Two House Chronicles

Israel and the Church

Chapter Three

Israel and the Church

by Hope, Marsue and Jerry Huerta

copyright 2016

edited 2018  

 

As mentioned in chapter one of this work, God is not a man that repents or changes his mind (1 Samuel 15:29). Conflict arises with the text from Samuel when one views scripture through an open theist1 lens to perceive that God offered the Messianic kingdom (MK) at the first advent and did not know how the Jews would respond and then reacted to their response precipitously. In other words, God changed his mind. And a libertarian lens does not lessen conflict either, as it still has God repent in his offer of the kingdom. Even so, according to Peter the “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” avowed Christ—and those who disavowed him were ordained to do so.

 

Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone.… Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:6-8)

 

Peter presents problems to libertarians or open theists. And for the same reason Paul confuses them also.

 

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Romans 9:21)

 

Libertarians and open theists attempt to assert that Paul conveyed only a corporate sense in Romans 9 to avoid compatibilism but,2 as affirmed in chapter two of this work, in election the corporate and individual senses are synonymous; they cannot be separated. The elect body of Israel is made of its elect individuals as contrasted from their doomed brethren concerning the promises, prophecies and restoration: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Romans 9:13). Dispensationalist Thomas Ice acknowledged this distinction in his essay of 1 Peter 2, which is tantamount to conceding the correspondence between individual and corporate election.

 

“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).”3

 

Ice goes on to vindicate the tie between corporate and individual election.

 

“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.)”4

 

Covenantalists such as Thomas R. Schreiner and Russell Moore also have inadvertently agreed to the concurrence between corporate and individual election in their statements below.

 

“All God's choice of a corporate group means is that God chose that all who put their faith in Christ would be saved. Those who put their faith in Christ would be designated the Church. Those who defend corporate election are conscious of the fact that it is hard to separate corporate from individual election, for logic would seem to require that the individuals that make up a group cannot be separated from the group itself.”5

 

“Both covenant theology and dispensationalism, however, often discuss Israel and the church without taking into account the Christocentric nature of biblical eschatology. The future restoration of Israel has never been promised to the unfaithful, unregenerate members of the nation (John 3:3-10; Rom 2:25- 29)-only to the faithful remnant. The church is not Israel, at least not in a direct, unmediated sense. The remnant of Israel-a biological descendant of Abraham, a circumcised Jewish firstborn son who is approved of by God for his obedience to the covenant-receives all of the promises due to him.”6

 

Covenantalist C. Matthew McMahon also deviated from replacement theology by acknowledging the correspondence between corporate and individual predestination in his analyzation of the Hebrew term bachar, translated as chosen in Deuteronomy 7:6. After producing the few extraneous uses of the word he analyzed where:

 

“it is used of God to choose the ultimate destinies and eternal salvation of particular people or of the nation Israel.… It is a specific choosing of a people who will be holy before Yahweh to do His will. This choosing or election is not based on their own merit but on God’s good pleasure and for His glory as seen in Deuteronomy 7:7.”7

 

Concurrence between individual and corporate election does not support the fallacy that God offered the kingdom to those appointed to wrath, as it was never theirs to inherit; the kingdom was the birthright of those who avowed Christ, those who were “predestined” according to Paul in Romans 8:29-20 and Ephesians 1:4-5. The NT affirms that those who had the rights to the MK avowed Christ and yet it was not consummated, which substantiates that Christ’s first advent was not the appointed time of the MK. Christ’s declaration that he had not come the first time to send peace (Matthew 10:34) reveals that Jeremiah’s prophecy “Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely” is a second advent phenomenon (Jeremiah 23:5-6). The time in which Judah and Israel/Ephraim shall dwell safely commences when the beast and false prophet come to their fiery end in Revelation 19, at the second advent. There is no true support for a first advent offer of the kingdom. All of the relevant evidence is in harmony with the NT revelation of two advents that were hidden to the prophets. Dispensationalist R. Bruce Compton unwittingly concedes the aforesaid when he acknowledged that the prophets were not allowed to see all the “implications or significance” of what they wrote.8 The implications and significance of the two advents are revealed in the NT, such as the spiritual fulfilment of Malachi 4:5-6 by John the Baptist that confirms the widely recognized hermeneutic of Prophetic Telescoping (PT), to be dealt with presently.

Dispensationalists perceive that the offer of the MK and its postponement at the rejection of Christ (their parenthesis) was contingent upon the endorsement of the nation and is clearly a fallacy based on open theism or libertarianism, which dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer attempted to harmonize.

 

“In the light of two determining facts, namely, (a) that Jehovah's Lamb was in the redeeming purpose slain from the foundation of the world and (b) that had Adam not sinned there could have been no need of a redeemer, why did Jehovah tell Adam not to sin? And what would have become of the redemptive purpose had Adam obeyed God? These objections to the so-called postponement theory do not take into consideration the fact of the divinely purposed test involved and the necessary postponement resulting from the failure under testing, the failure itself being anticipated. These are evidently very serious problems for some Calvinists to face. If it be claimed that the birth and death of Christ were predicted and therefore made sure, it is equally true that the precross offer of the earthly Messianic kingdom to Israel by her Messiah in the days of His ‘lowly guise’ was also made sure by prediction.”9

 

