Tag: church

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.

“Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church” by John H. Armstrong

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Many today agree that the evangelical church in America has problems. It has a consumeristic mentality catering to the pervasive individualism of our society. Church programs are offered, and sermon series advertised in such a way as to get people hooked on the “brand”. Surveys and market research are conducted to find people’s felt needs and deliver. And with such a cheapening of church, it’s no wonder that counter movements abound in Christianity these days. Emergent, post-modern, missional — you name it, people realize the current super-sized church is high on calories and low on nutrition. Many are just abandoning the ship altogether.

One such counter movement is described by John H. Armstrong in his new book Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission is Vital to the Future of the Church (Zondervan, 2010). He contends that a twin focus on mission and unity will heal the Church’s woes.   He calls this missional-ecumenism.

Many of the problems Armstrong sees in today’s church are problems indeed. There is a high dose of sectarianism, and a low dose of biblical community. He reacts against the prevailing consumerism in churchianity. A return to the church’s “ancient/future faith” with a focus on the value of church history and an appreciation of the Apostle’s creed and other universally accepted creeds, he argues, will cure these ills.

Reacting to sectarianism in today’s church, Armstrong encourages a relational unity flowing from our brotherhood and shared faith in Jesus Christ. He wants us to see past our differences, but does hold that these differences matter. Denominations are not a bad thing in his view, but we should reach beyond them and see our shared unity as the “one church” following “one Lord” and sharing “one baptism” and “one faith” (Eph. 4).

I can agree to an extent with all of this. I too see John 17 and Jesus’ prayer for unity as being too easily dismissed in evangelicalism today. I think we need more charity, more grace, and a greater realization of how big our agreement is if we share in the core truths of the gospel. I agree that working together with other Christians and not viewing them as the enemy positively impacts our evangelism. I even share some of Armstrong’s specific criticisms of the modern church:

[There is] a small view of the church and a big view of our own importance. We have exalted our interpretations of the Scripture by boldly proclaiming: “My authority comes only from the Bible.” (pg. 131)

Some popular evangelical writers dehistoricize the church and make a case for revolution not reformation. They throw out the past. (pg. 107)

…Scripture is clearly not so much a treatise on systematic theology as the unfolding story of a people– the people of God…. A humble and faithful Christian life is marked by “fear and trembling” (Philipppians 2:12) and a willingness to allow for mystery. (pg. 96)

The culture with its decadence, relativism, consumerism, and wanton rebellion against the revealed will have God is actually the symptom of our problem. The root cause is a deeply divided, morally compromised, theologically indifferent, biblically ignorant, and culturally conformed church. The gospel has been reduced to a minimal set of consumer-related facts. The “sinner’s prayer” has replaced the kind of radical conversion that results in life-changing grace. In the process, the larger narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and re-creation has been lost. With this loss there is no coherent understanding of the kingdom of God. The church has now become a religious society of the comfortable. Serious Christians should cry out to God for his mercy and grace to be poured out on the church. (pg. 194)

Where Armstrong goes wrong, in my opinion, is jumping from the “one church” ideal in the NT, to affirming that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are part of that “one church” because they affirm the Apostle’s Creed. In vain did I look for any discussion of the Reformation and why Rome really isn’t advocating a false gospel when they do not preach justification by faith. Instead I found statements like this:

My understanding of biblical oneness combines two commitments that are often considered separately. the first is a commitment to work in every conceivable way to demonstrate the God-given spiritual oneness I share with other believers through our union with Christ….

But my second commitment goes even further. Many Protestant evangelicals are satisfied with informal person-to-person expressions of oneness. Because they tend to view the church as a voluntary association, they see no need to seek unity with other churches….

This two-commitment approach… has practical consequences for those who consider themselves evangelicals. It means I can no longer be… anti-Catholic…. With deep conviction, I am compelled to regard both Catholics and the Catholic church with love and esteem. (pg. 60-61)

…the Western church was torn apart by the Protestant Reformation. This movement challenged the Catholic Church to renew itself but resulted in in a massive schism leading to errors on every side. Eventually, these schisms resulted in the birth of several major divisions within historic Protestantism, leading to an endless variety of new churches built around human personalities and doctrinal differences. (pg. 89)

I appreciate the exhortation to unity and the admission that people who don’t think like us may well be honestly following Christ. But I think Armstrong is advocating a dangerous course when he encourages us to just view all Catholics or Orthodox adherents as genuine Christians. At this point, I need to let Armstrong explain in his own words at some length.

