Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/pauline-dispensationalism-dealing-with.html
Paul says that the body of Christ is ‘spiritual Israel’
Throughout Paul’s epistles, there are several passages which say that those in the body of Christ are “the seed of Abraham”, or that Abraham is our “father”, or that we are “children of the promise”. See the following examples:
and a sign he [Abraham] did receive of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith in the uncircumcision, for his being father of all those believing through uncircumcision, for the righteousness also being reckoned to them, and father of circumcision to those not of circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of the faith, that [is] in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. (Rom. 4:11-12)
Because of this [it is] of faith, that [it may be] according to grace, for the promise being sure to all the seed, not to that which [is] of the law only, but also to that which [is] of the faith of Abraham (Rom. 4:16)
there is not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there is not here male and female, for all ye are one in Christ Jesus; and if ye [are] of Christ then of Abraham ye are seed, and according to promise — heirs. (Gal. 3:28-29)
And we, brethren, as Isaac, are children of the promise (Gal. 4:28)
This has led some people to believe in “replacement” or “covenant theology”, which is the non-dispensationalist view that the body of Christ (comprising all believers since Christ) is the continuation of God’s promises and covenant with Israel. They argue that because those in the body of Christ are called the descendants of Abraham, we are now ‘spiritual Israel’ and partakers of the New Covenant.
First of all, it’s important to remember that Paul did use the term “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 to describe the remnant of believing Jews (Rom. 9:6) apart from those in the body of Christ. As I showed in the previous post of this series, there were tens of thousands of Jewish believers at the time of Paul’s ministry who were not in the body of Christ. This alone is enough to show that Israel and the body of Christ are separate.
Likewise, God’s new covenant with Israel cannot be applied to the body of Christ, because Israel, under the New Covenant, will be reigning on the earth and be empowered to follow the Mosaic Law (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:24-27; Matt. 19:28-29), whereas the body of Christ will be reigning in the heavens (Eph. 2:6-7; 3:10-11; 6:12) and the Law has been abrogated for us (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 3:10; 5:3-4). Furthermore, the body of Christ was a secret first revealed to Paul (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26), so it cannot be the New Covenant that was so often prophesied hundreds of years before Christ.
So what did Paul mean when he said that the body of Christ was “the seed of Abraham”? He actually explains what he means by this in Galatians 3:29, which is quoted above; we are the “seed of Abraham” in that we are “heirs according to promise” (perhaps better translated, “enjoyers of an allotment according to promise”). In the same way that James and John were figuratively “sons of thunder” (Mk. 3:17) and Judas was a “son of destruction” (John 17:12), not because they were ‘spiritually’ thunder and destruction, but because they shared characteristics with thunder and destruction, we are “the seed of Abraham” in that we share with Abraham the characteristic of receiving an allotment of salvation from God (but not by literally being the same as Israel).
In fact, in Romans 4, Paul explicitly acknowledges that the body of Christ is not the only group receiving an allotment according to promise. He says that Abraham is the
father of circumcision to those not of circumcision only, but also who walk in the steps of the faith, that [is] in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. (Rom. 4:12)
And again:
Because of this [it is] of faith, that [it may be] according to grace, for the promise being sure to all the seed, not to that which [is] of the law only, but also to that which [is] of the faith of Abraham (Rom. 4:16)
In these passages, Paul says that there are actually two groups that are the “seed of Abraham”: those that are “of circumcision” and “of the law”, as well as those who are “in the uncircumcision” and “of the faith of Abraham”. So, far from proving that the body of Christ is ‘spiritual Israel’, this passage actually helps prove the case for Pauline dispensationalism by showing that there are two separate congregations which are “the seed of Abraham”.
Paul says that the body of Christ are the recipients of the New Covenant
[God] also made us sufficient [to be] ministrants of a new covenant, not of letter, but of spirit; for the letter doth kill, and the spirit doth make alive. And if the ministration of the death, in letters, engraved in stones, came in glory, so that the sons of Israel were not able to look stedfastly to the face of Moses, because of the glory of his face — which was being made useless, how shall the ministration of the Spirit not be more in glory? (2 Cor. 3:6-8)
Critics of Pauline dispensationalism argue that this passage demonstrates that the body of Christ are currently the recipients of the New Covenant, and therefore are ‘spiritual Israel’. Another passage used to argue this is 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, which says that the Lord’s dinner is a remembrance of our “new covenant” as His body.
