Last modified:

Part 11 of this series

Outline (Yep, another long one!)

• Introduction
• Lesson 11 (General Considerations)
  • The “Dispensationalist Rejection Scenario”
  • “Spiritualizing” Prophecy Versus Allegorizing Away Prophecy
    • “Literal” and “Actual” Confusion!
  • The Kingdom of God is “Within”/”In the Midst of” You?
    • Preliminary Discussion on Isaiah 35
• Lesson 12 (In Prophetic Realization?)
  • Pulliam’s Hermeneutic (Or Lack Thereof) for NT Quotations of OT Prophecies
  • Pulliam’s “Prophecy Fulfilled!” Gauntlet
    • Acts 3:24-25 & Genesis 12:3
    • Zechariah 6:12-13; Acts 2:29-36, 3:19
    • Psalm 118:22-23 in Acts 4:11 & Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:15-17
    • Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:32-33 & Hebrews 1:5
    • Psalm 110:1,4
    • Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12
    • Isaiah 40:3-5 & Key Takeaways from this Gauntlet
  • Tying Up Loose Ends
    • Isaiah 55:3 in Acts 13:32-39
    • Isaiah 49:5-6 in Acts 13:46-47
    • Hebrews 6:17
• Lesson 13 (the Church?)
  • Are the Church and the Kingdom Synonymous?
  • The Bondwoman & Freewoman Allegory (Galatians 4:21-31)
    • Elevated Jerusalem
    • Galatians 3:28-29 Doesn’t Rule Out National Distinctions Within Christ’s Kingdom
  • Pilate’s Questioning in John 18

Introduction

Having looked at some of the ways Pulliam tries to prime his reader to accept his claims about “Christ” and his “Kingdom” in Lessons 8 & 10, let’s see what he goes on to say about the nature of that Kingdom, his call-outs of dispensationalists, (some of) his attempts to place the fullness of the Kingdom in the first century, and his attempts to identify the Kingdom with “the Church” in Lessons 11-13. Why did I include that “(some of)”? Well, throughout Lessons 11 & 13, Pulliam repeatedly makes arguments for a first-century arrival of the Kingdom of God in its fullest form, all of which hinge entirely on the “nearness” of the Kingdom, that I’ve already dealt with, one-by-one, here {scroll to “{In Lesson 11:}” and read until you reach “{In Lesson 17:}”; boldface and underlining in original}. As such, I’ll here focus on the arguments that don’t hinge on “nearness” passages.

Lesson 11: The Kingdom of the Messiah (General Considerations)

Refuting the “Dispensationalist Rejection Scenario”

Pulliam opens Lesson 11 by attacking an idea of dispensationalists that I would also attack. But he leads into it by framing the discussion in a problematic way:

When Jesus first came to earth, what was the outlook for the coming of the kingdom? It was very good! The Messiah had come according to prophecy, and the plan was for Him to establish His kingdom. John, as the forerunner of Jesus, had come preaching in the spirit and power of Elijah, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Mt 3:2; Lk 1:17). Jesus also preached a “kingdom of heaven is at hand” message (Mt 4:17), and sent the twelve out to preach it (Mt 10:7). Without a doubt, Jesus had every intention of establishing His kingdom on His first visit. We all agree on this.

{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 112. Underlining mine.}

Um, I disagree with everything I underlined here! As I explained in Part 1, Jesus never intended to establish his kingdom during his first coming. He merely let his peers assume he did, so Satan would think that killing him would stop the kingdom from coming (1 Corinthians 2:6-8)! As I explained here, all the statements about the Kingdom being “at hand” (the ones Pulliam cites in this paragraph, at least; I’ll bring out more about this regarding some other passages later) refer to the fact that Jesus embodied the Kingdom of Heaven (and so could give “free tastes” of it) while he was on Earth; it later expanded to include the Heavenly Dominions (thanks to the Father delegating that portion of His dominion to him while Jesus sits at His right side), which in turn expanded to include Christians and their institutions, and will expand again to include the entirety of creation (including non-Christian human institutions, such as nations, economies, etc.) when he returns. I technically agree with the part about John the Baptist “preaching in the spirit and power of Elijah,” but see here for an explanation of what Pulliam’s overlooking about that.

Pulliam goes on, however, to critique the dispensationalist idea that “this plan fell through… Jesus tried, but the Jewish leaders rejected Him, making it necessary to postpone the kingdom. The church was the interim measure chosen by God until Jesus could return and finish God’s purpose.” {Ibid.} I completely agree that dispensationalists are wrong on these points.

God knew from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10) that the bulk of Israel would reject His Son at his first coming, but Romans 11:28-32 tells us that God incorporated that rejection into His plan to put Israelites and Gentiles in the same boat:

28 Indeed, with respect to the good news [i.e., the gospel message], they are hostile for the sake of you [plural]; yet with respect to the choosing, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For irrevocable are the gifts and the calling of God. 30 For exactly as [TR adds “also” here, NA28 omits it] you [plural] at some time disbelieved in God, yet now were shown compassion through the obstinacy of these ones, 31 in this way also these ones now disbelieved through the mercy of yours, so that also they [NA28 adds “now” here, TR omits it] may be shown compassion. 32 For God enclosed together the wholes [masculine plural form of the word for “all” with a definite article; i.e., Israelites on the collective level along with Gentiles on the collective level] unto obstinacy, so that unto the wholes He might show compassion. (My word-for-word translation)

God’s plan didn’t “fall through” when Israel (on the national level) rejected Jesus–it was furthered according to plan! Indeed, Paul intimated in verse 8 of the same passage that Israel’s temporary rejection of Jesus had been prophesied in such passages as Isaiah 29:1-12 and Deuteronomy 29:4. In fact, you’re about to see that the “Hall of Faith” (Hebrews 11) ends by telling us that all the faithful from throughout history will inherit the kingdom at the same time, which would seem to necessitate the conclusion of the plan being in the future from when all of those people join the church (including those who will join the church between our own time and when Jesus returns)!

Similarly, the church wasn’t God’s “interim measure… until Jesus could return and finish God’s purpose”, but God’s “eternal purpose [literally, “purpose of the ages”]” (Ephesians 3:11). The church doesn’t just include Christians–it includes all the faithful from throughout history, before and after the cross. In Acts 15, James quoted Amos 9:11-12 LXX to prove the point that Israelites and Gentiles alike were prophesied to participate in the kingdom. This can also be seen in Romans 15:9-12, where Paul quotes 4 OT verses that speak of Gentiles/nations (they’re the same word in Greek and Hebrew) praising God (Psalm 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, & Isaiah 11:10) Since all the faithful throughout history (Israelite or otherwise) have hoped to someday live forever with God, establishing the church–delineating the set of all people that would get to do so–was a necessary step in preparing the Kingdom, since all such people will inherit what God has promised (including the Kingdom) at the same time: “and these all, having been testified to through the faith, did not receive the promise, God for us something better having provided, that apart from us they might not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:39-40 YLT, boldface added) Wouldn’t this point alone rule out the Kingdom from being fully present (and thus, inheritable) by Pentecost of A.D. 30 (or 33 or 70 or even 2025, for that matter)?

Pulliam opens his critique of these dispensationalist ideas with some poignant questions–along with one that seemed odd to me:

When did Christ’s plans “fall apart”? What passages reveal this problem and establish the “revised plan” that went into effect? How do Dispensationalists deal with the fact that Jesus could not be rejected (for a sacrifice) and accepted (for kingdom establishment) at the same time? These are important questions that we need to address in this lesson. {Ibid. 112. Italics mine.}

At first glance, the italicized question seems odd, in light of the fact that Pulliam himself believes that the Kingdom was established in its fullest form at Pentecost, in spite of the Jews (at large) rejecting Jesus and not accepting him; if the point that the Israelite nation can’t simultaneously reject and accept Jesus is problematic for dispensationalists, then why doesn’t Pulliam’s own position run into that same problem? (Granted, I suspect Pulliam’s response to this would be, “Well, Israel never accepted Jesus then, and it never will.” But that’d just be question-begging and willful ignorance, in light of the point I raised in Part 1 that Gabriel told Mary that Jesus would someday be accepted as Israel’s king for the rest of eternity: “and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end.”–Luke 1:33 YLT, boldface added) Now, if the Kingdom being established in its fullest form was meant to be tied to acceptance by the Jews in the future from the NT’s completion, then the rejection and acceptance don’t have to occur simultaneously, so the problem vanishes; and this coheres perfectly with my position.

But in all fairness, Pulliam eventually clarifies what he actually meant by this question:

THE SECOND PROBLEM we must address is God’s redemptive purpose. [“THE FIRST PROBLEM” {Ibid. 115. All-caps in original.} was that Jesus supposedly promised the kingdom would arrive within some of his listeners’ lifetimes in Matthew 16:28; but as I explain here (and reference multiple times here), Jesus only promised that some of them would see the kingdom before “tasting death”, not that it would arrive before they all “tasted death”.] In the Dispensational view, it seems to get left out of the plan, and is only inserted after the Jews reject Jesus. On the one hand, the Dispensationalist believes Jesus came at the right time to die for our sins, but on the other hand, an acceptance of the kingdom offer would have left us without that sacrifice.
Clarence Larkin addresses the question of when the sacrifice of Jesus would have taken place, and introduces that discussion by asking, “What would have happened if the Jews, as a nation, had repented, and accepted Jesus as King, would the earthly Messianic Kingdom have been set up?” His answer is, “Certainly, but not necessarily immediately, for certain Old Testament prophecies as to Jesus’ death and resurrection had to be fulfilled… But this could and would have been fulfilled by the Roman Government seizing Jesus and crucifying Him as a usurper…” First, we are told that “certain Old Testament prophecies” had to be fulfilled. Then we are told that the Romans would have accomplished that. “Impossible!” says your Old Testament. Prophecy demanded that Jesus be rejected by the Jews (Ps 118:22; Zech 11:2f; 12:10). You cannot say that it would have been possible for the Jews to accept Jesus and uphold Old Testament prophecy at the same time.

{Ibid. 117-118. Capitalization, italics, and boldface in original. Source citations in footnotes therein.}

I completely agree–although Zechariah 12:10, while mentioning that the Jews will have pierced the Messiah, occurs in a context discussing the Day of the Lord!¹ And again, Pulliam overlooks the possibility of the Jews upholding OT prophecy (by rejecting Jesus) at one time and accepting Jesus at a later time.

