19
The
Meaning Of The Mystery
Eph.
3:1a, 2-6
For this cause I Paul
. . .
If ye have heard of
the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me
to you-ward:
How that by revelation
he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in
few words,
Whereby, when ye read,
ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of
Christ)
Which in other ages
was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now
revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit;
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and
partakers of his promise in Christ by the
gospel:
Thus far our study of
Ephesians has taken us through chapters 1 and
2:
·
Chapter 1 - The Believer’s
Riches In
Christ;
·
Chapter 2 - The Believer’s
Reconciliation To God.
This brings us to the
third section of the doctrinal half of
Ephesians:
·
Chapter 3 - The Believer’s
Rank In God’s Plan.
This chapter can further
be divided into two sections:
·
The Explanation Of the
Mystery (3:1-12);
·
The Encouragement To
The Saints (3:13-21).
As we approach this
chapter of Ephesians, we should realize just how
important verses 1-12 are. We have here the most
complete explanation of the “mystery” of the Church
in all the New Testament. Many today do not
understand the ministry of the Church because
they do not understand the meaning of the Church, and they in-turn don’t understand
either one of those because they do not know what these
verses say.
Before going on, we
should notice something very subtle in verse 1. While
we’ll look more closely at verse 1 in the next chapter,
we should note here how it begins, For this
cause. It’s interesting
that if we look at verse 14, we see that it, too, begins
with these words. So, as many commentators point out,
what we actually see here is that verses 2-13 is an
interruption of the thought begun in verse 1. We recall
back in chapter 1:4-14 how Paul was carried away by the
sublime Truth he was writing. We see much the same thing
here. Paul’s mind and heart are so full of thoughts of
the Church that he continues and elaborates on what
he started in chapter 2. He revels in the fact that the
true believer is a “new man” (v. 15), that all
believers, Jew and Gentile, are “in one body” (v. 16),
that Gentiles, “who were afar off,” are now brought near
in Christ (v. 17), that all believers have access to the
Father (v. 18) and are equal citizens of His kingdom and
members of His family (v. 19), and that all believers
are part of God’s living Temple that continues to grow
(v. 21). And now he brings all that together to show
what it has created—the Church.
The Church is,
indeed, an amazing reality. That is why it is called a
“mystery” later in this passage (vs. 3-6); a “mystery”
is that which was hidden and is now Divinely revealed.
What a silly notion that some Bible students have that
the Church existed in the Old Testament. Paul makes it
very clear that in other
ages it was not made
known; Old Testament
saints had no concept of the Church.
We should also point
out that even though verses 2-13 are what we call a “grammatical interruption,” they
are in no way parenthetical or secondary in importance.
A parenthesis is usually something said as “an aside,” a
secondary thought that is not as important as the
primary idea. This passage is no less important than the
rest of the chapter.
In the next few chapters
of our study we will examine this “Explanation of the
Mystery” by looking at three divisions of verses
1-12:
·
The Meaning of The
Mystery (vs. 2-6)
·
The Minister of The
Mystery (vs. 1, 7-8a)
·
The Ministry of The
Mystery (vs. 8b-12)
To examine the
meaning of the mystery, we
must study two related terms: Dispensation and
Mystery.
I. The Term “Dispensation” (v.2)
If ye have heard of the
dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to
you-ward:
Let us first examine this
often-misunderstood term and then detail how Paul uses
it here.
The Term By
Itself
As I shared from the
pulpit, there is a reason that we should mention what
follows. By this discussion we are building toward our
main emphasis, namely, a specific method of Biblical
interpretation. How should we interpret the Bible?
Should we take the words literally, or should we
allegorize them? Should be take them as they are, or
should we just interpret them based on how they make us
feel at the moment? The answer to those questions
provides the key to whether or not we understand
Biblical Truth.
We touched on this
term dispensation
back in 1:10. The
Greek word, oikonomia, consists of two words:
oikos (an ancient Greek word as we saw in the
last chapter that means “house, dwelling
place”) and nomos (a law). So the idea is “the
law of a house.” The word speaks of the oversight,
management, or stewardship one has over the affairs of a
household. Applied to Scripture, this simply means that
as the owner of His “household-world” God is overseeing,
managing, and administering everything according to His
will and purpose and is doing so in various stages. Dr.
C. I. Scofield gives one of the best definitions of a
dispensation as it is used in
Scripture:
A period of time during which man
is tested in respect of obedience to some specific
revelation of the will of God.[i]
In his
characteristic simplicity, Harry Ironside, who has been
called “the prince of dispensational preachers,” gives
this description and definition of “dispensation,” or
“economy:”
An economy is an ordered
condition of things. Domestic economy is the ordering of
a house. But the economy of one house is not necessarily
the economy of every other house . . . Then there is
political economy. The ordering of the affairs of one
nation is not the economy of another . . . A
dispensation, an economy, then, is that particular order
or condition of things prevailing in one special age
which does not necessarily prevail in
another.[ii]
There have been (and still
are) those who reject, or at least question, the
dispensational approach to understanding Scripture.
There are those who even laugh and scoff at
dispensationalists and look on them condescendingly,
considering them little more than unscholarly
simpletons. Others are just downright mean spirited and
unchristian, such as one writer who calls
Dispensationalism “a cult and not a branch of the
Christian church” and calls dispensationalists “false
teachers” and “heretics.” I do want to be loving here,
but I must also say that I find such a comment not only
unchristian but dishonest. Frankly, I found it so
discrediting that I saw no point in reading the rest of
this man’s book.[iii]
One
misrepresentation of Dispensationalism is that since it
teaches that God works differently in various ages that
God, therefore, in some economies works according to
works and not grace. To be loving but still frank, such
a comment barely deserves a response. Dispensationalism
teaches no such thing. God ALWAYS works according to grace, but through the ages
He has worked out that grace in different ways, He has
manifested His grace in diverse manners, He has
illustrated and demonstrated His grace in varied
economies.
One of the chief charges leveled against
Dispensationalism is that it is a recent system of
interpretation, but that charge is patently false for
two historical reasons.
[iv]
First, while it is true that Dispensationalism as a
system is traced back to the
19th century Bible
teacher and founder of the Plymouth Brethren John Nelson
Darby (1800-1882), it is equally true that the Biblical
principles that form the foundation of Dispensationalism
were recognized by many leaders in the Early
Church.
As early as Justin Martyr (110-165), we see a
realization of differing programs of God in different
ages. He observed that Enoch and Noah, for example,
pleased God just as much as Abraham did even though they
had neither circumcision nor the
Sabbath.[v] Here are obvious
differences in how God dealt with men. Irenaeus
(130-200) likewise recognized the differences in how God
worked in the times of Adam, Noah, Moses, and the New
Testament Gospel.[vi] Clement of Alexandria
(150-220) also recognized four dispensations of God’s
rule.[vii] Augustine (354-430)
most certainly recognized the dispensational principle
in Scripture when he wrote:
The divine institution of
sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but
is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the
present age has been enjoined by God, who knows
infinitely better than man what is fitting for every
age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or
curtail, increase or diminish, the unchangeable Governor
as He is the unchangeable Creator of mutable things,
ordering all events in His providence until the beauty
of the completed course of time, the component parts of
which are the dispensations adapted to each successive
age, shall be finished, like the grand melody of some
ineffably wise master of song, and those pass into the
eternal immediate contemplation of God who here, though
it is a time of faith, not of sight, are acceptably
worshipping Him.[viii]
Indeed, as a
composer of a concerto or symphony creates several
movements in his composition, each one having various
themes and variations, God has created His “Symphony of
History” in various movements, each one with its own
theme and outworking or grace, which He will ultimately
bring to its conclusion for His
glory.
