The Manifestation of the Sons of God
By Michael Krall
Who are the true children of the promise? Who are the true
circumcision? Who are the true Jews and who are of the synagogue of Satan?
These questions may seem to have an obvious answer to any Christian today but
it was not so during the first century. The Judeaizers were claiming that
unless one became a Jew by being circumcised after the manner of Moses there was no claiming to be part of the
covenants of promise. When one sees the significance of this and what took
place during the transitional period
between the cross and the destruction of Jerusalem, which consummated
the Old Covenant, it sheds some light on what Paul meant by the manifestation
of the sons of God in Romans 8.
In almost all of the epistles of the New Testament some reference
is made to the conflict between the
Jews of that day and the Christians. For example in Galatians Paul is dealing
with the very issue of what the Christian's relationship to the Old Covenant is
and whether or not one needs to be circumcized after the manner of Moses to be
saved. Then in Ephesians after Paul talks about the middle wall of partition
being taken away in Christ and the Gentiles that were afar off are now brought
nigh unto God. Then in the beginning of
chapter 3 Paul says "FOR THIS CAUSE I am a prisoner of Jesus Christ for
you Gentiles."
One does not have to read too far in the book of Acts in following
Paul's journeys to see that he was persecuted by the Jews because of his
preaching that there is only one hope of Israel and it included the Gentiles
also. Then in the Thessalonian letters Paul specifically deals those that
troubled the Thessalonians and how God would repay them for the wrath of God
"has come upon them to the uttermost." In the first letter to the Thessalonians it is of real
significance because there we read Paul saying that it was the Jews that
"both killed the Lord, and their own prophets" and "forbidding
us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved" and then he says
that they have "filled up their sins..." Then in the second letter he
speaks in the first chapter how it is
"a righteous thing with God to recompense those that trouble you."
Then we have the letter to the Hebrews which was written to Jewish believers
tempted to go back into Judaism no doubt due to persecution by the Judiaizers
as the letter indicates.
This climate runs all through the New Testament and can be seen
especially in the life of Paul. One cannot read much of the New Testament and
see the conflict between the Judiaizers and the Christians and how the
Judiaizers were constant thorns in Paul's side.
Once we understand this framework of the New Testament we can
better understand the significance of
those passages that speak of the destruction of Jerusalem and where it fits, if
at all, in God's plan in the unfolding of redemptive history.
When our Lord gave his Olivet Discourse he mentioned the
destruction of Herod's Temple and the signs that would precede it. Few deny that at least part of the discourse
is referring to 70AD when the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was ransacked.
But when one goes to the discourse in Luke 21 there is no denying the meaning
of our Lord's words since the topic in question is solely the temple and its
destruction. No other question is asked
nor is any other topic discussed at the outset. In is in this particular
version of the discourse that our Lord says some very important words in verse
22 "for these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written
will be fulfilled." That is a very important verse and its implications,
we hope to prove, have some far reaching effects.
What is the connection between
the destruction of the temple and the question of who are the true
children of promise that we have asked? Is there actually a connection between
the manifestation of the sons of God and the destruction of the temple? When
one sees the significance of the
dismantling of the Old Covenant system then its importance and its implication
in relationship to the identification of the true people of God will come into
sharp focus.
Paul tells us in Galatians 4
that the two women Hager
and Sarah are the two covenants. What
we see in this illustration is the Old Covenant system represented by Hager and
her son Ishmael who was thought to be the child of promise till Isaac came
along which was representative of the New Covenant. Once Isaac (the real child of promise) came on the
scene there was conflict and friction as to who was the true heir. We read in
verse 29 of that chapter that the one born after the flesh (Ishmael - which was
a picture of national Israel under the law) persecuted the one born after the
Spirit (Isaac- which was a picture of the New Covenant believer living in the
Spirit) EVEN SO IT IS NOW." This time period of the two living in the same
house till the bondwoman and her son were cast out is a picture of the
transitional period from the cross to the destruction of Jerusalem in
70A.D. The cross was the time of the
birth of Isaac, the coming in of the New Covenant and the destruction of the
temple in Jerusalem was the time of the casting out of the bondwoman. The
transitional time from 30 - 70 A.D. was the time when spiritual Ishmael persecuted spiritual Isaac before he was cast out. The casting out of the
bondwoman, 70A.D., was the manifestation of the sons of God. (Some have said
that the bond woman was cast out at the cross but Paul's words which we
emphasized "even so it is now" show that the bond woman had not been
cast out at the time Paul wrote the letter.)
