLESHLY SEED

    

OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL UNDER THE

    

COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION

    
Part 6

    
Other Considerations

    

     The utter impossibility of the present or any f'uture Israeli nation in Palestine being a ful.fillment of Bible prophecy is seen when one considers that after Israel's captivity in Babylon, they were to return to the land according to their original family heritage as divided by Joshua:. Jeremiah 12: 15 -- "And it shall come to pass, after that I have plucked them out I will return, and have compassion on them, and will bring them again, EVERY MAN TO HIS HERITAGE, and every man to his land." The Jews kept their family pedigree intact and unbroken even while in captivity, and both Ezra and Nehemiah recognized the principle of dividing the land according to the family heritage (Ezra 2:61, 62; Neb. 7:5). Even in Christ's time, the Jews had kept their lineage so that they knew definitely . of what tribe they were (Luke 2: 3, 4). .The last register of the Jews was destroyed when Jerusalem was burned by the Roman general, Titus, in A.O. 70. Since that time it has been a physical impossibility for a Jew to prove what tribe he belonged to or that he belongs to any tribe. This was the "endless genealogies" Paul, in his day forbade the Christian Jews to contend for. (Titus 3:9; l Tim. 1:3, 4). He knew they could not establish them with validity and that it was useless to establish them at all. So, there was no need :for contention. Now we raise the question, How can modern Jewry establish their claim to Palestine according to tribes and families since their registers are destroyed and no one can prove he is a Jew, a Syrian, or a mixture o:f Jew and Gentile? Who is going to say who has a right to share in the "restored Israel" since nobody can prove his lineage? Cecil J. Lowry in Whither Israeli? writes:
    
     "Scholars agree that 'family records', or chronology, were
     absolutely essential for the perpetuation of Leviticalism
     under the Old Covenant. An investiga­tion of facts will show
     that Bible chronology was brought to its final completion
     under the New Cov­enant, in the person of Jesus Christ -- the
     end of the Law and the end of Bible chronology. This is
     absolute evidence that Levitical Israel had served its time.
     The Old economies were absolutely dependent upon a
     Divinely recorded chronology of Israel's priestly and kingly
     families. Tribal records of the family of Aaron, the tribe of
     Levi, the tribe of Judah and the house of David were funda-
     mental to Israel's Levitical existence. If the Messiah was to
     sound the death knell of the 'old carcass,' then we would
     expect Him to complete Bible chronology; Matthew and
     Luke show Christ to be the end of inspired chronology.
     Christ came not to destroy but to fulfill the Law and the
     Prophets. Under the New, or Everlasting Covenant, Jesus
     is the final heir to David's throne; Aaron is superseded by
     Christ, the everlasting High Priest of the order of
     Melchizedeck; Levi by the New Testament priest­hood ...
     Since it is manifest that typical Israel's existence was as de-
     pendent upon inspired chronology as a fish is dependent
     upon water, sensible minds should see that God's purpose
     for Israel as a dis­tinct, typical nation was accomplished
     under the Old Covenant; the Bible offers no example of a
     re­version from the antitype to the type in God's pro­phetic
     plan."
    
     The claim that Israel's occupation of Palestine today is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy can be shown to be a fallacy by the simple fact that their national restoration was promised on condition that they KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES (Deu. 30:1-10). Nehemiah saw that it was proper and fitting to restore the law with a restoration of fleshly Israel under the Old Covenant {Neb. 1:7-9), and Ezra did this very thing when they returned from Babylon (Neh. 3:1, 2). But the New Testament emphatically de­clares that the MOSAIC LAW with all its ceremonies, rituals, ordinances has been fulfilled in Christ and was NAILED TO THE CROSS, and is abolished, nevermore to be restored! God's people WILL NEVER AGAIN BY DIVINE COMMANDMENT GO BACK TO THE LAW OF MOSES ( Eph. 2 : 14-16 ; Heb. 7 : 17 -19 ; 2 Cor. 3:7-11; Col. 2:13-17; Gal. 4:22-31). To do so would be to leave Christianity and go back to Judaism. This would reverse the natural and proper order of events, and carry us backward from the antitypes to the types, from Jesus Christ to Moses, from the Church to the nation of fleshly Israel, from the blood of Christ to the blood of bulls and goats, from the Melchisedec priesthood to the Aaronic priesthood, from the New Covenant to the Old Covenant, from the Lord's Day to the Jewish Sabbath and from the Lord' s Supper to the Jewish Passover!
    
     The promise of the land to Abraham was a type and pledge of the real thing intended, namely, that he should be "HEIR OF THE WORLD" (Rom. 4:13), not just the little land of Canaan, and that "world" is the "New Heavens and the New Earth" of 2 Peter 3: 13. Nowhere are we told in the New Testament to look for a millennium of Jewish supremacy after the Second Advent still within the frame­work of time, but rather to look for "that blessed hope and appearing of the· great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Tit. 2:13, R.V.) and for "the New Heavens and New Earth" ACCORDING TO PROMISE (Isa. 65:17-25). When Jew or Gentile embraces the gospel promise by faith, he is Christ's and Abraham's spiritual seed, and an heir according to the promise (Gal. 3:29), and blessed WITH faithful Abraham (Gal. 3:7, 9). It is not a case of the Old Testament saints being but friends of the Bridegroom, but rather that we poor, lost, hell-deserving Gentiles, "strangers from the covenants of promise" (Eph. 2:12) should ever be made Abraham's spiritual seed by Divine grace in salvation, and heirs WTH him of all that God promised (Eph. 3:6; Rom. 4:11, 12). Hallelujah!
    
     Modern Zionism is only another house built upon "sand" (Matt. 7 :26), and therefore must fall. It is "Israel after the flesh" going about to establish their own righteousness, without any desire to submit themselves to the righteousness of God. It is important to observe that there are two Israels. One is called "Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18), and the other "The Israel of God" (Gal. 6: 16). The fig tree is a symbol of the former, and the good olive tree a symbol of the latter. The one is natural and the other is spiritual Israel. And that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46). If the fig tree is a symbol of natural Israel, we must remember that it came under the curse of' the Lord; indeed it appears to have been the only thing He cursed during His ministry on earth! This is very significant and solemn, and reminds one of Deut. 23:15-68. The plain teaching of God's Word is that Israel after the flesh must die like all flesh which is "profitable for nothing" (Jer. 13:7-10). Does not Ezekiel 16:53, 55 show that there is no more hope of Israel being restored to her former state than Sodom and Samaria? Natural Israel is a marred vessel "that cannot be made \'!hole again," so the Lord has to make it "ANOTHER vessel" (Jer. 19:11; 18:3). Instead of trying to mend and restore the old marred vessel, God is making a NEW ISRAEL. This is "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6: 16), a crown of glory and a royal diadem in His hand (Isa. 62:3). Dr. T. T. Shields bore testimony to these truths as is evident from these excerpts from one of his sermons:
    
     "The New Testament is silent as to the setting up of an earthly
     Jewish kingdom, the return of the Jews as a people to Palestine,
     the rebuilding of the Temple, and the whole millennial program,
     as allegedly, prophetically described -- the whole thing is utterly
     devoid of Hew Testament authority. It is not to be found
     explicitly or implicitly in the teaching of our Lord, or of his
     apostles, and I venture to assert, indeed, that the teaching of the
     entire New Testament is to the contrary. I am convinced the
     teaching of Scripture is absolutely to the contrary. I think it
     would not be unkind to say that that is a dangerous heresy ... I
     fear the eschatological teaching which has been current the last
     few years, the putting of these blessings and promises of the
     Word into some distant millennial age, instead of teaching us
     that even now God is among his people, has had a deadening and
     carnaliz­ing effect upon the religious life in general."