…We have heard a lot about culture wars in the United States for thirty years. I am far more concerned about the truth wars waged by polemicists inside the church. This is the bitter fruit of sectarianism. It lacks charity and leads to mean-spiritedness.

Privately, I hear people ask, “Who is a real Christian?” with regard to their own family members or members of their congregations (including pastors). If a Catholic becomes an evangelical, then those who remain Catholic are viewed by the “convert” as non-Christians….

I am wearied by this attempt to say who is and is not a real Christian… I find it destructive of everything true to Christ’s teaching. During my journey to catholicity, I made a conscious choice to give up this approach. After all, if a Christian is someone who has “the Spirit of Christ,” then I do not know who truly has “the Spirit of Christ.” Scripture further declares, “The Lord knows those who are his” (2 Timothy 2:19)…. Real conversion and true faith are God’s work. And since all three of the great traditions of Christianity teach that those who share in proclamation and participation must also have explicit living faith, I began to openly encourage explicit faith rather than wage attacks on others.

Once I took this step, I became more concerned about my own faith and attitudes. I no longer had to answer many of the questions people asked me about other people–questions that only fed my pride. I ask, “Why should you care about what I think since I don’t know the real answer?” I then ask, “Have you confessed faith in Christ? Are you his baptized follower?” If the answer is affirmative, then I proclaim the gospel and let the Spirit work as he wills. God will judge the heart… (pg. 150-151)

I can’t accept Armstrong’s explanation here. Certainly a glib, non-chalant condemnation of others is wrong. I also believe there are many true believers that aren’t Protestant. But I believe Scripture requires us to be more discerning and careful in this matter. I don’t want to publicly affirm Catholicism’s dangerous teachings about the gospel and the relative emphasis on Mary, works, confession, saints and things like that. Paul’s concern for unity didn’t prevent him from making strong condemnations of false doctrine, just see Galatians 1.

This book will stretch you and cause you to think. And much in the book is actually helpful and good. But I would encourage only a discerning use of the book by mature Christians.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com and direct from Zondervan Academic

This book was provided by Zondervan Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Deacons: Shock-Absorber Servants

~ Bob Hayton

Nine Marks Ministries, has a new e-journal up. The topic is deacons. I read through the articles and thought everything was very helpful.

Here’s an interesting quote. But you’ll want to go read the whole thing. The articles are fairly short but cover a lot of ground.

According to the New Testament, a deacon is two things: a shock-absorber and a servant.

Deacons are shock-absorbers: the seven men chosen by the church in Jerusalem to care for widows, who seem to be precursors to deacons, were chosen to preserve unity at a time when botched administration was creating fissures in the church (see Acts 6:1-7).

And deacons are servants: their very name means servant, and their precursors in Acts 6 were chosen to handle the practical needs of the church. That way, the apostles could devote themselves to leading the church through prayer and the ministry of the Word….

Elders lead ministry, deacons facilitate ministry, the congregation does ministry. That, I believe, is the New Testament model, and that biblical clarity in deacons’ role and function is invaluable for promoting peace and unity in our congregations. [from the article by Jamie Dunlop, associate pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist]

Churches Working Together: No Place for “Local Church”-Onlyism

~ Bob Hayton

I am leaving for a trip, but wanted to leave you all with some good reading material.

Jeff Straub, professor of history at Central Baptist Theological Seminary here in Minneapolis has a couple posts stressing the importance of “churches working together”. Rather than seeing each church as an island completely independent and in need of nothing (which many local church only advocates do), his picture is closer to the biblical picture of churches working together.

I encourage you to check out his two posts. For those wondering, “local church” onlyism is the idea that there is little if any sense of the “universal church” idea in Scripture. Instead everything said of the church in Scripture is true of one local church ideally. In my opinion, this leads to the conclusion that cooperation between churches and unity and all that is just optional.

Here are the links to Dr. Straub’s posts. He makes the case that churches working together produce longer lasting fruit than churches doing it solo.

The comments are worth the read too. Let me know here what you think, too.