But is this “new covenant”, which Paul says that we are recipients of, the same as the New Covenant described in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-13? As a matter of fact, they cannot be the same. The “new covenant” described by Paul is marked by the rejection of the Law, even rejecting the Ten Commandments that Moses brought on tablets of stone. In contrast, the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is marked by a supernatural empowerment to follow the Law:
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31-34 NKJV)
“For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” (Ezek. 36:24-27 NKJV)
This stark contrast shows that the “new covenant” spoken of by Paul is not the same as the New Covenant to Israel. It’s more likely that Paul was simply borrowing language from the Old Testament to describe the new relationship which those in the body of Christ have with God; the fact that Paul elaborated that our “new covenant” is “not of the letter [Law], but of spirit” (cf. Rom. 7:6) makes clear that he was not referring to the New Covenant as it applies to Israel and Judah.
Another passage used to support this view is Philippians 3:3:
for we are the circumcision, who by the Spirit are serving God, and glorying in Christ Jesus, and in flesh having no trust
Does this mean that the body of Christ has received the “circumcision of the heart” spoken of in Deuteronomy 30:6-8 that will empower Israel to keep the Mosaic Law? No, because the circumcision which the body of Christ receives is neither a physical circumcision, nor a spiritual circumcision of the heart, but a “circumcision of the body of the sins of the flesh” which is a representation of our spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Col. 2:11-13).
Rather than supernaturally empowering us to keep the ordinances of God, as the circumcision of the heart does, our ‘circumcision’ removes us from being subject to ordinances (Col. 2:14, 20-23). Therefore, it is extremely different from the circumcision of the heart by which “the doers of the Law shall be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13, 29).
Ephesians 2:11-19 shows that the body of Christ and Israel are one
Wherefore, remember, that ye [were] once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world; and now, in Christ Jesus, ye being once afar off became nigh in the blood of the Christ, for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down (the enmity) in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace, and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it, and having come, he did proclaim good news — peace to you — the far-off and the nigh, because through him we have the access — we both — in one Spirit unto the Father.
Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner-[stone], in whom all the building fitly framed together doth increase to an holy sanctuary in the Lord, in whom also ye are builded together, for a habitation of God in the Spirit. (Eph. 2:11-22)
This is probably the strongest scriptural argument against Pauline dispensationalism. Let’s take a look at what Paul is saying here. He begins by describing the previous state of the Gentile members of the body of Christ, then describes what happened at Christ’s crucifixion to change their state, and finally ends by describing their new state.
1. Gentiles were “apart from Christ” due to being “alienated from the commonwealth [or citizenship] of Israel”, and “strangers to the covenants of the promise”. They were “without God in the world”.
2. Christ Jesus broke down “the middle wall of the enclosure (the enmity)”, doing away with “the Law of the commands in ordinances”, thus creating the two into “one new man” and reconciling “both in one body to God”.
3. Through Him we now have access to the Father in the one Spirit, thereby “becoming nigh”. This makes us “fellow-citizens of the saints”, and we are now able to be built into one holy sanctuary upon Jesus Christ the “chief cornerstone”.
Paul provides direct contrasts between the previous state of the Gentiles, and their current state: though before we were “alienated from the citizenship of Israel” and “strangers to the covenants of the promise”, now we are “no longer strangers” and “fellow-citizens of the saints”.
Notice, however, how carefully Paul chose his words here. Rather than saying that we are now “citizens of [spiritual] Israel”, instead, we are “fellow-citizens [συμπολιται] of the saints”, meaning that the “saints” spoken of here are not part of the “one body” and “new man” described earlier, but are part of a separate economy (i.e., the Israel of God). Likewise, rather than saying that we are now part of Israel’s covenant promises (which would mean that the body of Christ is on earth in the ages to come, in direct contrast to Ephesians 2:6-7 just a few verses earlier), Paul simply says that we are together with the saints in the “household of God”.
Another clue that the “one body” and “new man” that Paul refers to in vv. 15 and 16 is not ‘spiritual Israel’, nor the recipients of the New Covenant, is the fact that he explicitly says that Christ’s death abolished “the Law of the commands in ordinances”. As I showed already, when the New Covenant is fully manifested to Israel, it will allow them to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly, and so the “one body” of v. 16 for whom the Law has been abolished cannot be the recipients of the New Covenant.
