Tag: Dispensationalism

Eph 2 & Dispensationalism (conclusion)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

–continued from part 2

This is the last part of our study of the ramifications that Ephesians 2 has for dispensationalism. The Gentiles are full-fledged members of “the commonwealth of Israel” and they are part of the “one new man” that God has made. As such, they partake in the “covenants of promise”. Galatians 3 declares they are “sons of Abraham”, “blessed along with Abraham”, and as they are “Christ’s” they are also “Abraham’s offspring”.

Now we come to the last element of Eph. 2 which is important for how we come to terms with classic dispensationalism’s teaching concerning Israel being totally distinct from the church. Again, I’m quoting from Dr. Kenneth Gentry on this point, from his article on Ephesians and Dispensatinalism.

The rebuilt temple is the Church of Jesus Christ.

The future rebuilt temple is a distinctive feature of dispensationalism. The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Kregel, 1996; hereinafter, DPT) states that:

“The prophecy of a future Jewish temple in Jerusalem . . . is part of the greater restoration promise made to national Israel. This promise, made at the close of the first temple period (cf. Isa. 1:24–2:4; 4:2–6; 11:1–12:6; 25–27; 32; 34–35; 40–66; Jer. 30–33; Ezek. 36–48; Amos 9:11–15; Joel 2:28–3:21; Micah 4:–5; 7:11–20; Zeph. 3:9–20), made again by the prophets who prophesied after the return from captivity (cf. “Dan. 9–12; Hag. 2:5–9; Zech. 8–14; Mal. 3–4), and reaffirmed in the New Testament (cf. Acts 3:19–26; Rom. 11:1–32) contained inseparably linked elements of fulfillment. . .” (DPT 404).

Paul is provides a spiritual interpretation of the promise of a rebuilt temple. In Ephesians 2:19–22 he states:

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”

The Apostle certainly believes in a rebuilt temple, but not one built of stone. He sees “the whole building” as currently in his day already “being fitted together” and “growing into a holy temple in the Lord.” He allows this despite the fact that the earthly temple is still standing as he writes. And despite the fact that the millennium still lies off in the distance (already almost 2000 years distant, at least).

To make matters worse, Paul sees the rebuilt temple in spiritual terms because it is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” with “Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.” And the current and ongoing building process involves Christians themselves as the building stones for “you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”

This is why Jesus could inform the Samaritan woman: “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. . . But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (John 4:21, 23). And Jesus presents this “coming” hour as a permanent, final reality not to be withdrawn as a new order of localized, physical temple worship is re-instituted.

This is no stray statement by Paul: he returns to this theme time-and-again. We read of his conception of the spiritual temple in the following verses:

“Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.” (1 Cor 3:16–17)

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Cor 6:19)

“What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “˜I will Dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people'” (2 Cor 6:16).

The third sample in 2 Corinthians 6:16 is important because it specially applies Old Testament prophecy to the New Testament spiritual temple. Notice how Paul argues: “We are the temple of the living; just as God said, “˜I will Dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'” The Old Testament backdrop to this “just as God said” statement is Ezekiel 37:27: “My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”

What is remarkable about all of this is that this Paul takes this statement from Ezekiel’s prophecy of Israel’s dry bones coming back to life. Thus, Paul commits two hermeneutic sins: (1) he applies a prophecy regarding Israel to the church and (2) he spiritualizes God’s prophetic dwelling, applying it to God’s spiritual indwelling his people, rather than God’s building a new temple.

I would add that this idea of the church being the temple of God is also taught clearly in 1 Pet. 2. Believers are “living stones… being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (2:5b).

Also, on the “dwelling place of God” theme, I would stress this is a recurring thread from Gen. 22 all the way through to Rev. 21. God promises to dwell with His people. He will be our God, and we will be His people.     This was promised to Abraham and we share in that promise, as believers in Christ- the true “seed” of Abraham.

