Dispensationalism
What and Why Not

“Lutherans are unbelievers.” That is the first thought that crossed my mind when I learned they did not believe in the “rapture” or the “millennial kingdom” (the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth). Were not these teaching central to the Biblical witness and clear for everyone to see?

At that moment two different theologies had collided and engaged in battle; Israel and Jesus, grappling on the shore of the Jabbok. The two theologies were “Dispensationalism” on one hand, and “Lutheranism” (“orthodoxy”, if you will) on the other. I did not yet know the names of the opponents, but I right away had a sense of the ferocity of the battle. At stake were two totally different ways of understanding the end times, the church, salvation and the purpose of history, even the very heart and character of God.

So we arrive at the topic at hand: What is Dispensationalism and why is it wrong? There is perhaps no better example of confusing Law and Gospel in modern theology that the teaching of Dispensationalism. The depth of this confusion is tragically matched by the breadth of its exposure. Dispensationalism is so popular and widespread that it has become a major (if not the central) article in American Evangelical doctrine, teaching, preaching and popular piety.ⁱ Dispensationalism is not an isolated false teaching, it is an over-arching theological system; it is an eschatology (doctrine of the end times), an ecclesiology (doctrine of the church), soteriology (doctrine of salvation), a hermeneutic (approach to the Scriptures) and so forth. Like a cancer, dispensational theology spreads into every part, making the whole body of theology critically ill. What follows is a dose of dispensational radiation treatment.

Part of the trouble with dispensational theology is that it is more often “caught” that “taught” or thought out, less like a teaching and more like a head cold. Most dispensationalists arrive at their belief, not by careful study of the Scriptures, but by dogmatic osmosis. Often these “Dispensationalists by Default” wake up with a crick and wonder, “How did I get this pain in the neck?” We begin, then, by defining the central tenants of Dispensationalism, the articles on which the system stands or falls, and they are the following:

1. The distinction between Israel and the Church.

2. The use of a “consistent, literal hermeneutic.”

3. The purpose of God in the world is His own glory and not man's salvation.

These are the “three pillars” of dispensationalism, the sine qua non which we hope to make nonⁱⁱ.

The Distinction Between Israel and the Church

“A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct... This is probably the most basic theological test whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. A man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does, will.”ⁱⁱⁱ So Charles Ryrie outlines the importance of the distinction of Israel and the Church. This distinction is the first made by Scofield in his Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, “The Jew, the Gentile, and the Church of God.”^iv The church “began at Pentecost and is completely distinct from Israel.”^v This is the article that comes first and distinguishes dispensationalism from every other doctrine,^vi it is the “essence of dispensationalism”^vii

The distinction goes like this: Israel is God's earthly people with earthly promises and an earthly future (the millennium). The Church is God's heavenly people with a heavenly future, and never the twain shall meet. This distinction of God's purpose drops like a guillotine on the Scriptures, separating the Old Testament promises of the kingdom from the Church. To the Dispensationalist, the kingdom that Jesus preached was a physical, earthly kingdom (the Davidic Kingdom) which He came to establish for the Jews by throwing off the Roman oppressors. After this kingdom is rejected by the Jews, Jesus switches to “Plan B”, the establishment of the church. This church age is a “great parenthesis” between the offering and the giving of the promised kingdom, “a sort of interim consolation prize, until the interrupted fulfillment of Lk 1:32 can be taken up again in the 'political, spiritual, Israelitish' world dominion to be exercised by Christ from Jerusalem for a thousand years!”^viii

Does the New Testament divide Israel and the church? “Remarkably, the whole New Testament declines to drive the dispensationalist wedge between Israel and the church; on the contrary, it frankly defines the church as the continuation of Israel.”^ix Stephenson is not exaggerating when he marshals the “whole New Testament” against dispensationalism. These Scriptures are answering very directly the question, “What is the relationship between Israel and the church?” The answer is clear: Jesus, on the cross, destroyed any distinction between Israel and the church. Consider the following texts:

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free; for all are one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)

This text lacks no clarity; nor does Ephesians 2:11-19:

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh- who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands- that at that time you 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. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God...

Notice, first of all, that the “oneness” of Israel and the church is not just mentioned in passing. The “Therefore” of 2:11 is connected to the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone, Ephesian 2:8. St. Paul therefore builds the unity of the people of God on the blood and flesh of Jesus, for in His death He “has broken down the middle wall of separation”. Dispensationalism rebuilds this wall.

