Notes On Ecclessiology Course

Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church
COURSE SYLLABUS: Ecclesiology
WEEK TOPIC
1 The Marks of the Church

 “We Believe…”
 Marks of the Church
2 The People of God – The Church and Israel

 Continuity & Discontinuity
 When was the Church Founded?
3 Israel and the Church – the Temple

 The Symbols of Israel
 The Meaning & Purpose of the Temple
4 Israel and the Church – the Temple Part 2
 Transition
 Jesus and the Temple
 A Third Temple?
5 The Church and the Kingdom of God
 The Kingdom in Biblical Teaching
 The Kingdom and the Church
6 The Church and the Kingdom of God – Part 2
 Jesus versus Paul?
 The Apostolic Teaching on the Kingdom
7 What is the Church, Then?
 The People of God
 The Lord’s Own
8 Pentecost – The End & The Beginning
 The Meaning of Pentecost
 The Holy Spirit & the New Covenant
9 The Spirit & The Church
 Institutional or Communal?
 Baptism & the Lord’s Supper
10 The Spirit & The Church (Part 2)
 Why Does Pentecostalism Happen?
 The Charismatic Church in Practice
11 The Spirit and the Word
 The Need for Authority
 A Firm Foundation
 The Spirit & the Word
12 The Spirit and Church Polity
 Does a Church Need Government?
 The Regnum Christi
Page 1
13 The Church in the World Today
 Cognitive Dissonance
 Social Marginalization
14 The Mission of the Church
 The Great Commission?
 The Blessed Hope
Page 2
Week 1: The Marks of the Church
Key Biblical Texts: Matthew 16:16-19; I Peter 2:9,10
“The light of grace and of reconciliation falls on this Church.
She has not arisen from her own initiative,
but has been called, gathered, and chosen as the people of God,
obtained by the blood of the cross.”
(G. C. Berkouwer; “The Church”)
The Apostles’ Creed, apparently named such due to the fact that it was not written
by the Apostles, offers perhaps the absolute bare minimum of doctrinal uniformity among
professing Christians. The word ‘creed’ derives from the Latin credo, which means ‘I
believe.’ Hence the opening word of each stanza – there are three – of the Apostles’ Creed
is credo:
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried:
He descended into hell:
The third day he rose again from the dead:
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father
Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
I believe in the Holy Spirit.
I believe in the holy catholic church:
The communion of saints:
The forgiveness of sins:
The resurrection of the body:
And the life everlasting.
Amen.
The three ‘credos’ of the Creed mark out three distinct sections of thought, at least
to those who originally formulated this brief statement of faith. The sections are
indicative, perhaps of the manner in which systematic theology was systematized in the
early centuries of Christian History; an organization quite different from modern
theological curricula. For instance, in keeping with the Apostles’ Creed the study of Jesus
Christ – Christology – is subsumed under the study of God – Theology proper.
Pneumatology, the study of the Holy Spirit, stands by itself (though with remarkably little
Page 3
being said on that score). And the credo of the Church – Ecclesiology – seems to encompass
not only the life of the Church (“communion of saints”), but also Soteriology (“the
forgiveness of sins”) and Eschatology (“the resurrection of the body and the life
everlasting”). Though primitive in both age and format, this division of the study of
Scripture on these topics ought not to be summarily dismissed in favor of the more
modern fivefold classification common to all contemporary seminarians:
The scientific theologians of German have arranged the cycle of sacred knowledge under
five leading categories, viz.: 1, “Theology,” the science of God. 2, Anthropology, the science of
man in relation to God. 3, Soteriology, the science of salvation. 4, Ecclesiology, the science of
the church. 5, Eschatology, or the science of ‘the last things.’1
This fivefold scheme has been generally that which we have followed in the
PlumbLine curricula, but the broader systemization of the Apostles’ Creed has some
interesting points to offer for consideration. First, and most significant, is the noticeable
absence in the modern classification of a separate study of the Spirit: Pneumatology is
altogether lacking. Second, there is the intriguing placement in the Creed of such topics as
Soteriology and Eschatology under the credo of the Church. On the former point a case can
be made for inclusion of Pneumatology within the rubric of Ecclesiology, which is the
approach that this study will take. On the latter point, a separate case may be made for
the comprehension of Soteriology and Eschatology under the credo of the Church leading to
the institutionalized, incarnational establishment that became the
Roman Catholic Church. We speak to this point directly, and
reserve the inclusion of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit for another
lesson.
Reformed theologians often combine Ecclesiology and
Eschatology within the same section or volume of their Systematic
Theology. Martyn Lloyd-Jones titled the third and last volume of
his systematics The Church and the Last Things. However, Lloyd-
D. M. Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981)
Jones did not thereby intend to subsume Eschatology within the
1
Peck, T. E. Notes on Ecclesiology (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication; 1892); 7.
Page 4
doctrine of the Church; it seems he simply had enough material on these two subjects to
fill one volume. The intent of the Creed may be quite different, or at least the result of the
Creed proved to be quite different.
There has been in the history of the Christian Church a chronic and pervasive
thought that with the institution of the Church of Jesus Christ, God has concluded His
redemptive work. Thus, in some quarters, the Church is equated with the Kingdom; in
others, the Church is the institution of salvation – to be in the Church is to be saved.
Others view the growth and propagation of the Church to be the eschatological fulfillment
of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel; and so forth. Thus on the one hand
there has been an over-emphasis of the Church; a non-critical evaluation of the Church as
the sum total of all that God purposed to do from eternity past. This is an error that is not
uncommon among Reformed theologians, though they do tend to avoid the
institutionalization of salvation found in the Roman Catholic Church. Replacement
Theology, also known as ‘Supersessionism,’ is an example of this trend of Ecclesiology: the
Church is so much the fulfillment of the eternal plan and purpose of Redemption, that the
community of the Church replaces the nation of Israel as the New Covenant replaces the
Old.2 This form of Christian Ecclesiology is far from a mere academic novelty; it has
frequently led to anti-Semitism as an official ‘Church’ view and practice.
Perhaps in response to an over-emphasis on the Church – and that, perhaps,
traceable to the Apostles’ Creed itself – the modern Church has witnessed a pronounced
de-emphasis of the organized assembly of believers that is most commonly referred to as
‘Church.’ The idea of the Church as a voluntary society –
promulgated by the Anabaptists of the 16th Century in opposition
to a coerced participation in a State Church – has mutated into the
idea that ‘church’ is entirely optional to a professing believer. This
tendency of denigrating the importance of the Church in the life of
the believer was encouraged by the undeniable deficiencies and
corruption found within all organized Christian denominations, as
John Locke (1632-1704) well as by the libertarian thought paradigm fostered by the Enlight-
Page 5
enment and by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. John Locke, for instance, held forth a
minimalist view of acceptable religion in his The Reasonableness of Christianity; “…that all
that is necessary is a general profession of the truth; under the gospel a general profession
of belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”3 To Locke the development of theology
leads only to division in the Church and confusion among Christians.
If fundamentals are to be known, easy to be known, (as without doubt, they are,) then a
catalogue may be given of them. But, if they are not, if it cannot certainly be determined,
which are they; but the doubtful knowledge of them depends upon guesses; Why may not
I be permitted to follow my guesses, as well as you yours? Or why, of all others, must you
prescribe your guesses to me, when there are so many that are as ready to prescribe as you,
and of as good authority? The pretence, indeed, and clamour is religion, and the saving of
souls: but your business, it is plain, is nothing but to over-rule and prescribe, and be
hearkened to as a dictator: and not to inform, teach, and instruct in the sure way to
salvation.4
The native libertarianism of most Americans may very well say ‘Amen’ to these
sentiments. Still, and in spite of the mistakes that the Church has made throughout her
history, the believer has no biblical right to dismiss her or refuse her fellowship. The
Church may not be neglected5 or despised6, though this does not mean that she must be
accepted uncritically in all her teachings and practice. ”While it is true that certain forms of
Church life, accretions of time more than biblical patterns, may be rejected, the followers
of Jesus Christ cannot profess allegiance to Him and deny His church.”7
That is the purpose of the study called Ecclesiology: to encourage continued
participation and support of the Church while at the same time critically investigating the
Scriptures to determine, inasmuch as possible, just what the Church ought to be and what
she ought to be doing. Because of the dimness of our current vision, all believers do not
arrive at the same answers – and some arrive at answers that are by no means compatible.
This presents a struggle between denominations within Christianity (and the determination
that some views are outside of Christianity). Nevertheless the study must be done, with
2
Cp. https://carm.org/questions-replacement-theology.
3
Quoted by Peck; 35.
4
Locke, John The Reasonableness of Christianity; VIII. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/locke-the-works-vol-6-the-
reasonableness-of-christianity Accessed 30July 2018.
5
Hebrews 10:25
6
I Corinthians 11:22
Page 6
the intent that each and every believer contributes, with knowledge and understanding, to
the edification of the Body of Christ, the Church.
…that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of
doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the
truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—from whom the whole
body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by
which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
(Ephesians 4:14-16)
We start this study, therefore, with the recognition that the Church has never been
what it was meant to be, yet the differential between theory and practice must in every
generation be considered and minimized. But even this observation requires a caveat, for
in the most recent age of the Church this generational re-consideration of the Church has
lead to a blending of the Church with the surrounding culture in both teaching and
practice. While it remains true that the Church must bear witness to the culture in which
she is found – and not to some select culture from the past – it must also remain true that
the bedrock from which the Church’s witness rises in every age is Scripture.8 Working
within the broad outlines provided by the Apostles’ Creed as well as the modern fivefold
curricula of Systematic Theology, this study will seek to critically evaluate the biblical
mandate of the Church, her formation, her fellowship, her function, and her future.
“Una, Sancta, Catholica, et Apostolica Ecclesia”
The Apostles’ Creed as quoted above is perhaps the earliest and simplest
formulation; it developed over the early centuries of the Church as greater detail was
applied to such important elements as the credo of the Holy Spirit, and certain heresies
were combatted such as Arianism and Nestorianism concerning the deity and humanity of
Jesus Christ. With regard to the credo of the Church, the Council of Constantinople (AD
381) is credited with establishing the ‘four marks’ of the true Church: Unity (or Oneness),
Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. Unfortunately words can mean different things to
different people, and that has certainly been the case with regard to these four words
7
Saucy, Robert The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody Press; 1972); 7.
8
This comment in itself immediately divides the Ecclesiology of this study with the Ecclesiology of the Roman Church,
in which Tradition plays an equal – and in practice a superior – role with Scripture.
Page 7
throughout the ages. Still, they have always served as points on the compass for every
generation, as the Church in each age has sought to understand herself in the light of
Scripture (or, sadly, in the darkness of Tradition).
The Church is said to be una ecclesia – one Church. This is certainly a hard place to
begin, as it is one of the most difficult points that believers have to contend with
unbelievers. “If there is only one Truth, why are there so many different churches?”
Believers struggle to answer this common question, but it is really of the same nature as “If
Man is created in the image of God, why is he so bad?” The answer to both questions lies
in the present reality of sin and corruption in the world, rather than in any weakness or
fallacy in the underlying premise. Man is created in the image of God; therein lies his
dignity, the only true foundation for ‘human rights.’ The Church is one; therein lies the
communion of the saints across both time and space. Cutting through the thick (and at
times, thickening) outer shell of sin to find these foundational truths is the responsibility of
every generation of believers.
The outward appearance of disunity must not be allowed to mask the biblical
reality of unity in the Church, for the foundation of Truth is the Word of God. Perhaps the
simplest statement of una ecclesia is that of our Lord in His inaugural statement concerning
the Church,
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of
Hades shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
There is, of course, much more to this verse than just the unity of Christ’s Church,
but there is at least that. Jesus commits to build His Church, singular, not His churches.
Thus throughout the rest of the New Testament the apostles, while recognizing the unique
demands and autonomy of local ‘churches,’ know only one Church. This unity is
fundamental to the common metaphor of the Church as the body of Jesus Christ and He as
its Head.
And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which
is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23)
Page 8
One cannot biblically conceive of the Church as some sort of Hydra with each
tentacle being a local assembly or a denomination, and each having Jesus as its ‘head.’ No,
the truth of Scripture is that in spite of the differences among
local congregations, and even regional and national assemblies,
there is but one true Church of Jesus Christ. “He creates a
community and one alone, one that comprises all who belong to
God, in all ages and among all peoples.”9 Theological differences
inevitably set individual segments of the Church apart, for “how
can two walk together unless they be agreed?” But even in the midst
of such differences there is the common recognition that there is Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938)
but one Church, and different denominations and expressions of that Church do not
constitute different ‘Churches.’ As evidence that the theological study of Pneumatology –
the study of the Holy Spirit – belongs to the study of the Church, we have from Paul’s
letter to the Ephesians the being and force that constitutes the unity of the Church, the
Holy Spirit Himself.
I, therefore, the prisoner [a]of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you
were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in
love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one
Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God
and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:1-6)
There can hardly be a stronger argument for the unity of the Church than this, for if
the true Church is entirely located within one denominational form, or one chronological
era, or regional development, then within that singular Church is to be found “one body
and one Spirit…one hope…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all.”
Though it has sadly been the case that many individual manifestations of the Church of
Jesus Christ have considered themselves to be the ‘one and only’ Church, such a claim is
too much for most rational believers, or their denominations, to make. No, the import of
Paul’s statement is not that we can distill all of these ‘ones’ into a single denomination or
institution, but rather the oneness of these fundamental things and persons must cause us
to look beyond our singular assembly, or even set of beliefs in the polity of the church, to
Page 9
recognize something greater and larger than ourselves. We may attend churches, but in
Christ Jesus we are all members of one Church.
Of course this sounds a bit like the essential argument of ecumenicism: we are all
one big, happy Church; therefore we must minimize our differences and come together to
solve the world’s woes. Since the differences between denominations usually center
around either theological forms and tenets or ecclesiastical polity or practice, these things
are considered to be ‘divisive,’ and thereby dangerous or irrelevant. What is important is
unity, even at the expense of doctrinal or practical integrity. But such a conclusion is to pit
Scripture against Scripture, for in the same letter where we read the admonition “do not
neglect the assembling of one another together,” we also read, “hold fast the confession of your
hope without wavering.”10 Sound doctrine is by no means a matter of inconsequence to the
biblical writers; indeed, the Lord Himself informs us that it is the Truth that both sets us
free and sanctifies us, and that Truth is the Word of God.
Thus we end up having to strike some sort of balance, and that is always difficult
and never static. On the one hand we recognize that there must be a ‘lowest common
denominator’ upon which basis fellowship may be had among believers of perhaps vastly
different communions, even if not every Lord’s Day. On the other hand we recognize that
this baseline is full of necessary theological and practical content, though often the various
branches of the Church have made it a bit too full. There are standards of reasonable,
biblical fellowship and there are adiaphora – matters indifferent, at least to recognizing and
blessing another believer or not. One of the goals of this study it to set forth a biblical
basis for ‘testing fellowship,’ in the hopes that a collegial relationship may continue among
churches, as manifestations of the una ecclesia, the one Church.
Next we read of the Church that she is sancta ecclesia – a ‘holy Church.’ At the
very basic level this might only connote that the Church is the assembly of those ‘called
out,’ set apart to be holy to the Lord. This derives from the Greek word most frequently
used with reference to the Church, ekklesia, which is itself a combination of the verb ‘to call’
and the prefix ek, signifying ‘out of.’ This notion of the people of God as being called out
from other nations is consonant with the identity of Israel under the Old Covenant, a
9
Schlatter, Adolf The Theology of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker Books; 1998); 28.
10
Hebrews 10:23-25
Page 10
nation called out from among the nations. The Church, then, is the people of God called
from “every tongue, tribe, and nation.”
But at all times theologians have recognized a deeper, moral sense to the word
sancta, which is the Latin word for the Greek hagios, which in turn is the Greek word for
the Hebrew qadosh. To be consecrated by and to the Lord was at all times to be
accompanied by a holiness of thought and conduct. Indeed, the disconnect between the
‘set apart’ nature of the Israelites and their unholy lives formed
the matter of the Old Testament prophecies, and the grounds for
the ultimate execution of divine judgment upon the nation. There
is therefore a direct relationship between being ‘holy’ and being
‘righteous,’ so that the Lord can under both Covenants admonish
His people to “be holy, for I, the Lord God, am holy.” But when we
consider the Church under the rubric of holiness, we cannot help
G. C. Berkouwer (1903-96) but find it lacking. In a remarkable example of understatement,
G. C. Berkouwer writes, “It has almost always been admitted that the Church does not
measure up to the ideal in all respects and that her actual appearance is not in harmony
with what Christ wanted.”11 Once again the believer is faced with a ‘reality’ that defies the
truth concerning the Church. She is sancta ecclesia, but she is not holy.
The Roman Catholic solution to this conundrum was to make the Church an
abstract concept or institution in which holiness resides and no longer the assembly of
unholy individuals. By this means the Church remains ‘holy,’ but it ceases to be anything
more than a theological abstraction, since the human manifestation of this holy Church is
uniformly and persistently unholy. Thus when the Roman Catholic theologian speaks of
the Church, he does not speak of the members of the Church, but rather the Church as the
overarching institution, unsullied by its members. That Rome acknowledges the
unholiness of its members is proven by its innovation of Purgatory, where deceased
Catholics go to be further purged from their sins. Consequently the members of the
Roman Catholic Church are not ‘saints’ – holy ones – in this life, but must undergo
11
Berkouwer, G. C. Studies in Dogmatics: The Church (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company;
1976); 11.
Page 11
centuries and even millennia of purgation before finally attaining holiness. Thus Rome
holds fast to the sancta ecclesia, but at the cost of the true sanctification of believers.
One insidious result of this separation of the holiness of the Church and the
holiness of her members is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Church.
Protestants are commonly familiar with the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, the
Bishop of Rome and head of the Roman Catholic Church. But technically the Pope is only
infallible ex cathedra, when he is ‘on the throne’ as the representative head of the Church
and Christ’s Vicar on earth. It is the Church herself that is imbued with all knowledge as a
result of her holy nature and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of
inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit
would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John 14:16; 16:13). It is implied also in
other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers. The
scope of this infallibility is to preserve the deposit of faith revealed to man by Christ and
His Apostles. The Church teaches expressly that it is the guardian only of the revelation,
that it can teach nothing which it has not received. The Vatican Council declares: "The Holy
Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter, in order that through His revelation
they might manifest new doctrine: but that through His assistance they might religiously
guard, and faithfully expound the revelation handed down by the Apostles, or the deposit
of the faith" (Conc. Vat., Sess. IV, cap. liv). The obligation of the natural moral law
constitutes part of this revelation. The authority of that law is again and again insisted on
by Christ and His Apostles. The Church therefore is infallible in matters both of faith and
morals. Moreover, theologians are agreed that the gift of infallibility in regard to the
deposit must, by necessary consequence, carry with it infallibility as to certain matters
intimately related to the Faith. There are questions bearing so nearly on the preservation of
the Faith that, could the Church err in these, her infallibility would not suffice to guard the
flock from false doctrine.12
This doctrine is the necessary and logical result of the way in which Rome deals
with the ‘sancta’ of the Church. It also allows the Roman Church to retain its members in
spite of manifest and unrepentant sin, and to view its clergy as having received an
indelible grace of ordination, in spite of horrid sin committed by many priests. But do
Protestants have an answer to the question of the Church as ‘holy’? If anything, the
tendency among modern Protestants, at least, is to minimize the ‘sancta’ of the confession
and to simply emphasize the grace of God, “We are all just sinners saved by grace.” While
Page 12
this is indeed a wonderful truth, it falls far short of the biblical teaching concerning the
Church, and the biblical admonition for all believers to be holy.
In an attempt to hold fast to the moral reality of the term
‘holy,’ John Wesley posited the perfectibility of the believer –
that each and every disciple of Jesus Christ can attain sinless
perfection in this life. In his sermon on Christian Perfection,
Wesley states, “This is the glorious privilege of every Christian;
yea, though he be but a babe in Christ. But it is only of those who
are strong in the Lord, and "have overcome the wicked one," or
rather of those who "have known him that is from the
beginning," [1 John 2:13, 14] that it can be affirmed they are in John Wesley (1703-91)
such a sense perfect”13 Unfortunately Wesley’s perfectionism is no less an abstraction than

Rome’s infallibility of the Church, for it is every believer’s experience that sin continues to
dwell within his or her members and to war – and often win – with the Spirit.
Collectively, therefore, believers assembled together in a church will not make that
congregation ‘holy.’
Perhaps we can view the ‘sancta’ of the Church in strictly a future, prophetic
manner – the Church will be holy when she is united with her Lord at the Second Coming.
This is true, of course, and is in keeping with the teachings of Paul with regard to the
Church as the bride of Christ.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He
might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to
Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy
and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:25-27)
But in addition to this future guaranty of the holiness of the Church, Paul also
speaks of holiness that is established in the very nature of the Church as connected with
her Lord, Jesus Christ.
For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
12
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, The Church; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm accessed 7/31/18.
13
Wesley, John Christian Perfection https://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-40-
Christian-Perfection accessed 7/31/18.
Page 13
(Romans 11:16)
The firstfruit is quite clearly Jesus Christ, who is confessed by all the Church to be
holy in thought and deed, without sin though tempted in all things just as we are. This is
the standard by which alone holiness may be measured: the holiness of God in Christ.
And this is the holiness, the sancta, of the Church. Perhaps the best we can do with this
difficult topic is to place it under the rubric of the ‘Now and the Not Yet.’ There can be no
doubt that the Church lives in mystical union with her Lord and by virtue of His atoning
death and victorious intercession, she is His holy bride. We need not separate the Church
into an abstract institution in which holiness and infallibility reside in spite of her human
members. Nor may we posit the perfectibility of believers, a notion that is nowhere
witnessed by any other than the self-deceived. But we may rest in the biblical truth that all
things are finished in Christ, and that the promises of God are in Him ‘yes, and amen.’
The holiness of the Church, therefore, consists in her union with her holy Lord, her
spotless Groom. This is not a virtue that has been vested in the Church apart from her
members, as Rome teaches, but rather the result of the calling together of those whom the
Lord has sanctified by His blood. This truth concerning the sancta of the Church
undergirds the profound meaning of the Church’s two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper, as we shall see in a latter session.
Thus it is proper for believers in this life to be called ‘saints,’ as Paul constantly does
throughout his epistles, and is blasphemous to the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, and
the power of the Holy Spirit, to hold that title only for those whom the Pope beatifies and
canonizes.
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and
members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:19-20)
In addition to being ‘one’ and ‘holy,’ the Creed also confesses the catholica ecclesia,
the ‘catholic church.’ The word catholic has in many minds been co-opted by the Roman
Catholic Church, but it simply means ‘universal.’ Thus the confession is that the one, holy
church is also universal; it spans all regions of the earth as well as all times. This is
undoubtedly the least controversial of the four marks of the true Church, aside from the
Page 14
controversy that should not, but has, attached to the word itself. All believers everywhere
recognize the common bond held with other believers, and all have felt this bond
whenever they have encountered a brother or sister in the Lord, regardless of race,
nationality, or denomination. Catholicity is the necessary associate of Unity – if there is
but one Church, then all who are in Christ are in that one Church and share alike in her
blessing.
Still, no theological point worth its salt can be without controversy, and the
catholicity of the Church is no exception. The issue debated in every generation has to do
with the identity of the Church vis-à-vis its members. In other words, are all members of
professing Christianity members of the Church, or are only those who have been
regenerated by the Holy Spirit? The answer seems to Reformed theologians, at least, to be
quite obvious. As T. E. Peck writes,
Inasmuch as they are called by an external clesis of the Word, they are gathered in
successive generations to constitute the ecclesia on earth. In as far as they are called also by
the internal clesis of the Spirit, they are gathered to constitute the invisible ecclesia, the full
and complete actual of the eternal ideal.14
This division between the visible Church and the invisible Church is commonplace
within Reformed ecclesiology, but it should not for that reason go without some critical
investigation. For this introduction, however, it is sufficient to say that theologians have
long struggled with the ideal of catholicity and the earthly reality of a ‘mixed multitude,’ –
of people within the bounds of the professing Church who, while perhaps not openly
wicked, are nonetheless devoid of spiritual life. This subject pertains primarily to the issue
of discipline in the Church, which will be the topic of a later lesson.
One last word to be said here on catholicity, however. The fact that all believers
everywhere are members of the one Church of Jesus Christ cannot be used to justify the
transient, nomadic existence of modern Christians, who move from church to church with
sad regularity. While it is true that the members of that church are probably just as much
members of the one Church as are the members of this church, the purpose of attending
any church is far more than just physical presence. The Greek word that describes the
14
Peck; 19.
Page 15
relationship between believers within a congregation is koinonia – participation, or
fellowship – and merely attending a particular church’s services does not constitute
koinonia. But again, this is the subject matter for a later session.
The fourth mark of the Church as enumerated by theologians from very early in her
history, is apostolica ecclesia – the ‘apostolic’ church. If catholicity is the most agreed
upon mark of the Church, apostolicity is the most controversial and least grounded in
Scripture. Indeed, we might not be surprised if our own analysis of its merits leaves us
with just three marks rather than four. This is because apostolicity concerns itself with the
passage of the truth from generation to generation, and the means or mechanism of that
transmission, in which erroneous views have led to deep corruption within the visible
Church. Still, there is some merit to the concept; therefore we will start with the positives
before moving on to the negatives.
The idea of succession is found in the relationship between Jesus Christ and His
apostles at the very beginning of what is historically called ‘the Church.’ It was to His
disciples collectively, as well as to Peter individually, that the Lord gave ‘the keys to the
kingdom’ with a very notable authority in regard to sin and judgment.
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be
bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
(Matthew 16:19)
So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when
He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the
sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
(John 20:21-23)
This authority on earth to bind and loose with regard to sin and judgment is a very
important and integral part of the Church’s life and health. This is true even though the
outworking of this authority has often been unloving, ungracious, and oppressive.
Without this ability to bind and loose the Church has no effective means whereby to
protect her members from wickedness and heresy; she has no basis for discipline. But on
what is this authority founded? Is it based on a generational succession of apostles – the
cardinals and bishops of the Church – with the successor of Peter – the Roman Pope – at
the head? This is the view of the Roman Catholic Church, and the view repudiated by
Page 16
Protestants and Eastern Orthodox churches for centuries. Rome made succession a part of
the official institution of the Church, and incorporated a theory of apostolicity into the
hierarchy of that church. She then, as T. E. Peck notes, tied catholicity with her own
interpretation of apostolicity, resulting in an institution that alone possessed the authority
given by Jesus to His disciples. “Unfortunately, however, catholicity was made to depend
upon official succession, instead of the succession of the truth; and this stupendous error
led, in the course of time, to Popery.”15
Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox churches reject the institutional and official
succession of the Roman Pope to the mantle of Peter. Yet they do not thereby repudiate
the concept of apostolicity, for the transmission of the “faith once delivered unto the saints”
from generation to generation is the lifeblood of the true Church. “All branches of the
Christian church hold to an apostolical succession in some sense; for without it there is no
ground upon which they can claim, with the slightest color of plausibility, a divine
sanction for their existence.”16 Roman Catholics continue to point to their antiquity as
proof that Rome remains the center of the true Church of Jesus Christ, and the Pope her
true head. Protestants often attempt to build a chronological lineage of reformation to
supplant that of Rome, and more often than not fail in the attempt. Still, continuity with
the Apostles is something that every Christian denomination seeks, recognizing that the
Church of Jesus Christ is built upon the “one foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ being the cornerstone.”
Whatever interpretation is given to the concept of apostolicity within Protestant
ecclesiology, it must never devolve into the identity of a particular man or office. G. C.
Berkouwer unwittingly illustrates just how difficult a task this is, by providing a rather
vague explanation of what it is that Protestant theologians are trying to do.
The intention here is not to glorify specific persons, but rather to guarantee continuity
through a charisma, a privilege, that can be described as ‘divine assistance.’ It is not an
inherent attribute and does not rest on revelation or inspiration, but is assistance in order
to protect apostolicity and to give an effective guarantee and sanction on the Church’s
historical life. One can think of various aspects of the Paraclete where the idea of the
15
Peck; 22.
16
Ibid.; 51.
Page 17
helper also plays a role. The divine assistance designates the Church as needing help and
as receiving help.17
But if apostolicity is to be a mark of the Church one might hope its explanation
would be a bit more clear. The continuity of the Church’s authority in both teaching and
discipline is a matter to be discussed at length under the heading of Church Polity, but we
can at least establish a firm foundation here with regard to the overall concept. It is not
upon the Apostles per se that the Church grounds her authority and validity, but rather on
their word, the inspired Word of God through which the Apostles bore witness to the
truth as it is in Jesus Christ, and set forth the nature and purpose of His Church. As there
is no biblical evidence that the apostolic mantle of authority was purposely handed down,
say, from Peter to Mark or from Paul to Timothy, we are under no obligation to attempt to
fabricate such a lineage. But we do have an explicit generational directive give to us from
the Apostle Paul, which is a very strong indication of what he, at least, would have
considered the correct interpretation of apostolicity.
You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you have
heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others
also. (II Timothy 2:1-2)
Though they are not in themselves biblical mandates, these four marks of the
Church – una, sancta, catholica, et apostolica – may serves as points of the compass in our
study of the doctrine of the Church. Some facets of the biblical teaching will align entirely
with one or another of these marks; other aspects of the Church will be a combination of
several – say, north by northeast, as it were. Each mark contains important truth that is
supported by biblical teaching, and together they do serve as a useful rubric for our
understanding of the ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.’
17
Berkouwer The Church; 259.
Page 18
Week 2: The People of God
Key Biblical Texts: Genesis 12:1-3; Isaiah 49:6; Acts 2:1-4
“In fact…first-century Judaism and Christianity
Have a central worldview-feature in common:
The sense of a story now reaching its climax.
And, most importantly, it is the same story.”
(N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God)
When scholars approach the end of their career, their colleagues and (especially)
their students often assemble a festschrift – German for ‘party writing’ or ‘feast-script’ – in
their honor. This is a collection of essays written on a common theme and dedicated to the
revered scholar. In honor of Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, professor at Dallas Theological
Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, John S. Feinberg assembled essays from
a number of scholars on the topic of Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the
Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. This work is a helpful disputation
between advocates of a thorough continuity between the two testaments of divine
revelation, on the one hand, and those who propose a stronger discontinuity between the
two, on the other. Broadly, the camps divide along Reformed (continuity) and
Dispensational (discontinuity) lines as the contributors debate such issues as Salvation, the
Law and Grace, and the Kingdom of God as manifested in the Old versus the New
Testament. This issue of continuity versus discontinuity is nowhere more pertinent than
in regard to the “People of God” in the Old Testament compared to the “People of God” in
the New Testament. Simply put, it is the age-old question of the relationship of the
Church to Israel, and no age yet has definitively answered this question.
This discussion is necessary as one considers the Formation or Foundation of the
Church: when did the Church begin? If at Pentecost, as the majority of evangelicals
believe, was the Church therefore something new in God’s plan? And if this is the case,
can any continuity be drawn between the ‘New Testament Church’ and ‘Old Testament
Israel’? The Reformed theologian answers strongly in the affirmative; the
Dispensationalist equally strongly in the negative. One’s view on the origin of the Church
is intimately tied to one’s view of the nature of the Church – what you believe the Church
to be in God’s redemptive plan and history will pretty much dictate when you believe the
Page 19
Church to have first entered into that history. For instance, the Reformed theologian
views the Church as essentially the People of God, and therefore find its origins in the call
of Abraham, the beginning of God’s calling to Himself a
people. The Dispensationalist, however, views the
Church as a parenthetic era situated between the
historical rejection by Israel of her Messiah, and the
Rapture of the Church/Second Coming of Christ, and
thus views the foundation of the Church as happening
at Pentecost. “Ultradispensationalism, however, delays
the inauguration of the church which exists today until Robert Saucy (1930-2015)
the time of the apostle Paul. A different church is said to have existed in the earlier portion
of the book of Acts.”18
The significance of the question with regard to the origin or founding of the Church
is far more than mere academics or biblical history. Evangelicals generally agree on the
concepts of ‘redemptive history’ and ‘progressive revelation.’ In other words, we believe
that God revealed His plan of salvation over time and not all at once. Hebrews 1:1-2 is the
locus classicus of this concept, “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past
to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…” Where the
Church first shows up on this revelatory timeline essentially determines those portions of
Scripture viewed – at least practically – as pertaining to the life of the Church. This is how
the theology and the ecclesiology of different denominations, or theological schools of
thought, are most commonly aligned. Those who believe the Church to be the People of
God beginning with the call of Abram will fall most generally into a Covenantalist view of
Soteriology along with an Amillennial view of Eschatology. Those who adamantly defend
the beginning of the Church at Pentecost, as a completely new entity – or at most a mystery in
the Old Testament – will align themselves squarely with Dispensationalism as well as
some form of Pre-Millennialism. It is usually not possible to determine which of these
views drives the others, but the associations stand.
In modern American Evangelicalism, the Covenantalist stands at the opposite end
18
Saucy, Robert L. The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody Press; 1972); 57.
Page 20
of the Ecclesiastical and Eschatological spectrum from the
Dispensationalist. But most believers find themselves
somewhere between, on the continuum of views that are
not always consistent with one another, yet are devoutly
held by individuals and denominations. Edmund
Clowney provides a broad generalization as to the basic
views with regard to the Church, that have been held in
Edmund Clowney (1917-2005) the West at least since the Reformation. “The Reformed
family of churches emphasized the church as the people of God; the sacramental churches as
the body of Christ; the Anabaptist churches as the disciples of Christ; and the Pentecostal
churches as the fellowship of the Spirit.”19 Clowney admits that each camp is suffering to
some degree from ‘tunnel vision,’ yet the distinctions made are important in helping us
get to the core of our own views regarding the Church of Jesus Christ.
Each view posits the Church in relation to the Godhead, with emphasis on a
different Person within the Trinity. The Reformed view, for instance, emphasizes the call
of God (the Father) as both the Creator and the Covenant God. The underlying theme of
Reformed Ecclesiology (and Polity) will therefore be the overarching redemptive purpose
of God as it magnifies His glory. For the Reformed theologian, then, the Church is not an
institution only to be found at Pentecost and later, but rather from the eternal council of
the Godhead and, in time, from either the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 or, most
commonly, from the call of Abram by God.
The Pentecostal view, on the other hand, emphasizes the Church in relation to the
Holy Spirit, who is her life force and bond of unity. For the Pentecostal, therefore, the
origin of the Church is not merely chronologically at Pentecost, but functionally as well.
This is because the outpouring (baptism) of the Holy Spirit is the believer’s claim to divine
power, and the Church’s bona fides as the instrument of God’s purpose in the world. This
will, of course, have significant ramifications as to what the ‘Pentecostal’ Church will look
like and how it will live and act in the world.
The other two views, though starkly different, both emphasize the Second Person of
the Trinity, Jesus Christ. The sacramental church is one that focuses on the metaphor of
Page 21
the Church as the Body of Christ, with the Roman Catholic Incarnational Ecclesiology being
the most profound (and profoundly wrong) treatment of this concept. The sacraments
become the vehicles of grace mediated by a priesthood, dispensing the grace of Jesus
Christ from the Church to the believer. The concept of the disciple, however, emphasizes
the function of the Church as the place where believers are taught of the Lord – about Him
and by Him through His Holy Spirit. This view will tend to neglect, or even negate,
church polity in favor of an egalitarian assembly of ‘learners,’ disciples of the Lord Jesus
Christ.
Each of these views has both theological and biblical merit, with Scriptures
available to support each one in contest against the others. It is debatable whether the
Lord intended that the views ever be in conflict, but the reality of the situation is that one
of the views seems always to dominate in the ecclesiology of this or that communion
within professing Christendom. For the purposes of this particular lesson, the line of
distinction will be a bit more dualistic – along the Continuity/Discontinuity Divide
mentioned earlier. Three of the four general views of the Church lay the greater stress on
that portion of redemptive history dominated by the Person and Work of Jesus Christ (this
is true of the Pentecostal as well as the Sacramentalist and the Anabaptist, as the sending
of the Holy Spirit was the work of the risen Lord Jesus). These views have the advantage
over the traditional Reformed view in that they give greater weight to the Advent of Jesus
Christ as a watershed event in the divine plan of redemption. Saucy, himself an advocate
of Progressive Dispensationalism, writes that “the church, by its very nature as the body of
Christ, is dependent upon the finished work of Christ and the coming of the Spirit.”20 The
views of the Sacramentalist, the Anabaptist, and the Pentecostal will be debated under the
evaluation of the function of the Church; for the study of the foundation of the Church the
real divide is between the Covenantalist…and everyone else.
This returns us to the earlier question concerning the relationship between the
Church and Israel. The three Church views that emphasis the ‘Christ-event’ as seminal to
the origin of the Church will, in different measures, teach a greater discontinuity between
the Church and Israel. The Reformed view, on the other hand, will advocate a degree of
19
Clowney, Edmund The Church (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press; 1995); 28. Italics added for emphasis.
20
Saucy; 57.
Page 22
continuity in which Israel becomes the Church, or, to put it another way, the Church
replaces Israel. This line of thinking immediately impacts the Eschatology of the Church
and as historically powerfully impacted the temporal relations between Christianity and
Judaism, too often to a regrettable degree.
A caveat is in order here. As mentioned earlier, not all views are clear-cut, nor are
they all consistently held by the individual camps. With respect to the Church’s
relationship to Jews, for instance, there has been a great deal of inconsistency of teaching
and practice. The view that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s redemptive plan is
one that is held not only by Reformed theologians, but also by the Roman Catholic
Church. Each communion has, at times in history, allowed this view to foster and
encourage anti-Semitism among its members, and at times as an official policy. The
opposite view of discontinuity, held by Dispensationalists, has often produced an
excessive and uncritical endearment to world Jewry, and particularly to the modern State
of Israel. Without doubt this latter view is to be preferred to anti-Semitism, though it is
nonetheless misguided because unbiblical.
One final word by way of introduction to this particular topic, or really a reiteration
of a word previously spoken. The Church is the Body of Christ – the body of which Christ
is the Head – and therefore as an entity it has little or no meaning apart from Christ.
Historically-speaking, it is imperative that one’s assessment of the foundation or formation
of the Church not diminish the Christ-event. At the end of the day, the Incarnation, Life,
Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely central to the being and the meaning
of the Church. While there is significant error to be found in the teaching of extreme
discontinuity between the testaments, there is an even greater danger than a seamless
continuity will render the coming of Jesus Christ of no practical significance. This would
be a far more grievous error indeed. In spite of the great scholarship displayed by the
Reformed tradition, this is undoubtedly one of its greatest weaknesses with regard to its
view of the foundation, and consequently the nature, of the Church. As with so many
issues in theology, the truth will lie somewhere between the extremes of continuity and
discontinuity – and probably not directly in the middle. In any event, the Person and
Work of Jesus Christ must be the bedrock upon which any biblical doctrine of the Church
is built; all other theories are shifting sand.
Page 23
God’s Purpose with Israel:
The various views with regard to the continuity or discontinuity of the Church with
Israel tend to focus either on ‘unfulfilled’ prophecies or promises concerning the nation of
Israel, on the one hand, or the finality of the work of redemption in Jesus Christ, on the
other. What is rarely considered is the purpose of God in forming and electing Israel from
among the nations of the world. If it can be shown that this purpose has been fulfilled,
then it stands to reason that the particular role of Israel as a theocratic nation – a unique
People of God in the world – need not continue. Israel cannot have a special redemptive
purpose in the world once that purpose has been fulfilled. But it can still remain as the
‘apple of God’s eye’ – the nation upon which He has set His everlasting love. In other
words, a distinction needs to be made between Israel in the redemptive plan of God, and
Israel as the nation of God’s unique affection. The conclusion of the former does not mean
the abrogation of the latter. But the distinction will have a significant effect on one’s
reading of Scripture with regard to the relationship of the Church to Israel, both in
Ecclesiology and in Eschatology. It will also play an important role in the interpretation of
Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel, as to whether the prophecies have been fully
and finally fulfilled, or whether there is yet a final completion to be realized.
What, then, was God’s purpose in electing Israel from among the nations of the
world, to be His peculiar people? Even the question, phrased this way, contains an
important point toward the answer: Israel was a people before it was a nation. For roughly
four hundred years Israel lived as the People of God before they became, in some
recognizable sense of the word, a nation. Sinai was the first ‘calling’ of the People of God
as the Nation of Israel, the first and most important qahal of the people of the Abrahamic
Covenant, but it was not their inception as a people. Realization of this fact may help us
reconsider the biblical importance that has often been placed on Israel as an autonomous
nation, and also assist in our realization that Israel has always been a people, even when it
was not a nation. The emphasis thus becomes on the People of God rather than on the
Nation of Israel, which once was not, and for most of the history of the People has not
been a sovereign Nation. Restoration of the Nation is not as important to the identity of
Israel as it Recovery of the People. Of course, this does not mean that restoration of the
Page 24
Nation will not occur; but given the facts of Israel’s history, this eventuality can hardly be
given the central position of importance that it has in the modern evangelical church.
To both the Nation and the People of Israel – sometimes the former, always the
latter – the point of most intense focus with regard to the being of Israel must be Sinai. In
light of the Hebrew word for ‘assembly,’ – qahal – and the fact that the Greek translation of
the Old Testament almost invariably translates this word by ecclesia, which in the New
Testament is translated ‘church’ – the assembly of the People of God at Mt. Sinai is of the
greatest importance to our understanding of both the people of God and its purpose. The
word qahal, like the Greek word ecclesia, is quite generic and can refer to any gathering of
people for any purpose. Thus it is important to recognize that the calling and gathering of
a people by God and for His Name, though referred to by the common term ‘assembly,’
has historical connections that demand its unique and particular interpretation in terms of
the setting apart of a people by God and through the giving of His Law.
The significance of the qahal at Sinai for Israel is connected to the ecclesia of
Christians by the author of Hebrews, a connection that is also a stark contrast as well as a
similarity,
For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to
blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those
who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. (For they could not
endure what was commanded: “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned
[i]or shot with an arrow.” And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I am exceedingly afraid
and trembling.”) But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn
who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus
the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that
of Abel. (Hebrews 12:18-24)
In light of this connection between the qahal of Sinai and

the ecclesia of the Church, it is interesting and ironic that the
influential 12th Century Jewish rabbi Maimonides apparently
began a tradition that the Feast of Shavout – Pentecost –
historically commemorated the giving of the Law at Sinai, a
tradition that has enjoyed a vibrant life within Judaism ever since.
Maimonides (1135-1204)
Page 25
Considering the significance of Pentecost to Christianity – the giving of the Holy Spirit
and in what is considered by many to be the inception of the Church – one would think
that a Jewish scholar would be careful not to make such a connection between the qahal of
Israel at Sinai and the ecclesia of Christianity. It is impossible to support Maimonides
theory from the biblical text, as Exodus 19 informs us that the children of Israel did not
arrive at Mt. Sinai until the third month after their departure from Egypt. Still, it is an
interesting development of history that such a renown Jewish scholar would unwittingly
make a connection previously made by the author of Hebrews.
Bearers of the Law:
Maimonides notwithstanding, the event of Law-giving at Sinai constituted the

People of Israel as a people of the Law of God. In searching for a purpose for Israel – a
raison d’etre for the gathering of this people into a nation among nations – one clear aspect
of such a purpose must be the bearing of God’s Law as a living and active principle of
thought and action within human society. The commandments delivered by God to Israel
through Moses were to be the wisdom and the understanding of the Israelites as a people,
even before they became a nation.
Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that
you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe
them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all
these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’
(Deuteronomy 4:5-6)
In his benedictory song, Moses links the events of Law-giving at Sinai with that of
calling Israel to God as unique people and the object of the divine love, further
strengthening the place of Sinai within the whole concept of Israel as a people as well as a
nation,
The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir;
He shone forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints;
From His right hand came a fiery law for them.
Yes, He loves the people; All His saints are in Your hand;
They sit down at Your feet; Everyone receives Your words.
Page 26
Moses commanded a law for us, a heritage of the congregation of Jacob.
And He was King in Jeshurun,
When the leaders of the people were gathered, all the tribes of Israel together.
(Deuteronomy 33:2-5)
Throughout the history of Israel under the Mosaic dispensation, the Law remained
the central theme of both their faithfulness and their unfaithfulness. The prophet Isaiah
admonishes his countrymen, “To the Law and to the Testimony; if they do not speak according to
this word, it is because there is no light in them.”21 And the last of the Israelite prophets,
Malachi, connects his audience with the beginning of Israel’s life as a nation,
Remember the Law of Moses, My servant,

Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel,
With the statutes and judgments.
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.
And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse. (Malachi 4:4-6)
Though the Hebrew Bible ends with II Chronicles and not as our Bibles, with
Malachi, this passage is the closing prophetic word of the Old Covenant era. The next event
on the horizon is the coming of ‘Elijah’ in preparation for the coming of the ‘Messenger of
the Covenant.’ We know these two prophetic allusions are to John the Baptist, who was
“Elijah who is to come,” and the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the prophetic words ends under
the Old Covenant by reminding Israel of her greatest glory and grace: the Law of Moses.
The first qahal of Israel at Sinai has reference to the Law, and the last prophetic word given
to Israel has reference to the Law. It is not too much to say that the Law was an essential –
in the philosophical sense of the word, of the essence – facet of what it meant to be Israel.22
Bearing the Law before the nations was Israel’s witness, her purpose and reason for being.
But was it the plan of God that Israel forever be the depository of the divine Law?
Was Israel to perpetually be merely a witness of the divine holiness through the Law?
Was that Law never to actually encounter the rest of the nations? Were they never to
21
Isaiah 8:20
22
This is not to diminish the importance of the other essential pillar of Israelite identity: the tabernacle or Temple. This
feature of Israelite being and purpose will be dealt with later in the study.
Page 27
encounter God’s Law? To ask these questions is to answer them; of course the eternal plan
of God was that the transcript of His holy nature – the divine Law – be written on the
heart of all the elect of God, from “every tongue, tribe, and nation.” The ultimate fulfilment
of the Law, at least in terms of the creature Man, was that it be written upon the heart and
not on tables of stone. This, of course, is the essential feature of the New Covenant.
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. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
This passage describes an event in redemptive history in which the law-bearing

mission of Israel comes to an end, not because the Law itself is abrogated or abolished, but
rather because of a spiritual inscribing of that Law upon the hearts of God’s people, each
and every single one. Ezekiel writes of a similar operation by God upon His people,
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. (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
This passage also speaks both before and after with respect to the Land, a very
important (and often confusing) feature of the prophetic promises to Israel. But the focus
on this part of the study is on the Law, and in particular here the writing of the Law upon
the heart of God’s people, an essential characteristic of the New Covenant. If it can be
shown that this event has occurred, then by force of an inexorable biblical logic, this
particular purpose of Israel – the law-bearer – is no longer applicable. Again, this does not
mean that Israel ceases to be a factor in the divine redemptive purpose, nor that Israel
ceases to be the apple of God’s eye. But it is a reasonable, even necessary, hermeneutic to
allow progressive revelation to reach its intermediate completion points, and to recognize
when a prophecy or purpose has been fully and finally fulfilled. The terminus of the Law
with reference to Old Testament teaching is the writing of that Law upon the heart. The
Page 28
point at which this promise is realized is the advent of the New Covenant. If the New
Covenant has come, then the Law is now written upon the heart of God’s people.
The New Covenant and the Church:
The manner of the fulfillment of the promise of the New Covenant has caused a
great deal of opinion regarding the extent to which the Old Testament prophecies are
completed. The fact that the temporal/land-based promises to Israel have not been
fulfilled – Israel is not a sovereign, theocratic nation with a Davidic king – directly led to
the theories of Dispensationalism, in which the Church Age is an entirely distinct era in
God’s redemptive plan. The argument has most often proceeded like this: “Such and such
prophecy has not been literally fulfilled, therefore the New Covenant promises of Jeremiah
31 cannot have been fulfilled either.” In other words, the basis for consideration of the
completeness of any prophetic fulfillment has often become a literal fulfillment of the
aspects of the promises, according to our understanding. If Israel is not in full possession
of the Land, if the Temple has not been rebuilt, and if the Davidic King (Jesus) is not ruling
from His throne in Jerusalem, there must remain a future aspect of prophetic fulfillment.
Is it possible that the hermeneutical difficulties of Old Testament prophecy are
being viewed from the wrong perspective? Perhaps it would be better, and more biblically
accurate, to turn the question around thus, “If the New Covenant promises of the Old
Testament have not been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ, what can possibly follow that
would fulfill them?” Given the comprehensiveness of the work of Jesus Christ at His first
advent, can any future work be imagined that would ‘complete’ what He has apparently
left unfulfilled? It seems that the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy ought to be an a
priori position for the New Testament exegete; that Christ’s “It is finished” from the cross
should be a powerful indication that our exegetical perspective ought to be completion-in-
Christ. To be sure, it is not supposed that this perspective will answer all questions or
provide a definitive and clear solution to the Israel conundrum; but it has the definite
advantage of giving full weight and glory to the work of Jesus Christ, Israel’s Messiah.
Applied to the question of the relationship between the Church and Israel, this
perspective begins the discussion from the position that the Church is the New Covenant
community of God’s People. It takes as given that Jesus Christ completed the
Page 29
inauguration of the New Covenant – “This is the New Covenant in My blood…” – and thus
all that was promised regarding the New Covenant via the prophecies of the Old
Covenant is “Yes, and Amen, in Christ.” The New Covenant feature that most concerns this
particular study is the Law, and the New Covenant promise that the Law will be written
on the hearts of God’s people. If this has not occurred through the redemptive work of
Jesus Christ and the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, it is hard to imagine – and
impossible to defend biblically – any other mechanism by which this circumstance will
come about.
That Jesus’ first advent had to do with the Law – among other things, certainly – is
evident from the Apostle Paul’s words in Galatians 4:4-5, “But when the fullness of the time
had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who
were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” It was Jesus’ own perspective
of His ministry that He was sent not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. This is why Paul
can speak of Jesus Christ as “the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes.” If,
as He has indicated, Jesus fulfilled the Law by both His
active obedience and His passive suffering, then the people
gathered together in Him – the New Covenant People of
God – will constitute a community that is “no longer under
law, but under grace.” To put it in a more historical way, the
ecclesia of the Church is not called together at Sinai, as the
qahal of Israel was, but rather at the Cross. O. Palmer
O. Palmer Robertson (1937 - )
Robertson writes, “[Jesus] is not, as some suppose, replacing
Israel with the church. But he is reconstituting Israel in a way that makes it suitable for the
ministry of the new covenant.”23
Thus the role of Israel in God’s redemptive plan and history must of necessity
change when the purpose of her existence is finally fulfilled. All theories that posit a
return to some form of Judaism as the ‘religion’ of God’s People are a step backward on
the redemptive continuum, which cannot be done without in some manner denigrating
the finished work of Jesus Christ. The coming of Christ must be seen as a game-changer;
23
Robertson, O. Palmer The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing;
2000); 118.
Page 30
nothing can be afterward like it was before. This is the discontinuity component of the
equation.
Furthermore, what Israel was as the People of God under the Old Covenant, the
Church now is under the New. This is the continuity part of the equation. Two
characteristics of the New Testament self-assessment of the Church - through the writings
of the apostles and their legates – should be noted here. First, the members of the New
Covenant ecclesia in no way considered themselves to be the founders of a new movement,
a new ‘thing’ of God separate and distinct from the heritage they possessed as Israelites.
The apostles leaned not upon their own understanding regarding what was taking place in
their midst, but rather turned to the Scriptures to find the answer, “This is what was spoken
of by the prophet Joel…” It is remarkable that some within the Dispensationalist view
(known as Ultradispensationalists) mark the beginning of the New Testament Church with
the apostle Paul; there is no way under heaven that Saul of Tarsus would have entirely
abandoned the traditions of his people, a blinding light from heaven notwithstanding.
Rather it should be carefully noted how tightly Paul, as well as the other writers of the
New Testament, tie the life and doctrine of the Church to the revelation of God in the Old
Testament. There is unbroken continuity in the redemptive plan and purpose of God.
But the second characteristic of the New Testament witness concerning the Church
is that it is never confused or identified with Israel. True, many modern commentators
view Paul’s phrase in Galatians, “the Israel of God,” as an identification of the Church with
Israel, but that in itself is just an interpretation that must be proven. The phrase could
have other meanings, and based on the whole of Paul’s thought concerning Israel and the
Church, it is likely that there is another meaning to the phrase than that of identification of
the two. For Paul, Israel consistently represents a physical nation or people who were the
depository of God’s grace through the Law, the prophets, the Levitical worship, etc. (cp.
Romans 9). The people of the New Covenant are never said to replace Israel in the
redemptive plan of God, but rather to be joined or grafted in to the ancient People of God.
The classic passage in this regard is Ephesians 2,
Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is
called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ,
being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having
Page 31
no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off
have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made
both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the
enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one
new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one
body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to
you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one
Spirit to the Father. (Ephesians 2:11-18)
Thus we take as our summary position regarding the relationship of the Church to
Israel, that the Church is not presented in Scripture as a new work of God, something
entirely disconnected from His work in and through Israel. In addition, the work that God
has completed in Christ Jesus is full and final, there can be no further work necessary or
planned. The purpose of Israel has been fulfilled in Christ, particularly with respect to
Israel being a ‘nation under the law.’ The law being completely fulfilled in Christ, the
New Covenant inaugurated in Him, we now consider that the promise of the law being
written upon the hearts of God’s people is accomplished through the regeneration and
indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There remains with regard to the Old Covenant People of
God two other symbols of their being, the Land and the Temple, to consider. The Land
must be viewed under the rubric of Eschatology; the Temple will be the subject of our next
lesson.
Page 32
Week 3: Israel and the Church: The Temple
Key Biblical Texts: Isaiah 56:6-7; Mark 11:15-17; John 2:13-21
“It is, however, certainly more exact,

not to fix the date of the beginning of the Christian Church
Before the appearing of the historical Christ,
Even while we feel the inner conviction of a higher unity,
Which connects this Church with the people of the Old Covenant.”
(J. J. van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics)
It takes a very strong influence to remove the sense of which van Oosterzee speaks
in this quote – “the inner conviction of a higher unity” between the People of God of the
New Covenant and those of the Old. Beyond the powerful evidence of Old Testament
prophecy permeating the New Testament writings, there is the undeniable (at least within
biblical orthodoxy) unchangeableness of the one true God, the Eternal Father of the Lord
Jesus Christ. It would be an interesting study to attempt to trace the historical
development of thought that led to the complete divorce of discontinuity between ‘the
Church’ and ‘Israel’ as the two are revealed in the Bible. There would appear from such a
study several strands of independent thought that combined to produce the currently-
predominant strain of discontinuity under the broad heading of Dispensationalism. One
thread would be that of a literal hermeneutic that, to be fair, was itself a reaction against an
overly spiritualizing, or ‘demythologizing’ hermeneutic gaining ground in the Church.
Another, and more insidious, strand would be that of Anti-Semitism, which has reared its
head far too often within professing Christendom. This unrighteous blot upon the
Church’s history was augmented in the earliest times by the increasing number of Gentile
members and the decreasing proportion Jewish believers in the visible Christian Church.
In more recent history, additionally, we have the foundation of the State of Israel in
1948, fueling speculation concerning Old Testament prophecy and the Old Covenant
People of God. This event, which undoubtedly factors as a manifestation of divine
Providence, was widely seen as vindication of the literal hermeneutic that reserves all
prophecy delivered to Old Testament Israel as being only and forever applicable to Israel
as a physical, ethnic nation. For the past seventy years since its founding, however, the
State of Israel (and of the world) has failed to live up to the expectation of the prophetic
interpreters and prophecy conferences. Indeed, a new brand of Dispensationalism arose in
Page 33
the 1980s that has been called “Progressive Dispensationalism,” a name that is somewhat
insulting to Traditional Dispensationalism.
The primary modification found among Progressives, is the admissions that there is
a great deal more continuity between the Church and Israel than
is allowed under the traditional Dispensational teaching. Darrell
Bock, a leading ‘PD,’ argues that the strongest feature of
Progressive Dispensationalism is in the way it handles the
Continuity/Discontinuity divide better than either Traditional
Dispensationalism or Covenantalism. “I think it (i.e.,
Progressive Dispensationalism) treats the continuity and
discontinuity of God’s administrative arrangement across time Darrell Bock (1953 - )
for his program most comprehensively. It maintains God’s grace and faithfulness in how it
sees him deal with Israel. It stresses how reconciliation is a powerful witness for God and
highlights the ethical dimensions of the teaching of the prophets, Jesus and the epistles
most consistently.24
Robert Saucy, whose brand of Progressive Dispensationalism hewed closer to
Traditional Dispensationalism than his ‘PD’ colleagues, still sees in the New Covenant a
distinct continuity with the Old Covenant that traditionalists would not allow. Saucy
writes in regard to Jesus’ words of institution of the Lord’s Supper, “This is the new
covenant in My blood,”
In this statement Christ was telling the disciples that His death would effect the final
eschatological promise of the new covenant for the remission of sins. The writer of
Hebrews later expressly stated that with the death of Christ the covenant was in force…To
be sure, Israel as a nation has not entered into the provisions of Jeremiah and therefore the
specific national fulfillment of the covenant to the ‘house of Israel’ and the ‘house of Judah’
awaits their future conversion. But the ‘messenger of the covenant’ has come, and those
who receive Him receive the salvation of the new covenant.25
It is not likely that Progressive Dispensationalists will become Covenantalists with

the passing of time, as their Soteriology is generally Arminian and their Eschatology
24
“Progressive Dispensationalism: An Interview with Darrell Bock” http://mydigitalseminary.com/progressive-
dispensationalism-darrell-bock/; accessed August 13, 2018.
25
Saucy, The Church in God’s Program; 80.
Page 34
distinctly Millenarian. But the theological movement is evidence of van Oosterzee’s
words: we just cannot get past the “inner conviction of a higher unity” between Israel and
the Church. A large part of that unity has to do with the “messenger of the covenant” of
which Saucy writes in the previous quote. The allusion is to the prophet Malachi, chapter
3, where we read:
“Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple,
Even the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight.
Behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)
Saucy is correct to associate the coming of the Messenger of the Covenant with the
advent of the New Covenant prophesied so fully in Jeremiah 31. These were exilic and
post-exilic prophecies of restoration to Israel, and the New Covenant revelation developed
into a central theme and hope for the faithful of Israel in those dark centuries. It is
significant to our study concerning the origin of the Church to note just where the
Messenger of the Covenant was to appear, He “will suddenly come to His temple,” and who it
is that is coming, “And the Lord, whom you seek…” This was acknowledged as a messianic
prophecy by the Jews, and held to be one by Christians. It is, of course, fulfilled in the
coming of Jesus Christ and is of the same sense and context of prophecy as the words of
Haggai, “The glory of this latter temple shall be greater than the former,” says the LORD of hosts.
“And in this place I will give peace,’ says the LORD of hosts.”26
Prophecies such as these place the Temple at the center of the messianic promise
and hope, which is exactly the position of the Temple in the time of Jesus. As in the days
of Jeremiah, the Jews in Jesus’ day – and afterward as the imminent destruction of
Jerusalem approached – trusted in the presence of the Temple as their safeguard against
catastrophe. As we will see later in this lesson, the Jewish historian Josephus, himself a
former general in the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, warned the Jews of Jerusalem
not to put their hopes in the Temple to save them from the repercussions of their rebellion.
This position of the Temple should not surprise us, as the Tabernacle/Temple stood as one
of the abiding symbols of Israelite identity as the People of God from the time of Moses to
26
Haggai 2:9
Page 35
the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, and even to the present time. N. T. Wright
summarizes the place of the Temple in Judaism, “The Temple thus formed in principle the
heart of Judaism, in the full metaphorical sense: it was the
organ from which there went out to the body of Judaism, in
Palestine and in the Diaspora, the living and healing
presence of the covenant god.”27 This centrality of the
Temple to the Jewish nation and religion means that any
connection between Israel and the Church must somehow
involve the Temple as it does the Torah. The ‘Messenger of
N. T. Wright (1948 - )
the Covenant’ is the same Christ who came into the Temple bearing a whip to cleanse it,
an act that tied His ministry and mission directly to the house of His God.
Then Jesus went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in the temple,
and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He
would not allow anyone to carry wares through the temple. Then He taught, saying to them, “Is it
not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it a ‘den
of thieves.’” (Mark 11:15-17)
This is the same Jesus who established His Church upon the earth. The events are
inseparably linked, and within that linkage is to be found a powerful indication of the
continuity between the Old Covenant and the New, and between Israel and the Church.
“The Temple was, in Jesus’ day, the central symbol of Judaism, the location of Israel’s most
characteristic praxis, the topic of some of her most vital stories, the answer to her deepest
questions, the subject of some of her most beautiful songs.”28
The Tabernacle and the Temple - Where God’s Name Dwells:
Entire books have been written concerning the meaning and purpose of the
tabernacle in the wilderness, its arrangement and its furnishings. There are two particular
aspects of its divinely-ordained design that pertain to our topic here: first, that its
arrangement and ornamentation was indicative of the entire cosmos – the created order of
27
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; 1992); 226.
28
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; 1996); 406.
Page 36
God – and a copy of heaven on earth. This is apparent by the Creation imagery of its
embroidered work, and by the testimony of the author to the Hebrews,
For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this
One also have something to offer. For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are
priests who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly
things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said,
“See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”
(Hebrews 8:3-5)
The second pertinent characteristic of the tabernacle, as also with the later Temple,
is that it was the place where God dwelt in glory amidst His people, even where He
caused His Name to abide. This feature is evident in the Shekinah that descended upon the
tabernacle at its consecration, and later upon Solomon’s Temple at its dedication. It is also
evident in judgment, when the vision of the glory of the Lord departing the Temple is
given to Ezekiel. This concept of the glory of the Lord in His Temple underlies the
prophetic word from Haggai previously quoted, “The latter glory of this house shall be greater
than the former,” and ties together the Old and New Covenants in the Person of the
Messenger, Jesus Christ. These two aspects come together in the configuration of the
tabernacle: as one progressed from the outer courts, through the Holy Place, to the Holy of
Holies, one progressed closer and closer to the throne of God Himself. In a manner of
speaking, the tabernacle was the only ‘Way’ on earth by which man could come to God –
at least under the Old Covenant. “The closer one came to the Temple, and, within the
Temple, the closer one came to the Holy of Holies, the further one moved up a carefully
graded scale of purity and its requirements.”29
The tabernacle in the wilderness and the Temple in Jerusalem were also, and not
insignificantly, the places where divine worship was ordered and authorized. These
places were not only where the God of Israel caused His Name to dwell in the midst of
His people, they were also where His people drew near to their God in repentance and
worship. The tabernacle/Temple complex cannot be separated from the Levitical
priesthood, and the Aaronic high priest, nor can it be replaced by the synagogue. It is
impossible to overstate the catastrophe that was the loss of the Temple to the people and
29
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God; 407.
Page 37
religion of Israel, whether at the hands of the Babylonians or those of the Romans. More
even than the loss of the land, the loss of the Temple was to Israel the severing of the
relationship between the people and their God; it was the departure of the glory of
Yahweh from their midst. Restoration was indeed promised, for the love of God is
without end and His mercies are new every morning. Still, we must not allow the hope of
restoration to diminish the horrendous loss of identity the loss of the Temple entailed
upon Israel. “The Temple remains the central point of the national hope, the governing
eschatology, as well as of the national life and identity; and at the heart of the Temple’s
existence and significance there stood the sacrificial system.”30 Thus any word spoken – or
perceived to be spoken – against the Temple, whether by the prophet Jeremiah or the
Galilean rabbi Jesus, was very apt to be understood as an attack upon the very life of the
Israelite nation, the very soul of her being.
But Israel had already suffered the loss of the Temple in the days of Jeremiah, and
had survived and been restored to the land and to at least some form of a Second Temple.
It is remarkable that the Jews of the Second Temple era put such intense hope and
expectation in the Temple, just as their forefathers had done six hundred years before.
Jeremiah prophesied that the presence of the Temple in the midst of Jerusalem would not
save either the city or its inhabitants.
The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, “Stand in the gate of the LORD’s house, and
proclaim there this word, and say, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, all you of Judah who enter in at
these gates to worship the LORD!’ ” Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Amend your
ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Do not trust in these lying words,
saying, ‘The temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD are these.’
(Jeremiah 7:1-4)
The Lord goes on to remind the people of Judah in the days of Jeremiah, to consider
the fate of their northern brethren of Ephraim, in the land of Shiloh where the tabernacle
once stood when the tribes of Israel had first entered the land. Did the memory of the
tabernacle save the Northern Kingdom of Israel?
But go now to My place which was in Shiloh, where I set My name at the first, and see what I did to
it because of the wickedness of My people Israel. And now, because you have done all these works,”
30
Wright Jesus and the Victory of God; 411.
Page 38
says the LORD, “and I spoke to you, rising up early and speaking, but you did not hear, and I called
you, but you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house which is called by My name, in
which you trust, and to this place which I gave to you and your fathers, as I have done to
Shiloh. And I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out all your brethren—the whole
posterity of Ephraim. (Jeremiah 7:12-15)
These dire predictions of judgment, permeating the prophecy of Jeremiah, have

come to be known as ‘jeremiads,’ a term used to describe any prediction of utter ruin,
especially among a people earnestly expecting a different outcome founded upon false
hopes. Many scholars have correctly recognized the pervasive role of the ‘jeremiad’ in the
preaching of Jesus. It is a brief but comprehensive summary of Jesus’ word to the Jews of
His day, and especially to Jerusalem and to the Temple precincts and leadership, when He
said that “no stone will be left upon another.” Nowhere is this spirit of Jeremiah more
evident than in the ‘woes’ that Jesus levels against the leaders of Judaism and Jerusalem in
Matthew 23, followed by a stirring jeremiad,
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How
often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but
you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no
more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’
(Matthew 23:37-39)
It is common to interpret ‘your house’ to be a general term for the whole city, but
probably more accurate to see in this phrase a strong reference to the Temple, which was
supremely Jerusalem’s ‘house.’ Speaking of Jerusalem, Wright comments, “It was not so
much a city with a temple in it; more like a temple with a small city round it.”31 Jesus did
not put the same stock in the presence of Herod’s Temple as did the Pharisees and
Sadducees of His day, and in that was more akin to the Essenes who had utterly rejected
the Temple as defiled and unholy. This sect would have applauded Jesus’ jeremiads
against the Temple and its rulers.
The Essenes, who regarded the Hasmonean high-priestly dynasty as usurpers, refused to
take part in the cult, believing that their own community was the god-given substitute, and
that in due time, when YHWH acted, a new Temple would be built.32
31
Wright, The New Testament; 225.
32
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God; 411-412.-
Page 39
Destruction of the Temple was perhaps the paramount manifestation of divine

displeasure with Israel, as it severed the critical link between God and His People both in
terms of atoning sacrifice and worship. When the Temple was again destroyed in AD 70,
the religious leaders of Judaism – especially those of the rabbinic school of Hillel –
attempted to substitute study of Torah, at least to some extent, in place of sacrifice at the
Temple.
The sanctity and supreme importance of Torah…can hardly be exaggerated. Those who
kept it with rigour were, in some ways though not all, as if they were priests in the Temple.
Not that the Pharisees, until the destruction actually happened, ever imagined a Judaism
without Temple and Land altogether. In the Diaspora they still looked to Jerusalem; after
the destruction…many of them yearned and agonized for the Temple to be rebuilt. But
Toray provided, in both cases, a second-best substitute which, in long years without the
reality, came to assume all its attributes…In the presence of Torah one was in the presence
of the covenant god.33
All this to say that the Temple was of vital importance to the People of God under
the Old Covenant, and its loss was catastrophic. But its loss was exactly what was both
prophesied under the Old Covenant, and predicted by Jesus frequently during His earthly
ministry. What impact does this impending judgment have upon the transition between
the Old Covenant and the New? And what bearing upon the Church in its relation to
Israel – the People of the New Covenant to those of the Old? The answer to these questions
lies at the heart of modern eschatological debate concerning the future place of Israel in
God’s purpose, and the future rebuilding of a physical Temple in Jerusalem.
As to the physicality of the Second Temple there are two interesting points to be
made (well, hopefully they’re interesting). The first is that, at first, the building was a far
cry from Solomon’s glorious structure.
In the seventh month, on the twenty-first of the month, the word of the LORD came by Haggai the
prophet, saying: “Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the
son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to the remnant of the people, saying: ‘Who is left among you
who saw this [b]temple in its former glory? And how do you see it now? In comparison with it, is
this not in your eyes as nothing? (Haggai 2:2-3)
33
Wright, The New Testament; 228-229.
Page 40
The second point is that the renovations made to this impoverished Temple by
Herod the Great were largely rejected by the Jews, or at best accepted very grudgingly.
Herod’s Temple was a grand and beautiful structure, astonishing those, like Jesus’
disciples, who marveled at the structure. Still, it could not be the true rebuilt Temple, for
Herod was by no means a king in the lineage of David; he was not even a full Jew. Thus
Herod’s Temple could never pass muster with the nation as a whole, and therefore the
building of which Jesus said, “Tear it down…” was even at that time not the Temple of
memory, the Temple of Solomon. This does not diminish the centrality of the Temple in
the life of the Jewish nation, though it helps us to understand why even many Jews were
not anxious for its rebuilding after AD 70, knowing as they did that any attempt to rebuild
it would bring down the wrath of Rome once again. Yet the presence of any Temple in
Jerusalem – whether the meager structure of Zerubbabel’s day or the glorious one of
Herod’s – enabled the people to consider themselves under the watchful eye of a faithful
covenant God, and thereby to be safe and whole.
Jesus and the Temple – Mark 11 & John 2
For Jesus, the jeremiad of all jeremiads was the incident – or incidences – in which
He entered the Temple and scourged the moneylenders and those who were carrying
burdens through the precincts. This event is recorded in several places, and their locations
indicate either a thematic composition by the individual authors or the possibility that
Jesus did this twice. For instance, Mark places the event toward the end of Jesus’ ministry
while John inserts it very early.
So they came to Jerusalem. Then Jesus went into the temple and began to drive out those who
bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of
those who sold doves. And He would not allow anyone to carry wares through the temple. Then He
taught, saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all
nations’? But you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’” (Mark 11:15-17)
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the
temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers [b]doing business. When
He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and
poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves,
Page 41
“Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” Then His
disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house [c]has eaten Me up.”
(John 2:13-17)
This incident is most often referred to as ‘Jesus cleansing the Temple,’ and as to the
outward actions this is indeed what He appears to be doing. However, when we consider
the Old Testament references He quotes, and then the continued dialogue recorded in
John’s gospel, the characteristic of ‘cleansing’ gives way to that of ‘judgment.’ The central
element in each passage is a quote from the passage in Jeremiah 7 mentioned earlier, in
which the Temple in Jerusalem was prophesied to have the same immanent fate as did the
tabernacle in Shiloh – judgment and destruction.
Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of thieves in your eyes? Behold, I, even I,
have seen it,” says the LORD. (Jeremiah 7:11)
This reference thus qualifies Jesus’ words as another jeremiad against the religious
establishment of Israel, and one now aimed at the very heart and soul of Judaism: the
Temple. Significantly, however, Jesus weaves in another portion of Scripture that is far
more hopeful, from Isaiah 56. This passage speaks again of the Temple as a ‘house of
prayer,’ but now in reference to the Gentiles.
Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants—
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant—
Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar;
For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” The Lord GOD, who gathers
the outcasts of Israel, says, “Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.”
(Isaiah 56:6-8)
Jeremiah speaks of destruction; Isaiah of restoration, hope, and the inclusion of the
Gentiles among the worshippers of God. Interpretation of these two strands of prophetic
thought is somewhat complicated by the fact that Isaiah was much earlier than Jeremiah ; it
might be theorized (incorrectly) that Israel’s continuation in sin and rebellion caused the
Lord to change His mind with regard to the hope, and to settle in Jeremiah’s day upon
judgment only. Fortunately we have further prophetic word through Ezekiel, whose time
Page 42
was late-contemporary with Jeremiah, and who prophesied after the Babylonian
destruction of Solomon’s Temple. Ezekiel was early given a vision of the glory of the
LORD departing from the Temple (Ezekiel 10), but near the end of his prophetic book
received a comforting vision of restoration.
Afterward he brought me to the gate, the gate that faces toward the east. And behold, the glory of the
God of Israel came from the way of the east. His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the
earth shone with His glory. It was like the appearance of the vision which I saw—like the vision
which I saw when I came to destroy the city. The visions were like the vision which I saw by the
River Chebar; and I fell on my face. And the glory of the LORD came into the temple by way of the
gate which faces toward the east. The Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and
behold, the glory of the LORD filled the temple. (Ezekiel 43:1-5)
It should be noted that the word translated ‘temple’ in this passage (NKJV) is habait,
or ‘house,’ and not ‘temple,’ tying the reference in with Jeremiah’s “house of prayer,”
Isaiah’s “house of prayer for all nations,” and even Jesus’ “your house shall be left for you
desolate.” The concept of dwelling-place is essential to the definition of a temple, and more
particularly the dwelling-place of YHWH in the case of Israel.
The last phrase of the quote from Ezekiel 43, “the glory of the LORD filled the temple,”
is of paramount importance to our discussion, as it is the promise of the same presence as
was experienced when the tabernacle was consecrated and when Solomon’s Temple was
dedicated. What is noteworthy about this phrase – besides its connection with Moses’
tabernacle and Solomon’s temple – is that this event never took place (at least not as
recorded) for the structure that was rebuilt in the days of Zerubbabel and embellished in
the days of Herod. The historical reality is that the second temple – of which it is generally
assumed Ezekiel speaks – never experienced the coming of the glory of the LORD into its
walls. Indeed, work continued on Herod’s Temple long after that king had died and had
been in progress for forty-six years by the time of Jesus. It was not dedicated until AD 63,
just seven years before it was destroyed by Titus’ legions.
The situation here is a challenge for the literalist hermeneutic. We have a prophecy
of the presence of the glory of the LORD coming to a rebuilt temple, but a history of such a
temple being rebuilt without ever having received the Shekinah bestowed upon the
tabernacle and the First Temple. Dispensational eschatology puts the prophecy of Ezekiel
Page 43
43 out into the future millennium, and into a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem during that time.
But this presents the insurmountable problem of a Temple in Jerusalem that was never –
or so it seems – inhabited by Israel’s God; the Second Temple to which Jesus, the
Messenger of the Covenant, came. That is, unless the prophecy of Ezekiel 43 does not
speak of a physical building at all.
One thing is fairly certain; that is, we cannot completely discount the Second
Temple as being of no validity at all. This was the building spoken of in the prophecies of
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, all prophets of the return era from Babylon. The LORD’s
promise through Haggai cannot be ignored in its immediate reference to the physical
structure being erected by the returned exiles.
For thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Once more (it is a little while) I will shake heaven and earth, the
sea and dry land; and I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I
will fill this temple with glory,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘The silver is Mine, and the gold is
Mine,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘The glory of this latter temple shall be greater than the
former,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘And in this place I will give peace,’ says the LORD of hosts.”
(Haggai 2:6-9)
There should be no question among believers as to the identity of the “Desire of All
Nations,” – Jesus Christ. But this title of the Messiah should also be referenced to the
prophecy of Isaiah, that the LORD promised to make His house a “house of prayer for all
nations.” This house/temple, filled with the glory of the LORD, is beginning to look less
like a physical structure than it is a “spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”34 This ‘spiritual house’ of which Peter
speaks is, of course, the Church, its members being the ‘living stone’ that are the precious
building blocks of this divine house.
But this is to jump to a conclusion before all of the biblical data has been analyzed.
It remains to be seen the meaning of Jesus’ actions in the Temple, and what significance
was made of these actions by His apostles. Lord-willing, we will do this in our next
lesson.
34
I Peter 2:5
Page 44
Week 4: Israel and the Church: The Temple, Part 2
Key Biblical Texts: Mark 2:19-22; Matthew 9:15-16; Luke 5:34-36
“All of the language describing the church in the New Testament

is either directly drawn from or is compatible with
the genre of covenant promise and the Messianic kingdom.”
(Craig Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism)
In the debate concerning the continuity versus discontinuity of the divine redemptive
plan, the burden of proof is upon those who advocate continuity. This is not, of course,
because God changes His mind and His eternal purpose, but rather that in the midst of the
unfolding of redemptive history – the fullness of time, as Paul refers to it - there happened
an event that cannot be treated as anything but momentous and decisive: the first advent
of Christ. Modern theologians refer to this as the ‘Christ Event,’ and include in that phrase
everything from the Incarnation to the Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord. It is
indeed an error to divide up redemptive history into hermetically-sealed time
compartments, and to posit a different form of salvation for each ‘dispensation.’ One can
only hope that this error will eventually pass into oblivion as have so many others in the
history of the true religion. The subtler error, however, is that which advocates such a
continuous progression of redemptive history that the Christ Event becomes little more
than a speed bump.
The first advent of Christ introduced a transitional period between the Old
Covenant and the New, wherein the promises made under the Old were fulfilled in the
establishment of the New. We may consider in the broadest terms, that the history of
redemption consists of four markers, so to speak:
Introduction Culmination…Inauguration Consummation

Genesis 3:15 Galatians 4:4…Matthew 28:18 I Corinthians 15:28
Abraham/Israel The Church The Kingdom

Jesus Christ  God the Father 
At the center of this stylized chronology is the Person and Work of Jesus Christ –
the ‘Christ Event’ of the Incarnation, Life & Ministry, Death & Resurrection, and
Ascension of the Lord, Israel’s Messiah and the Redeemer of the world. A large part of the
Page 45
answer to the Continuity/Discontinuity debate is to be found in the twofold aspect of Jesus’
finished work on earth – Culmination and Inauguration. This perspective also sheds a great
deal of light on the relationship between the Church under the New Covenant and Israel
under the Old Covenant, for the culmination of the latter became the foundation of the
former. It is an undeniable characteristic of the New Testament writers that they spoke of
the meaning of Christ’s Church entirely in terms of Old
Testament promises and prophecies. As Craig Blaising puts it,
“All of the language describing the church in the New Testament
is either directly drawn from or is compatible with the genre of
covenant promise and the Messianic kingdom.” This being the
Craig Blaising (1949 - ) case, it stands to reason that Jesus’ attitude toward the Old Cove-
nant People of God, and the symbols that were so central to their identity, will be
indicative of the proper interpretation of the relationship between the Church and Israel.
This is certainly the case with regard to the Temple, about which Jesus was anything but
apathetic or ambivalent.
Jesus saw Himself as the center-point of God’s work in Israel. He also fully
recognized that what He was sent do was remarkable and transitional – it was new not in
the sense of a brand new redemptive plan of God, but rather in the sense that the old
forms could no longer contain it. This is the meaning of Jesus’ words regarding new wine
and old wineskins.
The disciples of John and of the Pharisees were fasting. Then they came and said to Him, “Why do
the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to
them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they
have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom will be
taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days. No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth
on an old garment; or else the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear is made worse. And no
one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled,
and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”
(Mark 2:19-22; cp Matthew 9:15-16; Luke 5:36-38)
It is hopefully obvious that Jesus is not abolishing fasting – He specifically states

that His disciples will fast when He is no longer with them. The key to His response to
this Pharisaic complaint is that He represents something new – a new garment…new wine –
Page 46
that the old forms and containers can no longer hold. Thus not only does Jesus attest that
the work He was doing was something new, but also that the form in which that work
would be placed would not be like the old forms; indeed, it could not be like the old forms
as they were incompetent to handle the newness of His work. The old forms would rip at
the seams or burst, and the new work would be ruined. This speaks of transition and of
the central significance of the Christ Event.
But in terms of the Temple itself, no passage is more powerful in transition than the
interview between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, recorded in John 4.
The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this
mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.” Jesus said
to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor
in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we
worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true
worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to
worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
(John 4:19-24)
In order to maintain a tie to the religion of their ancestors, the half-breed Samaritans
built a temple on Mt. Gerizim, the place where God commanded
Moses to “put the blessing” opposite the curse of Mt. Ebal.35 Thus
the Samaritan Temple had connections to the Old Covenant,
though it was not on that account a valid place of worship to
YHWH. This temple was destroyed by the Hasmonean king and
high priest, John Hyrcanus, around 110 BC, but many Samaritans John Hyrcanus (d. 104 BC)
clung to the traditional worship of their people. All this to say that one might well have
expected Jesus to categorically deny any place to Gerizim, while affirming the rightful
place of Jerusalem. This He does, sort of. He calls the woman, and her people, ignorant of
true worship, for salvation is of the Jews, but then He goes on to deny a place either to
Gerizim or to Jerusalem. In terms of transition between the ages, Jesus speaks in His
common idiom, “An hour is coming…and now is” to indicate that the place of true worship
has been forever altered. “But Jesus does not say that God can be worshipped either in
Gerizim or in Jerusalem. He says the opposite: neither this mountain nor Jerusalem…What
Page 47
Jesus declared to the woman was not temple-less worship; it was worship at the true
Temple, pitched by God not man.”36
Our consideration of the Christ Event in its relationship to the Church, and
consequently the relationship of the Church to Israel, must take on the characteristic of
Jesus’ own speech – a time of transition, a new work being done, new forms and vessels,
and even a new place of worship. Our thinking must be as the scribe who becomes a
disciple of the kingdom:
Then He said to them, “Therefore every scribe instructed [g]concerning the kingdom of heaven is like
a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.”
(Matthew 13:52)
Jesus and the Temple
Jesus’ attitude toward the Temple is not as clear cut as we might at first expect. As
a child we find Him in the Temple, “sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them
and asking them questions.” When challenged by Joseph and Mary as to why He had not
returned with them in the caravan, Jesus responded, “Why is it that were looking for Me?
Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?”37 Later, though still early in His
ministry, after Jesus’ most aggressive act toward the Temple, His disciples remembered
the prophecy of the psalmist, “Zeal for Thy house has consumed Me.”38 ‘Thy house’ and ‘My
Father’s house’ both unite Jesus intimately with the Temple as the place of His Father’s
abode and where He would naturally be found himself. There is no animosity here, only
devotion. From this we may conclude, as most scholars have, that Jesus was not an Essene
– He did not advocate abandonment of the Temple as the place of worship, in spite of its
deep flaws and corruption.
But Jesus’ relationship to the Temple was also characterized by righteous
indignation: His Father’s house had indeed been corrupted by false worship and a political
Judaism that was inimical to the true faith. The high priests were of the family of the
Hasmoneans, not Aaronic and Levitical priests according to the law. The sacrifices had
35
Deuteronomy 11:29
36
Clowney, The Church; 45.
37
Luke 2:46-49
38
John 2:17, quoting Psalm 69:9
Page 48
become merchandise and a means by which the ruling class was profiting off the
worshipping public, a situation very much like that of Israel just prior to the Babylonian
Exile. The Temple in Jesus’ day was as much a scene of apostasy as it was in Jeremiah’s,
and thus the Son in coming to His Father’s Temple could not be anything but sorely
displeased. Thus we read in each of the four gospels the account of Jesus ‘cleansing’ the
Temple. The Synoptic accounts are most similar, with John’s record of the event located in
a different setting and probably reflecting a different situation in which Jesus acted out the
same prophetic scene.
Then Jesus went into the temple [d]of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple,
and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said
to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of
thieves.’” (Matthew 21:12-13)
So they came to Jerusalem. Then Jesus went into the temple and began to drive out those who
bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of
those who sold doves. And He would not allow anyone to carry wares through the temple. Then He
taught, saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all
nations’? But you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’” (Mark 11:15-17)
Then He went into the temple and began to drive out those who [h]bought and sold in it, saying to
them, “It is written, ‘My house [i]is a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”
(Luke 19:45-46)
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the
temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He
had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and
poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves,
“Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” Then His
disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house [c]has eaten Me up.”
(John 2:13-17)
As mentioned above, these events are most frequently termed ‘cleansings’ both in
our English Bible headings and in commentaries and sermons. But was Jesus cleansing the
Temple, or was He pronouncing judgment upon it? As we saw in the previous lesson, the
terminology Jesus uses is drawn from Jeremiah 7, in which Solomon’s Temple is destined
to be destroyed and Jerusalem to become like Shiloh, where the tabernacle once stood. In
other words, the terms Jesus uses are terms of judgment and not of cleansing. “The fact that
Page 49
Jesus effected only a brief cessation of sacrifice fits perfectly with the idea of a symbolic
action. He was not attempting reform; he was symbolizing judgment.”39 This is most
apparent in John’s record of the event, in which Jesus explicitly challenges the Jewish
religious leaders to “tear down this Temple,” promising to rebuild it in three days.
Furthermore, that Jesus was not viewed merely as a reformer – a fairly common rabbinic
trait in Second Temple Israel – is apparent in the false testimony that was borne against
Him at His trial, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in
three days.’”40 The falseness of this testimony was that Jesus had not said that He would
destroy the Temple, but rather – using an imperative verb – challenged the Jewish leaders
to do so, which they were in the process of doing in any event. The event of the Temple,
recorded in some form in all four gospels, is a window into the mind of the Messiah
concerning the Temple, its present state and its future.
The Synoptic gospels place the ‘cleansing’ of the Temple after the Triumphal Entry,
with John’s account coming much earlier in Jesus’ ministry. All four gospel writers place
the event at the Passover, so it is possible that John’s location of the narrative in his gospel
record reflects a connection between the prologue of his book, in which he writes that the
Logos of God, Jesus Christ, tabernacled among us (1:14). It is also possible that the event
occurred more than once in Jesus’ ministry and, if so, would most likely occur during one
of the annual feasts. What is important is the content of the narratives, which are in
agreement as to what it was that Jesus did, and what it was that He said. All four are
consistent in reference to the Temple being Jesus’ “Father’s house,” and that the current
religious regime in Jerusalem had thoroughly defiled its precincts.
A significant characteristic of the Synoptic tradition of the event it is proximity to
the Triumphal Entry, which was itself a self-conscious fulfillment of the prophecy of
Zechariah 9:9-10,
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! And the horse from Jerusalem;
Behold, your King is coming to you; The battle bow shall be cut off.
He is just and having salvation, He shall speak peace to the nations;
Lowly and riding on a donkey, His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea,
A colt, the foal of a donkey. And from the River to the ends of the earth.’
39
40
Matthew 26:61; cp 14:58
Page 50
The coming of the Davidic King is proclaimed by the people as they shout
‘Hosanna’ to Jesus while He enters the city. What He then does in the city is to be read in
terms of His self-identification with Israel’s king – not, to be sure, in keeping with the
expectations of Israel in regard to her promised king, but rather in terms of prophecy. And
all that Jesus said and did with regard to Jerusalem, and especially with regard to the
Temple, spoke judgment upon the nation and its religious establishment. “Virtually all
the traditions, inside and outside the canonical gospels, which speak of Jesus and the
Temple speak of its destruction.”41 This self-identification was not lost on the religious
leadership, who promptly asked Jesus “by what authority do You do these things?” Jesus,
knowing their hearts, knew that they would not believe Him if given the answer, so He
places the onus back on the religious leaders by asking them the source of John’s prophetic
authority. But the question posed to Jesus indicates that what Jesus was doing was seen to
be Messianic and Royal – the entrance to the city as fulfillment of Zechariah, and the
‘cleansing’ of the Temple being a strictly Davidic royal function.
This is most evident when one considers the nested parables in which form we find
the Temple narrative in Matthew and Mark’s accounts. In these two gospels the
‘cleansing’ of the Temple is associated with the cursing of the barren fig tree and it has
often been a hermeneutical difficulty understanding the two events as they are side-by-
side. They are indeed associated, and both are judgment parables.
As with the more famous prophets under the Old Covenant, Jesus presents His
prophecy concerning the Temple in two acted prophecies or parables: the driving out of
the money-changers from the Temple and the cursing of the unfruitful fig tree. These are
not separate and independent scenes, but rather “The fig tree action is…an acted parable
of an acted parable.”42 The two events, taken together, pronounce unequivocal judgment
on Israel – the fig tree representing the nation itself, and the Temple its heart. These two
acted parables or prophecies are themselves set within the last Passover week, in which
Jesus delivers His Olivet Discourse, as well as His lament over Jerusalem, promising that
her house would be left to her desolate. Israel failed to acknowledge the time of her
41
42
Ibid.; 421.
Page 51
visitation – itself an allusion to Malachi 3:1. Yet even that prophecy should have warned
the Jews that the coming of the Messenger of the Covenant would not be such a day as
they anticipated, full of triumph and glory over the oppressing Romans.
But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears?
For He is like a refiner’s fire and like launderers’ soap.
He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver;
He will purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver,
That they may offer to the LORD an offering of righteousness. (Malachi 3:2-3)
This weaving of Old Testament prophecy and Jesus’ own actions and words leaves
no doubt as to the fate of Jerusalem and the Temple: judgment and destruction. The
Dispensationalist posits a counter-factual history: what would have happened had Israel
received her Messiah? But the biblical prophecy does not allow for such a ‘What If’
scenario. Israel’s stubbornness had deepened in the generations since the return from the
Babylonian Exile, and her religious establishment was farther in their hearts from God
than their forefathers were in the days of Isaiah, “This people worships Me with their lips, but
their hearts are far from Me.”43 When we see the connection of Jesus’ actions with the
prophecies of Zechariah, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, it follows that the Temple event recorded in
the Synoptic gospels was indeed a prophecy of judgment, and not merely an act of
reformation or cleansing.
I conclude that Jesus’ action in the Temple was intended as a dramatic symbol of its
imminent destruction; that this is supported by the implicit context of Zechariah’s
prophecy, and the quotations from Isaiah and Jeremiah; and that Jesus’ specific actions of
overturning tables, forbidding the use of the Temple as a short-cut, and the cursing of the
fig tree, were likewise all designed as prophetic and eschatological symbolism, indicating
both the arrival of the kingdom and the doom of the city and Temple that refused it.44
Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had occurred before, so it may have been
that Jesus’ words were simply in keeping with the jeremiads delivered by the prophets
throughout Israel’s history. If only for the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke we might
wonder if there were any additional significance to Jesus’ words and actions, and even to
the eventual destruction of the Temple just as He had predicted. It is in John’s account
43
Isaiah 29:13
Page 52
that we read of the messianic claim that would also be used in false witness against Jesus
at His trial, “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” This saying indicates
that, in Jesus’ mind at least, the imminent destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem was
more than just another divine judgment upon Israel in which the Temple is lost and the
people are exiled. This saying must have been on Jesus’ lips somewhat frequently for it to
have been singled out by the false witnesses at His trial, and latched onto by the religious
leadership as tantamount to treason. In any event, His association of the Temple with His
body leads in a very different direction than the prophets who went before Him. They
acted out prophecies as He did; but they never so identified with the Temple as to link it to
their own bodies.
On the surface Jesus’ reference to His body must be to His resurrected body, raised
after three days in the tomb. We are told as much in John’s account, though we must
exercise caution whenever we read about the body of Christ, as to whether its
interpretation is literal or spiritual. Even with a literal, physical interpretation we may not
have exhausted the fulness of the phrase, “I will raise it up in three days.” Yet the reference
to His body must mean that the Lord did not look forward to a physical, brick & mortar
rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem; the ‘rebuilt’ Temple would be His body. Tying this
together with Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman, we may reasonably conclude that it is
this ‘temple’ to which all men will come in order to worship the Father “in spirit and in
truth.” Saucy writes, “The time predicted by Jesus to the woman of Samaria had come,
‘when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem, worship the Father.’ The old
order with its temple sacrifice had passed away, being fulfilled at Calvary. The new order
had come with a new temple composed of ‘living stones,’ the church.”45
Will There Be Another Temple?
On the basis of Israel’s rejection, by and large, of her Messiah, Dispensationalism