Now, while we in no way
want to imply that these early fathers were
“Dispensationalists” in the present use of the term,
they clearly demonstrate to us their understanding of
differing economies in Scripture. As Charles Ryrie puts
it, “they held to primitive or early dispensational-like
concepts.”[ix]
Second, later on, but still over a hundred years
before Darby, French mystic and
philosopher Pierre Poiret (1646-1719) became the first
(in 1687) to systemize a dispensational scheme of
Scripture and history that consisted of seven
dispensations.[x]
In light of the
accusation that “Dispensationalists are Arminian and
weak on the Doctrines of Grace, it was only twelve years
after Poiret in 1699 that a Calvinistic minister
in the Church of England, John Edwards (1637-1716),
published his 790-page, two-volume work, A Compleat
History or Survey of All the
Dispensations.
Likewise, in the
same era, theologian and hymn writer Isaac Watts
(1674-1648) defined his concept of dispensations in a
forty-page essay entitled, “The Harmony of all the
Religions which God Ever Prescribed to Men and All His
Dispensations towards them.” It’s interesting that
except for his exclusion of the Millennium (because he
didn’t consider it to be a separate
dispensation), it’s Watts’ outline that is identical to
C. I. Scofield’s, not Darby’s as one would expect, and what
non-dispensationalists would have people believe.
So, while Darby was
without question the foremost systemizer and promoter of
Dispensationalism, he most certainly was not the
originator or founder of the system and
technically not even the first one to systemize
it. Many others before him recognized that God has
worked in varying ways throughout history, and others
even formulated a system. To say, as does one writer,
“The essential doctrine of
dispensationalism cannot be found prior to the
nineteenth century,”[xi] is just plain
wrong.
I recount this
history for two reasons, first, to dispel the notion
that the dispensational approach is new and novel. Those
who claim that it is are simply either not being
thorough in their research or are not being objective in
their reporting. In point of fact, Covenant Theology,
the chief rival of Dispensationalism, is actually not
much older, despite those who try to make it appear so.
Put simply, Covenant Theology is a system of Biblical
interpretation that attempts to develop the Bible’s
philosophy of history on the basis of two or three
covenants. Most see only two, the Covenant of Works and
the Covenant of Grace, while some see a third prior to
those two, the Covenant of Redemption. But this covenant
principle is seldom mentioned in the writings of the
Early Church Fathers, is does not appear at all in the
writings of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and
Melanchthon), and it was not actually
systemized until the 16th
Century.[xii]
The second reason
for giving the historical background is to demonstrate
the importance of this approach. After many years of
study, I am convinced that the dispensational approach
to Scripture is essential for the proper and
consistent interpretation and
understanding of Scripture. Charles Ryrie offers three
helps provided by the dispensational
approach.[xiii]
First, and I
believe foremost, it provides consistent hermeneutics.
“Hermeneutics” transliterates the Greek noun
hermeneia, from the
verb hermeneuo,
“to interpret, explain, or translate.” It’s used, for
example in John 1:38, where the disciples say to Jesus,
“Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master)”
and verse 41 where John says to his brother, “We have
found the [Messiah], which is, being interpreted, the
Christ.” So, while “hermeneutics”
proper speaks of how we interpret Scripture,
these and other verses
demonstrate that the basic principle of proper
interpretation is that we simply interpret according to
what words mean.
This, then, is
exactly what the dispensational approach to Scripture
does: it is the result of taking Scripture in its
literal, plain, and normal meaning. In other words,
every word is given the same meaning that it has in
its normal usage. This sounds so
reasonable that it doesn’t seem like anyone would
object. But some do nonetheless, thinking the Bible, or
at least parts of it, must be turned into allegory or
given some hidden, mysterious meaning. Liberals, for
example, deny the Bible outright as historical fact,
calling it myth, allegory, and contradictory accounts.
Why do they say that? There can be only one reason. They
must, because if they admit the Bible’s historical
accuracy, they are left to face what else It says about
sin, righteousness, judgment, and redemption.
Even some
evangelicals have problems along this line. Covenant
Theology, for example, spiritualizes Old Testament
circumcision so it refers now to infant baptism (or
perhaps just “baby dedication,” as some Christians
practice). A pastor friend of mine once asked one of his
covenant theologian seminary professors, “If
circumcision is now infant baptism, why do you baptize
baby girls?” to which the professor had no answer. Why?
Because if you do not use words in their normal usage
(and recognize distinctions, as we’ll see in a moment),
you will be left with irreconcilable
problems.
Why spiritualize the
Bible when we don’t do this with any other piece of
literature? No one that I know of spiritualizes
Shakespeare’s accurate historical plays Julius
Caesar and Richard III.
Neither do I know anyone who would be foolish enough to
say, “Well, I have this book on how to build a car, so I
think I’ll just allegorize it and build an airplane.” Do
we not take all literature and take the words in their
normal meaning (unless the literature itself dictates
otherwise)?
I know this will be
offensive to some, perhaps almost heresy—and I apologize
in advance—but this is precisely why I don’t like John
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress
or any other allegory. I want Truth; I want words that
mean something specific, not words that can mean
anything I envision them to mean, or want them to mean,
or force them to mean.
May I also
interject here that this is why Bible translations such
as the NIV and others are plainly dangerous. Why does
the majority of the Church today refuse to recognize the
destructiveness of “Dynamic Equivalency,” on which such
translations are proudly based? This philosophy simply
means that instead of translating word-for-word, the
translators “have striven for more than a
word-for-word translation,” choosing rather to use “a
minimum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright dynamic
equivalence,” which they explain as the translator
seeking to “express the meaning as the biblical writers
would if they were writing in English
today.”[xiv]
The danger of “Dynamic
Equivalence” is so obvious that it defies logic that
anyone concerned with Biblical accuracy and authority
would choose to use it. Without a word-for-word, literal
approach, in which the Hebrew and Greek words are
rendered as closely as possible into English, how on
earth can we expect accuracy? And if we don’t have
accuracy, how can we have authority?[xv] This is an obvious
disfiguring and defacing of the Words of God. It reminds
me of graffiti on the side of a building. Yes, it’s
still a building, but it’s been defaced so badly that
you can no longer see its beauty.
Truth, then, can be found
only in what words mean. So important is this principle,
in fact, that if it is consistently followed, the
interpreter will be a dispensationalist. For example, as
we’ll see later, if the prophecies of the Old Testament
are taken literally, a literal Millennium is the only
conclusion that can be reached.[xvi] But aren’t there symbols,
pictures, and figurative language in Scripture?
Certainly, but they too are taken in their normal sense,
since any “figure of speech depends on the reality of
the literal meaning of the terms
involved.”[xvii] In other words,
even figures of speech can only be understood if you
take the words that describe it in their normal sense.
I would go so far to
say, in fact—and I know I will be severely criticized
for this—that those who hold to a consistent plain,
normal interpretation of Scripture ultimately have a
higher view of the authority and sufficiency of
Scripture than those who hold any other view of
interpretation. Those who
allegorize and spiritualize Scripture have no qualms
about adding their own thoughts, ideas, creeds, or
methods to Scripture. Why should they? After all, if it
doesn’t mean what it says, then it can mean anything.
It’s the student who holds the view that “words mean
something” who will have the higher view of
Scripture.
What truly matters
in Biblical interpretation can be boiled down to a
single principle: What does the text say? When we
study Scripture according to its language, context, and
comparison to Itself (analogia
scripturae, “the analogy of
Scripture,” i.e. comparing Scripture with
Scripture[xviii]), we allow the
Scripture to interpret Itself. When we do that,
Scripture interprets Itself. The old adage, “Well,
that’s just your interpretation,” is a smoke screen to
hide from the Truth of what the text says. Our motto
must be, What does the text say?—not, “What do
you think it says?” Or “How does it make you
feel?”—rather, what does It say? If we ignore this principle, we are headed for
disaster.
