Category: Dispensationalism

Galatians 6:16 and “The Israel of God”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

The phrase “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 has long been a matter of contention. Scholars and theologians, as well as pastors and church leaders have debated whether or not the Church should be included in Paul’s descriptor “the Israel of God”. Dispensationalists in particular are very concerned that we not include the Church as part of “the Israel of God”. Obviously the interpretation of this verse has theological implications.

What I find interesting is how much trouble has been spent on this verse to avoid the Church (believing Gentiles and Jews) being referred to by the precise term “Israel”. Why should that term be more important than the following terms which all clearly teach that the Church shares much continuity with Old Testament, believing Israel?

Gentile Christians (who, in part make up “the Church”) are called:

  • those who share “the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”, and thus share in “the promise” (Rom. 4:16, with vs. 13)
  • Jews (Rom. 2:27-29, compare Rev. 2:9, 3:9)
  • “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29)
  • children of “the Jerusalem above” who is “our mother” (Gal. 4:26)
  • “like Isaac”, they are “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28)
  • formerly, Gentile Christians were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise” now they are “no longer strangers and aliens” but are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:12,19)
  • “the real circumcision” (Phil. 3:3)
  • “the offspring of Abraham” for whom Christ died (Heb. 2:16)
  • recipients of the “new covenant” (Hebrews chapters 8 & 10, and 2 Cor. 3:6, compare Jer. 31:31-34)
  • “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion“, “elect exiles“, “sojourners and exiles” (James 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1, 2:11)
  • “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9 compare Ex. 19:5-6)
  • formerly they were “not a people, but now” they “are God’s people“; formerly they “had not received mercy, but now” they “have received mercy” (1 Pet. 2:10 compare Hosea 1:6-10)
  • “a kingdom, priests to… God” (Rev. 1:6, compare 1 Pet. 2:9, Ex. 19:5-6)

This list doesn’t include the sacrifices Gentile Christians bring to God (Rom. 12:1-2, Heb. 12:15-16) nor the idea of the Church being a temple of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20-22, 1 Pet. 2:4-5). Sure one or two of the terms in the list above might be open to dispute. But the cumulative result of all of the titles above seems to be undeniable — Gentile Christians share many titles and privileges with believing Israel of old.

Given this wider Scriptural context, should it be surprising that in Galatians, a book where Paul goes out of his way to affirm in no uncertain terms the equality all believers (Jew and Gentile) share in Christ, that he would call the Church, “the Israel of God”? Again consider Paul’s statements below:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (3:28-29)

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (6:15)

Contextually in Galatians, Paul is arguing for the unity of believers in Christ, and the last part of chapter 6 is a summation of his argument. An unconditional blessing given to a Jewish “Israel of God” seems out of line with the rest of the book. Furthermore, “all who walk by this rule” (stated in vs. 15) seems to qualify the receivers of the “peace and mercy”.

I have read and reviewed O. Palmer Robertson’s book The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow and found his arguments concerning the verse quite compelling. Recently I came across 2 additional articles which deal well with this question.

G.K. Beale’s “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6:16b” (Biblica 80, [1999], pg. 204-223) is fantastic. He shows that Isaiah 54:10 is most likely alluded to in Paul’s very unusual linking of the terms peace and mercy. He demonstrates that the terms are not commonly found together and demonstrates convincingly that the “new creation” motif of Isaiah 54 is likely in Paul’s mind when he penned Galatians 6:16. His analysis sides with the view that “the Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles together (i.e., the Church).

Andreas Köstenberger around the same time as Beale, independently worked on an article entitled: “The Identity of ‘Ισραηλ  Ï„ου Θεου (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16″ (Faith & Mission 19/1 [2001], pg. 3-24). His article approaches the issue from a wider angle analyzing the passage syntactically and theologically. He concludes that the term refers to all the believing Church, whereas the “them” earlier in the verse is more specifically focused on believers at Galatia. He also shows how this verse harmonizes with Rom. 9-11 and Paul’s emphasis there.

The articles above (as well as the book mentioned previously) would be a good read for this topic. Michael Marlowe also includes some historic quotations from earlier commentators on this particular question, at bible-researcher.com.

I don’t think that the term “Israel of God” by itself settles the dispensationalist/covenant theology debate. But I would have to think some nuancing is required for strict dispensationalists. For more on the dispensational / covenant debate, I would also point you to my series “Understanding the Land Promise“.

Albertus Pieters, C.I. Scofield and “Homiletical Certainty”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

Recently, I read a fascinating review of the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible by Albertus Pieters, written in 1938. The book is small, since it was actually a lecture delivered to the Ministerial Association of the Christian Reformed Church at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI.

