Two House Chronicles

The Insufficiencies of the Presuppositions of Dispensationalism in Rendering John's Apocalypse

The Insufficiency of the Presuppositions of Dispensationalism

 in Rendering John’s Apocalypse

by Marsue and Jerry Huerta

copyright 2013

edited 2018


Dispensationalists presuppose the transcendence of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, in many cases to the exclusion of others, depending on the sect. Regarding this issue, dispensationalists R. Bruce Compton confirmed that the prophets were not omniscient and, “did not always fully comprehend all of the implications or significance of the text,” they wrote,[1]  which is an acknowledgment of the weakness in the historical-grammatical hermeneutic by itself. The historical-grammatical view informs us of the author's original intent and meaning but cannot inform us of implications or significance beyond what the prophets were given to know. Such a concession concedes the existence of implications or significance that can be further developed in progressive revelation. True progressive revelation maintains concurrence with the historical-grammatical perception and presupposing the latter’s hegemony results in true correspondence between the Old and New Testaments.

Dispensationalism views Israel as a “nation among nations,” on a path to salvation different from that of the church, which is “formed from all nations.”[2] With this a priori Ryrie rendered Matthew 21:43 as the rejection of the Jews, albeit temporarily, and the conception of an ad hoc separate institution, called the church, bearing the fruit of the vineyard entered onto the scene. Curiously, Ryrie cross referenced the phenomenon with the nation in 1 Peter 2:9.[3]


“MATTHEW 21:43 taken from you, and given to a nation. I.e., taken from the Jews and given to the church (1 Pet. 2:9).”[4]


The Greek term ethnei, in Matthew 21:43, does stress singularity, as a nation among nations—but dispensationalism maintains the church is not a nation like Israel; thus, when Ryrie renders the nation that bears the fruit in Matthew 21:43 as the church he violates the rule of non-contradiction. Ryrie was totally stifled in the interpretation found in his study Bible on 1 Peter 2:9-10 and so we are left adrift in determining just how the nation that bears the fruit in Matthew 21:43 relates to the Jews, especially when Peter was addressing the ten northern tribes of Ephraim. Thomas Ice’s rendition of Peter’s epistle supposedly has the historical-grammatical interpretation concur with a great number of exiled Jews dwelling in the regions conveyed in 1 Peter 1:1.


“Interestingly, most of the post-apostolic early church fathers also agreed that 1 Peter was written to Jewish believers scattered throughout the stated regions of modern-day Turkey.”[5]


What is perplexing, is that Ice also deviates from the historical-grammatical interpretation; the original intent of the authors that Peter cited was to convey that the promises to the nation of Ephraim, the ten northern tribes, were being fulfilled, as opposed to being fulfilled in Judah (Exodus 19:6; Hosea 1:10; 2:23).


But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:  in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)


And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God. (Hosea 2:23)


In his railings against replacement theology, Ice produced an essay on 1 Peter 2 that also disavowed the nation as Ephraim by omission, which reveals the omission is pervasive in dispensationalism and this blinds them from the salvific history of the nation of Ephraim as contrasted from Judah. The omission stems from the dispensationalist’s presuppositions that renders Matthew 21:43 as referring to the suspension of the calling of Israel at the first advent, and the commencement of the ad hoc call concerning the church, which is what Ice conveys in his essay on 1 Peter 2:9-10:


“While much more could be said about 1 Peter 2, it is abundantly clear that the passage does not support any form of replacement theology. Instead it speaks of a fulfillment of God’s Old Testament promises to the Israel of God through Christ.… God will indeed keep all His promises to Israel even though during the Church age He is combining elect Jews and Gentiles into a single co-equal body (Eph. 2:11–22).”[6]


As a revised dispensationalist, Ice’s perception of the fulfillment of God’s Old Testament (OT) promises to Israel is that they are yet future, after the rapture of the church; they were not fulfilled at the first advent in any sense. The restrictive clause, “even though during the Church age,” juxtaposes the church from Israel, in their manipulation of the historical-grammatical sense. In Ice’s view, then, God took his kingdom from the Jews when they rejected Christ, which he perceives as meaning that God changed his mind on the offer of the kingdom, and, as an ad hoc, fed the church, a contingency summarized as the parenthesis by dispensationalists.[7] Classic and revised dispensationalism’s ad hoc or contingency forces the open theist’s perception; God did not know how the Jews would respond to Christ,[8] which they labeled the parenthesis. Another dispensationalist, Michael J. Vlach, attempts to vindicate the perception of the ad hoc or contingency of the church.


“Thus, while the certainty of God’s purposes is sure because of God’s sovereignty, from the human side of the divine/human curtain the timing of fulfillment of some prophecies can be influenced by human obedience or disobedience. Contingency appears to be explicitly taught in Jeremiah 18:7–10.… Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed in forty days, but national repentance delayed God’s judgment (Jonah 3).… Thus, contingency in regard to prophecy must be considered.”[9]


Vlach proceeds from an open theist’s perception of free will, believing man causes God to repent or alter his plans for the unforeseeable. This is incompatible with compatibilism,[10] which is the Calvinist’s perception of free will. Yet, Ice claims Calvinism as essential to dispensationalism in another essay.


“In concert with the Calvinist impulse to view history theocentricly, I believe that dispensational premillennialism provides the most logical eschatological ending to God's sovereign decrees for salvation and history. Since dispensational premillennialists view both the promises of God's election of Israel and the church as unconditional and something that God will surely bring to pass, such a belief is consistent with the Bible and logic. A covenant theologian would say that Israel’s election was conditional and temporary. Many Calvinists are covenant theologians who think that individual election within the church is unconditional and permanent. They see God's plan with Israel conditioned upon human choice, while God's plan for salvation within the church is ultimately a sovereign act of God. There is no symmetry in such logic.”[11]


Vlach supports the open theist’s claims concerning contingency from texts in Jeremiah and Jonah, [12] which is at variance with Ice’s perception of God’s sovereignty in Calvinist’s terms. Vlach proceeds from the open theist’s concept of free will concerning God’s foreknowledge as an incompatibilist,[13] while Ice asserts that dispensationalists hold to the Calvinist compatibilist’s perception of determinism. It is clear that the parenthesis is incompatible with the Calvinists’ view of foreknowledge and even Martin Luther acknowledged this aspect of Calvinism: “God foreknows nothing contingently”[14] In truth, both Ice and Vlach are not compatibilists but labor for the open theist’s view of God’s foreknowledge as it concerns contingency in regard to prophecy.

Compatibilists claim causal direction concerning human action, which libertarians repudiated at some lengths on the grounds of indifference; freedom and moral accountability must remain indifferent to causation. Modern libertarians have abandoned indifference and conceded to endorse causal direction but claim such must be under man’s sole direction in order to maintain their perception of free will. When the libertarian concept of free will is repudiated open theism must fall, insomuch as it is built upon libertarianism. And then contingency in regard to prophecy must logically fall. In truth, libertarian perception of free will was repudiated by Paul in his epistle to the Romans in the texts below.


For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:15-23)


Paul affirms that ultimately man has no power over his carnal nature (CN); it causes sin even when the will resists. Concerning man, dispensationalist John Nelson Darby conveyed, “when he wills good, sin is too strong for him.”[15] The CN efficaciously circumvents the will to consummate sin; this repudiates libertarianism. First, man’s will is not in complete control of his actions; the CN also directs man and resists his will. Secondly, man is conscious of his sins; it troubles his conscience as Hebrews 10:2 states, which establishes accountability. Paul clearly affirms that  the mind is aware when it wrongs. The incompatibilist’s arguments pertaining to accountability and causal determination are overcome by Paul’s testimony. Furthermore, Old and New Testament revelation affirms that we do not die for Adam’s sin, but for our own; death follows sin.


Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)


The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)


This also concurs with the Calvinist perception that the elect are called by God and not vice versa, as no man is able to free himself from the CN.


Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)


Arminianists and open theists think they stand at God’s door and knock and he answers to their beckoning. But only the causal direction of “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ” (Romans 8:2) emancipates man from the CN and allows him to answer God’s call.


For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:2-4)


The Calvinist’s perceptions of God’s foreknowledge in texts such as Romans 8:29-30, indicate that God was familiar with the elect before creation (Jeremiah 1:5; Ephesians 1:4), which also concurs with his foreknowledge of how they respond, in what appears to man as contingency (conveyed appropriately as anthropomorphic shepherding). In summary, scripture affirms that sin is caused by an organic influence capable of overpowering the will, while maintaining accountability, which repudiates the perception of free will by libertarianism and contingency in regards to prophecy.

