|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
The Church's one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord:
She is His new creation
By water and the word;
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her,
And for her life He died.
Elect from every nation,
Yet one o'er all the earth,
Her charter of salvation
One Lord, one Faith, one birth:
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.
Samuel John Stone (1839-1900)
As was noted in the preceding chapter and will be developed more fully in the following chapter the same New Testament term, ekklēsia, is used of both the organismic and organizational aspect of the church. While the two concepts are not necessarily co-terminus in practice (there may be some true believers who are not members of a local church and some members of local churches who are not believers) the biblical ideal is that there should be. Consequently, in this discussion the term "church" will be used in a comprehensive sense. If the historical context of the church can be established in any sense it will have been established in every sense.
There is a great diversity of opinion as to the terminus a quo of the church. The views range all the way from Strong [i] who holds that the church "is the whole company of regenerate persons in all times and ages"; to Berkhof [ii], Dabney [iii], and C. Hodge [iv] who place it in the patriarchal period or, more particularly with the Abrahamic Covenant; to Radmacher [v] and Saucy [vi] , and most dispensationalists who place it on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2; to Baker [vii] who relates it to "the ministry of the Apostle Paul before he wrote his first epistle"; to Bullinger [viii] who places it after Acts 28:28. It is believed that the following biblical evidence supports the "day of Pentecost" view.
I. The Church as an Intercalation
One of the very real problems with traditional dispensationalism has been its doctrine of a postponed Kingdom. It has been taught that, having offered the kingdom to Israel during his earthly ministry, and having been rebuffed, Jesus “postponed” the Kingdom (temporarily withdrawing the offer) until the future millennium and instead changed his plan, turning away from Israel to the Gentiles. To avoid the charge of a fickle God, caught unawares, the dispensationalist has appealed to the legitimate hermeneutical principle of “prophetic perspective”. This allows them to say that this change was anticipated in God’s plan all along. Thus they can have their theological cake and eat it, too.
It must be acknowledge that in the unfolding progress of revelation the Old Testament does not give us the full picture of the church and Kingdom that is given in the New Testament. There is clear indication of Messiah’s two advents but little of what would take place in between. This, however, is a far cry from saying that the Kingdom offer to Israel was postponed or temporarily withdrawn. This latter implies, at least, the hypothetical possibility that had the Jews of Jesus’ day accepted Jesus’ offer of the Kingdom (meaning the Messianic Kingdom in fulfillment of the Old Testament covenants) the cross would have been unnecessary. Certainly no dispensationalist makes this claim, but it is a decided weakness in their scheme.
A part of what drives this “postponement” thinking is the refusal of the older dispensationalist to accept the possibility that “Kingdom” relates to both Israel and church. In their valid concern to distinguish the two they have difficulty in allowing for matters they may share in common.
However, granting that Israel and the church are not coterminous does not mean that they cannot share together in a larger common truth, namely, that they are both part of God’s Kingdom purposes. The larger organizing principle of God’s unfolding plan is not Israel and/or church but kingdom which encompasses Israel and church. The several biblical covenants of the Old and New Testament contain promises of God to Israel and church as they carry out his charge to extend his Kingdom. The forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life are shared together since Jesus Christ is Savior of both Jew and Gentile. Both share a common destiny as they anticipate and then dwell together in the heavenly Jerusalem.
In addition, God promised Israel an earthly King and Kingdom which was never promised to the church. As he will be faithful to fulfill his common promises so he will be to fulfill his distinctive promise to Israel. But this, too, is only another step in extending his Kingdom throughout the universe. As the imperfect will give way to the perfect so the temporal Kingdom will give way to the eternal. So, it can be said that the Kingdom has already begun and those who are born again enter it. It can also be said that it has not yet come since Messiah does not yet reign from Jerusalem on this earth, nor does he yet reign forever and ever in the heavenly Jerusalem in the new earth.
But what of the term intercalation? Because it has been used by some postponement theory dispensationalists it has been rejected by others as unacceptable to describe the inter-advent period. According to the dictionary to intercalate is “to add to the calendar”, “to interpolate or insert”. It has nothing to do with parentheses or postponement. We intercalate every four years when a leap day is added to the month of February. This is not a change in plans and nothing is postponed. Leap days are scheduled to bring correspondence between the calendar year and the solar year.
