The Land and Jesus

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

The question of “the Land” is of paramount importance for the dispensationalist. Dispensationalism is a whole systematic theology — not simply an eschatology — that has as one of its chief cornerstones the predominant role of Israel in God’s plan for history. If the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, the way to a dispensationalist’s heart is through the Land of Israel. Unfortunately, the whole New Testament contradicts it.

The Land question is also of enormous significance in the current wider world of politics and international relations. Many Christians consider themselves to be “Christian Zionists,” and strongly urge Western governments to support Israel — regardless.

In this blog I will provide a brief review of an excellent new book on the subject of the Israel and the Land: Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology (Baker Academic, 2010; 153 pp; soft cover). The author is Gary M. Burge, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School

Dr. Burge is a competent New Testament scholar, holding a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen. He is a member, The Society for Biblical Literature; Institute for Biblical Understanding; and Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, Cambridge, England. He is also very knowledgeable regarding contemporary “Holy Land” issues. Besides this work he has authored Who Are God's People in the Middle East? (1993) and Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians (2003). He holds membership in Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding, as well as Holy Land Ecumenical Fellowship.

Though well qualified in the field, I confess that he does lack qualifications in three important areas: (1) He does not have a degree from Dallas Theological Seminary. (2) He is not a televangelist. (3) And as a consequence of #2 he does not appear to have bleached-white teeth. As a result of these three deficiencies he will not receive a wide reading among dispensationalists-in-the-pew.

The book is composed of eight succinct chapters and a helpful “Further reading” section. The chapters are: (1) The biblical heritage; (2) Diaspora Judaism and the land; (3) Jesus and the land; (4) The Fourth Gospel and the land; (5) The book of Acts and the land; (6) Paul and the promises to Abraham; (7) Developments beyond Paul; (8) Land, theology, and the Church.

As an insignificant aside: the book does have one layout oddity. When the Arabic numbering of pages begins (after the Roman numeral front-matter), page 1 is on the left hand page rather than the right (as are all following odd numbers). Someone in layout stumbled.

But now: why does the book have the title “Jesus and the Land” since only one chapter deals directly with Jesus’s ministry? Judging from the chapter titles you would think it might be better titled “The New Testament and the Land.” However, the title perfectly captures the point of the book. As Burge compellingly argues: Jesus is the fulfillment of the old covenant and all of its promises, including the Land. Let us see how this unfolds.

After important introductory material in chapters 1 (Abraham and the Old Testament backdrop) and 2 (non-Judean, diaspora Judaism), we come to Burge’s central chapter: “Jesus and the land” (ch. 3). Here he carefully surveys relevant highlights from Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptic Gospels. He points out that despite the longing and perspective of many (not all!) first-century Jews, Jesus downplays the Land — as well as two other “holy places” for Israel: Jerusalem and the Temple. In a later chapter Burge captures this point well: “the lens of the incarnation had now refocused things completely. Christian theology had no room for ‘holy places’ outside of the Holy One who is Christ” (p. 94).

In his preaching the Lord begins transferring Israel’s hope from a Land to a Person; that is, to himself as the Messiah who has now come in fulfillment of the old covenant types, promises, and prophecies. Burge then traces and develops this theme in John, Acts, and Paul, with a briefer analysis of Hebrews and Revelation. He argues that as Israel rejects Christ: “The city at the center of Judaism’s religious aspirations has now failed some test that will lead to its judgment” (p. 45). As a consequence of Jesus’ teaching and Israel’s failure John develops his “theological agenda” which is “his messianic replacement (or fulfillment) motif” (p. 46).

In chapter 5 (“The book of Acts and the Land”) Burge shows Luke’s intentional theological structure, which traces Christian’s message and movement. He notes that both begin gradually to discount the Land: He reminds us that Jesus himself only ministered within Israel (Matt 10:5; 15:24). And though the Church begins in Jerusalem (Acts 1-5), it quickly starts moving away from Jerusalem and out of the Land (Acts 6ff). The largest discourse is Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7 (which is the last speech given in Jerusalem): it represents diaspora Judaism outside of Israel rather than Judaism in the Land. Then Acts moves quickly to the Gentile world (Acts 9ff), ultimately focusing on and emphasizing Paul’s ministry in bringing in Gentiles.

In Acts, Luke does not appear simply to be tracing Christianity’s historical chronological growth. Rather Luke’s structure is more interested in presenting Christianity’s redemptive-historical theology. That is, Christianity is developing away from a Land-based theology to a Christ-based theology, away from a Jewish focus to a Gentile-focus.

As a result of all of this theological-structuring of Christianity’s development, Burge shows that “early Christian preaching is utterly uninterested in a Jewish eschatology devoted to the restoration of the land” (p. 59; emph. his). And this is despite the fact that Paul usually begins his ministry in diaspora synagogues before reaching out to the Gentiles. Thus, Acts shows that “the Land of Promise was the source of Christianity’s legacy but no longer its goal” (p. 61). Thus, “the striking thing is that Paul here can refer to the promise of Abraham and not refer to the Land of Promise. . . . Paul is consistent with all the speeches in the book of Acts. Paul as well as Peter can consistently ignore the central elements in Abraham’s life according to Jewish teaching: land and progeny” (p. 68).

Though I wish he had developed the issue further, I was pleased to see that Burge at least holds to a semi-preterist understanding of Revelation, a view that is generally called the “idealist-preterist” approach. He even allows that Babylon “may also refer to Jerusalem, but also alludes to Rome itself” (p. 105). What is more, he states that “it may be that the harlot refers to Jerusalem or the high priest in his final corruption before the war” (p. 106) — which happens to be the view that I am developing in my commentary on Revelation. Thus, regarding the Land and the Book of Revelation, Burge properly notes: “In Revelation it is the Holy Land that becomes a land of violence toward the people of God and in the end is subject to judgment and devastation” (p. 108). This is right on target, and well put.

