Christopher Cone - the New Covenant & the Church

Addressed to The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics at Baptist Bible Seminary, on September 24, 2009, and later published in Journal of Dispensational Theology, December 2009, and currently scheduled to be included in a forthcoming single volume handling the issue of the New Covenant in greater detail.

Excerpt:

Though Paul does not in these passages invoke either a new and separate covenant with the church nor a shared application of the previously revealed one, some argue that he does the latter in Ephesians 2:11-3:6, a passage in which gentiles are described as, among other things, “strangers to the covenants.” (2:12) In 2:12 Paul presents five conditions of unsaved gentiles, and he does not assert that all of these conditions are reversed at the time of salvation. Notice the remedy he diagnoses: those formerly far off have been brought near (2:13), having access through Him in one Spirit to the Father (2:18). Believing gentiles have been made fellow citizens with the saints (believing Jews) (2:19). But fellow citizens of what? Are we now partakers of Jewish covenants? Are we now of the commonwealth of Israel? Have we now become “spiritual” Jews? No on all counts. The mystery is precisely identified in 3:6 that we are fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise (note, not promises). We are brought near to the Jews by virtue of our oneness in the body of Christ, but nowhere in this grand section are we co-partakers or fellow citizens in any aspect outside of that body. This is according to promise. Paul’s first mention of the promise in Ephesians appears in 1:13 referencing the Holy Spirit. We could also consider the seventh aspect of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:3) and compare this with John’s concise description of the promise – eternal life (1 Jn. 2:25). Whether the promise here references the related aspects of the ministry of the spirit, gentile blessings under the Abrahamic covenant, or eternal life, there is no stated or implied connection between the church and the covenants of Israel. Paul says we were once strangers to the covenants of promise and that now we have been brought near (eggus). Near is not inside or upon...keep reading

More Pretrib Problems

As I've noted before, there's that sense of urgency on the part of a certain group to get the word out that pretribulationism is a dangerous unbiblical doctrine which leaves one unprepared for the tribulation. I think I've just about heard most of the excuses offered up against the pretribulational view. Some of the polemics border on the absurd. One example of the latter is the following blurb for a book by John Finkbeiner:

Lifesaver was written to expose the hypocrisy, the abuse of trust and the fatal flaws in modern American Christianity’s most popular and trumpeted position on the end times— the Pre-tribulation rapture (PTR) view.

That offering was tame compared to some of the other lame remarks in Finkbeiner's book. A more genial Chris White has also chimed in on YouTube by churning out several "pretrib debunkers". His videos are engaging and he's done an excellent job in some areas - debunking pretribulationism, not so much. Take his Parousia video:

"The word “parousia” (coming) is only used 24 times in the New Testament; The definition includes and encompasses all the things that Christ will do, starting with the rapture–His visible return, the raising of the dead, the last judgment, and the setting up of the kingdom after Armageddon; The rapture will be the first thing to happen at His coming (“parousia”), but there are not multiple “parousias”;..." (Emphasis mine)

Finkbeiner agrees:

The most common accepted meaning of parousia is “presence” or “a coming to establish an abiding presence.” Is there anything in this definition that supports dual parousias or two comings? Can one “coming to establish an abiding presence” be followed by another “coming” seven years later? What professor, knowledgeable in N.T. Greek, would distort parousia so we have parousias plural?

What's really bizarre is that White and Finkbeiner's rapture system has multiple future comings of Christ. Robert Van Kampen and Charles Cooper detailed four. In fact the system needs at least two if one takes the Great Multitude (Rev 7:9) to be the post-rapture church. One advocate has defended this contradiction by stating that Jesus and the church hover somewhere in the earth's atmosphere until Rev 19. That position would require relocating God's throne, the angels, the elders and the four living creatures and taking a symbolic view of Rev19:11.

Before God's Wrath author H L Nigro proposed an elaborate solution including the following remarks:

First of all, Jesus may have the ability to be in more than one place at once. Second, God and heaven exist outside of time as we know it, so one moment of earthly time can be all the time Jesus needs in heaven to judge a billion or more saints, and have a wonderful wedding celebration. While I hold to the multi-phase view, the single-phase view is no problem either. (Emphasis mine)

There's some level of contradiction operating when someone admits to a multi-phase position, yet denounces the so-called pretrib "two-stage event" by asserting that: "When the return of Christ is mentioned in scripture it is always mentioned as a singular event."

