Colossians 2:16: Did Paul Abolish the Fourth Commandment?

In my dealings with anti-sabbatarians, i. e., those who claim that there is no Christian Sabbath, they almost always bring up Colossians 2:16: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." The claim is that Paul here says that there is no binding requirement for Christians to honor the Sabbath. In general, my response is twofold, first, that it is not at all Pauline to dismiss one of the Ten Commandments so flippantly, and second, that the reference to food, drink, festivals, and new moons, all indicate that Paul is addressing the Jewish ceremonies, not the Sabbath per se. Unless someone wants to claim that Paul also intends to tell us that we don't need to eat food or drink fluids. Anyone want to try that?

However, I also want to add a biblical argument to my logic.

Look at Ezekiel 45:17: "It shall be the prince’s duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel." That prophet uses exactly the same wording in regard to temple ceremonies as Paul uses to the Colossians. Paul's word choices are not random. Rather, by using specific Mosaic terminology, the Apostle expects his readers to understand the same Mosaic ceremonies.

Therefore, I cannot accept the use of Colossians by the anti-sabbatarian, because it is inconsistent with the word usage of Scripture.

Polytheism and the Mormon Hermeneutic

Mormons claim that there are gods other than the God of the Bible. They deny, on the other hand, that their belief makes them polytheists, because they only worship one god. However, even that is not quite true, since they claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct gods, and they worship all three. But that is beside my point.

It is true that the Bible refers to other "gods," i. e., the idols worshiped by pagan nations. Furthermore, it describes them in active, anthropomorphic terms, such as Psalm 97:7: "Worship Him, all you gods!" As when the Bible talks about the body parts of God, Mormons insist that these references are literal. 

However, that assertion runs into trouble when the whole Bible is considered, rather than just isolated prooftexts. 

For example, there is a plain, nonpoetic reference in Jeremiah 2:11: "Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But My people have changed their Glory for that which does not profit." Yes, that prophet tells us, the nations have gods, but they are not real gods. Surely, in a rational hermeneutic, the statements of plain narrative should take precedence over statements in poetry. Yet, that is not the hermeneutic of Mormonism. 

The Physical Resurrection: One Event or Two?

The predominant eschatology among American evangelicals is premillennialism (which has different forms, but that isn't the issue here). One particular way in which premillennialism differs from other schools is in making literal the description of two resurrections (Revelation 20:5-6). According to the premillennial interpretation, the godly dead will be resurrected, then a period of a thousand years will elapse, at the end of which the wicked dead will be raised. Then the premillennialist denies the literal interpretation of other passages that point to a single resurrection.

As I describe here, comparing scripture to scripture gives us good grounds for taking the First Resurrection in a non-literal sense, to refer to regeneration of believers.

So, what of the references to a single, general resurrection?

We can start with Job 14:11-12: "As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep." Without distinguishing between the types of people, he places resurrection at the end of this physical creation, not a thousand years before the end.

And what of the words of Jesus in John 6:40: "This is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Not only does Jesus place the resurrection at the end of history, not a thousand years before the end, but He explicitly tells us that this is the resurrection of the godly, whom the premillennialist claims will have been resurrected for a thousand years by that time.

The premillennialist view in general, and specifically regarding the resurrection, depends on a literal interpretation of a highly-figurative passage, and then forces that interpretation on other, clearer, not-at-all figurative passages in order to maintain its peculiar doctrine. That is just bad hermeneutics, which depends on the clearer passage to interpret the more obscure.

Reprobation Across the Scriptures: Moses to Jesus

In a brief pericope, Jesus says something shocking: "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matthew 12:33-37). The shocking thing is to see the Lord Jesus calling people "brood of vipers," not at all the kind of language which we would expect from the effeminate Jesus of popular Christianity. The same phrase is used for the same people by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:7, and a second time by Jesus in Matthew 23:33. 
 

John the Baptist Preaches

When certain words are repeated by two different biblical figures, especially when one is Jesus, and in different circumstances, it should be taken as an indication that they have special significance. What might it be here?