I highly recommend this book as a judicious and insightful study of the question of the Land of Israel in Scripture and theology. It deserves wide reading and discussion. Order it from NiceneCouncil.com today. In fact, I recommend ordering two copies so that you can read both to make sure he is consistent.

A Reply to Vince

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

This letter is a response to Vince LaRue who commented on my previous blog: "A Tract for Dispensationalists." For the full text of his comment, see the preceding blog comments.

Vince:

Thanks for your note. Glad you enjoyed the humor. You might want to check some of my older tongue-in-cheek blogs, such as "Witnessing to Dispensationalists" and "Identifying Dispensationalists."

But I wish you recognized the theological significance of the critique. I certainly do not understand your complaint that I don't hold to the final authority of Scripture. I was dealing with Scripture (Ephesians) in the whole article. I was showing the several biblical errors in dispensationalism from this one epistle.

Contrary to your complaint: I believe I do understand dispensationalism. I am a former dispensationalist with a degree in Biblical Studies from a dispensational college (Tennessee Temple University) and studied for two years at a dispensational graduate school (Grace Theological Seminary). For seven years I wrote a monthly newsletter critiquing dispensationalism ("Dispensationalism in Transition"). For my dispensational pedigree you might want to see my September 24, 2009 blog "I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist."

In addition, I have two debate books with dispensationalists. One is The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?, with Dr. Thomas Ice of Tim LaHaye's Pre-Trib Study Center. It is published by a dispensational publisher, Kregel. The other is Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, published by the nation's largest Christian publisher and edited by Darrell L. Bock, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. In 1992 I wrote a 600+ page book critiquing dispensationalism: House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology.

As the Director of NiceneCouncil.com, I was involved in writing the script for our bestselling DVD "The Late Great Planet Church." This is the first in a series of DVDs critiquing dispensationalism.

Since you don't mention any errors in my blog, I can't tell where my critique fails to "hold water" for you.

As for lacking "a cohesive alternative theology": you expect a lot from a blog! I recommend you read my 600 page book He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology. Postmillennialism is my alternative theology. If you don't have time for that, please see my Postmillennialism Made Easy.

And to show a broader cohesion in my theology you might want to check out some of my other books. I have written books on topics as diverse as a defense of six day creation (Yea, Hath God Said?), charismatic theology (The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy), the law of God (Covenantal Theonomy; God's Law Made Easy), the book of Revelation (Before Jerusalem Fell; The Beast of Revelation; Four Views on the Book of Revelation; Revelation Made Easy; Perilous Times), the Christian worldview (The Greatness of the Great Commission), predestination (Predestination Made Easy), and apologetics (Pushing the Antithesis).

A problem I have with dispensationalists is their tendecy to emotionally write-off counter analyses. But this problem only arises when a dispensationalist even considers any contrary viewpoints.

I hope you might check out some of our materials at the NiceneCouncil.com on-line store. I believe you will find we have studied dispensationalism well. And are offering a "cohesive alternative."

A Tract For Dispensationalists

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

In the preceding six articles I worked through Ephesians showing how it is virtually a theological tome against dispensational theology. In this blog I will summarize the preceding studies reducing them to a dispensationalist-sensitive, non-comical, politically-correct, user-friendly, handy-sized, non-fattening tract.

This tract will be suitable for using as you witness to dispensationalist family members, friends, companions, partners, neighbors, acquaintances, associates, comrades, cohorts, helpers, co-workers, colleagues, pastors, Sunday school teachers, elders, deacons, evangelists, missionaries, strangers, drifters, aluminum storm door salesmen . . . whoever. If you find it suitable (if not for hanging, at least for distributing), I hope you will cut-and-paste the material below into a small handout for your victims. They will thank you for it. But I will not — because there is no way I will even know you did so.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Cut Here - - - - - Paste Wherever - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DISPENSATIONALISM AND EPHESIANS

Dispensationalism is a theological system held by untold millions of Bible-believing Christians in thousands of churches across our land. Some of the great evangelists of our day and of the recent past have faithfully preached dispensational truths to who will hear. As a theological system it is user-friendly, presenting a plain-and-simple, literal system of interpretation. None of this complex theologizing: just the literal truth of Scripture!

The Glory of Dispensationalism

One of the distinctive advantages of dispensationalism is that it “rightly divides the word of truth.” That is, it properly sorts out those things in Scripture that belong to Israel and those which belong to the Church. It recognizes that the current Church Age was unknown to the Old Testament prophets and is a temporary aside in the major plan of God as his prophetic time-clock was put on hold in the first century when Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah. In this age we are awaiting the Rapture and the consequent conversion of Israel during the Great Tribulation.

Dispensationalism greatly extols Israel as “the apple of God’s eye.” It recognizes the future glory awaiting them when Christ returns to the earth to re-build their temple and to establish his millennial kingdom headquartered in their holy city, Jerusalem. This system of biblical truth promises that we will rule and reign with Christ as the glorious Old Testament prophecies finally come to perfect fulfillment.

Many of us have grown up in homes where the Scofield Reference Bible was held in high esteem. We have attended churches and Sunday schools where we learned that we are living in the last times just preceding the Rapture of the Church. Our parents and pastors have encouraged us to live expectantly, awaiting the time when God will again turn his attention to Israel. What could be more exciting?

Is this your experience as a Christian? Do these doctrinal commitments sound like your own? Have you experienced this excitement of living in the end times? You are not alone. For tens of millions of Christians this outlook on Scripture and the world is the very foundation of their spiritual lives and religious commitments.

Dispensationalism is widely believed and promoted. But is it biblical? That is the question that we must consider if we are truly Bible-believing Christians.

The Challenge of Ephesians

Let us take a brief walk through Ephesians, one of Paul’s most beloved epistles. Let us see if Paul’s outlook is compatible with dispensationalism. Unfortunately, as we will see, Ephesians directly contradicts many of the very foundations to the system that so many hold dear.

We will work our way through Paul’s letter in the order he presents it, rather than in any sort of theological order. As we read along, you may become surprised at how clearly Ephesians conflicts with this beloved system.

