Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

“And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Eph. 2:16). Four great questions are answered in our text. The questions are: (1) What did God purpose to do? (2) For whom did he propose to do it? (3) Where did God fulfill his plan? (4) How did he effect his goal?

Questions Answered

(1) What? The Plan: God’s plan was to “reconcile.” To reconcile is to make peace with alienated, separated parties. “Re” means “again.” “Conciliate” means peace; hence, to make peace with again.

Man is estranged from God by sin. “Your sins have separated between you and your God” (Isa. 59:2). “And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled” (Col. 1:21). Note the past condition contrasted with the present state – were alienated enemies, now reconciled. This forever destroys the false doctrine of total hereditary depravity. Calvinism says men are born in sin, having never been at peace with God. However, this cannot be true, for God reconciles, makes peace with again. How could man be again reconciled if he has never been at peace with God in the first place?

(2) Who? The Persons: Whom did God seek to reconcile? The text says “both.” “Both” whom? The context shows that Jews and Gentiles are under consideration (Eph. 2:11). So, God sought to reconcile “both” Jews and Gentiles. This corresponds with “every creature” (Mk. 16:15), “all nations” (Matt. 28:19), “every nation” (Acts 10:34,35), “whosoever will” (Rev. 22:17), “all” (Matt. 11:28), “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; cf. Acts 1:8; 2:21,39; Eph. 2:11-13; Rom. 1:5; 16:26).

Primitive Baptist doctrine, Calvinism, denies that God loved and that Christ died for all men (Jn. 3:16; Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14). They limit the love of God and the efficacy of the death of Christ, but our text shows that “both” (all men) are objects of reconciliation. Calvinists say Christ died for the elect, not the non-elect, but John says that, “He (Christ) is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:1,2).

(3) Where? The Place: Where are all men reconciled unto God? The passage says “in one body.” But what is the body? Lenski says it is “one spiritual organism.”

Paul says Christ has been made “head over all things to the church, which is his body” (Eph. 1:22,23). “Which, ” is a relative pronoun of apposition. The church, then, “is his body.” Thus, those reconciled are reconciled in the church. If you are not in the body, the church (Col. 1:18,24), you have not been reconciled. To be reconciled is to be justified (Rom. 5:1,9, 10). If you are not “in one body,” “the church” (Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16), you are neither saved, justified, redeemed nor reconciled (Rom. 3:24; 5:1,9, 10; 2 Cor. 5:18-20).

The church, therefore, is the realm of redemption, the sphere of salvation and the place of pardon. If we are not “members of his body” (Eph. 5:30), we are not reconciled unto God. Hence, those who say, “I am not a member of any church, but I am reconciled unto God,” are deceived. One might as well say, “I am a member of his body, but I am not reconciled.” Both statements are equally absurd in view of Ephesians 2:16.

(4) How? The Process: By what means are all men reconciled unto God in one body? Our text says “by the cross.” “We were reconciled to God by (dia) the death of his Son” (Rom. 5:10). We are “reconciled in the body of his flesh through death” (Col. 1:21,22). Surely, none who profess the faith in Christ will deny the process, the “how” of reconciliation. Suppose I did? Suppose I said, “It is true that all are reconciled unto God in one body, but it is not accomplished “by the cross”? If I were to say that, objections would be long and loud. “You cannot deny the process,” they would insist.

True, but if one cannot deny the process, can he deny the place where one is reconciled? Many do. They say that all men are reconciled “by the cross,” but they deny the place, the location of reconciliation. They say one may be reconciled whether he is a member of any church or not. By what authority can they ignore the place (“in the body”) but refuse to neglect the process (“by the cross”)? The truth is that all four aspects are essential.

Conclusion

Reconciliation unto God in one body by the cross is conditional. How else could Paul beg or “pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20)? Christ indeed made “reconciliation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17), but men are not reconciled until they hear and obey the “word of reconciliation. ” Have you heard and obeyed it (Acts 2:38; 18:8)?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, p. 615
October 19, 1989

By Jady W. Copeland

You had no choice about whether or not you entered the world; you do have a choice as to which world you enter for eternity (Matt. 25:46). And the way you live in this world will determine which world you will occupy in eternity. Since that is obviously true (to the Bible believer), doesn’t it argue for a “prescription” as to how to live while in this world?