I think the key is the very first declaration of the Gospel in the Bible (Genesis 3:15): "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." While lacking the clarity that would come with later revelation, we see the distinction between the elect, "the seed of the woman," and the reprobate, "the seed of the serpent." 

Look at that second phrase. Do you see the parallel? Are not "brood of vipers" and "seed of the serpent" equivalent? I think that they are. 

Jesus is demonstrating His omniscience in declaring some of those around Him to be reprobates, to be destined from prehistory to follow Satan, and to be under the judgment of God (compare I Peter 2:8). John the Baptist was not omniscient, of course, but appears to have received special insight to recognize the same thing. They both borrow an image from Moses to address a similar spiritual situation, in which wicked people are demonstrating to which division of humanity they belong.

The Passover and the Salvation of Households

Have you ever had one of those moments when two things you have known forever just seem to come together in a way that seems so obvious now? I just had that experience with two portions of Scripture.

The first is the account of the original Passover (Exodus 12). I am thinking especially of Exodus 12:7: "Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it." An elementary aspect of that verse is the typology of the redeeming sacrificial blood of Jesus, applied to the elect, that the judgment of the Father would pass us by. However, that is not the only thing taught in that sentence. Notice first what it does not say. Nowhere does Moses tell the people to apply the blood to themselves, as if they would be saved from death one by one. Rather, it was applied to the entrance to the house, so that everyone inside was preserved.

Making that connection made me think of some of the words of Peter in the New Testament: "The promise is for you and for your children" (Acts 2:39). We also have the words of Paul to the Philippian jailer: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31). This is not the atomistic view of evangelism that we see in our baptistic society, with one convert here and another there. God's evangelism is directed toward the conversion of whole families. And that shouldn't be news, considering the Exodus account above, and God's promise: "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 53:13).

This is the basis of Paul's encouraging words to Christian parents: "The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy" (I Corinthians 7:14). God isn't primarily concerned about individuals, but rather about families!

The Eternal Begetting of God the Son

One of the erroneous doctrines of Oneness Pentecostalism regarding Jesus is that His sonship began with His incarnation in the womb of Mary. Before that, His preexistence was as the Father. In contrast, orthodox Christians hold that His sonship was eternal. That is, that God the Son has been such from all of eternity.

The most explicit biblical reference to that truth is from Psalm 2:7: "The Lord said to Me, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten You.'" Oneness people cannot deny the reference of this verse, because we have the inspired interpretation of it in Hebrews 1:5, applying it to the Father's message to the Son.

Instead, the Oneness try to avoid the implications of the Psalm by pointing to its use of "today," which, they claim, must refer to a particular time. However, that assertion ignores the use of "today" in the Bible, especially in the Psalms, and as it is adopted in Hebrews. For example, we read in Hebrews 4:7, from Psalm 95:7, "He appoints a certain day, 'Today,' saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, 'Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.'" Here, it occurs three times, "a certain day" and "today" twice. About what day is the Psalmist talking, Oneness apologist? Well, every day, obviously. There is no day when we are allowed to harden our hearts.

Thus, the question about Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5, what day is the Father begetting the Son? Well, every day!

Having had this conversation with Oneness, I know their next quibble is, How can a father beget the same son every day? Of course, merely asking that question reveals what a carnal view they have of God, as if He fathers children like a human father does. Sometimes they will even demand, Well, then, who was His mother? Of course, the first response to that is to point out that their carnal demands are to the author of the Scripture, God Himself, not to me. But then, again, I cannot but notice what a carnal view of God they reveal, acting as if God reproduces, or that deity has parents. That is the Mormon doctrine, not anything that should be expected from the God of the Bible!

The Book of Acts: The Record of Leadership, from Jesus to the Apostles

One of the basic rules of biblical hermeneutics, i. e., the proper interpretation of a document, is that a text must be considered according to the type of literature it is. The Bible contains all of the forms of literature that we see in any other context of written communication, such as poetry, narrative, law, etc. And one form of literature cannot be interpreted the same way as another. Poetry communicates in a way that narrative does not, for example.