Which "singular event" would that be - the one at Matt 24:30 or the one at Matt 25:31 & Rev 19:11? And what about those in between (which Scripture is silent about)?

Another issue arises from 2 Thess 2:8. Early strategy was to say the Antichrist was "handcuffed" at that point, rather than destroyed. Yet how can he be said to be handcuffed, or lose authority, and still able to muster armies to gather at Armageddon? Someone proposed the solution that he is destroyed at the end-phase of the single Parousia. But an honest assessment of that position would be to say that Antichrist's destruction occurs at Christ's final visit.

As Eric Douma aptly points out:

"There is a logical fallacy in attempting to maintain that Jesus can come bodily in the parousia, and
then somehow be continually present –without being present bodily."

I agree. If Christ comes for the church and returns to heaven, then one cannot legitimately lay claim to a single-phase Second Advent.

Origin of Dispensational Heresies

I just happened to visit a prophecy related site and came across the following remark:

Quote: "Dispensational teachings did not occur overnight. They are a result of the gradual heresies of catholicism, protestantism, calvinism, and arminianism." 

I guess the guy wanted to cover as many bases as possible. What's amazing is that others actually agreed. One of them was a published author on eschatology who writes articles noting the errors of dispensationalism. These guys actually believe this tripe.

Anyhow, I think it's time to rehash Dan Phillips' article: Twenty-five stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism

How should we respond to the Muslim protests?

I have been meaning to link to this article for some time. Many thanks to Facebook friend Joel for bringing this very thoughtful essay to my attention:

Last month I awoke to the news of an Islamic protest march through  the centre of Sydney that was not entirely peaceful. I am Australian, but I live in Africa, where this kind of thing is common and often worse.

Earlier this year, one of my students from Nigeria was unable to attend the first two weeks of term because his town was under siege by Muslim insurgents who were burning churches and the homes of Christians. No doubt the Christians were also doing their own share of insurgency. Nevertheless, it was still shocking for me to see pictures of Muslim protestors marching through Sydney’s Hyde Park in order to uphold the honour of Muhammad. One photograph showed a child holding a banner that read “Behead all those who insult the prophet”! How should Christians respond?....continue reading Marching for Allah: How should we respond to the Muslim protests?

Paul Henebury on Dispensationalism

Lindsay Kennedy recently interviewed "Dr Reluctant" on the topic of Dispensationalism.

The discourse is in two parts and can be accessed HERE.

While you're there, take a look around Telos Ministries. Lots of great material.

Apartheid Israel

Well color me purple!

Looks like Alice Walker has jumped on the Israel bashing band wagon. Why? Who knows? She joins the likes of Stephen Sizer, Naim Ateek and Desmond Tutu who freely use the words apartheid and Israel in the same sentence.

Walker actually takes a longer walk into the Twilight Zone when she embraces the possibility that nuclear Israel could one day turn onto the United States. According to the Weisenthal Centre:

In reacting to the book, Rabbi Marvin Hier, the Center’s Founder and Dean said, “I must say, Alice Walker is the princess of historical revisionism, telling us that she fears that one day, ‘Though all focus appears to be on which Arab nation is likely to strike the United States … I imagine Israel just as capable of doing us nuclear harm … because the United States and Israel, working together have done terrible things to others … and it is the nature of thieves to eventually have a grand falling out.”...keep reading

Personally, I would have been a bit blunter. Walker is more than a revisionist, and so are her friends above.

Is Israel really an Apartheid State? Well, the inconvenient facts do sometimes get in the way. The Jewish Press article Alice Walker’s Mistaken Anti-Israel Position does a great job in putting things into perspective.

Make sure you also watch Dennis Prager's video at the end.