For me, this kind of teaching was not brought home to me as a dispensationalist. Some do stress this as the present church-age reality, but then claim God will go back to the way things were before. Some even stress another physical temple will be made and physical sacrifices offered once more after the rapture occurs to remove the church prior to the tribulation period. This does not seem to do justice to Eph. 2’s teaching in my understanding. Nor does it square with Hebrews and 1 Peter. This passage clearly teaches God has done something new in breaking down this wall of separation, why would He then later build it back up?

Before I conclude, let me stress that good people will disagree with my conclusions here. This side of glory, we won’t ever completely agree on everything. May God grant us grace to comprehend more fully the glories of His Word and the wonders of His grace.

Eph 2 & Dispensationalism (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

–continued from part 1

We are discussing Ephesians 2 and dispensationalism.   In yesterday’s post, we saw that Gentiles are added to the “commonwealth of Israel” and become full fledged members. They with believing Israel become “one new man”. At the very least this teaches that in the dispensation of the church age, there is no distinction between Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians. But I believe given the context of Ephesians as a whole, and the other end times passages in the NT that there is no going back to a 2 people structure.

An additional implication of this teaching, that there is only 1 people of God during the church age, would be that the book of James cannot address Jewish Christians independently of the church. So as it addresses the “twelve tribes in dispersion”, that would be seen to be a descriptor of the church which is like Israel, and was scattered throughout the world being spread through persecution (Acts 8), and also being considered “strangers” or “pilgrims” as 1 Peter ch. 1 describes them. The church finds solidarity with the patriarchs of the faith in Hebrews, and we find in Hebrews 8, and especially 10:15-25, that the new covenant is given to the Church as well.

Now we’ll pick up Ken Gentry’s next point, from his Ephesians and Dispensationalism post.

Paul sees Gentiles as receiving Jewish promises.

In our last comment we noted that Paul saw Jew and Gentile merged “” permanently “” in one body, the church (Eph 2:11–19). Now we would note that in the early part of that text he teaches that this new, merged body “” the church “” receives the Old Testament promises given to Israel. Consider Paul’s statement to these Gentile Christians:

“remember that you were at that time [before your conversion] separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12).

What is happening here? Paul is speaking of matters involving “the commonwealth of Israel.” He is declaring that before these Gentiles came to Christ they were “strangers to the covenants of promise.” This necessarily means that now that they have come to Christ they are no longer strangers to the covenants of promise.

Thus, they are now recipients of “the covenants of promise,” which include the distinctive Abrahamic Covenant with Israel (Gal 3:16–18). After all, he goes on to say that though they were “a that time” (Eph 2:12) excluded and strangers they now “have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13) and that Christ “broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” that separated Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14).

Thus, if Gentiles are no longer “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,” if Gentiles are no longer “strangers to the covenants of promise,” if Gentiles “have been brought near,” if Jew and Gentile are merged into one body , and if that which distinguishes Jew and Gentile has been “broken down” (the “dividing wall” ), then by parity of reasoning: the Gentiles receive the promises given to Israel. How can it be otherwise? The two are now one, so that the promises to the old covenant people belong to the new covenant people who have been merged with them.

As members of the commonwealth of Israel, we are partakers in the covenants of promise. In my “understanding the land promise” series, I show how Rom. 4:13-16 teaches that we partake in the land promise as well (Matt. 5:5 & Eph. 6:1-3). Stay tuned for at least one more post in this series on Eph. 2.

Ephesians 2 & Dispensationalism (part 1)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

From time to time, I get feedback from readers that they wish I hadn’t gone so far in my reforms and actually abandoned dispensationalism. They view that move as more a pendulum swing on my part or being unduly influenced by the attraction of Reformed thinkers. I admit that such tendencies are real, and we should all watch out for the tendency to be carried away by the charismatic appeal of any given leader whom we respect. But my views on dispensationalism, I hope, are informed by my careful study of Scripture.

