Back when I started this blog, I was convinced of a view called “hyper-dispensationalism” or “Pauline dispensationalism.” This is the belief that there are two gospels taught in the New Testament, the gospel of Paul and the gospel to Israel, and that those who believe Paul’s gospel are in the body of Christ whereas those who believe and follow Israel’s gospel are in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). I argued for this view in a series of six posts. Although I still believe that Paul preached a unique gospel about Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-5), there are difficult challenges to hyperdispensationalism that I think we haven’t done a good enough job of answering. In this post, I will outline the challenges, and in the next post I’ll provide a modified view of dispensationalism that I believe is able to overcome these issues.
The Method of Salvation
According to Pauline dispensationalists, one of the main distinctions between Paul’s gospel and the gospel preached by Jesus and the Twelve to Israel is the method of salvation. Jesus and his disciples both strongly emphasized the importance of works to one’s salvation. Jesus preached that each person would be rewarded according to their works and that one must follow the law in its entirety (Matt. 5:17-20; 16:27; 23:1-3). His disciples Peter and John taught that one must remain steadfast and keep Christ’s commands in order to remain in his kingdom (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4). His brother James, when writing to the Israelite diaspora, said that faith is useless without works, that is, keeping the law (Jas. 2:10-24).
In contrast, Paul was clear that works play no part in one’s salvation (Rom. 3:27f; 4:5; 11:5f; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8f; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4f). He was especially insistent that “works of law” weren’t necessary for salvation, despite what other Jewish believers had been claiming (Rom. 9:32; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:2, 5, 9-12). Pauline dispensationalists rightly view this as an apparent contradiction between the method of salvation described by Paul vs. the other apostles. After all, James said that “a man is declared righteous by works of law” (Jas. 2:24), while Paul said “a man is not declared righteous by works of law” (Gal. 2:16).
However, because of their emphasis on the contradictions between Paul and the other apostles, Pauline dispensationalists tend to downplay the importance of works in Paul’s soteriology. Consider the following passages:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them. (Eph. 2:8-10)
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit... I desire that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; these things are excellent and profitable to everyone. (Tit. 3:4-5, 8)
While Paul is careful to highlight that we were not saved from our works, in the very same passages, he tells us that we were saved for good works. The same point is made elsewhere throughout his letters, and in each instance, he’s clear that our salvation involves God working in us to produce good works (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Php. 1:6; 2:12f; Tit. 2:11-14). Again, not to belabor the point, but “it is God who is at work in [us], enabling [us]... to work for his good pleasure” (Php. 2:12f), not a result of our own works, but God at work in us.
In light of this, the difference between Paul and the other apostles is not so great as it first seems. Both processes of salvation involve works. The difference isn’t whether works are involved at all, but whether works are a basis of salvation (Jesus and his disciples) or a result of salvation (Paul). From a certain perspective, they could even be the same thing, if Paul is emphasizing God’s sovereignty over our works while the other apostles are emphasizing the human point of view. Although I disagree with this, as I still think there’s an important distinction, this difference is far less than what some Pauline dispensationalists claim.
Two ‘Expectations’?
Another distinction between Paul and the other apostles that’s often made by Pauline dispensationalists is the difference between the “expectation” or destiny of believers according to these authors. (For example, see this argument for dispensationalism by Aaron Welch.) In the parts of the New Testament not written by Paul, the destiny of believers is said to be “on the earth” (Matt. 5:5; 19:28; Rev. 2:26f; 5:9f). The “heavenly Jerusalem” described in the epistle to the Hebrews is also on the earth (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:2, 10). In contrast, Paul says that our reward is “in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1f; Eph. 1:3), that we are seated “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6f; 3:10f; cf. Php. 3:19f), and that our struggle is with the demonic forces “in heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).
However, this distinction is also not as strong as it may first appear. Our reward being “in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1f; Eph. 1:3) is exactly the same thing that Jesus and Peter said, even though for them the destiny of believers is on earth (Matt. 5:12; 6:19-21; 16:19; 18:18; 19:21; 1 Pet. 1:4). In Jewish thought, anything promised by God could be said to exist “with God” or “in heaven” (Job 23:14; Isa. 49:4; Col. 1:5; 2 Baruch 4.2-6; Gen. Rabbah 1.13). [1] This doesn’t show that Jesus, Peter, or Paul believed that the destiny of believers is in heaven, it’s just an affirmation that our reward has been promised by God and will be delivered to us.