What is also garnered from the circumstance of the CN is that the power of the flesh was sanctioned until an appointed time, when manumission would be made possible for the elect by the propitiation of Christ, at the inauguration of the Israel’s New Covenant (NC). Both Scofield and Ryrie indirectly affirm this appointed time in their commentary on Daniel, below; yet, both fail to grasp the ramifications of accurately calculating the appointed time from the Babylonian captivity as vindicating the concept that man does not cause God to repent nor alter his plans for the unforeseeable.


“The seventy weeks are divided into seven = 49 years; sixty-two = 434 years; one = 7 years (Daniel 9:25-27). In the seven weeks = 49 years, Jerusalem was to be rebuilt in "troublous times." This was fulfilled, as Ezra and Nehemiah record. Sixty-two weeks = 434 years, thereafter Messiah was to come (Daniel 9:25).”[16]


“Certain important events were to happen after the 62 weeks (plus the 7 weeks, or a total of 69 weeks): the crucifixion of Messiah, and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Romans who are the people of the prince that shall come.”[17]


The appointed time for the propitiation of sin was determined from the seventy weeks in Daniel 9, which was due to Judah’s rejection of God’s call to repent in Jeremiah 18:7-10. Said dependency vindicates that God had foreknowledge that Judah would not repent; consequently, Jeremiah 18 cannot be used to show that man causes God to repent nor alter his plans for the unforeseeable. Such foreknowledge finds confirmation in the NT evidence that man was in subjugation to the CN and could not keep the law until this manumission, at the appointed time, which was God’s will.

What is indicated in Jeremiah 18:7–10 and the book of Jonah from the evidence presented is the appearance of contingences, from whence Vlach drew his conclusions concerning contingency in regards to prophecy. God ordained that Israel would ultimately fail to comply with the law under the Sinai Covenant (SC), with the consideration that ultimate obedience was ordained with the NC. God either moves[18] against the CN or allows it to run its course and it is the former case which we see in the example of the book of Jonah. In Jonah God moved the Ninevites and the prophet to act contrary to their CN, which demonstrates compatibilism, as opposed to open theism. It is man’s perception of contingency that leads to the misapprehension of open theism. Covenantalists C. Matthew McMahon properly analyzed the narrative in Jonah as giving, “us a glimpse of God’s true intention for the Ninevites through Jonah’s actions (the compound sense), while the stated text exhibits His coming wrath against the city in forty days (the divided sense).”[19] McMahon developed the seventeenth century Calvinist’s work of Francis Turretin, using his hermeneutics tool of the compound and divided sense, which agrees with what has been presented thus far. In Jonah the compound sense perceives God moving against the CN of Jonah and the Ninevites to perform his will; the divided sense perceives contingency. The account in the book of Jonah conveys the same sovereignty as in the prophecy in Revelation 17:17, where God puts his will into the hearts of the ten kings to, “give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.”

The concept of election also undermines the perception that the OT prophecies to the biological descendants were conditional, insomuch as the Old Covenant builders or tenants of the vineyard of Israel (Matthew 21:33-44), or the house of God, were ordained to reject the stone that becomes the corner (Psalms 118:22-23; Isaiah 8:14-15; 49:7; 1 Peter 2:6-8). Only an ordained remnant of the house of Israel was chosen to avow Christ.


Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (1 Peter 1:1-2 English Standard Version)


The ESV was used due to its poor translation of κλεκτος παρεπιδήμοις Διασπορς in the KJV. The “elect exiles of the dispersion” is a superior translation and historically accurate, as Peter, the apostle to the circumscribed (Galatians 2:8), ministered to the biological descendants who never returned from the Babylonian exile and remained dispersed. Furthermore, they were ordained to avow Christ according to the foreknowledge of God, all of which undermines the misapprehension that the OT prophecies to the biological descendants were conditional. The New Testament (NT) vindicates Samuel’s testimony that, “the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent” (1 Samuel 15:29). Everything that was ordained to occur at the first advent happened according to the testimony of the OT prophets. If what is spoken by a prophet does not come to pass then, according to Deuteronomy, the prophet is not of God.


 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:18-22)


As already conveyed, the NT revealed that the law could do nothing to promote obedience but actually magnified sin and disobedience, while the New Covenant would solve the problem of disobedience by having God dwell in his chosen elect. Consequently, it would have inhibited God’s plans if the Old Covenant biological descendants had fully grasped this principle. Knowing that the law could not promote obedience would have exacerbated their rebellion and disobedience and so God chose not to convey said revelation until the ratification of the New Covenant. Hence, the difference between the divided and compound senses is revelation: progressive revelation. The divided sense is the nascent, elementary revelations of God, while the compound sense incorporates his consummate or comprehensive revelations. The biological descendants were not ready for the compound sense in revelation, knowing that the law could not promote obedience; giving them such understanding would have been counterproductive to their walk with him. Therefore, under the Old Covenant ministration God conveyed security in land and life in the divided sense: blessings for obedience and curses for rebellion. Even so, in the compound sense God foreknew the biological descendants ultimately could not keep the law until the New Covenant was ratified, which substantiates that conditional prophecy is expressed in the divided sense and as such it cannot be used to confirm the premise that man causes God to repent nor does he alter his plans for the unforeseeable.

Returning to Ice’s essay on 1 Peter 2 and replacement theology, his interpretation supports the concept that conditional prophecy is a fallacy by his affirmation that there were unsaved reprobates mixed with the elect of Israel.


“Since Hosea is a type of God in that book, the Lord is saying that not all of the children of Israel are His offspring. (I take it this is the Lord’s way of saying many within national Israel were unbelievers in relation to their individual salvation while still a part of national Israel.)”[20]


Ice acknowledges that the promises to Israel were only to the elect and not to the reprobate that mixed with them.


“However, since Peter is writing to ‘the Israel of God’ or Jewish believers, he is listing these Old Testament descriptions of Israel to let them know that everything promised them in the Old Testament is being fulfilled through their faith in Jesus as their Messiah. This is juxtaposed by a comparison with unbelieving Jews who have not trusted Jesus as the Messiah of Israel in verses 7–8. Peter speaks of “the stone which the builders rejected” (2:7) as a likely reference to Jewish leadership that lead the nation to reject Jesus as the Messiah. Peter further describes Jewish unbelievers as ones that view Jesus as “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (2:8a). He notes that these Jewish unbelievers “stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed” (2:8b).”[21]


Yet, the elect of Israel did avow Christ and since the kingdom did not appear there can be no other sound conclusion than that it simply was not the appointed time and that it was not offered by any means. God is not a God of ad hoc contingencies. Ice faltered, above, where he states Peter’s epistle informed the Jewish believers, “everything promised them in the OT is being fulfilled through their faith in Jesus as their Messiah.” This substantiates that the OT prophesies concerning Ephraim were being fulfilled at the first advent and there was no intent to establish the kingdom. It upholds the church as the vehicle to, “raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel,” as well as being a, “light to the Gentiles” (Isaiah 49:6). Ice’s interpretation of Peter’s citation from Hosea 2:23 vindicates that the prophecy was being fulfilled literally at that time, an expression Ice used in still another of his essays: Dispensational Hermeneutics.[22]

The omissions of the historical-grammatical interpretation of the OT citations in 1 Peter 2:9-10 are a failure to account for the salvific history of the nation of Ephraim as contrasted from Judah in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah and especially in the anthropomorphic motif of the unfaithful, divorced wife returned to her husband, as idiomatic of the obstacle of Deuteronomy 24:4. More than one prophet idiomatically presented the obstacle of Deuteronomy 24:4 in the return of the divorced woman of Hosea.


Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:4)


They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord. (Jeremiah 3:1)


Thus saith the Lord, Where [is] the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors [is it] to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away. (Isaiah 50:1)


Omitting the historical-grammatical perspective of Ephraim taints any rendition of an OT citation in the NT. Ice concedes that at the first advent many exiled Jews dwelt in what is now southern Turkey,[23] but as mentioned above, he neglects the historical-grammatical hermeneutic by omitting Ephraim from the context of 1 Peter 2:10. Instead he calls the descendants of Israel abiding in the provinces of 1 Peter 1:1 Jews, as if all Israelites were Jews. Even so, Peter’s citations from Hosea pertained to the reinstatement of the elect descendants of Ephraim, as an unfaithful, divorced wife returned to her husband.

Deuteronomy 24:4 pertains to the idiom of the unfaithful, divorced wife returned to her husband in eschatological context, which is precisely what Paul relates in his Romans epistle concerning the release from the condemnation of the law.


Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (Romans 7:1-4)


Dispensationalists like Scofield and Ryrie were silent upon Paul’s allusion to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Ryrie certainly does not even attempt to explain how in Romans 7 the gentiles were “in bondage to the law,” as he put it.[24] Furthermore, his assertion that the law was, “not the Mosaic law here,” cannot be sustained by the context.[25] The contemporary dispensationalist Ernest L. Martin acknowledged that the law in Romans 7:1-4 hindered Ephraim’s re-marriage, but held that the re-marriage, “will take place, contrary to the law of God in Deuteronomy chapter 24.”[26] Dispensationalists like Martin fail to grasp that Paul’s allusion to Deuteronomy 24 in Romans 7:1-4 affirms that the SC ended with the cross, and the betrothal of Hosea 2:23 began. According to Paul, Israel’s marriage to the covenant maker (Jeremiah 3:14; Isaiah 54:5-6; Hosea 2:7) ended when Christ died on the cross, freeing them from the SC and leaving them free to re-marry the risen Christ in the NC. Further, Martin is in conflict with one of the founders of dispensationalism, Charles Stanley of Rotherham (1821-1890), who grasped that the association of the marriage to the husband conveyed in Romans 7:2-4 pertained strictly to Israel’s marriage in the OT, as opposed to the gentiles’s.


“Here, then, we have the two husbands. The old husband the Jews had had; that is, the law … so is it shown that the believer cannot be married to both Christ and the law.… if we carefully examine the holy oracles of God, we shall find that the Jews had been under law, or married to the first husband, 1,500 years.… But of the Jews the apostle says, ‘Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.’ (Rom. 7:4) Hence, do not you see, my reader, the passages that follow, instead of being the proper experience of the Christian, really are the strongest possible contrast.”[27]


Stanley was correct in one sense only: excluding gentiles, only Israelites were married to the husband in the anthropomorphic depiction of the covenant relationship in the OT, but Stanley failed to ascribe concurrence with the husband in Jeremiah 3:14, Isaiah 54:5-6 and Hosea 2:7; concurrence that affirms a divine being as the husband in the illustration, not the law. Another contemporary dispensationalist, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, concurs that the husband is a divine being and correctly rendered the SC, the law, as the marriage contract in the anthropomorphic equivalence.


“The entire format of the Book of Deuteronomy is that of both an ancient treaty and an ancient marriage contract. In this book, Moses took all the various facets of the three earlier books and presented them in the form of an ancient marriage contract. In this book we find the marriage contract signed between Israel and God whereby Israel becomes the Wife of Jehovah.… The relationship of Israel as the Wife of Jehovah is viewed throughout the Scriptures in various ways and facets.… if one makes the Wife of Jehovah (Israel) and the Bride of the Messiah (the Church) one and the same thing, he is faced with numerous contradictions because of the different descriptions given.”[28]


The problem Fruchtenbaum faces is, how does Jehovah himself release Israel from the SC by his death? Yahweh cannot die. The prophets reckoned Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the law, as an impediment to Ephraim’s restoration and Paul revealed the impediment was surmounted by the death and resurrection of Christ in Romans 7:1-4. This is a revelation; it was pre-incarnate Christ who was the husband that divorced Ephraim. This is also affirmed in the revelation of Christ who, as the angel of the Lord declared, “I will never break my covenant” (Judges 2:1). The comprehension that Christ was the angel who gave Israel its covenant flourished in the eighteenth and nineteenth century Evangelical movement, which is recorded in Louis Goldberg Baker's Evangelical Dictionary.


“The connection between the angel of the Lord and the preincarnate appearance of the Messiah cannot be denied. Manoah meets the angel of the Lord, and declares that he has seen God. The angel accepts worship from Manoah and his wife as no mere angel, and refers to himself as "Wonderful," the same term applied to the coming deliverer in Isaiah 9:6 (Jud 13:9-22). The functions of the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament prefigure the reconciling ministry of Jesus. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the angel of the Lord; the Messiah himself is this person.”[29]


Ryrie in truth concedes that Christ was the husband in the OT and in Romans 7:2-4 when he interpreted that Christ was the, “spiritual rock,” that “actually followed the Israelites,” in 1 Corinthians 10:4.[30] Even so, Ryrie completely missed the allusion to the SC in Romans 7:1-4, specifically the law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Fruchtenbaum’s perception of the husband in the OT presents the fallacy of the death of an immortal being necessary to release Israel from the SC. Stanley misrepresented the law as the husband. Martin missed the phenomenon altogether, that Christ’s death released both houses of Israel from the SC. The failure of these dispensationalists to grasp the significance of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as it pertains to Romans 7:1-4 stems from their omissions of Ephraim from the historical-grammatical perspective when rendering NT texts such as 1 Peter 2:9-10. They fail to account for the salvific history of the nation of Ephraim as contrasted from Judah in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah and especially in the anthropomorphic motif of the unfaithful, divorced wife returned to her husband, as idiomatic of the obstacle of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

Vlach, like any dispensationalist, sees two distinct anthropological groups at the first advent. 


“Revised dispensationalists did not emphasize the eternal dualism and separation of heavenly and earthly peoples like classical dispensationalists did. Yet they did emphasize that there were two distinct anthropological groups— Israel and the church which are always kept distinct. These two groups are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is the same.… The distinction between Israel and the church, as different groups, will continue throughout eternity even though both groups inherit the millennial kingdom and the eternal state.”[31]


As revealed above, Ice’s essay on 1 Peter 2 also conveys two anthropological groups—but from God’s perspective:


“Peter is writing to ‘the Israel of God’ or Jewish believers, he is listing these Old Testament descriptions of Israel to let them know that everything promised them in the Old Testament is being fulfilled. This is juxtaposed by a comparison with unbelieving Jews who have not trusted Jesus as the Messiah of Israel in verses 7–8.… He notes that these Jewish unbelievers ‘stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed’ (2:8b).”[32]


Ice clearly affirms two bodies within the biological descendants of Jacob, an anthropological division, where only the elect biological descendants of Jacob are, “the Israel of God.” The biological descendants are anthropologically divided as either the seed of the woman or the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15). Many are called but few are chosen (Matthew 20:16). Moreover, Ephraim and Judah are two nations with differing salvific histories in the scriptures, which is an anthropological division in itself and this is what dispensationalism omits. This is the dualism Vlach conveys but he fails to perceive that it pertains more accurately to the distinction of the salvific destiny of Ephraim as contrasted with Judah. Dispensationalists’ omissions have blinded them to the evidence that the church is the vehicle to “raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel” as well as being a “light to the Gentiles” (Isaiah 49:6).

Ephraim’s unique salvific histories commenced with Solomon. Ice unwittingly acknowledged that the Ephraimites were dwelling in exile when he stated Jews had, “been there since their dispersion by the Assyrians and Babylonians.”


“It is clear, Peter, an apostle who was specifically called to minister to the Jews, is writing a letter to encourage Jewish believers who are in the diaspora. It makes no sense to speak of Gentile Christians as aliens living in Gentile nations. It makes good sense to speak of Jewish believers as aliens living in Gentile lands who had likely been there since their dispersion by the Assyrians and Babylonians.”[33]


Ice makes a good point that Peter and other epistles pertained primarily to the biological descendants; yet, Ice misrepresented them as Jews, as not all Israelites are Jews. Ice’s citation of the Assyrian dispersion concedes that the descendants of Ephraim as well as those of Judah were dwelling in the dominions where Peter directed his epistles. Dispensationalist William D. Barrick indirectly affirms this in his essay on the promises that are yet to be fulfilled to Israel.


“Note that several of these characteristics were undeveloped or unfulfilled during the return of Israel to the land following the Babylonian Exile (viz., altered topography, climate changes, and extension of boundaries). This would seem to contradict those theologians who insist that the promises to Israel for restoration were all fulfilled when Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah led their various groups of Israelite exiles back into the land from Babylon. If these promises were fulfilled by the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile, ‘How then shall we explain the prophecy in Zechariah 10:8–12 that announces in 518 B.C. a still future return, which would not only emanate from Babylon, but from around the world?’”[34]


Here we have evidence from a dispensationalist that Zechariah 10 pertains to a subsequent return from a dispersion that occurs in this age, an age that commenced at Christ’s first advent. Judah is clearly dispersed again in this age when the temple is destroyed in 70 A.D. This by itself substantiates that Christ’s first advent was not to offer the kingdom but to disperse the Jews again. Nevertheless, Barrick omits the prophecy that Ephraim is saved in a protracted, multi-generational dispersion, which only proves the omission of Ephraim in the grammatical-historic hermeneutic is pervasive in dispensationalism.


And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord. I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased. And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again. (Zechariah 10:7-9)


Zechariah 10 is the inspiration for the parables of the marriage of the king’s son and that of the wheat and the tares and its examination is so appropriate here. As Barrack affirms, Zechariah 10:8-12 prophesied of another diaspora after the return from Babylon, specifically concerning Ephraim. Scofield cited 1 Peter 2:8 to interpret the “corner” in Zechariah 10:4 as Christ,[35] which is tantamount to conceding that it was Christ’s whose anger was kindled against the shepherds and the goats (v 3). Clearly the text pertains to the diaspora resulting from the kingdom being taken from the shepherds (Matthew 21:43), which is the subject the following chapter, Zechariah 11. In abstracts, the initial verses relate that Christ strengthens the remnant of Judah and saves Ephraim by gathering them in Christ, according to the NT (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43; Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 1 Peter 5:14).