We must have no fellowship with the evil of the world (1 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). We must be “in” the world, not “of” the world (1 Cor. 5:10; 1 Jn. 2:15). The new Christian has a problem sometimes. Before he becomes a Christian he has a family, a job, associates and civic duties. After he becomes a Christian he has the same job, the same family and duties. In some cases he may have to give up his associates and, in a few cases, his job. In most cases he would not need to give up his family. So often he had the same temptations before him, and yet he has a changed life. Repentance may cause him to quit some of his actions, words and sometimes the associations. But the devil never quits; he just changes his strategy. Instead of keeping him out of God’s family, the devil now wants to make him an ineffective worker, or even cause him to quit.

Too often, the new convert has another problem, and this has to do with the Christians themselves – those in Christ. Often when one is baptized, he finds out (perhaps gradually) that all those in the fellowship are not what they ought to be – some simply are hypocrites. And this discourages him, being young in the faith. He has to learn (hopefully before it is too late) that all of God’s people are not what they should be, and that he must not let their actions control his actions. He must let God do that, and he must learn that from the beginning God has had his people go astray.

But as the new convert begins his life as a Christian, is there some way we can prepare him for what lies ahead? Of course there is no magic formula or spiritual “vaccine” one can take to prevent temptations, but there are a few Bible principles we can point to that will surely help. This will not only help the babe in Christ; it will help us all, and they are not new at all. They are Bible principles which have been preached from the beginning and are “tried and true.”

Recognize the Nature of Satan’s Devices

They are nearly always deceptive. As the poet said, “things are not what they seem” and “all that glitters is not gold.” But Jesus said it best in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.” Paul said, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13). Even Satan “fashioneth himself into an angel of light” (v. 14).

He wears a face of beauty appealing to the five senses. He tempts by sight, sound (like the rock music of our day), taste (alcoholic drinks), feel (lust of the flesh), etc. He promises pleasure, popularity and excitement; but he tells you nothing of the outcome of such sins. This is not only dishonesty, but it is the temptation of the lust of the flesh. Satan has (through the world around us) caused most to believe there is nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, “live ins,” cursing, cheating, immodest attire, homosexuality and the like and many Christians have come to believe that these things are not so bad after all. Indeed Satan is very subtle in his ways. Beware!

If Satan fails in one area he will not quit. If the Lord convinces you to quit gambling, Satan will tempt you to work on the Lord’s day to make an honest living. If you are convinced to quit working on the Lord’s day, Satan will try to get you to be stingy with the Lord in your giving. If the Lord convinces you to get married, repent of fornication and live godly, Satan will try to get you to abuse your wife and children. He never quits. If the Lord convinces you that you should obey the gospel, Satan will try to convince you that you need not save others. Beware! Satan has many faces, and outwardly many things “look good” but take a closer look and check it by the word of God.

Develop A Hatred for Sin

“Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way” (Psa. 119:104). Again the Psalmist, “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psa. 119:11). We are often inclined to “wink” at sin, or make excuses for sinners. “Off-color” jokes, “white lies” and “watered-down” cursing is getting too common among brethren. How many parents teach their children to hate sin – when they allow them to listen to Satan-inspired rock music and attend R-rated movies? Even the movies rated a bit “higher” are unfit for most Christians to see, yet we flirt with the world trying to rationalize and make ourselves think they are “not too bad.” Should we not hate those things which the Lord hates? The wise men gives a list in Proverbs 6:16-19 and includes a haughty spirit, lying, murder, those who plan wicked things, mischief, false witnesses and those who sow discord among brethren. The Lord’s hatred for sin is manifested in Jesus’ dying on the cross. What better argument need we make? If he hated sin to that degree, should not we?