(1) Christ is presently ruling in his kingdom

Dispensationalism teaches that Christ is not presently enthroned as king. His enthronement awaits the future establishment of his kingdom during the millennium. But in Ephesians 1 Paul teaches that Christ was already established as the king and enthroned in the first century. His statement shows that Christ is not now awaiting his future kingly reign.

In Ephesians 1:20–23 Paul declares:

“He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.”

Note the following complicating problems that arise from this statement.

First, we see quite clearly that Jesus in fact has already been seated at God’s right hand in heaven. This being “seated” (note the past tense) at “God’s right hand” obviously speaks of his being seated at God’s throne in heaven. After all, Jesus himself declares elsewhere that he “sat down with My Father on his throne” (cp. Mark 16:19; Acts 7:56; Heb 8:1; 1 Pet 3:22).

In fact, when he was being tried by the rulers of Israel they asked him if he was the Christ. He chastised them for not believing him in this regard (Luke 22:66–78). He then warned them that he was soon to be seated with God in heaven: “But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69). No postponement theory here: in the very context of Israel’s formal, official, and final rejection of him he declared that he would be “seated at the right hand of the power of God” despite their rejection.

Second, we further learn that his throne is in heaven and not on the earth. This contradicts a fundamental of dispensationalism’s premillennial scheme. The Messianic throne is not a literal throne on earth, it is a spiritual reality in heaven. Thus, his reign does not involve political and bureaucratic rule. Rather it is a spiritual-redemptive reality. The earthly kingship of Christ is absolutely denied by Paul.

Third, this enthronement in Ephesians gives Christ authority “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” Indeed, God “put all things in subjection under His feet.” This is as high an authority as is possible. What would be the point of his coming to the earth to rule in a literal millennium? He is the ruler of all things now. Why would he come to rule in Jerusalem in a millennium? Why would he leave his heavenly throne where he rules universally to return to his earthly footstool to rule locally (Isa 66:1; Matt 5:35; Acts 7:49)?

Fourth, in fact, Paul says that Christ’s rule continues “not only in this age [right now!], but also in the one to come.” If dispensationalists claim that Christ is not now ruling, then what is Paul talking about? Paul sees Christ’s current function at the right hand of God as not only present now, but as continuing into the future age which lies beyond the present age. Put in the best possible light for dispensationalism, they should argue that his kingship takes a new form in the millennium. But their peculiar system construct will not allow this. In their view, Christ’s kingdom was presented, rejected, and postponed. He is not now in any way reigning as king.

Fifth, this kingly rule of Christ is related “to the church.” And this church is “His body.” But the church is the very redemptive-historical institution that dispensationalism distinguishes from Israel — and therefore from the millennial kingdom. In fact, in their dispensational structuring of history (“rightly dividing the word of truth”), the present age is the Church Age, which is to be followed by (and distinguished) from the Kingdom Age (the millennium).

(2) We are presently ruling with Christ

Dispensationalism teaches that Christ’s future literal rule from a literal throne will include our reigning with him But since his kingdom is not now present, then obviously we are not now reigning with Christ. But Ephesians contradicts such an interpretation.

In Ephesians 2:4–6 we read:

“God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:4–6).

And where had Paul just stated that Christ was seated? According to Ephesians 1:20–21 God “raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” He is at God’s right hand ruling over all.

According to the plain-and-simple method of literal interpretation our enthronement must wait until after the second coming of Christ at the Rapture. Why does Paul here speak in the past tense by using the aorist verbal forms of “raised” and “seated?” Why does he teach that Christians in the first century are already enthroned with Christ, that is, that they are already ruling and reigning with him in his kingdom?

And Paul is not alone in this: Peter calls first-century Christians a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet 2:9), i.e., a kingdom of priests. And even John, does the same — long before he speaks of the millennium (which occurs in only one chapter in all of the Bible, which happens also to be its most difficult book) and our reigning with Christ as kings and priest (Rev 20:6). John states in the past tense: “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father” (Rev 1:6).

To seal the matter, Paul even mentions the celebration of Christ’s enthronement in Ephesians 4. He speaks of his enthronement in terms reflecting a formal Roman triumph where the conquering ruler returns to his capital and divides the spoil with his jubilant citizens. In Ephesians 4:8 Paul states regarding the heavenly-enthroned Christ: “When He ascended on high, / He led captive a host of captives, / And He gave gifts to men.”

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) The mystery of the Church was revealed in the Old Testament

The Prophecy Study Bible (2001; hereinafter PSB) defines the mystery character of the Church:
“A mystery or hidden secret in the biblical sense was something in the mind and plan of God but unknown to mankind until it was revealed in the New Testament. Here the mystery is not merely that Gentiles would be blessed . . , which was predicted and well known. The mystery, not known in Old Testament times, was that believing Jews and believing Gentiles would be united as fellow heirs within the same body, to be sharers of God’s promise in Christ through the gospel” (PSB 1388).

Indeed, PSB (1338) explains that “the word ‘mystery’ is often used to describe a New Testament truth not revealed in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:3–5, 9; Col. 1:26–27).” The “prophecy of Christ’s Church is carefully defined by the apostle Paul as a ‘mystery, which from the beginning of the of the ages [i.e., eternity past] has been hidden in God’ (Eph. 3:9). . . . The Church itself was a mystery hidden in God until the revelation in the New Testament” (PSB 1286).

However, once again, Paul contradicts this dispensational view, as we see when we look closely at one of the very verses used to support the system. Ephesians 3:1–10 reads as follows:

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles — if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.”

Paul certainly states that “by revelation there was made known to me the mystery.” We are clearly dealing with a biblical mystery, and one that was especially revealed to Paul. But notice what he actually says:

1. Paul states that “in other generations [it] was not made known to the sons of men” (Eph 3:5a). By “sons of men” Paul is referring broadly of all men, especially those outside of Israel, the Gentiles. He uses the phrase that often appears in the Old Testament to refer to men generically, the wider human race.

