chapter4 the davidic covenant

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

CHAPTER FOUR

THE DAVIDIC COVENANT

In this chapter the focal point of analysis and dismantling will be the fourth pillar of dispensationalism, which is the belief in a future SEVENTH dispensation. The seventh dispensation is said to take place on the earth during the 1,000-year millennium. The seventh dispensation is believed to be the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant—homogeneous with the New Covenant. Let us ask the question: How do dispensationalists define the Davidic covenant?

Dispensational View Of The Davidic Covenant

According to dispensationalists, the Davidic covenant points to a theocracy in which Jesus will rule as king over the Jewish nation. Dispensationalists argue that the Davidic theocracy was offered to Israel when Christ came at His first Advent. J. D. Pentecost explains: “God entered into an eternal, unconditional covenant with David (2 Sam. 7:16) in which God guaranteed that the Davidic kingdom should be the kingdom in which the theocratic kingdom should come to full realization as one from David’s line reigned forever” (Things To Come, 441). Pentecost further says, “The kingdom offered to Israel was the same theocracy anticipated in the Old Testament” (Things To Come, 447). Dispensationalists teach that Christ came to the Jewish nation with the physical Davidic theocracy. Dispensationalists tell us: “The seed promises contained in the Abrahamic covenant is now made the center of the Davidic promise” (Pentecost, Things To Come, 100). What are these promises in the Abrahamic covenant? Genesis 12:1 – 3 illustrates: (1) God was to make a great nation out of Abraham; (2) Abraham’s seed (offspring) was to inherit the land of Canaan; (3) Through Abraham’s seed the nations were to be blessed. Dispensationalists emphasize that the Davidic covenant enlarges on these promises by bringing out the following: through David’s seed, a great king was to come who would fulfill these Abrahamic promises and rule over the Jewish nation.

David

2 Samuel 7:12 - 16

Psalm 89:3, 4, 34 - 36

Jeremiah 23:5, 6

Zechariah 14:4, 9

Hosea 3:4, 5

Isaiah 2:2 - 4

Amos 9:11, 12

Christ

Covenant made with

Prophets after David continued to receivemore revelation on how the Davidic Covenant

would be fulfilled.

Christ came to fulfill these scriptures and establish a literal theocratic kingdom for Israel

( 1st Advent )

Dispensationalists teach that the Jewish nation rejected the theocratic, Davidic monarchy of Christ; therefore, this kingdom has been postponed until the end of the age.

By D. S. Farris

1

The Davidic Covenant

Scofield teaches: “Upon His (Christ) return the king will restore the Davidic monarchy in His own person, re-gather dispersed Israel, establish His power over all the earth, and reign 1,000 years” (The Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on 1 Cor. 15, 1227). Coupled with the idea that Christ will return to set up a theocracy for national Israel is the idea that David’s temple will be rebuilt and animal sacrifices re-instituted. Scofield claims that these “offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offerings under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross” (The Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Ezek. 43, 890). So, according to dispensationalists, at the end of the age Jesus will return, and fulfill the Davidic covenant, which is an expansion of the Abrahamic covenant; meaning, Jesus will rule over the physical seed of Abraham in the literal land of Canaan in a theocratic kingdom. Walvoord emphasizes: “In keeping with the announced purpose of God to put a man on David’s throne who could rule forever, Jesus Christ will come back to assume this throne” (Major Bible Prophecies, 390).

1, 000 Year MillenniumChurch Dispensation

Jeremiah 23:5, 6

Zechariah 14:4, 9

Hosea 3:4, 5

Amos 9:11, 12

Isaiah 2:2 - 4

Jewish nation rejected thekingdom

The theocratic kingdom has been postponed until the millennium.

Davidic Temple

The dispensational position of the Davidic covenant can be summarized as follows: The essence of the David covenant is a literal theocracy for national Israel; this theocracy was offered at Christ’s first advent; Christ was to rule over national Israel in Solomon or David’s temple; and because national Israel rejected this covenant at Christ’s first advent, these promises now await the second coming of Christ.

The Immediate Problem With Dispensational Covenant Theology

Up to this point, we have dismantled three of the dispensational pillars: (1) The two phased second coming of Christ around the seven year tribulation; (2) The seven year tribulation; and (3) the belief that the literal Jewish nation constitutes the Israel of God. For starters, the dismantling of the “secret rapture” or “split coming theory” from the seven-year tribulation places the rapture right before the millennium. It is unlikely that Jesus will come to rapture the Church only to set back down on the earth. Moreover, Jeremiah 4:23 – 29—like other scriptures—envision the earth as a desolate wasteland

Copyright 8/27/03

2


after the second coming of Christ. Notice that the removal of the first pillar also removes the fourth pillar in dispensationalism.

HEAVEN

A Tribulation Period

Church goes to heaven

The wicked are destroyed

1,000 Year Millennium New heaven and earth (Isaiah 65)

2 Peter 3: 10 - 12

2 Thessalonians 1: 7 - 10

1 Thessalonians 4: 16, 17

Revelation 20: 4 - 6

Zephaniah 1: 17, 18

Jeremiah 25: 32, 33

Jeremiah 4: 23 - 29

The earth is desolate abyss ( Rev. 20: 1 - 3) Revelation 20: 5 - 15

Jude 14, 15 ( Second Application )

Revelation 21: 1, 2

The removal of the “secret rapture” or “split coming theory” along with the removal of any hope of the 70th week of Daniel 9 being a future occurrence thoroughly abolishes the distinctions which dispensationalists have concocted between Israel and the Church. In chapter three, we thoroughly disproved the view that “the Abrahamic covenant is an unconditional covenant made with Israel, and therefore cannot be either abrogated or fulfilled by people other than the nation Israel . . .” (Pentecost, Things To Come, 84). The removal of the third pillar—like the first two—also abolishes the fourth pillar in dispensationalism. How is this the case? Dispensationalists emphasize that the Davidic covenant magnifies the Abrahamic covenant. The problem then becomes clear: If the Davidic covenant magnifies the Abrahamic covenant, and the Abrahamic covenant has been realized in the Church, then the Davidic covenant too has been realized in the Church. We can deduct this argument in the following way:

(1) The Davidic covenant magnifies the Abrahamic covenant.(2) The Abrahamic covenant has been realized in the Church.(3) Therefore, the Davidic covenant has been realized in the Church.

Moreover, if the Davidic covenant is homogeneous with the New Covenant, then the Davidic covenant commenced over 2,000 years ago; for we have disproved the view that there are two New Covenants—one for the Church in the sixth dispensation and one for Israel in the seventh dispensation—dispensations which themselves are imagined. We have proved that the New Covenant for Israel, according to Hebrews, has continued through the Church (see Chap. 3).

The dispensational pillars are dominos of additive reliance. When one falls, all the others fall. We have, in effect, collapsed the whole dispensational system with every chapter—mutually exclusive—up to this point. We collapsed all four pillars in chapter one, in chapter two, and in chapter three; and we will collapse all four pillars in reverse by expounding on the fourth pillar itself. With what has already been demonstrated in this course, one may think that we need not continue any further. No, we should continue, because we want our audience to have no doubts about giving up this doctrine. In fact,

By D. S. Farris

3


the second half of this course is twice the size of this block, and reveals that this system in question is one of the largest components of deception in the system of Antichrist.

Now, the purpose of this chapter is to prove that the Davidic kingdom was not and will not be a literal theocratic kingdom exclusively for the physical seed of Abraham. Rather, Christ offered the Davidic kingdom—at his first Advent—to the Jewish nation as a spiritual kingdom, which inevitably was to embrace the whole of the human race, and the literal properties of the Davidic kingship began its commencement at the ascension of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary. We are going to see that the literal kingdom itself is in heaven and will continue to be in heaven during the millennium. Parallel to the physical kingdom that was established (meaning an establishment that pertains to the Davidic promises, for God’s kingdom has always been. Psalm 93:1, 2; 103:19) in heaven at Christ’s ascension, was and is the Church, the spiritual manifestation of the physical kingdom. Inevitably the Church will be in the physical kingdom during the millennium, but this union will occur in heaven, not on earth. Finally, the physical kingdom will be brought to the earth after the millennium, and this kingdom will embrace all the saints—both Jew and non-Jew.

TERMINOLOGIES OF CONTENTION

Heaven Or EarthWe must underscore that our purpose is to reveal that the Davidic covenant is

being fulfilled now and will be fulfilled in the future. The issue is not weather or not Jesus came—at His first Advent—with the intention of being king over Israel. The issue is: Did Jesus come with the purpose of being king over Israel in an earthly setting; and because the Jews rejected an earthly theocratic kingdom, the kingship of Jesus has been postponed until the “so called” seventh dispensation? Thus, the issues are “the place Jesus intended to exercise the kingship” and “weather or not the kinship is postponed.” Dispensationalists teach that Jesus came to offer a theocratic kingdom and to be a literal king on earth—not heaven—and the Jewish nation rejected Christ’s offer (John 12:12 –19). The dispensational position is incorrect. Jesus, at His first Advent, did not come to be king in an earthly setting. Notice the following scriptures:

John 6:15. Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone.

John 18:36. Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

John 18:37 says, “Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” Notice that in John 18:37, Jesus emphasized that His purpose was to be king; but yet, in verse 36 He said that His kingdom was not of this world. If the purpose of Jesus was to be king, but not king in an earthly setting, it follows logically that His purpose was to be king somewhere else. Where did Jesus intend on being king?

Copyright 8/27/03

4


Daniel 7:13 I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.

Compare Acts 1:9 – 11 with Daniel 7:13, 14. Jesus, at His first Advent, did come with the purpose of being king and establishing the Davidic kingdom, but not on the earth over the literal nation of Israel. Jesus established both the kingdom and the kingship in heaven at His ascension. We must ask the question: If Jesus established the Davidic kingship and kingdom in heaven at His ascension, then what kind of kingdom was Jesus—at His first Advent—offering in an earthly setting? In Luke 17:20, 21, Jesus told the Pharisees the following:

Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The Kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will the say, ‘See here!’ or ‘see there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

Jesus established a spiritual kingdom on earth—through the Holy Spirit—while he intended on establishing the literal kingdom in heaven. As we are going to see further in this chapter, Jesus was offering a spiritual kingdom to Israel based on His atoning death on the cross, which was to establish men in SALVATION—made effective in the literal kingdom where Jesus is both king and priest over spiritual Israel.

Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven

The preceding correlations are very clear to prove that the literal properties of the Davidic kingdom were neither offered to Israel in an earthly setting nor is postponed until the “so called’ seventh dispensation. The literal properties of the Davidic kingdom exist today in heaven, while the spiritual properties of that kingdom apply to the earth. Regardless of the fact that Jesus Himself emphasized, in Luke 17:20, 21, that He was not offering a theocratic kingdom to Israel; Pentecost argues the meaning of Luke as follows:

The Lord is not asserting that His kingdom was to be a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men. Such is contrary to the entire tenor of the word of God. He is asserting that the kingdom to which they were looking was already “at hand” in the person of the king. The rightful king was present and all that was required was repentance on the part of the nation and a reception of Christ as the theocratic Messiah (Things To Come, 452).

When Pentecost says the kingdom was present in the person of Christ, he is correct, because the Greek for “within” is “entos.” This word means: “in the midst of you.” But what Pentecost fails to acknowledge is that this Greek word also means “within you” as “in your soul.” The wording of this text illustrates that Christ was bringing the kingdom

By D. S. Farris

5


in His person to Israel for them to receive the kingdom in their persons. The simplest and most humble student of the Bible can look at Luke 17:20, 21 and then look at the statement made by Pentecost and conclude that there is a major contradiction. How then do dispensationalists justify their apparent contradictions?

In order for dispensationalists to justify their apparent contradiction with Luke 17:20, 21, they attempt to juggle the terms “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of Heaven” to represent different kingdoms. Concerning Luke 17:20, 21 Scofield teaches: “The kingdom in its outward form, as covenanted to David (2 Sam. 7:8 – 17) and described by the prophets (Zech. 12:8), has been rejected by the Jews; so that, during this present age, it would not “come with observation” but in the hearts of men.” Scofield then adds: “Ultimately the kingdom of heaven will come, with outward show” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Luke 17, p. 1, 100). For emphasis: Dispensationalists attempt to avoid the clarity of Luke 17 by emphasizing:

The kingdom of God is to be distinguished from the kingdom of heaven . . . The kingdom of God ‘comes not with outward show’ (Luke 17:20), but is chiefly that which is inward and spiritual (Rom. 14:17); while the kingdom of heaven is organic, and is to be manifested in glory on the earth (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Matt. 7, 1003).

In other words, dispensationalists believe that Jesus—at His first Advent—offered the kingdom of Heaven (a theocratic kingdom) to Israel. Israel rejected the kingdom of Heaven; thus, the kingdom of Heaven has been postponed until the millennium. Between the rejection of the kingdom of Heaven—at Christ’s first Advent—and its fulfillment in the millennium, there exists the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom congruous with the Church dispensation.

The only way that this dispensational theory could have any plausibility is if the New Testament gospels apply the terms’ “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” in a way homogeneous to the dispensational theory; meaning, the gospels must apply each of these terms—mutually exclusive—only to their designated definition: But this is not the case.

Correlative List Proving That Kingdom of Heaven and God Are The Same

Matt. 8:11 In the kingdom of heaven many will come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Luke 13:28, 29 In the kingdom of God many will come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Note: Here we have a clear illustration that in the future kingdom, all men will conglomerate to speak to the fathers of Israel. Notice that these two terms represent the same kingdom.

