Up to this point our study has still been fairly easy. Some of the implications of what has been stated may be debatable, but the basic facts themselves are biblical. Some of these facts have been totally ignored by both Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians in their discussions about Abraham’s seed. If all of these facts are kept in mind, it is impossible to make loose and general statements about the promises made to Abraham’s seed in reference to either the nation of Israel or the children of believing parents today.

We now come to Abraham’s special natural seed, the nation of Israel, and its relationship to the Body of Christ. We need to look carefully at this special natural seed of Abraham, since it is the heart of the issue. As I see it, here are some of the major problems we must wrestle with.

One: We must clearly distinguish in our thinking and discussion between the physical nation of Israel as a ‘special’ natural seed chosen from among all of the other natural seeds of Abraham and the true believers within that physical nation.

Perhaps a chart showing the four seeds and their specific relationship to Abraham (see next page) will help us see the comparison.

It should be obvious how important it is to keep these four seeds separate in our thinking and discussion, and it should be just as obvious that neither Dispensationalism nor Covenant Theology do so.

Kind of Seed	Natural Only	Special Natural	Natural and Spiritual	Spiritual Only
Those Included	All of Abraham’s Physical Seed	Unbelieving Israelite	Believing Israelite	Believing Gentile
Represented By	Isaac and Ishmael	Ahab	David	Christians

We must never, in any sense except as a ‘type,’ equate the physical nation of Israel with the ‘Body of Christ’ any more than we dare equate physical birth into the nation of Israel with spiritual birth into Christ. We may speak of the one being a ‘type which foreshadows’ the reality of the other one, but we must never in any sense equate the two.

Two: We must distinguish and maintain the distinction between the physical blessings promised to and enjoyed by, the whole nation of Israel, and the spiritual blessings promised to every individual in the nation but only enjoyed by those who had Abraham’s faith.

Abraham’s faith is always the most important thing. If a person lacks all else, but has Abraham’s faith, he will be saved whether he is a Jew or Gentile, or whether or not he was born in a Christian home. However, the reverse is equally true. If one has everything else, but lacks Abraham’s faith, he will be as lost as the devil himself regardless of who his parents are or what ‘signs and seals’ were placed upon him. This foundational point is crucial to any correct thinking on our subject.

We must always remember that ‘justification by faith’ preceded circumcision, the law, and the covenant nation; therefore, neither salvation itself nor the gospel message that proclaimed that salvation are in any way integrally connected to any of the things just mentioned. The gospel of grace both precedes and continues after Abraham and circumcision. The gospel of grace was preached and believed before, during, and after the covenant of law given to Moses. There is only one gospel message and it is “salvation by grace through faith.” The success of that gospel is determined by the sovereign electing grace of God irrespective of our works or our family tree.

Three: Just as we must not equate the physical nation of Israel with the ‘Body of Christ,’ so we must never give New Testament spiritual meaning to the physical blessings (which were only a type of the spiritual) that were experienced by every person born into the nation of Israel.

This is true even when the same words are used in both cases. The nation of Israel as a nation was loved, chosen, redeemed, called, adopted, etc., by God; and every Israelite, without exception, experienced each one of these blessings in a physical sense regardless of his personal spiritual relationship to God. However, none of those blessings mean the same thing when the NT Scriptures apply them to individual believers or to the Church as the Body of Christ.

The redemption from Egypt does not equal justification by faith. National ‘adoption’ does not equal ‘sons of God.’ Election as a nation among nations is not equal to “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world” unto salvation. The national and physical redemption from Egypt by blood is not equal to the eternal spiritual redemption by the blood of Christ; and “called of out Egypt” is not the same as the effectual call in Romans 1:7. An unsaved Israelite was just as much ‘redeemed’ from Egypt as a believing Israelite. Every unsaved Israelite could say, “God loved me in a way that he did not love the Egyptians, and he redeemed me from Egypt by his mighty power because I am the seed of Abraham.” However, when a Christian uses the identical words, they mean something entirely different. Again, I remind you that both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology often treat these as synonymous.

