Archive for clarence larkin
E.W. Bullinger And The Rapture
One of E.W. Bullinger’s greatest attributes was the ease with which he amended his views in light of his acquisition of fresh truth. He once said: “If anyone would know what I believe upon a subject, he must find out what I believe now.” Never claiming to have all the answers, Bullinger worked over a period of many years to produce a system of theology that is still airtight against the arguments of rationalism, Higher Criticism, and Replacement Theology. During the closing years of his ministry, he grappled with the doctrines of Preterism; and his researches in this field produced the monumental work, “The Lord Hath Spoken: Foundations of Dispensational Truth” (1913). Although hastily written, the amount of scholarship poured into this work is amazing.
But because Bullinger modified his views on the rapture, many Dispensationalists steer away from his books, thinking that perhaps he capitulated on his stance toward pre-tribulationism. Well, this is not the case at all! While Bullinger revised his views concerning the timing of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15, he never wavered from his belief that the church would not enter into the tribulation. In fact, Bullinger did more than any other writer to retain the distinction between the church and Israel. This comes into play more explicitly in his later writings, in which he draws a Dispensational frontier at Acts 28.
Bullinger believed that the Book of Acts describes the transition from the kingdom to the church. In his scheme the church of the “one body” actually begins after Acts 28. The Acts Dispensation chronicles the final offer of the kingdom to the children of Israel upon the one condition of national repentance (see Acts 3: 19-21). When Israel rejected this offer in Acts 28, the nation was temporarily set aside by God as unuseable, and salvation sent to the Gentiles. A new body began to be formed at this juncture, designated by Paul as “one new man” (Eph. 2: 15). According to Bullinger, this is where the church age officially begins.
Although I do not agree with Bullinger’s teaching concerning the commencement of the Christian church, I tend to agree that the Book of Acts is transitional in nature, and that the present parenthetical Dispensation begins after Acts 28: 28. However, in my understanding the ‘pure parenthesis‘ does not officially begin until A.D. 70, when the “people of the prince” sacked Jerusalem (Dan. 9: 26). The period between this desolation of the city and the sanctuary and the advent of the “prince” himself, is filled up by the present Dispensation of Grace. Not that grace didn’t have a place before A.D. 70. But that from A.D. 30-70 the Israel question was being settled — ”Let the children first be filled“ (Mark 7: 27). The Gentile economy did not come into full swing until Israel lost its dispensational advantage over the Gentiles. This was in A.D. 70.
Clarence Larkin seemed to hint as much when he wrote: “This Dispensation [i.e., the church age] is a parenthetical Dispensation thrown in between the ‘Dispersion’ of Israel, and their ‘Restoration’ to their own land. The purpose of this Dispensation is to gather out a ‘People for His Name,’ called the church, composed of both Jew and Gentile” (Dispensational Truth, 1920 edition, pg. 39).
If Larkin saw the parenthesis of the present age as connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then it quite possible that he derived his views from Bullinger. Even modern scholars such as Randall Price, have marked on their prophecy charts the significance of A.D. 70 in God’s purpose to call out the church (see Jerusalem In Prophecy, pg. 234, 239, 257). Larkin, however, does mention that the Dispensation of Grace extends from the Cross (A.D. 30) to the Crown (Second Coming of Christ). Perhaps he saw the 40 years between the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem as transitional in nature. We’ll probably never know.
Anyhow, because Thessalonians and Corinthians were written prior to the Acts 28 council, Bullinger construed that the rapture of saints described therein must be tied to Israel’s kingdom blessings (which were forfeited and postponed in Acts 28), rather than to the church age proper. I would, again, disagree with him on this point. However, far from denying the pre-trib rapture, Bullinger saw Paul’s later revelation of the “ex-anastasis” and “calling on high” (see Phil. 3: 11, 14) as entirely pre-tribulational in nature.