I’d be remiss to not include Pulliam’s characterization of when dispensationalists (or at least, a consensus of them, I’d presume) suppose Jesus pivoted his plan:

Up until Matthew chapter ten, we all agree that everything was on track for Jesus to set up His kingdom in the first century [but, as I’ve already pointed out, not in its fullest form]. According to the Dispensationalist, things began to fall apart as Jesus began to meet rejection in Matthew 12 (vv14, 24-32). Soon it became clear that He would have to put the kingdom on hold. The Dispensational view is that Jesus changed course in Matthew 13. The kingdom promise was now to be withdrawn due to the rejection of the Jews, and God’s program would shift to set the church in place until a future time when the Millennial kingdom would be accepted by the Jewish leaders. The Dispensationalist tells us that by the time Jesus had the disciples alone in the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was ready to declare His change of intention. As a result, Jesus promised to build His church (Mt 16:18), and everything moved toward an interruption in God’s prophetic plan. According to this view, the message quickly shifted from the nearness of the kingdom to the nearness of Jesus’ death.

{Ibid. 113. Source citations in footnotes therein.}

I’d like to use this as an opportunity to call out another false dichotomy dispensationalists are prone to accepting. Notice the claim that “God’s program would shift to set the church in place”. The word “shift” implies that God’s focus is taken away from one thing and redirected toward another–as if God can’t work with more than one group of people at any given time. In fact, when I brought up this point with a traditional dispensationalist at Midwest Creation Fellowship in Carol Springs, Illinois by saying “Why can’t God work with Israel and the Church simultaneously?”, he just dodged the question by responding: “Well, the thing is, He won’t have to”–because he was arguing for a pretribulation rapture that’ll take all the Christians to heaven while leaving everyone else (including non-Christian Jews) behind. Notice the vicious circular reasoning here: he’s assuming a pretribulation rapture to establish that God will be focused exclusively on His plans for Israel during the apocalypse, implying that He won’t have Christians on Earth to worry about, implying they’re already raptured by then, thereby proving a pretribulation rapture–the very premise he started with! Of course, that boldfaced word “exclusively” shows where the false dichotomy enters the discussion.

Another Attempt to Justify Allegorizing Away Prophecy

Pulliam also has a section in Lesson 11 titled “Revisiting the Charge of Spiritualizing Prophecy”:

Although we have dealt with symbolism and “literal interpretation” in lessons 3 & 4, it is important that we revisit the Dispensationalists [sic] charge that Amillennialists must “spiritualize” prophecies. This accusation is based on the assumptions necessary to uphold their view.
A frequently used passage by the Dispensationalist on Christ’s second coming is Zechariah 14:4, which speaks of a time when the Mount of Olives will be split in two. For them, it is essential that the mountain literally be ripped down the middle, and a literal valley appear (remember that physical is literal to them). Zechariah was actually fulfilled in a literal way by Christ’s first coming when He provided a way of escape through His blood. Whether you need to relate the prophecy to His riven flesh, or just see the actual escape through His sacrifice, something literally did occur to fulfill this. By this escape from the domain of darkness, the hearts of men were made the kingdom of the Messiah (cf. Col 1:13).
Zechariah is not alone in attributing topographic (geologic) changes to the coming of the Messiah. Isaiah speaks of valleys being lifted up and hills brought low (Isaiah 40:3f). Its fulfillment is found in John’s preparatory work. I know that, because every gospel writer applied Isaiah 40 to the work of John the baptizer (Mt 3:3; Mk 1:2-3; Lk 3:3-6; Jn 1:23).
Isaiah’s topographic changes must have occurred at the first coming of Jesus. To deny it is to deny a fulfillment the gospel writers claimed about Isaiah’s prophecy. Luke explicitly quoted Isaiah’s geologic changes and applied the entire text to the work John had done. Luke then said, “He therefore began saying…” (Lk 3:7). Why did John begin to warn the multitudes? Because the words of Isaiah were coming to pass! Which ones? Prophecies of the Messiah. Keep in mind that there were some present who would not taste death before He established His kingdom (Mk 9:1).

{Ibid. 119. Italics in original.}

First off, I would never accuse Pulliam of “spiritualizing” prophecy–because that would require using the word “spiritual” in a sense it doesn’t have in the Bible! Despite the words being used interchangeably by many theologians down through the centuries, “spiritual” and “immaterial” are not synonyms. Tim Warner unequivocally demonstrated this when debating Church of Christ minister and amillennialist Norm Fields:

Fields then cites verses 42-44 [of 1 Corinthians 15], where Paul referred to the resurrected body as a “spiritual body.” But, he missed the point entirely, because of his Gnostic presuppositions regarding the meaning of the word, “spiritual.” Fields, just like the Gnostics, believes “spiritual” means non physical or non material. That is not the meaning of “spiritual.” This term almost always simply refers to things assisted by the Spirit and power of God, as opposed to the things of the natural man. It says absolutely nothing about whether something is made of matter or not. For example, Paul wrote in the previous chapter, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord,” (1 Cor. 14:36-37) [sic; Warner only quoted verse 37 here]. He did not mean to address his remarks to those who considered themselves ghosts floating around in a non-material form. “Spiritual” here refers to a physical person whose mind has been renewed by the Spirit. A “spiritual body” is a physical body that has been transformed by the power of the Spirit (resurrected), as opposed to a natural body that has not yet been transformed.

Rom 8:11 NKJV
11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Notice, Paul did not say that you will receive a completely different non-material body. Rather, the Spirit dwelling in our body will reanimate our “mortal (old) body.” Fields consistently ignores past precedent for interpreting words and phrases, and insists on imposing his Gnostic dualism onto the text.

{Scroll to p. 14 in the PDF. Italics, boldface, underlining, and indentation in original.}

Rather, I’m accusing Pulliam of allegorizing away prophecy–interpreting passages mystically and allegorically when their own contexts suggest they were meant in a straightforward manner (notice I didn’t say “literally”, as Pulliam does; a straightforward interpretation isn’t wooden-literal, but recognizes things like figures of speech whenever they do show up).

Second, notice that Pulliam makes no effort to properly exegete Zechariah 14–that is, correlate the details of the passage as a whole (see endnote A to learn its full context) with events of Jesus’ ministry and/or outcomes of it that continue to the present (while he does explain how he understands verses 6-21 of Zechariah 14 in Lesson 15, even that explanation fails to do this!). For example, we can tell that the story of the Rich Man & Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) is an allegory for Jesus and the apostate Levitical Priesthood because all the details of the parable can be correlated with details from OT prophecies about the second destruction of Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 31:28-30, 32:5,15-29; Isaiah 28:1-29:14; 50:6-11; Malachi 1:6-3:10)–and with their encyclopedic knowledge of the OT, the Pharisees Jesus spoke this parable to would’ve immediately recognized where these details were taken from! Where does the NT do anything similar with Zechariah 14? The only NT passage I’m aware of that can be cross-referenced to Zechariah 14:4 is Revelation 16:17-20, which discusses the great earthquake accompanying Jesus’ return (note that verse 17 says this is describing the 7^th bowl of wrath, which occurs at the time of Jesus’ return) and the topographical changes it will cause–including the cities of the nations collapsing, probably indicating capital cities around the world having their dominion taken away and given to Jesus (also compare verse 20 with 6:14, and consider its context of 6:12-17). Can Pulliam come up with an alternative explanation for these details? He certainly doesn’t in Lesson 23, where he does a run-through of the chapters of Revelation; in fact, he gives an excuse to avoid doing so!

In Revelation 16, as the plagues are poured out, interpreters are tempted to see specific events in history. Pausing at each plague to identify it in history may not be what the Lord intended for the reader to do. The point is clearest when we back up and see that Satan is using the Roman Empire to war against the saints, and God will pour out His judgments upon that empire. The message may simply be understood as a perfect judgment by God upon an empire that has been raised up by Satan to war against the Lamb’s rule over the saints. Remember the bowls as God’s judgment poured out on Rome.

{Ibid. 248. Italics and boldface in original.}

Pulliam has simply stated a mystical interpretation for Revelation 16, without quoting (let alone exegeting) a single verse from it to support his interpretation or offering any possibilities for what any of the details might represent within his “judgment poured out on Rome” paradigm. I’m wracking my brain trying to recall a more brazen example of exegetical laziness than that! As Jeff Hamilton of the La Vista Church of Christ concisely said it to me: An assertion is not a fact. Or, as the late New Atheist Christopher Hitchens famously said it, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Third, are you confused by Pulliam’s claim that “Whether you need to relate the prophecy to His riven flesh, or just see the actual escape through His sacrifice, something literally did occur to fulfill [Zechariah 14:4]”? Well, that’s because he’s using a weasel-words tactic on the word “literally” that he introduced back in Lesson 4, kicking it off by relying on the same Gnostic false dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual that I just called out above:

What is and is not “literal”? If a prophecy intends something spiritual, wouldn’t a literal fulfillment demand something spiritual in the fulfillment? Allow me to illustrate this with heaven. Heaven is a literal place, but it is not physical, or visible. That we all agree on heaven being in the spiritual realm does not change the fact that symbolism of a physical nature is used to describe a literal, spiritual place. Promises that seem to have physical dimensions are literally fulfilled in a place we would call spiritual in nature (not having physical dimensions).

…we all agree that there is an abundance of symbolism, but the word “literal” is used constantly by the Dispensationalist in ways that become confused and misleading.
It is important for us to understand that literal fulfillment does not always include the physical objects spoken of in a prophecy. That something literal always occurs in the fulfillment is obvious. Whether or not it can be touched or seen is another matter entirely. In lesson 3, we talked about the promise of a Savior in Genesis 3:15. We all agree that it was literally fulfilled, but Jesus didn’t have to step on a snake when He came out of the tomb. We all understand that, but we can’t seem to grasp the intention of symbolism in other prophecies. That Dispensationalism sees literal wolves peacefully dwelling with literal lambs does not make their interpretation more literal. Dispensationalists admit that prophecy is highly symbolic; however, their views of certain prophecies will not allow symbols to do their job of creating a picture for the reader. Instead, they insist that those “symbols” must be details necessary for fulfillment.