By the same token, the inter-advent period (unexplicated in the Old Testament but given full revelation ins the New) may be viewed as an intercalation, filling in previously undisclosed data in God’s calendar. The momentum of God’s Kingdom purposes are neither hindered nor diverted thereby.
Thus, while the church age is sometimes referred to by dispensationalists as being parenthetical in God’s plan for Israel, it is more accurate to refer to it as an intercalation, that is, as the introduction of a period of time into God’s revealed calendar. One of the dictionary definitions of “parenthesis” is “an episode or incident, often an irrelevant one.”
The implication that may be left by the use of such terminology is
i.That there is no relationship of any kind between what precedes and what follows the church age;
ii.That the parenthetical age is incidental in God’s program; and
iii.That it represents something of a hasty plan B substitute for a failed plan A.
On the other hand, the term “intercalation” allows for the fact that the church age not only is relevant to God’s overall plan but was part of it from the beginning. Thus, in the progress of revelation this age may be viewed as an intercalation but in the eternal purposes of God it was planned from ages past.
The use of this term should by no means be construed as implying that the church is an afterthought, or that it is unrelated to God’s larger purposes. It is merely intended to note that the Old Testament scriptures do not give direct revelation concerning the church. In the setting forth of God’s program for Israel allowance is made for the intercalation of the present church age. The Abrahamic Covenant, in the words “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3), allows for the church in a very general sense.
A. Daniel 9:24-27
This is a prophecy concerning Israel ("your people"--v. 24) involving seventy weeks of years, i.e., 490 years. The period began in 445 B.C. with the first sixty-nine weeks (483 years) being fulfilled literally unto Messiah and his cutting off. The seventieth week has not yet been fulfilled; consequently, there is an interval of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of indeterminate length which is the church age. [ix]
B. Isaiah 61:1-2, cf., Luke 4:16-21
In his reading of the scripture in the synagogue in Nazareth the Lord stopped abruptly in the middle of the passage just before the words "the day of vengeance of our God." In so doing he tacitly recognized a distinction between that yet future event and “the favorable year of the Lord" which he indicates is being fulfilled in their hearing (Luke 4:21). This allows for the events which would transpire between the two advents of Christ.
C. Psalm 22:1-31
Verses 1-21 of this psalm describe the sufferings of Christ on the cross. Verse 22 describes the resurrection. Verses 23-31 refer to the coming kingdom and deliverance of Israel. While not alluded to there is allowance for the present age.
D. Psalm 34:12-101 cf. 1 Peter 3:10-12
In quoting this portion of the psalm Peter stops before the words "to cut off the memory..." so as to distinguish between God's present and future dealings with sin.
E. Hosea 3:4-5
There is an obvious historical gap between verses four and five. "Afterward" points to an indefinite time period during which Israel will wander among the nations of the earth before returning to the Lord.
F. Leviticus 23
An analysis of Israel's festal year reveals a most interesting phenomenon. There are two sets of feasts, one in the spring and one in the fall, with a marked break between them.
|
|
FEAST |
OCCASION |
TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE |
|
Spring (all fulfilled) |
Passover |
Redemption from Egypt |
Death of Christ |
|
First Fruits |
Coming harvest |
Resurrection of Christ |
|
|
Pentecost |
Completed harvest |
Descent of Holy Spirit |
|
|
Fall (as yet unfulfilled) |
Trumpets |
Civil New Year |
Calling Israel back to land |
|
Atonement |
Need of cleansing |
Israel’s future cleansing |
|
|
Tabernacles |
Wilderness wanderings |
Israel’s millennial blessings |
Each of the above cited examples shows that God's program for Israel allows room for the church without nullifying his program for Israel.
II. II. The Church as a Mystery
Further support is given to the fact that the church is a New Testament phenomenon by its "mystery" character.
A. The Definition of "Mystery”
As used in the New Testament the word does not refer to something difficult to understand. Instead, it describes something imparted only to the initiated. Something that is unknown until it is revealed. Romans 16:25-26 sets the parameters of the term, as Paul states that a mystery is something "which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested." Thus it refers to something unknown in the Old Testament but made known in the New.