In the Companion Bible, he writes:
“The term ‘resurrection of the dead’ (anastasis nekron) is of frequent occurrence (Matt. 22: 31; Acts 17: 32; 23: 6; 1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 21, 42; Heb. 6: 2, etc.), and includes the resurrection to life, of the just, and the resurrection to judgment, of the unjust (John 5: 29; Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2). Resurrection from the dead (ek nekron) implies the resurrection of some, the former of these two classes, the others being left behind. See Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2. Paul had no doubt of attaining to this, as as may be seen from 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17, written some ten years before. The exanastasis must therefore mean a further selection of some before the anastasis of 1 Thess. 4: 14, and Paul was not yet sure of attaining to this. Perhaps he had the assurance when he wrote 2 Tim. 4: 7. It is noteworthy that there is no reference to any living ones being caught up, or any parousia of the Lord, as in 1 Thess. 4: 15, 16.” (note on Philippians 3: 11, Companion Bible, pg. 1778).
In his later books, Bullinger seemed to relegate the rapture of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15 to the close of Daniel’s 70th week. But since he held that Acts 28: 28 commenced a new economy, he saw in Philippians 3: 14 the church’s charter for a pre-tribulational up-calling. As he came to this view gradually, his books must be diligently studied in order to see exactly how his understanding of the rapture evolved.
In later years, theologians such as A.E. Knoch corrected Bullinger on some of his views. Whereas others took the more unique elements of Bullinger’s theology and ran them out into what is now known as “Acts 28 Dispensationalism.” Interestingly, however, all of Bullinger’s works are still in print today; and though he exercises little influence in modern Dispensational circles, his contributions to Biblical and exegetical scholarship are never downplayed. It is hoped that in future months his work will be seriously studied afresh by all who love the “sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1: 19) and look for that “blessed hope” (Titus 2: 13).
Rev. Clarence Larkin — Parable Of The Mustard Tree
(from Dispensational Truth, 1920)
The “Mustard Plant” is a “garden herb,” and is cultivated for its seed, used as a condiment. It grows wild, often to the height of seven or eight feet. To obtain the best results it should be cultivated in a garden.
In the Parable we find the seed grows in a “Field,” (the World), not in a garden, and it grows “wild” until it is not longer called an “herb” but a “tree.” The seed does not produce after its kind an humble “herb,” but becomes a vain-glorious Tree, a “Monstrosity,” in which the “Birds of the Air” lodge. Who are these “birds?” They are the “fowls” of the Parable of the Sower, for the same word is used, and are therefore the agents of the “Wicked One,” the Devil. Matt. 13: 4, 19.
It is clear then that the “birds” of this parable do not represent persons converted by the preaching of the Gospel, but the emissaries of Satan, and they do not lodge in the branches of the “Tree” so much for shelter as for worldly advantage, and they “befoul” it by their presence.
The “Mustard Tree” began with the 120 believers who received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Penteecost and continued to enlarge until its branches spread all over the Roman world. But the “Birds of the Air,” the Ananiases and Sapphiras, the Hymeneus and Philetus and other emissaries of Satan, began to lodge in its branches and “befoul” its purity, and when in A.D. 324 the Emperor Constantine united Church and State, thousands, and tens of thousands, crowded into the church as a matter of policy, interest and fashion, and crouched beneath its shadow, lodged in its branches, fattened on its fruit, and have continued to do so until this day.
According to this Parable, the “Kingdom of Heaven” is a
Vast Worldly System,
rooted in the earth, bearing the name of Christ, possessed of wealth, standing, and power, but sheltering the agents of the “Ruler of the Darkness of This Age.” Such we know is the condition of the visible church today. Where is the “pure” Christianity spreading through the world until the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as waters cover the deep, thus ushering in a Millennium, in this Parable? In fact, it teaches the contrary and is proof of Jesus’ own declaration that when He shall come back He shall Not Find ‘The Faith’ on the Earth. Luke 18: 8.