Matt. 4:17, 23 Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, and He said, “Repent: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”

Mark 1:14, 15 Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, and He said, “the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

Copyright 8/27/03

6


Notice: These scriptures demonstrate that the gospel of the kingdom was the preaching of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. If these terms represent two different kingdoms, then Jesus was teaching two different gospels. No, these are parallel descriptions of the ministry of Jesus. These terms are interchangeable, representing only one kingdom. Mark interpreted Matthew’s kingdom of heaven, as the kingdom of God.

Matt. 13:10, 11 Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables, and Jesus said that it was for the disciples to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven,

not the multitudes.

Mark 4:11 Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables, and Jesus said that it was for the disciples to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, not

the multitudes.

Notice: Here again, Mark interprets Matthew’s kingdom of heaven as the kingdom of God. Both Matthew and Mark are telling the same story; therefore, we must conclude that there is only one kingdom.

Matt. 18:3, 4. We must become as little children to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven . Matt. 19:14

Mark 10:14, 15. We must become as little children to enter into the Kingdom of God. Luke 18:16, 17

Notice: In these Biblical instances, the issue deals with “becoming as little children”; only the terminology changes. It is completely obvious that these two terms represent the same kingdom.

Matt. 10:7, 8. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.Matt. 12:28. The Kingdom of God has come.

Notice: In these Biblical instances, the issue concerns the “miracles of Christ”; both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven are implicated in these events.

Matt. 19:23. A rich man shall hardly enter into the Kingdom of Heaven . 24. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God .

Notice: This time we have one Biblical instance in which both terms are used to depict where the “rich man can hardly enter.” It is blatantly clear that these two terminologies do not represent two different kingdoms; but rather, these two terms represent one kingdom.

There is no Biblical proof that the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of heaven” are separate kingdoms. This is another one of these ridiculous arguments like we analyzed in chapter one concerning the “Day of Christ” and the “Day of the Lord” being two different events, which they are not. In spite of the fact that terms’ “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of Heaven” are used synonymously to represent God’s kingdom, dispensationalists attempt to create a division on the bases of the phrase “at hand” in connection with the kingdom of Heaven. For example, when Matthew 10:7 says, “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,” dispensationalists argue that the “announcement is being

By D. S. Farris

7


made that the kingdom is to be expected imminently. It is not a guarantee that the kingdom will be instituted immediately, but rather that all impending events have been removed so that it is now imminent” (Pentecost, Things To Come, 449, 450). In other words the phrase “at hand” in connection with the “kingdom of Heaven” distinguishes this kingdom as one that had the potential to come but did not come, because the Jewish nation rejected it.

The dispensational argument for the term “at hand” does not work, because Mark 1:15 says, “The kingdom of God is at hand,” while other passages state that “the kingdom of God has come.” Scofield acknowledges: “The kingdom of God ‘comes not with outward show’ (Luke 17:20), but is chiefly that which is inward and spiritual (Rom. 14:17).” Scofield’s analysis of the kingdom of God says that this kingdom did come in a spiritual form during the days of Christ; thus, the phrase “at hand” as interpreted by dispensationalists to be imminent but not immediate, follows no course of logic. Contrary to the dispensational interpretation of the phrase “at hand,” we must conclude that this phrase does mean “imminent” as dispensationalists say, but also “immediate” in the comparison of like scriptures throughout the synoptic gospels.

The “kingdom of heaven” and the “kingdom of God” are terms representing the same kingdom. Scofield attempts to make the “kingdom of God” as something applicable to the Church era and the “kingdom of heaven” as something applicable to the millennium. These divisions are mythical inductions. Matthew 11:12 clearly shows that the kingdom of heaven had suffered attack in John the Baptist’s day…up to Christ’s day (this confirms that the phrase “at hand” in Matthew 10:7 had the meaning of “immediacy”). On the other hand, Luke 13:28, 29 says that in the kingdom of God many will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets. The scriptures do not support the divisions advocated by dispensationalists. In fact Matthew 11:12 and Luke 13:28, 29 blatantly contradict Scofield’s division; they are opposite of his division. In truth the “kingdom of heaven” and the “kingdom of God” are one kingdom spiritually being fulfilled in the Church and literally being fulfilled in heaven in the Melchizedek priesthood. The literal kingdom (Matt. 16:28; 2 Tim. 4:1) will be manifested on the earth after the millennium (Rev. 21:1, 2).

The Father and the Son’s Throne

Connected to the division of the terms’ “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of Heaven” in the dispensational system is the belief that Christ’s throne is to be distinguished from the Father’s throne. Scofield states conclusively “that Christ is not now seated upon his throne. The Davidic Covenant, and the promises of God through the prophets and the Angel Gabriel concerning the Messianic kingdom await fulfillment” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Rev. 3 and 4, 1334). Dispensationalists impugn the idea that Christ is now seated on the throne of David by arguing that Christ’s throne is to be distinguished from the Father’s throne. Christ, at this time, is on the Father’s throne; but eventually, Christ will have His own throne in which He will rule the literal nation of Israel. Pentecost emphasizes: “According to the established principles of interpretation the Davidic covenant demands a literal fulfillment. This means that Christ must reign on David’s throne on the earth over David’s people forever” (Things To Come, 112).

Copyright 8/27/03

8


Dispensationalists attempt to “divide” Christ’s throne as something separate and distinct in the millennium from the Father’s throne in the Church era. Walvoord argues: “The impossibility of David’s throne and the Father’s throne being identical is readily demonstrated by raising the simple question of whether David could sit on the Father’s throne.” Walvoord then concludes: “David’s throne pertained to the earth, to the land of Israel and to the people of Israel. It never contemplated any universality, and it never was anything more than an earthly throne” (Jesus Christ Our Lord, 225).Can Walvoord’s statement be supported by the word of God?

First of all, whether or not David could sit on the Father’s throne is answered by 1 Chronicles 28:5; 29:23 and 2 Chronicles 9:8 which clearly show that David’s throne in the past was equated with God’s throne. Obviously the scriptures in 1 and 2 Chronicles demonstrate that the throne of God and David was a symbol of the Father and Son’s throne. This means that the unification of the Father’s throne with Christ was the focal point of the Davidic promise. Hence, someone from David’s seed was to sit on the throne with the Father and rule. Walvoord’s question of whether or not David could sit on the Father’s throne becomes ridiculous when one reads Psalm 132:11: “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.” God, literally said, “I will come through your offspring and sit on your throne.” What dispensationalists fail to acknowledge is the fact that Psalm 110:1 – 4; Luke 20:41 – 44; Hebrews 1:13; and 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28 clearly show that the Davidic promise foretold of the Son’s ruler-ship on the Father’s throne. But this must be the case, for Revelation 22:1 – 3 demonstrate that the “throne of God and of the lamb” are together in the New Jerusalem as they are now.

The unification of the Father and the Son’s throne does not exclude the fact that there is a kingly reign of Jesus, where He has been given all authority and power to rule the kingdom. The scriptures clearly speak of the Davidic reign of Christ, but never are the thrones distinct. Furthermore, to completely divide the Father’s throne from Christ’s (the seed of David) throne is to put an arbitrary division in the Godhead; this puts an arbitrary division in the divine purpose, which has always been illustrated in the oneness between the Father and the Son.

Secondly, if we take what Walvoord says to its logical conclusion, we find: To limit the Davidic throne (Christ’s throne) to the earth is to place the throne of the Father and of the Lamb in subjugation to ethnic and geographic boundaries, a boundary that God cannot be limited by. When Walvoord says that the Davidic throne cannot be universal and that this throne is limited to the earth, he compartmentalizes the Father from the Son, which cannot be done, and he overlooked the vastness of God. Acts 7:47, 48 points this out:

(Concerning the house Solomon built for David) Howbeit the most High dwells not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet. Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

Where did Stephen gain his understanding of this issue? 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6, and Isaiah 66:1, 2 clearly prove the fact that God’s throne is far more universal and extends to far greater lengths than Walvoord says. This is clearly revealed by Matthew 5:34, 35 in conjunction with Galatians 4:26 and Hebrews 12:22 – 24. The earthly Jerusalem was only a shadow, a typological illustration of a much greater Jerusalem with

By D. S. Farris

9


a far greater sanctuary for a much vaster number of saints. The scriptures, mentioned above, illustrate that God’s purpose is far more inclusive of a much greater prophetic reality than ethnic and geographical boundaries, a point, which Stephen explained to the Jews; and consequently, he was killed for his repudiation of the rabbinical view, a view very similar to modern dispensationalism. The following chart represents the dispensational view of the terminologies of contention:

1, 000 Years

Father's Throne( Kingdom of God )

Church Dispensation

Christ's Throne( Kingdom of Heaven )

New Earth

Dispensationalists create divisions, such as: The Father’s throne where Jesus now rules is Christ’s ruler-ship over the “Kingdom of God,” which is a spiritual kingdom; Then they apply a throne that will be Christ’s—exclusively—over the “kingdom of heaven,” which will be a literal physical kingdom over literal Jews. The preceding diagram represents the “hair splitting” distinctions that dispensationalists create in order to maintain their theory of a future theocracy for the nation of Israel. We do not deny that inevitably Jesus will “rule over His people on the earth forever.” We deny that Christ’s present ruler-ship with the Father over the Church is compartmentalized from a future occurrence in which Jesus will have a throne distinct from the Father over fleshly Jews.

KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT POSTPONED

The idea that the Kingdom of God or Heaven points exclusively to the fictitious seventh dispensation, omits the scriptures that show Jesus is king now. 1 Timothy 1:17 says, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” In this text, Paul indicates that Jesus is king in the present. Paul came to this conclusion on the basis of the Old Testament scriptures. Notice the following correlations:

Copyright 8/27/03

10


NKJ 1 Chronicles 17:12. He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. 13. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. 14. And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.

NKJ 1 Chronicles 22:10. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.

NKJ 2 Samuel 7:12. When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.

NKJ Hebrews 1:5. For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"?

NKJ Psalm 45:6. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

NKJ Hebrews 1:8. But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom .

NKJ Psalm 110:1. The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool. 2. The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies!

NKJ Hebrews 1:13. But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"?

By D. S. Farris

11


Notice that the book of Hebrews confirms the Davidic promises in Christ—in the present. Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28 show that Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father on the throne. Dispensationalists acknowledge that Christ is sitting on the Father’s throne in the present; they just choose not to accept that this position is fulfilling the Davidic kingship. They are in great error, for Luke 20:41 – 44—like psalm 110:1—is a clear depiction that the Davidic kingship was to be fulfilled by means of the son of David sitting on the right hand of the Father:

And he (Jesus) said unto them (scribes), How say they that Christ is David’s son? And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28 are in perfect correlation with Luke 20:41 – 44 and are in perfect agreement with the preceding correlation diagram. This is further proof that David’s throne is not separate from God’s throne, or the Son’s throne separate from the Father’s throne. In contradiction to dispensationalism, these correlations prove that the Davidic throne is the throne of the Father and the Son over a present kingdom. The fact that the Davidic kingdom exists today and is not postponed is seen in Colossians 1:13, which declares: “we have been translated into the kingdom of his (the Father’s) dear son.” The kingdom of the Father’s Son is the Davidic kingdom. These scriptures unequivocally declare there is a present kingdom with a king. Compare Colossians 1:13, Acts 1:9 – 11, and Daniel 7:13, 14

Acts 1:9 – 11 show that Christ left the earth in a cloud. Daniel 7:13, 14 give a clear depiction of the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He came to the Ancient of Days, and the son of man received “glory,” “dominion,” and a “kingdom.” It is astounding that dispensationalists choose to ignore such glaringly clear statements as these. All the scriptures, which we have analyzed so far, perspicuously demonstrate that the Davidic kingship of Christ has already begun commencement. One hast to utterly wrest these scriptures to come up with a conclusion other than that: Jesus is king in the present.

After looking at these correlations, we must conclude that the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of heaven” are the same kingdom. This kingdom has not been postponed; it exists today. Neither are we to say that this kingdom is not future. For those who make the present spiritual kingdom the only purpose for God’s kingdom miss what scripture teaches (Matt. 7:21; 8:11, 12; 13: 43; Acts 14:22). We agree with George E. Ladd’s observation:

To insist that the spiritual reign of Christ, the present inner aspect of God’s kingdom, is the entirety of the kingdom and thereby to deny a future glorious manifestation , is to make as one-sided an emphasis as to insist that the kingdom is nothing but a future earthly reign of Christ and has no present spiritual reality. Both the present and the future are included in the fullness of the revelation of God’s kingly power (Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, 117).

On the other hand, for those who focus exclusively on the future kingdom as being God’s kingdom miss what the scriptures teach. Hans K. LaRondelle factually says:

Copyright 8/27/03

12


It is true that Christ’s reign over the Church, which is effective in inclining the hearts and lives of believers (Jews and Gentiles) to the obedience of faith, is not yet the glory of the future messianic kingdom. The second coming brings its own, more glorious consummation of the new covenant in the kingdom of glory. But this greater glory should never lead us to deny the truth and reality of the spiritual fulfillment of Christ’s present kingdom (The Israel Of God In Prophecy: Principles Of Prophetic Interpretation, 119).

