This is an article I posted to aus.religion.christianity in Jul 99.  

The best book on this is A.Hoekema "The Bible & The Future" of which I have utilised in this summary critique.  

G'day Folks,

I have got a bit of free time on my hands this week and so I thought I might make a belated reply to the recent debates on eschatology. I am aware that most contributors, and readers would be of the dispensational pre-mil (DPM) position generally adhered to in Brethren, Baptist & Charismatic/Pentecostal circles so I thought it might be edifying if I present the (often known as Amil) realised mil (RM) position as well as a critique of the DPM position.

I believe I have a fairly good perspective of the DPM position but there are some diff on various issues, so I will generally use Scofield as he is fairly representative. I will attempt to first critique the PM position from a RM perspective and then in later posts (God willing) present the alternative RM position which was generally held by the reformers and others throughout Church history as the dominant eschatological position.

The DPM position is built upon the hermeneutic that we should recognise that biblical history (revelation) should be rightly divided into approx seven distinct dispensations. Most dispensationalist agree that a "dispensation is a is a period of time during which man is _tested_ in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God." (New Scofield Bible, pg 3) NB: There is variance over how many dispensations there are, for example, Dallas Seminary officially holds to three, Law, Grace & the Millennium (Article 5) others hold four, some eight, however the basics are the same.

First I agree with and appreciate that, although DPM hold to distinct dispensations they do maintain that in every dispensation salvation is the work of God's grace, that is, we stand together declaring that all the glory is God's and that fallen man has never merited salvation throughout biblical history.

However, this is where the differences emerge. The RM position declares that since Adam failed the first test of obedience that no man can pass any test of obedience (ie fallen). Therefore, rather than in each dispensation man being _tested_ (we already *know* the result is failure.. apart from God's grace) we believe it does more justice to biblical revelation to say that fallen man (post Gen 3) is shown throughout biblical history the way in which he can be delivered from sin & death through the power of God's grace .

Consequently, we see when Adam failed the Covenant of Works (Gen 3) that immediately God comes with a promise of a Redeemer who he could find salvation through (Gen 3:15). Furthermore, RM stresses that the promise of redemption through the seed of the woman is the central theme that is woven throughout biblical history & revelation (Gen-Rev). Despite the diff in administration (O.T & N.T) there is only ever one Covenant of Grace. The O.T is the period (dispensation) of types & shadows and the N.T which is it's fulfilment, although we still long for the consummation.

The RM position offers progressive revelation of God's unfolding plan of salvation, whereas the DPM offer IMO a somewhat discontinuous plan that bares no relation to other dispensations and favours disunity rather than unity. For example, this is manifest in the that orthodox DPM have always held the clear cut distinction of Israel & the Church. DPM believes that Israel & the Church must always be kept separate since God's redemptive plans for Israel are absolutely separate from the Church, indeed, many promises are yet unfulfilled (ie the Mil kingdom).

The RM position rejects this, and offers Gal 6:15-16 as an example where Paul states "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel (Church) of God" Who follow the rule? Obviously, all those who are new creatures of Christ (Church), for whom circumcision & uncircumcision means nothing. This would therefore have to include all regenerate believers, that is, regenerate Jews & gentiles. Consequently, we see that Paul refers to the Church as the Israel of God.

Now Dispensationalist have argued that this can not be so, Ryrie in his book "Dispensationalism" (pg 128) and Walvoord in his book "Kingdom" (pg 170) argue that the kai should be translated 'and' not 'even' and as such the Israel of god would be seen not as the Church but as "believing Jews". The problem with this view is that believing Jews were already included in his words "all who follow this rule". as such the "Israel of God" is a further explanation/description of "all who follow this rule", that is, all regenerate believers, inclusive of both circumcised & uncircumcised (Jew & Gentile). This is consistent with what Paul says concerning the middle wall of partition been broken down in between Jew & Gentile in Eph 2:14-15. Therefore, the implication are that the O.T promises find their fulfilment in the N.T church.

Peter also identifies Israel with the Church (fulfilment) when he in 1 Pt 2:9 "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." Now it should be noted that Peter is addressing the Church which is dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocuia... etc (1 Pt 1:1).

Now we also note here that Peter uses certain expressions to describe the N.T Church that were also descriptive of Israel in the O.T. For example: "Chosen race" - applied to Israel in Isa 43:20. "Royal priesthood, a holy nation" - applied to Israel in Ex 19:6. "A people belonging to God" - (God's possession) applied to Israel in Ex 19:5.

Paul uses the expression "seed of Abraham" which in the O.T meant physical descendants of Abraham their father. Paul widens the term to include regenerate Gentiles in Gal 3:28-29, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free......for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Again we note Paul states that those who are in Christ are Abraham's seed, not in the physical sense of course, but in the spiritual sense and as a result we see further confirmation of the identification of the Church as the true Israel and the those who have been blessed with the "sure blessing of David." (Acts 13:38-39). Louis Berkhof also gives further examples (in his Systematic Theology pg 713) of Matt 21:43; Acts 2:29-36; 15:14-18; Rom 9:25,26; Hen 8:8-13; Rev 1:6; 5:10.

Furthermore, there is no doubt concerning the continuity between the O.T Saints & the N.T Saints. Consequently, the Church which is thought of by DPM as a parenthesis in God's dealings with the nation Israel is according to the RM position erroneous. Continuity can be seen in a plethora of ways, for example, qahal is used to describe the congregation (assembly) of Israel in Ex 12:6; Nu 14:5; Deut 5:22, Jos 8:35 etc. Now the LXX was the bible of the Apostles and in it instructive to note that the LXX translates qahal as ekklesia, so when the apostles use that same word for the Church it indicates some form of continuity between the people of God in the O.T & the N.T.

Likewise the Apostles usage of the term 'temple of God' to describe the Church in Eph 2:21-22 & 1 cor 3:16-17 also shows the continuity from the O,T where the Temple was the placed that God dwelt in a special & particular way. the same can be said of the term Jerusalem when it refers to the Church (Hen 12:22 & Rev 21:2).

Therefore the RM position believes that God does not have a separate purpose for Israel over and against the N.T Church. Indeed Eph 2:13-14 is quite explicit there are no dividing walls between Jew & Gentile since Christ has Jew & Gentile to each other and both to himself in the one body through his redemptive work on the cross. Now since the partition has been removed how can we imagine that it shall be erected again in a dispensation yet to come (Mil Kingdom)?

In my next post I shall attempt to show that the O.T does not teach a future earthly millennium kingdom.

Regards Darren Middleton