I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased. (Zechariah 10:8)


Through the gospel the elect of Ephraim are called and gathered in Christ, while the promise of fecundity is fulfilled. Then, God sows them in the world according to the parable of the wheat and the tares.


And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again. (Zechariah 10:9)


The neglectful shepherds correspond to those sitting on Moses’s seat who refused to come to the marriage; consequently, God destroys the city and also scatters the reprobate who are no longer the husbandmen of the vineyard of Israel. Ephraim becomes a great multitude in fulfillment of the promise of fecundity passed down to Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph (Genesis 48:17; 49:22). Zechariah 10:7-9 affirms, Ephraim is redeemed and then sown in distant countries and this runs concurrent with the betrothal of Ephraim “in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in “mercies” and “in faithfulness” before they are sown in the earth (Hosea 2:19-23). The death of Christ releases Ephraim from the marriage contract, the SC, and frees them to marry Christ under the NC. Ephraim is the nation that bears the fruit of the vineyard in Matthew 21:43. This is not the history of the Jews (Romans 9-11; Galatians 4:25). The prophets agree, many of the elect which are the biological descendants of Abraham propagated with gentiles in a protracted exile (Jeremiah 31:27; Hosea 2:23, 7:8, 8:8-9; Amos 9:9; Micah 5:7; Zechariah 10:7-9). They also agree, these descendants populated the world due to Ephraim’s fecundity (Genesis 12:3, 17:5-6, 35:11, 41:52, 48:16, 19; Hosea 1:10; Zechariah 10:7-9). They agree further that the Ephraimites are redeemed or saved, their sins blotted out, while in exile, and are dispersed throughout the world (Isaiah 43:1, 5, 25; 44:22, 24; 51:5, 11; 14 26; Hosea 2:23; Jeremiah 31:1-2, 5-6; Zechariah 10:6).

It is hard to conjecture as to exactly what Ice meant when he interpreted Peter’s citations of Hosea to the Jewish believers as imparting, “everything promised them in the Old Testament is being fulfilled,” when dispensationalists believe God disrupted his plans for Israel when they rejected their Messiah. What is revealed in the NT is that Christ released Israel from their marriage under the SC and his resurrection made them eligible to be espoused to him (Romans 7:1-4) under the NC, particularly Ephraim, the unfaithful, divorced wife who now returns to her husband. Ephraim’s fecundity is consummated as she returns to her husband. Ice’s interpretation of 1 Peter 2 does substantiate that the eschatological promises to Israel are protracted over time and not merely at a precipitous event at the return of Christ.

In Christ, elect Jews and Ephraimites are no longer held to the Old Covenant laws prohibiting intermarriage (Deuteronomy 7:3-5; Galatians 3:28; Romans 7:1-4; Ephesians 2:13); even so, in another sense they still remain the biological descendants and it can be maintained that God’s elections are irrevocable—as they are the Israel of God's irrevocable choice, by whom the gentiles are blessed (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 26:4). In Christ, Jew, Ephraimite and Gentile become corporately perceived as one, but in the biological sense as women remain women, Ephraimites remain biological heirs of Abraham no matter how diminished that biological sense becomes due to the end of the prohibitions against intermarriage and the concern for genealogies is quashed (1 Timothy 1:3; Titus 3:9). Moreover, dispensationalists omit the birthright of fecundity passed down from Jacob to the descendants of the northern tribes in Zechariah above (Genesis 48:3-4, 16-20), which renders them a copious people in providence, much greater than the hardened Jews who dispensationalists perceive as the only Israel. First Samuel 15:29 affirms that God, “is not a man, that he should repent.” God did not repent concerning the biological descendant’s commission to bless the nations at the first advent even as their biological identity diminished; in a sense, it became the means to bless the nations. Any principle in determining how one discerns the term Israel in eschatological context must avoid tension between OT and NT revelation, which dispensationalism has not evaded.

The dispensationalist’s argument against any protracted and gradual development of Israel’s NC is that the OT affirms the NC is fulfilled at the precipitous event of the second-advent. In reference to the promises of the NC and citing Compton, again, he asserts that the, “promises without exception occur in the OT in eschatological contexts.… in connection with the Lord’s coming to gather the Jews from the lands in which they have been dispersed, reconstituting them as a nation, and restoring them to their geographical homeland.”[36] Again, the fallacy in Compton’s assertion is that the prophets did not fully grasp all the implications of the words they were superintended to write, which he concedes,[37] and nowhere is this more striking than in the prophecy of the two advents of the Messiah—the greatest of mysteries! One of the most noted dispensationalists, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield affirmed that, “Malachi, in common with other O.T. prophets, saw both advents of Messiah blended in one horizon, but did not see the separating interval described in Matthew 13.”[38] But only NT revelation provides the hermeneutic to discern this distinction in the OT; Scofield must rely on NT revelation to make such a statement. Scofield essentially supports the idea that the prophets were not given to know of two advents but this does not affirm that two advents were not planned. NT revelation affirms two advents; in the first Christ would be wounded for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5) and after a mysterious interval, he would return as king. Scofield’s concession verifies Israel’s promises of the redemption from sin and regeneration in the NC, anticipated in Jeremiah 31:31-33, were not committed to the second advent, as Compton perceives, but to the first advent. From Peter’s perspective, the present salvation of the descendants of the ten tribes, still in exile, to whom he addressed his epistles, was seen by the prophets in the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 1:10-12). Moreover, their present “trials” correspond to the chastisements also anticipated by Isaiah 27:8-9 and Zechariah 13:8-9, which will be examined presently, along with the provisions of the NC, from which the salvation of the descendants of Israel originate.

After his resurrection Christ unveiled to his disciples the record from the prophets where he was to die and be raised to his Father’s right hand (Luke 24:25-27). With this inspiration Peter’s monologue in Acts affirms that David had prophesied Christ’s suffering and death in Psalms 16:8-11 and how it had been fulfilled at the first advent, but his return or second advent was held in abeyance until his enemies are made his footstool in fulfillment of Psalms 110:1 (Acts 2:25-36). Peter’s renditions of Psalms 16 and 110 provide the hermeneutic by which dispensationalists like Ryrie render Zechariah 9:9 as “fulfilled completely at the first advent of Jesus Christ,” and then interpret the consummation of the subsequent verses is held in abeyance until, “the second advent of Christ.”[39] In like manner, Ryrie and the preponderance of dispensationalists, such as J. Dwight Pentecost, render the birth of Israel’s ruler in Micah 5:2 as being fulfilled by Christ at the first advent, who then gave up Israel, verse 3, while verses 4-15 of the same context are held in abeyance until the second advent.[40] The point being is that dispensationalists must concede, the NT reveals the Savior in a greater capacity than the OT. Discernment between first and second advents in the OT is only possible from a NT revelation. Scofield was right, the OT prophets knew nothing of, “the separating interval described in Matthew 13,” and cites it to discredit a protracted eschatology, but fails miserably in the words of some of dispensationalism’s own advocates, as even they agree the prophets were not given to see two advents, which is clearly seen in NT revelation. The dispensationalist’s acknowledgement that the two advents in the OT were often in the same context destroys Compton’s issue concerning context and the NC. The fact that both advents were often spoken of in the same context substantiates that Compton’s issue is impractical. Finding both advents prophesied in the same context rather substantiates that the NC is fulfilled in a protracted manner in which some parts are immediately fulfilled while others are held in abeyance until the second-advent.

