Dispensationalism
is trespassing upon the private property of Israel's New Covenant. It is
unedifying to note just how Dispensationalism came to this present-day plight,
but we trust that it will be edifying to see the scriptural answer to this
problem.
J.
N. Darby systematized scriptural Dispensationalism; C.I. Scofield made it
accessible by his Reference Bible; and L. S. Chafer presented it on the
seminary level. Each of these leaders faithfully sought to establish and
maintain complete separation of Israel and the Church, Law and Grace, as the
heart and life of Classic Pauline Dispensationalism. (1)
However,
in one vital area they each failed to maintain the rightly-divided Word of
truth, that being in the relationship between Israel's New Covenant and the
Church. We will look at the development of this fatal amalgamation, and
then consider the rightly-divided answer. (All emphases ours.)
JOHN
NELSON DARBY -- It is especially poignant to see the grand champion
of Dispensationalism inadvertently fail to maintain, in one key area, the
rightly-divided distinction between Israel and the Church:
If
a man is under the old [Mosaic] covenant, he is under an "if."
If under the new, there is no "if." This covenant of the
letter is made with Israel, not with the Church, but we get the benefit
of it.
We
have it not in the letter, but in the spirit of it, and so have all the
value of it, because the way we get it is that the Mediator of it becomes
our life--we are forgiven our sins--we are associated with the Mediator.
We have all the blessings within the veil, for the very reason that it is
not yet executed with the people for whom it was made (Hebrews, pp.
85,86).
CYRUS
I. SCOFIELD -- Probably influenced by Darby {but more likely by
Covenantist Issac Watts}, and most certainly because he knew not the answer,
Dr. Scofield gave a dual application to Israel's New Covenant--one to Israel
in the future, and one to the Church at present.
The
New Covenant...secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of
Israel... and it secures the eternal blessedness... of all who believe
(The New Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 1297,1298).
LEWIS
SPERRY CHAFER -- Dr. Chafer was strongly influenced in all of his
theology by both Darby and Scofield. It is to his credit that he stood
more firmly concerning Israel's New Covenant and the Church than did his two
fine mentors.
He
acknowledges, as do all dispensationalists, the OT teaching that Israel's New
Covenant was exclusively hers, and for her future Messianic Kingdom. But
he also discerned New Covenant references in the NT that seemed to be separate
from those of Israel.
He
therefore looked for two New Covenants--one for Israel, and one for the
Church. Failing to see the scriptural answer to this puzzle, in
desperation he grasped at Mark 14:24: "This is My Blood of the new
testament [covenant], which is shed for many."
While
formulating two separate New Covenants, he still insisted that the
heavenly Church is beneficiary of all Israel's earthly covenant
blessings! One must say that, as with Darby, this is quite
uncharacteristic of Dr. Chafer's strong doctrinal stand as to the distinction
between Israel and the Church, Law and Grace:
There
remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which
is also styled like the preceding one for Israel, a "new
covenant." It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark
14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant
made with Israel happens to be future in its application.
To
suppose that these two covenants--one for Israel and one for the Church--are
the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between
God's purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church.
Israel's
new covenant rests specifically on the sovereign "I will" of
Jehovah, while the new covenant for the Church is made in Christ's
blood. Everything that Israel will yet have is the present
possession of the Church--and infinitely more besides (Systematic
Theology VII:98,98).
JOHN
F. WALVOORD -- Dr. Walvoord seemed somewhat tentative, if not
actually reluctant (as we shall see) in following Dr. Chafer's two-covenant
lead.
My
preference was stated earlier in this study for the view advanced by Lewis
Sperry Chafer advocating two new covenants, one for the nation of Israel to
be fulfilled in the millennium, the other for the Church to be fulfilled in
this age (The Millennial Kingdom, p. 218).
It
would be difficult to adjust the ministry of Paul as a minister of the new
covenant if, in fact, there is no new covenant for the present age.
The concept of two new covenants is a better analysis of the problem and
more consistent with premillennialism as a whole (Ibid., p. 219).
