We will now give the textual proof for Abraham’s unique Seed. Christ is not only the most important of the four seeds of Abraham, but understanding his place in Scripture is the key to the true unity of the Scriptures. Christ is the keystone of our salvation as well as being the key and keystone of all Scripture. I reject the idea that the key to Scripture is either dispensations or covenants, even though an understanding of both is necessary to a correct interpretation of God’s Word. However, neither a ‘dispensational’ chart nor ‘biblio-theological’ covenants are of any real help if they cannot be established with specific texts of Scripture. These concepts may give unity to our system, but they will soon force us to twist or ignore some very clear texts of Scripture that don’t fit the system.

The gospel promise of Christ himself is the heart of both the Old and New Testament Scriptures. The advent and work of Christ is the fulfillment of that gospel promise, and the personal advent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and his subsequent indwelling of every New Covenant believer are the absolute proofs that the gospel promise has been fulfilled. Understanding that the gospel of salvation by grace is what is being promised in all of Scripture, and further, that Christ himself is the ‘Seed’ who fulfills that gospel promise, is the only biblical way to see and consistently maintain the unity of God’s purpose in redemption.

God’s dealing with national Israel is the Dispensationalist’s key to Scripture and his time clock for all of history. One all-embracing covenant of grace is the Covenant Theologian’s key to Scripture and his framework for all of history. Under the pretense (quite sincerely) of bringing unity and clarity to the Bible, both systems muddy up the water and attempt to force the Bible to fit into their respective schemes. I shall never forget a note in the front of a lady’s Bible that said, “Don’t muddy up the Bible and then have the nerve to call it deep teaching.”

As I mentioned earlier, at times I may seem to be digressing quite a bit, but I feel it is essential to do so, since the primary purpose of this book is an examination of the basic presuppositions of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. We must remember that both of these systems use ‘the unconditional promise that God made to Abraham and his seed’ as a basic building block in their respective systems. If they do not understand either the promise itself or to whom the promise was actually given, then everything built on that misunderstanding is automatically in error to some degree. Neither of these theological systems can be helpful to a correct interpretation of Scripture, if their own understanding of such a fundamental concept as the ‘promises made to Abraham and his seed’ is wrong.

The following chart gives a quick overview of what the Scriptures say about Christ, the unique Seed of Abraham. It is also a biblical illustration of both progressive revelation and the true unity of Scriptures around the person and work of Christ.

1. Purposed	He is God’s eternal Lamb	Rev. 13:8
2. Predicted	He is the Seed of woman.	Gen. 3:15
3. Promised	He is the Seed of Abraham.	Gen. 12:3
4. Pledged	He is the Son of David.	2 Sam. 7:12
5. Pictured	He is the Subject of all Scripture.	Luke 24:44–45
6. Presented	He is the Fulfillment of every promise.	Luke 1:68–69
7. Positioned	He is the exalted Lord and King.	Acts 2:29–30
8. Proclaimed	The Sum and Substance of the gospel.	Acts 2:36

Let us examine each item in the above chart one at a time.

1. The unique Seed purposed—Christ is God’s Lamb slain from eternity in the purposes of God.

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8 NKJV).

The death of Christ was according to the “determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Before time began, God decreed to send his Son to Calvary. Christ, in the purpose of God, was the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Wherever we see the shed blood of Christ, we see the church of Ephesians 5:25, and the ‘election of grace’ of Ephesians 1:4. Any study of Christ as the seed of Abraham that does not begin with the cross and God’s eternal decree of election is, of necessity, very deficient.

2. The unique Seed predicted–Christ is the Seed of woman.

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel (Gen. 3:15 NKJV).

I use the word predicted instead of promised because the words in this text of Scripture are not spoken to Adam but to Satan. The only thing promised in this verse is Satan’s destruction. Theologians often call this verse the protevangelium.^[1] They are correct in that designation. However, they may, or may not, be right in their application of that designation. No one can deny that the verse predicts the coming of Christ to destroy the work of Satan. However, the verse nowhere suggests that God is making a covenant of grace with Adam.