The NT substantiates that the judgment on the reprobate shepherds prophesied in Zechariah 11 and Ezekiel 34 was fulfilled at the first advent. Christ took the kingdom from the reprobate shepherds and then pardoned and prospered a remnant who would sojourn in the nations to be sifted (Amos 9:8-9; Mark 10:30). Intercession for the remnant is evidence that God continued to feed and work with Israel in this age. The parables in Matthew 13 illustrate that the remnant of Israel, especially the nation Ephraim, would be sown throughout the world to fulfill the promise that Abraham would be the “father of many nations (Genesis 17:4-5). Even so, Scofield’s notes on Micah 5 assert, “The meaning of Micah 5:3 is that, from the rejection of Christ at His first coming Jehovah will give Israel up till the believing remnant appears; then He stands and feeds in His proper strength as Jehovah (Micah 5:4).”[41] Scofield’s presuppositions have him see Israel’s remnant only at the second advent, at the last scene of the present age, dismissing the evidence that the copious remnant of exiled Ephraimites continued to avow Christ, migrate and intermarry with the gentiles, and are still being fed by God in this age. As already established, the reprobates who rejected Christ were appointed to wrath (Romans 9:21) and could never have been offered the kingdom they were never ordained to inherit. Darby, the author of classic dispensationalism, also held the literalist view believing the remnant of Israel will be fed at the second advent:


“Another very important element of this last scene of the present age is pointed out in this verse. Israel is given up to judgment, forsaken of God, in a certain sense, for having rejected the Christ, the Lord. But now she who travaileth has brought forth. Afterwards (and this is the element I refer to) the remnant of the brethren of this first-born Son, instead of being added to the church (Acts 2), return unto the children of Israel. The Christ is not ashamed to call them His brethren; but at this period they no longer become members of His body. Their relation is with Israel.”[42]


Notwithstanding, their supposition concerning “context” and the quelling of the evidence that the remnant of Israel was fed at the first advent is thwarted by their concession that there is a transition from one advent to the other without chronological notation in the OT which can only be resolved by NT revelation. Such a concession substantiates that the feeding of the biological descendants of Israel was not held in abeyance at the first advent (John 21:17; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2). Dispensationalists force Micah 5:4, Ezekiel 34 and sometimes even Zechariah 11 to pertain to the second advent by circumventing the fact that the remnant of Israel was fed by God at the first advent. Acknowledging that these texts pertain to the first advent substantiates the gradual development of eschatological provisions of the NC in Hebrews. Major provisions were fulfilled at the first advent and others await the second, a premise clearly sustained in the epistle to the Hebrews.

Darby stressed the discontinuity between the OT and NT relationship with God while underestimating the continuity, which led to his failure to properly render the sense in which the woman is given up in Micah 5:3. Notwithstanding, the judgment at the first advent did not depart from the precedent established when Israel was sent into Babylonian captivity; God interceded for the faithful remnant that submitted to his judgment, while the reprobate were hardened and endured the wrath of God, thus, the continuity between Israel and the church and the glory of God is maintained.


Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace... Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. (Jeremiah 29:5-7)


 And the LORD said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them. Then shall the cities of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem go, and cry unto the gods unto whom they offer incense: but they shall not save them at all in the time of their trouble. For according to the number of thy cities were thy gods, O Judah; and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem have ye set up altars to that shameful thing, even altars to burn incense unto Baal. Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble. (Jeremiah 11:9-14)


Writing from a revised dispensationalist supposition Gary E. Yates confirms the two responses and the ramifications:


“While steadfastly refusing to extend ‘peace’ (שְׁל֣וֹם) to Jerusalem, the prophet Jeremiah then encourages the Judean exiles in Babylon to pray for the ‘peace’ (שְׁל֣וֹם) of Babylon (29:7). Jeremiah opposes the prophets who proclaim an unconditional ‘peace’ (שְׁל֣וֹם) for Jerusalem (cf. 4:9-10; 6:14; 8:11) and asserts instead that Babylon has replaced Jerusalem as the place of blessing and security for the people of Israel … this same prophet … exhorts the exiles to seek the ‘welfare’ (שְׁל֣וֹם) of Babylon (29:7a) because in its ‘welfare is your welfare’ (לָכֶ֖םיִהְיֶ֥ה שָׁלֹֽום בִשְׁלֹומָ֔ה) (29:7b). Following the subjugation of Judah to Babylon in 597 B.C., the prophet Jeremiah asserts that the exiles in Babylon actually enjoy a position superior to the citizens and king who remain in Jerusalem. The promise for a new Israel is connected to the return of the Babylonian exiles after seventy years (29:10-14). In contrast, the inhabitants of Jerusalem remain the object and target of Yahweh’s decree of judgment (29:16-18).”[43]


The Hebrew word palal translated pray, literally imparts: intervene or interpose. Jeremiah substantiates that God continued to intercede for the remnant of Israel during the Babylonian captivity, which the book of Esther also corroborates. The dichotomy between the two responses to Christ at the first advent was explained by Paul as the distinction between the children of the promise and the children of the flesh (Romans 9:6-8). The same distinction conveys the response to Jeremiah’s prophecy to Jerusalem. At the first advent the majority of Judah represented the children of the flesh destined to be cast off, which brought about the circumstances where God interceded for the remnant, the children of the promise, and they became a blessing upon the nations (Genesis 12:3; Romans 11:11-29). In like manner, the remnant that went peaceably to Babylon become the means by which those cities prospered as in the case of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Daniel 1-6). Christ, as the supreme prophet Moses anticipated (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:22-23), represented the anti-type of Jeremiah who rebuked the false prophets that claimed God would save Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:8-9; John 11:45-53) and who also interceded for the children of the promise—those who submitted to him and ultimately went peaceably into the world and propagated the gospel, in fulfillment of the parables of Matthew 13 and the prophesies of Hosea 2:19-23 and Zechariah 10:7-9.

In their zeal to stress the discontinuity, while underestimating the continuity between the OT and the NT relationship with God, dispensationalists force Zechariah 13, just as they do Micah 5:4, into pertaining to the second advent. However, Christ cited Zechariah 13:7 in Matthew as being fulfilled at his death and the scattering of the sheep is confirmed by history.


Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. (Matthew 26:31)


Furthermore, the refinement of the remnant of Israel, the third part brought through the fire,[44] is substantiated as commencing at the first advent through the vehicle of the church that runs concurrent with this age, according to Peter’s epistles addressed to the elect exiles of the dispersion (1 Pet. 1:1), which even Ice held as pertaining to Israel and not the gentiles.[45]


That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:7)


Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)


Scofield asserts Zechariah’s use of recapitulation when he stated that, “Zechariah 13 now returns to the subject of Zechariah 12:10,”[46] but while Zechariah uses recapitulation it is not to be applied between these two chapters. As stated, the smiting of the shepherd is clearly a first advent phenomenon. Christ was prophesied to be stricken and afflicted at his first advent in correspondence with Isaiah 53:4 and Micah 5:1 and other texts. Premillennialism renders the second advent of Christ as his return in power to smite the nations (Isaiah 11:4; Revelation 19:15) as opposed to the first advent when he was afflicted. Furthermore, it was at the first advent when Christ fulfilled the scripture of a fountain being “opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness” (Zechariah 13:1). Hebrews 9:28 confirms that Christ died once for sin at the first advent and when he returns it is not to remit sin again but to save his people and end the persecution at the hands of their enemies. It was Christ’s first advent that caused “the names of the idols” to be cut “out of the land” and caused the false “prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land” (Zechariah 13:2). The propagation of the gospel overpowered paganism wherever the gospel and Christ were avowed, which maintains Zechariah 13 as pertaining to the first advent. It is in this age that the promise that Jacob would become a nation and a company of nations is fulfilled (Gen. 35:11).

In Mark, Christ proclaimed the continued intercession for the Jews who avowed him at the call of the gospel, post diaspora, expressed in the same language in Jeremiah 29:7.


And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. (Mark 10:29-31)


Hebrews 4 corroborates that the Jews who entered into the rest for the people of God at the first advent obtained mercy and grace through the intercession of Christ as high priest, who ministers the NC anticipated in Jeremiah 31 (Hebrews 10:9-10, 12:22-24). First Peter 2:8 affirms many were appointed to disobedience and would inherit wrath. Again, the judgment at the first advent did not deviate from the precedent established prior whereby God sent Israel into the Babylonian captivity and interceded for the faithful remnant who submitted to the judgment, while those who resisted were hardened and endured the wrath of God. And lastly, here, the intercession for the remnant substantiates that Micah 5:4 pertains to the first advent. The woman in Micah 5:3-4 represents the “remnant” in Romans 9:27-28 that is fed by God, while his wrath fell on the children of the flesh that were cast off. The sense in which the remnant woman in Micah 5:3 was given up at the first advent, then, was to persecutions and trials in correspondence with Mark 10:30 and 1 Peter 1:7; yet, at the same time she entered into God’s rest by receiving Christ’s intercession to find “grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4). But as for those who disavowed Christ, “because of unbelief,” they were not able to enter into his rest as God had so sworn.

In their continued zeal to stress the discontinuity, while underestimating the continuity between the OT and the NT relationship, dispensationalists claim gentiles have no standing as parties to the NC, that the covenant was strictly promised to Judah and Israel. Standing is accentuated in support of their doctrine that God set aside Israel at the first advent and will not feed them again until Christ’s return, in fulfillment of Micah 5:4. The evidence presented here that God interceded for the scattered remnant of Israel at the first advent and continued to feed them substantiates that the church was foreseen in the OT as the remnant women in Micah 5, albeit veiled until God’s appointed time. In one of the controversies concerning this issue an essay by Elliott Johnson in The Master’s Seminary Journal stresses the dispensationalist’s view.