…Even though a prophecy may contain figures of speech, there will still be something literally fulfilled. Webster’s defines literal, “…based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning; not figurative or symbolical [the literal meaning of a passage]…” Wouldn’t this definition call upon us to refrain from calling something “literal” if it isn’t? Calling the prophecy literal because the fulfillment was literal is confusing the terms. If you want to see how simple it is, study the chart on the preceding page. The fulfillment is not the prophecy. The prophecy is the prediction of what will happen. The fulfillment is how the prediction turns out. The fulfillment will always result in something actually happening. The prophecy may be strictly literal, or have descriptions containing figures of speech (symbols are a figure of speech). But if the prophecy does have figures of speech, you shouldn’t call the prophecy literal.

{Ibid. 43-46. Boldface, italics, and content in brackets in original. Source citations in footnotes therein.}

Are you still confused? I wouldn’t blame you! Pulliam seems to have fallen into the Gen Z vocabulary trap of using the word “literal/ly” in places where the appropriate word is “actual/ly” (i.e., “symbolism of a physical nature is used to describe an actual, spiritual place”; “Promises that seem to have physical dimensions are actually fulfilled in a place… not having physical dimensions”; “That something actually always occurs in the fulfillment is obvious”; “We all agree that [Genesis 3:15] was actually fulfilled”; “Even though a prophecy may contain figures of speech, there will still be something actually fulfilled”; “Calling the prophecy literal because [it was actually fulfilled] is confusing the terms”); notice that he gives this away in his third-to-last sentence above by correctly saying “The fulfillment will always result in something actually happening.” Pulliam himself points out that the Webster’s New World Dictionary “definition call[s] upon us to refrain from calling something ‘literal’ if it isn’t”, and I do heed that call: a straightforward hermeneutic isn’t a wooden-literal one! Just because dispensationalists are prone to misuse the word “literal”, doesn’t mean I have to–and Pulliam is no less in the wrong for misusing the word “literal” when trying to call them on it! And while he’s correct that “if the prophecy does have figures of speech, you shouldn’t call the prophecy literal”, we can still call the prophecy “straightforward” if everything except those figures of speech was meant literally! Between Pulliam and I, it should be clear who’s really using the word “literal” “in ways that become confused and misleading.”

Fourth, while topographic changes are mentioned in Isaiah’s prophecy and Luke’s quotation of it from the Septuagint (note that Luke’s quotation includes the word “salvation”, which is present in the Septuagint but absent from the Masoretic Text), Pulliam is overlooking how both sets of statements open: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness,” (Luke 3:4 1995 NASB, Isaiah 40:3 BLXX). All the statements about topographic changes are things that John the baptist was prophesied to say, not things that would necessarily happen in the lifetime of the one saying them! The gospel accounts as worded are perfectly compatible with John the Baptist proclaiming things that had been prophesied to happen (notice how Isaiah 40:5 BLXX ends the quotation of this then-future person, even though Luke omits this statement: “for the Lord has spoken it.”) when Christ would arrive as King–something that won’t happen until his second coming, per the NT’s 17 uses of the Greek word παρουσία (parousia) (which originally referred to a celebrated visit from a victorious ruler, complete with addressing of requests and grievances) to refer to that coming (Matthew 24:3,27,37,39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1,8; James 5:7,8; 2 Peter 1:16, 3:4,12; 1 John 2:28). Since Zechariah 14:4 has no similar introductory statement to shift the sense of the text like we see in Isaiah 40:3-5, the two passages present situations different enough that Pulliam’s attempt to connect them and claim Zechariah 14 was fulfilled in the first century is fallacious.

The Kingdom of God is “Within”/”In the Midst of” You?

Pulliam makes much of the fact that Jesus told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was “within” them.

What did Jesus mean when He said that the kingdom is “within you”? (Lk 17:21). Before we answer that question, we must consider a difference on how translators treat this verse. Most modern translations have changed the older wording of the KJV to “in your midst.” W.E. Vine tells us that “in your midst” is to be preferred, since the kingdom was obviously not within the Pharisees. But is this a fair analysis of what Jesus was saying about the nature of the kingdom? There is no reason to conclude that Jesus was saying the kingdom was “in the midst” of the Pharisees, any more than He would have said that it was “within” them. The kingdom had not yet come, so how could Christ’s statement be understood as revealing where it was at that moment?

Other uses of this word clearly indicate the concept of within. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, telling them to clean the “inside of the cup” (Mt 23:26). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, we find this same treatment of this word. David’s words are translated, “My heart was hot within me” (Ps 39:3), and “my heart is wounded within me” (Ps 109:22).

Why did Jesus tell the Pharisees that the kingdom was within them? Jesus’ response to the Pharisees was an observation on the nature of the kingdom when it would come, rather than where it was at that very moment.

{Ibid. 119-120. Italics and boldface in original. Underlining mine.}

First off, the Greek verb for “is” in Luke 17:21 is present-tense, not future-tense. While I’ve acknowledged elsewhere that the present tense is sometimes used in Koine Greek as what’s called a futuristic present, it only does so when stressing a future event’s immediacy or certainty. After Jesus said this, was the Kingdom of God immediately within the Pharisees, or did it certainly wind up being within the Pharisees? Of course not! Therefore, Pulliam’s interpretation (which requires understanding this present-tense verb as a futuristic present) doesn’t work.

More to the point, though: Pulliam’s citation of how other Biblical authors used this Greek word (sometimes–other LXX uses of the Greek word (G1787) could indeed be conveying the sense of “in the midst of”, like Psalm 103:1 or Song of Solomon 3:10) would be very relevant if Luke himself wasn’t already talking about the Kingdom of God in a way that tells us how he meant this word on this occasion. Let’s survey all the places up to this point in Luke’s Gospel that say something about “where” the Kingdom of God was, and pay attention to what else they all have in common:

8 Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.
13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. (Luke 10:8-14 1995 NASB, boldface added)

14 And He was casting out a demon, and it was mute; when the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke; and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” 16 Others, to test Him, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. 17 But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. 18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges. 20 But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. (Luke 11:14-20 1995 NASB, boldface added)

11 While He was on the way to Jerusalem, He was passing between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As He entered a village, ten leprous men who stood at a distance met Him; 13 and they raised their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” 14 When He saw them, He said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they were going, they were cleansed. 15 Now one of them, when he saw that he had been healed, turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice, 16 and he fell on his face at His feet, giving thanks to Him. And he was a Samaritan. 17 Then Jesus answered and said, “Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine—where are they? 18 Was no one found who returned to give glory to God, except this foreigner?” 19 And He said to him, “Stand up and go; your faith has made you well.”
20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:11-21 1995 NASB, boldface added)

Luke was consistently linking the presence of the Kingdom of God with Jesus performing miraculous healings! Of course, it makes sense that Luke, a physician himself (Colossians 4:14) would’ve appreciated such healings as a property of the Kingdom and highlighted them in his Gospel accordingly. Luke had actually introduced this connection between the Kingdom of God and healing people of diseases and demons in 9:1-11:

1 And He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons and to heal diseases. 2 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing. 3 And He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a [beggar’s] bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece. 4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that city. 5 And as for those who do not receive you, as you go out from that city, shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” 6 Departing, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

…[Herod’s reactions omitted for brevity]

10 When the apostles returned, they gave an account to Him of all that they had done. Taking them with Him, He withdrew by Himself to a city called Bethsaida. 11 But the crowds were aware of this and followed Him; and welcoming them, He began speaking to them about the kingdom of God and curing those who had need of healing.

(1995 NASB, boldface added)

And again, knowing the Tanakh (i.e., the Old Testament) back-to-front was part of the job requirements for the Pharisees Jesus was talking to in Luke 17:20-21. Upon hearing this statement and having the background knowledge of what Jesus and his disciples had been doing during the events of Luke 9-11 (and earlier in Luke 17, since Jesus told the ten lepers to show themselves to the priests–thereby making this miracle public knowledge, too!), these Pharisees would’ve immediately realized that he was pointing them to Isaiah 35, where verses 5-6 go as follows:

5 Then the eyes of the blind will be opened
And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.
6 Then the lame will leap like a deer,
And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy.
For waters will break forth in the wilderness
And streams in the Arabah.

(1995 NASB, boldface added)

But while the actions mentioned in the first 4 lines literally occurred during Jesus’ ministry, when did Jesus make “waters break forth in the wilderness” or the desert? For that matter, what about the events described in the rest of the chapter?

7 The scorched land will become a pool
And the thirsty ground springs of water;
In the haunt of jackals, its resting place,
Grass becomes reeds and rushes.
8 A highway will be there, a roadway,
And it will be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean will not travel on it,
But it will be for him who walks that way,
And fools will not wander on it.
9 No lion will be there,
Nor will any vicious beast go up on it;
These will not be found there.
But the redeemed will walk there,
10 And the ransomed of the LORD will return
And come with joyful shouting to Zion,
With everlasting joy upon their heads.
They will find gladness and joy,
And sorrow and sighing will flee away.

(1995 NASB)

Quite simply, Jesus was telling them that his miraculous healings were a taste of the Kingdom of God; once the Kingdom has arrived in its fullest form, everything in these verses will come literally true! Granted, Pulliam tries to pass off Isaiah 35 as nothing more than “a poetic description of abundant blessings” {Ibid. 159.}, but I’ll deal with that more thoroughly in Part 4. For now, it’ll suffice to quickly point out that Hebrews 12:12 quotes Isaiah 35:3 LXX when encouraging Jewish Christians to press on toward the prize–implying that Isaiah 35 was talking about the prize! Consider also Luke 7:20-23.

20 When the men had come to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, ‘Are You the Coming One, or do we look for [literally, “or are we looking forward to”] another?’ ” 21 And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight.
22 Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them. 23 And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.” (NKJV, boldface added)

Jesus’ answer alludes to Isaiah 35:1-6 (again), Isaiah 61:1-3, and perhaps even contemporary commentary on the latter {scroll to “Line 12:”; this Dead Sea manuscript, designated 4Q521, may help explain why Jesus included the phrase “the dead are raised”, which is absent from the traditional text of either passage}. Jesus’ message to John the Baptist was essentially: “I’m doing Messianic things. How can I not be the Coming One?” Of course, that requires that both Isaiah 35 & 61 are talking about the Messiah’s Kingdom in straightforward terms (after all, Jesus made it clear that the healings were meant literally)!