Chafer’s argument (b) is fallacy considering the idiom, “the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world,” invokes the principle of foreknowledge in Revelation 13:8. The idiom conveys God’s foreknowledge of Adam’s fall, which Chafer concedes but fails to grasp that it denies the possibility of a different outcome, disregarding God’s foreknowledge; Chafer’s surmising is pure fallacy. For this reason, the certainty of God’s foreknowledge also supports the correspondence between corporate and individual election in Romans 9:21. According to dispensationalism the Church was not anticipated, it was dependent upon the endorsement of those appointed to doom, which conflicts with the idiom Christ slain from the foundation of the world that affirms God’s foreknowledge. For these reasons the idiom does not support Chafer’s argument concerning dispensationalism’s perception that Christ offered the kingdom at the first advent. The notion of postponement forces the view that God’s foreknowledge is limited as in the open theist’s perception. No doubt Chafer’s perception is an open theist’s view.

Actually, Chafer never cites one example of Christ offering the kingdom to the Jews, let alone a prophecy of it being offered. He alludes to the incident where Christ fulfills Zechariah 9:9 but there is no overt account in any of the gospels where Christ offers the MK to the children of Jerusalem; if there were an overt account it would not be necessary to rely merely on a theological dispute to sustain their assertion. Contrary to Chafer’s notion, John’s gospel clearly states that the disciples did not grasp the significance of Jerusalem’s king riding the colt until after Christ had been glorified (John 12:16). This upholds the idea that the people could not have comprehended the significance of Zechariah 9:9 being fulfilled at the time it occurred. The contemporary dispensationalist, Michael J. Vlach, attempts to vindicate the argument that the MK was offered to Israel and which was later rejected in this comment of Matthew 11.

 

“The rest of Matthew 11 further discusses the rejection of the kingdom message by the leaders and people of Israel. With 11:14 Jesus states, ‘And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.’ The conditional particle ‘if’ (ei) indicates that if Israel would receive John and his message then he would be the fulfillment of the Malachi 4 prophecy concerning the coming of Elijah. Toussaint notes, ‘There is scarcely a passage in Scripture which shows more clearly that the kingdom was being offered to Israel at this time.’”10

 

But Vlach failed to grasp the significance of Christ’s revelation that affirms that the prophecy of Elijah telescopes into the second advent.

 

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. (Matthew 17:11-12)

 

Christ’s explanation conveys the Classic or General Prophecy principle of PT.11 Simply put, God’s intent concerning Malachi 4:5-6 was to illustrate that both advents have reoccurring phenomena.  Like typology, the first is an image of the second advent; the consummation at the second advent accomplishes what was commenced at the first advent.12 The avowal of the “salvation” will be the rewarded at the second advent, at the consummation of 2 Samuel 7:10 concerning the Davidic Covenant (Mark 9:11-13). Hebrews 9:28 affirms that Christ was offered once as the propitiation for sin at the first advent; therefore, it is easily grasped that the second appearance consummates the salvation of the elect from their temporal enemies, depicted as the separation of the wheat from the tares in the parable (1 John 2:2; Matthew 13:24-30). Such evidence also conveys the sifting in Amos 9:9-10 corresponds to the prophecy by Christ that the tares grow along with the wheat in Matthew 13. Philippians 2:6-8 confirms that Christ “came” to lay aside his power and die for us, while Revelation 19 and other NT texts substantiate that he returns to consummate the MK, all of which renders the hypothesis that Christ offered the kingdom a fallacy. Christ returns in power to receive the crown of David and sit upon his throne (Matthew 25:31-32). In PT there are two Elijahs but correspondence cannot extend to consummation; there can be only one consummation. At the consummation persecution ends and, in that day, “Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely” but in contrast, at the sifting time “a man's enemies are the men of his own house” (Jeremiah 23:5-6; Micah 7:6). By nature, the consummation follows the sifting. This is also substantiated by Matthew 10:23 which affirms that persecution is contemporaneous with the commission to proclaim the kingdom of heaven until the return of Christ.

 

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Matthew 10:23)

 

Christ prophesied that Israel’s persecution would continue until his return, which also confirms that 2 Samuel 7:10, like Jeremiah 23:5-6, was intended to be consummated at the second advent, with the MK (Psalms 110:1; Matthew 10:23; 25:31; Luke 19:12-15). Christ came as a servant of rulers, despised by men and abhorred by the shepherds of Judah in fulfillment of Psalms 2:1-3, Psalms 118:22-24, Isaiah 49:7, Isaiah 53:1-4 and Zechariah 11:8, to name but a few. This is also corroborated in the NT by Matthew and Mark when they state that Christ came not to be ministered unto as a king (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). Under a strict historical-grammatical hermeneutic there is no scriptural support for an offering of the MK at first advent.

Vlach changes the meaning of “the kingdom of heaven” as an ad hoc in his failure to produce any real evidence that Christ offered the MK at the first advent. He believes the transition from God offering the MK and his change of mind came between Matthew 11 and 13, where Vlach also changes the meaning of the phrase “the kingdom of heaven.”

