1. CHAPTER THREE
THE ISRAEL OF GOD
In the evangelical world, the big arguments over the correct interpretation of
eschatology are based largely on what constitute the Israel of God. The belief that only
national Israel can fulfill the prophetic promises of the Old Testament has led into serious
interpretational problems for dispensationalists, problems that we have begun viewing in
chapters’ 1 and 2 and will continue to visualize. In light of the issues that we are
analyzing in this course, one must raise the questions: What is the foundational pillar of
dispensationalism? What is the main premise that supports the whole of dispensational
systematic theology? Dispensationalists answer these questions in the following: Charles
C. Ryrie explains: “The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between
Israel and the Church” (Dispensationalism Today, 47. Emphasis mine). Lewis S. Chafer
states: “The distinction between the purpose for Israel and the purpose for the Church is
about as important as that which exists between the two testaments” (Systematic
Theology, Vol. 4, 47. Emphasis mine).
The belief that Israel is distinct from the Church, and the belief that the Old
Testament is distinct from the New Testament (mainly sections) is the foundation for all
dispensational theories. For dispensationalists, this dual distinction theory between
Scripture and Biblical people is the main pillar and justification for placing the 70th
week
of Daniel 9 in the future—prior to the millennium. For dispensationalists, this pillar
justifies the divided second coming of Christ around the 70th
week. Dispensationalists
emphasize that in order for the distinction between the Church and Israel to be
maintained, the Church must be removed from the world before the tribulation. We have
proved that there is no divided second coming of Christ; neither is the 70th
week
applicable to the future. The removal of these two dispensational pillars from the picture
of Biblical truth leaves the doctrine of Biblical distinctions in a denuded state, for the
dispensational system is made up of too many additive premises, where if one premise is
proved wrong, the whole system falls to pieces. The fact that the 70th
week was fulfilled
between A.D. 27 – 34, and the fact that Jesus will return a second time—not two times—
before the millennium; precludes the distinction between Israel and the Church as two
separate and distinct groups.
The Unity Of The Word Of God
We will begin our analysis of the dispensational view on Israel by analyzing the
main premise that supports the third pillar of dispensational distinctions. What is this
premise? The underling premise that maintains the distinction between Israel and the
Church is the belief that the Old and New Testament Scriptures are distinct isolated
messages for unique groups. Clarence Larkin defines this concept:
While the “Word of truth” is written FOR all classes of people, and FOR our
learning, it is not addressed to all peoples in general, but part of it is addressed
to the Jews, part to the Gentiles, and part to the Church. These three constitute
the THREE CLASSES into which humanity is divided (Dispensational Truth, 19.
Emphasis mine).
By D. S. Farris
1

2. The Israel Of God
Larkin moreover explains that the Old Testament is centered in the Jewish nation, and
that a good portion of the New Testament—especially the Epistles—is written
exclusively for the Jew. Larkin emphasizes: “we must not apply to the Church what does
not belong to it” (Dispensational Truth, 19). According to dispensationalists, this
compartmentalizing of scripture is the process of “Rightly Dividing” the word of truth.
When dispensationalists emphasize that they “Rightly Divide” the word of truth, they are
telling us that the Old Testament must be observed as a self contained unit apart from the
New Testament; that even much of the New Testament scriptures must be viewed as
Jewish in character and cannot be used by the Church to form the basis of the Christian
faith. The following correlation block is a simple illustration of the impossibility of
dispensational compartmentalization of the scriptures.
Correlation Block (1)
The New Testament Interprets The Old Testament
2 Timothy 3:16
2 Timothy 2:15
Isaiah 28:9, 10, 13
2 Corinthians 3:14 - 16
Luke 24:44, 45
2 Peter 3:1, 2
2 Peter 3:15, 16
Matthew 15:6 - 9
Acts 13:27
2 Timothy 3:16 says that “ALL—not some—scripture is profitable for doctrine.” When
2 Timothy 2:15 says that we are to rightly divide (Gr. Orthotomeo: “to cut straight as to
handle right”) the word of truth, this is showing that we are to rightly apply the scriptures.
How do we do this? Isaiah 28:9, 10, 13 shows that, to rightly handle the scriptures, we
must “lay precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little.” The
Berean Church was recognized as a very noble church, because “they searched the
scriptures with all readiness of mind. (Acts 17:11).” In order to search the scriptures to
find truth, we must apply the principle set out in Isaiah 28:9 – 13. Why? ALL scripture is
profitable for doctrine!
The fact that the whole of the Bible applies to all men—not isolated groups—is
seen in the following illustration: 2 Corinthians 3:14 – 16 and Acts 13:27 perspicuously
show that the Jewish leaders did not have a correct understanding of the Old Testament.
In fact, 2 Corinthians 3:14 – 16 reveal that Christ is the interpreter of the Old Testament.
For emphasis: If we want to know the meaning of the Old Testament, we must look at it
through Christ. Why is this significant? This is significant because, according to Luke
24:44, 45, Jesus gave the apostles the proper understanding of the Old Testament. This
means that the apostles became qualified—like Jesus—to interpret the Old Testament.
Copyright 8/27/03

3. This is proven in 2 Peter 3:1, 2 where Peter puts the words of the apostles on equal par
with the prophets. Notice the following argument:
(1) Jesus is the interpreter of the Old Testament.
(2) Jesus gave the apostles the proper understanding of the Old Testament.
(3) The apostles wrote the New Testament.
(4) The New Testament interprets the Old Testament.
Here is another argument that will be proved over the duration of this chapter and the
following chapter.
(1) The Jewish leaders did not have a correct understanding of the Old Testament (2
Cor. 3:14 – 16; Acts 13:27).
(2) Dispensational compartmentalization of scripture is a methodology of
interpretation almost homogeneous with that of the Sanhedrin 2,000 years ago.
(3) Dispensationalists do not have a correct understanding of the Old Testament.
Hans K. LaRondelle speaks factually where he says, “Dispensational literalism does not
allow that Jesus Christ provided a new perspective for interpreting the Old Testament”
(The Israel Of God In Prophecy, 26). The Bible clearly shows that the New Testament—
inspired by Jesus and the apostles—interprets the Old Testament. When we study the
word of God, we interpret it through the unity of both Testaments, for ALL scripture—
taken together organically—produces correct doctrine. This method constitutes “laying
precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little.” If we don’t apply this
method, we will “wrestle down scriptures to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:15, 16).”
This was precisely the problem of the Jewish leaders in Christ’s day (Matt. 15:6 – 9).
When Paul warned about the fables that would replace sound doctrine (2 Tim. 4:2 – 4), he
undoubtedly was referring to people who do not ascertain theology in the framework of
the whole Bible.
Dispensationalists, as has been demonstrated in the preceding chapters, have
contrived a system that—when compared with the whole message of scripture—falls to
pieces. Dispensationalists attempt to make it appear that the secret rapture, the futurism
of the 70th
week, and the Church being distinct from Israel has plausibility when they
isolate certain passages of scripture—with imaginary inductions—away from the whole
of scripture. When dispensationalists are confronted with a certain passage that
contradicts their systematic theology, they are quick to say: “That passage of scripture
does not apply to the Church; it applies to Israel (or vice versa).” This is wrestling certain
scriptures down in order to support imaginary interpretations of others. It is this theory—
right here: “That passage of scripture does not apply to the Church; it applies to Israel”
that has contrived dispensational mythology. Well does LaRondelle emphasize:
Every proof-text method that appeals to the letters of Scripture verses, not
considering their immediate and wider theological contexts and consequently
not relating the verses to God’s holy covenant with its messianic framework,
denies the theological unity of God’s Word and obscures the religious moral
issue of the apocalyptic war between heaven and earth (The Israel Of God In
Prophecy, 7).
By D. S. Farris
3

4. The Israel Of God
It is “the wider theological contexts” of the Bible that dispensationalists have grossly
misrepresented—by means of isolating congruous scriptures into feigned irrelevances
and contradictions. Now we are going to see that Correlation Block (1) is factual, for we
are going to see how the scriptures—taken together organically—destroy the most
fundamental pillar in dispensationalism. We will see unequivocally that dispensational
divisions of scripture for the purpose of maintaining dispensational eschatological hopes
for national Israel—apart from the Church—are as LaRondelle says: “Such an absolute
literalism in prophetic interpretation, however, leads irrevocably to a forced
interpretation” (The Israel Of God In Prophecy, 26).
Correlation Block (2)
(The Church Is The Vineyard.)
For dispensationalists the distinction between Israel and the Church is of the utmost
importance. This is the reason Ryrie emphasizes: “The church is not fulfilling in any
sense the promises to Israel” (The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 136). Chafer says,
“That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in
scripture” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, 316). Can such statements be validated by the
word of God? We answer this with an emphatic, No! Notice the following correlation
blocks:
Question: Who Is the Vineyard of the Lord, and whom did Isaiah say would eventually
be very much apart of the Vineyard—so much—that they would be the new operators?
Isaiah 5:1 - 8
( verse 7 )
Israel is Vineyard
Isaiah 61:1 - 11
( verses 4, 5 )
Matthew 21:18, 19, 33 - 43
( Verses 18, 19, 43 )
The Vineyard was taken from
national Israel and given to
another nation.
Vineyard would consist
of Strangers.
Luke 4:16 - 20
Answer: The Vineyard is Israel. Isaiah prophesied that strangers and foreigners (terms
representing non-Jews) would become the operators of the Vineyard. Jesus Himself
confirmed this when He said the kingdom (Vineyard) would be taken from national Israel
and given to a nation bringing forth its fruits. It does not take a PHD in theology to see
the clarity of these correlations. In correlation Block 2, we can deduct the following
argument:
(1) Isaiah 5:7. Israel is the Vineyard.
(2) Isaiah 61:4, 5. Strangers and Aliens would become the operators of the Vineyard.
(3) Therefore, non-Jewish people would be very much apart of Israel.
Copyright 8/27/03