“Discontinuity exists also in the application of the New Covenant benefits. The discontinuity is present because the party to the New Covenant is specified as the house of Israel and the house of Judah (8:8 and 10:16). And Judaism had not accepted a partnership in the New Covenant since they continued to practice their worship under the terms set by the first covenant. Hebrews views the recipients (3:1 and 9:15) as merely beneficiaries. Benefits promised in the New Covenant have now been applied to called ones because of the death and ministry of Jesus Christ.… And Hebrews’ quotation of the passage from Jeremiah (8:8:12 and 10:16-17) leaves open the expectation, as the quotations claim, that the houses of Israel and Judah will be called in the future. That would then involve a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the covenant at some future time, in the same terms as prophesied”[47]


Of Hebrews 9:16-17 Johnson argued that the author’s intent was that of an application of a Hellenistic or Roman civil bequeathal, instead of interpreting the scripture more appropriately in accord with the Hebraic cultic meaning of diathēkē.


“The transition from 9:15 to 9:16-17 introduces a strange anomaly in the use of diathēkē … it has the sense of last “will” or “testament” according to the majority of translations and interpreters.… the ‘death of the one who made it’ most naturally requires a sense of ‘last will’ or ‘testament,’ since covenants did not involve the death of their makers before being inaugurated. Likewise, in 9:17 the statement that a diathēkē, takes effect at death and is not in force while the maker is alive applies only to a testament. In 9:18, however, the topic returns again to the first diathēkē, that is, the Sinai arrangement, which is clearly regarded as a covenant. Accepting such a change in translation suggests profound implications in the hermeneutics of Hebrews. It is not a change in arrangement but a change in perspective in looking at the same arrangement.… That does not mean that the second party is unnecessary, or subject to change.”[48]


The second party is Judah and Israel. Faithful to dispensationalism’s presuppositions Johnson chose to stress the discontinuity of a secular concept or a Hellenistic or Roman legal practice in place of appropriately interpreting the Septuagint’s meaning of diathēkē in Hebrews 9:16-17. He and the many others that hold this view stress that “covenants did not involve the death of their makers,” in order to enforce its provisions. Even so, Scott W. Hahn points out that the Greco-Roman arrangement departs from the theme in Hebrews where:


“This runs counter to a testamentary model, in which only God (the Father, 1:5) could function as the testator, since he dispenses the inheritance. Ironically, it is not God, the ‘testator,’ but Christ, the heir, who must die to receive the heavenly inheritance. In the understanding of inheritance in Hebrews, God gives a heavenly inheritance to Christ, ‘the heir of all things,’ after the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ the heir, whereas in a Hellenistic testament, a testator gives an earthly inheritance to his heir(s) near the end of his (the testator’s) life—in the case of donatio inter vivos—or at this death. The most striking difference between the model of inheritance in Hebrews and a testament is that, consistently in Hebrews, it is the heir rather than the testator who must die before the inheritance is bestowed.[49]


God fulfills the party of testator who does not die but bestows Christ’s inheritance as “heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:2). Christ then shares his gift with the elect who are called. The Greco-Roman arrangement has the heir live and the testator ultimately die. Moreover, the Greco-Roman arrangement was not made valid by the death of the testator but when it was written, witnessed and notarized, and it was often distributed prior to the death of the testator. Hahn’s essay analyses syntax, secular issues, grammar and the liturgical cultist issues that become an insurmountable argument against the perception of a Greco-Roman arrangement in the meaning of diathēkē. Furthermore, Hahn drew on the Septuagint to substantiate that in the arrangement of the SC the sacrifice of animals ratified the covenant and symbolized the death of the covenant violator. The death of the animal ratified the covenant and preceded its enforcement: “vv. 18-22 points out that, in fact, the first covenant was established in just this way, with the blood of the representative animals being sprinkled over the people and over all the physical implements of the covenant cult.”[50]

Johnson’s endeavor is one of the copious attempts in dispensationalism to play down the relationship of the NC with the church. Ryrie revealed that dispensational premillennialism has taught that, “the church has no relation to the new covenant,” or that there were, “two new covenants, one with Israel and another with the church,” or that the church merely, “receives some of the blessings.”[51] Dispensationalists simply cannot concede that the church is party to the covenant as it would substantiate that Israel and the church are not a separate people. Johnson attempts to substantiate the same by asserting that God departed from a covenantal arrangement with the church and based his relationship with them upon a secular civil arrangement. Hahn’s work dispels any notion that the author of Hebrews departed from the Septuagint’s concept, which corroborates that the church is party to the NC and eschatological prophecy was intended as a gradual development in fulfillment of major provisions of the NC at the first advent, while holding others in abeyance until the consummation at the second.

Johnson’s sentiments found their way into another dispensationalist’s composition by Stephen R. Lewis in the Chafer Theological Seminary Journal entitled: The New Covenant: Enacted or Ratified? Lewis attempts to assert the same doctrinal views as Johnson, drawn from the same presuppositions and making the same assertions.


“Those who assert the enactment of the New Covenant for the Church must ponder the following questions: Which part of the Church is the house of Judah and which, the house of Israel? Did God lead our fathers out of Egypt and make a covenant with them? The Holy Spirit’s choice of words proves that the Church (predominantly Gentile in composition) is not the entity with whom the Lord Jesus Christ enters into the New Covenant.”[52]


Lewis, like Johnson, forces the anachronism of a greater constituency of the gentiles as members of the church in their exegesis of Romans 11, while underestimating the circumstances that the Jews were the overwhelming majority at the inception of the church and the constituency that founded it. The latter view must be accentuated in any presupposition concerning Romans 11 and the grafting in of the gentiles. Accurate analysis renders that Israel did not fail; in the compound sense God interceded for the preordained remnant to remain on the olive tree in the imagery of Romans 11. This intercession corresponds with the precedent in Jeremiah where the prayers of the remnant promoted the welfare of the nations where they sojourned (Jeremiah 29:5-7). Therefore, by design the fall of those whom God hardened had the effect of, “Salvation is come unto the Gentiles,” as affirmed in Romans 11:11. Furthermore, Paul was cognizant of the fact that Peter, James and other disciples had carried the gospel to northern-eastern Asia Minor where the descendants of Ephraim, the ten tribes, had favorably received the good news in great numbers which corresponds with the parable of the marriage of the king’s son (Matthew 22:1-14). This occurrence as evidenced in the epistles of James and Peter is supported by the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who observed that the ten tribes, “beyond Euphrates till now,” were as, “an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.”[53] Peter’s epistles to the elect exiles of the dispersion in the dominions of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1) are supported by Josephus’s observation, as the dominions that were beyond and westwards of the Euphrates. Christ prophesied Jerusalem would be laid waste and would cease to be the center of worship as the gospel was commissioned to the world (Matthew 24, 28:19-20; John 4:21-24), which was integral to Paul’s testimony that Israel’s fall was the catalyst to present salvation to the gentiles as well as to the elect exiles of the dispersion; worship becoming centrifugal in its form. Such analysis renders the queries of Lewis shortsighted; the remnant of Judah and Israel and the elect gentiles are redeemed by the invitation to the marriage which is proclaimed through the gospel to the highways, again, in complete harmony with the parable of the marriage of the king’s son.

Lewis also makes the highly untenable claim that, “Nowhere does the Scripture say the NC has already come into existence,”[54] in order to sustain the church as a separate people from Israel.


“the author of Hebrews says to second or third generation Hebrew Christian believers in the Church Age that the enactment of the New Covenant will be in the future (cf. Hebrews 8:6–13). He states: Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away (8:13b)—literally, ‘Now that which is growing old and aging is near disappearing.’ The old has not yet disappeared because the new has not come.”[55]


Not only did Lewis fail to grasp the significance of Romans 7:1-4 but he failed to grasp that the author of Hebrews is relaying that the offering of Christ for sin ended the lawful standing of the SC when he established the NC.


But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing. (Hebrews 9:7-8)


Hebrews 9:8 avows, that so as long as the first tabernacle remained standing the way into the holiest was yet to be manifest. The revelation that the way into the holiest occurred at Christ’s ascension in Hebrews 10:19 confirms that the term “standing” or stasis in Hebrews 9:8 cannot be rendered literally, as pertaining to the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. Such examination substantiates stasis, rendered standing, which should be comprehended abstractly as the authority from God to enforce the Aaronic priesthood and minister his covenants. Hebrews 10:19 verifies that the authority of the SC was taken away, also indicated by the veil being rent (Matthew 27:51). Only this abstract rendering of stasis corresponds with the need of changing the law at the change of the priesthood (Hebrews 7:12), which disannuls the commandment that only the descendants of Aaron could mediate as high priests (Hebrews 7:18) and substantiates the “first” and “second” in Hebrews 10:9 as pertaining to the old and new covenants, which dispensationalist Rodney J. Decker substantiated.