The following comment on Romans 9:4 by Robert Haldane sheds great light on this particular point:

Adoption—That is, the nation of Israel was a nation adopted by God as a type of the adoption of His children in Christ Jesus; and in that typical sense, in which they were the children of God as no other nation ever was, they are frequently spoken of in Scripture, Ex. iv:22; Jer. xxxi:9–20. In this way our Lord Himself recognizes them, when anticipating their rejection, He says, “The children of the kingdom shall be cast out,” Matt. viii:12.^[1]

The same things that Haldane says about adoption can be said about the words loved, chosen, and redeemed, etc. when applied to the nation of Israel. The failure to see this is a basic error in Covenant Theology’s view of the church. Their whole doctrine of the church is built on making a one-on-one comparison of Israel and the church. I repeat, every single Israelite could say, “I have been loved, chosen, redeemed, and adopted by God” whether he was personally saved or lost! Both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism treat all of those statements as if they were spoken in the light and experience of New Testament meaning instead of seeing them in a purely physical and national sense.

Four: We must see exactly what God’s purpose was in putting the children of Jacob (as a special and unique nation) under a legal covenant of works at Mt. Sinai.

Exactly how are the nation and the legal covenant that brought it into existence related to the eternal and unchanging purposes of God in history and redemption? Our view of this relationship must accept at face value the statements of Paul concerning the nature and function of the law covenant made at Mt. Sinai. When Paul says the tablets of stone were a “ministration of death” designed by God to convict lost sinners of their guilt (Rom. 5:20; 7:7–13; 2 Cor. 3:6–9; Gal. 3:19), we must accept his words as a fact beyond dispute. Once Paul’s inspired interpretation of God’s intention in putting the nation of Israel under a true covenant of law is accepted, we will forever quit talking about the law covenant being a “gracious covenant given to a redeemed people for their sanctification.”

It is impossible to make the God-ordained instrument of condemnation (the Decalogue as a covenant) that was given to bring lost sinners to see their need of faith in Christ (Rom. 7:7–11; Gal. 3:24) also be, at the same time, the chief instrument of a redeemed saint’s sanctification. The Puritans were right when they spoke of the law being “the handmaid of the gospel.” However, they also created confusion by trying to make the same law serve as the mother of holiness in the believer’s sanctification. They were constantly trying to distinguish between ‘legal’ and ‘evangelical’ obedience to the law. They tried to make the law function in two ways at the same time toward the same people. They wanted the law to be a covenant with the power to convict sinners of their lost condition while insisting, at the same time, that the law was the rule of life for redeemed church members. On the one hand, they took all of the teeth out of the law and made it to be the rule of life for believers. However, at the same time they insisted on preaching the law with fire, brimstone, and threat to sinners. They constantly waffled back and forth between treating the Israelite as a lost sinner needing the law to convict him and at the same time treating him as a church member that could not possibly be under a legal covenant.

John Bunyan has a beautiful illustration on the biblical purpose for which God gave the law to Israel as a covenant. It is the scene in the Interpreter’s house where the man with the broom (representing the law) was stirring up the dust of sin in the human heart. His labor could not cleanse the heart, but was necessary to show the dirt and the inability of both the sinner and the man with the broom (Moses) to clean out the dirt. The damsel came in (the Holy Spirit) and sprinkled the room with water (the gospel) and cleaned the room with ease. So far so good. So far we all clearly understand what Bunyan was teaching. However, once the room is cleaned out, the Covenant Theologian then puts the broom back into the hand of Moses and puts him in charge of keeping the room clean!

How many times have we heard the statement, “Moses will send you to Christ to be forgiven and justified, and Christ will lead you back to Moses to teach you how to live and be sanctified.” We must see that Bunyan is not saying, “The law cannot justify but it can sanctify.” He is saying, “The law cannot conquer sin in the human heart, period.” The law can no more keep the heart clean than it can clean it out in the first place.^[2]

Five: We must see that the covenantal foundation upon which the nation of Israel’s existence and hope of blessing was built is not the same covenantal foundation upon which the Church is built.

If God has redeemed and brought the Church to himself on the same covenantal basis that he ‘redeemed’ Israel and brought that nation to himself, why then can he not disannul that same covenant and cast us off even as he did the nation of Israel? We will discuss this later when we talk about the ‘true nation’ of God that is the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3. This will involve the same things as Four above but in a more distinctly covenantal sense.

I have a paper on Hebrews 8:6 which deals specifically with this particular truth. This text states three clear comparisons that, when understood, set forth the glory of a believer’s superior position under the New Covenant:

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises (Heb. 8:6 NKJV).

First Comparison. The ministry of Christ as our High Priest is far better than the Aaronic ministry it replaces.

Second Comparison. Christ’s ministry is better because the covenant that He established and under which He ministers (the New Covenant) is so much better than the Old Covenant (made at Sinai) under which Aaron ministered.