Rev. Clarence Larkin — On “Mystery Babylon”
(from Dispensational Truth, 1920)
That the ancient city of Babylon restored is to play an important part in the startling events of the last days of this Dispensation, is very clear. This is seen from what is said of it in the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters of the Book of Revelation. At first sight the two chapters, which contain some things in common, are difficult to reconcile, but when we get the “Key” the reconciliation is easy. The seventeenth chapter speaks of a “Woman,” and this “Woman” is called
“MYSTERY,
Babylon the Great,
The Mother of Harlots
And
Abominations of the Earth.”
The eighteenth chapter speaks of a “City,” a literal city, called “Babylon the Great.” That the “Woman” and the “City” do not symbolize the same thing is clear, for what is said of the “Woman” does not apply to a city, and what is said of the “City” does not apply to a woman. The “Woman” is destroyed by the “Ten Kings,” while the “Kings of the Earth” in the next chapter, “bewail and lament” the destruction of the “City,” which is not destroyed by them, but by a mighty earthquake and fire. Again the “Woman” is destroyed Three and a Half Years BEFORE THE CITY; and the fact that the first verse of chapter eighteen says–”after these things,” that is after the destruction of the “Woman,” what happens to the “City” occurs, shows that the “Woman” and the “City” are not one and the same. The “Woman’s” name is
“MYSTERY, Babylon the Great.”
“Mystery!” Where have we heard that word before, and in what connection? Paul calls the Church a “Mystery” because it was not known to the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets. Eph. 3:1-21.
That Christ was to have a “Bride” was first revealed to Paul (Eph. 5:23-32), and the “Mystery” that Antichrist is to have a “bride” was first revealed to John on the Isle of Patmos. The name of Antichrist’s “bride” is “Babylon the Great.” Some one may ask why give to a “bride” the name of a “City”? The answer is that it is not unusual in the Scriptures. When the same angel that showed John in this chapter “Mystery, Babylon the Great,” came to him in chapter 21:9-10 and said–”Come hither, I will shew thee the Bride–’The Lamb’s Wife‘,” he showed John, instead of a woman, that great City, the “Holy Jerusalem” descending out of Heaven from God. Here we see that a “city” is called a “bride” because its inhabitants, and not the city itself, are the bride. “Mystery, Babylon the Great,” the “bride” of Antichrist, then, is not a literal city, but a “System,” a religious and apostate “System.” As the Church, the Bride of Christ, is composed of regenerated followers of Christ, so “Mystery, Babylon the Great,” the bride of Antichrist, will be composed of the followers of all False Religions.
The river Euphrates, on which the city of Babylon was built, was one of the four branches into which the river that flowed through the Garden of Eden was divided, and Satan doubtless chose the site of Babylon as his headquarters from which to sally forth to tempt Adam and Eve. It was doubtless here that the Antediluvian Apostasy had its source that ended in the Flood. To this centre the “forces of Evil” gravitated after the Flood, and “Babel” was the result. This was the origin of nations, but the nations were not scattered abroad over the earth until Satan had implanted in them the “Virus” of a doctrine that has been the source of every false religion the world has ever known.
Babel, or Babylon, was built by Nimrod. Gen. 10:8-10. It was the seat of the first great Apostasy. Here the “Babylonian Cult” was invented. A system claiming to possess the highest wisdom and to reveal the divinest secrets. Before a member could be initiated he had to “confess” to the Priest. The Priest then had him in his power. This is the secret of the power of the Priests of the Roman Catholic Church today.
Once admitted into this order men were no longer Babylonians, Assyrians, or Egyptians, but members of a
Mystical Brotherhood,
over whom was placed a Pontiff or “High Priest,” whose word was law. The city of Babylon continued to be the seat of Satan until the fall of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian Empires, when he shifted his Capital to Pergamos in Asia Minor, where it was in John’s day. Rev. 2:12, 13.