5. (4) Jesus told the Jewish leaders, “The kingdom (Vineyard or Israel) shall be taken
from you and given to a nation bringing forth its fruits.”
Right before Jesus explained the parable of the Vineyard to the Jewish leaders, He gave
an object lesson in verses’ 18 and 19, a physical illustration to His apostles of what He
was about to say to the Jewish leaders. The barren fig tree represents national Israel. And
when Jesus said, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth forever,” He was telling national
Israel that they would soon whither away.
Luke 4:16 – 20 show that Jesus came to fulfill the words in Isaiah 61. Yes, Jesus
came only to the Jewish nation (Matt. 10:6; 15:24) to confirm the Covenant promises
given to the fathers of Israel (Dan. 9:27; Isaiah 42:6, 7). However, the results of Christ’s
Advent were to go far beyond the confines of the Jewish nation (Acts 13:47; Isaiah 49:6).
Jesus came to gather Israel together in order that Israel would gather the Gentiles to the
saving grace found in Israel’s Messiah. Though Israel’s election was for the purpose of
bringing the Gentiles into the kingdom of God (Isaiah 56:1 – 8), they rejected, not only
their election as ambassadors to the world, but they rejected the Messiah of the Covenant.
Consequently, the great commission given to Israel continued through the twelve
apostles.
Israel as a nation throughout the centuries postulated themselves as superior,
because they were given the oracles of God. Were they giving the oracles of God to keep
righteousness to themselves (Isaiah 5:8)? No! Israel was to bring the truths of heaven to
all men (Isaiah 54 – 62; Malachi 1:11, 12). But too often as Hosea 10:1 points out, “Israel
[was] an empty vine, he [brought] forth fruit unto himself.” When Jesus came to the
Vineyard to receive the fruit that was rightfully His, He—like the prophets before Him—
was killed. The fig tree, therefore, represents national Israel who portrayed pretentious
foliage without fruit. This illustration should also serve as an example to the Christian
Church that pretentious religion is unacceptable to God.
God is looking for the manifestation of His fruit through the Holy Spirit working
through the Church (John 15:1 – 7). It is written in Acts that the fruit of the Spirit has
been realized in God’s Apostolic Church. The Church of God is the new Husbandmen,
which render God the fruits in their seasons (Matt. 21:41). Dispensationalism, again, is
in direct contradiction to the word of God. We know that the nation, which Jesus spoke
about in Matthew 21:43, was and is the Church. Therefore, we are in agreement with
George E. Ladd where he says:
However, in view of the fact that in Isaiah 5 the vineyard is Israel itself, it is more
probable that Matthew’s interpretation is correct and that the parable means that
Israel will no longer be the people of God’s vineyard but will be replace by
another people who will receive the message of the Kingdom (A Theology of the
New Testament, 112).
Concerning Matthew 21:43, Ladd found that “Jesus regarded his disciples as the remnant
of the true Israel because they have accepted God’s offer of the kingdom” (A Theology of
the New Testament, 200). We also agree with Oswald T. Allis’ comment on this chapter:
Jesus declared to the Jews that the kingdom should “be taken from” them (Matt.
21: 41). The children of the kingdom (the natural and lawful heirs) are to be cast
By D. S. Farris
5

6. The Israel Of God
out (8: 11). None of those “bidden” are to taste the marriage supper (Luke 14:
24). The vineyard is to be given to “other husbandmen”; to “a nation bringing
forth the fruits thereof”; men are to come from the “highways,” from the “east
and west and north and south,” to partake with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of the
marriage supper (Prophecy And The Church, 78).
After Allis explains that these scriptures are “parabolic and should not be taken too
literally,” he then explained factually: “They imply clearly that the period of Jewish
particularism was ended; and they do not lend any support to the view that it was ended
only for a time and is to be restored after the proclamation by the Church (Prophecy And
The Church, 78).
Correlation Block (3)
(The Church Is The Nation And People Of God)
Matthew 21:43
Isaiah 65:1
Matthew 10
Luke 12:32
Kingdom was given to
another nation
Kingdom was given to
12 Apostles
1 Peter 2:1 - 10
( verses 8 - 10 ) Exodus 19:5, 6
Christ made the Church
into that nation through
the 12 Apostles.
The Church has been
given the same titles
as ancient Israel
Romans 10:20
Hosea 1:10; 2:23
Romans 9:25, 26
Let us raise the question: Who is the nation that replaced national Israel as the
keepers of the Vineyard according to the words of Jesus in Matthew 21:43? The nation
that replaced national Israel is the nation that Isaiah had foreseen in Isaiah 61 and 65:1—
the Church. Jesus founded the Church (Matt. 16:18) through His twelve apostles. When
Jesus told the Jewish leaders in Matthew 21:43, “The kingdom of God shall be taken
from you and given to a nation bring forth its fruits,” Jesus undoubtedly was speaking
about the Church, which would grow through the twelve apostles (Mark 3:14, 15). Jesus
told His apostles in Luke 12:32: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good
pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Scriptures such as, Ezekiel 34:12 – 14, Isaiah 40:11,
and Jeremiah 31:10, show that ancient Israel was God’s flock. Obviously, Jesus made the
Twelve Apostles the true flock (Israel) and gave them the vineyard. We agree with
LaRondelle’s analysis:
As the messianic Shepard, Christ declares here that He was sent to fulfill Israel’s
covenant promises of the gathering of Israel. As the Messiah He came to gather
Israel to Himself (see Matthew 12: 30), but more than that, to gather the Gentiles
to Himself (see John 12:32). This called for a decision of faith in Him as the
Messiah of Israel. For this universal mission He called from Israel His twelve
Copyright 8/27/03

7. apostles, who in their chosen number clearly represent the twelve tribes of
Israel. By officially ordaining twelve disciples as His apostles (see Mark 3:
14, 15), Christ constituted a new Israel, the messianic remnant of Israel, and
called it His church (see Matthew 16: 18) (The Israel Of God In Prophecy, 100,
101. Emphasis mine).
The preceding citation from LaRondelle is absolutely correct. The factualness of his
analysis is seen in 1 Peter 2:8, 9, 10 where the Church has the same titles that ancient
Israel possessed.
Vs. 8: They (the Jewish nation) were appointed (Gr. Etethesan: Verb indicative aorist
passive third person plural, from Tithemi: “to lay aside” “to establish” “ordain”)
Vs. 9: But you (The Church) are: Exodus 19:5, 6
(1) chosen generation chosen people (Deut. 7:6)
(2) royal priesthood kingdom of priests
(3) holy nation holy nation
(4) peculiar people peculiar treasure
Vs. 10: In time past you were not a people Isaiah 65:1
but are now the people of God.
The Greek says: nun de laos theou hoi
now but people God the
Verse 10 can be interpreted as it is in the King James or it can say, “but now are God’s
people.” There is no indefinite article in the Greek. This text translated, either way, says
that the Church is God’s people or the people of God.
Notice that correlation blocks’ 2 and 3 clearly demonstrate that the Church was foreseen
by Isaiah and now is the operator of the Vineyard. Notice that the Church has the same
titles given to ancient Israel. The Church has fulfilled and is fulfilling the promises made
with ancient Israel. The Bible is clear on this; but yet, dispensationalists will tell us the
following:
. . .dispensationalists have regarded the present age as a parenthesis unexpected
and without specific prediction in the Old Testament (John F. Walvoord, The
Millennial Kingdom, 227).
The Church is a mystery in the sense that it was completely unrevealed in the Old
Testament and now revealed in the New Testament (C.C. Ryrie, The Basis of the
Premillennial Faith, 136).
Correlation blocks’ 2 and 3 indelibly destroy these statements, because they apply “the
wider theological contexts” of the Bible. When the whole Bible is used, dispensational
compartmentalizing becomes an overall contradictory system—at war against the
scriptures. Notice how blatant the contradictions get: Ryrie asserts: “The Church did not
begin until the day of Pentecost and will be removed from this world at the rapture which
precedes the Second Coming of Christ” (The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 136).
By D. S. Farris
7

8. The Israel Of God
Christ’s Church did not begin at Pentecost. His Church began with the gathering together
of the twelve apostles (Matt. 16:18; 18:17). Moreover, as will be revealed through the
message of this chapter, the Church was simply the organizing of a body of faithful
believers in the God of Israel; therefore, God always had a Church, for He always had an
assembly of true believers—even when Israel as a nation rejected truth. Stated another
way, Christ simply came and formalized—for a lack of a better term—an assembly of
true believers as the true Israel.
The Church Was Foreseen, Not Unforeseen
Ryrie says that the Church was completely unrevealed in the Old Testament and
that the Church had its birth at Pentecost. Peter blatantly contradicts the idea that the
Church was unforeseen. On the day of Pentecost, Peter emphasized, “But this was that
which was spoken by the prophet Joel (Acts 2:16).” Compare Joel 2:28 – 32 with Acts
2:16 – 21. These scriptures unambiguously declare that the prophets foresaw the Church.
In the context of the Church, Peter declares in Acts 3:24: “Yea, and all the prophets from
Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of
these days.” Acts 15:14 – 17 is a quotation from Amos 9:11, 12. James states that, “God
taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name, agreed with the words of the prophets.”
Interestingly, the phrase “a people for his name” was used for Israel (Isaiah 43:7;
Deuteronomy 7: 6; 14: 2; 28: 9, 10). Acts 15:14, 15 is in perfect correlation with 1 Peter
2:9, 10 and Exodus 19:5, 6. These scriptures prove that the Church, founded by Jesus and
His twelve apostles, is the continuation of Israel; the Church is the new Husbandmen
over the kingdom of God on earth (the vineyard).
Isaiah 61 did foresee non-Jewish people within and operating the Vineyard
(Israel). Compare Isaiah 61:6 with Romans 9:30 – 33. Isaiah foresaw that this would
take place through the coming Messiah who would bring salvation to all men (see Isaiah
61:10, 11). We find in Luke 4:18 that Jesus confirmed Isaiah’s prophecy. Naturally, Jesus
would have done so, for in Luke 2:32 we find that the purpose of Jesus was to be “a
light to the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.” Isaiah 42:6, 7 foretold of the
Messianic purpose as saving all men. Acts 13:47 demonstrates that the message of the
Messianic purpose was to go to the ends of the earth for salvation. Paul and Barnabas
were quoting Isaiah 49:6, literally. Isaiah 49:6 declares the exact words of Acts 13:47,
except Isaiah 49:6 mentions the raising up of the twelve tribes of Jacob and restoring
the preserved of Israel. Isaiah’s prophecy coincides with the words of James 1:1, which
states that the “twelve tribes are scattered abroad.” Paul and Barnabas clearly
demonstrated that Isaiah’s prophecy was being fulfilled in the Church; meaning, the
twelve tribes were being “raised up and restored” through the growth of the Church.
Peter testifies that what the prophets had seen, pointed to the Church. He says in 1 Peter
1:9 – 12:
Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which
salvation the prophets having inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied
of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of
time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom
it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the
things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the
Copyright 8/27/03

9. gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down unto them from heaven; which
things the angels desire to look into.
Galatians 3:8 further clarifies the words of Peter: “And the scripture foreseeing (Gr.
Proeido, “see beforehand”) that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached
before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” Paul, like
Peter, explains this text in the context of the salvation that is being brought to the world
through the Church. The fact that the message of Salvation by Christ—seen in the Gospel
—was foreseen by the prophets is also realized in Romans 16:26, 27. The New Testament
does not support the dispensationalist claim that the Church was unforeseen by the
prophets; and thus, not fulfilling Israel’s promises.
The contradictions are glaring! For example, J. D. Pentecost says, “It has been
illustrated how this whole age (church age) existed in the mind of God without having
been revealed in the Old Testament” (Things To Come, 137. Emphasis mine). That
statement is completely contradicted by Amos 3:7: “Surely the Lord God will do
nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” This truth in Amos
3:7 has been illustrated quite clearly in this chapter. Philip Mauro “hits the hammer on the
nail” where he says:
The time came when the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of the system
itself (dispensationalism), 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. Emphasis mine)
The Eternal Or Everlasting Covenant
Ultimately the dispensational controversy concerning the distinction between
Israel and the Church is based on the faulty notion that God made the Everlasting
Covenant exclusively with Abraham and his physical seed. As we are going to see in the
following chapter, dispensationalists have a tendency to begin the Everlasting Covenant
with Abraham and make its focal point a theocratic kingdom that Jesus—at His first
advent—was to bring to the Jewish nation. Because the Jews allegedly rejected this
kingdom, the theocratic kingdom and the Everlasting Covenant—tied to this kingdom—
have been postponed until the millennium. In other words, according to dispensational
theology, the Everlasting Covenant was made to the Jewish nation and has its spring of
activation in this nation.
This view is so “wanting” in an appropriate understanding of the Everlasting
Covenant and “leaves far to much to be desired” in a proper understanding of the origin
of the Covenant—in whole—and in whom it was actually made. Before we move into the
following correlation blocks, we are going to take a journey into the topic of what
constitutes the Eternal or Everlasting Covenant. A proper understanding of this issue
dissolves all unwarranted conjectures about the literal nation of Israel.
The Everlasting Covenant can also be described as the Eternal Creation
Covenant. What is this Covenant? We know that according to Zechariah 6:13; Micah
5:2; Proverbs 8: Since ages-past the “counsel of peace” has existed between the Father
and the Son. Colossians 1:19 says, “It pleased the Father that in Him (the Son) all fullness
should dwell.” The Eternal Creation Covenant was an agreement the Father made with
By D. S. Farris
9

10. The Israel Of God
the Son in eternity-past; that He would create the world’s (the creations) through the Son
(Heb. 8:2; Col. 1:16, 17); that in all things the Son would have the preeminence (Col.
1:18). Colossians 1:15 – 17 explains:
[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature. For by
him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all
things were created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and by him
all things consist.
As we are going to see, the Father’s Covenant with the Son was based on a unilateral
relationship between the Godhead and all creation; that God’s creation should experience
the full blessings of God’s perfect work. Note: “unilateral” as a concept is always
indicative of what God provides for the objects of His love and how God’s people rest in
His perfect provisions in both physical and spiritual needs. The Eternal Creation
Covenant—in essence—was that man along with the rest of creation should experience
the Covenant blessings or provisions promised in Christ before the foundation of the
world. How was the Covenant—made between the Father and the Son—manifested in
the world in its unilateral nature? We can determine this by understanding certain points
in the book of Genesis:
(1) Genesis 1:1 – 31 says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and on
the sixth day God created man in his own image.
(2) Genesis 1:26 – 31; 2:4 – 25; Psalm 8:1 – 9 demonstrates that Adam entered into
God’s creation blessing—brought into being through the Son (Heb. 1:1 – 4; Col. 1:15 –
17). Adam received the promise of dominion over the predetermined work, which the
Father purposed in the Son, and Adam was blessed with the whole earth and all things in
it (Gen. 1:29, 30). We can see that Adam was a “joint heir” of the Creation Covenant—
established before the foundation of the world. As we are seeing, man was to enter—
unilaterally—into the Creation Covenant between the Father and the Son, for man was to
be the recipient of the blessings and promises of God’s provision.
(3) The Unilateral Covenant, which Adam entered, had a law. Genesis 2:15 – 17 says that
Adam was not to eat off of the tree of knowledge. If Adam disobeyed, he would receive
the curse of death. Genesis 2:9 indicates that both the tree of life and the tree of
knowledge were in the garden. Revelation 22:2, 14 tell us that the new creation—to come
—will have the tree of life (immortality). Revelation 22:14 says that those who keep the
commandments will have right to the tree of life. This is the way it was in the first
creation. If Adam obeyed God’s commandment, he had right to the tree of life. Adam’s
immortality was, unequivocally, conditioned on his obedience to God’s commandments.
The unilateral Covenant clearly has God’s law as the basis of its foundation.
(4) Genesis 2:1 – 3; Exodus 20:8 – 11; Mark 2:27: When God saw that all that He had
created was good, He rested on the seventh day and blessed it and sanctified it as a sign
of His perfect creation. Genesis 2:1 – 3 shows that God rested on the seventh day from all
His works. If Adam received dominion over God’s creation as an inheritance, it is likely
Copyright 8/27/03

11. that he also received the memorial of God’s creation as an inheritance. So, from the
beginning, the Sabbath was the sign of the unilateral Covenant between the Father and
the Son—brought to Adam and the creation. From the beginning, it was intended that
man enter into God’s rest from God’s perfect work. Adam’s only work consisted of taking
care of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15) and enjoying God’s provisions every day and
entering into the weekly Sabbath as the memorial of all God’s provisions.
Genesis 2:1 – 3 reveals that God blessed the seventh day and made it holy. Did
God bless and sanctify the Sabbath for Himself without offering it to Adam? No! Mark
2:27 shows that the Sabbath was made for man. The Sabbath was introduced to Adam as
a memorial of his existence, the existence of both heaven and earth, and a memorial that
points to the unilateral (a perpetual rest: Heb. 4) promises and blessings of God’s
Covenant. From the beginning, the Sabbath was a day representing the unification of
God’s whole creation to Himself in the Eternal Covenant.
What we have just analyzed, in essence, is the fact that the Covenant of God—
introduced to Adam—had promises, blessings, law, and the curse of death if the law
was broken. Moreover, the Sabbath was instituted as a memorial of the Creation. These
things are elements within the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenant.
As we are going to see as we move along in this section, ultimately, there is One
Everlasting Covenant, which includes all the saints from Adam to the last man born.
Both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were placed in the Garden of Eden
as a symbol of “free will” in that man had a choice to serve God or to serve himself.
Adam had only to trust in God for all his needs. To trust in God’s provision, is to eat off
of the tree of life. The tree of knowledge then was the symbol of self-trust, opposed to
trusting in God for all blessings. What was the great offense in eating off of the tree of
knowledge? Eating off of the tree of knowledge placed Adam’s trust on himself instead
of on God. The tree of knowledge was the symbol of making “self” the source of all
blessings. This in essence was the breaking of the unilateral Covenant. Trusting in self
broke the perpetual rest, which Adam was to live in for eternity.
Self-trust is the place that brought Satan into distrust towards God and led him into Sin
(Ezek. 28:15 – 17; Isaiah 14:13, 14). Satan knew from his own experience that if he could
cause man to seek self-knowledge, rather than trust God, man would separate himself
from God’s provisions—both spiritual and physical, and man would place himself on the
grounds in which Satan could become man’s master. Thus, Satan could rob man of his
heritage. Man, through the tree of knowledge, was given a choice between two masters:
By D. S. Farris
11

12. The Israel Of God
either rest in the provisions of God predetermined to have their preeminence in Christ or
trust in self knowledge and self provision—the very essence of Satan‘s kingdom.
The earth was connected to Adam in a very intimate way, so much so, that when
Adam fell from a sinless state, this had an affect on the whole creation. The creation was
brought under the curse of sin with Adam (Gen. 3:17 – 19). This shows that God’s
unilateral Covenant was, not only for Adam, but also for the rest of creation. The
unilateral Covenant of blessings was for the benefit of the whole creation under the
dominion of Adam. When Adam sinned he forfeited himself and the creation to the
kingdom of darkness.
We should raise the question: How did God bring man and the whole creation
back into the Covenant? We learn that the Eternal Covenant included a way of salvation
if the Covenant should ever be broken. 1 Peter 1:19, 20 and Revelation 13:8 explain that
Christ dieing for mankind was “foreordained before the foundation of the world.” 2
Timothy 1:1, 9 states that we were saved in Christ Jesus before the world began. Titus
1:2 states that eternal life was purposed for us before the world began. For emphasis, the
question should be raised: What was purposed before the beginning of the world, and in
whom were they purposed? Ephesians 3:10, 11 and Romans 16:25 explain that all things
were purposed in Christ before the world began.
The Everlasting Covenant Definitely Includes The Creation
We find that the Covenant made between the Father and the Son, in its
predetermined plan of restoration for fallen man (Gen. 3:15), also included restoration of
the creation. This is seen in the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:9 – 17). Genesis 9:9, 10, 16
says:
And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after
you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle,
and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every
beast of the earth. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that
I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living
creature of all flesh that is upon earth.
After all flesh (both man and beast) was destroyed (Gen. 7:17 – 24), Noah, his family,
and the animals were the remnant of the creation. God established His Everlasting
Covenant with this remnant as the continuum of the Covenant’s re-integration for man.
The Eternal Creation Covenant (The Everlasting or Eternal Covenant) was not distinct
from the following covenants promulgated through Abraham as dispensationalists teach.
We learn in Jeremiah 33:20, 21 that the Davidic promise is organically fused with the
covenant of the day and the night (see Gen. 1:14 – 16). Jeremiah explained that God’s
covenant with David includes elements of the creation. This fact is clearly proven in
Colossians 1:16 where it says that all things in heaven and earth were created by the Son
and for Him. Colossians 1:20 brings the Eternal Creation Covenant into clear focus: “And
having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto
himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.” The
promise of salvation in Genesis 3:15 and the Noahic covenant in Genesis 9 are in perfect
correlation with the scriptures in Colossians 1, for the foreordained plan of Salvation in
Copyright 8/27/03