God is certainly doing something with the national people of Israel in the New Testament, mostly rejecting them because of unbelief. There is no room in the kingdom of God for the claim , “We have Abraham as our father.” The ax is laid to the root of that nationalistic misunderstanding of God's promise by the preaching of John the Baptist, “I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” (St Luke 3:8) This, again, is the thrust of the Galatians passage mentioned above, “If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29) Jesus says the same thing when He denies the unbelieving Jews the claim, “Abraham is our father.” (St John 8:39) Faith, not blood, makes children of Abraham.^x

The same is true for members of Israel. “They are not all Israel who are Israel.” (Romans 9:6) This takes us to the sedes doctrine of the issue at hand. Who is the true Israel? St Paul answers, “those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” (Romans 9:8) To be Israel is to believe the promise. What about Israel in the flesh? Does this mean nothing? St Paul asks this very question, “I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not!” Dispensationalists love this question, using it to prove that God still has a plan for national Israel, but St Paul has more to say; he is going to tell us how God has not cast away His people. Paul continues, “For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.” (Romans 11:1-2) Paul uses himself as an example of God's faithfulness to the people of Israel. In this we see a very different picture of God's keeping His promise than the Dispensationalist gives. God is faithful to Israel in the flesh by having the Gospel preached to them and granting them repentance. God is faithful to His promises by giving His people faith and making them part of the church. God is faithful to His covenant by giving Jesus over to death for the forgiveness of the sins of Jew and Gentile alike. His faithfulness has nothing to do with rebuilt temples and earthly rule, but everything to do with Jesus and His cross.

With this idea in place St. Paul introduces the image of the olive tree (Romans 11:17-24). The natural branches (Israel of the flesh) were cut off due to unbelief (11:20), and the wild branches (the Gentiles) were grafted in by faith. There is no clearer picture of the continuity of the church. There are not two olive trees, but one, and that tree is Jesus. Thus the unity of the Old and New Testament people of God find there unity in Jesus and no one or nothing else. In Christ Israel and the Church are one flesh, united in the forgiveness of their sins. They can be separated only by tearing apart Christ.

This “monstrous conception” of the distinction between Israel and the church causes the “monstrous juggling of the Scripture”^xi, it is the “prwton yeudo~” and the “fount of error”^xii out of which flows a brood of vermin and false teaching. We will consider only a few.

First, the secret rapture of the church. Dispensationalists teach the “pretribulation rapture of the church”. This means that the church will be taken out of this earth before (pre) the seven year “Great Tribulation” which culminates with the battle of Armageddon and the end of this dispensation. In Dispensationalism the rapture is an auxiliary doctrine which serves the distinction between Israel and the church by removing the church so God can finish His dealing with Israel, much like a mother telling her child, “Clear your toys off the table, it's time for dinner.” The fantastic and fanciful ideas concerning the sudden disappearance of all born-again Christians continues to spawn “Christian” science fiction like the Left Behind books and movies.^xiii But these machinations are completely disconnected from the Biblical text. “Rather than science-fiction mumbo-jumbo, the Bible teaches that the Rapture is not a unique event, but part of the resurrection of the dead... The “rapture” is the mechanism by which Jesus gives the resurrection body to those who are alive at the time of His return. The rapture is the 'mystery' of the resurrection of the living.”^xiv

Second, the distinction between Israel and the Church creates a romantic view of the false religion and idolatry of modern Judaism. On a whim a few years ago I went to the local, 'non-denominational', dispensational mega-church and did a survey of the folks walking around, asking this question, “If you could only be Jewish or Roman Catholic, which would you be?” The overwhelming majority said, “Jewish”. This survey is perhaps ill-conceived; it is certainly telling. One response stands out. I asked a group standing together my question. The woman responded first, saying, “Oh, Catholic.”

“What?” the others around her responded. “I'd rather be Jewish.” This was the consensus of the group.

“Why?” she asked. “At least the Catholics believe in Jesus.” I thought this was a good point.

“But you see, when Jesus comes back the Jews will recognize Him as the Messiah. They'll believe and be saved.”

“Oh, that's right,” she conceded, “put me down as Jewish.”