The Abrahamic Covenant, by Dr. George B. Fletcher, Ch. 11, Part 5

    

Chapter XI

    
THE BENEFITS TO ABRAHAM AND HIS FLESHLY SEED

    

OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL UNDER THE

    

COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION

    
Part 5

    

The Remnant's Return in This Gospel Day

    
     It is a self-evident truth that the predictions of the New Testament concerning the latter days are amplified and illumined in the New Testament. Not a single pro­phecy can be quoted from the New Testament even from those parts of it which speak specially of God's favor to the Jews (such as Romans chapters 9 to 11), in which there is any mention of a personal return of the Jews to Pales­tine. Hengstenberg (Christol, 3.64, English translation) owns that:
    
     "It must be conceded that we have no right to appeal to the
     letter of the Old Testament in support of such theories as the
     return of the Jews to Can­aan; a practice which is the more
     indefensible, as the New Testament is altogether silent on
     the sub­ject of any such return."
    
     This would be unaccountable, if God had designed such a return. The prophecies of Holy Scripture become clear and clearer as they advance from the domain of the Old Testament into the New. And if such a return were intended in the Old Testament, and were yet to be expected, it is certain that we should have distinct pre­dictions of it in the New Testament. But not only is the New Testament silent as to any such return, but it even looks with an air of indifference on the local Jerusalem of the future. Our Lord Himself classes it with Gerizim (John 4:21). This would be unaccountable if such results as a literal return of all the Jews to Jeru­salem, as their religious centre, were to be expected. When the New Testament was written, the meaning or these prophecies, as far as they were to be understood literally, had received a subordinate accomplishment in the return of the Jews from Babylon under Zerubabbel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, aided by the prophets, Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi. If that restoration .was not complete, the fault was in Israel itself. Henceforth these predictions were to be understood in their higher and larger sense; in a spiritual and more permanent meaning; and the New Testament takes up these prophecies, and enhances their beauty, and sheds new light upon them.
    
     The return from Babylon, fulfilling the prophecy of Isa. 11:10-16 to the seed of Abraham after the flesh, in their deliverance from a national and temporal captivity, foreshadowed these gospel times in which we live. Acts 3: 24 -- "Yet, and ALL the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of THESE days." This is seen in the prophet's reference to "that day" (Isa. 11:10, 11; 12:1, 4), in which a "root of Jesse shall stand for an ensign of the people". The prophet Isaiah gave hope to the elect who were of faith within the nation of the coming of the Messiah "whose rest shall be glorious" (Isa. 11:10).
    
     The New Testament explains and applies the prophecies of Israel's restoration from captivity to these gospel times, or day of grace in which we live (Isa. 52:11; Jer. 30:18-24; compare 2 Cor. 6:17, 18). The former restora­tion of Israel from Egypt, and the latter from Babylon are typical of the return of the elect among the Jews to Jesus Christ their Messiah in this day of salvation and that from their personal and spiritual captivity to sin and to Satan (John 8:34-36; 2 Tim. 2:26; Acts. 26:18). And all such, not only from the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah, but also from the Gentile nations, find in Jesus Christ a "rest" that is glorious. Matthew 11:28 -- "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." When the election of grace from among the Jews (Acts 2: 39) and the Gentiles (Acts 13:48) are effectually called by the Holy Spirit to faith in Christ Jesus, neither the one nor the other care about any earthly inheritance. They confess that they are "strangers and pilgrims" in the is world ( 1 Pet. 2:11), having here "no continuing city" but rather that they "seek one to come" (Heb. 13: 14).
    
     The real and spiritual intent of the prophecy of Isaiah 11:11, especially in that aspect that speaks of the Lord setting "his hand AGAIN the SECOND time to recover the remnant of his people" in the times of the Messiah is beautifully expounded by Christian Wordsworth in a note on this passage.
    
     "The prophecy of Isaiah 11:11 began to be fulfilled on the Day
     of Pentecost, when 'Jews, devout men out of every nation under
     heaven,' who had come up to Jerusalem to the Feast, were
     evangelized by St. Peter and the other Apostles, filled with the
     Holy Ghost, and were received by baptism into Christ's Church,
     and so RETURNED HOME to God in Christ, THE MIGHTY
     GOD (Isa 10:20,21). This beginning of the fulfillment of the
     prophecy is marked by the names of the nations from which
     they came, as enumerated in the history of that great RETURN
     of Israel, in the Acts of the Apostles (see on Acts 2:8), which
     corresponds nearly to their names here. ASSYRIA, the great
     worldly enemy of Judah, is placed first; then PATHROS, Upper
     Egypt; CUSH, Ethiopia; ELAM, Elymais, in southern Media;
     SHINAR, the land on the Euphrates and Tigris; HAMATH, in
     Syria, at the northern foot of Lebanon; THE ISLANDS OF THE
     SEA (see Gen. 10:5); Italy, Greece, and other lands on the coast
     of the Mediterranean, and in the far West ... Compare St. Peter's
     words to the dispersed of Israel in his first Epistle, where he
     evidently regards the conversion of the Jews to Christianity, and
     their reception as God's peculiar people into Christ's Church
     (with a hope of passing from it to the eternal inheritance of the
     heavenly Canaan), as their RETURN to-their HOME (1 Pet. 1:4;
     2:9). 1 Peter 2 :25 -- "For ye WERE as sheep going astray, but
     are NOW RETURNED to the Shepherd and Bishop of your
     souls." St. John confirms this spiritual interpre­tation of' these
     prophecies when he speaks of' Christ as not only dying for the
     nation (of the Jews), but as gathering together into one the
     children of God that were scattered abroad (John 11:52)."
    
     Thus Isaiah 11:11 prophesies the return of a remnant from Babylon, and the recovery of a remnant throughout this gospel era to faith in Jesus Christ as their promised Messiah. Dr. B. H. Carroll says in his volume on The Acts, page 306·:
    
     "The New Testament shows that the restoration of the Jews is
     the conversion of the Jews; that it is a spiritual restoration, and
     that the Jerusalem they come into is the heavenly Jerusalem,
     and not the earthly Jerusalem, and that the old Jewish polity
     will never be set up."
    
     We here quote John Calvin on Isaiah 11:14:
    
     "The Jews, who dream of an earthly kingdom of Christ
     interpret all this in a carnal sense, and apply it to I know
     not what external power; but they ought rather to judge
     it according to the nature of Christ's kingdom. Partly, no
     doubt, the accomplish­ment of this prediction was seen
     when the Jews returned from captivity, and God brought
     them into moderate prosperity, contrary to the wish and
     in spite of the opposition of all neighbouring nations; but
     believers were led to expect a more splendid victory,
     which they at length obtained through the preaching of
     the Gospe1. "
    
     It is admitted by those who teach a distinct hope for the Jewish nation apart from the "one hope" of the gospel, that there is nothing in the New Testament to support that doctrine. It is acknowledged that the New Testament will be searched in vain for any statement to the effect that, when the day of grace is ended and the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed from heaven in flaming fire, He will convert the whole Jewish nation then on earth, and re-establish them in Palestine. This admission that the doctrine we are discussing is not found in the New Te3ta­ment is fatal to it. If the national restoration of the earthly Israel were part of' the program of the Second Advent, Paul would surely have proclaimed it when put on trial as to his teaching CONCERNING THIS VERY MATTER, first before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, and then successively before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa. On all these four occasions the apostle maintained, and at the peril of his life, that the "hope of Israel" was A RADICALLY DIFFERENT THING from what the Jewish leaders supposed. The doctrine of national restoration for the Jewish nation at the beginning of the next dispensation, is DIRECTLY CONTRARY to the plain teach­ing of the New Testament as a whole, and consequently must be contrary to the Old Testament also; since there can be no disagreement between the two. Philip Mauro in his book The Hope of Israel shows that the one and only gospel, with its "one hope" for all mankind is the one and only hope of Israel.
    