As a reminder of
this, I framed and hung a small sign on one of the walls
in my study. It has five large letters on it: WDTTS?
(What Does The Text
Say?). It is the text of
God’s Word that drives me to know Truth. It is that
alone to which I am
committed.
Second, the dispensational approach answers the need of
a philosophy of history. A philosophy of history simply
seeks to interpret and apply history in a meaningful
way. It does this by first recounting what and
why something happened,
second, interpreting it according to a particular
unifying principle that ties all events together, and
third, demonstrating how this fulfills the ultimate
purpose and goal of history.
Dispensationalism
best accomplishes this because it views the ultimate
goal in human history to be the
earthly Millennial Kingdom, which demonstrates the
sovereignty of God over human
history.[xix] It also does this
because it views the unifying
principle of history as being
God’s glory, as His glory is exhibited in the differing
ways that He manifests Himself in the various
dispensations.[xx]
Third, the dispensational approach answers the need
for Biblical distinctions. This simply means that there
are distinctions in Scripture
that must be recognized and understood. The most basic
distinction in Scripture, for example, is between the
Old Testament and the New. Without an understanding of
this distinction, the Bible is incomprehensible.
Dispensationalism
understands not only that distinction but others as
well, most significantly, the Jew, the
Gentile, and the Church.[xxi] I Corinthians 10:32, for
example, specifically mentions these three groups by
name. In a context about Christian liberty, Paul says
that our liberty should never become license to offend
any other believer, whether Jew, Gentile, or [a member
of] the Church. The fact that he mentions Jews as
separate from the Church is a clear indication that
Israel was not replaced by the New Testament church but
remains distinct in this age. In other words, there are
unsaved Jews, and there are unsaved Gentiles, but some
from both groups are made one in Christ’s Body, the
Church.[xxii]
So, as
Scripture clearly demonstrates, God has different ways
of “managing” His plan and purpose from age to age. We
shall see why He has done so later in our study, but for
now we actually see seven dispensations in Scripture;
that is, there have been (and will be) seven specific
ways in which God has (and will) deal with man. To
better understand our present text—If ye have heard of
the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me
to you-ward—let us
briefly describe these dispensations. We do so for
a very special reason, namely, when we understand this
overview of human history, we will then understand what
God will ultimately do in that human history, which is
the earthly, millennial reign of Jesus
Christ.
First, the
Dispensation of Innocence covered the time from the
creation of man to the fall of man (Gen. 1:28-3:24). God
dealt with man according to innocence; that is, God made
man with no knowledge of sin. Does God still work this
way? Of course not. That is why we recognize
distinctions in Scripture. Even in this perfect
condition, however, man still disobeyed God’s command
not to eat of the forbidden tree and was judged for
it.
Second, the
Dispensation of Conscience lasted from the fall to the
flood (Gen. 4-8:14). God dealt with man according
to man’s conscience; each man “knew good and evil”
(3:22) and was to respond to God through promptings of
his conscience and in that response was to bring blood
sacrifice (4:4-7). We have many today who say, “Oh, just
let your conscience be your guide,” but if we allow
this, we will fail God every time. Indeed, God is no
longer dealing with man in this way. Our guide must not
be our conscience; rather, our guide must be the Word of
God! Man failed miserably in that dispensation and God
judged severely through the universal
flood.
Third, the Dispensation of Human Government lasted
from the flood to the Tower of Babel (Gen. 8:15-11:9, or
32 if you include the genealogy). In that age God
allowed man to govern himself and in so doing establish
God’s name. But man in no way established God’s
name; rather he established his own
name and built a tower to
symbolize it (11:4). God judged man by confounding the
language, which in turn scattered the people over
all the Earth.
Fourth, the
Dispensation of Promise (or the Patriarchs) covered the
time from the Tower of Babel to Israel’s arrival at
Sinai (Gen. 11:10-Ex. 19:2). God dealt by giving His
formed nation the promised land as long as they remained
in it. But they disobeyed by going to Egypt where God
allowed them to be enslaved as
judgment.
Fifth, the Dispensation of the Law began with the
giving of the Mosaic Law (Ex. 19:3), has been
interrupted by the Church Age, and will conclude at the
close of the Tribulation Period. This is often a
misunderstood dispensation. God dealt in this age by
giving specific laws for men to follow; they were to
keep all the Law (Jas. 2:10). Many say that this
dispensation ended at Pentecost, that is, at the
beginning of the Church Age (Acts 2:1). But this is not
accurate; the dispensation of Law did not end,
but rather was interrupted.
The Church Age, as we’ll see in a moment, must be viewed
as a parenthesis.
In other words, God
dealt with the Jews according to the 613 commandments of
the Mosaic Law, which covered every aspect of life, He
then interrupted this to “visit the nations [Gentiles]
to take out of them a people for His name [the Church]”
(Acts 15:14), and will return to His dealing with the
Jews during “Daniel’s 70th Week,” the Tribulation
Period. God’s people failed God’s test miserably,
breaking God’s Law repeatedly (Jer. 31:32; Ezek. 16; cf.
Rom. 10:1-3) and were judged several times throughout
the economy, especially the captivities in Babylon and
Assyria.
Sixth, the
Dispensation of Grace (or the Church) lasts from
Pentecost to the Rapture of the Church (Acts 2:1 through
Rev. 4:l). Again, this age is parenthetical; it is
unique. God is now dealing according to the finished
work of Christ on the cross. But, as always, the
majority of men will fail and God will
judge.
Seventh, the Dispensation of the Millennium (Latin
mille, “1,000,” and annum, “year”) will last from the Second Coming of
Christ to the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev.
20). During that marvelous time God will deal according
to Christ’s rule on the earth; He will rule with a “rod
of iron” (19:15) and reign for a thousand years (20:4,
6). The result will, of course, be that man will fail as
he follows Satan (who is loosed for a time at the close
of the Millennium,
20:7-8).
It is singularly important
to point out that one of the capstones of Covenant
Theology is a rejection of a literal Millennium, in
favor of either Amillennialism[xxiii] or
Post-Millennialism.[xxiv] As I meditate on
this fact, I am troubled. With a wave of an allegorical
hand, Covenant Theology dismisses prophecies that speak
of literal Kingdom
Without going into
detail, it can be stated with certainty that, regardless
of what anyone might say to the contrary, there is
absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the prominent
position of the Early Church from the first to the third
century was that of Premillennialism, the view that
states that the Lord Jesus will return to the Earth to
establish His literal, physical, political reign over
the whole Earth for 1,000 years. As the renowned
19th Century Church historian Philip Schaff
wrote:
The most striking point in the
eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent
chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a
visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen
saints for a thousand years, before the general
resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the
doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of
devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished
teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and
Lactantius.[xxv]
How significant that is!
Oddly, however, Covenant theologians do not consider
this to be at all significant. With this fact
established, we are forced to ask the question, “While
in the first three centuries after the Apostolic Age
most students of Scripture held to the future
establishment of Christ’s literal Kingdom, what happened
to change it?”
Among other reasons, one
major reason for the drift away from a premillennial
view in the third and fourth centuries was the theology
of Alexandrian teacher Origen (c. 185-c.254). He became
enamored with pagan Greek philosophy and was strongly
influenced by its dualism, which taught that matter is
evil and only the nonphysical is good. This resulted in
his viewing a literal, physical kingdom with physical
blessings as evil and prompted him to develop the idea
of a spiritual kingdom where Christ simply rules
presently in the hearts of believers, which is the
definition of Amillennialism. What is the root of
Amillennialism? Pagan dualism. Does this not put
Amillennialism in a whole new light? What is the matter
with evangelicals that they would believe such a
view?