I am less hesitant of progressive dispensationalism, and I haven’t necessarily landed when it comes to new covenant theology or covenant theology proper. But when it comes to classic dispensationalism as originally taught by Chafer and Scofield, and as further elaborated by Ryrie, Walvoord and others, I have strong reservations. Certain beliefs and tendencies of classic dispensationalism contradict Scripture in my opinion and affect one’s entire outlook on the Scriptures. For me, Romans 4 and Galatians 3 were significant in directing me away from dispensationalism. Ephesians 2 is also a pivotal passage. I’ve blogged on Romans 4, in my series Understanding the Land Promise. Today I want to start a 3 part series on Ephesians 2.

For this series, I’m going to borrow from Kenneth Gentry’s study on “Dispensationalism and Ephesians”. He shares 6 points from Ephesians that he believes contradict the foundations of dispensationalism. I am choosing the 3 that were meaningful to me, in my own journey away from dispensationalism. Don’t misunderstand me, by borrowing from his blog with its controversial name: AgainstDispensalism.com, I am not advocating a mean and spiteful view of dispensationalists. I held to classic dispensationalism for many years and I know many good people who take a generally dispensationalist approach. I’m borrowing form Gentry’s study purely because I can, and it will make it easier for me to discuss why I believe Ephesians 2 is so detrimental to dispensationalism’s claims.

Without further ado, here is the first point from Ephesians 2 which I find so important for this whole debate.

The Jew and Gentile are forever merged into one body in the final phase of God’s redemptive plan.

The leading classic dispensationalist scholar of the last fifty years is Charles C. Ryrie. On p. 39 in his important 1995 work Dispensationalism he reiterates his 1966 observation from the book’s first edition: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” According to Ryrie: “A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.” He then states rather dogmatically: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

We must note two aspects of the matter that come undermine the system. In dispensationalism’s two-peoples-of-God theology they must hold that God (1) distinguishes Jew and Gentile and (2) that he does so permanently (at least in history, though many carry the distinction into eternity). How are these observations fatal to the system? And in light of our study in Ephesians, how do we see that problem in Paul’s epistle?

Paul notes very clearly and forcefully that God merges Jew and Gentile into one body, which we now call the church. He even encourages the Gentiles with the knowledge that they are now included among God’s people and are partakers of their blessings. They are not separate and distinct from Israel but are adopted into her. Note Ephesians 2:11–19:

“Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “˜Uncircumcision’ by the so-called “˜Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands “” remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.”

Note very carefully what Paul states and how it contradicts the notion of a distinction between Jew and Gentile, between Israel and the church:

1. Paul states that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12). This is an observation about their past condition.
2. He argues that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . strangers to the covenants of promise” (plural covenants / singular promise). This is an observation about their past condition.
3. He reiterates the Gentiles’ former condition that has now been changed: “But now in Christ you who formerly were far off have been brought near” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
4. He resolutely declares that Christ has effected “peace” in that he “made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (Eph 2:14). This is their new experience and condition.
5. He restates this once again by noting that Christ made “the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15). This is their new experience and condition.
6. He recasts this very thought noting that Christ determined to “reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” This is their new experience and condition.
7. He continues by insisting that Christ “came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were far away” (Eph 2:17). This is their new experience and condition.
8. He states still again that “through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18). This is their new experience and condition.
9. He declares this fact once again: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
10. He insists: “but you are fellow citizens with the saints [obviously the Jews], and are of God’s [singular] household” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
11. Paul states once again that the Gentiles are a part of “the [singular] whole building, being fitted together” and “are being built together” (Eph 2:21). This is their new experience and condition.

Dispensationalism distinguishes Jew and Gentile permanently. Paul merges the two into one new body permanently.

I can attest that a separation between Israel and the Church was drilled into me in Bible College. It certainly is the distinguishing characteristic of classic dispensationalism (progressive dispensationalists seem to ditch that point, from what I’ve read). I don’t know how you can read Eph. 2 and come away with the idea that God didn’t break down the barriers and make of the two peoples “one new man”. If that’s what God did, then where do we see here the concept of going back to the two separate peoples again at some point? Parallel to this is Rom. 11, we see there the Gentiles are grafted into a single Olive tree from which unbelieving Israel was broken off of. At a later point Israel may be grafted back in, but they will be grafted back into the single Olive tree, there won’t be two Olive trees, one Jewish and one Gentile.

