Evils Resulting from an Abridged Systematic Theology, Part 1

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: This article, which will be concluded in the July issue of this Quarterly, is based on an outline statement of what the author conceives to be an unabridged Systematic Theology, which statement appeared in the January issue of this year.]

Systematic Theology, the greatest of the sciences, has fallen upon evil days. Between the rejection and ridicule of it by the so-called Progressives and the neglect and abridgment of it by the orthodox, it, as a potent influence, is approaching the point of extinction. It is a significant fact that of the upwards of two score accredited and notable works on Systematic Theology which have been produced in this and other countries, an exceedingly small portion is now in print and the demand for these works is negligible. The unchanging emphasis in the Scriptures upon doctrine, which subject is referred to in the New Testament more than forty times and is that to which a Christian is to “give heed” (1 Tim 1:3; 4:6, 16; 2 Tim 3:10, 16; 4:2, 3), stands as a silent rebuke, whether heeded or not, to all modern notions which belittle the importance of Dogmatic Theology, and also stands as a corrective to those who neglect any portion of it.

It is no secret that the average minister is not now reading Systematic Theology, nor will such writings be found to occupy a prominent place in his library. Shocking indeed this condition would have been to ministers of two generations ago—men whose position was respected in their day because of their deep knowledge of the doctrinal portions of the Bible and whose spoken ministries and writings have gone far toward the upbuilding of the church of Christ.

The present situation is not one of passing moment.

As well might a medical doctor discard his books on anatomy and therapeutics as for the preacher to discard his books on Systematic Theology; and since doctrine is the bone structure of the body of revealed truth, the neglect of it must result in a message characterized by uncertainties, inaccuracies, and immaturity. What is the specific field of learning that distinguishes the ministerial profession if it is not the knowledge of the Bible and its doctrines? To the preacher is committed a responsibility of surpassing import. Men of other professions are tireless in their attempts to discover the truths and to perfect themselves in the use of the forces belonging to their various callings, though these be in the restricted field of material things. The preacher is called upon to deal with the things of God, the supernatural and eternal. His service is different from all others-different as to aims, different as to available forces and, of necessity, different as to adequate preparation.

No substitute will ever be found for the knowledge of the Word of God. That Word alone deals with things eternal and infinite, and it alone has power to convert the soul and to develop a God-honoring spiritual life. There is a limitless yet hidden spiritual content within the Bible which contributes much to its supernatural character. This spiritual content is never discerned by the natural (ψυχικὸς), or unregenerate man (1 Cor 2:14), even though he has attained to the highest degree of learning or ecclesiastical authority. The natural capacities of the human mind do not function in the realm of spiritual things. The divine message is presented “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor 2:13), and the Spirit has been given to the regenerate that they might “know the things that are freely given to us of God.” When, on the ground of scholarship, unregenerate men have been permitted to dictate to the church what she shall believe she has descended from her supernatural character to the level of a human institution, and it is safe to conclude that men are unregenerate who deny the only ground upon which a soul may be saved.

Acquiring the knowledge of the spiritual content of the Bible is a life task. The great preachers who have moved the hearts of men with divine power have been saturated with Bible truths secured through a first-hand, daily study of its text. General facts of human learning may be acquired by the usual means, but spiritual truths are apprehended only as taught to the individual heart by the Spirit.