Using Genesis 3:15 as a proof text for a covenant of grace with Adam demonstrates the obvious fact that men are talking about a theological invention rather than a truth established by biblical exegesis. God’s revealing a specific purpose in a threat to Satan cannot be turned into his making a formal covenant with a man.^[2] God’s speaking to Satan and informing him of his certain doom is a far cry from God’s entering into a covenant of grace with Adam. If anyone insists on using Genesis 3:15 to prove the establishment of a covenant, then we must insist that the covenant, according to the text, was made with Satan. If there is such a thing as an eternal covenant of grace between the members of the Trinity, then God’s action in Genesis 3:15 is a definite step taken in time and history to bring his purpose in that covenant of grace to pass. However, even if such a covenant could be proven to exist, it still must not be equated with God putting either Adam or Abraham under a covenant of grace.

Why not just let the verse mean what it says? God told Satan his days were numbered and it would be the seed of the woman that would destroy him. If one is going to teach a covenant of grace made with Adam, then he should not try to ‘proof text’ it with Genesis 3:15.

3. The unique Seed promised–He is the Seed of Abraham.

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed (Gen. 12:3).

Galatians 3:8 quotes this verse and tells us that God was preaching the gospel to Abraham when he spoke these words:

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

The phrase “in thee shall all nations be blessed” as given to Abraham is equivalent to “believe on the coming Christ” according to the Apostle Paul. As I mentioned above, it is the gospel promise of Christ himself that gives the Scripture its true unity. If one compares Paul’s words used to describe God’s dealing with Abraham with the terminology used by Covenant Theology to describe the same event, it becomes possible to see what I meant earlier. Paul said that God “preached the gospel to Abraham” and in essence told him to believe in a coming Messiah. It is impossible to read ‘made a covenant’ into those words as Covenant Theology does. God indeed made a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 in very clear terms. However, those terms involve, among other things, Abraham’s physical seed inheriting ‘the land.’

Here is a clear textual example, including the terminology, of Covenant Theology’s constant practice of using non-biblical terms to replace clear biblical language. Nowhere in all of the Word of God does the Holy Spirit call the gospel the Covenant of Grace nor does any verse remotely imply that when God graciously makes known the gospel promise to an individual, or to a whole nation, that he is thereby putting that individual under a covenant of grace. If Covenant Theology is correct, then Paul should have said, “God made a covenant of grace with Abraham.”

I do not question that Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 12:3 emphatically prove that the one gospel of grace has always been, and will always be, God’s only way of saving sinners. Likewise, I do not question that the one gospel of grace was preached from the dawn of sin. However, proclaiming the gospel of grace to a person is not the same thing as putting that person under a covenant of grace. Covenant Theology makes these two things synonymous and then draws all kinds of deductions from the non-biblical phrase ‘covenant of grace’ that could not possibly be drawn from the biblical phrase ‘preached the gospel.’ One can deduce sprinkling children as a sign of the covenant from the one phrase, but it would be impossible to do so from the other phrase.

The Apostle Peter is even more explicit concerning the identity of the ‘seed.’ He tells us that the words in thee in Genesis 12:3 mean in thy seed, and further, that the Seed spoken of is God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ye are the children of the prophets [Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.], and of the covenant which God made with our fathers [Abraham, Jacob, David, etc.], saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you [with the blessing promised to the above fathers and told about in the above prophets], in turning away everyone of you from his iniquities (Acts 3:25, 26).

Peter makes several lucid points in these verses. The issues of primary importance to us are as follows:

A. The heart of the blessing promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 dealt with the gospel of salvation by grace through faith, or “turning away everyone of you from his iniquities.” The true blessing of Abraham is nothing less than justification by faith (Gal. 3; 4 and Rom. 4). The NT Scriptures never once interpret the covenant with Abraham to deal with the land of Palestine, let alone make the land the primary part of the promise. The exact opposite is true in the OT Scriptures. The land is the heart of the covenant promise to Abraham from Genesis 15 to the end of the OT Scriptures but stops at Malachi. The ‘land promise’ is never repeated in the NT Scriptures. We will look at this more carefully in a later chapter.

B. Abraham’s seed is Christ himself. Abraham’s true seed is neither the Jewish nation and its physical children, nor the church and her physical children. True believers are Abraham’s seed whether they are Jews or Gentiles and whether they lived before or after Christ. They inherit the Abrahamic blessing only because they believe the gospel and not because of any physical lineage. Many Israelites never believed the gospel that was preached to them, but instead, trusted their privileges. Despite their special covenant relationship, most of them never inherited a single spiritual promise that had been made to Abraham and his seed. All of the members of any institutional church, especially the national church as advocated by Covenant Theology, are likewise not all ‘in Christ.’ They, as individuals, have no separate spiritual promise apart from personal repentance and faith in the universal gospel of God’s grace.

