THE COVENANT VISION

MINISTRY.

P.O. Box 3192.
Mount Druitt Village.
N.S.W. 2770. AUSTRALIA.
Phone: 02-9833-3925. Fax: 02-9833-4397.

E-Mail: fdowsett@idx.com.au

Senior Pastor and Co-Founder:

FRANK W. DOWSETT. J.P.

The Heritage
of
Israel.

By Frank W. Dowsett.

Part Eleven.

The Covenants & The Promises. Part 6.

The Abrahamic Covenant. Part Three.

In our previous issues, we studied the statements of God regarding His Divine pans and purposes for the future, and His selection of the descendants of Abraham as the means through which He was to bring those plans to fruition. That process was one of very deliberate selection. There was nothing random about His selections. Behind every decision there was a reason. Behind every choice there was a purpose. Every aspect of the Covenants which He made with our forefathers was perfect, and without repentance. God does not get confused with the human trait of experimentation. He knows exactly what He wants, and has planned accordingly right down to the very last, and very minutest detail, long before He even created the world itself, in order for that Divine plan to come to fruition. He is not a bit phased by the ineptitudes and stupidity of men who in their self-conceited arrogance, think they can improve not only on the plan itself, but also on the manner in which it is to be carried out.
The plan is recorded in statements which were irreversible, and non-negotiable Covenants, sworn to upon the sacredness of His own Name.
As we noted, the priorities were clearly enunciated. His first choice was the man Abram, whose name He later changed to Abraham, indicating God’s decision to change Abram’s position as a "high or honoured father" to that of becoming "the father of many nations". It was a deliberate selection that raised and greatly expanded the standard of Abram’s ‘fatherhood’.
The next choice was the selection of Abraham’s younger son Isaac in preference over his elder son Ishmael. The Divinely selected line of authority was to be continued by and through the younger son, Isaac. As we read in Gen. 17:18-19;

"And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him."

In Romans 9:7-9; this is clearly reiterated;

"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son."

And here we have the beginnings of the first seed of opposition and displeasure at God’s decision. It inaugurated an animosity that continues right down to the present day, the descendants of Ishmael being predominantly found among the Muslim/Arab community.

The process of selection continued. To Isaac were born twin sons, Esau and Jacob, Esau being the first of the twins to actually be born, thus making him the elder, or heir. But again, the foreknowledge of God caused Him to select the younger son, Jacob, in preference to the elder son Esau;

"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Romans 9:10-13.

Again, trouble ensued. We found in our studies how that Esau, in total disregard and disrespect for the birthright which was his by virtue of having been the firstborn, sold this birthright to his younger brother for nothing more that a good feed. And quite frankly, most Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Christians today have done exactly the same. They know nothing, and care less, for the wonderful birthright which is theirs, discarding it for what they see, and are taught, is the emotional food which, whilst giving some form of sustenance on the personal level, has robbed them of the knowledge of the fullness of God’s great promises concerning their future. And the division became much more serious. Esau made an oath, following his receipt of his father Isaac’s blessing, that because he had been replaced in the order of seniority, He would, after his father’s death, kill his brother Jacob. Again, this oath and all-consuming passion has become the hallmark of his descendants, the Edomites, from that time right down to the present day. They have used, and are still using, every dirty trick in the book to displace the true people of the covenant from their God-ordained destiny, and to regain it for themselves.
But setting priorities did not finish there. Some years later, Jacob’s son Joseph became the father of two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, and God again moved to set His seal of selection as to the order of authority. We read in Gen. 48:16-20;

"The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.
And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh."

Once again we find that the younger was allotted a senior place in God’s Divine plans than to that of the firstborn. It is of no purpose to argue about God’s decision in these matters. He knows exactly what He is doing, and why, and many of our troubles arise from the fact that we constantly try to change God’s priorities to suit our own particular desires, as patriotic and sincere as they may be.
But there is one more act of selection which we need to also understand. This comprises the selection of two particular tribes, or sections of Israel as being allotted higher authority and responsibility than the other tribes. The account is found in Psalm 114:1-2;

"When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language;

Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion."