No student of the Scriptures should be satisfied to traffic only in the results of the study of other men. The field is inexhaustible and its treasures ever new. No worthy astronomer limits his attention to the findings of other men, but is himself ever gazing into the heavens both to verify and to discover; and no worthy theologian will be satisfied alone with the result of the research of other theologians, but will himself be ever searching the Scriptures. However, a full-rounded introduction is needed and a method of study must be established if either the astronomer or the theologian expects to continue with ever-increasing efficiency. In the case of the theologian, this responsibility of acquiring the introduction to the Bible and its true method of study, without question, rests upon the theological seminary. Too often, however, the seminary has taken the attitude that the study of the English Bible for its spiritual content has no place in a theological curriculum, assuming that limited exegetical studies in portions of the Hebrew and Greek texts are sufficient. Exegesis belongs to the department of original languages and its importance cannot be over-estimated, nor should its prosecution cease with the student’s graduation. It is the province of exegetical research to aid in the study of the doctrinal, devotional, historical, prophetical, and practical aspects of divine revelation; but exegesis may, and not infrequently does, degenerate into a mere grammatical and philological study of the text with little attention given to the spiritual content of the Scriptures. Bible institutes may teach lay workers the Bible, but it is the prerogative of the theological seminary to produce authoritative and accurate exegetical expositors of the Scriptures. Regardless of the ideals held by many modern seminaries, the preacher is called to “preach the Word,” to be “apt to teach,” to be one who avoids the “traditions of men,” and to be one who is a right divider of the truth. Since the attaining to the knowledge of the Word of God is a life task, no seminary, no matter how true its aim, can hope to do more than to give the student an introduction to the whole text of the Bible, a method and habit of study with true ideas, and to impart a momentum for unceasing research in the sacred text itself. To this end every curriculum study should be focused. Studies in theology, original languages, and history should contribute to the one ideal, namely, the knowledge of the Scriptures. There are social and pastoral problems concerning which a preacher should be instructed, but these are secondary compared to his call to minister the truth of God. There is also far-reaching value in the knowledge of the history of theological opinion and familiarity with the contentions and conclusions of great men of former generations is essential, but, in vital importance, such knowledge and familiarity is not comparable with the understanding of the living Word of God and the true application of that Word to men today. Similarly, the study of evidences is an important discipline for the student of theology, but evidences do not embrace the truth itself. The chemist who in his laboratory has throughout the day proved the values of various foods will doubtless be pleased to partake of food when the work of the day is done. So, also, a preacher should be aware of the scope and trend of the philosophy of his day, but he should understand as well that the one and only successful method of combatting error is the positive declaration of the truth of God. A spirit-filled, truth-imparting preacher will have little time or disposition to descend to mere controversy, but will give out the supernaturally efficacious message of God, against which no error can ever stand.

While it is true that the Bible is the source of the material which enters into Systematic Theology, it is equally true that the function of Systematic Theology is to unfold the Bible. In its natural state, gold is often passed over by those with undiscerning eyes. Likewise, the treasures of divine truth are observed only by those who are trained to recognize them. In his years of classroom discipline, the theological student should be taken over the entire field of doctrine that he may be prepared to continue his research in every portion of the Bible throughout his ministry, being prepared to proceed intelligently in every phase of the divine revelation. Apart from such a complete introduction to doctrine, no preacher will be able to hold truth in its right proportions, nor can it be assured that he or his auditors will not drift into the errors of unscriptural cults, or into modernistic unbelief. After covering in a general way the entire field of his profession, the physician or lawyer may serve the public as a specialist in some particular aspect of that profession; but the theologian should not specialize in any department of the truth. Doctrinal fadists have been the cause of untold harm in the church of Christ, and the only way of avoiding this danger or that of securing preachers who will not be “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine,” is to provide a required discipline in Systematic Theology which incorporates a complete consideration under a competent teacher of the essentials of each doctrine with due recognition of the relation of each doctrine to every other doctrine. Rationalism has ever been seeking admission into the Christian church, but it found little welcome so long as theological seminaries gave even an abridged Systematic Theology its rightful place. It is a short step indeed from the ignorance of doctrine to the rejection and ridicule of it, and it can be safely stated that there is no rejection of sound doctrine which is not based on ignorance.

It should be observed, also, that the science of Systematic Theology has to do primarily with the discovery and arrangement of revealed truth. In its introductory portions, it may pause to establish the authority of the Word of God as the basis upon which it is afterwards to proceed; but the problems of authority are foreign to the science itself. No building will proceed to its completion when the builders are engaged in discussion as to whether a stone is a stone or a timber is a timber. The science of Systematic Theology is open only to those who have become satisfied that the Bible is God’s inerrant Book and are thus prepared to give themselves unreservedly to the study of the problem of the nature and order of truth set forth in the revelation God has given. Theology is concerned with the content of the divine message and not with the problem as to whether there is a divine message. Its material is largely in the sphere of things supernatural, and it is probable that a surgeon who faints at the sight of blood or a soldier who stampedes at the smell of powder will be more useful each in his sphere than the preacher will be in his chosen field who, because of unbelief, recoils from the supernatural.