CHARLES
C. RYRIE -- Being likewise without the scriptural answer, Dr.
Ryrie's deductions brought him to the two-new-covenant concept as well.
While accepting Dr. Chafer's two-covenant hypothesis, neither of these men
gives any Scripture as a basis for their belief beyond Dr. Chafer's lone and
lorn reference in Mark. They are bereft of Scripture, and saddled by
nothing but deduction--which is far too inadequate and erroneous to stand
upon. Note that while Dr. Ryrie conjectures, he is unable to
scripturally conclude:
Since
the Lord's Supper is an ordinance of the Church, it is obvious that
the new covenant as referred to in the NT is not entirely Jewish. In
fact, there must be a new covenant according to the teaching of the NT;
this is made with the Church. It is of this same covenant that Paul was a
minister (2 Cor. 3:6), and since he was a minister to the Gentiles, the
scope of this new covenant must be different from the one revealed in the OT
(The Basis of Premillennial Faith, p. 117).
If
the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel's
promises, for it has been shown that the OT teaches that the New Covenant is
for Israel alone.
On
might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant [as per
Darby, Scofield, and others]. This may be the case, but we agree that
the [Covenant] amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is
"a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in the
church" [O. Allis]. However, since the NT will support two new
covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider
that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant? (Ibid., p. 118).
The
passaage (Heb. 10:16,17) does not state that the new covenant with Israel is
identical with the new covenant with the Church or that it is fulfilled by
the Church (Ibid., p. 122).
The
occurrences of the term new covenant in the NT show that there is a
wider meaning than Israel alone. Some of the blessings of the new
covenant with Israel are blessings which we enjoy now as members of
the body of Christ, and on this basis it is concluded that there is a
covenant with the Church.
Hebrews
8 quotes the new covenant with Israel only to show that the OT anticipated
an end to the old Mosaic covenant and that Christians have a better
covenant, that is, a new covenant with the Church (Ibid., pp.
124,125). [Written in 1953.]
How
error compounds itself! It was Israel that was given the
"better" covenant, to replace her of Mosaic covenant. Note how
Dr. Ryrie forsakes his two-covenant deduction of 1975:
The
believer today is saved by the blood of the new covenant shed on the
cross. All spiritual blessings are his because of this, and many of
his blessings are the same as those promised to Israel under the OT
revelation of the new covenant (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia I:392).
In
the Fall '85 issue of Grace Theological Journal, p. 298, Dr. Homer Kent
stated:
Dr.
Ryrie, who at an earlier time preferred the two-covenant view, appears to
have come to this conclusion of the one new covenant of Israel.
Several
years later Dr. Craig A. Blaising, associate professor of Systematic Theology
at Dallas, comments on these statement of Dr. Ryrie:
It
is interesting to read Dr. Ryrie's belabored efforts in The Basis of
Premillennial Faith to defend the view [of the two new covenants].
It is doubtful that anyone could have done a better job. However, it
is really a defenseless position, and both Ryrie and Walvoord eventually
surrendered it. This writer knows of no dispensational scholar who
holds it today (Bib. Sac., July-Sept., 1988, p. 166).
All
dispensationalists agree that the OT texts relegate Israel's New Covenant to
her alone. But if they forsake that truth in relation to NT references
to the New Covenant, they are forced to share some of Israel's New Covenant
blessings with the Church. That false collaboration is one of the causes
of the doctrinal downfall of contemporary Dispensationalism!
J.
DWIGHT PENTECOST -- In not having the scriptural answer, it seems
impossible to Dr. Pentecost for the Church not to have a relationship to
Israel's New Covenant:
Romans
11:26, 27 clearly indicates that this covenant can only be realized after
the Second Advent of the Messiah. Since the Tribulation, Second
Advent, and Millennial age are yet future, the fulfillment of this promise
must be yet future, and the church cannot now be fulfilling the covenant, though
it is obviously partaking of some of it blessings (Things To Come, p.
174).
Because
of our Lord's statement to the Eleven in the upper room on the eve of the
Crucifixion. it seems impossible to say that the church has no relationship
to the New Covenant!