Moreover, pay attention to what we see in Luke after chapter 17:

While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back [literally, “while I am coming”].’ (19:11-13 1995 NASB, boldface added)

Then He told them a parable: “Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [Paul clarifies what was meant by this phrase, as I’ll explain in Part 3], but My words will not pass away. (21:29-33 1995 NASB, boldface added)

When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” (22:14-18 1995 NASB, boldface added)

The first of these passages opens the Parable of the Ten Minas, which Christians down through the ages have understood to apply to the work Christians are to do until Jesus returns. With Pulliam’s interpretation of when Christ received the Kingdom, this parable should’ve only applied until Pentecost of A.D. 30! The second is talking about the signs discussed in Luke 21:8-11,25-27 (verses 12-24 were fulfilled in the decades following this speech), which will occur during (but might start shortly before) the apocalypse. As for the third, is Pulliam willing to propose that Jesus has access to Passover lambs and grape juice while at the Father’s right side–a place he believes to be totally immaterial? (And if he’s willing to suggest that Jesus partakes in such things every time each congregation around the world takes communion, then Jesus must’ve gotten fat pretty quickly from gorging himself on all that bread and wine! After all, Paul (2 Corinthians 5:1-4; note that the word usually rendered “clothed” in verses 2 & 4 properly means “over-clothed”; Paul is likening the immortality the redeemed will receive to clothing on top of their already-clothed fleshly bodies–in contrast to the Platonic hope of being an immaterial being, which Paul likens to being “naked” in verse 3) and John (1 John 4:1-3) made it clear that Jesus’ body is still a physical–albeit glorified–human body, despite Pulliam’s heretical claims to the contrary, which I’ll cover again in Part 3!)

Since “There is [indeed more] reason to conclude that Jesus was saying the kingdom was ‘in the midst’ of the Pharisees [than] that He would have said that it was ‘within’ them” “at that moment”, Pulliam’s argument falls apart.

Pulliam’s Conclusion to Lesson 11 is extremely telling:

That the kingdom of the Messiah has been set up, makes it obvious that we should not be waiting for Him to establish it. To deny that it exists is to deny the glory of the present kingdom, the church, and His power. It is tantamount to denying that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah – the “anointed one”). People may think that this is just a difference of opinion, but it is not. It is a subject of vital importance, because it concerns the very nature of Jesus’ mission, and His success in accomplishing it.
Dispensationalists vilify any interpretation which points to a fulfillment that is spiritual in nature. They call this “spiritualizing prophecy,” and explain that it makes an unnecessary allegory out of God’s word. This is an assumption asserted to distract us away from the contradiction between Dispensational doctrine and Scripture. As we shall learn in lesson 12, the prophesied kingdom Jesus came to establish has fully come.

{Ibid. 121.}

This conclusion relies on ideas I’ve already disproven elsewhere, attempts to flip around the “not a difference of opinion” idea to deflect from Pulliam’s own denial that the title “Christ” requires an eventual rule on David’s throne in Jerusalem, is “asserted to distract us away from” the Bible’s complete lack of teaching that Christians will go to heaven, and is all wrapped up in a “proof by intimidation”. So let’s move on to what he brings to bear in Lesson 12.

Lesson 12: The Kingdom of the Messiah (In Prophetic Realization)

Pulliam’s Hermeneutic (Or Lack Thereof) for NT Quotations of OT Prophecies

After calling out the “multiple fulfillment” trick that dispensationalists use as wantonly as Pulliam uses mystical interpretation, Pulliam gives another excuse to justify his arbitrarily mystical hermeneutic (whether deliberately or not, I can’t decide):

We learn important things about promises and prophecies by looking ahead to their fulfillment. The fulfillment explains what was meant by the prophecy.
That will be short-circuited when anyone attempts to defer the fulfillment of prophecy by declaring a need for further fulfillment. This raises an important question. Who gets to decide when a prophecy is only partially fulfilled needing further development in the future? Some say that it makes sense. It is strange that it makes sense now, but inspired men didn’t “get it” when the Bible was being written. As we shall see in a moment, those inspired men clearly declared Old Testament prophecy fulfilled in the current events surrounding them. If an inspired man said “this is that,” meaning that something his hearers were witnessing was spoken by a prophet, we must respect that inspired declaration. To say that “this” was only a part of “that” completely revises the divine declaration. Whether or not we like the way it was being fulfilled is beside the point. Divine inspiration has spoken on the subject.
If the New Testament reveals the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, we will be able to easily find it. We are not saying that every Old Testament prophecy will be pointed out in New Testament passages. Some Old Testament prophecy had been fulfilled by the time John came on the scene. And we may expect that only a sampling of the many prophecies about Jesus and His kingdom would actually be referenced. In those, we should find a certain flavor of prophecy with clear indications as to whether fulfillment was already realized, or still awaited.

{Ibid. 127. Italics in original. Boldface mine.}

Set aside Pulliam’s footnote saying that “Peter said ‘this is that’ regarding the events of Pentecost being a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32”–a claim I disproved all the way back in Part 1 of this critique Series (and I suspect you’ll see in the next section why I made that Part 1)!

Pulliam is falsely assuming that every OT prophecy that wasn’t fulfilled by the time of John the Baptist’s ministry was still fulfilled by the end of the first century–a claim that Ezekiel 26:14 singlehandedly disproves, since it wasn’t fulfilled until the Mameluke Muslims destroyed Tyre for the final time and burned it to the ground in A.D. 1291, leaving it a bare rock that eventually became a fishing village instead, and has never been inhabited by Phoenicians since, exactly as described in literal terms in Ezekiel 26:14.

If you ask me, “We are not saying that every Old Testament prophecy will be pointed out in New Testament passages… And we may expect that only a sampling of the many prophecies about Jesus and His kingdom would actually be referenced” is just a roundabout way of saying “Any details I may have overlooked in the corpus of OT prophecies don’t matter; they’ve already been fulfilled–end of story.” Or, even more simply: “I’ve already made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts.” That’s a major reason why I’m even going through the hassle of writing this critique series: I’m taking this as an opportunity to dig into the details and attempt to articulate them to see what I might have been overlooking, in order to make my overall position more robust and self-consistent. In short, I want to properly understand what God said, so I can know Him more and appreciate Him more fully. (And of course, I want you to have those benefits too, dear reader!)

Nevertheless, the prophecies that “those inspired men” cite throughout the NT and (perhaps more importantly) the way they cite them do show “a certain flavor”. But as we’ll see below, that flavor fails to support the point Pulliam’s trying to make.

The Most Obnoxious Section of Pulliam’s Book

Maybe you’ll disagree, but the section I’m about to quote in its entirety, “New Testament Declarations” was the one I personally found to be the most obnoxious one in Pulliam’s entire book. In an effort to help you see why, I’ll just give it to you in full before dealing with it point-by-point afterward.

Let’s begin with the great hope held out for all families of the earth: “And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Gen 12:3) This is part of the covenant God made with Abraham. The Dispensationalist tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant must be fulfilled in an earthly, Millennial kingdom. Peter tells us that this is not true. He told his first century hearers that “all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days” (Acts 3:24). The days being announced was the fulfillment of “the covenant God made with your fathers,” including the blessing promise (v25). For all of the emphasis the Dispensationalist puts on the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, you would think this text would settle the issue. Peter clearly announced the fulfillment in his own day. Jesus fulfilled the blessing promise as the great Messianic King.
Nowhere is this connection between blessing and king better seen than Zechariah 6:12-13. We studied this passage in lesson 9. It prophesied a Messiah who would be a priest at the same time that He ruled. The blessing of forgiveness came through Christ’s present priesthood. But He also rules upon His Messianic throne.
Peter made this connection in Acts 2 as he preached a sermon about salvation (v21), and declared that Jesus had ascended to the right hand of God to sit on the throne of David (vv29-36 – see pages 84-86). Jesus was on the throne of David sending refreshing (forgiveness) from the Lord (Acts 3:19). This is about the King on the throne of David fulfilling the final detail of God’s covenant with Abraham – “Prophecy fulfilled!”
Psalm 118:22-23 is of particular interest in the promise that David’s descendant would rule (II Sam 7:12-16; Ps 89:35-37; 132:11). We learned in lesson 8 that Peter affirmed the fulfillment of this in Jesus (cf. Acts 2:29-36). Later, Peter connected this passage with the Jew’s [sic] rejection (Acts 4:11). Fulfilled prophecy was strikingly bold in the gospel proclamation, but Peter wasn’t alone in the early use of prophecies about the Davidic throne. James quoted from Amos 9:11-12, stating that the events of that time fulfilled God’s promise to “rebuild the tabernacle of David… that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.” (Acts 15:15-17) The “tabernacle of David” is agreed by all to refer to the “house of David” and had specific application to the Messiah taking His place on the throne of David. Peter and James say, “Prophecy fulfilled!”
Along this same line, Psalm 2 presents a Messianic Psalm which Paul declared fulfilled in Acts 13:32-33: “Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee” (Ps 2:7). The first century fulfillment is also cited in Hebrews 1:5, but the author of Hebrews goes on to quote another passage, tying it to Christ’s present reign: “I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me.” That quote is from II Samuel 7:14, and concerns the Davidic throne promised to a descendant of David. The author of Hebrews was telling his readers that Jesus was already on the throne of David. Prophecy fulfilled!
Psalm 110:1 says “Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.” This was a Messianic Psalm (Mt 22:41-46), and the New Testament adamantly proclaims this to be fulfilled in the present position of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:34-36; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3 & 13; 12:2; etc…). Compare the position of reigning described in these passages with the prophecy of Zechariah 6:12-13, where the Messiah will be a priest at the same time that He reigns. But now let me inject an incredible detail from Psalm 110. Remember the position of king described in “sit at My right hand”? Also in Psalm 110:4 is “Thou art a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” Quoting from Psalm 110, the author of Hebrews teaches that Jesus is currently on the throne of David (Heb 1:13 tied back to verse 5), and is “a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:17). Concerning the priesthood and rule of Jesus, the author of Hebrews has forcefully declared, “Prophecy fulfilled!”
Millenarians are all familiar with Isaiah 11, but usually dwell on verses 6-9. That emphasis is due to their conviction that the symbolism portrayed (e.g. wolf dwelling with the lamb) cannot mean anything other than a physical fulfillment where wolves actually dwell with lambs. Although they know this is a Messianic prophecy, they must split it up with part fulfilled and part yet to be fulfilled. The Dispensationalist must deny that all was fulfilled, because they need to apply its symbolism to their future, literal, earthly kingdom. Paul, however, made it clear that Isaiah 11 was fulfilled at the first coming of Jesus (Romans 15:11-12).
Amillennialist and Dispensationalist alike agree that Isaiah 40 is a Messianic prophecy. How could we deny it? All of the gospel writers apply this text to John’s preparation for the work of Jesus (Mt 3:3; Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4-6; Jn 1:23). Noteworthy in the fulfillment of this prophecy is the fact that valleys were to be raised and hills lowered. That was literally fulfilled, but not by actually changing the topography of the land. John was “paving the way” for the work of Jesus. As we have seen before, literal does not mean that symbols physically get involved. The gospel writers were not saying that prophecy was almost fulfilled, nor were they saying it was partially fulfilled. They were declaring “Prophecy fulfilled!” in the first coming of Jesus Christ.
The New Testament clearly declares that the kingdom has come in its fullness. Only a doctrine with earthly aspirations could think otherwise.