Furthermore, although there were certainly many Jews in the body of Christ (likely all from the diaspora, if Acts 21:21 is any indication), seeing as the Law has been abolished for the “one body” of v. 16, it cannot include James, Peter, or any of the “many tens of thousands” of Law-zealous Jews of Acts 21:20. Although the enmity between Jew and Gentile has been broken down as Paul says in v. 15, not every single Jew can be in the “one new man” or “one body” for whom the Law has been abolished.
Therefore, although Ephesians 2:11-22 does describe many of the similarities between the body of Christ and Israel, such as our ability to be near God through His Spirit, our being part of the “household of God”, and our being built together into one “holy sanctuary” for God, Paul is very careful to distinguish between the members of the body of Christ and the saints of Israel in this passage to avoid confusion. We, as Gentiles, are no longer at enmity with Israel, but this does not mean that we are somehow members of ‘spiritual’ Israel.
Dispensationalism is too new to be true
This might be the most common objection to Pauline dispensationalism, although it is the least scriptural. According to many Christians, both Protestants and more traditional denominations (like Roman Catholicism), because, unlike classical or “Acts 2” dispensationalism, Pauline dispensationalism was only developed as a doctrine as late as the nineteenth century. This was my main problem with hyper-dispensationalism as well, even after I studied the scriptural evidence for it.
The problem with this objection is that it holds church tradition over what scripture says, something that the Bible repeatedly warns against (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:8; Col. 2:8). We are supposed to “let God become true, yet every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). Because, as I hope to have shown in the past four posts, scripture is as clear as can be on the subject of whether Paul preached a unique gospel separate from the other apostles and Jesus’ earthly ministry, we should not let religious tradition be our final authority instead of the Bible. But the question may still be asked, how is it that no major theologian taught Pauline dispensationalism from New Testament times up to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, if it is so clear?
The answer is that the church fell away from Paul’s teachings very early on. Throughout Paul’s ministry, many destructive heresies came up in the early Gentile churches, surprisingly, mostly about trying to get back under the Law (Gal. 1:6-9; 3:1-3; 5:4; Col. 2:8, 20-23; 1 Tim. 1:6-7). This is in line with Paul’s statement to the Galatians that the flesh naturally desires to be under commandments (Gal. 5:13, 16-18).
For this reason, Paul expected that after his death, the Gentile churches would fall away from his teachings (Acts 20:28-32; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:12-13; 4:2-4), and become legalistic, placing the body of Christ under arbitrary commandments (1 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5). In fact, while Paul was imprisoned in Rome, the entire province of Asia Minor, with the exception of Ephesus, already fell away from his teachings about grace and became enthralled by the “teachers of Law” (1 Tim. 1:6-7; 2 Tim. 1:15-16).
Therefore, even as early as the mid-first century AD, the church had already begun to fall away from grace and support a ‘mixed salvation’ of works and grace (despite Paul’s insistence that grace and works are incompatible; Rom. 11:6). Naturally, along with this came a loss of understanding of Paul’s unique gospel as described by scripture. This can be seen in the writings of Polycarp, a late first century ‘apostolic father’ who wrote that “[God] will raise us up also, if we do His will and walk in His commandments and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness” (Ep. Phil. 2). Unfortunately, this idea of a ‘mixed salvation’ of both works and grace was considered orthodox by the church already at this time (see the quotes from early church fathers at the end of this article).
To be sure, these early church fathers were not intentionally denying the truth of salvation by grace (as transmitted in Paul’s unique gospel), just as non-dispensationalists today are well-intentioned but misguided. Instead, they were simply holding on to the ‘tradition’ that they had received from the false teachers who turned the early church against Paul (2 Tim. 1:15). However, none of the apostles ever expected doctrinal truth to be transmitted and preserved by the ‘Church’, in fact they expected the very opposite (1 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:1-13; 4:2-4; 1 John 2:18-20; 4:1; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; Jude 4). Therefore, it would be extremely unwise to hold any kind of ‘church tradition’ over scripture in authority.
Although hyper-dispensationalism was only re-discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by a few groups, this is likely by virtue of the fact that it was lost so early in church history -- just as universalism, which was believed by the vast majority of the church up to the fifth century, was only recently recovered as a doctrine in the nineteenth century. Because, as I have shown in the last four posts of this series, Pauline dispensationalism is the only way to resolve many apparent contradictions in scripture, the fact that it was only discovered in the late nineteenth century should not be counted as a valid argument against it.
Part 5: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/04/pauline-dispensationalism-justification.html
No comments:
Post a Comment