13. the Eternal Creation Covenant, not only was purposed for the salvation of man, but also
the restoration of the creation. This is further clarified in Romans 8:19 – 23, which states:
For the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons
of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason
of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain
together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the
firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body.
The saints and the whole creation wait with the earnest expectation for the New Heaven
and Earth where there will be righteousness (2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21, 22). We learn in
Isaiah 65:17 – 25 that, not only man, but also the creation will be restored to what it was
in Eden (Even Better). Isaiah 66:22, 23 indicate that the Sabbath will be the memorial in
the New Heaven and Earth as it was in the first creation.
The Eternal Creation Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant. It was lost in the
Garden of Eden. God, in His foreknowledge, predetermined that it would be restored
through Christ. Every covenant in the Old Testament was a gradual re-integration of the
Everlasting Covenant until it was more fully regained in the New Covenant. The
Everlasting Covenant existing today—defined as the New Covenant—will reach its acme
and complete restoration in the New Earth after sin has been eradicated. Now we will
proceed to expound on this issue with more clarity through the following demonstration.
Everlasting Covenant’s Reintegration Through Patriarchs
Notice the comparison of the following covenants—from Creation to Moses—and
compare them with the following diagram:
(1) Eternal Creation Covenant or Everlasting Covenant given to man:
Genesis 1:26 – 31; 2:4 – 25; Psalm 8
(a) Adam was blessed with all provision, both spiritual and temporal.
(b) He was promised to be the heir of the whole earth.
(c) The Law concerning the tree of knowledge was the governing principle of God’s
unilateral Covenant.
(d) Gen. 1:14 – 16: The division of day and night was to be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days, and years.
(e) Gen. 2:1 – 3: The sign of the Covenant was the Sabbath. The Sabbath must have
also been the sign of the weekly cycle.
(2) The Law was broken, and God had a preordained plan to restore the Everlasting
Creation Covenant. The gradual reintegration of the Covenant began with the
promise given to Adam:
By D. S. Farris
13

14. The Israel Of God
1 Peter 1:19, 20; Revelation 13:8; 2 Timothy 1:1, 9; Titus 1:2; Ephesians 3:10, 11;
Romans 16:25
(a) Gen. 3:15: Through the seed of the woman, the Messiah would come and save
man from death, and the Messiah would restore all that was lost through the fall.
(b) Gen. 3:2 and 4:4: Sacrifices were instituted as a type of the Messiah who was to
come. The basis of the sacrifice, a symbol of the coming Messiah, was faith (Heb.
11:4).
(3) The Noahic covenant was the next gradual reintegration of the Everlasting
Covenant:
Genesis 6:5: God saw that all of mankind had been corrupted, but Noah found favor in
God’s eyes (verse 8). God continued the Creation Covenant with Noah (Gen. 6:18; 9:9,
10, 15).
(a) Gen. 8:17; 9:1 – 3: Like Adam before his fall, God wanted to bless Noah with all
provision.
(b) Gen. 8:21, 22 and 9:11: God promised Noah that he would not again curse the
ground or destroy the living creatures through a flood. Cold and heat; summer and
winter; day and night shall not cease. Gen. 8:22, like Jer. 33:20, 21, is restating
what was promised in Gen. 1:14 – 16 concerning God’s covenant with day and
night and “time.” It is undoubtedly true that God’s Covenant was, not only for
man, but also for creation.
(c) Gen. 9:4 – 6: God made the Law that Noah and his seed cannot eat the blood of
animals. Gen. 7:2: Noah new the difference between clean and unclean animals.
God also emphasized that Noah and his people were not to commit murder. Law
was the guiding principle in this aspect of the Everlasting Covenant’s
reintegration, just as it is in all the other covenants.
(d) Gen. 8:20, 21: The sacrifice of Noah pointed to the Messiah of the Creation
Covenant. Noah became heir of the righteousness, which is by faith (Heb. 11:7).
(e) Gen. 9:12 – 15: The rainbow became the sign of God’s Covenant with both Noah
and the rest of the creation that a flood would not destroy the world again.
Notice that the Everlasting Covenant continued, not only with Noah, but also all
the living things on earth.
(4) The Abrahamic covenant was the next gradual reintegration of the Everlasting
Covenant.
Note: Genesis 17:17 says that the Everlasting Covenant continued through Abraham.
(a) Gen. 12:1, 6, 7; 13:14 – 16; 15:18 and 17:8: The blessings of Abraham are clearly
seen in the promises made to him. Abraham’s seed was promised to be the
recipient of the land of Canaan, but Canaan was only a type of the world (Rom.
4:13). Abraham’s seed was promised the New Jerusalem, which is the New
Creation in the new world to come. Obviously the Abrahamic covenant is the
Copyright 8/27/03

15. gradual recapturing of the one Covenant introduced and broken in the Garden of
Eden.
(b) Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 26:4: Abraham was promised that, through his seed, all nations
would be blessed. This is the promise of Gen. 3:15, and this promise is based on
the Everlasting Covenant between the Father and the Son.
(c) Gen. 26:5: Abraham kept God’s commandments, statues, and judgments. In other
words, Abraham kept God’s laws. Law in this aspect of the Covenant’s
reintegration was the guiding principle.
(d) Gen. 15:8 – 11 and Jer. 34:17 – 19: When Abram was first being led away from
the Chaldees, he wanted assurance that God was giving him the land of Canaan.
God told Abram to offer a sacrifice. This sacrifice, like all the others, pointed to
the Lord of the Covenant.
(e) Gen. 17:7 – 11 and Rom. 4:11: God gave Abraham circumcision as the sign of the
Covenant.
(5) The Mosiac covenant was supposed to be a step closer in the reintegration of the
Everlasting Covenant, but here the Covenant went the direction of Bilateral instead
of unilateral.
(a) Ex. 3:6 – 8 and Gen. 15:13, 14: Moses was to lead the Israelites to the land, which
was promised to Abraham. Israel was to receive the unilateral blessings, which
were offered to Abraham.
(b) Ex. 20:2 – 17 and Deut. 4:13: The Covenant was based on the Law of God.
(c) Ex. 24:1 – 8: The Covenant was ratified with the blood of oxen.
(d) Ex. 31:16, 17 and Ezek: 20:12, 20: Like the first Creation and the Creation that is
to come in the New Earth, the Sabbath was the sign of the Covenant.
Eternity Past Eternity Future
Creation
Covenant
Noahic
Covenant
Abrahamic
Covenant
Mosaic or Old
Covenant
Davidic
Covenant
Jesus
ratifies
Eternal
Covenant
New
Covenant
Man sinned and the
Eternal Covenant was
broken.
Adamic
Covenant
The progressive reintroduction of the Everlasting Covenant
throughout history
Eternal Covenant
is regained more fully.
ETERNAL CREATION COVENANT
THE CREATION COVENANT WILL BE COMPLETELY RESTORED IN THE NEW HEAVEN AND EARTH
Bilateral Departure
UNILATERAL
Up to this point, we can see that the covenants from Adam to Moses had within them,
blessings, promises, law, sacrifice, and signs. All these covenants had these elements.
What was the focal point of the promises in the Mosaic covenant? The focal point of the
Mosaic covenant was receiving the land of Canaan, a type of the world. This promise
By D. S. Farris
15

16. The Israel Of God
goes back to Abraham; then back to Noah; then back to Adam. Note: The absolute
outcome of the of the entire Covenant is explained by 2 Peter 3:13, “Nevertheless we,
according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwells
righteousness.” All of these covenants had elements, which revolved around the promises
of inheriting the land, because they all represent ONE Covenant, the Everlasting Creation
Covenant, which will reach its total fulfillment in the New Jerusalem in the New Earth.
Elaborations On The Terms: Old And New Covenant
The New Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant more fully regained. If ultimately
there is only one Covenant, The Eternal or Everlasting Covenant, then why do the
scriptures indicate that there are two Covenants, the Old and New Covenant? The reason
that the Mosaic reintegration of the One Covenant is styled the Old Covenant is because
the Israelites, not the Lord, changed this Covenant from unilateral (not I, but Christ) to
bilateral (self sufficiency plus Christ). The Mosaic covenant was a departure from the
experience of Abraham. When the book of Hebrews talks about the poor promises of the
Old Covenant, the book is undoubtedly speaking of the fault found with the Israelites
(Heb. 8:7, 8). God came to Israel to fulfill the Abrahamic promise of establishing a great
nation of men who’s obedience would be the product of a faith that allowed God’s Spirit
to produce righteousness in the individuals. The reason Abraham kept God’s
commandments (Gen. 26:5) is because he, through faith, relied on the unilateral provision
of God. This had been the case of all the prominent figures from Adam’s day to Moses.
Law has always been the guiding norm of the Everlasting Covenant’s reintegration, but
never was it intended to be the Savior of man. Man could only keep God’s precepts when
he—through faith—relied on God’s provision in the heart. Obedience was to be the fruits
of the Spirit.
Exodus 19:3 – 6 show that God intended for the Israelites to obey the Law of the
Everlasting Covenant. Did got want a bilateral commitment from Israel? The Mosaic
covenant was supposed to be based on the same unilateral experience of Abraham.
Galatians 3:17, 18 and Romans 4:13, 14 teach that the law given 430 years after Abraham
cannot disannul the Covenant given to Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was in purpose to
be an expansion of the unilateral Covenant. Note: “The promise that Abraham and his
seed should be the heir of the world was not through [righteousness (bilaterally)
obtained] the law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:13, 14).” Galatians 3:19
says, “The law was added because of transgression.” The law was to reveal to Israel their
sins and their need of the coming Savior. Deuteronomy 6:1 – 9 reveal that God wanted
his laws, statues, and judgments to be placed in the hearts of the Israelites; this is the
basis of the New Covenant (Heb. 8:10). The requirements of the law were to be fulfilled
by means of God writing those laws in the hearts of the Israelites. Through faith in God,
the Israelites would allow God to transform their minds and hearts (unilaterally), then,
and only then would obedience be genuinely performed with self sufficiency put in the
dust where it belongs. The ancient Israelites chose a path that could never have worked.
Thus, the term Old Covenant points to the departure from the unilateral Covenant in the
time of Moses, and the term New Covenant points to the recapturing of the unilateral
Covenant.
The Mosaic covenant was a further revelation of the original promise. For
Copyright 8/27/03