{Ibid. 127-130. Italics in original.}

Alright, now that you’ve seen the whole thing, it’s time for me to debunk it.

For the first paragraph, it’s arguably sufficient for me to point out that I’ve already dealt with Pulliam’s interpretation of Acts 3:24-25 in the first half of this post. But I should also call out his assumption (which he tried to exegete in Lesson 6) that the Abrahamic Covenant was entirely fulfilled by the first century (he believes that the promise in Genesis 12:2 of a great nation and the “seed of Abraham” was fulfilled by the end of Moses’ lifetime, that the land promise of 12:7 was fulfilled under Joshua, and that the blessing promise of 12:3 was fulfilled with the establishment of the Church). I find it interesting that most of Pulliam’s quotations throughout his book regarding the Abrahamic Covenant are taken from Genesis 12, while he mostly neglects the parallel promises later in Genesis. Acts 7:5 & Hebrews 11:8-10,13-16 both clearly teach that Abraham never inherited the land himself, but the wording of Genesis 13:15,17 & 17:8 (and 24:7, if you count LXX readings) requires Abraham to inherit the land himself to be fulfilled (and claiming otherwise amounts to claiming that God told Abraham a bald-faced lie):

And Jehovah said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and eastward and westward: for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then may thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for unto thee will I give it. (Genesis 13:14-17 ASV, boldface and underlining added)

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (Genesis 17:8 ASV, boldface and underlining added)

And Abraam said to him, Take heed to thyself that thou carry not my son back thither. The Lord the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, who took me out of my father’s house, and out of the land whence I sprang, who spoke to me, and who swore to me, saying, I will give this land to thee and to thy seed, he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife to my son from thence. (Genesis 24:6-7 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

His claim that this promise was fulfilled under Joshua is likewise based on a misunderstanding of a single passage in Joshua. Fields tries to handle this problem in essentially the same way I’d expect Pulliam to, though I’ll admit I don’t expect Pulliam to be this childishly obnoxious about it:

No kidding, that was his entire response. Warner explains what’s really going on with this passage on pages 2-3 of his response, opening with some statements Pulliam should really consider taking as advice (especially if he’s up for debating me):

Fields ignored completely the New Testament Scriptures I gave which state in plain language that Abraham did NOT receive any of the inheritance God promised him, not even one foot. Yet, Fields decorated one verse in Joshua, as though his fancy graphics can overturn what Steven and Paul said. Even if Fields was correct in his interpretation of Joshua 21, he has not proven my point wrong. Rather, he has introduced a contradiction between Joshua 21 and Acts 7:1-5 and Heb. 11:8-9, 13. To properly address the issue, Fields needed to explain those New Testament passages in harmony with his interpretation of Joshua, without doing violence to either. Instead, Fields ignored the New Testament passages, and then proceeded to misrepresent his own proof text! {All-caps in original. Italics mine.}

As for Zechariah 6:12-13, I demonstrated in the first half of this post that the author of Hebrews didn’t believe that Jesus would be king of kings and high priest at the same time, because his copy of Zechariah 6:12-13 agreed with what we see in the Septuagint–“And there will be the priest out from the right of him” (implying that the priest and the man on the throne at the time of this prophecy’s fulfillment would be two different people) rather than the Masoretic Text’s “And so he will be a priest on his throne” (implying that the priest and the man on the throne would be the same person, as Pulliam’s argument requires).

Regarding Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:29-36, I’ve already pointed out here that Peter’s use of Psalm 110:1 shows that Jesus’ reign on David’s throne was still in the future from when this sermon was given (this will become even more clear once I deal with Pulliam’s statements about Psalm 110)! As for the idea that the “refreshing” of Acts 3:19 refers to forgiveness and has been ongoing since Pentecost, I’ve already shown in the first half of this post that the passage is more compatible with “these days” of verse 24 referring back in the context to the “times of refreshing” and “times of restitution of all things, of which God spake through the mouth of all His holy prophets from the age.” (verses 19 & 21 YLT) Pay careful attention to how Peter talked about those “times” and “these days”, bearing in mind that everyone in Peter’s audience here was Jewish, and so knew the original contexts of all the prophecies Peter was quoting:

‘And now, brethren, I have known that through ignorance ye did it, as also your rulers; and God, what things before He had declared through the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ should suffer, He did thus fulfil; reform ye, therefore, and turn back, for your sins being blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and He may send Jesus Christ who before hath been preached to you, whom it behoveth heaven, indeed, to receive till times of a restitution of all things, of which God spake through the mouth of all His holy prophets from the age. ‘For Moses, indeed, unto the fathers said — A prophet to you shall the Lord your God raise up out of your brethren, like to me; him shall ye hear in all things, as many as he may speak unto you; and it shall be, every soul that may not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed out of the people; and also all the prophets from Samuel and those following in order, as many as spake, did also foretell of these days. ‘Ye are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant that God made unto our fathers, saying unto Abraham: And in thy seed shall be blessed all the families of the earth; to you first, God, having raised up His child [better, “servant”; G3816] Jesus, did send him, blessing you, in the turning away of each one from your evil ways.’ (Acts 3:17-26 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

The boldfaced and underlined instances of “may” (indicating subjunctive mood verbs), and the mention that “it behoveth heaven… to receive [Jesus] till the times of a restitution of all things” makes it clear that the “times of refreshing”, the sending of “Jesus Christ”, and the “times of a restitution of all things” were still future from when Peter said this–not then-present realities for Jews who’d already received salvation! Moreover, the fact that Peter urged his fellow Jews to “reform ye, therefore, and turn back, for your sins being blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and He may send Jesus Christ who before hath been preached to you” tells us that Peter linked Jesus’ return with Israel’s national-level repentance (just as Paul did several times in Romans 11)! Why did I underline the phrase “His servant Jesus”? You’ll see a little later.

Regarding Peter’s application of Psalm 118:22 to the disbelieving Jews in Acts 4:11, the term “head of the corner” (YLT) or “cornerstone” (NIV) in Psalm 118:22 refers to the most important stone in the foundation of a structure. However, notice that verse 26a is quoted by the crowds at Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem: “the multitudes who were going before, and who were following, were crying, saying, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is he who is coming in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.’” (Matthew 21:9 YLT, boldface added). But then two days later, Jesus said to the city of Jerusalem, “I say to you, ye may not see me henceforth, till ye may say, Blessed is he who is coming in the name of the Lord.” (Matthew 23:39 YLT, boldface added) Either this prophecy wasn’t fulfilled at Jesus’ Triumphal Entry, or this prophecy is to be fulfilled twice! As Pulliam himself points out, the Jews at large had been expecting the Messiah to set up his Kingdom and start conquering his enemies as soon as he showed up, so it’s understandable that they would’ve mistakenly proclaimed Psalm 118:26a at the Triumphal Entry, assuming the passage as a whole was to be fulfilled then! Instead, it seems the entirety of Psalm 118 will be fulfilled when Jesus returns to Jerusalem in person–and by implication, when Israel would be saved on the national level, as indicated in Romans 11:26-27. All this makes it clear that Peter was quoting verse 22 to prove the point that the Israelites at large were indeed fulfilling this prophesied rejection; he was not, however, saying that the entire Psalm was fulfilled by the time of the events in Acts 4; if anything, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 23:37-39, interpreted in light of Matthew 21:1-9, should make it clear that it wasn’t.

2 Samuel 7:12-16 outlined the Davidic Covenant to begin with, while Psalm 89:35-37 & 132:11 merely mention that God will make good on it, and its effects will last for eternity; none of these passages give us any info on the timing of their fulfillment, so we can just skip them here. And I’ve already dealt with James’ use of Amos 9:11-12 here.

Regarding Psalm 2, Pulliam has failed to consider the quotation in Acts 13:32-33 in light of its context. As I explain in the final paragraph of this discussion, Paul was simply quoting Psalm 2:7 to reinforce the point that Jesus is the promised seed of Abraham and of David (especially in light of the fact that the oldest manuscripts of verse 23 have “brought forth” instead of “raised up”; this tells us the sense in which Paul meant “raised up” in verse 33). He was not saying that the entire Psalm had already been fulfilled by then; Pulliam’s just reading that idea into Paul’s statements in Acts 13. As for the quotations in Hebrews 1:5, Pulliam has overlooked the fact that the author of Hebrews consistently spoke of Jesus’ kingship as in the future from the author’s own time! (e.g., Hebrews 1:13, 2:5-10, & 10:12-13). At the same time, he placed Jesus’ priesthood in the present, again consistent with Jesus not holding these roles simultaneously. Hence, the author of Hebrews was decidedly not “telling his readers that Jesus was already on the throne of David”.

Psalm 110:1 doesn’t help Pulliam at all, since the Hebrew text shows that Jesus’ rule hasn’t even begun! In a nutshell: the verb for “make” in “Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet” (1995 NASB) is in the imperfect tense, so this line properly means “Until I am in the process of making your enemies a footstool for your feet”; this phrasing tells us that Jesus is to be at the Father’s right side (where we all agree he is now) until the subjugation process has begun! This implies that it hasn’t started yet. So every time you see this phrase from Psalm 110:1 quoted in the NT (and by the way, this OT verse is quoted in the NT more times than any other!), that’s an affirmation that Jesus isn’t the King of Kings yet! Likewise, his appeal to the quotations of Psalm 110:4 throughout Hebrews only reinforces the point that Jesus is high priest and king of kings during two distinct periods of time: Hebrews 7:21 quotes Psalm 110:4 LXX when saying “The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest — to [or “for”] the age, according to the order of Melchisedek” (YLT), yet Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6 LXX when saying “Thy throne, O God, is to [or “for”] the age of the age” (YLT)! Why else would this distinction in terminology be present here and in the OT passages being quoted?