has theorized a restoration of God’s dealings with Israel during the Millennium, during
which time the Temple will once more stand in Jerusalem. It has already been noted in a
previous lesson that such a redemptive scheme of events places one entire temple out of
44
45
Saucy; 37
Page 53
the picture – the same temple to which the Messenger of the Covenant was to, and did,
come. But to look at the issue in another light: if Jesus’ actions and words in the Temple
are correctly interpreted as not only predicting the imminent destruction of the physical
Temple in Jerusalem, but also the rebuilding of the true temple of His body, then what
place can there be in God’s redemptive plan for another physical building? To be sure, if it
can be established that God will rebuild the physical temple in Jerusalem, then our ability
or inability to figure out why is irrelevant. Therefore, from a biblical prophetic point of
view, we have a twofold task in determining if indeed there will be a third temple, in the
brick & mortar sense, that is.
The first is to revisit the prophecies of Ezekiel and Haggai concerning the temple
that was built upon the return of the exiles from Babylon, to determine if these prophecies
were, in fact, fulfilled in the time of Christ. If fulfilled, then there is no reasonable basis for
expecting them to be fulfilled again. If the purpose of the Temple has been realized, then
any rebuilding of a physical temple would be a step backward on the redemptive timeline.
The second task is to determine whether the New Testament itself predicts the
rebuilding of a physical temple in Jerusalem, or rather does it uniformly see the true
temple of God as the body of Christ, metaphorically-speaking, the Church. The
expectations of the early believers, and especially those men who were moved by the Holy
Spirit to write the New Testament books and letters, should be normative in our own
expectations concerning God and His Temple, notwithstanding any eschatological system
we have developed or been influenced by. The process of these
two steps is simply making the same transition between the Old
and New Covenants that we find in the Bible, rather than either
staying behind in the Old or pushing the New off into the distant
future. If it is evident that the Old Covenant Temple has fulfilled
its purpose, and that no physical rebuilding of a temple is
predicted in the New Testament, then Hans LaRondelle must be Hans LaRondelle (1929-2011)
Page 54
correct in concluding, “There can never be a valid return to the old covenant and its
earthly temple worship. Christ has terminated the ‘shadow’ and inaugurated a ‘better
covenant’ that offers His righteousness as the everlasting righteousness.”46
To answer the first question, then, we return briefly to the prophecy of Haggai that
“the latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former.” It is clear from the context that
the ‘former’ represents Solomon’s Temple, upon which the Shekinah descended during its
dedication. The usage of the term ‘latter,’ along with the situation in which the Haggaian
prophecy is given – the returned exiles were discouraged over the condition of their poor
reconstruction in comparison to Solomon’s grand edifice – strongly indicates that the
expectation of greater glory is in the somewhat distant future.
For thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Once more (it is a little while) I will shake heaven and earth, the
sea and dry land; and I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I
will fill this temple with glory,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine,’
says the LORD of hosts. ‘The glory of this latter [e]temple shall be greater than the former,’ says the
LORD of hosts. ‘And in this place I will give peace,’ says the LORD of hosts.’ (Haggai 2:6-9)47
As we have seen before, this prophecy is of a piece with the promise of the
Messenger of the Covenant found in Malachi 3, another post-exilic and messianic
prediction. The Desire of all Nations and the Messenger of the Covenant is the same Lord
whom you seek, who will come to His temple. In other words, the promised glory in Haggai 2
is to come to the temple then being built and later refurbished by Herod the Great. Did
this glory ever come?
We answer by asking a second question, “Did the Messenger of the Covenant, the
Lord whom the faithful of Israel sought, come to His temple?” All acknowledge that He
did, though the Dispensationalist maintains that the promised glory was withheld because
Israel rejected her Messiah when He came. This is an unwarranted division of the
prophecy, for the ‘latter glory’ was not made conditional on Israel’s obedience. Indeed,
Israel’s obedience was made contingent upon the Lord’s coming, “Then the offering of Judah
and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord, as in the days of old and in former years.”48 The ‘latter
46
LaRondelle, Hans K. The Israel of God in Prophecy (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press; 1983); 177.
47
The parenthetical phrase, it is a little while, is intended to stimulate expectation rather then to predict a definite period
of time, whether long or short.
48
Malachi 3:4
Page 55
glory’ was promised for the temple rebuilt by the returned exiles, and it was to this temple
that the Lord, the Messenger of the Covenant, did come. Therefore we must look for the
‘latter glory’ in terms of the Temple to which Jesus came, and not to a temple far off in the
future.
It has already been noted that there is no biblical record of the Shekinah descending
upon Herod’s Temple. Given his character, and the apostate nature of the religious
leadership of Israel in Jesus’ day, it is unlikely that the glory of the Lord would descend
upon that structure. But if we allow the shift from the shadow to the light, and from the
earthly copy to the heavenly reality, then the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples
on Pentecost must be the ‘latter glory’ of which Haggai’s prophecy speaks. Considering
the audience that witnessed this event, it is considered by most scholars that the disciples
were indeed within the Temple precincts when “there appeared to them tongues as of fire
distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.”49 “Consequently, the building of
the true temple of god on earth has not been halted or postponed, but was rather
advanced and accelerated since Pentecost by the risen Christ himself.”50
This is exactly how the Church is viewed by the Apostle Paul, who writes in terms
of ‘temple’ that cannot be passed off as mere metaphor. In I Corinthians he speaks both in
terms of the church collective and of individual believers, and in each case his terminology
is indicative and not figurative. Speaking of the ministry of ‘builders’ such as Apollos,
Cephas, and Paul himself, he writes,
For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building… Do you not know
that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple
of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
(I Corinthians 3:9; 16-17)
And of individual believers,
Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual
immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy
Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at
a price; therefore glorify God in your body [g]and in your spirit, which are God’s.
(I Corinthians 6:18-20)
49
Acts 2:3
50
LaRondelle; 73.
Page 56
The logic here is simple: where God dwells, there is His Temple. Paul asserts that
God now dwells individual believers as well as the gathered Church, through the Holy
Spirit whom He has caused to dwell in and among believers. “The ‘temple’ itself is
constituted as a temple by being ‘a dwelling of God in the Spirit.’”51 This concept is
developed fully in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians,
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and
members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together,
grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling
place of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22)
This is, of course, just Paul’s version of what we have already seen from Peter,
Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you
also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (I Peter 2:4-5)
In addition to the testimonies of Paul and Peter, we have also the overall thrust of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which book we find all aspects of Old Covenant Judaism
compared to the finished work of Jesus Christ. The conclusion is consistent throughout:
that which Jesus has done is better – a better covenant, a better high priest, a better
mediator, etc. What is pertinent to our study is how the author of Hebrews seems to
center his entire discussion on the greatness of Jesus around the Temple/tabernacle
complex and its associated ministry. For instance, in his comparison between Moses and
Jesus, the author speaks of the ‘house’ that Jesus is building,
For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the
house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all
things is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those
things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we
are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.
(Hebrews 3:3-6)
51
Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock Progressive Dispensationalism (BridgePoint Book; 1993); 260.
Page 57
The frequent allusions to the high priest and the Levitical ministry, of course, place
us firmly within the tabernacle/Temple complex as we read the letter to the Hebrews, but
often the author writes more explicitly about the ‘true sanctuary’ and the ‘true tabernacle,’
indicating that the work of Jesus Christ, the great High Priest according to the order of
Melchizedek, has inaugurated a new order of ‘temple.’
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at
the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and of the
true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer
both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. For if
He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to
the law; who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely
instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things
according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But now He has obtained a more excellent
ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better
promises. (Hebrews 8:1-6)
In Hebrews 9 the author provides a primer on tabernacle ministry, in order to show

the transitory nature of that institution as opposed to the completed ministry of Jesus
Christ, who inaugurated “a more perfect tabernacle.”
Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the
tabernacle, performing the services. But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year,
not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; the
Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the
first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and
sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the
conscience… But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and
more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
(Hebrews 9:6-11)
Wright comments on Jesus’ self-awareness of being in himself what the Temple

signified, “…part of the point of the kingdom he was claiming to inaugurate would be that
it would bring with it all that the Temple offered, thereby replacing, and making
redundant, Israel’s greatest symbol.”52 Thus the author of Hebrews reaches the climax of
his argument in this same chapter, and indicates very strongly that the finished work of
Jesus Christ is determinative for the then-standing Temple, showing that the current
Page 58
priestly ministry can no longer have meaning or effect once Christ had come and mediated
the new covenant in His blood.
Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these,
but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the
holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in
the presence of God for us. (Hebrews 9:23-24)
All of these New Testament passages, taken together, point unmistakably to a new
Temple wholly different from the brick & mortar building in Jerusalem, whether
Solomon’s or Herod’s. The symbolic meaning of a physical building in Jerusalem was
superseded by the reality of the Risen Lord who had entered into the true sanctuary and
now “ever lives to make intercession for us.” As a building, the Temple factors very little in
the writings of the New Testament (really, not at all). As a concept, its meaning had been
completely transferred to Jesus because it had been fulfilled in Jesus. “Finally, instead of
the Temple, the geographical and theological centre of Judaism, the early Christian spoke
of Jesus as the one who had embodied the living presence of the creator god, and of his
own spirit as the one who continued to make that god present in the lives and assemblies
of the early church.”53
The second question regarding another physical Temple is whether the New
Testament anywhere predicts that one will be built. The emphasis among the New
Testament writings is so powerfully toward the Church as the temple, and toward
believers as ‘living stones’ being built into the spiritual habitation of God, that any
expectation of a future, brick & mortar Temple must rest on clear biblical prophecy – clear
in what the passage says, and clear that the fulfillment of the passage is not exhausted in
the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Any expectation of a physical Temple that is itself
built on less than such biblical testimony is not only misleading, it may be derogatory to
the glory of Jesus Christ and detrimental to the well-being of the Church. Edmund
Clowney points out how the focus of ‘worship’ has inexorably shifted from the physical to
the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, and that the Church must shift in the same
way. “This shift in venue to the heavenly sanctuary demands a shift from the ceremonial,
52
53
Wright, New Testament and the People of God; 368.
Page 59
the typical, the symbolic, to the spiritual reality of our coming to Jesus and his coming to
us.”54 The work of Jesus Christ at the Cross, and of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, has
constituted the Church as the Temple of God in Jesus Christ, the ‘place’ where
worshippers now worship God “in spirit and in truth.” Any movement toward a new,
physical, Levitical Temple would be retrograde. “God’s presence makes us his people; the
presence of Jesus constitutes the church as his temple, built of living stones, joined to him
as God’s elect Stone. The church itself is a temple, the home of God, sanctified by the
presence of the Holy Spirit.”55
The thrust of the New Testament argument that the Church constitutes the Temple
of God, along with the prophetic word that the temple rebuilt by the returned Jewish
exiles would experience ‘greater glory,’ present an a priori determination that the Old
Testament prophecies concerning a rebuilt, brick & mortar temple have been fulfilled in
Jesus Christ and His Church, and need not be fulfilled again. It only remains to ask
whether there is any indication in the New Testament itself that a physical temple will be
rebuilt in Jerusalem. There is no such prediction in the New Testament. Furthermore, the
closing vision of the New Testament seems to remove any expectation of a rebuilt temple
with regard to that spiritual Jerusalem of which the Old Covenant city was a meager
shadow.
But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
(Revelation 21:22)
54
55
Ibid.; 46.
Page 60
Week 5: The Church and the Kingdom of God
Key Biblical Texts: Matthew 13:1-52
“The presence of the kingdom in the Church is the presence of its foretaste,
its firstfruit, its pledge in the Spirit.
It is the presence of power veiled in weakness.”
(Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society)
Luke begins his gospel in an unusual manner in comparison to the other

Synoptics – Matthew and Mark – and certainly relative to the Gospel of John. Luke begins
with the narrative of the birth of John and the angelic visitation paid to John’s father, the
priest Zacharias. The story of a barren and aged wife being blessed with the miraculous
birth of a son, who would himself be a key player in the unfolding of God’s redemptive
history, is one that readers of the Bible are very familiar with long before they arrive a
Luke Chapter 1. There are, of course, the stories of the matriarchs Sarah and Rebekah (not
to mention Rachel, who was denied conception for a long time). But the
Zacharias/Elizabeth narrative, as well as its context in the opening chapters of Luke’s
gospel, remind us more of the story of Elkanah and Hannah, the parents of Samuel.
Samuel was, of course, an important person in his own right. But arguably the most
important thing that Samuel did in his life was to anoint David to be God’s choice as king
over Israel. It seems clear that Luke is drawing his reader’s attention to the same act that
the miraculous son of Zacharias and Elizabeth will do: the anointing of Jesus, the Messiah
and the greater Son of David. In Luke’s introductory chapter, “John the Baptist is playing
Samuel to Jesus’ David.”56
The implicit comparison between John and Samuel, and the relationship of each of
these men to their ‘greater’ ones, Jesus and David, is a literary piece d’art that would have
been wonderfully received by any Jewish reader of Luke’s gospel. Luke, however, was a
Greek and his gospel was primarily written for a Greek audience, “…most excellent
Theophilus.” Hence the narrative of Zacharias and Elizabeth might be lost on Gentile
readers, though we know from our own experience how the reading of the New
Testament deepens with progressing knowledge of the Old Testament. In any event, Luke
does well to tie the two ‘testaments’ together, even in this oblique manner, so that Gentile
56
Page 61
believers may begin to understand their new heritage as having been grafted into the
covenant. And the particular covenant that seems to be foremost in Luke’s mind is the
Davidic – the covenant of the kingdom, we might say.
When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who
will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name,
and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.
(II Samuel 7:12-14)
The Davidic dynasty became an important symbol within Old Covenant Israel,
typical of the future kingdom that God promised to established through David’s seed
forever. However, the vicissitudes of the Davidic line, - the civil war and division of the
nation under David’s grandson, Rehoboam; the paucity of faithful kings even in the
Davidic line – meant that the kingdom would not gain the same caliber of symbolic
meaning as did the Torah and Temple, and even the Land. Indeed, by the time of the
return from the Babylonian Exile the Davidic hope was all but crushed in rabbinic
writings, as the house of David was moribund. Yet Isaiah speaks of the Promised One as
the Branch whose heritage is the ‘stump’ of Jesse, and Amos offers abiding hope that the
once-glorious house of David would one day be restored,
On that day I will raise up

The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages;
I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old;
That they may possess the remnant of Edom,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does this thing. (Amos 9:11-12)57
Luke’s gospel, along with Matthew’s and Mark’s, places a great deal of emphasis on
Jesus’ teaching concerning the ‘kingdom of God’ (or, more frequently in Matthew, the
‘kingdom of heaven,’ which is a circumlocution). Luke’s introduction, therefore, sets the
reader in mind of the fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant, and the final arrival of that king
– David’s Greater Son – who would restore the glory to the Davidic throne. “Jesus’ life,
death and resurrection, and the sending of the divine spirit, are the end-product of the
57
It is, of course, significant that James considered the divine grace extended to the Gentiles as evidence of the
fulfilment of this prophecy; cp. Acts 15:12-17.
Page 62
long story that began with David and the divine promises made to him…Luke is telling
the story of Jesus as the fulfilment, the completion, of the story of David and his
kingdom.”58
The Kingdom of God is a concept that has occupied the Church’s attention
throughout the ages. But from a biblical perspective it is quite intriguing. The phrase
itself is not to be found in the Old Testament, though the concept is there. It looms large in
the teaching of Jesus in the gospels, but then all but disappears from the rest of the New
Testament. Extra-biblical and apocryphal writings from the Second Temple period
indicate that the ‘kingdom’ was much on the minds of Jews of that era, though there is
about as much unanimity of opinion as one would expect – very, very little. The common
denominator throughout, however, is that the coming kingdom would bring the final
return of the Jewish people from their long exile – restoring to them the sovereign rule of
YHWH and the rebuilding of the true Temple. “The fundamental Jewish hope was for
liberation from oppression, for the restoration of the land, and for the proper rebuilding of
the Temple.”59
Thus an important strand of kingdom thought in the Second Temple Period derived
the hope of a restored kingdom from the Davidic Covenant in II Samuel 7. The connection
of this strand of thought to the Temple was obvious: it was David’s son Solomon – whose
name means ‘Peace’ – who built the Temple, though it was David himself who laid out
both the plans and the materials for its construction. Therefore in many rabbinic texts
concerning the coming kingdom, the Temple and its rebuilding – or at least its restoration
to true Levitical and Aaronic worship – are central features of the work of the promised
King. On the basis of the glory of the Temple of Solomon, it was generally believed that
“the Temple-builder was the true king, and vice versa.”60
The Second Temple – built initially by the returned exiles and later refurbished and
enlarged by Herod and his descendants – was recognized by the Jewish faithful of that
time as being a diminished temple. Some, such as the Essenes, viewed this structure as
irremediably corrupt; they disassociated completely from the temple in Jerusalem and
58
Wright, New Testament; 381.
59
Ibid.; 299.
60
Page 63
their writings are full of expectations for a rebuilt Temple in the days of the Coming King.
This expectation was not always united with the messianic hope of Israel, but where there
was anticipation of a coming royal figure – be he the Messiah or
not – he was most certainly of the lineage and house of David.
“The hope of the eschatological appearance of a king of Davidic
descent became particularly active as Jewish nationalism
developed under the rule of Greece.”61 For many, however, the
two strands of Old Testament prophetic thought – Messianic and
Davidic – did merge in the expectation of a Coming One who
would liberate God’s people, destroy Israel’s enemies, and restore Oscar Cullmann (1902-99)
the Land, the Law, and the Temple. “The Jewish Messiah is of royal lineage, a descendant
of David. For this reason he also bears the title ‘Son of David.’”62
But in addition to the ‘kingdom’ strand that flows from David to the Son of David,
there was another Old Testament line of kingdom thought that flowed from another Son,
the Son of Man. If we refer to the first one as the Davidic King, we may refer to the other
as the Danielic King, for the kingdom and the king is thus prophesied in the book of
Daniel. First the King, and then the kingdom:
I was watching in the night visions,

And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given
dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)
The everlasting kingdom that shall never pass away was the subject of an earlier
vision in Daniel Chapter 2,
You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and
clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were
crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them
away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great
61
Cullmann, Oscar The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press; 1959); 115.
62
Ibid.; 117.
Page 64
mountain and filled the whole earth… And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a
kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall
break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Inasmuch as you saw
that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the
bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold—the great God has made known to the king what will come
to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.
(Daniel 2:34-35; 44-45)
These two kingdom strands – the Davidic and the Danielic – are of crucial
importance to the understanding of Jesus’ own teachings concerning the kingdom, and of
Himself as the King. This is because each kingdom line represents a redemptive focus,
and each one is incomplete without the other. The Davidic line, of course, represents the
hope of God’s people Israel and is related particularly to the redemption that comes “to the
Jew first.” The Danielic line, however, represents the world whose promised redemption is
encompassed in the covenant God made with Abraham, and in the protoevangelium from
Genesis 3:15. This is the aspect of the Kingdom of God that transcends Israel, though its
fulfilment flow in and through Israel. The Promised One from Genesis 3:15 must unite in
himself these two kingdom lines – he must be both David’s Son and the Son of Man. This
is the kingdom truth of the Old Testament that assures the People of God that the King
who will deliver them from the oppression of the nations will himself be the King of the
nations; his rule might be centered in Jerusalem but it will extend to the uttermost parts of
the earth. “The kingdom of God, historically and theologically considered, is a slogan
whose basic meaning is the hope that Israel’s god is going to rule Israel (and the whole
world), and that Caesar, or Herod, or anyone else of their ilk, is not.”63
We cannot comprehend just how incredible this concept must have seemed in the
first century, when Israel (Judea) was a back-water province of the mighty Roman Empire.
Yet the prophets of old had prophesied of the preeminence of Israel over the pagan
nations, and the destruction of those pagan nations by the King whom YHWH would set
up on Mount Zion,
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure:
63
Page 65
“Yet I have set My King on My holy hill of Zion”… “Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
(Psalm 2:4-6; 8-9)
Thus the hope of the faithful during the Second Temple Period was for just this sort
of King – both Davidic and Danielic – one who would restore the fortunes of Israel and rule
the world. But we should not think that Second Temple Jews were so ‘other-worldly’ as to
expect the advent of this promised kingdom by any other means than military conquest.
This was how the world around them operated, and it was the manner by which King
David secured for his son the territory, riches, and peace necessary for the building of the
first Temple. Thus it comes as no surprise that contemporary Jewish writings that refer to
the coming King do so in militaristic terminology, such as the following from the War
Scroll of the Qumran archive.
Then two divisions of foot-soldiers shall advance and shall station themselves between the
two formations. The first division shall be armed with a spear and a shield, and the second
with a shield and a sword, to bring down the slain by the judgment of God, and to bend
the enemy formations by the power of God, to pay the reward of their wickedness to all the
nations of vanity. And sovereignty shall be to the God of Israel, and He shall accomplish
might deeds by the saints of his people.64
It is significant that passages such as this one refer to God becoming King in Israel,
for the general belief at that time was that the promised King would be in some sense
divine. This does not translate into a fully-Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, but rather
a somewhat inchoate belief that the promised king would come in the power of God and
would gain victory over all the nations, reigning from Jerusalem in the power and
righteousness of God. Zechariah 14:9 was frequently appealed to as proof of the divine
characteristic of the coming king,
And the LORD shall be King over all the earth.

In that day it shall be—
“The LORD is one,” and His name one. (Zechariah 14:9)
64
War Scroll 1QM6:4-6. https://www.qumran.org/js/qumran/hss/1qm accessed 28August2018.
Page 66
N. T. Wright summarizes this confluence of a divinely-ordained and empowered
king alongside the restoration of the very human Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem.
YHWH’s being King does not mean that Israel will have no rulers at all, but that she will
have the right rulers. Neither the Hasmoneans, nor Herod and his family, nor Caiaphas
and his relations, nor Caesar himself, will rule Israel and the world. Rather, there will be a
line of true priests who will minister before YHWH properly, and teach the people the true
Torah; and (perhaps) a King who will be the true Son of David, who will dash the nations
in pieces like a potter’s vessel, and execute true justice within Israel.65
George R. Beasley-Murray notes three crucial elements to

the general belief of a coming kingdom: First, the universality of
the reign of Yahweh; second, the righteousness of the kingdom; and
third, the peace of the kingdom.66 He writes, “Thus, the goal of
history is reached in the revelation and universal
acknowledgment of Yahweh’s sovereignty, the triumph of
righteousness, and the establishment of peace and salvation in
G. R. Beasley-Murray
the world.”67 As this represents the expectations of the Jews in (1916-2000)
Second Temple Judaea, we must consider the manner in which Jesus of Nazareth came
into the land preaching, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”68 Did Jesus preach a
kingdom such as was expected? And if not, by what authority and to what degree did He
modify His message? These questions have engaged biblical scholars for ages, with the
most recent scholarship viewing Jesus’ own kingdom expectations in a very negative and
irreverent light.
Jesus’ Preaching on the Kingdom of God:
No one denies that the ‘kingdom’ was a major theme in Jesus’ teaching and
preaching; He mentions the phrase ‘kingdom of heaven’ or ‘kingdom of God’ dozens of
times as recorded by the Synoptic authors. The frequency with which Jesus speaks of the
kingdom is notable by comparison with the relative lack of mention the kingdom gets in
65
66
Beasley-Murray, George R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company; 1986); 20.
67
Idem.
68
Matthew 4:17
Page 67
the New Testament outside the Synoptic gospels. But we have already seen that Luke
models the opening of his account on the life stories of Samuel and David, as he introduces
John the Baptist and Jesus. The kingdom of God will factor massively in Luke’s account of
Jesus life and ministry, as it does as well in Matthew’s and Mark’s. We must, therefore,
deal with the recorded teachings of Jesus regarding the kingdom, before moving on to the
teaching (or lack thereof) in the apostolic letters.
Already quoted above, from Matthew Chapter 4, is the summary statement of
Jesus’ message when He began His preaching ministry, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand.” Early in His ministry, however, Jesus’ conception and expectation regarding the
kingdom did not flesh out according to such expectations as reflected in the War Scroll.
Even Jesus’ forerunner, John, had some doubts as to whether Jesus was the expected one,
sending a delegation to Jesus and asking, “Are You the Expected One, or should we look for
another?” Jesus’ answer provides an essential summary of His view of the kingdom that
He came to announce.
Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see
and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have
the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.”
(Matthew 11:4-6)
This is a compilation of passages from Isaiah that individually speak of the time
when God would act finally and comprehensively in the restoration of His people Israel.
For instance, several of the items that Jesus notes are drawn from Isaiah 35:5-6 which refer
to “eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will
leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy.” This passage is couched in a
section that is both Messianic and Royal,
Say to those who are fearful-hearted,

“Be strong, do not fear! Behold, your God will come with vengeance,
With the recompense of God; He will come and save you.”
Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing.
For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert.
The parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water;
In the habitation of jackals, where each lay,
Page 68
There shall be grass with reeds and rushes. aA highway shall be there, and a road,
And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean shall not pass over it, but it shall be for others.
Whoever walks the road, although a fool, shall not go astray.
No lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast go up on it;
It shall not be found there.
But the redeemed shall walk there, and the ransomed of the LORD shall return,
And come to Zion with singing, with everlasting joy on their heads.
They shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (Isaiah 35:4-10)
Jesus also alludes to Isaiah 29:17-19,42:6-7 and 61:1ff, the latter of which indicates
that the power in which the Messiah would act was to be the “Spirit of the Lord” upon Him.
These passages are all messianic and all point to the advent of Yahweh to His people; the
exercise of the divine sovereignty within the nation. “But in their context, the words of
Jesus are luminously clear: the deeds that perplex John are signs that God’s awaited
sovereignty is in action in the world….The announcement of the kingdom, according to
Isaiah 61:1-2, is a proclamation of jubilee – good news of liberation for the people of God,
good news of grace, forgiveness, renewal of life.”69
It is with good reason that Jesus ended His answer to John with the admonition,
“And blessed is he who does not stumble because of Me.” This was as much as an admission on
Jesus’ part that the message of the kingdom that He preached – as well as the kingdom
itself, which He was bringing – was not the message expected. He was not bringing
military conquest over Rome, nor the physical and literal restoration of the Davidic
dynasty in Jerusalem. Thus many did indeed stumble on account of Jesus, and many have
been tripping over His proclamation of the kingdom of God ever since. Those who were
looking for the coming King and kingdom, were anticipating an outwardly cataclysmic
event, joined according to prophecy with signs in the heavens and natural disasters on
earth, the overthrow of kingdoms and empires, and the exaltation of Israel with Mount
Zion as the chief of the world’s mountains. Jesus’ preaching of meekness and submission,
His own gentle spirit, and His studied avoidance of political controversy, much less
military conquest, must have struck many as a very odd way to announce ‘the kingdom of
God.’
69
Beasley-Murray; 81.
Page 69
…when one is looking for and proclaiming the coming of a representative of God to judge
the world, accompanied by all the accoutrements of theophany (the Spirit’s power, the
flame of fire, convulsions of heaven and earth, and the destruction of the wicked), to be
directed to Jesus in his ministry as the manifestation of God in his kingdom is shattering.
To recognize in such a man and such deeds as he was doing the eschatological kingdom of
promise demanded an enormous adjustment of thought and a fresh assessment of the
scriptures.70
Modern scholarship imitates John. Liberal theologians as well as conservative

Dispensationalists seem to continue asking the question, “Are You the Expected One or
should be look for another?” The ‘looking for another’ is no longer so applicable; generally
the views range between looking for Jesus at a far-future time (Dispensationalism) to no
longer looking at all, since Jesus himself was mistaken regarding the kingdom
(Liberalism). Both camps, otherwise as diverse from one another as can be imagined,
commit the same fallacy of interpreting Old Testament prophecy concerning the coming
reign of Yahweh with a literalness focused upon the same symbols of Israel pertaining as
well to the kingdom. Therefore it is considered essential to the advent of the messianic,
Davidic kingdom that it be centered in Jerusalem and extend literally to the re-
establishment of a sovereign Israel, to the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, the
overthrow of the oppressive Roman power, and the restoration of true worship in Judea.
This sort of kingdom did not come with Jesus, hence the conclusion either that the
kingdom must have been delayed (Dispensationalism) or Jesus was sadly mistaken in His
own expectations (Liberalism).
What is missed in this common literalistic hermeneutic is the manner in which Old
Testament prophecy was blended with apocalyptic prose to present an other-worldly
kingdom related in this-worldly terms. In other words, the coming kingdom was
prophesied alongside – integrally connected with – the New Heaven and New Earth; the
terminology was so comprehensive and so complete as to necessitate essentially a New
Creation, not just a restoration of the old Israel. The newness of all things is most clearly
contained in the prophecies of Isaiah, where the coming universal reign of Yahweh is set
alongside complete peace within the animal kingdom and between Man and the animals,
as it was at the beginning before sin entered the cosmos. Thus the triumph of Israel over
70
Beasley-Murray; 83.
Page 70
the nations cannot be viewed solely in terms of the historical-political context of Second
Temple Judea, but rather one must look for both the consolation of Israel and the the light
of revelation to the Gentiles.71 Thus “Israel’s victory over the nations, the rebuilding of the
Temple, the cleansing of the Land; all these together amounted to nothing short of a new
creation, a new Genesis.”72 Before we conclude that this is nothing more than a
spiritualizing hermeneutic that destroys the literal and historical sense of the various
prophecies, we should be reminded that this is essentially how the apostles and the early
Church interpreted the Kingdom of God in light of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, as
we shall see. As Wright comments, “Any viable hypothesis about the meaning of
‘kingdom of god’ must therefore show at least in principle, both how Jesus reconceived
and spoke of the kingdom, and why his earliest followers came to construe the
extraordinary event of his death and resurrection in the way they did.”73
The alternative to this ‘actualist’ interpretation is either that of the Dispensationalist
or that of the Liberal. The former claims that on account of Israel’s rejection of Jesus as her
Messiah, the Kingdom was pulled away and is now held in abeyance until the
Millennium. The Liberal (to be sure, not every liberal, but primarily those whose heritage
flows from Albert Schweitzer) simply concludes that Jesus intended a literal, physical, and
political kingdom but was mistaken and deluded. Neither of these conclusions is
acceptable when one considers the imminence of the kingdom as preached by Jesus. And
no where is this imminence more powerful than in Jesus’ argument with the Pharisees
concerning the source of His power to cast out demons.
Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so
that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. And all the multitudes were amazed and said,
“Could this be the Son of David?” Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not
cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.” But Jesus knew their thoughts and
said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house
divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How
then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast
them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God,
surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. (Matthew 12:22-28)
71
Luke 2:25-32
72
73
Page 71
There is no indication in the gospel records that Jesus considered His messianic
purpose as contingent upon the acceptance of it by Israel. Indeed, Jesus throughout His
ministry predicted that He would be rejected and killed, so it is very hard to conclude with
Schweitzer that Jesus was a deluded Messianic figure who finally realized that only His
death would compensate for His inability to rally Israel to
His side. What both the Liberal and the Dispensationalist
miss is revealed here in Matthew 12, that there is a more
significant foe to both Israel and to the world than the
Roman Empire: a strongman who must be bound and who
Jesus intends to defeat. “Or how can one enter a strong man’s
house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?
Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)
And then he will plunder his house.”74 Jesus fully intended to
bring about a great victory, one that more than answered to the apocalyptic tone of the
Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming King. Only His victory was not going to
be over Herod or Pilate, or even Tiberius Caesar himself – these were but minions of the
true enemy, the strongman that Jesus was going to bind and plunder: Satan. Jesus’ words
to the Pharisees can almost be read in the tone of anger – righteous anger, to be sure, a the
hardness of their hearts to suppose that the casting out of demons was anything other than
the invasion of the kingdom of God into the domain of Satan. The greatest enemy of Israel
and of the world is Satan, and the harshest oppression is that of sin and death, and these
are the enemies of God and the ‘military’ targets of His Promised King. “Israel’s god will
one day become king; the establishment of the kingdom will involve the defeat of the
enemy that has held Israel captive; there are signs that this is now happening; therefore
the kingdom is indeed breaking in, Israel really is being liberated.”75 Oscar Cullmann
writes,
What distinguishes the Gospel of Jesus from Judaism is the conviction that ‘the kingdom of
God has come upon you’ (Matt. 12:28); that Satan is fallen ‘like lightning from heaven’
(Luke 10:18); that the blind receive their sigh and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and
the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them
(Matt. 11:5). When the present is seen in this light, the whole eschatological process as
74
Matthew 12:29
75
Page 72
taken over from Judaism must be prolonged, for a time of fulfillment is now inserted
which is not yet consummated.76
Jesus emphasized the ‘not yet’ aspect of the Kingdom in the many parables He told
concerning that prophetic event. One consistent theme of the similes Jesus expounded
was that the kingdom was introduced as a small and insignificant entity – a tiny mustard
seed, a pinch of leaven, or the seed of the ‘word of the kingdom.’ In each case the initial
insignificance of the beginning is vastly overshadowed by the magnitude of the result, a
harvest “a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”77 “Most scholars agree that the stress in
the parables falls on the beginning and the end of the operation of the kingdom and that
the process in between is ignored.”78
In addition to being of small origin, the kingdom is also presented by Jesus as
something of inestimable value, but hidden. The pearl of great price and the treasure
hidden in a field both indicate the value of attaining the Kingdom, and the fact that the
kingdom will not be out in the open. Yet it is a present reality in the teaching of Jesus,
something that men should spare no expense or trouble to attain. “The implication of the
parables then is clear. Let every hearer be sure to get the treasure! Let every hearer be sure
to secure the pearl!”79
The parable of the Wheat and the Tares is another story of the kingdom that
indicates its present reality, only this time focusing more on that process which the
parables of the mustard seed and leaven ignored – what would transpire while the
kingdom was growing and progressing toward the final harvest. Jesus’ explanation of the
parable to His disciples is noteworthy in regard to this particular lesson in His
identification of the ‘field.’ It is not the Church, but the world.
Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him,
saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” He answered and said to them: “He who
sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the
kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the
harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered and
burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and
76
Cullman, Christology; 46.
77
Matthew 13:23
78
Beasley-Murray; 123.
79
Ibid.; 112.
Page 73
they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and
will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the
righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him
hear! (Matthew 13:36-43)
Interpretation of this parable in the Church somehow mutated into substituting the
Church for the world, and using the parable to justify a corpus Christendom in Medieval
Europe – a ‘Church’ into which all citizens of Europe were baptized as infants and in
which they all lived and died as ‘members’ – though not necessarily as saints. It was
taught, and is still taught, that the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares forbids church
discipline and excommunication on the grounds that the church might accidentally pull
out good wheat along with the tares. Beasley-Murray comments,
The combination of these factors has led to a misunderstanding of even the interpretation
of the parable supplied by Matthew in verses 36-43. F or there can be no doubt that when
Matthew stated that the field was the world he was referring to the whole of mankind,
over which the Son of Man was exalted as Lord; for Matthew, the kingdom of the Son of
Man was as truly an eschatological phenomenon as the kingdom of the Father. As with the
other parables of the kingdom, we must understand the parable of the Tares within the
context of the ministry of Jesus if we are to understand it at all.80
Finally, with regard to the parables of the kingdom, we can safely put to rest any
ides of the coming of the kingdom being contingent upon Israel acceptance of Jesus as her
Messiah, by reading the parables that speak of the utter rejection of the key ambassadors
and representatives of the owner/king. The Parable of the Vineyard, of course, is the most
well-known example of this genre of parable. The vineyard workers represent the
religions establishment of Israel, particularly Second Temple Israel. The various
representatives sent by the Master refer to the many prophets that God had sent to His
people over the ages, culminating in the sending of His Son. And, of course, the Son is not
only rejected; He is killed. Jesus told the parable in such a way that the audience, probably
including the ‘chief priests and the elders of the people’ who were also present, could not
conclude anything different than what Jesus intended.
80
Beasley-Murray; 133.
Page 74
Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers? They said
to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers
who will [g]render to him the fruits in their seasons.” (Matthew 21:40-41)
Jesus then indicts the entire generation of Jewish leadership in terms that they
finally understood.
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the
fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind
him to powder.
Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking
of them. But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took
Him for a prophet. (Matthew 21: 42-46)
There was no doubt in Jesus’ mind that He would be rejected by Israel as a whole,
and that He would be handed over to the Romans and put to death. He told His disciples
that it was for this purpose that He came into the world, so it is derogatory to the wisdom
of God’s redemptive plan to say that the success of Jesus’ mission was somehow
contingent upon Israel’s acceptance of Him as her Messiah. Israel’s rejection was a
foregone conclusion; but the advent of the kingdom was as well, and the one did not
hinder the other. To think that Jesus intended to usher in the kingdom of God in the
manner expected of Him – military conquest of the Romans – is to miss the point of all of
His teaching concerning the kingdom and the purpose of God. Certainly it is to miss the
heart attitude of the One who said, “all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”81
The Kingdom in the Early Church:
It has already been noted that Jesus spoke a great deal more often, and in more
detail, about the kingdom of God than the apostles did. This has led liberal scholars to
agree with Schweitzer that Jesus was mistaken and deluded about the kingdom, and that
His disciples learned from His mistake and simply started a new religion in His name.
Dispensationalists have no problem with the relative absence of mention of the kingdom
in the apostolic writings, as they believe the kingdom was withdrawn from earth when
81
Matthew 26:52
Page 75
Jesus ascended and will not return until He does. But we have seen that Jesus was neither
deluded in His expectation of the kingdom arriving with His first advent, nor was the
inauguration of the kingdom contingent upon Israel’s acceptance of Jesus as the promised
Messiah.
Thus there is a third common explanation for why the apostolic record lacks much
detail regarding the kingdom of God: the Church and the Kingdom are the same. This has
been the prevalent view within Christian ecclesiology throughout the past sixteen
hundred years, since Augustine penned his famous City of God. Indeed, historically-
speaking, both the Liberal and the Dispensational views are minority reports. Recent
scholarship, however, has come a long way in realizing that equating the Church and the
Kingdom is not in accordance with the biblical description and purpose of either entity. N.
T. Wright comments that “To equate the kingdom and church is at best putting the cart
before the horse, and at worst a complete anachronism.”82
Thought the Old Testament does not employ the exact phrase, it is clear that the
prophets frequently spoke of a kingdom – whether Davidic or Danielic – and that this
kingdom included not only Israel, but the whole of mankind. It is also evident from the
Old Testament that the kingdom included more than just mankind, as the entirety of
Creation is encompassed by the eventual coming of the kingdom – both the animate and
inanimate parts of the cosmos. “The kingdom of God in Scripture is the all-embracing
program of God’s divine salvation history.”83 Therefore the treatment of the kingdom of
God by the apostolic writers, and particularly by Paul, needs to be considered in a closer
examination in order to avoid the simplistic equation Church = Kingdom. We will pursue
this investigation in the next lesson.
82
83
Page 76
Week 6: The Church and the Kingdom of God – Part 2
Key Biblical Texts:
“The mystery of the Kingdom is the coming of the Kingdom

into history in advance of its apocalyptic manifestation.
It is, in short, fulfillment without consummation.”
(George Eldon Ladd, New Testament Theology)
It is an undeniable fact of the text, that the apostolic writers in the New Testament
had far less to say concerning the ‘kingdom of God’ than did Jesus, as recorded in the
gospels. Conversely, far more is said about the ‘church’ – the ekklesia – from the Book of
Acts onward than can be found in the gospels (the word itself is only found twice in the
Gospel of Matthew, and not at all in the other three gospels). A brief summary of a word
search between ‘kingdom’ and ‘church’ illustrates this remarkable difference in focus.
“Kingdom” “Church”
Gospels 120 2
Apostolic Letters & 32 84
Acts
Data such as this indicates to some that the apostles were not concerned with the
Kingdom of God, with various reasons offered by scholars. The Dispensationalist sees this
numerical divergence as proof that the kingdom has been taken back to heaven with Jesus,
to be returned and revealed in the future Millennium. The Liberal scholar, believing that
the church was only very loosely related to Jesus, argues that the leaders of the early
church simply chose not to make the same ‘mistake’ that Jesus made concerning the
coming of the kingdom. Reformed theologians, as well as evangelicals in general,
interpret the data by essentially equating the kingdom and the church, thus avoiding the
glaring numerical discrepancy by making the terms roughly synonymous. All of these
views pit the gospels against the rest of the New Testament and, within modern liberal
scholarship, Jesus against Paul, with the latter considered to be the ‘founder’ of the
religion called ‘Christianity.’
The most glaring problem with any of these assessments is the generally-agreed
upon timing of the various books of the New Testament. It is almost universally accepted
Page 77
that the gospels were written later than most of the epistles, with the books of Luke and
Acts written as a set. This chronology of the gospels means that the synoptic authors
would be filling their papyrus with references to the ‘kingdom’ in the midst of a ‘church’
that seemingly jettisoned that concept from its earliest beginnings. As for Luke’s
composition, the change is even more startling considering that the same author writes of
the ‘kingdom’ 44 times in the gospel and only 8 times in Acts (the ‘church’ is mentioned 20
times in Acts and not at all in the gospel of Luke). Is it reasonable to suppose that the
‘kingdom’ dropped off the radar of the early church after Pentecost, and then the authors
of the gospels resurrect the concept several decades later? Or are we to conclude that
when the writers of the epistles – primarily, of course, Paul – write ‘church’ they really
mean ‘kingdom,’ and when the synoptic writers pen the word ‘kingdom’ they really mean
‘church’? Perhaps there is a better explanation that deals faithfully with the text without
pitting any portion against another, or setting the apostle Paul up against the Lord Jesus
Christ, of whom the apostle wrote so frequently and worshipfully.
We may note, to begin with, Luke’s treatment of the ‘kingdom’ in his record of the
early church, the Book of Acts. One commentator calls the ‘kingdom’ an inclusio for Luke,
as it is found at the very beginning and the very end of his narrative.
The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day
in which [a]He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the
apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many
infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the
kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3)
Contrary to Schweitzer’s portrayal of Jesus as having been deluded concerning the