It was at the time of the casting out of this bond woman and her
son, the Old Covenant that the true heir was made known, the church, and the
fullness of the Gentiles came in. As long as the Old Covenant system with its
sacrifices was intact then the New Covenant community had a real obstacle
before it as to so as to its
manifestation as the true people of God.
The Levitical priesthood had to be cast out before Christ as a priest
according to the order of Melchizidek could take his rightful place. Jesus was
not from the tribe of Levi so according to the Levitical order he could not be
a priest. Until the Levitical Priesthood was done away Christ in his
priestly/king office could not be fully manifested. It was at that time, the
dismantling of the Old Covenant and the Levitical Priesthood, that Christ returned a second time without
sin UNTO SALVATION (Heb 9:28) whereby he is now reigning. If he has not
returned then he is not here to reign and is therefore an absent king. But He
did return, cast out the bondwoman and her son, brought in the days of vengeance whereby he redeemed his people,
the elect of OT Israel, out of hades and all things written were fulfilled. He
returned to a waiting congregation to bless the people, Lev 16: 16-17, and
completed the redemption of the purchased possession. The Old Testament had to
be fulfilled it could not merely be abolished at the cross. In order for
"all Israel to be saved" the OT had to be fulfilled and it was in the
days of vengeance which according to Isa 63:4 was the day of his redeemed.
It is this that Paul was referring to as being the manifestation
of the sons of God. It was the time when the full manifestation of who the true
people of God were. In Romans 8 we read
that the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of
the sons of God. This word translated creature is the same word used many times
to refer not to the physical creation but creatures themselves. In some cases
such as 2cor 5 "a new creation" it is referring to the elect of God.
In verse 21 of Romans 8 we are told that this creation itself shall also be
delivered form the bondage of corruption INTO the glorious liberty of the
children of God. Now can this be the physical creation? This is the Old Testament saints who had
died in faith not receiving the promise. They had to be delivered from the
"bondage of corruption" which
was the Old Covenant law . Paul then says "and not only [they] but
ourselves also." In addition to the Old Testament saints who have died and
were waiting in Abraham's bosom for the
resurrection, but the New Testament believer at that time was waiting for the
the adoption "the redemption of
OUR (plural) body (singular)" the redemption of the purchased
possession. If Christ has not returned then redemption is not complete and we
are not yet saved. For as we have stated
he will appear a second time without sin UNTO salvation. Paul told the
Romans that salvation was nearer then when they believed. Peter said that
salvation was ready to be revealed. So if he has not appeared a second time
then salvation is not yet finished. If he has not appeared a second time then
he has not yet entered into his kingdom as he said he would in the lifetime of
some living then Matt 16:27-28.
There are some that insist that there must be a renovation of the
universe as well as a redeeming of the physical body and if one does not
believe that they have Gnostic leanings if not pure gnosticism. Quiet the
opposite is true for this reason. The basic tenant of gnosticism is that it
teaches matter is evil. Some believe the physical body must be resurrected
having the molecules come together and the exact same body and be
resurrected else there is no salvation
of the body and to say otherwise is gnosticism. But those that say that the physical fleshly body is evil
and needs to be redeemed are falling
into the very error they accuse us of. Sin does not reside in either the
physical flesh and blood body nor the physical universe that some say must be
renovated that fulfilled eschatology denies. This is to say matter is evil and
needs redemption. But as we pointed out in Romans 8 it is not physical creation
that is being spoken of.
If we will back up from Romans 8 into Romans 7 where Paul talks
about the law and how sin taking occasion
by the commandment wrought in him "all manner of
concupiscence" and then read how he desire to be delivered "from the
body of this death" we see something interesting. Paul is not referring to
the fleshly body that will return to the dust. In the next chapter he says
there is no more condemnation to those that walk after the spirit and not the
flesh. Is that flesh he is speaking about the physical body? Note the next
verse "for the law of the Spirit of life has set me free from the law of
sin AND DEATH.". The law of sin and death is the law spoken of in Romans
7. Paul uses the term flesh a number of times to speak of the workings of the
law to those under it. In Galatians 3:3"are ye so foolish having begun in
the Spirit are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Here is associates
keeping the law of Moses with the work of the flesh as he does in Phil 3 where
he mentions how he had reason to
"trust in the flesh" where he was talking about the keeping of the
law as a "Hebrew of the Hebrews".
So we see that Paul's desire for deliverance from the body of sin
was the deliverance from the Old Covenant law that worked in him "all
manner of concupiscence". It is a failure to see this connection that has
led many to reject fulfilled eschatology
based solely on the idea that both the physical body and the physical
universe needs to be redeemed at the second coming. Another such reason is the
curse that was put on the earth at the fall. These needs to be briefly examined
to see that this has no merit to support and need for such a renovation.