Church Age

Kingdom of God

Kingdom of Heaven

1, 000 Year Millennium

Kingdom of God

Kingdom of Heaven

( Spiritual Manifestation )

Rapture

Spiritual and Physical become unified

( Physical Manifestation )

New Earth

Kingdom of God

Kingdom of Heaven

IN HEAVEN

( Physical )

Jesus brought us WHAT IS and WHAT IS TO COME

We have not precluded the fact that Jesus will rule during the millennium (Matt. 19:28). We have demonstrated that the Davidic kingdom and the ruler ship of Christ are not concepts locked entirely in the future. The spiritual aspect of the kingdom began commencement in the person of Christ while He walked the earth. The Davidic kingship began commencement at the ascension of Jesus. This kingdom will continue through the millennium; and as Matthew 19:28 indicates, the physical kingdom itself will bring in those who are regenerated—those who have experienced the spiritual aspect of the kingdom—manifested through the Holy Spirit. This of course means that those who are brought up in the rapture (1 Cor. 15:51 – 54) will go to heaven for the 1,000 years and will continue to live in God’s kingdom forever.

Salvation Is Inextricably Connected To The Davidic Kingship

What is the “Gospel of the Kingdom” in Matthew 24:14 and Mark 1:14, 15? The gospel of the kingdom is the message that Jesus came and fulfilled the hope of Israel. What was the hope of Israel? The hope of Israel was that Jesus would come and die for their sins, resurrect from the dead, and ascended into heaven to fulfill the Davidic promise…to sit on the throne as king. In other words, the gospel of the kingdom is what Paul defined it to be in Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” The Gospel of the kingdom is the message of salvation and points us to

By D. S. Farris

13


the priest king Jesus in the “true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man (Heb. 8:2).”

We find the Biblical correlations which make Jesus king in the present to be in fulfillment of the prediction made by Hosea 13:9, 10 which show that a KING was to come and SAVE his people. The Old Testament prophecies taken together illustrate that Jesus was to die on the cross before He took His seat on the Davidic throne. This means the cross is inextricably connected to the kingship. We find this truth explained in Acts 5:30, 31 that Jesus died on the tree as Savior for Israel:

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 13:22 – 26 declare that the Davidic promise to Israel was realized in the Savior, Jesus. Notice verses’ 21 – 23 and ask how any one can conjecture that the Davidic promises are exclusively future?

And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years. And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.

In Acts 26:6 – 8 and 28:20 – 23 we find that the hope of Israel was the resurrection of Christ from the dead. We read in Acts 26:6 – 8:

And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

The resurrection could not have happened without the death of Christ; therefore, the death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection was the hope of Israel. This truth is confirmed in Acts 2:29 – 31 which unambiguously teach that the resurrection of Christ fulfilled the Davidic promise:

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ . . .

Why was the death and resurrection of Christ the hope of Israel? Acts 13:34 teaches that in the resurrection, we have received the “sure mercies of David.” Notice that the sure mercies of David, according to this text, were not postponed thousands of years; the writer of Acts reveals this as a present reality in his day. Christ’s death and resurrection

Copyright 8/27/03

14


was the hope of Israel, because these two aspects of salvation brought into being the Davidic promises. Therefore, we must emphasize that the Davidic covenant points to a finished work of redemption and a continual work of sanctification that is accessible to the saints in the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus is both king and priest. The saints have access to the “sure mercies of David,” because the saints are “translated into the kingdom of Christ” in the person of Christ Himself (Col. 1:13).” Christ is the high priest over His Church and represents His people in the sanctuary above. Hebrews 4:15, 16 tells us:

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

How do we come to the throne of Grace? We come to the throne of Grace in the person of Christ who is our priest King.

The kingdom of God, as applied in the present, points to the Savior who ascended up to heaven to be both king and priest for all those who find entrance into His kingdom through the blood of Justification and the cross of Sanctification. The purpose of the kingdom is to bring all men into harmony with God through the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is the medium between God and man. Through Christ we have access to the throne of grace. The kingdom of God is manifested in the priestly ministry of Christ, for He ever lives to make intercession for all those who come to the Father through Him (Heb. 7:24). Coming to the throne of grace through Christ, is the “sure mercies of David” (Acts 13:34).” This is why Romans 14:17 states, “The kingdom of God is joy in the Holy Ghost,” for the Holy Ghost reveals to the Christian “the deep things of God (1 Cor. 1:10).” Through the Holy Spirit, we can see the fact that we—through Christ—have been translated into His kingdom (Col. 1:13).

The Davidic promises were based on the hope of a Savior who was to come and die for the sins of not only Israel, but the whole world, resurrect, and ascend into the heavenly sanctuary to be king and priest over worldwide Israel—made up of all nationalities (Gal. 3:28, 29). These promises included that Christ was to bring mankind a spiritual kingdom through the Holy Spirit. Note: We have not precluded the fact that the saints of God will sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the physical kingdom in the New Earth. We have—through the scriptures—impugned the idea that the Davidic kingdom points exclusively to the future—focalized in the literal nation of Israel apart from the Church.

By D. S. Farris

15


The Kingdom Of God Is Not Postponed:(Correlation Tree)

Hosea 13:9, 10

King would come

and save.

Luke 24:25 - 27

Jesus had to die

Old Testament foretold

Acts 5:30, 31

Jesus died for Israel

Acts 26:6 - 8

28:20 - 23

Resurrection is hope

of Israel

Acts 13:22, 26

Davidic promise fulfilled

in the savior, Jesus.

Acts 2:29 - 31

Davidic throne fulfilled

in Christ's resurrection.

Acts 13:34

Sure mercies of David

The "Gospel of the Kingdom"

Matthew 24:14 and Mark 1:14, 15

Romans 14:17

Kingdom of God

joy in Holy Ghost

John 3:3 - 16

Must be born again to

enter kingdom of God

1 Timothy 1:17

Jesus is king

Colossians 1:13

We are translated into

kingdom of Christ

Acts 1:9 - 11

Jesus ascended to

heaven in a cloud

Daniel 7:13, 14

Son of Man came with

clouds and recieved the

kingdom.

Psalm 132:11

The Lord would

sit on the throne

of David.

Hebrews 1:13

1 Corinthians 15:24 - 28

The kingdom has been

given to Christ to rule

Luke 20:41 - 44

sits on will be the throne

the Father places under

Him.

The throne Son of David

Note: Compare the preceding correlation tree with this statement from Walvoord: “An examination of the New Testament discloses that not a single instance can be found the

Copyright 8/27/03

16


present position of Christ is identified with David’s throne” (Jesus Christ Our Lord, 224, 225). (When I first read this statement from Walvoord, I almost fell backwards in my chair laughing.) Has Walvoord read the New Testament, for we have well over 30 texts that corporately indicate that Jesus is presently reigning as the Davidic king. The preceding correlation tree illustrates that Christ’s death on the cross and His resurrection are not only inextricably connected to the Davidic covenant, but also brought that covenant into being.

The Dispensational View Of The Cross

When we consider the fact that the death and resurrection of Christ are emphasized as bringing into being the Davidic promises, it is without question that the Davidic covenant is a present reality. Dispensationalists, however, do not believe this, for they believe that the death and resurrection of Christ was not intended for the Jewish nation. Chafer tells us: “To Israel His death was a stumbling-block (1 Cor. 1:23), nor was His death any part of His office as King over Israel” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, 32). Dispensationalists neither believe that the cross of Christ had anything to do with the Davidic covenant nor do they believe that the Gospel of the Kingdom has anything to do with Christ’s death. Said another way, dispensationalists believe that the Gospel of the Kingdom is a message that points to the Davidic covenant, but neither the Kingdom Gospel or the Davidic covenant have any relation to the cross. Even though the preceding New Testament Illustrations thoroughly destroy these concepts, we are still going to underscore the dispensational view on this matter, for we wish the reader to visualize how blatantly dispensationalists not only contradict the scriptures, but have no connection with real salvation.

According to dispensationalists, the “Gospel of the Kingdom” in Matthew 24:14 was not primarily based on the doctrine of salvation through the blood of Christ; but rather, was based on the message of the restoration of the theocratic kingdom over fleshly Jews. Pentecost declares: “The gospel of the kingdom did not offer a way of salvation, but rather offered the hope of the fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological promises, which contained within them the fulfillment of the soteriological (salvation) hopes…” (Things To Come, 272. Emphasis mine). It has been argued that dispensationalists do not exclude the cross from God’s purpose for Israel; but rather, they minimize the cross as something less important in God’s program. On the other hand, one can get the impression from dispensationalists that the cross was a backup mechanism to save the Gentiles if the Jews chose to reject the theocratic kingdom. There are those who make the mistake in assuming that this is an overstatement. Not so! Scofield, one of the main predecessors of this volatile system, explains:

He (Jesus) does not receive Gentiles. A Christ in the flesh, King of the Jews, could be no proper object of faith to the Gentiles, though the Jews should have believed on him as such. For Gentiles the corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die; Christ must be lifted up on the cross and believed in as a sacrifice for sin, as seed of Abraham, not David (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on John 12, 1132).

By D. S. Farris

17


Ryrie points out in his book Dispensationalism Today that anti-dispensationalists with the consistency of a “ dripping faucet” accuse dispensationalists of teaching multiple ways of salvation. Ryrie asserts that these are false accusations. Ryrie in defense of statements, such as Scofield’s statement, says:

the primary reason for the persistence of the charge has been the fact that dispensationalists have made unguarded statements which, if they were being made in the light of today’s debate, would have been more carefully worded. Anti-dispensationalists are never quick to allow for refinement in the statement of dispensationalism, particularly if it dulls their attack (Dispensationalism Today, 112. Emphasis mine).

This is exactly what we were talking about in chapter one where we said, “Modernists have become masters at articulating fallacies through the use of deceitful chicanery.” It does not take a whole lot of mental depth to figure out what Scofield says. Scofield unambiguously states that the cross was for the Gentiles, not the Jews. Scofield is only taking dispensationalism to its logical conclusion, for the elements of that system pave the way for such a distinction in salvation. The more modernized dispensationalists—knowing the ridiculousness of Scofield’s statement—attempt to explain that the basis (death of Christ) for salvation in every age is the same (See Dispensationalism Today, 122 – 124). They try to eliminate the odious taint of earlier dispensational statements by saying “they were unguarded statements” that were not intended to mean what they appeared to say. Scofield’s statement most definitely says that God has a different means of salvation for the Jew than for the Gentile. We can concur that Scofield’s statement was clearly intended to mean what it said on the bases of other dispensational writers, such as Chafer, who emphasizes:

Thus “the kingdom of heaven” as a message must ever be distinguished from the message of the gospel of grace, which came by reason of the cross. The gospel of grace Israel as a nation has never understood, and furthermore it is addressed to all peoples and to them (Jews) as individuals only (Systematic Theology, Vol. 5, 341).

Chafer distinguishes the gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom as two different gospels. Note with clarity the fact that Chafer declared that the gospel of grace came by reason of the cross, and the gospel of grace Israel as a nation never understood; it is addressed to individual Jews only. It does not take a copious intellect to ascertain this theology to its conclusion. Dispensationalists teach that Christ did not come to the Jewish nation with the gospel of grace; but rather, came to them with the promise of a theocratic kingdom. If the gospel of grace came by way of the cross, and the gospel of grace was not meant for Israel as a nation, according to dispensationalists, then they are teaching that the cross was not intended for the nation of Israel. Is this possible? Could Christ have offered the Jews a theocratic kingdom without first fulfilling the promise of redemption through His crucifixion? Absolutely NO!

Dispensationalists believe this to be true, and here is the reason: Referring back to Scofield’s statement that Jesus had to be lifted up for the Gentiles, not the seed of David; we find one of the main reasons for this conclusion in the writings of Chafer. He

Copyright 8/27/03

18


asserts: “As for their racial stock, the Gentiles had their origin in Adam and their federal headship is in him.” What about the Jews? Chafer says, “Whatever Abraham was nationally before he was called of God, it is certain that God set him apart and through him secured a race so distinct in its individuality, that from the time of the Exodus to the end of the record of their history they are held as antipodal (exact opposite) of all other nations combined” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 4: 5, 6). Dispensationalists teach that Jesus did not need to die for the seed of David, because God—on a racial basis—considered the Jews distinct from the seed of Adam. On the other hand, Jesus would have to die for the Gentiles.

This doctrine is the most ludicrous fiction ever created and cannot be sustained by the word of God. Acts 17:26 says, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Luke 3:23 – 38 illustrate a clear and concise nomenclature of the Physical progenitors of Jesus—leading all the way back to Adam. Chafer’s distinction of the Jews being a separate race from Adam is repudiated. ALL men die in Adam (1 Cor. 15:22). All men have the fallen nature of Adam; therefore, all men need a salvation, which could not have happened any other way than the cross (Heb. 9). Jesus did not come to offer a theocracy to Israel; He came to die (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22).

In John 1:29, John did not say, “Behold the Messiah who cometh to offer the Jews in the Adamic nature the Davidic monarchy so that the flesh can be perpetuated.” John says, “Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” Jesus did not come to perpetuate the Adamic nature in the form of national Israel; He came to die on the cross as the last Adam; to offer Israel the salvation, which qualified them for regeneration. Death on the cross precedes regeneration through the resurrection, and regeneration must precede the “entering of God’s physical kingdom” where there is no corruption.

Matt. 12:40; Luke 11:30Matt. 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:12Matt. 17:9; Mark 9:9Matt. 17:22; Mark 9:31; Luke 9:44Matt. 20:18; Mark 10:33; Luke 18:31Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22Matt. 26:45; Mark 14:41

Dispensationalists complain that their opponents argue in favor of what they “think ought to be the logical teaching of dispensationalism, rather than what is the actual teaching of dispensationalism” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 130). On the contrary, opponents of dispensationalism are not concerned with apparent teachings, they are concerned with actual teachings. For the opponents, the paint does not disguise the rust, so like Scofield (who perhaps was being honest in his analysis of his theology; not being deceptive); the opponents take the system to its logical conclusion. For example: The dispensational minimization of the cross has lead to the idea that sacrifices will be re-instituted in the millennium. Hebrews 10:4 – 10, 9:12, 26, and 7:27 undoubtedly

By D. S. Farris

19


prove that after the cross, there will be no more sacrifices. This is why Ephesians 2:15 states that the Ceremonial laws have been abolished.