Pulliam makes more of an effort at trying to explain away Isaiah 11 in Lesson 15, so I’ll address the passage more thoroughly in Part 4. But regarding Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12, Pulliam’s claim that Paul was declaring it fulfilled completely ignores the context:

And I say Jesus Christ to have become a ministrant of circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises to the fathers, and the nations for kindness to glorify God, according as it hath been written, ‘Because of this I will confess to Thee among nations, and to Thy name I will sing praise,’ and again it saith, ‘Rejoice ye nations, with His people;’ and again, ‘Praise the Lord, all ye nations; and laud Him, all ye peoples;’ and again, Isaiah saith, ‘There shall be the root of Jesse, and he who is rising to rule nations — upon him shall nations hope;’ (Romans 15:8-12 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

As mentioned earlier, Paul was quoting 4 OT passages that mention nations/Gentiles worshiping the God of Israel! Just like James’ use of Amos 9, Paul was quoting these prophecies to prove the point that Gentiles had already been prophesied to participate in the Kingdom. He was not saying that these prophecies had already been fulfilled (notice that Paul said “confirm”, not “fulfill”); Pulliam is simply reading that idea into the text–engaging in eisegesis.

And again, as I noted earlier, Isaiah 40:3-5 was prophesying what John would say about the Messiah’s still-future kingdom. It didn’t require that all the things John said would come to pass within his lifetime; only that John saying them would.

Finally, notice that all of the interpretations I’ve given here are completely consistent with the notion that the Apostles interpreted OT prophecy according to a straightforward hermeneutic!

If you’re reading this, Pulliam, let me spell it out for you: JUST BECAUSE AN OLD TESTAMENT VERSE IS QUOTED IN A NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGE, DOESN’T MEAN THE NEW TESTAMENT AUTHOR/SPEAKER WAS SAYING IT WAS FULFILLED. Only a careful examination of the quote’s contexts (both the Old Testament context it’s taken from and the New Testament context it’s quoted in) can tell us exactly what point an inspired NT author/speaker was using it to make.

Just A Few More Points on Lesson 12…

Finally, let’s consider what few arguments remain in Lesson 12 that I haven’t already addressed elsewhere. We should start with the few passages I haven’t already dealt with that he brought up in a chart on page 129. Pulliam tries to say there that Acts 13:46-47 indicates that Isaiah 49:5-6 has been fulfilled, while 13:32-39 indicate that Isaiah 55:3 has been fulfilled; the box linking them together is labeled “The Restoring Messiah of the Everlasting Covenant, who raises up the fallen tabernacle of David.” {Capitalization in original.} The latter half of this label refers to Pulliam’s incorrect interpretation of James’ use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:15-17, my response for which I’ve already hyperlinked to above. Let’s take the other two in the order in which Paul quoted them:

32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David. [Partially quoting Isaiah 55:3 LXX] 35 Because he saith also in another psalm, Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption. [Quoting Psalm 16:10] 36 For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: 37 but he whom God raised up saw no corruption. 38 Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins: 39 and by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:32-39 ASV, boldface added)

Clearly, the point Paul was making with the quote from Isaiah 55:3 was that Jesus, though human now, is not decaying bodily; this is why the “blessings of David” are “holy and sure”. (However, note that “blessings” isn’t actually in the Greek text; the LGV renders this prophecy quotation as ‘I will give you sure mercies of David,’ {Scroll to p. 3 in the PDF} and the BLXX of Isaiah 55:3 also has “the sure mercies of David.”)

And speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, ‘To you it was necessary that first the word of God be spoken, and seeing ye do thrust it away, and do not judge yourselves worthy of the life age-[en]during, lo, we do turn to the nations; for so hath the Lord commanded us [1^st-person plural]: I have set [perfect-tense] thee [2^nd-person singular] for a light of nations — for thy [2^nd-person singular] being for salvation unto the end of the earth.‘ [Quoting Isaiah 49:6 LXX; note that while the Hebrew verb for “set” in the MT is waw-consecutive perfect tense, implying a yet-to-be-completed action, Paul quotes the LXX, where the Greek verb is perfect tense, implying an already-completed action with ongoing results] (Acts 13:46-47 YLT)

This one requires more careful consideration of the grammar and the OT context. Notice that while the first-person pronoun Paul used just before his quotation from Isaiah 49 is plural, the second-person pronouns in the quotation itself are singular. The only way this would be appropriate is if the singular in Isaiah 49:6 referred to an entire group of people, not individuals. So, which group of individuals is this? The Apostles? Actually, no–it’s much broader. Revelation 7:16-17 quotes Isaiah 49:10, implying that the people discussed there are also part of the group. In fact, the entirety of Revelation 7 is structured to mirror Isaiah 49 (compare Revelation 7:1-8 with Isaiah 49:1-8, Revelation 7:9-13 with Isaiah 49:9-21, and Revelation 7:14-17 with Isaiah 49:22-26)! The first 8 verses of Revelation 7 comprise a parenthetical section about the 144,000 Israelites to be sealed (the imagery of “sealing” is drawn from Ezekiel 9:1-7, especially verse 4) during the apocalypse. Finally, while looking at verse 5 of Isaiah 49 in isolation implies that the second-person singular refers to Isaiah himself (verse 5a says “And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant,”–1995 NASB), we see something different emerge when we start with verse 3:

3 “He said to Me, ‘You [singular in the MT & LXX] are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory.’ 4 But I said, “I have toiled in vain, I have spent My strength for nothing and vanity; Yet surely the justice due to Me is with the LORD, And My reward with My God.” 5 And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength), 6 He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach [literally, “To be My salvation”] to the end of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:3-6 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)

Hence, while the “Servant” of verse 3 was the nation of Israel, which failed to fulfill the purpose God set them aside for (as indicated in verse 4), the “Servant” of verse 5 is Christ, who’d bring Israel back to Him and restore them to what they were meant to be–so when Peter referred to Christ as “His Servant Jesus” in Acts 3:13,26 (NKJV), he was alluding to Isaiah 49:5. Taken altogether, Paul is using the word “us” to refer to the portion of Israel that’s in Christ, including Paul and Barnabas. Paul was pointing out to his Jewish audience that Israel had been called by God (thus explaining why the verb for “set” in the LXX is perfect-tense instead of future-tense) to be a light to the pagan nations and bring salvation to the ends of the earth. Paul and Barnabas were doing their part in accomplishing this mission, while their audience at large wasn’t. But the connection between Isaiah 49 & Revelation 7 makes it clear that during the apocalypse (and the Kingdom!), the remnant of Israel will pick up the slack for their stubborn forefathers.

Finally, after offering the attempted reinterpretation of Romans 11:2 that I’ve already countered here, Pulliam offers one last pathetic refutation to one last argument from dispensationalists.

Other passages regarding the “unchangeableness of His purpose” are taken to mean all must remain as it was. The following text is a portion of a passage utilized for proving this:

“¹⁷ In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath”

(Hebrews 6:17)

Here again, the purpose is assumed to be one in which Israel remains in the land with the Messiah on the throne, ruling over a visible, earthly kingdom. We have established that this was not God’s purpose. God’s purpose was an eternal purpose which has been carried out in Christ Jesus.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 131. Indentation and italics in original.}

And I’ve established that Pulliam has failed to establish that the Church being God’s eternal purpose [literally, “purpose of the ages”; Pulliam is alluding to his discussion on Ephesians 3:11] and Israel being restored to the land one day are mutually exclusive concepts! (After all, if God’s eternal purpose having been carried out in the past doesn’t disqualify God from having future plans for us, why should it disqualify Him from having future plans for Israel?) It’s possible for both to be true at once, whether Pulliam is willing to admit it or not.

Lesson 13: The Kingdom of the Messiah (And the Church)

Are the Church and the Kingdom Synonymous?

Pulliam tries to argue in Lesson 13 that the Church is the Kingdom in its fullest form. But as I’ll explain shortly, it’s not even accurate to say that the Church is the Kingdom in its present form!

While he’s right that the NT uses the Greek word ekklēsia (G1577) to refer to local churches or the entire church depending on the context, I’d like to ask you in advance to forgive me for nitpicking about something. Pulliam correctly says that “Several different terms are used to describe the church.” {Ibid. 135. Italics in original.} However, he then claims that “As the ‘church,’ it is the ekklesia, or called out ones.” {Ibid. Italics in original.} The word ekklēsia only means “called out ones” if it’s used as a participle–because it’s actually a compound of ek (“out from among”) and kaleō (“to call aloud”). When used as a noun (as it is throughout the NT), it means “properly, a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly” {Scroll to “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”; boldface in original.}. Like I said, though, that’s just a nitpick.

He keeps making all these points about how local churches have features that disqualify them from being the Kingdom (some attendees aren’t actually followers of Christ, some people may have followed the steps of the Plan of Salvation, but have not yet joined a local church, a local church that isn’t preaching the truth can nonetheless have legitimate Christians in it, etc.), all of which are obvious to me and anyone with enough of a brain not to confuse what’s true of a part with what’s true of the whole. But then on p. 136, he finally starts getting to the point:

Far more accurate is an understanding of the kingdom as the church in its universal (distributed) sense. These are the saved who may not even know of each other’s citizenship when they meet on the street, but they have a common King, law, and destiny. Their common desire and work will be seen in their fellowship with other saints in the local church, but it is the rule of Christ in their hearts that truly creates this dominion of the King.
Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah present Him as coming to establish a kingdom; however, Jesus did establish His church (Mt 16:18; Eph 3:10f). The natural conclusion is that the church is, in some way, the anticipated kingdom (see chart at top of next page). If we remove the “change in plans” theory of the Dispensationalist, which claims God put the church in place because the kingdom was rejected, we find this to be the reasonable and natural alternative.
…Individuals in the universal church are saved because they are submissive to the king. Although the church and kingdom have a common beginning point (Acts 2), only the universal church is synonymous with the kingdom (see chart above).