17. example, we find that the Sabbath was instituted before sin ever came into the world, as a
memorial of God’s perfect creation (Gen. 2:2, 3). After the fall of man, we see Abel
offering a Lamb as a sacrifice in Genesis 4…after the fact that the Lord gave the promise
of redemption in Genesis 3:15. In Genesis 8:19 – 21, Noah offered burnt offerings to
God, offerings which pointed to the Messiah. Furthermore, Noah knew the difference
between “clean” and “unclean” animals. The Sabbath, the burnt offerings, and knowledge
about clean and unclean animals were institutions that were expanded upon in the Mosaic
covenant. We find in Genesis 17:9, 10 the fact that circumcision was added to the
Abrahamic covenant and enlarged upon in the Mosaic covenant. Genesis 26:5 states that
Abraham kept God’s “commandments, statues, and laws.” The Mosaic covenant set in
motion a system of types, which would find their perfect antitypical fulfillment in Christ
and His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:1 – 6). The Mosaic covenant, in
essence, was to be the culmination and organization of a nation who had the experience
of Abraham. The bilateral error on the part of the Israelites did not set aside the Covenant
promises made to Abraham; which was an expansion of the promises made to Noah;
which was an expansion of the promises made to Adam; which, as a Covenant, has its
inception in the Godhead.
The Everlasting Covenant
(Determines Who Constitutes The Seed Of Promise)
When mankind transgressed the commandment of God in the Garden of Eden, he broke
the unilateral Covenant of God, for he sought self-knowledge. As a result of
transgression, man forfeited his dominion over the earth (Psalm 8) to the control of the
kingdom of darkness. As was said, preceding the fall of humanity, God had already
decided how He would save mankind and re-integrate the Covenant if the Covenant had
ever been broken. Revelation 13:8 says that the lamb was slain from the foundation of
the world (also see 1 Peter 1:19, 20). In Genesis 3:15 Jesus told us that through the seed
(offspring) of the woman, a way out of the kingdom of darkness would be made manifest.
The promise given to Adam was the promise of redemption through the Messiah. The
Godhead purposed these things before the world began, because it has always been in the
mind of God that in Christ “we should be Holy and without blame before the [Father] in
love (Eph. 1:4).”
Within Genesis 3:15 we have the beginning of the Everlasting Covenant’s
reintroduction, and we have a clear indication that throughout time there would exist two
(not three) seeds: the serpent’s seed (offspring) and the woman’s seed (offspring). In
By D. S. Farris
17

18. The Israel Of God
Genesis 4:1 – 11 we immediately see the manifestation of the two seeds. Abel represents
the seed of the woman, and Cain represents the seed of the serpent. Now we must raise
the question: What distinguished Abel as belonging to the seed of the woman and Cain
as belonging to the seed of the serpent? Both Cain and Abel were the offspring of Adam,
and both possessed fallen humanity; their lineage could not have been a distinguishing
factor. Hebrews 11:4 shows that through Faith Abel was righteous in God’s sight. Did
God respect Abel over Cain because of superficial reasons such as genetics? No! The
Lord told Cain, “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin
lies at the door.”
From the very beginning in God’s dealing with mankind, we can see the fact that
God “is no respecter of persons (Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Job 34:19; Acts 10:34; Rom.
2:11; Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17).” God told Cain, “If you do well, you
will be accepted.” Rather than offering a sacrifice that pointed to the Messiah and His
work of salvation, Cain offered a sacrifice produced from his work (human works). It is
in this instance that we see the elements of bilateralism. Though Cain wanted to please
God, his sacrifice pointed to “self provision,” (eating off of the tree of knowledge) while
Abel’s sacrifice pointed to faith and trust in “God’s provision” (eating off of the tree of
life). Man’s provision was not acceptable to God in Cain’s day and never will be, for that
sin is what broke man’s Covenant relation with God. The second sin of Cain was
jealousy, and then followed murder.
Here in Genesis 3:15 and 4:1 – 11 we have the very foundation of the method in
which God would re-integrate man back into the Everlasting Covenant (Heb. 13:20):
Faith in the Messiah (the one in whom the Eternal Covenant was made), and Faith in God
who is no respecter of persons, for God is just and righteous knowing the exact
motivation of each heart—being the self expression of purity, not partial. This is the
foundation for a relationship with God, and this was the foundation, which was laid for
all those who would be the seed of the woman.
In these illustrations, we can see the foundation of what differentiates the seed of
the woman from the seed of the serpent: Galatians 4:29 says, “He that was born after the
flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit.” Cain and Abel represent a prototype
of two classes: those who are born after the flesh and those who are born after the Spirit
through faith (Gal. 3:14). “The children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the
children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom. 9:8), and the children of the
promise are those who are righteous through faith (Rom. 9:30 – 32; Gal. 3:14); for they
are resting in God’s perfect work in their lives; they are not seeking self provision on the
tree of knowledge. These are two classes, which will exist until the close of human
history. Said another way, the experience of Cain and Abel was a prototype of the Battle
that would exist between the children of God and the children of the Devil until the close
of time (Rev. 12:1 – 17).
The Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and the
Davidic covenant—pointing to the New Covenant—are a continual revelation and
expansion of the Covenant promise of Genesis 3:15 (notice the preceding diagram on this
point). All of these covenants are simply a continual expansion and reintegration of the
Eternal Covenant that was lost through the fall of man. These covenants are based on
the same principles set out in the story of Cain and Abel: righteousness by faith.
Hebrews 11 undoubtedly takes the entire prominent father’s of the Old Testament and
Copyright 8/27/03

19. combines them into one people of God expressed through human history. Hebrews 11
also includes the New Covenant saints as the perfection of the Old Covenant saints.
Hebrews 11:39, 40 states: “And these all (the Old Testament Fathers), having obtained a
good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better
things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.”
We should ask for the sake of emphasis to dispel all confusion: Why are the New
Testament saints and all the Old Testament saints—from Adam through the Church—all
classified as one people of God? Here is the answer: Noah was heir of the Everlasting
Covenant (Gen. 9:16; 17:7); Abraham was heir of the Everlasting Covenant (Gen. 17:7).
Israel was heir of the Everlasting Covenant (Lev. 24:8); David was heir of the Everlasting
Covenant (2 Sam. 23:5); the Church saints are heir of the Everlasting Covenant (Heb.
13:20, 21; 1 Cor. 11:25; Matt. 26:28). All the saints mentioned are heirs of the Everlasting
Covenant, because this Covenant, though broken in Eden, was introduced to Adam
(Mankind). Are we, as dispensationalists, to dream that there are several Everlasting
Covenants, or shall we come to the reality that the saints of all ages are heirs of THE
Everlasting Covenant?
Christ was married to Israel (Isaiah 54:5; Jer. 3:14; 6:2; 31:32 Hos. 2:19). Christ
is married to the Church (Eph. 5:23 – 33; 2 Cor. 11:2; James 4:4; Rom. 7:1 – 4; Rev. 12).
According to the Scofield Reference Bible Ft. notes on Rev. 19, Christ has two wives: (1)
The Church, Christ’s heavenly wife; (2) and Israel, Christ’s earthly wife. This is totally
ridiculous; Christ has always had one wife. Are we to dream that Christ is a polygamist
or that he may even have concubines, or shall we come to the Biblical conclusion that
Christ’s bride—at His second coming—will be all the faithful from Adam’s day to the
last man born? The fact that Christ does not have two wives, one on earth (Israel) and
one in heaven (the Church), is seen in Revelation 21:12 – 14. These scriptures illustrate
that both the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and the names of the twelve apostles are
engraved on the New Jerusalem. The Church (Matt. 16:18; 18:17)—enlarged through the
twelve apostles—obviously inherits the earth with ancient Israel. Why is this the case?
This is the case, because both represent Christ’s bride; because there are two seeds in the
world—the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent—not three seeds.
Who are the seed of the woman and heirs of the Everlasting Covenant? According to
Hebrews 11, those who have faith in the following message:
Adam Man Jared Shall descend, or come down
Seth Placed or appointed Enoch Teaching, dedicated, disciplined
Enos Wretched, fallen man Methusaleh His death shall bring
Cainan Lamenting Lamech Power
Mahalaleel The Blessed God Noah Rest and comfort. Note
Note
Louis F. Were’s book , The Certainty Of The Three Angel’s Message, p. 181. Were claimed that “the
Reformer Urinus, author of the Heidelburg Catechism, is credited with being the first to draw attention to
By D. S. Farris
19

20. The Israel Of God
The Confusion That Undermines The Unity Of The Saints
Hebrews 8 speaks of two Covenants: The Old Covenant and the New Covenant;
and this simply means, the departure (Old) and re-establishment (New) of the Everlasting
Covenant. Hebrews 11 takes the prominent Old Testament fathers—from Abel to the
Church—and combines them with the saints in the New Covenant as one continuous
chain of believers representing one people of God. This is sufficient to say that God does
not have a people based on a physical nature as dispensationalists teach. How is it then
that dispensationalists miss this fundamental truth? Dispensationalists ignore the unity of
the saints under the Everlasting Covenant by means of compartmentalizing the saints into
their own unique dispensations. Scofield says, “A dispensation is a period of time during
which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of
God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture” (Scofield Reference Bible,
Ft. notes on Gen. 1: 5). What are these seven dispensations? Ryrie explains: “A
dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose”
(Dispensationalism Today, 29). In other words, these seven dispensations are seven
distinguishable economies. According to the Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Gen.
1, these seven economies are said to be:
(1) Innocence: Before the fall of man;
(2) Conscience: From Adam to Noah;
(3) Human Government: From Noah to Abraham;
(4) Promise: From Abraham to Moses;
(5) Law: From Moses to Christ;
(6) Grace: The Church Period;
(7) Kingdom: The millennial period.
Intertwined with these seven economies, there is said to be seven covenants:
(1) Adamic (Gen. 3:15);
(2) Noahic (Gen. 9:1);
(3) Abrahamic (Gen. 15:18);
(4) Mosaic (Ex. 19:25);
(5) Palestinian (Deut. 30:3);
(6) Davidic (2 Sam. 7:16);
(7) New (Heb. 8:8).
We must ask: Which scriptures do dispensationalists use to justify the seven
dispensations? They use the following: 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2; and Col. 1:25. These
scriptures are important to dispensationalists because they all use the word,
“Dispensation.” Does the fact that the Bible uses the word, Dispensation, justify
dispensationalism, or have dispensationalists contorted a word to have a meaning
different from its true meaning? Notice the following examples:
the teaching of the Gospel in the meaning of the names of these ten antedeluvians.”
Copyright 8/27/03