Regardless of the fact that dispensationalists do not teach that these offerings will be sin offerings, but memorial to the cross; such a doctrine makes the cross of non-effect. The idea that sacrifices have to be re-instituted for national Israel in the millennium coincides with Scofield’s statement that Christ did not need to be lifted up for the seed of David. Christ lifted up on the cross abolishes the sacrifices. To teach that sacrifices will be instituted for the seed of David gives credence to the idea that the cross has no real connection with the seed of David. This is definitely the case, because the book of Hebrews places into effect a perspicuous picture that illustrates: “If you need to continue the sacrificial system, you are making the cross of none effect.” The book of Hebrews demands this outlook, for this is the interpretation that we will come to in Hebrews if we don’t “wrest” the scriptures. The logical conclusion that is drawn from the preceding dispensational correlations, as we are seeing, is that God has a different means of salvation for national Israel than the rest of mankind. Oswald T. Allis came to this conclusion about dispensationalism:

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that if the dispensational doctrine regarding the nature of the promised kingdom and the meaning of the words “at hand” is accepted, it leads logically to the view that the Cross, as an atoning sacrifice for sin, concerns the Church age and the Church saints only. As preached (the kingdom) at the first advent it did not include or involve the Cross; as preached at the second advent it will not include or presuppose the Cross (Prophecy and the Church, 234).

Note: All men are saved the same—through the death of Christ. For dispensationalists to say that they don’t teach two or more ways of salvation becomes an apparent session of jugglery. Dispensationalists juggle the purpose of the cross in order to escape the fact that the Davidic covenant is inextricably tied to the cross. If dispensationalists accept that the cross was for Israel, they are forced to agree that the Davidic covenant has already begun commencement (Hos. 13:9, 10; Acts 5:30, 3; 13:22 – 26; 26:6 – 8; 28:20 – 23; 26:6 – 8), and this Covenant transcends ethnic and geographical boundaries.

The Gospel Of The Kingdom Was Preached In Acts

The book of Acts gives several illustrations of the preaching of the kingdom: Acts 8:12; 17:6, 7; 19:8; 20:25; 26:22; 28:31. Paul said in Colossians 1:23 that he had preached the Gospel to every creature under heaven. As demonstrated in the preceding correlation tree, the Davidic kingdom is realized in Christ’s ascension into heaven, and Christians are partakers of the kingdom of God through the Holy Spirit. Dispensationalists want us to believe that the preaching of the kingdom in Acts was exclusively the preaching of the future theocratic kingdom for national Israel. That is impossible! For example: Take Acts 19:8, 9. Paul argued for three months in a synagogue over the issues concerning the kingdom of God. Paul ended up leaving because of the unbelief of the Jews. The Jews of that day expected the kingdom, which dispensationalists now teach. If Paul had been teaching a future theocratic kingdom for national Israel, he would not have needed to leave the synagogue because of the Jews’

Copyright 8/27/03

20


unbelief. On the contrary, Paul would have been in good company with them. Dispensationalists expect us to believe that Paul’s arguments in the book of Acts were over Paul’s agreement with Rabbinism. No! Dispensationalists create scenarios in scripture of an oxymoron nature. Paul was preaching the Davidic kingdom as fulfilled in the ascension of Christ—based on the blood of the Covenant. Acts 17:4 – 7 show that Paul, Jason, and others were being accused of preaching, “that there is another king—Jesus.” Why were they preaching that there was a present king? The previous correlation tree explains that reason most precisely.

Dispensationalists teach the Gospel of the Kingdom—preached in Acts—was essentially the same Gospel Jesus preached in Matthew. That is very true. However, when dispensationalists teach that Jesus was preaching an immediate theocracy for Israel in that Jesus was to be the monarchical, Davidic king over Israel—at that time—in the literal city of Jerusalem, that is absolutely false. Notice the scriptures in Matthew:

Matthew 3:2: In the ministry of John the Baptist, we see the declaration: “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” What was John talking about? He was stating that the kingdom was “imminent” in the approach of the Messiah. John was referring to Jesus in verse 11 who was to “baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Automatically, in looking at Matthew 3, we can see that the kingdom of heaven was associated with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 3 gives us a clew as to what Jesus was bringing the Jewish nation.

Matthew 4:8, 9: Satan tempted Jesus with the kingdoms of the world. Satan told Jesus, “If you will bow down and worship me, I will give you the kingdoms of this world with all the associated glory and pomp.” Jesus rejected Satan’s offer, and He rejected the earthly kingdoms associated with this world. Here in Matthew 4:8, 9 we have a clear illustration that the mission of Christ transcended this world. His kingdom was not to exist in conjunction with the Gentile world powers even if these powers were to be overthrown and put into submission to the Jewish theocratic kingdom.

Even here in Jesus’ rejection of Gentile world powers we can see that Christ was not coming to establish an earthly kingdom. This becomes evidential when we look at Matthew 16:20 – 23. When Jesus told the apostles that He must suffer many things and die, Peter began to rebuke Jesus. Jesus then told Peter: “Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things of God, but those that be of men.” Well does T. W. Manson define the meaning of this text where he says, “Out of my way, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are more concerned for a human empire than for the kingdom of God” (The Servant Messiah, 36). Jesus obviously associated a Jewish empire with the Gentile empires; otherwise, Jesus would not have addressed Peter as Satan. That Jesus had no intention of being a king over the nation of Israel—in an earthly setting—is described in Luke 17:20, 21, John 6:15, and John 18:36. Even with scriptures as clear as these, dispensationalists still argue: “Jesus here is not so much the rejected Savior as the rejected King” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Matt. 12, 1012). No! Jesus was the rejected savior (John 3:16, 17; Heb. 9:22), not a rejected king. We agree with the interpretation of Ladd:

The very fact that he did not come as the glorious King, but as the humble Savior, should be adequate evidence by itself to prove that his offer of the

By D. S. Farris

21


kingdom was not the outward, earthly kingdom, but one which corresponded to the form in which the King himself came to men (Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, 117).

We must underscore: Jesus came with the purpose of setting up the Davidic kingdom, but He did not come to set up a Jewish theocratic kingdom on earth. The kingship of Jesus was to be established in heaven over a much greater kingdom, a kingdom of saints that are found in all parts of the world: “where there is neither Jew nor Greek; but where all are one in Christ and are Abraham’s seed and heirs of the promise.” Jesus set up the Davidic temple where He reigns as king in heaven.

Matthew 4:17, 23: After Jesus rejected Satan’s offer of the kingdoms of this world, He proceeded to preach, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus preached the kingdom as the “gospel of the kingdom.” Jesus was preaching what He was bringing in His person—Salvation. Jesus healed the diseases of the people as an evidence of the kind of kingdom He was offering Israel. Matthew 3 gives the clew that the kingdom of heaven was to be associated with the work of the Holy Spirit. Here in Matthew 4—after the fact that Jesus rejected the possession of Gentile kingdoms—we see the association of Matthew 3 being materialized in the person of Christ. His ministry was the ministry of healing and casting out demons. Obviously Jesus was bringing the gospel of a kingdom, which was spiritual in nature. This is exactly why, in Matthew 12:28, Jesus said, “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” We find that throughout Matthew, the gospel of the kingdom was preached as a kingdom that was spiritual in nature (Matt. 9:35; 10:5 – 8).

Jesus brought a kingdom that undermined the kingdom of darkness. If Jesus had brought a physical kingdom for national Israel (The way dispensationalists teach) so that the Jewish nation could fulfill their ambitions to conquer Gentile world powers, this would not have accomplished anything against the kingdom of darkness. Jesus would only have been perpetuating another form of the kingdoms already present; meaning, Jesus would have been perpetuating the Adamic nature, the very place in which the kingdom of darkness has had its greatest results.

Dispensationalists teach that the saints who go through the tribulation, along with the Jewish nation, will enter in the millennial kingdom in their natural bodies (the Adamic nature). Jesus says differently: “Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration (Gr. Paliggenesia, “new birth” “reproduction” “recreation”) when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Preceding the millennium we must experience a physical change. 1 Corinthians 15:50 says, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” This is an excellent example of the fact that the “cross” had to precede the actual, physical kingdom of God. Stated concisely, the three fold aspect of salvation: justification, sanctification, and glorification must precede the actual, physical kingdom of God, because as Corinthians shows we cannot inherit incorruption with corruption.

Dispensationalists teach that Christ came to bring a kingdom to national Israel, which could not have been given to national Israel in their physical states. Or could it be that Jesus was bringing a kingdom that was conducive for the Adamic nature? If we accept the teaching of dispensationalism, we are accepting that Christ came to establish a kingdom based on flesh and blood—to glorify the Adamic nature in the persons of

Copyright 8/27/03

22


national Israel (This is ludicrous!). Neither Christ nor His apostles taught the dispensational perspective on the kingdom, which pertains to a theocratic kingdom over Jews with un-regenerative natures. As Mauro says, “Twentieth century dispensationalism is practically identical with first century rabbinism” (The Gospel Of The Kingdom: with an Examination of Modern Dispensationalism, 21). What was the belief of Rabbinism? Pentecost tells us: “It is a well established fact that the Jews at the time of Christ were anticipating a literal fulfillment of the Old Testament theocratic kingdom promises” (Things To Come, 446). The Jewish leaders of Christ day were focused on a kingdom that exalted the Jewish people above the rest of the world. Even Christ’s apostles believed these errors (Acts 1:6, 7). It was not until after Pentecost and the years that followed that the Apostles truly began to understand the essence of the kingdom of God. For emphasis: Did Rabbinism have an accurate knowledge of the kingdom? No! Acts 13:27 says that the Jewish leaders did not know Christ or the meaning of what the prophets said. Why was this the case? 2 Corinthians 3:14 – 16 show that it was impossible for the Jewish leaders to understand the meaning of the Old Testament outside of Christ. By rejecting Christ, the Jewish teachers of the Old Testament scriptures forfeited a true understanding of God’s kingdom. Dispensationalists, in essence, support the same doctrines which Acts 13:27 clarifies as false. We agree with Mauro’s statement concerning the future restoration of national Israel: “That doctrine was the very cornerstone of the creed of apostate Judaism in its last stage, and the prime cause of their rejection and crucifixion of Christ” (The Gospel Of The Kingdom, 24). Dispensational theology is literally propagating the same ideas that caused the blindness of the Jewish nation which lead to our Lord’s crucifixion. In truth, dispensationalists are preparing the world to misconstrue the second coming of Christ in a way that apostate Judaism misconstrued the first coming of Christ (see Chaps’ 8, 9).

Blatant contradictions in dispensational eschatology are the reason why I (personally) gave up dispensationalism. These contradictions are so clearly seen that it is not difficult to understand why Mauro says:

The time came when the inconsistencies and self contradictions of the system itself, and above all, the impossibility of reconciling its main positions with the plain statements of the Word of God, became so glaringly evident that I could not do otherwise than renounce it (The Gospel Of The Kingdom, 6, 7).

Conclusions On Kingdom Arguments

Now, in realizing that the Davidic covenant is presently being fulfilled, brings us to a statement—that we saw in preceding pages—made by Pentecost: “The seed promises contained in the Abrahamic covenant is now made the center of the Davidic promise” (Things To Come, 84). Note: Now in light of what has been analyzed in this chapter—in conjunction with the preceding chapter—we know that the Davidic/Abrahamic covenant is being fulfilled in the Church, and dispensationalism has been abolished; but let us not stop here.

By D. S. Farris

23


ABRAHAMIC COVENANT Everlasting Covenant

( Genesis 17: 7 )

Genesis 12: 1, 6, 7

13: 14 -16

15: 18

17: 8

(1) Abraham's seed is to receive the land of Canaan

Genesis 12: 2

13: 16

22: 17

18:18,19

(2) God woould make a great nation out of Abraham's seed.

Genesis 12: 3

22: 18

26: 4

(3) In Abraham's seed shall all the nations be blessed.

If the Abrahamic covenant pointed to Jesus, as the seed of promise, and the children of Christ, are the true children of the promise; then it becomes clear that the national and land promises (What dispensationalists call the Palestinian covenant Deut. 30:1 – 10) have also been enlarged to include more than the physical land of Palestine. This becomes clear in Psalm 37:11, 29 and Matthew 5:5. The land promises given to Abraham ultimately pointed to the whole earth (Rom. 4:13).” Hebrews 11:10, 13 – 16 clearly reveal that Abraham’s land promises pointed to a heavenly country and a city made by God Himself. This city is described in Revelation 21, 22 as being the New Jerusalem. Daniel 2:35, 44, 45 explain that this will be a kingdom that will cover the whole earth.

Since the Davidic Covenant has been realized in the ascension of Jesus into the “true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man” (Acts 2:29 – 31; Heb. 8:2) over the Church; then, we must conclude that the seed promises made to Abraham have been realized in the Church. The inheritance of the land of Canaan was a type of the whole world for worldwide Israel—made up of all nationalities (Rom. 4:12 – 16; Gal. 3:28, 29). Eventually the children of Abraham—those who are the children of God through faith—will inherit the earth.

THE DAVIDIC SANCTUARY

Up to this point we have seen that the Davidic covenant points to Christ’s present reign in heaven over the Church. We are now going to expatiate on this fact in more detail by analyzing the New Testament’s definition of the Davidic sanctuary. The Davidic sanctuary is inextricably connected to the Davidic covenant. The argument is this: If the Davidic covenant is presently being fulfilled in the Church, then the Davidic temple must also exist today.