 

“Matthew 13 must be understood in light of the events preceding this chapter, especially chapters 11 and 12. The kingdom promised by the Old Testament prophets was “at hand”—its coming was on the brink. In fact, it was present in the person, words, and works of Jesus. All that needed to happen was a national recognition of the Messiah and repentance from both the people and leaders of Israel. Instead, the King and His kingdom were met with hostility and rejection and violence had been done to the kingdom program. Matthew 13 marks a dramatic shift in the kingdom program as Jesus withdraws from wide scale proclamation of the kingdom to the cities of Israel and begins to share new truths or “mysteries” concerning the kingdom with His disciples.”13

 

Vlach is at odds with Christ who declared that Malachi 4:5-6 had dual fulfillment in Matthew 17:11-12, affirming of the principle of PT. Dispensationalist David L. Larsen concedes the conveyance of PT pertaining to sections of Matthew 23 and 24, while failing to apply the hermeneutic to the prophecy of Elijah, the Day of the Lord and the good tidings in Luke 4:17-21.

 

“A future generation of Jews would ‘see him again.’ He speaks to his listeners and by prophetic telescoping reaches forward to an end-time population. Similarly the Olivet Discourse has at points a distinctly Jewish cast (‘not on the Sabbath’) and a testimony which the end-time Jewish remnant would render (Matthew 24:14).”14

 

Christ’s explanation in Matthew 17:11-12 provides a hermeneutic in interpreting scripture and especially the phrase the Day of the Lord in Malachi 4:5, which is an idiom conveying judgment and the crucible of refinement for the elect. Christ’s affirmation that, “Elias is come already,” in a sense conveys judgment commenced but will be consummated at the final judgment: “Judgment must begin at the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17). The judgment that commenced with the first advent rebuilds the tabernacle of David that is consummated at the second advent as the MK. What is conveyed by the Day of the Lord in Malachi and the other prophets is the refinement of the elect in the crucible of adversity, prior to any notion of presentation of the MK (2 Timothy 3:12; 1 Peter 1:6-7). This is why the call by John the Baptist commenced with “repent.” The gifts follow contrition and God moves us to contrition. Again, God directs Israel to save them; Israel does not direct herself unto salvation apart from God’s regeneration, which is contrary to predestination (John 3:3; Romans 8:29-30; 1 Peter 1:2).

The principle of PT is also applied to more than just John the Baptist’s mission, it is also applied to proclaiming liberty to the captives and to opening of the prison to them that are bound. The principle is applied in Luke 4:16-21 also, where Christ recites the first part of Isaiah 61 as fulfilled and then closes the book before he states that the day of vengeance is fulfilled.

 

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luke 4:18-21)

 

Binding up the brokenhearted, proclaiming liberty to the captives, and “the opening of the prison to them that are bound” commenced with the first advent as the kingdom of God/heaven is developed by the spreading of the Gospel. The evidence that spreading the Gospel fulfilled the proclamation of liberty and set the prisoners free from their incarceration to the CN establishes the principle of PT concerning Isaiah 61:1-2, which destroys Vlach’s perceptions of the offering of the MK at the first advent.

Christ’s revelation that Malachi 4:5-6 is to be perceived as the classic prophecy or PT confirms that John the Baptist’s proclamation “the kingdom of God was at hand” was not a proposal of the MK. This is also admitted by dispensationalist Thomas Ice when he stated that the biological descendants had begun to obtain, “everything promised them,” in Hosea 2:23.15 Dispensationalists fail to grasp the significance of PT in interpreting the prophecy of Elijah that led Cyrus Ingerson Scofield to fallaciously place a gap in the context of Malachi 3:1.

 

“The f.c. of Malachi 3:1 is quoted of John the Baptist; Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27 but the second clause, "the Lord whom ye see," etc., is nowhere quoted in the N.T. The reason is obvious: in everything save the fact of Christ's first advent, the latter clause awaits fulfilment Habakkuk 2:20. Malachi 3:2-5 speak of judgment, not of grace. 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.”16

 

Christ’s first appearance was that of a refiner of his disciples, who in spirit fulfilled the prophecy of the refinement of the sons of Levi in Malachi 3:3 just as John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah in spirit; the latter being conceded by both John Nelson Darby and Scofield.17 Christ came to the temple of God to refine the remnant of Israel so that their offerings would become acceptable to God, while the offerings in Jerusalem became obsolete.

 

Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 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 1:6-7)

 

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Romans 12: 1)

 

That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. (Romans 15:16)

 

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

 

Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. (Hebrews 13:9-10)

 

As stated, dispensationalists have conceded that the eschatological promise of Elijah was fulfilled in spirit by John the Baptist, which deviates from their parenthesis and concedes the dual fulfillment of PT as a hermeneutic in perceiving Malachi 3:1-7 as well as 5:5-6 in eschatological prophecy. Their failure to grasp the significance of PT concerning Malachi 4:5-6 led Scofield to mistakenly perceive a parenthesis where PT is called for in Malachi 3:2-5, which nevertheless accidentally acknowledges that the interval between the advents was planned and that Matthew 13 illustrates this interval. Covenantalists also see John the Baptist as fulfilling Malachi 3:1-7 also but cannot apply PT to the phenomenon of the second advent.18

Scofield’s interpretation moves away from the parenthesis and in the direction of an acknowledgement of a planned interval and its correspondence with Matthew 13, which also sustains correspondence with the sifting of Israel in Amos 9:9-10, as stated previously. As reveled in the first chapter of this work, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. confirmed that the object of the prepositional phrase “after these things” (Μετ τατα) in Acts 15:16 did not pertain to how God had first visited the gentiles, which was how James prefaced his citation of Amos, but pertained to the context in Amos, of, “the destruction of the temple, the fact of the diaspora, and the end of Samaria,” all of which led to the consequential sifting in Amos.