21. NKJ1 Corinthians 9:17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I
have been entrusted with a stewardship.
NAU Ephesians 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the
times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on
the earth. In Him
NAU Ephesians 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which
was given to me for you;
NKJ Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from
God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,
Notice that we purposely chose translations that use the words’ “Stewardship” and
“Administration.”—being essentially the same. The Greek word that is used for
“Dispensation” is Oikonomia; meaning: “management or administration, as in managing
or administering a house.” These scriptures say absolutely nothing about dispensations as
dispensationalists assert. The only text that dispensationalists could possibly use is
Ephesians 1:10 because of the phrase “fullness of times.” This does not work, for there
have been times past, and the there will be times future—in the perspective of years,
decades, and centuries. “Times” simply indicate multitudinous periods of existence. Paul
is simply saying that the administration (the plan of salvation) is suitable for the many
periods until the second coming. If dispensationalists were to apply their methodology to
the true meaning of “fullness of times,” there would be multitudes of unique
dispensations between the cross and the second coming—instead of just one dispensation.
If we were to apply the true meaning of “fullness of times” with dispensational methods
—from Adam to the end of the millennium—we would have perhaps thousands and
thousands of dispensations.
What is the immediate problem with this compartmentalizing of God’s dealings
with mankind? Ryrie—inadvertently—takes the matter to its logical conclusion:
Let it be said very emphatically at this point that dispensationalism does not deny
that God has His own redeemed people throughout all ages. But that these
constitute a people rather than peoples of God we do deny. The fact that God
saved people from among the Israelites and the fact that God saved people from
among Gentiles today does not make the Church equal to Israel or make the
Church the fulfillment of Israel’s purposes and promises. This does not follow
any more than the fact that God saved Noah and his family and the fact that God
saved Israelites make Israel the family of Noah or make Israel to fulfill the
purposes of Noah. Israel is distinct from the godly line that preceded the calling
out of Abraham and Israel’s promises were different. The godly from both
groups are redeemed, but they do not necessarily have the same promises or
fulfill the same purposes. The same is true in comparing Israel and the Church
(Dispensationalism Today, 143. Emphasis mine).
Ryrie’s statement is a perfect example of how dispensationalists compartmentalize the
saints, and how dispensationalists completely overlook the message of Hebrews and the
solidarity of the Everlasting Covenant. In disagreement to dispensationalism, we must
By D. S. Farris
21

22. The Israel Of God
concur that God has not told us about seven distinct dispensations. God has told us that
there is one Everlasting Covenant encompassing the saints of all time. In the One
Everlasting Covenant, God has reintegrated it through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Moses, David, and the Church. When we acknowledge that the term “covenant”
can be applied to each of these figureheads, we are acknowledging the Everlasting
Covenant’s reintegration and enlargement with each of these figureheads. In other words,
the term “covenant,” as is applied to these figureheads, does not depict several distinct
dispensational covenants; but rather, the term depicts the One Covenant’s enhancement
through each of the figureheads.
Dispensational Economies Disproved
We must emphasize that God has given us in His word a description of two
Testaments (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6, 14; Heb.
7:22; 9:15 – 20; Rev. 11:19). The Bible does not teach seven distinct and separate
Testaments (Gr. Diatheke, “a will” “compact” “covenant”). Well does Philip Mauro
explain that the idea of seven distinct dispensations does not exist in the scripture; but
rather, exists totally in men’s imagination. He explains this matter most accurately where
he says:
There are no such dispensations distinguished in the scripture. The method by
which they have been arrived at is purely arbitrary, fanciful, and destitute of
scriptural support; the method being to select arbitrarily some epoch, such as the
Exodus, and say, ‘here began a new dispensation’ (The Gospel Of The Kingdom,
28).
In further pages, Mauro examines:
The humanly concocted scheme of the seven dispensations, which we are now
considering, has had the effect of blotting, for those who accept it, the
illuminating truth which the scriptures reveal concerning the Two Covenants
(The Gospel Of The Kingdom, 34).
Paul completely repudiates the dispensational doctrine of seven distinct covenants.
Galatians 3:17, 18 explain:
The law introduced 430 years (Gen. 15:13; Ex. 12:40) latter, does not set aside
the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it is no longer depends on a
promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise (NIV).
In other words, the Mosaic covenant (styled Old Covenant) is the expanded revelation of
the Abrahamic covenant. This fact is also seen in Exodus 32:9 – 14 where God was
ready to destroy the children of Israel and make a great nation out of Moses, and Moses
said:
Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember
Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants to whom thou swarest by thine own self,
and said unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this
land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it
Copyright 8/27/03

23. forever.
Dispensationalists emphasize that the Mosaic covenant was the fifth dispensation of
“Law,” whereas the Abrahamic covenant was the fourth dispensation of “promise.”
According to dispensationalists, the explicit system of law—works—in the Mosaic
covenant qualifies it as a different covenant than that of the Abrahamic covenant of
promise. Galatians 3:17, 18 preclude this interpretation. Nevertheless, we will ask for
the sake of emphasis: Was the addition of an explicit system of Law at Sinai brought into
being to create a distinct dispensation of works—distinct from Abraham’s unilateral
experience of God’s provision?
Galatians 3:17 – 19 says that the law was added (Gr. Prostithemi, “joined to”
“placed along side”) because (Gr. Charim, “for the sake of”) of transgression. The Law
was the principle in the preceding reintegration of the Everlasting Covenant, but not in an
explicit and multifarious system, as seen in the Mosaic covenant. The law as it pertains
to Sinai is not the beginning of law in the Covenant; it is the beginning of a much more
elaborate and detailed system of law. The promises given to Abraham included that his
seed would become a great nation (Gen. 12:2). A great nation must have a much
greater system of law to govern it; thus it was with the Mosaic reintegration of the
Covenant.
We do not read from Paul’s writings that the Law instituted a new dispensation
of works; we read that the Law was placed along side of the Abrahamic covenant of
promise. This repudiates the idea that the Mosaic integration of an explicit law system
was mutually exclusive from the unilateral essence of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul
made it clear that the Law was placed along side of the Covenant of grace given to
Abraham for the sake of transgression; meaning, to reveal in an open way the
hideousness of sin. This in effect was to point the Israelites to a faith relationship with
the coming Messiah. As Deuteronomy 6:1 – 9 shows, God wanted to put His Law in the
hearts of the Israelites. This could have only been accomplished through the same faith
relationship, which Abraham had with God. God intended to integrate an explicit law
system, not as a means of salvation (Heb. 10:4 – 10), but as a mirror, which was to reveal
the sins of the people (Rom. 3:19, 20; 5:20, 21; 7:7 – 13), which in turn would lead them
to Christ where they would be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24).
The Mosaic covenant was not to set aside the previous Abrahamic covenant of
God’s unilateral provisions. The problem that was introduced in the Mosaic covenant was
that the children of Israel made the Law into something God never intended it to be, a
way of salvation. The children of Israel sought a bilateral (partly them and partly God)
covenant (Exodus 19). Paul, in Galatians 3:15 – 20, proves that God never intended for
the Israelites to go on the path of a bilateral covenant; but the Israelites chose this path.
God in His omniscience allowed them to take this path to clarify to the future generations
of the New Covenant that a unilateral Covenant is the only way in which we can walk
with God. The New Covenant is based on this principle, and this will be the principle in
the New Earth when the Eternal Covenant is finally brought back to its perfect state.
Dispensationalists, in support of their supposed separate dispensational
economies, will explain: “The teachings of grace have not applied to men of all ages.
These teachings were revealed from God through Christ and His apostle” (Lewis S.
Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 4: 205). They say, “For God has never addressed either
the teachings of the law or the teachings of grace to the whole world” (Chafer, Systematic
By D. S. Farris
23

24. The Israel Of God
Theology, Vol. 4: 209). In Systematic Theology, Vol. 4: 207 – 215, Chafer explains that
the teachings of grace, as brought out by Christ, are for the Church saints in this present
Church dispensation only. (Obviously, in looking at the writings of Chafer,
dispensationalists create distinctions between the grace given to Abraham and the grace
given to the Church.) Dispensationalists go as far as to teach:
The nature of a covenant which is based on human works is obvious. Whatever
God promises under such a covenant, is conditioned on the faithfulness of man.
Every blessing under the law of Moses was so conditioned, and every blessing in
the kingdom [the future kingdom] relationship will be found to be so ordered.
(Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 4: 211. Emphasis Mine).
In other words, according to dispensationalists, the covenant that will exist in the
millennium will be based on works. These statements are not only false; they are
perfidious. In contradiction to Chafer, Romans 3:19 says that the law’s purpose is to
make the WHOLE WORLD—not exclusively for those in the fifth dispensation—
guilty before God. If the law applies to the whole world, then grace must apply to the
whole world. Titus 2:11 says: “For the grace of God that brings salvation hath appeared
to ALL MEN—[not exclusively for those in the sixth dispensation].”
Dispensationalists are in direct contradiction with these scriptures. John 3:16, 17
testify that Jesus was sent to the world to bring this grace. The problem with
dispensationalism is that it makes the grace of Christ, brought at His first Advent, a kind
of geometrical ray that commenced with Christ to proceed forward, only to be halted
prior to the millennium. This concept is completely false. Hebrews 11 makes plain the
fact that the grace Christ—brought to the world—extends both backwards in time and
forwards in time (Heb. 9:15). From Adam’s day to the time of Christ’s death, the saints
were the recipients of Christ’s unilateral grace through faith. For God’s people, preceding
Christ’s death, grace was based on faith in a future event—Christ’s atoning death. For
God’s people from Christ’s death to the last person born, grace is based on a historic
event—Christ’s atoning death. Said another way, all of God’s people from Adam to the
last person to be born were and are to experience the grace that came to mankind in A.D.
31. With this in mind, we find Chafer’s attempt to make God’s Covenant with Israel a
covenant based on works a fiction:
The kingdom teachings, like the law of Moses, are based on a covenant of
works. The teachings of grace, on the other hand, are based on a covenant of
faith. In one case, righteousness is demanded; in the other it is provided, both
imputed and imparted, or inwrought. One is of a blessing to be bestowed because
of a perfect life, the other is of a life to be lived because of a perfect blessing
already received (Systematic Theology, Vol. 4: 215, 216. Emphasis Mine).
God never expected the Israelites to obey the law outside of the provisions, which were
inherent in the Abrahamic covenant. The Law was not given to change the Abrahamic
covenant; but rather, it was given to reveal sin and make the Israelites cling with more
tenacity to God’s provision through faith. Hebrews 10:1 – 10 make plain that Israel’s
salvation did not come by the law. Hebrews 9:15 proves that Old Testament Israel was
Copyright 8/27/03