Where is the Davidic temple, and when was it established? Dispensationalists want us to believe that the Davidic temple will come in the future—during the millennium. Dispensationalists, in realizing that the Davidic temple is inextricably connected to the Davidic covenant, have placed the temple of David up in the imaginary

Copyright 8/27/03

24


seventh dispensation. This interpretation omits the New Testament scriptures that prove Jesus is the Davidic king in the present. We assert from the word of God that both the Davidic covenant and Temple exist in the present.

In chapter two we analyzed the fact that the 70th week was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, not the Antichrist. In this section we are going to focus in on propositions’ 5 and 6 of Daniels 9:24. According to proposition 5, in the 70th week, the vision was to be sealed or ratified. Which vision? The vision of the 2,300 prophetic days was to be sealed. The 2,300 years, which began in 457 along with the 490 years, was to be “confirmed” or “ratified” in the 70th week. Now remember, the 2,300 year prophecy has to do with the trampling of the “daily” of the sanctuary in connection with the Prince of the host of heaven. Proposition 6, in Daniel 9:24, shows that a “Most Holy” place was to be anointed. The “Most Holy” place in Daniel 9 is the Sanctuary manifested two ways: (1) the literal temple in heaven; (2) and the Church, the body of Christ. First we will analyze what constitutes the literal Davidic sanctuary in heaven; and then, we will analyze what constitutes the spiritual sanctuary. We will then see the relationship between the two sanctuaries. When this is established, the vision of the daily will come alive in a very visual manner.

Note: Zechariah 6:11, 12 reveal some very important features concerning the Davidic throne. In fact, these scriptures give a clear picture—key elements—of what is involved with the Davidic reign of Christ.

The man whose name is the “Branch” (Christ) was to:

(1) Build the temple of the Lord(2) Bear the glory(3) Sit and rule upon his throne(4) Be a priest upon his throne

Acts 2:30, 31Acts 1:9 - 11

Daniel 7:13, 14

Acts 2:34, 35

Psalm 110:1, 4

Hebrews 8:1, 2

Hebrews 6:18 - 20

THE 4 PROPOSITIONS OF ZECHARIAH 6:12, 13

13:22, 23

If we read Acts 2:30, 31; 13:22, 23 without putting to wrest the “reality of the definition of what is being said,” we will see that the Davidic promise was fulfilled in the

By D. S. Farris

25


resurrection and ascension of Christ into heaven. Acts 1:9 – 11 demonstrate Christ ascending up to heaven in a cloud. Daniel 7:13, 14 clarify that Jesus, on His arrival to heaven, was given dominion, glory and a kingdom. Psalm 110:1, 4, in correlation with Acts 2:34, 35, prove that Jesus is king and priest after the order of Melchizedek and fulfills the Davidic promise. Hebrews 8:1, 2 and 6:18 – 20 demonstrate that Jesus is inside of the heavenly sanctuary. The Davidic Temple is the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus rules (Heb. 1:13). This truth is seen in the application of Types and Antitypes.

Types And Antitypes

Types and Antitypes are fundamental principles of interpretation, which the scriptures employ. Romans 5:14 explains that Adam was a type (Gr. Tupos, “a figure” “a pattern”) of Christ (1 Cor. 15:45 – 47). The New Testament also employs the principle of antitypical interpretation as seen in 1 Peter 3:21 where Baptism is said to be a like figure (Gr. Antitupos, “A thing formed after some pattern”) of Noah’s escape from the floodwaters. The New Testament employs itself as the Antitype of Old Testament types. This means the New Testament employs itself as the focal point and fulfillment of Old Testament patterns. This is seen in Exodus 25:9, 40. The sanctuary materials were made after a pattern (Heb. Tabnith, “Form, plan, figure, image”). We learn in Hebrews 8:5 that the Old Testament sanctuary was an example (Gr. Hupodeigma, “Imitation, representation, figure, copy”) and shadow (Gr. Skia, “An image cast by an object and representing the form of that object”) of heavenly things. The Mosaic sanctuary was a pattern (Type) of heavenly things. With this in mind it becomes clear that the local and literal settings of the land of Palestine, Jerusalem, the temple, and the Jews were a type of the worldwide saints with the heavenly Jerusalem being the capital of the saints. The saints in the New Covenant, making up the spiritual Davidic sanctuary, come to God through the priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. The antitypical interpretation shows that the literal settings of the nation of Israel served as a type (pattern) of world wide spiritual Israel. This is not an overstatement, for in 1 Corinthians 10:1 –11 Paul, not only calls the Israelites the Fathers of the Church, but he says, “all these things happened unto them for examples (Gr. Tupos, Tupikos, “type or pattern”), and they are written for OUR (The Church) admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.”

Dispensationalists minimize the Abrahamic—and consequently the Davidic—promises to ethnic and geographical limitations, because they fail to allow the New Testament Church to serve as an antitypical fulfillment of Old Testament Israel. The New Testament employs itself as the Antitype of Old Testament types. Paul applies this method of interpreting the Church as the antitype of Israel’s history in Hebrews 3 and 4. Paul literally calls the New Covenant with the Church, the day of David (Heb. 4:7, 8). He applies the New Covenant as the re-invitation of God’s people to enter into God’s spiritual rest while it is called “today”; meaning, the Davidic covenant of today.

Copyright 8/27/03

26


The Earthly Sanctuary Was A Pattern Of The Heavenly Sanctuary(Hebrews 8:5)

The Sanctuary Type Antitype

Heb. 8:1 – 5. The Old Testament sanctuary Rev. 11:19. Gives clear illustration that was a pattern and shadow of the there is a heavenly sanctuary. true Tabernacle that God made.

Heb. 9:1 – 3. The Old Testament sanctuary Heb. 6:19; 9:12, 24. There are two had two places: the holy and most phases in the work of the Melch- place. isedec priesthood.

The Court Yard

Type Antitype

Ex. 12:3 – 5. The Lamb was selected prior John 11:47 – 57. The Jewish leaders selected to its sacrifice. Jesus to die prior to crucifixion.

Ex. 12:6. The lamb that was to be sacrificed John 11:53, 54. “Jesus therefore walked no was separated from the flock. more openly among the Jews.”

By D. S. Farris

27


Ex. 12:46. None of the lamb’s bones were John 19:33 – 36. The soldiers saw that Jesus broken. was dead so they broke no bones.

Lev. 23:5 – 11. The first-fruits were offered 1 Cor. 15:20; Luke 23:21 - 23. On the third the third day after the Passover. day, Christ became the first-fruits of them that slept.

Lev. 4:3. The animal was to be without 1 Peter 1:19. Christ was without blemish and blemish. without spot.

Lev. 1:9. The burnt offering was accepted Eph. 5:2. Christ offered himself as a sacrifice as a sweet savor unto the Lord. to God for a sweet smelling savour.

Lev. 29:38 – 43. When the people offered Heb. 10:8 – 10. “We are sanctified, through the burnt offerings, the presence the offering of the body of Jesus once of God sanctified the people. for all.”

The Holy Place (Seven Golden Candlesticks)

Ex. 40:24, 25. The seven golden candlesticks Rev. 1:12, 13. There are seven golden were inside of the holy place. candlesticks in heaven.

Ex. 25:37. The seven golden candlesticks had Rev. 4:5. The throne of God has seven seven lamps. lamps of fire burning before it.

Ex. 30:7, 8. Aaron, the high priest, lighted the Rev. 1:13; 2:1 Jesus is our high priest lamps in the holy place. walking among the candlesticks

Copyright 8/27/03

28


(Table of Showbread)

Ex. 25:30. The table of Showbread was to be John 6:48 – 51, 63. Christ is the bread of before the Lord always. life. His words are spirit and life.

Lev. 24:5. The showbread was divided into 1 Cor. 10:17. Jesus, the bread of life, used 12 cakes symbolizing the 12 tribes. the 12 apostles as the beginning of the Church. We are all one bread.

(The Alter of Incense)

Ex. 40: 26. The alter of incense was next to the Rev. 8:3. There is an alter of incense in veil. heaven.

Ex. 30:7, 8. Aaron burned incense on the alter Rev. 8:3, 4 The incense is offered with in the morning and evening every the prayers of the saints upon the day. alter before the thone of God.

Ex. 30:7, 8, 10. The high priest burned incense Heb. 7:24 – 27; 9:24 – 26. Christ is our daily and once a year sprinkled blood intercessor and offers his blood on the horns for the atonement of Israel. from his one time death.

By D. S. Farris

29


The Most Holy Place

Ex. 26:33. The ark was placed in the Most Rev. 11:19; James 1:25; 2:8 – 12. Holy Place in the sanctuary. The ark of God’s Testament is in heaven. In it, the Perfect Law of Liberty.Ex. 25:21, 22. The presence of God was Rev. 15:8; Heb. 4:14 – 16. God’s manifested above the mercy-seat. presence is in the Most Holy in the heavenly sanctuary. We come to the throne of Grace. 37

With such clarity of scripture, we need not look for the Davidic Temple to begin its commencement in the future, for it is in Heaven. The work, which Jesus has done, was the anointing of the MOST HOLY place back in the 70th week.

A Most Holy Person(The Spiritual Davidic Temple)

The spiritual Davidic temple is realized in the body of Christ. Acts 15:14 – 17 shows: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up; so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord who does all these things.

These four texts teach that the rebuilding of the Davidic temple has been realized in the gathering of a people from the Gentile world into God’s Church. This means the Church is the manifestation of the Davidic temple on the earth. Notice that these texts do not place the Davidic temple way up into the future as some building in Palestine. Dispensational theology on this point attempts to nullify the clarity of the issue by arguing that the phrase “After this” defines the “Gentile gathering” as a dispensation that

37 This list of type and antitype is based on Stephen N. Haskell’s book, The Cross and Its Shadow. I recommend that the reader get this book and read it.

Copyright 8/27/03

30


precedes the rebuilding of the Davidic temple. Scofield emphasizes, “After this (the out-calling) I will return” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Acts 15, 1170). Scofield even asserts that “Dispensationally, this is the most important passage in the N.T..” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Acts 15, 1169). Dispensationalists, in this scripture, like other scriptures, are attempting to fabricate a meaning that is not inherent in the reading; hence, they are applying false inductions. Acts 15:14 – 17 is a quotation from Amos 9:11, 12. Amos’ ministry existed between 767 and 753 B.C. Amos 9:11, 12 was a prophecy predating the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. The phrase “after this” in James’ quotation of Amos’ prophecy must apply to the captivity of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. In Amos’ historical context, this prophecy pointed to the rebuilding of the temple in the days of Zerubbabel. This means that Scofield’s argument is an assumption, for Acts 15:16 envisions: “After this (The Babylonian captivity) I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David.”

James (brother of Jesus), understanding the historical fulfillment of this prophecy back in the days of Zerubbabel, applied Amos 9:11, 12 to the Church. This means that James applied the developing Church body as the reconstruction of the Davidic temple after the days of the Jewish captivity and the days of Zerubbabel. The dispensation that Scofield interjected into the phrase “after this” disregards the historical context of Amos 9:11 and disregards the fact that James applied the Church as the Davidic Temple—after the historic issues involved in those texts. Dispensationalists say that the prophets had no knowledge of a future Church era; but yet, they try to apply Acts 15:16—a quote from Amos—as a church dispensation. If they apply Acts 15:16 as proof for a Church dispensation prior to the rebuilding of the Davidic temple; then, they are teaching that Amos had foreseen the Church era. Yes, the prophecy of Amos did foresee the Church, but the system of dispensationalism denies such an outlook; therefore, their application of Acts 15:16 is in violation to their own system. This means they are inconsistent, not only with history, but they are inconsistent with themselves. Amos 9:11,12 had a historic, literal fulfillment and now has met its secondary fulfillment in the Church. Ladd explains this excellently:

James cites the prophecy of Amos 9:11 – 12 to prove that Peter’s experience with Cornelius was a fulfillment of God’s purpose to visit the Gentiles and take out of them a people for his name. It therefore follows that the “rebuilding of the dwelling of David” which had resulted in the Gentile mission, must refer to the exaltation and enthronement of Christ upon the (heavenly) throne of David and the establishment of the church as the true people of God, the new Israel (A Theology of the New Testament, 355).

One must raise the question: How did the Church become the earthly and spiritual manifestation of the Davidic temple in heaven? The Mosaic sanctuary was not only a pattern of the heavenly sanctuary but was also a pattern of Christ Himself, and we as Christians—through the humanity of Christ—are His body temple. We are the sanctuary on earth.

By D. S. Farris

31


Exodus 40: 9 - 16

Exodus 40: 35, 36 John 1: 14 John 2: 19 - 21

1 Corinthians 12: 13, 27

Ephesians 1: 22, 23

Old Testament Sanctuary

God's presence manifested

God Tabernacled With

Us In Jesus Christ

Christ's Body Is

The Shrine

The Church Is Christ's Body

The Church Is The Shrine

Ephesians 2: 21, 22

1 Peter 2: 5

1 Corinthians 3: 9 - 17

Acts 15: 14 - 17 2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 4

The Church Is The Temple Of God

The Church Is The Davidic

Temple

The Antichrist Has And Will Manifest

Himself In The Church

The Mosaic sanctuary was a type of Jesus Christ. Exodus 25 explains that the Mosaic sanctuary was made from earthly elements. The materials that were used to construct the sanctuary were not holy in and of themselves. Genesis 2:7 says, “God formed man out of the dust of the ground.” The Hebrew word for ground is “Adamah.” God created the first man out of the “Adamah” and named him, “Adam.” This name not only tells us that Adam’s name is a title depicting “earthliness” but that there was a definite connection between Adam and the world. When Adam fell in the Garden of Eden, the effect of sin was not only implicated on him and the rest of mankind, but the effect extended to the earth. When Adam fell, the whole world fell. This is clearly seen in Genesis 3:17 where it states, “Cursed is the ground [Heb. Adamah, “ground” (tilled yielding substance) “earth substance” (for building or construction)] for thy sake.”