Third Comparison. This New Covenant is so much better than the Old Covenant that it replaced, simply because the New Covenant is based on better promises than the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant said, “If you obey, then you will be blessed” (Ex. 19:5, 6), but the New Covenant says, “I have obeyed for you, believe and live” (Heb. 10:14– 22).

The above three comparisons are clearly set forth in the text in Hebrews 8:6 and amplified in the context of Hebrews 8–10. The writer of Hebrews compares two different ministries, two different covenants (not two administrations of one covenant), and two different promises. His whole point is to show that a New Covenant believer’s position is so much greater than the position of an Old Covenant believer simply because Christ brought in a New Covenant based on better promises.

Aaron’s ministry was deliberately designed to remind men of sin because of the nature of the legal covenant under which he ministered (Heb. 10:3, 4). That was the stated purpose of that covenant, and its ministry. Our High Priest’s ministry reminds us that “sin will be remembered against us no more” (Heb. 10:18). We will never need another Day of Atonement (Heb. 10:2) because the Old Covenant that condemned has been fulfilled and done away in Christ. This is our sure hope because of the gracious covenant that he established with his blood of sacrifice.

Lastly, it is essential to remember that neither the actual heart spirituality of an individual Israelite, nor the heart spirituality of the nation as a group, had anything to do with Israel being ‘redeemed’ from Egypt and established as a nation under law to God at Sinai.

In reality, they were a group of proud, individualistic, self-seeking rebels. They were established and sustained as a nation only because of their physical lineage to Abraham and Jacob. God did this in fulfillment of his promise to Abraham and also to accomplish his purpose of bringing forth the Messiah through the appointed nation.

Establishing the above six things is not nearly as easy as most people imagine. However, it can be done if we will stick with Bible texts to establish our points. Separating the physical and spiritual seed of Abraham and the special covenant blessings promised to each seed is essential to a correct understanding of the Bible. As I previously stated, this is the heart of the difference between Covenant Theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Dispensationalism as set forth in the Scofield Reference Bible.

The above fact is also the primary reason that makes it literally impossible for the two views to be held at the same time. A Dispensational Covenant Theologian is really an impossibility. Most people would agree with that last statement because it is so obvious. It is just as obvious to me, but not so obvious to some of my Baptist friends, that it is just as impossible to be a Baptist Covenant Theologian. I do not think that a Reformed Baptist can believe the Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession any more than a Reformed Baptist can believe the Dispensationalism set forth in the Scofield Reference Bible. Contrary to mucBaptist h current thinking, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are not the only options. Many people have learned this fact in the last ten years, and many more are learning it every day!

After saying the above, I think I should add that it is impossible to make and maintain the six distinctions I just mentioned without clearly defining and accepting the fact that both a dispensational and a covenantal change took place when Christ completed his work of atonement. In reality, this is the biblical option to both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology that I, as a Baptist who is thoroughly Reformed in theology, clearly see in the Word of God. Notice that I said “Reformed” and did not say “Covenant Theology.” Don’t ever equate Covenant Theology with Reformed Theology. A Baptist can consistently hold the latter, but he must be grossly inconsistent to hold to the Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith. We totally reject the Reformers’ doctrine of sacralism, but agree with their view of sovereign grace in salvation. We also agree with much of Luther’s and Calvin’s views of law. The Reformers’ position is far closer to our view than it is to that of the later Puritans.

It seems to me that our generation should attempt nothing less than finishing the job which the Reformation started so gloriously and then stopped when they picked up the steel sword. We must chuck the remaining remnants of error, especially the whole principle of sacralism, that the Reformers and Puritans hung on to after leaving Rome. Some remarks that I made in the introduction bear repeating here:

They [the Reformers and Puritans] thoroughly reformed the gospel message of justification by faith but failed to reform some other doctrines. They threw out justification by the works of the law, but they held on to sanctification by the law. They threw out the church’s authority over your soul but hung on to the church’s authority over your conscience. They discarded priestcraft but kept clericalism. They rejected the authority of church tradition (and Papal infallibility) but replaced it with man made creeds that have become the infallible authority (tradition) in the church. In reality they replaced a two-legged pope with a paper pope. They cried “Sola Scriptura” while waving their creed in one hand and a sword in the other hand. (From: When Should A Christian Leave A Church?, by John G. Reisinger, Sound of Grace, p. 21).

---