Furthermore, when Paul says that we reign with Christ “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6f), he uses the present tense, suggesting that this is a spiritual truth, along with our other “spiritual blessing[s] in heaven” that he mentioned at the beginning of the same epistle (Eph. 1:3). Likewise, he says that the wisdom of God is being made known through us in heavenly places “now” (Eph. 3:10f). Although the present tense in Eph. 2:6 could be interpreted proleptically (i.e., describing a future time as though it already exists), the adverb “now” (Gk: nun) is never used proleptically. Paul most likely uses the word epouranios (“heavenly [places]”) because it was a title used by the Roman emperor; he’s saying that, rather than the emperor being epouranios (from the divine realm), it’s the body of Christ which is empowered by heaven. [2]
Finally, the statement that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Php. 3:20) must be understood in the context of the original readers of this epistle. The people living in Philippi were citizens of Rome, the city from which their emperor reigned, regardless of whether they ever lived in the city of Rome. Citizenship wasn’t a matter of where you lived, but where your king ruled. Paul’s statement that “our citizenship is in heaven” was an affirmation that Jesus is our king who rules from heaven. [3] The immediate context confirms this by establishing heaven as the place “from which” we await Jesus, not to which we are going (Php. 3:20f).
In summary, there’s very little evidence to suggest that Paul had a different destiny in mind for believers than Jesus and his disciples. In fact, both Paul and the other authors of the New Testament give us very little information about the location of our eventual destiny, though a couple of verses from non-Pauline writings say that it’s on earth (Matt. 5:5; Rev. 5:9f). Once again, this is not evidence against Pauline dispensationalism, but it does remove a major pillar of support from that doctrine.
Body of Christ = True Israel?
The greatest challenge to hyperdispensationalism are the passages that suggest the body of Christ, i.e. those saved according to Paul’s gospel, are part of true Israel. Pauline dispensationalism makes a hard-and-fast distinction between the body of Christ and the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) which, in my opinion, doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. [4] Let’s take a look at several passages from Paul’s epistles that pose a problem for this view.
First, in his letter to the Romans, Paul tells us,
...a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans but from God. (Rom. 2:28-29)
This passage is used by some as evidence that Paul viewed his audience as “inward Jews” who were circumcised in the heart. I see this as a plausible interpretation, especially in light of other passages like Philippians 3:3 where Paul refers to his gentile audience as “the [true] circumcision” (see below). However, this passage has recently been addressed by Aaron Welch, a Pauline dispensationalist, whose interpretation is also plausible, so I won’t rest my case on these verses.
Consider also Paul’s argument in Galatians 3. To show that the Galatians are justified by faith, Paul points out that Abraham was declared righteous for his faith, and so “those who believe are the descendants of Abraham” (3:5-9). Abraham was not justified by law, indeed “all who rely on works of law are under a curse,” but rather through Christ “the blessing of Abraham might come to the gentiles” (3:10-14). The promises were made to Abraham and his offspring (Christ) before the law, so “the inheritance” comes not from the law (3:15-18). Not that the law was useless, but it has been superseded by the promise through faith (3:19-26). Those who have faith are in Christ, who is the offspring of the promise; therefore, those who are in Christ are also “Abraham’s offspring, heirs of the promise” (3:27-29). Although there are dispensationalist interpretations of individual verses like Gal. 3:7 and 29, they do not take into account the full context of the argument. Paul is saying that we are recipients of the promise to Abraham’s heirs (Gen. 12:1-3), not because we are literal descendants of Abraham, but because we are in Christ who is the descendant of Abraham.
Paul also twice relates the “new covenant,” which was made to the house of Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31), to the members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:25f; 2 Cor 3:6). The latter passage is especially clear, as it tells us that we are “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:5-11). The dispensationalist answer to this is that Paul was speaking metaphorically (see here). But where is any indication that this is a metaphor? On the contrary, Paul uses the exact same language (Gk: kainēs diathēkēs) used in Jeremiah 31:31 (LXX: diathēkēn kainēn) and Hebrews 8:8-13. And like Jeremiah, Paul contrasts the “new covenant” with the covenant given through Moses (2 Cor. 3:7-11; cf. Jer. 31:32). It’s eisegetical to read a third covenant into this passage and suppose that Paul is only metaphorically alluding to Jeremiah. Paul also applies the promise to Israel in Ezekiel 37:26f to the body of Christ (2 Cor. 6:16).