We should also note that
for similar reasons, Augustine (354-430) also rejected
Premillennialism. Not only did Greek philosophy
influence his thinking, but his own immoral living
before his conversion did as well and drove him toward
asceticism and the rejection of literal, physical, and
therefore “carnal,” Kingdom blessings. Like many today,
Augustine “experience” effected his theology.
Another major reason
for the shift was Origen’s new method of interpreting
the Bible, called the Allegorical or Spiritualizing
Method, which looks at words as symbols of something
else besides the normal meaning of the words. In essence
then, the interpreter, no matter how sincere his motives
or godly his aims, can make the text say whatever he
wants it to say. Origen did just that and ended up in
several heresies, such as rejection of a physical
resurrection and universal salvation for all men and
even fallen angels. The potential apostasy of this
kind of interpretation cannot be
overemphasized.[xxvi]
To illustrate, how many
so-called “Bible study groups” have spawned heresy?
Popular today is the practice of people getting together
without qualified leadership and just “sharing.” Someone
will read a verse and then ask the group, “What do you
think that means? How does it strike you? How does it
make you feel?” But all that is irrelevant. What matters
is what the text says in its plain, normal
meaning.
Looking at another side of
this, however, are those who allegorize Scripture in
another way, one of the chief areas of which is again
the interpretation of prophecy. One example is how some
fanciful interpret Revelation 9, where we find the
description of the plague of locusts that sting like
scorpions, which will inflict mankind during the
Tribulation Period. One commentator writes about his
Vietnam veteran friend who thought this has to be
describing Cobra attack helicopters and that the torment
of the sting will be nerve gas sprayed from the
aircraft’s tail. The commentator admits that this might
be “conjecture” but that it does “fit the composite
description.”[xxvii]
Another commentator writes
that these locusts may be of the insect or animal
variety, but that they might be men with jet packs
strapped to their backs, who emit a chemical substance
from a canister that inflicts a painful sting.[xxviii]
Still another commentator
says that the old opinion of this being B-29 bombers
that sting from their tail (because of the tail guns) is
“fanciful,” but then turns right around and says they
are “spirit-beings who probably will not be seen by men,
but whose effects will be strongly felt.” He continues
by saying that “they are not to be taken literally, nor
symbolically, but spiritually.”[xxix]
May we ask these
men, What’s wrong with the plain interpretation that
this plague will be a literal plague of locusts that
sting like scorpions? Why ignore Revelation 9:5 that
plainly says the plague will last 5 months, which is the natural
life-span of locusts? Compare
these fanciful interpretations with that of rock solid
expositors, such as William Newell, who not only brings
out what we’ve noted here, but who also has this to say
about other “interpretations:”
Now no one who believes the Bible
has any trouble believing the record of that last
plague. Nor has any one any right to have
any difficulty about the terrible locust plague of
Revelation 9. It is because of the fog of
unbelief, and the super-fog of
“historical interpretation,” that this passage has
been considered “hard to understand.” If we do not believe that God
means what He so plainly and explicitly says in
Revelation 9, let us say we do not
believe it, and be honest. But let us not dare to bring
in vain imaginations and call them interpretations of
Scripture.[xxx]
All this is a vivid
illustration of allegorizing and spiritualizing
Scripture. This kind of Biblical interpretation is
dangerous because it allows every person to think of
something different. Was this God’s intention? Certainly
not! It matters not what we think Scripture
means, rather what It really does mean according to the plain language of
Scripture.
Spiritualizing Scripture
is also a common practice among preachers. I recently
read about the pastor who preached on Jericho. He told
how God gave the Israelites the city, how they marched
around the city seven times, and how the walls fell
down. His “application” of this truth was that if a
young man believed God had given him a girl, he could
claim her, march around her seven times, and the walls
of her heart would fall down! Believe it or not, that
couple (and other couples) got married on that basis,
but as you might expect, marital problems came soon
after.[xxxi] Other preachers are
“hyper-typers,” teaching such things as each pillar of
the temple having a deeper symbolic meaning.
Does this mean that
the Bible never speaks figuratively? Of course not. But when Scripture
is used figuratively, It makes it plain that It is doing
so. When Paul writes about
putting on the “armor of God” (Eph. 6:11-17), for
example, he makes it very plain that this is figurative,
illustrative language. Certainly, the Word of God is not
a literal sword, but It is our only offensive weapon (as
was the soldier’s sword), and It is used in much the
same way. Hebrews 4:12 gives us the same analogy, saying
the Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword,
cutting through pretense, and discerning not only our
thoughts but even our very intentions.
The late Dr. David Cooper
summed up the matter very well when he said:
When the plain sense of Scripture
makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore; take
every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal
meaning unless the facts of the immediate context,
studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic
and fundamental truths, indicated clearly
otherwise.[xxxii]
Again, the main reason
many shy away from a plain interpretation of the Bible
is to escape what It demands. As we’ll see in the
chapters that follow, taking the Bible plainly is
demanding. The Word of God has something to say about
every aspect of human life; It leaves nothing to chance
and never leaves us to “decide for
ourselves.”
Coming back to the
term “Millennium,” with an allegorical approach, even
the prefix mille (1,000)
becomes meaningless, for it no longer means 1,000,
rather an indefinite period of time. The Amillennialist
really should call himself something else entirely, such
as the concocted Latin word, Multiennialist, and refer
to his doctrine as Multiennialism (“many years”). If one
is going to allegorize a new doctrine into existence, he
might as well create a new word for
it.
Try as I may, I just
do not understand why some evangelicals practice a
plain, normal, literal interpretation of Scripture in
most areas of doctrine except
Eschatology. As would a student in the classroom, I must
raise my hand and say, “I don’t get it.” It simply makes
no sense. While they believe literal truths such as
Christ’s death and resurrection and many others, when it
comes to Eschatology they just take off into the
mist.
Even less do I understand
why any evangelical would hold to Amillennialism, for
not only is it the result of allegory, but it is also
the historical and present position of Roman
Catholicism, which it adopted directly from Augustine’s
confusion.
Consider something
else. What blessings men miss out on by such hopeless
interpretation! How tragic that they reject the truth
that our Lord will come to Earth and rule and reign with
perfect justice (Is. 32:1), that former enemies, such as
Egypt and Israel, will be at peace with each other for
the first time (Is. 19:23-25), and that the whole world
will be at peace as the nations “beat their swords into
plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall
they learn war any more” (Is. 2:4). How sad that they
cannot enjoy the thought that, “The wolf also shall
dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with
the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling
together; and a little child shall lead them” (Is.
11:6-9). How sad that they can’t look forward to the
time when humanity will know great longevity of life
(Is. 65:20-22), and when the Earth will again be as Eden
(Is. 51:3). How sad that they can’t rejoice in the fact
that the Earth will experience more productivity than
its known since the Fall, when “the desert shall
rejoice, and blossom as the rose” and become useful
again (Is. 35:1-7).
Now, we have
reviewed the seven dispensations so that we can ask the
following question: Why has God dealt in seven distinct
ways? This is a very pertinent question, one which gives
great credibility to Dispensationalism. One reason, as
mentioned earlier, is to ultimately show His glory in
each age. I am convinced, however, that there is another
reason, namely: God has dealt in these seven ways to
give man every opportunity to believe, and He uses SEVEN
(the number of “perfection”) so man will have no excuse
when he stands before God in
judgment. For example, no man
will be able to say to God, “Oh, if only I had been
innocent, without the knowledge of sin,” because man
failed that test in the Dispensation of Innocence. No
man will be able to say, “God, if only You would have
given us a perfect ruler who would have told us
everything to do,” because man will fail that test in
the Millennial Kingdom. In every dispensation the
majority of men disobey God’s command; only a small
portion, the “remnant,” obey and receive God’s
reward.