The Book of Acts is a book of history, covering a period of about thirty years from the resurrection of Christ to the imprisonment of Paul. It is not primarily a book of doctrine, in contrast to the epistles, or a book of eschatology like the book of Revelation. Rather, it is a description of the historical events that happened at a certain time. Therefore, any doctrine that depends inordinately on Acts as its basis is likely to lead in an unorthodox direction. We see this in the Pentecostal movement, especially in its Oneness aberration. Acts is the Word of God, requiring that any doctrine in it must be infallible. However, to put undue emphasis on doctrinal statements in Acts, without vetting it with the rest of Scripture, will always lead to trouble.

What was Luke's purpose in writing Acts? We see where he gave some indications. Look especially at the first two verses (Acts 1:1-2): "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen." Luke's first book, that which is called by his name, was devoted to the person and direct teachings of Jesus. The second, on the other hand, was dedicated to His leaving and the growth of the new church under the care of His lieutenants, the Twelve Apostles (with Matthias in the place of Judas, and then augmented by His brother James and the converted Paul). So, according to Luke's own words, his intention was to describe a particular historical situation, not to give doctrinal tutoring. And that makes sense, since Luke was the companion of Paul. Paul's ministry was, in part, to develop the theology of the church. Luke, therefore, provides the historical complement to the ministry of Paul.

We immediately see Jesus's carrying out this program in verses 8 and 24 of the same chapter. In Acts 1:8, Jesus gives another version of His Great Commission: "You will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." The rest of the book would be a record of the first steps in the fulfillment of this commission. Verse 24 is the Apostles profession that they understood their offices to be, not an opportunity for power, but rather that same assignment from their Lord. 

We see the continuing development of this post-Jesus church government in chapter 6, where the Apostles this time, not Jesus by direct act, in the appointment of the seven deacons (Acts 6:1-6). The Apostles are now acting in their own authority (under the headship of Christ), a maturing of their sense of responsibility. We see this again in Acts 10:42: "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that He is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead." The Apostles, emboldened by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (chapter 2), now took a personal responsibility for the ministry assigned to them by Christ, on which the rest of the organized church would be built: "The household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20).

The logical conclusion from all of this is that Acts is a book of history, a description of events at a particular point in history, and not (speaking in general) a record of how things are supposed always to be. Compare the Old Testament. Only a lunatic would claim that the command given to Israel to conquer Canaan was intended to be normative for the rest of history. Is each generation of believers supposed to go conquer the land that is now Israel? No. In the same way, the tongues and other miraculous signs of Acts were intended for a particular point in the history of the church, that of its passing from a body in the physical presence of Jesus, to a body spiritually headed by Jesus, but organized by men appointed to that end, as evidenced by special abilities given to them, as Luke himself tells us (Acts 14:3): "They remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands" (see also Mark 16:20, II Corinthians 12:12, and Hebrews 2:3-4).

What Is Baptism with Fire?

Speaking of the coming of Christ, John the Baptist told his audience (Matthew 3:11-12): "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not

John the Baptist

worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will clear His threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire."

We often hear verse 11 quoted, especially by Pentecostals, who claim that it refers to baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire, which is supposed to be what they're doing when they are writhing around spouting gibberish. Notice that they never go on to verse 12, because it shows that their interpretation is merely begging the question, not the actual intention of John.

John says that Jesus will do two things, baptize with the Holy Spirit, and baptize with fire. This is what the Pentecostals try to make into one thing. However, he goes on in verse 12 also to describe two different groups of people, the "wheat," and the "chaff" (compare the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30). The first group He will gather (cp., Matthew 24:31) into the barns, that is, to be kept, while the latter group is intended for fire. Thus the baptism with the Holy Spirit is for the first group, while the baptism with fire awaits the other.

Thus, taken together, the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the baptism with fire are two distinct things, the first for believers and the second for unbelievers.

This is consistent with the rest of Scripture. For example, Paul tells us that all believers, not just some of a special class, are baptized with the Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13, see also John 7:39). We also know from other passages that Jesus Himself described fire as the destiny of unbelievers (Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:42-49).