Remember How Jesus Met Temptations

We can live among our fellows much easier if we become familiar with Jesus’ methods of resisting temptation (read Matt. 4:1-11). Each time Satan tempted him, he met each temptation with God’s word. Are we familiar enough with the word to be able to use it in such trials? As noted above, we must “hide” the word in our hearts to the extent that we “might not sin” against God. It is the great weapon for fighting back. Jesus proved it. If one is tempted to commit adultery, remember Hebrews 13:4, “Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” If we are tempted to divorce, remember Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. If you are tempted to sin by swearing, remember Matthew 5:37. If you are tempted to forsake the Lord, remember Hebrews 10:25.

I believe the reason many do not resist temptations as they ought is because (1) they do not know the Scriptures and (2) they have not thought seriously enough about the consequences. When we think of the fact that all God’s promises have come true, and every transgression of people in the past has been justly rewarded, why should I think God will overlook my sins? Am I different than they?

Choose The Proper Companions

“I need all the help I can get” we hear so often. Christians can help one another. “Evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Cor. 15:33). Godly companions encourage us in the things that are wholesome and right. Evil companions tempt us and influence us in the wrong way. Christians have to be strong enough on the job to say “no.” But in their social contacts, how much easier it is to five a godly life when all have the same ideals, desires, motivations, love for God and habits as we. Proverbs 1:17-19 gives us some good advice in this matter. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (v. 7). “If sinners entice thee, consent thou not” (v. 10). They may act secretly, as they “lay wait for blood.” Indeed they are very bold sometimes about their methods (v. 12). They promise rewards for “we shall find all precious substance” (v. 13). They are very generous and say, “Let us all have one purse” (v. 14). But the wise will not fall into their trap (v. 17). Indeed the improper choice of companions has led many away from God.

We Must Pray Constantly

Jesus said, “Lead us not into temptation” as he taught his disciples to pray (Matt. 6:13). Does God hear the Christian? Does the prayer of a Christian appeal to God? If you answer these in the affirmative and if Jesus’ prayer in teaching his disciples means anything, then surely he will help us to resist the devices and temptations of Satan. And what a comforting thought that Paul left: “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to men; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

You will be tempted by Satan but with God’s help you can be faithful. You hold the key.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 620-621
October 19, 1989

By Daniel H. King

“How can people of the twentieth century and beyond be expected to believe that a man walked on water, healed the blind and the deaf, and walked out of the grave three days after his crucifixion?” This is, as it has ever been, the burden of faith.

Faith challenges us to believe that which seems unbelievable, even as it did those of two thousand years ago. On the one hand it expects us to look forward to an unseeable future, toward an invisible heaven, and trust in unprovable prophecies and promises. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1), and again, “We walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). On the other, it just as remarkably stands between us in the present and those in the distant past. We read the biblical histories and are met with men and women of like passions with us, and yet hear of them experiencing incredible happenings – things which we know we have never known or experienced. We read of Moses and the burning bush, of Moses and the parting of the Red Sea, of Elijah and the chariots of fire, etc.

But most remarkable of all is our confrontation in the text of the New Testament with the Galilean Jesus. The stories of his miracles boggle the imagination of the modem reader. They are stupendous in every way and yet the gospels report them in such a matter-of-fact fashion that we often forget to feel the utter incredulity of the onlookers and witnesses to the events. The writers clearly were convinced that Jesus of Nazareth not only performed such feats of in explicable power, but that this was fully to be expected of that Person who came to say and show and be more than any Old Testament prophet or priest had ever before claimed. The miracles are plainly a declaration of his divine nature as well as the seal of divine approval of his message. Can we believe them today? The answer to this can only Or be given by each individual as he or she analyzes the evidence put forward in the accounts and decides whether to accept it or not. We were not there to see these wonderful incidents, and so are left to judge the case on the basis of the historical information contained in the gospels about Christ. Perhaps we may even say that our decision must rest upon degrees of relative probability. Do the accounts sound credible, aside from the miraculous aspect couched in the stories? Most reasonable people would agree that they do. In other words, there are no “magic dragons” or personages who ordinarily inhabit the environs of fantasy (gremlins or hobgoblins).