     ''We affirm with all possible emphasis that for those who now
     reject the offer of God's mercy in the gospel of His grace there
     is NO SECOND CHANCE. This is the truth of God as revealed
     in every part of the New Testament. It applies to Jews and
     Gentiles alike; for there is absolutely "no difference" of any
     sort, kind, or description. All are in precisely the same
     condemnation; and like­wise, to each and all, the gospel of
     Christ offers precisely the same salvation, with PRECISELY
     THE SAME ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ALL WHO
     REFUSE IT. "For," says the apostle," we have before proved
     BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES that they are all UNDER SIN"
     (Rom. 3:9) and from that starting point of perfect equality in
     guilt ("ALL THE WORLD guilty before God") he proceeds to
     declare the ONE GROUND of pardon FOR ALL, "the
     redemption that is in Christ Jesus", and the ONE CONDITION
     upon which it is bestowed, "through faith in His blood" (Rom.
     3:23-25).

The Abrahamic Covenant, by Dr. George B. Fletcher, Ch. 11, Part 4

    

Chapter XI

    
THE BENEFITS TO ABRAHAM AND HIS FLESHLY SEED

    

OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL UNDER THE

    

COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION

    
Part 4

    

The Teaching of the New Testament

    
     Isaiah prophesied that "the Lord shall set his hand AGAIN THE SECOND TIME to recover the remnant of his people'' (Isa. 11:11), by which we understand the first time to be their return from captivity in Babylon, and the second time to refer to the days of the Messiah. We test Israel's return in the days of the Messiah by the New Testament, and ask the question, Is this return to be understood literally? Does Christ and the Holy Spirit through the apostles declare that Israel after the flesh shall return to Palestine, be re-established as a nation, rebuild their Temple, Jerusalem become the international religious and political capital of the world, and the Jews be established in a universal Jewish hegemony of the nations? In seeking the answer in the light of the New Testament, we apply two principles of interpretation.
    
     FIRST, the principle that the darkness of the Old Covenant is past (1 John 2:8), and the true light now shineth (John 8:12). In other words, did our Lord Jesus Christ teach the doctrine of a future Israelitish earthly kingdom during the time of His humiliation as recorded in the Gospels, or since His Exaltation in glory? We are persuaded that one searches in vain from Matthew through the gospel of John to find any passage that teaches the return 0£ Israel to the land, their re-establishment as a nation in covenant relationship with God, the re-institut­ion of the Mosaic system of worship, or that Christ will personally sit on a literal earthly throne of David in Jerusalem and exercise His Messianic reign over the earth through a universal Jewish hegemony of the nations. Quite to the contrary, our Lord taught that "the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, NOR YET AT JERUSALEM, worship the Father ... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers, shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him" (John 4:21, 23). Our Lord since His exaltation to the right hand of the Majesty on High has spoken from the glory to His servant the apostle John and we have the inspired account of that message in the book of Revelation. But here again we search in vain for any confirmation from the risen Christ of the doctrine of a future Israelitish, earthly, world power kingdom of a thousand years' duration. Even in Revelation chapter 20 nothing is said about Israel, or the saints, Jews or Gentiles, reigning on the earth. The word "Israel" is only found three times in the book, namely, 2:14; 7:4; and 21:12. The first reference is irrelevant to the question at hand; the second reference is only declaring that God has an election of grace from among the Jews (7:1-8), as also from among the Gentiles (7:9-17) in these times of the Messiah: and the last reference has to do with the eternal state. The word "Judah" does not occur; while the word "Jews" is found only twice, and both references prove there is a true Israel and a false one, the synagogue of Satan (2:9; 3:9; compare Rom. 9:6-8). We conclude, therefore that our Lord did not teach the doctrine of a future Israelitish political kingdom on earth.
    
     SECOND, the principle of complete and final revelation by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. John 16:12, 13 -­"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." The Holy Spirit thus completed the final objective revelation of God through the writings of the apostles. Consequently, we cannot go first hand to the prophecies in the Old Testa­ment in order to explain the New Testament by them, but rather enter the prophecies of the Old Testament with the New Testament key by which they are opened to us (2 Cor. 3:6). There are five writers whom the Holy Spirit used to complete the New Testament, namely, Paul, James, Peter, John and Jude. We read the apostle Paul's sermons as re­corded in the book of Acts, his church epistles, prison epistles, and pastoral epistles, and find no teaching on Israel's return in unbelief to the land, their national conversion en masse, or their national restoration to the glory of the times of David and Solomon. Even in Romans chapters 9 to 11, where the apostle Paul treats of the Jew question, he is wholly silent as to any restoration of the Jews to Palestine, or as to any future personal reign of Christ on David's throne in Jerusalem.
    
     "Nowhere," says De Wette (1 Thess. 4:17), "is there in Paul's
     writings a clear trace of an earthly kingdom of Christ."
    
To the contrary, the apostle Paul has much to say against it in his epistles to the Ephesians (2:11-3:6), Galatians (4:9-11; 21-31), and to the Hebrews (12:18-29}. James, the Lord's brother, likewise says nothing in his epistle about Mosaic restorationism. To the contrary, as head of the church in Jerusalem, he dealt a death blow to the theory of Jewish racial supremacy as being of God, in Acts 15:13-18. In this passage, James is quoting a prophecy of Amos 9:11, 12 given some 787 years before Christ's incarnation, and is citing WHAT AMOS SAID IN HIS DAY, and not giving his own prophecy of future events in relation to the Second Advent of Christ. James makes it clear that the "building up'' of the tabernacle of David was the conversion of the Gentiles, the ONE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION before the Confer­ence or Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1, 5), and that this was the fulfillment of Amos' prophecy (Acts 15:22-29; compare 11:1-18). The apostle Peter is the third writer completing the New Testament revelation, and he likewise says nothing of the regathering to the land and reinstatement of Israel as a favored and chosen nation in covenant relationship to God. His sermons in the book of Acts lend no support to the future Israelitish supremacy theory, but rather declare Christ will remain in heaven until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began (Acts 3:21). He also makes it clear that when Christ does return from heaven it will be to judge the world of the ungodly in righteousness and usher in the eternal state (2 Peter 3:1- 18), and not a thousand years or Jewish racial hegemony over the Gentile peoples of earth. But our Lord was asked the question, "Wilt thou at this time restore again the king­dom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6), and it is asserted that this implies a future, national, earthly glory kingdom for Israel. In reply, we point out that never again in the New Testa­ment does one find a reference to a "kingdom of Israel". Christ knew that the Holy Spirit would correct their false notions by His subsequent teaching of the apostles (John 16:12, 13), and that the course of Divine Providence would show that His kingdom was spiritual and not of this world
(John 18:36; 2 Car. 10:3-5; Rom. 14:17). The apostle John in his three epistles, as also the apostle Jude, have nothing to say about a universal, Israelitish, earthly, political kingdom.
    
     Patrick Fairbairn wrote: "There is not the slightest reference to
     the rebuilding of the Old Jerusa­lem in all the New Testament,
     and if it is not in the New Testament we have no right to assume,
     or to teach it."
    