kingdom, Luke has Him continuing His teaching of the kingdom to His disciples after the
resurrection. Apparently in Jesus’ mind His own death had in no way derailed the coming
of the kingdom of God. Nor did Jesus consider the Church to be a replacement; rather He
continued to teach and exhort His disciples on the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Jesus’ post-resurrection preaching was the same as His post-wilderness preaching. Thus
Luke starts off his narrative of the early ministry of the apostles right where Jesus left off,
which is, of course, exactly what he tells Theolphilus he is planning on doing. But we find
Luke on the same topic when he closes his account in Acts Chapter 28.
Page 78
So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and
solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of
Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. And some were persuaded by the things which
were spoken, and some disbelieved… Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and
received all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which
concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.
(Acts 28:23-24; 30-31)
The setting of this passage is Paul’s house imprisonment in Rome, which places the
date rather late in the chronology of the Pauline Epistles. Thus toward the end of his
writing career (as we know it), the apostle’s message is still the things which concern the Lord
Jesus Christ, which meant for him, preaching the kingdom of God. This would indicate that
the ‘explanations’ offered above concerning the relative frequency of the terms between
the gospels and the letters is simplistic at best, misleading at worst. The kingdom of God
was still a topic of Paul’s preaching, and the church was a topic of his teaching.
A more reasonable explanation of the difference in frequency of usage between the
kingdom and the church, is that Jesus had already taught in great detail about the former,
while the latter required a great deal of instruction for its early members. That the two
terms are not synonymous will be apparent when we summarize the biblical teaching
concerning the kingdom of God. But the hiddenness of the kingdom, as prophesied by the
Lord Jesus himself, would naturally lead to its being somewhat in the background in the
apostolic teaching, concerned as they were with the beginning and growth of the church.
This in itself seems to indicate that the two were not viewed by the apostles as
synonymous or co-extensive, though Paul’s teaching especially will show that the concepts
are undeniably and inextricably related.
The Kingdom of God:
One of the passages that has been cited in defense of identifying the kingdom of
God with the church is the very passage in which the Church is first introduced by Jesus,
Matthew 16. Here we read of Peter’s confession on behalf of the disciples, and of Jesus’
promise to build His Church upon the ‘rock’ of Peter. In conjunction with this, Peter is to
be given the ‘keys to the kingdom,’ thus bringing the more familiar concept in close
proximity with the ‘new’ one. This is both reasonable and correct, as we will see from
Page 79
Paul’s treatment of the kingdom in relation to the church, but it is still less than direct
identification of the two. To summarize our discovery of the biblical teaching of the
kingdom thus far, we may say that it is greater in scope and extent than is the church. The
kingdom is cosmic, the church earthly. By this is meant that the kingdom of God concerns
itself with the entirety of God’s creation; the church only with the redeemed of mankind.
If the mathematical concept of sets and subsets can be applied analogically to the various
terms we have studied so far, it might look like the following:
CREATION
KINGDOM
TRUE ISRAEL
CHURCH
This is rudimentary, but not inaccurate. Creation includes all that comprises the
cosmos, the created order of God. But the Kingdom encompasses that which is redeemed,
on the generally-accepted assumption that the part of Creation that abides under God’s
wrath is not included in the Kingdom but is rather outside, where there is “weeping and
gnashing of teeth.” This is not to say that the part of the cosmos left out of the Kingdom is
no longer under the dominion of God through Jesus Christ, only that the Kingdom is
universally referred to as a place of divine blessing and not of wrath. Yet the Kingdom
does include within its boundaries all aspects of Creation – the human, the animal, and the
inanimate – and is, as far as we can tell from the biblical data, coextensive with the New
Heaven and New Earth. “The kingdom of God in Scripture is the all-embracing program
of God’s divine salvation history.”84 The Church, however, consists of the redeemed from
every tongue, tribe, and nation of Mankind and itself includes True Israel – the remnant of
Israel from which the Church was started and those from among the physical descendants
of the patriarchs who have been added to the Church since. “The church is therefore
Page 80
presently related to the kingdom in its spiritual nature but also looks forward to
participation in the glorious culmination in the literal apocalyptic manifestation of the
kingdom.”85 As this diagram is merely two-dimensional there is no eschatological aspect
to it: the future divine mercy upon a now-hardened Israel is beyond the capacity of this
illustration. But in terms of definition, the diagram offers a simple view of the relative
extent of the various terms.
The proclamation of the kingdom by Jesus is indeed a unique episode in
redemptive as well as human history. We have noted that the phrase kingdom of God is
used far more frequently in the teachings of Jesus than in the writings of the apostles, but
we have also noted that the gospel frequency of the phrase is
even greater than what is found in the Old Testament or
rabbinic literature. Brevard Childs notes the discrepancy
with the time before as well as after Jesus’ own preaching
ministry, “The frequency of the reference to the kingdom in
the Synoptics – it occurs about one hundred times – stands
not only in contrast to its relative rare occurrence in rabbinic
and Jewish sectarian literature, but also its infrequency in the
Brevard Childs (1923-2007) rest of the New Testament, especially in John and Paul.”86
We conclude from this observation that the Kingdom of God was uniquely the
message of Jesus Christ, the Messiah and bringer of the same kingdom. This was a
message that the prophets could only allude to vaguely, and the apostles only expound
with a remaining high degree of mystery. The kingdom is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ,
and its announcement as well as its inauguration on earth belong to Him alone. “Jesus
confronts his hearers with the message that the Old Testament’s hope has indeed been
fulfilled in him and calls for a response.”87 This message dominates the preaching of Jesus,
as well it should considering the fact that He was bringing in the kingdom in His own
Person and Work. Childs appropriately exhorts us to listen carefully to Jesus’ preaching
on the kingdom, as it is so central to His life and work.
84
85
Ibid.; 85.
86
Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; 1992); 636.
87
Ibid.; 639.
Page 81
It is absolutely essential that one catch the shrill, excited, indeed apocalyptic flavor of Jesus’
proclamation that the kingdom is at hand. The time has come, God’s reign is even now
breaking in as event. It comes suddenly as the lightning and flood (Luke 17:22ff), and there
is no escaping. It is part of the ‘messianic woes’, bringing with it the threat of judgment.
Therefore, the repeated warning of Jesus is to be alert, to watch. This is no time for life as
usual.88
But the aspect of hiddenness of the kingdom, apparent in Jesus’ parables, means
that its presence in the world in this age is mysterious – as mysterious as the influence of
leaven on a lump of dough, or as the growth of a seed while hidden in the earth. The
visible component of Jesus’ finished work is the Church; the Kingdom continues to
operate, as it were, beneath the surface. “The parables of growth seek to contrast the
secret beginnings, small and insignificant as the mustard seed and leaven, with the
richness of the final harvest or the grandeur of the mighty tree. In sum, the kingdom of
God has not come in its glory, but its powers are already at work.” 89 To a large extent
these powers are at work in the Church, which is why the apostolic writings emphasize the
identity and work of the Church and only intersect with the Kingdom on occasion. It is as
if, especially in the writings of Paul, the veil of the Church is occasionally pulled back and
we are able to glimpse the glory of the Kingdom that lies behind.
Jesus, the Apostles, and the Kingdom of God:
Modern biblical scholarship has sought to ‘deconstruct’ the New Testament

writings in a self-proclaimed effort to find the ‘real, historical’ Jesus, as well as to find the
root of Christianity – two things that modern liberal scholarship view as a priori
completely different. Paul’s preaching does not seem to follow the lines set down by
Jesus, and nowhere is this more evident than with regard to the kingdom of God. But we
will see from even a cursory review of what Paul does have to say regarding the kingdom,
that his theology does not differ from that of his Lord, Jesus Christ. Indeed, the kingdom
remains in many respects the mystery of Jesus’ parables, but in Paul it also finds deeper
expression in terms of the new creation, which is very much in line with the expectation of
88
Ibid.; 637.
89
Ibid.; 639.
Page 82
Israel. Paul brings together the two kingdom strands from the Old Testament: that Jesus is
both the Son of David as well as the Son of Man. Thus the kingdom ministry of Jesus Christ
has reference not only to Israel – which is what everyone wants to
hear Paul say – but also to the whole of Creation – which is what
Paul does say. Günther Bornkamm acknowledges the difference
in the preaching manner and matter of Paul compared to Jesus,
but also notes that this is hardly because the apostle disagreed
with his Master. “Paul’s theology is not a repetition of Jesus’
preaching of the coming of God’s kingdom. Jesus Christ himself
and the salvation based on and made available through his death
on the cross, his resurrection, and his exaltation as Lord form the Günther Bornkamm (1905-90)
subject of Paul’s proclamation…The proclaimer has become the subject of the

proclamation, his life has assumed dimensions that it did not have on earth, and for Jesus’
own words are substituted the word about Jesus Christ, his death, resurrection, and
second coming at the end of the world.”90
The error of modern scholarship is to expect Paul to simply parrot Jesus, as did the
disciples of their rabbi. This is to completely misunderstand the message – the unique and
singular message – that Jesus brought, as well as the revelation
that was given to the apostles, and especially to Paul, to unfold
that message as it pertained not only to Israel, but to the whole
cosmos. The event upon which the shift hinges is the
resurrection of Jesus from the grave; this changed everything in
that it completely validated His self-profession as the Messiah
and as the Son of Man. Modern scholars think that the apostles
should have simply continued the ‘teachings of Jesus,’ something
Leonhard Goppelt (1911-73) they could not possibly have done post-resurrection. Leonhard
Goppelt notes the necessary difference between the preaching of Jesus and that of His
followers after His resurrection and ascension. The apostles could speak of nothing else
but Jesus, since it was in Him that the fullness of the Old Testament prophetic hope was
fulfilled. In Jesus’ preaching, the ‘kingdom’ became the point of departure for those who
Page 83
would received it (or to whom it would be given) and those who would not (or those from
whom it would be taken). For the apostles, the Risen Lord was the necessary focal point of
their preaching and teaching. “
[T]he earliest missionary kerygma stated: you killed Jesus; God raised him from the dead;
therefore, repent! Jesus, on the other hand, preached: Repent, for the kingdom of God is at
hand! The difference is clear: Jesus called people to repentance in view of the imminent
coming of the kingdom; the disciples did the same but in view of Jesus’ resurrection that
had taken place.91
If we put the two types of ‘kerygma,’ or preaching, side-by-side, we see that the
resurrection is the event that validated Jesus’ proclamation that the kingdom was ‘at
hand.’ His victory over death and the grave constitutes His enthronement, for it is not
until after the resurrection that Jesus tells His disciples, “All authority has been given to Me in
heaven and on earth…”92 which statement is the clearest possible allusion to the Son of Man
prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14 quoted earlier.

And behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him.
Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
And His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.
Thus, when we approach the message preached by the apostles, and in particular
by the apostle Paul, we must not expect to see a mere repetition of what their Master
taught during the days of His earthly ministry. This would be for the apostles to act as if
the resurrection had never happened, which is to say, that the Kingdom of God had never
come. We should rather expect to see the effect of which Jesus’ death and resurrection was
the cause: the impact of the kingdom having come. This is why the actual phrase ‘kingdom
of God’ is found relatively infrequently in the apostolic writings, while the resurrection of
Jesus from the dead is the central theme and hope for the apostolic church. When the
90
Bornkamm, Günther Paul (New York: Harper & Row; 1969); 109-110.
91
Goppelt, Leonhard Theology of the New Testament: Volume 2 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company; 1982); 17.
92
Matthew 28:18
Page 84
apostles do speak of the kingdom it is as fulfilled in Jesus Christ, though as already noted,
not yet consummated. It may not be here in its glory, but it is also no longer future.
With the ascension of Jesus to the right hand of the throne of God, that which is
presented to mankind is no longer ‘the kingdom,’ but rather ‘the King,’ – Jesus himself.
“The eschatological judgment of God’s Kingdom is in principle decided in Jesus’ mission
among men. As men react to Jesus and his proclamation,
their eschatological doom is determined.”93 The apostles
preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in just this manner, making
it clear that the time foretold by the prophets has already come,
and consequently “God commands all men everywhere to repent,
because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world
in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given
assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”94 Perhaps
we can simplify and summarize the whole discussion regard- George Eldon Ladd (1911-82)
ing the preaching of Jesus and the preaching of the apostles in this way: Jesus came
preaching the Kingdom coming, the apostles came preaching the Gospel of Kingdom
having come.
Realized Eschatology:
The technical term for what we have been saying is ‘realized eschatology,’ a phrase
made current in modern scholarship by the British theologian C.
H. Dodd in his various works on the teaching of Jesus on the
Kingdom of God. Though there is much in Dodd’s treatment of
the subject that must be rejected as fostering a ‘moral
Christianity’ rather than a living and active Gospel, his view of
the entrance of the Kingdom into human history with the advent
and ministry of Jesus is fully accurate to Jesus’ own view on the
C. H. Dodd (1884-1973) matter. Such a realized, or inaugurated, eschatology means that
93
Ladd, George Eldon A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company;
1974); 88.
Page 85
the atmosphere in which the Church was founded, and in which the apostles preached the
Gospel of the Kingdom, was supercharged with the reality that “old things have passed
away, behold! All things have become new.”95 It is only when we make the connection between
the Old Testament prophecies of the coming kingdom of the Son of Man, as well as those
which speak of the New Heaven and New Earth, do we begin to comprehend what Paul is
talking about in this verse. “The wind that swept over the waters of creation was blowing
again, to bring to life things that were dead, to call into existence things that did not
exist.”96 The advent of the kingdom of God in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ is
nothing less than the invasion of the age to come into this present age; there is no other
way of properly considering what has happened than a ‘new creation.’ Nor is this
metaphorical language that Paul employs; it is, rather, the most powerful reality that can
be conceived, and it is the atmosphere in which the Gospel flourishes, the Gospel of Glory.
Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with
unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same
image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. (II Corinthians 3:17-18)
Ladd writes, “In Jesus, the reign of God manifests itself in a new redemptive event,
displaying in an unexpected way within history the power of the eschatological
kingdom.”97 The ‘unexpected event’ of which Ladd speaks is the death and resurrection of
the Messiah, without which the true enemy of Israel, and of mankind, could not have been
defeated. In this light we also see the meaning of the shift in ‘enemies’ for the people of
God, from nations to ‘powers and principalities.’ “The enemies of God’s Kingdom are
now seen not as hostile evil nations as in the Old Testament but spiritual powers of evil.”98
Thus Paul is actually preaching about the Kingdom when he writes his famous passage to
the Ephesians, introducing the ‘armor of God.’
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the
rulers of [c]the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
(Ephesians 6:12)
94
Acts 17:30-31
95
II Corinthians 5:17
96
Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 1997); 75.
97
Ladd; 117.
98
Ibid.; 67.
Page 86
Paul’s mind is running in the same ‘kingdom’ channel when he writes to the
Corinthian church,
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God,
bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all
disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled. (II Corinthians 10:4-6)
Though the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ is not used, passages such as these are rooted
in the reality of a kingdom already present, though hidden, and working in the world
through the Church and the Gospel. Again, the Church is not the Kingdom, but neither
can the two be separated. To remove the Kingdom from the view of the Church is to try to
establish the Church in a vacuum – as an institution through which sinners are saved,
without reference to the glorious kingdom into which they are being saved. ‘New
Testament Christians’ under this paradigm have no home, no heritage, no kingdom; and
the Church has only the meaning that it has allegedly developed for itself. Fortunately
this is not how the apostles viewed things, nor is it how they preached the Gospel of the
Kingdom “to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile.”
The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself…It is the
church’s mission to witness to the Kingdom. The church cannot build the Kingdom or
become the Kingdom, but the church witnesses to the Kingdom – to God’s redeeming acts
in Christ both past and future.99
The difference between Israel as the Old Covenant witness to God’s Kingdom, and
the Church as the New Covenant witness to the same, is the fact that in Jesus Christ the
Kingdom has come into human history in a powerful, though hidden, form. The realized
eschatology of the Kingdom of God in Jesus Christ is the “powers of the age to come” spoken
of by the author of Hebrews. “Because the church has an eschatological horizon and is the
proleptic manifestation of the kingdom of God in history, it is the beachhead of the new
creation and the sign of the new age in the old world that is ‘passing away.’”100 This
99
Ladd; 111, 113.
100
Beker, J. Christiaan Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; 1980);
313.
Page 87
connection between the Church and the inaugurated Kingdom is the only one that can
explain the importance of the Church in the teachings of the apostle, and especially those
of Paul. Hardly a ‘Plan B’ in God’s redemptive timeline, the Church is the vehicle by
which the power of the Holy Spirit enters into human history as an invisible force,
transforming the very history it enters.
However, the church of the saints is not a sequestered cloister, barricaded against the
onslaughts of the world. It represents the blueprint of the new eschatological order that
will be manifested in the kingdom of God…Paul’s ‘high ecclesiology’ suggests not only a
messianic life-style within the church but also a revolutionary impact on the values of the
world, to which the church is sent out as agent of transformation and beachhead of the
dawning kingdom of God.101
This is certainly a higher view of the Church than is held by most modern
Christians, and far higher than the ecclesiology of Dispensationalism, in which the Church
is an alternative plan of God for the salvation of the Gentiles, while His intended kingdom
purpose for Israel is held in indefinite abeyance. Beker refers to Paul’s ‘high ecclesiology’;
it remains now to be seen if indeed Paul manifests such a high view of the Church in his
writings. By investigating some of what Paul has to say about the Church, we will also
encounter his conceptions regarding the Kingdom, and will hopefully see that while the
two were never confused in Paul’s mind, they were never far apart, either.
Paul, the Church, and the Kingdom:
The Apostle Paul, formerly the ‘Pharisee of Pharisees’ Saul of Tarsus, would have
been the unlikeliest Jew in the Second Temple era to start a new religion. The modern
concept that Paul was the founder of Christianity, whereas Jesus was a faithful and
traditional Jewish rabbi, is not only contrary to the text of the New Testament, it is
ludicrous to the character of both men. We know from the gospel accounts that Jesus did
not speak as the scribes, but spoke as one who had authority. Paul, for his part, was an
arch-persecutor of the Way, so much so that upon his conversion and departure for his
hometown, the church “enjoyed great peace.”102 When Saul became Paul he did not abandon
the intellectual foundation he had gained in Judaism in order to create a new and
101
Beker; 318-319.
Page 88
completely different religion. Rather he came to see and understand that Jesus was the
fulfilment of those very same Scriptures to which Saul of Tarsus had dedicated his life.
“Paul’s entire preaching is characterized by the conviction that Jesus is the Christ of Israel,
and that, therefore, the coming and work of Christ can be
understood only against the background of the history of the
revelation which the Old Testament describes.”103 A large
part of this revelation concerned the eschatological hope of
the kingdom of God – though as we have seen, not in that
H. N. Ridderbos (1909-2007)
exact phrase – and the coming of a new age of divine rule in
and through the Messiah. If Paul believed Jesus to be that Messiah, then we would expect
to find in the apostle’s writings a strong thread of ‘new age’ theology, soteriology, and
ecclesiology (with ‘new age’ used in the strictly biblical sense derived from the prophetic
expectation of the Old Testament). There is, as we shall see, abundant evidence that Paul
considered Jesus not only to be Israel’s Messiah, but also “before everything else, he was
the proclaimer of a new time, the great turning point in the history of redemption, the
intrusion of a new world aeon…Because Christ is revealed a new aeon has been ushered
in, the old world has ended, and the new world has begun.”104 And for Paul this new aeon
pertained not merely to Israel, but manifestly to the whole of creation.
For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things
to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the
blood of His cross. (Colossians 1:19-20)
The language of Paul in such passages is not future tense, but rather past tense –
God has done these things in Jesus Christ, not will do at some point in the future. Paul, of
course, did have something to say about the future, as we will shortly see; but for him it
was a future already begun, a kingdom consummated that was already inaugurated.
Again notice the broad scope of Paul’s interpretation of the finished work of God in Jesus
Christ, as he ties the resurrection of Jesus to the reconciliation of all things to God,
102
Acts 9:31
103
Ridderbos, H. N. Paul and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; 1957); 59.
104
Ibid. 64-65.
Page 89
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all
things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus
Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling
the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of
reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us:
we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be
sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(II Corinthians 5:17-21)
Paul draws the whole of Creation into this scheme of reconciliation, showing that
the benefits of Christ will overflow from believers to the irrational and inanimate world as
well. The fulfillment of this aspect of the kingdom is yet future, awaiting the
consummation at the end of the age. Nevertheless, passages such as the following indicate
the cosmic scope of Paul’s thoughts concerning the dominion of Jesus, the Son of Man.
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory
which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the
revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of
Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of
[f]corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation
groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (Romans 8:18-22)
Ridderbos summarizes Paul’s teaching concerning the extent of the reign of the
exalted Jesus,
This redemption thereby acquires the significance of an all-inclusive divine drama, of a

cosmic struggle, in which is involved not only man in his sin and lost condition, but in
which are also related the heavens and the earth, angels and demons, and the goal of
which is to bring back the entire created cosmos under God’s dominion and rule…it is
clear that the redemptive work of Christ is not only human and earthly but that it has
much broader dimensions, in that the entire invisible world of spirits is related to it.105
The ‘now and the not yet’ aspect of Paul’s conception of the current and future
reign of Jesus Christ is nowhere more powerfully expressed than in I Corinthians 15, the
whole chapter of which is worth setting forth here due to the connection the apostle draws
between the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, the consequent authority and glory He
received at the right hand of the Father, and the ultimate consummation of the entire
105
Ridderbos; 77.
Page 90
redemptive plan of God, to the glory of Jesus Christ. But as we are focusing here on the
Kingdom, we will limit the passage to those verses that deal with the promised
consummation of what Jesus Christ has already begun.
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die,
even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits,
afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the
kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed
is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under
Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are
made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under
Him, that God may be all in all. (I Corinthians 15:20-28)
Paul fully realized that Jesus Christ was the answer to both strands of kingdom
promise in the Old Testament. Jesus was the Son of David according to the flesh, as the
apostle makes note in his opening greeting to the Romans, in a passage that also shows the
centrality of the resurrection to all that Paul believed and taught concerning Christ’s
present dominion.
Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He
promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our
Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God
with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:1-4)
Passages like the one from I Corinthians 12 quoted above, illustrate how Paul also
saw Christ as the Son of Man, to whom was promised universal power and dominion in
order to “put an end to all [earthly] rule and all authority and all power.”106 In one of the most
poetic verses in the Pauline corpus, the apostle takes us all the way back to the beginning
to show that God is now doing in Christ what He first did ex nihilo.
For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give
the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (II Corinthians 4:6)
106
See also Philippians 2:8-11, Colossians 2:10, and Ephesians 2:20-23
Page 91
We could multiply passages from Paul’s letters to show beyond a shadow of a
doubt that the ‘kingdom’ was ever on his mind, though the word might not be as often on
his pen. He reminds the believers in Rome, in a very this-worldly context within the
Church, that “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in
the Holy Spirit.”107 Furthermore, in speaking of the salvation that has already been
experienced by his hearers, Paul informs believers that Jesus “has delivered us from the power
of darkness and [c]conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption
through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.”108 At the end of Paul’s recorded ministry we find
that his message has not changed,
Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to
him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus
Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him. (Acts 28:30-31)
19th Century Anglican theologian Thomas Bernard notes, “Evidently on purpose

are the two expressions combined in this final summary, in order to show that the
preaching of the kingdom and the preaching of Christ are one: that the original
proclamation has not ceased, but that in Christ Jesus the thing proclaimed is no longer a
vague and future hope, but a distinct and present fact.”109 Thus the kingdom is no less
present in the preaching and teaching of Paul than it was in that of Jesus. The perspective
and emphasis has necessarily changed on account of the fact of Jesus’ death and
resurrection, but the kingdom is not ‘taken away,’ or ‘delayed.’ Nor is the kingdom solely
the possession of Israel – the ‘Son of David’ promise – but belongs to the whole of Creation
– the ‘Son of Man’ prophecy. Thus we find in the apostolic writings, and especially in
those of the Apostle Paul,
The basic motif of the entire New Testament kerygma is that of the fulfillment of the
historical redemption with began with Christ’s coming. And Jesus himself is the ground
and origin of this view of history, because of his preaching of the kingdom of God and also
because of his messianic self-revelation. In this respect Paul does not originate anything
which is new in principle.110
107
Romans 14:17
108
Colossians 1:13
109
Bernard, Thomas Dehany The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian
Publishers; 1896); 133.
110
Ridderbos; 67.
Page 92
Week 7: What is the Church, Then?
Key Biblical Texts: Ephesians 1:18-23; Colossians 1:13-18
“A metaphor is not a vague, unreal expression,

But intends…to open one’s eyes to a deep, fascinating reality.”
(G. C. Berkouwer, The Church)
The Church has not taken the place of Israel, nor is the Church to be equated with
the Kingdom of God; what, then, is the Church? Disassociating the Church with Israel and
from the Kingdom would seem to leave us with the basic view of Dispensationalism, that
the Church comprises a ‘Plan B’ within the redemptive purposes of God, not unknown to
God from eternity, but also not revealed in the Old Testament. The basis for this view is
primarily what Paul has to say in his epistles concerning the mystery that was entrusted to
him to reveal,
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the
dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made
known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may
understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the
sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the
Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the
gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the
effective working of His power. To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was
given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see
what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God
who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God
might be made known by the church to the [e]principalities and powers in the heavenly
places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord…
(Ephesians 3:1-11)
This passage has the added advantage to the Dispensationalist of the apostle using
the term oikonomos, or ‘dispensation,’ in verse 1. But the actual definition or revelation of
the ‘mystery’ in this passage works directly against the Dispensational view of the Church,
for Paul defines the mystery as “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and
partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel…” Far from establishing a separate,
distinct ‘body’ of redeemed, God has – according to Paul – caused the Gentiles to be fellow
heirs with the Jews, which was indeed something not clearly foretold in the Old Testament,
Page 93
where it seemed evident that Gentiles could become members of the covenant people only
by becoming Jewish – undergoing circumcision and submission to the Torah. The mystery
was not that God would save from among the Gentiles; it was, rather, that He would do so
by bringing the Jews and the Gentiles together into one body in and through Jesus Christ.
called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ,
no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off
have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made
both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the
enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one
new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in
one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached
peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access
by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but
fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in
whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you
also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:11-22)
It is evident from this passage that ‘you’ represents Gentile believers – Paul is
explicit on that score in verse 11: “Gentiles in the flesh” – and that to which ‘you’ are
brought near and joined is the commonwealth and covenant belonging uniquely to Israel.
Contrary to the ‘two’ people of God view of Dispensationalism – or even the distinction
made by many non-Dispensational theologians between the people of God under the Old
Covenant and the people of God under the New Covenant – Paul seems to know only one
people: “For He Himself is our peace, who made both one.”
Dispensationalism cannot support its central tenet of complete
discontinuity between Israel and the Church; that doctrine cannot
survive Ephesians 2:11-22. Hence Robert Saucy, a Progressive
Dispensationalist, backs away from the classic view, “The earlier
dispensationalist teaching that divided the people of God into an
earthy and heavenly people (i.e., the church and Israel), with
Lewis Sperry Chafer
fundamentally no continuity in the plan of God on the historical (1871-1952)
Page 94
plane, must be rejected as well.”111 It is remarkable to read such a noted Dispensational
theologian as Lewis Sperry Chafer comment on these two passages from Ephesians,
recognizing the work that God has done in Jesus Christ, and yet concluding that the
Church is and remains forever distinct from Israel. In an article entitled The Church Which
is His Body, Chafer reflects on Ephesians 3:1-11 and writes, “From this passage it may be
seen that the mystery, or sacred secret, concerning this age was the forming of a new body
out of both Jews and Gentiles. This was the ‘eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ
Jesus our Lord.’”112 Chafer then refers to the earlier passage in Ephesians 2, but according
to good Dispensational hermeneutics, limits the application of that which Paul describes to
‘this age.’
Preceding this passage, the Apostle has, in Eph. 2:11-18, not only defined the state of the
Gentiles before God, but has made clear that, during this age, all hindrances that might
arise from such distinctions have been put away that He might of the two, Jews and
Gentiles, make one ‘new man,’ ‘[reconciling] both unto God in one body by the cross.’ The
two elements of this body, then, are Jews and Gentiles, -- Gentiles that were ‘far off,’ ‘made
nigh by the blood of Christ,’ (Eph. 2:13) and Jews that, by covenant, were ‘nigh,’ with
Gentiles, reconciled ‘unto God in one body by the cross.’113
Chafer then refers to what is the most powerful Pauline definition of the Church in
any text of the New Testament, and which cannot be comprehended as being limited to
any age other than eternity, Ephesians 1:22-23. After having described the supreme glory
and power of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul concludes by joining Jesus Christ inexorably to
His Church, His body: “And He put all things under His feet and gave Him to be head over all
things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.”114 Here Paul
calls the Church, “the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” What can possibly come after ‘all in
all’? What more can God do that would be greater, or even beyond, Him who ‘fills all in
all’? One might (any many do) respond that Paul is simply using metaphor here, but “a
metaphor is not a vague, unreal expression, but intends…to open one’s eyes to a deep,
111
Feinberg, John S. ed. Continuity and Discontinuity; 239-240.
112
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, “The Church Which is His Body”
https://www.wholesomewords.org/etexts/chafer/chachurch.html; accessed September 10, 2018.
113
Idem. Emphasis added.
114
Ephesians 1:22-23
Page 95
fascinating reality.”115 It is truly hard to conceive that there can be something ‘after’ the
Church, “the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” Unless, of course, it is the Kingdom itself.
For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed
is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under
Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are
made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under
Him, that God may be all in all. (I Corinthians 15:25-28)
The Dispensational view that the brining together of Jews and Gentiles into ‘one
new man’ is for this present age only, and that in the future age Israel alone will be the
object of God’s redemptive purpose, is simply an a priori conclusion. It is an essential tenet
of classic Dispensationalism that Israel and the Church are
completely separate; therefore, any seeming union of the
two must be a temporary expedient and not the ultimate
purpose of God. This is a conclusion demanded by the
premise; but it is foreign to the revelation that was given to
Paul. What is remarkable is that classic Dispensationalism
recognizes the joining together of Jew and Gentile in the
Church, but cannot see that this is the ultimate fulfilment of
John Walvoord (1910-2002) the Abrahamic Covenant, that in Abraham’s Seed all the
nations of the earth would be blessed. John Walvoord, a leading Dispensationalist of the
20th Century, writes a description of the Church that would find acceptance with any
Reformed theologian, “…the church is revealed to be the company of believers formed of
both Jew and Gentile who are called out of the world and joined together in one living
union by the baptism of the Spirit.”116 Somehow, however, Dispensationalists conclude
that this situation is temporary, though no indication of a temporary character is to be
found in Paul’s letters.
Yet the Reformed view that the Church has taken the place of Israel is also foreign to
Paul’s teaching, for while the apostle knows only one people of God, that people is Israel.
We often overlook Paul’s rhetorical question at the beginning of Romans 11, “God has not
115
Berkouwer, The Church; 81.
116
Walvoord, John F. Major Bible Themes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House; 1974); 236.
Page 96
cast away His people, has He? Certainly not!”117 There is no indication in Paul’s writings that
the identity of the people of God has changed, but rather that Gentile believers have been
grafted in to that people, the one olive tree, which is Israel.
For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if
some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them,
and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the
branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports
you… For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to
nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted
into their own olive tree? (Romans 11:16-18; 24)
The olive tree is generally interpreted to mean Abraham, due to the focus that the
apostle places on the patriarch in the epistle to the Romans. It has also been associated
with Jesus Christ, and appropriately so, as Jesus Christ is the Seed of Abraham. What is
important to the current study is that Paul knows of only one olive tree, not two. And this
olive tree is not a hybrid specie composed of Jews and Gentiles. It is, rather, the olive tree
whose root lies deep within the Abrahamic Covenant, and into which wild Gentile
branches are graciously grafted.
The hermeneutical and theological issue is this: if the Church is the replacement for
Israel, or if the Church is a temporary ‘dispensation’ between God’s dealing with Israel in
the past and in the future, then the plan of God has failed in some measure. Paul begins
his monumental analysis of Israel’s situation vis-à-vis the Church (Romans 9-11) by stating
the unalterable principle, “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect.”118 It was
impossible for Paul to conceive that the revealed purpose of God through Israel – the word
of revelation not only to Israel, but through Israel to the world – could fail of its
accomplishment.
For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, and do not return there,
But water the earth, and make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11)
117
Romans 11:1
118
Romans 9:6
Page 97
Displacement or Delay; neither answer to the integrity of the divine word. The
Church is not a ‘new’ people of God, either in the sense of displacing Israel or in the sense
of an interim community for ‘this age.’ This is what often confuses Gentile scholars (and
believers, for that matter): since the New Covenant was promised “to the house of Israel and
to the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31), in what sense can it be fulfilled in the New
Testament Church? Making the Church replace Israel leaves many wondering how that
comports with a God whose Word cannot fail. Introducing multiple thousands of years
between the coming of the One who is undeniably the Messiah of Israel and the fulfilment
of His Messianic mission is also hard to swallow. But Paul presents a thorough answer to
the conundrum, maintaining the faithfulness of God to His Old Covenant people Israel
and, no less important, to His Word.
As the background to Paul’s ecclesiology, we should again note that the disciples of
Jesus nowhere indicate a belief that the church of which they were the ‘founding
members,’ so to speak, was something new and improved in the redemptive plan of God.
Repeatedly recorded in Acts is the apostles’ assurance to their Jewish brethren that what
they were observing was the fulfilment of this or that Old Testament prophecy, not a new
direction taken by God because of the intransigence of Israel toward her Messiah. “The
disciples saw the task of the community gathered by them in being what Israel was
supposed to be: God’s community, God’s home and nation, the saints and chosen ones.”119
Jesus, as the Messiah of Israel, brought salvation and deliverance to Israel; Israel, newly
constituted in the risen Christ, now brings salvation and deliverance to the world. It is as
it was prophesied to be.
No one, not even the most daring Zealot, spoke here of an antithesis, a choice, as if Christ
were to be sent either for Israel or for the world. Rather, one aim confirms the other and
leads it to its completion. By transforming Israel into the sanctified and perfected
community, the Christ reveals God’s glory to the world, and by gathering the nations
around himself he accomplishes the fulfillment and the glorification of Israel.120
119
Schlatter; 41.
120
Ibid.; 43.
Page 98
This is what the prophecies promised: not an Israel replaced by a Gentile Church,
nor a delayed kingdom during which time God’s covenant with Israel would be in limbo,
but rather the promise of a New Covenant with Israel in which the nations of the world
would be blessed by being joined to Israel’s Messiah. The apostles continue the narrative
of the Old Covenant as the announce the New, employing perhaps more words from the
Old Testaments than from their own pen. N. T. Wright describes the situation of the early
disciples accurately to the text when he writes, “first century Judaism and Christianity
have a central worldview-feature in common: the sense of a story now reaching its climax.
And, most importantly, it is the same story.”121
Thus Paul consistently speaks of Gentile believers being ‘brought near’ and ‘grafted
in’ to the people with whom God had made an immortal covenant, Israel. “The heart of
Paul’s theology derives from the impact of the resurrection of the exalted Lord. God had
raised Jesus from the dead and offered forgiveness of sins and deliverance from this
present evil age. With the breaking in of God’s salvation in Christ, and the deliverance
from the past age of bondage, God’s people became the sign of his new creation.”122 In
Romans 11 especially, Paul does not abandon Israel entirely, nor does he fold them into a
Gentile Church so that the identity of Israel is lost entirely. The New Testament writers,
“do not describe the people of God as a new Israel who had replaced the Jewish people.
Rather Israel is now divided into repentant and unrepentant Jews, and the church consists
of both those believing Jews and Gentiles who together for the one true Israel.”123 But, as
we will see a bit later in this lesson, that new community could no longer be called ‘Israel,’
as it was intended to be formed progressively through the ages with believers called from
“every tongue, tribe, and nation.” Nevertheless, the core of this community – and if we are
interpreting Paul’s hopeful predictions in Romans 11 correctly – the future glory of this
community, was and will be Israel, the covenant people of God. Beker comments, “The
church, in its Jewish-Gentile unity, is the proleptic dawning of the future destiny of Israel,
but it is not Israel’s displacement.”124
121
Wright, New Testament People of God; 150.
122
Childs; 434.
123
Ibid.; 438.
124
Beker; 316.
Page 99
The Logic of True Israel:
Let us summarize this point by describing the logical progression of Paul’s thought
concerning both Israel and the Church, showing that in the apostle’s mind there is no
radical distinction between the two, but rather organic continuity. The first premise
established here is that there is but one people of God: Israel. Again, this is the thrust of Paul’s
statements in Romans 9-11, that God’s word has not failed, that His “gifts and calling are
without repentance.” (11:29) Thus Paul establishes that what was happening in the Church –
the bringing in of the Gentiles – was a continuation of God’s promise and plan for Israel,
His people, for “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” (11:2)
The second premise is established in Romans 11, where Paul presents the
redemptive truth that in order for Gentiles to be saved, they must somehow be joined to
Israel – the metaphor here is the engrafting of wild branches into the domesticated olive
tree that represents Israel. There can hardly be a stronger statement as to the one people of
God: there is but one olive tree, to which alone Gentile branches must be joined if there are
to partake of the same salvation as Israel. This passage is of the same nature as what we
have read from Ephesians 2, that Gentiles were once “excluded from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.”125
The Gentiles’ only hope, again, was to be “brought near,” to be joined to Israel. There was
no provision – mysterious or otherwise – of a separate people of God to be established for
the salvation of the Gentiles. Nor is there any indication in Paul that the one people of
God would somehow morph into a Gentile nation; it was and remains Israel.
The third premise that Paul sets forth in Romans 9 is that “not all Israel is Israel.”
(9:6). The full verse is worth repeating, as it shows that in Paul’s mind the word of God
had not failed simply because Israel had largely rejected her promised Messiah.
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended
from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants…126
The apostle then lays out the consistent ‘remnant’ view of a faithful and believing
Israel, not unlike the Old Testament prophets before him. He does, of course, weave in the
125
Ephesians 2:12
126
Romans 9:6-7
Page 100
sovereign election of God – those who remain faithful and believing do so because it is
upon them that God has shown mercy. But the point to our current study is that nowhere
does Paul abandon Israel or replace Israel as the people of God with the Church. Yet he
acknowledges, along with the ancient prophets, that being a physical descendant of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not automatically make one a ‘true’ Israelite; the real
heritage is that of the faith of Abraham and not merely physical descent.
This sets the stage for the epitome of the ‘remnant’ – the Messiah of Israel who
would be in himself all that Israel was to be before God. This truth was foreshadowed by
the prophets, with Isaiah, for instance, often speaking of the Servant of Yahweh as if he
were a single individual while at other times representing the Servant as the nation of
Israel as a whole. Even the comment of Hosea, viewed by Matthew as prophetic of Jesus’
return with His parents from Egypt, illustrates the interchangeability of ‘Israel’ as the
nation and ‘Israel’ as the Messiah. There is every evidence from the gospel accounts that
Jesus saw himself as the embodiment of Israel and all that she stood for. “[Jesus]
interprets his own actions in terms of the fulfillment, not of a few prophetic proof-texts
taken atomistically, but of the entire story-line which Israel had told herself, in a variety of
forms, over and over again.”127 LaRondelle comments, “As Messiah, Jesus was not only
solidarity with Israel, but the embodiment of Israel, likewise called ‘God’s firstborn
Son.’”128 He continues,
The purpose of the New Testament quotations is not simply to show how hidden
messianic predictions were accurately verified in Jesus’ life, but rather to proclaim Jesus as
the goal of Israel’s history and the perfect realization of God’s covenant with Israel.129
Thus we arrive at the logical conclusion of the Pauline ecclesiology: In Jesus the
fulfillment of Israel is accomplished, and in Jesus the remnant of Israel is gathered into the
community of the New Covenant, now called the Church, not as the replacement of Israel
but as her fulfillment and continuation. “The Church, as the eschatological Israel, with its
new covenant in the blood of Christ, is the fulfillment of God’s plan with ancient Israel.”130
God thus turns the hardened hearts of the majority of Israel into salvation to the Gentiles,
127
128
LaRondelle, The Israel of God; 64.
129
Ibid.; 73.
Page 101
so that the salvation of the Gentiles will eventually be turned into the salvation of Israel, as
Paul states in Romans 11.
For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own
estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come
in; and thus all Israel will be saved… (Romans 11:25-26)
Consequently, we define the Church as the elect of God from both Jews and
Gentiles, joined by the power of the Holy Spirit to the person of Israel’s Messiah, Jesus
Christ, who is her resurrected and exalted Head and King. The involvement of the Holy
Spirit in all of this – admitted earlier by Chafer – signifies the Church to be the ultimate
fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, as summarized most beautifully in Ezekiel 36,
Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your
filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within
you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put
My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My
ordinances. (Ezekiel 36:25-27)
This God has done, beginning at Pentecost and continuing throughout the ensuing
two thousand years. The Church is the eschatological fulfillment of God’s promises to
Israel, and the continuation of Israel as the one people of God. Hardened Israel will one
day be delivered and their hardened hearts once more softened by God’s grace. But at that
time they will not return as the Old Covenant nation, but rather, as Paul clearly states in
Romans 11, they will be grafted back in to the very same olive tree of which they were the
natural branches, and Gentiles the adopted branches. This logic is demanded by the
terminology used to describe the Church, as the very same terminology that encompasses
the New Covenant blessings promised to Israel.
This ecclesiological fulfillment concentrates especially on three Hebrew concepts: the

survival of a faithful remnant of Israel, the promise of a new covenant in Jeremiah 31, and
the promise of the vivifying Spirit of God in Ezekiel 36-37.131
Paul’s most frequent description of a believer is someone who is ‘in Christ.’ This
meant for the apostle the same and more than ‘in Israel’ meant under the Old Covenant.
130
Ibid.; 40.
Page 102
Under the Old Covenant to be in Israel meant to be a member of God’s covenant
community, to be set apart as holy unto Yahweh, separate from the nations. It also carried
the responsibility of obedience to the commandments of God, and it did not extend so far
as to the eternal salvation of the individual Israelite. This blessing was, and always will
be, a gift of grace through faith (cp. Hab. 2:4). The fulfillment to the individual of what the
covenant blessing to the nation implied is the subject matter of such prophecies as
Jeremiah 31 (the New Covenant) and Ezekiel 36 (the New Heart). The fulfilment of these
in Jesus Christ is what makes ‘in Christ’ even more blessed than ‘in Israel,’ and signifies
full and eternal redemption from one’s sin.
Thus Paul never considered the community that was forming ‘in Christ’ to be
different from God’s covenant people Israel, with the definitions and caveats that he
furnishes in his letters. Though Paul never specifically refers to Christ as ‘Israel,’ he
nonetheless associated the finished work of Jesus – and especially the resurrection – as that
which removes the distinction between Jew and Gentile, and brings the Gentile believer
into the same community, the one community: Israel. This is Paul’s answer to the Old
Testament prophecies; nothing remains for him but the culmination of the age and the
presentation of the glorified Kingdom to God the Father.
This is why Paul speaks in such cosmic and majestic terms of the church in
Ephesians 1, where we began this lesson, “the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Jesus’
disciples properly interpreted His finished work as the completion of all that God had
promised Israel in terms of her redemption and deliverance. “[Early Christianity] will
have seen Jesus as both the focal point of Jewish sapiential, prophetic and apocalyptic
traditions and the one who had inaugurated the worldwide kingdom of Israel’s god, the
creator of the world.” 132 The Church has been made Christ’s fulness, though He fills all in
all – including the Church. Thus the Church is the expression of the newly inaugurated
Kingdom, and is the extension of the King, Jesus Christ. The clearest metaphor that could
be developed to describe this relationship between Christ and His Church is that of the
Head to the Body, and this is, of course, one of the major descriptive elements in Paul’s
teaching on the Church.
131
LaRondelle; 207.
132
Wright, New Testament People of God; 442.
Page 103
The body of Christ, however, is more than mere figurative language; it represents a
reality that cannot be put into words apart from metaphor. There is no language that can
describe the spiritual union between Christ and His Church, and the metaphor of the head
to the body at least fully captures the vital connection that exists between the two. Christ
as the Head is parallel to Israel as the one people of God under the Abrahamic Covenant.
All divine blessing derives from this covenant, as Jesus informs the Samaritan woman,
“Salvation is from the Jews.” There has been no change in this redemptive pattern. The
Church, therefore, becomes the body of Christ in the same manner as any Gentile would
experience salvation under the Old Covenant, by becoming engrafted into Israel. As
Christ is Israel, so now all who are saved are so by being ‘in Him,’ because to be ‘in Him’ is
to be in Abraham by faith.
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor
are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”
That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of
the promise are counted as the seed. (Romans 9:6-8)
This concept of the body of Christ informs and unites within itself everything that is
said in the New Testament about the Church, and fully describes the essence of the Church
as the new Temple of God – “tear down this Temple and I will raise it up in three days,” Jesus
said, speaking, John tells us, of His body. This pertains directly to the resurrection, but
through the power of the resurrection to the ‘body’ of Christ, the Church. Thus the
metaphors used to describe the Church – the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the temple of
God - are not independent, but connected to one another through their consistent reference
to Christ. “In the whole of the New Testament, the relationship to Christ has everything to
do with the Church.”133 The reality of this relationship, and that which brings the figure of
speech into reality, is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. “In the history of revelation the
Old Testament people of God become the church of the Messiah, formed as the fellowship of
the Spirit.”134
133
Berkouwer; 141.
134
Clowney; 29.
Page 104
Week 8: Pentecost: The End & The Beginning
Key Biblical Texts: Acts 2:1-21
“The Spirit is a gift from God’s future,

the gift which guarantees that future.”
(N. T. Wright, Paul)
Frequently the issue of continuity versus discontinuity has come up in our discussion
of the origins and nature of the Christian Church. The general thrust of this study has
been that there has only ever been one divine plan of redemption, formulated in eternity
past and enacted progressively throughout human history – culminating in the advent of
Jesus Christ. That is continuity. Equally true, however, is the fact that the coming of Jesus
Christ marked an irrevocable change in the flow of redemptive history, in that the fullness
of time and of revelation had come and there is no going back. That is discontinuity. If we
can specify a time and place where continuity and discontinuity meet in the biblical
narrative, it is at Pentecost in the temple precincts of Jerusalem, approximately AD 33.
Pentecost, of course, marks the coming of the Holy Spirit, an event Jesus himself
considered far more important to His disciples than the comfort of His own physical
presence among them.135 Yet, important as modern believers consider the Pentecost event,
there is little agreement among them as to its meaning vis-à-vis the Church. Some hold
that Pentecost was the beginning of a brand new work of God called ‘the Church’; others
hold that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on that day was a once-for-all divine
imprimatur upon the gathering of Jesus’ disciples; while others teach that the experience
of Pentecost is to be sought after and received by all believers if they truly want to know
the power of Christ in their lives. This divergence of views is quite remarkable, given that
Peter stood up and explained the day’s events to the assembled crowd, “this is what was
spoken of through the prophet Joel…”
Modern evangelicals who are most frequently associated with Pentecost are called,
of course, Pentecostals. It is largely due to their views that many other evangelicals bypass
the teaching and meaning of Pentecost altogether, in fear of unleashing an uncontrollable
135
John 16:7
Page 105
charismatic movement within their denominations and congregations. In both cases a
very important date in the calendar of redemption is misinterpreted: either wrongly inter-
preted in the one case, or wrongly ignored in the other. In
truth, the work of Jesus Christ itself would have been
powerless to save a single sinner if not for the events
recorded on that Pentecost day. James Dunn writes, “The
climax and purposed end of Jesus’ ministry is not the cross
and resurrection but the ascension and Pentecost…Calvary
without Pentecost would not be an atonement for us.”136 We
James D. G. Dunn (b. 1939 )
do well to seek to understand what those events mean for us
as believers and for the Church of Jesus Christ.
As it is the most common view held among evangelicals today, the teaching of
Pentecostalalism in regard to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is perhaps the best
place to start a discussion on the role of the Holy Spirit in the
life of the Church. The common perception among non-
Pentecostals – that Pentecostalism is all about the baptism
of/in the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues – is largely
accurate, and by the admission of Pentecostal theologians.
For instance, Frederick Dale Bruner, in his A Theology of the
Holy Spirit, writes, “Pentecost, for Pentecostalism, means
first of all and essentially Acts 2:4: ‘And they were all filled
Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as
the Spirit gave them utterance.’”137 Bruner continues,
It can be established from the literature that the experience of the Holy Spirit in
Pentecostalism is understood essentially as the experience of the baptism and consequent
gifts of the Holy Spirit. Anything outside of this thematic center is peripheral, not
distinctively Pentecostal, and in Pentecostal treatments for all practical purposes
undeveloped.138
136
Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press LTD; 1970); 44.
137
Bruner, Frederick Dale A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans; 1970); 57.
138
Ibid.; 59.
Page 106
This assessment is largely true even in the almost fifty years since Bruner wrote his
book, with the notable exception being the work of Gordon Fee, one of the most thorough
and thought-provoking Pentecostal theologians of the modern era. We will interact with
Fee’s views further on in this lesson, though it may be said at this point that his more
biblically-integrate analysis of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit has not significantly
influenced the practice of Pentecostal churches. It is still the case that “In the study of
Pentecostalism it is soon discovered that that Pentecostal pneumatology emphasizes not so
much the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as it does the doctrine (or as Pentecostals would
prefer to say, the experience) of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”139
Bruner is a very interesting theologian in regard to his theology of the Holy Spirit.
He is a self-professed ‘Reformed biblical theologian,’140 and teaches regularly at West Side
Presbyterian Church in Seattle; yet his treatment of the Pentecostal view of the work of the
Holy Spirit is quite approving. What is remarkable about Bruner’s Theology of the Holy
Spirit, and particularly significant to our study, is his index of Scriptural references. It is,
actually, titled Index of New Testament References, and indeed does not contain a single
passage reference from the Old Testament. This is telling and is indicative of most
evangelical’s views regarding the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit – it all begins at
Pentecost. While non-Pentecostals rarely mean the same thing when they refer to the Day
of Pentecost, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as the beginning of the Church, they
nonetheless tend to ignore any prior teaching in Scripture concerning the Holy Spirit. To
most evangelicals, Pentecost was a beginning; but biblically-speaking, it was also an end.
And that which it ended speaks volumes to that which it begins.
As noted above, arguments regarding the meaning of Pentecost are somewhat
surprising considering the explanation given under the Spirit’s inspiration by the apostle
Peter, immediately upon the event itself,
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who
dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. For these are not drunk, as you
suppose, since it is only [e]the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken by the prophet
Joel… (Acts 2:14-16)
139
Ibid.; 57.
140
https://wspc.org/preacher/dale-bruner/ accessed October 1, 2018.
Page 107
Peter goes on to quote from Joel 2, verse 28 to the beginning of verse 32.
And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
I will show wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.
This is universally recognized as a prophecy of the coming of the Messianic