The present evil effects of the neglect of Systematic Theology are not restricted to the disparaging attitude of those who do not accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God. Even those who uphold this science and who believe the Scriptures to be the final authority have, to a greater or lesser degree in their curriculum courses, abridged the field of material belonging to Systematic Theology to a point wherein the divine message as set forth in these courses is incomplete and the omissions thus allowed are discovered to be of truths which are most vital to the fuller knowledge of God’s ways, to spiritual well-being, to Christian character, conduct, and service. Measureless indeed is the injury wrought to the student, and later to those who depend upon his message, when the courses of theology studied slight vital truths belonging to that science, or treat portions of the Scriptures as though they did not exist.

In this age, as in no other, there is a specific message to be preached to every creature and, while there are leadership men who are God’s gift to the Church, the obligation to witness rests upon every Christian alike. Too much recognition cannot be given to the uncounted multitudes of faithful witnesses who are discharging their commissions as Sunday School teachers, mission workers, personal soul-winners, and as living exponents of divine grace. This is the God-appointed New Testament evangelism. The latent evangelizing forces of a congregation of believers are beyond all human calculation; but they need to be trained for their task, and God has prescribed definitely that they should be trained. How else will they be accurate and skillful even in their limited sphere of service? That they are to be trained is indicated in Ephesians 4:11, 12. There it is stated that the gifted men-apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, especially the pastors and teachers—are appointed to the task of “perfecting the saints for the work of the ministry”; that is, the ministry which is committed to the saints. The revelation here is not only of the fact that the saints have a witnessing service to perform, but also of the fact that they are to be equipped for this service by the gifted men whom God has placed over them as their leaders. The word καταρτισμὸς, here translated perfecting, is a noun which is but once used in the New Testament and means equipment and refers to that preparation which all saints should have that they may be effective witnesses for Christ. Καταρτίζω, the verb form of this word, is found elsewhere in the New Testament, and with significant meaning. According to this passage (Eph 4:11, 12), the pastor and teacher is responsible for the equipment of those given into his care. Although this equipment does involve methods of work, it includes much more, namely, an accurate knowledge of the truth.

But the pastor and teacher must be trained for his leadership task. Under existing conditions this preparation is committed to the professors in the theological seminary. Their responsibility is greater than that of other men inasmuch as the heavenly things transcend the things of earth. Observe this stream flowing forth from its source: whatever truth and ideals the professor imparts to students in training they, in turn, will later impart to the larger groups over which they are given spiritual care. If a congregation is not actively engaged in soul-winning and missionary work, it is usually because of the fact that they have been deprived of the God-intended leadership to that end. If the pastor has no soul-winning passion, no missionary vision, is limited in his proficiency, and inaccurate as an exponent of the Word of God, his lack in these respects may generally be traced to the fact that he has been deprived of the God-intended spiritual and vital training in the seminary. It may, therefore, be restated that the responsibility of the seminary professor is no less than superhuman. If this be true, no man is fitted to render faculty service in a seminary who is not himself awake to his responsibility and, in addition to that advanced training and accuracy in the truth which his position demands, is himself a worthy example of missionary zeal, evangelistic passion, and tireless soul-winning effort. What revival fires would be set burning and spiritual forces be released should the church demand the purification and perfection of her fountain sources of doctrinal teaching as well as the worthy illustration of spiritual vitality and soul-winning passion in the life and ministry of those who mold the character of her God-appointed leaders!

This is not an appeal for a lowering of worthy scholarship. The all-too-prevalent notion that scholarship and spiritual passion cannot exist together in one person was forever answered at the beginning of the Christian era in the case of the Apostle Paul, to say nothing of thousands of great preachers of the past who have attained to enviable scholarship without restricting their spiritual lives or restraining their passion of soul.