25. saved through the cross, the same providential grace that Chafer acknowledged as
belonging to the Church.
Dispensationalists want us to believe that the “unilateral” provisions of God—
manifested in the Church covenant of grace—has its inception in Christ’s first advent and
was distinctly unheard off in God’s purpose for the Mosaic covenant; and once the
Church is removed from the world, then a New Covenant of works—bilateral in nature—
will be established in which God will expect those “still in their natural bodies” to obey
the law apart from the grace, which the Church has experienced. “What a mind boggling
assumption.” [Dispensationalism is undoubtedly a religion based on the flesh.]
Dispensationalists attempt to create the idea that God had distinct dispensational
economies before Abraham, because if the Old Testament Covenant includes the
antedeluvian saints; dispensational ethnic, literalistic, and eschatological applications for
the physical seed of Abraham become contrary to God’s overall plan to fulfill His
promises through the saints in all ages. Contrary to dispensationalism, we learn that the
writer of Hebrews 11 classifies the antedeluvian saints, the fathers of Israel, the saints in
Israel, and those in the New Covenant as the people of God. We learn in Genesis 5:22 –
24 the very thing, which qualified Enoch for son-ship; he walked with God. Hebrews
11:5, 6 teach that Enoch pleased God through faith. Hebrews 11:7 says that Noah
“became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” This is a term, which undoubtedly
places Noah and Abraham in the same Covenant relation with God. The Bible is so plain
that faith was the principle of the saints preceding Abraham; and yet, dispensationalists
like, Chafer, will tell us:
Abraham attained unto the righteousness of God through faith (Gen. 15: 16), a
stupendous privilege not restricted to Abraham (though not extended to other Old
Testament saints) . . .(Systematic Theology, Vol. 5: 318).
Blatant contradictions like this are so sharp, that one can wonder if these fellows ever
read the Bible. Dispensationalists overlook Hebrews 11 for the simple fact that it brings
all saints of all ages together as one people and thus destroys their applications of both
ethnic literalism and unique dispensational economies.
In summing up this section, we appeal to the question which LaRondelle asked:
“Is the hermeneutic of dispensational literalism organically related to the Holy Scriptures
themselves, or is it a presupposition forced upon God’s Word from the outside as an
objective standard?”(The Israel Of God In Prophecy, 13). The hermeneutic of
dispensationalism is an ideology forced upon the scriptures in order to maintain
imaginary eschatological hopes for Israel. We adamantly emphasize that the
dispensational neglect to apply the Scriptures as an organic book—unified in purpose for
all men—has caused them to “wrestle down” much of God’s word. Dispensationalism by
nature creates disunity in God’s word and disunity among the saints. We have already
provided sufficient enough evidence—in this chapter—to eliminate the third pillar of
dispensationalism. However, we are going to go much further. Let us take this issue to
greater heights in the following correlation blocks.
Correlation Block (4)
(The New Covenant)
By D. S. Farris
25

26. The Israel Of God
Jeremiah 31:31 - 34
Isaiah 61:4 - 9
( verse 8 )
Hebrews 7:22
8:6 - 13
9:15
Acts 3:24, 25
1 Corinthians 10:1 - 4 1 Corinthians 12:1, 2
Ephesians 2:11
12:22 - 24
New Covenant made with
Strangers and Foreigners
New Covenant made with
Israel and realized in Church
Non Jewish People are
no longer foreigners when
they come into Israel ( Church ).
we are children
of the covenant
We are no longer
Gentiles.
Ephesians 2:19, 20
We have already provided sufficient enough evidence to prove that dispensational
theology on the Everlasting Covenant lacks Biblical support. Now we are going to focus
in more detail on the New Covenant and see how un-factual dispensationalism can get.
Question: Was the New Covenant, according to Jeremiah 31:31 – 34 and Hebrews
8:6 – 13, made with the Church? Walvoord says, “The New Covenant is with Israel
and awaits the second coming of Christ for its fulfillment” (The Millennial Kingdom,
209). One should ask the question: What is Walvoord talking about? Pentecost states, “It
should be clear from a survey of the passages already cited that this covenant (the new
covenant) was made with Israel, the physical seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and
with them alone” (Things To Come, 119). These statements become so nonfactual when
one simply reads Isaiah 61: 4 – 9.
Note: The pronouns: they, their, and them refer to the “strangers” and “foreigners.”
NRS Isaiah 61:4: They shall build up the ancient ruins, they shall raise up the former
devastations; they shall repair the ruined cities, the devastations of many generations. 5
Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall till your land and dress your
vines; 6 but you shall be called priests of the LORD, you shall be named ministers of our
God; you shall enjoy the wealth of the nations, and in their riches you shall glory. 7
Because their shame was double, and dishonor was proclaimed as their lot, therefore
they shall possess a double portion; everlasting joy shall be theirs. 8 For I the LORD
love justice, I hate robbery and wrongdoing; I will faithfully give them their recompense,
and I will make an EVERLASTING COVENANT with them. 9 Their descendants shall
be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them
shall acknowledge that they are a people whom the LORD has blessed.
Answer: We have already seen the fact that Isaiah 61:4, 5 pointed to the Church as the
operators of the Vineyard (Israel). Interestingly, Isaiah prophesied that God would also
make an Everlasting Covenant with the “strangers” and “foreigners.” Isaiah 61:8 points
to the New Covenant as described in Hebrews 8:10; 13:20. But one will raise the
question: How can the New Covenant be made with the strangers and foreigners and at
the same time be made with Israel? This is only a problem if one assumes that Israel
does not include people of a genetic background different than that of the Jews, as
Copyright 8/27/03

27. dispensationalists believe. Isaiah 61:8, in correlation with Hebrews 8:10; 13:20, give us
the following argument:
(1) God made the Everlasting Covenant with the strangers and foreigners.
(2) God made the New Covenant (Everlasting Covenant) with the house of Israel.
(3) The house of Israel consists of people of all nationalities (strangers, foreigners,
and Jews).
(4) The house of Israel is the Church.
How do dispensationalists attempt to wrestle down these Biblical truths? Walvoord
explains: “a new covenant has been provided for the church, but not the new covenant for
Israel” (The Millennial Kingdom, 214). Walvoord reasons: “The concept of two new
covenants is a better analysis of the problem and more consistent with premillennialism
as a whole” (The Millennial Kingdom, 219). Ryrie goes as far as to say, “The induction
that there are two new covenants strengthens the premillennial position” (The Basis of the
Premillennial Faith, 125). When Ryrie says that the idea of two new covenants is an
induction, he is absolutely correct; it is an induction that is not based on anything
deductible in the scriptures. O. T. Allis noticed that this kind of interpreting was an
ongoing problem with dispensationalists, where he explains:
The writings of Dispensationalists furnish many examples of hairsplitting
distinctions and of arbitrary assertions which have little if any basis in fact or rest
upon a partial and inadequate induction of the available facts (Prophecy And The
Church, 51).
Ryrie’s induction is completely foreign to the Bible. Furthermore, we cannot see, even in
the remotest way, how Ryrie’s induction strengthens pre-millennialism, because of the
fact that: in order to have a New Covenant for the Church, the Church had to have an Old
Covenant somewhere. If the Church did not exist before the day of Pentecost, according
to dispensational reasoning, then how could the Church have received a New Covenant if
they never had an Old Covenant? Dispensationalists would have been better off to teach
that the Church has its own “first” Covenant, but they cannot teach that in light of
Hebrews 8:6; 7:22; 9:15. R. H. Gundry acknowledges the ridiculousness of such an
interpretation where he says:
Jeremiah prophesied the new covenant under which the Church now stands (Jer.
31:31 – 34). Some dispensationalists separate the new covenant for Israel of
which Jeremiah spoke from an unpredicted covenant for the Church. However,
that view seems defective. Scripture makes no explicit distinction between two
different new covenants (The Church and the Tribulation, 16).
The scriptures in Hebrews, which dispensationalist cannot separate from the Church,
prove that there was a previous Covenant for the Church—before the New Covenant; it
was the same Covenant Israel had. “Two New Covenants,” one for the Church now and
one for Israel in the millennium, is not in the word of God. The only logical conclusion
is to say that the New Covenant for Israel has been realized in the Church; meaning, the
Church is Israel and the continuation of the EVERLASTING COVENANT made with
the fathers of Israel.
By D. S. Farris
27