Kingdom, also known in Old Testament prophecy as the ‘Day of the Lord.’ So clear is this
reference by Peter to the eschatological expectation of the Old Covenant nation, that
modern Dispensationalists are forced to alter the sense in which the apostle uses the
citation. Admitting that the passage in Joel is messianic, but stipulating that the Messianic
Kingdom cannot come until the Second Advent of Christ and the Millennium, the
Dispensationalist must read Peter’s comments in his Pentecost sermon with some
consternation. In Major Bible Themes, Dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer acknowledges
Joel 2:28ff to be speaking of the Messianic Kingdom (page
309) but fails entirely to address Acts 2:16ff in the book.
Dunn notes that many Dispensationalists treat Peter’s words
in Acts 2 as ‘illustration’ rather than ‘fulfillment’ of the Old
Testament prophecy. He quotes Merrill Unger, a noted 20th
Century Dispensationalist commentator: “’This is that’
means nothing more than that ‘this is (an illustration) of that
which was spoken of by the prophet Joel.”141 Unger’s full
comment runs as follows, Merrill Unger (1909-80)
It seems quite obvious that Peter did not quote Joel’s prophecy in the sense of its fulfillment in the
events of Pentecost, but purely as a prophetic illustration of those events. As a matter of fact,
to avoid confusion, Peter’s quotation evidently purposely goes beyond any possible fulfillment at
Pentecost by including events in the still future day of the Lord, preceding kingdom
141
Dunn; 47.
Page 108
establishment (Acts 2:19–20). To employ the term “partial fulfillment,” as some writers do,
involves illogical terminology that does not produce clarity and accuracy of concept.142
This treatment of Acts 2:16ff – as well as the other references made by the apostles
to the fulfillment of the promised Messianic Kingdom, is made necessary (called ‘special
pleading’ by Dunn) by the whole schema of Dispensational thought: These Old Testament
prophetic passages refer to the Messianic Kingdom; the Messianic Kingdom will not come
until the Second Advent of Christ and the Millennium; therefore, these quotations with
regard to the Church must be illustration rather than fulfillment. The presupposition of
the future Millennial Kingdom is evident in Chafer’s handling of such Old Testament
prophecies as Joel 2,
Old Testament predictions concerning the kingdom are often a part of the predictions
concerning the return of the King. When these two themes are combined into one, it is
termed ‘the day of the Lord,’ which refers to that lengthened period extending from the rapture of
the church and the judgments following this event on the earth, to the end of His millennial reign.143
Chafer begs the question. He has assumed the validity of his eschatology and from
that perspective he interprets Peter’s ecclesiology. But his eschatology has yet to be
proven, and indeed, Peter’s ecclesiology – if left to speak on its own – should massively
impact Chafer’s eschatology. In fact, Peter is not using Joel illustratively (one might ask
just what it is that Peter seeks to illustrate by quoting Joel); rather it is the case that Peter
recognizes in the events of Pentecost the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, which is why
he does say, “This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel,” and he does not say, “This is
an illustration of that which was spoken of, etc. etc.” And the fact that the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit at Pentecost was the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy (actually, of
several Old Testament prophecies) means that Bruner’s Scriptural references ought to
have gone back into the Old Testament and not be limited to the New Testament alone.
Pentecost may have been the beginning of something, but it was also the end and
fulfillment of something, too.
Merrill F. Unger, “The Significance of Pentecost,” Bibliotheca Sacra 122 (1965): 176-77. Quoted by Kenneth
142
Banks, “Acts 2:16-20: Fulfillment or Illustration?” http://www.academia.edu/14930119/Acts_2_16-

20_FULFILLMENT_OR_ILLUSTRATION accessed October 1, 2018.
143
Chafer, Bible Themes; 309 (italics added for emphasis).
Page 109
The New Covenant and the Spirit:
If we take Peter’s own explanation of the events of Pentecost as our starting point –
which undoubtedly we should – we are directed back to the Old Testament, where we will
find the advance notice and purpose of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It is ludicrous to
maintain that Pentecost and the Church were ‘unknown’ to the Old Testament prophets, if
the New Testament apostle immediately quotes one of them to explain the experience of
Pentecost and the ‘founding’ of the Church. Rather, what we find when we return to the
Church’s heritage in the Old Covenant, is the promise of the Holy Spirit as an essential
element of the advent of the New Covenant. Joel is just the beginning; Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and Zechariah will all contribute as well.
We begin by taking the Joel reference as literal and not as illustrative. In other
words, we recognize along with Peter that the Messianic Kingdom has come, exactly as
God had promised it would come through the prophet Joel. Paul also connects with Joel
Chapter 2 when he explains how it is that a sinner is saved. The familiar passage in
Romans 10, often used in evangelistic witnessing, is to Paul grounded in the prophecy of
Joel, which he quotes:
…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised
Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with
the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will
not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all
is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
(Romans 10:9-13)
For our purposes in this lesson, the important point to realize is that, for one as
trained in the Torah as was Paul, the promise of salvation could not be extended even to the
Jews (much less to the Gentiles) unless the prophecy had been fulfilled. The fruition of
‘calling upon the name of the Lord’ is predicated in Joel Chapter 2 upon the coming of the
“great and terrible Day of the Lord” accompanied as it would be by the pouring out of God’s
Spirit “upon all flesh.” This promise was fulfilled at Pentecost, bringing to completion the
eschatological hope of the Old Covenant. Thus Pentecost was not merely the beginning of
the Church – and especially not as a beginning distinct from the continuing identity of the
Page 110
People of God – it was the culmination of the essential content of the promise of the New
Covenant: the outpouring of the Spirit.
The two most important Old Testament passages concerning the advent of the New
Covenant are Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36. This is not, of course, to say that no other Old
Testament passage speaks to the New Covenant, but merely to recognize the
comprehensiveness of these two. Both passages speak of a deeper transformation of God’s
people, one that takes place in the heart and not merely in the mind or will. Both passages
refer to the ultimate fulfillment of the divine promise to “circumcise the heart” of every
believer, a promise that was given centuries earlier to Moses.
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the
LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
(Deuteronomy 30:6)
It may be that the nation of Israel had eschatological expectations that were heavily
political and military, but God’s Word remained clear throughout the Old Covenant – true
and spiritual worship of Yahweh was what Israel (and all mankind) needed, and this is
exactly what God promised to give them. Thus no other aspect of the covenantal promises
– valid though each is in its own place – can usurp the principal characteristic of a new
heart, a heart of flesh and not of stone, a heart upon God has written His Law.
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.”
(Jeremiah 31:33-34)
Ezekiel 36 & 37 are widely considered to be referring to an era of renewal for Israel
that is so dramatic that it must constitute the renewal and revival of the Kingdom of the
Messiah. Dispensationalists, like their Jewish forebears, view the terminology to be too
comprehensive to be applicable to anything currently experienced; it must refer to the
Millennial Kingdom. But such a conclusion cannot be made without doing tremendous
and irreparable damage to the Gospel and to its integral promise of the new heart and the
new creation. To be sure, the language of Ezekiel is astounding and well beyond anything
Page 111
our eyes have seen in the past two thousand years. But this simply points to the fact that
the Kingdom of God would not come in an expected way, as Jesus himself said:
Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them
and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’
or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is [b]within you.” (Luke 17:20-21)
Ezekiel 36 speaks of the regeneration of the sinner’s soul and cannot conceivably
refer to anything other than the work of the Holy Spirit in what is now (incorrectly)
termed ‘Christian salvation.’
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. Then you shall
dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.
(Ezekiel 36:25-28)
The last clause of this divine promise – referring to the possession of the land – has
not been literally fulfilled in Israel, but it is included in the quotation as an integral part of
the promise. However, too much has been put upon the ‘land’ aspect of the promise while
too little has been emphasized concerning the work of God’s Spirit within the believer,
something that has manifestly taken place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our contention
here is that the Pentecost event is the fulfillment of this prophecy as well as of Jeremiah 31,
Joel 2, and Zechariah 4:6, “Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord.” This
last reference is in the context of Zerubbabel’s rebuilding of the Temple and ties in with
our earlier discussion regarding the Church as the true temple of God in Jesus Christ. The
dwelling of God with His people – His Spirit’s presence among them – was of the greatest
importance to the faithful Jew, far more important than possession of the land (though that
was never unimportant, as it was a covenant symbol of divine grace and approbation).
The history of the Old Covenant people is one of God granting and taking away His Spirit
– from the king, from the temple, from the land – while consistently promising the full and
final restoration of His Spirit to His people, never to be taken away again. This is the key
to Old Testament eschatology, and to the events of Pentecost in the New Testament.
Page 112
Simply put, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was irrefutable proof that the New
Covenant had come, with all that that entailed from the prophecies of old. Among the
New Testament writers, no one was more profoundly impacted by this realization than
the apostle ‘born out of season,’ Paul. And it is undoubtedly true that Paul would have
been the hardest of all the apostles to convince that the New Covenant had come, but in a
manner far different than he was anticipating. Throughout this study we have noted that
Paul did not consider his doctrine to be the least inconsistent
with the Scriptures, which in his time were, of course, the Old
Testament Law and Prophets. Richard Hays, in his
thoughtful study, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,
writes, “Paul was insistent that his message stood in direct
continuity with Scripture and, at the same time, equally
insistent that his gospel was radically new, a revelation that
demanded reassessment of all that was past.”144 To Paul, the
Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) advent of the Holy Spirit brought a new hermeneutic to bear
upon Scripture; all things must now be re-thought through the lens of a fulfilled covenant
and an inaugurated kingdom. This is the context of Pentecost as well as its most
important result.
To summarize thus far: Pentecost has been consistently misinterpreted as an
individual event, an empowerment of believers to achieve spiritual heights unavailable to
those who have not yet received the ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit.’ Without denying the
aspect of empowerment,145 the events of Pentecost cannot be seen in individual terms at all,
but rather as the evidence of God fulfilling the promise of the New Covenant by sending
forth His Spirit. This is what Jesus promised to His disciples, particularly in the final days
of His earthly ministry. He recognized that without the sending of the Holy Spirit –
something that He would secure by virtue of His sacrificial death – there could be no New
Covenant, no fulfillment, no realization of the eschatological hope of Israel. It was
144
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press; 1989); 123.
145
The word Jesus uses in Acts 1:8, dunamis, refers rather to ‘ability’ than it does to ‘power,’
at least in the sense in which ‘power’ is widely interpreted today.
Page 113
necessary for Jesus to die, and necessary after He had risen for Him to depart, that He
might truly finish the work for which He was sent, but Himself sending the Holy Spirit.
But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ But
because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the
truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not
come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict
the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of
righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of
this world is judged. (John 16:5-11)
Thus it is very wrong and very dangerous to teach that the ‘baptism’ of the Holy
Spirit is something added to the life of a true believer, as if someone could be an heir of the
New Covenant without the Spirit. The events of Pentecost were for the church as a whole,
not simply for each individual member of the church; the empowerment was of the Body,
not merely of its individual parts. “The fact that Pentecost is the climax of Jesus’ ministry
for the disciples should not blind us into thinking that Pentecost is merely a continuation
of what went before. Pentecost is a new beginning – the inauguration of a new age, the
age of the Spirit – that which had not been before.”146 The outpouring of the Spirit of God
was a revivification of the people of God, as prophesied in Ezekiel 37 in the vision of the
dry bones, and cannot be properly understood apart from the inauguration of the New
Covenant kingdom in Jesus Christ.
As mentioned earlier, Pentecostalism is not renown for
deep works of theology, even in regard to the Person and
Work of the Holy Spirit. A modern-day exception to the rule
is found in the writings of Gordon Fee, whose God’s
Empowering Presence is a highly regarded (as much or more
outside of Pentecostalism as within) systematic treatment of
the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul. Fee
extracted a chapter of his magnum opus (God’s Empowering
Presence runs to over 900 pages before the appendices and Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934)
146
Dunn; 44.
Page 114
indices) into a smaller book, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, in which he summarizes
the significance of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to the apostle’s doctrine of the
Church. In both works Fee, a member of the Assemblies of God denomination, brings a
Pentecostalist perspective to a biblical exegetical analysis of the purpose of the giving of
the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and provides a theological analysis of Paul’s letters that will
satisfy the most thoroughly Reformed thinker.
Apart from the visible manifestation of the Spirit’s advent on Pentecost (the
“tongues as of fire”) and the remarkable miracle of speech and hearing (“and each one heard
them speaking in his own dialect”), Pentecost must first be recognized as the event by which
God took possession of – literally took up residence with and in – His people, reforming
the people of God from the remnant of believing Israel, to which the Gentiles would be
joined by the very same act of the Holy Spirit. “That is, in the Spirit we are united as one
in God’s own presence; and also by the Spirit God’s presence is manifest on earth in the
community of faith.”147 Edmund Clowney adds,
In the Spirit the Father and the Son take possession of the church. Nothing from God’s
past revelation is lost. Through the Spirit the church is united to Christ in the fellowship of
His sufferings, and of His glory. The presence of the Spirit is therefore both promise and
realization…At Pentecost the Lord came to take possession of his people, filling his
spiritual house with his presence. The phenomena of Pentecost recalls the wind and fire of
Sinai, as well as the cloud of glory that filled the tabernacle.148
The point these writers are making in response to the biblical witness of both the
Old and the New Testaments, is that the advent of the Holy Spirit was essential to the
existence of the Church. Furthermore, the Church is the full realization of the invisible
kingdom – the kingdom that does not come by observation – and not merely a
contingency plan on the part of God. Contrary to the view that the ‘baptism in the Holy
Spirit’ was meant to be supplemental (albeit very important) to the life of believers and of
the Church, it is rather the case that there could be no believer and no Church without the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. One the one hand, Christ’s death made the
new humanity, the one body, a possibility; and he accomplished this by abolishing that
147
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence (Grand Rapids: Hendrickson Publishers; 1994); 682.
148
Clowney; 51-52.
Page 115
which divides. But the realization of this ‘one body’ comes through their being one people
together in the one Spirit of God.”149
From a purely historical perspective, the fact that the Holy Spirit was essential to
the constitution of the revived people of God, intended to include both Jews and Gentiles,
settles the question as to the ‘origin’ of the Church chronologically. James Dunn
summarizes, “In brief, then, the Church properly conceived did not come into existence
until Pentecost. Apart from everything else the vital experience and possession of the
Spirit, the constitutive life principle and hallmark of the early Church, was lacking.”150 But
this is not merely a historical point of information – like when someone is born – it is
rather the powerful evidence that the promised messianic kingdom had come, that the
exile of God’s People had ended, and that God was now resident among His People
forever. Far from being a Plan B, the Church is the manifestation on earth of the covenant
God fulfilling His covenant promises: from Israel to the nations. While we tend to think of
eschatology in terms of Christ’s Second Coming, we must also remember that Israel had
an eschatology – and this eschatology was fulfilled with the First Advent of Christ, and
this fulfillment was consummated with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
For Paul, therefore, salvation in Christ is a thoroughly eschatological reality, meaning first
of all that God’s final (eschatological) saving of his people has already been effected in
Christ…This essential framework likewise conditions Paul’s understanding that the church
is an eschatological community, where members live in the present as those stamped with
eternity.151
It is for this reason that the systematic theological doctrine of Pneumatology is most
properly a sub-section of Ecclesiology, as is the study of Eschatology. The Doctrine of the
Holy Spirit really cannot be developed apart from the Church, for in the Church we find
the ‘age of the Spirit’ begun and advancing, resulting ultimately in the consummation of
the age and giving way eventually to the New Heaven and the New Earth. Paul had more
to say about the Holy Spirit than any other biblical author and we will turn to his doctrine
of the Holy Spirit and the Church in our next lesson. It is sufficient at this point to note
that the Spirit of God constitutes the essential principle of the Church; of its life and its
149
Fee, God’s Empowering Presence; 684-5.
150
Dunn; 51.
Page 116
message and witness in the world. To Paul, “The gift of the out-poured Spirit meant the
messianic age had already arrived. The Spirit is thus the central element in this altered
perspective, the key to which is Paul’s firm conviction that the Spirit was both the certain
evidence that the future had dawned, and the absolute guarantee of its final
consummation.”152
A New Hermeneutic – II Corinthians 3
It has occurred to a number of modern writers – and should really have occurred to
all readers of the Pauline letters – that the apostle to the Gentiles ‘rethinks’ Judaism on just
about every possible level. This fact, of course, got Paul into tremendous trouble with his
unbelieving Jewish countrymen. But it has also confused generations of Christian
scholars, who constantly attempt to create something new out of Paul rather than to see
that the Scriptures of the Old Testament were always to him the touchstone of truth. As
noted above (pg. 112), Paul consistently placed himself in the uninterrupted line of biblical
revelation, not as one who has received a brand new revelation, but rather as one to whom
the mystery of the one revelation has been unfolded. The “greatness of revelation” given to
Paul did not involve a new plan of redemption; it involved, as it were, a new hermeneutic
for reading and interpreting the ageless plan of redemption revealed “in former times in
many parts and in many portions” through the prophets. This new hermeneutic is most
vividly outlined in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthian church, where he speaks of the
Corinthian believers as “a letter of Christ written on tablets of flesh.”
You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of
Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of
stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. (II Corinthians 3:2-3)
II Corinthians Chapter 3 is a presentation of the new hermeneutic of the Spirit that

was given to every believer by the indwelling of that same Spirit. It is the working out
form the Scriptures the promise of Jesus that “when He comes [i.e., the Spirit], He will lead
you into all truth.” Paul perhaps answers definitively in this chapter the perennial debate
between continuity and discontinuity. It is the same Word of God (continuity) now
151
Fee, Empowering Presence; 804.
Page 117
interpreted by a different instrumentality (discontinuity). To Paul it was a contrast
between the letter, gramma, and the Spirit, pneuma:
And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think
of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as
ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the [a]Spirit; for the letter kills, but the
Spirit gives life. (II Corinthians 3:4-6)
“By gramma and pneuma Paul means two different authorities; gramma is the written
code of the Law, pneuma is the operation of the Spirit in producing and promulgating the
Gospel.”153 This new authority forms the basis of a new interpretation of the same
Scriptures, not the establishment of a new Scripture. The difference between the two is,
however, almost as if there were two entirely different Scriptures, for as Paul says in this
same chapter, those who still read the Scriptures under Moses do so with a veil over their
hearts, “But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.”154 Such is the radical
change made through Jesus Christ and by the regeneration and indwelling of the Holy
Spirit – believer may now read the Scriptures without the veil,
Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil
over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing
away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading
of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when
Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is
taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But
we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into
the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. (II Corinthians 3:12-18)
The ‘baptism’ of the Holy Spirit is not uniformly evidenced by speaking in tongues,
but rather by being able to see and understand the Scriptures in a new, life-giving,
liberating way. “Only readers made competent by the Spirit can throw back the veil and
perceive the sense of Scripture; those who have not turned to the Lord who is Spirit are
necessarily trapped in the script, with minds hardened and veiled.”155 This wonderful
reality is the watershed between continuity and discontinuity.
152
Ibid.; 806.
153
Alfred Plummer A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians; quoted
by Richard Hays, Echoes; 124.
154
II Corinthians 3:15
155
Hays, 148.
Page 118
Week 9: The Spirit & The Church
Key Biblical Texts: I Corinthians 12:1-11
“Biblically speaking,
‘Charismatic’ and ‘Christion’ are synonyms.”
(Richard Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost)
The importance of the Holy Spirit to the Church is far more widely acknowledged
than it is explained. No branch of professing Christianity denies the biblical fact that the
Holy Spirit in some way gives life to the Church, reflected in the Pauline benediction, ‘the
fellowship of the Holy Spirit.’ But beyond the bare statement of the Creed, “We believe in the
Holy Spirit…” there is little agreement as to his purpose and role within the Church itself.
Indeed, a survey of church practice among all denominations will reveal lines of
differences along views of the ongoing function of the Holy Spirit, with one end of the
spectrum believing the Spirit to inhabit and empower the institutions of the church, and
the other emphasizing the Spirit’s role in the community of believers. As with most things,
error lies to the extremes, but the balance is not in the middle. The proper understanding
of the role of the Holy Spirit in and with relation to the Church is perhaps indicated by the
biblical answer to the question, “Which came first, the Church or the Believer?” Which has
priority in God’s redemptive plan? Is the Church the assembly of believers, or are
believers baptized into the Church? Various denominational answers to this genre of
question have varied even among themselves over the generations, and no consensus has
ever developed to unite all of professing Christianity. The best we can do is study the
biblical data and offer a (perhaps tentative) answer.
Certainly the modern Western Church, and most particularly the Church in the
United States, at least in practice the emphasis is squarely on the individual believer, with
the church assembly being viewed largely as a voluntary and easily-changed commodity.
The movement of professing believers among different churches – and, remarkably,
different denominations – indicates a very shallow understanding in the modern
American Church with regard to the Church and the role of the Holy Spirit therein. The
emphasis in both doctrine and practice with regard to the Holy Spirit is upon his work in
regeneration and sanctification, with varying degrees of the Spirit’s involvement in the
latter, depending on the denomination. If pressed on the issue of the Spirit’s relationship
Page 119
to the church assembly, the individualist camp will generally agree that the Spirit is the
bond that unites the community of believers, though the nomadic nature of American
Christianity would seem to indicate that this bond is not very strong. In sum, however,
the emphasis in modern Western Christianity has been so strong against institutional
Christianity (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church), that it is as if believers are convinced that
they bring the Holy Spirit to ‘church’ when they go to church.
On the other extreme is the Roman Catholic Church,
teaching as it does that the institutional church is the repository
of the Holy Spirit, which is administered to the faithful through
the sacraments and liturgy of the church. “In Roman Catholic
theology, the Spirit is mainly the soul and sustainer of the
Church, in Protestant theology he is mainly the awakener of
individual spiritual life in justification and sanctification. So the
Hendrikus Berkhof (1914-95)
Spirit is either institutionalized or individualized.”156 Often the place any individual
denomination or church occupies on the continuum between extremes will be indicated by
their view of the sacraments (as well as whether they are willing to call them ‘sacraments’
at all, preferring rather ‘ordinances’). On the Roman Catholic side, and in all Protestant
denominations that did not separate far from Rome, the interaction between the individual
church member and the Church – and in the Church, the Holy Spirit – is sacramental or
sacerdotal. The first term emphasizes the institutional mechanism by which the Spirit is
administered to the member – be it baptism, or the Eucharist (Mass), or matrimony, etc.;
the second term emphasizes the priesthood by which this grace is mediated in the
sacrament. Together they present a Church that is mechanical with regard to the
distribution of the Spirit and the charismata – the ‘grace gifts’ of the Holy Spirit, being
coordinated and controlled by the hierarchy of the institutional Church.
Protestants reject this structural framework in favor a more spontaneous and
sovereign activity on the part of the Holy Spirit himself. The Protestant Reformation also
brought a necessary corrective with regard to the role of the individual believer in his or
her own participation both in grace and in the Church. This is not to say that such
156
Berkhof, Hendrikus The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press; 1964); 33.
Page 120
movements have not occurred within the Roman Catholic communion; they have, as for
instance the massive impact the Charismatic Movement had within Catholic congregations
in the 1970s. But by emphasis of doctrine, the Protestant community of churches pushed
the pendulum away from the institutional church and toward the individual believer with
regard to the role and involvement of the Holy Spirit. Further along the spectrum,
Protestants, “…see the Spirit mainly as the relation between God and the individual
soul.”157
The mainline Reformation denominations – in particular the Lutheran, the
Reformed, and the Anglican – spread themselves somewhere in the middle of the
spectrum, with Lutheranism and Anglicanism closest to Rome and her institutionalism,
and the Reformed Churches further down the line toward individualism. Reformed
theology refuses to let go of the independent validity of the Church as the creation of the
Holy Spirit and not merely the gathering of believers, while at the same time desiring to
lay proper emphasis on the role of the Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of every
individual believer…as an individual and not merely as a member of the Church. “It is
characteristic for the Reformed confession, which wants to maintain both, to give full
emphasis to the relation between the Spirit and the individual and, at the same time, to
recognize that the church is a creation not of men but of the Spirit.”158 This is not an easy
balance to maintain, and typically (some might say stereotypically) Reformed churches
tend to gravitate back toward the more sacramental, even sacerdotal, side of the spectrum.
Again, the solution hinges largely on the issue of priority between the Church and
the individual believer. Protestants rightly maintain that the Church does not possess an
conceptual existence apart from actual believers – the beginning of the Church was the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon believers. But this fact does not necessitate the
conclusion that the individual is primary over the Church. Berkhof offers his conclusion,
“In my opinion the right order is: first the church, after that the individual.”159 He goes on
to warn “As long as we put the individual first, we cannot get the right view on the church
as ground and mother of the individual life.”160 There is no escaping the individualist
157
Ibid.; 46.
158
Ibid.; 49.
159
Idem.
160
Ibid.; 50.
Page 121
conclusion that the Church is largely unnecessary; it is, at best, a convenient place for
believers to gather and, at worst, an oppressive institution that stifles the spiritual life of
individual believers. Many modern believers firmly believe the latter point of view, while
many more practice the former.
Biblically, neither the intense institutionalism of the Roman Catholic Church nor the
equally intense individualism of modern nomadic evangelicalism can be supported. We
acknowledge, therefore, that the truth is somewhere in the middle and we turn to the
Scriptures to attempt to determine approximately where that point lies. Berkhof’s
comment is correct; we can never arrive at a proper view of the Church – nor of the
‘church’ in terms of the more practical local congregation – if we adhere to too
individualistic a role for the Holy Spirit. The biblical analogy that at least sets us on the
path to a solution is that of Creation, and this analogy is used frequently by the Apostle
Paul. There can be no reasonable argument concerning the role of the Holy Spirit in
Creation, as we read “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the deep.”161 Nor can
there be any reasonable argument about the biblical priority between Creation and Man –
the first existed as a purpose of God, whereas the second occupies a place – albeit a very
important place – within that plan. In other words, Creation has a logical priority over
Man, though Man is clearly created to be the vice-regent of God over Creation.
In a similar way Paul presents the current work of God as a “New Creation,” and
we are not justified in taking Paul’s words in any other way than literal,
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all
things have become new. (II Corinthians 5:17)
To Paul, and therefore to us, the work of the Holy Spirit in this second creation is
the same as it was in the first – he is the executive force of God’s will, brining to pass
through the Word (Logos) of God, Jesus Christ, a new creation. Paul ties the two events
together earlier in II Corinthians,
For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give
the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (II Corinthians 4:6)
161
Genesis 1:1
Page 122
This passage is, of course, very individualistic and does not in itself ‘prove’ the
priority of the Church in Paul’s teaching. The point of the verse here, however, is to
establish the connection in Paul’s thought between Creation and the New Creation,
intending to reason from one to the other with regard to the Holy Spirit’s role. The
priority of the Church is thus analogous to the priority of Creation, but arguments should
never rest solely on analogy. Having established the link in Paul’s theology between the
first Creation and the new Creation, we must look to other passages to determine his view
regarding the logical priority of the Church over the believer. Once again a caveat is in
order: by ‘logical priority’ is meant the place each holds in the overarching plan and
purpose of God to redeem not only a people, but also His entire created order. It does not
mean that individual believers are unimportant to God, or that the Church has a
conceptual reality apart from the lives of individual believers.
There are several passages that give some insight into Paul’s thought on the matter.
The familiar metaphor of the Church as the Bride of Christ derives largely from Ephesians
Chapter 5, where husbands are exhorted to love their wives, “as Christ loved the Church, and
gave himself up for her.”162 The Lord is said to have already given himself up for the Church,
though at the time of the crucifixion the Church cannot be said to have existed. It is
argued that Christ offered himself up for the elect, known to Him from before the
foundation of the world. This is correct; but what is this assemblage of the elect other than
the Church? Thus the Church had a logical existence before it possessed any members,
and for this Church Christ died.
The other common metaphor of the Church, that of the Body of Christ, reflects the
same sort of understanding in Paul. With regard to the Church as the Body, Paul speaks
in terms of its completed reality rather than its temporal identity. For instance, speaking
of the overall purpose of God in Christ Jesus, Paul writes,
And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which
is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23)
It is hard to imagine that Paul considered the beginning of these last days as Christ
the Head without a fully-formed Body, but rather a body slowly forming over time as
Page 123
individual believers joined the Church. The salvation of individual believers is
undoubtedly the historical growth of the Body, but its existence and reality are
independent of that growth. The Church is what Paul views as the Body; believers are
“individually members of it.”
For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many,
are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews
or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the
body is not one member but many… Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
(I Corinthians 12:12-14; 27)
Two phrases in this passage are important to our study in that they employ
sacramental terminology to indicate that believers are brought into the Church at the time
of their conversion: “baptized into one body” and “made to drink into one Spirit.” This echoes
the ‘unity list’ of Ephesians 4,
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord,
one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
(Ephesians 4:4-6)
Again in Ephesians Paul ties the purpose of God to glorify Himself through grace,
with the identity of the Church. He does this in with words that transcend merely the
aggregate of believers, undoubtedly thinking in terms of the relation of the Church to
Christ. Paul writes,
To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among
the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the
mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things
through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made
known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to
the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Ephesians 3:8-11)
It is Paul's view that the ‘mystery’ of the Church, through which the manifold
wisdom of God will be made known to the heavenly host, was by no means a ‘new’ plan,
but was “from the beginning of the ages.” This is another connection in Paul between the
New Creation in Christ and the old Creation, which was also through Christ. Thus to say
162
Ephesians 5:25
Page 124
that the Church has priority over the individual believer is merely to recognize the eternal
plan of God, in which the exaltation of Christ through the Church is the determined means
by which God’s magnificent grace is to be made known to the whole of creation.
We can enlist Peter in support of this logical subordination of the believer to the
Church, as he refers to the believer is a living stone whereas the Church is a spiritual house
into which these stones are being placed.
Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you
also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (I Peter 2:4-5)
This verse also proves that the relative superiority of the Church to the individual
believer is no denigration of the believer, for Christ himself is called a ‘living stone.’ The
point of these passages, however, is to show that the Church was the ultimate purpose of
Christ’s advent, at least in terms of the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Covenant.
Christ is the chief cornerstone of the new ‘spiritual house’ – metaphorically equivalent to
the new creation – and every believer is individually a crafted stone, but it is the structure
itself, in its fulness at the consummation of the age, that will fully manifest the glory of the
grace of God. Once again we discover that a higher view of the Church than is common
among modern evangelicals, is definitely warranted by Scripture.
The hesitance of many to developing a more biblical, ‘high church’ view of
ecclesiology is twofold. First, there is the memory (even though not experiential memory)
of the over-bearing institutionalized Roman Catholic Church from which modern
Protestantism broke in the 16th Century. This is a theoretical justification for resisting the
priority of the Church. The practical reason for doing so is the basic reluctance of
individual believers to commit themselves to a Church as it is conceived by the apostles.
A ‘high church’ view (using the term in reference to the logical priority of the Church and
not in terms of ritual, vestments, or liturgy) demands submission on the part of the
individual believer, something our flesh is quite resistant to yield. Yet even here we have
the example of Jesus Christ presented to us by the apostle Paul.
Page 125
Therefore if there is any [a]consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit,
if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one
accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of
mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own
interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ
Jesus… (Philippians 2:1-5)
We are to be reminded of Paul’s lengthy epistle written in an effort to teach the

believers of Corinth the true purpose of the ‘charismata,’ the grace-gifts. Individualism
was the problem at Corinth, unity of the body was the answer. Still, we also recognize that
at no time does Paul negate the gifts or rebuke the Corinthian believers for desiring them.
Thus we see that a proper emphasis on the corporate aspect of the Church does not
necessarily destroy the individual focus of divine grace in the distribution of spiritual gifts.
Indeed, it is only in the context of the life and edification of the corporate body that we see
charismata functioning as intended by the Holy Spirit. The gifts of the Spirit are in service
of the Body of Christ, as the Spirit himself is in economic submission to the risen Lord.
The Institutional Spirit:
In light of this analysis of the priority of the Church, the work of the Spirit in the
Church does not rightly begin with the ‘gifts,’ but rather with the ‘sacraments.’ Again, the
word ‘sacrament’ often scares modern evangelicals as sounding too Roman Catholic. But
the word itself makes an important distinction that is lost when only the word ‘ordinance’
is used. An ‘ordinance’ is something that we are told to do – something ordained or
legislated for the Church. This perspective tends toward the two primary ‘ordinances’ of
the Church – baptism and the Lord’s Supper – as being outward and symbolic rituals of
faith, rather than actually containing the grace that they signify. Thus the Lord’s Supper
becomes a ‘memorial meal’ commemorating the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, and
baptism is viewed as a ‘public profession of faith’ with no actual gracious event taking
place in the baptized. Paul’s view of both baptism and the Lord’s Supper is much more
nuanced than this popular modern conception and emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit
in the actual distribution of grace. Hence both baptism and the Lord’s Supper are better
termed ‘sacraments’ than ‘ordinances,’ understanding the caveat that it is the Spirit who
dispenses the grace, not the Church.
Page 126
We find in modern American evangelicalism that the sacrament of baptism is the
root of great disagreement as to its meaning and significance. Dealing strictly with ‘credo’
baptism – the baptism of professing believers – and leaving paedobaptism out of the
picture, there is still tremendous variety as to the views of various evangelical
denominations regarding the importance of the act. Those who hold that baptism is a
public profession of faith are quick and adamant to argue that the ritual is not strictly
necessary for salvation, pointing most often to the thief on the cross, who was welcomed
by the Lord into Paradise though obviously not having been baptized. This example
misses the key point; that Christian baptism was not even in existence until Pentecost.
And this point actually cuts to the core of the main disagreement concerning baptism itself
– the connection between water and Spirit baptism.
The Pentecostal holds firmly that the two are separate and distinct; it is the normal
course of events for a sinner to come to faith in Jesus Christ and be baptized in water before
– and sometimes many years before – his being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Acts 2 is, of
course, the point of reference for this perspective, allegedly supporting the contention that
the outpouring or baptism of the Holy Spirit is a ‘second blessing’ that is manifested by the
subject being empowered to speak in other tongues. What is remarkable is that this is not
the interpretation that Peter put upon the events of Pentecost, as evidenced by what he
admonishes his audience to do in response to his preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles,
“Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [k]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:37-38)
Here the apostle ties what is undeniably water baptism – Repent, and let every one of
you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ…- with the gift of the Holy Spirit, the very same
blessing that Peter’s audience had just witnessed in the disciples. There is no indication of
a separation in either time or purpose between water baptism and the gift of the Holy
Spirit. The only possible argument against this evident connection of the two would be to
say that the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit’ is not the same thing as what had just occurred, called
by Pentecostals the ‘baptism in (or of) the Holy Spirit.’ This interpretation would be
special pleading, re-reading the text in order to support an a priori conclusion. It is most
Page 127
natural to understand Peter’s reference to the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit’ as that very same
event that had just occurred, and about which Peter’s audience was so intrigued. Thus at
the outset we see water baptism in a much different light that a mere ‘public profession of
faith.’ It is, rather, the necessary concomitant of repentance and, it may be argued, the
necessary precursor to the gift of the Holy Spirit.
That statement probably raises some hackles, as it seems to boldly state that an
unbaptized person does not (and cannot?) have the Holy Spirit. This, in turn, seems to
head in the direction of baptismal regeneration – the doctrine that baptism itself has a
salvific power, without which a sinner cannot be saved. While this extreme view is to be
avoided, it should not be done so at the expense of the biblical significance of water
baptism. Instead, recognizing that salvation is a gracious work of the Holy Spirit and not
a mechanical work of baptism, Reformed believers ought to take Peter’s admonition as a
challenge to rethink the meaning of water baptism, and to once again accord it the
importance given to it by the apostle.
Paul is no less strident on the topic of baptism, and we cannot find anything in his
writings to support the view of baptism as a ‘public profession of faith.’ Rather it is Paul
who provides us with the deepest possible perspective on water baptism.
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His
death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was
raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(Romans 6:3-4)
Paul derives very practical application from this fact of baptism uniting the believer
with Christ in both death and resurrection. The progression of his thought in Romans 6
lead inexorably to the glorious conclusion of Romans 8, in which the central role is played
by the Holy Spirit.
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who[a] do not walk
according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak
through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin:
He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who
do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)
Page 128
Accustomed as we are to reading passages of Scripture in isolation – or even in
systematic theological segments – we often lose track of the overriding though being
developed. In Paul’s letter to the Romans it is evident that Chapter 8 forms a culmination
and summation of the theological argument developed throughout the first half of the
epistle, with Chapters 9 – 11 being a powerful but parenthetic commentary on the divine
purpose for Israel and Chapter 12 beginning the practical application of the whole. Thus
Chapter 8, in which the role of the Holy Spirit plays such an important part, flows from
Chapter 6, in which the believer is said to be united with Christ in death and resurrection
through baptism. At the very least this lends much greater significance to baptism than
merely a ‘public profession of faith.’ Indeed, it fully defends the use of the term
‘sacrament’ in relation to baptism.
The connection, of course, is the Holy Spirit who now enlivens the baptized believer
to walk in newness of life. Paul writes, “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead
dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through
His Spirit who dwells in you.”163 The Holy Spirit is the very same power that He worked in
Christ when He raised Him from the dead that is also now at work in every believer. Note
that Paul does not make a distinction between those believers who are merely baptized in
water and those who have supposedly received the ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit.’
Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not
cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of
Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His
calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding
greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty
power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His
right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and
every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
(Ephesians 1:15-21)
Returning for a moment to Romans 8, we find irrefutable proof that the possession
of the Holy Spirit is not reserved for those who have received a ‘second blessing,’ but is
163
Romans 8:11
Page 129
essential to any sinner being saved and brought into the Body of Christ, for “if anyone does
not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.”164
One additional connection may be made here in relation to the Holy Spirit and
baptism: circumcision. This connection is, of course, part of the justification offered for
infant baptism: that the Christian sacrament of baptism takes the place of the Mosaic
symbol of circumcision. Key to this argument is Colossians 2:11-12,
In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which
you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
(Colossians 2:11-12)
The pædobaptist treats the two clauses at the beginning of each verse – circumcised
with the circumcision made without hands and buried with Him in baptism – as synonymous,
each describing the same event in the life of the sinner. Of course this argues too much, as
it tends logically toward baptismal regeneration in the case of infants. But the exegetical
point is that the two phrases need not be synonymous in the sense that the Christian
sacrament of baptism takes the place of the Mosaic ritual of circumcision. Indeed, the
descriptive phrases that follow each verbal clause would indicate a different perspective
on the event of conversion; the first being the circumcision and the second, the burial in
baptism. If this analysis (to follow) is correct, then pædobaptism cannot be a correct
doctrine unless the baptized infant is, in fact, regenerate.
By alluding to the circumcision made without hands as the putting off of the body of the
flesh by the circumcision of Christ, Paul is hearkening back to a common Old Testament
prophetic theme – the circumcision of the heart – which we have discussed before. The
event to which the apostle refers is undoubtedly regeneration, the gracious act of the Holy
Spirit by which the heart of the sinner is circumcised in truth and not merely in ritual.
Paul speaks more explicitly on this matter in Romans,
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but
he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the
letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. (Romans 2:28-29)
164
Romans 8:9
Page 130
If the two verbal clauses in Colossians 2:11-12 are not merely repetition of the same
event, then we have a strong case for baptism following conversion (regeneration), and for
holding that only those who have made a profession of faith – the only outward evidence
we are given for (hopeful) inward regeneration – are eligible to receive baptism. As to
what type of baptism Paul is referring to in Colossians, the analogy with Romans 6 and
elsewhere argues too strongly in favor of water baptism to be seriously doubted. Yet once
again we see baptism tied closely, both soteriologically and chronologically, with
regeneration. It is apparent that the apostles both expected and practiced the sacrament of
baptism immediately upon evidence of faith, that is, profession of faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
All this is to say that, according to the apostolic record, baptism is a grace and not
merely an outward sign; it contains the grace that it signifies: burial and resurrection in
Jesus Christ. Baptism is thus best considered as a sacrament and not merely an ordinance.
Yes, it was ordained by the Lord to be faithfully practiced in the Church; but it stands to
reason that Jesus intended that His Church faithfully understand what it is they are doing.
This requires deeper consideration both of the biblical witness concerning baptism and the
role of the Holy Spirit as the One who unites the believer in baptism with the death of
Jesus as well as the Power that raises the baptized saint to walk in newness of life.
The second sacrament of the Christian Church is less debated between
‘fundamentalist’ and ‘Pentecostal’ evangelicals; that is, the Lord’s Supper. The lack of
intense debate is probably due to the centrality of the ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’ to the
Pentecostal, and the allergic reaction against this doctrine on the part of fundamentalists.
But the lack of debate may also be attributed to a lack of understanding on both sides as to
the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, considered generally by both fundamentalists and
Pentecostals (who do not emphasize the Lord’s Supper as a rule) to be simply a ‘meal of
remembrance’ of the Lord’s death.
The memorial aspect of the Lord’s Supper cannot be denied as we can deny that
baptism was ever intended to be a public profession of faith (the Ethiopian eunuch, for
instance, as well as the Philippian jailor, were not in a public place when baptized). As for
the Supper, Paul’s formulation echoes Jesus’ institution of the meal as a ‘remembrance’ of
Him,
Page 131
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night
in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take,
eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner
He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as
often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (I Corinthians 11:23-25)
If this were all that the apostle had to say regarding the Supper we might be able to
rest in the ‘ordinance’ as a meal of remembrance only, without any spiritual or gracious
significance that might render it a sacrament. But Paul has more to say; actually, he had
already said it before his summary of the ritual meal itself. I Corinthians 10 is by no means
the easiest of Pauline writings to fathom; perhaps Peter had this passage in mind when he
wrote his famous commentary on Paul’s teaching (II Peter 3:16). Paul in I Corinthians 10
combines allegory with mystery with instruction, a heady tonic for any reader! He begins
with an overview of the children of Israel under the leadership of Moses, utilizing the
language of the two sacraments we are studying,
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all
passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same
spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that
followed them, and that Rock was Christ. (I Corinthians 10:1-4)
The people of Israel were baptized, and the ate and drank. Paul will make it clear just
a few verses later that he is indeed referring to the Lord’s Supper as well as to baptism.
What is significant to our discussion is the adjective that the apostle uses in regard to both
the food and the drink: spiritual. The children of Israel ate literal manna in the wilderness,
and drank literal water from the rock, but that is not Paul’s point in this allegory; his point
is that in so doing the Israelites were foreshadowing the spiritual meal that has been given
to the Church. That meal is now fulfilled in the Lord’s Supper and the spiritual aspect of it
is still uppermost in Paul’s mind.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which
we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and
one body; for we all partake of that one bread. (I Corinthians 10:16-17)
Page 132
The word translated ‘communion’ is the Greek koinonia, of which much more will
be said in the next lesson. But it is here, with ‘communion,’ that the institutional Spirit
meets the communal Spirit (being, of course, one and the same Holy Spirit). The meal was
more to Paul than just a memorial, though it was that. “When
they broke the bread which was the token of the body of
Christ, they not only recalled his self-oblation on the cross but
proclaimed their joint participation in his corporate body.”165
To Paul there was no division between the institutions of the
Church and the life of the community; such opposition as has
been set up between the two are uninspired deviations from
F. F. Bruce (1910-90) the apostle’s teachings. Paul understood both baptism and
the Lord’s Supper to be means in the hands of the Holy Spirit to build up the Body of
Christ into the spiritual habitation that it was intended to be. It is an oversimplification of
his teaching to say, but not inaccurate, that baptism is the Spirit’s joining the new believer
with Christ in His Body, the Church – “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body”;166
whereas the Lord’s Supper sustains and binds together that growing Body. James Dunn
writes,
The point of the Lord’s Supper is to feed and sustain the relation with Christ, precisely as a
communal/corporate relationship. Any move in eucharistic practice to isolated celebration
(as though the Lord’s Supper were intended simply to feed the individual with spiritual
food) or which detracts from it as a shared experience runs counter to Paul’s emphasis and
detracts from his christology of the body of Christ.167
165
Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 1999);
285.
166
I Corinthians 12:13
167
Dunn, Paul; 620.
Page 133
Week 10: The Spirit & The Church – Part 2
Key Biblical Texts: Romans 8:1-11; Ephesians 4:1-16
“From beginning to end gifts are given for service.