 

“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. To obtain the dispensational view one must assume that the ‘first’ of v 14 signified the ‘first [era]’ (a clear interpolation) while the second reference was given a sequential meaning: ‘After this [gospel dispensation]’28 God would ‘come again’ and restore Israel. But on these grounds neither phrase is a literal, grammatical or natural interpretation of James. Dispensationalism has thereby yielded any hermeneutical edge it possessed by so arguing.”19

 

Dispensationalists assert that the object of the prepositional phrase pertains to how God had “first” visited the gentiles in order to maintain the sifting and rebuilding of David’s tabernacle as a second advent phenomenon.20 Essentially, Kaiser affirms the sifting as a first advent phenomenon, which constitutes the rebuilding of the David’s tabernacle and God’s visitation of the gentiles. In support of Kaiser, progressive dispensationalist W. Edward Glenny, affirms that James’s citation from Amos used in Acts 15:16-17 conveys the re-establishment of the Davidic dynasty and the mission to the gentiles as a contemporaneous plan through Christ, commencing with the first advent, as opposed to the Classic and Revised dispensationalist’s parenthesis (Glenny neglects the sifting in the article).

 

“We can draw several conclusions from our study of Amos 9 in Acts 15. First, in contrast to the beliefs of Covenant Theologians, the Church’s existence is not due to God's rejection of Israel. It is a corollary of David's dynasty (and kingdom) being reestablished that the Gentile mission goes forth. Second, in the same vein, the Church is not Israel nor does it replace Israel. It is a result of God's revisiting Israel and reestablishing the Davidic monarchy and kingdom that the Gentiles can now come to God as Gentiles. (The conjunction ‘so that’ … at the beginning of Acts 15:17 indicates that the purpose of God in building David's fallen tent is ‘so that’ Gentiles may be God's people. The rebuilding of the tent is distinct from the Gentile mission and is what enables it to take place. The conjunction makes no sense if the tent that is being rebuilt is the Church, or a new Israel, which includes the Gentile mission. The Gentile mission happens as a result of the building of the tent of David.) Third, in contrast to the belief of some dispensationalists, the Gentile mission is not a parenthesis in God's program and plan. It is closely connected with God's work in Israel, and it is thoroughly consistent with the OT prophets and their message.”21

 

Glenny’s first and third claims are viable, while his second creates tremendous tension with the NT, which will be analyzed presently. As a dispensationalist, Glenny only sees Israel as “a nation among nations”, a concept which is in conflict with the OT affirmation that Israel is redeemed while in exile as “a nation scattered amongst nations”, bereft of civil autonomy, recognized borders and mixed with the gentiles, when Hosea and Zechariah are taken into account. It is in this latter state that that has greater correspondence with the institution of the Church.

 

And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. (Deuteronomy 30:1-3)

 

But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine... Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west.… I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. (Isaiah 43:1, 5, 25)

 

My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.… Therefore the redeemed of the LORD shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away.… The captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed, and that he should not die in the pit, nor that his bread should fail. (Isaiah 51:5, 11, 14)

 

Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.…  For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he. (Jeremiah 31:2, 11)

 

And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.… 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 2:19, 23)

 

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)

 

In all the accounts above, Israel’s corporate redemption is established while they are yet a nation scattered amongst the nations and then they are restored to being a nation amongst nations. Redeeming Israel in a scattered condition necessitates the development of the centrifugal worship prophesied by Christ in John 4:21-24. The first advent anticipation of centrifugal worship, in Spirit and truth, clarifies how Ephraim is redeemed, then centrifugally planted in the world as pertaining to Zechariah 10:6-9 and Hosea 2, which agrees with the parables in Matthew 13, especially that of the wheat and the tares. Judah is never portrayed as being redeemed and then sown in the earth, or as a defiled woman returned to her first husband as in Hosea 2. The destinies of Ephraim and Judah went separate paths when God influenced Jeroboam’s confederation of the ten northern tribes and quelled Rehoboam’s quest of using coercion to return them. Zechariah and Hosea present the greatest evidence that the sifting is synonymous with God’s announcement of Ephraim’s corporate redemption at the first advent and that the phenomenon is multigenerational. (Clearly the contemporary State of the Jews created from the Palestinian state is not the MK). As revealed above, Glenny believes Amos 9:11-12 was fulfilled at the first advent, but as a dispensationalist he must concede verses 13-15 remain to be consummated, which is an acknowledgement of PT. PT destroys the notion that context supports the perception that Israel’s corporate redemption is confined to the second-advent. Amos 9:13-15 pertains to the second advent, the MK, or Israel as a divinely instituted nation amongst nations. Nevertheless, dispensationalists maintain that the sifting is not a protracted phenomenon; they attempt to confine it to Christ’s return based on context in Amos 9, not unlike their view of the fulfillment of the NC in Jeremiah 31:31-34.22 Even so, many dispensationalists agree, the sifting has a redemptive constituent,23 but they fail to grasp the constituent is based upon the blotting of Israel’s sins that led to the mission to the gentiles at the first advent, which is substantiated in the gospel of Luke by the witness of the Holy Spirit.