When Attalus, the Pontiff and King of Pergamos, died in B. C. 133, he bequeathed the Headship of the “Babylonian Priesthood” to Rome. When the Etruscans came to Italy from Lydia (the region of Pergamos), they brought with them the Babylonian religion and rites. They set up a Pontiff who was head of the Priesthood. Later the Romans accepted this Pontiff as their civil ruler. Julius Caesar was made Pontiff of the Etruscan Order in B. C. 74. In B. C. 63 he was made “Supreme Pontiff” of the “Babylonian Order,” thus becoming heir to the rights and titles of Attalus, Pontiff of Pergamos, who had made Rome his heir by will. Thus the first Roman Emperor became the Head of the “Babylonian Priesthood,” and Rome the successor of Babylon. The Emperors of Rome continued to exercise the office of “Supreme Pontiff” until A. D. 376, when the Emperor Gratian, for Christian reasons, refused it. The Bishop of the Church at Rome, Damasus, was elected to the position. He had been Bishop 12 years, having been made Bishop in A. D. 366, through the influence of the monks of Mt. Carmel, a college of Babylonian religion originally founded by the priests of Jezebel. So in A. D. 378 the Head of the “Babylonian Order” became the Ruler of the “Roman Church.” Thus Satan united
Rome and Babylon
In One Religious System.
Soon after Damasus was made “supreme Pontiff” the “rites” of Babylon began to come to the front. The worship of the Virgin Mary was set up in A. D. 381. All the outstanding festivals of the Roman Catholic Church are of Babylonian origin. Easter is not a Christian name. It means “Ishtar,” one of the titles of the Babylonian Queen of Heaven, whose worship by the Children of Israel was such an abomination in the sight of God. The decree for the observance of Easter and Lent was given in A. D. 519. The “Rosary” is of Pagan origin. There is no warrant in the Word of God for the use of the “Sign of the Cross.” It had its origin in the mystic “Tau” of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. It came from the letter “T,” the initial name of “Tammuz,” and was used in the “Babylonian Mysteries” for the same magic purposes as the Romish church now employs it. Celibacy, the Tonsure, and the Order of Monks and Nuns, have no warrant or authority from Scripture. The Nuns are nothing more than an imitation of the “Vestal Virgins” of Pagan Rome.
As to the word “Mystery,” the Papal Church has always shrouded herself in mystery. The mystery of “Baptismal Regeneration“; the mystery of “Miracle and Magic” whereby the simple memorials of the Lord’s Supper are changed by the mysterious word “Transubstantiation,” from simple bread and wine into the literal Body and Blood of Christ; the mystery of the “Holy Water“; the mystery of “Lights on the Altar,” the “Mystery Plays,” and other superstitious rites and ceremonies mumbled in a language that tends to mystery, and tends to confusion which is the meaning of the word Babylon.
All this was a “Mystery” in John’s day, because the “Papal Church” had not as yet developed; though the “Mystery of Iniquity” was already at work (2. Thess. 2:7), but it is no longer a “Mystery” for it is now easy to identify the “Woman”–”Mystery, Babylon the Great,” which John described, as the “Papal Church.”
In Rev. 17:4 we read that the “Woman” “was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a ‘Golden Cup‘ in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornications.”
Now who does not know that scarlet and purple are the colors of the Papacy? Of the different articles of attire specified for the Pope to wear when he is installed into office five are scarlet. A vest covered with pearls, and a mitre, adorned with gold and precious stones was also to be worn. How completely this answers the description of the Woman’s dress as she sits upon the Scarlet Colored Beast.
We are also told that the Woman was “drunken with the blood of the Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus.” While this refers more particularly to the martyrs of the time of Antichrist, yet who does not know, who has studied the history of the Christian Church for the past nineteen centuries, that this is true of the Papal Church during those centuries? One has only to read the history of the persecutions of the early Christians and more particularly the story of the “Inquisition” in Papal lands, to see that the Papal Church has been “drunk” with the blood of the Saints.