David uses this phrase in Psalm 14:2 in speaking of the fool who says there is no God and who works wickedness in order to “eat up my people” (Psa 14:4). We see this generic usage also in Psalm 21:10; 31:19; etc. Indeed, the psalmist declares that “the Lord looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men” (Psa 33:19; cp. 53:2; Jer 32:19). Even when he uses the term inclusively as including Israel, it is because Israel is a part of the whole human race. Ecclesiastes frequently employs the phrase generically (Eccl 1:13; 2:3; 3:10, 18–19; 8:11; 9:3, 12). Daniel 2:38 agrees.

Thus, Paul is teaching that the human race outside of Israel as such did not know the blessings God had in store for them. Paul has been commissioned to take this news to them: “of which I was made a minister’ according to the gift of God’s grace” (Eph 3:7). We must remember that he was appointed as the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5; 11:13; Gal 2:8; Eph 3:5–6; 1 Tim 2:7).

2. Paul continues by adding: “as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Eph 3:5b). The word “as” is a comparative. That is, this revelation was not revealed during the Old Testament era to the degree that it is now revealed in the New Testament. He is comparing the revelation of the mystery in the Old Testament to its fuller revelation in the New Testament. Thus, the earlier revelation was not to the same degree as that which “has now been revealed to his Holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.” We must not overlook the comparative.
3. In fact, we know he is speaking comparatively, not only because of he uses the word “as,” but because of what he states at the end of Romans. In Romans 16:25–27 we read:

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.”

Note that in this passage he clearly declares that this mystery “now is manifested,” but then immediately adds: “and by the Scriptures of the prophets.” Here he speaks of the Old Testament Scripture for he opens Romans by a similar expression. At Romans 1:2 he speaks of the promise “beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2), which definitely refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. Indeed, all through Romans he refers to the Old Testament as “the Scripture[s]” (Rom 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4), just as he does elsewhere (1 Cor 15:3–4; Gal 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Tim 5:18).

Thus, this “mystery” is a revelation of God that cannot be accessed by man’s unaided wisdom. But it appeared before in the Old Testament Scriptures, though it is now made more central and clear in the New Testament. In fact, Paul even adds in Romans 16:26b that this “has been made known to all the nations.” So then, this mystery is no longer confined to Israel in her covenantal Scriptures, but is now being proclaimed to all the nations.

Conclusion

My dispensationalist friend: Though your system is touted as plain and simple, the fact is that it actually contradicts Scripture. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians shows that several of its very foundation stones are mistaken. Dispensationalism is an erroneous, non-biblical system. You really should re-think it.

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism (Part 6)

Part 6: The Hidden Church
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Introduction

As you may discern from my cleverly repeating the descriptor “Part 6” in both the title and sub-title of this blog, this is Part 6 of a series. I carefully numbered these for the benefit of you the reader. I never even contemplated inserting a mysterious gap in the series, thereby leaping from Part 5 to Part 7. Nor after the last installment will I again revert to an early number (as when dispensationalists re-institute old covenant-like features). For those of you who may have suspected that I am a closet dispensationalist this is strong evidence against such a notion: No dispensational enthusiast can resist imposing gaps in their theology. In fact, gaps are necessary in their exegesis of the biblical record to make their system look like it is working properly.

But of what is this Part 6? By parity of reasoning, one should surmise that Part 6 implies preceding parts that lead step-by-step to this one. Perhaps you are one of the people who have not been reading this blog (there are 6.7 billion of you). If so, read the next paragraph. If not, read it anyway: you do not want to impose a gap in your reading.

So then, of what is this a part? I have been presenting a series that provides a one-stop-shopping refutation of dispensationalism by focusing on Ephesians. Like the evangelistic tool known as “The Romans Road to Salvation” (which presents the gospel wholly from within Romans), I have been presenting “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism” which shows from this one letter of Paul several debilitating, crippling, incapacitating, enervating, disabling, and down-right fatal errors within dispensationalism. After carefully reading Ephesians you may adopt dispensationalism for fun and profit, to be sure. But you can never adopt it as a result of biblical exegesis: it is flatly mistaken and fundamentally confused. Dispensationalism is truly a non-prophet organization.

This will be our final presentation from Ephesians. Paul’s practice is generally to lay down doctrinal statements first, then apply those to the lives of his audience. Thus, in Ephesians he lays down his doctrine in chapters 1–3. Then at Ephesians 4:1 he begins by an important “therefore” statement to make practical application of those doctrines: “I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called.”

Dispensationalism’s Mysterious Position

As we saw in a previous blog, in dispensationalism the Church of Jesus Christ is a secondary, temporary plan of God, a Plan B. God’s first (Old Testament era), final (millennial era), and most important plan regards Israel, not the Church. What is more, not only is the Church secondary in dispensationalism, but it is deemed wholly unknown and unrevealed in the Old Testament. Dispensationalism does not stop at simply making errors: they make errors and then exaggerate them.

Interestingly, one of the key passages that dispensationalism uses to prove that the Church was not prophesied in the Old Testament is Ephesians 3:3–6. Let us see how this is so, then respond.

Dispensationalism’s color-coded and multi-charted presentation with its Jehovah’s Witness-like graphics study Bible is known as the Prophecy Study Bible (2001; hereinafter PSB). At Ephesians 3:3–6 it defines Paul’s mystery:

“A mystery or hidden secret in the biblical sense was something in the mind and plan of God but unknown to mankind until it was revealed in the New Testament. Here the mystery is not merely that Gentiles would be blessed . . , which was predicted and well known. The mystery, not known in Old Testament times, was that believing Jews and believing Gentiles would be united as fellow heirs within the same body, to be sharers of God’s promise in Christ through the gospel” (PSB 1388).