 

And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins. (Luke 1:76-77)

 

For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. (Luke 2:32)

 

The former scripture, above, pertains to John the Baptist’s appointment and the latter pertains to Christ’s appointment. Dispensationalists John Nelson Darby and Charles Caldwell Ryrie acknowledged that sin was remitted “once for all” at the first advent (Hebrews 10:10),24 which deviates from the parenthesis view and rather substantiates that Israel’s redemption commenced with the first advent as well as vindicating the correspondence between individual and corporate election. The sifting in Amos 9:9-10 conveys a separation between those who are redeemed and those who “die by the sword,” those whom God rejects. Both dispensationalists as well as covenantalists cannot avoid the element that the blotting of sin is a constituent of the sifting, and that this substantiates Kaiser’s analysis that James’s citation from Amos 9 in Acts 15 was literal fulfillment and not an analogous circumstance.25 In essence, Darby’s and Ryrie’s concession of the blotting of sin at the first advent departs from their parenthesis and concedes that the sifting commenced with the blotting.26 Again, this agrees with Ice, who acknowledged that Israel’s redemption commenced at the first advent by stating Peter’s citation from Hosea 2:23 in 1 Peter 2:10 was for the benefit of “the Israel of God,” as contrasted from his own brethren that were appointed to doom.27 Sifting is a process of separating wheat or corn from its husk, shaft and other unwanted constituents. The OT confirms that the objective of the sifting is to winnow away those appointed to doom to preserve or save the elect (Proverbs 20:8, 26). Ice’s perception of 1 Peter 2 supports the fact that Christ provoked the Jews in the manner of the sifting, which has continued unabated between the advents; it reveals Christ as the sifter. Matthew 10 supports that Christ came to sift Israel, to cause this division amongst the Jews, to winnow out the undesirable constituents appointed to doom.

 

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (Matthew 10:32-36)

 

(The Stone rejected by the builders also invokes the same ideas.) Acts 2 unequivocally confirms that the disciples commenced separating the wheat from the shaft, by which many were “added to the church” that they “should be saved” while those appointed to doom were winnowed away and hardened according to Paul in Romans 11, in conformity with the sifting.

 

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.… Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.… And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:36, 38, 46-47)

 

For these reasons, Kaiser has the proper perception of James’s intent in citing from Amos, which perceives the sifting as redemptive and a phenomenon that commenced at the first century and is synonymous with the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David by Christ, as well as grasping the understanding of the mission to the gentiles. Classic and revised dispensationalism can recoil at the perception that the tabernacle of David is perceived principally as the assembling of human constituents during the inter-advent era, but the precedent for such a perception is affirmed in Peter’s epistle, who perceived the individual members figuratively as stones that are built upon “a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:5). The practice of PT by the prophets was not uncommon, which dispensationalists concede,28 and the justification for its application to the sifting in Amos 9 is irresistible.

 

 

Several pages missing to occasion response

 

 

In the original quote from Glenny, above, his second claim that, “the Church is not Israel nor does it replace Israel,” presents numerous quandaries, the greatest being that the whole act of the redemption of Israel is to re-establish a covenant people commencing with the blotting of their sins through the ultimate sacrifice made by Christ to ensure the ultimate gift of eternal life—this is to Israel, this is the church! The gift of the kingdom of heaven was not the offer of the MK but was rather an offer to receive salvation in Christ, which is the prelude to bringing the descendants of Israel back from being a “scattered nation amongst nations” (Deuteronomy 30:1-4; Isaiah 43:1, 5, 25; 51:5, 11, 14; Jeremiah 31:2, 11; Hosea 2:19, 23; Zechariah 10:7-9). The blotting of sin as a “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10) was a first advent phenomenon and Christ’s own declarations that he had not “come to send peace on earth” and that “a man's foes shall be they of his own household” (Matthew 10:34, 36) confirm that his intent of the first advent was to save Israel from their sins and from their enemies at the second. This confirms PT where the prophets wrote in the eschatological context. An undeniable fallacy ensues in the dispensationalist’s perception that Christ offered the MK at his first advent, for if that were the case it would have been necessary for Christ to come and establish peace, then subsequently vanquish Israel’s enemies for those who disavowed him and were appointed to doom. It is a fallacy to maintain that God ordained the reprobate shepherds to disavow Christ and at the same time argue that their avowal to accept Christ was the prerequisite for the consummation of the MK. Even Scofield acknowledged that the OT hid the two advents in the same context,35 which unintentionally substantiates the bifurcation of Israel’s redemption and the Two House theological perception of Zechariah 10:7-9 and Hosea 2:19-23. Two House Theology affirms that Hosea and Zechariah perceive that Ephraim is corporately redeemed and then sown in the earth, and this conforms beautifully to the allusion of Ephraim as the nation bearing the fruit of the vineyard in Matthew 21:43. This perception of Ephraim as the nation bearing the fruit of the vineyard in Matthew 21:43 destroys the application of contingency used by the dispensationalists in their theory of the parenthesis, in particular to the parables of Matthew 13. When one understands that the parables of Matthew 13 pertain to the sowing of Ephraim in the earth it becomes clear that the church is the undeniable vehicle “to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel” during the entire inter-advent dispensation and not just immediately preceding the second advent as dispensationalists maintain (Isaiah 49:6).