The man who appears at center stage is a very ordinary figure in many ways: he is raised in Nazareth in Galilee, pursues the common trade of carpentry till he is thirty, then becomes an itinerant teacher and preacher for some three years or so, and, at the last, when the tide of public sentiment turns against him, is executed for crimes against the state. Were it not for the extraordinary appeal of his teaching and the miracles – we cannot seem to ignore those miracles – then his life and death would probably have gone unnoticed in history.

Are the witnesses trustworthy? This is one of the most crucial of issues in examining their testimony. What kind of men were they? Any unschooled person may quite easily extricate a few simple facts from the text. First, they were men who were just as ordinary as Jesus. They were fishermen, tax gatherers and people of the streets and towns of Galilee. Second, they were men of honesty and integrity. The Christian religion, which they vouchsafed to those of subsequent times, exalted truth and honesty while it condemned all falsehood and lying. Third, they were men who showed no signs of mental incompetence. Fourth, they gained nothing by what they said. In fact, they gave up everything to herald the message of a risen Savior to every corner of the globe. When the story of the apostolic age had been finally written, it was a saga of misery and suffering for each of them, with all but one having to die a cruel death for the cause of their Lord. Where can we find in this history a shred of proof that these men had ought but their desire to meet their Master in another and better land as inspiration for their sacrifices?

Fifth, their testimony is of such a personal and tangible nature as to elicit trust on our part. John describes the demands of “Doubting Thomas” as though he needed for us as readers to appreciate their inability to naively accept such an incredible story as that of the resurrection (Jn. 21:24ff.): “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Whenever I read those words, it is as though I am there with him, doubting as he doubted – but hoping all the while that he might be alive. Moreover, all my doubts and questions are, along with those of the first doubting disciple, put to rest in the Master’s challenge at his appearance to Thomas: “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” I can, along with him, feel my own trembling hand reach out and touch the terrible scars left by the driven nails – and with that touch experience the dawning of faith in my own soul. Though we cannot broach he wide centuries personally to see and talk with our Lord after his resurrection, still our thirst for evidence may be abundantly satisfied in this and other accounts of his greatest display of power. Paul even attests that on one occasion he appeared to over five hundred people at one time (1 Cor. 15:6).

John concludes his synopsis of just a few of the Lord’s miracles in this way: “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (20:30-31). The most important of these, of course, is his resurrection. In his life the miracles display his mastery over sickness and disease, the powers of evil, even the forces of nature. But in his death, and in the resurrection, there is something else again. It brings us face to face with his divinity. It shows us that he cannot die without our hopes and dreams dying with him. And if he lives, then we can also live with him.

Herein we discover our own God-given aspiration for enduring life. As Paul worded it: “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling . . . . For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety . . . . For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:1-2,4,7). In this miracle of Jesus we have God’s promise of our own resurrection and the demand for faith on our part. The New Testament is the source of both. If we cannot trust the New Testament, then we can have neither.

Conclusion

Living as we do in an age of television and hypermedia, it is not as easy for us to “stand amazed in the presence of Jesus the Nazarene” as it once was. What is accomplished on film is, at times, nothing short of fantastic. But it is only trickery. Technologically wonderful, yes; but really only slight of hand taken one step beyond the magician’s bag of tricks.

The Book of God, though, confronts us with one who needed no stunts or tricks. He possessed power. And with power he needed only to command a thing to be or to happen, and it did. What we have in the New Testament is the report of this miraculous work, utterly dependable in all its details, amazing though they may sometimes seem! In this chronicle of his life and works there is not only a story of events but also a communication to our hearts and hopes. Some may question whether this is merely conjured up to pull us through the rough spots of life, but as the disciples on the road to Emmaus knew so well when they remarked that “our hearts burned within us . . . while he talked with us by the way,” the Word of God speaks to the needs and hopes of man in a way that is quite unique. It is the key that answers to the lock of our souls, opening up for us the vistas of eternity. Well-crafted it is, exactly as its divine Author planned it!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 628-629
October 20, 1989