The Term Within Our Text (v.
2)
If ye
have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which
is given me to you-ward:
Every dispensation has a “steward,” a man to whom the
responsibility of carrying out the commands of the
dispensation is given. Notice each of the seven
again:
·
Innocence – Adam
·
Conscience – Noah
·
Human
Government – Noah
·
Promise – Abraham
·
Law –
Moses
·
Grace
(Church) – Paul
·
Millennium – Christ
Therefore, the point
of our text is that Paul was given the greatest
amount of knowledge and responsibility concerning the
present dispensation. This does
NOT mean Paul was the only one who had knowledge of this
age. There were others who knew of this age, but Paul
knew more than anyone else. (We’ll see more of this when
we study the term
“mystery.”)
Specifically then, what dispensation is spoken of
in our text?—the dispensation of
the grace of God. I have
encountered some dispensationalists who do not like to
say, “The Dispensation of Grace.” They prefer the
title “Dispensation of the Church” because “Dispensation
of Grace” makes it sound like this is the only age in
which there has been grace. But this admirable objection
is unnecessary. While it is quite
true
that the basis of salvation is
always grace no matter what dispensation,
there has never been a greater display of grace than
in this age. In fact, the
display of God’s grace in this age is so great that
previous dispensations shrink by comparison. We do not
mean to say that other dispensations were minor or less
important; rather no other dispensation has had God’s
grace so greatly manifested.
We can prove this thought
in a couple of ways. First, this can be proven by just
thinking of the definition of grace. As we examine in
Ephesians 2:7-9, grace can be defined as:
The unmerited favour of God
toward man manifested primarily through the person and
work of Jesus Christ, apart from any merit or works of
man.
So, may we say: yes,
every dispensation is based on grace, but the
primary manifestation of
grace was the finished work of Jesus Christ. No other
display of God’s grace has equaled
that!
If that proof is not
enough, we submit a second. God has never been as close
to man than He is in this age. Let us illustrate by
going through the dispensations again:
·
INNOCENCE – God WITH man
·
CONSCIENCE
·
HUMAN
GOVERNMENT
God TO Man
·
PROMISE
·
LAW:
1.EARLY
– God AMONG men (in the Tabernacle; Ex.
25:8)
2.MIDDLE
– God THROUGH man (as He dealt with and through the
Prophets; Jer. 37:2; Hag. 2:1;
etc.)
3.LATTER
– God AS man (coming of Christ; Jn. 1:14; Phil. 2:7)
·
GRACE
- God IN man (Jn. 14:16-20)
Do you see the
progression? God has progressively come closer and
closer down through the ages, but never has He been as
close as He is in this age, for He is now IN
us.
May we meditate a moment
on John 14:16-20:
And I will pray the Father, and
he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide
with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the
world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither
knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you,
and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I
will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world
seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye
shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in
my Father, and ye in me, and I in
you.
How thrilling! The
words “At that day” can refer only to the coming of the
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the words “ye
in Me” refer to the believer being in the Body of
Christ, the Church. But the focal point is the phrase,
“I in you,” which refers to the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit WITHIN the believer. And it is all because of
grace!
Oh, that we would
see that we live in the greatest age ever known! Once
again this great theme grace is in view. As we have
seen, there is more about grace in Ephesians than in any
other book of Scripture. In fact, this theme is so grand
that it declares that we are now living in the dispensation of
the grace of God.
II. The Term “Mystery” (vs.
3-6)
How that by revelation
he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in
few words,
Whereby, when ye read,
ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of
Christ)
Which in other ages
was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now
revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit;
That the Gentiles should
be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of
his promise in Christ by the gospel:
The second term that
demands our attention is the term mystery. As we did with the term “dispensation,” let us
examine two things.
The Term By
Itself
We examined the
history of the Greek word mystery
(musterion)
back in Chapter 4, so we will not repeat it here.
Rather, let us go deeper into the New Testament usage.
Basically, the New Testament meaning of mystery is, “That which was hidden, now Divinely
revealed.” Kenneth Wuest, however, a noted Greek
scholar, offers a much better one: “A sacred purpose of
God which when uncovered [by God] is understood by the
Spirit-taught believer.”[xxxiii]
That definition is
excellent since just because God has revealed a
truth, that doesn’t mean men automatically
understand it. God must not only uncover a
mystery, He must also explain
it through the Holy Spirit. For example, God
revealed the mystery of the Church to the Apostles
and Prophets, but the Holy Spirit had to give them (and
their hearers and readers) understanding.
Paul further
emphasizes this point by adding the word revelation.
We first encountered this word back in 1:17, where we
saw that the Greek apokalupsis, in the theological sense, speaks of the
uncovering or disclosure of previously hidden things and
that it is the Holy Spirit Who does this. It’s
interesting that while this word is used occasionally in
Classical Greek and the Septuagint in the literal sense,
such as physically uncovering or stripping a person, it
is rarely found in the religious or theological
sense.[xxxiv] Similarly, the
equivalent Latin word revelatio (“revelation”) “was absolutely unknown in
classical Latin,” being “born in ecclesiastical
Latin.”[xxxv]
This illustrates how
dramatic this word was in the New Testament usage. Used
predominantly (but not exclusively) by Paul, it paints
the picture of God majestically revealing Himself to His
creatures. In comparing this word to relatively
synonymous words, Greek scholar Richard Trench
writes:
.
. . apokalupsis is the more comprehensive and
grander word. It depicts the progressive and immediate
unveiling of the otherwise unknown and unknowable God to
His church throughout the ages . . . The world may know
something of God (His eternal power and Godhead) from
the things that are seen . . . (Rom. 1:20). But there is
no apokalupsis except to the
church.[xxxvi]
Most significant are
Trench’s words “the otherwise unknown and unknowable
God.” God must reveal Himself if man is to ever know
Him. Joseph Parker, 19th Century
Congregationalist preacher and contemporary of Charles
Surgeon in London, wrote this about revelation: “After
reading the doctrines of Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle,
we feel the specific difference between their words and
Christ’s is the difference between an inquiry and a
revelation.”[xxxvii] Indeed, man can only ask
questions in his scientific, moral, political,
religious, and philosophic quests, but he can never find
Truth until God reveals it. And where has God revealed
Himself? In dreams, visions, and ecstatic utterances as
some claim today? NO. God has already revealed to us all
that He is going to reveal in His Word and through His
Spirit.
So, there are
several “mysteries” in the New Testament. We examined
one of these back in Ephesians 1:9 (Chapter 4). We found
there the mystery of
bringing man back into fellowship with God. The context
clearly showed how Christ redeemed us and then how God
has now revealed this fact to us. That was something men
could not even begin to imagine. Yes, they were looking
for Messiah, but they had no idea how God would through
Messiah’s one sacrifice save all those who would
believe. In the Old Testament sacrifice, there were
thousands of sacrifices made every year, day after day,
of animals and produce, but Jesus made one sacrifice for
sin. There wasn’t a chair anywhere in sight in the
Temple or Tabernacle sanctuaries because the priest’s
job was never finished, but when Jesus’ work of
redemption was complete and He uttered those words, “It
is finished”
(Jn. 19:30), He “sat down on the right
hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3). All that was a
mystery to the Old Testament
saint, but through Paul God reveals it to spirit-taught
believers in this age.