Stay tuned for part 2 of this series.

Four Millennial Views Explained: A Helpful & Free E-Book on Eschatology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

I’m never one to turn down a chance to open the proverbial “can of worms”.  I’ve gotten myself in heaps of trouble on my blog and elsewhere over the years.  (In fact I started a group blog on KJV Onlyism, so you know I have no sense left in me!)  So, on the heels of my recent post, “Doctrinal Disagreement (on Secondary Matters): Just a Teaching Issue“, I thought it might be good to test the waters with a post on eschatology.

I recently came across an excellent e-book explaining the four primary millennial views (yes there are four) that was a joy to read.  Even if I didn’t lean amillennial, I think I would have appreciated the clarity with which Dr. David Murray, professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary (Grand Rapids, MI) explained the four positions: amillennialism, postmillennialism, historic premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism.  The freely available e-book (download it as a .pdf or view it at Scribd), is laid out in a question and answer format complete with pictures — helpful pictures (there’s not many diagrams or end-times charts, unfortunately 😉 ).

This little book (57 pages but much shorter if you took out the pictures and repetition) is well worth your time, if only to help you see where the areas of disagreement are.  Knowing where we disagree will highlight how much we really do agree about.  Knowing why others hold to their views also allows us to see that our opponents may just revere the Bible and love Christ as much as we do.

I wish end-times theology wasn’t so divisive.  In reading through this, I was reminded afresh of the focus believers need to maintain on both this present earth, and Christ’s grand accomplishment which transforms our entire experience as well as on the future hope we have laid up for us in heaven, which will be realized with the re-creation of everything into a new heaven and new earth. Surely we can all agree on that.

I encourage you to give this little primer a read through.  Then feel free to speak up for your view of choice in the comments.  I want to close with a passage that was referenced all throughout the paper and which seems appropriate here:

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.  (2 Pet. 3:11-13 ESV)

Dr. Murray has additional resources at his blog, such as animated time-lines of the various viewpoints (and wow does this fellow have an accent!).  Don’t forget to feel free to dig in to the can of worms in the comments section below!

[HT: Nathan Bingham]

“The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John” by Larry Helyer

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Author: Larry Helyer
Publisher: IVP
Format: Hardcover
Pages: 432
ISBN: 9780830828883
Stars: 4 of 5

When I received The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology by Larry Helyer, I noticed the book looked like a college or seminary text book. After reading it, I feel like I have earned some college credits!

The book is eminently suited for a text book, because it is really a course on a Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Helyer opens the book with a question that looms large in New Testament studies today: Is the New Testament unified in its message? It is common for liberal or modern NT scholars to claim Paul’s theology is opposed to Christ’s, and John’s concerns were opposed to Matthew’s. In response to this problem, Larry Helyer sets out to trace the theology of Jesus, Paul and John as found in the New Testament. Then he compares each of their emphases and puts the question to rest, in my opinion. There are different emphases but the basic message of these three primary movers in the NT remains largely the same.

Along the way, Helyer explains exactly what Biblical Theology (BT) is, and he describes the problem of the overall unity of the Bible by tracing a history of theology from the time of the Apostles to today. He then moves on to discuss the two basic evangelical systems of BT, Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensationalism. His chapter defining BT helpfully discusses how the canon shapes our BT, and provides a helpful method for doing BT. His historical sketch of how the Christian church has dealt with the unity of the Bible opened my eyes to some of the big players in Biblical scholarship of the last couple hundred years. He explained the influence of Bultman, Von Rad, Robinson and others, with particular stress on the development of BT. In his discussion of CT and dispensationalism, I was helped by his comparison of the growth and development within CT with the rise of progressive dispensationalism. He doesn’t come and spell out his overall conviction in the matter, but takes care to follow the clear theological teaching of Scripture. From what I can tell he ends up more in line with the progressive dispensational or revised CT perspective.