On the basis of Ephesians 3:5 some claim that the mystery of the church was only partially hidden in the Old Testament. A comparison of this passage with its parallel in Colossian 1:25-26, however, will show that it was not known. Thus, the “as” of Ephesians 3:5 must be understood as a simple declarative rather than as a restrictive or comparative.
B. The Word “Mystery” used of Basic features of the Church
1. The mystery of one body (Eph. 3:1-12)
The fact that there would be both Jews and Gentiles in one body, the church, was previously unknown. Ephesians 2:14-16 corroborates this as the Apostle states that God is doing a new thing. The union of Jews and Gentiles is described as one new man, not a mad-over Israel. Further, the idea that Gentiles would be fellow-heirs with Jew's was something new. In the Old Testament Gentiles are seen as being blessed during the future kingdom age because of their relationship to Israel. They are never set forth, until this point, as fellow-heirs.
2. The mystery of the Body of Christ as an organism (Col. 1:24-27; cf., 2:19; Eph. 4:15-16)
"Christ in you" gives life to the body. In this way the church becomes a living organism. (Note that “you" is plural.) The external manifestation of Christ was anticipated in the Old Testament, but not this special new relationship.
3. The mystery of the bride relationship (Eph. 5:22-33; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2)
While it should be noted that the church is not called a bride in so many words, the figure here employed clearly sets forth the church in such relationship to Christ.
In the Old Testament Israel is described as Yahweh's wife, however, as Radmacher notes, "Whenever the figure of the bride is used in connection with Israel in the Old Testament, it is always an illustration and never as a formal type or figure (cf. Isa. 49:18; 61:10; 62:5; Jer. 2:2; 7:34; 13:11; 16:9; 25:10; Joel 2:16)." [x] Thus, it is not the descriptive term “bride,” or “wife” that is a mystery. Rather, it is the relationship between Christ and believers that is described in Ephesians 5:22-23 that is the mystery. Israel had an intimate national relationship to Yahweh distinct from all the other nations. The church has an intimate spiritual relationship previously not revealed.
4. The mystery of the translation of the church saints (1 Cor. 15:58; cf. 1 Thess. 4:13-18)
The truth of bodily resurrection, discussed in the earlier part of 1 Corinthians 15 was not unknown in the Old Testament. In contrast, the fact that some would be changed to glorified bodies without passing through death was indeed a mystery. This must be a reference to the translation of the saints (the rapture) rather than to the second coming of Christ to the earth since this latter doctrine was revealed in the Old Testament.
III. The Church As A Distinct Body of Saints In This Age
That the church is not to be equated with Israel in any sense in this age is seen from the following consideration.
A. The church and Israel are distinguished within a given passage (1 Cor. 10:32)
B. Even after the church has begun on the day of Pentecost, Israel is repeatedly addressed as a distinct national entity (Acts 2:22; 3:12; 4:10; 5:31, 35)
C. Paul repeatedly distinguishes his “kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” (Rom. 9:3-4) from the church in Romans 9-11 (cf. 9:1-5; 10:1-3; 11: 25-27)
As Saucy remarks “If ‘Israel’ were a reference to the church, the reference to Israel’s blindness in part… until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in’ (11:25) would be meaningless.” [xi]
D. The church is not in any sense fulfilling God's promises to Israel
All his promises to her, whether national, geographical, or spiritual, will yet be realized.
E. When the word “church” is used in the New Testament to refer to the local church or to the Body of Christ it never includes unsaved Israelites nor does it refer to Israel in the Flesh
F. The first use of the term “church” in the New Testament it to be yet future during Christ's earthly" life (Matt. 16:18). The statement, "I will build my church," when spoken was a promise yet to be realized
G. The termini of the church as indicated in the New Testament show that it is distinct to this age.
If as is seen from Matthew 16:18 it had not yet begun during Christ’s earthly ministry, and it is seen to exist shortly after his death and resurrection, the time of its beginning is almost determined without consideration.