By Joe Price

The doctrine which says the personal, second coming of Jesus Christ occurred in 70 A.D. is confusing some brethren, and destroying the faith of others. In our previous article, we saw how this doctrine claims that all the second coming prophecies happened in 70 A.D. While showing that Jesus did come in judgment against Jerusalem in 70 A.D., we also noticed three passages which teach us that the personal return of Christ is still future. These passages are Acts 1:9-11, 2 Peter 3:4-11 and 1 Corinthians 15. He will come bringing rest to the righteous and punishment to the wicked (2 Thess. 1:7-10; Matt. 25:31-46). At his return, all mankind will be resurrected to stand before his judgment seat, and there receive a just sentence for the deeds done in this life (Jn. 5:28-29; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12-15). This world shall be dissolved in a fiery judgment, and a new order shall be established (2 Pet. 3:10-13). These events did not occur in 70 A.D. It is therefore right to hope for a future return of Jesus Christ. We were not begotten unto a dead hope, but a living one (1 Pet. 1:3-5; cf. 1 Cor. 15:19).

Why has 70 A.D. been made such a focal point in this false doctrine? While several answers could be offered which address this question, I submit that the underlying reason for this doctrinal error rests upon a perverted interpretation of the allegory found in Galatians 4:21-31. In this allegory, the A.D. 70 advocate believes that he finds comfort and support for this doctrine. Instead, he finds a refutation of it!

An Overlapping of the Covenants?

To understand how the allegory of Galatians 4:21-31 fits into the system of Realized Eschatology, consider Max King’s following statement:

Christianity is a fulfillment of the prophecies, types and shadows of the law and not merely a “fill-in” between Judaism and another age to come. Abraham had two sons, and there was no gap between them. They overlapped a little, but Isaac “came on” when Ishmael “went out.” The son born of the spirit was given the place and inheritance of the son born of the flesh. Hence, this simple allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) establishes the “Spirit of Prophecy,” confirming prophecy’s fulfillment in the spiritual seed of Abraham through Christ (Gal. 3:16,26-29), and beyond the fall of Jerusalem these prophecies cannot be extended (The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 239. Emp. King’s).

According to King (and others), this allegory establishes his view of the end times. This doctrine teaches that “out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of Christianity” (Ibid., p. 200). We are told that this occurred during the forty year period of 30-70 A.D. Therefore, an overlapping of the old and new covenants is believed to have occurred, and becomes crucial to this doctrine’s defense. By having us believe that the old and new covenants overlapped from 30-70 A.D., this heresy would have us believe that Christians were “given the place and inheritance” of the Jews. These two allegations (an overlapping of the covenants, and Christians being given the inheritance of the Jews) constitute two fatal mistakes in this false doctrine. So then, let us first look at whether or not the old and new covenants overlapped from 30-70 A.D. Then, we will consider the inheritance obtained by Christians.

God’s word clearly teaches us that the old covenant ceased prior to 70 A.D. To suggest that the covenant remained until 70 A.D. is to deny God’s revealed truth! Consider the following evidence:

(1) Romans 7.1-6. An overlapping of the covenants would amount to spiritual adultery. It is adultery to be married to another man while one’s husband lives (v. 3). With his death, the wife is “discharged from the law of the husband” (v. 2), and is free to marry another (v. 3). With these truths, Paul illustrates man’s current relationship to the law of Moses:

Ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined (“married” – KJV) to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, . . . . But now we have been discharged from the law (vv. 4,6).

If the old and new covenants overlapped from 30-70 A.D., Paul’s illustration would mean nothing! Furthermore, a Jewish Christian would be married to two husbands (covenants) simultaneously, hence, spiritual adultery! More than a decade before 70 A.D., the apostle said, “But now we have been discharged from the law!” There was no overlapping of the covenants!

(2) Colossians 2.13-15. The focal point in the removal of the old covenant is the cross, not 70 A.D. In this passage, Paul emphasizes the cross as the means whereby one was released from the “bond written in ordinances.” While the old covenant could not forgive (Heb. 10: 1-4), the cross triumphs over sin and its cohorts (v. 15). At the cross, three things regarding the old covenant occurred (v. 14): (a) It was blotted out. That is, it was removed, being against or contrary to man’s forgiveness. (b) It was taken out of the way. Again, its removal is stressed. (c) It was nailed to the cross. Triumph over sin occurred at the cross, not 70 A.D.!