The fact that the Woman sits on a “Scarlet Colored Beast” reveals the fact that at that time the Beast (Antichrist) will support the Woman in her ecclesiastical pretensions, or in other words, the Woman, as a “State Church,” will control and rule the State, and her long dream of world-wide Ecclesiastical Supremacy will at last be realized, for John tells us that “the waters which thou sawest, where the ‘Whore’ sitteth, are Peoples, and Multitudes, and Nations and Tongues.” That means that after the “True Church” (the Bride of Christ) is taken out of the world the “False” or “Papal Church” (the bride of Antichrist) will remain, and the professing body of Christians (having the “form of Godliness without the power”) left behind, will largely enter the Papal Church, and it will become the Universal Church. But this will continue for only a short time for the “Ten Kings” of the “Federated Kingdom,” finding their power curtailed by the “Papal System” will “hate The Whore,” and strip her of her gorgeous apparel, confiscate her wealth (eat her flesh) and burn her churches and cathedrals with fire. Rev. 17:16.
This will occur at the time the worship of the Beast is set up, for Antichrist in his jealous hate will not permit any worship that does not centre in himself.
The Beast upon which the Woman sits is ‘introduced to show from whom the Woman (the Papal Church) gets her power and sup-port after the True Church has been “caught out,” and also to show that the Beast (Antichrist) and the Woman (the Papal Church) are not one and the same, but separate. Therefore the Papacy is not Antichrist. For a description of the “Scarlet Colored Beast” see the description of the “Beast out of the Sea” of chapter 13:1-10.
From this foreview of the Papacy we see that the Papal Church is not a dying “System.” That she is to be revived and become a “Universal Church,” and in doing so is to commit fornication with the kings of the earth, and that she shall again be “drunk with the blood” of the martyrs of the Tribulation Period. The meaning of chapter seventeen of the Book of Revelation is no longer a Mystery; the prophetic portrait of the Woman there given corresponds too closely with the history of the Papal Church to be a mere coincidence.
Rev. Clarence Larkin- How To Interpret The Bible
(from Dispensational Truth, 1920)
While the Bible is a revelation from God, it is not written in a superhuman or celestial language. It it were we could not understand it. Its supernatural origin, however, can be seen in the fact that it can be translated into any language and not lose its virility or spiritual life-giving power, and when translated into any language it fixes that language in its purest form.
The language, however, of the Bible is of three kinds. Figurative, Symbolical, and Literal. Such expressions as “Harden not your heart,” “let the dead bury their dead,” are figurative, and their meaning is made clear by the context.
Symbolic language, like the description of Nebuchadnezzar’s “Colossus,” Daniel’s “Four Wild Beasts,” or Christ in the midst of the “Seven Candlesticks,” is explained, either in the same chapter, or somewhere else in the Bible.
The rest of the language of the Bible is to be interpreted according to the customary rules of grammar and rhetoric. That is, we are to read the Bible as we would read any other book, letting it say what it wants to say, and not allegorize or spiritualize its meaning. It is this false method of interpreting Scripture that has led to the origin of so many religious sects and denominations.
Rev. Clarence Larkin– The Scriptures Are “Burglar-Proof”
(from Dispensational Truth, 1918)
Education is not enough. The Disciples were in training with Jesus for three years, but He forbade them to preach until they were ENDUED WITH POWER FROM ON HIGH. Luke 24: 49. Acts 1: 8; 2: 1-4.
Peter, the fisherman, could never have preached the sermon he did on the Day of Pentecost without the help of the Holy Spirit. The preacher is to “Rightly Divide the Word” (2 Tim. 2: 15), and Peter could not have done so in his apt quotations from the Scriptures if the holy Spirit had not aided him.
The “Instrument” that the Holy Spirit uses to convict and convert men is the “WORD OF GOD.” The “Seed” if the “Word of God.” Luke 8: 11. But as in the natural world, the seed must be alive to germinate, and there can be no life without “PRE-EXISTING LIFE,” –for there is no such thing as “SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE“– so in the Spiritual World the “Seed” (the Word of God) must be vitalized by the Holy Spirit, otherwise it is BARREN.
This explains why skeptics and scientists and philosophers and others may know the Scriptures and be able to quote them glibly, and yet not be converted by them.