The New Testament contrasts the Jerusalem which is above (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22) with the Jerusalem which now is (Gal. 4:25) and declares the latter to be in bondage with her children (Gal. 4:25) and spiritually is called "Sodom and Egypt" (Rev. 11:8). We conclude, therefore, that the doctrine of a future Israelitish, earthly kingdom in Pales­tine is one of the "divers and strange doctrines" of the last days. The New Testament lends no support to the theory, but rather overthrows it.
    
     Nevertheless some will say the Jews are going back to Palestine; they have been constituted a nation among the political commonwealths of the world; is not this a ful­fillment of Bible prophecy? In the light of the foregoing, we answer emphatically, No.
    
     Dr. T. T. Shields in his sermon entitled "WILL THE JEWS OF
     THE WORLD MAKE PALESTINE THEIR HOME?" said: "I
     cannot find in all the New Testament one word anywhere that
     teaches that the Jews are to be gathered back to Palestine, and
     that it is to be the national home of the Jews because God has
     pledged Himself that it shall be so. I am sure that the theory is
     absolutely devoid of New Testa­ment authority."
    
     And to this agrees Dr. Loraine Boettner in his recent book "The Millennium" in the chapter on The Jews and Pales­tine where he writes:
    
      'It may be that in years to come the Jews will possess a larger
     part, or even all, of Palestine. We do not know. But if they do
     they will secure it as other nations secure property, through
     negotiation, or purchase, or conquest, not by virtue of any as
     yet unfulfilled prophecies or promises. There are no such
     prophecies or pro­mises."

The Abrahamic Covenant, by Dr. George B. Fletcher, Ch. 11, Part 3

    

Chapter XI
    

THE BENEFITS TO ABRAHAM AND HIS FLESHLY SEED

    

OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL UNDER THE COVENANT

    

OF CIRCUMCISION

    

Part 3

     

Israel's Second Recovery

    
     The prophecy of Isaiah 11:11 seems to refer to a recovery of a remnant of His people in the days of the Messiah in the light of the context (verse 10); the first recovery being their deliverance from the Babylonian cap­tivity. If' this is the correct interpretation of Isaiah 11: 11 how shall we understand the second recovery in the days of the Messiah? It is generally held by dispensat­ionalists that Israel will return to their own land in unbelief in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies such as this one in Isaiah 11:11. They will rebuild their temple in Jerusalem and re-establish their system of animal sacrifices. They will be converted as a nation, accepting Christ en masse when they see Him coming in glory. At His coming Jesus will establish them in world supremacy and as their Davidic sovereign, will exercise his Messianic reign over the earth through a universal Jewish hegemony of the nations. These ideas are all related. They stem from the same basic concept: viz., that Israel still occupies the position of a favored nation with God, and that God deals with them on differ­ent terms from other peoples. In spite of its current popularity, God's Word teaches no such program for the future of Israel. The Bible makes it plain that while under the Old Covenant Israel was indeed a chosen nation, and stood in peculiar relation to God, yet this Old Covenant was done away in Christ (2 Cor. 3), who intro­duced a New Covenant, based on an entirely different principle, that of universal love and grace. Today God recognizes no special nation above others, but deals with all on equal and the same terms. He deals with men on the basis of faith, not nationality (Rom. 3:29, 30). In this fact lies the whole meaning of the New Testament, the basic difference between the two covenants. It is true that under the New Covenant God has a people peculi­arly His own, but it is the church of Christ; a nation born not of blood but of the Spirit, including represen­tatives of every nationality under the sun (1 Peter 2:9, 10).
    
     What has become, then, of the nation that formerly was the people of God? God has rejected that people from their proud position. First, because of their national unbelief and unfaithfulness; and second, because of their national rejection of God's Son, their Messiah (Matt. 23: 37, 38). Our Lord told the haughty rulers the parable of the wicked husbandmen and their rejection from the husbandry of God's vineyard. Read Matthew 21:33-45 and note the application of the parable in verse 43: "Therefore the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." What is this new, fruit-bearing nation of God, that has now become the custodian of the kingdom vineyard, if it is not the Christian brotherhood of born again ones? Mark the words in this parable "last of all" (Matt. 21:37). That was the last thing the Lord of the vineyard could do for that people, as a people. When they rejected His Son, He could do no more for the vineyard. Nothing could more plainly show that in the rejection of Christ the Jewish nation filled up the cup of its iniquity. Christ's parable is the counterpart of Isaiah 5: 1-7 where Isaiah records the song "touching his vineyard". In this song the Lord asks, "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I
have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes , brought it forth wild grapes?" This has been characteristic of Israel's national history throughout (2 01ronicles 36:14-16). The last thing God could do was to send them His Son, but they killed Him, and when they did this, He could do no more. And now, says the Lord of the vineyard, I will tell you what I wi11 do: I will "take away the hedge," "break down the wall," let it be "trodden down," "lay it waste," permit "briers and thorns" to come up upon it, and "rain no rain upon it." This language means utter rejection, and it applies when the Son had been cast out of the vineyard and slain. The Jewish nation will never again be God's people, that is, AS A NATION. For the Jewish nation to be restored, there would have to be another God, for the God of heaven acknowledged that He had done all He could; He could do no more! (Isa. 5:4-6). Hence, the popular program for the future of Israel is contrary to the whole spirit and meaning of the New Testament and must be rejected, re­gardless of how many specious arguments or what multitude of proof-texts may be offered in its behalf. Quoting a thousand proof-texts, if that were possible, could not establish a point that is out of harmony with the whole spirit of Christianity. Thus the above mentioned program of the dispensationalists for the future of Israel rests upon a flimsy foundation, and does not reflect the prophetic Word of God but the carnal expectations of apostate Jews. Israel no longer occupies the position of a "favored nation" with God. Her career as the chosen people is a drama on which the curtain has been rung down forever. By demolishing the root of the system we very effectively dispose of the tree. Therefore, the second recovery of a remnant in the days of the Messiah must be fulfilled while the Old Covenant still stood, or else some other explanation must be given it and kindred Old Testament prophecies.
    
     Moses had forewarned Israel of the consequences of disobedience: Deut. 8:18-20 -- "As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish, be­cause ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God." Joshua repeated this warning and added a pro­phecy of its fulfillment in Joshua 23:15, 16 -- "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the Lord your God promised you; so shall the Lord bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you. When you have transgressed the coven­ant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them: then shall the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you." Israel failed to keep these warnings and the Lord cried out against them through Jeremiah the Prophet (Jeremiah 19:1-12). Jeremiah 19:11, 12 -- "Then shalt thou break the bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts (let the preacher of the restora­tion of the Jewish nation note particularly the language): Even so will I BREAK this PEOPLE, and this CITY, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, THAT CANNOT BE MADE WHOLE AGAIN... Thus will I do unto this place ... and to the in­habitants thereof." That is the language of finality: "EVEN SO (as Jeremiah had broken the bottle, and we can well imagine he made a good job of it) will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again." It was the kind of break that cannot be mended. The Jews' returning to Palestine now will not mend the potter's vessel; nor will it be mended by the improvement of the land of Palestine; nor even by their present form of government. This pro­phecy teaches in the most striking and emphatic way that the Jewish nation AS A NATION, will never be restored to God's favor, that David's literal throne will never be re-established in old Jerusalem. We are truly living in the last days, and there are many signs of Christ's Second Advent; but the Zionist movement and the gathering of some Jews to Palestine should be looked upon by the believer in the Second Advent of Christ, as one of Satan's false signs. It is Satan's work to deceive.
    