In typical dispensationalist’s fashion, through context, Vlach attempts to connect the restoration of Israel in Isaiah 49 strictly to the second advent.

 

“The nation Israel cannot restore itself, for it is sinful. But the Servant—who is Jesus Christ, the true Servant of Israel—can restore the nation Israel and bring blessings for the nations. Thus, this passage teaches that Jesus will restore the nation Israel and bring light to the nations. He will also restore Israel to her land (Isa 49:8). The presence of the true Israelite, Jesus, does not mean that the people of Israel lose their significance.”36

 

Concerning Israel, Isaiah 49:8 states “I will preserve thee, and … cause to inherit the desolate heritages,” which Vlach applied to the second advent. Yet, Isaiah 49:6 affirms that the servant is not merely meant to restore the tribes of Jacob but is given as “a light to the Gentiles” and that he is God’s “salvation unto the end of the earth.” Paul states that a faction of the biological descendants were appointed to disavow Christ, a consequence of the hardening of the hearts (the ESV provides a more contemporary translation).

 

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. (Romans 11:11 ESV)

 

The only valid perception of the text is that the builders were appointed to reject Christ so as to sow the remnant in the earth, which resulted in salvation to the gentiles, which is how Isaiah 49 must be perceived. Paul conveys two factions in Romans 11:11 concerning the biological descendants, one which stumbles on Christ (some recoverable and some doomed) and the additional faction of the gentiles. All three factions are present in Isaiah 49 when the “nation” that abhors the Servant, Christ, is grasped as Judah in contrast to Ephraim.

 

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee. (Isaiah 49:6-7)

 

The preserved of Israel who are restored in Isaiah 49:6 are the remnant according to the election of grace in Romans 11, while the “nation” that abhors the Servant, above, is Judah that remains recoverable according to Paul in Romans 11 and the prophets (Isaiah 11:12-13; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Ezekiel 37:21-22); the gentiles are easily discernable. All three factions in Romans 11 are discernable in Isaiah 49. Zechariah 11, Ezekiel 34 and Micah 5 prophecy that the southern “nation” of Judah would be exiled again and Isaiah prophesied that its consequence would be salvation to the gentiles. Darby and Scofield both unwittingly acknowledged that Zechariah 11 prophesied that the “nation” that would abhor the Servant in Isaiah 49:7 was Judah, at the first advent.37

In Isaiah 49 Zion cries “The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me,” which represents Ephraim (Isaiah 49:14). Zion/Ephraim is seen by the prophet as “desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro” in exile until Zion begets children to replace the others she lost to her captors (vv. 17-20), which corresponds to Hosea 2 and Zechariah 11 were Ephraim is redeemed, multiplied and then sown in the earth; the latter conveyed in Isaiah as the children declaring “The place is too narrow for me; make room for me to dwell in” (Isaiah 49:20 ESV). This corresponds to the fulfillment of the promise of fecundity in Genesis 48:19, 49:22 and Zechariah 10:8-9, that the nation/tribe of Ephraim would “become a multitude of nations.” The blotting of sin, “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10), redeems Ephraim/Zion and the fulfillment of the promise of fecundity is witnessed by the children who need space in Isaiah 49. This parallels with the “wife of youth,” that was refused in Isaiah 54:6, who is prophesied to “break forth on the right hand and on the left” and inherit the gentiles (Isaiah 54:1-2). Paul cites Isaiah 54:1 in Galatians and connects the desolate “wife of youth that was refused” in Isaiah 54 with Jerusalem above, the mother of those who avow Christ, the Church, to include Jew and Gentile.

 

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (Galatians 4:26-28)

 

Thomas Ice acknowledged that the “Jews” dwelling in Galatia (1 Peter 1:1) had been there since the Assyrian dispersion, which would include the northern tribes of Ephraim and not merely the “Jews.”

 

“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.”38

 

Like most dispensationalists, Ice fails to discern that not all Israelites are “Jews” but his acknowledgment that those who Peter ministered to were descendants of the Assyrian dispersion unwittingly lends support to Paul’s connection of the “Jerusalem which is above” with the “wife of youth that was refused” in Isaiah 54 and this proves not to be allegorical but actual fulfillment. In the first century the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus observed the ten tribes, “beyond Euphrates,” as, “an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.”39 It is this immense multitude, the preserved of Israel, who are restored by the Servant Christ, who, because of the gospel would no longer be desolate—but would bring forth the children in Isaiah 49.

Dispensationalist E. W. Bullinger, like Ice, conceded that Paul addressed the Church in Galatians 4:26-28 but also omitted the historical-grammatical hermeneutic concerning the desolate “wife of youth” that was refused or divorced in Isaiah 54:6 as well as other relevant NT revelation.

 

“Who can read Revelation 21: 10-17 without comparing its surpassing beauty and glory with Jerusalem which then was, or that now is? Those who ‘received the word’ proclaimed by Peter (Acts 2: 41; cp. 1 Thessalonians 2: 13), received it by faith, and with Abraham’s faith, were made blessedly free; and enjoying that wondrous liberty, they looked for ‘the city which hath the foundations,’ ‘Jerusalem which is above’.… Jerusalem below had shed the blood of the prophets, yea, the blood of Messiah; she was in bondage to the law with all her sons; but those who received and believed the word proved themselves the true sons of the father of the faithful and looked and longed for his heavenly city, ‘the new Jerusalem,’ which the apostle could truly speak of as our mother.”40

 

Like Ice, Bullinger sustained Paul’s connection between the church and the desolate "wife of youth” that was refused in Isaiah 54 but interpreted that connection as analogous rather than literal. The allegory does not stand against the evidence that the blotting of sins of the elect of Israel also released them from the SC and made them eligible to enter into the NC .