I think that this simple use of context and the analogy of faith, i. e., comparing one passage to another, demonstrates that the use of this passage is unwarranted, at best. It takes the mere proximity of two words to mean that the two words refer to the same thing. There is no glossolalia taught here.

"Baptism with Fire": What Is It?

In Matthew 3:11 (and the parallel in Luke 3:16), we see a quote from John the Baptist that has always seemed mysterious to me: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." John was making a clear distinction of status between himself and the One who was coming after him, i. e., Jesus. While John was performing an external rite with water, Jesus would do an internal work "with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Pentecostals take the reference as one thing, that "Holy Spirit" and "fire" are appositives, referring to their experiences of tongues, etc. Orthodox Protestants, on the other hand, consider the baptism with the Holy Spirit to be something that happens to every true believer when he is born again. I consider that understanding to be consistent with I Corinthians 12:13: "in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (see also John 7:39).

That phrase, "baptized with the Holy Spirit," occurs several times in the New Testament. We find it in Mark 1:8, John 1:33, Acts 1:5, 11:16, and 18:25. In none of these verse is it paired with "fire," even in the parallel verses in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33.

I think we must take that to mean that "with the Holy Spirit" and "with fire" are not different words for the same thing, but rather references to contrasting things. "Baptism with the Holy Spirit," as Paul indicates, is something that happens to every believer. Then, to whom does the contrasting "baptism with fire" apply?

On whom else does Jesus attribute a pouring out of fire? He mentions Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:29), and unrepentant unbelievers (Matthew 25:41). These verses indicate that "fire" is not used for an extra-spiritual experience of the saved, but rather for judgment on the wicked (compare Mark 9:42-49).

This gives, I think, by analogy of the faith, what John was saying of Jesus: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me will baptize you [believers] with the Holy Spirit and [you unbelievers with] fire." Note that "you" is plural, so he is addressing the whole audience, not anyone in particular. That is why he would have used an inclusive comment. To have spoken as the Pentecostals interpret him would have him to assume that all of his audience was - or would be - believers, which is obviously not the case. Also, look at the verse in both Matthew and Luke, where Jesus makes it explicit: "The chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire."

Is a Literal Hermeneutic Appropriate to Biblical Prophecy?

There is an interesting verse in Hosea, that is, written by a prophet, which gives direction on how prophecy is to be interpreted:

"I [God] spoke to the prophets;
It was I who multiplied visions,
And, through the prophets, gave parables."
- Hosea 12:10

It is on that last line that I wish to focus: "Through the prophets, I gave parables." What is a parable? we have all heard that popular definition: "A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning." A more-technical definition might be, "short stories that teach a moral or spiritual lesson by analogy or similarity." I think the point is the same either way. They are stories told to make a point, not as a narrative of a (necessarily) historical person or event.

In this verse, the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Prophet Hosea (II Peter 1:21), tells us that the prophecies of the Bible, at least in part, are parables. Just as one cannot take the parables of Jesus as literal, neither can you approach the parables of the prophets as literal.Of course, this is a generalization, and some discernment is necessary. Sometimes prophecies are literal, such as the prophecy of the coming of Cyrus, God's means of delivering Israel from her captivity in Babylon (Isaiah 44:28). But this verse from Hosea cuts down the date-setting and charts that are so popular among certain types of evangelical Christians. How does one discern which prophecies are, and which are not to be taken literally? Not by searching the newspaper for some obscure, incidental parallels, but by the analogy of faith, that is, by comparing scripture to scripture. Is the passage quoted in the New Testament? If so, how did Jesus and/or the Apostles interpret it? Is the image in it used in other Scriptures? How was it used? These latter two questions are especially important is understanding the Revelation of John. And, please, don't pull out the old canard of "double fulfillments" That dodge is never used by the Apostles! Rather, it is a fallback claim by someone who understands that a text doesn't teach his "system," but he wants to use it anyway. It is not a legitimate principle of hermeneutics.