One of the points which most struck me, was Pieters’ objection to “the oracular and authoritative tone employed throughout” Scofield’s work. I see the same tendency among conservative pastors and teachers. I call the problem “homiletical certainty”.

In matters where a variance of opinion exists among Bible-believing evangelical Christians, I think pastors ought to be somewhat tentative in affirming their own position. Instead, the mere existence of differing interpretations is rarely even acknowledged, let alone mentioned. There is a sense that ministers have a duty to be dogmatic on every point they address behind the pulpit. I’m not so sure that this dogmatism really serves the church in the end.

I am not postmodern or emergent by any stretch, mind you. But a certain amount of theological and homiletical uncertainty is healthy. What is wrong with saying, “this is my opinion for these reasons, but other good Christians disagree”? In fact, finding out why others think the way they do, helps us to truly understand the opposing view. And even when we disagree, we can appreciate differing perspectives. We shouldn’t fear the truth, and if our position really is true, it will withstand any test.

So with this in mind, let me provide some excerpts from Albertus Pieters’ speech about the Scofield Bible. This isn’t so much a rant on Scofield as it is a corrective for the homiletical practices of many preachers today.

Another thing that goes far to explain the widespread use and great influence of this work, is the oracular and authoritative tone employed throughout. Here we come to something we can not praise, although we admit its effectiveness with superficial Bible students — as most people are. Dr. Scofield never by any chance intimates that he may be mistaken, or that any other view is possible but the one he lays down. In one place I did find him presenting three possible alternative explanations, without deciding which was right, but this is a rare exception. For the most part, no infallible Pope could speak with greater certainty and authority than he; and this is true no matter what the subject under discussion. Whether dealing with the great doctrines which are the common confession of all Christendom, or with obscure and doubtful points of eschatology, where the most learned and competent expositors confess themselves at a loss, everywhere it is the same “ipse dixit” style….

In line with this authoritative attitude, and necessitated by it, is the fact that Dr. Scofield never argues, never explains, never apologizes, and never assigns any reasons for asserting that this or that is true…. Had he given his reasons, the intelligent reader would have begun to judge whether these reasons were convincing: by withholding all reasons he gives the impression that, if he did give them, they would be found satisfactory….

Now there are certainly times, places, and circumstances where this is the correct procedure. In teaching small children one can speak thus. The man who proclaims the great Christian doctrines is entitled to speak positively and with authority. He has the Holy Scriptures and the consensus of the Christian church from the beginning with him and behind him as he preaches these truths…. Besides this, any one called to the office of a Christian pastor in a given denomination has both the right and the duty to affirm, in his own pulpit, the distinctive doctrines of his own denomination, without qualification or apology. That is what he is there for; what he has been called to do; what his people want him to do, and understand that he is doing. He speaks not as an individual, but as an official teacher, the mouth-piece of his denomination….

In the case of the Scofield Bible, however, these considerations do not apply. He is not dealing with children, nor is he speaking in any sense in an official and representative capacity. In his presentation of the great central doctrines, he has the whole church behind him, but in a large part of his teachings he represents a minority of a minority, teaching a millennialism which no Christian church has ever admitted to its creed, and of that millennialism a special form which many of the wisest millenarians repudiate. Yet in all of this, as also in his remarks on chronology, and general Bible knowledge, he maintains the same oracular “I know it all” attitude. As a method of inspiring confidence among ignorant people, the method has merits, its effectiveness can not be denied; but from a moral standpoint it deserves severe condemnation. Dr. Scofield had no right thus to assume superiority over his brethren, to whom the Holy Spirit was given as well as to him, and many of whom had qualifications of scholarship far beyond anything he could claim.

In the field of Systematic Theology he is good, for there he utilizes the fruits of the standard Protestant and Calvinistic thinking; but in general Bible knowledge he makes many mistakes, and in his eschatology he goes far astray from anything the church has ever believed. Undoubtedly this oracular and authoritative manner has been effective, but it is not to be excused for that reason. It seems like a harsh judgement, but in the interests of truth it must be uttered: Dr. Scofield in this was acting the part of an intellectual charlatan, a fraud who pretends to knowledge which he does not possess; like a quack doctor, who is ready with a confident diagnosis in many cases where a competent physician is unable to decide. (pg. 7-11)

Read Pieter’s lecture online, and you can reference the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible online too, via Google Books.

Quotes to Note 19: John Gerstner on Literal Interpretation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 18 Comments

A while back I was reading through Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 updated edition]) and came across some profound insights he shared regarding the role “literal interpretation” plays in dispensationalism. Many on both sides of the dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology debate think the issue of a literal, or “overly-literal” hermeneutic determines the debate. If you use the “proper hermeneutic”, from dispensationalism’s perspective, you will interpret the Bible like dispensationalists do.