     Prior to and during the captivity, various prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others -- prophesied of a gracious return from that captivity. God would give Israel another opportunity to comply with the conditions He had laid down in Moses' day, when He had brought them out of the land of Egypt. But this was to be the last chance for that people, AS A NATION. The Israelites were given a time limit. "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people," is the word of prophecy (Daniel 9:24). Seventy prophetic weeks were allotted to that nation, to fulfill their part of their agreement with the Lord that they would obey Him. Now instead of their complying with all the conditions that God had laid down, what did Israel do? That nation went so far from God that it re­jected Christ and his gospel, and brought about his crucifixion (Acts 3:13-15; 7:52), and thereby filled up the cup of its iniquity; and that nation was rejected for­ever as the people of God. The apostle Paul, speaking of the Jews, says: -- "Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they PLEASE NOT GOD, and are contrary, to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, TO FILL UP THEIR SINS ALWAY: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" (1 Thess. 2:15, 16). They "cut off" their Messiah, and God cut them off as a nation and ter­minated the Old Covenant which was the only basis of such a relationship.
    
     Cecil J. Lowry in his booklet entitled 'Whither Israeli?" says:
    
     "The year 70 A.D. saw the 'rejected Stone' fall upon Mosaic
     Israel and grind her Old Covenant political and religious
     economy to powder (Matt. 21 :44). There is no indication
     that the Almighty intended a future restoration of the
     'powder' of temporal Israel. Spiritually, temporal Israel was
     as barren as the fig-tree {Matt. 21:19). The Old Covenant
     economy died from its roots never to bring forth fruit
     'henceforth FOR EVER' (Matt. 21:19). This does not sound
     as if God intended to make Mosaic Israel a fruitful tree at
     some future date. It was because Old Covenant Israel was a
     'lifeless carcass,' dead morally, spiritually, and judicially,
     that Jesus consigned it to the ·'beaks and claws of the Roman
     eagles' (Matt. 24:28). At the time of the writing of the book
     of Hebrews, the writer knew that the 'carcass' of the Old
     Covenant economy would so on vanish before the Roman
     army (Heb. C:13); he did not anticipate its reoccurrence
     under Divine guidance either in whole or in part."
    
Therefore, there seems no escaping the conclusion of Philip Mauro, in his book entitled "The Hope of Israel: What is it?", pp. 141, 1,4,2 where he states:
    
     "When we have set aside, FIRST, all the Old Testa­ment
     prophecies concerning Israel that have already been fulfilled;
     SECOND, all that were conditional in character and hence
     have become null and void for failure by the Jews to perform
     the conditions on which they were based; and THIRD, those
     that belong to 'the Israel or God,' there remains for the natural
     Israel no promise of blessing except 'the common salvation'
     which is proclaimed by the gospel of Christ, and which God
     bestows freely upon all - - Jews and Gentiles - - who fulfill
     the simple conditions of 'repentance toward God and faith
     toward our Lord Jesus Christ."

The Abrahamic Covenant, by Dr. George B. Fletcher, Ch. 11, Part 1 & 2

    

Chapter XI

    
THE BENEFITS TO ABRAHAM AND HIS FLESHLY SEED

    
OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL UNDER THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION

    
Part 1 and 2

    
Introduction

   
     Abraham, the father of the faithful (Rom. 4:11), be­came the father of two lines of descent. He is the ancestor of a multitude of fleshly descendants called Israe1, or Jews, besides other nations by Hagar and Keturah. But according to the New Testament Abraham is also the father of a host of spiritual children (Rom. 4:17, 18; 2:28, 29). Galatians 3:7, 9 -- "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham... So then they which be or faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." But what were the benefits to Abraham and his fleshly seed under the covenant of Circumcision? Genesis 15 gives the answer: (1) Divine friendship (vs. 1); (2) The promise of a son (vs. 2); (3) The promise of a multitudinous seed (vs 5); and (4) The promise of the land of Canaan (vs 7), the boundaries of which are given in verses 18-21. Were these promises fulfilled to Abraham and to his fleshly seed? They were indeed. Abraham enjoyed the Divine friendship (Isa. 41:8: Jas. 2:23). Isaac was born when Abraham was past age (Gen. 21:1-7; Rom. 4:17-19). As to the multitude of descendants, the Scriptures say it was fulfilled even in Moses' day (Deu. 1:9; 10:22). See also 1 Kings 4:20; Neh. 9:23; and Heb. 11:12. But what about the land? Did they ever possess it according to the boundary given in Genesis 15? The Scriptures tell us they did! The literal possess­ion of the land of Canaan by Abraham's fleshly seed after some 400 years' servitude in Egypt (Gen. 15:13), and their restoration to the land after 70 years' captivity in Baby­lon have already been fulfilled, and both of these were in accordance to the will of God by His own direct intervention.

    
Part I - Israel's Possession of the Land

    
     In Genesis 15:13-18 the Lord told Abraham that his posterity would not possess the land until they had been slaves in Egypt for 400 years. This fixes the date of possessing the land with their deliverance by Moses from Egyptian bondage, and the subsequent conquest of Canaan under. Joshua, the successor or Moses. Stephen confirms the fulfilling of the land grant promise to be at the time of Israel's leaving Egypt to return to Canaan (see Acts 7:17, 18, 35, 36).
    
     Joshua testified that they conquered ''the whole land" (Joshua 11:23), possessed it, and dwelt therein. Joshua 21:43, 45 -- "And the Lord gave unto Israel ALL THE LAND which he sware to give unto their fathers; and THEY POSSESSED IT, and DWELT therein ... There FAILED NOT OUGHT of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; ALL CAME TO PASS." Joshua declared that the Lord gave them the right to all, and the actual possession of the greatest part of it, and the power to possess the rest as soon as it was needful and convenient for them, which was by degrees, when their numbers increased, and the absolute dominion of all the people remaining in it. Exodus 23:29, 30 -- "I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land." (Compare also Deu. 7:22). Joshua's dying testimony was to the same effect; Joshua 23: 14 -- "And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth; and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, THAT NOT ONE THING HATH FAILED of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; ALL ARE COME TO PASS UNTO YOU, AND NOT ONE THING HATH FAILED THEREOF." It is said that Joshua did not wholly subdue the enemies of the land, and therefore under the Israel of the future all the enemies must be driven out, and all the land occupied before a valid fulfillment of the promise can be established. How­ever, it was because of their disobedience, that the "Lord left those nations, without driving them out HASTILY; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua" (Judges 2 :20-23).
    
     Nevertheless, under the reign of David, the Lord sub­dued these enemy kings who had infringed on Israel's territory, "as he (David) went to RECOVER his border at the river Euphrates" (2 Samuel 8:1-3). To show that Israel regained ALL of the original promise of land, it was said of Solomon, David's son, that, "Solomon reigned over ALL kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border o:f Egypt ... For he had dominion over ALL the region on this side of the river" (1 Kings 4:21,24). See also 2 Chronicles 9:26.
    
     Some four centuries later Jeremiah likewise testified they had come in and possessed it. Jeremiah 32:22,23a -­- "And hast given them this land, which thou didst swear to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey; And they CAME IN and POSSESSED IT ... " Approximately a century and a half later, Nehemiah added his testimony that Israel "POSSESSED THE LAND" (Nehemiah 9:23,24), and that the Lord had "PERFORMED" his words (Neh. 9:7,8).
    
     In summary, God promised possession of the land of Canaan to Abraham's fleshly seed after they would return from Egyptian servitude. Moses, Joshua, Jeremiah, Nehe­miah, and Stephen all testify this promise has been ful­filled! They lost part of the land temporarily under the Judges, but David recovered it, and Solomon reigned over ALL of the original territory set forth in the promise. Thus the promise of the land its possession by Israel, has been fulfilled. The Lord was under no obligation to fulfill it again the second time.
    