C. The blessing of Abraham was promised not only to the Jews, but to “all the kindreds of the earth.” The Apostles proclaimed the fulfilled promises as being “…to the Jew first…” but never to the Jew exclusively. The Gentiles are promised the identical blessings as those promised to the Jews.

D. The fulfillment of the true blessing promised to Abraham has already been realized by everyone who believes the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel in the book of Acts is always in terms of the resurrection of Christ having already secured the promised Abrahamic blessing. There is not the slightest hint in these verses of any blessing promised to Abraham having been postponed until some later date.

E. The blessing promised to Abraham that was reaffirmed to all of the fathers and promised in all of the prophets is nothing less than the gospel promise of Christ himself. Peter is saying that he was sent by God to announce to the Jews that the promises made to their fathers in the writings of the prophets have been fulfilled in Christ. Nowhere is there any hint of a postponed blessing to be given in the future. According to Peter and Paul, the Old Testament prophets were talking about the gospel age in which we now live. The words in these verses cannot be made to mean anything else. It is probably significant that the Scofield Reference Bible does not cross reference Acts 3:24–26 back to Genesis 12:1–3, or to anywhere else. It ignores the fact that Peter is quoting, interpreting, and applying the true meaning of God’s covenant with Abraham. If ever there was an Old Testament text quoted by a New Testament Apostle that should be cross-referenced and explained, it is this one. This is doubly true if we are trying to understand what God meant in his covenant with Abraham and his seed concerning the promise to bless him and his seed by “turning away everyone of you from his iniquities.” It seems obvious that Dispensationalism cannot fit Peter’s spiritualized interpretation of the promises made to Abraham and his seed into their system.

Dispensationalism is forced to put into the future what Peter, in this text, specifically says has already been fulfilled. They must also naturalize the blessing promised to Abraham that Peter clearly spiritualizes. This may or may not be the reason the verse was not cross referenced by Scofield. Regardless, it is impossible to take Peter’s words literally and then fit the ‘postponed kingdom’ view into this passage of Scripture. It has always amazed me that the people that insist on a literal interpretation of the words of Scripture will not do that very thing when a New Testament Apostle literally spiritualizes an Old Testament prophecy. Peter’s natural language of “This is that which was spoken by the prophet” cannot be taken literally by a Dispensationalist.

F. The infallible proof of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and his seed is the ‘giving of the Spirit.’ A comparison of Acts 2:18, 38 and Galatians 3:14 will show that this is the heart of Peter’s explanation of the events that occurred on the day of Pentecost. It will also show that the giving of the Spirit is a new and unique experience not possible before Pentecost, even though it was the heart of the anticipated promise in the OT Scriptures.

Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days,… Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ … And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit (Acts 2:18, 38; Gal. 3:14 NIV).

The most important single question concerning Abraham and the promises made to him in Genesis 12:1–3 is very simple. Read the following question carefully and then see what I believe to be one of the basic errors of Dispensationalism expressed in the answer: “In choosing, calling, and entering into covenant with Abraham, is God”:

• making an ‘unconditional covenant’ that begins a whole new program involving an earthly people (the nation of Israel) with a permanent and separate identity in a specific and clearly defined physical land (Palestine), in distinction to a heavenly people (the church) with its spiritual blessings in the heavenly places?
• or is God taking the first step to fulfill the prediction made in Genesis 3:15 concerning the unique Seed coming to die on the cross in fulfillment of the one eternal unchanging purpose of grace (Rev. 13:8) for his one, true, elect people?

Every Dispensationalist would agree with the first choice, but some of them would want to delete the word permanent, and then say, “I agree with both choices.” The foundation of consistent Dispensationalism rests on God beginning, with Abraham, a new program with an ‘earthly’ people that must culminate in their inheriting and keeping the land of Palestine permanently. This purpose of God for Israel is totally separate from his program for the ‘heavenly’ people, the church. Israel will inherit physical Palestine and the church will inherit heaven. The second program of God, the church, is supposedly not ‘made known’ until Paul reveals it in the book of Ephesians.