Returning from the digression concerning spiritual leadership, the question as to the evil effects of an abridged theology may now be considered and with a full recognition of the fact that an abridgment of doctrine in the seminary leaves the pastor disqualified by so much, and his limitation will be reflected in the stunting not only of his own spiritual life but of the spiritual life and activity of all who wait upon his ministry.

The criticism incorporated in this discussion in no way pertains to the material which is included in existing works on Systematic Theology. The church owes an immeasurable debt to the great theologians for the work they have done. Attention is called only to certain major themes which strangely do not appear in works on Systematic Theology generally. If it be claimed that, because thus omitted, these themes do not belong to Systematic Theology, it may be replied that men are not appointed to determine the material which enters into this science. Since, as acknowledged by theologians generally, Systematic Theology is the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting, and defending of all facts from any and every source concerning God and His works, it is obvious there could be no valid reason offered for the omission of any vital doctrine from this science. Theologians have no permission from God to restrict the field of theology to the material found in the standards of their respective denominations or the more or less restricted teachings of the great uninspired leaders who formulated those standards. The divine revelation in its entirety, and not merely the portions of it which harmonize with accepted dicta, challenges the student of doctrine.

While there are many secondary lines of revelation which are omitted from the usual courses of theological discipline, mention will be made here only of seven features of truth which are neglected or slighted and which may be classified as primary aspects of doctrine. These aspects of doctrine are: (I) The Divine Program of the Ages; (II) The Church, the Body of Christ; (III) Human Conduct and the Spiritual Life; (IV) Angelology; (V) Typology; (VI) Prophecy; and (VII) The Present Session of Christ in Heaven. That the loss to the whole range of doctrine sustained by these omissions may be pointed out, it is necessary to indicate some of the important features of each doctrine. Three of these divisions of doctrine mentioned above—Angelology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology—were presented in outline in a previous article under the title “Unabridged Systematic Theology” (Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1934).

I. The Divine Program of the Ages

While some phases of the divine program of the ages belong properly to Eschatology, and these will be noticed later under that heading, the subject exceeds the boundaries of Eschatology, and being, as it is, so vast, must be recognized as fundamental to the right understanding of the works of God in relation to this world.

The dispensational study of the Bible consists in the identification of certain well-defined time-periods which are divinely indicated, together with the revealed purpose of God relative to each. A recognition of the divinely indicated distinctions as to time-periods and the messages belonging to each is the very foundation of a science such as Systematic Theology, which proposes to discover and exhibit the truth relative to the works of God. No accounting is possible as to the extent of error which is prevalent because of the careless reading into one dispensation or age of that which belongs to another.

That God has a program of the ages is disclosed in many passages (Cf. Deut 30:1–10; Dan 2:31–45; 7:1–28; 9:24–27; Hosea 3:4, 5; Matt 23:37 to 25:46; Acts 15:13–18; Rom 11:13–29; 2 Thess 2:1–12; Rev 2:1 to 22:21). Likewise, there are well-defined periods of time related to the divine purpose. The Apostle Paul writes of the period between Adam and Moses (Rom 5:14); John speaks of the law as given by Moses, but of grace and truth as coming by Christ (John 1:17). Christ also speaks of the “Times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) which are evidently to be distinguished from Jewish “times and seasons” (Acts 1:7; 1 Thess 5:1). Likewise, Christ spoke of a hitherto unannounced period between His two advents and indicates its distinctive features (Matt 13:1–51), and predicted a yet future time of “Great Tribulation” and defines its character (Matt 24:9–31). There are “last days” for Israel (Isa 2:1–5) as well as “last days” for the Church (2 Tim 3:1–5). The Apostle John anticipates a period of 1000 years and relates this to the reign of Christ at which time the Church, His bride, will reign with Him (Rev 20:1–6). That Christ will sit on the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob forever is declared by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:31–33), and that there will be an ever-abiding New Heaven and New Earth is as clearly revealed (Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1). In Hebrews 1:1, 2 a sharp contrast is drawn between “times past” when God spoke to the fathers by the prophets and “these last days” when He is speaking unto us by His Son. Similarly, it is clearly disclosed that there are ages past (Eph 3:5; Col 1:26), the present age (Rom 12:2; Gal 1:4), and the age, or ages, to come (Eph 2:7; Heb 6:5. Note Eph 1:10 where the future age is termed the dispensation—οἰκονομία—of the fullness—πλήρωμα—of times—καιρὸς.