How Many Resurrections Will There Be?

As the reader probably knows, premillennialism teaches that there will be two literal resurrections, that of believers at the beginning of the millennium, that of the wicked at the end of the millennium. They base this on a literal interpretation of Resurrection 20:4-5: "I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection." Note two things: first, this is the only chapter in all of Scripture which describes this millennium; and second, this would mean that resurrected saints will be sharing the earth with aging, dying, and sinning unbelievers. I find that a detestable thought!

The problem with that is that it turns the principles of hermeneutics (i. e., the interpretation of Scripture) on their head. One fundamental hermeneutical principle is that clearer, simpler passages of Scripture are to be used to explain the more-difficult passages, traditionally called "the analogy of faith." Yet, this one chapter, full of symbolism, in a book also full of symbolism, is imposed on other passages which were perfectly clear before that imposition. In fact, as I will now proceed to show, that literal interpretation is contrary to the explicit statements of other portions of Scripture.

Look first at John 5:28-29 (see also Ephesians 2:5-6): "An hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His [i. e., the Son of God, v. 25] voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." Will the resurrections be separated by a thousand years? Or any period of time, for that matter? No, the Lord explicitly states that the two resurrections will occur in the same hour. Jesus is paraphrasing the prophecy of Daniel 12:2: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." The essence of the two passages is the same, but Jesus adds the explicit time reference in John.

Also in that Gospel, consider John 6:39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day." When will He raise us up? On one day, then a thousand years will transpire? No, but on the last day! In the biblical course of events, must that not be at the end of history? The end of the millennium, if you will?

Oops, did that disturb you? If Revelation describes a resurrection at the beginning of the millennium, and another one at the end, but other passages, by the same Apostle, describe only one resurrection, then what about the "first resurrection"? I believe that is a reference to conversion, which is often described in resurrectional terminology in the New Testament. Look, for example, at John 5:24, just before the verses above: "Whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." This is the key: the millennium is the time of the reign of Christ between our respective conversions and the general resurrection at the end of history. Without denying that He reigns over all things, Jesus especially reigns in the hearts of His people. The millennium is now, and each new Christian enters it upon his conversion, his spiritual resurrection.

The Words of Jesus Against the Error of Modalism

In the New Testament, Jesus often addresses or refers to the other Persons of the Godhead. We see this especially in the Gospel of John, the very book which most-clearly teaches His deity. We see it in John 12:49, 14:16-26, 15:26, and 16:5-15. I bring this topic up because of the claims of the Modalists, or Sabellians (seen primarily in the United Pentecostal Church), that there is no distinction of Persons within the Godhead, but merely the one Person working in different modes (thus the name "modalism").

Consider, first, John 12:49: "I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak." If the Persons of the Trinity are actually one Person acting under two modes, how can the Father speak to the Son? For the Trinitarian, this isn't a problem; it is an aspect of the intra-Trinitarian covenant. For the Modalist, there is no explanation except irrationality.

In the second passage, John 14:16-26, Jesus refers to Himself, the Father, and the Spirit. Look at, for example, verses 16-17: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth." Thus, we have the Son speaking in the first Person, referring to both of the other Persons, speaking of what He would do, "ask the Father," then what the Father would do, "give the Spirit," then what the Spirit would do, "be with you forever." The Modalists claim that this sentence is an anthropomorphism, i. e., Jesus's describing Himself, acting in all three modes. Yet, how can this be? When Jesus says that He will ask the Father, are we truly to understand that He is speaking to Himself? And when the Father sends the Spirit, are we to understand that Jesus is sending Himself? So, to paraphrase the sentence the way the Modalists understand it: "I will ask Myself to send Myself, and then I will be with you forever." That isn't an anthropomorphism; that's insanity!

In the third passage, John 15:26, we see a nearly-identical remarks: "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness about Me." Again, we see, not each Person acting in turn, as the Modalists maintain, but all three acting in concert.

In the last passage, John 16:5-15, we see something similar. Verses 13-15 read, "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; therefore I said that He will take what is Mine and declare it to you." Again, the Apostle records Jesus's own words describing the Persons of the Trinity acting in concert, not in succession, as the Modalists claim.