In Genesis 8:21 after the flood we read:
And the LORD smelled
a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the
ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from
his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have
done.
Two things we see here. One is that he will no longer curse the
ground. But he already did in Genesis and if the curse was still in effect this
would make no sense. Whatever the curse was, it was reversed after the fall. Many will refer to Genesis 3:17-18 where
we are told that "thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee and
thou shall eat the herb of the field" as being the curse. Since we still have thorns and thistles the
curse is not reversed. But notice where
it says he will eat of the herb of the field. That is never looked at by many
as part of the curse on the ground even though it is in the same sentence. When
we revert back to Genesis 9 the verses following those previously read we
notice this in the light of the "thou shalt eat the herb of the
field":
2 And the fear of you and
the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of
the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the
sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat
for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
This change in man's relation to the earth appears to have some
significance of the curse of the earth God promises to reverse in Genesis 8.
But note one other thing from our passage in Genesis 8
"neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have
done." Now this cannot be part of the curse he is promising not to bring
upon the earth for the very language "neither will I" speaks of
something in addition to what was just said.
Some say that this just means that God will not destroy the earth
in the manner he did. Not by water but the next time by fire. If one of our
children did the something wrong and promised to not do it again as they just
did but did the same thing in another manner will we not consider that as an act of dishonesty? We most certainly
would but many attribute that very thing to God to avoid the clear implication
of the passage that there is no passage
in the Bible to support the end of the cosmological universe. God may have a
plan to end it but it is something he has yet to reveal to us.
One final verse on this aspect of our study will shed some light
on this subject. In Isaiah 9:6-7 we read
6 For unto us a child is
born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order
it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for
ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
It is clear in this passage that his government will go on
increasing without end. I ask how a government can increase without end if
there is an end of the physical universe? Once the earth is ended and all of
the elect are in the eternal state the increase of his government would cease.
But what about the resurrection? Paul says in 1Corinthinans 15
that at the resurrection mortality puts on immortality and death is swallowed
up in victory. This seems to be another problem some have with fulfilled
eschatology-the resurrection. Paul was quite clear that when the resurrection
takes place death is swallowed up in victory. Paul actually says that at that
time the saying that is written in Isaiah 25:8 will be brought to pass "death
is swallowed up in victory. If we look at that passage in Isaiah 25 and its
surrounding verses very few if any of the amil and postmil camp will deny that
those verses are fulfulled in the gospel age.
Lets take a quick look at the passage in its context.
6 ¶ And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all
people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full
of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.
Now verse 6 is a verse
that amils believe is clearly the gospel age. But the next verse is most
interesting for it fits in with Paul's language concerning the Old Covenant and
the vail it leaves over the eyes of those outside the gospel:
7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering
cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.
We need to ask ourselves if this has happened. If it did not then
no one that is a gentile is yet in the covenant people of God. Now here is our
verse:
8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe
away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away
from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.
Are we to say that what has preceded is fulfilled at a different
time? If so what do we do with the
verse that follows?
9 ¶ And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have
waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him,
we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
Unless one is willing to embrace the error of premillinial
dispensationalism they have to see that
this whole passage is indeed fulfilled in the consumation of the Old Covenant
whereby all the people of God that have
gone on to glory have put on immortality and are in the very presense of God.
If Paul and other Christians of a bygone generation have not put
on their resurrection bodies then they are still naked are still living in time
outside of eternity which is above time. Had they left time and entered eternity then how could they not have their
resurrection bodies since that is something achieved in time? So if they are
then still in a time dimension then they are not in the immediate presence of
Christ in the Holiest of Holies.
In addition what we have here is the dilemma of what our
relationship to the law is. According to Paul the sting of death is sin and the
strength of sin is the law. Well if death has not been swallowed up in victory
then death's sting which is sin is still there and the sting's strength which
is the law is still there. So either they go out together or not. If death has
not been swallowed up then the strength of the sting of that death is still in
operation.
Where does this leave us? It leaves us with a New Covenant which
is a fulfilled hope not one of waiting for yet more unfulfilled prophecy. If
the New Covenant believer has been waiting for yet another stage of Christ's
work then what makes the New Covenant any better than the Old? It still is a
waiting stage for something yet to happen.
No the New Covenant is a fulfilled hope where the believer is
living in the light of the full and complete redemption of our blessed
Redeemer.
Please direct your comments to
Mike Krall.
BACK TO MAIN MENU