The bulk of the book is his examination of the theology of Jesus (as seen in the Synoptic Gospels), Paul and John. This examination is strengthened by Helyer’s familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism and the similarities and differences such Jewish thought has with the New Testament. Helyer also explains the theological development of various key terms as he goes along. He is abreast of the points of controversy, and he navigates them with care.

In his section on the Gospels, I found his discussion of the Kingdom extremely helpful, especially with regard to working out how the Testaments are unified. He compares the different phrases “kingdom of God” , “kingdom of Heaven” , etc. and convincingly demonstrates they are synonymous. The kingdom is explained in terms of inaugurated eschatology, and Jesus’ use of the kingdom is shown as both similar and different from the Judaism of his day.

Helyer’s discussion of Paul begins by explaining that we only have insights into Pauline theology extracted from his overall thought. Paul’s letters are occasional documents, addressed to a specific church in a specific situation. After discussing the question of a center of Pauline theology, he handles the matter of justification and the new Pauline perspective quite well. He is careful to appreciate the new insights into Pauline thought, yet with his familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism he explains why he thinks the NPP goes to far in overturning Reformation thought. His discussion of Paul’s view of the Law was masterful, even though he took just a couple short pages to survey Paul’s view of the relationship of the believer and the law of Moses. He explains that while Jews are “under the law” , the Christian is “not under law” . The law has run its course in redemptive history. The Spirit, now, is the “moral governor of the Christian life” . “For Paul, the new covenant operates under a new law, the law of Christ, the law of love, which, while embodying underlying moral principles of the old Mosaic legislation, should not be strictly identified with it.” (pg. 266-268).

In detailing John’s portrayal of Christ’s person and work, Helyer takes pains to explain John is countering a proto-Gnostic error. There is a polemical thrust behind John’s presentation of Christ. On the question of John’s use of the term “Logos” , Helyer explains that the term has as much of an OT and 2nd temple Judaistic background as it has roots in Greek thought. In examining John’s writings, the emphasis on eschatology goes up a notch, of course. Yet an already, but not yet view of the kingdom is still inherent in John’s thought. Helyer’s treatment of Revelation was excellent. I especially liked his chiastic outline of the book (from pg. 353):

    A.  The Inaugural Vision: The Risen and Reigning Christ (ch. 1)
        B.  Messages to the Seven Churches: The Church Militant (chs. 2-3): What is the
          present prospect and promise for the church?
            C.  Vision of the Throne Room (chs. 4-5): Who is in charge?
                D.  Visions of the War for the Throne (chs. 6-16): The Wrath of the Lamb
                    1.  Seven Seals
                    2.  Seven Trumpets
                    3.  Seven Bowls
            C’.  Vision of Babylon the Great (chs. 17-18): Who will lose charge?
        B’.  Vision of the King and His Kingdom: The Church Triumphant (chs. 19-21):
          What is the future prospect and fulfillment for the church?
    A’.  The Final Vision: The Returning and Rewarding Christ (ch. 22)

His discussion of Rev. 20, also almost pushed me back into historic premillennialism. His exegetical treatment was clear and forceful. It forces me to go back and study that passage again in more depth.

At the end of the book, Helyer ties up the various strands of theology that Jesus (the Synoptics), John and Paul have been developing. Within the overarching and unifying theme of the Kingdom, Helyer finds a great degree of unity in this NT witness. Helyer is right to conclude by the end of his book that “enough… has been said to counteract the lopsided insistence that diversity and contradiction drown out any meaningful sense of unity and harmony.”

After sitting through Helyer’s “class” , I have a greater understanding of NT theology, and biblical theology in general. If you pick up the book, you will be glad you entered his course as well.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from IVP.