A
more acceptable understanding is that while the New Covenant was made with
the house of Israel and Judah, there are benefits from the enactment of that
covenant of which the church (comprised of Jews and Gentiles) partakes (Thy
Kingdom Come, p. 175).
The
Church is comprised of Christians, where there is neither Jew nor Greek
(Gentile)! And the "enactment" of the New Covenant is future!
ZANE
C. HODGES -- Dr. Hodges writes in the Walvoord and Zuck Bible
Knowledge Commentary, 1983, p. 800, as follows:
It
is clear that all the "better promises" of the new covenant
belong, in
fact, to all the regenerate of every age since the cross.
Though
the new covenant is specifically focused on Israel ("house of Israel
and house of Judah" in Jeremiah 31:31), it is clear that Christians of
this present time also stand under its blessings (Lu. 22:20); I Cor.
11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6). This perception does not lead to an inappropriate
confusion between Israel and the Church
[!].
CHARLES
H. DYER -- Dr. Dyer is included because he also wrote in the Bible
Knowledge Commentary. He is vice president and associate professor
at Washington Bible College/Capital Bible Seminary, in Lanham, Maryland--purportedly
strong dispensational schools:
How
is the Church related to Israel's New Covenant? Though the ultimate
fulfillment of this covenant awaits the millennial reign of Christ, the
Church today is participating in some of the benefits of that covenant.
The fact that believers today enjoy the spiritual blessings of the
New Covenant (forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit)
does not mean that spiritual and physical blessings will not
be realized by Israel.
Seemingly
in an effort to compensate for their weakness of relating the Church to Israel's
New Covenant now, all of these men are strong in their insistence that
Israel will be there in the Millennial Kingdom to possess her spiritual and
physical blessings. Gentlemen,
that is the only time Israel's New Covenant will be inaugurated and
realized!
RENALD
E. SHOWERS --
Associated with The Friends of Israel Ministry, Dr. Showers is one of the most
adamant at including the Church in Israel's New Covenant. With his
background and dispensational stand, he should have no excuse for doing so:
The
church today partakes of the spiritual blessings which God promised as part of
the new covenant [Israel's]. For example, church believers do experience
regeneration and forgiveness of sin [sic], are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and
do possess the new nature (the law of God in the heart) (Israel My Glory,
April/May 1986, pp. 13,14).
ROBERT
L. SAUCY
-- When the Church is in any way
associated with Israel's New Covenant, she is being related to the coming
Messianic Kingdom, now. Dr. Saucy, professor of Systematic Theology at
Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, is a strong advocate of this
merging error:
The
present dispensation involved the spiritual aspects of the Messianic
Kingdom, that is, the blessings of Israel's new covenant (i.e.,
regeneration, the indwelling Spirit, etc) (Contemporary
Dispensational
Thoughts, p. 11).
We
would suggest that God's historical working is a unified plan. Contrary
to traditional dispensationalism, it does not entail separate programs for the
Church and Israel. The present Church age is not an historical
parenthesis which is unrelated to the history which preceded it. Rather,
it must be viewed as an integral phase in the development of the
mediatorial kingdom.
Contrary
to traditional dispensationalism, the Church is involved in the fulfillment
of the Messianic promises of the OT. Messianic days have dawned,
albeit in a way not clearly seen in the OT (Criswell Theological Review
1:1, 1986, pp. 162,399).
HARRY
A. IRONSIDE
-- It is particularly disturbing when
fine Plymouth Brethren leaders fail to hold the dispensational line.
Like the others, first they hold the line, and then they let it go:
It
is most important to realize that nowhere are we told of a covenant made
with the Church. The blood of that
[Israel's] covenant has been shed
upon the Cross. Our Lord said, as
He gave the communion cup to His
disciples, "This is the new
covenant in My blood which is shed for you."
On
the basis of that precious blood all who now believe in Him who shed
it, enter into the spiritual blessings of the new covenant (Hebrews,
James, Peter, p. 99).