This incident, while neither scientific nor scholarly, does demonstrate a number of dangerous side-effects of the Israel/Church distinction. There is a romantic notion of Judaism; a preference of the shofar over the church bells. American Evangelicals who despise or neglect the Lord's Supper are zealous to celebrate the passover! Here Elijah's empty seat gives a powerful testimony to their empty sacraments and hollow ecclesiology. Even more, the visible coming of Jesus is seen as a means of grace. “They will see Him and believe.” Jesus' words to us, “Blessed are you who have not seen, and yet believe” are turned on their head; salvation becomes a matter of sight, not faith. Thus “this separation between the Kingdom and the Church, which is as unscriptural as it is dangerous, leads to one of the most serious errors of dispensationalism, the tendency to minimize the importance of the present Gospel age in the interest of the Kingdom age that is to come.”^xv

The preoccupation on the coming Jesus fosters neglect for the death of Christ. Dispensationalist see all history marching toward a “grand crescendo”^xvi, and on this all dispensational eyes are fixed. Then Jesus will show His real colors. “Yes, Jesus was meek and mild when He came the first time, but just you wait and see... He'll be tough next time.” There is a subtle shame, as if the cross were a failure. The theology of glory is much more attractive than the theology of the cross, and dispensationalism is a theology of glory. The cross is there, but not central, not chief, and as such, Dispensationalism disparages the gospel.

A third troublesome result of the Israel/Church distinction is Christian Zionism, the radical political support of the nation Israel based on the fact that God has yet to keep His promise to Abraham by giving the nation all the land from Egypt to the Euphrates River.^xvii “Do you know,” I once asked a Rabbi who was working with a Southern Baptists group to finance the relocation of Russian Jews to Israel, “that these Baptists are raising money to hasten the return of Jesus, at which time the Jews will undergo a mass conversion to Christianity followed by tremendous persecution and wholesale slaughter?” That was the end of our conversation that morning. But “mission, not misplaced revival of the medieval crusades, is where the rubber of truly Christian eschatology hits the road.”^xviii

But let this distinction between Israel and the church be left behind so that we may consider the second pillar of Dispensationalism,

A Consistent, Literal Hermeneutic

Dispensationalist claim that they and they alone use a “consistent, literal hermeneutic.” The “distinction between Israel and the Church is born out of a system of hermeneutics which is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of plain hermeneutics.”^xix Amillennialists, on the other hand, “Spiritualize things, and really goof things up.”^xx But the two disparate hermeneutics of dispensationalism and a-dispensationalism cannot be dismissed with a casual reference to the word “literal”, for even dispensationalists acknowledge a difference between the sensus litterae (the sense of the letter, the plain sense) and the sensus literalis (the literal sense). Both sides claim the use of the historical-grammatical method, and yet there is no denying the gulf between their exegetical conclusions. Certainly two hermeneutical spirits are at work.

The dispensationalist divided these spirits as “literal” and “spiritual”. The spiritualizing school , it is claimed, in a desperate attempt to make the church fit the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, spiritualizes the promises, abstracting them from their very Jewish and earthly intended sense. The literal school, on the other hand, boldly believes what the text really says. A mock word-association will make the differences clear.

Say the first thing that comes to your mind...

“Temple” Non-dispensationalist, “Jesus' body (John 2), the church.” Dispensationalist, “Building in Jerusalem where there are animal sacrifices.”

“New Covenant” Non-dispensationalist, “Cross, Lord's Supper.” Dispensationalist, “Treaty that Jesus will make with Israel when He returns to set up His earthly kingdom.”

“Anti-Christ” Non-dispensationalist, “The pope. Also other false teachers that deny the Gospel.” Dispensationalist, “The world dictator who will sacrifice a pig in the rebuilt temple, Nicolae Carpathia.”

“Sacrifice” Non-dispensationalist, “Jesus' death on the cross.” Dispensationalist, “Reinstituted animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom at the temple in Jerusalem.” (Yes, dispensationalists believe the temple sacrifices will be reintroduced.)

“Israel” Non-dispensationalist, “The church.” Dispensationalist, “The physical descendants of Jacob.”

“Kingdom” Non-dispensationalist, “The church ruled by Jesus who sits at the right hand of God the Father.” Dispensationalist, “National kingdom ruled from a physical throne in a geographical Jerusalem.”

What emerges here is not so much a distinction between literal and spiritual (Jesus and His church are “literal”, they really exist), but a distinction between a “Christocentric” hermeneutic and an “Israeliocentric” hermeneutic. The dispensationalist finds the bulk of prophetic fulfillment in the physical kingdom of Israel in the millennial kingdom.^xxi The a-dispensationalist (Lutheran) finds it in Jesus and His death on the cross.