Now, the Divine order was firmly established. Now, the real history of the descendants of Abraham could proceed with total Divine sanction and protection.
All of what has been mentioned above are the statements of God Almighty regarding what He intended doing, and of how He intended doing it. But words without deeds are as worthless as faith without works. It is not enough for us to read about these great promises without knowing exactly, or at least as exactly as we can, the manner in which they were fulfilled. God clearly states in Isaiah 55:11;

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

It is apparent from our studies thus far that very specific statements about very specific peoples are the major subject matter of God’s pronouncements. So we must ask ourselves the question,

"How are we to interpret these promises made to these specific people if we don’t know who these particular people are today, or where they may be found?"

And in our studies, let us never forget that on his death-bed, Jacob told his sons that the promises would be fulfilled within them "in the last days". These days were certainly not in the immediate future to when Jacob spoke. They were to transpire in the distant future to when he spoke. This expression, "the last days", occurs 8 times in 8 verses throughout the Scriptures. In every case, it refers to the days which comprise the end of this age. There are several similar expressions used, such as "the end of the days", found in the last verse of the Book of Daniel, and particularly "the latter days", which occurs 11 times in 11 verses.
It must surely be self evident that if God made these wonderful promises to specific people, to be fulfilled in the "latter or last days", then the people to whom the promises were directed must be in existence during these "last or latter days". Furthermore, they must be recognisable in terms of the promises made to them. If this be not so, then what is the use of prophecy? Remember, all these Abrahamic Covenants were in fact prophecies, in that they foretold events and conditions future to the time at which they were spoken. So if the people to whom these covenants or prophesies were made exist today, then how is it that there is such utter confusion in recognising them for who they are? What’s the use of trying to make head nor tail of the promises to Israel if we don’t know who or where Israel is today? What’s the use of trying to understand the promises made about the descendants of Esau, the Edomites, or the descendants of Ishmael, if we don’t know who or where they are today? It’s no wonder that the great majority of Christians today almost completely ignore prophecy and put it into the "too hard basket". Theological teaching these days, and for many, many years in the past, has taught two alternative answers to this matter of identification in regards to the people and nation of Israel. The first one is that the nation of Israel became so sinful and wicked that God decided that He could do nothing more for them, and revoked the covenants made to them and gave them to what they call "the church". As far as I am personally concerned, this is blatant blasphemy. Fancy the hide of these people getting up in their various pulpits and teaching about the love and faithfulness of God, and even at times reading the passage from Malachi which says "I am the Lord. I change not", and then, without a single twinge of conscience tell their congregation that God has in fact changed His mind.

The second alternative is that the people known today as the Jews are the nation of Israel, and are entitled to inherit all these wonderful promises. I’ve heard of the practice of selective rationalisation, but this really takes the cake. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself referred to these people as "the children of their father the devil", "liars", "murderers", "thieves", "whitewashed tombstones", "the synagogue of Satan", and in the clearest of terms told them that they were "not my sheep"!!! But four or five years in our present Theological Cemeteries, (sorry, Seminaries), suddenly transforms them into "God’s Chosen People".
But try telling the people the real Biblical identity of God’s people and you get crucified. And we wonder why we are in such a mess. How on earth can anyone make any sense out of God’s promise to Abraham that He would make his seed to be a great nation and company of nations, when they are told that these people are either "the church", or "the people of His curse", neither of which are a great nation and company of nations?
Perhaps it’s appropriate at this point of our study to have a closer look at the statements made in this last sentence, as I‘m sure that those to whom this teaching is new could be somewhat confused, if not offended by what I have suggested. Let’s start with the "church" theory. Ask yourself the question,

"Is ‘the church’ a great nation and company of nations today"?

To answer this question with any reasonable sense, we should define the actual meaning of the two words "church" and "nation".

The English word "church" is derived from the Greek adjective kyriakos, meaning "the Lord’s house", that is, "a Christian place of worship". In the New Testament however, the Greek word ekklesia is mostly used, meaning a local congregation of Christians as distinct from a building. Every time we meet together as an assembly to worship God, irrespective of whether there be two or three, or two or three hundred, we form a ‘church’ or congregation. Now has anyone ever heard of such a gathering being referred to as "a nation or company of nations"?

What then is the definition of the word "Nation"? The Greek word used is ethnos, which means "people living under common institutions; A race; People having a common descent." All occurrences of the word ‘nation’ in the New Testament are translated from this one Greek word. Do all people meeting together as an assembly to worship God derive from the same race, and have common ancestry? Of course they don’t. To think, let alone teach otherwise, is to show a gross ignorance of the meaning of Biblical terminology. It is this type of theology that has bred confusion and division throughout God’s people. The promise to our father Abraham was never that he would become the progenitor of a conglomerate of people from different racial ancestry. His descendants were to be a race of people, derived from a common ancestry, living under a common institution, with the strictest of instructions forbidding them to intermarry with people of other races.