 

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)

 

Efficaciously, Christ’s death, resurrection and exultation released the descendants of the nation of Judah from the marriage to the divine being under the SC and made them eligible to be married to Christ under the NC; and in the case of the descendants of Ephraim, the unfaithful, divorced wife, Christ’s blotting of sin made them eligible to return to their husband without violating Deuteronomy 24:4, which was used by the prophets to idiomatically discern Ephraim from Judah.

 

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)

 

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)

 

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)

 

Consequently, Peter's ministry to the elect exiles of the dispersion commenced the fulfillment of Isaiah 54:3 that they would "break forth on the right hand and on the left" and would "inherit the Gentiles." Ephraim’s desolate phase represents the time in which God pronounced them corporately divorced, proclaimed in Hosea 1 and 2 as those with “No Pity” (Lo-Ruhamah) and “Not My People” (Lo-Ammi); yet, Peter makes it clear that the reversal of their circumstance occurred at the laying of a chosen and precious cornerstone in Zion, Christ.

 

“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.… 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: Which 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 2:6, 9-10)

 

Peter affirms that the prophecy of the cornerstone in Zion identifies a people, a “holy nation” that in times past were proclaimed as those with “No Pity” (Lo-Ruhamah) and “Not My People” (Lo-Ammi). The gentiles simply cannot be construed as “a nation” that in times past were pronounced as such. In order to rebuke the covenantalist’s allegorical perception that Israel was replaced by the church in Hosea 2:23 and in 1 Peter 2:10, Ice maintains that the texts pertain to an elect faction of Israel, as contrasted from those appointed to doom, “to let them know that everything promised them in the Old Testament is being fulfilled through their faith in Jesus as their Messiah.”41 Yet, such a perception relies upon the literal fulfillment of Hosea 2:23 as opposed to any allegorical reading. Fidelity to the historical-grammatical hermeneutic necessitates the acknowledgment that Peter’s citation of Hosea represents literal fulfillment and is not allegory.

The historical-grammatical hermeneutic supports Ephraim as the “holy nation” in 1 Peter 2:9 and the dispensationalists err in their equivocation that the Church is not to be perceived as a nation but as a people of all nations. Commencing with the first century, every biological descendant of Ephraim, saved before the foundation of the world, and scattered throughout the world in the inter-advent dispensation shall avow Christ and fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 54:3 that they would “break forth on the right hand and on the left” and that their “seed” would “inherit the Gentiles.” Just as the “seed” in Galatians 3:16, 29 conveys the plural and the singular, the “seed” in Isaiah 54:3 conveys both the plural for the nation of Ephraim and the singular for the Servant, Christ.  It also corresponds with the nomenclature “Israel” in Isaiah 49:3 that represents the plural members of the nation and the singular Servant, Christ, which even dispensationalists concede. Dispensationalists fail to grasp that Paul’s citation of Isaiah 54:1 in Galatians 4:27 pertains to Ephraim just as they fail to grasp the historical evidence that Christ inherited the gentiles at the first advent, a blessed phenomenon which fulfills Isaiah 54:3. At Christ’s return he inherits the gentiles again as witnessed in Psalms 2:8 and Revelation 11:15, which further substantiates PT in the eschatological context. The latter event accounting for, “the nations of them which are saved” during the millennium in Matthew 25:31-34 and Revelation 21:24. Prior to the laying of the chosen and precious cornerstone in Zion the cities populated by Ephraimites in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia are declared by God as desolate in the sense of being incapable of bringing forth the elect sons and daughters, but following Christ’s advent God peopled the desolate cities with the holy nation of Ephraim in fulfillment of Isaiah 54:3. The evidence up to this juncture substantiates that no overture of presenting the MK was being made at Christ’s first advent but rather, at hand was the fulfillment of the texts in Genesis, Hosea and Zechariah—an offer of salvation to go out to the Gentiles and to the ends of the earth- building a multitude of nations that Christ would inherit during the inter-advent dispensation.

 

And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head. And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. (Genesis 48:17-19)

 

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)

 

The parable of the prodigal son is undoubtingly correctly interpreted by Two House theology as Ephraim returning to God, while the first born represents Judah.

 

And he said, A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.  Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. (Luke 15:11-32).

 

 please send questions or responses here

 



1. Theopedia,Open theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it ‘open’ for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others.” s.v. Open theism, https://www.theopedia.com/open-theism

2. In his essay, Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections, Thomas R. Schreiner conveys that Arminian view of Rom 9-11 is a corporate in opposition to an individual interpretation, JETS 36/1 (March 1993), 38.   