In Exodus 25, we see that the sanctuary was constructed out of materials from the “Adamah.” The materials in and of themselves were not Holy, for they were from a fallen world. In Exodus 40:9 – 16, we see that Moses was commanded to anoint, with oil, the sanctuary and its vessels. Exodus 40:9 says, “And thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint (Heb. Mashach, “spread something” or “smear” also “consecrate”) the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy (Heb. Qodesh, “apartness, separateness, and sacredness”).” In Daniel 9:25 we find the word “Messiah.” Messiah in Hebrew is “Mashiach.” Mashiach means, “anointed one” and is derived from “Mashach.” In essence, the sanctuary was not holy (consecrated and separated from other materials) until it was anointed or made a type of the Messiah who was to come. After the sanctuary was “set apart” as a type of the Messiah, the result was the Glory of God filling the sanctuary in Exodus 40:33 – 35. Exodus 40:34 says, “Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory (Heb. Kabod, “splendor and honor”) of the Lord (Heb. YHVH or Yehovah. “Jehovah,” “The existing One.”) filled the tabernacle.” The splendor and honor of Jehovah filled the sanctuary, a type of Christ.

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sanctuary. We learn this in John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt (Gr. Skenoo, “abide in a tabernacle”) among us, and we beheld his glory (Gr. Doxa, “magnificence, splendor and

Copyright 8/27/03

32


brightness”), the glory as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus (Gr. Iesous) is the Greek word for Joshua, which is “Yehoshua” in the Hebrew. This name means “Jehovah is Salvation.” Christ in the Greek is “Christos.” This means “The Anointed One.” Christos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “Mashiach.” In essence Jesus Christ has the meaning “Jehovah Messiah.” Notice the correlation diagram:

The Old Testament sanctuary was constructed

out of material from "Adamah"

The flesh of Jesus was from "Adam"

The sanctuary was anointed (Mashiach) as a

type of the Messiah who would come.

Jesus was the Christ ( Christos). He

was and is the anointed one.

The glory of Jehovah was manifested in the "Jehovah our Salvation" tabernacled

among mankind in the person of Christ.

Old Testament Sanctuary Jesus Christ

sanctuary.

John 2:19 – 21 expatiates further on the definition of “who and what” constitutes God’s temple. Jesus explains that His body (Gr. Soma, “the physical aspect of Himself” also “the Church”) is the temple (Gr. Naos, “The holy and Most Holy of the shrine”) Ephesians 1:22, 23 and 1 Corinthians 12:13, 27 prove that the Church is the body of Christ. Here is a simple example that defines the clarity of the issue:

(1) The Body of Christ is the temple.(2) The Church is the Body of Christ.(3) The Church is the temple.

Ephesians 2:21 says that the Church is a building (Gr. Oikodome, “a building as in an edifice” and “to build up as in edification”) that is fitly framed together (Gr. Sunarmologeo, “to join together” or “to frame together as in parts of a building”) which grows into a holy temple (Gr. Naos) of the Lord. Let us raise the question: What frames together the spiritual edifice and shrine—the Church? 1 Peter 2:5 says that we “as lively stones make up the spiritual house.” The Church is the spiritual edifice or shrine made up of the lively stones (we as individual Christians), while Jesus Himself is the Chief Corner Stone. 1 Corinthians 3:9 says that the Church is God’s building (Gr. Oikodome ). As we read down through verses’ 10 – 15, the truth is put into perspective: on earth, no physical building can actually constitute God’s temple. Verses’ 16 and 17 unequivocally declare that we individually (the lively stones) constitute the temple (Gr. Naos). To teach that God’s temple will inevitably be some physical building in Jerusalem is in direct contradiction to the New Testament. Acts 7:48 – 50 emphasizes, “The Most High does not dwell in temples (Gr. Naos) made with hands.” Walvoord asserts that the temple of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is to be a literal building in Palestine where the Antichrist will pretend to be God (See Major Bible Prophecies, 260). We can read the same description in Scofield’s writings (See Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Rev. 7, 1337). Their interpretation is not in harmony with the New Testament description of the temple. The temple (Gr. Naos) in 2 Thessalonians is the same temple (Gr. Naos) in all the texts

By D. S. Farris

33


applied to the Church. These scriptures along with the clarity of Acts 15:14 – 17 prove that the Davidic sanctuary, as applied to earth, must be the Church.

It is obvious that proposition 6 in Daniel 9:24 refers to Christ who built the Davidic sanctuary in literal form in heaven and built the spiritual manifestation of the Davidic sanctuary on earth as His Church. These sanctuaries, the heavenly and the spiritual, are intimately connected. The Church is intimately connected with Heaven, for Jesus is the high priest over His spiritual temple. We as Christians are represented in the literal Davidic temple in heaven in the person of Christ. The person of Christ binds heaven and earth together. This binding together of heaven and earth is the kingdom that Jesus brought at His first Advent. Access into this kingdom requires faith in the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as the means of our Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification.

The Church is “One” with the literal Davidic sanctuary. This is a reality seen in texts such as Colossians 1:13: “We have been delivered from the powers of darkness, and translated (Gr. Methistemi, “to transpose” and “remove and transfer from one place into another”) into (Gr. Eis, literally “into” as “going towards something but going into it”) the kingdom of his dear Son.” Hebrews 12:22 – 24 explains: When we come to Mt. Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, we are coming to the general assembly and Church of the firstborn.

Note: The following chart, in a nutshell, portrays the big picture of the literal Davidic sanctuary and the connection it has with the spiritual manifestation of the Davidic sanctuary as seen in the Church:

Propositions 5 and 6 In Daniel 9: 24: Diagram Of The Two-Fold Temple(Fulfilled in the 70th week)

Move to Next Page:

Copyright 8/27/03

34


27

31

34

Ephesus Smyrna Pergamos Thyatira Sardis Philadelphia Laodicea

538100 313

1st seal 2nd seal 3rd seal 4th seal 5th seal 6th seal

( Rev. 2 and 3 )

( Rev. 5 and 6 )

( Rev. 8 and 9 ) ( Rev. 11:19; 15:5 - 8 )

( James 1:25; 2:8 - 12 )

( Rev. 6:9; 11:1, 2 )

( Baptism )

( Heb. 8:2 ) ( THE LITERAL DAVIDIC SANCTUARY )

( Heb. 6:18 - 20 )

( THE SPIRITUAL DAVIDIC SANCTUARY )

THE CHURCH IS INTIMATELY CONNECTED TO THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM

Hebrews 12:22 - 24

HEAVENLY JERUSALEM

SON OF THE FREE WOMAN

17501500

(Galatians 4:22 - 31)

1844

[This diagram is conducive to the Historical approach on prophetic interpretation. When one understands the historical application of the 7 churches, 7 Seals, and 7 trumpets, this picture demonstrates a panoramic view of Church history in the format of the Sanctuary.]

By D. S. Farris

35


The preceding chart is a picture that depicts the fulfillment of proposition 6 in Daniel 9:24. In the 70th week Jesus anointed a Most Holy place, the Davidic sanctuary in heaven and the spiritual manifestation of that sanctuary as manifested in the Church. Proposition 5, “to seal (Heb. Catham, “affix” or “fasten up”) up the vision and prophecy,” tells us that the vision of the 2,300 years was to begin commencement with the 70 weeks, and that the 490 years were “cut off” of the

2,300 in order for the Messiah Prince to establish the worldwide sanctuary. At the cross Jesus Christ, our High Priest, “established everlasting righteousness” both imputed and imparted for all those who will enter the sanctuary through faith.

Compare Galatians 4:22 – 31 and Hebrews 12:22 – 24: When we come to the heavenly Jerusalem, we are coming to the “general assembly and Church of the first born.” This means that there is an intimate connection between the Church and the heavenly Jerusalem. The Church is the spiritual manifestation of the literal Davidic sanctuary in heaven, for the Church is intimately connected to the heavenly Jerusalem through the priestly ministry of Christ.

Galatians 4:21 – 31 thoroughly contrasts the Church and Christ’s Headship in the heavenly Jerusalem from literal, national Israel and the physical Jerusalem. These scriptures declare that the former is not heir with the latter. National Israel is not heir with the Church, because God’s purpose was that: His kingdom, in both the present and the future, is to embrace all those who have the faith of Abraham (Gal. 3:28, 29)—faith in the Everlasting Covenant of God. In light of this information, we must consider a profound statement made by LaRondelle:

The problem with dispensational literalism is not its stance on concrete historical and visible fulfillments of Israel’s prophecy, but that its literalism comes far short of the surpassing eminence and glorious transformation of the future fulfillment of prophecy in human history (The Israel Of God In Prophecy, 53).

We completely agree with LaRondelle. Dispensationalists fall far short of ascertaining the glorious transformation of national Israel, with its ethnic and geographical boundaries—imposed, not by God, but by the Jews—into a worldwide community of saints who find their focal point in the Jerusalem temple in heaven…where Jesus is both king and priest. The reason that the Abrahamic promises—magnified in the Davidic covenant—have clearly been identified in the Church, is because the Church is the Israel of God encompassing the whole human race. The Church is the spiritual manifestation of the heavenly sanctuary—the Davidic Temple. The Church, as the Israel of God, has access to the Throne of Grace as heirs of the Everlasting Covenant, because—through faith—the Church saints are joint heirs with Christ, the One in whom the Covenant has its preeminence.

What we see today, as the antitype of Israel in the Church, is actually what God was willing to accomplish with the nation of Israel. God wanted the nation of Israel to accept the spiritual kingdom offered by Christ, and He wanted Israel to bring forth a great

Copyright 8/27/03

36


harvest of Gentiles into the faith; thus, the nation of Israel would have been the spiritual heir of the spiritual kingdom as seen in the priestly ministry of Christ in the sanctuary. Essentially, Christ wanted the nation of Israel to be like the Apostolic Church. They rejected this calling (Luke 19:44). Therefore, this calling has now been realized in a group of people separate from the nation of Israel, the Church. The nation of Israel was unwilling to do what the apostles did on and after Pentecost because of their predilection for believing that God was a God of predetermined genetic favoritism.

The Little Horn

In reading Daniel 8 and 9 together, it is clear that the 2,300 years did not begin commencement until 457 B.C.; therefore, the sanctuary in question that was apposed by the little horn must have existed between A.D. 31 and 1844. Walvoord disagrees:

It should be noted first that this “little horn” comes out of the Grecian Empire and not the Roman Empire. Therefore, it should not be confused with Daniel 7:8, referring to a “little horn” in the Roman Empire. In comparing the history of the period to what the scriptures reveal, one clearly concludes that it refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, the ruler of Syria from 175 to 164 B.C. (Major Bible Prophecies, 154).

Note: One who studies the scriptures can automatically detect three fundamental errors in Walvoord’s statement:

(1) Though there was a reference to Alexander the Great as being the horn in the goat’s head, ultimately, “Horns” do not represent individual men except in such instances as Daniel 8:21 where it is given to interpret that way. Compare Daniel 7:17 with verse 24. In this comparison, the terms’ “kings” and “kingdoms” point to a relationship between a kingdom that has a seat of authority over it. The alternation of these two terms in prophecy tells us that “beasts” and “horns” represent kingdoms, which have a king over them. In Daniel 8:22, when the first horn was broken off of the goat, four more horns—said to be four kingdoms—grew out of the nation. Dispensationalists want us to believe that the little horn who grew out of one of the four kingdoms was “one man.” It would be more logical to conclude that the little horn was another kingdom (which has a king) that arose out of one of the four kingdoms of Greece. It is amazing that dispensational theology does not interpret the little horn as someone who came out of one of four men in light of their methodology of interpretation.

(2) This interpretation contradicts the two principles: “parallelism” and “repetition and enlargement.” Daniel 2, 7, and 8 are parallel prophecies covering the same kingdoms. The difference is: Daniel 7 covers more ground on the kingdom of Rome than chapter 2. Daniel 7 brings out the little horn power and the issues surrounding him. Daniel 8 starts with the kingdom of Persia and goes into more detail on the little horn power—bringing out more of his attributes—more than in the seventh chapter—with additional issues surrounding his reign. These prophecies repeat and enlarge on themselves. This principle is carried over into the book of Revelation. Dispensationalism, as a system, has forsaken these

By D. S. Farris

37


fundamental principles rediscovered in the Protestant Reformation for theories that belong more rightly to Jesuitical, pseudepigraphal methods (see Chap. 8).

(3) The fact is, the little horn power in Daniel 8 did not come exclusively out of one of the four kingdoms of Greece; he also came out of the four winds.