Consider the alternative: if the Modalists were right, and there is one divine Person who changes roles, would Jesus not have said something like, "I will return to heaven, and then come back to you as the Spirit"? That is shorter, not at all equivocal or difficult to understand, yet not what Jesus says. In fact it isn't even comparable to what Jesus said. Therefore, is it not simple logic to understand that it isn't what Jesus meant?

My point is this: the Bible does, indeed, use anthropomorphisms. However, they are used for clarification, not obfuscation. The Modalist expects us to believe that Jesus is using figures of speech, not to reveal the truth, but to obscure it.

Streams in the Desert: Israel in Prophecy

"For I will pour water on the thirsty land,
    and streams on the dry ground;
I will pour My Spirit upon your offspring,
    and My blessing on your descendants.
They shall spring up among the grass
    like willows by flowing streams.
This one will say, ‘I am the Lord's,’
    another will call on the name of Jacob,
and another will write on his hand, ‘The Lord's,’
    and name himself by the name of Israel."
- Isaiah 44:3-5

I have no issues with the modern State of Israel. However, as I have noted before, I oppose the Israelotry that seems to possess so much of American evangelicalism. I think much of it involves bad hermeneutics, changing spiritual prophecies into materialistic pandering.

That's why I quote the verses above. It is true that the Old Testament, especially the book of Isaiah, prophesies some wondrous events in Israel. I simply deny that those events are intended to be taken in a literal way. Rather, I see them as prophecies of the wondrous works of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel. Yet dispensationalists accuse me, and those who hold to the same view, of "spiritualizing" Scripture. I proudly admit my debt to the Puritans in this matter, as can be found described in the book, The Puritan Hope, by Iain Murray.

But is it fair to accuse me of spiritualizing? I don't believe so. Afterall, the proper hermeneutic method is to interpret the Bible, one passage compared to another, referred to as "the analogy of faith." The more difficult passage is interpreted in the light of the clearer passage.

In this case, we have an explicit interpretation of the symbols used by Isaiah. In verse 5, he quotes God, proclaiming that "I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground." Then, in the pattern of Hebrew parallelism, that phrase is restated, "I will pour My Spirit upon your offspring, and My blessing on your descendants."  An equivalency is given: pouring out water and streams means pouring out the Holy Spirit.

While I equate Israel and the church, I also connect this to Paul's prophecy in Romans 11:25-27 (compare, for example, Zechariah 1:17 and 12:10) that a day will come when Israel, i. e., ethnic Israel, will turn as a people to Messiah Jesus, Him whom they had rejected. So, I do not deny that ethnic Israel has a particular place in the purposes of God. Rather, what I deny is that political Israel is the fulfillment of those purposes.

Israel is the Church is Israel

One of the enduring influences of Dispensationalism is the belief in a radical discontinuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church. Some people even believe that Jews are saved in a way different, i.e., by obeying the Law, from Gentile Christians.

However, this is not the historic Protestant view. In sermons, confessions, and commentaries from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries one will often see references to the "Church of the Jews" when referring to Old Testament believers. In his comments on Isaiah 54:10, John Wesley said, "God will not cast off His Christian church, as He cast off the church of the Jews..." What may shock many American evangelicals is that such usage is actually quite biblical!

In the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, "congregation" was the word "qahal." In the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Old Testament, a Jewish translation, "qahal" was translated by "ekklesia," the exact word used in the Greek New Testament for "church." Some of the verses where "qahal" is found include Num. 20:6, 10, Dt. 5:22, 9:10, 10:4, 18:16, 31:30, Josh. 8:35, Judg. 20:2, 21:5, 8, I Sam. 17:47, I Kgs. 8:14, 22, 55, 65. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

In the New Testament, we have two verses which strongly identify the people of God under the two testaments. In Acts 7:38, Stephen refers to Moses and Israel in the desert as the "congregation in the wilderness." "Congregation" here is the Greek word "ekklesia," and is translated "church" in this verse in the KJV and ASV. And looking at it from the New Testament perspective, the Apostle refers to the church, in Galatians 6:16, as "the Israel of God."