(3) 2 Corinthians 3:14. The old covenant is done away in Christ, not in 70 A.D. Like the Hebrews of Paul’s day, the A.D. 70 advocate fails to perceive that the old covenant was done away in Christ. The old covenant was already done away when Paul wrote this passage! Only minds “hardened” to this truth could miss the apostle’s meaning.

(4) Hebrews 7.11-14. An overlapping of the covenants would mean two priesthoods were in force at the same time. Under the old covenant, the Levitical priesthood was in force (v. 11). However, Christ is not a priest like Aaron (v. 11), but one who is “after the likeness of Melchizedek” (vv. 15,3). Because Jesus came from the tribe of Judah and not Levi, he could not serve as a priest while the old law was in force (vv. 13-14; Heb. 8:4). The law had to change to enable,Jesus Christ to serve as priest over the house of God (Heb. 7:12,15-17; 10:21; 3:1; 5:5-6; 6:20). Jesus did not wait until 70 A.D. to become a priest. Neither did he gradually become one. He began serving as High Priest when he sat down at God’s right hand (Heb. 8:1-2). Therefore, since Jesus served as High Priest before 70 A.D., the law was changed before 70 A.D. (Heb. 7:12).

(5) Ephesians 2.13-18. Christ made peace between Jews and Gentiles in his death, not in 70 A.D. Again, wefind the Bible teaching us that the cross is thefocal point of God’s plan for peace and human redemption, not 70A.D. “He is our peace” (v. 13), thus identifying Christ as the one who accomplished peace between Jews and Gentiles. When and how did he do this? He produced peace between Jews and Gentiles by removing that which stood as a barrier between them, namely, the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” (vv. 14-15). This abolition of the “middle wall of partition,” with its enmity, occurred “in his flesh” (v. 15). Verse 16 confirms this as Christ’s death, by teaching us that reconciliation with God was accomplished “through the cross, having slain the erunity thereby.” Peace between the Jews and Gentiles, and reconciliation with God, were not achieved only after a 40-year struggle of the two covenants (with the new one finally overcoming the old one!). Salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) was available for all flesh, and preached without distinction to all flesh, long before 70 A.D. (Acts 2:17,21,39; 11:12-18; 10:34-35; 15:7-11). Access to God for both Jews and Gentiles is through Christ’s death (v. 18).

Were Christians Given the Place and Inheritance of the Jews?

Realized Eschatology would have you believe that Christians were given the place and inheritance of the Jews. Recall Max King’s quote, given earlier, where he said, “They overlapped a little, but Isaac ‘came on’ when Ishmael ‘went out.’ The son born of the spirit was given the place and inheritance of the son born of the flesh” (The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 239). By redefining the allegory of Galatians 4:21-31, the A.D. 70 doctrine has occasioned its own downfall.

An assumed purpose of Paul’s allegory is used as the basis for contending that Christians were given the Place and inheritance of the Jews:

The purpose of Paul in this allegory was threefold: First, to show that Abraham had two sons which existed side by side for a time (emp., mine, jp) in the same household. This is a truth that is vital to the teachings of the New Testament, and will be a key factor in the study and application of prophecy. Much misapplication of Scripture can be attributed to a failure to recognize this simple but vital truth. These two sons are typical of the two Israels of God, one born after the flesh (old covenant) and the other born after the Spirit (new covenant) . . . . Ishmael was thefirst born and, as such, had the right ofprimogeniture, a right he maintained at the birth of Isaac, and even thereq/ter until he was cast out or disinherited (Ibid., pp. 29-30, emp., mine, ip).