Indeed, PSB (1338) explains that “the word ‘mystery’ is often used to describe a New Testament truth not revealed in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:3–5, 9; Col. 1:26–27).” The “prophecy of Christ’s Church is carefully defined by the apostle Paul as a ‘mystery, which from the beginning of the of the ages [i.e., eternity past] has been hidden in God’ (Eph. 3:9). . . . The Church itself was a mystery hidden in God until the revelation in the New Testament” (PSB 1286). In fact, of this mystery in Ephesians 3:3–4, 9 the PSB (1402) explains: “Unknown to Israel before Christ, the revelation of this truth was given to Paul and is being fulfilled in the Church Age.”

And it is not just this populist, cartoonish “study” Bible that argues thus. In the Popular Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (2004:54) we read: “The New Testament teaches that the church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament (Romans 16:25–26; Ephesians 3:2–10; Colossians 1:25–27).”

Even the famed Charles Ryrie in his Dispensationalism (1995:124) agrees: “The Old Testament does predict Gentile blessing for the millennial period . . , but the specific blessings do not include equality with the Jews as is true today in the Body of Christ.”

Elsewhere Paul Benware in his Understanding End Times Prophecy (1995:86) writes:

“The church and Israel are not the same because the Body of Christ is said to be a ‘mystery’ by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 3:3–6 and Colossians 1:26. In the New Testament a ‘mystery’ is a truth that was not revealed previously in the Old Testament. . . . This mystery was known only to God until He chose to reveal it to the apostles.”

But does Ephesians present the Church as a mystery “unknown until it was revealed in the New Testament”? Was it “not known in Old Testament times”? Was it really “unknown to Israel before Christ”? Did the Old Testament revelation not “include equality with the Jews” in its prophecies? Was this truth “not revealed previously in the Old Testament”?


Dispensationalism’s Manifest Error

Paul will have nothing of this. His words in Ephesians 3 are being distorted so greatly that they are made to state the very opposite of what he intended. Let us see how this is so. Let us see how this Ephesians road leads t he thinking Christian out of dispensationalism.

Paul’s full statement in Ephesians 3:1–10 reads as follows:

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles — if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.”

Paul certainly states that “by revelation there was made known to me the mystery.” We are clearly dealing with a biblical mystery, and one that was especially revealed to Paul. But notice what he actually says:

1. The “sons of men.” Paul states that “in other generations [it] was not made known to the sons of men” (Eph 3:5a). By “sons of men [Gk.: huiois ton anthropon]” Paul is referring broadly to all men, especially those outside of Israel, the Gentiles. He uses the phrase that often appears in the Old Testament to refer to men generically, the wider human race.

David uses this phrase in Psalm 14:2 in speaking of the fool who says there is no God and who works wickedness in order to “eat up my people” (Psa 14:4). We see this generic usage also in Psalm 21:10; 31:19; etc. Indeed, the psalmist declares that “the Lord looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men” (Psa 33:19; cp. 53:2; Jer 32:19). Even when he uses the term inclusively as including Israel, it is because Israel is a part of the whole human race. Ecclesiastes frequently employs the phrase generically (Eccl 1:13; 2:3; 3:10, 18–19; 8:11; 9:3, 12). Daniel 2:38 agrees.

Thus, Paul is teaching that the human race outside of Israel as such did not know the blessings God had in store for them. Paul has been commissioned to take this news to them: “of which I was made a minister’ according to the gift of God’s grace” (Eph 3:7). We must remember that he was appointed as the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5; 11:13; Gal 2:8; Eph 3:5–6; 1 Tim 2:7).

2. “As it has now been revealed.” Paul continues by adding: “as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Eph 3:5b). The word “as” (hos) is a comparative. That is, this revelation was not revealed during the Old Testament era to the greater degree as it is now revealed in the New Testament. He is comparing the revelation of the mystery in the Old Testament to its fuller revelation in the New Testament. Thus, the earlier revelation was not to the same degree as that which “has now been revealed to his Holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.” We must not overlook the comparative.

3. Paul’s statement elsewhere. In fact, we know he is speaking comparatively, not only because of he uses the word hos, but because of what he states at the end of Romans. In Romans 16:25–27 we read:

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.”

Note that in this passage he clearly declares that this mystery “now is manifested,” but then immediately adds: “and by the Scriptures of the prophets.” Here he speaks of the Old Testament Scripture for he opens Romans by a similar expression. At Romans 1:2 he speaks of the promise “beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2), which definitely refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. Indeed, all through Romans he refers to the Old Testament as “the Scripture[s]” (Rom 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4), just as he does elsewhere (1 Cor 15:3–4; Gal 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Tim 5:18).

Thus, this “mystery” is a revelation of God that cannot be accessed by man’s unaided wisdom. But it appeared before in the Old Testament Scriptures, though it is now made more central and clear in the New Testament. In fact, Paul even adds in Romans 16:26b that this “has been made known to all the nations.” So then, this mystery is no longer confined to Israel in her covenantal Scriptures, but is now being proclaimed to all the nations.

Conclusion

I am now concluding this brief series. Though in my next blog I will bring together all of these thoughts into a brief tract that you might useful for giving to your dispensational friends. I will leave out the tongue-in-cheek humor so as to make the study more useful in your theological evangelism.

As a master builder Paul lays down several nice pavement stones for his Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism. In Ephesians we do not discover a stray, unclear statement that might conflict with dispensationalism. We find one statement after another in the doctrinal portion of Ephesians that clearly and overtly contradicts several of dispensationalism’s main tenants. We have in Ephesians Paul’s six-fold witness against this wide-spread, confusing doctrinal construct.

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism (Part 5)

Part 5: Forward to the Past
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Introduction

In my past four blogs (seven, if you have a time machine and have driven into the future and have already read all of them) I have been presenting Paul’s case against dispensationalism as found in his Epistle to the Ephesians. Just as evangelicals use “The Romans Road to Salvation” as an evangelistic tool, I believe we can reach out to dispensationalists by employing “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.”

We need to understand an important reality: dispensationalism is not simply an eschatological outlook, a prophetic construct. Rather it is a whole, complex, and distinctive theology. And as a theological system it differs from mainline evangelical theology in many areas, impacting most of the formal loci of systematic theology.