Further, the Old
Testament saint could never have conceptualized how Jews
and Gentiles would be made one. Yes, God said that
through Abraham, all nations would be blessed (Gen.
13:1), but how He would accomplish that was hidden,
until now. This leads us right to the use of
mystery here in our text.
The Term
Within Our Text (vs. 3-6)
How that by revelation
he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in
few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my
knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages
was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now
revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of
the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by
the gospel:
The mystery of
the Church is, without question, the most vivid and
dramatic mystery revealed in the New Testament, and this short
passage is the most vivid explanation of it. We find
here four facts concerning the mystery of the
Church.
First, what
the mystery is: That the Gentiles
should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and
partakers of his promise in Christ by the
gospel (v. 6). We look at this verse first
for the sake of clarity and immediate understanding. In
short: The previously hidden truth that is now
Divinely revealed is that Jew and Gentile are now one in
Christ. How marvelous this is!
Both Jew and Gentile equally inherit salvation and the
blessings it brings; both are equal members in the Body
of Christ. Such an idea was so far beyond conception
that a Gentile would of thought it laughable and a Jew
would have thought it repugnant. In his commentary on
Ephesians, John MacArthur well states how radical this
idea was:
. . . it is
difficult for us to realize how incredibly revolutionary
that truth was to Jews of Paul’s day. In spite of the
fact that the Old Testament teaches that Gentiles will
be blessed by God (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14), that
Gentiles will bless God (Psalm 72), that the Messiah
will come to Gentiles (Isa. 11:10; 49:6; 54:1–3;
60:1–3), that they will be saved by the Messiah (Hos.
1:10; Amos 9:11ff.), and that they will receive the Holy
Spirit (Joel 2:28–29), the idea of including Gentiles in
one body with Jews was the spiritual equivalent of
saying that lepers were no longer to be isolated, that
they were now perfectly free to intermingle and
associate with everyone else as normal members of
society. In the minds of most Jews, their spiritual
separation from Gentiles was so absolute and so right
that the thought of total equality before God was
inconceivable and little short of
blasphemy.
But Paul goes to great
lengths to demonstrate that this is precisely what God
has done in Christ. He has brought an unthinkable unity
through the Savior’s blood.
Once again Paul uses
incredibly descriptive and significant words. In the
original, the three terms fellowheirs, of the
same body, and partakers
all begin with the same Greek prefix, a fact that is, of
course, missed in any English translation. The prefix is
sun, which means “together, together with”
implying a close connection. The first root word, then,
is kleronomos,
which means “an heir, a sharer by lot.” When the prefix
is added (sugkleronomos), the meaning is “a joint heir, a
joint-participant.” This word appears in Hebrews 11:9
where Isaac and Jacob are said to be heirs with Abraham.
We also find it in I Peter 3:7, where wives are said to
be “heirs together” with their husbands of grace. This
was especially significant, for in every religion on
earth, except Biblical Christianity, the woman is
inferior to the man in every way. It is Christianity
that makes men and women truly equal. While there are
differing roles and responsibilities, spiritually they
share exactly the same position, privilege, and
prize.
So Paul is telling
the Ephesians that they are fellowheirs with Jews, equal in spiritual blessings and
inheritance. As Paul has said previously, Gentiles were
once “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers from the covenants” (2:12), but now have the
same spiritual “riches” (1:18), “inheritance” (1:11, 14,
18), and “blessings” (1:3).
The root behind the
phase of the
same body is somos
or soma, meaning “body, an organized whole made up of
parts and members.”[xxxviii] When the prefix is
added, the result is sussomos, which is found only here in the New Testament
and which some believe Paul actually invented to further
make his point,[xxxix] pictures all the
parts belonging to and together in the
same body. If being fellowheirs
is not enough to convince his readers of this amazing
unity, being of the same
body certainly is. As
Martyn Lloyd-Jones writes:
This is what demolishes all
attempts to perpetuate a distinction between the Jew and
the Gentile. It is not, says Paul, that the Gentiles are
simply added on somewhat loosely; they are compacted
together as joints together in the same body, and no one
joint is more “in the body” than any other
joint.[xl]
Finally, the root
behind partakers
is metochos, meaning partaking of something or
participating in something. It’s also used to speak of a
partner, as in Luke 5:7, where Peter and the others in
his boat had so many fish in their net that “they
beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other
ship, that they should come and help them.” When the
prefix is added (summetochos), the idea is intensified that we are “partners
together.” How can we be more together than being
partners? Think of it this way: yes, two people might be
in a business partnership, but are they always together
in their thinking, totally unified on every issue? Here,
however, we are “partners together.” This word appears
only one other place in Scripture, here in Ephesians, in
fact, where Paul tells us that we are not to be
“partakers with” (or participants in) the actions and
attitudes of “the children of disobedience”
(5:3-7).
So, as Paul goes on
to write, we are partakers,
participants, and partners of his promise in
Christ by the gospel. As I studied this
phrase, I became distressed at how many commentators and
expositors miss a fine point of truth because of their
misguided reliance on the Critical Text. Even though the
overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts contain the
word autou (third person personal masculine
pronoun meaning “of him”) for the word his, the Critical Text (and therefore modern
translations) omit it on the basis of only four
so-called “older manuscripts.”[xli] The reason it is
there is to show whose promise is being referred to,
namely, his, that
is, God’s Old Testament promise of salvation even
for Gentiles (Gen. 12:3; Is. 42:1-4; 49:5-6; 56:3-8).
His
promise was then realized in Christ
and accomplished by the
gospel, that is, faith
and trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross to
save men from their sin.
These three terms
are further underscored by another subtlety in the
Greek. The so-called “older manuscripts” (and,
therefore, the Critical Text and modern translations)
create another problem, this time by actually
inserting a word. On the basis again of only four
manuscripts, they insert the word “Jesus” after Christ
while the overwhelming majority of Greek
manuscripts omit the word
“Jesus,”[xlii] as does our
Authorized Version. Does this difference really
matter?-YES. Some insist that “Jesus” should be
present. They maintain that if it is omitted, then Paul
is saying that Gentiles are fellow partakers of the
Messianic promises, which they say is not true. In other
words, “Jesus” should be inserted to differentiate
between Jew and Gentile; not only should we have
Christ,
which is distinctly Jewish, but we should also have
“Jesus,” which is typically Gentile. May we submit,
however, that this view is not accurate because it
totally reverses what Paul has been saying. “Jesus”
should not be in the verse because Paul’s
emphasis is that Jew and Gentile are one; no differentiation is needed or even desirous.
Paul has gone to great lengths in previous verses to
show the unity, oneness, and lack of distinction of Jew
and Gentile. Both are going to share future blessing in
the Millennium. In fact, the Church will rule with
Christ and will dwell in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2,
9-10). Even Old Testament prophecy declares that through
Israel all nations would be blessed, and it is through
the Church, the Body of Christ, that this blessing will
come.
Second, the
mystery of the Church was never known before this age:
Which in
other ages was not made known unto the sons of
men (v. 5a). There are many well-meaning
brethren today who wish to view the Church as an Old
Testament reality; some view Israel as part of the
Church; some even trace it back to John the Baptist and
say that he was “the first Baptist.” But Paul clearly
declares that before this age—that is, the Dispensation
of the Grace of God—no one knew the truth of the
mystery. Yes, there were “foreshadowings” of the
Church in the Old Testament. For, example, God promised
Abraham (Gen. 12:3) that through him all nations would
be blessed, but neither Abraham nor anyone else at that
time new the full meaning of that promise; no one knew
how God would accomplish that feat. Isaiah also
predicted, “I [Jehovah]will also give thee for a light
to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto
the end of the earth” (Is. 49:6). But again, no one, not
even Isaiah, knew the full meaning of this prophecy; no
one knew, or could have even dreamed, that there would
be something in the future called “the Body of Christ.”