Part 2 - Israel's Restoration to the Land

    
     The prophet Isaiah gives a remarkable and far reaching prophecy concerning the Lord setting His hand "again the SECOND TIME to RECOVER the REMNANT of his people" in chapter 11:10-16. Dispensational premillennialists believe that this prophetic passage, particularly verse 11, proves there will be a future NATIONAL RESTORATION OF ISRAEL to the land of Palestine AFTER the Second Advent. Some even consider that the present day return of Jews to Palestine in unbelief and the constituting of Israeli a political commonwealth among the nations in our time is an initial fulfillment of this prophecy.
    
     What is to be understood by the statement "the Lord shall set his hand AGAIN THE SECOND TIME to recover the remnant of his people" (Isaiah 11:11)? The first time, to which this word SECOND relates seems to be, either (1) The deliverance out of Egypt, as many Jewish and Christ­ian interpreters understand it. Then the second deliverance would be that from Babylon after their captivity there for 70 years. The argument supporting this view is that the prophet Isaiah reckons ONE recovery has ALREADY taken place; otherwise he would not say "AGAIN". Moreover, the return from Babylon had not yet taken place when Isaiah wrote these words; therefore he could not have had THAT return in mind as the one which had ALREADY occurred. Inasmuch as the prophet lived possibly a century and a half BEFORE the return from Babylon, that recovery could well have been the subject of this prediction in Isaiah 11:11. Isaiah 11: 16 seems to seal the matter: -- "And there shall be a highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of EGYPT." The recovery of Israel from Egyptian bondage is the FIRST time and the return from Assyrio-Babylonian captivity is the SECOND time. Or, (2) that the FIRST time refers to the deliverance out of Baby­lon; and then this SECOND deliverance must be in the days of the Messiah, which seems more probable for the following reasons: (1) Because that first deliverance is supposed to be, like the second, a deliverance of the remnant of this people from several countries into which they were dispersed; whereas that out of Egypt was a deliverance not of a remnant, but of the whole nation, and that out of Egypt only. (2) Because this second deliverance was universal, extending to the generality of the outcasts and dispersed ones, both of Israel, or the ten tribes, and of Judah, or the two tribes, as is evident from verses 12, 13; whereas that out of Babylon reached only to the two tribes and to some few of the ten tribes which were mixed with them, as is acknowledged, both by Jews and Christians. ( 3) Because this second deliverance was given them in the days of the Messiah, and did accompany or follow the conversion of the Gentiles, as is evident from verses 9 and 10; whereas that out of Babylon was long before the coming of the Messiah, and the calling of the Gentiles.
    
     The first time then refers to their restoration from captivity in Babylon, where Jeremiah had prophesied their captivity for seventy years and that afterward He would restore them to their land (Jer. 27:22, 29:10). Isaiah named the king who would let them return to Jerusalem, app­roximately 150 years before that king was born (Isa. 44:28; 45: 1, 13). Cyrus, king of Persia, granted the Jews per­mission to RETURN to their homeland as Isaiah said he would and that before Cyrus was born (Ezra 1:1-3). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah record Israel's restoration to their homeland. The return from Babylon was gradual, and occupied the long period of approximately 90 years from the decree of Cyrus, B.C. 536 to B.C. 446, when it was com­pleted under Nehemiah. Therefore, the full return from Babylon was on the Old Testament side of every Old Testa­ment prophet except Malachi, who naturally says nothing about it, nor about any other future restoration to their land. Albert Barnes asserts "the second time" in Isaiah 11: 11 refers to a future recovery after the return from captivity in Babylon and in the days of the Messiah.
    
     ''THE SECOND TIME. This word properly means, as it is here translated, the second time, implying that the prophet here speaks of a deliverance which would resemble, in some respects, a FORMER deliverance or recovery. By the former recovery to which he here refers, he cannot mean the deliverance from Egypt under Moses, for at that time there was no recovery from scattered and distant nations. Besides, if THAT was the reference by the former deliverance, then that here mentioned as the •second' de­liverance would be that :from the Babylonish captivity. But on the return from that captivity, there was NOT a collect­ing of the Jews from all the nations here specified. When the Jews were led back to Judea under Nehemiah, there is no .record of their having been collected from 'Egypt', or from 'Cush', or from 'the islands of the sea'. It is evident, therefore, I think, that by the former deliverance to which the prophet here alludes -- the deliverance which was to precede that designated here as the SECOND -- he refers to the return from the captivity of Babylon; and by the 'second' to some still more future recovery that should take place under the administration of the Messiah. This is further confirmed from the fact that the whole scope of the prophecy points to that future period."

The Abrahamic Covenant, by Dr. George B. Fletcher, Ch. 10

    

Chapter X

         
THE BENEFITS TO ABRAHAM AND HIS SPIRITUAL

    
SEED OF ALL NATIONS UNDER THE GOSPEL COVENANT

    
     The original promise given to Abraham as recorded in Genesis 12:3 is called in Galatians 3:3 "the gospel" and had to do with Christ (Gal. 3:16). In Galatians 3:17 it is spoken of as "the covenant, that was CONFIRMED before of God in Christ." The blessings of this gospel covenant promised to all Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations (Gal. 3:7-9, 29) are justification by faith (Gal. 3:8), redemption from the curse of the law (Gal. 3: 13) , and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:14). This gospel coven­ant is spoken of by other names in the New Testament, namely, a "better" covenant, because based on better promises (Heb. 3:6}, an "everlasting" covenant (Heb. 13:20), the "second" covenant, because the first was faulty (Heb. 8:7), and the "new" covenant (Matt. 26:28). It was first called the "New" covenant by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31-34. But what do Jeremiah and the writer to the Hebrews (8:7,13) mean when they speak of "a new covenant"? Is it to be understood that God's plan for the redemption of sinners failed and had to be re-made? No, by no means. His plan never changed; His purpose was the same from the beginning. There was the same promise of deliverance from sin, the same Redeemer, the same required conditions for partici­pation in the benefits of redemption, the same complete salvation for all who embrace the divine offer of mercy. What then is new? Not the substance of the covenant, but the administration of it in historic fulfillment. In Christ as mediator this eternal covenant is perfectly administered; it is ratified afresh by His sufferings and death; it reveals more clearly the mysteries of grace, and through Christ the mediator there flows a larger measure of the gifts and graces of the Spirit. Four chapters in the New Testament - - 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews 8 through 10 -- are given over to the explanation of this New Coven­ant. No other Old Testament prophecy has so much New Testament space given over to the explication of it. The historic fulfillment of this New Covenant we keep in remembrance every time we celebrate the Lord's Supper (Luke 22 :20).
   
     Consider some of the notable characteristics and gracious blessings of this New Covenant. First, negatively:(1) There is not a word in this covenant about the land of Canaan; (2) It does not guarantee a foot of land in this present evil world to its heirs; (3) It does not men­tion nor guarantee the return of the Jews to the land, nor the restoration to their former glory; (4) It has nothing to say about Jerusalem as a Jewish international world capital; (5) It does not speak of Christ as sitting on the temporal, earthly throne of David; (6) It makes no mention and holds out no hope of a super-duper Jewish world power kingdom within the framework of time. Second, positively. To illustrate the term "new", let us consider it in contrast to the "old" covenant made at Sinai with Israel. (1) Its mediator is not a mere man like Moses, but the perfect man -- God's only-begotten Son. He guar­antees the fulfillment of all the promises and conditions of the covenant. His blood is covenant blood, not only binding the parties to the contract but securing the fulfillment of all its provisions. Christ's work renders certain the gifts of divine grace and the perseverance of God's people in faith and obedience .. (2) It is not external, but inward and personal. The "old" was an external thing -- ­laid up in the sacred Ark. The new covenant was not a summons from without, but a power within the soul. The law was not written on tables of stone, but on the heart. (3) The new covenant is not legal and ceremonial, but evange­lical and spiritual. God in revealing the first covenant said "Thou shalt not"; but in ordering the new covenant He says: "I will." There is not a hard cold legalism of Do' s and Don'ts but a gracious promise of His presence and power whereby we delight to do His will. (4) The New Cov­enant is not temporary, but permanent. The old is prepara­tory; the new is final. It is the · permanent final dis­pensation -- the last before the restoration of a11 things, designed for the conversion of men and the ingathering of the elect. The final revelation of grace has been made. (5) It is not national, but universal. The old was made with the nation of Israel at Sinai; but the new embraces the election of grace from among all nations both Jew and Gentile.
    