There are no exceptions to this consideration.”
(Richard Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost)
How did Pentecostalism occur? The idea of a twofold outpouring of the Holy Spirit
is not biblical, as the apostle Paul clearly disqualifies anyone who does not have the Spirit
from belonging to Christ at all (Rom. 8:9). A proper understanding of the transition period
from the Old Covenant to the New will also go a long way to disabusing the notion that
God ever intended the events of Pentecost to be repeated ad infinitum within the Church.
We understand the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to be the continuation and completion of
the ministry of Jesus Christ, and no more expect an on-going ‘Pentecost’ then we do an on-
going ‘Golgotha.’ Even the Pentecostal theologian Gordon Fee recognizes the uniqueness
of the Pentecost event and its intimate relationship to the work of the Son, “Without the
mission of the Spirit the mission of the Son would have been fruitless; without the mission
of the Son the Spirit could not have been sent.”168 Richard Gaffin adds, “The outpouring of
the Holy Spirit as the promise of the Father, and so the essence of the entire fulfillment
awaited under the old covenant, is here seen to be closely connected with the epochal,
climactic events of Christ’s work.”169
The experience of Pentecost, therefore, cannot be repeated any more than the death,
burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be repeated.
The Roman Catholic priest errs when he allegedly offers up
Christ as a ‘bloodless sacrifice’ in the mass; the Pentecostal
errs when he claims to experience a ‘second blessing’ of
Pentecost, a ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit.’ Both, in their way,
attempt to repeat what was intended to be ‘once for all.’ So
how does Pentecostalism happen? No one who reads the
William Seymour (1870-1922) history of the Azusa Street revival in the early 20th Century,
led by the holiness preacher William J. Seymour, or the biography of John Wesley from the
168
Fee, Gordon Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God; 85.
169
Gaffin, Perspectives; 17.
Page 134
18th Century, will conclude that the onset of Pentecostalism arose from a careful,
theological study of Scripture. Indeed, the movement itself tends to denigrate theology in
favor of experience, so it is unlikely that believers ‘think’ themselves into a Pentecostal
experience. Yet these experiences happened, and it is unreasonable to simply write them
off as fanaticism or, much worse, demonic deception. A great many of the people who
chronicled a ‘Pentecost experience’ in their lives give every evidence of being sincere
believers in Jesus Christ. It is also significant to note that the Pentecostalism of the 20th
Century was by no means the first time in the history of the Church that such a movement
entered into mainstream Christianity – Methodism in the 18th Century, as well as chronic
pietistic movements throughout the past twenty centuries, attest to a periodic tendency
within Christianity to recalibrate as it were, the active role of the Holy Spirit within the
community of believers. At each appearance of such a movement, the majority of the
Church dismisses the ‘excesses’ as fanaticism or ‘enthusiasm,’ and eventually the
movement either dies out or moves into its own ecclesiastical channels.
James Dunn postulates that the cause of modern Pentecostalism may be found in
both the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church toward the role of the Holy Spirit, and the
quite different attitude of mainline Protestantism to the same concept. The
institutionalizing of the Holy Spirit manifest within Roman Catholicism removes the
experience of the Spirit from the individual believer in any manner apart from the
properly mediated sacraments of the church. Dunn writes,
Here [i.e., within the institutional church] controls could be set up and order maintained.
The Spirit became more and more confined to ‘the Church,’ until in all but name ‘the
Church’ stood above the Spirit. To all intents and purposes the Spirit became the property
of the Church, with the gift of the Spirit tied to and determined by a ritual act [i.e., water
baptism], and authority to bestow the Spirit confined to the bishop.170
As in so many ways, Protestantism reacted against the Roman Catholic doctrine

and/or practice, without necessarily acting toward the teaching of Scripture in a complete
or comprehensive manner. The Protestant Reformers properly returned focus upon the
preaching of the word in relation to the sacraments, but then did something similar by
essentially containing the entirety of the Holy Spirit to that preached word. In other
Page 135
words, preaching became the Protestant sacrament par excellence, though the sacraments of
water baptism and the Lord’s Supper were also retained.
Against this extreme sacramentalism and sacerdotalism Protestants reacted, and in their
reaction the emphasis was shifted from water-baptism to preaching and personal faith,
with authority centred [sic] in the Bible rather than in the Church…In scholastic
Protestantism the Spirit became in effect subordinate to the Bible, and the latter replaced
the sacraments as the principal means of grace and inspiration. Where Catholics fastened
on the objectivity of the sacraments, Protestants fastened on the objectivity of the Bible.171
Too often these hardened positions resulted in either empty ritualism (Roman
Catholic) or dry orthodoxy (Protestant), both of which inevitably turn out to be repellent
to the true believer. “Like earlier ‘enthusiasts’ Pentecostals have reacted against both these
extremes. Against the mechanical sacramentalism of extreme Catholicism and the dead
biblicist orthodoxy of extreme Protestantism they have shifted the focus of attention to the
experience of the Spirit.”172 While such a recalibration is to be applauded, it must also be
recognized that replacing two errors with a third does the Church no good ultimately. We
have seen in our previous lesson that there is a valid biblical basis for the sacraments,
properly understood and properly observed. We will see, Lord-willing, in our next lesson
that the centrality of the Word of God within the Church is indeed the objective anchor
that keeps her from being ‘tossed about with every wind of doctrine.’ But the Pentecostal is
correct in observing that the Holy Spirit’s role in the Church is by no means limited either
to the sacraments or to the preaching of the Word. The charismata exist and are crucial to
the health and well-being of the Church of Jesus Christ. Thus we conclude that as the
sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are biblical and vital to the Church, and as
the preaching of the Word is the divinely-ordained means not only for the salvation of the
sinner but also for the sanctification of the saint, and that the gifts of the Spirit are real and
indispensable within the community of faith, therefore there must be a way to hold all
three perspectives in a balanced and active triumvirate, so that the Church might be whole
and strong. This discussion and conclusion brings us, therefore, to a necessarily brief
investigation of the charismata – the ‘gifts’ of the Holy Spirit within the Church.
170
Dunn Baptism in the Holy Spirit; 224.
171
Ibid.; 225.
172
Idem.
Page 136
Traditionally, any investigation of the charismata or ‘grace gifts’ as the word is often
translated, begins with Paul’s treatise in I Corinthians chapters 12-14. This, however, is
not the best place to start, considering that in this passage the apostle is issuing a polemic
against the abuse of the ‘gifts’ in Corinth. A more logical place to start is with Jesus’ own
promise of the Holy Spirit to His disciples, recorded in John chapters 14 and 16. By
considering Jesus’ description of the ministry of the promised Spirit before turning to Paul’s
discussion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, we may understand the work of the Holy Spirit
within the Church under two basic and inseparable headings: Equipping and Enabling.
The order of these two is crucial, for being enabled to do what one has not been equipped
to do is of no benefit to either the one doing or to the Church in which it is done. It is
perhaps the essential error of modern Pentecostalism, that it focuses on the enabling
ministry of the Holy Spirit but ignores the equipping ministry. The purpose of the Father
and of Jesus Christ in sending the Holy Spirit is, however, first to equip the saints and only
then to enable them to manifest their ‘grace gift’ within and for the edification of the body.
He Will Guide You into All Truth:
We have already touched upon the importance of the sending of the Holy Spirit; so
important, in fact, that Jesus considered it to be of greater value to His disciples than His
own presence with them in this world. That alone ought to give us pause to consider our
view of the Holy Spirit and His ministry in the Church. The sending of the Spirit was the
last great and consummating act of Jesus’ redemptive ministry, as He says himself,
But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ But
because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the
truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to
you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. (John 16:5-7)
This truth is often neglected in Church teaching, and certainly in the understanding
of the average believer. Dispensationalism has all but convinced American evangelicals
that Jesus would have stayed in Jerusalem and established His kingdom had the Jews
accepted Him as their Messiah. How the Holy Spirit was to be sent under this paradigm is
never explained, because no explanation is possible. Jesus’ ascension to the Father was the
Page 137
necessary prerequisite to the sending of the Spirit and therefore the full and final act of
Jesus’ redemptive ministry on earth. Jesus’ ascension marked the ultimate divine blessing
upon His earthly work, and thus was required in order to
‘release,’ as it were, the Holy Spirit upon His people. A. J.
Gordon writes, “On the cross ‘the riches of his grace’ was
secured to us in the forgiveness of sins; on the throne ‘the
riches of his glory’ was secured to us in our being
strengthened with all might by his Spirit in the inner man; in
the indwelling of Christ in our hearts by faith, and in our
infilling with all the fullness of God. The divine wealth only
Adoniram J. Gordon (1836-95)
becomes completely available on the death, resurrection, and
ascension of our Lord; so that the Holy Spirit…had not the full inheritance to convey till
Jesus was glorified.”173 Thus it is crucial to a biblical understanding of the ministry of the
Holy Spirit to begin with the words of Jesus concerning His coming, or rather, His being
sent. Pertinent to this study are those words which have to do particularly with the Holy
Spirit’s role within the Church; we will have occasion to investigate His ministry in the
world.
I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit
of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but
whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He
will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I
said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12-15)
It should go without saying that the believer ought to desire to hear anything and
everything that his or her Master has to say. The disciples could not bear to hear all that
Jesus had to tell them, not only because of their great sorrow, but more so because of their
lack of the ability to receive and understand. Jesus promises to send One who will both
continue the conversation and enable the indwelt believer to comprehend what is being
said. And this ministry of “taking of Jesus and giving to us” cannot be limited to just the
inspiration of the New Testament Scriptures, though it most certainly applies that far.
John later writes in his first epistle an enigmatic statement that indicates that this
173
Gordon, Adoniram J. The Ministry of the Holy Spirit (Minneapolis; Bethany Fellowship; 1964); 42.
Page 138
communicating and enlightening work of the Spirit extends beyond those who would be
entrusted with writing the New Testament. It is of every believer that John writes,
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you
because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
(I John 2:20-21)
There should be no doubt as to who “the anointing from the Holy One” is; it is the
indwelling Holy Spirit without which no man belongs to Christ at all. So John here
touches upon the promise that Jesus made to him and the other disciples in the upper
room so many years before, “when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all
truth.” This is the basis of all else concerning the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church as
well as in individual believers. We cannot speak too much of the importance of truth to the
Christian’s life as well as to the community of faith, the Church. The latter Paul calls “the
pillar and foundation of the truth.”174
The common way of referring to the Holy Spirit’s guidance of believers (and the
Church) into ‘all truth’ is illumination. John Owen, in writing
about the ministry of the Holy Spirit through the preaching
and teaching of the Word, notes that in the same audience
there will be hearers who are deeply affected by the Word,
and other who are left wholly untouched and unchanged.
That which makes the two groups to differ is none other than
the indwelling Holy Spirit. Owen writes, “It is, therefore,
ministration of the Spirit, in and by the word, which
produceth all or any of these effects on the minds of men; he is
John Owen (1616-83)
the fountain of all illumination.” 175
This necessary illumination was promised obliquely in the Psalms,
They are abundantly satisfied with the fullness of Your house,

And You give them drink from the river of Your pleasures.
For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light. (Psalm 36:8-9)
174
I Timothy 3:15
175
Owen, John The Works of John Owen: Volume III The Holy Spirit (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth; 1994); 236.
Page 139
Oh, send out Your light and Your truth!
Let them lead me; Let them bring me to Your holy hill
And to Your tabernacle. (Psalm 43:3)
These poetic verses explain the biblical concept that fallen man is in darkness with
regard to the truth unless God himself enlightens man. By the outpouring and indwelling
of the Holy Spirit, God has shined His own divine light within the hearts and minds of His
elect, guiding them now into all truth and “renewing their minds” in accordance with “the
truth as it is Christ Jesus.” The unfortunate aspect of traditional discussions on the ministry
of the Holy Spirit is that this foundational characteristic of His work is either bypassed
(generally by Pentecostals) or considered to be the fullness of His work (generally by
Reformed). The equipping of the saints in truth is the first work of the Spirit after
regeneration, and it is prerequisite to the next stage of His ministry in the believer and in
the Church: that of enabling the believer in service to the Church.
Equipping the Saints for the Work of Ministry:
Insofar as the Holy Spirit works within the believer, He has two fundamental goals.
With respect to the believer himself, that goal is sanctification;
with respect to the fellowship of believers, the Church, that
goal is service. The first will be a primary topic in the later
discussion of the Holy Spirit’s ministry through the Word of
God (cp. John 17:17) but at this stage it is necessary to
reinforce the critical importance of sanctification of the believer
in the discussion of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
George Smeaton speaks of the sanctifying power of the truth
when he writes, “it is beheld and contemplated in the light of George Smeaton (1814-89)
the Holy Spirit opening the eyes of our understanding, it exercises a sanctifying power
beyond all other influences…The spiritual perception of divine things is invariably
accompanied with a sanctifying influence; and knowledge is no further genuine or
spiritual than it leads to this result.”176
In this lesson, however, our focus is on the ministry of the Holy Spirit within the
176
Smeaton, George The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust; 1958); 225.
Page 140
Church, and so we must consider the body of Scripture
written by the Apostle Paul with regard to the work of the
Spirit within the congregation (though he, too, had much to
say about the Spirit’s work in the individual believer’s
sanctification). Although almost all books on the ‘gifts’ of the
Holy Spirit start and end in I Corinthians chapters 12-14, these
chapters are hardly the comprehensive whole of the apostle’s
D. A. Carson (b. 1946) teaching on the subject. Indeed, he mentions gifts in at least
three key locations – Romans 12, Ephesians 4, and I Corinthians 12. D. A. Carson offers a
helpful summary table in his commentary on I Corinthians 12-14, Showing the Spirit.177
I Cor. 12:8-11 I Cor. 12:28 Rom. 12:6-8 Eph. 4:11 I Peter 4:11
Word of wisdom Apostles Prophecy Apostles Speaking
Word of knowledge Prophets Service Prophets Service
Faith Teachers Teaching Evangelists
Gifts of healing Workers of miracles Exhortation Pastors
Working of miracles Helps Giving teachers
Prophecy Administrations Leadership
Distinguishing of spirits Kinds of tongues Showing of mercy
Kinds of tongues
Interpretation of tongues
Several preliminary comments may be made from this comparison chart. The first
is to note that there are different ways to ‘classify’ the gifts listed. For instance, some of
the gifts are manifestly ‘supernatural’ – gifts of healing, workers of miracles, prophecy –
while others are much more mundane – helps, leadership, giving, and administrations. Of
course it is the ‘supernatural’ gifts that are in great demand in Corinth in Paul’s day, and
within Pentecostal circles today, though the apostle himself makes no quality judgment
between the two sets. “The lists as a whole contain an impressive mixture of what some
might label ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ endowments, or ‘spectacular’ and ‘more ordinary’
gifts…The intriguing thing is that Paul himself makes no such distinctions; it is the same
God who works all things in all men.”178 When we compare the various lists we find some
overlap and some differences, suggesting that the lists are not exhaustive, even in
177
Carson, D. A. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House; 1987); 36.
Page 141
combination. Furthermore, as ‘grace-gifts’ – charismata – they are not natural talents or
character traits possessed by the believer apart from an inner work of the Holy Spirit.
“Probably the most important and certainly the most difficult lesson for us to learn is that
ultimately spiritual gifts are not our presumed strengths and abilities, not something that
we ‘have’ (or even have been given), but what God does through us in spite of ourselves
and our weakness.”179
Another twofold classification is furnished by Peter’s short list: speaking gifts and
serving gifts. Richard Gaffin writes, “each of the gifts belongs to one of two basic
categories: word-charismata and deed-charismata.”180 This is a broad generalization, for it is
not easy with some of the charismata to place them definitively into word or deed, and often
in the biblical record the word revelation was accompanied with a deed revelation. But the
distinction is nonetheless valid, as it is emphasized by Peter in I Peter 4 and by Paul in
Romans 12. As we will see in our discussion of church polity, this twofold division of
giftedness between speaking and service aligns broadly with the two ordained official
positions within the congregation: the elder and the deacon.
A third division can be discerned from the various texts referenced in Carson’s
summary table: gifts to the church and gifts in the church. The first set is displayed most
clearly in Ephesians 4, where the apostle speaks of certain ‘gifts of men’ as being given to
the Church by her risen Lord.
But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:
When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some
pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of
the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to
a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ
(Ephesians 4:7-8; 11-13)
These four (or five, if one separates ‘pastor’ and ‘teacher’) gifts of men given by
Jesus Christ to the Church are all word-charismata or speaking gifts. The common
178
Carson; 37.
179
Gaffin; 54.
180
Ibid.; 52.
Page 142
characteristic between the individual gifts of men is that they communicate to the Church
for her edification as well as for the equipping of the saints. Thus these gifts of men are
the transition between the two overall perspectives we have been considering with regard
to the ministry of the Holy Spirit within the Church, that of equipping and that of enabling.
Whereas every believer possesses the ‘anointing’ of which John speaks in his first epistle,
the Church as a whole has been given men whose gifts and responsibilities are to convey
and communicate the revelation of God to the Church as the congregation of believers.
At this point many books on this topic will diverge into a discussion regarding the
continuance of certain gifts as opposed to others. Are there still apostles and prophets in
the Church? What exactly is the relationship of the evangelist to the Church, since the
emphasis of his gift is directed toward the lost? And is it correct to distill the entirety of
the Holy Spirit’s enlightening ministry to the work of the pastor-teacher (or pastor and
teacher)? These are important questions for the Church, but answering them requires far
more space than we can allot in this lesson and will inadvertently take us from the
fundamental point of these gifts, that is, the building up of the body of Christ. A deeper
discussion with regard to the fulness of divine revelation in Jesus Christ will go a long way
toward answering the validity of modern-day apostles and prophets. Evangelists
evidently have a continuing role beyond the time of the apostles, as Paul exhorts Timothy
to “do the work of an evangelist” while he is in the region of Ephesus. And the pastor-
teacher continues to be the mainstay of biblical exposition within the local congregation,
and hence the focal point for any discussion concerning the edification of the body of
Christ through the ministry of the Word of God. This emphasis on edification and
equipping will be our transition to the next lesson, where we will speak in more detail
concerning the Holy Spirit, the ministry of the Word, and the Church.
But for now we turn from the gifts given to the Church to those given in the Church,
and consequently to a realm of great controversy within the Church. This controversy
raged in the church of Corinth and gave rise to Paul’s letter, which gives us almost all of
our insight into the individual charismata. It is tempting to follow the standard pattern of
listing each of the distinct ‘gifts’ and giving an explanation of what they are (were) and
how they were to be used in the Church. But frankly all such discussions are almost pure
conjecture. One writer comments by way of example, “it is doubtful that anyone has
Page 143
successfully demonstrated exegetically a clear difference between ‘the word of wisdom’
and ‘the word of knowledge.’”181 Some of the gifts are hopelessly broad for a clear,
operational definition to be given: how many deeds within the Church could be classified
under the charismata of ‘helps’? Others, like the ‘word of knowledge’ compared to ‘the
word of wisdom,’ offer no clear distinction to enable the congregation to know which gift
is in operation: are ‘gifts of healing’ a subset of ‘works of mercy,’ or of ‘workers of
miracles’?182 Therefore the ‘spiritual gift inventory’ offered by many modern evangelical
churches ought to be quickly discontinued, as they make erroneous assumptions about the
charismata (i.e., that the lists are exhaustive) and about the meaning of and differentiation
between each gift.
Too often modern studies of the charismata fail along the same lines as the church in
Corinth was failing in the days of Paul: they emphasize individuality rather than corporate
service and edification. We have seen that that the gifts given to the Church were for the
equipping of the Church; those given in the Church are for “the work of ministry” in the
Church.183 Any divergence from this focus will lead to the same errors and internal strife
and grandstanding against which Paul wrote his polemical treatise of I Corinthians 12-14.
Carson writes of the Corinthian church and its gift-mania, “The quest for an
individualizing and self-centered form of ‘spirituality’ was in danger of denying the
source of all true spiritual gifts, the unbounded grace of God.”184 Berkhof adds, “The
charismata are gifts to the individuals, but they are never meant for private use.”185
This individual work of the Spirit takes the equipping received by the believer
through the ministry of the Word, and adds to it the enabling of the Spirit to live in
obedience and witness to the truth thus imbibed. Pentecostals like to use the term ‘power,’
as in the common English translation of Acts 1:8,
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to
Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
181
Gaffin; 51.
182
And how could any church experience the gift of administrations before the advent of Microsoft Excel or
QuickBooks?
183
Ephesians 4:12
184
Carson; 23.
185
Berkhof, Hendrikus; 89.
Page 144
The Greek word translated ‘power’ is dunamis, which was co-opted by Alfred Nobel
to name his chemical discovery: dynamite. Many a sermon
has been preached explaining how the ‘baptism in the Holy
Spirit’ is like dynamite to the believer, though rarely is it
explained how getting blown up in the Spirit is to be a good
thing. No doubt, to continue the mistaken connection, many a
good church has been obliterated by strife and dissension over
the charismata - but we can be assured that neither Jesus nor
Paul ever had this result in mind when they used the term. In Alfred Nobel (1833-96)
Fact, the word simply means ‘ability,’ and by saying ‘simply’ we emphasize the utter
helplessness of even regenerate man to do anything of use to God in the Church apart
from the prior work within him of the Holy Spirit. ‘Power’ is not what we require; we
need ‘ability.’ That is what the charistmata supply – enabling individual believers to live
together in the congregation in a mutually beneficial and service-oriented way. It is not to
much to say that the charismata lie at the root of all the ‘one anothers’ we find in Paul’s
letters. “We conceive that the great end for which the enduement of the Spirit is bestowed
is our qualification for the highest and most effective service in the church of Christ.”186
Perhaps this is the most significant point to make in manifesting the error of the
Pentecostal view of ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit.’ That is, such a view of a two-step process
of spiritual endowment leaves the Church wholly unable to be built up into the fulness of
Christ – at least until all of the members of the Church receive the second blessing of the
baptism of the Spirit. As we saw at the beginning of this lesson, the Pentecostal view is
largely a response to the unbiblical views of either an institutionalized Spirit or a Spirit
entirely encompassed by the preached Word. Nevertheless, it is a response or reaction and
not itself a conclusion drawn from biblical exegesis. Men have considered the Church and
noted its internal divisions and external impotence, and have concluded that what is
needed is another ‘Pentecost,’ another outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
arrived at just this conclusion, “This is no age to advocate restraint; the church today does
not need to be restrained, but to be aroused, to be awakened, to be filled with a spirit of
186
Gordon; 74.
Page 145
glory.”187 To MLJ this constitutes revival. “The difference between the baptism of the Holy
Spirit and a revival is imply one of the number of people affected…It is a truism to say that
every revival of religion is in a sense but a repetition of Pentecost.”188
But, careful as we must be to say it, Lloyd-Jones is wrong on this point. There can
be no repetition of Pentecost any more than there can be a repetition of Golgotha. Lloyd-
Jones is reacting to the anemic character of the Church in his world, and we ought to react
to the anemic Church in our world (which is not all that far removed from his; MLJ died in
1981). But our reaction must be biblical and may not detract or diminish the actual events
in God’s historical redemptive chronology. “Pentecost still appears to have been the age-
baptism of the church. As Calvary was once for all, so was the visitation of the upper
room.”189 It is more biblical to understand that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are bestowed to
all members, as Paul teaches in I Corinthians 12,
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same
Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the
manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all.
The lack of spiritual giftedness in a church is really no different than the abuse of the
same in the Corinthian church; both are matters of disobedience and selfishness rather
than an absence of the Spirit himself. Perhaps a better definition of revival – and also an
explanation of why they never last – is that they are reminders of what the Holy Spirit
intends to do in the Church at all times. As such they also serve as warnings to a
disobedient church that, unless its members walk in the Spirit and cease from hindering
the free distribution and operation of the charismata by the Spirit, the Lord himself may
come and take their lampstand away. In the meantime, we are assured by the apostle
Peter that our risen Lord has “given us all things necessary for life and godliness,” not the least
of which are the gifts of the Holy Spirit both to and in the Church.
187
Lloyd-Jones, Martyn Joy Unspeakable: Power & Renewal in the Holy Spirit (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers;
1984); 75.
188
Ibid.; 51.
189
Gordon; 59. Gordon gets the location of the events of Pentecost a bit wrong here, but that doesn’t alter the
correctness of his sentiment.
Page 146
Week 11: The Spirit & The Word
Key Biblical Texts: I Corinthians 2:6 - 16
“What the sun is unto the world as to things natural,

that is the word and the preaching of it unto men as to things spiritual.”
(John Owen)
The philosophical era known as the Enlightenment,

stretching roughly from the publication of René Decartes’
Principia Philosophiae in 1644 to that of Immanuel Kant’s Critique
of Pure Reason in 1781, saw the rise and fall of Rationalism and
led directly to the current denomination of Western thought;
Post-Modernism. Descartes followed the general trend of the
Renaissance in elevating human reason to become essentially the
arbiter of all truth, whereas Kant so localized reality within the René Descartes (1596-1650)
human mind as to essentially deny all objective truth. In short, philosophers reasoned
themselves in and out of their own minds in under 150 years. The impact of this rapid
ascent and descent of the Mind of Man had a powerful impact on Christianity in the West,
introducing a brand of liberalism into the Church that would completely upend orthodoxy
through the 19th Century. The primary casualties of this rational/irrational intellectual
assault were and are the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible and its correlate,
that of the authority of Scripture in doctrine and practice.
Rationalism determined that the overarching genre of Scripture was myth; Post-
Modernism determined that objective truth was also a myth.
First the propositional and historical tone of the Bible was
denied, and then the supposed underlying ethical message was
deemed religious rather than divine. This one-two punch
delivered a knockout blow to mainline Protestant
denominations and led directly to the rise of Fundamentalism,
as conservative theologians fought a rearguard action through
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) the late 19th Century and into the 20th. Princeton Theological
Page 147
Seminary was a leading institution in the battle to defend both the Inspiration of Scripture
and its objective Authority for the Church in doctrine and practice. But even Princeton
eventually succumbed to the liberal onslaught, giving rise to the establishment of
Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. Westminster has generally held its ground in
the ensuing century, but over the broad reaches of ‘professing’ Christianity in the 21st
Century, the concept of the Bible as God-breathed and authoritative has definitely become
the minority report.
The firm foundation of conservative orthodoxy, however, is the evident fact that the
Bible does present itself, and its religion, as both historical and propositional. Though
arguing from reason is no longer in vogue, it still remains that Christianity, as it presents
itself in its own literature, does so within the context of actual historical people and events as
well as objective truth-content propositions. The only conclusion that can be drawn from
the liberal attack upon both the historicity and the authority of the Bible to Christianity, is
that the resultant liberal religion has no historical right to call itself Christianity at all.
Sadly, when one side of the debate grounds its argument upon objective truth and
historical reality and the other side argues from the position of relativistic truth and myth,
there can truly be no meeting of the minds, as both sides simply argue past one another.
At which point the conservative theologian has to turn to the choir, as it were, and preach
the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture to those who should already believe in both.
That is what we do in this lesson, in the hopes that our faith may be strengthened in the
midst of a very unbelieving world (and an unbelieving professing Church).
The question of Truth has forever been on the mind of Man, as has been manifested
throughout the ages through the musings and writings of magi, sages, and philosophers.
That there is Truth may be argued from the sheer effort that has been made since antiquity
to find it, and in the modern philosophical world to deny it. But what is pertinent to our
study is not a generic search for or defense of Truth, but rather the reassertion of the basic
Christian principle that our faith is grounded in objective reality; historical and
propositional Truth, “the truth as it is in Christ Jesus.”190 This truth is that which the Holy
Spirit was sent to guide the Church into, and is the truth that both sets us free and
190
Ephesians 4:21
Page 148
sanctifies us.191 It is also the truth of which the Church is the “pillar and bulwark”192 and
therefore is of the very essence of the life and ministry of the congregation. Above all else,
the Church is to be about the business of learning, knowing, propagating, and defending
the truth. Within the congregation this truth is nourishing, indicting, sanctifying; within
the world it is convicting and condemning. It is the same truth, with different effects on
those who are inheriting eternal life than on those who are perishing. Whatever proper
emphasis, then, is placed in the Church upon doing, it must always be firmly based on
knowing if it is to be biblical Christianity.
The acknowledgment of objective truth would be meaningless unless there is also
an acknowledgment of the source of that truth. To say that there is Truth, but to deny that
it can be found anywhere objectively, is agnosticism, which is a pathetic (in the modern
sense of the word) and anemic philosophy. Indeed, it is the abandonment of philosophy
and cannot really be called a self-conscience philosophical worldview; it is an intellectual
cop-out unworthy of any human being as the image of God. What is unique to
Christianity is its claim that there is a known source of objective Truth, and that source is
the Bible, the Holy Word of God. It is hard to deny that this claim is itself within the Bible,
and that the writers of the biblical books (as well as Jesus himself) openly admitted this
fact. This has resulted in the Bible being the most attacked and most maligned work of
human literature ever written. The logic of a source of objective truth, however, is sound:
if there is to be objective truth it must be somehow objectively available to human reason,
for if, as Kant argued, truth is found only within the individual mind, then all objectivity is
lost and we are left with subjective truth – itself an oxymoron.
What makes the biblical claim to truth impossible for the
world to ignore is that this claim concerns not simply man in his
human relations, but rather man in his relation to God, his Maker
and the Creator of this world. It involves the nature and
judgments of God vis-à-vis Man, and is therefore beyond the
realm of natural understanding; it is revelation. Benjamin
B. B. Warfield (1851-1921)
Warfield speaks of “The religion of the Bible” as a “frankly super-
191
John 16:13; John 8:32; John 17:17
192
I Timothy 3:15
Page 149
natural religion…In other words, the religion of the Bible presents itself as distinctively a
revealed religion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are
represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man.”193
The discussion concerning the authenticity of the Bible, and regarding the
establishment of the canon of Scripture, properly belongs to the initial study within
Systematic Theology – or Prolegomena. This is because all that we know about theology –
all that we know about God in any sense capable of being doctrinal – comes from the Bible.
Within the branch of theology known as Ecclesiology, the Doctrine of the Church, the
discussion turns to the role of the ministry of the Word of God within the Church. In
particular, as we are still in large measure within the sub-study of Pneumatology, our
concern here is with the role of the Holy Spirit in the ministry of the Word within the
Church. There is not much from Islam’s holy book, the Q’uran, that is worthy of quoting
within a Christian study of the Church, but it is noteworthy that, in the Q’uran, Christians
(as well as Jews) are referred to as ‘people of the Book.’ It seems that Muhammad, in a
way sadly absent from much of modern evangelicalism, understood that genuine
Christianity is one that flows from the Bible.
Biblical illiteracy has been a serious problem for the Church for many generations,
and modern writers still lament the woeful ignorance of most
professing Christians with regard to biblical knowledge. R. B.
Kuiper wrote in the 1940s that “Ignorance of Scripture on the part
of the average church member of our day, to say nothing of the
average preacher, approaches the abysmal.”194 Things have not
gotten better over the past seventy years; if anything, the
situation is more dire today than in Kuiper’s time. Perhaps the
R. B. Kuiper (1886-1966) biggest problem among evangelicals, however, is not so much the
lack of biblical knowledge as it is the lack of biblical understanding. What constitutes
biblical knowledge in many churches consists of memory verses without context, and
these primarily from the New Testament and the Psalms. A comprehensive
understanding of the biblical revelation is simply not considered to be a necessity within
193
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; 1967); 71, 72.
194
“The Infallible Word” A Symposium by Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (Phillipsburg:
Page 150
the modern Church; it pales in importance to self-help programs, personal devotion, and
evangelism & personal witness. Over the past few generations the emphasis within the
Church has shifted noticeably from doctrine to practice, and now Christianity is viewed
far more as a ‘life’ than a ‘dogma.’ But this is to get the cart before the horse, and to render
the ‘life’ thus learned and lived to be completely without content. Again Kuiper, “historic
Christianity has always claimed to be first a story, then a doctrine, and, last but not least, a
life…That it is impossible to reject Christianity as a story, and still retain Christianity as a
doctrine and life ought to go without saying.”195
The need to re-emphasize the story line of biblical revelation has some from the
individualization and personalization of modern Western Christianity. Proof-texts in
theology have been replaced by ‘life texts’ in individual application, with a proliferation of
refrigerator magnets and single-verse wall art (as well as coffee mugs, T-shirts, and even
tattoos). Modern believers no longer “study to show themselves approved”; rather they hang
their faith on the wall of their living room, plaster it on their cars with bumper stickers, or
drink from mugs proclaiming their (single verse) belief. The Church itself has fostered this
lowest-common-denominator Bible knowledge through insipid sermons and shallow VBS
and Sunday School materials. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they “searched the
Scriptures” and yet did not recognize Him; what might He say today to professing
believers who do not search the Scriptures at all?
Revelation as Narrative:
The pattern of true biblical instruction within the Church was given by our Lord
himself to the two disciples with whom He walked on the way to Emmaus:
Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have
spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And
beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things
concerning Himself. (Luke 24:25-27)
Jesus told these disciples a story – the story of God’s redemptive plan unfolding
through the history of mankind in general, and Israel in specific. In one sense – and a very
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company; 1980); 220.

195
Ibid.; 236, 239.
Page 151
important sense – the story finds its climax and its conclusion in the earthly ministry of
Jesus Christ, as well as in His death and resurrection. But in another important sense, the
telling of the story continues – and must continue – in the Church. With the finished
redemptive work of Jesus Christ the story itself cannot continue adding characters and
events – the plot is not the same as that of ‘human progress’ through the ages, though
human progress has been massively influenced by the biblical story in ways few today will
admit. Warfield comments, “For we can never even in thought unravel from this complex
web of modern civilization, all the threads from the Bible which have been woven into
it.”196 This was once a recognized feature of Western civilization – the debt owed by
Western man in particular to the ‘Judeo-Christian’ heritage.
It is sad that Western civilization has lost sight of its roots in biblical history; but it
is downright sinful that the Church has also lost this vision. Perhaps the greatest need of
the Church today has been its greatest need throughout the past twenty centuries: solid,
faithful, and consistent retelling of the redemptive story within the congregation of the
faith, the community of believers. It is hard to imagine how the Church can be the pillar
and bulwark of the truth in the world, when truth is so little valued within the Church
itself. Protestant evangelical churches may still have the pulpit in the middle of their
stage, but the effective preaching of the Word is no longer in the middle of their agenda.
What is needed is a return not only to expositional preaching – the type of
preaching that ignited the fire of the Protestant Reformation – but to continuing the telling
of the story of redemption from Adam to Christ. Within fundamentalism this is often
referred to as the ‘old, old story,’ but in fact the Gospel story itself has suffered a Reader’s
Digest abridgement in many fundamentalist churches, with nothing more than the last
chapters ever read. Jesus’ told His story to the disciples “beginning with Moses,” and the
apostle Paul frequently went all the way back to the Garden and Adam. The biblical
narrative must again become the framework of evangelical preaching – not the creeds, or
denomination theological structures, but the whole counsel of Scripture as historical,
propositional truth from beginning to end.
At the heart of biblical preaching and teaching in the Church is the ministry of the
Holy Spirit, who was “hovering over the darkness of the deep” at Creation and who has now
196
Warfield, Inspiration and Authority; 125.
Page 152
“shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ.”197 Spirit-filled preaching and teaching will manifest itself not with culturally-
relevant homilies or well-packaged wisdom for the individual believer’s ‘felt needs.’
Rather it will preach Jesus Christ from ever part of the divine story and in doing so will
weave the ongoing story of human history into the biblical story of divine power and
glory in Christ.
The ministry of the Word in the Church is the primary focus of the word-charismata
of preaching and teaching. Peter admonishes those whose spiritual ‘gift’ is speaking to “do
so as the oracle of God.”198 This is a serious responsibility before God, and is no doubt why
James cautions against becoming a teacher precipitously, “Let not many of you become
teachers, for as such we incur a stricter judgment.”199 The key point, however, in Peter’s
comment is that the ability to speak – to preach and to teach – in the Church is something
that comes from God through the Holy Spirit; it is not a natural talent at all. And while
natural speaking ability is a wonderful blessing (to both the preacher and his hearers), it is
apparently not something that Paul himself possessed. It is not even the content of the
sermons, or how well they are crafted, that matters. It is only the presence of the Holy
Spirit in the preacher or teacher, and this is something that the congregation can tangibly
determine.
The Hidden Wisdom
Seminary homiletics classes teach men how to ‘craft’ sermons through a dedicated
process of exegesis, prayer, and written composition. Evangelical and Reformed
homiletics emphasize the need to stay close to the Word in every sermon, and to avoid
using biblical passages as nothing more than springboards to personal hobby horses or
‘culturally relevant’ topical preaching. But the Reformed methodology of preaching can
and often does lead to a mechanical process of sermon-building that is devoid of the Holy
Spirit and is of no benefit to the Church. Again, the content of the sermon, important as it
is in itself, is not the sum total of biblical preaching or teaching. It is interesting to note
that the second time the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples they did not speak in tongues,
197
II Corinthians 4:6
198
I Peter 4:11
Page 153
but “spoke the Word of God with boldness.”200 This should be the desire of every minister of
God’s Word, as well as the desire of every congregation with regard to those within the
body who have been entrusted with the ministry of the Word.
Perhaps the key passage, at least in the New Testament, concerning the Spirit-
centered reality of true biblical preaching and teaching is Paul’s self-defensive treatise in I
Corinthians chapter 2. The apostle has suffered in Corinth at the hands of ‘super-apostles’
who have maligned Paul’s speaking abilities and questioned his apostleship. Paul
answers,
And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring
to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ
and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and
my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit
and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Within the context of the first century Roman world, those who spoke publicly with
persuasive words of wisdom were the students of rhetoric, who studied
how to speak well regardless of the topic (and to defend other men in
court, regardless of their guilt or innocence) in order to make a
handsome career. The most famous of these rhetoricians in
Republican Rome was Marcus Tullius Cicero, who made a very decent
living with his oratory skills and on account of this well-studied talent
was elected Consul of Rome in 63 BC. Such orators often. Such orators Cicero (106-43 BC)
often constituted the public entertainment for larger cities within the Empire, and
undoubtedly this was still the case in Corinth of Paul’s day. But such theatrics were
anathema to the apostle, whose preaching was founded on something more powerful than
rhetorical flourish; it was “by the demonstration of the Spirit and power.” It is generally
assumed that the apostle is speaking here of miraculous ‘signs and wonders’ that
accompanied his ministry, and this is in keeping with his own testimony that “the signs of
an apostle were accomplished among you.”201 But the continuing discussion in I Corinthians 2
199
James 3:1
200
Acts 4:31
201
II Corinthians 12:12
Page 154
requires that Paul’s preaching ‘by the demonstration of the Spirit and power’ not be limited to
miraculous signs.
Paul was apparently being maligned among the Corinthian believers as not only
being a poor speaker, but having little to say that constituted ‘wisdom,’ something he
admits in the first chapter that the Greeks are always seeking after. We might paraphrase
and update the complaint against Paul by saying that he was not preaching in a ‘culturally
relevant’ way; he was not ‘connecting’ with the Corinthians and therefore needed to
change his message. If this was the complaint, then it is one that evangelical preachers
have heard in every age, and certainly it sounds in earnest in the modern American
church. Modern seminaries train future preachers in the use of multi-media presentations
in order to keep the attention of their congregations. But Paul’s defense of his own
ministry of the Word is timeless, rooted as it is in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the
rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the
hidden wisdom which God [c]ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this
age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Gordon Fee, referring to the entire passage that begins with these verse (2:6-3:2),
writes, “This passage is at once one of the most significant and most abused of the Spirit
passages in the Pauline corpus…the abuse is basically the result of not recognizing – or not
caring – how it fits into Paul’s argument.”202 This argument, of course, begins in the first
chapter with the discussion of the foolishness of the word preached – the foolishness of a
crucified Christ. This is what the Corinthian believers were being told, much like modern
believers are told that a divine Christ – a Christ virgin-born – a resurrected Christ, etc., is
just foolishness to the modern, Enlightenment, and Post-Modern mind. Paul would
present the very same argument now as he did two thousand years ago. This ‘foolish’
message is the wisdom of God, but its wisdom is hidden from those who are perishing,
and only revealed to those who are inheriting eternal life.
Paul gets in a dig on his opponents, saying that the wisdom that he preaches is for
‘grown ups,’ literally. But what he is saying here is that the Gospel does not lack for
Page 155
wisdom; rather unbelieving ears lack for hearing, and unbelieving hearts lack for
understanding. It has always been that way concerning the Word of God and the
hardened hearts and deaf ears of the unbeliever.203 “The gospel can never be perceived as
divine wisdom by those who are pursuing sophia; it is recognized as such only by those
who have the Spirit, since it comes only by the Spirit’s revelation.”204
It may be argued that this line of reasoning is ‘special pleading’; the Christian
claims that the wisdom of the Bible and of the Gospel is hidden to the unbeliever and can
only be revealed by the Holy Spirit, which ‘conveniently’ makes one a Christian. This is
very similar to the ‘true knowledge’ – the epignosis – of the Gnostics who were prevalent in
the latter part of the first century and who had a powerful and deleterious impact on the
Church. It is also the same argument presented by the Masonic Order – you must
progress up the chain of wisdom, the ‘degrees’ of being a Mason, before you can
understand. But Paul does not teach a divine wisdom that is available only to the initiated
within the Church, but rather to each and every believer. And the necessity of that divine
knowledge coming by way of revelation is logically wrapped up in its being ‘divine’ in the
first place. That which is divine cannot be perceived by that which is not; and no matter
how vehemently modern self-esteem gurus protest to the contrary, man is not divine.
Thus it stands to reason, truly, that the preaching of the Gospel and of the Word of
God within the Church must rest upon a stronger and deeper
foundation than that of human wisdom. It must flow from divine
revelation, and it must flow by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Adolphe Monod, a 19th Century French Protestant theologian,
wrote simply, “If faith has not for its basis a testimony of God to
which we must submit, as to an authority exterior to our personal
judgment, and independent of it, then faith is no faith.”205
Preachers in every age must re-learn this lesson from Paul; that the Adolphe Monod (1802-56)
202
Fee, God’s Empowering Spirit; 95.
203
Cp. Isaiah 6:9-10
204
Fee; God’s Empowering Spirit; 96.
205
Quoted by Warfield, Inspiration and Authority: 124.
Page 156
Foolishness of the Gospel is the wisdom of God and the salvation of men. Sadly, many
succumb (in every age) to the temptation to adjust the message to the world, to imbibe and
imitate human wisdom in order to attract a wider audience. There is no power in this type
of preaching, in spite of the what the ‘growth numbers’ appear
to indicate. Preachers today would do well to heed the words of
Charles Spurgeon concerning the necessity of the Holy Spirit to
any and all true, biblical, and powerful preaching, "Let the
preacher always confess before he preaches that he relies upon
the Holy Spirit. Let him burn his manuscript and depend upon
the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit does not come to help him, let him
C. H. Spurgeon (1834-92) be still and let the people go home and pray that the Spirit will
help him next Sunday.”206
What is it that a minister of the Word does when he prepares a sermon? If he
follows Paul’s instructions in I Corinthians 2 – and if he seeks the Spirit’s guidance in
accordance with Spurgeon’s counsel – he “searches the deep things of God.”
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep
things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in
him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not
the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been
freely given to us by God. (I Corinthians 2:10-12)
Paul’s line of thought moves along the principle that ‘like is known by like,’ a
principle recognized within philosophical circles as essential to true understanding. Fee
writes, “Only ‘like is known by like’; only God can know God. Therefore, the Spirit of God
becomes the link between God and humanity.”207 Paul will reinforce this principle from
the opposite side, saying later in the same chapter that “the natural man does not receive the
things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.”208 But the one who is in Christ has the indwelling Spirit – the
‘anointing’ as the apostle John refers to Him – and can discern these mysteries that Paul
206
Spurgeon, Charles Hadden “The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit”; https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ch-spurgeon-being-
filled-holy-spirit-second-chance-foundation. Accessed October 31, 2018.
207
Fee, God’s Empowering Presence; 99.
208
I Corinthians 2:14
Page 157
preaches, and that continue to be preached in the Church. “At the human level, I alone
know what I am thinking, and no one else, unless I choose to reveal it in the form of
words. So also only God knows what God is about. His Spirit, therefore, who knows his
mind, becomes the link to our knowing him.”209 John Owen adds with reference to II
Corinthians 4:6, quoted earlier, “God herein is said to communicate a light unto our minds,
and that so as we shall see by it, or perceive by it, the things proposed unto us in the
gospel.”210
The work of the ministry of the Word in Christ’s Church is to seek to plumb the
“deep things of God” contained in His Word. We believe His revelation to have closed with
the apostolic era because of the testimony that the apostles bore to Jesus Christ, in whom
God speaks “fully and finally.” Warfield explains why preachers in the Church no longer
seek (or should no longer seek) additional redemptive revelation. He writes,
The entirety of the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying and give its
effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact was in all its meaning made the possession
of men, revelation was completed and in that sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less the end
of revelation than He is the end of the Law.211
Thus the minister of the Word does not attempt to spread the scope of revelation
wider, but rather seeks to dig deeper into the revelation “once delivered unto the saints.”
“For the Bible is not a record of what certain saintly but fallible men of old felt and thought
concerning God. By its own claim it is the inerrant record, written by supernaturally
inspired men of God, of what God has revealed to mankind concerning himself.”212 This is
what the minister of the Word studies first and foremost, with creeds and commentaries
and theologies occupying a distinctly secondary role in his study. Kuiper, who was
certainly a confessional Presbyterian, still wisely wrote, “Doctrinal preaching, like all
preaching, must be based upon the Word of God, and that is a way of saying that it may
not be based upon the creeds.”213
209
Fee; 101.
210
Owen; 333.
211
Warfield, Inspiration and Authority; 96.
212
R. B. Kuiper in The Infallible Word; 227.
213
Ibid.; 228.
Page 158
But the study of the Word of God is only half the duty of the minister; he must also
communicate what he has learned to the congregation. In spite of the “greatness of the
revelation” given to him, Paul was not a toga-clad guru sitting unapproachable on the top
of a mountain. Rather he strove to speak words that edified his hearers, preferring, as he
puts it, to speak one word that edifies rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. 214 Here
in I Corinthians 2 he refers to the manner of his communication as “comparing spiritual
things with spiritual” (2:13). This is a difficult clause to fully understand, being typically
Pauline in the fewness of words used: literally, “spirituals judging together with
spirituals.” Various English translations render the phrase differently; the above
rendering of the New King James version compared with “combining spiritual thoughts with
spiritual words” (NASB) and “interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual” (ESV), just
to mention a few.
Perhaps the crux of the matter is, as Fee puts it, “The Spirit is the key to
everything.”215 In terms of the ‘practice’ of preaching refers to both the study of the
minister and the communication to the congregation of what he has studied, as being
equally spiritual; equally immersed in the Holy Spirit, who communicates the deep things
of God to His people through His minsters. Fee offers this extended translation in light of
the overall argument of chapter 2 as well as of the actual words used in the immediate
passage, “Most likely, therefore, he intended something like, ‘explaining the things of the
Spirit by means of the words taught by the Spirit,’ that is, ‘in language appropriate to the
meaning, not with human wisdom.”216
This brings us full circle to the danger that exists for the minister of the Word in
every age: to study human philosophy, sociology, and political science instead of the
Word of God, and to attempt to communicate the truths of God to the people of God
utilizing the wisdom of Man. In the midst of an argument that is clearly focusing on the
true wisdom of God as manifested by the Holy Spirit, Paul does manage to cast a quick
and summary judgment on the wisdom of man, with which the believers at Corinth were
apparently so impressed. The ‘wisdom of this age,’ like the ‘rulers of this age,’ are
destined to pass away. In this Paul does not merely mean that human wisdom cannot
214
I Corinthians 14:19
215
Fee, God’s Empowering Presence; 104.
Page 159
stand the test of time – actually, human wisdom has remained essentially unchanged
along just a few philosophical paradigms for the past four thousand years. Richard Hays
writes, “Paul means not only that the wisdom of the rulers of this age is impermanent, but
also that it is being doomed, being rendered void and done away, eschatologically,
through God’s act in Christ.”217 Hays properly connects what Paul says in chapter 2 about
the rulers and wisdom of the current age with what the apostle has already said about the
highly esteemed things of the world in chapter 1: that God is bring them to nought.
This is the challenge for the minister of the Word of God in the Church of God. To
abandon the spiritual is to succumb to the human, and to do that is to align oneself with
that which God is destroying. Whenever a preacher adopts human wisdom, or
philosophical terminology and culturally-relevant speech forms, he is truly adopting
foolishness, though the world may applaud his wisdom. For a preacher in Christ’s Church
to do this, however, is foolishness to the point of insanity. The man of God cannot think
the world’s thoughts better than the world can, and there is no lack of unbelieving human
wisdom in any and every age. The insanity arises in that the minister of God’s Word has,
if he is a believer and is truly called to the ministry of the Word, received the charismata
that is the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit himself. Along with Paul he, directed
by the Spirit, searches the deep things of God. For above all that worldly wisdom can
offer, the truly gifted minister of God’s Word “has the mind of Christ.”
216
Ibid.; 105.
217
Hays, Echoes; 134.
Page 160
Week 12: The Spirit & Church Polity
Key Biblical Texts: Acts 14:21-26; Titus 1:5; Philippians 1:1
“The church is not like the kingdoms of this world,