Realized Eschatology’s redefinition of the allegory concludes that Ishmael was the rightful heir of Abraham “until” he was “cast out.” Thus, we should believe that the Jews under the old covenant were the rightful heirs of the inheritance, but were “cast out” at 70 A.D. (at which time Christians took their place and received the Jews’ inheritance). However, the Bible declares that Ishmael was never heir of the Abrahamic promises (Gen. 12:1-3)! Remember, Ishmael was Sarah’s remedy for Abraham’s lack of an heir (inasmuch as he gave her handmaid Hagar to Abraham, Gen. 16:1-3), not God’s. Even before Isaac was born, God made it clear that Ishmael was not heir of the promises he had made, when he declared that his covenant would be established with Isaac, not Ishmael (Gen. 17:15-21). Since Ishmael never was heir to these blessings, he could not be “disinherited” of them! Isaac did not take Ishmael’s place as heir! Neither did Christians take the Jews’ place as heirs of God’s inheritance!

The old covenant did not contain the inheritance of God’s Abrahamic promises. Righteousness and justification are not through the law, but through faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16,21; 3:7-14,21-23; Rom. 3:20-22). The law gave a knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20), but no release from it (Gal. 3:10,12,22-23). It produced “children of bondage” (Gal. 4:24). It contained no inheritance (Gal. 3:18-19), only a curse (Gal. 3:10-14). The “righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:22) is “apart from the law” (Rom. 3:21). Therefore, the “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28 Christians) did not receive their inheritance from the Jews of the old covenant. If they did, the inheritance would be “no more of promise” (Gal. 3:18). To suggest that Christians were given the place and inheritance of the Jews is to demonstrate a woeful misunderstanding of God’s promise to Abraham and how it is received. Its blessing are received through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16-19,23-29), not through the law. Our inheritance is “according to promise,” not according to the law!

The Allegory of Galatians 4:21-31 Denies the A.D. 70 Doctrine

Max King’s quote from page 239 of his book says “this simple allegory (Gal. 4:21-3 1) establishes the ‘Spirit of Prophecy. “‘ Instead, the truth of this allegory destroys the A.D. 70 doctrine. Why was this allegory used by the apostle Paul? What does the allegory teach?

The background of the allegory is found in Galatians 3:23-29, where the inspired teacher makes four needed observations:

(1) V. 23 – The law of Moses was in force, and men were under it, before faith came.

(2) Vv. 24-25 – The law was a tutor to bring men to Christ, and now that tutor was no longer needed.

(3) Vv. 26-29 – We are children of God and heirs according to promise through faith in Christ, not through the law of Moses.

Having used Galatians 3 to teach that Christians are not justified by the law of Moses, but through faith in Christ, Paul now addresses those Christians who “desire to be under the law” (Gal. 4:21), and shows them that the law itself contains an illustration of how their desire was out of place.

The allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) uses Sarah and Hagar as the two covenants (v. 24), and their sons as the product of those covenants. Hagar signifies the Mosaic law, which produced “children of bondage” (v. 24). Verse 25 emphasizes this point of bondage (cf. Gal. 3:10,22; Rom. 3:20). Sarah corresponds to the new covenant. Isaac corresponds to Christians, who are the children of promise (vv. 26-28). In verse 29, the children of bondage (Jews) are presented as persecutors of the children of promise (Christians), just as Ishmael was the persecutor of Isaac (not “the first born” of Abraham). What should Christians do? Should they desire to be under the law? Should they turn back to bondage by joining their persecutors? No! The allegory teaches them (and us) not to go back to the law and live under it, for that would place them (and us) in the bondage of sin. Instead, “Cast out the handmaid (old covenant) and her son (Jews with their persecutions),” and live in the freedom of the new covenant (Gal. 4:30-5:4). God says to purge yourself from turning back to the Mosaic law, and to live as the children of promise that you are! Do not live in bondage to the law and its curse, but in freedom from sin and death through faith in Christ!

The allegory does not carry within it the arbitrary definitions and subjective applications which the A.D. 70 doctrine places upon it. We cannot apply the allegory beyond where and how the inspired apostle of Christ applied it. To make of it an “embryonic statement” of the Realized Eschatology theory is a wresting of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16) by the wisdom of men (1 Cor. 3:18-20; Rom. 1:22). Such mishandling of the word of truth must be avoided (2 Tim. 2:15) and contended against (Jude 3-4). In our final installment on the A.D. 70 doctrine, we will look at some of the grave consequences of its principle tenets.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 618-620
October 19, 1989