The use of αἰῶνας in Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 with its almost universal reference to time, either bounded or unbounded, is of particular significance as bearing on the divine arrangements of time-periods. The former with ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας and the latter with κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας, have been much disputed. Dean Alford states: “The main classes of interpreters are two. (1) Those who see in the word its ordinary meaning of ‘ages of time’: (2) those who do not recognize such meanings but suppose it to have been merged in that of ‘the world,’ or ‘the worlds.’ To (1) belong the Greek Fathers; and some others. On the other hand, (2) is the view of the majority of the commentators” (N.T. for English Readers. Vol. II, Part II, p. 599.) In several passages, including the two in question, Vincent declares αἰῶνας to refer to “the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world.” The word, he states, “means a period of time. Otherwise, it would be impossible to account for the plural, or such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come” (Word Studies. Vol. IV, p. 59).

Considering the accepted meaning of αἰῶνες, the natural interpretation of the passage in question is that God did by Christ arrange the successive periods, far beyond καιρὸς within χρόνος, extending, indeed to things eternal, or from everlasting to everlasting. This interpretation held, according to Alford, by the Greek Fathers, though not free from difficulties, is of more than passing import to those who do discern the fact, force, and fruition of God’s time-periods.

The student of the Scriptures who is devoted to his task will discover that God’s great time-periods, characterized as they are by specific divine purposes, fall into a well-defined order, moving on with infinite certainty to the glorious completion which God has decreed. There is an order to the creative days. The age of the patriarchs is followed by the age of the judges, and that age, in turn, is followed by the age of the kings. The “Times of the Gentiles,” which terminate the age of the kings, continue to the Day of Jehovah, which extended period is followed by the Day of God, characterized as it is by the New Heavens and the New Earth which are not only to be holy to an infinite degree, but are to abide forever.

God’s program is as important to the theologian as the blue-print to the builder or the chart to the mariner. Without the knowledge of it, the preacher must drift aimlessly in doctrine and fail to a large degree in his attempts to harmonize and utilize the Scriptures. Doubtless, a spiritually-minded person who does not know the divine program may discern isolated spiritual truths much as one might enjoy a point of rare color in a painting without observing the picture itself or the specific contribution which that color makes to the whole.

In spite of its importance as one of the qualifying features of doctrine, Systematic Theology, as set forth generally in text book, is without recognition of the divine program of the ages.

II. The Church, The Body of Christ

Ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the Church, incorporates three main divisions—(a) the true Church, the body of Christ, (b) the organized or visible church, and (c) the walk and service of those who are the saved of this dispensation. Though of tremendous importance, the first and third of these divisions are practically never treated in works of Systematic Theology; while the second, if mentioned at all, is usually restricted to peculiar features of some sect or branch of the visible church with specific reference to organization and ordinances.

The Book of the Acts and the Epistles introduce the fact of a new classification of humanity termed the Church, which group is, also, properly designated as a part of the New Creation since each individual within the group has experienced the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15).[1]

The works of Systematic Theology generally have recognized the redeemed people of this age, but only as a supposed sequence or continuation in the progress of the divine purpose in Israel. They refer to “the Old Testament Church” and to “the New Testament Church” as together constituting component parts of one divine project; thus failing to recognize those distinctions between Israel and the Church which, being so radical in character, serve to indicate the widest possible difference between them—difference as to origin, difference as to character and responsiblity, and difference as to destiny. There are at least twenty-four far-reaching distinctions to be observed between Israel and the Church, while there are about twelve major features common to both; but the obvious similarities do not set aside the differences. The fact that revelation concerning both Israel and the Church includes the truth about God, holiness, sin, and redemption by blood, does not eliminate a far greater body of truth in which it is disclosed that Israelites become such by a natural birth while Christians become such by a spiritual birth; that Israelites were appointed to live and serve under a meritorious, legal system, while Christians live and serve under a gracious system; that Israelites, as a nation, have their citizenship now and their future destiny centered only in the earth, reaching on to the New Earth which is yet to be,[2] while Christians have their citizenship and future destiny centered only in heaven extending on into the New Heavens that are yet to be (For both earthly and heavenly blessings see Rev 21:1 to 22:7; 2 Pet 3:10–13; Heb 1:10–12; Isa 65:17; 66:22).