The Little Horn Is Not Antiochus Epiphanes(5 Good Reasons)

(1) Daniel 8:14: Dispensationalist make the 2,300 days a literal period; meaning, the 2,300 days is a period of almost 6 and a half literal years. Does Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration of the Jewish temple match this time frame? Walvoord says, “The period of 2,300 mornings and evenings should be considered as 2,300 days of twenty-four hours each . . .This was the period during which the temple was desecrated from 171 to 165 B.C..”(Major Bible Prophecies, 154). Walvoord also applied the Apocryphal books of the Maccabees to his interpretation. He states, “Secular history, especially in 1 and 2 Maccabees, reveals that Antiochus was a determined foe of the Jewish religion and did what he could to stamp it out” (Major Bible Prophecies, 154). This is hilarious! Walvoord obviously did not read Maccabees. 1 Maccabees 1:54 – 59 and 4:52 – 54 demonstrate the length of time Antiochus desecrated the Jerusalem temple. Chapter 1:54 says, “On the fifteenth day of the month Chislev, in the year one hundred and forty five, the king erected the horrible abomination upon the alter of holocausts, and in the surrounding cities of Judah they built pagan altars.” Chapter 4:52 tells us when these desecrations ended: “Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, that is, the month of Chislev, in the year one hundred and forty-eight.”

Note: The 15th day in the month Chislev in the 145th year up to the 25th day in the month Chislev in the 148th year = 3 years and 10 days. Antiochus Epiphanes ruled from 175 B.C. to 164 B.C. and desecrated the Jewish temple down at the end of his reign for 3 years and 10 days. No matter how hard dispensationalists try, they can never squeeze 6.5 years into 3 years and 10 days.

(2) Daniel 8:23: The little horn was to come at the latter end of the Grecian Empire. After Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C., his four generals (Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Cassander) divided up the Grecian Empire four ways. This division took place in 301 B.C. after the battle of Ipsus. When Seleucus defeated Lysimachus in 281, there were only three Hellenistic kingdoms left. After 200 B.C., Rome gradually took control of the Hellenistic kingdoms. In 168 B.C. the Macedonian monarchy came to an end, but Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings stayed in power longer. The Seleucid dynasty existed up to 65 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes ruled the Seleucid power from 175 – 164 B.C.. Did Antiochus come at the end of the Seleucid dynasty? No!

(3) Daniel 8:24, 25: In the context of the parallel prophecies seen in Daniel 2 and 7, we find that the powers of all the beasts from Babylon up to Rome were indeed “Mighty.” Every succeeding kingdom got stronger and crueler than the ones before. From Daniel’s point of view, the little horn of Daniel 7 was to be even worse than the fourth beast. Daniel 8 recapitulates on the little horn and brings out more of his attributes. The horn

Copyright 8/27/03

38


who was to bring “dark sentences,” “destroy wonderfully,” “prosper,” “destroy God’s people,” “stand up against the Prince of princes (Jesus),” is the culmination of the parallel prophecies into a peak insight of the destructive power which can and will only be destroyed by God Himself; hence, “He shall be broken without hand (human hand).” To apply a prophecy of such magnitude to a man who never resembled such magnitude is an unscrupulous application.

(4) Daniel 8:13: What the little horn accomplishes within the 2,300-day period is the transgression of desolation. This is what Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24:15. Jesus said the “abomination of desolation” was future from his day. This little horn power cannot be Antiochus Epiphanes, for Jesus placed this event future from his day. On top of this, Daniel 8:17 says, “at the time of the end shall be the vision.”

(5) Daniel 8:27: The dispensationalist Ryrie declares: “Dispensationalism is a result of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this” (Dispensationalism Today, 96). This statement in comparison with the dispensational interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9 proves the inconsistency of dispensationalism. The plain, literal, and normal interpretation of the 2,300 days is that Daniel did not understand the vision until Daniel 9:21 – 24. The vision of the 2,300, by the plain and literal interpretation, is that it did not begin commencement until the 490 years. It is absolutely impossible to “cut off” or “divide” 490 years from 2,300 literal days. Therefore, the 2,300 days are years. The statement, “Consistent literalism is at the heart of dispensational eschatology” is very inconsistent (Dispensationalism Today, 158). Furthermore, Antiochus Epiphanes does not fit in a 2,300-year period.

The Little Horn Is Rome

Here are two arguments that are often used: one in favor of Rome being the little horn, the other Antiochus Epiphanes.

(1) Daniel 8:8, 9: Horns (Heb. Qeren) is feminine. Winds (Heb. Ruach) is either masculine or feminine. Them (Heb. Hem) is masculine in the third person. Note: When the great horn was broken off of the goat, out of its place arose four horns (feminine) towards the four winds (either masculine or feminine) of heaven. Out of one of them (masculine) came forth a little horn. It appears that the little horn did not come out of one of the four horns of Greece. The little horn came out of one of the four winds of heaven, so the little horn must be Rome.

(2) The above correlations of the Hebrew are correct, but let us not leave out the Hebrew for the word “one.” One (Heb. Echad) is a feminine adjective singular absolute. Out of one (feminine) of them came forth a little horn. The little horn came from one of the four horns, so the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes.

In light of what has been analyzed, the little horn cannot be Antiochus, but does the second argument pose a problem for those who teach that the little horn is Rome? No!

By D. S. Farris

39


Four horns grew towards winds. And out of one of them came a little horn.the four

Concerning “one” and “them” in relation to “winds,” The SDA commentary says: “It is doubtful that the writer would assign two different genders to the same noun in such close contextual relationship” (Vol. 4, 84). It would be logical to conclude that the little horn came from both the four winds and out of one of Hellenistic kingdoms. It is obvious that Rome could have come out of the four winds, but could Rome have come up from one of the Grecian kingdoms? The way Daniel 8:8, 9 is grammatically set up could infer that Rome came out of the four winds in that Rome has its own origin, but Rome implemented much of the Grecian society into itself. In this respect we can say that Rome has an indirect origin from Greece. In the Growth of Civilization, Vol. 1, we learn:

From the opening of the historic period the development of Roman civilization was profoundly affected by foreign influences, in particular by Etruscan and Greek. But whereas the influence of the Etruscans virtually ceased with the expulsion of their kings from Rome, that of the Greeks continued with increasing strength throughout the whole of the period of the republic . . . .It was inevitable that older and more advanced Hellenic civilization should leave and indelible imprint upon the younger and less highly developed culture of Rome. And, in fact, there is hardly a single important aspect of Roman civilization that does not reveal unmistakable traces of imitating or borrowing ideas that originated among the Greeks. With obvious truth the Roman poet Horace could say: “Captive Greece has captured her rude conqueror” (A. E. R. Boak, Albert Hyma, and Preston Slosson, The Growth of European Civilization, Vol. 1, 84).

Contact with the Greeks led to the introduction of Greek divinities and, of much greater importance, to the identification of the native Italian gods with those of the Greek pantheon, with the result that Greek mythology and forms of artistic representation were taken over wholesale by the Romans (The Growth of European Civilization, Vol. 1, 93).

The two arguments that are normally used in defense for or against Antiochus both have their omissions. This need not be the case. Rome came out of its own settings (the four winds) and borrowed much of its civilization from the Greeks (the four horns). Antiochus is not a good option in light of all the facts here presented. The career of Rome both Pagan and Papal matches the description of the little horn laid out in Daniel 8:23 – 25. (See “System of Antichrist 1, 2)

It is amazing that popular dispensationalism does not see in the little horn of Daniel 8 a continual process of elaboration from the little horn in Daniel 7. Scofield himself alluded to the possibility of the correlation between Daniel 7 and 8 where he explains:

The passage (vs. 10 – 14) is confessedly the most difficult in prophecy, a difficulty increased by the present state of the text. Historically this was fulfilled in and by Antiochus Epiphanes, but in a more intense and final sense Antiochus

Copyright 8/27/03

40


but adumbrates the awful blasphemy of the ‘little horn’ of Dan. 7:8, 24, 25; 9:27; 11:36 – 45; 12:11. In Daniel 8:10 – 14 the actions of both ‘little horns’ blend (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Dan. 8, 912).

Scofield said that Antiochus’ career in Daniel 8:10 – 14 is an adumbration (Foreshadow in a vague way) of the Antichrist power of other chapters. His biblical correlations, except for Daniel 9:27, match well with chapter 8. If he could have completely recognized the Roman power in this prophecy, he would have been, at least, partly on track to a correct interpretation. On the other hand, the dispensationalist Clarence Larkin had clearer vision as to the meaning of the little horn:

Quite a few Bible scholars claim this “LITTLE HORN” is not the same as the “LITTLE HORN” that arose amid the “Ten Horns” of the “Fourth Wild Beast,” but that it represents Antiochus Epiphanes, . . . But the description of this “LITTLE HORN” and his conduct does not accord with that of Antiochus Epiphanes, but does with the “LITTLE HORN” of the “Fourth Wild Beast.” Antiochus Epiphanes never cast down any of the “Host of Heaven,” or magnified himself against the “Prince of the Host.” Neither did he stand up against the “Prince of Princes” (Christ), nor was he “broken without hand,” for he died a natural death at Tabae in B.C. 165. The Angel Gabriel distinctly states that the Vision belongs not to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, but to the “TIME OF THE END.” [Concerning the little horns of both Dan. 7 and 8, Larkin says,] “they both refer to the same person-THE ANTICHRIST” (The Book Of Daniel, 140, 141).

The Daily

It should be noted with clarity that the word “sacrifice” is an edition in Daniel 8:11 – 13. This is true also with Daniel 11:31; 12:11. Sacrifice is not in the original, so let us not place it into the texts. Throughout the Old Testament, the word daily (Heb. Tamid, “Continuity” or “Continual”) is used as a precedent or a modifier of other words. For example: Exodus 29:42 says, “continual burnt offering” (Tamid Olah ). Exodus 27:20 says, “to burn always” (Alah Tamid ). We find this to be the case throughout the Old Testament, but in Daniel, this is not the case. In every instance in Daniel, daily (Tamid) is not modifying or being modified. “Daily,” in Daniel 8:11 – 13, 11:31 and 12:11 is preceded by the particle article “Ha.” “Ha Tamid” (The Daily) is used in every instance; thus, “daily” is an outstanding word in Daniel, not a modifier.

This is intriguing, because—theologically within the context of the book—whatever the “daily” represents in Daniel 8:11 – 13, it is the same in chapters’ 11:31 and 12:11. This means that the issues in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 belong to chapter 8:11 – 13. This is further proof that the Antiochus Epiphanes interpretation does not work. Now we are going to look at verses’ 10 – 14 and see how they relate with Rome, both Pagan and Christian.

Verse 10. And it (Rome) waxed great to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars (Verse 24: host and stars, “the mighty and holy people”) to the ground, and stamped upon them.

By D. S. Farris

41


Verse 11. He (Rome) magnified himself even to the Prince of the Host (Verse 25 the Prince of princes, “Jesus Christ”); and by him (Heb. Mimmennu, “from him”) (from Jesus) the daily (Heb. 7:24, 25) was taken away, and the place of his (Jesus) sanctuary (Heb. Miqdash, “holy or sacred place”) was cast down.

Verse 12. And an host (all of the might that was used to crush out Christianity) was given against the daily (continual intercessory work of Christ) by reason of transgression, and it (Rome or the transgression) cast down truth to the ground; and it practiced, and it prospered.

Verse 13. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary (Heb. Qodesh) and the host to be trodden under foot?

Verse 14. And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary (Heb. Qodesh) be cleansed (Heb. Tsadaq, “to be put or made right”)

Verse 10. The Holy people were cast down

Verse 11. The sanctuary (Miqdash) in connection

with the daily was cast down .

.

Verse 12. Transgression cast truth to the ground.

Verse 13. The vision of the daily consists of:

Transgression of Desolation

Sanctuary (Qodesh) trodden under foot

Host ( Holy people) trodden under foot.

Verse 14. The sanctuary (Qodesh) will be brought

back to its proper state after 2,300 days.

Dan. 11: 31

12: 11

Abomination of Desolation

Verses’ 10 – 12 clarify that the holy people, the sanctuary, and the truth are connected with the daily; and this four-fold picture belongs to the Prince—Jesus as high priest. The little horn being Pagan and Papal Rome took away the daily by casting the holy people, the sanctuary, and truth to the ground. This took place between the 70th

week of Daniel 9 and 1844. It is not hard to ascertain the clarity of this issue. In the 70th

week, Jesus sealed the vision of the 2,300 days (prop. 5), and he anointed a Most Holy place (prop. 6). We have analyzed the fact that the literal Davidic sanctuary is the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:2), and the spiritual manifestation of that sanctuary is the Church. It is completely factual that these two sanctuaries, being one in Christ, have existed since the 70th week. Therefore, logically, the little horn had to exist after the 70 th

week—before 1844. Before going any further, I want to make a few things clear. I am well aware of the argument that teaches that the daily is paganism and the Miqdash refers to the Roman priesthood; and that the daily (Paganism) was taken away through the Barbarian

Copyright 8/27/03

42


invasions upon Rome. Following the fall of Rome, the Papacy took over-constituting the Abomination of Desolation. The problem I see with that interpretation is that—though seemingly sound grammatically within verses’ 11 and 12—it does not coincide with verse 13 which draws upon verses’ 10 – 12; giving the depiction that the daily and the sanctuary are very righteous in connection with the holy people—being once again brought to its proper state after the 2,300 years. It would be pointless for verse 13 to draw upon the sanctuary, the daily, and the holy people as the objects of restoration in verse 14, if the first two apply to Paganism.