Against this “Israeliocentric” interpretation we offer three arguments. First, the Scriptures teach us their overarching theme, namely, Jesus and His death for our sins. Jesus says to the Pharisees, “Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.” (St John 5:39) The testimony and witness of the Scriptures is about Jesus, through and through, from “Moses and all the Prophets.” (St Luke 24:27, see also 24:25-26, 44-47) This witness is not just about the person of Jesus, but about His work, His suffering, death and resurrection. (See St Luke 1:69-71; St John 1:45; 5:46; Acts 13:32-33; 26:22,23; Romans 1:2; 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:3) The central theme of the Scriptures is the death of Jesus (Genesis 3:15). Jesus is speaking literally when He says, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets (panta ta gegrammena dia twn profhtwn) concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.” (St Luke 18:31) It is in Jerusalem, in our Lord's passion, death and resurrection that the prophetic word finds its telo~, its completion. The center of the Scriptures and the climax of all history is not the earthly millennium, but the cross and resurrection of Jesus.

This being understood, it is no surprise that we find all Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled in Jesus and His church. This is our second anti-Israeliocentric argument, the Scriptures show us how the Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled, fulfilled in Christ and His church. Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:14-36) is a wonderful example. In verses 17-21 St Peter quotes the “Last days” prophecy of Joel (2:28-32) as being fulfilled in the events of that day (Verse 16: “this [i.e. These strange things that you are seeing] is what was spoken by the prophet Joel...”). Peter then goes on to discuss the prophecy that Jesus would sit on the throne of David. “[David], therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ...” (2:30-31) The prophecy that the Christ would sit on the throne of David is not a prophecy in waiting; it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus and His ascension to the right hand of God.^xxii

Another example is the promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...” Dispensationalist, with their Israeliocentric hermeneutic, must read the recipients of this new covenant to be “national Israel” and “physical descendants of Judah”, and conclude that “although certain features of this covenant have been fulfilled for believers in this present Church Age, the covenant remains to be realized for Israel.”^xxiii But Jesus is speaking literally (not spiritually) when He says, “This is My blood of the new covenant.” (St Matthew 26:28 and parallels in St Mark and 1 Corinthians) The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is clear when he discusses this text (Hebrews 8:1-13; 10:15-18). The New Covenant is here in the ministry of Jesus, “He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.” (8:6) This “better covenant” that Jesus establishes is the “new covenant” that Jeremiah promised (see 8:7-9). That dispensationalists are unable to see the fulfillment of Jeremiah's promise even thought the New Testament explicitly teaches it shows the utter blindness of their hermeneutic. The veil over the Old Testament is taken off only in Christ. (2 Corinthians 3:14-16)

This brings us to our third anti-Israeliocentric point. The dispensational hermeneutic insists that a literal reading of the kingdom promises in the Scriptures will teach a physical, earthly, Jewish Messianic “restoration of the national kingdom.”^xxiv This was the false hope of the Jews during Jesus' ministry. (See St Luke 17:20; St John 6:15) “The misunderstanding of the coming kingdom which our Lord took pains to preclude, and which He rebuked in the form of Peter's carnal misapprehension (Mt 16:23), is in fact its essence [for the dispensationalist]!”^xxv The importance of the national character of the kingdom of God for the dispensational understanding of the Scripture cannot be overstated. “If [the kingdom] is the Church, then dispensationalism is unwarranted. If the present form of the kingdom is not the Church and if the future form is the Davidic kingdom on earth, then dispensational premillennialism is the only answer.”^xxvi

The only trouble that Dispensationalists have on this point is the Bible. Jesus and all of the Scriptures teach us how to understand the nature of the kingdom, that it is not a national, political kingdom. Jesus confessed before Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (St John 18:36) Before the Pharisees Jesus teaches, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” (St Luke 17:20-21) “The time is fulfilled,” this is how Jesus began preaching, “and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel.” (St Mark 1:14-15) To look for the kingdom of God is to make the same mistake the the Pharisees did when Jesus came (St Luke 17:20). Jesus' kingdom is not political. It is not earthly. This does not mean that it is “spiritual” or “allegorical” or unfitting for the King of kings. “You call this the kingdom of God?” a dispensationalist asks as they sweep their arm around the church. “Some kingdom.” Dispensationalism despises the church, and so was our Lord despised and mocked. “You call yourself the king of the Jews?” (St John 19:3, etc.) Jesus is the crucified King, crowned with thorns, and His is a crucified kingdom, a kingdom under the cross. “The kingdom of God suffers violence.” (St Matthew 11:12) The Church is the kingdom that Jesus wants, and to call her unworthy is to insult that which is dearest to our Bridegroom's heart.