for it is organized for service, not dominion.”
(Edmund Clowney, The Church)
The historian Luke did not consider Paul’s first missionary journey to be complete
until he and Barnabas revisited the churches they had planted in Lystra, Iconium, and
Psidian Antioch (Acts 14:25), “strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to
continue in the faith, and saying, ‘We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of
God.’”218 Immediately after this verse Luke records one of the ways that Paul and Barnabas
‘strengthened’ the fledgling churches in these regions, “So when they had appointed elders in
every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had
believed.”219 This is the first we read of any form of governmental structure or formal office
appearing in the Christian Church, but chronologically it occurs very near the beginning
of the Gentile mission. This instance establishes an a priori conclusion in favor of some sort
of congregational governance, and the fact that the first missionaries appointed ‘elders’ in
each city begins the discussion with a particular polity or form of government in the
church. Considerably later in his ministry, the apostle is found to be working with the
same polity, as he instructs his apostolic legate, Titus, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that
you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded
you…”220 Here we see associated two principles that Paul considered important to the
continuing health and grow of the churches under his care: order and elders. These
principles are, in fact, correlates and not separate concepts at all. The manner by which
Titus was to “set things in order” was by “appointing elders in every city.”
We have seen in our previous discussions concerning the work of the Holy Spirit in
the Church, that there have been considerable movements within professing Christianity
in which the ideas of ‘governance’ and ‘Spirit’ are viewed as mutually exclusive. A ‘stated
218
Acts 14:22
219
Acts 14:23
220
Titus 1:5
Page 161
ministry’ – as the Presbyterian polity is often termed – is considered by many to be
diametrically opposed to a ‘Spirit-led’ church. The most familiar modern example of a
‘no-leadership’ Christian Church is the Plymouth Brethren,
founded in the early 19th Century by John Nelson Darby, an early
teacher of Dispensational eschatology. Plymouth Brethren
rejected the hierarchical clergy of the Anglican Church, and held
firmly to the biblical doctrine of the “priesthood of believers.”
Though the Brethren did recognize that certain men were gifted
with leadership and teaching gifts, they rejected the idea of a paid J. N. Darby (1800-82)
pastorate in the local congregation. Extreme views within the Plymouth Brethren
movement considered preparation of a sermon to be a form of quenching the Holy Spirit.
The Plymouth Brethren have also been somewhat notorious for internal schism,
leading to frequent separations within congregations and the formation of new
congregations. We may not be scientifically able to link the frequent dissolution of
congregations within the Brethren community with the stated abhorrence toward clerical
office in the congregation, but it is ironic that the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, a
modern descendant of the original Plymouth Brethren, now has an ‘Elect Vessel’ who has
oversight and authority within the denomination worldwide. Certainly, the presence of
an official governing structure within any congregation does not guarantee against schism
and division, but it appears from Paul’s actions and instructions that “setting things in
order” in this manner is a very important step in the right direction.
It remains to our study to determine several things from the Bible concerning a
‘stated ministry’ within the local congregation. First, is this a matter of intent on the part
of the Holy Spirit, or just accommodation to the sinfulness even of believers? Second, if a
formal structure of polity is biblical, what form does this take? And finally, presuming
here at the outset that the form is that of a plurality of elders, what is the nature and
function of such leadership within the local congregation, and is it meant to extent beyond
to other congregations?
As to the first question, whether the establishment of formal polity within the local
congregations was intended by the Holy Spirit or was merely an accommodation to the
sinfulness even of believers, the answer is not clear-cut. A biblical argument may be made
Page 162
that any form of government among men is due to their rebellion against the authority of
God in their life. This is the general tenor of Paul’s important words on the subject of
human government in Romans 13.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God,
and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists
the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a
terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and
you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be
afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath
on him who practices evil. (Romans 13:1-4)
One can reasonably infer from Paul’s line of reasoning that a sinless society would
have no need for human government. The case within the Christian congregation is
analogous; Paul’s intent that Titus should ‘set things in order’ implies at least the possibility
of disorder, a condition that is in direct relationship to sin. So, yes, Church Polity is an
accommodation by the Holy Spirit on account of the residual sin remaining in believers,
and perhaps magnified in a community of believers. Yet even though a divine institution
may have the effect of counterbalancing sinful tendencies, this does not mean that the
institution was not intended in its own right. Marriage is an excellent example of this
principle, as it was clearly ordained for Man prior to the advent of sin into the race,
though it now serves as a powerful preventative for immoral behavior (cp. I Cor. 7:1-5).
This dual-use principle – that something can be an accommodation as well as have original
intent – does not apply universally, as the Lord’s comments regarding divorce prove (cp.
Matt. 19:8-9). Nonetheless, that an institution accommodates human sin does not mean
this function is its only purpose.
In the case of human governance the argument is not crystal clear. Israel was
rejecting God from being their king when they clamored for a king so that they could be
like the nations surrounding them (I Sam. 8:1-7). Yet God had already both intended and
prophesied that Israel would have a king, from the tribe of Judah and the family of David.
The solution to this conundrum is the idea of co-regent, which actually begins with Adam
in his original, innocent state in the Garden. God intended that Man exercise governance
over His Creation and rule in His Name. Paul reminds us that “God is not the author of
Page 163
confusion but of peace” and thus His intent was that His created order be maintained
through the governance of human beings. Within that overarching structure God also
ordained the Man to be head over the Woman, and parents to govern their children. All
of these hierarchical relations serve now to harness the sinful tendencies of mankind, but
they were no less intended as a reflection of the order which is the very nature of God.
Thus it stands to reason that, if there is governmental leadership in the state and
patriarchal leadership in the family, there will also be a biblical form of leadership in the
Church. Whether Paul was explicitly told by the Holy Spirit what to do in Lystra,
Iconium, Psidian Antioch, Crete, and undoubtedly everywhere else he established a
church, is not recorded. It may be that he was merely guided by the Spirit to follow the
pattern of order that God himself established in every human
society, including within his own heritage, Israel. We may say
that order is the divine pattern regardless of sin, though sin
undeniably makes order harder to establish and maintain.
Proper order even in a fallen world will correspond to the divine
order, which is untouched by sin. Thomas M’Crie uses the word
‘unity’ in a sense very similar to how we are using ‘order’ here,
Thomas M’Crie (1772-1835)
“He will establish unity on the solid and immovable basis of im-
mutable truth and eternal righteousness.”221 Thus we expect to find in the biblical teaching
concerning Church Polity, the characteristics of truth and righteousness, and not merely
an expedient to keep human sin in check.
Having established, at least for argument’s sake, the biblical necessity, as well as the
intent, of polity within the Church, the second question pertains to the form of this polity.
Is there a biblical church order, or is the matter one of biblical indifference, left to the
devices of each congregation and denomination? It seems clear that the proper form of
local church government to Paul was that of a plurality of elders, or a ‘presbyterian’ polity.
This is indeed the biblical form of church government, but before establishing its
framework in detail, we should investigate the historical phenomenon of other polities,
when that of an elder-led congregation seems so obvious. The fact of such polities as that
of the papacy and the episcopacy, as well as disagreements with regard to whether church
Page 164
governance extends only to the local congregation (i.e., Congregationalism) or to a broader
scope of churches (i.e., presbyteries, bishoprics, or diocese) indicates a consistent opinion
within professing Christianity that the form of church government has been left to the
determination of the local church or churches themselves, and not definitively established
in Scripture. That there is to be a government is not denied by the vast majority; but its
form has often been developed independently of the pattern and teaching of Paul.
This development in Church History follows the broad lines of political theory in
the historical society of men outside the Church, with elements of monarchy, of oligarchy
and, at times, that of democracy to be found in varying degrees. The Roman Catholic
tradition, of course, emphasizes the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, though it also
places authority under him within the college of Bishops, or Magisterium. Thus it is first
and foremost a monarchy with a strong oligarchy that ‘assists’ the monarch – the Pope – and
form which the next Pope is often selected. The Anglican communion differs from the
Roman only in the shift in emphasis to the oligarchy – the episcopacy – with the
‘monarch,’ in this case the Archbishop of Canterbury, having a greatly reduced authority.
Each of these polities derive, at least originally, from the biblical ‘office’ of episkopos, or
‘overseer,’ and can thus claim at least some biblical heritage in defense of their particular
form of government.
State churches such as Lutheranism introduce the civil government into the
hierarchy, with the state government in charge of training, paying, and directing the local
placement of ministers to the local congregations. This
amalgamation of biblical and secular polity has been wrongfully
attributed to the Swiss theologian Thomas Erastus, due to his
opinion that ecclesiastical sins were to be punished by the civil
authority, and the polity itself has come to be known as Erastianism.
It has little warrant in Scripture and has historically proved to be a
corrupting influence within Lutheranism. It is, perhaps, closer to Thomas Erastus (1524-83)
the Anglican polity where the ‘head’ of the Church is the civil monarch, though statism in
Lutheran countries has remained far more powerful than it has in Great Britain.
221
M’Crie, Thomas Unity in the Church (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications; 1989); 64.
Page 165
It was John Calvin who is properly credited with returning the Church in Geneva to
a more solidly biblical model of a plurality of elders, though
perhaps inadvertently he also sowed the seeds of a
Presbyterian clericalism that persists today. In his comments on
Acts 14: 23, Calvin devolves the responsibility of teaching the
Word upon the ‘presbyters,’ the elders of the local church. He
writes, “I interpret presbyters here as those on whom the office
of teaching had been enjoined.”222 However, Calvin’s notes on
John Calvin (1509-64)
I Timothy 5:17 presaged the Presbyterian ‘three office’ view, in which a distinction is made
between ‘ruling elders’ and ‘teaching elders,’ the latter being called ‘pastors.’ We will be
dealing with this passage below, but in this historical section it is worthy to note Calvin’s
words, “We may learn from this, that there were at that time two kinds of elders; for all
were not ordained to teach. The words plainly mean, that there were some who ‘ruled
well’ and honorably, but who did not hold the office of teachers.”223
Do these different forms of Church Polity matter? Is it important whether the
hierarchy of the Church is papal, episcopal, or Presbyterian? A major factor in the English
Civil War was whether the English Church would be Episcopal or Presbyterian, so at least
the Royalists and the Parliamentarians of the 17th Century thought the matter quite
important. Without coming to blows over the issue, we may outline at least a few reasons
why the matter of polity is important and worthy of both diligent consideration and
faithful adherence. The first, of course, is that the Church does not belong to itself but is
the possession of her Lord, Jesus Christ.
The Christian Church is not an arbitrary institution of men – not a mere voluntary
association of any number of people, for any purpose, and on any terms, which to them
may seem good; nor has its communion been left vague and undetermined by the laws of
its founder.224
222
Calvin, John Commentary on the New Testament; Volume 7 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company;
1973); en loc.
223
Ibid; Volume 11; en loc I Timothy 5:17.
224
M’Crie; 95.
Page 166
In other words, as with all other aspects of true worship, the method and manner of
church government has not been left to the Church to decide. We have the same necessity
of finding biblical warrant for our polity as we do for our worship, and the imagination (or
politics) of men cannot be the determining factor for
establishing the true polity of the Church of Christ. John
Murray is, we believe, quite correct when he writes, “The
government exercised by men [i.e., in the Church] must always
be conducted in accordance with the institution and will of
Christ.”225 Thus obedience to the standard of Scripture as the
direct and revealed will of God constitutes the first and
predominant reason why the polity of the Church matters. If
John Murray (1898-1975)
the Bible establishes, by example as well as precept, a particular form of church
government, it is not within the rights of the Church to alter this form to suit
contemporary political ‘needs.’ Murray is unequivocal on the matter, “The presbyterate is
the form of government for the church of Christ.”226
A second reason why polity matters is one drawn from human society in general,
that is, that the form of government under which a people live will inevitably influence the
sort of people they are. The manner of oversight exercised over a people will mould their
own social character: a tyranny will form docile citizens; an oligarchy will foster class
distinctions; and a republic will tend toward greater individual initiative and freedom.
These are observations both of political theorists and of political history, and they pertain
as well to the Church as to society in general (for the Church is also a society of men). With
this principle in mind, we may reason back from the type of society the Church is supposed
to be, to the type of polity the Church ought to have (subjecting the conclusion, of course,
to the specific dictates of Scripture on the matter). Are believers to be a controlled mass of
quiet parishioners, receiving ‘grace’ at the hands of a hierarchical clergy? Or are believers
to be independently students of God’s Word, “searching the Scriptures to see if these things be
true”? The ‘priesthood of every believer’ was a biblical principle rediscovered by the
Reformers, particularly Martin Luther, and clearly argues for the second of the two views.
225
Murray, John The Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth; 2001); 340.
Page 167
This, in turn, demands a form of Church Polity that fosters the involvement of every
member of the congregation, gifted as he or she is by the Holy Spirit so that “the whole
body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by
which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”227 This
biblical emphasis on the individual contributions – the spiritual gifts – of every believer in
the congregation is a very weighty consideration in the discussion of the correct polity to
be observed in the churches of Jesus Christ. D. Douglas Bannerman, in The Scripture
Doctrine of the Church, writes, “The organization is always such as is consistent with a full
and frank recognition of the individual rights of all the members of the community.”228
Often this principle of ‘like government, like people’ is most evident when the
polity of a church or denomination is in gross deviation from the biblical norm. It is
merely historical observation to state that the average Roman Catholic is less concerned
about what the Bible says on a particular matter than is the average Protestant, and within
Protestantism, the more energetic individual study of the Bible will be found almost
invariably in those churches whose polity is more ‘democratic.’ Edmund Clowney writes,
“The danger of setting aside biblical principles appears when the church is organized after
an alien model – that of an entrepreneurial business, for example, or of the military.”229
Finally, though not exhaustively, the importance of the polity of a church rests
upon its fulfillment of the fundamental duty of church leadership: to shepherd the flock of
God. The Apostle Peter, who was admonished by Jesus himself to “Feed My sheep,” writes
to his fellow elders across the ages,
The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of
Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is
among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but
eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the
Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.
(I Peter 5:1-4)
226
Ibid.; 342.
227
Ephesians 4:16
228
Bannerman, D. Douglas The Scripture Doctrine of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; 1976); 528.
229
Page 168
Various passages of New Testament Scripture establish the fact that the polity of
eldership within the local congregation is the one that meets these three criteria for biblical
validation. That eldership is what Paul established, and Peter recognized, within the
churches to which they wrote is sufficient to grant this polity the imprimatur of the Lord.
This is especially the case in that no other polity is even mentioned in the Bible: there is no
mention of a supreme Pontiff or Vicar of Christ on earth, nor even of a diocesan Bishop
who rules over churches within a wide region. The notion that the State should have any
say either within or over the Church is as foreign to the testimony of Scripture as one can
imagine any thought being. That leaves only ‘presbyterianism,’ in lower case here due to
some significant differences of opinion between the denomination Presbyterian polity and
that of other Reformed congregations. More on that below.
A simple review of the biblical passages is warranted from a Berean perspective, to
fully establish the polity of elders as the proper governance of the Church and of its
individual congregations. The key exegetical discovery when one surveys the passages in
the New Testament that deal with elders in the church, is the combination of the three
‘technical’ terms most closely associated with Church Polity: episkopos, or overseer;
presbyteros, or elder, and poimeo, or to shepherd. These three are combined in Paul’s
exhortation to the Ephesian elders in Acts Chapter 20, in a very instructive passage
regarding the apostolic view on proper governance in the Church. Having called to
himself the elders (presbuteroi) of Ephesus, Paul tells them,
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you
overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
(Acts 20:28)
This the very same language we saw in I Peter 5, and leads to the proper conclusion
that an elder (presbyter) is what the man is, whereas an overseer (episkopos) is what he does,
and shepherding (poimainein) is how he is to do it. Also determined from these passages
as well as Acts 14 and the instructions that Paul gives to Timothy and Titus, is the fact that
the polity of the Church involves a plurality of elders, and never just one. Paul addresses
his letter to the Philippian church with direct and immediate reference to the bishops and
Page 169
deacons, further indicating his own view that the later ecclesiastical development of a
singular Bishop over a church and over churches, was never intended. Alexander Strauch,
whose Biblical Eldership is an excellent contemporary treatise on
the subject, writes, “By definition, the elder structure of
government is a collective form of leadership in which each elder
shares the position, authority, and responsibility of the office.”230
This is the point of departure between episcopal and presbyterian
polities and, more importantly, between episcopal and biblical
polities. As the Roman Catholic form of government evolved
from the episcopal and differs only in degree, its error is of the Alexander Strauch (b. 1944)
same nature, only worse by the same degree. Murray, in his inimitable ‘no-holds’barred’
manner, concludes,
The authority of the apostolate is behind this institution [i.e., eldership], and in no way
does the concurrent exercise of rule introduce discrepancy. Rule by elders is the apostolic
institution for the government of local congregations, and this involves the principles of
plurality and parity. The inference is inescapable that this is a permanent provision for the
government of the churches.231
Strauch quotes British theologian Alec Motyer, who is perhaps even more dogmatic
than Murray, “it is not as much as hinted in the New Testament
that the church would ever need – or indeed should ever want or
tolerate – any other local leadership than that of the eldership
group.” Yet the Church did develop alternative forms of
leadership, and tolerated not only replacement polities to that of
the plurality of elders, but pushed the biblical model to the
periphery of Church Polity, displaced by the episcopal and then
Alec Motyer (1924-2016) the papal forms of government in the Church. The Protestant
Reformation went some way toward reversing this error, but in general polity was not as
important to the Reformers as doctrine, and the hierarchical forms of leadership tended to
remain. Presbyterians adopted fully the eldership model and, from the same general
230
Strauch, Alexander Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership (Littleton, CO: Lewis
and Roth Publishers; 1995); 39.
Page 170
Reformed theology, as did Congregationalists and Reformed Baptists. The similarity
between these three stops at the use of the term ‘elder’ to denote the leadership position in
the local congregation. The differences are subtle, but important.
“When we examine the New Testament there needs be no question of the fact that
those invested with the gift and function of government are
called elders.”232 Patrick Fairbairn confirms that the biblical
terms are so coordinate as to forbid assigning any one of
them to distinct men within the church apart from the other
two. Speaking of the pastoral office within the Church,
Fairbairn says, “This office has to do with the oversight and
care of souls, and by its very name imports that the
ministers of the gospel are called to exercise somewhat of
the same fidelity and solicitude in behalf of these, that shep- Patrick Fairbairn (1805-74)
herds are expected to do in respect to their flocks. The names usually applied in Scripture
to the highest offices in the Christian Church carry much the same import, though each
with some specific shade of meaning as to the primary aspect under which their calling is
contemplated. Those names are presbuteroi and episkopoi, presbyters and bishops, or elders
and overseers, both alike involving the charge or duty of superintending and consulting
for the good of the religious community.”233
Thus far the Presbyterian view agrees with that of Reformed Baptists and
Congregationalists. Even farther, as Presbyterianism teaches quite clearly that the
eldership must be a plurality and a parity. There must be more than one elder, and no elder
is higher in ‘rank’ or authority than another. Again Murray, “The principle of parity is co-
ordinate with that of plurality. Strictly speaking there can be no plurality if there is not
parity.”234 Murray rejects any thought that the office of a ‘bishop’ is different biblically
than that of an elder, or that the sphere of an elder’s influence spreads farther than the
local congregation. He writes,
231
Murray, Collected Writings; 342.
232
Ibid.; 345.
233
Fairbairn, Patrick Pastoral Theology (Audubon, NJ: Old Paths Publications; 1992); 39-40.
234
Ibid.; 346.
Page 171
We must, therefore, recognize that in the New Testament the term ‘bishop’ is identical in
respect of office and function with that of elder, and must not be associated in the remotest
way with the hierarchical denotation or connotation that has come to be attached to it in
the course of history....It is in the local assembly or congregation of God’s people, that the
ordinances of Christ’s appointment for his church are regularly administered. The
importance of the local congregation is therefore paramount and it is in the local
congregation that the presbyterian principle must first be exemplified.235
However, it is at this point that Murray and Calvin and Presbyterianism in general
depart from their own teaching, which is thus far the teaching of Scripture. There are two
main points of departure – one regarding the eldership itself and the other regarding the
scope of pastoral oversight. The second is less offensive than the first, so it will be treated
first.
Since the legalization of Christianity in AD 325 the Church has often had recourse to
councils of the bishops to help determine overall theological and practical guidance for the
universal Church.236 Councils that were called as churchwide meetings were termed
‘ecumenical,’ whereas many smaller councils were called to discuss and address regional
issues. From the beginning it was desired that these councils have some binding authority
over the teaching and the practice of the local congregations represented, and even over
those who failed or refused to send representatives. Thus the Church historically shifted
from a Congregational model to a Conciliar model, and even the Anabaptists of the
Reformation Era participated in this trend.
In and of itself, concilarism is benign. The idea of the leadership of local
congregations – and the congregations themselves - having recourse to a broader cross-
section of Christianity within their region, country, or even the world is not in itself
unbiblical. Reference to the ‘Council of Jerusalem’ from Acts 15, however, cannot be used
to justify all forms of conciliarism. In that case the issue was not merely that of
circumcising or not circumcising Gentile converts to Christianity, but rather that those
who taught in the Gentile churches that Gentile converts needed to be circumcised claimed
to have authority from the elders and apostles at Jerusalem. It was that claim, and not any
need on Paul’s part to have his own views validated by Peter, that sent the delegation
235
Ibid.; 348.
236
Presbyterian and other conciliar denominations point to the ‘Council of Jerusalem’ in Acts 15 as the first ecumenical
council of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is not the point of this lesson to debate that contention.
Page 172
from the Gentile churches to Jerusalem. Still, it has been a fact of history that churches in
general, and the ‘Church’ in the world, have often faced similar theological and practical
or social issues, and coming together in a synod or council is completely inoffensive.
The offense comes, and has come, when the ‘canons’ of such councils are made
binding upon the local congregation, and the combined leadership (which is usually really
just a bare majority) of the council members usurps the biblical authority of the elders of
the local assembly. At this point Presbyterians and other conciliar denominations have left
the biblical example of congregational autonomy and authority. From Jesus’ admonition
in Matthew 18 to Paul’s lengthy treatises to the Corinthian church, it is evident from the
New Testament that Christ has gifted each congregation with all they need to adjudicate
both theological and practical issues within there own body. Jesus sees issues of sin going
no further than the leadership of the church,
Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he
hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that
‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear
them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen
and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)
And Paul rebukes the Corinthian church for taking matters to the civil courts,
reminding them that believers will judge angels and are therefore more than qualified to
judge matters of congregational importance.
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before
the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by
you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels?
How much more, things that pertain to this life? (I Corinthians 6:1-3)
The only justification for binding conciliar edicts is pragmatism – a view that the
combined authority of a synod or council will overawe and subject ‘intransigent’
congregations into obedience. Within Presbyterian writings one can easily locate the
departure from biblical warrant and the entrance into pragmatism by the phrase, “good
and necessary inference.” John Murray, using slightly different terminology, essentially
justifies church councils along these same lines.
Page 173
While it is all-important to maintain and promote presbyterian government on the level of
the local congregation, and to recognize all the rights and prerogatives belonging to this
prebyterion, yet it is also necessary to appreciate the broader fellowship that obtains in the
church of Christ. In the presbyterian tradition this has come to expression in the gradation
of courts of jurisdiction. This is a reasonable and proper way of giving expression to the
unity of the church of Christ. It should be recognized that there is much iin the form of
organization and procedure adopted in presbyterian churches that cannot plead the
authority of the New Testament. And the reason why certain forms of organization and
procedure have been adopted and practicsed [sic], which cannot plead the prescription or
warrant of Scripture itself, is simply the recognition that there are some circumstances
concerning the worship of God and government of the church which are to be ordered by
the light of nature and Christian prudence, in accord with the general principles of the
Word of God.237
This is a remarkable admission considering that Scripture informs us that God has
given His people “all things necessary for life and godliness” and that Paul instructs the
Corinthian church that believers will judge both the world and angels. In practical
application the recourse to sessions, General Assemblies, synods, and councils is an
admission that the biblical model of local, elder-led and autonomous congregations cannot
work, or must be augmented and controlled by ‘higher courts.’ This is but a few steps up
the road from Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism, and will inevitably
lead to the dilution both of the authority and the respect accorded to the local presbyters.
It is the other deviation from biblical pattern of leadership that offers the greater
danger, and this not the least because it does appeal to Scripture – or at least to one verse in
Scripture. The two errors are tied together, in that the one produces the clericalism that
then tends to populate and govern the other. This greater error is the division of the
presbyterion into two offices: the ruling elder and the teaching elder. The rationale for this
move is a certain interpretation of I Timothy 5:17,
Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the
word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the
grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (I Timothy 5:17-18)
Paul speaks of elders ‘who rule well,’ which implies that there may be elders who
do not rule well. The apostle does not deny the honor even of elders who do not rule well,
237
Murray; 349.
Page 174
but rather exhorts ‘double’ honor upon those who do. That the condition of not ‘ruling
well’ is not itself a sin is amplified in the subsequent passage, where Paul refuses any
accusation against an elder apart from the biblical establishment of two or three witnesses.
His consideration of the possibility of an elder not ruling well is probably to be viewed no
differently than any other believer improperly or inadequately exercising his or her ‘grace
gift.’ The charismata of teaching and ruling does not make inevitable the success, or even
the diligent effort, in doing these things.
This view is broadly held among Reformed commentators. The point of departure
comes with the phrase ‘double honor,’ which the Presbyterian, following Calvin, views as
indicating a distinction between two groups of elders – those who ‘rule’ and those who
‘teach.’ Edmund Clowney follows the Presbyterian line in commenting on I Timothy 5:17,
“this passage and others in the New Testament indicate that among the elders who rule in
the church, there are some who also labour in the Word and in teaching.”238 If this view is
limited to the recognition that some elders work harder at their ministry than others, then
it is well within the bounds of what is written, and probably in line with what Paul
intends. For the apostle speaks not of two offices, but rather of some members of the same
office receiving ‘double honor’; in other words, of being paid. This is clear from the
apostle’s explanatory note concerning muzzling the ox and compensating the worker his
wage – he is simply saying that those elders who devote their time to studying the Word
and preaching and teaching in the congregation ought to be compensated for their labors,
that they might be enabled to spend more time in study, preaching, and teaching.
What has come of this, however, is the ‘three office’ view of Presbyterianism, which
teaches that in the Christian Church there are the offices of ‘ruling’ elder, of ‘teaching’
elder, and of deacon. The teaching elder is almost invariably the elder (or elders within
larger congregations) who is called the ‘pastor,’ a fact which betrays the inherent danger to
the whole line of thinking. Even Murray cannot agree with the party line at this point.
Referring to ‘elders’ and ‘elders who labour in preaching and teaching,’ Murray writes,
“we may not insist that two groups are in view; those concerned may well, if not more
reasonably, be regarded as exercising both functions, namely, shepherding and
238
Clowney; 211. The author fails to mention the ‘other’ passages to which he alludes.
Page 175
teaching.”239 He admits that the apostle’s concern is for the necessary compensation of
those men who devote most or all of their time in study, preaching, and teaching.
Though it is necessary for all elders to hold fast the faithful word, so as to be able to exhort
in sound doctrine and refute gainsayers, though all must be competent to teach, yet not all
labour in preaching and teaching…But in any case those laboring in word and doctrine are
classified as elders who, in addition to ruling, devote themselves to the preaching and
teaching of the Word of God and, are thus in a special way accounted worthy of the
compensation which their labour warrants.240
In spite of this correct exegesis of I Timothy 5:17, Murray holds to the division in
labor between elders who rule and elders who preach and teach, and advocated as a
professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, the education of men to go into local
congregations as ‘teaching elders’ – again, invariably called ‘pastors’ – to labor alongside
the ‘ruling elders,’ men who are appointed from within the assembly. Douglas Bannerman
comments quite remarkably that “Neither in the synagogue nor in the Church were all
elders alike ‘apt to teach.’”241 While this comment is relatively harmless – it cannot be
completely harmless considering that one of the qualifications for an elder in the church is
that he be ‘apt to teach’ – its recognition that not all are equally gifted has come to mean
that not all have the gift in the first place. In practice, the Church has established
seminaries in which men are ‘taught to preach and teach,’ and then sent (or ‘called,’ as it is
called) to local congregations to serve as the ‘teaching elder’ or pastor. The other elders in
the assembly are thereby absolved of their duties to teach; indeed, when an elder speaks
from the pulpit in a Presbyterian church it is called neither preaching nor teaching, but
‘exhorting.’
This is clericalism, plain and simple, as it establishes a ‘professional’ class of clergy
that is imported into the local congregation to provide the preaching and teaching, while
other elders are ostensibly there to ‘rule.’ But if the rule of elders is not through the
preaching and teaching of the Word of God, it is from men and is thereby disqualified.
Furthermore, if there is a separation between elders who preach and teach – and are
therefore more directly linked with the Word of God in the minds and hearts of the
239
Murray; 360.
240
Idem.
241
Bannerman; 546.
Page 176
congregants – and those who merely ‘rule,’ – whatever that comes to mean in practice –
then the parity of the presbytery is destroyed. The ruling elders are subordinate to the
teaching elders in what really matters to the life and health of the congregation: the
preaching and teaching of the Word of God – though the teaching elder may still be fired
by the ruling elders. Strauch properly addresses the issue of important disagreement
between the Presbyterian interpretation of I Timothy 5:17 and the proper teaching
concerning the preaching and teaching ministry of all elders.
Clericalism does not represent biblical, apostolic Christianity. Indeed, the real error to be
contended with is not simply that one man provides leadership for the congregation, but
that one person in the holy brotherhood has been sacralized apart from the brotherhood in
an unscriptural sense. In practice, the ordained clergyman – the minister, the reverend – is
the Protestant priest.242
The proper order of the local congregation is that of a plurality and parity of elders,
men whose parity is manifested in their shared responsibility to preach and teach the
Word of God. It is by and through the Word that the Holy Spirit governs the congregation
through the eldership, and any deviation from this pattern will prove detrimental both to
the leadership and to the church. Polity, as we have seen, not a matter of indifference to
either the church or the believer, and Scripture has given ample evidence of the biblical
polity to be followed.
Has not the history of twenty centuries of Christianity proved that the plan of the primitive
church is the only one which is suitable for all times and places, is most flexible in its
adaptation to the most diverse conditions, is the best able to resist and stand against
persecutions, and offers the maximum of possibilities for the full development of the
spiritual life?243
There should be no doubt of the answer to Strauch’s rhetorical question. The

apostle most assuredly intended not that some elders rule and others teach, but rather that
all elders in the congregation “labour hard in preaching and teaching” for the edification of
the body and the exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is biblical polity.
242
Strauch; 113. Italics original.
243
Ibid.; 116.
Page 177
Week 13: The Church in the World Today
Key Biblical Texts: I Corinthians 1:18-25
“The Christian mind in the midst of modernity

is like the proverbial frog in the pot
beneath which a fire has been kindled.”
(David F. Wells, No Place for Truth)
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. This familiar French adage is, perhaps
unwittingly, a summary of the Book of Ecclesiastes; it translates into English as, “The more
things change, the more they stay the same.” This is important to realize as we consider
the place and role of the Church in the world today, and hopefully resist the temptation to
think that what the Church faces today is significantly different than what the Church of
Paul’s day faced. Our world has certain features that were unknown to his, as his had
characteristics that have disappeared from ours. The known world, for instance, is not
controlled by a dominant military/political empire as it was in Paul’s time, though it is
overshadowed by a dominant economic one today. It is debatable whether the political or
economic dynamics of a given time have a significant impact on the health and growth of
the Church, the spread of the Gospel. But one element of a given age that does have a
direct impact on how the Church interacts with the world is the zeitgeist – the ‘spirit of the
age.’ Paul speaks of this in the opening chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians,
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the [h]disputer of this age? Has not God made
foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did
not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who
believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to
the Jews a [i]stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser
than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (I Corinthians 1:20-25)
The world in which Paul moved and preached was largely divided between the
majority Greek view and the minority Jewish or Semitic view. There were, of course, other
civilizations extant in Paul’s day – the Chinese, for instance – but it would be several
centuries before the spread of the Gospel would reach these utternmost parts of the earth.
The apostles, and the early Church, generally moved in the two worlds of Jewish
Page 178
monotheism and Greek pagan philosophy, and we read numerous accounts of the
interaction in the text of the New Testament. The historian Luke, for instance, provides a
humorous commentary on the Greeks of Athens, “For all the Athenians and the foreigners
who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.”244
The terms used to describe the overarching mental perspective dominant in any age
and in any culture are themselves misleading. For example, ‘worldview,’ – popularized
by 19th and 20th Century German philosophy as weltanschauung – has never been a world
view in the sense that the whole world holds a particular view. Its meaning, as defined by
the philosophers, is that one’s weltanschauung is the perspective one has upon the world,
which invariably differs from the weltanschauung of others within the same culture and in
the same age. Similarly zeitgeist is misleading, for the ‘spirit of the age’ is never so uniform
as to be capable of description under one heading. Indeed, there were at least two ‘time-
spirits’ in Paul’s day, that of the Jew and that of the Greek, and within both there were
innumerable variations on the theme. The best we can do is to describe in very broad and
general terms the ‘spirit’ of an age, in the hope that such a description includes more than
it excludes. This is what Paul is doing when he says, “the Jew seeks for a sign, and the Greek
for wisdom.”
What is most pertinent to our study on the Church in the World is what Paul has to
say about believers living in the midst of the dominant zeitgeist, whether Jewish or Greek,
For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not
many [l]noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the
wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things
which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.
This is to say, that whatever the character of the age, the Church is something
entirely different and in opposition to it. The zeitgeist of the Church is perennially
different and immiscible with the zeitgeist of the world around it. It is from this
perspective that the Church in each and every age must find its bearings vis-à-vis its
244
Acts 17:21
Page 179
cultural surroundings. Perhaps the chief error that the Church has made in every age is to
conform its own weltanschauung to the prevailing worldview of the culture, rather than to
maintain its stable, biblical, even unchangeable perspective in the
midst of cultural change in the world. Yet the Church cannot ignore
the world in which it is placed without doing serious damage to its
mission of witness to the grace of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Church is embedded in the prevailing culture and must learn to
respond properly to this providential circumstance. David F. Wells,
David F. Wells (b. 1939) in his excellent social commentary No Place For Truth, challenges the
Church in this age: “Are we not consumed with what is changing in cultural and personal
circumstances rather than with what is unchanging about life; the great universal truths
about God, the world, and human nature?”245 Accepting Wells’ challenge to focus on the
eternal in the midst of the temporal, the immutable in the midst of the changing, will
establish the Church in each and every age to be the counter-culture that it is meant to be.
D. A. Carson adds,
This means that Christian communities honestly seeking to live under the Word of God
will inevitably generate cultures that, to say the least, will in some sense counter or
confront the values of the dominant culture.246
Carson’s book provides an excellent template for any discussion of the Church in
the modern world, as it is itself a summary of the classic work on the subject by H. Richard
Niebuhr, Christ & Culture, first published in 1951. In this
work, the American theologian sought to categorize the
available options presented to the Church in any age, by
which the Church relates and witnesses to the prevailing
culture of its age. Niebuhr’s conclusions are subject to
debate and disagreement – hence Carson’s book published
roughly fifty years later – but he made an invaluable contri- H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962)
245
Wells, David F. No Place For Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company; 1994); 7.
246
Carson, D. A. Christ & Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 2008); 143.
Page 180
bution to ecclesiastical thought with regard to the Church in the world. Carson, who
disagrees with Niebuhr on many points, still acknowledges this debt: “It is hard to
underestimate the influence of Niebuhr’s fivefold template, especially in the English-
speaking world.”247 Perhaps the most valuable contribution made to the Church by
Niebuhr’s work is the admonition that the Church must give thought to these matters or it
will otherwise simply be co-opted by the prevailing zeitgeist without so much as a fight.
According to Niebuhr, whatever view we find most amenable to our own understanding
of Scripture, assimilation into the prevailing zeitgeist will not be it.
Niebuhr’s work provides the template that has generally governed the discussion
in the half century and more since he published his book. He lays out a fivefold
framework for the relationship of the Church with the world around it, briefly as follows:
1. Christ against Culture

2. The Christ of Culture
3. Christ above Culture
4. Christ and Culture in Paradox
5. Christ the Transformer of Culture248
For all the opposition that Niebuhr’s book engendered – and it has, in fact, met with
vigorous opposition since its publication – it is hard to think of a perspective of the Church
vis-à-vis the world culture that would be outside the options he enumerated. Leaving out
as totally unacceptable the option of ‘Christ Assimilated to Culture,’ Niebuhr seems to
cover all the bases of alternative perspectives. Even this unacceptable view is included,
only reversed, in the second option, which might be rephrased as ‘Culture Assimilated to
Christ.’ A brief summary of each view is all that can be allowed in this study, which is not
meant to be an evaluation of Niebuhr’s work or conclusions, but should nonetheless help
to set the stage for a deeper discussion on the relationship of the Church, as the Body of
Christ, with the world around it.
The Christ Against Culture view is somewhat self-explanatory, as it sets the
community of faith, the Church as the representative and witness to Christ on earth, in
direct opposition to the prevailing culture in all things. It is antagonistic and views nothing
247
Carson, Christ & Culture Revisited; 29.
248
Niebuhr, H. Richard Christ & Culture (New York: HarperCollins; 2001); vii – viii.
Page 181
in the surrounding culture as redeemable. “The first answer to the question of Christ and
culture we shall consider is the one that uncompromisingly affirms the sole authority of
Christ over the Christian and resolutely rejects culture’s claims to loyalty.”249 This will be
the perspective generally held by monastics, by the Anabaptists, and largely by modern
Dispensationalists, though the latter awkwardly maintain strong feelings of nationalism,
especially within the United States. Perhaps the key word describing this first view is:
antagonism.
The second view, Christ of Culture, is the most accommodating of the five in that it
seeks to amalgamate the Christian perspective with that of the prevailing culture. This is
the view that finds the greatest content of redeeming value within culture and sees the
least differentiation between the Church and its social, political, and economic venue.
Historically this view was most pronounced in ‘Christendom,’ the dominant zeitgeist of
medieval Europe between the Edict of Milan and the Protestant Reformation. “The ‘Christ
of culture’ position was further developed after the Constantinian settlement, in the rise of
‘so-called Christian civilization.’ Today this perspective will be seen in mainline liberal
Christianity, Liberation and Feminist Theology, and to some extent within the ‘Emergent
Church’ movement.
Christ above Culture is, in Carson’s view, really a super-category encompassing the
third, fourth, and fifth of Niebuhr’s views under its overarching rubric. Niebuhr himself
collects these last three views as emphasizing ‘the Church of the center,’250 to show that in
each of the last three perspectives, it is the Church of Jesus Christ from which truth
emanates to the surrounding world. The first of these, stated by Niebuhr as Christ Above
Culture, seeks a synthesis between the prevailing culture and the Christian faith, with the
Christian faith being the dominant framework into which culture is to be shaped and
moulded. The Apologists of the second century, Thomas Aquinas of the 12th Century, and
Abraham Kuyper of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries are all examples of the Christ
Above Culture perspective, though Kuyper is probably better situated in the transformative
paradigm (perspective number five). Aquinas’ view is probably the most representative in
that he believed that all human institutions were to be subject to the Church. Aquinas
249
Niebuhr; 45.
250
Ibid.; 117.
Page 182
“represents a Christianity that has achieved or accepted full social responsibility for all the
great institutions.”251
The fourth perspective, Christ and Culture in Paradox, is represented by the
dialectical theology of the medieval Scholastics as well as the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth
in the 20th Century. This one is a bit of a mess, as all dialectic thinking is, in that while
properly recognizing the sins of the Church, it blurs the lines of distinction between those
and the sins of the world. Niebuhr summarizes the paradox view, “Human culture is
corrupt; and it includes all human work, not simply the achievements of men outside the
church but also those in it, not only philosophy so far as it is human achievement but
theology also, not only Jewish defence [sic] of Jewish law but also Christian defence [sic] of
Christian precept.”252 This perspective rightly refrains from establishing the Church as an
infallible institution in the earth, though it often leaves the reader wondering if there is
truth to be found anywhere. Niebuhr considers Martin Luther to be a chief proponent of
this view and summarizes Luther’s legacy thus, “Living between time and eternity,
between wrath and mercy, between culture and Christ, the true Lutheran finds life both
tragic and joyful. There is no solution of the dilemma this side of death.”253
The last view is Niebuhr’s personal favorite, which is probably why he left it til last
in his assessment. Christ as the Transformer of Culture is the
triumphalist view that has peppered the history of the Church,
being especially prevalent when things go well for the Church
within the surrounding culture. (When things do not go well,
the Church tends to revert to the first position, Christ Against
Culture) Niebuhr reads Augustine’s City of God in at least
partially a transformative vein, and finds both Calvin’s writings
and his ecclesiastical establishment in Geneva to be definitely an
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
example of this perspective. However, the perspective is most powerfully embodied in
Abraham Kuyper’s famous line, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our
human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”
251
Ibid.; 128.
252
Ibid.; 153.
253
Ibid.; 178.
Page 183
Kuyper both lived and taught that the proper place for the believer is in the midst of the
world, in every aspect – art, education, politics, economics, etc. – transforming the culture
by the power of Christian life and principles. Niebuhr calls the advocate of this view a
‘conversionist,’ and writes,
For the conversionist, history is the story of God’s mighty deeds and of man’s responses to
them. He lives somewhat less ‘between the times’ and somewhat more in the divine ‘Now’
than do his brother Christians. The eschatological future has become for him an
eschatological present.254
The World in Which We Live:
Do any of Niebuhr’s categories offer an unassailable position for the modern