Dispensationalism’s theological problems arise from its devastating mistakes regarding: (1) the role and function of Israel, (b) the proper apostolic interpretation of prophecy, (iii) the unified, progressive nature of redemptive history, and (four) . . . I forgot what I was going to say. These system errors (at least the first three I mention, since I cannot remember the fourth — though I am sure it was a good one) are absolutely destructive of a biblical construct for systematic theology.

One of the most remarkable and disturbing aspects of dispensationalism is its inherent redemptive retrogression. Dispensationalism necessarily requires a future re-institution of blood sacrifices to be conducted in a rebuilt temple under the direction of a new, formal line of priests. It rejects the biblical view that Christ is the final redemptive blood-letting in that he is the conclusive, perfect fulfillment of the sacrificial system. Though in the millennium “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid” (Isa 11:6) and though “the wolf and the lamb shall feed together” (Isa 65:25), the lamb and the kid had better keep a wary eye out for any approaching priest.

Once again, Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians exposes dispensational error. And this time one of their most bizarre errors. Let us see what Paul has to say about the matter.

The Rebuilt Temple and the Old Testament

In order to exalt Israel, to restore her to where she left off in redemptive-history, to re-institute her sacrificial system, and to employ a long line of priests, dispensationalism applies its off-and-on-again literalistic sleight-of-hand hermeneutic to argue for a rebuilt temple. As they read the Old Testament (divorced from any knowledge of Christ, the Apostles, and the New Testament) dispensationalists note Old Testament statements regarding the temple which suggest to them that it will be built again in the future.

For instance, 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).

Before I proceed further I must briefly comment on DPT’s listing of prophetic passages, using its first two cited prophecies by way of example: Isaiah 1:24–2:4 and Isaiah 4:2–6.

Regarding the Isaiah 1:24–2:4 proof-text: Oddly enough, dispensationalism’s (occasional, though erratic and sometimes dizzying, but always fun) literalistic approach to this prophecy produces an absolute absurdity. It requires the ridiculous notion that Jerusalem will actually “will be established as the chief of the mountains, / and will be raised above the hills” (Isa 2:2b). Somehow Jerusalem will remain intact as the tectonic upheaval and its consequent mountain-thrusting forces raise Mount Zion to new heights.

Furthermore, despite the enormous difficulties involved in scaling this mountain, “all the nations” will stream to it — even though it is now on a mountain higher than Mt. Everest (apparently snow tires will be much more effective in the millennium than they are today).

What is more, Jerusalem itself will dwarf the mountain upon which it sits, for it will be 1500 miles high — according to the often-literalistic, ever system-building hermeneutic approach to Revelation 21:16. And yet the world population (using today’s figures, which probably are lower than those of the peace-enhanced millennium) of six billion people will gather three times a year in Jerusalem for worship festivals (Deut 16:16). The traffic congestion will be awful, probably worse than the famed Orange Crush in Orange County, California where I-5 and Highways 22 and 57 come together.

Despite the enormous height of the orogenically (tectonics + volcanism = orogenesis) re-shaped mountain and the even more impressive size of the city, the upper winds apparently will be stilled (perhaps due to their being over 1470 miles above the earth’s atmosphere — they surely will have petered out at that distance). After all, according to DPT’s second set of proof-texts (which does not even mention a temple, by the way) the smog will be suffocating — virtually on the order of the thermal-inertia-induced Venusian atmosphere. Note that the verse states (literalistically!) that “the Lord will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, even smoke” (Isa 4:5). Thus, the “whole area of Mount Zion” — not part of it, that would not be literalistic! — will be covered by “smoke.” Apparently this is at least partly due to the automotive exhaust emitted by enormous number of cars necessary for carrying six billion people to the thrice-yearly festivals.

But we are analyzing Paul’s “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.” What does Ephesians have to say about all of this? I mean what does it say about all of this beyond that fact that Jesus is enthroned “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:21) which (according to dispensational exegesis) matches perfectly with his ruling from a 1500 mile high Jerusalem?

The Rebuilt Temple and Ephesians

We have been seeing that Paul is not a dispensationalist. What is more, we have noted that his letter to the Ephesians serves as a blatant, point-for-point rebuttal to dispensationalism. Let us now consider Paul’s understanding of the rebuilt temple.

Paul is a blatant spiritualizer, according to the dispensational system. For 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). Remember: the prophecies of the glorious, rebuilt temple refer to the millennial temple, not the tribulation temple because “the tribulation temple will be built by unbelieving Jews . . . [whereas] the millennial temple will be built by the Messiah (Zech. 6:12–13) and redeemed Jews” (DPT 404).

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.

Conclusion

Paul’s writings destroy dispensationalism — which may explain why dispensationalists prefer to take Old Testament texts on their own, apart from any New Testament understanding. Truly, Paul provides a tract for our times, an “Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.”

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism (4)

Part 4: Promises, Promises
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com


Introduction

In this blog I am continuing a study in Ephesians which shows that Paul’s theology contradicts the foundational teachings of dispensationalism. As I noted in the preceding articles (which I have cleverly named: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3): It seems almost as if Paul intentionally designed Ephesians to undermine dispensationalism. Ephesians is virtually a tract to reach out to dispensationalists. Thus, I am outlining “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.”

Of course, if you are a dispensationalist you might initially be tempted to thump your desk (being careful not to strike your mouse so that you lose your Internet connection) and loudly yodel: “Ah ha!!! So then: you admit dispensationalism existed in the first century!!! I rest my case!!!” (Dispensationalists use abundant exclamation points when they speak or write: such is their excitement.)

However, this clever response will not do. After all, in Ephesians 4:11 Paul notes that God “gave some as apostles, and some as prophets.” Indeed, he himself is an apostle possessing prophetic powers, for elsewhere he clearly states: “I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge” (1 Cor 13:2). Thus, he could well have been looking down the unfolding centuries to Dublin, Ireland in October, 1827 when J. N. Darby fell off his horse and struck his head so hard that he came up with the idea of dispensationalism. (When most of us fall of our horses and strike our heads we do not come up with whole new theological constructs. But such was the genius of Darby: he could multi-task.)