{Ibid. 136,138. Italics and boldface in original. Underlining mine.}

As straightforward as that may sound, this alternative isn’t reasonable and natural, for one simple reason: the church can’t be synonymous with the kingdom (present or future), because there are things in Christ’s dominion that aren’t part of the Church! Consider this passage I brought up in Part 2 of this overall series:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms [better, “heavenly dominions”; the Greek word, epouranios, refers to heaven’s authority and influence over things, not heaven itself]. (Ephesians 6:12 NIV, boldface added)

As I explained in that post, the heavenly dominions encompass everything that the Father has presently delegated to the Son. Since “the spiritual forces of evil” obviously refers to demonic activity, we may conclude that demons are also under Christ’s authority at present. Unless Pulliam is willing to argue that demons are members of the Church, this demonstrates that at most, the Church is part of the Kingdom, not the whole thing. Also consider the terminology the author of Hebrews uses for the assembly of all the faithful throughout history, which will gather in the New Heavens and New Earth:

But, ye came [literally, “you all have approached”; perfect active indicative 2^nd-person plural] to Mount Zion, and to a city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers, to the company and assembly of the first-born in heaven enrolled [literally, “having been enrolled”; perfect passive participle attached to “in heaven” hence, this statement overall refers not to the “company and assembly of the first-born” being in heaven, but to their names being enrolled in heaven–a reference to the Book of Life (Psalm 69:28, Philippians 4:3, Revelation 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12,15, 21:27)], and to God the judge of all, and to spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to a mediator of a new covenant — Jesus, and to blood of sprinkling, speaking better things than that of Abel! (Hebrews 12:22-24 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

Aside from the word for “approached” being προσέρχομαι (G4334, a compound word meaning “come toward”), consistent with its original readers still being able to “back off” from it by falling away, the word for “assembly” is ekklēsia. But why do I say that this passage is referring to a gathering of all the faithful in the New Heavens and New Earth? Because the noun Young rendered “company” here is πανήγυρις, a compound of πᾶς (“all”) and ἀγείρω (“town square” or “marketplace”); hence, it properly means “general assembly” or “universal gathering”. This is the only NT occurrence of this word, but the verb form of it, πανηγυρίσατε, occurs in Isaiah 66:10 LXX, rendered “hold a general assembly” in the BLXX. The context of that verse, of course, is describing the New Heavens and New Earth, which are explicitly mentioned in Isaiah 65:17 & 66:22. Indeed, I’ve already shown here that the context following in Hebrews, 12:25-29, speaks of the promise in Haggai 2 LXX of a “last” temple in Jerusalem greater than the ”first”, that all those who helped build the second temple would get to enjoy peace at–a prophecy that must be yet unfulfilled, since all those people are long dead and have yet to be resurrected to enjoy peace at a temple greater than Solomon’s in Jerusalem.

Also in line with the idea that this references Isaiah 65-66, the “myriads of messengers” may refer again to the 144,000 Israelites of Revelation 7 with seals “upon the foreheads of theirs” (Revelation 7:3c my word-by-word translation; the preposition is epi, not en):

And I will leave a sign upon them, and I will send forth them that have escaped of them to the nations, to Tharsis, and Phud, and Lud, and Mosoch, and to Thobel, and to Greece, and to the isles afar off, to those who have not heard my name, nor seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. (Isaiah 66:19 BLXX, boldface added)

The Bondwoman & Freewoman Allegory

Now, one of Pulliam’s trickiest arguments to spot the issue with is his use of Paul’s allegory of the Bondwoman & Freewoman in Galatians 4:21-31:

Study the chart on the next page. When an attempt is made to keep national Israel in God’s plans, Paul must object. While his argument is in a context of not binding circumcision on Gentiles, that does not alter the truth expressed in an application of the allegory. If the bondwoman was to be cast out, then may we keep any other aspect of the bondwoman’s system? If we may keep the physical (left column of the allegory), because the land is a physical promise for the future, then how do we cast out circumcision, the physical token of the land promise (Gen 17:7-10)? Additionally, if Israel is to be included as a nation, then what is the power of Paul’s declaration in Galatians 3:28-29? This would mean that there is Jew and Greek after all! That there was neither Jew nor Greek tells us that the New Covenant was separate from a national fulfillment. {Ibid. 139. Boldface and italics in original.}

And here’s “the chart on the next page”:

First off, notice that Pulliam claims to have taken the label “Jerusalem above” from Hebrews 12:22-24. Even if he’s identified the second mountain correctly, his label for it is incorrect: most English translations of Hebrews 12:22 render the Greek phrase Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ as “heavenly Jerusalem”. But, as you may have caught there, the Greek word for “heavenly” is epouranios, that word I brought out above that refers to heaven’s influence or authority over things–not things that are necessarily in heaven itself. The LGV of Hebrews 12:22 captures the sense of the Greek phrase with the rendering “Jerusalem of heavenly dominion” {scroll to p. 33 in the PDF}. This harks back to something the author mentioned in the previous chapter:

By faith Abraham, being called, did obey, to go forth to the place that he was about to receive for an inheritance, and he went forth, not knowing whither he doth go; by faith he did sojourn in the land of the promise as a strange country, in tabernacles having dwelt with Isaac and Jacob, fellow-heirs of the same promise, for he was looking for the city having the foundations, whose artificer and constructor [LGV “whose designer and fashioner”] is God.…

In faith died all these [the patriarchs up to and including Jacob], not having received the promises, but from afar having seen them, and having been persuaded, and having saluted them, and having confessed that strangers and sojourners they are upon the earth, for those saying such things make manifest that they seek a country; and if, indeed, they had been mindful of that from which they came forth, they might have had an opportunity to return, but now they long for a better, that is, an heavenly [dominion; epouranios], wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God, for He did prepare for them a city. (Hebrews 11:8-10,13-16 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

Which leads us to Pulliam’s main mistake with this chart: the Two Covenants contrasted in this allegory aren’t the “Old” and New Covenants, but the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants! We can tell this by reading the allegory carefully in light of its OT background:

Tell me, ye who are willing to be under law, the law do ye not hear? for it hath been written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid-servant, and one by the free-woman, but he who is of the maid-servant, according to flesh hath been, and he who is of the free-woman, through the promise; which things are allegorized, for these are the two covenants: one, indeed, from mount Sinai, to servitude bringing forth, which is Hagar; for this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and doth correspond to the Jerusalem that now is, and is in servitude with her children, and the Jerusalem above [or “on high”; LGV “the elevated Jerusalem”] is the free-woman, which is mother of us all, for it hath been written, ‘Rejoice, O barren, who art not bearing; break forth and cry, thou who art not travailing, because many are the children of the desolate — more than of her having the husband.’ [quoting, letter-for-letter, from Isaiah 54:1 LXX] And we, brethren, as Isaac, are children of promise, but as then he who was born according to the flesh did persecute him according to the spirit, so also now; but what saith the Writing? ‘Cast forth the maid-servant and her son, for the son of the maid-servant may [following the aorist subjunctive verb in the TR; NA28 has the verb in the future indicative, meaning “will be heir”] not [οὐ…μὴ; a double negative, roughly meaning “absolutely not”] be heir with the son of the free-woman;’ [paraphrasing Genesis 21:10] then, brethren, we are not a maid-servant’s children, but the free-woman’s. In the freedom, then, with which Christ did make you free [following TR; NA28 has “For the freedom, Christ made us free”] — stand ye [NA28 adds “therefore”], and be not held fast again by a yoke of servitude
(Galatians 4:21-5:1 YLT, but following the paragraph divisions of the LGV {scroll to p. 8-9 in the PDF}; boldface and underlining added)

First off, notice that Paul is contrasting “the Jerusalem that now is” with “the elevated Jerusalem”. The implication is that “the elevated Jerusalem” refers to the same Jerusalem they knew at the time, but as it would exist at a future time! In fact, the term “elevated Jerusalem” is harking back to at least a couple of OT prophecies that foretell mount Zion, the mountain Jerusalem sits on, becoming the highest mountain in the world–something that’s never been the case at any point in history, let alone before Jerusalem’s second destruction in A.D. 70 (seriously, if you’ve seen a preterist attempt to explain Isaiah 2:2, let me know about it in the comments!).

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. (Isaiah 2:2 KJV, boldface added)

All the land will change into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; but Jerusalem [literally, “she”] will rise and remain on its site from Benjamin’s Gate as far as the place of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s wine presses. (Zechariah 14:10 2020 NASB, boldface added; I’ll give a more precise translation of the passage containing this verse in Part 4)

You may think that mountains and valleys literally swapping places and having their heights changed all over the face of the planet as described in Zechariah 14:10 is absurd, but remember that Peter compared the transition between the current universe and the new heavens and new earth (“heaven and earth” was an ancient Hebrew phrase used to denote the totality of all creation, since ancient Hebrew didn’t have a word for “universe”) to the transition between the pre-Flood world and the post-Flood world in Noah’s day (2 Peter 3:3-7). It wasn’t the substance of the world that “perished” (verse 6c KJV) in Noah’s Flood, but the form that substance took; the judgment by water didn’t annihilate the earth’s material, but rearranged it. In light of this parallel being drawn in 2 Peter 3 (a passage I’ll discuss more in the next post), we should expect such changes to happen during the judgment by fire when Jesus returns.