Also in his letters to the Corinthian church, remarkably, Paul can speak of the time “when you [his audience] were gentiles” (Gk: hote ēte ethnē; 1 Cor. 12:2). Of course, if his audience used to be ethnē, gentiles, it follows that they no longer are counted as part of that group.
The passage which most strongly seems to teach that the body of Christ to whom Paul wrote is included in true Israel is Ephesians 2:11-21. The key verses in this passage are vv. 12 and 19:
...remember that you were at that time without Christ, excluded from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world... So then you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but are fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God.
First of all, Paul says that the Gentiles to whom he is writing were formerly “excluded from the citizenship of Israel.” The word translated as “excluded” (Gk: apallotrioō) literally means “from-belonging-to-another,” while the word translated as “citizenship” (Gk: politeia) is derived from “citizen” (Gk: politēs) and refers to one’s status as a citizen of a nation (cp. Acts 22:28). In other words, the Gentiles in the body of Christ were formerly belonging to another country as non-citizens of Israel. However, Paul goes on to say that we are now “fellow-citizens” (Gk: sympolitēs), which in context can only mean that we are now citizens of Israel.
The next passage which supports this view is Philippians 3:3, in which Paul says that “we are the [true] circumcision, who worship in the spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.” In the Old Testament, circumcision was a practice first meant to set apart the descendants of Abraham from all other people (Gen. 17:9-14), and later to set apart the people of Israel from all other people (Exod. 12:43-49; Lev. 12:3). In the New Testament, it was determined by Paul, Peter, and James that physical circumcision is no longer a requirement for gentiles to be included in God’s people (Acts 15:5-21; Gal. 5:6). Nonetheless, by saying that we are “the circumcision,” Paul is identifying us with the descendants of Abraham and people of Israel (cf. Gal. 3:7, 29).
Finally, the last passage in Paul’s epistles which appears to identify us with Israel is Titus 2:14. In this verse, he refers to us as “a peculiar people” or “a people of his own” (Gk: laon periousion). This uses a very rare Greek adjective which is exclusively found in the Septuagint, and only used to refer to the people of Israel (Exod. 19:5; 23:22; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18 LXX). Peter uses a similar phrase in a series of Israel-related phrases to refer to his audience: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his possession [Gk: laos eis peripoiēsin]” (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. Exod. 19:5-6). By using a word exclusively associated with Israel to refer to his audience, both Paul and Peter seem to be identifying their audiences as true Israel.
Legitimate Differences
Despite these challenges to Pauline dispensationalism, there are many legitimate differences between the gospel that Paul preached and the gospel preached by the other apostles. For one, Paul repeatedly refers to “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; Eph. 3:1-3; Col. 1:25f; 2 Tim. 2:8), which would be remarkably arrogant if he weren’t preaching a unique message. This gospel is said to have been a “mystery” that was not revealed until his time (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26), which was revealed to him directly by Jesus (Gal. 1:11f). According to Paul, one must believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:1-5), but according to John, one must simply believe that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, and follow his commands to love God and others (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 20:31; 1 John 2:3-11; 3:18-24; 4:7-5:5; cf. Matt. 22:35-40).
How can these differences be accommodated within a framework that also takes into account the challenges outlined above? Especially if the body of Christ is included in true Israel, and is the recipient of the promises to Israel, how could Paul’s gospel be distinct from the gospel preached by the other apostles? In the next post, I’ll outline a modified view of dispensationalism which I think takes into account all of the relevant information from Paul’s epistles and the rest of the New Testament.
______________________________
[1] Incidentally, this fact also came up in my refutation of trinitarian proof-texts, as it refutes the trinitarian claim that Jesus’ glory existing “in heaven” before the creation of the world (John 17:24) means that Jesus must have existed before the creation of the world.
[2] Nijay Gupta and Frederick Long, “The Politics of Ephesians and the Empire,” JGRChJ 7 (2010), 118-120.
[3] See this post by Dustin Smith for a longer explanation.
[4] In Galatians 6:16, Paul blesses peace and mercy upon the believers in Galatia, “and upon [Gk: kai epi] the Israel of God.” The Greek conjunction kai can be either additive (1 and 2) or explicative (1, namely 2) — see BDAG lexicon for this word — thus Paul could either be distinguishing or identifying the body of Christ and the Israel of God in this verse. He's most likely identifying them, especially in light of the common second-Temple prayer — almost certainly at the front of Paul’s mind here — which says, “Grant peace... and mercy to us and to all Israel, your people” (from the Eighteen Benedictions).
No comments:
Post a Comment