FREDERICK
W. GRANT -- An early Plymouth Brethren
leader, Mr. Grant taught the one New Covenant for Israel, with dual
application:
It
will be asked how Israel's new covenant applies to all of us. Other
Scriptures answer this clearly by assuring us that if we have not the
covenant made to us, it can yet, in all the blessings of which it
speaks, be ministered to us (Numerical Bible VII:48).
WILLIAM
KELLY -- Mr. Kelly was probably second
only to Mr. Darby in doctrinal leadership of the Plymouth Brethren. But
here he does a doctrinal disservice to all, even in principle:
To
the believer now the principle of the new covenant applies, as far as
the soul is concerned, but Israel will enjoy its terms directly and
unqualifiedly (Hebrews, p. 154).
The
laws were outside the Israelite, they were not written on his heart.
Far different is the work of grace now. God gives them into the mind
and writes them on the heart of every believer. There is for the
believer a renewing of the mind, and the love of God shed abroad in the
heart by the Spirit given to him (Ibid., p. 155).
BRUCE
K. WALTKE -- As an ex-member of the
Dallas faculty, Dr. Waltke now maintains a strong anti-dispensational,
Covenant stance:
We
aim to interpret the covenant promises in the life of salvation history, and
on that basis to lay our accredited rules for the interpretation of type and
prophecy. It will be concluded that the kingdom promises are totally
fulfilled in the church, not in a restored Israel.
Unless
one resorts to the desperate conclusion that there are two New Covenants,
one for Israel and one for the Church, one must draw the inescapable
conclusion from, Hebrews 8:7ff., that the Church fulfills promises given to
"Israel" and "Judah" (Jer. 31:31) and by implication
the other sixteen references to the New Covenant in the OT.
This
essay is dedicated in honor of Professor S. Lewis Johnson [another
ex-faculty member of Dallas] through whom--more than anyone else--God
influenced me to think and live biblically (Continuity and Discontinuity,
John S. Feinberg, Ed., pp. 263,281).
JOHN
F. MAC ARTHUR, JR. -- Well on a path
similar to that of Johnson and Waltke, Dr. MacArthur's ministry continues to
contribute to the disintegration of dispensational distinctions. He
begins here with one of his typical contradictions:
The
new covenant is not made with the church, as some seem to think. It is made
with the same people the old covenant was made with Israel (Commentary on
Hebrews, p. 213).
Jesus
is the Mediator of the new covenant, and in this has provided us
with eternal life. All of God's promises in the new covenant are
guaranteed to us by Jesus Christ Himself (Ibid., p. 198).
For
the time being, in fact, Gentiles are sharing more in the new covenant
than are Jews. But one day this will change. Now, however, the
Spirit
writes God's law in the minds and hearts
of those who belong to Him. In
the new covenant true worship is
internal, not external; real, not ritual
(cf. Ezek. 11:19,20; 36:26,27)
(Ibid., p. 214).
JOHN
S. FEINBERG -- Son of long-time
upholder of Dispensationalism, Dr. Charles L. Feinberg, John Feinberg is
associate professor and chairman of the department of Biblical and Systematic
Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Claiming to be a
contemporary dispensationalist, he makes a telling statement, and asks a
significant question:
The
basic distinction among dispensationalists is that older ones
[traditionalists] tended to see the kingdom relegated entirely to the
future. More contemporary dispensationalists hold that the full
realization of the kingdom for Israel and the world awaits the future, but
currently spiritual aspects of the kingdom are operative in the church.
From
my perspective, the church neither replaces nor continues Israel.
There will be a distinct future for ethnic Israel, despite the fact that
spiritual aspects of the kingdom are now being applied to the church (Continuity
and Discontinuity, pp. 82,83).
As
to the New Covenant, why can it not have one application to the church now
plus a future application to national Israel in the future? (Ibid., p. 68).
The
answer to the question is that Israel's New Covenant cannot, and need not,
have an application to the heavenly Church, and the scriptural reason is as
follows:
The
honest dispensational dilemma is: Israel's New Covenant is Israel's, and that
for the future Kingdom. As a matter of truth, God's covenants [sans
Noahic] are with Israel: "All are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the ...
covenants" (Rom. 9:4).