1. The church began on the day of Pentecost
a) It could not have existed before Christ's death for it is built upon his finished work (Acts 20:28, cf., Rom. 3:24-27)
b) It could not have existed until after the resurrection because its life and power are dependent upon his resurrection life (Rom. 4:25; Eph. 1:18-20; Col. 3:1)
c) It could not have existed until the ascension for his relationship as head of the church was established in this way (Eph. 1:20-23)
d) It could not have existed until the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost
According to 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, the Body of Christ is constituted by the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. In Acts1:5 this was yet future and by Acts 11:15-16 it is already past. The only significant historical point noted in the biblical record between these two incidents when the Holy Spirit performed a work that would meet these qualifications was on Pentecost (Acts 2). [xii]
2. The church age will come to an end at the Rapture, prior to the seventieth week of Daniel
i. When living and dead saints of this age are removed from this earth the church age will be consummated (1 Cor. 15:50-58; 1 Thess. 4:13-18).
ii. When the hour of testing upon the "earthdwellers" comes and God's promise to the church to keep her from that hour is fulfilled the church age will be consummated (Rev. 3:10-11).
If, as we have proposed, the church is a distinct body of saints in this age this naturally leads to a question regarding those who believe prior to Pentecost. If the people of God in the Old Testament are related to the nation Israel and in the New Testament to the church, "Does this mean that we who are now part of the church will be forever in a separate grouping from the Old Testament believers?" [xiii]
Some have answered this question with an emphatic "yes," insisting that not only will the two groups be forever separate but that the destiny of one group is earth and the other heaven.
Erickson, apparently feeling that such extended separation is inappropriate suggests “that those who were part of Israel prior to Pentecost have been incorporated into the church.” As support for this idea he states, “This certainly seems to have been the case with the apostles. They had been a part of Israel, but at Pentecost became the nucleus of the church.” From this he then extrapolates, "If the Old Testament believers, those who made up true Israel, were saved like us, upon the basis of Christ's redemptive life and death, then they may well have been swept by the event of Pentecost into the same body as the New Testament believers." [xiv] But this conclusion must be questioned on at least two grounds.
First of all, is this the most reasonable conclusion to from apostolic experience, especially since there is no explicit biblical teaching to this effect? It would seem that a simpler and more reasonable explanation of why the apostles became a part of the newly formed church is because of the fact that they were living at that point in history. As Jews they would have messianic expectations and so it was only fitting that they would follow the one whom they finally recognized as Israel’s Messiah when he became the church’s Lord and Head.
A second reason why his suggestion must be questioned is to be found in the fact that scripture does seem to allow for at least some continuing distinction between Old and New Testament saints "even beyond this life. Hebrews 12:22-24 seems to be describing the eternal destiny of the redeemed in “the heavenly Jerusalem.”
Within this great company (which will include angels and the Godhead, as well) at least two groups of believers are distinguished—“the general assembly and church of the first-born” and “the spirits of righteous men made perfect.” The later group seems to be Old Testament saints in light of the statement in Hebrews 11:40, "so that apart from us they should not be made perfect," which refers to the long list of saints enumerated throughout chapter eleven.
If this be the correct interpretation of these passages several answers are provided for us to the question, What of Old Testament saints?
i. They did not become a part of the church at Pentecost.
ii. They are now, and will be in eternity, distinguishable from church saints.
iii. They are not unrelated to church saints since the two groups together will share the blessings of the heavenly Jerusalem as co-participants in the new covenant and co-members of the company of the redeemed (v. 24).
The idea of separate earthly and heavenly destinies is contrary to biblical revelation.
[i] A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 887
[ii] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 570
[iii] R. L. L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 726
[iv] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, 549
[v] Earl D. Radmacher, What the Church is all About, pp. 218-19
[vi] Saucy, op. cit., p. 57
[vii] Charles F. Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p. 496
[viii] E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, p. 204
[ix] For further discussion see Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince; H. A. Ironside, The Great Parenthesis; Alva J. McClain, Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks.
[x] Radmacher, op. cit., p. 306; See also Hosea Chapter 2
[xi] Saucy, op. cit., p. 71
[xii] See L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV, 45-46
[xiii] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, III, 1048
[xiv] Ibid.
|
Copyright © 2007 by
AncientPath Network
and the authors. All rights reserved. |
12.13.07