Next, notice that we aren’t initially told that Ishmael and Isaac were respectively born “according to flesh” and “through the spirit”, but “according to flesh” and “through the promise”. Which promise was Isaac born through? God’s promise to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant! After all, consider what God told Abraham just after Sarah made the demand of him that’s paraphrased in Galatians 4:30–“Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.” Paul would later expound on this in Romans 9:

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, 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. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” [Loosely quoting Genesis 18:10,14] (Romans 9:6-9 NKJV, boldface added)

As I explained in the second paragraph here, the statement “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” is referring to the fact that someone can be a physical descendant of Jacob and not inherit the promises, due to their rejection of Christ. Speaking of inheriting, did you notice Paul’s quotation that “the son of the maid-servant will absolutely not be heir with the son of the free-woman”? That underlined phrase emphasizes two powerful points. First, “be heir” implies something was expected to be inherited. At the time Sarah made the statement Paul was paraphrasing, the thing Abraham and Sarah were expecting to inherit was the land in which they were living as foreigners (remember, Genesis 20:12 tells us Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister, implying that she was also born in Ur)! Second, that little preposition “with” (Greek meta) tells us that those living under the Mosaic Covenant and those living under the Abrahamic Covenant can’t inherit the land simultaneously! This is consistent with the fact that the Mosaic land promise was conditional (as seen by the Israelite’s progress at obtaining it being hindered whenever they started disobeying throughout the books of Exodus through Joshua), but the Abrahamic land promise was unconditional (Genesis 15; Galatians 3:17-18; Hebrews 6:13-18); not to mention the passages implying that the Mosaic Covenant will be done away with, once and for all, once Jesus returns to usher in the fulfillment of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant (e.g., the lack of instructions regarding observing the Day of Atonement in Ezekiel 40-48, despite such instructions for other Mosaic holidays being discussed in detail; or the Ark of the Covenant being replaced with Jesus’ throne in the Holy of Holies in Jeremiah 3:16-17 & Revelation 7:15, 21:22).

In fact, contrary to what Pulliam implied, this overall interpretation is confirmed in the greater context of Galatians! Consider what Paul had said in Galatians 3, leading up to Pulliam’s proof-text for the idea that there will be no national distinctions within the Kingdom:

‘Blessed in thee shall be all the nations;’ so that those of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham,
for as many as are of works of law are under a curse, for it hath been written, ‘Cursed is every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law — to do them,’ and that in law no one is declared righteous with God, is evident, because ‘The righteous by faith shall live;’ and the law is not by faith, but — ‘The man who did them shall live in them.’
Christ did redeem us from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse, for it hath been written, ‘Cursed is every one who is hanging on a tree,’ that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Christ Jesus, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith.
Brethren, as a man I say it, even of man a confirmed covenant no one doth make void or doth add to, and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to thy seed,’ which is Christ; and this I say, A covenant confirmed before by God to Christ, the law, that came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not set aside, to make void the promise, for if by law be the inheritance, it is no more by promise, but to Abraham through promise did God grant it.

…for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus, for as many as to Christ were baptized did put on Christ; there is not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there is not here male and female, for all ye are one in Christ Jesus; and if ye are of Christ then of Abraham ye are seed, and according to promise — heirs.

(Galatians 3:9-18,26-29 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

The phrase “the blessing of Abraham” is more noteworthy than you might think. It only occurs one other time in the entire Bible, and the passage in question defines the phrase for us: “and give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land of thy sojournings, which God gave unto Abraham.” (Genesis 28:4 ASV, underlining and boldface added) The inclusion of this phrase in Galatians 3:14 tells us that the very land that was promised to Abraham was to become available “to the nations”–exactly as described in prophecies about the Kingdom (e.g., Isaiah 60:3,6-7,9,11, 62:2; Revelation 21:24,26)!

So, no, Paul wasn’t saying that national distinctions wouldn’t exist in the Kingdom when it arrives in its fullest form; he was merely saying that you didn’t need to be an Israelite to be “in Christ Jesus”. Bear in mind that one of Paul’s main goals when writing Galatians was to counter the Judaizers who were saying that Greek converts to Christianity needed to obey the Mosaic Law–a claim that effectively would’ve required Greek Christians to become proselytes to Judaism. For centuries, the Israelites had taken for granted that becoming a proselyte was part of the process for Gentiles to enter into the Mosaic Covenant; Paul was driving home the point that such a burden was too much under the New Covenant, and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 (Paul most likely wrote Galatians during the time of dispute mentioned in verse 2 of that chapter) sealed the deal.

Also notice that both of these passages end by linking our participation in the Abrahamic Covenant with our participation in the New Covenant. It’s important to remember that, while the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants are all “covenants of promise” (Ephesians 2:12 KJV) that steadfast Christians get to participate in {HIDMF, p. 87-89}, they are nonetheless three distinct covenants. It’s no different than how the Edenic, Adamic, and Noahic Covenants are three distinct covenants, yet God holds every member of the human race to all three of them {HIDMF, p. 84-86}. Hence, this linkage at the beginning of Galatians 5 doesn’t imply that the Mosaic and New Covenants are being contrasted in the last part of Galatians 4.

Finally, consider what Paul says just after this allegory:

2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:2-6 1995 NASB)

Since the Jerusalem Council, which occurred after Galatians was written, made it clear that circumcision was relegated to a matter of conscience for Gentile Christians under the New Covenant (Acts 15:24; notice that this is also spelled out in Galatians 5:6), the scope of verses 2 & 3 must be confined to those who receive circumcision for the purpose of obeying the Mosaic Law. However, the claim in verse 3 that anyone who does receive circumcision for that purpose “is under obligation to keep the whole Law” implies that the Law still has power over those who have submitted to it, but don’t enter into the New Covenant afterward. Indeed, I also pointed this out in the second-to-last paragraph here; that section of the article also explains why the Mosaic Law’s inefficacy for salvation doesn’t render a “strengthening” of the Mosaic Covenant at the start of the apocalypse (Daniel 9:27a, Revelation 11:2) pointless–that strengthening is for the purpose of national restoration (Deuteronomy 30:1-10, another passage I discuss in some detail here), not individual salvation.

Pilate’s Questioning in John 18

Finally, we get to the last line of reasoning Pulliam offers throughout Lessons 11-13.

Now let’s look to that occasion on which Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (Jn 18:36) The Dispensationalist contends that Jesus meant that its origin is not of this world. While that is true, it isn’t the point Jesus was making. This conversation was not an effort to educate Pilate about where His kingdom was from.
Pilate asked Jesus if He was the king of the Jews (Jn 18:33). He did not ask Jesus where His kingdom came from, and Jesus knew exactly what Pilate was trying to determine. Pilate needed to know if Jesus was a usurper to the power of Tiberius. This would solve his problem in one breath. If Jesus was a threat to Rome, he could put him to death without any worry of what message might get back to Rome by way of complaint. The answer of Jesus told Pilate exactly what he needed to know about kingdom aspirations in relation to Caesar’s kingdom. Caesar’s kingdom was of this world (physical in nature). Jesus’ kingdom was not of this world (spiritual in nature). Being a kingdom that is not of this world, it also is not from here (closing phrase of verse 36). His servants would not be fighting Pilate, or Caesar, offering no threat to Roman power.
Pilate’s subsequent question about Jesus’ kingship is clearly spoken in irony, according to Robertson. Pilate’s derisive question about truth seems to bear this out. He was in no way a compassionate man, but the Jews had him caught between a rock and a hard place, and he was afraid.
Connect the context (Pilate’s question) together with Jesus’ remark about servants fighting. Is Jesus saying that His kingdom isn’t from around here, so my servants are too far away to fight? Absurd! Jesus is telling Pilate that His kingdom is not a rival kingdom to Caesar’s kingdom. If it were, Pilate would already be witnessing a display of force to free Him. The effort would be exerted to keep Jesus from being “delivered up to the Jews” (meaning the purpose of the Jews). Their purpose was to have Jesus crucified. Why was this purpose not being resisted? Jesus said, “for this I have come into the world” (v37). Nothing was happening that had not already been “the Lord’s doing” (Ps 118:22f). The truth was about to come to the destination designed by God’s eternal purpose. The truth would become God’s great kingdom as hearts heard and yielded – the kingdom would be within them.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 139-141. Boldface and italics in original. Underlining mine. Source citations in footnotes therein.}

Depending on what Pulliam means by “The truth would become God’s great kingdom” (he never clarifies what this mystical-sounding statement is supposed to mean) in that last sentence, I’ve learned enough in my years of research to agree with everything Pulliam says here except the phrases I underlined. Obviously, the two underlined phrases in the second paragraph betray the Gnostic dualism that most if not all of Pulliam’s substantial arguments hinge on. I agree that it’s important to determine exactly what Jesus intended with his answer to Pilate–which is why it’s so shameful for Pulliam to try proving his point here by quote-mining Jesus himself! You see, while Pulliam mentions how Jesus’ response in verse 36 starts and how verse 36 ends, he omits a critical detail in between (and just to make it easier for you to track the rest of his claims, I’ll quote the rest of the passage while I’m at it):

33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?
And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him.

(John 18:33-38 ASV, boldface and underlining added)

That little word “now” changes everything: Jesus wasn’t denying that his kingdom ever would be on earth, he was just denying that it was at the time. So Pulliam’s statements about the difference between Caesar’s kingdom and Jesus’ would be more accurate if it read as follows: “Caesar’s kingdom was now of this world (part of the present world order under the Curse and ruled by Satan, per 2 Corinthians 4:4 & Hebrews 2:6-8). Jesus’ kingdom was not yet of this world (part of the future world order described in Daniel 2:44 & 7:13-14,27, which is why Matthew often refers to it as “the kingdom of heaven”; note that the exact phrase “God of the heaven(s) will set up a kingdom” [Aramaic יְקִים אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא מַלְכוּ; Septuagint ἀναστήσει ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ βασιλείαν] occurs in Daniel 2:44).” Everything Pulliam said about Jesus not being a threat to Rome (the then-dominant nation in the world order) would naturally still be true, so the rest of his discussion as it stands poses no issue for my view whatsoever.

Next up, in Part 3, we’ll consider what Pulliam believes about what’s still in the future for us.

---

1. The petuha-cetuma test reveals that the minor train of thought containing Zechariah 12:10 begins with verse 7 and ends with verse 14, and the major train of thought extends from 12:7 through 14:21–the end of the book! Since Pulliam tries to explain away verses 6-21 of Zechariah 14 in Lesson 15, I’ll be addressing Zechariah 12:7-14:21 more thoroughly in Part 4 (I also plan to include it in my upcoming “Day of the Lord” analysis, where I’ll discuss it in even more detail still). But for now, notice that Zechariah 12:7-10 mentions that “The LORD also will save the tents of Judah first… will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem… will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem… will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.” (1995 NASB) Verses 11-14 go on to mention families mourning for loss of loved ones (the Hebrew term the 1995 NASB renders “by itself”/”by themselves” in verses 12-14 properly means “for separation”). This sounds more like the Day of the Lord: Jerusalem and Judah on the collective level rejoicing over Jesus’ return and being saved from the armies that gathered at Armageddon, but families mourning for those of their own who are stubborn enough to reject Jesus until the bitter end–and so die by Jesus’ sword. ↩︎