But let us return for a moment to the subject of "the church". The word itself is not used in the Old Testament. The equivalent word in the Hebrew is qahal, which means "an assembly". In studying any subject, I have always followed the principal of "the law of first reference". If we look at the first time a particular word or phrase, or even doctrine, is used, we find the principal meaning of that reference. When we examine the word "church" using this principal, we find that the first time it is used in an historically chronological sense is in Acts 7:37-38;

"This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us."

Thus we see that the entire nation of Israel was referred to as "the church". The entire nation was "a called out assembly". But that fact does not in any way constitute an excuse, let alone any authority to replace the nation as a race of people with common Israelite ancestry, with an assembly of people with mixed ancestry which assembles together in worship. Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that every one of the 77 times the word ‘church’ is used that it relates only to Israel as a nation. What I am pointing out is that Israel, as a nation, was the original party to which the term was applied. But we find that in every instance where the particular message is directed to a Christian congregation, the ‘church’ to which reference is made is an assembly within various groups of Israel people. You will not find one instance where the word ‘church’ is used of foreign, non-Israelite people. From the internal and historical evidence within every book of the New Testament, we find that they were all directed to, and about, God’s Israel people, whom Paul assures us, were NOT cast away. To illustrate my point, the word "brethren" which is translated from the Greek "adelphos" throughout the entire New Testament, means, "a near kinsman, based on identity of origin; people of the same nationality." The apostle Paul, for instance, addresses every one of his epistles to those whom he calls "brethren" - people of the same racial origin as himself. And he most certainly leaves us in no doubt as to his racial identity in his statement recorded in Romans 11:1;

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin."

Concerning the ‘church’, we read in Ephesians 1:22-23, and Colossians 1:18 that "Christ is the head over all things to the church, which is His body", and "He is the head of the body, the church". It must be fairly obvious that this passage is not referring to our present denominational churches or Christian organisations. Nor can it be spiritualises and applied to our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the HEAD, not the BODY. The word "body" means, ‘The necessary medium for the possession and manifestation of life." So applying these definitions on a national basis, we find that "Christ is the head of His called out assembly or nation of Israel, which is His chosen medium through which He manifests life." On the personal level we find that those who have qualified for Eternal Life through repentance and their acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as their eternal offering for their sin, become members of His body. But just as there are many different members of our human body each with differing levels of importance, so there are also different levels which will be applicable to those who are qualified to be members of His Kingdom. Some will be citizens. Others will be rulers, having attained to the "Higher Calling" of which Paul spoke. I wonder if we have seriously considered marriage as set forth in the Bible. We are told that when a man and woman marry, they become one flesh. But this does not change the man from still being a man, nor the woman from remaining a woman. The body of the husband still remains as his own body. It does not become the body of his wife. On this basis, we realise that those who are "the body of Christ" are in fact a part of the BRIDEGROOM, not just a part of the BRIDE. The Bride is Israel, the nation. The Body consists of the rulership over that nation, with Christ as the Head, together with those who will rule and reign with Him. But each party, both the Bride and the Body, are still part of the overall Kingdom. God never ever intended, nor did He ever intimate, that one would supplant the other. They were always intended to supplement each other in the fulfilment of the promise made to our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
So how, we may ask, did this seeming mix up occur in our present teaching and understanding of what God’s Word quite clearly states? What may be more to the point is, why has there been such a concerted and paranoid attempt made over many centuries to change the terms of the Covenants which God made and swore upon His own Holy Name? Furthermore, why is it that those who prefer to believe the plain statements of the Scriptures and who identify the actual recipients of these Covenants so mercilessly persecuted and ostracised today? People who deny the existence of God don’t get derided and persecuted in this way. You can be the greatest scoundrel on the face of the earth, and many church folk will give an arm and a leg to convert you to Christ and tell you of the wonders of His Word. But mention anything about our Israel Identity, and you became an instant target for every form of abuse that can be imagined. And many of us can talk from experience, because we’ve been there. God has not changed His mind, and cast away His people whom He foreknew, and we will, God willing, proceed with this interesting aspect in our next study.

(To be continued).

Please for quick link to next article in this Series.