Moreover, if the Hebrew for sanctuary (Miqdash) in verse 11 causes one to think that the sanctuary in verse 11 is different than the sanctuary (Qodesh) in verses’ 13 and 14, look at the structure of verses’ 10 – 14 in the diagram. Verse 13 draws upon verses’ 10 – 12 for “what” is in need of restoration in verse 14. If the two words for sanctuary are to be an issue of difference, this prophecy probably points the Miqdash to the spiritual temple (the Church), while the Qodesh is the heavenly sanctuary. It would be logical to conclude that the sanctuary (Qodesh) of verses’ 13 and 14 could be the focal point of restoration on the basis of the sanctuary (Miqdash) in verse 11, because of the fact that the Church is intimately connected with the heavenly sanctuary. Whatever evil comes to the Church affects the heavenly sanctuary because of the relationship between the two. This interpretation becomes clear after reading Revelation 11:1, 2. The temple in verse 1 is the heavenly sanctuary. Relative to the heavenly sanctuary, the courtyard in verse 2 must be the Church. The text states that the Holy City was tread under foot 42 months. This is in perfect correlation with Daniel 8:10 – 14 and elucidates on the two sanctuaries as being one in purpose—unified through Christ. (Compare this with the sanctuary constructs)

Question: Is the little horn both Pagan and Christian Rome? A. C. Flick reveals:

Out of the ruins of political Rome, arose the great moral Empire in the ‘giant form’ of the Roman Church (The Rise of the Mediavel Church, 150).

Harnack says:The Roman Church in this way privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman World-Empire, of which it is the actual continuation; the empire has not perished, but has only undergone a transformation (What is Christianity? 269, 270).

Answer: Yes, Rome Christian is the continuation of Pagan Rome. The little horn in Daniel 8 represents Rome in both of her states; but primarily, Rome Christian.

Question: Did Rome stamp upon the holy people? W. E. H. Lecky emphasizes:

That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history. The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are so scanty that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings (History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, Vol. 2, 32).

By D. S. Farris

43


Answer: Yes.

Question: Did Rome set up the “Abomination of Desolation” in the Christian Church on earth; thus, obscuring the relationship between the spiritual sanctuary on earth and the literal Davidic temple where Jesus is high priest over the Church?

Pagan Rome borrowed much of its religion and priesthood from Babylon. We learn:

“The solar theology of the ‘Chaldaeans’ had a decisive effect” upon the “final form reached by the religion of the pagan Semites, and, following them, by that of the Romans when Aurelian, the conqueror of Palmyra, had raised Solinvictus [the invincible Sun] to the rank of supreme divinity in the Empire” (The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 11: 643, 646, 647).

[Papal Rome borrowed much of its religion and priesthood from Rome.]

In order to recommend the new religion (Christianity) to the heathen; the use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holidays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings of the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a latter date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Elesison (were introduced) (J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 373).

Answer: Yes, the Roman Catholic Church created a priest hood that combined the tenets of Paganism with the sacraments of the New Testament. (This is what ancient Babylon did right before she was conquered by Medo-Persia. See Daniel 5.)

The Melchizedek priesthood is the central point of the vision of Daniel 8. The daily (tamid) of Jesus Christ is the middle point between the heavenly and the earthly sanctuary. The daily (tamid) of Jesus is his intercessory work on behalf of all those who accept Him as Savior and Lord (Heb. 7:24 – 26). The sanctuary here on earth (the Church) is intimately connected with the sanctuary in heaven. Therefore, when the Papacy substituted its pagan priesthood into Christendom, this was the “Abomination of Desolation.” For this abomination—forced on Christianity—obscured the relationship between heaven and earth. This is exactly why Revelation 13:6 states that the beast “opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.” This text shows that the tabernacle, being blasphemed, is in heaven. The priesthood of the Papacy attempted to replace the Melchizedek priesthood. Here are some examples:

The Pope claims to be head over the Church.

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise

Copyright 8/27/03

44


unhindered” (Catechism Of The Catholic Church: A sure norm for teaching the faith, 254, Par. 882)

What does the Papacy say about its priesthood?

Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the “one mediator between God and men.” The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself.

Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ (Catechism Of The Catholic Church: A sure norm for teaching the faith, 429, 430, Par. 1544; 431, Par. 1548)

These statements mean that the priesthood of Catholicism is made to be the Melchizedek priesthood, and the Pope himself acts in the place of Christ as priest after the order of Melchizedek. These assertions of the Papacy are impossible, for Hebrews 7:24 says that the Melchizedek priesthood is “unchangeable.” The Greek for this word is: “aparabatos,” meaning, “unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor.”

The Church of Rome has eclipsed the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ for centuries, especially, during the dark ages. Let us raise the question: Beside the fact that the Pope claims to be in the very position of Christ, which is blasphemy, what is the extent in to which they take their blasphemy in their priesthood?

The Papacy claims that they literally and actually crucify Christ every time they offer the Eucharist:

The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together, with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained (Catechism Of The Catholic Church: A sure norm for teaching the faith, 383, Par. 1374).

The concept of transubstantiation leads Catholicism to worship the Eucharist as though the fullness of God is present in it. They not only believe they are crucifying Christ’s body every time they offer the Eucharist, they believe they are crucifying the Deity of the Godhead with the body. This is unthinkable! Notice the following poem:

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adoreMasked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart

By D. S. Farris

45


Lost, all lost in wander at the God thou art (Catechism Of The Catholic Church: A sure norm for teaching the faith, 386, Par. 1381).

The Church and the world have a great need for the Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love (Catechism Of The Catholic Church: A sure norm for teaching the faith, 386, Par. 1380).

How is it that the Mass of Catholicism stamped upon the daily (tamid) of Christ in the period between the 70th week of Daniel 9 and 1844? Concerning the Eucharist, the Papacy says:

The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering (Catechism Of The Catholic Church: A sure norm for teaching the faith, 371, Par. 1333).

The Papacy borrowed much of its priesthood from Rome. Both of these governments killed Christians, because they both required homage that true Christians could not give, but to Christ alone. The Babylonian priesthood was bequeathed to Pagan Rome and Pagan Rome bequeathed its priesthood to Papal Rome. This priesthood was and is the abomination that brought desolation into the temple of God on earth (the church). This in turn obscured the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. The cleansing of the sanctuary; therefore, was the promise that in 1844: the relationship between the two sanctuaries would be set in their proper state.

Note: The following depiction of the Papacy’s interference between the two sanctuaries.

Move To Next Page:

Copyright 8/27/03

46


27

31

34

Ephesus Smyrna Pergamos Thyatira Sardis Philadelphia Laodicea

1844

2,300 years until sanctuary is cleansed ( Dan. 8:14 )

Little Horn

Three Horns

538

1, 260 years

1798

Papacy Rules

100 313

1st seal 2nd seal 3rd seal 4th seal 5th seal 6th seal

( Rev. 2 and 3 )

( Rev. 5 and 6 )

( Rev. 8 and 9 ) ( Rev. 11:19; 15:5 - 8 )

( James 1:25; 2:8 - 12 )

( Rev. 6:9; 11:1, 2 )

( Baptism )

( Heb. 8:2 ) ( THE LITERAL DAVIDIC SANCTUARY )

( Heb. 6:18 - 20 )

( THE SPIRITUAL DAVIDIC SANCTUARY )

plucked up

7 Horns left

17501500

As we are going to see in following chapters, the little horn of Daniel 7 points to the Roman Catholic Church. The little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 point to the same power, the Roman Catholic Church. When one understands that the Church is the Israel of God; that the Davidic covenant is being fulfilled in the Church; and that the Davidic sanctuary is both the temple in heaven (Heb. 8:1, 2; Rev. 11:19; 15:1 – 8) and the Church—connected together through Christ—then one can see that Rome set up the abomination of desolation in the midst of the Sanctuary.

By D. S. Farris

47


Conclusions

In concluding this chapter, we must say that dispensationalism falls far short from a true understanding of the Davidic covenant. Jesus never came to the Jewish nation to offer a fleshly, theocratic kingdom. Jesus brought the heavenly kingdom in his own person so that men would receive the Holy Spirit in their persons. Christ brought men a kingdom, which was spiritual in nature. Christ brought a kingdom that was to lead men to repentance. The hope of Israel was the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary. The Davidic covenant has been realized in the priestly ministry of Christ.

The Davidic temple itself is “the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man.” The spiritual manifestation of that sanctuary is the Church. Both the literal sanctuary in heaven and the spiritual sanctuary on earth have their organic fusion through the priestly ministry of Christ. Through the intercessory work of Christ, Christians find entrance to the Father. This is why Colossians says that we have been translated into the kingdom of Christ. Christians are partaking of the kingdom of God and heaven IN CHRIST through the Holy Spirit. The priestly ministry of Christ is the “sure mercies of David,” for when we come to the “throne of Grace—David’s throne” (Heb. 4:14 – 16; Rev. 22:16); we find the ministry of Christ which is, not only the forgiveness of sins, but also the sure path to regeneration in newness life, the essence of the Christian experience. Our Justification and Sanctification through the working of Christ’s mighty power, in his priestly kingship, will prepare us for Glorification; then, we will experience the physical kingdom of God.

The kingdom is neither exclusively present nor exclusively future; the kingdom is both present and future. Neither is the kingdom—whether present or future—applicable to a group of people based on some supposed genetic favoritism. People of all nationalities will come and visit the great patriarchs and share in the kingdom blessings with faithful Israelites of the past.

This chapter along with the preceding chapters serves as an example that, what is considered popular theology and orthodox, is nothing more than convoluted inductions into a masterpiece of delusion. We have analyzed the mythical inductions of dispensationalism, such as: (1) There are two phases to Christ’s second coming; (2) The Day of the Lord is different from the Day of Christ; (3) There are two first resurrections; (3) There are two seeds of promise; (4) There are two New Covenants; (5) there are two gospels; (6) There are two distinct thrones; (7) there are two kingdoms; and ect. We can go on and on! Many consider it to be heresy to speak against this system. But many come to that conclusion on a predilection for thinking their theology to be the “corner stone” of truth bequeathed to us from the most rudimentary levels of the apostolic faith of 2,000 years ago. That is an un-factual assumption. The apostles have not given Christianity such a grotesque monstrosity of oxymorons. As we are going to see in following chapters, this whole system was bequeathed to Scofield from three sources: (1) dispensationalism, a new system invented in the 1800’s to Justify Zionism, an occult Jewish society which continued, not through a race of Jews, but through secret societies. (2) Futurism, a Jesuit constructed prophetic system designed to overthrow Protestantism (3) Pseudepigraphal prophecies, the basis of futurism.

Copyright 8/27/03

48


In following chapters, we unfold some of the most amazing truths about the deception which has been prepared by the devil to deceive the very elect. In the chapter “The Two-Horned Beast: Part’s 1 and 2,” we prove that modern dispensationalism is totally the creation of the secret societies to deceive evangelicals to support the New World Order conspiracy through a false Zionist hope. We prove that the whole Zionist conspiracy—to place the Jews in Palestine—was purposely fabricated by Jesuit Illuminism. In fact, the Jesuits not only developed a Psuedepigraphal Futurist system to destroy Protestantism, they also have had the power within governments to fabricate their projected delusions. When the Bible says that Israel’s second gathering had an historic and Christological fulfillment, and does not have a literal, physical fulfillment in our century, we should take this to heart as Christians. But regardless of what the scriptures say about this matter, evangelicals are following signs and wonders purposely created to deceive them into working with Rome. In following chapters we are going to see history and prophecy demonstrated in a way that proves—in more clarity—why the dispensational pillars have failed in these first four chapters.

Works Cited

Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1945)

Bible Readings For The Home: A Studyof Vital Scripture Topics in Question-and-AnswerForm. Contributed by a Large Number of Bible Scholars (Published Jointly by Review And Herald Publishing Association: Washington, DC; Hagerstown, MD; and Pacific Press Publishing Association: Boise, ID; Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, 1963, 1967, 1980)

Boak, A. E. R. Hyma, Albert and Slosson, Preston The Growth of European Civilization, (Copyright, 1938, by F. S. Crofts and Co., Inc), Vol. 1

Edited by S.A. Cook, LITT.D., F.E. Adcock, M.A., M.P. Charlesworth, M.A. Vols. VII – XI. The Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge: At The University Press, 1936), Vol. 11

Catechism Of The Catholic Church: A sure norm for teaching the faith. Pope John Paul the 2nd. (New York: London Toronto Sydney Auckland: Doubleday, 1995)

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology 8 Vols. (Dallas Seminary Press, 1948) Vol. 4 and 5

LaRondelle, Hans K. The Israel Of God In Prophecy: Principles Of Prophetic Interpretation (Berrien Springs Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1983)

Francis D. Nichole, Raymond F. Cottrell, Don F. Neufeld, Julia Neuffer eds. SDA Bible Commentary (Washington D.C. Review And Herald Pub. Assoc., 1959) Vol. 4

Flick, A. C. The Rise of the Mediavel Church (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1909)

By D. S. Farris

49


Harnack, Adolph. What is Christianity? (New York: G. P. Putnam’s sons, 1903)

Ladd, George E. Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids Mich.: 1952)

Ladd, G. E. A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974)

Larkin, Clarence. The Book Of Daniel (2802 N. Park Ave., Philadelphia, Pa: Rev. Clarence Larkin Est. and MOYER & LOTTER, PRINTERS, 1929)

Mauro, Philip. The Gospel Of The Kingdom: with an Examination of Modern Dispensationalism (120 Tremont St. Boston; Hamilton Brothers Pub. 1928)

Manson, T. W. The Servant Messiah (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977),

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things To Come (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1958)

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism Today (Chicago Moody Press, 1965)

Scofield, Cyrus I. The Scofield Reference Bible (New York Oxford University Press, 1909, 1917)

Walvoord, John F. Major Bible Prophecies (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1991)

Walvoord, John F. Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969 )

Sources Cited in Bible Readings

W. E. H. Lecky, History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe (1910 ed.), Vol. 2

J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1920 ed.)

Return to Prophetic Toolchest Main Page Go to next chapter

Copyright 8/27/03

50

http://hearingthetruth.org/chapter5.pdf

http://www.hearingthetruth.org/

http://www.hearingthetruth.org/