In fact, if it had been possible for someone to tell the
Old Testament Jews of the oneness of Jew and
Gentile, they would have been shocked beyond
belief. We can say this because they
were shocked when the
Apostles and Prophets told them.
So, this truth of
the Church was hidden before this present age. This is
the point of the words “as it is now revealed.” These
words show that the Church was hinted at in
foreshadowings but was never revealed in
reality.
Third, Paul
was given the most knowledge of the mystery: by revelation he made
known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few
words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my
knowledge in the mystery of Christ) (vs.
3-4). Some hold that the phrase as I wrote before in
few words refers to a
previous letter of Paul that is no longer in
existence.[xliii] But there is no
evidence to indicate this, nor is there really any
reason for such a view. Rather, these words refer to
what Paul has previously written in
this letter (2:11-16).
In modern language, for example, we might say, “As I
mentioned earlier.” So, Paul is saying, “When you read
these words, along with those I’ve already written, you
will understand the knowledge I have been given.”
Without argument, Paul was given more knowledge of the
Church than anyone else, more knowledge of the offices,
government, ministry, ordinances, discipline, and
everything else. This thought leads to one other
point.
Fourth,
others were also given the knowledge of the mystery, not
just Paul: as it is now revealed
unto his holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit (v. 5b). We are not going to elaborate
on this point because a thorough examination of it
appears in an appendix at the end of this book.
But, briefly, there is a view that says
only Paul had the knowledge
of the mystery of the Church. Moreover, they say that
this revelation is only here in Ephesians and the other
Prison Epistles. Therefore, since the revelation is only
in these Epistles, and since Paul didn’t write these
until his imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28), then this
means that the Church didn’t exist until Acts 28. This
dangerous theory is called
“Ultra-dispensationalism.”
But this cannot be.
Right here in our text we see that “Apostles and
Prophets” are in the plural showing that others
received the knowledge of the mystery as well as Paul.
In fact, as we studied back in 2:11 (Chapter 16), Peter
received this knowledge before Paul in his vision
of the sheet with clean and unclean animals (Acts 10);
that was a clear picture of what the mystery is—the
unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ’s Body. We also
recall the words of the Lord Jesus at Saul’s conversion,
“Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4), as
well as Paul twice admitting that he persecuted “the
Church” (I Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13).
Ultra-dispensationalism answers this by saying there
were two churches in Acts—one Jewish and one Gentile—but
Jesus’ words, “My body,” make the fact clear that there
has always been only one. This has been Paul’s
emphasis in Ephesians 2 and 3—unity of Jew and
Gentile in ONE BODY.
Romans 16:25-27,
where Paul writes of “the
revelation of the mystery,” is
devastating to this theory as it was written 2 to 3
years before Ephesians.[xliv] Likewise, I Corinthians
12:12-14, which speaks of the unity of Jew and Gentile
in one body, was written 3 to 4 years before Ephesians.
The same is true of Galatians 3:26-29.
Well, enough of
that. May we conclude: Paul knew more about
the mystery, but others still knew of the
mystery.
There we have the
meaning of the mystery. How marvelous is this age
in which we live. We now know and experience a reality
never known, experienced, or even imagined before this
age. In closing, may we ponder the “heading” of
Ephesians 3—“The Believer’s Rank in God’s
Program.” What is our rank? We all are of EQUAL RANK;
we are all equal members of the Body of
Christ. And, once again, it all
has been accomplished by the blood of our dear
Savior.
[iii] John Gerstner,
Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of
Dispensationalism (Brentwood,
TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), pp. 150, 262.
[iv] There have been
several misleading and misrepresentative statements,
such as: “[Dispensationalism] finds its beginnings with
J. N. Darby in the last of the nineteenth century in
England” (Richard P. Belcher, A Comparison of
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
[Southbridge, Massachusetts, 1986], p. 2). Even worse:
“Dispensationalism arose in the early nineteenth century
in Great Britain within the Brethren movement” and “is a
fairly new development in theology” (Keith Mathison,
Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of
God? [Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995] pp. 10, 11).
While the latter author mentions the Early Church Father
evidence we mention in the text (though conveniently
dismissing it out of hand, calling it “irrelevant,” p.
12), he fails to mention at all the later history prior
to Darby.
[v] “For if one should
wish to ask you why, since Enoch, Noah with his sons,
and all others in similar circumstances, who neither
were circumcised nor kept the Sabbath, pleased God, God
demanded by other leaders, and by the giving of the law
after the lapse of so many generations, that those who
lived between the times of Abraham and of Moses be
justified by circumcision, and that those who lived
after Moses be justified by circumcision and the other
ordinances — to wit, the Sabbath, and sacrifices, and
libations, and offerings . . .” (The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. 1; Ages Digital
Library, Ch. 92, p. 473.)
[vi] “. . . the
Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by
the Lord. For this reason were four principal
(katholikai) covenants given to the human race:
one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that
after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of
the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates
man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the
Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the
heavenly kingdom.” (The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. 1; Ages Digital
Library, p. 852.) While he did not call these
“dispensations” here, he used the term elsewhere, such
as: “it was according to the divine will and
dispensation that this [serpent] spake with a human
voice to Eve” (p. 1139). Elsewhere he speaks of those
who “were indeed ignorant of the meaning of the
Scripture and the dispensation of God” (p. 944), as well
as those who “will find in our dispensation, that ‘many
are called, but few chosen’” (p. 955). Even more
significant, he wrote that the Word “[revealed] God to
men through many dispensations, lest man, failing away
from God altogether, should cease to exist” (p. 973). We
could go on.
[vii] As A. C. Coxe
writes, “It is important to observe that ‘the
patriarchal dispensation,’ as we too carelessly speak,
is pluralized by Clement. He clearly distinguishes the
three patriarchal dispensations, as given in Adam, Noah,
and Abraham; and then comes the Mosaic.” (The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2;
Ages Digital Library, p. 956.)
[viii] The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, First series, Volume
1; “Letters of Augustine,”
Letter 138 to Marcellinus, section 5; Ages Digital
Library, p. 960. Consider also: “If it is now
established that that which was for one age rightly
ordained may be in another age rightly changed,—the
alteration indicating a change in the work, not in the
plan, of Him who makes the change, the plan being framed
by His reasoning faculty, to which, unconditioned by
succession in time, those things are simultaneously
present which cannot be actually done at the same time
because the ages succeed each other” (Section 8, p.
961).
[ix]
Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966,
1995), p. 65. This is considered a classic work on the
subject. Also recommended is Renald E. Showers’ book,
There Really Is a Difference
(Bellmawr NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry,
Inc., 1990).
[x] His six-volume
systematic theology, L’ Śconomie
Divine, was published in
Amsterdam in 1687, and was then translated into English
and published in London in 1713.
[xi] Mathison, p. 13 (emphasis
in the original).
[xii] Significantly,
renowned Covenant Theologian Louis Berkhof admits, “In
the Early Church Fathers the covenant idea is seldom
found at all.” To prop up the system anyway, he goes on
to add, “Though the elements which it includes, namely
the probationary command, the freedom of choice, and the
possibility of sin and death, are all mentioned.” But
honesty reigns supreme when he reports that the system
was not yet developed in the time of the Reformers and
that Kasper Olevianus (1536-1587) “was the real founder
of a well developed federal theology, in which the
concept of the covenant became for the first time the
constitutive and determinative principle of the entire
system.” (Systematic Theology; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939,
1941, pp. 211-212.)