In taking such a view of the Abrahamic covenant, Dispensationalism fails to see the totality of the continuity of the single goal of redemption in Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 12:1–3, as that goal is developed in the rest of Scripture, especially by the NT Apostles in their inspired interpretation of God’s dealings with Abraham. That system also fails to appreciate how clearly Abraham himself saw that the physical land of Palestine was not the real and final fulfillment of God’s promise to him and his seed (Gen. 22:18; John 8:56; Heb. 11:9–10).

The great importance of Abraham is not that he is the father of the Jewish nation, but that he is the father of the nation that will bring forth the Messiah. The fact that Abraham was the father of the Jewish nation has no more spiritual or eternal significance in and of itself for the Jewish nation than Ishmael becoming a great nation because he was Abraham’s physical seed has eternal or spiritual significance for the Arab nations that descended from Ishmael. Every eternal promise of God is made to Christ and not to the Jewish nation. Every spiritual blessing to any person must grow out of Revelation 13:8.

God, in choosing and calling Abraham, is not starting a second eternal purpose and a second perpetual program involving an earthly and separate nation. He is merely choosing and designating the seed line that will bring to pass the promise of Genesis 3:15 and the goal of Revelation 13:8. Dispensationalism, at this point, introduces a disunity into the purposes of God that makes it impossible to see the events happening in the NT Scriptures to be the very things that were promised to the fathers throughout the OT Scriptures. The whole concept of the ‘postponed kingdom’ begins in misunderstanding ‘the promise of God to Abraham’ in Genesis 12. Once this is done, it is impossible to use the NT Scriptures to understand and interpret the kingdom prophecies in the OT Scriptures. This misunderstanding leads to forcing OT concepts into the NT Scriptures. We will say more about this later.

We simply must see the following facts:

• Everything that God did with Israel, or anyone else, is somehow related to his one single purpose of the redemption of Abraham’s seed, the one true people of God (cf. Rev. 13:8 and passages like Eph. 1:10– 12).
• Abraham’s seed, the one true people of God, is the election of grace, or all those “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.”

It is interesting, and even a bit amusing, to see how far men will go in order to defend a position dear to their hearts. In 1972 the General Association of Regular Baptists had a heated discussion over the doctrine of God’s sovereign election. An attempt was made to strengthen the article in the doctrinal statement that dealt with salvation and election. A group of strong Arminians not only managed to kill the amendment concerning the election of believers, but they also strengthened the article dealing with God’s choice of the nation of Israel. I am sure they did not intentionally borrow the language of the Covenant Theologian, but all they managed to do was move the ‘covenant of grace’ concept from the church to the nation of Israel. I really smiled when I read the following Dispensational statement applying Covenant Theology terminology to Israel:

XVIII. ISRAEL

We believe in the sovereign selection of Israel as God’s eternal covenant people, that she is now dispersed because of her disobedience and rejection of Christ, and that she will be regathered in the Holy Land and, after the completion of the church, will be saved as a nation at the second advent of Christ. Gen. 13:14–17; Rom. 11:1–32; Ezek. 37.^[3]

The Dispensationalism of the General Association of Regular Baptists adamantly maintains that there is an ‘everlasting Covenant (of grace)’ with Israel. They merely transfer the covenant of grace from the church to the nation of Israel and make inheriting the land of Palestine to be equivalent to eternal salvation rest. We could correctly call their system ‘Covenant (Israel) Theology.’

Militant Dispensationalists are usually, though not always, strongly Arminian in their view of freewill. It would be amusing to ask the following question: “How can we be sure that Israel will exercise their freewill in the future and let God save them?” The amazing answer would be hyper-Calvinism as it regards Israel. “God is going to make them believe!” Why is it so unfair for God to give faith to an individual elect Gentile today, but not only fair, but actually obligatory, that he give faith to the whole Jewish nation in the future? So much for consistency!

I personally believe that Israel, as a people, is still a unique people in God’s purposes. However, as a nation, they do not have any spiritual or eternal purposes independent of the church. God does not have two peoples, two programs, two eternal purposes, two gospels, and he most certainly does not have two separate brides for his Son (Eph. 2:11–22). This does not mean that Israel, as a people, is not still “beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” It is one thing to think of Israel as a physical nation with national and earthly distinctions and another to think of Israel as a people with God’s peculiar mark upon them. Romans 11 convinces me there will be many Jews saved in the future, but they will be part of the church.