“If this is a valid assessment of the text (and I think it is), then in light of the larger argument of chapters 7-10, it appears quite certain that we are talking about the first and second covenant, whether we explain it more generally or more specifically.… The negative term, ἀναιρέω, means ‘to take away, abolish, set aside’.… The positive, ἵστημι, is to put into force, establish,’ often with legal or covenantal overtones.109 The first covenant comes to an end; the second take its place.”[56]


Decker concludes that the NC, “in as much in force as during the time of Jesus’s high priestly ministry as the old covenant was as of 24,” and that it is not, “possible to divorce Christians from some relationship to the new covenant,” falling short from confirming that the church is the party to the covenant.[57]

The propitiation for sin was at an appointed time according to Daniel 9:25. The NT reveals the ratification and ramifications of this appointed time (Hebrews 9:15, 24-28, 10:10, 14; Romans 8:29-30; Acts 13:48; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11). Lewis concedes this appointed time where he stated, “When Christ returns to the nation of Israel and appears the second time, He will appear without need to deal with man’s sin problem (Hebrews 9:28).[58] Yet, he attempts to hold the fallacy that Israel’s sins had not been forgiven in the same composition.


“God did not forgive Israel at Christ’s first coming. In fact, just the opposite took place—the sins from Abel to Zecharias God required of that generation (Matthew 23:34–36).”[59]


Lewis attempts to hold conflicting views because of dispensationalism’s misapprehension of Romans 11:27b in correspondence with their view that the NC is not in effect.


And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Romans 11:26-27)


Paul conflated Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9 and this does not mean that Christ returns to ratify the NC of Jeremiah 31:31-34 again, as most dispensationalists believe (Hebrews 9:28). Isaiah 27:9 pertains to correction or purification before the consummation of the kingdom, while the reference to Isaiah 59 pertains to God’s spirit abiding in those who are chosen of Jacob.


 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. (Isaiah 59:20-21)


Romans 11:27 cannot be perceived as pertaining to the second advent. Jeremiah 59:21 occurred at the first advent. The Spirit of God fell upon the biological descendants at the first advent according to the NT, fulfilling Isaiah 59:21.


And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4)


Nevertheless, further chastening of the elect proves that the kingdom is not yet consummated. John Owen, a theologian from the seventeenth century, wrote a voluminous commentary on Hebrews in which he stated the purpose of chastisement.


“It is required in chastisement, that the person be in a state wherein there is sin, or that he be a sinner; so that sin should have an immediate influence to the chastisement, as the meritorious cause of it: for the end of it is, ‘to take away sin,’ to subdue it, to mortify it, to increase holiness.”[60]


Owen was not speaking of taking away sin in the sense that Christ did at the first advent, which justified man before God, but in the sense of the sanctification, conforming the life to live victoriously over sin. He prefaced this statement with his comments upon Hebrews 10:4.


“The cessation of offerings follows directly on the remission of sin, which is the effect of expiation and atonement; and not of the turning away of men from sin for the future. It is, therefore, our justification, and not even sanctification, that the apostle discourseth of.”[61]


Owen’s conclusion in the matter of Isaiah 27:8-9 affixes God’s acts as chastisement and not the propitiation for sin.


“In the balance against this matter of sorrow in divine chastisements, the apostle lays down the advantage and benefit of it. ‘It yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness.’ It yieldeth fruit; not it will do so, but it doth so. It is not a dead useless thing. When God purgeth his vine, it is that it may ‘bear more fruit,’ John xv, 2. Where he dresseth the ground, it shall ‘bring forth herbs meet for himself,’ Heb. vi, 8. By this therefore, shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit, ‘to take away his sin,’ Isa. xxvii, 9.”[62]


The most essential matter exposing dispensationalism’s fallacy concerning Romans 11:27b is that the provisions of the NC for the forgiveness of sin and regeneration was fulfilled for the remnant of Judah, Israel and as well as the gentiles who are called from the highways (representing the world) to the marriage. The church is the vehicle by which the house of God is built (Ephesians 2:11-22) as they answer the call to come to the marriage. Such evidence corresponds with the law and the prophets which vindicates the inclusion of the gentiles as partners to Israel’s covenant that, dispensationalist turned Epangelicalist, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., develops in his essay published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.


“Consequently, we conclude that the extent of that kingdom had already in its earliest design embraced the steady absorption of Gentiles as well as Jews. Furthermore, there were numerous illustrations of this historical inclusion of the Gentiles. Witness the presence of Melchizedek, Jethro, Zipporah, Balaam, Rahab, Ruth and possibly the Gib-eonites, the Rechabites, the Ninevites and the entire books (e.g., Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum), or sections of books (e.g., prophecies to the nations in Isa 13–23, Jeremiah 45–51, Ezek 25–32, Amos 1–2), addressed to Gentiles.”[63]


The law and the prophets, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel, witnessed the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s covenants concerning the consummation of the kingdom.


The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. (Isaiah 56:8)

For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. (Isaiah 14:1)


 So shall ye divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 47:21-23) 


In relation to Zechariah 10:7-9 and Hosea 2:19-23, the gospels confirm that Christ came initially for Israel, to repair the tabernacle of David that had fallen and to gather from the nations the gentiles that are called by God’s name.


In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11-12)


Again, Kaiser stresses that the texts from Amos 9, cited by James in Acts 15:16-17, substantiated that the rebuilding of David’s tabernacle is a protracted phenomenon between the two advents.


“The ‘things’ James wanted to highlight were the predicted judgments that Amos had said were to fall on Israel, causing the outward and material collapse of the ‘house of David’.… However, the political and national aspects of that same promise could not be deleted from Amos’ truth-intention. As the suffixes in Amos 9:11 indicate, the northern and southern kingdom, the Davidic person, the people of Israel and the remnant of humanity at large were all encompassed in that rebuilding of the ‘tent of David,’ even though its outward fortunes would appear to sag in the immediate events of the eighth century.”[64]


Kaiser reveals dispensationalists contradict the historical-grammatical hermeneutic in an “interpolation” of Acts 15:14-16. Kaiser’s exegesis renders James’s intent of the prepositional phrase “after this” in Acts 15:16 as the “day” Amos conveyed to be the sifting of Israel (Amos 9:9-11).


“Now ‘after these things’—the destruction of the temple, the fact of the diaspora, and the end of Samaria—warned James, with an eye to the Amos context, God ‘would turn again’ (anastrepsō) to re-establish the house of David.”[65]


The interpolation of the dispensationalists has the conversion of the gentiles as heralding the rebuilding of David’s tabernacle; Kaiser corrects the misrepresentation to affirm that it is the diaspora and sifting that herald the rebuilding of David’s tabernacle, which is followed by the conversion of the gentiles. It is a subtle but significant difference.

Dispensationalist, Les Feldick, a TV evangelist, teaches that the sifting of Israel is concurrent with the end of this age and that, “not a kernel … will be lost.”[66] This is restated in another lecture where he maintains that the prepositional phrase “after this” in Acts 15:16 pertains to the Christ’s, “Second Coming,” or, “after the Rapture and the Body of Christ is removed from the earth to Heaven.”[67] Kaiser maintains James’s intent was that the tabernacle be restored inchoately by the sifting in this age which commenced with the destruction of the second temple and the precipitous dispersion of the Jews. The presuppositions of dispensationalists prevent their objectivity concerning the scriptural and enduring research in archeology and etymology that confirm that the descendants of Israel became the church to which the gentiles were joined. The illustrations in Ephesians 2:19-22 and 1 Peter 2:4-5 attest that God is building a supernatural house by redeeming the members who are predestined and fits them upon his building, which, when one acquires the proper hermeneutical presuppositions, is comprehended as the repairing of David’s tabernacle.