With respect to humanity, the time from Adam until now is generally conceded by those who accept the Scripture testimony to be about six millenniums; these being divided into three time-periods of about two millenniums each. In the period from Adam to Abraham there was one stock or kind of humanity on the earth—Gentile; in the period from Abraham to Christ there were two—Jew and Gentile; and in the period from Pentecost to the present hour there have been and are three—Jew, Gentile and the Church. In the coming and final millennium there will be, according to much prediction, but two stocks or kinds of people on the earth—the Jew and the Gentile—, and as has been observed, these, having been marvelously transformed, continue as inhabitants of the New Earth wherein righteousness dwells. Thus, it is seen that the present dispensation only is characterized by the presence on earth of a third grouping of humanity—the Church. Not only did Christ anticipate this body of people (Matt 16:18), but they appear along with Israel as (1) co-sharers in the purpose of His incarnation, (2) as the subjects of His ministry, (3) as the objects of His death and resurrection, (4) as the beneficiaries of His second advent, and (5) as related to Him in His Kingdom reign. Of these aspects of truth, it may be observed:

1. There were two independent and widely-different purposes in the incarnation. (1) On the Messianic side and in relation to His office as Israel’s King, Christ was born of a virgin and came into this human relationship with indisputable kingly rights in order that He might fulfill the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam 7:8–18; Ps 89:20–37; Jer 33:21, 22, 25, 26). To the Virgin Mary the angel said “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:31–33); and as the rightful heir through human lineage, He will be the everlasting occupant of David’s earthly throne, and reign over the house of Jacob forever (Isa 9:6, 7; Luke 1:33). (2) On the mediatorial and redemptive side and to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant, it is equally true that by the incarnation the Mediator between God and man is provided with all the inexhaustible blessings which the Theanthropic Mediator secures; and through the virgin birth the Kinsman Redeemer is realized who, as typified by Boaz, is qualified to redeem the lost estate and claim His heavenly bride—the Church.

While these two widely-different objectives obtain in the incarnation, the general facts concerning the incarnation are common to both. When contemplating either the heavenly purpose in the Church, or the earthly purpose in Israel, it should be observed that: (a) It was none other than the Second Person of the Godhead who came into this human relationship; (b) to do this He emptied Himself, becoming obedient to His Father’s will; (c) He took a human body, soul, and spirit; and (d) the union thus formed between the divine and human natures resulted in the incomparable Thenathropic Person.

2. Christ revealed two distinct lines of truth. In the one, He presented Himself as Israel’s Messiah and called upon that nation for their long predicted national repentance; in which He also declared the character of His earthly Kingdom rule and Himself as the Fulfiller of the great Messianic purposes. At that time He said of Himself, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24). In sending out His disciples He commanded them saying, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:5, 6). In the second, when Israel’s rejection of Him became apparent, He began to speak of His departure and second advent, and of a hitherto unannounced age which should intervene in which the gospel should be preached in all the world to Jew and Gentile alike, and His disciples, whose message had before been restricted to Israel alone, were then commissioned to declare the glad tidings to every creature. A slight comparison of His farewell address to Israel—“Hated of all nations” (Matt 23:37 to 25:46)—with His farewell word to those who had believed on Him to the saving of their souls (John 13:1 to 17:26), will disclose the most evident distinctions between Israel and the Church. Such contrasts could be drawn from the Gospels almost indefinitely, and without these distinctions in mind only perplexity can characterize the one who reads with attention.