To use another figure, the Scriptures are “Burglar Proof” to those who have not the “Spiritual Combination,” for “the NATURAL man receiveth not (cannot understand) the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.” 1 Cor. 2: 14. A spiritual revelation cannot be comprehended by the natural understanding.
Says Dr. R.A. Torrey, “I would as soon think of setting a man to teach art merely because he understood paints, as to set him to teach the Bible merely because he understood Greek of Hebrew.”
Resurrection And The Land Promises
One of the strange inconsistencies of “orthodox Preterists” is seen in regard to the doctrine of the Resurrection. Preterists tenaciously hold to belief in a future resurrection of the body. Naturally, this is part and parcel of New Testament theology. And we’re glad that Preterists maintain their position against the outright denial of the Hyper-Preterist cult.
But at the same time Preterists err in denying that there will be a future literal restoration of Israel to the land of promise. When Pre-Millennialists ask Preterists to give a reason for their denial of this future hope, we’re told that the land promises are now fulfilled “In Christ.” That is, somewhere along the line there was an abrogation of God’s promises made to Israel. Somehow, some way, the promise of a future physical reality was replaced by something entirely hypothetical. Do you see the inconsistency? If not, continue reading.
Because Preterists believe in a future resurrection, they admit that something of a profoundly physical nature will occur at Christ’s second coming. Very well. So orthodox Christians have believed for centuries. But when it comes to the doctrine of restoration of the land, they don’t believe it. Why not? It is ten times more incredible that God should raise dead bodies from the dust, than that He should restore to the Jews the land God promised their fathers. Furthermore, if Scripture is carefully studied, it will be seen that both doctrines (land restoration and resurrection of the body) are closely related. So, my question is: If God will accomplish the one, will He not accomplish the other?
Both promises are represented as having their fulfillment in connection with physical things. Why spiritualize the land promises, but maintain the literality of the resurrection? I am not quibbling. I am merely pointing out what seems a fatal anomaly in the Preterist theory. Orthodox Preterists believe that Christ will return in His own body, just as He ascended. And yet passages which describe this physical coming (like Zechariah 14) are understood as being entirely “spiritual.” Well, if this is the case, why can’t the resurrection be spiritualized as well?
According to the prevailing mode of allegorizing the Scriptures, it would be easy to insist that the resurrection of the body is fulfilled “In Christ,” in precisely the same manner that the land promises are. Just suppose that when Paul spoke of the resurrection, he used language descriptive of earthly things to symbolize higher spiritual truths. “Heresy!” you cry. And so it is. But if such a view is condemnable, how are we to react to the spiritualization of such passages as Daniel 12: 2: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Surely, any spiritualization of this verse is also worthy of condemnation.
But let us look at another passage that is often allegorized by Preterists. I speak of Ezekiel’s prophecy of the dry bones. “Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put My Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land” (Ezekiel 37: 12-14). How are we to interpret this passage, which ostensibly looks forward to a physical resurrection?
I hear you respond that this is a hypothetical resurrection of which the prophet was writing. You say that it was fulfilled in the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity. Very well. So we are to understand the resurrection of the dry bones as being allegorical in nature. But what about the land? Was it allegorical land to which the Jews returned? Of course not. But if the “land“ meant was really the land of Palestine, then what warrant do we have for spiritualizing the doctrine of the resurrection? For according to Ezekiel’s prophecy, the resurrection would place them back in the land.
Now do you admit that the land to which the dry bones would be restored was physical? Then move down to 37: 25. “And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever.”
Neither does this passage admit of any spiritualization. The very phrase “the land wherein your fathers have dwelt” reveals this prophecy as relating to Israel, and not to the church. A simple glance at the succeeding context tells us that the passage will be fulfilled when the everlasting covenant (i.e., New Covenant) is established, and the Divine sanctuary placed in the midst of the children of Israel forever (Ezek. 37: 26-27).
And this is not a mere isolated proof-text I am giving. Hearken to Ezekiel once more: “And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Ezekiel 36: 26-27).