Gerstner argues that this is not the case. The literal method employed by dispensationalists stems from their pre-conceived over-arching views of prophecy and the Scripture, not the other way around. In pointing this out, I think he helps both sides to see that the argument isn’t as all-pervasive and wholistic as some make it out to be. Listen to Dr. Gerstner below, as I really think he hits on something very important for all to consider, when it comes to our interpretation of Scripture.

…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.

Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theological. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (pg. 80)

Gerstner proceeds to show how in prophecy even dispensationalists find figures of speech and don’t interpret literally across the board. He talks of O.T. Allis’ “point(ing) out that they [i.e. dispensationalists] tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, Canaan must mean Canaan. On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbol.” (ibid, pg. 81)

He then goes on to cite a non-controversial (at least to the participants of this intramural debate) example which highlights how the “literal method” is quite powerless to settle this theological debate.

The real point of divergence is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.

Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.

At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee on one side or liberal/postmodern theology on the other).

*Note: bolded emphasis is mine, I standardized the italicization of individual words where appropriate, too.

Random Thoughts on Eschatology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

Recently, a friend asked for feedback on some thoughts she had shared about eschatology. Her blog post shared a summary and reflection on Kim Riddlebarger’s book A Case For Amillennialism. After I typed up my response, I thought it’d be good to share it here as well, as it gives a good summary of my current perspective on eschatological questions. As R.C. Sproul once said, “When it comes to eschatology, I land like a butterfly with sore feet!”

For me, I think there are a couple guiding principles which lead me in my thinking of Eschatology.

1) The New Testament use of the Old Testament is programmatic. In other words, it is an example of how we are to properly interpret the OT. You certainly can’t get the idea that we should never try to interpret the OT like the NT authors did, from a plain reading of the NT. They speak as if their interpretation is quite clear from the OT texts they are reading, and that they believe it is a normative interpretation.

2) We should interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear passages. In other words, obscure passages in the prophets or Revelation, should not form the foundation of our entire eschatological framework. Clear teaching in the NT epistles and elsewhere (as in the one parousia, and in the relief that we believers will find at the parousia — 2 Thess. 1), should factor in first, before grappling with picturesque language in Revelation, Gospel parables and OT prophecies.

Finally, an additional consideration comes to mind. Ultimately Christ will reign over all the Earth with His people forever. That can safely fulfill all the OT prophecies in a very literal sense. Prior to that eternal kingdom, we certainly have Christ ruling in some sense, even as the kingdom is here in some sense (but not yet fully). So this could be amillennial. But the ultimate rule is going to be much better than anything we have now, so a postmillennial flavor can be seen.

Premillennialism, for me, given that I accept the Church as being part of the one people of God (grafted in as Rom. 11 says), boils down to how you interpret Rev. 20. Nothing else speaks of a duration of time associated with the restored/renewed Davidic kingdom. Sometimes the amil arguments sway me on Rev. 20, but other times the literal exegesis of Rev. 20 seems to sway me the other way. It is an admittedly difficult passage.

To make one’s view of this one passage a litmus test for the level of their faithfulness to the Bible seems unwise to me.

I think that in dealing with Revelation, we need to admit there is much that we aren’t sure of. But the main message of the book is a wonderful blessing. The devil loses, Jesus wins! The bad guys get punished, and God rewards the faithful. Persecution now is not the end. God sees what is done and He will mete out judgment in his time. The plans and city of Man will not prosper. The beastly elements of religion and political might are nothing to Christ. I fear our tribulation saints’ merchandise, our intricate charts and end times maps, all conspire to make us lose the sweet view of the big picture given us in Revelation.

Recommended Resource on Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

My friend Nathan Pitchford has turned several of his essays into books by means of Lulu.com’s self-publishing capabilities. His essays are excellent and several of them got me thinking regarding the problems of dispensationalism. Pitchford’s books are available for free .pdf download so I encourage you all to check them out.

One of his newest books is Themes in Theology vol. 4, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Several of his best essays are in there. You can download the book here, or purchase a print copy here. I’d also encourage you to read the first two essays for sure: Is Dispensationalism Biblical? and Land, Seed and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant. He also includes an appendix with a Scripture verse list on the topic.

One other note about Nathan, he is going to be a guest on Scott Oakland’s ReformedCast podcast tonight. You can listen live at 6pm Central, or get the free download later. He will be sharing his transition from Baptist to Presbyterian. That’s one area I still disagree with Nathan. The show will be worth listening to, however, as I’ve found the Baptism debate is beneficial and can increase your understanding of those in the Church who disagree with your particular position.