Dispensationalism clearly acknowledges that the gospel is one of the things being promised in Genesis 12:3. In a footnote explaining the Abrahamic Covenant, Scofield says:

(7) “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” This is the great evangelic promise fulfilled in Abraham’s Seed, Christ (Gal. iii:16; John viii:56–58). It brings into greater definiteness the promise of the Adamic Covenant concerning the Seed of the woman (Gen. iii:15).^[4]

We basically agree with this statement. However, Scofield then proceeds to make the rest of the things promised apply to the physical nation of Israel as the ‘seed of Abraham’ and these aspects of the promise soon overshadow everything else.

Covenant Theology, on the other hand, tries to establish continuity from Gen. 3:15 to Gen. 12:1–3, and the rest of Scripture, on the basis of a formal and definitive ‘covenant of grace’ that has no textual basis in Scripture. It is the product of theological deductionism. The concept of a covenant of grace may, or may not, be useful in some discussions, but using the term as a building block for understanding the foundation of all Scripture is to exalt terms developed by theologians above the actual words used by the Holy Spirit in the Bible itself. We should always be skeptical when people insist on using words and phrases to prove key points in their systems, especially when they have no texts of Scripture that utilize the same words or phrases. It always gives me the impression that someone is trying to teach us something that the Holy Ghost forgot to mention. The late Dr. Gordon Clark, a strong Covenant Theologian, has given some excellent advice to all theologians:

…A Christian theologian should use biblical terms in their biblical meaning…^[5]

I would change that into two statements. I would say, first a theologian should always use the actual terms that the Scriptures uses, and second he should use those terms only with the specific meaning given to them by Scripture. We should never substitute theological terms for biblical terms, and we should not load biblical words with theological meaning, unless that meaning can be clearly established by other texts of Scripture. Both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology constantly violate this principle and use theological terms to ‘prove’ their arguments instead of using biblical texts and terms. The words of the creeds and ‘church fathers’ have a distinct tendency to replace the words that were uttered by inspired prophets and apostles in the Bible.

I recently discussed the material in this chapter with a group of Reformed ministers. Several of them insisted on using the phrase ‘covenant of grace’ as if it had the authority of a verse of Scripture. They made no attempt to prove their points from the Bible itself but kept using theological terms and logic (See Appendix 3 for a lengthy discussion of this point).

At times I wonder when the doctrine of verbal inspiration is in danger of being unconsciously denied by theologians who manufacture theological terms not found in Scripture, and then use those terms as the sole support of a given point in their system of theology. It is even worse when they absolutely refuse to accept and use the specific words and terms inspired by the Holy Spirit himself simply because those words or terms will not fit into their system.

Every time I see that recurring phrase commonly called in the Westminster Confession of Faith when it follows a key theological term, I want to say, “Commonly called that by whom? Clearly not by any apostle or prophet in Scripture.” What the confession actually means by commonly called is this: “We do not have any specific biblical texts to support this term or phrase, but we know it is correct, because it is essential to our theological system and it is commonly used by theologians all the time.”

When the Romanist quotes the church fathers for authority instead of appealing to a verse of Scripture (because they have none) we call it the ‘tradition of the fathers’ and reject their doctrine. When the Puritans, or their heirs, appeal to established creeds (for the same reason the Romanist appealed to the fathers) or to human logic, it is called the ‘analogy of faith.’ We would do well to believe that John Brown was right when he accused the Puritans of putting the Word of God back under the very fetters that Luther and Calvin had destroyed with true biblical exegesis. This is a most interesting quotation:

In the age that followed [that of Luther and Calvin], the fetters which had been shattered were strangely repaired by many of the second and third series of Protestant expositors; and, with some noble exceptions, humanly constructed theories for harmonizing the varied statements of Revelation, under the plausible name of “The Analogy of Faith,” were by them not only used as a correct means of interpreting the Scriptures, but so elevated above all other means as to control, and indeed, in a great degree, to supersede them.^[6]

John Brown was talking about men like those who framed the Westminster Confession of Faith who had, with the ‘Analogy of Faith,’ made many of their dictums to be the ‘truth of God’ without any textual verification.^[7] God help us when men in power start using a creed over our conscience and refuse to discuss the actual Word of God itself. We are indeed back in Roman country when that happens.

