Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

Quotes to Note 16: Paul a Minister of the New Covenant

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

A while back I finished Jason Meyer’s excellent new book The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Broadman & Holman). It was there that I first grasped the significance of Paul’s declaration in 2 Cor. 3:6 “who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant“. Meyer argues that Paul was a minister of the new covenant in the same way that he ministered the gospel (see 2 Cor. 4). In other words, the new covenant is intimately related to the gospel. Let me allow Jason Meyer to explain.

…The source of Paul’s competence is not himself… it comes from God… God’s sufficiency surges within God’s new covenant, the base of operations for Paul’s ministry. God’s sufficiency is inherent or intrinsic to His new covenant…. Paul says this new covenant consists “not of the letter, but of the Spirit”….the Spirit defines the new covenant and makes it what it is….

These conclusions should not cause one to miss the semantic and grammatical links between “minister” (diakonos) and “covenant” (diatheke) in v. 6 Porter observed that “minister” (diakon-) words appear throughout the covenantal context of 2 Corinthians 3. The fact that Paul connects the service of his ministry to the concept of covenant is important in determining the relationship between the new covenant and the gospel. Paul presents parallel claims as a servant (diakonos) of the new covenant (kaines diathekes) and a servant (diakonos) of the gospel (euaggeliou). Further evidence emerges in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 where the new covenant is parallel to “gospel” (euaggelion), especially in light of the repetition of previous themes like “glory” and “veiled”…. (pg. 75-78)

This understanding, that the very gospel Paul preached is connected to the new covenant, fits in with Jesus’ inaugurating the new covenant at the Last Supper. It fits with Hebrews 8 and 10 which apply the new covenant to the believing church of today, not a reconstituted Israel or house of Judah in years to come. The new covenant’s promise of a radical experience of the Spirit, fits with the New Testament’s emphasis on the Spirit’s present role in believers. We are living in the age of the new covenant. It is already here, but it is not yet here in the fullest sense.

Eph 2 & Dispensationalism (conclusion)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

–continued from part 2

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

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

The rebuilt temple is the Church of Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eph 2 & Dispensationalism (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

–continued from part 1

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

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

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

Paul sees Gentiles as receiving Jewish promises.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ephesians 2 & Dispensationalism (part 1)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned for part 2 of this series.

Quotes to Note 15b: Sailhamer on How Genesis Intends Joseph’s Life As a Type of the Coming Messiah

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I’m working my way through John Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (IVP). I’m finding multiple nuggets of special insight and blessing; the reward for reading through this 600 page book is well great indeed.

Often the interpretation of the Joseph narratives proves problematic among pastors and evangelical theologians today. Many don’t want to see Joseph’s life as paralleling Christ’s because the New Testament doesn’t expressly indicate that Joseph’s life is typical of the Messiah. But right in Genesis, however, Sailhamer finds a warrant for seeing Joseph’s life typified as an example of what the coming Messiah-King will be like.

…special attention [is] given to Judah in the whole of the Joseph narrative (Gen 37-50). As the story of Joseph’s journey to Egypt is getting underway (Gen 37), the author interrupts the narration to insert a lengthy story about Judah and his “righteous” (Gen 38:26) descendants (Gen 38). Also, when Joseph’s brothers devised a plot to kill him (Gen 37:18), it was Judah, rather than the firstborn, Reuben, who saved Joseph from sudden death. Such “reversals” occur numerous times within the remainder of the Joseph narrative. Judah is singled out from the other brothers as the one through whom the rescue of the family of Jacob was accomplished.

…Joseph’s brothers understood his [dreams] to mean they… would bow down to him…. As the narratives unfold, that is exactly what happens…. When they bow to him, Joseph “remembers his dreams” (Gen 42:9), and with him, the reader discovers that this is a work of divine intervention. The point of the narrative is to show that these and similar events are a fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams.

The narratives that focus attention on the fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams are not permitted a final word. There are still important parts of the narrative that draw our attention not to Joseph, but to Judah. That focus reaches its fullest expression in Jacob’s poem (Gen 49). The last word of the Joseph narrative turns our attention toward the preeminence of the tribe of Judah: “your brothers will bow down to you”… (Gen 49:8b). These words connecting Judah to Joseph’s dreams are… important in giving us another look at the author’s understanding of Jacob’s first words to Judah. By means of these words (Gen 49:8b), a larger lesson is drawn from the Joseph narratives. What was once true only of Joseph, that his brothers would bow down to him (Gen 37:7-10), is now to find its fulfillment in the reign of one who holds the scepter from the house of Judah (Gen 49:10)…. In drawing a connection between the Joseph narratives and the promise to the house of Judah, Joseph and the events of his life foreshadow what will ultimately happen to the king from the house of Judah, the one spoken of in this poem. The king who was to come from the house of Judah is foreshadowed by the life of Joseph. He will save his people and the nations, just as Joseph saved the families of the sons of Jacob (Gen 50:20) and the nations (Gen 47:19). Joseph, rather than Reuben, will be the firstborn among his brothers, but Judah will reign through the kingship… (pg. 327-328)

A redemptive-historical approach to interpretation such as I advocate, would already feel liberty to find divinely-intended parallels between the life of Joseph and the life of Christ. Now with Sailhamer’s work, a stronger connection is forged, and we can see that the prophetic shapers of the final canonical form of the Tanak, themselves, saw parallels between Joseph’s career and the life and work of the coming Messiah-King.