It’s interesting that while the famous Westminster
Confession of Faith of 1647 became the first
statement of faith to refer to Covenant Theology, it was
still not fully developed until later in that century.
It’s also significant to compare the Westminster with
The London Baptist Confession of Faith of
1689. While the latter is based
on the former, the latter removes the whole concept of
the so-called “Covenant or Works,” which forms the basis
for Covenant Theology (compare Chapter 7 of both
confessions).
[xiii]
Dispensationalism, pp. 16-20,
79-104. I take the liberty of changing the order of
precedence and developing them a little
differently.
[xiv] The Story of the New
International Version (East
Brunswick, NJ: International Bible Society, 1978), pp.
12-13.
[xv] We would here
recommend an important book on this issue from an
important publisher, Robert Martin’s Accuracy of
Translation (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust,
1989), in which the author examines “the primary
criterion in evaluating Bible versions with special
reference to the NIV.” (I would add, however, that I do
not agree with the author’s position on the Textus
Receptus in Appendix
C.)
[xvi] This is admitted
even by amillennialists, such as Floyd Hamilton: “Now we
must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the
Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of
an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist
pictures. That was the kind of kingdom that the Jews of
the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a
literal kingdom interpretation of the Old Testament
promises.” (The Basis of Millennial Faith [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942], p. 38; cited in Ryrie,
Dispensationalism, p.
83.
[xvii] Ryrie,
Dispensationalism, p.
81.
[xviii] This is further
explained by the principle: Scripturam ex Scriptura
explicandam esse (“Scripture is to be explained by
Scripture”). This principle is related to another:
Analogia Fide (“Analogy of
Faith,” i.e., Bible doctrine is to be interpreted in
relation to the basic message of the Bible, which is the
Gospel, the content of faith, or simply “The Faith” (cf.
1 Cor.2:13, 15:1-4).
[xix] In contrast, Covenant
Theology views the ultimate goal as the eternal state.
But this is contradictory because “history” has to do
with what God is doing in the physical world, not in
eternity.
[xx] Surprisingly, Covenant
Theology views the unifying principle as the “Covenant
of Grace,” that is, God’s plan of salvation for men. But
while we do not discount salvation, it is secondary to
the infinitely superior principle of God’s glory. In
other words, the main theme of Scripture is not
salvation (how arrogant to think it is!), rather it is
God’s glory.
[xxi] In contrast,
Covenant Theology recognizes no such distinctions. This
results in some odd and confusing ideas, such as
prophecies given to Israel now apply to the Church. Odder still
is the silly notion of the existence of the Church
(Christ’s Body!) in the Old Testament.
[xxii] It’s interesting that
Covenant writers, with a wave of their hand, dismiss
such teaching by just calling it “irrelevant” (e.g.,
Mathison’s comments on Charles Ryrie, p. 22-23). Is not
such argumentation a little weak? How is a verse that
mentions three distinct groups not relevant to a
discussion of distinctions?
[xxiii] “The view which
states that there will be no literal, political Kingdom
of God on this earth. The future Kingdom of God foretold
in such passages as Daniel 2 and 7 is totally spiritual
in nature. It consists either of the Church of this age
or of Christ’s present rule from Heaven over the hearts
of believing human beings or the future eternal state.
When Christ returns to earth in His Second Coming, there
will be a general resurrection of all the dead, a
general judgment, the end of this present earth, and the
immediate beginning of the future eternal state”
(Showers, There Really is a
Difference!).
[xxiv] “The view which states
that Christ will return to this earth after the
Millennium or Kingdom of God. There will be a literal
Kingdom of God on this earth, but it will not be
established through the supernatural intervention of
Christ into history at His Second Coming. Instead, it
will be established through human efforts, such as man’s
expanding knowledge, his new discoveries and inventions,
his increasing ability to exercise dominion over nature,
and the expanding influence of the Church. The Church
has the responsibility to help bring in the Kingdom.
Christ’s Second Coming will occur at the close of the
Millennium as the crowning event of that golden age”
(Showers).
We
defer to others for a discussion of this view. In short,
however, it is, to be frank, indefensible both
Biblically and practically.
[xxv] History of the
Christian Church, Vol. II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1973), p. 614. For example, Justin
Martyr wrote: “But I and others, who are right-minded
Christians on all points, are assured that there will be
a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in
Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and
enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and
others declare . . . And further, there was a certain
man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of
Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to
him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a
thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the
general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and
judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as
our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be
given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the
children of the God of the resurrection’” (The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1; Ages Digital Library,
Chs. 80, 91, pp. 460, 461.) After stating,
“Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church,”
Charles Ryrie provides several quotations in his
excellent work, The Basis for Premillennial
Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux,
1954), pp. 17-33.
While we respect
Louis Berkoff, his statement that “the adherents of this
doctrine were a rather limited number” (The History
of Christian Doctrine; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1937; p.
262) seems to be in error. He puts himself at odds not
only with Schaff but also Adolph Harnack (1851-1930),
Lutheran theologian, Church Historian, and undisputed
authority on Ante-Nicene Church History, who writes:
“First in point of time came the faith in the nearness
of Christ’s second advent and the establishing of His
reign of glory on the earth. Indeed it
appears so early that it might be questioned whether it
ought not to be regarded as an essential part of the
Christian religion” (“Millennium,” Encyclopedia
Britannica, Ninth Edition, p. 314; cited in Showers’
There Really Is A Difference).
Berkoff
also lists Polycarp as one who did not mention this
doctrine, but may we also point out that Irenaeus was
taught by Polycarp, who in turn was trained by the
Apostle John; is it not likely, then, that Irenaeus
learned his premillennial position from
Polycarp?
[xxvi] We do not make this
statement lightly. As F. W. Farrar writes: “Allegory by
no means sprang from spontaneous piety, but was the
child of rationalism which owed its birth to the heathen
theories of Plato. It deserved its name, for it made
Scripture say something else than it really meant . . .
Origen borrows from heathen Platonists and from Jewish
Philosophers a method which converts the whole of
Scripture, alike the New and the Old Testament, into a
series of clumsy, varying, and incredible enigmas.
Allegory helped him get rid of chiliasm and
superstitious literalism and the ‘antitheses’ of the
Gnostics, but it opened the door for deadlier evils”
(History of Interpretation [London: MacMillan,
1886], pp. 193-4, 196; cited in Ryrie, Basic
Theology, p.
111.
[xxvii] Hal Lindsay, There’s A New World
Coming (Santa Ana: Vision House
Publishers, 1973), pp. 138-139.
[xxviii] Salem Kirban and
Gary Cohen, Revelation
Visualized (Chicago: Moody
Press, p. 201.
[xxix] Tim F. LaHaye, Revelation:
Illustrated and Made Plain
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p.
185.
[xxx] William Newell, The Book of the
Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1935), p.
129-131.
[xxxi] Cited in John
MacArthur’s Charismatic
Chaos, p.
90.
[xxxii] Cited in J. Vernon
McGee’s Guidelines for the
Understanding of the Scriptures
(Pasadena: Thru the Bible Books), p.
20.
[xxxiv] Brown, Vol. 3,
pp.310-311, and Detzler, p. 330.
[xxxv] Trench, p. 372 (text and
footnote).
[xxxix] E.g., Wood, p. 46,
Foulkes, p. 102, Lincoln, p. 180.
[xl] The Unsearchable
Riches of Christ, p.
49.
[xli] Hodges and Farstad, pp.
xvii, 586.
[xliii] For example, Calvin and
F. W. Grant.
[xliv] As the Appendix
addresses, the Ultra-dispensationalist explains away
this passage by saying that Paul added it to the
already completed letter when he arrived in Rome prior
to his imprisonment, an obvious invention.