Summary

Let me summarize what we have been saying. Dispensationalism cuts the Bible in half and never the twain shall meet. Covenant Theology does the exact opposite and merges two distinctly different covenants (the Old and the New) into one covenant with two administrations. Dispensationalism cannot get the OT into the NT in any sense, and Covenant Theology does not even have a really New Covenant. They have a newer and older version of the same covenant. Dispensationalism cannot get the two Testaments together, and Covenant Theology cannot get them apart!

The basic mistake of both of these theological systems lies in their misunderstanding the promises made to Abraham and his seed in Genesis. As we shall see later, this error is the result of failing to see that the true unity of the whole Scripture involves both a Dispensational and a covenantal change. We must see two distinct covenants, namely, the old legal covenant at Sinai and the new gracious covenant that replaces it, but at the same time we must also see one distinct and unchanging purpose of God being worked out for his one election of grace. Neither Dispensationalism nor Covenant Theology can see both of these things at the same time simply because of their doctrine of the church.

Regardless of one’s response to the foregoing evaluations of both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, at the moment we are only insisting that God’s dealing with Abraham is not, as Dispensationalism claims, a new ‘purpose and program for Israel,’ nor is God, as Covenant Theology insists, establishing a ‘covenant of grace’ with Abraham and his physical children. God is merely taking the first step in bringing Christ, the true Seed, into the world in fulfillment of Genesis 3:15. He is announcing the gospel of grace, and it is this gospel promise of Christ that unifies all of Scripture around the person and work of Christ himself.

Let us continue our discussion of Christ the unique Seed. We have covered the unique Seed as follows: Christ is the Seed (1) ‘Purposed— He is God’s Lamb;’ He is the Seed (2) ‘Predicted—He is the Seed of Woman;’ He is the Seed (3) ‘Promised—He is the Son of Abraham;’ and now we see him as the Seed (4) ‘Pledged—He is the Seed of David.’

4. The unique Seed pledged—Christ is the Seed of David.

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom (2 Sam 7:12).

The true understanding of this covenant that God made with David is given to us by Peter in his famous sermon on the day of Pentecost. Peter connects the Davidic Covenant to the prophecy of Joel and shows that both the prophecy made to David concerning a throne and a kingdom, and the prophecy made to Joel concerning the new age, have been fulfilled in the resurrection and ascension of Christ. The ‘giving of the Spirit’ proves both of these prophecies are fulfilled. It is clear from Peter’s sermon that the ‘new age’ envisioned by Joel is the same thing as the ‘kingdom age’ promised to David.^[8] The new age signs are the proof of some kind of a present Kingship of Christ.

Let us look briefly at this key passage in Acts 2. When the amazed people asked, “What meaneth this?” (Acts 2:12), Peter explained what was happening. He declared that what they were witnessing that very day established, in some sense and to some degree, the following two facts:

• Joel’s prophecy concerning the gift of the Holy Spirit being ‘poured on all flesh’ (not just Jews) was being fulfilled (vv. 14–21), and
• the covenant that God made with David concerning a throne and a kingdom was also fulfilled (vv. 22–36).

Peter explained and grounded both of these facts in the events taking place on the day of Pentecost. The giving of the Spirit was seen as the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, and that in turn proved that Christ was sitting on David’s throne in fulfillment of God’s covenant to him. In other words, Peter was declaring that the day of Pentecost clearly proved the following:

• It was the absolute proof that the man they had crucified was not only truly alive from the dead, but he was at that very moment sitting at God’s right hand in resurrected glory, and
• The ascension of Christ to David’s throne with glory and power was the fulfillment of the specific prophecy made to David in 2 Samuel 7 concerning the establishment of the kingdom.

Peter saw the giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as the fulfillment of the specific prophecy given to Joel concerning the inauguration of the ‘new age.’ In other words, the personal advent of the Holy Spirit was the proof that Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled; and that in turn proved that Christ, David’s seed, had been ‘raised up’ to sit on David’s throne, just as God had promised in the Davidic covenant.

Acts 2 is a very crucial passage that bridges the Old and the New Covenants. Neither Dispensationalism nor Covenant Theology can correctly grasp the heart of Peter’s message on the day of Pentecost. Dispensationalism cannot see Pentecost as the true fulfillment of the kingdom promises given through Joel and David. Their system cannot see the Church as the true Israel of God in any sense whatever. Covenant Theology, on the other hand, cannot see a totally new age, a new people, and a new experience coming into being at Pentecost as proof that the Old Covenant has passed away and the promised New Covenant has taken its place (Heb. 8:6–13).

---