28. The Israel Of God
We find perfect correlation to this fact in 1 Corinthians 10:1 – 4, which state that
the children of Israel are the fathers of the Church. Moreover, Paul told the Corinthian
Church in 1 Corinthians 12:1, 2 that they were Gentiles. We find that Paul also applied
the term “Gentile” in the past tense in Ephesians 2:11 where he says, “Wherefore
remember that you being in time past Gentiles.” After declaring that these people were
Gentiles in the past, we find in verse 19 that Paul told them: “You are no more strangers
and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” These
were the very terms that Isaiah gave to the non-Jews in his day. What is interesting is the
fact that Isaiah said these people would be operating the Vineyard (Israel), and God
would make an Everlasting Covenant with them. We find that Jesus confirmed this in
Matthew 21; and then, Paul in Corinthians tells the Christians that they were Gentiles and
that the Old Testament fathers are the fathers of the Church. Paul’s reasoning in 1
Corinthians 10:1 – 4 and Ephesians 2:11, 19 – 21 prove that the Church saints are no
longer Gentiles, but are now in the house of Israel.
Seeing the clarity of these correlations leads one to conclude that statements such
as: “If the Church is not a subject of Old Testament prophecy, then the Church is not
fulfilling Israel’s promises, but instead Israel herself must fulfill them and that in the
future”(Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 126) are absolutely contradictory to
the Word of God and very tiring to those who study the sacred precepts. We agree with
Gundry: “Hence again, the present age is neither unforeseen in the preceding age nor
unrelated to the chronology of Israel as revealed in the OT. Not only did the OT predict
the present age, but the NT applies OT prophecy to the Church” (The Church and the
Tribulation, 15). Daniel P. Fuller emphasizes the message of Hebrews almost to the point
of factualness:
He clearly contrasts this “new Covenant” with the old Mosaic Covenant in
Hebrews 7:22 – 23; 9:15; 12:18 – 24, and cites Jeremiah 31:31 – 34 in support of
this contrast in Hebrews 8:8 – 13 and 10:16 – 17. Such passages offer
considerable evidence for concluding that this inspired writer regarded Jesus’
work as a fulfillment of the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31 – 34. But
then a promise for Israel would find some fulfillment in the Church, and this
would refute dispensationalism’s basic premise that God’s dealings with Israel
remain seperate from his dealings with the Church (Gospel and Law, 165).
Note: The promises for Israel do not find some fulfillment in the Church; the promises
find its entire fulfillment in the Church.
ISRAEL IS NOT BASED ON GENETIC LINAGE
(Exposing Zionist Racism)
The reason that dispensationalists cannot see the clarity of the New Testament
fulfillment of Israel’s promises in the Church is based on the belief that God has two
different seeds of promise, a spiritual seed (the Church) and a physical seed (Israel). The
outcome of this assumption leads to the belief that there are three groups of people:
Israel, the Church, and the Gentiles. Said another way, dispensationalists believe that
God has a people based on their spiritual inheritance through faith in Christ while—at the
same time—He has a people based on their physical linage from Abraham. While
dispensationalists believe that there is a spiritual Israel (which refer only to Jews after
Copyright 8/27/03

29. the flesh who have attained to the meaning of the Gospel) within Israel, they nevertheless
teach that God has an unconditional covenant with Israel after the flesh. Can such a
doctrine be sustained? Up to this point, we have thoroughly disproved this theory; but
nevertheless, we are going to take the argument to greater heights to reveal the
impossibility of dispensational theology. Concerning the promises made to Abraham,
Pentecost tells us:
The Abrahamic covenant, which contained individual promises to Abraham,
promises of the preservation of a nation, and the possession of a land by that
nation, was given to a specific covenant people. Since it was unconditional and
eternal, and has never yet been fulfilled, it must await a future fulfillment, Israel
must be preserved as a nation, must inherit her land, and be blessed with spiritual
blessings to make this inheritance possible (Things To Come, 93. Emphasis
mine).
Why do dispensationalists emphasize that the Abrahamic promises must be fulfilled in
the literal nation of Israel? Chafer explains the foundation for this reasoning: “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. Emphasis Mine).
Dispensationalists emphasize that the land and national promises of “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). Dispensationalists emphasize that the Abrahamic covenant was an Everlasting
Covenant made to a race distinct from all other people.
First of all, that the Jewish race is distinct from Adam, is wholly destroyed by
Luke 3, which identifies a genetic linage from Adam to Christ. Secondly, the original
promise of redemption (Gen. 3:15), the beginning of the Everlasting Covenant’s
reintegration, was promised to Adam in the seed of the woman, a terminology that
precedes Abraham and proceeds Abraham (Rev.12). Thirdly, the promise made to Adam
was based on the Eternal Covenant, which the Father made with the Son. Therefore, the
Everlasting Covenant was made to Christ. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses,
and David were simply introduced to an already established Covenant made to Christ,
and they were to be recipients of the promises involved if they believed in the
Covenanted Messiah.
Ultimately the Covenant—though introduced to men—was not originally
made with men; the Covenant was made to Christ in eternity-past. The only way
that men, such as Abraham and his seed, could be implicated into the Covenant promises
—made to Christ—was to accept salvation in Christ. The magnitude of the dispensational
fallacy is that they teach God made the Everlasting Covenant with a race. No! The
Father made the Everlasting Covenant with Christ who was predestined to be made
manifest in the seed of the woman. The land, national, and universal blessing which were
By D. S. Farris
29

30. The Israel Of God
promised in the Abrahamic covenant, were promised to meet their fulfillment in THE
seed of promise. Galatians 3:16 clearly states, “And to Abraham and his seed were the
promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
which is Christ.” In other words, the whole Abrahamic covenant promise, an enlargement
of the original promise, was made to Christ. This is why 2 Corinthians 1:20 declares that
all the promises of God are “YES” in Christ. We can project this picture as such (The
emphasis is needed):
(1) The promise made to Adam was the Everlasting Covenant made to Jesus in
eternity-past, and this promise was to be manifested through the seed of the
woman (Gen. 3:15).
(2) The Covenant made to Jesus continued through Noah’s seed who “became heir
of the righteousness which is by faith (Heb. 11:7).”
(3) The Covenant made to Jesus continued through Abraham’s seed (Gen. 17).
(4) The Covenant made to Jesus continued through Isaac’s seed (Gen. 21:12).
(5) The Covenant made to Jesus continued through Jacob’s seed (Gen. 28:10 – 14).
(6) The Covenant made to Jesus continued through Judah’s seed (Num. 24:17; 49:
10).
(7) The Covenant made to Jesus continued through David’s seed (2 Sam. 7:12 – 15;
23:5; 22:51).
(8) Finally, the Covenant made to Jesus, who was predestined to come through the
seed of the woman, was confirmed in His person Gal. 3:16, 17.
The whole Covenant was made to THE seed of promise. Christ is THE HEIR of
all the promises made to the fathers of Israel (Matt. 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14).
When Adam was given dominion over the whole earth, he received this inheritance as a
joint heir in Christ. When Adam lost possession of the world—to Satan—through
transgression, he received the promise of deliverance through the Messiah. The promise
of deliverance, not only focused on man’s salvation, but also restoration of the creation.
Being the heir of the world was, therefore, a promise inclusive of all those who are joint
heirs in Christ. In other words, God’s people are heir of the world, because they are
implicated in Christ, the One in whom the whole Covenant points to. Being heir of the
world is not locked into ethnic and geographical boundaries.
Dispensationalists have a tendency to lose sight of this fundamental truth, while
they focus on the physical seed of Abraham as being the heirs of the promises. The
promises are not Israel centered; they are Christ centered. The Covenant was made to
Christ, not to the Jews. Since Christ is the seed of promise, He is the heir of the promises,
and the saints of all ages—including Jews—are heirs through or IN Christ (Gal. 4:7, 8).
Romans 8:17 says, “We are joint heirs with Christ.” How are the saints of all Ages joint
heirs with Christ? Romans 4:13 says, “For the promise that he should be the heir of the
world, was not to Abraham and his seed through the law, but through the righteousness
of faith.” In other words, Abraham and his seed, through faith, are joint heirs with Christ;
and these promises include all men who accept Christ (Rom. 4:16). When
dispensationalists assert: “The Gentile believers of the present day, while reckoned as a
seed to Abraham, are not the seed in which national promises are to be
fulfilled,”(Pentecost, Things To Come, 88) one can clearly see that dispensationalists
Copyright 8/27/03

31. make the Covenant promises focal to a fleshly group of Jews rather than to Christ. The
dispensational emphasis on Abraham having a physical seed of promise and a spiritual
seed of promise declares that Christ has fleshly children and spiritual children. No!
Throughout time there will exist two seeds: the seed of the woman and the seed of the
serpent. Galatians proves this! Galatians 4:22 – 31 and Romans 9:6 – 8 perspicuously
show that a physical descent from Abraham does not make one a child of the promise:
compare Genesis 21:12, Galatians 3:16, and 4:28. Genesis 21:12 says, “In Isaac shall thy
seed be called.” In other words, in Isaac the seed of promise would come who is Christ.
In Galatians 4:28, Paul told the Christians, “Now we brethren as Isaac was are the
children of promise.” We are told that spiritual children are God’s children, no one else!
Dispensationalists explain in futility:
Since the church is not the seed in whom the covenants will be finally and
literally fulfilled, it is well to consider the question of her relation to the whole
covenant program. Any relationship which the church sustains to the promises is
based, not on physical birth, but on a new birth, and is hers because the
individuals are in “Christ (Pentecost, Things To Come, 89).
In other words, according to dispensationalists, the physical seed of Abraham does not
have to be in Christ through “new birth” to be heirs of the promise; they are heirs through
genetic heritage. Let it be noted with emphasis that dispensationalists argue incessantly
that God has a fleshly people and a spiritual people. Ryrie emphasizes this where he
says, “All non-dispensationalists blur to some extent the distinction between Israel and
the Church. Such blurring fails to recognize the contrast that is maintained in Scripture
between Israel, the Gentiles, and the Church” (Dispensationalism Today, 137). No Ryrie!
Ephesians 2:13 – 16 prove that in Christ all distinctions between Jew and Gentile are
abolished. Why is this the case? Romans chapters’ 1 – 3 prove that ultimately, there is
no difference between Jew and Gentile, for both have the Adamic nature and both stand
under the condemnation of the Law—outside of Christ. This is why Paul declares in
Romans 10:12, 13, “There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved.” Christ came to abolish the Adamic nature on the cross in
order to create a new man altogether. The new man is the living Christ who abolished our
humanity (Rom. 8:2) and recreated us gloriously in Himself (Phil. 3:21). In Christ we
have been recreated; therefore, it becomes obvious that God does not have a people in the
likeness of the Adamic nature, for Romans 8:13 says, “If we live after the flesh we will
die.” This is why Romans 6 emphasizes that we are to consider ourselves dead to the Old
Nature. Regardless of the fact that the Bible proves Christ abolished the whole Adamic
race—even abolishing the manufactured distinctions between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:13
– 16)—dispensationalists argue that Christians are only children of promise through
spiritual birth but are not actually the seed (offspring) of promise. Philip Mauro
perceptively explains the problem with dispensationalism: “The new doctrine
[dispensationalism] takes no account of the truth that Jews, like all other human beings,
belong either to the first Adam, or to the last Adam; are either ‘in Adam’ (where ‘all die’)
or ‘in Christ’ (where ‘all are made alive’)” (The Gospel Of The Kingdom, 212).
Dispensationalists are teaching that God has two different bodies of the saved,
natural Israel and the Church. And worse, dispensationalists are teaching that God’s
By D. S. Farris
31