How did this come about? The key is in Romans 11. Verses 8 through 10 tell us that God has hardened ethnic Israel. This is their judgment for rejecting their Messiah and cooperating with the Romans in His murder (refer back to 9:33). Then verses 17-21 tell us that the natural branches of the olive tree, representing ethnic Israel, were cut off, and wild branches, representing Gentile Christians, were grafted in. Notice that these are two sets of branches, but of one tree.

The dispensationalists overlook the words of Paul in Galatians 3:7, that it is faith, not blood descent, that makes one a "son of Abraham." Also, in Romans 2:29, "a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart." As he explains in I Corinthians 7:19, "For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God." And Philippians 3:3, "For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh."

Of course, I cannot deny that there are differences between the people of God under the two testaments. I simply believe that the differences are matters of administration, not nature.

But there is more: Paul doesn't end with the wild branches grafted in, as if ethnic Israel no longer had any place in the purposes of God. Just as He pruned them out for unbelief, a day will come when their hardness will abate, and they will return to their God. Romans 11:24, "For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree." And that thought continues through the next several verses.

This was also an Old Testament promise. Zechariah 12:10, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on Me, on Him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over Him, as one weeps over a firstborn."

Revelation 8:8, An Interesting Parallel!

"The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood."

I am sure that we have all read this verse a hundred times. I am also sure that we have heard the pop ministers spout their apocalyptic interpretations of what this verse refers to, the pop eschatology which has become so popular among professing evangelicals. However, I am struck, not by wild-eyed interpretations, but rather by the parallels this verse has to other portions of scripture.

I have written before on Matthew 21:21, especially the latter portion, "even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen." This is virtually an exact quote of the Revelation passage! And, as I point out there, He doesn't refer to some generic mountain, but rather to this specific mountain. i.e., the Temple Mount. if those words mean the Temple Mount there, is it not logical to expect the exact same words to apply to the Temple Mount here?

Consider also the words of the Prophet Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 51:25, he wrote, "Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain, declares the Lord, which destroys the whole earth; I will stretch out My hand against you, and roll you down from the crags, and make you a burnt mountain." Here he is prophesying the doom of Babylon. In Revelation, spiritual Babylon is a major theme. One plausible interpretation is that spiritual Babylon is apostate Israel, again lending credence to the interpretation of this passage as referring to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70AD.

While I am not a consistent preterist, i.e., I still expect the resurrection and the Second Advent, I do generally interpret the prophetic portions of the New Testament as pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. I think that this verse from Revelation, compared to its parallels in both testaments, is strong support for that perspective.

Hermeneutics for the Millennium: Sometimes People Work Too Hard to Miss the Obvious

"For a thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night."
- Psalm 90:4

This thought is repeated in II Peter 3:8, "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Roman Numeral 1000

Revelation, chapter 20, contains the phrase "thousand years" six times in the first seven verses. And many Christians take that as a literal, countable, one thousand years, neither more nor less. This literalistic interpretation has become predominant, in spite of two relevant facts: first, that the phrase recurs in a chapter otherwise full of symbolic, even mysterious, imagery; and second, that isn't the way the phrase is otherwise used in Scripture.

Historically, Protestants have used the phrase "the analogy of faith" to express the same principle that we now phrase as "scripture interprets scripture." The difference is that historical Protestants meant it as using clearer passages to interpret the more obscure. Yet, in this case, modern evangelicals take an obscure passage to force an interpretation on passages which were easier to understand before the insertion of Revelation 20.

As indicated by Moses in Psalm 90, and the Apostle Peter in his second epistle, "a thousand years" is used to indicate a time beyond our conception, but representing an indefinite period of time in which God completes His purposes. That interpretation brought into Revelation 20 makes sense, but the literalist interpretation of Revelation 20 imposed on Psalm 90 and II Peter makes nonsense. Which is likely to be the purpose of God?