Furthermore, we must remember that Paul was not only prophetically-gifted but deeply concerned for his flock. Thus while originally among the Ephesians (Acts 20:17) he prophesied: “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking silly things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29–30. Note: some manuscripts of Acts have the Latin word sillius [“silly”] here instead of the Greek word diestrammena [“perversities”]. This textual variant suggests that Paul knew theological innovators were often comedians.)

(I would also point out that 1 Tim 4:1 reads: “the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to silly spirits and doctrines of dispensationalists” [1 Tim 4:1]. I confess though that this textual reading also includes two variants that may be translated “silly” and “dispensationalists.” Apparently early copyists realized that Paul was speaking of the year 1830 when the dispensational system was finally completed and presented to the world — just in time for the Powerscourt Conferences in 1831–33.)

Israel’s Promises and Jesus’ Church

Now let us move on in our study of Paul’s anti-dispensational polemic. Actually, let us back-up. In my last blog I worked my way through Ephesians 2:19. I will now return to Ephesians 2:11–12 to demonstrate the unthinkable: Paul applies to the new covenant church the old covenant promises given to Israel. This single theological truth absolutely destroys dispensationalism.

In the dispensational view Paul failed to “rightly divide the word of truth.” He foolishly read the Old Testament in the light of the interpretive teaching of Jesus and his divinely-inspired apostles. He should have continued reading the Old Testament as if Jesus had never come and had never rebuked the Jews for misinterpreting Scripture (Matt 22:29; Mark 12:24; Luke 25–27; John 5:39). He should have not depended on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to assist him in understanding the Scriptures. Dispensationalists even argue that he committed a hermeneutic stumble when he wrote in Ephesians “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him” (Eph 1:17; cp. John 14:26; 16:13; Acts 2:16–18; Rom 7:6; 8:5; 1 Cor 2:10–15; 2 Cor 3:6; Col 1:9; 2 Pet 1:21).

One of the classic problems dispensationalism has created for itself revolves around the new covenant. Jeremiah 31:31–34 speaks of a new covenant that will supersede (uh oh!) the old covenant: “‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord.”

Unfortunately for dispensationalism and their flawed hermeneutic, Jeremiah’s prophecy states that this new covenant will be made “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” Given their random, only-when-needed-to-save-the-system literalism, the dispensational system forbids the establishing of the new covenant with any other people group than Israel. This has generated intense debate within dispensationalism, leading to their proposing four different approaches to Jeremiah’s rather simple prophecy. Apparently, this is their favored way of “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). Indeed, they actually read that text as: “rightly dividing over the word of truth,” that is, they divide themselves up into warring camps while deconstructing biblical texts.

The problem for dispensationalism arises from Jesus’ own teaching. The Lord clearly establishes this new covenant when he ordains the Lord’s Supper as one of the two sacraments for his new covenant church: “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood’” (Luke 22:20; cp. 1 Cor 11:25). What Jesus is effectively doing is declaring a “new Israel”: the new covenant church.

In my last blog I noted that Paul saw Jew and Gentile merged — permanently — in one body, the church (Eph 2:11–19). Now I 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. That is, 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 bear 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.

Is this not demanded by Christ’s own establishing of the Lord’s Supper as the new covenant sacrament for his church? Was not Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5; 11:13; Gal 2:8; 1 Tim 2:7), a promoter of the new covenant, calling himself a “servant of the new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6)? Did he not explain the new covenant sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to the church at Corinth (1 Cor 11:23–25ff) — which he received from the Lord himself (1 Cor 11:23a)?

Of course, the application of Jewish promises and prophecies is abundantly taught throughout the New Testament (which is why dispensationalists want to interpret the Old Testament alone, as if Christ had not come). But our interest is here in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians. This apostle to the Gentiles includes Christian Gentiles among the members of “the commonwealth of Israel” and under “the covenants of promise.” Thus, he sees the church as the recipient of the old covenant promises and prophecies.

Conclusion

That’s all. I’m tired.

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism (3)

Part 3: Separating What God Has Joined Together
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Don’t you think the British have a funny way of pronouncing “aluminum”? I only mention this because an important key to good writing is opening with an effective “hook” to grab your reader’s attention. Now that I have your attention please go to the next paragraph.

This is my third installment in my series titled “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.” (Now you can see why I didn’t want to open with this rather boring sentence. No zest whatsoever. In fact, it wearies me to think about it.) In my mission work among the dispensationalists I have found that Ephesians is a helpful epistle for exposing several of their leading theological errors — and in a compressed, self-contained format. It is almost as if Paul wrote it as a tract to reach out to them as he ministered among the Jews in the synagogues (for that is precisely where you would find the dispensationalists gathering to learn more about their old covenant future in the millennium where they will be the Jews’ servants).

Irony in the Theology of Ephesians

It is ironic that Ephesians would be so helpful for summarily critiquing dispensationalism. After all, the word “dispensation” occurs only four times in the Bible (in the King James Version) and two of them are in Ephesians (Eph 1:10; 3:2). That the word also appears in Colossians 1:25 is expected since it is known as the “twin epistle” of Ephesians because it covers much of the same material and in the same general order. Colossians is as similar to Ephesians as Jude is to 2 Peter. And it as similar to Ephesians as Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth is to all other dispensational books.

Nor should we be surprised to find the word “dispensation” in 1 Corinthians 9:17. After all, that church suffers a great number of debilitating problems. Indeed, the word “ignorant” occurs in the Corinthian corpus more than in any other epistles sent to one community: 1 Cor 10:1; 12:1; 14:38; 2 Cor 1:8; 2:11 (KJV).