Church in light of the world in which it finds itself? Carson’s answer is, ‘No,’ and he does
a very good job showing that no one perspective has ever fully characterized the Church
in any age, nor answered to the challenge of culture in any age. For most evangelicals,
however, there will be an affinity with elements from perspectives three, four, and five –
the Christ Above Culture options. In order to develop a reasonable synthesis among these
three views, and perhaps even incorporate elements from the first two views, we must
attempt to understand just what sort of world we live in. What is the zeitgeist of our age?
What is the prevailing weltanschauung, if there is one? Who are the Jews and the Greeks of
21st Century Western society? And we must of necessity limit ourselves in this study to
Western society; otherwise the sample set would be too widely varied to produce any
meaningful data at all.
Some general terms that are bandied about with regard to the current age are:
Modern (or Post-Modern), and Pluralistic. Secular is another term frequently used, and
usually with approbation, to describe our modern cultural milieu. Perhaps the most
damaging characteristic of modern thought, at least to Christian belief, is the word
Scientific, which has come to be associated with ‘fact’ as opposed to ‘belief.’ These words
reflect the zeitgeist of Western civilization in the 21st Century and are therefore important
to the consideration of the Church in the world today. They characterize, and even define,
the prevailing social mind that believers now face both individually and corporately in the
254
Ibid.; 193.
Page 184
institutional Church. Just as the Jews of Paul’s day sought after signs and wonders, and
the Greeks demanded wisdom and ‘something new,’ the unbeliever of our day seek
‘scientific fact’ and ‘religious pluralism and tolerance,’ another term much used and little
understood.
Modernity and Post-Modernism:
The most frequent term used to describe the current era is ‘post-modern,’ though no
one seems to know what exactly the phrase means. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy begins its article on Postmodernism with the following:
That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of

critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition,
the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence,
identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning.255
Clearly this definition is thoroughly philosophical, because it makes no sense. But

the opening sentence is decisive in terms of our understanding the concept of
Postmodernism: it is indefinable as a truism. The rest of the definition simply obscures the
clarity of this statement – Postmodernism cannot be defines as anything ‘true,’ it is simply
a philosophical construct for which there has arisen no universally accepted perspective.
In other words, it is whatever one thinks it is, and that in itself describes the mindset of a
Postmodern world – everything is just what you think it is. When melded with the stark
individualism of modern Western society, and with American optimism in general, we
may modify this statement to say that everything is just what you want to think it is.
Perhaps this is the best practical definition of Postmodernism; it is certainly a very
accurate description of the world in which we live.
But ‘postmodern’ is a term that references ‘modern’ and, in a sense, ties its own
definition to that term. Indeed, postmodernism is at its core simply a reaction against
modernism, and with it the entire philosophical evolution of human thought that led to
modernism. Postmodernism is probably best understood as the ‘logical,’ or at least
epistemologically inevitable, outcome of modernism, with its exaltation of human
rationality and science over such primitive concepts as ‘religious faith.’ So it is really
Page 185
modernity that needs to be defined and described, and here we have a bit more to work
with. This is because modernity, and modernization, follows historical trends of
development from the early modern era into the present. Thus the philosophical category
of modernity or Modernism is not something that was developed ex nihilo by this or that
philosopher musing uninterrupted on his lonely mountain. Rather it is true that
modernity is the natural epistemological response of man to the modernization of society
in general – its urbanization and industrialization, primarily. David Wells summarizes,
“What shapes the modern world is not powerful minds but powerful forces, not
philosophy but urbanization, capitalism, and technology.”256 Urbanization itself was
driven by powerful forces in the premodern world, foremost among them the repetitive
cycles of war and famine, driving rural agrarian societies into ever-growing cities and
bringing together in one place peoples of vastly diverse worldviews.
This phenomenon occurred in the later stages of the Roman Empire and probably
contributed to its weakening, if not its eventual collapse. But technology was not in place
at the fall of the Roman Empire to allow the pieces to be easily and quickly reassembled.
In the case of Modernity, the Industrial Revolution and the ‘rationalizing’ of the economic
system were well-established to coincide with the increasing
pluralism of urban society. So modernity and pluralism go together,
not a philosophical cooperatives, but as coinciding historical
phenomena. These forces have had the net effect of blending
various societal worldviews into a diluted system of thought and
life in which the strengths of the once-independent religious
systems have been weakened considerably. Eventually, with the James D. Hunter (b. 1955)
advent of Modern Science, based as it is upon the empirical method of hypothesis,
observation, and theory, rational thought became the supreme arbiter of what is ‘fact’ and
religious beliefs were relegated to just that, beliefs. These, in turn, have become less and
less plausible to a modern, urban society with each passing generation – modernity thus
resulting in postmodernism. James Hunter writes, “Much empirical research has shown
255
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/ accessed 27Nov2018.
256
Wells, No Place For Truth; 61.
Page 186
that the rationalization process does tend to corrode the believability of the religious
meaning system.”257
The long and short of all this is the societal loss of even a reasonably homogenous
worldview. Urban societies tend to lack a cohesive metanarrative – a ‘background story’ –
that unites people with the bond of traditions and beliefs. Modernization has brought so
many different people together, with so many different traditions, religious systems, and
‘background stories,’ that the necessities of life have caused the plausibility of these
metanarratives to decay with the passing of generations; the ‘traditions’ of the elders are
no longer valued or followed by the younger generations, in a continuing cycle of
diminishing value. “There is something about modernity that erodes the plausibility of
religious belief and weakens the influence of religious symbols in the social structure and
culture at large.”258 Wells adds,
Whatever else one may say about modernization, one of its principal effects has been to
break apart the unity of human understanding and disperse the multitude of interests and
undertakings away from the center; in relation to which they have gathered their meaning,
pushing them to the edges, where they have no easy relation to one another at all. It has
done this by breaking down the central core so that there is nothing to which thought and
life returns.259
Pluralism and the Gospel:
Thus the modern Church is faced not with hostility, but with apathy. Religion itself
has lost its hold on man’s psyche, and religious structures have been marginalized in
society and privatized in individual life. This is true of all religious thought in the West –
Western Muslims are radically secularized in comparison to their Middle Eastern
counterparts, with the same truth describing African Anglicans relative to British and to
American Episcopalians, American Catholics in relation to Catholics in Asia. Western
modernism, with its inevitable logical postmodernism, has destroyed the plausibility of
religion in general in the minds of Western man. The unbelieving modern world is
looking for neither signs nor wisdom, but rather for a more efficient manufacturing
257
Hunter, James Davison American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the Quandary of Modernity (New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1983); 12.
258
Ibid.; 4.
259
Wells; 7.
Page 187
process, a more profitable investment, and a more relaxing vacation. This process has not
made man happier; quite the contrary, without a solid social cohesion once provided by a
common metanarrative and belief structure, “The most fundamental and enduring
experience a person is likely to encounter…is cognitive dissonance, an experience of
confusion and anxiety about the certainty of his own understanding of reality.”260 The
explosive growth of the psychiatric profess (may we say, ‘industry’) and psychiatric drugs
is sufficient to attest to the truth of this observation. Yet this very condition of utter
loneliness in modern man is a tremendous opportunity for the Church to once again
uphold the truth. In spite of the appearance of confidence and assurance, even arrogance,
in the face of the truth as it is in Jesus Christ, modern Western man is as Wells describes
him,
What is most remarkable about modern people is that they are not in scale with the world
they inhabit informationally and psychologically. They are dwarfed. And they have been
emptied of their metaphysical substance; more precisely, it has been sucked out of them.
There is nothing to give height or depth or perspective to anything they experience. They
know more, but they are not necessarily wiser. The believe less, but they are not more
substantial. The are attuned to experience and to appearances, not to thought and
character.261
In considering the situation of the Church in the midst of such a society as the
pluralistic, modern/post-modern, secularized, and industrialized West, there must first of
all be the realization that such a society, rotten as it is at the very
core, cannot survive. Lesslie Newbigin, in his book The Gospel in a
Pluralist Society, comments on the impact of the wholesale
destruction of a society’s ‘story’, and the role Christianity plays in
eventually reestablishing the solid central core of a healthy society.
“But no human life is possible without some idea, explicit or
implicit, about that the story means. The Christian faith is…a
Lesslie Newbigin (1909-98)
historic faith not just in the sense that it depends on a historical re-
cord, but also in the sense that it is essentially an interpretation of universal history.”262
260
Hunter; 13.
261
Wells; 52.
262
Newbigin, Lesslie The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company;
Page 188
The Christian metanarrative is the one story that encompasses all others, and thus is the
one background story that alone gives hope of uniting the multicultural and pluralistic
world when it inevitably collapses. Of this collapse we are assured both by history and by
Scripture, for no society that has so thoroughly denied the reality and presence of God as
has the West over the past few generations can hope to survive. Manifest divine judgment
of the order of Sodom and Gomorrah is not necessary; such a society will collapse from its
own internal rot. “We thus lose our bearings, for we lose the truth, that divine order to
which in mind and spirit we could always return, the divine order by which we
understood our world, the order for which we looked in life’s dark moments to reestablish
our bearings. This has all broken apart…And as the center has collapsed, our psyches
have become more and more strained, even fractured.”263 This discouraging note is not
heard much in the United States, due primarily to the native optimism of the American
spirit. David Wells notes,
…we continue to think, or perhaps fervently hope, that we are still moving toward a better
future. The truth of the matter is that most Americans are impatient with nay-sayers and
are disinclined to indulge, or even attempt to understand, those who think that the basis
for such hope might be gone. It is not merely that Americans typically think that such
arguments are wrong; more importantly, they think that these arguments are offensive.
They violate an important tenet of the cultural creed – namely, that there is always hope
because things are always improving.264
This quote is especially pertinent in that it touches upon what may be the key
message that the Church does still have in the modern world: Hope. The reality, nature,
and projection of this hope will be the topic of our next, and final, lesson. For now we
must come to grips with the fact that a society from which God has been cast away cannot
have hope and a future, and that no biblically-thinking Christian can believe that it does.
The modern Western world “is now engaged in this massive experiment to do what no
other major civilization has done – to rebuild itself deliberately and self-consciously
without religious foundations.”265 Perhaps one of the major reasons why modern society
1989); 13.
263
Wells; 8.
264
Ibid.; 67.
265
Ibid.; 86. James Hunter adds, “All spheres of human life are bound by deeply rooted traditional modes of thought
and behavior that are, almost without exception, religious or sacred in character.” (American Evangelicalism; 5)
Page 189
has so little time and interest in history, is that history infallibly proves that this social
venture will and must end in failure.
“The first thing to be said is that a movement of this kind is irreversible.”266 The
epistemological evolution of the past several hundred years is not going to reverse itself
and return to an early- or pre-modern zeitgeist. This is important to consider, since it has
often been the plan of the Church in various ages to ‘return’
society to an early, halcyon day, when prayer was still allowed
in schools, or everyone went to church, or some such image of
‘the good ole days.’ In a more thoughtful way, this was the
valiant attempt of Henry Blamires in his book The Christian
Mind, where he writes, “One of the crucial tasks in
reconstituting the Christian mind will be to re-establish the
status of the truth as distinct from personal opinions…The
sphere of the intellectual, the sphere of knowledge and
understanding, is not a sphere in which the Christian gives
Harry Blamires (1916-2017)
ground, or even tolerates vagueness or confusion.”267 This is
a good and true statement as far as the Christian Church is concerned, and as far as the
teaching and training of believers is concerned, but Blamires’ book lacks the context of the
world in which the Church and believers are to attempt this ‘reconstituting’ of the
Christian mind.
About a hundred years ago a notable collection of evangelical theologians put
together a compendium of orthodoxy, published under the title, The Fundamentals. The
book’s reception was an indication of things to come: “Though The Fundamentals was
widely dispersed among church leaders, it was generally ignored by the academic and
scholarly community.”268 In the century since, Evangelical Christianity has been further
marginalized as a system of thought and almost entirely relegated to the position of
private belief. Hunter’s diagnosis is grim, but true to the world as we have it, “There is
something about modernity that erodes the plausibility of religious belief and weakens the
266
Newbigin; 39.
267
Blamires, Harry The Christian Mind: How Should A Christian Think? (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books; 1978); 40.
268
Hunter, 32.
Page 190
influence of religious symbols in the social structure and culture at large.”269 ‘Merry
Christmas’ has become ‘Happy Holidays,’ and even Thanksgiving is now often called
‘Turkey Day.’ It does the Church no good to ignore the fact that the modern Western
zeitgeist is about as far from the Spirit of Christ as can be imagined.
To be fair, the Church in the modern world has not actually ignored the pervasive
influence of modernity on society and culture, but it has not always responded in a biblical
manner, or faced the problem head on. An excellent example of a theological and even
denomination development that can be seen as a response to modernity is that of
Dispensationalism. Faced with an ever encroaching tide of atheism, churchmen like J. N.
Darby and C. I Scofield responded as the Church has
chronically done in difficult times, with ‘millenarianism’ – the
prediction that current events foretell the immanent end of the
age and the condemnation of the world. Dispensationalism
threw in – along with its charts and consequent date-setting –
the ‘hope’ of a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture, to take
believers out of this miserable and hell-bound world before the
wrath of God was poured forth from heaven. Hunter
C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) recognizes the responsive characteristic of this teaching, and the
profound impact such teaching has had on the tenor of evangelical Christianity, at least in
the United States. “Indeed premillennialism as a cognitive response to modernity not only
came to dominate late nineteenth-century conservative Protestantism but came to
determine much of its future character.”270
Positing an eschatology of escape is not the answer, unless such an eschatology can
be clearly derived from the Bible. Even if pre-millennialism, or any form of millennialism
extant, proves to be the correct interpretation of some difficult passages in the New
Testament, escapism has never been and will never be the proper response of the Church in
any age. Recognizing the vast and growing divide between the epistemology of the
culture and the thought-life of the Church is important, but need not lead to despair. And
it must not lead to a revision of the Church’s paradigm in an effort to make it more
269
Hunter; 4.
270
Ibid.; 34.
Page 191
agreeable to that of the world around her. This has been the Church-in-the-World
response of liberal Christianity, illustrated in recent times by such organizations as the
World Council of Churches. But Lesslie Newbigin, who was himself very influential in the
WCC, nonetheless held firm to his belief that “It is plain that we do not defend the
Christian message by domesticating it within the reigning plausibility structure…It is
obvious that the story of the empty tomb cannot be fitted into our contemporary
worldview, or indeed into any worldview except one of which it is the starting point.”271
He establishes the immovable position of the Church in the face of modernity,
The gospel gives rise to a new plausibility structure…The Church, as the bearer of the
gospel, inhabits a plausibility structure which is at variance with, and calls in question,
those that govern all human cultures without exception.272
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Paul preached salvation in the name of a
dead Messiah, a message no more plausible to his audience then than it is to our audience
today. True, Jews and Greeks were more inclined to give ear to what “this babbler” had to
say than our neighbors do today, but the message of Christ crucified remains the one, true
and fully plausible because true, story to be told. “But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews
a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
271
Newbigin; The Gospel in a Pluralist Society; 10-11.
272
Ibid.; 9.
Page 192
Week 14: The Mission of the Church
Key Biblical Texts: Matthew 28:18-20
“Mission is acted out doxology.

That is its deepest secret.
Its purpose is that God may be glorified.”
(Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society)
The modern evangelical concept of ‘missions’ is just that, modern. This is not to say
that the Church failed to view her role on earth as ‘missional,’ to use a modern evangelical
word, but rather that the definition of missions in both theory
and practice has changed significantly over the past two
hundred years. One of the most influential churchmen in
terms of this paradigm shift was Charles Finney, who
introduced the evangelistic revival into the Second Great
Awakening of the early 19th Century. Finney’s brand of
mission/evangelism was quite Methodist – though he was a
Presbyterian – in that he believed and taught a step-by-step, Charles G. Finney (1792-1875)
methodical path to salvation. Revival preaching targeted the emotions instead of the
mind, believing that the heart – the real goal of the evangelistic message – was the seat of
the emotions rather than the intellect. Music and testimonials, the ‘anxious seat’ and other
emotional appeals for repentance, became standard fare for evangelistic revivals
throughout the 19th Century, and are still much in use today. Finney’s soteriology was
thoroughly Arminian, in spite of his Presbyterian roots, and the modern evangelical
Church has largely adopted both Arminian soteriology and Finney’s method.
The rise of Dispensational eschatology joined with this combination to create at
atmosphere of excitement in revivalism. The thought was, generally, that once the Gospel
was preached to every nation in the world, the Lord would return to ‘rapture’ His Church.
The 19th and early 20th Centuries became the heyday of Church evangelism, with
missionary organizations sprouting up everywhere, and missionary conferences held in
major cities and small towns throughout the Western world – and especially in the United
States – in order to encourage individual believers to embark on the mission field. “Who
will go for Us? Then I said, ‘Here I am, send me!’” became a constant motivational passage in
Page 193
missions conferences every year. But the backbone of the entire venture was the ‘Great
Commission’ of Matthew 28.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on
earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded
you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)
Against this historical backdrop of modern evangelical missions, Reformed

churches have been accused of being ‘un-evangelistic.’ This is not because Reformed
churches do not have missions boards or support foreign missionaries, but largely because
any belief in divine sovereign election seems to stifle the motivation for evangelism. The
strawman is, “If God is going to save His elect anyhow, why evangelize?” And because
Reformed churches tend to focus more on doctrinal teaching and discipleship than on
missions and outreach, the charge of ‘un-evangelistic’ seems to stick. One common
response from the Arminian to the Calvinist with regard to evangelism is, ‘I prefer the
way my church does evangelism to the way your church doesn’t.’ Although it may never
convince an Arminian, to whom the Regulative Principle is largely unknown, it remains
true to Reformed doctrine and practice that doing something the wrong way ‘in the name
of the Lord,’ does not thereby sanctify the deed. The
Reformed pastor stands fast on the ‘foolishness of the
message preached’ as the ordained instrument of divine
grace in salvation. J. I. Packer, in what is already regarded
as a classic work on Reformed evangelism – Evangelism and
the Sovereignty of God – writes, “The results of preaching
depend, not on the wishes and intentions of men, but on the
will of God Almighty. This consideration does not mean
J. I. Packer (b. 1926) that we should be indifferent as to whether we see fruit from
our witness to Christ or not…but this consideration does mean that we ought not to define
evangelism in terms of achieved results.”273 What would become of modern, conservative,
Arminian evangelism is it can be proved that its foundation is grounded in a
273
Packer, J. I. Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press; 1961); 41.
Page 194
misinterpretation of Matthew 28? What if it can be shown – at least within reasonable
doubt – that the ‘Great Commission’ is not so much Matthew 28 as it is Matthew 5?
You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good
for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. You are the light of the world. A
city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on
a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that
they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:13-16)
Being Salt and Light (and from elsewhere, also Leaven) is to be the true character of
the Church in the world. And since this preservative, enlightening, and leavening
influence is, in fact, in the world it is by definition ‘missional.’ The erroneous notion that
the task of the Church’s mission work belongs to a select group of ‘super-believers’ called
missionaries, stems from an incorrect interpretation of Matthew 28, and particularly the
word translated into most English Bibles as “Go…”
It has often been noted, but should be repeated, that there is only one finite verb in
Jesus’ admonition to His disciples recorded in Matthew 28; the other verbal ideas are
participles. That finite verb is, indeed, an imperative – a command – but it is not the verb
“go”; rather it is the verb “make disciples.” Indeed, the participles that modify this finite
verb adopt the imperative mood from it, so that going and baptizing and teaching are all
subsumed as modifiers of the main verb make disciples. But the modern and Arminian,
Finney-inspired interpretation of this passage, and the use made of it in countless mission
conferences, lays the heaviest stress on the going, largely because of the manner in which
our modern English Bibles have rendered the verse. If the passage were to be translated
more literally, it would read more like this:
And coming Jesus said to them, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon the earth.
Therefore, having gone (wherever you go), make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in/into
the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you…’
The underlined phrases/words are the participles, which are verbal word forms
that act as adverbs, modifying the one finite verb, make disciples. The first, having gone,
answers the question ‘when’ (or perhaps, ‘where’) while the second two participles answer
the question ‘how.’ The basic meaning is that wherever the disciples were to find
Page 195
themselves – which for a long time was basically in Jerusalem – they were tasked with the
responsibility of making disciples and were to do this by both baptizing and by teaching.
Again, the imperative mood of the finite verb overflows to the modifying participles, so
that going, baptizing, and teaching become correlate commands to the central one, making
disciples. Nonetheless the recognition of the actual finite verb – the actual action being
enjoined upon the disciples and, through them, the Church – refocuses the passage on the
importance of making disciples and not just making converts.
Furthermore, the modern interpretation of this passage fails to understand just
what Jesus is saying, and just how the disciples would have heard what Jesus was saying.
It is clear from the early history of the Church that the disciples did not interpret their
Lord as commanding them to immediately leave Jerusalem and to travel the world, for
they did not do this for quite a number of years to follow. Thus the ‘going’ was not the
imperative for them, though we see numerous examples in the early chapters of Acts that
‘having gone,’ – in other words, wherever they found themselves – the early believers
preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ, baptizing and teaching in His Name. What would
have been powerfully shocking to the first audience of the ‘Great Commission’ was the
command to make disciples of all the nations – literally, all the ethnos, the goyim, the
Gentiles. The exhortation that the disciples were to go to the nations rather than that the
nations were to come to Israel, would have struck any reasoning Jew of the Second Temple
Period as revolutionary – and it was something that the disciples would have to be guided
through by their Lord. The 1st Century Jew would have not stumbled over the concept of
a Gentile becoming a proselyte to Judaism, so long as the Gentile thus became a Jew all
was good. In other words, there was salvation (the term is quite fluid) for the Gentile who
came to Israel, but there was no command for Israel to go to the Gentile. Now there was such
a command – a command to make disciples of the Gentile world in the name of Jesus
Christ. “Here Christ removes the distinction and equates Gentiles with Jews, and asmits
both alike into the company of the Covenant.”274 This was radical stuff, but never heard of
in modern missions conferences.
274
Calvin, John Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Volume 3 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company; 1972); 251.
Page 196
It is somewhat accurate to label Matthew 28:18-20 the ‘Great Commission,’ but not
in order to have a title for a missionary sermon. A commission is an authoritative
document of assignment and representation, and the root and foundation of the ‘Great
Commission’ is not verses 19 and 20, but rather verse 18, “All authority has been given to Me
in heave and upon the earth, therefore…” These are ‘kingdom word’ from the Lord,
indicating a new paradigm of authority both in heaven and earth, a paradigm that was to
be the foundation and the authorization of all that the Church would subsequently (and
consequently) do in His Name. Emphasizing the ‘Go’ of the Great Commission takes the
Church’s eyes off the basis upon which going has any meaning at all, any power at all, any
authority at all in this world. It is verse 18 that Peter is thinking of (of course, it wasn’t
verse 18 in Peter’s day) when he pronounced the divine vindication of Jesus Christ,
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you
crucified, both Lord and Christ.”275 When the disciples heard what we call the ‘Great
Commission,’ what they undoubtedly heard was not a missionary call to leave Jerusalem
and travel to ‘deepest, darkest Peru,’ but rather the liberating pronouncement of the
fulfillment of the kingdom prophecy of Daniel 7,

And behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him.
Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
And His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)
There is no valid commission unless the one who commissions is himself

authorized to issue the summons and the task. And Calvin is correct to note that what
Jesus here commands His disciples to do required far more than ordinary human political
authority.
No ordinary authority would be enough for this. He had to hold supreme and truly divine
power of command, to declare that eternal life was promised in His name, that the whole
275
Acts 2:36
Page 197
globe was held under his sway, and that a doctrine was published which would subdue all
high-seeking, and bring the whole human race into humility.276
But if the validity of the issuing authority has been confirmed, then the commission
is both itself valid and is representative of the one who issued it. Thus we reason that if
the authority claimed here by Jesus is true and confirmed, then the Church He
consequently commissions bears the same imprint of His authority upon what she does in
the earth. Paul goes to some length in providing this validation – or, rather, showing
wherein the validation of Christ’s divine authority lay – in his diatribe on Mars Hill,
God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell
in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything,
since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one [j]blood every nation of
men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the
boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope
for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and
have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore,
since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver
or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God
overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day
on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has
given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead. (Acts 17:24-31)
To Paul, here and in many other places, the resurrection of Jesus is the immovable
foundation of both the Christian faith and the Christian hope. It is the means by which
God, the Lord of heaven and earth and the One who made both the world and man to dwell
in it, has vindicated the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. The resurrection from the dead is
the historical act by which and through which Jesus could say to His disciples – and to His
Church – “All authority has been given unto Me in heaven and upon the earth, therefore…” In
regard to the place and purpose of the Church in the world, no fact is of greater
importance that the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, for this is what qualified the Son
of Man to ascend to the Ancient of Days and to receive that everlasting kingdom whose
span and time will never end. This reality was meant to undergird the Church in its
mission from the time of Christ’s ascension until His return. “It is clear from the New
Testament that the early Church saw itself as living in the time between the times, the time
276
Calvin’s Commentaries; 249.
Page 198
when Jesus, having exposed and disarmed the powers of darkness, is seated at the right
hand of God, until the time when his reign shall be unveiled in all its glory among all the
nations.”277 Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the grave not only vested Him with this
divine authority, it also guaranteed the victory of His mission, which has now become the
mission of His Church. That mission is the worldwide establishment of the Kingdom of
God.
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen
asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam
all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits,
afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom
to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign
till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He
has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident
that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him,
then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all
in all. (I Corinthians 15:20-28)
Living Between the Times:
One of the major hurdles modern Western evangelicals have in regard to their
position in the world, and the Church’s position in the world, is the prevailing view
concerning the ‘eschaton’ – the ‘last days.’ The eschatological teachings of
Dispensationalism have fairly well convinced modern believers that the ‘last days’ are still
off in the future, and that there will be tangible and recognizable signs of the ‘end times.’
True, prophecy writers and conference speakers tend to ‘recognize’ the end times far more
often than the end times actually come, but the perspective of eschaton as being future is
predominant within evangelical thought. This is even manifest in the common placement
of Eschatology at the end of a curriculum of systematic theology. There is a logic in
placing the study of the End Times at the end of the theological spectrum, but there is also
the danger that, in our minds, the biblical teaching concerning the eschaton will remain ‘at
the end’ of our thoughts chronologically. The future may be something that we can
theorize over, or even worry about, but it is not something in which we can do anything,
for it has not come. But if the definition of eschaton is incorrect, then our view of the
277
Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralist Society; 107.
Page 199
present is probably incorrect as well. And according to Paul, to think of the ‘last days’ as
being entirely future is, indeed, incorrect. Speaking of the example set for the Church by
the children of Israel in the wilderness, the apostle writes,
Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they
also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat
down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them
did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also
tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were
destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
The fundamental biblical teaching concerning the last things centers around the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Victory over the grave was the hallmark of fulfillment
regarding God’s redemptive work within His people and in the world. Once this was
accomplished by the sinless God-Man, there remained no further redemptive work to be
done – redemption had been secured, deliverance won, and the new exodus from the
bondage of sin to the liberty of the sons of God commenced. The uniform teaching of the
New Testament is that the finished work of Jesus Christ – at His first coming – has fully
secured all that is required for the redemption of Israel and the world. The final and
visible manifestation of this fact does indeed await a future date, but it is both wrong and
detrimental for the Church to fail to realize the influence of the eschaton on the present.
“The eschatology of the Christian experience is the shadow of the eschaton cast backward
across time.”278
…the central proclamation of the New Testament is that in Christ the new age has already
dawned…In Christ the powers of the new age are at work. The domain of Heaven has
touched that of earth and God’s rule is actually being exercised in the world through Jesus.
Those who accept Him come within the sphere of operations of the powers of the
Kingdom: they may in fact be said to have been translated out of the present age into the
new age which is to come. The new age is no longer something in the distant future. It is
already present proleptically. Christians have already, as it is said, tasted the powers of the
age to come.279
278
Newbigin, Signs; 37.
279
Ibid.; 27.
Page 200
The people of Israel, or at least the faithful in Israel, were at all times ‘eschatological.’
They were, as Simeon was, looking for the consolation of Israel. The guiding principle that
infused their faith was the sure hope that the God who made covenant with them would
bring to pass all of His covenantal promises, not least of which was the original promise of
a Seed of Woman, who would gain the final victory over Man’s enemy, Satan. Their faith
was grounding in the promises of a faithful covenant God, and their hope was firmly
rooted in their faith. The experiences of the present were never – even in the halcyon days
of David and Solomon – even remotely to be compared with the fulfillment of the
prophecies, and so the faithful Israel lived in the present with an abiding hope toward the
future. Their eschaton, the coming of the Promised One, cast a long and powerful shadow
back across their history.
So it is with the Church of Jesus Christ. On this side of the
cross the believer and the Church echo Jesus’ last words, “It is
finished.” The Jewish eschaton has come; the Christian eschaton
awaits. German Reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann is
famous for his ‘Theology of Hope,’ emphasizing the central role
that hope plays, and must play, in the Church’s life. Moltmann
believes that eschatology must never merely satisfy curious
minds, and even less ought it to frighten believers, but rather “A Jürgen Moltmann (b. 1926)
proper theology would have to be constructed in the light of its future goal. Eschatology
should not be its end, but its beginning.”280 He summarizes the essential life of the Church
on earth as being one of tangible and abiding hope, “Thus Christianity is to be understood
as the community of those who on the ground of the resurrection of Christ wait for the
kingdom of God and whose life is determined by this expectation.”281
This is a very powerful and contemporary message (as it is contemporary in any
and every age of the Church), since it has always been the temptation for the people of
God to place their hope in the power and institutions of men rather than in their God.
Certainly this was Israel’s great sin with regard to hoping in Egypt and trusting in chariots
and horsemen, rather than in Jehovah their God. But it is also true of the Christian
280
Moltmann, Jürgen Theology of Hope (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco; 1975); 16.
281
Ibid.; 326.
Page 201
Church, which has often trusted in the sword of the magistrate or, in today’s term, the
passing of favorable laws to bring about the ‘kingdom’ in today’s world. But such a
perspective and such a hope is truly forlorn in the early 21st Century, when there is little
reasonable grounds – as if there ever was - to trust in the institutions of men to accomplish
the righteousness of God. Science has driven ‘hope’ from our
hearts, and replaced it with an empty expectation that, through
science, education, and technology if not laws, the world will
somehow become a better place. Much of the world today self-
consciously tries to follow the adage of the French nihilist
philosopher Albert Camus, “think clearly, and hope no more.”282
But Man is incapable of dispensing with hope, and thus at all
Albert Camus (1913-60) times seeks some foundation for survival in hope. Apart from
the sure hope of the resurrection in Jesus Christ, all other bases for human hope are empty
lies. The literary summary of Barak Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, offers an example
of the vapid ideology of hope that prevails in the Western world, “The Audacity of Hope
is Barack Obama's call for a new kind of politics—a politics that builds upon those shared
understandings that pull us together as Americans. Lucid in his vision of America's place
in the world, refreshingly candid about his family life and his time in the Senate, Obama
here sets out his political convictions and inspires us to trust in the dogged optimism that
has long defined us and that is our best hope going forward.”283 It is apparent that
President Obama spent very little time researching American political history in
preparation for writing his book, for if he had he would have found very little evidence of
“those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans.”
Sadly, though conservative evangelicalism in the United States largely voted
against Obama, it does for the most part put its hope in the same political arena - only on a
different side. Thus has arisen a divide in Christian thought between evangelism, which is
something the Church does in the inner city or in foreign countries, eschatology, which is
something that will happen sometime in the future, and ecclesiastical activism, which is the
282
Quoted by Moltmann; 23.
283
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9742.The_Audacity_of_Hope. Accessed December 4, 2018.
Page 202
participation of believers in the political process. Only the latter pertains to the believer’s
day-to-day existence, and sadly it is the one least grounded in God’s Word.
It sounds well and good to advocate a ‘return’ to godliness as a cure for society’s
ills, and certainly a society that lives closer to divine precepts will be a much more
pleasant and peaceful one than a society living in open rebellion against God. But the
foundation of assumption that ‘returning to God’ will ‘save’ the United States is false: the
United States is not Israel; it is not a Christian nation and never has been. Thus the ‘hope’
placed by modern evangelicals in the political process is really nothing more or less than
the pagan appeasement of the national deity, only the God of the Bible is fast becoming no
longer America’s national deity. Moltmann describes the ancient practice of pagan
appeasement, in a manner that sounds very much like modern evangelical political
activism. “Peace and prosperity depend on the favor of the national gods.
The public wellbeing and enduring stability of the state depend on the blessing of the gods
of the state…When the Christian faith took the place of the Roman state religion, then of
course the public state sacrifices ceased, yet their place was taken by the Christian prayers
of intercession for the state and the emperor. Thus the Christian faith became the ‘religion
of society’. It fulfilled the supreme end of state and society. Hence the titles of the Roman
emperor-priest were transferred to the pope. State and society understood the Christian
faith as their religion.284
This situation was a false foundation for hope then, and it remains a false
foundation for hope now. But even this charade is getting harder and harder to maintain
in the modern world, as all faith is being marginalized by society and fewer and fewer
people have genuine hope anymore. Many see this as a failure of Christianity, of the
Church of Jesus Christ; it is, in fact, the Church’s greatest opportunity. For hope is the
essence of her being, the zeitgeist of this ‘time between the times.’ The New Testament
speaks of hope among the enduring realities, - an anchor of the soul entering in beyond
the curtain which hides the future from us, something utterly reliable.”285 Thus Peter writes,
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has
begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to
an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for
284
Moltmann; 306.
285
Newbigin Gospel in a Pluralist Society; 101.
Page 203
you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last
time. (I Peter 1:3-5)
The Audacity of (True) Hope:
One thing is certain from even the most cursory review of the history of the Church
in the world: the good times never last. In each generation the Church must come to grips
with the fact that, if she is true to her calling and her confession, her very existence is an
offense to the world around her. “In this world you will have tribulation,” Jesus promised,
“but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world.”286 The most remarkable phenomenon in
the life of the Church is how often, generation after generation, she tries to be accepted in
the world and to ‘partner’ with the world’s ways. This is to attempt the synthesis of Light
with Darkness, Christ with Belial; it cannot be done. “Man in rebellion has always sought
to exclude God from this world, and it does him no service if Christian theologians write
their soteriologies to conform to, rather than to challenge this rebellion.”287 Perhaps in
protection of His people throughout the ages, God has ordained that no civilization should
remain in power for an indefinite period of time, but that all societies of men should reach
their pre-appointed limits of both space and time.
God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell
in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything,
since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of
men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the
boundaries of their dwellings. (Acts 17:24-26)
In more modern parlance, each and every human society is a Titanic, and all
attempts to clean up the culture or to curry favor with the unbelieving world are doomed
to take the Church of that age and place down with the ship. Egypt was once a center of
Christian academics and theology; the seven churches of Revelation were once vibrant
evangelical communities in what is now Turkey – both are representative of the principle
that no society will survive forever, no matter what the Church does in its midst. Again,
this is a depressing prognosis (though undeniably biblical), but a clear recognition of the
286
John 16:33
287
Well, David F. The Search for Salvation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press; 1978); 92.
Page 204
fact from both history and Scripture is necessary in every generation, if the Church is to
live in the right relationship with the culture around her.
The answer, as we have seen before, is not escapism. Indeed, the Church engages
the prevailing culture as Salt and Light, influencing the world around her as Leaven –
none of these metaphors can coexist with an ecclesiology of escapism. The challenge for
the Church in every generation is to impact the culture around her by bearing faithful
witness to the majesty and grace of God through Jesus Christ. “Christians thus shaped by
Scripture envision a church that not only counters alternative cultures but also seeks
sacrificially to serve the good of others – the city, the nation, common humanity, not least
the poor.”288 This will look different in different ages and within different cultures, but
there will be certain common traits that characterize a biblical evangelical Church at all
times and in all places. One of these characteristics, and perhaps the most powerful one in
the presence of the world, is the hope that all believers possess in Jesus Christ.
But sanctify [e]the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who
asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience,
that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be
ashamed. (I Peter 3:15-16)
This passage presents the believer, and the Church, in a position vis-à-vis the world
in which one has hope and the other does not. Paul echoes this truth when he writes to the
Church in Thessalonica in regard to those among them who had fallen asleep. Paul
comforts the surviving believers, “But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning
those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that
Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.”289 Indeed,
hopeless is basically Paul’s definition of all who are in the world but outside of Christ
Jesus,
called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without Christ,
no hope and without God in the world. (Ephesians 2:11-12)
288
Carson, Christ & Culture Revisited; 142.
Page 205
We have already seen Peter’s view with regard to the salvation that God has
gracious bestows on sinners, coupling regeneration with this powerful truth of hope in
Jesus Christ. Note how the apostle ties the believer’s benediction with the salvation to be
revealed, but now established and guaranteed through the resurrection of Christ from the
dead.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has
begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to
an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for
you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last
time. (I Peter 1:3-5)
Peter calls what the believer has a ‘living hope.’ Paul refers to it as “Christ in you,
the hope of glory.”290 And the author of the letter to the Hebrews establishes the stabilizing
power of the hope of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul,
both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil.”291 What is common to
these verses is that this living hope does not rest in this world, the form of which is
passing away, but rather in the world to come in which righteousness dwells. The
Christian Hope cannot be tied to any earthly form or function, to any political party or
movement, or even to any Church denomination or revival, but only and always to Jesus
Christ by virtue of His resurrection from the dead. In this hope the believer lives within
the community of faith, through love both to God and to the brethren, and this mutual and
firm hope not only stabilizes the mind of each individual believer but also energizes the
community itself, in the midst of a hopeless and despairing world.
Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living
way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over
the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the
confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider one
another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves
together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the
Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:19-25)
289
I Thessalonians 4:13-14
290
Colossians 1:27
Page 206
This passage echoes the words of Paul in I Corinthians, as he seeks to unite the
Church in Corinth by reminding the believers there that no amount of visible spirituality
through the charismata will edify the Church or glorify her Lord without the trifecta of
faith, hope, and love.
And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
(I Corinthians 13:13)
Paul speaks of love as the greatest of the three not because either of the other two
are dispensable, but rather because only love will abide forever. Faith is the substance of
things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hope is the attitude of patient and even
joyful expectation, knowing that the One who promised is faithful, and He will bring all
things to pass. Thus the believer hopes for what he believes in. But when these things are
made visible, then they will no longer be hoped for, and faith will become sight.
For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what
he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
(Romans 8:24-25)
Yet when faith has been made sight and that which we hope for becomes a visible
rather than an invisible reality, love will still remain: the love of God to us, and our love to
Him and to one another. It is in this sense that the greatest of these is love. Together, these
three virtues are the powerful spiritual energy of the Church, making the community of
faith more than conquerors in Christ Jesus, for these three virtues are what the world does
not have and cannot have. Together they constitute peace, the peace that passes all
comprehension, the peace that the Lord Jesus gave to His Church, the peace that the world
cannot give and cannot know. This is the great treasure and the incomparable wisdom of
the Church of Jesus Christ and it is only when the Church lives in the light of these virtues
that she is in her true and biblical relation to the world, and has the most powerful impact
upon the world. “The whole body of Christians is engaged in the apostolate of hope for
the world and finds therein its essence – namely that which makes it the Church of
God.”292
291
Hebrews 6:19
292
Moltmann; 328.
Page 207
The Church is therefore to be considered as the community of faith in Jesus Christ,
in which believers live in constant and living hope because of the resurrection of their Lord
and the promised resurrection of themselves in glory, and thus may dwell in love toward
one another and even toward the world that hates them, a world in which there is no
hope. The real power of the Church is not when she goes out into the world, either in
evangelism or in social activism, but when she lives within herself true to the promise of
God in Jesus Christ. It is only then that the unbelieving world will ask the reason for the
hope within the Church, for it is only then that the world will be confronted with a
community of hope and love, in stark contrast to the hopelessness and hatred in the world.
This is the Church as an embedded culture, as a ‘city set upon a hill’ in every local
congregation. “Here Christian congregations can offer human warmth and nearness,
neighborliness and homeliness, ‘community’ which is not utilitarian but nevertheless
meaningful, and therefore also readily called ‘genuine’…They become islands of genuine
co-humanity and of authentic life in the rough sea of circumstances which the ordinary
man can after all do nothing to alter.”293
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy in believing, that you may abound in hope by the
power of the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:13)
293
Moltmann; 320.
Page 208

Notes On Ecclessiology Course

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes On Ecclessiology Course

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes On Ecclessiology Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church

COURSE SYLLABUS: Ecclesiology

1 The Marks of the Church

2 The People of God – The Church and Israel

3 Israel and the Church – the Temple

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

“Una, Sancta, Catholica, et Apostolica Ecclesia”

such a sense perfect”13 Unfortunately Wesley’s perfectionism is no less an abstraction than

In light of this connection between the qahal of Sinai and

Bearers of the Law:

Maimonides notwithstanding, the event of Law-giving at Sinai constituted the

Remember the Law of Moses, My servant,

This passage describes an event in redemptive history in which the law-bearing

The New Covenant and the Church:

“It is, however, certainly more exact,

It is not likely that Progressive Dispensationalists will become Covenantalists with

The Tabernacle and the Temple - Where God’s Name Dwells:

These dire predictions of judgment, permeating the prophecy of Jeremiah, have

Destruction of the Temple was perhaps the paramount manifestation of divine

Jesus and the Temple – Mark 11 & John 2

“All of the language describing the church in the New Testament

Introduction Culmination…Inauguration Consummation

Abraham/Israel The Church The Kingdom

It is hopefully obvious that Jesus is not abolishing fasting – He specifically states

Jesus and the Temple

Will There Be Another Temple?

On the basis of Israel’s rejection, by and large, of her Messiah, Dispensationalism

And of individual believers,

In Hebrews 9 the author provides a primer on tabernacle ministry, in order to show

Wright comments on Jesus’ self-awareness of being in himself what the Temple

Luke begins his gospel in an unusual manner in comparison to the other

On that day I will raise up

I was watching in the night visions,

And the LORD shall be King over all the earth.

George R. Beasley-Murray notes three crucial elements to

Jesus’ Preaching on the Kingdom of God:

Say to those who are fearful-hearted,

Modern scholarship imitates John. Liberal theologians as well as conservative

The Kingdom in the Early Church:

“The mystery of the Kingdom is the coming of the Kingdom

Contrary to Schweitzer’s portrayal of Jesus as having been deluded concerning the

The Kingdom of God:

Jesus, the Apostles, and the Kingdom of God:

Modern biblical scholarship has sought to ‘deconstruct’ the New Testament

subject of Paul’s proclamation…The proclaimer has become the subject of the

I was watching in the night visions,

Paul, the Church, and the Kingdom:

This redemption thereby acquires the significance of an all-inclusive divine drama, of a

19th Century Anglican theologian Thomas Bernard notes, “Evidently on purpose

“A metaphor is not a vague, unreal expression,

This ecclesiological fulfillment concentrates especially on three Hebrew concepts: the

“The Spirit is a gift from God’s future,

This is universally recognized as a prophecy of the coming of the Messianic

Banks, “Acts 2:16-20: Fulfillment or Illustration?” http://www.academia.edu/14930119/Acts_2_16-

A New Hermeneutic – II Corinthians 3

II Corinthians Chapter 3 is a presentation of the new hermeneutic of the Spirit that

We are to be reminded of Paul’s lengthy epistle written in an effort to teach the