The
unsaved Gentiles have no covenant, "being aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise" (Eph. 2:12).
And God has made no covenant with the Church, she being in the
Mediator.
What
to do? There is irrefutable doctrinal evidence that Israel's New
Covenant
is exclusively hers. It seems evident that there is another New Covenant
for the Church--which is necessary to keep the Church totally apart from
Israel. And these leaders have found no clear scriptural doctrine to
keep the Church independent of Israel. Without that there is no
Dispensationalism!
While
the Church has no covenant relationship with God, there is a New
Covenant of which she is beneficiary.
It is the Eternal Covenant between the
Father and the Son:
"Now
the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that
great Shepherd of the sheep, through the Blood of the Eternal Covenant,
"Make
you perfect [complete] in every good work to do His will, working in you
that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be
glory forever and ever. Amen"
(Heb. 13:20,21).
Unlike
Israel's New Covenant, new in kind, the Eternal Covenant is new in time,
having just been revealed to the Hebrew Christians.
Israel's
New Covenant is based upon the shed Blood of the Cross.
"I will forgive their
iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer. 31:34).
The
shed Blood of the Eternal Covenant is infinitely more beneficial to the Church
than to Israel. "The Church
of God which He hath purchased with His own Blood" (Acts 20:28). "The Blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from
all sin" (1 John 1:7).
"Now
in Christ Jesus we who once were far off are made nigh by the Blood of Christ."
"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the
Blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us,
through the veil, that is to say, His flesh" (Eph. 2:13; Heb. 10:19,20).
What
of this benefit of the Blood of the Eternal Covenant will Israel ever know?
Nothing! She has nothing
in common with the heavenly Church.
"This
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: after those
days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in
their hearts" (Jer. 31:33).
It
is further stated in Israel's New Covenant that "I will put My Spirit
within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep Mine
ordinances, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to
your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God" (Ezek.
36:27,28).
Under
Israel's New Covenant, by the indwelling of God's Spirit, the law of the
Kingdom will be manifested in the life of the converted Jew.
But
as for the Christian, by his being one in life with the Mediator of the
Eternal Covenant, the indwelling Spirit of Christ produces the fruit of the
Spirit, as he walks in the Spirit--"that the life also of Jesus might be
made manifest in our body" (Gal. 5:22,23; 2 Cor. 4:10).
Who,
not what, is written upon the heart of the Christian.
"Strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ
may dwell in your hearts by faith." "Christ liveth in
me." "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in
heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 3:16,17; Gal. 2:20; Eph.
2:6).
Israel's New Covenant was introduced by God primarily via Jeremiah and
Ezekiel, and will be everlasting.
The
life of the Church is the life of the Mediator of the Eternal Covenant.
She was chosen in Him from before the foundation of the world; made
"accepted in the Beloved," and hath been "blessed with all
spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:3,4,6).
To
look to Israel's future, earthly, law-governed New Covenant for blessings for
or similarities to the heavenly Church--the Church in possession of the
blessings of the Eternal Covenant? Why
should, or how could, that be?
Dispensational
friend, honor Him and His rightly-divided Word of truth by standing in your
totally adequate and exclusive position in the glorified Mediator
at the right hand of the Father. From
that heavenly vista Israel's earthly, kingdom New Covenant is seen for
what it is. For even that which
will be made glorious hath no glory, by reason of our glory that excelleth!
"If
[since] ye, then, be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above,
where Christ [and you] sitteth on the right hand of God.
Set your affection on things above, not on [Israel's] things on the
earth.
"For
ye have died [on the Cross, but not they], and your life [not theirs]
is hidden with Christ in God. When
Christ, who is our life [not theirs] shall appear, then shall ye
also appear with Him in glory (to reign with the Bridegroom/King over
world]" (Col. 3:1-4).