The irony of Ephesians being a contra-dispensational missive is intensified when we note another startling fact. In the NASB version exactly twenty-five verses in Ephesians contain words that start with the exact same letter as does the word “rapture”: redemption (1:7, 14; 4:30); riches (1:7; 3:8, 15), reason (1:15; 3:1, 14; 5:14), revelation, reveal, or revealed (1:17; 3:3, 5), riches or rich (1:17; 2:4, 7), raised (1:20; 2:6), right (1:20), rule (1:21), rest (2:3), result (2:9; 4:14), remember (2:11, 12), reconcile (2:16), referring (3:4), read (3:4), rulers (3:10; 6:12), rooted (3:16), reference (4:22; 5:32), renewed (4:23), righteousness (4:24; 5:9; 6:14), rather (as an adverb, not as the family name of the former CBS news anchor, 4:28; 5:4), respect (5:33), render (6:7), receive (6:8), and resist (6:13).

This indisputable phenomenon can be no more an “accident” of translation history than the fact that the seven churches of Revelation outline church history with dates involving precise increments of tens. According to the Scofield Reference Bible each age of the church both starts and ends with dates that are perfectly divisible by ten. Furthermore, that exactly twenty-five words would start with “r” in an English translation cannot be an accident. As everyone knows, twenty-five is the sum of two twelves (the number of the tribes of Israel), with a one thrown in just for fun.

Getting Our Bearings

In my two preceding installments I noted that: (1) Christ is currently enthroned as Messianic king (Eph 1:20-23). He is not awaiting a postponed kingdom opportunity as per dispensationalism. (2) We are currently ruling and reigning with him (Eph 2:6). We are not awaiting a postponed kingdom of priests as per dispensationalism. These are debilitating observations for dispensationalism which is rigorously premillennial, expecting Christ’s future kingdom and our future reigning with him.

In this article I will show that God has merged Jew and Gentile into one body — finally and forever. This one point all by itself destroys the whole dispensational scheme. After all it contradicts one of its two foundation stones: the distinction between Israel and the church. (The other fundamental is the “literal” interpretation of Scripture which is used randomly as a deus ex machina to make the system appear to work.)

The Jew and Gentile Merger

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 (and self-destructively): “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

In introducing the sine qua non of dispensationalism (p. 38) he discounts three issues that some might consider essential. He notes that “distinguishably different economies [in God’s] governing the affairs of the world” is not distinctive — despite the system’s name “dispensationalism.” He then points out more narrowly that even “the number of dispensations” is not a fundamental issue — despite the dominant affirmation among dispensationalists of seven distinct dispensations. He finally denies that “the issue of premillennialism” is determinative of dispensationalism.

When he finally comes to stating the sine qua non he begins with the Israel / church distinction. This is a fatal admission, for it contradicts the clear New Testament revelation and destroys the flow of redemptive history. Let us see how this is so.

We must note two aspects of the matter that come back to haunt 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?

We must first ask the question regarding the dispensationalist’s assumption: Who makes up the people known as “Israel”? The obvious answer is “Jews,” the genetic offspring of Abraham. But then the question arises in the debate: Does God establish a new entity in redemptive-history which also includes Jews? The answer is: Yes. The church of Jesus Christ. In fact, it was established in the very context and on the foundation of Israel.

Indeed, 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 will not leave the matter alone, for 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 refuses to cave to the Jews and dispensationalists of his day 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 comes dangerously close to becoming a classic bore when 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 risks never being able to enroll in Dallas Theological Seminary by absolutely and positively refusing to cease and desist as he becomes stuck in a groove like a broken record (Or to update this cliche: like a CD with a child’s candy-sticky fingerprint on it. I don’t think this will ever catch on though. We are stuck with the older cliche. But as a writer I hold the rule: “Avoid cliches like the plague.” So let’s forget this whole cliche enterprise and move on): “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.

10. He risks becoming an absolute and detestable bore at rapture parties by droning interminably: “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. When will it all end? Can we never rapture out of this endless loop-cycle? 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.

How many different ways can the denial of a distinction between Jew and Gentile be stated? I am exhausted in laboring through this repetitive passage. Paul’s theology has absolutely no place for the first sine qua non of dispensationalism. And remember: sine qua non means “without which [there is] nothing.” That is, “without this element there is no system.” Though it is an essential definitive precondition for dispensationalism Paul will not allow it to stand.

Elsewhere Paul claims to be a “master builder” who is intent on laying “a foundation” (1 Cor 3:10). But here he becomes a one man wrecking crew. He has removed dispensationalism’s chief cornerstone. Like Jesus commanding Lazarus’ friends to “remove the stone” (John 11:39), Paul single-handedly removes this foundation stone. It is almost as if Paul were demanding: “raze it, raze it, to its very foundation” (Psa 137:7). Dispensationalism is not built upon a rock but upon sand. But “if the foundations are destroyed what can the rapturists do?”

But this represents only my first complaint about the matter before us. There is still another. If you read the passage carefully (I dare say you could even read the passage recklessly — even left-handedly — and come to the same conclusion) you will note that the whole tenor of Paul’s theological observation is that: Jew and Gentile have been merged into one body forever. There is absolutely nothing in the passage that hints at or even will allow that this union into one new body is temporary. Everything about the passage demands that this merger be permanent.

Read it again and try to find any intimation that this merger of Jew and Gentile is just temporary until the Rapture or the millennium or whatever. You will find nothing that leads to that conclusion and everything that militates against it:

“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 [singular] household.”

Christ did not preach a temporary “truce” between Jew and Gentile, but a permanent “peace.” He did not suspend the enmity between Jew and Gentile for awhile but “put to death the enmity.” He did not bring the two peoples together for a time (nor even for a time, times, and half a time) but he permanently created a new man. Dispensationalism’s theology requires that ultimately we must separate what God has joined together. It allows the rebuilding of the dividing wall.

Conclusion

I don’t know how badly a system must miss the mark before its adherents admit their mistake and leave it behind. It has been said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. I would say that dispensationalism is a farce resigned to confusion.

If you are still having trouble escaping dispensationalism, I highly recommend that you get our DVD “The Late Great Planet Church.” You really need to rapture out of the system.