The hermeneutics of dispensationalism falter because they misplace the very heart of the Scriptures, replacing Jesus and His cross with the hope of the earthly kingdom. Their formal principle is inconsistent and not particularly “literal”^xxvii, but their material principle is deadly. This we will consider further with the third pillar of dispensationalism,

The Purpose of History is the Glory of God and not the Salvation of Man

“A third aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism ... concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world. The covenant theologian in practice makes this purpose salvation, and the dispensationalist says the purpose is broader than that, namely the glory of God.”^xxviii We are here introduced to another category: covenant theologian. What is a covenant theologian? While a more precise definition is desirable, we can begin with this: a covenant theologian is anyone who disagrees with dispensationalism, particularly concerning this point.^xxix Covenant theologians posit the unity of Scripture and history in God's work of redemption. “To the dispensationalist the soteriological or saving program of God is not the only program but one of the means God us using in the total program of glorifying Himself.”^xxx

The danger here is the separation of God's glory and man's salvation. “Salvation, for all it's wonder, is but one facet of the diamond of the glory of God.”^xxxi The cross is one means, and probably not the best means, of glorifying God. The millennial kingdom will accomplish that much better, for it is the “mighty crescendo”^xxxii of history as “the entire program culminates not in eternity but in history, in the millennial kingdom of the Lord Christ. The millennial culmination is the climax of history and the great goal of God's program for the ages.”^xxxiii This kingdom “is to be established by power, and not persuasion.”^xxxiv The Gospel is good for this age, but there is a better age coming.

This is the age of individual conversions, the snatching of a brand here and there from the burning. That is to be an age of mass conversions, nations born in a day. The dispensationalist exalts the cross as the only hope of hell-deserving sinners- with one exception. It is a very important exception. It is for the dispensation of grace, for the Church age, and for this age only, that he exalts the cross. ... The 'Gospel of the grace of God' is, according to the Scofield Bible (on Matt. 4, 17), the Gospel for the Church age; and the Church age is a parenthesis of indeterminate length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Dan. 9. It is an interlude in the history of God's people Israel. It is a time when the great prophetic clock is silent It does not figure in prophetic history. It is 'time out' in sacred chronology. Yet this parentheses is the Church age, the age of the Cross, the the preaching of the Gospel of the grace of God. How could a 'Bible Christian' minimize more seriously the value and centrality of the Cross in Biblical Revelation?^xxxv

“Justification by grace for Christ's sake through faith is relegated to the status of a mere parenthesis in the saving works of God!”^xxxvi And after this age is over, we will go back to the glorious? Dispensation of the law! “In the millennial kingdom, the final and most glorious dispensation, the legal system, the law of merit, rules!- Did Jesus Christ at one time, and will He again, preach the Law as the vehicle of God's blessings?”^xxxvii

What are we to make of this dispensational divorce of God's glory and the Gospel? The angelic choirs begin their Christmas hymn, “Glory to God in the highest, and...” But then the Dispensationalists stand up and say, “That's quite enough! You can stop there. Just sing about God's glory.” But God's glory and the salvation of man cannot be separated, for the glory of God is hidden in the cross of Jesus Christ. On the night before His crucifixion Jesus said, “Now the Son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and glorify Him immediately.” (St John 13:31-32) His cross is His glory. So the heavenly choir sings, “You are worthy... For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood.” (Revelation 5:9) Christ crucified is a “stumbling block” and “foolishness”, “but to those who are called... Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:23-24) The wisdom and power and glory of God are seen in the humiliation and suffering and death of the cross. “True theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ.”^xxxviii

“Chiliasm promises to remove the offense of the cross, and this promise breeds dissatisfaction with the present lowly estate of the church. Chiliasm promises to win the world for Christ in the millennium with better instrumentalities than the simple preaching of the Gospel, and this promise breeds impatience.”^xxxix

But concerning the teaching about Christ and His cross, our confessions say, “when it [the Gospel, justification] is properly understood, it illumines and magnifies the honor of Christ and brings to pious consciences the abundant consolation that they need.”^xl Glory to Christ and comfort to sinners, the Gospel brings both in their fullness.

The Gospel constitutes the glory of the church. Lowly and harassed as she is, she is resplendent with a glory that cannot be exceeded in this life. Oh, the excellent glory of the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins! “The glorious Gospel of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1, 11); “the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ” (2 Cor. 4, 4); “the ministration of righteousness doth exceed in glory” (2 Cor. 3, 9); as long as the world endures, the glory of Jesus shineth in the Gospel: the Gospel “gives the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4, 6). The Gospel is God's last word to us. Into the Gospel God has poured all the riches of His saving grace and saving power. The Gospel is the most precious gift to he Church Militant, a treasure unsurpassed, unsurpassable. “It remaineth” (2 Cor. 3, 11); it will not be replaced.^xli

May God grant that this pure Gospel of Christ crucified for sins be preached and taught without error to the edifying of His holy people unto eternal life.

Bryan Wolfmueller
November, 2004

NOTES