My
dear old correspondent of a half-century ago will have the honor of tying this
dispensational truth together, as only doctrinal Dr. William R. Newell could,
and did:
This
Eternal Covenant of Hebrews 13:20 was not between creatures, but between
"the God of peace" and "the Lord Jesus," and the
condition was the obedience unto death of Christ to the Father; its ground,
the shed Blood of the Son; and its issue, "an eternal covenant."
This
is the great fundamental transaction between the Father and the Son; no
creatures are seen; but ah! believers become--apart from works--blessed beneficiaries!
So that God can go on and establish (in the millennial future) the second,
or "new," covenant with Israel, who
"continued not" in the Mosaic or "first," now
"old," covenant.
It
is here in this eternal covenant that we find "the God of peace
bringing again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the -Great Shepherd of the
sheep''--how? "With the Blood of an everlasting
covenant." That is, in accordance with the terms of agreement
between the Father and the Son, which terms are seen to be a promise from
the Father that if the Son would become "a little lower than the angels
for the suffering of death," shedding His Blood for us, the Father
would bring Him out from among the dead. The Son came to earth, and
became "obedient unto death," and the Father indeed brought Him
again from among the dead. The eternal Covenant was kept.
The
"new covenant" yet to be made with Israel and Judah at our Lord's
return to earth and that nation, is all of grace--God's operation
instead of their response (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 37:12-14,21,23,25-28).
Therefore the "new covenant" which the Hebrew believers to whom
Paul was writing had had explained to them, was not yet in effect, nor will
be until Christ returns to earth; and then it will apply only to "the
house of Israel and the house of Judah," as God says, in the land of
Palestine, with the peculiar earthly blessings described in Scripture.
But--there
is yet an eternal covenant, detailed in Hebrews 13:20, in which and
according to which Paul knows that all Christians may be made "perfect
in every good work to do His will, working in you that which is
well-pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ [not through the law
written upon the heart, as with Israel]."
This
eternal Covenant in which the God of peace and our Lord Jesus Christ are the
Benefactors, and the sheep are the beneficiaries, this covenant is the only
covenant which believers should keep in mind as already and eternally
fulfilled in its conditions, and available to all His own.
This
was the covenant that was revealed to Paul: "The Lord Jesus in the
night in which He was betrayed took bread ... in like manner also the cup,
after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My Blood: this do, as
often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me: (1 Cor. 11: 25). This is
the eternal covenant of which the Lord Jesus is said to be the Mediator, and
which is celebrated in the Lord's Supper, in view of His death on our
behalf, by those benefited forever thereby! (Hebrews, Verse by Verse, pp.
258, 460-463).
Come
now, dear theological doctors, in whose New Covenant would you involve
us? You should feel responsible for our very highest as it is in the
glorified Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator of the Eternal Covenant.
Is not He glorified in that?
Come
now, beloved dispensational pastors, and others, it is your privilege and
responsibility to stand fearlessly upon the rightly-divided Word of truth.
As for Israel and her New Covenant: "Touch not; taste not; handle not"
(Col. 2:21).
"Our
sufficiency is of God, who also hath made us able ministers of the new
testament [new eternal covenant]" (2 Cor. 3:6).
Was any portion of Paul's able ministry based on Israel's New Covenant
level? Was it not on the heavenly level of our glorified Mediator
and His eternal new covenant? And
shall not we, by His grace, be able ministers of that new covenant also?
Surely, now!
Dr.
Chafer differentiated:
The
Christian is to manifest the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:11), but the children
of the kingdom will be appointed to manifest their good works (Matt. 5:16).
Much
divine blessing is determined for Israel, all of which is anticipated in her
covenants and prophecies; but no covenant or prophecy brings that nation into
heavenly citizenship, or makes her the Bride of Christ (Systematic Theology
IV:219; 142).
Newell
also knew the difference:
Paul's
Gospel is the Gospel of the ascended Lord Jesus Christ, and of God as
the One who raised Him from among the dead and is now working on
ascension ground only. Christ appeared to Paul as the risen One,
outside Jerusalem, independently of the Twelve and Judaism. The Church
has no connection with Israel whatsoever! (Galatians, p. 24).
NO
TRESPASSING!