Isaiah 25:8 Trumps Pretrib

A few weeks ago a posttribulationist posed me a number of questions. He recommended some books which "refuted" both dispensationalism and pretribulationism and noted that the older historic premillennialists would find modern pretribulationist arguments laughable. I thought that was a great way to start the conversation so I repaid the compliment by providing him with a number of alternative views. However, he didn't appear interested in following mine up. Instead, he insisted I answer his questions and quit dodging the issues.

I've learned two things about some non-pretribbers; they like asking questions but they get mighty tetchy about having to answer them. He didn't warm to my asking him why he moved the 6th seal to the end of the 70th week and retrofitted Rev 20:4 back to the 7th trumpet. My guess is that he had the same motivation as Bob Gundry when he argued for a postmillennial Sheep & Goat judgment. Why do posties juggle events around? - Because posttribulationism requires it.

But one of his "gotcha" points was a new one to me. He drew a correlation between Isaiah 25:8 and 1 Co 15:54. Both passages refer to death being swallowed up, and he asserted that Paul was citing Isaiah in reference to the rapture. His argument then followed:

When does Isaiah describe this occurring? After the "heavenly signs":

Isaiah 13:10- "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine."

Isaiah 24:23- "Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously."

When does the Lord say the heavenly signs occur? "After the tribulation of those days":

Matthew 24:29- "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"

And when does the "day of the Lord" occur? After the heavenly signs:

Acts 2:20- "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:"

So Paul inextricably links the resurrection/rapture to the post-trib "day of the Lord".

There are several problems associated with distinguishing the day of the Lord from the great tribulation, and I've covered these before. But aside from that, while posttribbers relocate key events in Revelation, chronology is an important consideration to them if it superficially appears to undermine pretribulationism. In other words, if Paul equates the rapture with death being swallowed up in victory in Isa 25:8 after the Isa 24:23 "cosmic signs", then pretrib is refuted.

I pointed out that, while Paul may allude to a term found in Isa 25:8, death really isn't swallowed up until Rev 20:14 & Rev 21:4...long after the posttrib rapture. Note the comparisons:

He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken. Isa 25:8

And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. Rev 21:4

He wouldn't buy it. My friend insisted that Isa 24:23 refers to the Matt 24:29 cosmic signs. Actually, the former doesn't mention cosmic signs at all. These signs precede the second coming; they don't occur when the Lord of hosts is reigning in mount Zion, as in Isa 24:23.

The verse more likely correlates to Rev 21:23.

The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.

According to the ESV Study Bible notes (and John MacArthur):

Isaiah 24:23 The moon and sun are outshone by the glory of the Lord of hosts reigning in triumph forever from his city, Jerusalem on Mount Zion. His elders lead his redeemed people, once unfaithful (Isaiah 3:14; 9:14-15), but now replaced by faithful ones (Isaiah 52:7; 60:19-20).  

Am I being picky? Well, there's more. Isaiah 23:21-22 poses another chronological problem for that posttrib argument.

It shall come to pass in that day that the LORD will punish on high the host of exalted ones, and on the earth the kings of the earth. They will be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and will be shut up in the prison; after many days they will be punished. Then the moon will be disgraced and the sun ashamed; for the LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before His elders, gloriously. Isa 24:21-23

This is either talking about the Matt 25:32 Sheep & Goat judgment or the Great White Throne Judgment of Rev 20:11-15, take your pick. Either way, this event occurs chronologically prior to the alleged rapture connection at Isa 25:8 and prior to the alleged cosmic signs of Isa 24:23. So the theory has another chronological problem.

Connecting Isaiah 25:8 to the rapture of 1 Co 15:54, just because Paul used the phrase "swallow up death in victory", reminds me of a similar argument used by a pro-Torah advocate. He claimed that Peter told us to obey the dietary laws in 1 Peter 1:15-16 because he used the term "Be holy, for I am holy" which is also found in Leviticus 11. The context of Leviticus 11: 44-45 is the Mosaic dietary guidelines. But dietary laws weren't the context of Peter's epistle. Peter simply borrowed a term from Leviticus and applied it to admonishing holiness in the general conduct of believers he was writing to.

Does Isaiah 25:8 trump pretribulationism?

Nope.