Again, the phrase “the land I gave to your fathers” (note the use of the personal pronoun “your“) identifies exactly what the prophet was talking about. It has nothing to do with spiritual promises to the church, but refers to the land of Palestine. The Christian church was not instituted until the first century A.D. Therefore, Ezekiel’s original audience could only have understood such promises as referring to themselves and to their children. However, if God made a promise to them, which was later abrogated, why may not promises made to church be set aside? If the land promises are fulfilled “in Christ,” then why may not the resurrection also be fulfilled “in Christ?”
However, God’s promise to give Israel the land of Palestine is entirely unconditional, and based on the original grant made to Abraham. Dispensational scholar Clarence Larkin writes: “God’s promises to Abraham were progressive. At Ur the promises were the ‘land,’ and that his seed should become ‘a great nation.’ Gen. 12: 1, 2. At Shechem the promise of the ‘ownership of the land to his descendants.’ Gen. 12: 7. At Bethel, a” the land ‘thou seest,’ and that his seed should be as the ‘dust of the earth for number.’ Gen. 13: 15, 16. At Mamre, that his seed should be for numbers as the ’stars of the heavens,’ and that the land should extend from the ‘River of Egypt’ to the ‘River Euphrates.’ Gen. 15: 5, 18. And at Moriah the promise as to the number of his seed was repeated. Gen. 22: 16, 18. These promises were unconditionally confirmed to his son, Isaac (Gen. 26: 1-4), and to his grandson, Jacob. Gen. 28: 10-15.”
True, the law was added 430 years later, but this later addition cannot annul the original promise (Galatians 3: 15-17). The reason why the Jews have never gained permanent possession of the land, is because they sought it through the law. But the original promise was by grace. In Jeremiah 7: 5-7, the prophet lays down the conditions necessary for possessing the land: “For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor; if ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.”
Now because Israel could never meet these conditions, they never obtained permanent possession of the land. But once the conditions are met, what is to hinder God’s promises from being fulfilled? A bit of honest reflection will inform us that the land promises will be literally fulfilled when the New Covenant is established.
Listen to Jeremiah, as he delivers the words of Jehovah Himself: “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and will write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31: 33). Israel can only keep the law by being brought into the bonds of a new and better covenant. Once they receive the blessings of the Spirit, they will keep the law and be restored to the land forever.
But you say that the above passage has already been fulfilled, for it was quoted by Paul in Hebrews 10: 16. The mistake, however, is obvious. Paul nowhere said that Jeremiah’s prophecy was “fulfilled.” In fact, he had previously said that the Old Covenant was still in effect, and ready to give place to the New (Hebrews 8: 13). Moreover, Paul could not have understood Jeremiah 31: 33 as already fulfilled, for he cites it again in Romans 11: 27, as proof that “all Israel will be saved.” This was cited hand-in-hand with Isaiah 59: 20, which refers to the same permanant sanctification of Israel, at the second coming of Christ (Isaiah 59: 16-21–read entire passage). Therefore, the fulfillment of the New Covenant remains future.
If this be so, then it is clear that the resurrection and the land promises are intimately related, and both involve physical realities. For as the land was personally promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and as none of them ever lived to possess their inheritance, but wandered as strangers and pilgrims in the very land that God had given them (Acts 7: 5; Heb. 11: 9): then there must be a resurrection in order that God may keep His promise. Hence Christ’s quotation, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” was enough to put the Sadducees to silence (see Luke 20: 27-39). For God fully intends to keep His promises. And it is nonsense to claim that later promises can be used to upset and overthrow earlier ones.
Therefore, if one spiritualizes the land promises, insisting that they are hypothetically fulfilled “in Christ,” then one may just as well spiritualize the resurrection. But as orthodox Preterists believe in a future coming of Christ in His own body, and a resurrection of the dead upon His return, it should not be hard to accept the doctrine of a future restoration of Israel to the land that God promised them. And this is precisely what Pre-Millennialists believe. As you can see, our doctrines are not so irrational, after all.