     Consider in the next place the time element involved in this gospel promissory covenant. It has an eternal aspect, for it is called "the everlasting covenant'' (Heb. 13:20) for it originated in the councils of the Godhead in eternity past and reaches in its sweep through time to eternity future (Rom. 8:29,30). There was also the revelation and gradual unfolding and enlargement of this gospel promissory covenant. It has an eternal aspect, for it is called "the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20) for it originated in the councils of the Godhead in eternity past and reaches in its sweep through time to eternity future (Rom. 8:29, 30). There was also the revelation and gradual unfolding and enlargement of this gospel promise originally given in Genesis 3:15. Then there is the historic fulfillment in time when Christ came and ratified it with His own blood. Jeremiah prophesied that it would be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer. 31:31-34). The question here is, Has it been so made with them, or is it still in the future? Is the making of the New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah history and in the past, or prophesy and in the future? The Scriptures show that it has been made and is therefore in the past and not in the future! It was with the believing and loyal remnant within the nation that our Lord Jesus Christ established the New Covenant strictly according to promise. An Old Testament parallel will bear this out. At the disruption of the nation in the days of Rehoboam, the ten tribes rebelled against and seceded from the two tribes. The ten tribes took the name of "Israel" but they had no right to it; That only was the true Israel, the people of God, that remained loyal to the house of David; for to that house God had solemnly covenanted to give the throne of Israel in perpetuity (2 Sam. 7:8-16). The Ten Tribal group consti­tuted a very large majority, but they could not carry the legitimate continuity of the nation with them. That re­mained with the loyal minority. Dr. Albertus Pieters gives the New testament parallel in his book entitled "The Ten Tribes in History and Prophecy".
    
     "Jesus Christ came into the world, the Messiah of promise, the
     legitimate king of Israel. He offered Himself to the people of
     Israel in that capacity. Some accepted Him as such -- a small
     minority. The official heads of the nation and a large majority
     of the people rejected Him. What did the king then do? Some
     tell us that He withdrew His plan of establish­ing the kingdom,
     a truly naive notion, as if He could so play false with the loyal
     portion of the nation! What He did was to re-organize His people,
     by appoint­ing new leaders, the twelve apostles, from among the
     loyal group, and assuring them they were to 'judge the twelve
     tribes of Israel.' namely, to be the official heads of the re-
     organized nation. Let us now put this question soberly to our-
     selves: 'Did those who accepted Christ thereby lose their standing
     before God and with reference to the prophetic promises of God,
     as Israel­ites? Did they secede from Israel, or did those who
     rejected the King secede?' No Christian; it seems to me, can
     affirm the first of these alternatives, for to be a Christian means
     first of all that one accepts Jesus as. the true Messiah, the King of
     Israel. It was as in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. Again
     there was a king of the house of David, and again a large part of
     the nation refused to accept Him. If He was really the legitimate
     sovereign, then, clearly, those who refused were in rebellion, and
     ipso facto lost their standing as Israelites. The number does not
     matter. By losing their standing as Israelites, they lost all claim
     upon the promises of God. 'All the promises of God in Him are
     yea and in Him Amen.' Those who are not in Christ, the un-
     believ­ing and disobedient, have no promises -- not one.
    
     "By the same token the portion of the nation that accepted and was
     loyal to the legitimate king of the house of David constituted the
     continuation of the national organization. They were entitled to
     every­thing God had promised to Israel. Again, the smallness of
     this number does not matter; or, rather, it confirms their title, for it
     had been expressly prophesied that the number would be small. 'If
     the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is
     the remnant that shall be saved' (Rom­ans 9 :27).
    
     "This believing and loyal remnant, then, was re­organized by the
     Davidic King into the Christian Church. With this re-organized
     Israel the New Cov­enant was established, strictly according to the
     promise. To whom had it been promised? To 'The House of Israel
     and the House of Judah.' To whom was it ful­filled? To 'The House
     of Israel and the House of Judah'; to the only group in the wide
     world legitimately entitled to that name. The new officers began to
     function immediately after the ascension of Christ. Finding a
     vacancy in their number, they filled it by the election of Matthias
     in place of Judas, according to prophecy. Openly they stood forth
     as authoritative leaders of the re-organized Israel, and invited their
     disloyal and seceded countrymen back into the ranks.
    
     "It is important to remember that this re-organization was completed,
     and the New Covenant Israel was a going concern for some years
     before the Gentiles began to come in. Up to that point the members
     of this Israel were not only by legitimate right, but also by race,
     Israelites. When the Gentiles did come in, that required and caused
     no further re-organiza­tion; and when they eventually grew to be the
     over­whelming majority, that also made no difference in the title of
     the group to be the New Covenant Israel; any more than the coming
     in of immigrants and their naturalization, however many they may be,
     makes any change in the historic continuity of the United States of
     America."
    
     To the Ephesian Christians Paul wrote that before they became Christians they were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel", clearly implying that after they became Christians they were MEMBERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL. Now, what is this "commonwealth of Israel"? Is it the external, earthly nation of Israel, commonly referred to as "the Jews"? We think not, because the Ephesian Christians had not become members of the commonwealth of Israel" in any such sense as that. What, then, can Paul mean by his implication that the Ephesian Christians had become members of "the commonwealth of Israel"? We submit that in Eph. 2:12 "the commonwealth of Israel" clearly means the body of the believing, redeemed people of God, into which the Ephesians had been incorporated.
    
     Finally, consider the End of the New Covenant. The benefits and blessings of the New Covenant are eternal to all the beneficiaries under its terms. At the Second Advent of Christ it will cease to be the instrument for bringing the election of grace to faith. Christ comes at His Second Advent not to make a New Covenant, but to con­summate the redemption of His people under its promises: Hebrews 9:28 --"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many: and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." See also Romans 8:19-25. The Old Covenant ended with the rending of the veil of the Temple (Matthew 27:50-53), and hence Israel's peculiar privileges as a nation were terminated at that time. Dr. John Owen makes this clear in the following excerpt from his writings:
    
     "You Jews must admit, that the tenor and charter of all your peculiar
     privileges as a nation, is the covenant which was made at Sinai;
     consequently, that these privileges must continue or cease with that
     covenant. If you believe the Scriptures, you must also admit, that in
     Jer. 31:31 -- there is the promise of another covenant, which was to
     be made long after the former, and of a different nature from it; and
     that this could not take place unless that first covenant were im-
     perfect, faulty, and removable (Heb. 8:7). Now we ask, Do you
     believe that God will make a new covenant, not according to the
     covenant which he made with your fathers at Sinai? If you do not,
     you renounce the prophets and the promise of God to you. But if you
     do believe it, we ask, with what sacrifice shall it be estab­lished? and
     by what priest, and with what worship shall it be administered? If
     you say, By the sacri­fice, priests, and worship of the law, you retract
     what you have granted, namely, that it is a NEW and ANOTHER
     covenant; for such sacrifices, priests, and worship, cannot confirm
     and administer any other covenant but the first, for which only they
     were appointed. But if you admit that this new and other covenant
     must have a new mediator, priest, and sacrifice, without which it
     cannot be a new cov­enant, then must the old cease and be removed
     that the new may come in its place."
    