3. In His death and resurrection the same two widely-different objectives are discernible. To Israel His death was a stumbling block (1 Cor 1:23), nor was His death any part of His office as King over Israel—“long live the king”; yet, in His death, Israel had her share to the extent that He dealt finally with the sins committed aforetime, which sins had been only covered according to the provisions of the Old Testament atonement (Rom 3:25). By His death the way was prepared for any individual Jew to be saved through faith in Him; and by His death a sufficient ground was secured whereon God will yet “take away” the sins of that nation at the time when “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:27). However, the nation Israel sustains no relation to the resurrection of Christ other than that which David foresaw, namely, that if Christ died He must be raised again from the dead in order that He might sit on David’s throne (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:25–31). Over against this, it is revealed that Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it (Eph 5:25–27), and that His resurrection is the beginning of the New Creation of God, which included the many sons whom He is bringing into glory (Heb 2:10). In that New-Creation relationship, the believer is in the resurrected Christ and the resurrected Christ is in the believer. This two-fold unity establishes an identity of relationship which surpasses all human understanding. It is even likened by Christ to the unity which exists between the Persons of the Godhead (John 17:21–23). By the baptism of the Spirit, wrought, as it is for everyone, when one believes (1 Cor 12:13), the saved one is joined to the Lord (1 Cor 6:17; Gal 3:27), and by that union with the resurrected Christ is made a partaker of His resurrection life (Col 1:27), is translated out of the power of darkness into the Kingdom of the Son of His love (Col 1:13), is crucified, dead, and buried with Christ, and is raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:2–4; Col 3:1), is now seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Eph 2:6), is a citizen of heaven (Phil 3:20), is forgiven all trespasses (Col 2:13), is justified (Rom 5:1), and blessed with every spiritual blessing (Eph 1:3). This vast body of truth, which is but slightly indicated here, is not found in the Old Testament, nor are the Old Testament saints ever said to be thus related to the resurrected Christ. It is impossible for these great disclosures to be fitted into a theological system which does not distinguish the heavenly character of the Church as in contrast to the earthly character of Israel. This failure on the part of these systems of theology to discern the character of the true Church, related wholly, as it is, to the resurrected Christ, accounts for the usual omission from these theological writings of any extended treatment of the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection and all related doctrines.

4. The great events predicted for the close of the present age include the Day of Christ when the Church will be taken to be forever with the Lord—some by resurrection and some by translation (1 Cor 15:35–53; 1 Thess 4:13–17)—, and the Day of the Lord when Israel will be regathered, judged, and privileged to experience the fulfillment of all her earthly covenants in the land which has been given to her by the oath of Jehovah, which oath cannot be broken (Deut 30:3–5; 2 Sam 7:16; Ps 89:34–37; Jer 23:5, 6; 31:35–37; 33:25, 26).

5. In the coming Kingdom of Messiah the distinction between Israel and the Church is still more obvious. Israel, as a nation, is seen through prophetic vision to be on the earth as subjects of the Kingdom and in her kingdom glory, while the Church is said to be coreigning with Christ (Rev 20:6). As His bride and consort, it is the rightful place of the Church to share in His reign.

Two revelations were given to the Apostle Paul: (1) That of salvation to infinite perfection for individual Jew and Gentile alike through faith in Christ and on the ground of His death and resurrection (Gal 1:11, 12). That this salvation is an exercise of grace which far surpasses anything hitherto experienced in the Old Testament, is clearly revealed in 1 Peter 1:10, 11 where it is stated, “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you.” And (2) that of thenew divine purpose in the outcalling of the Church (Eph 3:6). This new purpose is not merely that Gentiles are to be blessed. Old Testament prophecy had long predicted Gentile blessings. The purpose consists in the fact that a new body of humanity was to be formed from both Jews and Gentiles, a relationship in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile position retained, but where Christ is all in all (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). The Apostle likewise records the former estate of Gentiles and Jews and the present estate of those who are now saved, whether of one group or the other. We read concerning the Gentile, “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Of the Jew we read, “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen” (Rom 9:4, 5). But, of the Church we read, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph 1:3–6).