Without doubt, there is a sense of redemption as well as chastisement implicit in the sifting that compels dispensationalists like Feldick to exclaim, “not a kernel … will be lost,” regarding the ordained of Israel. Dispensationalist W. Edward Glenny concedes the sifting has a sense of redemption in his affirmation that Amos 9:9, in the LXX, “is not a message of judgment as in the MT (where Israel will be ‘sifted’ and none will escape). Instead, the last clause of Amos 9:9 conveys salvation.[68] Feldick’s description of the sifting as being ordained is tantamount to acknowledging predestination, which contradicts his view, “God expected Israel to receive her King, get the Kingdom set up, and the Jew to go out and evangelize the world.”[69] One must concede the presupposition that God ordains the future and with that standard, one is able to perceive the fallacy of believing that God did not know how Israel would respond to Christ. This is what Ice alludes to in his assertion, “In concert with the Calvinist impulse to view history theocentricly, I believe that dispensational premillennialism provides the most logical eschatological ending to God's sovereign decrees for salvation and history.”[70] As according to the prophets, some would avow as well as disavow Christ their king; this is the prophecy of the stone rejected—and is exactly what happened. Calvinism, specifically the compatibilists, wrongly perceive that the reprobate who rejected Christ and were appointed to wrath (Romans 9:21)—were offered the kingdom; a kingdom they were never destined to inherit. The sifting is redemptive, corrective, centrifugal and precedes the MK. God knew the cornerstone, his Son, would be rejected by many of his own; it was his plan. But, in mercy God would intercede for an avowed remnant to include the gentiles, who would become the body of Christ, the church, by which God brings Jacob again to himself (Isaiah 49:5), the tribes of Ephraim playing the dominate role as his first born (Jeremiah 31:9), as the prodigal son who returns in the parable and the nation bringing forth the fruit of the vineyard (Matthew 21:43). With the proper presuppositions one can see that the prophecies of God are proceeding according to plan and in their appointed times, including those both in Daniel and the apocalypse of John. But those proper presuppositions are not to be found in dispensationalism or covenantalism.


please send questions or responses here

[1]. R. Bruce Compton, “Dispensationalism, the Church, and the New Covenant,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, vol. 8 (Fall 2003), 44.

[2]. John S. Feinberg, “the place of Israel according to the OT teaching concerning the call and mission of that nation among the nations.… and the church as similarly ‘people of God,’ but formed from all nations.” In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books 1988), 259.

[3]. Other dispensationalists such as Scofield interpret the nation bearing the fruit as the Gentiles, but this presents the difficulty that the gentiles represent a “nation”, which is untenable in scripture.

[4]. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible (Moody Press, 1976), 1378.

[5]. Thomas Ice, “The Calvinistic Heritage of dispensationalism,”,

[6]. Thomas Ice, “1 Peter 2 and Replacement Theology-Tom’s Perspectives,”,

[7]. Wikipedia, “Dispensationalism is unique in teaching that the Church stands in a dispensation that occurs as a parenthesis in the prophetic Kingdom program, a dispensational ‘mystery’ or ‘grace’ period, meaning that it was not directly revealed in prophecy in the Old Testament, and that this ‘age of grace’ will end with the rapture of the church allowing the prophetic clock for Israel to start up again,” s.v. Dispensationalism, last modified June 12, 2018,

[8]. Theopedia, “In libertarianism (not to be confused with the political ideology), free will is affected by human nature but man retains ability to choose contrary to his nature and desires. Man has the moral ability to turn to God in Christ and believe of his own "free will," apart from a divine, irresistible grace. Indeed, according to Open Theism, God is anxiously waiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot know ahead of time what the choice might be. Or, according to Arminianism, God chooses to save those whom he foresees will believe of their own free will” s.v. Free will,

[9]. Michael J. Vlach, “The Kingdom Program in Matthew’s Gospel,” Pre-Trib Research Center,

[10]. Theopedia, “Compatibilism, sometimes called soft determinism, is a theological term that deals with the topics of free will and predestination,” s.v. Compatibilism,

[11]. Ice, “The Calvinistic Heritage of dispensationalism”

[12]. Vlach, “The Kingdom Program in Matthew’s Gospel”

[13]. Theopedia, “The incompatibilist says that the free will is ‘incompatible’ with determinism. The Libertarian is an incompatibilist who consequently rejects any determinism associated with the sovereignty of God” s.v. Compatibilist vs. libertarian views of free will,

[14]. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will Translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Fleming H. Revell; 1st edition 1990) 13.

[15]. John Nelson Darby, “Synopsis of the Books of the Bible,” s.v. Romans 7,

[16]. Scofield Reference Notes to the Bible, Daniel 9, s.v. Verse 24, Study,

[17]. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible (Moody Press, 1976), 1238.

[18]. Moves: meaning God’s ability to overpower the CN by his causal direction as a display of his power, stated in Romans 9:21-24 and Revelation 17:17


[19]. McMahon, The Two Wills of God, Kindle location 5224.

[20]. Ice, “1 Peter 2 and Replacement Theology”

[21]. Ibid.

[22]. Ice cites Arnold Fruchtenbaum in his thesis: “When a literal prophecy is fulfilled in the New Testament, it is quoted as a literal fulfillment.” Thomas Ice, “Dispensational Hermeneutics” (2009). Article Archives. Paper 115.

[23]. Ice, “The Calvinistic Heritage of dispensationalism”

[24]. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, s.v. 7:4 (Moody Press, 1976), 1604.

[25]. Ibid.

[26]. Ernest L. Martin, “The Book of Hosea” Associates for Scriptural Knowledge (ASK), (Number 10/12, October 2012),


[27]. Charles Stanley, “The Two Husbands of Romans 7” Bible Truth,

[28]. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, “The Wife of Jehovah and the Bride of Messiah,” Bible Prophecy,


[29]. Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, s.v. Angel of the Lord, Bible Study,

[30]. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, “that spiritual Rock which provided water (Ex. 17:1-9; Num. 20:1-13). Since the rock is mention twice, and is in different settings, a rabbinic legend held that a material rock actually followed the Israelites. Paul, however, says that it was Christ who was the with Israel all the way.” The Ryrie Study Bible (Moody Press, 1976), 1632.

[31]. Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myth (Theological Studies Press December 28, 2010), Kindle Locations 171-179.


[32]. Ice, “1 Peter 2 and Replacement Theology”

[33]. Ibid.


[34]. William D. Barrick, Th.D., “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament,” Master’s Seminary Journal, 23/2 (Fall 2012) 173–192,

[35]. Scofield Reference Notes to the Bible, s.v. Zech 10:4, Study,

[36]. Compton, “Dispensationalism, the Church, and the New Covenant” 

[37]. Ibid.

[38]. Scofield Reference Notes to the Bible, s.v. Malachi 3:1, Study,

[39]. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, s.v. Zech 9:9-10 (Moody Press, 1976), 1319.

[40]. Ibid., 1288; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), p.289.

[41]. Scofield Reference Notes to the Bible, s.v. Mic 5, Study,

[42]. John Nelson Darby, “Synopsis of the books of the Bible” s.v. Mic 5,,

[43]. Gary E. Yates, “The People Have Not Obeyed: A Literary and Rhetorical Study of Jeremiah 26-45” (Published dissertation presented to the Dallas Theological Seminary, 1998), 173-174,


[44]. The proportions need not be rendered as precise, but merely a majority as opposed to a remnant, as there is a remnant at any time that God chooses from those who are called.

[45].Ice, “1 Peter 2 and Replacement Theology”

[46]. Scofield Reference Notes to the Bible, s.v. Zech 13:8, Study,

[47]. Elliott Johnson, “Does Hebrews Have a Covenant Theology?” (Masters Seminary Journal, 21/1 Spring 2010), 31-54.

[48]. Ibid., 46-47

[49]. Scott W. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant and the curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15-22,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly (Jul 2004, Vol. 66 Issue 3), 421-22.

[50] Ibid., 430.

[51]. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Moody Publishers; Revised, Expanded edition (February 1, 2007), 137, 172.

[52]. Stephen R. Lewis, “The New Covenant: Enacted or Ratified?” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, (vol. 8, October–December 2002), 55.

[53]. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 11.133.

[54]. Stephen R. Lewis, “The New Covenant: Enacted or Ratified,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 8 (October–December 2002), 59.

[55]. Ibid.

[56]. Rodney J. Decker ThD, “The Law, the New Covenant, and the Christian; Studies in Hebrews 7-10,” NT, (September 2009), 23,

[57]. Ibid., 28, 29.

[58]. Lewis, “The New Covenant: Enacted or Ratified,” 61.

[59]. Ibid. 60.

[60]. John Owen, D.D., An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews; With the Preliminary Exercitations, vol. IV (BOSTON: PRINTED AND SOLD BY SAMUEL T. ARMSTRONG; No. 50, CORNHILL. 1812.), 315.

[61]. Ibid., 18.

[62]. Ibid., 327.


[63]. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Davidic Promise and the Inclusion of the Gentiles,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 20:2 (June, 1977), 99.

[64]. Ibid., 105-106.

[65] Ibid., 106, “Now ‘after these things’—the destruction of the temple, the fact of the diaspora, and the end of Samaria—warned James, with an eye to the Amos context, God ‘would turn again’ (anastrepsō) to re-establish the house of David.”

[66]. Les Feldick, “Through the Bible with Les Feldick,” (Les Feldick Ministries on Smashwords, 2015, Book 16) Kindle location 1032

[67]. Ibid., (Book 76) Kindle location 167.

[68]. W. Edward Glenny, “The Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics: Amos 9 in Acts 15,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 22 1 (2012) 1-26.

[69]. Feldick, “Through the Bible with Les Feldick” (Book 5), Kindle location 999

[70]. Ice, “The Calvinistic Heritage of dispensationalism”