     That aspect of the New Covenant of bringing the election of grace to faith will end with the rending or the heavens at the Second Advent of Christ, when they shall depart as a scroll when it is rolled together (Rev. 6:14). Revelation 11:l8, 19 -- "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and
thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail." With the Second Advent of Christ time is over and eternity is here! Luke 13:25, 27 -- "When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: ...depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." There is no salvation after the Second Advent of Christ! 2 Corinthians 6:2 --"Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation."

The Abrahamic Covenant, by Dr. George B. Fletcher, Ch. 9

    

Chapter IX

         

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANTS

         

IN THE LIGHT OF ECCLESIOLOGY

    
     The Paedobaptist invariably bases his authority for infant baptism on the covenant of Circumcision as found in Genesis 17 (Acts. 7:8), failing to distinguish between it and the Gospel covenant of Genesis 12:3. Genesis 17 is said to be the New and Everlasting Covenant under which we are saved, and that baptism comes in the place of cir­cumcision. The argument is about as follows: (1) The covenant with Abraham is the Covenant of Grace, therefore it did not belong to the Jewish dispensation, and did not pass away with it. (2) The covenant confessedly embraced believers, AND THEIR INFANT CHILDREN, and since it remains unchanged it embraces them still. (3) All who were in the covenant had a right to its seal, and those embraced in it now have the same right. And since professed believers AND THEIR INFANT CHILDREN did receive the seal of the covenant by express command of God, the same characters must receive it still. (4) As circumcision was the first seal, and was administered to professed believers AND THEIR INFANT CHILDREN, so baptism is now the seal and must be administered to the same characters. Or, (1) The Abrahamic covenant was and is the Covenant of Grace; and the Church of God, as a people in covenant with Him, was organized on this covenant. (2) As the Church was organized on this covenant, it embraced in its membership all who were embraced in the covenant; namely, professed believers AND THEIR INFANT CHILDREN. (3) The Christian Church stands on the same covenant and is identical with the Abrahamic Church, and embraces the same characters in its membership; viz. -- professed believers AND THEIR INFANT CHILDREN, (4) All embraced in the covenant and in the Church membership are entitled to the initiatory rite, and since professed believers and THEIR INFANT CHILDREN; did receive circumcision, the first initiatory rite, the same characters, being still embraced in the same covenant, have a right to baptism, which is now the initiatory rite.
    
     Christian baptism is not founded on the covenant of Circumcision which was peculiar to the natural seed of Abraham, but on that Gospel covenant which extends the blessing of Abraham to his spiritual seed of all nations. Accordingly, when that ancient Gospel covenant of promise came to be actually ratified in the blood of Christ, the peculiar covenant of Circumcision with the natural seed of Abraham was set aside, and baptism was appointed to be administered to all, whether Jews or Gentiles, males or females, who appeared to be his spiritual seed by faith in Christ, but to none else.
    
     We would agree that baptism belongs to the true spiritual Israel of God, even as circumcision belonged to the natural Israel of God, provided one keeps clear and consistent the distinction between the typical and the antitypical Israel; namely, the former are born after the flesh, and the latter of the Spirit. It is admitted that circumcision, as well as all the other carnal and typical institutions of the Old Testament, had a spiritual or mystical meaning, which applied to all the spiritual seed of Abraham, even as it had also a plain and literal meaning as applicable to all his fleshly seed. But this affords no argument for infant sprinkling, for baptism has not a twofold meaning like circumcision, a letter and a spirit, but rather it is a sign of spiritual blessings only, and therefore belongs to none but those who appear to be the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith. We would have no objection to the sentiment, that these two ordinances bear some general analogy to each other, if it is stated that, as under the Old Testament circumcision belonged to all the natural seed of Abraham who were known to be such in infancy by their fleshly birth, so under the New Testa­ment baptism belongs to all the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ, who are known to be such by their profession of that faith.
    
     We do not agree that baptism is the same thing to the true Israel that circumcision was to the typical Israel for the .following reasons: (1) Circumcision was appointed for all the male seed of Abraham without exception (Gen. 17:10-15). But baptism is appointed for none upon any
such grounds, but for those only who believe, or appear personally to be the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus. (2) Circumcision belonged to a peculiar covenant with the natural posterity of Abraham. It was a token of that covenant in their flesh; a mark of their national distinction and separation from all other people; and hence they are denominated "the circumcision" (Rom. 4:9). But baptism belongs to the New Covenant, which has set aside the distinction of Jew and Gentile, and extends the spiritual blessing of Abraham to his spiritual seed of all nations. (3) Circumcision was restricted to males (Gen. 17:10). But baptism is to be administered to all who believe, both men and women {Acts 8:12), for male and female are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:26). (4) Circumcision was annexed to the grant or the earthly inheritance (Gen. 17:8), and was a token of heirship in those temporal bless­ings which were promised to Abraham and his natural seed. But baptism has no respect to anything of a secular or temporal nature, but represents or conrirms to believers the spiritual, heavenly, and eternal blessings of the New Covenant. (5) Circumcision laid the subjects of it under obligation to conform to the whole system of Judaism as contained in the Mosaic Law (Gal. 5:3), which left all those who sought to be justified by it under the curse (Gal. 3:10). But baptism represents the believer's freedom f'rom that yoke of bondage, his deliverance from the curse, and his justification by faith in Christ, as the end of the law for righteousness; while it engages him to die unto sin, and walk in newness of life, as being under law to Christ.
    
     According to the rule of judging as found in 2 Corin­thians 5:16 the apostles acknowledged none of Abraham's natural offspring as his spiritual seed but believers, who were but a remnant of them (Rom. 11:5), and by the same rule, they regarded Gentile believers as the spiritual seed of Abraham though the natural seed of heathens (Gal. 3:7, 29). If therefore none of believing Abraham's natural posterity were known or acknowledged by the apostles as his spiritual seed, but those of them who appeared to be new creatures and walked in the of steps of his faith (Rom. 4:11, 12), by what rule are we to esteem the infant natural seed of believers to be the spiritual seed, of whose faith and regeneration we cannot possibly have the slightest evidence?
    
     Moreover, the apostle Paul shows in Romans 4 that Abraham was not justified by the covenant of Circumcision, but altogether independent of it, and while he was in uncircumcision, even 24 years before it was given; and that he received the sign circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith which his had in his uncircumcised state. On this he grounds his argument, that neither Jew nor Gentile are justified either by circumcision or the works of the law, but only by faith, as Abraham himself was (Rom. 4:3-5; 23-25). Now if Abraham was not justi­fied by the covenant of Circumcision, but 24 years previous to and independent of it, how can it be the sane for substance with the Gospel covenant by which alone sinners can be justified?
     
     To substitute infant sprinkling for believer's bap­tism is to unite the church and the world. It is the prolific source of an unregenerated church membership, and thus produces an unscriptural ecclesiology. Surely, as a Paedoptists practice an uncommanded ceremony of sprinkling instead of baptism -- on unscriptural subjects of infants of on believers -- their churches can lay no claim to conformity to the New Testament standard of church organization. Thus the failure to distinguish between the Gospel covenant CONFIRMED to Abraham and his spiritual seed of all nations, and the covenant of Circumcision MADE with Abraham and his fleshly seed of of the nation of Israel is the source of an unscriptural ecclesiology, wherein attendance to these things would have prevented the great est division of all in Protestantism over baptism.