With the same fundamental distinction in view, the Apostle makes separate enumeration of the Jew, the Gentile and the Church of God (1 Cor 10:32); and again in Ephesians 2:11 he refers to the Gentiles as the Uncircumcision, and the Jews as the Circumcision made with hands; but in Colossians 2:11 he refers to the Circumcision made without hands. The latter designation indicates the supernatural standing and character of those who comprise the body of Christ.

Though in its time established and imposed by Jehovah, Judaism did not merge into Christianity, nor does it now provide the slightest advantage to the individual Jew who would become a Christian. With reference to Christianity, Jews and Gentiles are now alike, “under sin.” They need identically the same grace of God (Rom 3:9), and that grace is offered to them on precisely the same terms (Rom 10:12). Nicodemus, who was apparently a most perfect specimen of Judaism, was told by Christ that he must be born again, and the Apostle Paul prayed that the Israelites who had “a great zeal for God” might be saved. They were at fault in that after the new and limitless privileges in grace had come through Christ (John 1:17), they still clung to the old meritorious features of Judaism, “going about to establish their own righteousness” and not submitting themselves to the imputed righteousness of God (Rom 10:1–3).

The one who cannot recognize that the Church is a new, heavenly purpose of God, absolutely disassociated from both Jew and Gentile (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), but sees the Church only as an ever-increasing company of redeemed people gathered alike from all ages of human history, will perhaps do well to ponder the following questions: Why the rent veil? Why Pentecost? Why the distinctive message of the Epistles? Why the “better things” of the Book of Hebrews? Why the Jewish branches broken off? Why the present headship and ministry of Christ in heaven? Why the present visitation to the Gentiles and not before? Why the present indwelling by the Spirit of all who believe? Why the baptism of the Spirit—unique in the New Testament? Why two companies of redeemed in the New Jerusalem? Why only earthly promises to Israel and only heavenly promises to the Church? Why should the divinely-given rule of life be changed from law to grace? Why is Israel likened to the repudiated and yet to be restored wife of Jehovah, and the Church likened to the espoused bride of Christ? Why the two objectives in the incarnation and resurrection? Why the new day—the Day of Christ—with its rapture and resurrection of believers and with its rewards for service and suffering-a day never once mentioned in the Old Testament? Why the “mysteries” of the New Testament, including the body of Christ? Why the New Creation, comprising, as it does, all those who by the Spirit are joined to the Lord and are forever in Christ? How could there be a Church, constructed as she is, until the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the ascension of Christ, and the Day of Pentecost? How could the Church, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, be any part of Israel in this or any other age?

Like the doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ, the doctrine of the true Church with her supernatural and exalted position and her heavenly destiny is largely omitted from theological writings only because these aspects of truth cannot be fitted into a Judaized system to which Systematic Theology has too often been committed. The stupendous spiritual loss of such an omission is only slightly reflected in the failure on the part of believers to understand their heavenly calling with its corresponding God-designed incentive to a holy life.

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Notes

1. The two terms, the Church and the New Creation are not synonymous. In the first instance a company of redeemed people is in view related to, but conceived of as separate from, Christ, as a body is related to, yet to be distinguished from, its head. In the second instance, reference is made to an organic unity which is formed by the baptism with the Spirit wherein the same identical company of redeemed ones is united to the resurrected Christ as its Federal Head and these two elements—the redeemed and the resurrected Christ—combine to form the New Creation. No deeper truth could be uttered than is expressed in the words of Christ, “Ye in me, [by the baptism of the Spirit] and I in you” [by the Spirit’s regeneration]. That this and all similar truth is wholly foreign to the Old Testament is obvious.
2. Jehovah’s five-fold covenant with Israel is everlasting in every respect-(1) a national entity (Jer 31:36), (2) a land in perpetuity (Gen 13:15), (3) a throne (2 Sam 7:16; Ps 89:36), (4) a King (Jer 33:21), and (5) a Kingdom (Dan 7:14). These earthly promises are confirmed by the oath of Jehovah and extend forever, else language ceases to be a dependable medium for the expression of truth.