3. Ice, “1 Peter 2 and Replacement Theology”

4. Ibid.

5. Schreiner, “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections,” 38.

6. Moore, “Is There a Future for Israel?”

7. McMahon, The Two Wills of God, Kindle location 5857

8. Compton, “Dispensationalism, the Church, and the New Covenant,” 44.

9. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism, (Taft Software, Inc., July 24, 2008), Kindle location 191

10. Vlach, “The Kingdom Program in Matthew’s Gospel”

11. In Dr. David R. Reagan’s webpage, “The Interpretation of Prophecy,” he writes, “Another peculiar feature of prophetic literature is called ‘telescoping’.… the perspective of the prophet . . . looks into the future and sees a series of prophetic events,” that, “appear to him as if they are in immediate sequence,” but they are separated by ages. Lamb & Lion Ministries, http://christinprophecy.org/articles/the-interpretation-of-prophecy/

12. Clarence Larkin, “The writer to the Hebrews tells us that the ‘Types’ are but the "SHADOW OF GOOD THINGS TO COME, AND NOT THE VERY IMAGE OF THE THING." Heb. 10:1. That is, the Old Testament ‘Types’ are but ‘SHADOWS.’ But there cannot be a ‘shadow’ without some ‘REAL THING’ to make it. And a ‘shadow’ is not the ‘very image of the thing,’ for a shadow is out of proportion, and is an imperfect representation of the thing it reveals. So the Old Testament Types are ‘shadows’ in the sense that they are not the ‘Real Thing,’ and are but imperfect revelations of it.” Dispensational Truth (Publishers Rev. Clarence Larkin est., 1918), 133.

13. Vlach, “The Kingdom Program in Matthew’s Gospel”

14. David L. Larsen, “The Postmodern Abandonment of Israel,” Pre-Trib.com, http://pre-trib.com/data/pdf/Larsen-ThePostmodernAbandon.pdf

15. Ice, “1 Peter 2 and Replacement Theology”

16. Scofield Reference Notes to the Bible, s.v. Malachi 3:1

17. Scofield Reference Notes to the Bible, “John the Baptist had come already . . . in the spirit and power of Elijah's future ministry,” s.v. Matthew 17:10; Synopsis of the Books of the Bible by John Nelson Darby, “so John fulfilled morally and in power the mission of Elias to prepare the way of the Lord,” s.v. Matthew 17.

18. John Gill, “Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts; this message was carried to them by John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, and by Christ himself, who both preached the doctrine of repentance to this people, Matthew 3:2.” John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible s.v. Malachi 3:7

19. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Davidic Promise and the Inclusion of the Gentiles,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 20:2 (June, 1977, 97. http://thepromise.typepad.com/197706.pdf

20. Feldick, “Amos 9:9 – 10.… In that day (When God is ready to come back and finish His work with Israel.) will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen.… this is Israel’s future.… But it won’t be until the Church is complete and we’re out of the way.” (Book 76) Kindle location 195

21. W. Edward Glenny, “Gentiles and the People of God: A Study of Apostolic Hermeneutics and Theology in Acts 15,” NT Resources.com, http://ntresources.com/blog/documents/Amos9inActs15b.pdf

22. Compton, “The problem with seeing the fulfillment of any of the new covenant promises in the present era with the church is that those promises without exception occur in the Old Testament in eschatological contexts,” “Dispensationalism, the Church, and the New Covenant”

23. Feldick, “not a single Jew that God has ordained to go into that Kingdom is going to miss it.” (Book 16) Kindle location 1032

24. Darby, “the offering is ‘once for all.’ It admits of no repetition” John Darby’s Synopsis, s.v. Hebrew 10:10; Ryrie, “Christ's redemption needs no repetition and no supplementation,” The Ryrie Study Bible, s.v. 10:1-39, 1741.

25. The Calvinists perception of a limited atonement does not impede the argument that the blotting of sin occurred for at least all the elect at the first advent, which acknowledges individual and corporate correspondence concerning election.

26. There can be no other sound conclusion to the acknowledgment that the sins of the elect were forgiven by Christ’s propitiation; it not only substantiates the concurrence between individual and corporate election but substantiates the fulfillment of the NC was intended as a protracted phenomenon commencing at the first advent and being consummated by the second.     

27. Ice, “1 Peter 2 and Replacement Theology”

28. Larkin, “The Old Testament prophet saw the future as separate peaks of one mountain. He did not see that these peaks assembled themselves in groups with the valley the “VALLEY-OF THE CHURCH,” between.” Dispensation Truth, 20.

35. Scofield Reference Notes to the Bible, s.v. Malachi 3:1, Study Light.org, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/srn/malachi-3.html

36. Vlach, “What Does Christ As “True Israel” Mean For the Nation of Israel?”

37. Darby, “But the shepherds of Israel are cut off; and Christ, grieved with the wicked and corrupt people, Himself abhorred by them, leaves them to themselves and to the consequences of their behaviour.” Synopsis of the Books of the Bible by John Nelson Darby, s.v. ZECHARIAH 11; Scofield, “The scene belongs to the first advent.… ‘Beauty’ (i.e. graciousness) was ‘cut in sunder’ . . . signifying that Judah was abandoned to the destruction foretold in Zechariah 11:1-6 and fulfilled A.D. 70.” Scofield Reference Notes to the Bible, s.v. Zech 11:7

38. Ice, “1 Peter 2 and Replacement Theology”

39. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews

40. E W Bullinger, The Foundations of Dispensational Truth, (The Open Bible Trust, Kindle Edition, 2013) Kindle location 2814

41. Ice, “1 Peter 2 and Replacement Theology”